OCR Text |
Show Bruckart's Washington Digest Signs of Impending Trouble for National Labor Relations Board Advocates of Amendment of Wagner Act Grow More Vociferous; Law Itself and Its Administration Cause Widespread Criticism; Some Expert Stalling. By WILLIAM BRUCKART WNTJ Service, National Press BIdg., Washington, D. C. WASHINGTON. It was only a few years ago that any politician, seeking a harvest of votes, would rather have cut off his right arm than offend organized labor. In a close fight, the labor vote held the balance of power. Labor unions forged ahead with remarkable force. But labor started fighting within its own ranks and there came the C. I. 0. Rather, John Lewis, the leader of the mine workers, got ambitious am-bitious and broke away from the old established and respected American Amer-ican Federation of Labor and gave birth to the Congress of Industrial Organizations. So, many politicians, including President Roosevelt, turned to C. I. O., because it was modern, streamlined, stream-lined, aggressive. It appeared, for a time, that C. I. 0. was going to be the big power among the workers. work-ers. Having that advantage, C. I. 0. went to town, as the football players say. Its strength was manifest in congress and under the impetus of C. I. 0. force, Senator Wagner, the New York Democrat, brought forth the national labor relations act, under un-der which the national labor relations rela-tions board was appointed and began be-gan functioning. That much is history. But now there are signs of impending im-pending trouble for the national labor la-bor relations board. With its main support, the C. I. 0., having its troubles trou-bles in collecting dues, and with the peace efforts of President Roosevelt Roose-velt who sought to get union men of the United States back in one organization having failed dismally, the labor board is up against it. In fact, to summarize the situation in the homely expression of my boyhood boy-hood home: it looks like the swashbuckling, swash-buckling, defiant calf is just about ready to choke itself because of too much rope. It may not happen in this session of congress, but it will happen before long. Why? The answer an-swer is that organized labor, as represented rep-resented by the Lewis faction, made the same mistake as greedy big business frequently makes. It became be-came arrogant; it bit off more than it could chew. The reaction has now set In. Demands for Amendment of Labor Act Grow Noisier Advocates of amendment of the Wagner labor act have been knocking knock-ing at the door a long time. Recently, Re-cently, the knocking has resembled sledge hammer pounding. A very large number of senators and representatives repre-sentatives have heard it. As a matter of fact, it was Mr. Roosevelt's efforts to get A. F. of L. and C. I. O. back into a single national na-tional union that has delayed the moves in congress looking to amendment amend-ment of the labor law. C. I. O., having stood by the President when he was a candidate and having fought for his cause time after time, was entitled to the President's services serv-ices as a peace negotiator. Many persons thought there would be a happy reunion, but there was no ohance at all from the very outset of the negotiations, and the affair did nothing to lift Mr. Roosevelt's prestige, especially in the rural areas where C. I. O. and sit-down strikes have much the same meaning. mean-ing. While the administration's plans for a union reunion were slipping, there came that sensational verdict by a federal court jury in Philadelphia Philadel-phia which assessed $700,000 damages dam-ages against the sit-down strikers in a hosiery plant. The damages were assessed directly against the men who did the job, and thus for the first time a responsibility, as well as a right, was given to labor. The righ: to strike long has been established es-tablished and labor must guard it; never before, however, had there been a court determination that liability lia-bility also exists if damage is done. It is unnecessary here to review what the labor relations board has been doing. Time after time, it has been accused of dancing to the bagpipes bag-pipes played by C. I. 0. The American Amer-ican Federation of Labor, among other critics, has charged it with rank C. I. O. favoritism. The board does not consist of persons capable of winning very much respect. True, I believe they have very alert and fast-moving minds, but I cannot help regarding them as without any trace of judicial temperament. Without doubt, the country would be better off had all three members been ousted months ago. Act and Its Administration Causes Widespread Criticism It is, perhaps, as much because of the terrible administration of the law as from the inequities of the loosely drawn law itself that the criticism has been so widespread Hundreds of cases, coming before the board, have left employers with personal losses as a result of one sided determinations. Labor unions affiliated with the American Federation Federa-tion of Labor, have repeatedly as serted they could not obtain justice if the C. I O. figured in the sZa tion In any event, there are now senators and representatives sponsoring spon-soring a hatfull of amendments to the law, and a large number of these amendments are being promoted by the A. F. of L. lobby at the capitol. There is one amendment, for Instance, In-stance, that proposes to disband the present three-man board and supplant sup-plant it with a five-man board. That, of course, is the political maneuver to get rid of people with whom congress con-gress is disgusted. The amendment is by Senator Walsh, Massachusetts Democrat. Senator Walsh also has introduced several other amendments, one of which, in particular, is worth noting. It would attempt, at least, to eliminate elimi-nate "prejudicial delays." That sounds rather academic. It Is, however, how-ever, important because, according to the A. F. of L. explanation, delays de-lays by the board have worked, or have been used, to the advantage of C. I. O. If the C. I. O. was not sure that it had a majority, according to the other union, rather thinly disguised dis-guised reasons for delays were brought up. Then, C. I. 0. organizers organiz-ers would start their drives. Whether the A. F. of L. charges are true and whether the criticisms of employers have been justified, it remains as fact that C. I. O. is now opposing amendment to the act. Hearings Are Delayed by Various Stalling Maneuver Supporters of the law in its present pres-ent form and defenders of the board as it is now made up succeeded for example in delaying hearings on amendments to the act for more than a month. They urged Senator Thomas of Utah, committee chairman, chair-man, not to hold hearings while peace negotiations were in progress. prog-ress. They insisted that it was unfair un-fair to embarrass the President in his attempts to restore unity in the labor movement, and argued that hearings would bring bitter statements state-ments into print. Mr. Thomas yield- 1 ed to the plea for delay, but eventually eventu-ally the pressure for action became too strong even for the Utah senator to resist. And the friends of the law were right when they anticipated bitter words. Senator Wagner in his testimony testi-mony spoke rather blatantly about critics being unacquainted with the purposes of the law. He felt, too, that there was no need for haste about changes. He rather hinted that there were some Ethiopian gentlemen gen-tlemen in the woodpile, but failed to put his finger on them. He simply was standing pat about the whole thing. A little later, however, the C. I. O. people named the terrible ''conspirators" ''conspir-ators" who wanted the act changed. The American Federation of Labor had "conspired" with the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. There was the fine unseen hand, the Chamber of Commerce, big business, busi-ness, personified. It was the guilty party; it was speaking for the employers em-ployers who want to grind poor workmen into the dust, destroy unionism, un-ionism, wreck the families of the wage earners or so the C. I. O. shouted. Well, as far as I am concerned, con-cerned, I fail to see why the C. I. O. picked the Chamber of Commerce. It is so thoroughly discredited that it hasn't had any influence at the capitol in 10 years. Why anyone should think that the Chamber of Commerce could have started a movement as strong as the present demand for change of the labor act is quite beyond me. But that was what the C. I. 0. charged. It may have been what Senator Wagner meant. Say Changes Would Benefit Neither Labor Nor Industry Finally, the labor board itself appeared ap-peared before the senate committee commit-tee and announced it had an "open mind." Its mind was so open that it submitted a document of 360 typewritten type-written pages, analyzing the proposals pro-posals for changes and arriving generally gen-erally at the conclusion that the proposed pro-posed changes were no good. In substance, the board said that the bulk of the changes being pressed "would benefit neither labor group nor would they be of help to industry." indus-try." Most of alL in the labor board's mind, the amendments would "conflict with the basic purposes pur-poses of the act." Thus, as the hearings were concluded con-cluded and the committee seeks to do some deliberating on its own account, ac-count, labor finds itself still fighting fight-ing within itself, lacking direction and one could almost say, lacking purpose. It is too bad that there must be the same greed, the same thirst for power within the ranks of workers as there is among political politi-cal lenders and heads of governments. govern-ments. Those fellows who play the game of politics can lose their jobs and the country is none the worse. But when political labor leaders Play heir games and lose, the pawns are the workers who have no means of protection. Western Newspaper Union |