Evening star., 1937-04-04
BY JOHN c. HENRY.

IL union in the steel industry,
claiming to be completely in
~ dependent Of the steel COM
panies and as completely opposed to
the c. l. O., brings into the confused
picture of American labor unioni-
zatiOn a somewhat new complication.
Heretofore, facing each other bel
ligerently, we have had three major
groups of labor organizations-affil
ates of the Committee for Industrial
OrganiZa ton, affiliateS Of the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor and the So
called company unions. True, there
have been variations from these clas-
sificauOns, such as the independent
railroad brotherhoods and company
unions that did not fall entirely
within the stigmatized company
dominated category, but within the
circle of antagonism as manifested
by these three broadly designated
groups there has been no important
intrusion.
The new steel union, taking unto
itself the name Of American Union
of Steel Workers, threatens to be that
intrusion.
Unlike the company unions which
had functioned in virtually all jor
steel enterprises before the C. I. O.
was granted recognition by the in
dustry's leaders, the new union will
charge membership dues and be ad-
ministered by officials not, openly at
least, on the pay rolls of the corpo-
rations. In other words, they will
function, they claim, as an inde-
pendent labor union, 'self-supporting
and unafiliated
Replacing Company Union.
Obviously, ic would be unfair, from
this distance and so close upon the
launching of the new union. to pass
final or unqualified judgment upon
the sincerity of its sponsors. 1t is
not unfair, however, to suggest the
possibility that behind the SPONSOR
ship Of this type of la Dor organization,
which seems clearly to be replacing
the company unions of certain cor
pora tions, there does exist a measure
OF company inspirat ation or control.
After all, management in a general
sense has been brought to realize that
its carefully nurtured company-domi-
mated union plan, frequently termed
'employe representation" has been
widely discredited Always target for
attack by outside unions, the company
dominated unions were placed in legal
jeopardy by the present labor relations
law, section 8 81. specifying their
support by company to be an unfair
labor practice.
With this outside attack becoming
increasingly effective and with the
National Labor Relations Board max
ing clear its temper Of disapproval Of
the company-dominated union, there
would seem to exist a double barreled
motive for that part of management
which is determined to keep its finger
in its labor pie" to seek new instru-
ments. The sudden appearance of
independent unions. such as the
A. U. S. W., mentioned above, may be
the instruments chosen.
For what it Is worth, the c. I. O.
editorial propaganda department offers
the following:
In continental Europe the employ
ers have for decades been in the habit
Of fighting organized labor with what
are called yellow unions
These outfits are distinct from COM
pany unions in that they claim to be
independent of the employers. -
Their main purpose is to under
mine the real union, to scab during
strikes and generally to promote the
employers interests under a pretense
Of independent unionism"
Issue Nears Showdown.
Whatever the true circumstances in
the case under discussion, the whole
issue OF company-dominated unionism
appears definitely headed for a show
Notwithstanding, of course, that the
present Supreme Court or a later one
of Is members. will uphold the validity
of national labor relations law.
That this showdown will bring the
demise of the unions dominated and
financed by management is indicated
by decisions already rendered b. the
National Labor Relations Board
Making clear that it was not his
intent Ito outlaw the so-called COM
pany union when that term is used
to include an independent and un-
hampered organization of employees
confined by their own volition to the
limits of one plant" Senator Wagner,
co-author Of the labor relations law,
under which the board has pronounced
these decisions. emphasized, however,
before the Senate Committee on
Labor that the meaning Of the pro-
posed law was directed most specif-
ically at the dominated
union.
A reprehensible feature of the COM
pany-dominated union, he pointed
out. "is that sometimes by express
provision, but more frequently by i'm
ponderable economic pressure the
employees selection of representatives
is limited to those who work for the
same company. While a worker may
be master of his tools. he seldom
possesses the general knowledge Of
business conditions necessary to deal
upon a parity with employers con-
corning terms of work. Nor can a
man whose very livelihood depends
upon maintaining the favor of his
employer be outspoken and inde-
pendent in representing the interest
of employees.
Bargaining Seen Sham.
"The company dominated union Is
frequently supported in part or in
whole by the employer I cannot
comprehend how people can rise to
the defense of practice so contrary
to American principles as one which
permits the advocates Of one party
to be paid by the other. Collective
bargaining becomes a sham when the
employer sits on both sides OF the
table or pulls the strings behind the
spokesman of those with whom ne is
dealing"
"It is worthy of note" he adds,