| OCR Text |
Show &Y4iO J tsi ft 1v - Q) (fXtj is ; War Labor Board Faced With Rising Pressure Long Buffeted, Agency May Be Swept Aside By Flood of New Cases After Collapse of Nazis. By BAUKIIAGE News Analyst and Commentator. WNU Service, Union Trust Building Washington, D. C. The lid Is off! Four days before election the ticker, Jammed with campaign speeches, paused long enough to announce the strike of the Mechanics Mechan-ics Educational society in 20 Detroit plants. There hadn't been much strike news for some time and this item stuck out like a sore thumb. The reason there had not been much strike news was not because there were not plenty oi strikes three weeks before election they were bobbing up at the rate of 400 a month; 10 a day were being reported re-ported to conciliators in the labor department and that didn't include the strikes against the decisions of the national war labor board, itself. The reason why this bulge in the walk-out record wasn't in front of the reading public's nose was because be-cause both parties were taking particular par-ticular care not to say anything that might look as if it were criticism criti-cism of a kind that would alienate the labor vote. Now, as I remarked, the lid is off. But this is only a sample of what Is going to happen when Germany collapses. Washington expects when that otherwise happy day comes, it wiU have to face the job of damming a veritable flood of labor problems. And that flood, many of the insiders believe, will inundate the labor board and probably have the effect of sweeping it into the discard. Two things badly threaten the board's future. One was the private walkout of the AFL members who simply announced they would not sit in on any decisions on wage raises until the board had handed down decision on the Little Steel wage formula. That was one blow. Any decision on Little Steel, Itself, will be another. The board knows It is facing a dilemma on that subject. Although decision in favor of Little Steel (that is, breaking the-wage the-wage ceiling and giving the steel workers an increase to meet what the unions declare is a rise in the standard of living) would satisfy the steel workers it would start a whole series of demands for increases in other fields. If, on the other hand, the board refused to adjust the Little Steel formula upward, it would have to face a strike in the great steel industry. in-dustry. That dilemma' is gruesome enough but not too far away is another problem which will arise when Germany Ger-many collapses and the government govern-ment war contracts are sharply cut back. When this happens there are a number of companies which are called "fly-by-night" by some labor officials because their only reason for income is from war orders and their chief reason for existence is the part they play in the war effort, a part which will not have to be played when Germany quits. In any case, it is freely predicted that there will be strikes in these plants, encouraged, aided and abetted by the employers' in the hope that their factories will be seized by the government. gov-ernment. They may have no further excuse for functioning but there is a possibility that if the government takes them over they can collect something through damage suits thereafter. This creates a very difficult problem. prob-lem. As you know, when the war labor board hands down a decision its function ends. There is no legal means of enforcing this decision and if it is not complied with, the only recourse of the board is to pass the buck to the White House. If an appeal ap-peal from that source proves futile, the government has to take over the plant. Now already the caution has been sounded to the board to be very circumspect cir-cumspect hereafter in passing the buck to the White House in such cases. This is the reason: if the White House accepts all of these employer - encouraged strikes and the government takes them over It may find itself owning hoards of useless businesses and facing years of litigation. If, on the other hand, the White House refuses to act, the board f ' ,r . loses its prestige and since it has no legal right of enforcement, it loses its influence. All of which caused many hard-boiled hard-boiled oldtimers to predict months ago, that no matter who was elected in November, the sands of the war labor board were rapidly running out Suggest Postwar Control of Enemy What shall we do with Germany and Japan? Who is "we"7 I have looked over a sheaf of books and pamphlets, listened to radio ra-dio broadcasts including one by Vansittart (the number one German-hater) and several apologies of the appeasionists, who think all we need to do is to kiss and make up. Jf I am part of that "we," I must say that part of us is pretty confused. There have been many negative arguments offered to propositions proposed. There have been many bold and conflicting affirmative statements. I know you have to have a negative nega-tive and an affirmative argument to make a good debate and that is why I am glad to see two men sit down and produce a document, stripped of all emotion, based on hard cold facts put together scientifically, scien-tifically, which knocks down and builds up, too. One of the authors is a scholar, a man who has devoted most of his life to long, cold, analytical studies. The other is a man who has an engineering education educa-tion as a foundation, and a successful success-ful industrial career as a background. back-ground. The booklet comprises only 117 pages, succinctly summarized, written writ-ten in simple, straight-forward language, lan-guage, like the title which is "The Control of Germany and Japan." The authors are Harold G. Moulton, a trained economist, head of the Brookings institution, a non-partisan, scientific research organization, and Louis Marlio, a French businessman, busi-nessman, who has constructed half a dozen industrial plants in Europe, served on pommittees of the League of Nations. This is a book which everyone ought to read. Briefly, the plan it offers is military control (not complete com-plete or permanent occupation) with "supplemental economic devices." This would involve disarmament of enemy countries, with maintenance mainte-nance of substantial allied armed forces at key points only as a last resort; otherwise withdrawal of military mili-tary forces as soon as possible and the use of a system of detection, to learn of violations of conditions and punitive measures if necessary. "The United States," say the authors, "is faced with two plain objectives: either to join with a group of nations in a collective program pro-gram for preventing German and Japanese rearmament and in general gen-eral developing a universal collective collec-tive security system; or to rely on an independent defense system adequate ade-quate to preserve its freedom." And they conclude that "only by the first means can this country hope to maintain its national independence, inde-pendence, or to preserve its system of free enterprise." Since everybody, even the Vansit-tartists, Vansit-tartists, who represent the extreme English supporters of a punitive peace against Germany, agree that the peace must be such that it will work best for the whole world, the Moulton-Marlio, which holds strongly strong-ly to this tenet, is interesting. I have had many requests concerning con-cerning the return of war prisoners when Germany collapses. Si? has the Red Cross. This is what it says: "The military authorities, of course, are looking forward to the protection of the men as soon as they can be reached in Germany; but the Red Cross will assist the military authorities in every way possible. For this purpose, a special spe-cial representative of the American Red Cross has been assigned to work with the military authorities in Europe and with other Red Cross organizations there which are no less concerned about the welfare of their nationals. "The stocks of standard prisoner of war packages amount to over 5,000,000." |
