Evening star., 1946-06-02
A 'ModeI' Labor Law
Ready for Discard
Rail Act May Not Survive
Repeated Failures
BY Joseph A. For

NCpSdtcQ IdlluISS
By Joseph A. For
The failure of the Railway Labor Act
to avert the walkout Of trainmen and
engineers came as rude shock to an
American public which for 20 years had
viewed periodical rail strike threats with
complacency. firm in the conviction that
the law would have enough moral force
to forestall such action by the brother
hoods.
That 1t proved inadequate in this in
stance should not have been particularly
surprising, however, for throughout its
operation the law has been largely =
"one-way street." for obtaining benefits
for the workers. In the war years, tie
ups were ayerted twice only because the
White House intervened and skidded
around the edges of the act in effect
ing settlements.
The first occasion was just one week
before Pearl Harbor, when both operat-
ing and incorporating unions, In protest
against S270000,000 wage increase
granted by presidential fact-findins
board, set q strike for December 7.
President Roosevelt thereupon called for
reconsideration by the board, with the
result that the original award was
boosted by figure variously estimated
at $4,000, 900 to SIS, 10000 and the work
ers stayed on the job.
Two years later, President Roosevelt
seized the railroads when conductors,
switchmen and firemen-the operating
trio which continued to work . week
ago-threatened to walk out over dis
satisfaction with another wage increase
which the then Sterilization Director
Fred M. Vinson limited to the '1ittle
steel" ceiling. Once more President
Roosevelt stepped in and, tossing In some
new allowances for overtime and vaca-
tions for all groups, kept the roads
running.
Having thus proved to their satisfac-
ton that sufficient pressure could be
used to obtain additional concessions
while still abiding by the letter OF the
law, it was not illogical for trainmen
and engineers to 60 the limit. The dif-
ference between this late case and the
two Immediately preceding it was that
President Truman's compromise was
unacceptable.
The strike raises two questions:
Whether and to what extent the Rail-
way Labor Act has been impaired and,
secondly, how much dependence can be
put in any strike-prevention legislation
covering vital industries II the element
of compulsion is absent.
One Nationwide tieup in which less
than a quarter Of the railroad workers
joined would not necessarily brand the
law as failure. 1t Is certain, however,
that its prestige has been lowered by
the strike plus the extraordinary meas
ures taken previously to halt trouble.
Apart from the question Of its wisdom
or unwisdom, the other point-compul-
sion-raises the subject Of constitution
ality, and that, of course, cannot be
settled short Of the Supreme Court.
The Railway Labor Act itself was the
product Of compromise, and at the time
Of its passage advocates hailed 1t as
embodying the principle Of "compul-
sion founded on agreement" That ref
erence applied to the two major pro-
visions: The 60-day "cooling-o1" period
in which the right to strike was waived
while fact-finding boards sifted contro-
versies, and arbitration, when mutually
satisfactory.
The law was passed after the Supreme
Court torpedoed a predecessor, enacted
in another era of industrial warfare in
1920, which set up the Railway Labor
Board, q creation designed to have full
power to settle disputes. Deciding a
challenge instituted by the Pennsylva-
MIA Railroad, the court said the board
had mo other sanction than that Of
public opinion"
The new law was enacted in 1926. In
addition to the mediation and arbitra-
ton provisions, it incorporated also
parts of the old Erdman and Newlands
acts of 1898 and 1918 through which the
Government unsuccessfully had sought
to maintain rail peace, and the 1920
statute. The Southern Railway alone
declined to 60 along with other carriers
in supporting the legislation, which was
solidly backed by the unions. The only
outside objection Of consequence came
from the National Association Of Manu-
facturers, which wanted strikes barred
specifically in the "cooling-off" period.
Supporters retorted that compulsion
never had been satisfactory in labor
relations.
Those shaping the legislation were
particularly strong for the plan to have
emergency boards decide controversies,
holding that the National Mediation
Board, which handles cases only in the
early stages, could function better in q
nonpartisan status than II it was re-
quired-as the Labor Board had been
to decide the merits Of disputes. and
thus antagonize one side or the other.
What does not seem to have been
taken into consideration at the time
was the fact that neither the mediatory
nor arbitration process would be accepted
as conclusive in any instance unless
the findings measured up fully to the
ideas of the unions. In the recent rail
nareup, the 18 nonstriking unions also
emerged with an increase over an arbi-
tration award which had been contested.
Hidden Toxes
From the III Dorado Times.
1t takes a lot OF money to run America