Evening star., 1937-10-29

ments issued to the press necessarily
must proclaim.
The practical problem is how 10
bring about merger which results IN
the minimum amount of friction DOWN
the line. When corporations OF equai
nrestige or assets get together, the TASK
is ALWAYS to find how to satisfy the top
executives as we'll as the lesser ones.
The C. I. o. local union executives are
leath to give up their jobs to A. r. OF
I, men and vice versa. To a remark
able degree labor union and po-
litical party are identical. The vested
interest or bureaucracy idea prevails
In both. Men who have hitherto
worked at their union jobs and VINO
now are relieved from daily duty and
can sit in Offices and avoid manual
labor are not eager to go back to physl-
cal toll if they can spare themselves
that ordeal.
Yet if there is to be merger OF
unions. something has to be done
about all the officers Of the various
unions who are on salaried basis ana
something must be done for those VINO
keep their regular jobs but who IN ad-
dition enjoy the prominence OF labor
union Office.
Professional Organizers.
Then there are the professional
organizers who do not want to lose
their opportunities for money-maklng.
They thrive on conflict between unions
because their membership drives then
become more important than II the
question of affiliation is no longer an
issue.
So far as top leadership is con-
rerned, the question has to be settled
as to whether William Green or John
Lewis is to be the head of the Nation S
merged labor organizations. 1t Is not
q question of personalities either, Tor
MIR. Green has deep devotion to the
fundamental principle of the craft
union organization, whilst Mr.. Lewis
feels that better progress can be mace
for the cause of the worker II INDUS
trial or vertical unions are the order
of the day.
Again and again in the past when
the debate on the various types OF
Union organization has been carried
on among labor leaders, 1t has been
asserted that there were ways OF recon-
cling the two ideas under the same
single Jurisdiction and the records are
full of proposals of one kind or an
other looking toward that end. 1t
not too much to say that If the men
who control the A. F. of L. and the
C. I. o.. respectively, really want to
get together they can find a satlsfac-
tory formula within "a hours.
Why the Delay?
Why then is there delay and charges
and counter-charges of ''stalling?" 1t
is because the politics of the peace ne
eotiations has not yet settled down or
crystallized.
There are some observers who think
the whole peace negotiation Is sort
of strategy. One theory is that the A.
r. of L. was getting ready for real
drive on the c. I. o. and was prepar-
ing to unloose its friends in Congress
for a real investigation by Senate
committee as to how the c. I. o. has
spent its funds. The c. I. O., 1t might
be inferred, felt that the way to check
mate such a drive was to insist on
peace negotiations so that the public
might have better understanding OF
the issues. The c. I. o. stood to gain
by the publicity and possibly by avert
ing the strong attack by the A. F. OF
L. at a time when membership drives
are going full steam ahead.
AS for the A. F. of L., it has been
IN the position of holding the door
open for the c. I. o. to come in and
1t could not very well decline to ne
rotiate. If there is no better desire
for peace than to make record before
the public of anxiety for peace, then
q few statements of policy exchanged
will cover the issue and the fight
will go on.
But another force-stronger than
either c. I. o. or A. F. of l.. or both