Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1935-02-23
Just Jockeying?

The Senate administration leaders
have sent the 81 $50. 900 900 work-relief
bill back to the appropriations Com
mittee for the sole purpose of getting
rid, if they can. of the McCarran
prevailing wage" amendment. Hav-
ing been defeated in wide-open Sen
ate fight on this amendment, with
the danger of later concurrence in
that amendment by the House, another
tack has been decided upon.
The word has been passed that the
Senate committee is to report out, in
place of the work-relief bill sent to
the Senate by the House, bill pro-
viding merely for a continuance of
direct relief. with the total appropria-
ton cut to $780, 200, 900 or to $780,
100000. Without the provision for
work relief, it is argued, there would
be no reason for adoption of pre-
vailing wage" amendment. The bill
could be passed by the Senate and re-
turned to the House.
The parliamentary situation which
would arise then has plenty OF pos
sibilities, however. In the conference
which would enSue between the two
houses there would be before the COM
mittee representing the House and Sen
ate the House bill and the House bill as
amended by the Senate, generally
spoken of as the Senate bill If the
House insisted strongly enough, it
could prevail upon the Senate to &C
cept the original House bill, or GER
tainly the provision for work-relief
projects with the additional appro-
priation. There would, of course, be
no prevailing wage" amendment. A
conference committee is not permit
ted to write anything into bill which
has not been included by the House
or the Senate when they passed on
the measure.
Either it is the intention of the
administration to ditch the work
relief plan and stick by direct relief
the dole-or it is its purpose to do
by indirection and maneuvering that
which it has been unable to do d.
rectly, pass a work-relief bill without
the prevailing wage amendment. II
the administration plans to abandon
its work-relief program it can make
that entirely clear. If 1t does not do
SO, then the opponents of the "Secur-
ity wage payment, the payment on
an average of $50 a month to men
who work on relief projects, might as
well consider themselves on notice
that the administration is set to &C
complish it's will by parliamentary
maneuvering.
There has been a philosophy in
certain quarters in this country which
holds that wages of labor must come
down before prosperity can return. 1t
is philosophy Of selfishness. The
payment by the Government of an
average monthly wage of $50 to
100000 workers on relief projects
will have the effect of bringing lower
wages to labor in private industry. 1t
Is weapon to beat down wage scales
that have been built up through years
of striving by labor. Now, when it is
proposed to pay the prevailing wage"
the usual wage paid by private in
dustry for labor; on these Work-relief
projects, howl goes up that men will
not go back to private industry under
such conditions but will stick to their.
Government jobs. The Government
is in position to regulate this, even
II it were true. 1t can give men
work for three days a week at the pre-
vailing wages, and thereby reduce
their earnings per week far below
what they would receive on a private
job. Or it can cut of Government
jobs.
Those who hold to this school of
thought, that wages must come down,
are now declaring that the President
must be upheld in this matter of
low wage payment on relief projects.
They are hiding behind a Chief Ex-
ecutive who has been regarded as
unusually friendly to labor.