The Washington times., 1935-12-07
CAPITAL, LABOR
B0THWR0NG,
HANEY FEARS
BY LEWIS HANEY
Professor of Economies, New York

O"NCAS SASJ
The National Association of
Manufacturers has been listening
to some strange and conflicting
speeches.
A man named ]. w. Madden,
whom Mr.. Roosevelt has put at
the head of his NLRB National
Labor Relations Board) told the
manufacturers that trade unions
must have more power.
He appeared as a defender OF
the rights" of organized labor,
and he charged the manufacturers
with destroying trade unions.
1t seems to me that he made it
quite clear that Mr.. Roosevelt's
Labor Board" is decidedly pro-
labor. But more than that, his
ideas would lead to a condition in
which organized labor would con-
troll our social life.
He would have unions" of labor.
ers, with the usual type of labor
leaders" becoming so powerful
that they might dominate our
politics and become a state within
a state. He would put organized
labor in a position to interfere in
the management of various buSi-
neSSes to an extent that would
kill business enterprise. The unions
would have power to run a buSi'
ness, but no responsibility for its
success or failure.
On the other hand, Alfred p.
Sloan, head of General Motors.
made a speech which threatens
an equally dangerous attitude on
the part of management. He
urged that business men should
go beyond tending to their own
business, and take the lead in
social control.
Mr.. Sloan argued that Gin
duStry" (meaning business lead.
erS) have a greater responsibility
than efficient production and
sale. They should lead in "cor-
relating the industrial machine
with the national economy as a
whole" in order to promote
human progress"
He wants business men to as
sumo the responsibility for "a
more economic balance" Of ma
tional income as affecting wages,
hours, profits and prices.
This would mean that such
men as would take it upon them.
selves to control prices and pro-
duction. ct Savors somewhat of
the old "Swope Plan.) I fear
that here, too, we would get
power without responsibility.
We don't want industry" to
run the social life of the nation
any more than we want "or.
ganized labor" to run it. We
want business men to tend to
their own businesses, and laborers
to tend to their labor.
Neither organized labor nor or
ganized business is or can be "the
whole" of our society or nation.
Monopolies are as undesirable in
the one as in the other-and that
goes for farmers, too. We want
neither controlling our politics or
running our Government.
The truth is that business is
only part of our social life.
Above all, "a business" is very
different from business" A busi-
ness is particular business con-
Germ, and it should be run by the
particular business man who is
responsible for its success. 1t is
not business-that is a great So
cial process of production and
buying and selling, in which we
all have a vital interest.
A mans business" is his busi-
ness. Business in general is every
body's business.
This thought leads to two con-
CluSionS:
/. No business leader" or bunch
of business leaders can be allowed
to assume responsibility for "hu-
man progress" or be given power
to control the balancing" of ma
tional income.
2. No labor leader" or bunch
of labor leaders can be allowed
to manage business, or to die
tate to a business man how he
shall run his business.
"a business" has to be run
more or less automatically. That
is, some business leader has to
decide its policies, or it becomes
q mess and fails-or is taken
over by the politicians at Wash
ington, which is worse.
Laborers can and should or
ganize. They can and should
bargain with the business leader
who employs them. They can
and should seek orderly legisla-
ton to protect their just rights.
But they can't run the business
as long as it is a business.
I say, let business leaders stick
to their businesses and labor
leaders to their labor. Then all
of us can legislate, and the
courts can decide. This is Amer
icanism.