The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-09-12

l WaSQ1uBJOu CaI see is another long g-drawn-out series of tiring meetings, ending in stale mate or 8 complete waShout.
 The differences of opinion, the in- ternal battles and bicker1ngs of both the A. F. of L. and o. I. o. organi. zations are so bitter that any thought of organic unity of the two big groups must take into considera. ton the fact that these feuds will most certainly continue.
 Jurisdictional strikes between unions within the A. F. of L. are probably just as numerous as juris- dictional strikes between A. F. of l. and c. I. o. unions, and any theo- retical peace between the parent organizations will not solve those local jurisdictional battles. A. F of L., the older of the two groups has had these jurisdictional scraps for years and has never been able to do anything about them.
 How, then, can peace with the c. I. O. heal these sores unless A. F. of L. is willing to give up its ideas of craft unions? Expecting A. F. of L. to give up that Is like asking the moon to go into eclipse every Wednesday at midnight. It can't be done.
 WHAT BENEFITS ACCRUE?
 Taking 8 cold -blooded look at this situation, what is there to be gained by this much sought after organic unity in the labor movement aside from the beauti- full generalization that peace is wonderful? In some mysterious way 1t is thought that peace be- t---sen A. F. of L. and c. I. o. will help win the war. But how?
 It probably wouldn't reduce the total number of jurisdictional dis putes.
 It might reduce the old head aches of employers hiring from both groups. but 1t might give them new ones.
 It might end the issuing of nasty statements by c. I. O. President Phil Murray against A. F. of L.. President Bill Green, and vice versa, but 1t wouldn't stop the fulminations of John L. Lewis.
 It wouldn't reduce the number of local unions much, if any.
 It wouldn't reduce the number of walking delegates or business agents.
 It wouldn't reduce the number of labor representatives on War Labor Board of any of the advis- ory groups for the War Produc- ton Board or the War Manpower Commission.
 It wouldn't even unify the labor movement.
 The A. F. of L. now claims about 5.6 million members, the c. I. O. 5.5 million. Outside of these two major organizations are the million or more members of the railroad brotherhoods and the million or more members of the independent unions such as the telephone a n communications unions and the Mechanics Educa- tional Society of America.
 REAL LABOR PARTY LOOMING
 If you are going to talk about a unified labor movement you must take into consideration all these groups.
 But suppose by some miracle all these clements could be brought together and united la bor front of some 13 million mem bers, representing approximately a fourth of all the working people of the country, could be wrapped up in a neat package.
 If any such amalgamation were achieved, a lot of the people who are now hollering for labor peace and "why don't they quit f1ghtin' each other and get together!" would be screaming against it.
 For, labor unity in the United States might mean the formation of a real labor party that could conceivably dominate the Ameri- can political scene.
 Ike last few weeks have seen the demands of organized labor for larger voice in management of the war effort repeated with aggravating vehemence. A. F. of L. and c. I. O. want as much voice in controlling the American war effort as British labor has in the control of the British war effort. The reason British labor has such a loud voice is that in Great Brit ain there Is a Labor Party which elects members to Parliament and has its ministers in the cabinet.