Montana labor news., 1946-01-31
WHY INDUSTRY SAYS
mo" TO LABOR

Why INDUSTRY SAYS
mo" TO LABOR
A great part Of American management has tor
months been on strike against the american peo
pie. In their unreasonable drive Tor excessive
prices and profits, they have been holding up re-
conversion and peacetime full employment.
Tb;s NAV sound extreme, but remember the
stakes are high. Business is striking to raise
n,;ces slash wages and weaken or crush unions.
Too many American businessmen have never
reconciled themselves to bargaining with strong
labor unions-strong unions that bar the roao
which leads back to the kind Of industrial feud-
alism under which workers lived before i9oo-
before the Clio brought protection into mass pro-
duction industries.
This feudal attitude. this attitude which denies
its responsibilities to the public as we'll as to its
own workers. is neatly summed up in a recent
statement by Harry Anderson, vice president OF
the General Motors corporation. After turning
down the union request for on the
company's ability to pay wage increases, he
added. We don't even open our books to our
stockholders That remark speaks volumes OF
the public be damned attitude that large sec
tons of American management have always
maintained in private if not in public. And re-
member, this is the same Harry Anderson who
was responsible for the CM labor spy system
back in 1895.
This strike by management is delaying re-
conversion and destroying our chances tor tull
employment. Because Of it. collective bargain
ing in steel, auto, and other industries has all but
entirely collapsed.
In the steel industry, for example, the union
made a careful presentation in support OF its
wage demands. 1t produced overwhelming evi-
dence to demonstrate the industry ability to pay
substantial wage increases now. 1t also pointed
out that industrys failure to raise wages in the
years from 1924 to 1929, while profits more
than doubled, helped bring on the terrible de-
preston of the 'thirties. But the steel companies
flatly rejected the United Steelworkers pro-
posals.
In the face Of a threatened shutdown in the
steel industry, which might endanger the entire
process Of reconversion, the secretary Of labor
requested the parties to resume collective bar
gaining in an effort to resolve the deadlock. The
union promptly agreed. The corporation def
antly rejected the governments request, thereby
forcing the union into a strike vote.
The steel industry charged that OPA price cell
ings were already forcing the companies to oper-
ate at a loss. An OPA report published a few
weeks later gave the lie to this statement by the
industry, as it revealed that existing price levels
were quite ample to insure profitable operations
for all but some Of the smaller companies.
The actions Of the steel industry give the union
good reason TO fear a union wrecking campaign
like that Of the 'twenties, which destroyed the
newly developed labor unions Of that era. The
Inland Steel company, for instance, now refuses
70 live up to its collective bargaining agreement
on the ground tina, the National War Labor board
which established some Of the contract terms, j
going out of existence. Other companies have
made similar threats.
The long struggle between the JAW and Gen
eral Motors also illustrates managements us
willingness to bargain. The corporation did no
even pretend to reply to the union documente'
brief supporting the position that the auto IN
dustry could raise wages g per cent wIthou
raising prices. GINS so-callcd counter-proposa
was a request to repeal the existing federal 4C
hour work law. 10 make way Tor a 4o-hou
week Al. stsaieht time. When the country nun
Der one problem is finding Jobs Tor millions {
displaced war workers and returning .etcran
CM proposed to lengthcn the normal work weel
Seeking to avoid a stoppage, the JAW aske
the corporation to permit a Y. ;. conclIator to
IN on The negotiations and help the parties reaC
4 solution. The corporation rejected the ollie