New-York tribune., 1919-10-22
Making Bargains Bargains

HAnAilS GSa1 6, sAk1S A<~A s ~~AAA~
The following may be suggested
as a programme for the Washing
ton conference:
Collective bargaining when any
considerable group of employees
prefer It to individual bargaining.
Selection of the agents to do the
bargaining at free shop or industry
elections.
Adequate guarantees that bar
gains will not be broken.
The widest eulogist will hardly
say that the employers group at the
industrial conference has shown
great polemica skill When the
gathering assembled public opinion
was largely with employers because
II Foster, because of breach of labor
contracts, because the strikes repre-
sented either greedy abuse of
power or were for other than eco
nomic purposes. But now public
opinion veers the other way.
The employers have been jockeyed,
superfcially at least, out of a favor
able position. Public attention is
diverted from Fosters deafness to
appeals to wait His non-reception
by Judge Gary in no true sense
caused the strike. This contention
vas an afterthought, emphasized
when failure was imminent. Not
until then did Foster modify his
Bolshevsm and the non-arbitrator
become an arbitrator. He changed
because he wanted the Federation of
Labor to pull him out of hole and
knew the Federation, of course, was
not unalive to the prestige to be
gained by securing settlement.
SO Mr.. Gompers successfully in
-ected a particular controversy into
a gathering called to consider not
single cases bat a general situation
The nanmuvre was, of course, un-
fair, but fairness seldom character
-zes such negotiations But fair or
foul, there was no effective counter,
and it was again shown that in tech
nique of labor discussion labor lead
ers are more adroit than employers
Having entangled the conference
into Judging the steel strike, the
next thing was to enmesh it by start
ing debate over collective bargain
ing. The employers were averse to
action that could be construed as a
rebuke tosJudge Gary. and, taking
advantage of this, the issue was so
drawn as to make it appear that
she employers were opposed on prin-
ciple to collective bargaining. The
preliminary statement of the en-
ployers had indorsed such bargain
ing, and the only dispute was who
should be recognized as having a
right to speak for labor. But this
was shufled out of view, and many
persons to-day entertain the opinion
that q bunch Of bonehead reaction
aries at Washington are seeking to
deny to men the privilege Of group
selling of their labor
The right of collective bargain
'ng is not denied. Judge Gary has
conceded it in all his statements.
Yet public opinion is in full CRY
along the herring trail that it is.
The experts in disputation who
speak for organized labor have sue
ceeded in getting their opponents to
seem to defend the indcfensible.
When the collective bargaining
issue was launched the reply was not
dlfficult eve are for it." the en-
ployers might have answered "but
now are those who assume to sneak
Sor men in our employ to evidence
heir authority? Furthermore, wha,
guarantees are offered which will
insure that bargains duly arrived
At will be respected? The collectiv,
bargain principle must be clothed
What credentials must a committe,
display and what enforcble remedies
are to safeguard an agreement"
But counter proposals were no
made. II is perhaps not too lat,
20 bring them forward Should ther,
oe an Australian ballot, cast unde,
circumstances that would provide
against intimidation and fraud, b,
which workers would choose thei,
representatives7 viii there be in
corporation or responsibility in some
form 70 compel those who enjoy the
benefits Of bargain to keep faith:
These and many other things must
oe discussed when collective bargain
ng is under consideration.
As things now are, nobody know.
who represEts the men, Unionist,