Evening star., 1938-09-11
~ REAT BRITAIN has far outdis-
tanced the United States in setting
Y up machinery for the satisfactory
settlement of labor disputes. That,

settlement OF labor disputes. That,
at least. is the impression drawn from the
first report of the commission created by
President Roosevelt to study British indus
trial relations.
Upon receiving the report, the President,
without attempting to place responsibility
for industrial strife in this country on
either employers or labor, made it clear
that he hopes the United States will be
able to reach the state of mind which, in
his opinion, has made possible the settle
ment of labor disputes in England with
a minimum of strikes and bad feeling In
making the report public, Mr.. Roosevelt
praised 'the cooperative spirit coupled
with restraint which is shown by those
who represent both employers and en-
ployes in Great Britain"
The report was signed by Robert j. Watt,
American Federation of Labor representa-
indicates that he approved the findings of
fact. In subsequent statement, however,
Mr. Watt indicated he does not believe the
British procedure could be put into effect
In this country any time in the near future.
Declaring the United States still is in 1.-The
horse and buggy stage" so far as labor
relations are concerned, Mr.. Watt attrib-
uted the want of progress to "the Short
sighted bigotry Of many reactionary en-
ployers"
Curb on Right to Strike.
II Mr.. Watt was speaking for the A. F.
OF L., 1t might be assumed that his orpani-
zation does not foresee the evolvement of
the cooperative spirit envisoned by the
PRESIDENT, and is not prepared to accept a
euro on the unrestricted right to strike
oesplte the fact that discouragement of
strikes has been the outstanding achieve
nent OF the British system.
The Committee for Industrial Orpaniza-
uon, headed by John L. Lewis, has not
INDICATED that it approves either the report
or Brltains way of handling labor problems.
When the commission was being organized
MIR. Lewis refused to designate a member
from his group because he feared the in
7estigatlon would be used as a wedge for
amending the Wagner Labor Relations Act
since the publication of the report he has
made it clear that he sees nothing in if +o
.ustny amendment of the act, which has
oeen denounced by employers as one-sided
ana 1t is foregone conclusion that he will
oppose any modification Of industrial rela-
lions in this country that will weaken
iabor's position.
apparently there is nothing In the laws
OF this country that would prevent N.
ADOPTION OF the British system.
one OF the outstanding. developments in
England has been the formation of asso-
clatlons OF employers representing entire
industries for the purpose of negotiating
working agreements with unions Tn tho
past there has been some suggestion that
'uch employer groups in the United States
would stand in violation of the Sherman
Act, which forbids combinations in 70.
stralnt OF trade. That view apparently has
reen discarded, however, because the Coal
Operators Association. representinu tho
soit coal operators, has negotiated apree-
ments with the United Mine Workers on
oehalf OF the major portion of the industry
without giving rise to any complaint that
the Sherman Act had been violated Sjni-
larly, the National Labor Relations Roard
recently authorized collective BARGAINING
negotiations between maritime workers and
an organization of employers on the Pa
ciflc Coast.
Right to Refuse to Bargain.
The British system, generally speakino
also embodies recognition of the right of
employers to refuse to bargain with en-
ployes during an unauthorized strike There
is a possibility that might be treated as an
unfair labor practice by the Labor Board
here, but such contingency is remote. es-
pecially it. as in England, the unions con-
eeded the employers that right.
1t is worthy OF note that the Associated
Press, in recent survey in London. found
that British labor was not quite so enthu-
slastlc about all aspects of the British sys-
tenn as the Presidents commission. Judging
from its report, appeared to be.
English labor is particularly opposed to
the trade disputes and trade union act"
which was passed in 1927 after the British
general strike Designed to prevent the
repetition of such strike, the act was
passed by a Conservative government. an6
repeal If and when it has the political
strength to do so.
among other things, the act declares
"any strike is illegal if it has any object
other than or in addition to the furtherance
OF trade dispute within the trade or in
In tr,1,ir c%~;l,.
ana is strike designed or calculated to
coerce the government either directly or by
hnlcting hardship upon the community"
Powerful Governmental Weapon.
Employers say the government thus is
empowered to halt almost any trade dis
pute' but labor officials contend either
general strikes or sympathy strikes could
oe legal. 1t is significant that while there
nave been number of sympathetic strikes
since passage OF the act the statute has
never been invoked against them and has
never been passed upon bv the courts
For American purposes however, the
BRUSH act and its history is of little con-
sequence, since enactment of such a statute
IN this country is at most remote possb,I-
lty. OF far greater Importance are other
aspects of the British system. most Of
which have not been created by statute
out by the mutual realization that indus
trlal strife is bad for both employer and
employe
With American industrial relations still
IN the formative stage, and still SUFFERING
acutely from excesses on both Sides tho
British nroct;coe ul,;,,,