Evening star., 1945-11-02

pect. Much he
said was fair Frank r. Kent.
and true. though trite. But he
failed to touch the realities or pro-
pose program. While present laws
and boards do not protect the public
interests, he offered no new sugges-
ton that would.
His were fair words but, in
essence, not different from those of
his predecessor, whose CIO link was
very tight. indeed. Mr.. Truman's
utterance had surface impartiality
but, nevertheless, was weighted on
the labor side.
What the labor bosses want is
clear enough. 1t can be summed up
In two words-no change. They
want concessions from industry but
they want no new legislation and
no new governmental machinery
They are, they think-and with rea-
son-doing very we'll under the ex-
isting setup. One of the far-left
labor publications a few days ago
declared the main reliance of labor
at the conference would be on
strengthening collective bargaining
and that any agreement to amend
present statutes or repeal even so
silly one as the Smith Connally
law would be opposed. Also, any
effort to limit strikes before, during
or after negotiations" will be re-
garded as wicked.
Hopes for Labor Peace.
That is the labor position as made
plain in various ways-notably, by
the violent labor denunciation of
the House effort to impose some de-
gree of responsibility on the unions
to keep a no-strike contract after
they have made it.
There came from Mr.. Truman no
hint of leadership along this line.
Nor along any other sound line.
Instead, he took the unsound labor
line that wages can and must be
raised, but that prices, except in rare
instances, cannot and must not be
raised. He suggested no alternative
in the Intellectual existing laws. He
expressed hope, though he had no
plan, that Industrial labor peace can
be achieved. His notion that this
can be done by both sides sitting
around the conference table and
everybody being nice is naive.
1t does not allow for one or both
sides being unreasonable and ire
concilable. If Mr.. Truman has
nothing more than that to offer,
then, in effect, he acquiesces in the
labor wish for-no change-unlesS
the changes should be the finn fam
ones proposed in the Mcmahon bill
which the labor politicians want the
conference to indorse. Possibly, it
will, but if it does that will mean
no change, too.
Richberg's Viewpoint.
Perhaps, it was too much to ex-
pect of a politician but how refresh
ing 1t would have been had the
President made on Tuesday the
speech Donald Richberg made We'd
nesday.
Mr.. Richberg was the deputy di-
rector of the old NRA in the early
New Deal days. He is lawyer, not
an industrialist, and he is not a can
didate for anything. His record is
one of friendlipess to labor and in
his Chicago speech he made it clear
he does not favor compulsory arbi-
tration; that he does favor collective
bargaining: that he believes in the
right to strike. What he does favor
though, Is establishment by law of
a rule of reason In labor disputes
whereby both sides are required to
listen to reason before they begin
to fight.
Mr.. Richberg wants the Govern
ment to provide machinery OF
mediation, voluntary arbitration
and public fact finding as an aid
in adjusting controversies that af-
feet the public interest.
ANY proposed law" he said, that
does not prohibit strikes, lockouts
or any one-sided action during the
period of required negotiation and
mediation will be a sham and a
delusion. Every time you hear of q
so-called voluntary peace program
in which no legal duty is imposed
on labor or employers to refrain
from fighting until all reasonable
efforts at peaceful settlement have
been exhausted, you are entitled to
laugh out loud or TO boo."
Distinguishes in Strikes.
This Richberg statement is indis-
putably true but it is one few men
In politics have the courage to stand
behind. True, also, is the distinc-
ton he draws between political
strikes and economic strikes.
The political strike, Mr.. Richberg
said, has been used to destroy gov
ernments in other nations. Several
times in recent months it has slap
ped its ugly threat across our faces.
1t has nothing to do with wages.
1t is called to gain some special
advantage and control wholly un-
connected with wages.
He gave the recent telephone
strike and the recent coal strike as
examples. A political strike is q
revolutionary act, an attempt to
control government by force and
should be prohibited by law. That
can and should be done. Also, he
believes that in strikes which a
fact-f finding board finds impose