Evening star., 1946-09-12
Letters to The Star
Mr.. Green Takes Issue With
Editorial on Maritime Strikes

Idl OIl SIT1kGS
To the Editor Of The Star:
Neither the logic you followed nor
the conclusions reached in the prepara-
ton of the editorial entitled Mr.. Green
on Imitation" which you published in
the September 7th issue of The Evening
Star, rests upon a sound premise. This
editorial is not based on facts. 1t must
rest on feeling which is not safe guide
The negotiations for a wage agree
ment through collective bargaining by
the representatives of the membership
of the Seafarers' International Union
and the ship owners were in conformity
with the economic pronouncement I
made sometime ago and which you
quoted in the editorial. This agree
ment was negotiated without a mos
ment's interruption of seal going vessels.
The membership of the Seafarers' Inter-
national Union, as we'll as their repre-
sentatives, accepted and applied the
economic philosophy which proclaimed
to negotiate wage agreements through
genuine collective bargaining and
while said negotiations were carried on
the workers who would be subject to
the terms of the agreement remained
at work.
Furthermore, the agreement herein
referred to was negotiated by the repre-
sentatives of the membership of the
Seafarers' International Union and the
ship owners during the period when no
price control law was in effect and when
the Sterilization Board ceased to func-
ton
The agreement did not call for an in
crease in transportation rates or In
the cost of shipping transporta ton. No
Government agency was called upon
to increase the cost OF shipping trans
poration in order to absorb a wage in
crease. That means if the members of
the Seafarers' International Union did
not receive the wage increase, the ship
owners would be the beneficiaries
through increased earnings. Where was
there any question of imitation involved
| in the negotiation of this agreement?
The responsibility for the Seafarers'
strike, therefore, rests with a govern
ment agency-the Wage Sterilization
Board. Instead of condemning me or
the American Federation of Labor,
either directly or by implication, you
should direct your condemnation to the
Government agency which precipitated
the strike and which is responsible for it,
According to your line of reasoning,
as expressed in the editorial herein
referred to, the maritime group which
threatened to engage in a strike short
time ago should be rewarded and those
who followed the other course of negoti-
ating wage agreement through genuine
collective bargaining, without single
moments interruption of transportat ton,
should be penalized.
I deny most vehemently your conclu-
sion-that approval of the agreement
reached through negotiations between
the representatives of the Seafarers' In
ternational Union and the ship owners
is inf1ationary. No Government agency
was requested to lift price ceiling and
increase transportation charges or prices
in order to absorb the wage increase
negotiated. An increase in buying
power cannot be interpreted as imitation.
Instead it means an increase in con-
suming and buying power and that in
turn means an increase in the demands
for manufactured articles.
In view Of the facts herein stated and
the false reasoning you engaged in when
you prepared and published the editorial
to which I referred, I am irresistibly
driven to the conclusion YOU were dis
appointed because the representatives
Of the Seafarers International Union
secured a better agreement through
collective bargaining than the other
group secured through resort to strike.
WILLIAM GREEN,
President, American Federation of
Labor
Editors Note See editorial Mr..
Green's Protest.
Employment Bonus Advocated
To the Editor OF The Star:
1t is so disheartening to read and
hear about the effect of the 52-2O Club
on the veterans of World War II that I
feel that I must voice my opinion to
some one. The Star seems to respect
the ideas of the average citizen-so
here goes:
I feel that the demoralizing effect of
unemployment compensation cannot be
overestimated-so why not give little
thought to employment compensation?
In other words, why should not the
Government cooperate with the in
dividual, on the same basis it has in
the past with the States, on relief meas
ures and offer bonus Of say, 20 per
cent, on the salary of any job secured
by veteran for one year? Would there
not be more incentive to work? Could
it cost more in the long run If you con-
slider what is happening to our whole
economy? Even If the cost is greater.
wouldn't it be so much more wisely
spent that 1t would be worth while?
Wouldn't it be a difference such as
that between the dole and projects
such as the CCC during the depression?
ELOISE GODDEN HANSEN.