Evening star., 1933-08-21
|CODE FIGHT PW0TS |
ON CLOSED SA0PS'
Issue Created by Changes Is
Effected When Considered
by Congress.
BY MARK SULLIVAN.


In the controversies about codes Just
settled for three major industries and
in the ones still pending, the main issue
has been collective bargaining and the
closed shop versus the open shop. How
this issue arose and how 1t figures In
the controversies is widely misunder-
stood
In the beginning. the idea Of these
arose mainly as a privilege granted to
permit units within an industry to come
together in ways heretofore forbidden
by the antitrust laws. The official
name by which these codes are known
and which is contained in the N r. A.
law is codes of fair competition"
One object contemplated was that by
agreement child labor could be abel
ished. This was primarily to give work
now done by children to unemployed
men. SO as to absorb unemployment.
Another object was that payment by
some corporations of less than a living
wage could be forbidden by the agree
ments among employers. The purpose
was to save corporations paying reason
able wages from the destructive COM
petition, of those paying starvation
wages Here again the spirit of the
movement was to increase the quantity
of wages and thus increase purchasing
power.
Partial Price fixing.
1t was assumed in the beginning also
the agreements would permit a certain
degree of price-fixing and would other
wise suspend restrictions now imposed
by the anti-monopoly laws The COM
plete purpose was and still remains to
overcome the emergency Of depression.
All this was the fundamental spirit
Of N. R. A. In later developments. and
at stages Of passage through Congress.
changes were introduced. One impor-
tant change took away much of the
immunity from the antitrust laws
which N. r. A. in the original form
granted. This took away much of the
attractiveness for industry that N. r. A.
originally had. Among other changes it
was proposed that since N r. A. would
permit employers within an industry to
act as unit, employees should be given
the same privilege. This conception
led to incorporation in the law Of a
section which forbids employers to re-
sist the formation of unions and re-
quireS them to practice collective bar
gaining when their employees demand
1t. BY these changes as whole N. r.
A. passed from one having mainly bene-
fits for employers to one having mainly
benefits for employees
Employers recognized that the "col-
lective bargaining" provision laid all in
dustry open to introduction of the
closed shop" They recognized also
that with the opportunity thus created
labor organizers would take advantage
OF it to set up unions in industries
which have hitherto been run on the
open shop" basis.
Controversy With Law.
There was little the employers could
do. although they tried to do what they
could. The controversies that arose
were not between the industries and. on
the other hand, President Roosevelt or
Gen. johnson. The controversies were
between the industries and the law as
written. President Roosevelt and Gen.
Johnson could not change the law.
The efforts of the industries took the
form of introducing into the codes dec
larations of policy looking as far as
possible toward maintenance of the
open shop. In considering such decla-
AoeAOAlS, IlcSi0ciiI lNOOStVciL ana Gen.
johnson took the position they could
not permit anything in the code which
directly negatives the law The con-
troversies came down to finding a form
OF words which would go as far as pos
Sible toward asserting belief in the open
shop as a principle but at the same
time would not go far enough to mega
tive the law
Thus the situation stands. Assertions
that something revolutionary has hap
pened are extreme. Something revolu-
tionary may arise out Of this whole N.
r. A. enterprise, but is hardly here yet.
What has happened is that all indus
tries are In effect made liable to the
closed shop. Hardly any one can doubt
that with the invitation existing in the
law. labor organizers will probably bring
the closed shop about in all indus
tries The closed shop Is not necessarily
revolutionary. 1t already exists in
many industries. 1t Is to be remem-
bered also that the N r. A. law expires
two years from its enactment, which
was last June 16 This time limitation
works against the notion that revolu-
ton has been accomplished. If by June,
1885. effort Is made to renew the law.
the proposal will come before a new
Congress to be elected next year
So far as talk about anything revolu-
tonary. it resides not in what has al
ready been done. but in what may arise
out of N. R. A. as matter of economic
necessity and expediency.