Evening star., 1938-05-06

more extensively than it did in
1882. But when it comes to apprais-
ing the effects of a meeting of busi-
ness men in so far as measuring
progress toward desired result is con-
cerned, the one thing that is usually
lacking Is a practical program of get
ting the result sought.
Thus the Wagner Labor Act is
case in point. Many of the speeches
denouncing the labor board or the act
contain in them some justifiable as
sertions but. on the other hand. it is
a strange thing that no labor leader
was on the program. Nor was there
any representative of the National
Labor Board present to refute the
criticisms. Hence many of the dele
gates went away with a one-sided i'm
preston of the labor board contro-
versy which doubtless many Of them
had before the meeting began.
AS for the labor board itself, the
speeches of criticism run to two points
the board is biased and unfair to
employers or else it is provoking more
and more labor strife instead of work
ing for labor peace.
Act Itself Is Ones
What many of the critics of the
board fail to understand is that the
Wagner Act is a one e-sided affair to
begin with in the sense that it is a
measure concerned solely with the
rights Of the employees. The board
merely interprets and enforces the law
as it stands. Judging by the high per-
centage of cases in which it has been
sustained by the courts. the board has
interpreted the law within the scope
Of the congressional mandate
Mistakes in procedure have been
made by the boards trial examiners
and some serious mistakes in judg-
ment. indicating an economic or
social bias which ignores impartiality
in q strictly judicial sense. But these
mistakes are subject to correction by
the Federal courts and already there
are signs that the Supreme Court will
they are transgressed by these quasi
judicial boards and commissions.
Act Should BE Target.
Attacks on the board may be
natural outgrowth of the bitterness of
feeling engendered by the numerous
decisions that have been renderd, but
the real bombardment should be turned
on the act and not on the board.
Many persons have the misconception
that the law permits the board to act
as conciliator. 1t is really the legal
representative of the labor unions of
the United States in matters of COL
lective bargaining or unionization. 1t
has no power to correct abuses as
between organizers and non-union
workmen or as between employers
and employees. The sad part of it is
that there are representatives of the
Labor Board throughout the country
who know they are being used as levers
in strike situations and often in the
midst of negotiations, but they are
poverless to reject requests for cleo
tions or Investigations when filed by
workers or their organizations, espe-
eially when a prima facie case of law
violation has been made
1t has been reported that even
President Roosevelt told callers re-
Gently that he realized that the Wagner
Act needs amendment. The employers
want it. Some labor leaders want it.
Then why isn't it done? Simply be-
cause labor's strength in Congress is
such that an effort to amend would
get but a handful of votes unless the
labor unions agreed in advance to the
changes.
Opposed as is the American Fedora
ton of Labor. for instance, to the
present boards decisions in certain
cases and to some provisions of the
present law. nobody in the A. F. of L.
will ever let the influence of the ma
tional organization be used to break
down the act. Business men should
know that little can be accomplished
by merely denouncing the Wagner
Act or the board, although the agita-
tion no doubt has its educational fea-
lures in emphasizing abuses that are
being practiced in the name of gov
ernmental authority. What can be
accomplished toward revision of the
law depends on cooperation between
fair minded business leaders and fair
minded labor leaders
This simple proposition appears to
have been recognized by one of the
outstanding men Of the business world,
Lewis E. Pierson, chairman of the
board OF the Irving Trust Co. of New