The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-03-31

| the formula on the grounds that It would grant greater increases to higher paid workers than to lower paid workers and would provide greater distortions and inequities in the national wage picture.
 When the Stabilization Law was passed and the president issued his , Executive Order 9250 in October l942, the Steelworkers assumed that the presidents seven point Stabiliza- tion program of the previous April would be carried out in full, mean ing that profits, prices, the cost of living and salaries would be stab- ! ilized as well as wages. Also, they assumed that congress would enact realistic tax program.
 It is the contention of the Steel workers that congress did not carry out its part of the seven point pro gram. It refused to put a 5000 limit on salaries. It did not provide rigidity of farm prices that would keep down the cost of living. Its tax program provided first for the Ruml plan which gave tax wind fall to the wealthy and second for carryback return of corporation taxes giving two-year guarantee of profits whenever operations of the steel companies should drop to a break-even point or below. AVERAGE $I.14 AN HOUR
 On Jan. l, 1943, the policy com mittee of the Steelworkers union-- the presidents of some 600 local un- ions-met in Pittsburgh and deter mined to seek wage adjustment. Since the start of the war, steel workers had had one wage increase of 512 cents an hour. granted under the Little Steel formula. This brought their average straight time rate to $1O6 an hour, the average earnings, including overtime, to $1.14 an hour.
 On Jan. ?, President Phil Murray of the Steelworkers returned to Washington and in an evening ses- sion at the home of VILE Chairman William H. Davis, Murray told Davis that the Steelworkers intended to attack the Little Steel formula with out attacking the stabilization law.
 Davis told Murray that he would welcome the presentation of the Steelworkers' argument and ex- pressed the wash that he could re- sign his chairmanship of the board so as to sit on a panel which would hear the case. Also, that the only way that such a case could be pre- sented to the War Labor Board was by regular processing-that is, the union would have to go through col lective bargaining with the steel companies and have their case cer- tified to the board in case they were
 'nable to reach an agreement di- 'antlv,
 AIM AT ANNUAL WAGE
 GUARANTEE
 Negotiations between the steel companies and the union began on Dec. IA and ran for two weeks. On Dec. p the union demand for retro active pay on any agreement that might be reached was denied by the War Labor board, but was re- considered two days later. On Dec. 31, Murray disclosed htat he was also negotiating for an annual wage guarantee.
 One argument on the annual wage guarantee is that since the steel companies are guaranteed income by cutbacks from corporation excess profits provisions of the tax law, they can afford to guarantee the in- come of their employees.
 When negotiations reached stalemate, the steel companies re- quested certification of the case to the War Labor Board on Jan. IT, and hearings before panel are now in progress, will go on for weeks.