Evening star., 1946-02-28
Subway Agreement
Discussed by Writer
New York City Faces Principle
of Minority Coercion, He Holds
By Dapid laurence

Oh N1lnorlty coercion, lie Holds
By David Laurence -
What happened In the settlement of
the threatened subway strike in New
York City is Of interest to employees OF
cities and States, Of course, but 1t Is of
particular interest to employers who
have opposed the sole" bargaining
agent technique under the Wagner law.
Being employees Of a city which is
immune from the compulsions of the
Wagner Act, a large group Of union
members have sought to gain by the
process Of negotiation the right to hold
an election to determine a bargaining
agent. The City Of New York, under the
ODwyer and La Guardia administra-
tions. has refused to permit elections to
be held or to make a contract with
any union.
The threat Of a strike which brought
matters to a climax has nevertheless re-
suited in a written agreement between
the Mayor Of New York and the head
OF one of the large unions. This unse.-
has Claimed a majority, but has been
challenged by other unions as to the
true size of its membership.
Terms Of Agreement.
Under the terms of the agreement,
the Mayor Of the biggest city in the
country agrees to utilize a committee
OF five prominent citizens, which is
charged with the responsibility of
studying the working conditions, wages
and labor relations between the work.
ers and the Board of Transportation Of
the City of New York"
The agreement does not provide that
the city win recognize any union as sole
bargaining agent or make any union
contracts, but it does provide that rep
resentatives of the employees will be
heard and be permitted "to state their
views and recommendations.
When the representatives Of all unions
have been heard, the recommendations
and findings of the committee of citizens
will be presented to the Mayor for his
approval or disapproval. Meanwhile, on
the basis of the written agreement with
the CIO union which threatened to in
terrupt service, the strike has been
called off.
What Did Union Gain?
What did the union gain and what
did the city concede?
Viewed from the standpoint of GUS
tomary relations between employers and
unions, the city, in effect. granted the
of
known as membership only" privi-
leges OF representation. When a union
has not proved that it has a majority
and no other union can prove a ma
jority either, the tendency ordinarily
is for the minority to ask for the right
to negotiate for its members only. This
leads as a rule to the extension to
the nonunion employees of the same
terms and conditions agreed on by the
employer with the union.
Eventually the union organizers start
to argue that the nonmembers are de-
irving benefits for which they should
pay through dues and hence the cam
paign to secure majority proceeds
with renewed vigor in the hope of OBJ
tanning enough converts to produce a
81 per cent voting strength.
It Is when union achieves ma ioritv
that the Wagner law says that sole bar
gaining rights must be granted by the
employer no matter what the minority
may think about it. Employers are COM
PEELED to deal only with the agent of the
majority and are forbidden to hear the
views or recommendations" of the mi
nority.
Dose of Same Medicine.
The City of New York, which is DOM
mated by Democratic administration,
Is not willing to take a dose of the
same medicine which the Democrats In
Congress from New York and other
States have imposed on the employers
OF the Nation and on the minorities
who do not want to be represented by
union, but want to negotiate terms
and working conditions in their own
way.
The reason given by the city is that
all Its employees must, by law, be con-
sadered civil servants and that there
can be no discrimination between them.
Actually the same thing applies to per-
sons in private employment once a bar
gaining agent is selected for the ma
jority. The minority cannot be treated
any worse or better than the arrange
ment made with the majority's agent,
and it has been held that concessions
made to the minority are a violation of
the Federal law.
1t will be interesting to see what the
committee of five will recommend. Will
they permit an election whereby the
employees choose a bargaining agent?
II they do not. they will, in effect, be
saying that the principle of coercing
minority is sound when applied by the
Wagner law to one group of citizens
but unsound when applied to another
group Of citizens, both of whom may be
engaged in the same kind of work
namely, transportation within city.
Reproduction Rishts Reserved)
Dominion Aid
From the London Daily Telesraph and Morn,nr