Evening star., 1939-04-09

DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH.
A. P. Photo
more intense, the criticism grew louder
and harsher. The A. F. of L. joined
in denunciation Of the agency as unfair
and partisan, ruling in favor of the
c. I. o. in jurisdictional disputes. AS
though to make it unanimous. the c. I.
o. let out one or two blasts against the
board, charging that the law had been
misinterpreted In favor of craft unions.
In the hearings that are shortly to
begin it will all be repeated. Both busi-
ness and labor are preparing to state
the case against the board, with the
board itself on the defensive, and the
c. I. o. opposed to any basic changes
In the act. In view of all this it Is
interesting to look at an analysis of the
labor board and its methods that mem
bers of the board themselves regard as
the most objective and impartial study
which has yet been made.
Study by Prof. Brooks.
This is unions Of Their Own Choos-
ing" by Prof Robert r. r. Brooks of
Williams College. 1t is published by the
Yale University Press. Brooks Is an
economist who was at one time on the
Yale faculty. An earlier book, When
Labor Organizes" was widely praised,
and particularly for Its impartiality, by
such widely divergent publications as
the Wall Street Journal and the New
Masses.
the Wagner Act-to foster the growth Of
independent trade unions-the board has
acted as fairly as any human agency
could act, Brooks finds. And he but
tresses his findings with very careful
study of the work of the embattled board.
Many critics fail to recognize, Brooks i'm
plies, that the fundamental task set out
by the act is to protect trade unions in
their growth and in their functioning.
And he adds that these same critics
confuse the issue when they insist that
the board should prevent acts Of coercion
and violence on the part Of trade unions.
There are police statutes to prevent the
kind of coercion that is most frequently
complained of, Brooks points out. He
calls attention, too, to the fact that those
who clamor most loudly against Gov
ernment interference In business are
most often those who would give the
board, or some equivalent Federal
agency, greatly enlarged powers to police
all the trade unions in the country.
Sees Democracy Served.
It is not that Prof. Brooks fails to
recognize the dangers inherent in ex-
tending the Federal power and enlarg-
ing the army Of beaureaucracy. It is
precisely because he is aware of the way
in which such powers could be abused
that he is inclined to look favorably on
the board and the work it is doing under
the act. Trade unions, in Brooks view,
represent an extension of the principles
of democracy looking toward self
government in industry. Therefore in
protecting the rights of independent
unions, the board is serving the cause Of
democracy. But if such a board were
empowered to police industrial relations
throughout the country, then 1t might
readily become anti-democratic.
Above all, Brooks cautions, patience is
necessary. Some day it may be possible
under collective bargaining to arrive at
industrial policies 50 uniform and wide-
spread in scope as to approach the kind
of economic planning that is involved In
compulsory arbitration.
But collective bargaining" he says,
"is in its infancy in this country. Man.
agement and labor are just beginning to
develop methods of dealing with each
other. They are far from the adoption
of uniform policies leading toward indus
trial equity and peace. To propose to
leap from the present stage of industrial
relations to their probable ultimate con-
clusions is to impose regulations from
above without adequate preparation
from below. Such regulation is likely
to be arbitrary, rigid and unenforceable
When collective bargaining on .
democratic basis has developed sum.
ciently to render compulsory arbitration