Some alternatives would be objectionable to employers, others to unions. The stage would be set for active mediation in which the President or his representative would not hesitate to influence the substance of the bargaining nor to remind both sides that his choice of a procedure in the event of continued disagreement might be influenced by his judgment that either party was unreasonable. Thus armed with a variety of weapons, the Chief Executive would probably be spared the use of any. The policy of the Eisenhower Administration has been to avoid government interference with collective bargaining. My suggestions go so far in the other direction that some may suggest that it would be better to formalize the government's responsibility by establishing a labor court or wage regulation board.
Space prevents more than two short observations upon the point.
First, I am convinced that during the next ten or twenty years, in an age in which international tensions, the challenge of space exploration, and an exploding population strain the productive capacity of our economy, we will be unable to ignore the public interest in the substance of collective bargaining agreements. The problems of inflation and automation are only two examples. Second, there is a vast difference between compulsory arbitration or a labor court or a government wage board and government participation through mediation or fact-finding. The former involve adjudication or regulation supported by legal sanctions. When the government participates through mediation, its representatives may persuade, cajole, and even threaten, but in the end they must secure agreement without the power to command.