When A. Philip Randolph assumed the leadership of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, he began a ten-year battle to win recognition from the Pullman Company, the largest private employer of Black people in the United States and the company that controlled the railroad industry's sleeping car and parlor service. In 1935 the Brotherhood became the first Black union recognized by a major corporation. Randolph's efforts in the battle helped transform the attitude of Black workers toward unions and toward themselves as an identifiable group; eventually, Randolph helped to weaken organized labor's antagonism toward Black workers.
In the Pullman contest Randolph faced formidable obstacles. The first was Black workers' understandable skepticism toward unions, which had historically barred Black workers from membership. An additional obstacle was the union that Pullman itself had formed, which weakened support among Black workers for an independent entity.
The Brotherhood possessed a number of advantages, however, including Randolph's own tactical abilities. In 1928 he took the bold step of threatening a strike against Pullman. Such a threat, on a national scale, under Black leadership, helped replace the stereotype of the Black worker as servant with the image of the Black worker as wage earner. In addition, the porters' very isolation aided the Brotherhood. Porters were scattered throughout the country, sleeping in dormitories in Black communities; their segregated life protected the union's internal communications from interception. That the porters were a homogeneous group working for a single employer with a single labor policy, thus sharing the same grievances from city to city, also strengthened the Brotherhood and encouraged racial identity and solidarity as well. But it was only in the early 1930's that federal legislation prohibiting a company from maintaining its own unions with company money eventually allowed the Brotherhood to become recognized as the porters' representative.
Not content with this triumph, Randolph brought the Brotherhood into the American Federation of Labor, where it became the equal of the Federation's 105 other unions. He reasoned that as a member union, the Brotherhood would be in a better position to exert pressure on member unions that practiced race restrictions. Such restrictions were eventually found unconstitutional in 1944.
The passage suggests that in the 1920's a company in the United States was able to
(A) use its own funds to set up a union
(B) require its employees to join the company's own union
(C) develop a single labor policy for all its employees with little employee dissent
(D) pressure its employees to contribute money to maintain the company's own union
(E) use its resources to prevent the passage of federal legislation that would have facilitated the formation of independent unions
To this question, I think we need to look at this excerpt: But it was only in the early 1930's that federal legislation prohibiting a company from maintaining its own unions with company money eventually allowed the Brotherhood to become recognized as the porters' representative.
Does the italics state this:
opinion1: Prior to 1930's, federal legislation forbid companies to maintain their unions with the companies' ?
or
opinion2: 'prohibiting'(Verb+ING modifier) modifies 'Federal legislation'. So it seems to suggest that modifying action takes place in the same time frame as suggested in the context, that is in 1930's. So the sentence in italics implies that legislation prohibited the companies, only from 1930's, from having their unions with their money. Prior to 1930's, the companies could fund its union.
Opinion2 seems to be close with the OA: A
So, can I take that whenever a vital ING modifier is used in a sentence with a time context, it implies that the modifying action takes place in that time frame ?
[/i]
In the Pullman contest Randolph faced formidable obstacles. The first was Black workers' understandable skepticism toward unions, which had historically barred Black workers from membership. An additional obstacle was the union that Pullman itself had formed, which weakened support among Black workers for an independent entity.
The Brotherhood possessed a number of advantages, however, including Randolph's own tactical abilities. In 1928 he took the bold step of threatening a strike against Pullman. Such a threat, on a national scale, under Black leadership, helped replace the stereotype of the Black worker as servant with the image of the Black worker as wage earner. In addition, the porters' very isolation aided the Brotherhood. Porters were scattered throughout the country, sleeping in dormitories in Black communities; their segregated life protected the union's internal communications from interception. That the porters were a homogeneous group working for a single employer with a single labor policy, thus sharing the same grievances from city to city, also strengthened the Brotherhood and encouraged racial identity and solidarity as well. But it was only in the early 1930's that federal legislation prohibiting a company from maintaining its own unions with company money eventually allowed the Brotherhood to become recognized as the porters' representative.
Not content with this triumph, Randolph brought the Brotherhood into the American Federation of Labor, where it became the equal of the Federation's 105 other unions. He reasoned that as a member union, the Brotherhood would be in a better position to exert pressure on member unions that practiced race restrictions. Such restrictions were eventually found unconstitutional in 1944.
The passage suggests that in the 1920's a company in the United States was able to
(A) use its own funds to set up a union
(B) require its employees to join the company's own union
(C) develop a single labor policy for all its employees with little employee dissent
(D) pressure its employees to contribute money to maintain the company's own union
(E) use its resources to prevent the passage of federal legislation that would have facilitated the formation of independent unions
To this question, I think we need to look at this excerpt: But it was only in the early 1930's that federal legislation prohibiting a company from maintaining its own unions with company money eventually allowed the Brotherhood to become recognized as the porters' representative.
Does the italics state this:
opinion1: Prior to 1930's, federal legislation forbid companies to maintain their unions with the companies' ?
or
opinion2: 'prohibiting'(Verb+ING modifier) modifies 'Federal legislation'. So it seems to suggest that modifying action takes place in the same time frame as suggested in the context, that is in 1930's. So the sentence in italics implies that legislation prohibited the companies, only from 1930's, from having their unions with their money. Prior to 1930's, the companies could fund its union.
Opinion2 seems to be close with the OA: A
So, can I take that whenever a vital ING modifier is used in a sentence with a time context, it implies that the modifying action takes place in that time frame ?
[/i]
