Evening star., 1942-07-12
Little Steel Wage Case Ruling
Held Important to All Industry
Political as Well as Economic Factors Enter Into
Controversy; WLB Must Consider
Initiation Possibilities
Br Charles e. Ross.

average of $40 a week; they are asking
for s45. They base their claim on five
arguments: ID That the steel worker
has not received his fair share OF the
savings through increased productive
efficiency in the steel industry; CD that
the wages in steel are inadequate when
Judged by standards of health and de-
ceny; (3) that the companies are well
able to pay the increase; (4) that COM
parable wages justify the demand; 90
that the change in the cost OF living
justifies it.
The fact-flnding panel, on which
workers, employers and the public had
one representative each, ruled out the
first two contentious. There was no
persuasive evidence, the panel said, that
wage rates had not kept pace with
productive efficiency in steel over the last
decade. The panel accepted the COM
panies' contention that the workers av-
erape annual income of 81 ,92672 for 1941
was sufficient to meet health and de-
cency" requirements.
Ability to Pay Ruled Out.
The panel found, and the companies
freely conceded, that there was fun
ability to pay the proposed Increase
s23 900 900 in the case of Bethlehem;
s16,5o0,o0O. Republic; s4,7o0,00o, Youngs-
town; S3,300,OO0, Inland The panel
pointed out that on the basis OF the
new excess profits tax rates as tenta-
lively approved by the House Ways and
Means Committee, the proposed increase
would cost the companies only 6 cents
on the dollar-a total OF 81 ,850, ,000-with
the balance being absorbed by dlmin-
lshed taxes.
Ability to pay, however as the board
itself has ruled, cannot of itself be taken
as justification for a wage increase that
would tend to nullify the wage stabillza-
ton program.
It is around the last two points-those
having to do with comparative wages
and the cost of living-that the contro-
versy mainly revolves. Though 1t made
no specific recommendation, the panel
supported the union on both counts
The companies strongly demurred.
The companies state Ito use the Ian
guaee of Bethlehem's brief), that 1T
would be economically unsound to grant
a general wage increase in the steel IN
dustry on the ground that. because OF
steel's spread the work policy. average
weekly earnings of employees IN that IN
dustry are less than those In other IN
.dustries To do so would be to invite
employees in such other industries to
transfer to steel, where they could obtain
: tIie same weekly earnings for less time
worked"
Panel Doubts Imitation Threat.
The union contends that the rise in the
cost Of living-l3.3 per cent-since the
steel wage increase OF April, 194l, war
rants the increase. THE workers are
merely seeking" says Mr.. Murray, ito
obtain wage adjustment which will
correct the injustice created during the
past year.
The companies reply that changes in
the cost of living should not be consld-
cred in fixing wages unless these changes
result in substandard pay. To grant the
$1-a-day demand, the companies say,
would be to threaten the country with
disastrous inf1ationary spiral. Attention
is called by the companies to the Presi-
dents April 27 statement that "our
standard of living will have to come
down." and that "stabilizing the cost OF
living will mean that wages in general
can and should be kept at existing
scales"
Dealing only briefly with imitation, the
panel doubted whether the evidence
sufficiently supported" the companies
contentious. General economic condi-
tions," the panel said, "are the principal
cause of changes in wage rates, rather
than any specific change in particular
industry"
Such, in rough outline, are the con-
f1icting arguments In the steel case. Not
since the captive mines" dispute, which
wrecked the old National Defense Me-
diation Board, have Mr.. Davis and his
colleagues been PVT to such an exacting
| test of their wisdom, or one with such a
| profound bearing on the national econ
! omy. i-