The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-04-06

the War Labor Board, but before
the Senate Banking and Currency
Committee which is now conducting
hearings on renewal or modification
of the Sterilization Act.
Second is group of demands for
wage adjustments on so-called in
equities which the War Labor Board
might grant without breaking of the
Little Steel formula. The steel COM
panies may contend that these are
in reality hidden wage increases.
Third is a group of grievances
over which the War Labor Board
has no jurisdiction whatever, &C
cording to the employers point of
view.
Taking the IA demands together,
the companies may take the posi-
ton that this is not purely a steel
wage case, since an open effort is
being made to establish precedents
for not only the steelworkers' parent
G. I. O., but also the governments
general policies on wage and labor
conditions, affecting all forms of in
duStry.
THEY'LL CITE 40 PER CENT"
PAY BOOST
The Steelworkers' argument that
the cost of living has advanced be-
You'd wage increases may be at
tackled in several ways. First, the G.
I. GA. F. of L. cost of living sur
Vey can be considered as completely
refuted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Second, arguments may
be made that conclusions on the
cost of living studies are matters for
determination of the Presidents
committee of WLB members, and
that no evidence on this point
should be heard until that full COM
mittee has made its findings and
reported. Third, the companies may
present figures showing that the
weekly average take home pay of
steelworkers is now approximately
40 per cent above the take-home
pay of 1889, which is more Of an in
crease than shown by the BIS cost
Of living index. Fourth, OPA has
announced the cost of living stab
nized over the last II months.
The union contention that the
steel companies can afford to pay
wage increases out Of present profits
may be fatty denied. U. S. Steel
Corporation alone has estimated
that the wage increases demanded
would cost it and its subsidiaries
$186, 100000 a year, exclusive of sew
erance pay and annual wage guar
antees, while net income of these
companies after taxes in 1913 was
$63 100000.
On the union contention that the
steel companies are guaranteed
$l64, 100000 in postwar profits
through the carryback provisions of
the corporation excess profits tax
law, 1t may be pointed out that
even his figure is less than the an
nual cost of the proposed wage in
creases for q. S. Steel Corporation
alone.
UP TO CONGRESS,
GOES THE ARGUMENT
The question of the removal Of
geographical wage differentials is
one which the War Labor Board has
refused to disturb during wartime
and 1t may well be arguel that there
is no reason to consider 1t now in
the steel case.
On demands for severance pay,
vacation pay, sick leave, insurance
and similar matters which the steel
companies consider hidden wage in
creases, they may make presenta-
tons that these are matters Of
broadened national social security
policy now being considered by Con-
gress in such measures as the Wag-
ner-Dingell bill, and that If these
are adopted by Congress, they do
not belong in one industry's wage
negotiations.
To the steelworkers' complaint
that Congress has not done its part
in carrying out the Presidents esv-
en-point program of sterilization Of
higher taxation and the freezing Of
farm and food prices, the answer
may again be that this is the re-
sponsibility Of Congress, and not a
matter for wage negotiations.
The steel companies have fire.
quently stated that any increase in
wage must be met by an increase
in the price of steel. Their represen-
tativ may be counted upon to r.
state this position.