Evening star., 1940-03-11

& &M - eiio4 seo ~
with political
Charles G. Ross. dynamite
The administration, it is clear,
would have been we'll advised to
take the play away from the opposi-
ton in the last regular session of
Congress and put through some
moderate amendments. 1t chose,
instead, to resist all change with
the result that it is now faced with
proposals which Representatives
Healey and Murdock. the dissenting
two on the Smith committee, de-
clare would cut the heart out of the
Wagner Act.
What precisely should be done
about the Wagner Act is a question
on which any fair minded person,
desiring square deal for both labor
and the employer. must hesitate to
express a dogmatic judgment. For
the issues involved in the effort to
amend the act are not simple, and
any realistic discussion of them
must get eventually into the whole
difficult problem of labor relations.
How difficult this is-how far
apart are still the concepts of Or
ganized labor and of large Sec
ton of capital-may be seen by
comparing the reactions of the c.
| I. O. leaders and of the National
Chamber of Commerce to the Smith
| proposals.
To the C. I. o. the amendments
are the work of tories hungry for
| the slaughter of the labor law" To
the Chamber of Commerce they are
/ improvements which would prevent
many of the tyrannies Of the pres
ent law" but which still do no, go
far enough.
Truth Between Two Extremes.
In the view of most of US the truth
probably lies somewhere between
these two extremes.
Certainly the act is not perfect
Certainly the administration of 1t
has left great deal to be desired.
Certainly, as I think, it should he
changed. as the majority proposes.
to protect in specific terms the en-
ployer's constitutional right of free
speech. Doubtless there are other
clarifying changes that ought to
be made.
Congress, however should think
long and hard-and it will-before
adopting the sweeping revision of
the act proposed by the majority Of
the Smith Committee. The act
rhould be given chance. Though
was passed in July, 1885. 1t Is
really only since April, 1887, or
less than three years ago, that it
has been in effective operation. Un-
til the Supreme Court affirmed it on
the latter date it was under cloud
of doubt as to its constitutionality-
in a sense a dead letter.
1t must be remembered that the
law was passed by Congress to af-
firm and put into effect consti-
tutional right of labor-that of COL
.ective bargaining without inte.fer-
ence by the employer It was passed
in response to popular feeling that
some measure was required to give
labor a parity of opportunity with
the employer at the bargaining table
The public felt that there was an
advantage in favor of the employer
that needed to be overcome 1t is
greatly to be doubted that the mis-
takes which have unquestionablv
been made in the administration of
the act have turned public senti-
ment against the act itself.
Boards Task Perplexing.
There is, at any rate, no sound
reason why they should have done
so. Some of the administrative
boards mistakes have been due to
overzealousneSs, some to the fact
that it had to create far-reaching
organization from the ground up
The boards task, perplexing enough
in any case, has been made more
difficult by the criticism showered
upon it, for different reasons, by
employers and by the two embat-
tied factions of organized labor.
But the shortcomings in adminis-
tration. whatever they may be and
whatever the cause, can and should
be remedied without any crippling
Of the act. 1t ought to be given a
fair trial
Against the criticism of the board,
the fact might be cited that out of
10 of its cases that have been re-
viewed by the Supreme Court the
decisions of the board have been
upheld completely in Is, upheld with
notifications in 2 and reversed in
only 2. Says w. M. LeiserSon, the
new board member whose work ap-
pears to have met with general ap-
proval: Il do not know of any
other Government agency that has
had better record of approval of
its work by the higher courts"
If the act should be weakened,
if the rights granted to labor by
Congress and validated by the SUI
preme Court should now be dimin-
ished or even appear to be dimin-
ished, the result could only be to
leave labor smarting under a sense
of injustice and exacerbate the rela-
tions OF labor and capital-a condi-
ton from which labor, capital and
the whole public would suffer.
The guess of this writer is that
Congress will decide-as it should
that the Smith amendments, taken
as a whole. are hostile to the pur-
poses of the act and should be
severely toned down.