Evening star., 1936-07-26

SIrlke DeSdn 10 lose lbS eIIecClVeneSS
and withdrawal of the amalgamated
really broke its back. On January 8,
1920, it was called off.
Charges and counter charges by
leaders of industry and labor we're
numerous, most of them identical with
accusations being exchanged in the
present hostilities. Several "impar-
tial" investigations of the 1919 strike
were conducted, one by the. United
States Senate and second by the
Interchurch World Movement.
Church Group Reports.
The latter was interesting in its con-
clusions as to why the strike failed.
The conclusions. drafted by a COM
mittee headed by Bishop Mcconnell
of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
follow:
"(a) The strike-breaking methods of
the steel companies and their effective
mobilization of public opinion against
the strikers -" and by the suppress
sion of civil rights.
"(b) The hostility Of the press
giving biased and colored news and
the silence of both press and pulpit
on the actual questions Of justice in
volved.
"(c) Public fear of a general labor
war &" together with labor's failure
to formulate and explain its purposes
with regard to public service.
"(d) The prevailing prejudice
-" against the foreigners who con-
stituted the overwhelming number
of the strikers
down as failure on the whole and Or
ganiZation in the steel industry
dropped off to a low point, improve
ments in hours. wages and general
working conditions did make an ap-
pearance.
N. r. A. Starts New Phase.
In 1888, came the national indus
trial recovery act and a new phase
of employer-employe relationships.
Company unions, in which the en-
tire labor set-up is concentrated with
in single plant and has no ties with
labor on the outside. had their be-
ginning in the steel industry in 1904
and were in operation in numerous
plants during the 1919 strike 1t was
in 1888, however. that employers
lavished upon the company union plan
an encouragement that was almost
hysterical.
Citing the plan of the Bethlehem
Steel Corp, most thoroughly salts
factory Of all such unions, as an ex-
ample. representatives of the steel
industry succeeded in shaping the
steel code so that company unions
could stand as the vehicle of collec-
tive bargaining specified in section z
la) of the N. I. r. A.
With the demise of the N. r. A. the
steel industry continued its encourage
ment Of the company union and has
placed great significance in the in
creasingly high percentage of employe
membership reflected in the regu-
lar elections. On July l of this year,
for instance, the American Iron and
Steel Institute announces that 92.1
per cent of eligible employees in 80
steel companies had voted at recent
elections. In 1885 this percentage
was 80 and in 1884 it was IS.
Unfortunately, only one Govern
ment-supervised election to determine
union preference ever was held in
the steel industry, that showing
237-to-l34 preference for an outside
union among production employees of
the West Virginia Rail Co. at Hunt
ington. The poll was taken under di-
rection of the Steel Labor Relations
Board in September, 1884. Court ac-.
ton by the steel companies blocked
further elections.
Outside Unions Opposed.
As in all phases of the labor-in-
dustry controversy, the issue Of COM
pany VS.. outside unions has two clear
ly-drawn sides.
The industry hangs much of the
issue on that of open vs. closed shops,
that the vesting of bargain
ing rights in an outside union would
force all employees into such union or
leave them without representation.
Along with this point, much stress is
laid on the fact that "toll' in the
form of dues would be demanded by
the outside union, whereas no such
tax is required by the company union.
Emphasis also is placed on the
claim that company union officials, al
ways employees of the company, are
in better position to know the needs
of their members than are repre-
sentatives of outside labor.
Labor contends, among other
things, that no bargaining independ-
ence exists when company union
officials must protect their jobs dur
ing any negotiations.
But, good or bad, the company
union system furnishes the setting for
the present effort to bring outside
organization into the steel industry.
This second major phase of the
steel-labor engagement has a Begin
ming in the 1884 convention of the
American Federation of Labor at San
Francisco. The convention specified
that the federation should manage,
promote and conduct a campaign of
in the iron and steel
In 1885, at Atlantic City.
the instructions were renewed as the
executive council reported reasons for
inaction during the preceding u
Lewis Steps In.
BY this time, however. bushy haired
and belligerent John L. Lewis, whose
United Mine Workers had been lifted
to a new peak Of power and enroll
ment, was determined that the at
tempt should be made and that the
rather than craft union
principle should be applied.
To lend authority to his determine
tion, Lewis had headed formation of
the Committee for Industrial Organi-
zation in November, 1885, for the pur-
pose Of promoting unionism 'in mass
production and other industries on an
industrial basis" Eight A. r. of L.
lnions, or their officials, rallied to the
Lewis cause at its inception. Since
;hen four others have joined, with the
,otal membership now estimated at
close to l.25O. 600. or about one-third