Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1941-02-17
BY HUGH S. JOHNSON

MORE fhan-one occasion
" during the World War, when
suggestions were made TO the
late great Samuel GemPefs that
labor should have a voice in in
dustrial management, he always
shook his head - just as he
always shook his head at sug-
gestions of labor's greater par
ticipation in partisan politics.
His reasoning was clear and
may be fairly paraphrased thus:
of labor is a party in man.
agement 1t partakes in one Of
the great responsibilities of
management, namely profits. 1t
Is the business of labor organ
izatiOns to see that workers get
a fair days pay for a fair days
work. In hard times capital
gets no wages. 1t can afford
this for long periods of time.
Labor cannot. We want neither
that responsibility nor that sac
rifice."
A S TO close political affilia-
"A ton. the argument was that
parties must compromise on
vast assortment of issues which
are not the direct concern of
organized labor. That concern
is always to champion the cause
of the workers.
1t must work politically but
II must do so in the manner
that serves II best, II is not
served best by entangling its
fate with any political faith
where often the demand on il
may be everything for the good
of the party" when at times that
everything may be all to the
disadvantage of labor
That always seemed TO me a
very sound philosophy for
labor leader. | have heard Mr.
GomperS expound il several
times. Perhaps ] didn't get il
exactly right. but that certainly
approximates its general direc-
ton.
II seems now to be in the
ashcan. In the defense set-up
organized labor, at least insofar
as il is represented by Sidney
Hillman. demanded and got an
authority over industry in con-
troll Of war production (which
is all production on par with
industrial management, at least
insofar as it is represented by
Mr. Knudsen.
Neither of these good men is
completely representative of his
group. but this strange duumvi-
rate control was certainly in
tended to signify at least partial
labor management of industry.
As Mr.. FRANK KENT has
"A pointed out, there are many
signs in this direction and al
most none in any contrary di-
reciion
Mr.. Phillip Murray. head Of
ClO. has proposed plan. where
by the sadly lacking organiza-
ton of all out A IN err can
industrial mobilization shall be
supplied by topside committee
control of whole industries
committees in which labor and
management shall he equally
represented in more or less die
tatorial administration of each
regimented industry.
There is no doubt that the
selection of organized labor'S
man. Mr.. Winant. as ambassa-
dor TO Great Britain was con-
ceSSion to the belief that Britain
is headed even faster than We
toward administrative control Of
industry by ganiz ed labor,
with management having per-
haps a secondary voice.
In this arrangement we are
10 have. in a d d ition 10 an
ambassador TO Britain, an n
dustralist as minister. but mis-
position. unlike the equality in
control supposed TO exist as be-
tween Mr.. Knudsen and Mr..
Hillman. is to be distinctly sec
ond fiddle.
THERE are many other indi-
Il cations of this trend, not
the least of which is the earn
ing reports of industrial COM
panies for 1910 which show that
taxes are already taking about
two-thirds of all industrial earn
inCS, in some cases closely
crowding payrolls as the biggest
slice of gross income.
This is the result before the
vast prospective increases in
new corporation war taxes are
applied.
In our march toward the con-
dition of complete Specialization
of our economy where, exactly
as in Italy. Germany and Rus
STA, nobody works for himself,
everybody works for the state,
and the state is a single man
or a single dominant group. 1T
is later than you think" Some
nations arrive at the hateful
effect by one path, some by an