"Labor Has Come of Age and It Is Not Too Much to Expect It To Act Accordingly"
MANAGEMENT has taken quite a shellacking in the last decade and labor has achieved substantial gains—not altogether without good cause. Beginning in the middle of the 1930s the soil of special privilege was prepared by a benevolent government, the seeds were planted and labor's roots became firmly established. From 1940 until the present time the crops came in. These crops had been well planted—in the face of laws and government decrees purporting to freeze wages and other conditions of employment akin to wages, labor obtained an increase in average earnings since January 1941 of 51.8%, although the cost of living rose but 24.1%,* according to the National Industrial Conference Board, or about 33% if you favor the Administration's figures.* Gains in other terms of employment kept pace with these direct wage increases,—practices relating to vacations, paid holidays, shift differentials, and a host of other items, were similarly liberalized. Unions, as distinguished from labor as a whole, looked to their own security and found room for improvement. Various types of union recognition flourished, from maint enance of membership to the closed shop; the check-off, to insure collection of union dues, received greater "acceptance"; certain functions previously regarded as within the exclusive province of management were brought within the joint control of union representatives and management through extended use of the grievance procedure or in more direct manner. Today some of the better known unions are girding for the next round of "negotiations" with demands for some form of annual wage; uniform, industry-wide rates for given job classifications; greater participation in various management decisions (conceivably for the alleged purpose of assuring full employment). Space does not permit a discussion of any or all of these labor gains. Labor had a case, a good one. But it is now time to look beyond the desires of labor and management and to consider the public.
WHAT OF THE PUBLIC?
It is obvious that under present safeguards no employer, large or small, possesses sufficient unbridled power to cause undue harm to the public. On the other hand, some union leaders have acquired enormous power much faster than they have acquired a commensurate sense of responsibility and self-control. These leaders are found in some of the larger unions. They have demonstrated that they are able and willing to deprive the public as a whole (not merely the embattled employer) of the necessities of life in our modern civilization; hospital services and medical supplies, food and light, means of transportation and communication, and other essential utilities—in a word, we have reared a private force capable of destroying much of our freedom and infringing upon our individual liberties. We have gone so far, in certain instances, as to permit a private armed force in this country, which is capable of enforcing its will on one and all.
There are a variety of reasons for this state of affairs and some of them may be summarized as follows:
EMPLOYERS HAVE PERFORMED BADLY
They cannot agree among themselveson what should be done or how to do it. Relatively sleek and well-fed, they are, in the larger sense, without true ambition. Today's union leaders have known hunger, and it is said that a hungry man is an ambitious one. How many employers —not just a few representatives of employers' associations—attend legislative sessions in their State Capitols, or elsewhere, and fight for what they profess to believe in? These same halls are crowded to overflowing at every session by union labor representatives from top to bottom. There are representatives of unions who are entirely imbued with the crusader's spirit and are quite willing to work for the cause day and night with little or no thought of monetary reimbursement. Labor's representatives have ability aplenty, but they also have a large reservoir of the will to win (which sounds disgustingly hackneyed to some employers). In any event, these labor leaders have it, and, as Damon Runyan expresses it, "Them as has, gits."
THE PUBLIC HAS NOT MADE UP ITS MIND
The people as a whole seem to think that "both sides are at fault"; abuses of certain labor leaders are of comparatively recent origin and this country is slow to act; the public may be affected to some extent by what Professor Keir has referred to as "the rising tide of socialism"; and, finally, the public has a warm regard for what we loosely refer to as labor's legitimate interests or rights. Of these factors the first and last mentioned deserve some comment.
Of course both sides have been at fault. In many respects, industry's record is a proud one. Through two world wars, industry has done an outstanding job and has repeatedly turned reputed miracles into every-day occurrences. But, industry is composed of human beings and there are bound to be shortcomings. The public has not forgotten the various powerful trusts, the Beef Trust, the Sugar Trust, the Oil Trust (in which the late Judge Kenesaw M. Landis demonstrated that he had his eye on the ball before he entered organized baseball); nor James J. Hill and the Northern Securities Company; nor the railroad rate controversies and other practices which flourished as our industrial civilization developed, particularly about the turn of the century. Presumably the public recalls that labor met with negligible success in its efforts at organization and bargaining in those days. Among other things, large numbers of unskilled workers were imported from Southern Europe, who could and did work for wages and under conditions that, today at least, seem far short of a reasonable standard of justice. But the public should also recall that this country progressed with remedial legislation from the Sherman Act through the Hepburn Act, Federal Trade Commission Law, and a host of others, down to the Wagner Act and other present day legislative efforts. Perhaps of equal importance today is the attitude of our government and its administrative agencies, and indeed of the Supreme Court of the United States. Although industry has acquired, perforce if you will, a decent regard for the rights of others, it is still possible to direct the public's attention to some of industry's excesses in its younger days.
Of course, labor's legitimate interests or rights must be preserved. These interests are many, and to undertake oppressive practices toward the laboring men and women is entirely out of harmony with the trend of the times; it is unthinkable. Is it a legitimate interest or right of any group—Wall Street brokers, farmers, white collar workers, educators, or even of labor unions—to starve, freeze or stifle the economy of a nation ?
THE PROBLEM
At one time it seemed to the people of this country that industry had become exceedingly strong and that labor was being oppressed. Gradually, therefore, the conviction spread that labor needed to be protected and helped in order to obtain sufficient strength to improvise conditions of its people. Presumably the people of this country thought that through such a balance of power between labor and capital, peaceful negotiations would achieve justice without industrial warfare through strikes. However, as Donald Richberg says, "The original design for peace has faded rapidly as Labor leaders have learned how easily their power of collective bargaining can be transformed into the force of collective coercion. So now we have the growing menace of labor organizations which possess such great powers of economic and political coercion, unrestrained by public obligations, that the welfare of the entire country becomes more and more dependent upon the wisdom and moderation of labor leaders and their followers, which are all too often conspicuously absent." These union leaders need no further coddling. Economically and politically they are full grown men who are able to take the hide off the rest of us, and frequently do. They have no further need of special privilege and immunity. Abuses of the public in the denial of essential services, food, etcetera, are only manifestations of a basic evil. The cause is favoritism for one group at the expense of all others, favoritism which has created in some leaders of that group unusual power and a lack of respect for law and order. Labor, union labor, has been granted special privileges and immunities not available to the rest of us, and as a consequence its strength has grown until it has reached the stage wherein it is now able to deprive the general public of some of its rights and privileges. This is carrying labor's freedom too far.
APPROACH TO A SOLUTION
How shall we correct this situation? Shall we pass a law for every abuse? This approach is a cut at each tentacle of an octopus. It is, to borrow the lawyers' expression, "like tearing a seamless web"; it is a fruitless method. The truth is, that Congress can adopt all of the anti-Petrillo bills, all of the anti-welfare fund bills, and all of the bills it wishes to protect against specific abuses, but the Petrillos, Lewises, Whitneys and others will find another road to the same objective. They will be able to accomplish what they wish in another way, because such specific laws strike at symptoms and not at causes. It will not do to condemn such labor leaders. There are many union officials who are able, intelligent and of unquestioned integrity. As a practical matter, however, most union leaders are potential Lewises and Petrillos—they have to be. Union leaders are salesmen, they sell a record of gains for the people they represent. They are in competition with other union leader salesmen and it is simply contrary to all experience to expect that even the highest type can sit idly by while the less responsible leaders leave the bargaining tables with the lion's share of the bargains. It simply can't be done and by the very nature of things, advantages gained by a few potent labor leaders, considered signal victories today, are tomorrow's accepted practices for all labor leaders. Do not blame the Lewises and the Bridges, blame the rules of the game which we have created and under which they operate. Blame the special privileges that have permitted the acquisition of unwarranted power in the hands of the few.
If we are to get down to fundamentals, it would seem that we ought to eliminate the partiality. To this end, consider the following:
I.We must have fair and impartial lawsserving a true public purpose in employeremployee relations.
As an example, it is not suggested that the Wagner Act, an admittedly one-sided law, be amended or revoked; it is suggested that the extraordinary rights and privileges granted under that Act as it has been interpreted, be accorded to unions which exhibit a decent regard for the rights of others—i.e., to those unions which demonstrate a willingness to bargain collectively; a willingness and ability to abide by their contracts and by the laws of the land, so that order may prevail And again, the anti-trust laws are apparently in need of revision in order t0 bring within their scope those labor union activities which are prescribed by the anti-trust laws for other groups. These are but examples of a number of laws in present need of revision in the public interest.
2. We must have an impartial government to deal with employer-employee relations.
The obvious bias which permeates the entire executive department from top to bottom (and has reached the Supreme Court) is in effect encouraging abuses of the public such as we have been witnessing recently. Can we have respect for law and order if those who make and administer these laws do not respect them?
9. We must have impartial administration of the laws.
Is any comment needed? Citations of abuses of administrative process are superfluous here.
4. We must obtain mutuality of obligation under contract between the parties.
Can we expect peace, whether it be among nations or among employers and employees, if the various parties do not honor their commitments? There should be mutuality of contract and at the moment there is none between employer and employee. Proper methods of enforcement should exist as to union and company alike.
Obviously these suggestions will not rid us of our labor relations problems.lt would seem, however, that they look toward the basic changes that will have to be made if we are to clear the atmosphere and arrive at true bargaining in which the interests of the public receive proper consideration. Indeed, we have got to have morals in our labor relations—a standard of decent conduct between employer and employee. If the people of this country will stop trying to defend labor on the one hand or to club it on the other; if they will see to it that impartial rules of the game are put into effect in lieu of the present special privilege for one side; then by a process of education and not laceration, even the irresponsible labor leaders will come to know, in time, a system which honors order under law; morals will prevail in labor relations as elsewhere. With a little more light and less heat on both sides, employer and employee together can bring peace to the industrial picture. In the last analysis, it is they, and not the Government, who can and must do it. This is not starry-eyed idealism, this is simply a recognition of the fact that labor has come of age and it is not too much to expect it to act accordingly.
SECRETARY, EASTWOOD-NEALLEY CORP.
A letter which John G. MacKechnie '31 wrote to Professor Keir, making some observations on the latter's labor article in the April issue of the MAGA- ZINE, prompted unhesitating action by the editors in inviting him to expand his views into an article on the labor question from the management side- something which the editors had planned to present in April but were forced to postpone. Mr. MacKechnie is secretary and at- torney for the Eastwood-Nealley Cor- poration in Belleville, N. J., manufac- turers of non-ferrous wire and also paper mill wire cloth. He took his LL.B. at Harvard in 1934 and was with a law firm in Newark before taking his pres- ent position. He makes his home in Summit, N. J., and has shown his ac- tive interest in Dartmouth affairs by serving as 193 I'S assistant Alumni Fund agent for the New Jersey area, as Treas- urer of the Dartmouth Club of North- ern New Jersey, and as an interviewer of candidates for admission to the Col- lege. Through the marriage of his sister, he is the brother-in-law of William T. Okie '33. In labor matters, Mr. MacKechnie has served as arbitrator and as an in- dustry panel member of the late War Labor Board, New York-New Jersey Region. Subsequently he became co- chairman of the War Labor Board In- dustry Group in New York, which has continued on an informal basis.
* These figures taken as of May 1946.
