Evening star., 1941-11-01
Study in Contrasts

| 1ue ulOSI StIlkIuS aspect OF Lne
Army's seizure of the Bendix, N. j.,
plant of Air Associates, Inc, is the
contrast that 1t reflects between gov
ernmental policy in dealing with a
strong union on the one hand, and
an employer or small group of nom
union workers on the other.
In the Bendix case, there is little
doubt that the employer was STALL
ing" in giving effect to the strike
settlement recommendations of the
National Defense Mediation Board,
although he had put himself on
| record as accepting them. At the
same time, however, there are GER
tain facts in this case which are not
satisfactorily explained by charge
Of recalcitrance on the part of the
employer.
One of these is that the strike was
not successful in the sense of being
able to shut down the plant. 1t is
evident that a majority of the en-
ployes were not in sympathy with
the strike and the company was able
to hire men to replace those who
walked out. In the face of this strike
failure, the State c. I. o. council re-
sorted to the thoroughly reprehensi-
BILE device of mass picketing-a polite
term for mob violence-and finally
succeeded in preventing workers from
entering the factory after several
thousand pickets, who we're not en-
ployes of Air Associates, had been
thrown around the gates.
This was followed by several days
of Ineffective negotiations, and then
Richard T. Frankensteen, director of
aviation for the C. I. o. United Auto
mobile Workers, threatened to call a
sympathy strike of 100000 workers in
major aircraft factories to force the
Government to compel acceptance by
Air Associates of the Mediation
Boards recommendations. This
threat brought prompt action in the
form of the dispatch of 2,10O troops
to the plant-not to cope with the
employer but with several hundred
non-Striking workers who had fool
ishly resorted to violent tactics to
prevent the return of the strikers.
Under the circumstances, it seems
clear that the strikers could not have
been restored to their Jobs without
serious violence except under the
protection of the Army, and to that
extent the use Of troops was justified.
But, despite this consideration, there
is no escaping the inference that the
prime factor in the Governments de-
cision to seize the plant was Mr..
Frankensteen's threat to use what
he called the unions "large-scale eco
nomic strength" to force settlement
of the case on terms favorable to the
CLIO.
Certainly, whatever the merits Of
the action taken in the Air Associates
case, it stands in sorry contrast to the
course followed by the administration
in the face of John L. Lewis open
defiance of the President and of the
Mediation Boards recommendation
in the captive coal mine strike.
Commenting on the Air Associates
case, William H. Davis, chairman of
the Mediation Board, said the effec-
tivenesS of that agency would be un-
dermined "if the management were
permitted to Withhold or defer REIN
statement (of the strikers) in any de-
gree" But Mr.. Davis had nothing to
say with respect to Mr.. Lewis defi-
ance of the boards recommendations
and his denunciation of the boards
handling of the coal case.
The implications Of this incon-
sistency are disconcerting, to say the
least.