The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1933-06-17
By NY KRAVIF.
ARTICLE /

ARTICLE
There is nothing startling new in
the anti-working class sections of the
National Recovery Act. They are, in
fact 1888 version of the famous
Protocol Of 1910 drawn up by the
present Supreme Court Justice Louis
D. Brandies for the cloak and suit
industry and the War Labor Board
of 1918. While the Protocol of 1910
was confined to one industry alone
the War Labor Board just as the
present Roosevelt Act extended its
control over all industries and foist-
ed upon the workers anti-labor meas
ures which were to be enforced by
the power of the Federal Govern
ment.
Recovery Act-A War Measure
That the Roosevelt Act was or
ganized along the line of the War
Labor Board to function as an in
stTument for conduct of war was ad-
mitted by Senator Wagner at the
Senate hearings on the bill when he
said I'VE had the same sort of
power during the war" Similarly
Secretary Of the Interior. Ickes, de-
clared that the oil industry bill
should be passed because "Oil is
necessary to us in times of peace and
essential TO us in times OF war"
Roosevelt himself was a member Of
the War Labor Policies Board as a
representative of the Navy Depart
Y,4o,,E ord eoE ~, tho T,o,,,v,,i+koo If
Labor Adjustment together W t h
Louis Howe, his present secretary.
Many of the present leading admin
istrators of the Recovery Act were
connected with the former War In
dustries Board and helped to draft
the present act, in fact, Bernard M;
Baruch, Wall Street financier, the
brains" behind the Recovery Plan
was chairman of this board.
Protocol Glass Collaboration
Measure
Old time needle trades workers
who recall the Protocol established
in September, 1910, in New York
Citys cloak and suit industry remem-
Der clearly the trickery involved in
the plan which was the basis of the
agreement signed by the Joint Board
of Cloak and Skirt Makers Unions
and the Cloak, Suit, and Skirt Man
ufactTers Protective Association. The
Protocol came after the first big he
roic struggle of 10000 needle workers
which challenged the bosses to some
action to keep this growing force in
check And this is how they did it.
They set up a Grievance Board, a
Board of Arbitration and a Joint
Board of Sanitation on which unions
and manufacturers were represented
and the so-called public" which es-
tablished the class collaboration ma
chinery.
No Right to Strike
julius Henry Cohen who acted as
lawyer for the manufacturers asso-
aiation and an important figure in
the execution OF the Protocol review
ed its effects in a book published in
1918 called Law and Order in Indus
try and listed among the gains to
the employers the fact that the gem
eral strike had been eliminated. In
other words the right to strike was
given up as long as the protocol was
in force The most powerful econo-
mic weapon which the workers held,
the right to strike, had been for
feited.
Charles H. Winslow, in recounting
the Limitations Imposed by the Pro-
tocol Upon the Unions" in a govern
eminent pamphlet pointed out the
Protocol served as an instrument in
forcing the union to assume control
and discipline Of the workers in the
shop Formerly the spirit prevail
ing in q shop" he writes, sometimes
made it impossible for an employer
to control his men without risking
serious loss involved in a strike or
lockout but now under such circum-
stances the union is bound to main
tain order" And Cohen emphasized
this approvingly when he wrote that
"the strong power Of the workers or
ganization must be welded into some
sort of a police department for the
industry" There is only one way in
which to describe such plan. 1t
meant enslayement-enslavement Of
the workers and their organizations
to the capitalists.
How closely this approXimates the
anti working class sections of the
Roosevelt Act is seen from the fact
that the Recovery Act says nothing
about the right of the workers to
strike. At the hearings, when this
question was put to Donald Richberg,
one of the authors of the Act who
is now officially part of the Admin
istration to carry out its purposes,
he evaded the question.
Enforcing Discipline
This "labor" lawyer refused to
acknowledge the workers request to
strike. Finally, when pressed to ex-
press his opinion as to what would
happen II the workers asked for
higher wages and threatened to strike
under the Act, the labor lawyer an
swered, you may not expect to find
broken contracts with responsible la
Dor organizations" What does this
meanP 1t means that the A. F. Of
L. officialdonl, which is TO carry out
the dictates Of the government, will
"live up to the contract" and that
the workers will be forced to do so
no matter what the provocation. AS
in the case Of the working Of the
Protocol, the A. II. of L. bureaucracy