The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1946-02-01
News "a,
BEHIND,
THENE|E|&|l!iSz|lEI!51
Released by Western Newspaper Uni
CHANGE AGAINST FACT
FINDING PROPOSAL
By PAUL MALLON !,

| FINDING PhOFUSAL
| WASHINGTON. - An editorial
surveyor has reported u per cent
| Of the newspapers approved Mr..
Truman's fact-finding solution for
labor claims at first, but suddenly
turned around and in one week dur
ing December ga to 29), 65 per
cent attacked the plan.
This he considered q strange and
inexplicable turnover of public opin-
ion, OF press opinion, and he criti-
cized it. He said the change came
about when the Truman fact-finding
| board for General Motors was con-
fronted with the union proposition Of
going into company profits to set fu-
ture wages ON this basis.
My analyst friend has simply
been confused, as have most
readers Of the current labor
news, by the emotion of OppOs-
ing factions. The truth behind
the matter is evident.
Mr.. Truman advocated the
fact-finding solution out of the ex-
perience Of the railroad union
brOtherhoods, who have enjoyed
its operation for more than Is
years. The idea Of establishing
public concept Of the facts,
with 30 days cooling down be-
fore strikes, In the case of the
brOtherhOOds,, never entered the
question of how much the rail-
roads were making.
PROBLEM OF DETERMINING
FUTURE REAL PROFITS
The idea of going into company
profits of the past for a wage scale
for the future was developed by the
union in the General Motors case,
merely because the company had
war profits and the union wanted
bigger wages. In the every-way-
similar steel case, the same CLIO
unions have taken an opposite
stand because there were no steel
profits.
Mr.. Truman is now moving to in
crease the price of steel through
Mr.. Bowles in order to create
money by which the steel COM
panies can raise the union wages.
The simple truth is thus shown to
be that the unions want wage in
crease - for whatever reasons they
can concoct, for the reason of prof
its in the General Motors case, for
L the opposite reason necessitating a
/ price increase in the steel case.
This is the essence of the mat
ter, and anyone who INDUCES
himself in any economic rea-
soning about the matter is vast
ing his time.
Thus the newspaper editorial
lists are proven by the facts to
be right in changing their
stand. The Truman fact-finding
solution has been headed by
union pressure into ascertaining
company profits i'm the General
Motors case. These are past
profits, based on war business,
| and the manufa cture of different
products.
The union would be entirely logi-
cal if it demanded distribution of
these profits to the workers. That
would make sense, but 1t is entirely
illogical in contending that these
past profits should measure the flu
ture wage scale, because the same
| profit is not guaranteed for the
! future.
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE
ALL WAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Indeed, the profits of General Mo-
| tors henceforth will be measured by
entirely different considerations -
the volume of production, the future
cost of materials, the extent Of
sales, the effects of advertising, eff
ficiency and thousand other fac
/ tors. Past profits ON war business
have absolutely nothing to do with
the case.
When the Truman fact-finding
was turned into that Illogical
vein, naturally its advocates
turned against it. They could not,
in Justice to simple reasoning,
do otherwise.
Indeed, the unions themselves
concede the falsity of the prof
its basis Of establishing future
wages by reDudiating their own
motors doctrine in the case Of
steel.
A straightforward, just applica-
ton of fact-finding would have fol-
lowed the principle Of the brother
hoods example in the case Of mo-
tors, steel. electrical workers and
all others, computing the increase
in living costs, measuring what in
creases in wages had been granted,
subtracting these, and proclaiming
/ Just, sound wage increase.
The solving could be done by
simple arithmetic. A principle could
have been established which would
be yardstick for all cases.
The trouble with the union case
and the sympathetic administration
handling of it is that no principle
has been established. In one case
the unions make one economic
claim. in the other thew make the