Evening star., 1942-10-18
Dangerous Precedent

Breaking sharply away from it's
cost-of-living wage increase formula
for the first time, the War Labor
Board has granted a conditional ST.
a-day pay advance to 10000 copper,
lead and zinc miners in Utah and
Idaho. And, in so doing, the board
has established a precedent which
seems to hold serious implications for
the future.
This action was not taken because
tie board wanted to bestow any spe-
clal Iavors c.l the miners, or because
l. wanted to discard it's cost-of living
formula. On the contrary, it wss in
tended to oeal with a labor shortage
IN the mines which, according to the
board, has resulted in critical
shortage in the mining of non-fer-
rous metals, particularly copper"
Presumably, the board believes that
this labor shortage cannot be over
come without offering special induce
ments in the form of wage increases.
In other words. it is an expedient
solution applied to a practical prob
lem in the hope that workers will be
attracted to the mines.
If the problem presented in the
case of non-ferrous metals could be
treated as separate and apart from
the war labor problem as a whole
it would be easier to Justify the posi-
ton taken by the board But it is
difficult to believe that this can be
done. BY way of illustration, it
might be pointed out that the 10000
miners covered by the boards order
are members of the International
Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers, CIO. But they constitute
small minority of the industry.
There are 10000 workers in non-fer-
rous mines who are not covered by
this decision. Is it to be supposed
for a moment that the board can
grant a $1-a-day increase to the
union members and withhold it from
the others? Unless there is to be the
grossest discrimination, it is obvious
that this cannot be done.
And what about workers in other
industries-farm workers, for ex-
ample? Like the miners, they have
left their normal occupations in
large numbers to take better-paying
JOBS in war industries. Are they to
be induced to return to the farms
by paying them the approximate
equivalent of what they can earn in
war plants, or are they to be required
to work the farms without any spe-
cial wage inducement? Certainly,
the latter course would be wholly un-
fair to farm labor, while the former,
if generally followed, would nullify
any attempt at stabilizinig living
costs
In the past, employers have been
severely criticized for boosting wages
to hold employees and attract new
workers to their plants. They we're
accused of labor pirating. Yet there
is little essential difference between
what these employers were doing and
what the board now proposes to do.
Is it wise for the Government to re-
sort to tactics which it has con-
demned in private industry as harm
full to the war program? Can this
possibly lead to any real solution of
the problem?
Finally, what is to become of the
semblance of order which the board
has been able to bring into the labor
picture through the application of
it's Little Steel formula? If the for
nlula is to be preached in this case,
it very probably will have to be
preached in others. And that, in the
language of the minority opinion,
will only lead to chaos, economic or
otherwise