Evening star., 1943-04-17
AFL Statement

AFL Statement
| The procedure followed by the
American Federation of Labor men,
bers of the War Labor Board in max
ing known their opposition to the
Presidents recent "hold the line"
Stabilization order is one which
merits full public approval.
Their objections to the order were
set forth in concurring opinion in
the Universal Atlas Cement Com
pany case, in which the board grant,
ed a pay increase within the limits
| of the little steel formula. A WLB
| panel had recommended a greater
| increase to rectify Inequalities, but
the full board decided that this was
not permissible under the executive
order and the AF'L members agreed
with this Interpretation. Thus, in
| effect, these labor members indicate
their intention to remain within the
| framework of the board and to re-
| spect its decisions, while reserving
the right to protest against enforce
ment of policy which left the board
with no alternative but to render a
decision that was distasteful to Or
ganized workers. To say the least,
this is an attitude which is in well
come contrast to the conduct of those
labor members who walked out" on
the old National Defense Mediation
Board when that agency decided
against John L. Lewis in the captive
coal mine case.
In the concurring opinion, the
labor members took exception to the
Presidents order on two main
grounds. First, they contended, the
order freezes" inequities in the pay
structure and has greatly weakened
the board as an effective instrument
tality for maintaining industrial
peace by taking away from it the
power to grant wage increases to
eliminate gross inequities and to aid
in the more effective prosecution of
the war" This is contention which
is not without factual basis. Un-
doubtedly the Presidents order will
freeze inequalities in pay, in the
sense that some workers can no
| longer receive pay increases COM
| parable to those the board had
granted in earlier cases, and if in
dustrial peace is to be had only
through the granting of higher
wages, it may be that the board has
been weakened in this respect.
But it is necessary to balance these
disadvantages against the larger OBJ
jective of calling a halt to the race
between prices and wages. Under the
policies which the board has been
following, and with $1,000 cases
pending before that agency, it was
clear that it would be a long time
before there would be any end to
wage advances. This, in turn, was
certain to bring higher and higher
prices. 1t was to put stop to this
competition that the presidential
restraint was laid on the board, and,
with increases still permitted within
the range of the little steel formula
and to lift substandard wages, it is
difficult to conclude that this is too
much of sacrifice to ask of labor.
The other objection raised by the
AFL members was that Mr.. Roose-
velts order amounted to "fagrant
violation" of the no-strike agree
| ment. This is based on the claim
that at the time the pledge was given
the President agreed to the submis-
sion of all labor disputes, including
wage disputes, to the board, where
they would be settled by majority
vote OF labor, industry and public
members. On this statement of the
facts, it may be possible to make out
some sort of case for breach of agree
ment, but to do SO it is necessary to
argue that the executive branch of
the Government is without power to
determine the policies of it's own
agent-a position which would not
be easy to justify on any reasonable
ground. If this matter narroWs
down to question of whether the
President or the War Labor Board
has the final word in determining
the administrations wage policy it
can hardly be doubted that the Presi-
dent, and not the board, will have to
prevail.