Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1945-07-06
.UAW-CIO
Asks WAGE

Continued from Page /


and to William H. Davis, direc-
tor of the Office of Economic
Sterilization, George w. Taylor,
chairman of the National War
Labor Board, and Chester E:
Bowles, director of the Office of
Price Administration.
The brief Is based on the
March 3, 1945, decision of the
WLB in the GIN wage case which
held that wage issues could be
re-opened eff a change in ma
tional wage policy makes
such ch nges possible" The
brief also cites a statement SUBJ
sequently made to UAW-CIO
officials in which Economic
Sterilization Director Davis de-
clared wage raises were neces-
sary, but asked how 1t was pos
sible to increase wages without
causing prices to rise.
Replying to Davis, Reuther
enumerated the following cur
rent and postwar resources of
American industry:
Accumulated war profits in
the tills of all corporations (ex-
cept banks and insurance COM
panies) amount on the whole to
sum equivalent to six years of
pre-war income, after taxes, of
all corporations
The corporations twill soon
receive about three billion dol
lars in cash from the u. s.
Treasury through refund, pro-
vided by law, of 10 per cent of
excess profits paid during the
war. This increases their safety
reserve to a fund equal to Z
years of pre-war net profit"
27 Billion Refund Available
"If their postwar earnings
fall below normal or turn into
losses they can claim additional
refunds from the u. S. Treasury.
The total available Is some
twenty-seven billion dollars :.
Here, then, is a contingent re-
serve equal to eight more years
of normal net income after
taxes. That is to say, in case of
need the typical American cor
poration is protected against re-
conversion loss to the extent of
Is years of normal net income"
The brief proceeds to analyze
labor's economic position. 1t
points out that the worker is
offered no such prospects as that
enjoyed by the corporations.
War bod savings, often referred
to as mountains of war saw
ings," says Reuther, are actually,
by comparison, only the size of
hill.
Governments Double Standard
Insisting that the WLB has
one standard for measuring
and rejecting-wage increases,
while OPA has totally different
standards for considering-and
grantingrprice increases, Reu-
ther said:
This continuing contrast be-
tween WLB and OPA standards,
now coming to light with exas-
perating frequency, brings into
the focus the extraordinary fact
that our Union is asked by the
officials to prove that wage
raises will not force higher
prices while the officials are
raising prices on evidence that
they admit is unsatisfactory,
often sketchy, sometimes ina
ginery, and, in one case at least,
totally lacking because it had
been requested but was not
brought forward"
Proposes Government Action
Reuther urged the govern
ments stabilization high COM
mand to direct OPA to increase
prices only when substantial
evidence is presented to justify
the increase. He added: "It can
tell OPA not to raise prices
without regard to excess profits
that are more than adequate to
absorb higher wages. 1t can or
der OPA to amend its reconver-
sion formula so that increased
wage rates will not automati-
cally raise price ceilings without
regard to cost-reducing factors.
Then the WLB can lift wage
ceilings without forcing OPA to
lift price ceilings, reversing the
present policy under which the
WLB is stabilizing down and
OPA is stabilizing up"
Reuther declared that unless
these steps are taken, the Fed
eral "stabilization high CONS
mand will be persisting in a pat
tern for postwar disaster"