The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-02-21

YESTERDAY called attention to the grave
Il crisis in the application of the national in
duStrial recovery act growing out of the appar-
ent failure of the national labor board This
body is failing to function effectively in the face
of the sabotage of Section IA of the recovery
act, designed to give labor free and full right
of collective bargaining
Only through such collective bargaining can
mass purchasing power in urban centers be
raised and maintained sufficiently to restore and
perpetuate prosperity. It is worthwhile to OBJ
serve that conspicuously the best codes sub
United by industry at Washington were to be
found where labor was intrenched strongly and
| organized effectively.
In an excellent article in the New Republic
on Labor and the NRA," William B. Mangold
presents us with certain representative cases in
which the manufacturers openly have defied the
government to enforce Section IA
First we have the Hartman hosiery mills of
Hartman, Tenn. It's employees became men,
bers of the United Textile Workers last July
On the day the union was organized the union
leaders were discharged and the counsel for the
company has bluntly informed the national la
Dor board that the Hartman hosiery mills will
not agree at any time to recognize the union,
arbitrate on propositions we are unable to agree
upon, or enter into contracts individually or
collectively"
THE United States Steel Corporation through
a its subsidiary the H. G. Prick Coal and
Coke Company, has refused to have any dealings
with the United Mine Workers. The attorney
for the steel corporation asserts publicly that:
General Johnson and the President will tell
you that we told them from the start that we
would not make union contract and wouldn't
arbitrate that question" He added that the
question of union labor was the point about
which the steel corporation was making "its
whole fight"
Fifteen other steel companies also have taken
the same stand in refusing to deal with the
United Mine Workers. One of their legal
spokesman openly contended before the labor
board that it was under no legal obligation to
sign contract with United Mine Workers and
had the audacity to tell the national labor board
to its very teeth that it had jurisdiction over
this matter.
The Corcoran Shoe Company of Stoughton
Mass. has refused to recognize the Brotherhood
of Shoe and Allied Craftsmen admittedly the
choice of the workers in the factory. The presi-
dent of this company informed the national
labor board that: I'VE never will agree to recog-
nize this so-called union" The counsel for the
company questioned the jurisdiction of the labor
board.
From widely removed part of the country
and in much different industry comes the same
story. The Whatcom County Dairymen's Asso-
citation in the state of Washington refuses to
recognize the Brotherhood of Transfers, and its
attorney defantly tells the national labor board
that his association will not stand for any arbi-
tration."
IN the meantime, and as an inevitable result
Il of this supineness on the part of the national
labor board, We have had a most notable and
deplorahle revival of the bogus company unions
"a farce and an abuse which the national in
dustrial recovery act was primarily designed to
run out of existence
The national industrial conference board
sent out a QUESTIONABLE to 1914 manufacturing
concerns, picked at random and employing 81
per cent of all workers in manufacturing and
mining industries The answers revealed the
disconcerting news that, of all the workers or
ganized into unions since the NFSA was set up,
670 900 have been organized in company unions
as against $4,000 in independent and reputable
trade unions This shows just how we'll the
NRA is succeeding" in ending company unions |
and promoting the growth of bona fde union
labor and collective bargaining.
Mr.. Mangold summarizes the situation very
fairly: These cases speak for themselves. If |
allowed 10 stand, they will quickly reduce the |
national labor board to an impotent body, of |
little use to labor. Indeed, its present inefec-
tiveneSs is a hindrance rather than an aid to
unionization of workers. 1t would perhaps be
unjust to say that the board deliberately is null
lifying the intent of the labor provisions of the |
act. Yet its reluctance to enforce its
own rulings through court action is having pre-
cisely that effect"
1t is hardly fair, however, to pass all the
blame on to the labor board. The administra-
ton frequently has given evidence of its recog-
milton of the Importance of purchasing power |
and collective bargaining. If these crucial |
policies not realized, the responsibility must, |
the President. /