OCR Text |
Show THE VOICE OF BUSINESS Letf m mciEie you ra otffer you cannot refuse By Richard L. Lesher, President Chamber of Commerce of the United States In recent days, reports have been surfacing about a warming in relations between President Carter and the leadership of the labor movement. I want to reveal some details about the new relationship which are not widely known, and which have had an important im-portant bearing on recent economic problems, especially inflation. It's no secret, of course, that this is an election year, and that the Administration Ad-ministration has made strong and sustained efforts to win the support of key labor leaders. Those efforts, and the basis of the new relationship, began with an agreement negotiated last summer by the Administration and the AFL-CIO an agreement they ambitiously am-bitiously call the National Accord. On the surface, the National Accord was meant to be an anti-inflationary weapon with business and labor establishing committees that would devise ways to hold down wages and prices. Right away, we can see the focus is all wrong. Inflation is not caused by too many people working, but by governments govern-ments creating money out of thin air to finance wasteful expenditures, and to reward consumption and debt, rather than investment and savings. Moreover, except for the already mentioned committees on wages and prices, the business community has been virtually excluded from all other arrangements and agreements, both formal and informal. One look at what the Administration and labor have been up to, and you will understand why. AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland has stressed that the basic principles and promises of the National Accord stem from the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 legislation determinedly socialist in orientation. Labor has also won informal commitments from the Administration on a broad number of other issues: general economic policies; energy policy; maritime industry policy; health services and occupational safety and health; international in-ternational trade policy, and probably most important of all from labor's point of view the major Administration actions on the budget. For example, thanks to the National Accord, the AFL-CIO hierarchy received the most detailed opportunity imaginable to spell out its priorities in the 1981 fiscal budget before it was officially presented to Congress. One Executive Branch agency official remarked that the AFL-CIO leaders "knew more about the budget of our department at some points in this process than we did." Indeed, I was shocked to learn that the Office of Management and Budget shipped a huge library of its key documents to the AFL-CIO headquarters for review by those union leaders. A White House official ad- mittedt "There has been comparable to this in the historv nf American government." Nor anywhere else! Not even in European countries, where union leading political parties histori work closely together, does there occur such an example of intimate specific collaboration. The same v House official went so far as to C this recent process if "probably m parallel in annals of West democracy." fi I should add I see absolutely Wv. wrong with consultation; in expect it. However, there'is a diT difference between consultation . collaboration to the point of ore--' labor becoming deeply involved budgetary and policy making lm of the Executive Branch. The constitutes a dangerous precedent Perhaps that explains why, desp runaway rate of inflation, the leadership no longer criticizes -: President and now even sings praises. J Perhaps that explains why, da.. all the promises of fiscal restr-' spending for the originally pr' fiscal 1981 budget was scheduled" increase by an irresponsible 16 pe Perhaps that explains why, dd all the Administration's rah izations, our economy is in sj a mess and pressure is groii genuine budget cuts. |