Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:02:52.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How the State and Labor Saved Charitable Fundraising: Community Chests, Payroll Deduction, and the Public–Private Welfare State, 1920–1950

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2015

Andrew Morris
Andrew Morris*
Affiliation:
Union College
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Payroll taxes and payroll deductions became ubiquitous in the United States by the mid-1940s, crucial to the financing of the emerging “mixed” welfare state as well as World War II. While scholars have firmly established the importance of elements of the warfare/welfare state such as Social Security, employer-based pensions and health insurance, and the mass income tax, voluntary sector institutions have garnered less attention. The history of payroll deduction demonstrates how this “infrastructural power” also advantaged institutions outside of the state, notably, charitable fundraising organizations commonly known as Community Chests (the forerunners of the United Way). Chests began to look toward the payroll deduction in the 1920s as an efficient and effective way of extracting donations from workers of modest means—though these were often fiercely resisted by an empowered labor movement in the 1930s. But it took the state's vast expansion of deductions during World War II, and the patriotic impulse of donating to war-related charities, to convince industrial unions and employers to support this method of donation. Like the income tax, this change in charitable giving remained in place after the war and became a vital element of financing this part of the public–private social safety net—a crucial boost to the voluntary sector from the state.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , April 2015 , pp. 106 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. “Power of Deduction,” Time, Jan. 25, 1943.

2. Witte, Edwin, The Development of the Social Security (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Altmeyer, Arthur, The Formative Years of Social Security (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Nelson, Barbara, “The Origins of the Two-Channeled Welfare State,” in Women, the State, and Welfare, ed. Gordon, Linda (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Gordon, Linda, Pitied But Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890–1935 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Mink, Gwendolyn, The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the Welfare State, 1917–1942 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Berkowitz, Edward, “Social Security and the Financing of the American State,” in Funding the Modern American State, 1941–1995: The Rise and Fall of the Era of Easy Finance, ed. Brownlee, W. Elliot (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 148–93Google Scholar; Kessler-Harris, Alice, In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20th-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

3. Among the most recent and influential studies are Stevens, Beth, “Blurring the Boundaries: How the Federal Government Has Influenced Welfare Benefits in the Private Sector,” in The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, ed. Weir, Margaret, Orloff, Ann Shola, and Skocpol, Theda (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 123–48Google Scholar; Hacker, Jacob, The Divided Welfare State: The Battle Over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Klein, Jennifer, For All These Rights: Business, Labor and the Shaping of America's Public-Private Welfare State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

4. The literature on financing World War II through both bond sales and the expansion of the income tax is often intertwined; see Murphy, Henry, The National Debt in War and Transition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950)Google Scholar; Morse, Jarvis, Paying For a World War: The United States Financing of World War Two (U.S. Department of the Treasury, Savings Bond Division, 1971)Google Scholar; Blum, John Morton, V Was for Victory: Politics and American Culture During World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace Javonovich, 1976), 228–30, 241–44Google Scholar; Polenberg, Richard, War and Society: The United States, 1941–1945 (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1972), 27–30 Google Scholar; Brownlee, W. Elliot, “Tax Regimes, National Crisis, and State-Building in America,” in Funding the Modern American State, 1941–1995: The Rise and Fall of the Era of Easy Finance, ed. Brownlee, W. Elliot (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 88–101 Google Scholar; Jones, Carolyn C., “Mass-Based Income Taxation: Creating a Taxpaying Culture, 1940–1952,” in Funding the Modern American State, 1941–1995: The Rise and Fall of the Era of Easy Finance, ed. Brownlee, W. Elliot (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 107–47Google Scholar; Samuel, Lawrence, Pledging Allegiance: American Identity and the Bond Drive of World War II (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Bank, Steven, Stark, Kirk, and Thorndike, Joseph, War and Taxes (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 2008)Google Scholar, chap. 4; Sparrow, James, Warfare State: World War II Americans and the Age of Big Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

5. Hawley, Ellis, “Herbert Hoover, Associationalism, and the Great Depression Relief Crisis of 1930–1933,” in With Us Always: A History of Private Charity and Public Welfare, ed. Critchlow, Donald and Parker, Charles (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998), 211–40Google Scholar; Singleton, Jeff, The American Dole: Unemployment Relief and the Welfare State in the Great Depression (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000)Google Scholar, chaps. 2 and 3. One of the most influential portrayals of the displacement of local voluntary social welfare institutions by public programs is Cohen, Lizabeth, Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919–1939 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. The fundraising statistics for the United Way in the 1970s are from United Way of America, People and Events: A History of the United Way (Alexandria, VA: United Way of America, 1977)Google Scholar, 8.

6. Hacker, The Divided Welfare State, 343–45. Scholars of the “mixed” welfare state in the United States have, understandably, focused on the areas of policy where the contrast to more comprehensive European public welfare states was most direct, particularly health insurance and pensions, and where the bulk of social spending was concentrated in both the public and private sectors. In Canada, Tillotson aligns the history of charitable fundraising there with the growth of taxation and the welfare state and ideas of citizenship in Tillotson, Shirley, Contributing Citizens: Modern Charitable Fundraising and the Making of the Welfare State, 1920–1966 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008).Google Scholar

7. Brilliant, Eleanor, The United Way: Dilemmas of Organized Charity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Barman, Emily, Contesting Communities: The Transformation of Workplace Charity (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar. See United Way of America, People and Events; Klaassen, David, “AFL-CIO Department of Department of Community Services,” in Greenwood Encyclopedia of American Institutions: Social Service Organizations, ed. Romanofsky, Peter (Greenwood, 1978)Google Scholar; Zunz, Olivier, Philanthropy in America: A History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012), 177–78Google Scholar. Many local United Ways make special note of payroll deduction in their bullet-point histories of their organizations; see, for instance, the United Way of Greater New Haven (http://www.uwgnh.org/about/united-way-history), United Way of Central Ohio (http://liveunitedcentralohio.org/about-us/our-history/), United Way of Cumberland County (www.unitedway-cc.org/history.html) (all accessed July 30, 2014).

8. The more general push toward “mass philanthropy” in the early twentieth century, and the variety of strategies used by fundraisers for organizations such as the Red Cross and the National Association for the Study of Tuberculosis as well as the Community Chest has been examined in Cutlip, Scott, Fund Raising in the United States: Its Role in America's Philanthropy (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press 1965)Google Scholar, and more recently in Zunz, Philanthropy in America, particularly chap. 2. Statistics on United Way workplace giving derived from United Way of America, People and Events, 8; and Brilliant, The United Way, 157–58.

9. Neither Brilliant and Barman address the threat posed by organized labor to Chest fundraising in the 1930s, which this article will explore, and they only briefly mention income tax and Social Security deductions as precursors to the use of the payroll deduction by Chests, neglecting, among other things, the precedent set by war bond deductions. See Brilliant, The United Way, 26–27, 322 n. 33, 323 n. 4; Barman, Contesting Communities, 34–35.

10. Mann, Michael, “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms, and Results,” in States in History, ed. Hall, John (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 109–36Google Scholar. Mann singles out the fact that “the state can now assess and tax our wealth and income at the source” as an illustration of the idea of “infrastructural power” (see p. 114).

11. As James Sparrow has shown, during the war the federal government made an determined public relations effort to convince millions of new taxpayers—as well as purchasers of war bonds, also often done through payroll deduction—to understand that the money disappearing from their paychecks was an act of wartime patriotism (Sparrow, Warfare State, chap. 4). In Canada, as Tillotson shows, both wartime taxation and wartime charitable fundraising faced similar problems of legitimation (Tillotson, Contributing Citizens, 132). Clemens emphasizes the significance of these blurred boundaries in understanding the twentieth-century American state and also the importance of examining charity as an element of citizenship and governance prior to and beyond the New Deal in, respectively, Clemens, Elisabeth, “Lineages of the Rube Goldberg State: Building and Blurring Public Programs, 1900–1940,” in Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Skowronek, Stephen, and Galvin, Daniel, (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 187–215 Google Scholar; Elisabeth Clemens, “Nationalizing Reciprocity: Aligning Charity and Citizenship in the American Nation State,” The Center for Comparative Research, Yale University, October 2011, http://www.yale.edu/ccr/Clemens.pdf.

12. Galambos, Louis, “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in Modern American History,” Business History Review 44 (Autumn, 1970): 279–90Google Scholar; Galambos, “Technology, Political Economy, and Professionalization: Central Themes of the Organizational Synthesis,” Business History Review 57 (Winter 1983): 471–93Google Scholar; Galambos, “Recasting the Organizational Synthesis: Structure and Process in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries,” Business History Review 79 (Spring 2005): 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Lubove, Roy, The Professional Altruist: The Emergence of Social Work as a Career, 1880–1930 (1965; New York: Atheneum, 1973)Google Scholar, 181, 218.

14. The relationship between organized labor and voluntary sector fundraising during, and particularly after, World War II, has been examined in Form, William H., “Organized Labor's Place in the Community Power Structure,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 12 (July 1959): 526–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fones-Wolf identifies local social service organizations as one of the battlegrounds in the postwar struggle for public support between business and labor in Fones-Wolf, Elizabeth, Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945–1960 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Fones-Wolf, “Labor and Social Welfare: The CIO's Community Services Program, 1941–1956,” Social Service Review 70 (Dec., 1996): 613–34Google Scholar; Hanlan and Cohen examine this dynamic in the federated fundraising organization of one community in Hanlan, James and Cohen, Bruce, “Do Unto Others: The Golden Rule Fund and Organized Labor in Worcester, Massachusetts, 1955–1965,” Historical Journal of Massachusetts 27 (Winter 1999): 46–74.Google Scholar

15. On the importance of World War II as a contingent moment in making possible some of the general changes associated with the “organizational synthesis,” see Balogh, Brian, “Reorganizing the Organizational Synthesis: Federal-Professional Relations in Modern America,” Studies in American Political Development 5 (Spring 1991): 119–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. For a recent and influential argument positing the “crowding out” of charitable donations by the New Deal, see Gruber, Jonathan and Hungerman, Daniel, “Faith-Based Charity and Crowd-Out During the Great Depression,” Journal of Public Economics 91 (2007): 1043–69Google Scholar. For a critique of the crowding-out argument, see Thomas Garrett and Russell Rhine, “Government Growth and Private Contributions to Charity,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper 2007–102E (2007; rev. 2009; http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2007/2007-012.pdf). Hammack notes other instances where the New Deal expanded, rather than shrank, the role of nonprofit and charitable activity in Hammack, David, “Failure and Resilience: Pushing the Limits in Depression and Wartime,” in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History, ed. Friedman, Lawrence J. and McGarvie, Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 269–70.Google Scholar

17. On Social Security, the insurance industry, and Americans as “insurance minded,” see “Insurance Will Help Cushion Economic Shock After the War,” The National Underwriter 45 (Oct. 24, 1941): 4; Derthick, Martha, Policymaking for Social Security (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1979), 136–37.Google Scholar

18. More generally on the postwar charitable and nonprofit sectors and their intersections with the state, see Smith, Stephen Rathgeb and Lipsky, Michael, Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katz, Michael, The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare State (New York: Henry Holt, 2001)Google Scholar, chap. 6; Hall, Peter Dobkin, “The Welfare State and the Careers of Public and Private Institutions Since 1945,” in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History, ed. Friedman, Lawrence J. and McGarvie, Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 363–84Google Scholar; Morris, Andrew, The Limits of Voluntarism: Charity and Welfare from the New Deal Through the Great Society (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

19. United Way of America, People and Events, 65, 82, 119. A list of 129 Community Chests included in a National Bureau of Economic Research study in 1930 gives an indication of the geographic distribution and range of sizes of communities with Chests; see Williams, Pierce and Croxton, Frederick, Corporation Contributions to Organized Community Welfare Services (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1930)Google Scholar, 148; see also Walker, Syndor, “Privately Supported Social Work,” in Recent Social Trends in the United States, Vol. 2, ed. President's Research Committee on Social Trends (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1933), 1205–1207.Google Scholar

20. Olney, Martha, Buy Now, Pay Later: Advertising, Credit and Consumer Durables in the 1920s (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991 Google Scholar; Carter, Lendol, Financing the American Dream: A Cultural History of Consumer Credit (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)Google Scholar, chap. 4; Hyman, Louis, Debtor Nation: The History of America in Red Ink (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011)Google Scholar, chap. 1.

21. Klein, For All These Rights, 18.

22. Klein, For All These Rights, 51; Nelson, Daniel, Unemployment Insurance: The American Experience, 1915–1935 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969)Google Scholar, chaps. 2 and 3; Brandes, Stuart, American Welfare Capitalism: 1880–1940 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Brody, David, “The Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism,” in Workers in Industrial America: Essays on the Twentieth Century Struggle, ed. Brody, David (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 48–81 Google Scholar; Berkowitz, Edward and McQuaid, Kim, Creating the Welfare State: The Political Economy of Twentieth-Century Reform (New York: Praeger, 1980)Google Scholar; Cohen, Making a New Deal, chap. 4; Jacoby, Sanford, Modern Manors: Welfare Capitalism Since the New Deal (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

23. “Salary Deduction Considered by Many Companies,” The Eastern Underwriter (Apr. 24, 1925): 1, 5; Stalson, J. Owen, Marketing Life Insurance: Its History in America (1942; Bryn Mawr, PA: McCahan Foundation, 1969), 641–43Google Scholar; Klein, For All These Rights, 21, 32, 37.

24. Ratner, Sidney, American Taxation: Its History as a Social Force in Democracy (New York: WW Norton, 1942), 74–75 Google Scholar; Soos, Piroska, The Origins of Taxation at the Source in England (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 1999).Google Scholar

25. Blakey, Roy G. and Blakey, Gladys C., The Federal Income Tax (New York: Longmans, Green, 1940), 509–10.Google Scholar

26. Seligman, Edwin R. A., Essays in Taxation, 9th ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1921)Google Scholar, 695; Brownlee, W. Elliott, “Wilson and the Financing of the Modern State: The Revenue Act of 1916,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 129 (June 1985): 196–97.Google Scholar

27. U.S. Committee on Economic Security, Social Security in America: The Factual Background of the Social Security Act as Summarized by Staff Reports to the Committee on Economic Security (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1937)Google Scholar, 22, 205; Orloff, Ann Shola, The Politics of Pensions: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, Canada, and the United States, 1880–1940 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993)Google Scholar, 292.

28. Roosevelt, quoted in Leuchtenberg, William, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932–1940 (New York: Harper & Row, 1963)Google Scholar, 103; Berkowitz, Edward, America's Welfare State from Roosevelt to Reagan (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 19–28.Google Scholar

29. U.S. Committee on Economic Security, Social Security in America, 208.

30. Lieberman, Robert, Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar, 76.

31. The exclusion of these occupational categories from coverage by the old age and unemployment programs of the Social Security Act has been at the heart of debates about the gender and racial dimensions of the twentieth-century American welfare state. General approaches include Barbara Nelson, Gordon, Mink, and Kessler-Harris. Specific analyses of the argument over the administrative difficulties of payroll deduction for farm and domestic workers include Edwin Witte, The Development of the Social Security; Davies, Gareth and Derthick, Martha, “Race and Social Welfare Policy: The Social Security Act of 1935,” Political Science Quarterly 112 (Summer 1997): 217–35Google Scholar; Poole, Mary, The Segregated Origins of Social Security: African Americans and the Welfare State (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006)Google Scholar; DeWitt, Larry, “The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act,” Social Security Bulletin, 70:4 (2010): 49–68 Google ScholarPubMed; and Lieberman, Shifting the Color Line.

32. Lubove, The Professional Altruist, 183.

33. Arthur Todd, “Study of Financing of Social Work: Origins and Development of Financial Federation,” (Welfare Council of New York City Research Bureau, 1931), 5, United Way of America Archives; Borst, Homer, “Community Chests and Councils,” Social Work Yearbook, 1929 (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1930), 95–100 Google Scholar; Lubove, The Professional Altruist, 189–190; Cutlip, Fund Raising in the United States, 220–24. On the connection between professional fundraising for charity and “widening the circle of giving,” see Zunz, Philanthropy in America, 66–72.

34. Lynd, Robert and Lynd, Helen, Middletown: A Study in American Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1929), 464–65.Google Scholar

35. Rubinow, Isaac, “Can Private Philanthropy Do It?” Social Service Review 3:3 (Sept. 1929), 361Google Scholar; McMillen, Wayne, Community Organization for Social Welfare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945), 430–31.Google Scholar

36. Norton, William, The Cooperative Movement in Social Work (New York: Macmillan, 1927)Google Scholar, 237.

37. Lynd, Robert and Lynd, Helen, Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1937)Google Scholar, 79.

38. “Permanent Committee for Community Chest,” The Kodak Magazine (July 1920): 29; Brayer, Elizabeth, George Eastman: A Biography (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 412–14Google Scholar. On Kodak and welfare capitalism, see Jacoby, Modern Manors, 57–94.

39. Herbert Thorpe, “Another Flag Nailed to the Mast of Success,” The Kodak Magazine (Nov. 1920): 26.

40. See, for instance, “Committee Visits Summer Hospital,” The Kodak Magazine (Nov., 1920): 42; “Kodak Park Employees Visit Institutions of Interest of Community Chest,” The Kodak Magazine (April, 1924): 17.

41. “Of Course!” The Kodak Magazine (June 1923): 28; “Kodak Park Regular Subscribers Contribute $22,481.94 to Chest,” The Kodak Magazine (July, 1923): 18.

42. Harry Wareheim, “Annual Report to the Members of the Corporation,” 1925, and “Annual Report,” 1927, both Annual Corporation Reports, 1925–1932, United Way of Greater Rochester, Rochester, NY. Their concerns about depending on big givers were reinforced following Eastman's death in 1932; his estate continued making large donations to the Rochester Chest, but when Eastman's money dried up, the Chest board renewed its determination to promote the “52-week plan” of payroll giving by employees; see “Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Corporation,” Dec. 16, 1937, Minutes, 1936–62, United Way of Greater Rochester; “Chest Urges Wider Use of 52-Week Plan,” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Apr. 21, 1937.

43. “Royal White Will Lead Employes [sic] Division in Community Chest Drive,” The Lowell Sun, Oct. 9, 1926.

44. Cutlip, Fund Raising in the United States, 53–58; Zunz, Philanthropy in America, 48–49.

45. McMaster, John Bach, The United States in the World War (New York: D. Appleton, 1920)Google Scholar, 72. Independently, in some coal mining communities where deductions for the company store and union dues were already customary, the Red Cross was able to obtain deductions for donations as well. See Brilliant, The United Way, 323, n. 4.

46. “Community Chest Receipts,” The Kodak Magazine (March 1921): 19; “Sol Heumann Heads Chest's 1935 Campaign,” Rochester Times Union, Jan. 3, 1935; Community Chest of Rochester and Monroe County, Fiftieth Anniversary Year (Rochester, NY: Community Chest of Rochester and Monroe County 1967)Google Scholar, 6.

47. Association of Community Chests and Councils, Community Chest Campaigns: Principles and Organization (New York, 1932)Google Scholar, 35; “New Scale Fixed for Chest Helpers,” Spokane Daily Chronicle, Oct. 28, 1933; “New Chest Plan is Out in Operation,” Urbana Daily Courier, Nov. 8, 1933, 3; “Chest Drive is Well-Planned,” Washington (PA) Reporter, Nov. 27, 1933.

48. Liston, Gregory, “Close Up of a Community Chest,” The American Mercury 52 (Jan. 1941), 93 Google Scholar; Heald, Morrell, The Social Responsibilities of Business: Company and Community, 1900–1960 (Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve, 1970), 117–47Google Scholar; Davis, Clark, “‘You Are the Company’: The Demands of Employment in the Emerging Corporate Culture, Los Angeles 1900–1930,” Business History Review 70 (Autumn 1996): 354.Google Scholar

49. Brilliant, The United Way, 27; “The Closed Shop and Check-Off in Union Agreements,” Monthly Labor Review 39 (Oct. 1939): 835.

50. Singleton, The American Dole, 27, and more generally, chaps. 2 and 3.

51. Morris, The Limits of Voluntarism, 12.

52. Rubinow, “Can Private Philanthropy Do It?” 384.

53. Hawley, “Herbert Hoover, Associationalism, and the Great Depression Relief Crisis of 1930–1933,” 211–40; Clemens, Elisabeth, “In the Shadow of the New Deal: Reconfiguring the Roles of Government and Charity, 1928–1940,” in Politics and Partnerships: The Role of Voluntary Associations in America's Political Past and Present, ed. Clemens, Elisabeth and Guthrie, Doug (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 79–115.Google Scholar

54. Morris, The Limits of Voluntarism, 120–21.

55. “Corporation Contributions and the Tax Amendment,” Campaign Plans for 1935: Symposium Presented at the 1935 Mobilization for Human Needs Conference (1935), 5, United Way of America Archives; Heald, The Social Responsibilities of Business, 165–73; Cutlip, Fund Raising in the United States, 323–30.

56. “Employee Solicitation, Payroll Deduction, and the Social Security Bill,” Campaign Plans for 1935, 6. Ashton is also quoted in Elwood Street, “The United Way,” Elwood Street Papers, 1277, Box 2, Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota. “The United Way” is a voluminous unpublished history of the United Way movement; a shorter, heavily edited version was published after Street's death as United Way of America, People and Events.

57. “Big Spending Seen for Office Devices,” New York Times, Oct. 20, 1936. The New Deal was a boon for many business machine manufacturers, who sold and leased machines to businesses impacted by new regulations as well as new government agencies such as the Social Security Administration. See Cortada, James W., Before the Computer: IBM, NCR, Burroughs, and Remington Rand and the Industry They Created, 1865–1956 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar, 113, 146–47, 221.

58. “The Rambler,” The Independent (St. Petersburg, FL), Jan. 11, 1938.

59. Clifford Straus, “A Study of Group Solicitation in Providence, Rhode Island” (master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1937), 47–49.

60. Community Chests and Councils of America, “Community Survey of Social and Health Work in Minneapolis: Pressure Groups” (New York: 1938), 19, Folder 15, Box 130, United Way of Minneapolis Records, Social Welfare History Archives; Donald Ross, “The Administration of Employee Solicitation Campaigns for Charity Fundraising within Business and Industrial Firms With Emphasis on Employee Attitudes” (master's thesis, Duquesne University, 1971), 21. The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) would later specifically oppose participating in fundraising for the Red Cross, due to the organization's refusal to grant relief to strikers and for its general disdain for labor unions; Foster Dulles, Rhea, The American Red Cross: A History (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), 303–304 Google Scholar; Cutlip, Fund Raising in the United States, 417–18; Brilliant, The United Way, 37; Fones-Wolf, “Labor and Social Welfare,” 616–17.

61. Street, “The United Way,” 1887; Rachleff, Peter, Hard Pressed in the Heartland: The Hormel Strike and the Future of the Labor Movement (Boston: South End Press, 1999)Google Scholar, 29.

62. Mary L. Mark, “The Contributor and the Community Fund: A Study of Contributor Attitudes in Columbus, Ohio, 1935” (master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1935).

63. Chalmers, W. Ellison, Chandler, Margaret, McQuitty, Louis, Stegner, Ross, Wray, Donald, and Derber, Milton, Labor-Management Relations in Illini City (Champaign, IL: Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1953)Google Scholar, 183.

64. Duane W. Beck, “An Historical Study of Organized Labor's Participation in Community Chest and Council Activities in Lansing, Michigan” (master's thesis, Michigan State College, 1955), 47–50.

65. Davis, Horace, Labor and Steel (New York: International Publishers, 1933)Google Scholar, 110.

66. Rubin Latz to Rabbi Albert Gordon, Nov. 2, 1937; Gordon to David Liggett, Nov. 4, 1937; both, Folder 10, Box 128, United Way of Minneapolis Records, Social Welfare History Archives; John Kestner, “Organized Labor and the Minneapolis Community Chest” (honors thesis, University of Minnesota, 1987), 9–10. In Minneapolis, the Council of Social Agencies performed both planning and fundraising functions for local voluntary agencies.

67. MacDonald, Alexander, Revolt in Paradise: The Social Revolution in Hawaii After Pearl Harbor (New York: Stephen Daye Press, 1944)Google Scholar, 53. Chest organizations were not the only charity to use such direct or indirect pressure in the workplace to obtain employee donations; the Red Cross on occasion used similar tactics to obtain onetime dollar deductions from employee's paychecks. See Clemens, “Nationalizing Reciprocity,” 28–31.

68. Campaign Director's Report, Northampton (MA) Community Chest, 1929 and 1931, Folder 5, Box 1, Northampton Community Chest Records (MS 42), Special Collections and University Archives, W. E. B. DuBois Library, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

69. Chester C. Cooley, “A Study of the Community Fund of Lorain, Ohio” (master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1939), 50–51.

70. H. Davis, Labor and Steel, 257–258.

71. Rachleff, Hard Pressed in the Heartland, 28–31.

72. Ibid.

73. Robert Lynd and Helen Lynd, Middletown in Transition, 132.

74. Robert Diller, “The Public and the Community Chest: A Study of Public Opinion in Akron, Ohio” (master's thesis, Ohio State University), 11, 14.

75. Chalmers et al., Labor-Management Relations in Illini City, 183.

76. Beck, “Historical Study of Organized Labor's Participation,” 57–58, 60.

77. Arthur J. Katz, “A Study of Conflict and Cooperation in the Relationship Between Organized Labor and Voluntary Social Welfare in America During the Years 1905–1955” (PhD diss., New York University, 1968), 221–24, 228–30.

78. Board of Directors, Oct. 31, 1941, Box 17, United Way of Minneapolis Records.

79. Beck, “Historical Study of Organized Labor's Participation,” 61–66.

80. “Labor Endorses Chest Drive,” The Norwalk Hour, Oct. 31, 1940.

81. Bethlehem Community Chest Board of Directors, Mar. 9, 1939; May 22, 1940; both in Vol. 5, United Way of Northampton and Warren Counties Records, Bethlehem Public Library, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. On Bethlehem's anti-unionism, see Fones-Wolf, Elizabeth and Fones-Wolf, Ken, “Conversion at Bethlehem: Religion and Union Building in Steel, 1930–1942,” Labor History 39:4 (1998): 381–395.Google Scholar

82. Community Chests and Councils of America, News Bulletin, June 1938, quoted in A. Katz, “A Study of Conflict and Cooperation,” 219.

83. Cohen, Making a New Deal, 213–89.

84. Seymour, Harold J., Design for Giving: The Story of the National War Fund, 1943–1947 (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947)Google Scholar, 98.

85. Murphy, The National Debt, 130–31, 199–200; Morse, Paying For a World War, 76, 164. The New York Times reported in 1942 that the Treasury Department used Cedar Rapids, Iowa's bond program as a national model, which had borrowed the payroll deduction strategy from the local Community Chest. See “Cedar Rapids to Get First Treasury ‘T,’” New York Times, Nov. 7, 1942.

86. Sparrow, Warfare State, 130.

87. “Victory Bonds Ask 35,000,000 Buyers,” New York Times, Dec. 12, 1941; Morse, Paying for a World War, 165–166. Even in the bond program, though, labor and management occasionally sparred over control of fundraising; Bethlehem Steel refused to allow a union in its Brooklyn shipyard to conduct its own payroll deduction plan for the bond drive; see Samuel, Pledging Allegiance, 83.

88. Lichtenstein, Nelson, Labor's War at Home: The CIO in World War II (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar, chap. 5; Kersten, Andrew, Labor's Home Front: The American Federation of Labor During World War II (New York: New York University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, 54.

89. Morse, Paying for a World War, 164, 200–205; Samuel, Pledging Allegiance, 77–93.

90. “Bond Drive Begun by Labor, Industry,” New York Times, Aug. 28, 1942.

91. Seymour, Design for Giving, 1–5; United Way of America, People and Events, 92.

92. “Agreement Between CIO Committee for American and Allied War Relief, United Nations Relief (AFL) and Community Chests and Councils, Inc,” August, 1942, Folder 10, Box 128, United Way of Minneapolis Records; United Way of America, People and Events, 91; Seymour, Design for Giving, 97; Fones-Wolf, “Labor and Social Welfare,” 617–19. The Red Cross also was able to negotiate with the union organizations to forestall competition with the separate Red Cross fund drive by incorporating labor representatives into the Red Cross's wartime campaign organization (Dulles, The American Red Cross, 363–64).

93. Kestner, “Organized Labor and the Minneapolis Community Chest,” 18.

94. David Liggett to Carel Koch, Aug. 19, 1942, Folder 10, Box 128, United Way of Minneapolis Records.

95. Liggett to Carel Koch and Andrew Shea, Mar. 4, 1943, Folder 10, Box 128, United Way of Minneapolis Records.

96. Bent Taylor, “Labor Becomes a Big Giver,” Survey Graphic (Feb. 1943): 46–49, 61; Monroe Sweetland, “Labor Lengthens Its Perspectives,” Common Ground (Summer 1943): 23–29.

97. Liggett to Koch and Shea, Mar. 4, 1943.

98. C. M. Bookman, “A Study of the Community Chest and Council of Social Agencies of Rochester, New York” (Rochester, NY: Survey Committee, Rochester Community Chest, 1941), 26; Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting, Rochester Community Chest, Dec. 19, 1941; Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting, Dec. 17, 1941; Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting, Dec. 16, 1943; Meeting of the Executive Committee, June 2, 1944; Meeting of the Executive Committee, Oct. 20, 1944: all in Minutes, 1936–1962, United Way of Greater Rochester; “End of Split a Civic Gain,” Rochester (NY) Times-Union, Dec. 23, 1944; Garlock, Jonathan and Donahue, Linda, All These Years of Effort: 150 Years of Rochester's Central Labor Councils (Rochester, NY: Roland Pettengill Labor Education Fund, 2005), 36–40.Google Scholar

99. Liggett to Koch, Aug. 19, 1942; Taylor, “Labor Becomes a Big Giver.”

100. President's Report 1943–1944, United War Fund of Delaware; President's Report 1945–1946, United War Fund of Delaware, both in United Fund 1934–1946 Folder, Box 100, Jasper Crane Papers, Hagley Museum and Library, Wilmington, DE; Crawford Greenewalt memo, Sept. 21, 1948, United Fund 1948 No. 2 Folder, Box 100, Crane Papers.

101. Seymour, Design for Giving; Sweetland, “Labor Lengthens Its Perspectives,” 26–27.

102. Lichtenstein, Labor's War at Home, 80–82.

103. “Summary of Answers to Questionnaire on Payroll Deduction,” National War Fund Special Services Bulletin No. 8, Sept. 3, 1943, United Way of America Archives; Seymour, Design for Giving, 56.

104. Brownlee, W. Elliot, Federal Taxation in America: A Short History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 94–98 Google Scholar. Milton Friedman, a young analyst for the Treasury Department during the war, noted that the payroll deductions for bond purchases had paved the way for the payroll deduction of income taxes; Milton Friedman, “Attitudes Toward Payroll Deductions: The Proposed Payroll Tax and Increased Social Security,” Office of War Information, Bureau of Intelligence, Special Report No. 20, Sept. 4, 1942, Box 22, Office of Tax Policy Subject Files, RG 56, National Archives, College Park, Md. Thanks to Romain Huret for this source; see generally, Huret, Romain, American Tax Resisters (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014), 177–82Google Scholar. Beardsley Ruml was the well-known advocate for instituting a “pay as you go” system for the expanded income tax (as well as forgiving a year of taxes); his experience with consumer credit as the treasurer of Macy's in the late 1930s may have shaped his idea, though Macy's itself was a late adopter of installment buying. Reagan, Patrick, “The Withholding Tax, Beardsley Ruml, and Modern American Public Policy,” Prologue 24:1 (Spring 1992): 19–30 Google Scholar; Calder, Lendol, Financing the American Dream: A Cultural History of Consumer Credit (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 276–277.Google Scholar

105. Rochester Community Chest, “Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting,” Dec. 16, 1943, Minutes, 1936–1962, United Way of Greater Rochester.

106. United Way of America, People and Events, 94. This source mistakenly conflates the start of withholding for Social Security taxes with that for income taxes in 1943, when in fact Social Security withholding had begun in 1937. A number of agency histories, journalistic accounts, and even scholarly sources, apparently relying on this source, have perpetuated this error; see, for instance, United Way of Rhode Island, “History,” http://www.uwri.org/about/history (accessed Aug. 4, 2014); Rindi White, “United Way Workplace Campaign,” Alaska Business Monthly 28:12 (Dec. 2012): 84; Bremner, Robert, American Philanthropy, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988)Google Scholar, 227.

107. Street, “The United Way,” 1611–12, 1824; Seymour, Design for Giving, 67; Cutlip, Fund Raising in the United States, 410; President's Report 1944–1945, United War Fund of Delaware, United Fund 1934–1946 Folder, Box 100, Crane Papers. Corporate giving increased from about 30 percent of chest goals to between 35 and 45 percent during the war, driven in part by the wartime excess profits tax; see Seymour, Design for Giving, 67; Heald, The Social Responsibilities of Business, 204.

108. See Hacker and Klein generally for this argument.

109. “Some More Taxes for George to Deduct,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar. 7, 1948.

110. United Way of America, People and Events, 84, 118.

111. Hodges, Wayne, Company and Community: Case Studies in Industry-City Relationships (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958)Google Scholar, 78.

112. Street, “The United Way,” 1809–10, 1868; on labor on boards, see, for instance, James Anderson [Tacoma, WA, Community Chest] to Matthew Woll, Feb. 4, 1946, Folder 1, Box 1, AFL-CIO Department of Community Service Records, Social Welfare History Archives.

113. A. Katz, “A Study of Conflict and Cooperation,” 321–22; see also Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise, 143–44.

114. Fones-Wolf, “Labor and Social Welfare,” 622–24.

115. “Give Labor More Voice, Community Groups Urged,” The Machinist (May 21, 1959), 4.

116. “Payroll Deduction for the Community Chest,” 1950, Folder 13, Box 153, United Way of Minneapolis Records.

117. Executive Secretary's Report, Bethlehem Community Chest, Dec. 6, 1948, United Way of Northampton and Warren Counties (PA) Records.

118. Brilliant, The United Way, 29–32; Carter, Richard, The Gentle Legions (New York: Doubleday, 1961)Google Scholar, 267; Hodges, Company and Community, 74–85.

119. Carter, The Gentle Legions, 252.

120. Demetrius Iatridis, “Industrial Management for Federated Fund-Raising” (PhD diss., Bryn Mawr, 1955), 40–41; for a highly critical account of the United Fund strategy, see Carter, The Gentle Legions, chap. 9.

121. “United Way: Jim Douglas Remembers Its Beginnings,” HistoryLink: The Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History, http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=2442 (accessed August 2, 2011). Douglas was the first chairman of the Good Neighbor Fund, which eventually became the Seattle United Way.

122. Community Chests and Councils of America, “Experiments with More Inclusive Federation” (New York: Community Chests and Councils of America, 1951), 11–16; Daniel McDonald, Jr., “An Experiment in Community Chest Public Relations With Small Business Firms in Youngstown, Ohio” (master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1951).

123. Board of Directors Minutes, Northampton (MA) Community Chest, Mar. 21, 1956; Nov. 21, 1956; Sept. 1968, Northampton Community Chest Records.

124. Andrews, F. Emerson, Corporation Giving (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1952)Google Scholar, 99.

125. Hanlan and Cohen, “Do Unto Others”; Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise, 151; “Advisory Committee on Labor Participation, Report of Results and Proposed Statement of Policy,” Dec. 1951, Folder 4, Box 1, AFL-CIO Department of Community Service Records.

126. Walker, Charles, Steeltown: An Industrial Case History of the Conflict Between Progress and Security (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950)Google Scholar, 45.

127. Bruno, Robert, Steelworker Alley: How Class Works in Youngstown (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1999)Google Scholar, 56.

128. A. Katz, “A Study of Conflict and Cooperation,” 309, 319; Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise, 151–52.

129. Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise, 151–152; Form, “Organized Labor's Place,” 536; Bok, Derek and Dunlop, John, Labor and the American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1970), 434–38.Google Scholar

130. Brilliant, The United Way, 45. Cloward advanced one of the more influential critiques of the voluntary sector's response (particularly the Chests') to urban poverty in Cloward, Richard, “Social Class and Private Social Agencies,” in Education for Social Work: Proceedings of the Annual Program of the Council on Social Work Education, 1963 (New York: Council on Social Work Education, 1963), 128–34Google Scholar, revised and republished in Cloward, Richard and Epstein, Irwin, “Private Social Welfare's Disengagement from the Poor,” in Brager, George and Purcell, Francis, Community Action Against Poverty (New Haven, CT: College and University Press, 1967), 40–64 Google Scholar; see also Morris, Andrew, “The Voluntary Sector's War on Poverty,” Journal of Policy History 16:4 (2004): 275–305 Google Scholar; Morris, The Limits of Voluntarism, 149.

131. Bok and Dunlop, Labor and the American Community, 438.

132. “Something Old, Something New,” Time, Nov. 4, 1946.

133. Brilliant, The United Way, 157–58; United Way of America, People and Events, 8.

134. Ross, “The Administration of Employee Solicitation Campaigns,” 60.

135. On the challengers to the United Way in workplace charity, see Brilliant, The United Way, 180–208; Barman, Contesting Communities; on shifting base of donations, see “United Way is Reporting 3.8% Increase in Donations,” New York Times, August 8, 2001; Sally Beatty, “Giving Back: Trying to Mend the United Way,” Wall Street Journal, Apr. 28, 2006; America's Charities and The Consulting Network, “Employee Workplace Campaigns at the Crossroads: Recommendations for Revitalization,” (Chantilly, VA: America's Charities, 2000); Stephen Greenhalgh, “Changing Direction: Developing Employee-Friendly Workplace Campaigns with Technology and Best Practices” (Chantilly, VA: America's Charities, 2006).

136. Lubove, The Professional Altruist, 188.

137. Andrews, Corporation Giving, 100.

138. Carter, The Gentle Legions, 278, 311.

139. Charles Cabot, “The Accomplishments of Federation,” in The United Way: Planning and Financing Health and Welfare Services, 32nd National Conference (1950), 18, 21, United Way of America Archives. In a parallel critique, some union activists decried the dependence on payroll deductions for union dues for the passivity it seemed to encourage on the part of members, and for reducing the need for union officials to stay in active contact with the rank and file. See Lynd, Alice and Lynd, Staughton, ed., Rank and File: Personal Histories by Working-Class Organizers (1973; reprinted by Princeton University Press, 1981)Google Scholar, 111, 126, 257.

140. “Help From Neighbors,” Life, Oct. 13, 1952, 40.

141. Jasper Crane to Eugene duPont, Oct. 25, 1946, Folder “United Fund 1934–1946,” Box 100, Jasper E. Crane Papers, Hagley Museum and Library, Wilmington, DE. This was not an attitude linked solely to the Chests and Funds; a similar rhetoric surrounded corporate giving to higher education and other nonprofit organizations in the postwar era; see Cutlip, Fund Raising in the United States, 517–21; Clemens, “Nationalizing Reciprocity,” 46.

142. Hazard, Leland, “Community Chests,” in The Manual of Corporate Giving, ed. Ruml, Beardsley and Geiger, Theodore, (Kingsport, TN: National Planning Association, 1952)Google Scholar, 93.

143. Lichtenstein, Nelson, The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit: Walter Reuther and the Fate of American Liberalism (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 281–84.Google Scholar

144. United Way of America, People and Events, 95.

145. Carter, The Gentle Legions, 276–277.