maintained a degree of local autonomy, reduced the need for new bureaucracies in

Albany, and paralleled Taft's plan for aid to public education. Dewey's teacher pay

raise package also depended on local communities and local sales taxes to cover the

additional cost. Self-identified conservative Republicans, both in the New York

Legislature and in Congress, believed that this type of program went too far in

expanding the role of government and preferred measures that would interfere even

less in the free market or the autonomy of the locality, but Dewey brushed these

criticisms aside.

 Dewey and Taft both detested bureaucracy, but the key differences between

them came in the area of social programs. Legislation promoting labor-management

relations and racial equality, especially the FEPC, were Dewey's most notable

contribution during his tenure. Indeed, the governor made the FEPC the centerpiece of

his civil rights program in New York. On labor issues, Taft and Dewey agreed on

basic principles, but differed on methods. Throughout his tenure, Dewey took a

proactive stance toward labor mediation and often used his personal influence to bring

about compromises. He also refused to challenge the right of collective bargaining in

private enterprise. In his first term, Dewey refused to sign a bill outlawing the closed

shop, one of the most notable provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act. When strikes

affected the public sector, however, Dewey took a more hard-line approach than Taft.

After Buffalo teachers struck in February 1947, the Governor advocated a proposal

that made striking a terminable offense for all public employees. Taft, who rejected

similar proposals in Washington, continually affirmed the right to strike and made no

distinction between public and private labor.1 While Taft-Hartley was a much harsher


1 Smith, Thomas E. Dewey and his Times, 438-475.