Evening star., 1946-02-26
New York S Attitude
On Strike Questioned

| On StIIke RueStIOneQ
Writer Asks If City Heads Shun
Democratic Party Principle
BY David Laurence.
Something rather strange meets the
eye in New York City. as one reads that
the municipal government there is ae-
tually refusing to recognize labor
union as the sole and exclusive bar
gaining agent Of = majority Of the en-
ployes working on the subways.
The Mayor contends that he has been
advised by his counsel that ths city Is
forbidden by the implications Of the
civil service law to recognize . union as
the sole bargaining agent. II this Is
true-and legal opinions could differ on
the meaning Of the law-then 1t may be
asked why the Mayor doesn't ask the
Governor Of the State of New York
and the Legislature TO change the law.
For certainly It Is rather late for an
institution which represents tbs people,
especially in . city 30 overwhelmingly
Democratic as New York, to regard col
lective bargaining and the grant Of sole
bargaining rights to majority as some
thing tainted or poisonous.
The employers Of the Nation from
coast to coast have been told that COL
lective bargaining Is . sacred right. The
Congress has passed q law fathered by
leading Democratic member Of the
United States Senate who halls from the
city Of New York. This statute not only
guarantees collective bargaining rights
but gives to the agents Of the majority
OF the employees sole bargaining privi-
lege.
Is There . Distinction?
Is there distinction between EN-.
ployes of city and employees of a pri-
vate company? Some cities like De-
troit have contracts which recognize
transport workers union, and 1t Is diff
ficult to see why the collective bargain
ing process can be such a great virtue
and is so often extolled by Senator
Wagner and others who make up the
Democratic majorities in New York
City and State, and yet it isn't proper
thing for the municipal government to
grant.
II the Mayor would agree to recon-
mend legislation Immediately and
would treat with the transport workers
union tentatively as the bargaining
agent subject to the approval of the
State Legislature, it is quite possible
that subway strike would be averted.
For the New York State Legislature
could hardly repudiate the principle In
the Wagner Labor Relations Act. That
principle is just as valid, no matter
whether the Government or a private
company is the employer. If it be said
that Government workers are In a Diff
ferent category and that collective bar
gaining has abuses, 1t must be inferred
that city governments don't like col
| lective bargaining. The question then
must be asked: Why should private en-
| ployers be saddled with collective bar
| gaining nuisances?
Either collective bargaining Is a good
way to maintain labor relations or 1t
is the wrong way. The Democrats, by
their party platforms and by their
Democratic membership in Congress
from the CITY Of New York, have voted
solidly for the Wagner Act and against
any notifications In 1t. Even to ad-
| vocate amendments is to be accused of
| being reactionary and foe Of labor.
But, is it less reactionary for a Demo-
cratic administration in the biggest city
In the country to repudiate collective
bargaining and take refuge In Q tech
ntcality in the law?
Argument Advanced.
1t has been argued that If subway
workers are recognized, then firemen
and policemen would have unions and
| the right to strike would be conceded
But Is there anything worse for the
| city than tie-up of the tugboats or
| interference with TRANSPORTATION?
Plainly the city's workers, whether they
be policemen or firemen, either should
be forbidden to join unions altogether
which the Democrats would never ven
ture to door else grant their unions
all the privileges they customarily enjoy.
| Federal law exempts cities and States
from collective bargaining with en-
ployes, but this Is not related to the
merits OF the subject and was written
into the statutes merely to show the
Federal sovereign powers respect for
the separate authority of State and
city governments. State LEGISLATURE
can at any time make 1t obligatory for
cities to give their workers collective
bargaining rights.
The fact that these rights are with
held In New York can only create the
suspicion that private employers who
balk at collective bargaining compul-
sions may possibly be right in yoicinr
some OF the same objections that q city
encounters when 1t faces the problem
concretely in the form of q mandatory
negotiation with majority of the en-
ployes as an alleged agent for the
minority. But private business has to
live under that procedure. City soy-
ernments cannot be logical or consistent
and oppose it.
| Reproduction Rights Reseryedo