Evening star., 1939-07-07

fronted with the fact that although
collective bargaining has been
granted by the employer. although
contracts have been signed with
those who profess to have ma
jority, there is strife and cOntro-
versy and stoppage of production.
Whose responsibility is it? Clearly
not the employers. Clearly also,
each of the two rival unions has
legal right to call strike and fight
the other, while the employer with
billions of capital invested, the
employees with millions of dollars
of weekly pay roll and the public
with countless businesses and re-
lated industries affected must pay
the penalty.
The purpose of the Wagner Act
was to prevent labor disputes by CIV
ing workers the right to collective
bargaining. Senator Wagner Wis
ualized Labor Board that would be
active in preventing strikes. The
law which he sponsored gives the
board the right on its own initiative
to call an election and determine
who is the proper bargaining
agent. Belatedly the board has be-
gun an investigation, but has not
ordered any election. Yet for sew
eral weeks the situation has been
brewing between the rival factions
and nothing has been done by the
board to certify just which union
the employer should deal with as
the representative of the majority
or the minority, as the case may be.
Power Not Used.
The purpose of the trainers of the
law was to give the board discre-
ton so that of its own motion it
could order an election. This power
has never been exercised unless the
initiative came from the employe
elections. The employer is expected
to be given some rights now to petit
ton for an election, but this is to
come through change in the rules
and can be subtracted overnight by
another change in the rules.
II is no reflection on the board
that it has failed to order elections
on its own motion. 1t fears becom-
ing involved in the dispute as a par
tisal of one union or the other, and
hence stays out altogether. If the
Wagner law were amended to make
1t mandatory on the Labor Board to
call elections, the moment there is
dispute as to the bargaining agent,
no criticism could be directed against
the board for doing what it would
be commanded to do by law.
The argument against granting
this power to call elections Is that
one side or the other isn't ready.
Yet, even if that be the case and
the weaker side loses, as is inevitable,
there is nothing to prevent the
weaker elements from getting men,
bers in the remaining months of the
year and then, in the subsequent
elections, turning the tables.
No Guarantee Beyond Year.
No elections can guarantee
status beyond a year anyway if the
workers, who usually operate on
yearly contracts, wish to change
their bargaining agents. 1t may be
difficult to dislodge the party in
power" but under a democratic sys-
tenn it can be done. To entrench
one side or the other and make it
difficult for free election to be
called which shall express the un-
trammeled wishes of the workers is
not to advance the cause of union
ization. but to embody a system of
dictatorship in which a few individ-
uals maintain themselves in power
as officers and the rank and file has
little to say.
To safeguard future elections con-
Quoted by the Labor Board and to
require them to be held periodically
means a simple amendment to the
Wagner law. To require, also that
there be no stoppage of work pend
ing the conduct and supervision of
the election by the Labor Board is
also a provision that could readily
be included.
Limitations on the strike idea have
been embodied recently in State laws
without effect because they are
merely short time limits, but when
related to a definite means of find
ing out who is the proper bargaining
agent they would find more public
support.
(Reproduction Rights Reserved)