Evening star., 1934-11-30

Donald Richberg's statement seek
ing to clarity the IA clause of the
recovery act is regarded by
many newspapers as a noteworthy
piece OF WORK, but others believe that
q more complete and authoritative
must yet be made be-
fore the much-debated piece of legis-
lation Is understood.
Mr.. Richberg's statement Of la
bor's rights to free collective bargain
ing under section IA was, perhaps,
the clearest and most persuasive since
enactment Of the law" declares the
Columbus (Ohio) Citizen, while the
New York Times thinks that 'few
discussions Of the N. r. A. have been
as thoughtful as that by Mr.. Rich
berg" and the Denver Rocky Noun
tain News says: Seldom has q difn-
cult subject been more lucidly un-
folded"
The Portsmouth (Ohio) Times sees
this is due, not so much to Mr..
Richberg's exposition of his beliefs
on the matter. but to the fact he
was speaking only as an individual" "
The New York Sun. however, par
ticularly commends his discussion OF
section IA, adding that "it would
have been better If all responsible
spokeSmen for the administration had
always been as clear and straightfor-
ward in discussion of this subject"
and the Chattanooga Times points out
that his utterance has back of 1t
authority second only to that of
President Roosevelt himself
las We interpret the Richberg
thought" declares the Buffalo Eve
ming News, ''an employe can be q
member Of an American Federation
of Labor. q company union or Just
himself, and may bargain collectively
with his employer. singly. or in con-
junction with his fellows"
"The industrial air should be
cleared by Interpretation Of the prin-
ciples underlying the controversial
section IA, which upheld collective
bargaining, but denied organized la
boris contention that 1t should be the
sole representative Of all employees in
plants where its membership consti-
tuted majority" contends the In
dianapolis Star.
Mr.. Richberg's conclusions appear
to constitute an open-shop system,
asserts the Marshalltown uowa)
Times-Republican. 1T is to be gath
cred from what he said in New York
that If 81 per cent of employees vote
for one organization as bargaining
representative, the other 49 per cent,
or any part Of the 10 per cent, are
not to be bound by the majority vote,
but may, 1t is to be assumed, refuse
to Comply and by inference create an
organization of its own"
The Cleveland News says that
there Is much in such reasoning" but
thinks that "it doesn't quite jibe with
former opinions and seems to throw
the question Of union representation
wide open again." The st. Joseph
(Mo.) News-Press sees Mr.. Richbers
taking Q more realistic view OF q
mooted labor issue than most New
Dealers have taken before"
Under such an Interpretation,
points out the Lynchburg (va) Daily
Advance, "it would obviously be pos
sible for an employer to be compelled
to treat separately with two or more
groups of employees. Equally obvious
Is it that it is possible that negotia-
tions might be successfully transacted
between employer and one group
while negotiations between employer
and another group of employees might
not be successful" This paper adds
that 1T would seem to indicate that
the Government will recognize tht