New Britain herald., 1922-08-28
BARSOS ON LABOR.

Roger Babson's discussion of the future of labor throws new light on the whole matter. There may be dis agreement from his plans to safe guard industry in the future against disturbance caused by strikes. There may be no disputing the statement however, that he has given thinkers something to ponder over.
 He would have, first of all, compul- sorv arbitration of disputes in the industries in which the public is especially interested, such as trans portation and coal mining. The arbi- tration board would be composed, not of three men representing labor, three representing capital and three repre- senting the public. as the Railroad Labor Board is now made up, but nine men or seven representing the nation, chosen for their ability, paid high salaries, and occupying positions, for life possibly, similar to those of the United States Supreme Court Jus tices. Only the new men going to work hereafter for these public util- ities would be bound to abide by the decisions of this board. The old men, having given their lives to the work under no rule that they must so abide by the decisions of any board, should remain free to do as they saw fit. They. however, would gradually cease to exist, and in a few years, compara- lively, we would have men in those utilities who would have gone to work knowing that the decisions of the ruling board, like the decisions of the Supreme Court, were binding upon these conditions.
 In other industries Mir. Babson would have no compulsory arbitra- tion. He would have competition, however between groups of workmen. He would have union groups and non- union groups. He would have the groups, and the owners employing the men in those groups, compete against each other to see which method of work brought the greatest good with a view to production. welfare of work CTS and stockholders and general eff ciency. MT. Babson predicts that arrogance would come to either group should 1t gain complete control
 Full appreciation may be given to the suggestion as to the boards such as the railroad labor board. The suggestion that only those workers be bound to obey the dictates of com pulsory arbitration who go to work with that understanding, has thor oughly American sound. Workers would understand what they were doing in accepting employment on a railroad, for instance, and would not be compelled to accept such employ
 
 conditions which would place the board dealing with their industry in a position like that of the highest court of law. If workers did not care to remain under such control they could change from an industry dom- mated by compulsory arbitration to one free from such control As they had gone into the work recently, they would not have to give up the ad- vantage long years of working in certain industry had brought, as in the case of present railroad employees
 It will be noticed that MT. Babson does not go as thoroughly into the labor matter in industries which do not affect the public. His suggestion. summed up, provides not for a shop where union and non-union men work side by side, but for shops some operated by union men, some by men none of whom belong to unions. He
  employers but between employees.
 In this suggestion may be seen the influence that moves economists-the belief that above all things capital must be encouraged. He would bring workers into competition, with the private expectation. it would seem, that unionism would grow less DOW erful. From the viewpoint of the worker this part of MT. Babson's dis cussion does not seem as fair as that regarding the regulation of quasi 1 public industries which, After all, are the ones with which we are concerned at the moment.
 A WOMAN DID IT.