Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1945-11-02
Washington
|LaborReport
By Bradford v. Carter


The forthcoming Labor-man
agement conference in Wash
ington makes the issuance by
the Twentieth Century Fund
of the report and recommenda-
tions of its Labor Committee
especially timely.
The Fund has some standing
in this field. It's Labor Com
mittee is made up of represen-
tative spokesmen from govern
ment, labor and management.
In 1885, the Fund published
a report titled Labor and Gov
ernment which undoubtedly
had much to do with the terms
incorporated later in the Ma
tional Labor Relations Act. All
this is by way of saying that
the Funds reports are entitled
to be listened to with respect
and interest.
The present report purports
to be based on a monumental
study issued by the Fund and
edited by Harry Mills, former
chairman of the NLRB." How
Collective Bargaining Works"
The study in question was un-
doubtedly a first rate contri-
button, because it provided
the detailed facts about col
lective bargaining, industry By
industry.
WITHOUT BASIS
If the currently issued re-
port had limited itself to the
facts adduced in How Collec-
tive Bargaining Works,
much better job would have
undoubtedly resulted. AS a few
members of the Committee
point out in dissenting foot
notes, much of the material
has no basis in any systematic
investigation. Many of the
recommendations are simply
opinions whose weight is lost
because of the failure Of one
or another member of the
Committee to concur.
Where there is unanimity of
opinion the recommendations
are so broadly stated that they
have no practical significance.
For example the committee
apparently calls for more re-
lance on pertinent data" and
less on the give and take of
the collective bargaining proc
esS. That's fine, but who is
going to determine the peril
nent data? Given the the re-
fined hocus-pocuS that passes
for statistics, it is probably bet
ter all around that lunches, in
tuitions and common sense
relegate the pertinent data to a
secondary position in collective
bargaining.
The Committee comes out in
rather pat fashion for the en-
couragement of market-Wide
collective bargaining. That is,
If an industry like steel or
autos operates in a national
market, as these do, the coll
lectiVe bargaining should take
place on a national basis. This
would have the effect, it is
said, of minimizing wage COM
petition over the nation.
IGNORES DIVERSITY
On paper this looks per-
suasive. But it ignores what
the report has elsewhere rec
ognized as the bewildering di-
versity of the conditions sur
rounding collective bargaining
in thousands of particular sit
ations. With all due respect to
the Committee it is nonsense
to lay down a general principle
rf this character in a process
like collective b arg ami in &
which is interlaced with so
many differences in industry
conditions, personalities, and
degree of organization.
The Committee, with several
dissenting opinions by the la
Dor members Robert Watt of
the AFL and Clinton Golden
of the CIO, as well as by Ed
VIII w llbG anu w llIldlll II. La
Wis, enters into an analysis of
inner-union government. This
is based on no thorough in
vestigation by the Fund or
anyone else. One has the feel
ing that this part of the rec
concentrations is based on
newspaper headlines and hear
say, both of which are extre-
mely unreliable on this sub
ject.
can't help feeling that this
report of the Twentieth Cen
tury Fund is far below the
standards set in previous eff
forts. Many of the recommen-
dationS are exercises in SEM
antics, in that anyone can read
into them anything they want