Evening star., 1946-07-26
Letters to The Star
Mr.. Lawrence Answers Letter
From Union Printer

issue of July % signed Union Printer, "
in which it is stated that my article Of
July IS shows serious inability or un-
willingness to understand reasons and
methods of collective bargaining"
The truth is that I understand COL
lective bargaining only too we'll and
when I wrote about the "abuse" of COL
lective bargaining was using mild
word to describe the amazing demands
| by the printers union in Washington
for a 100 per cent increase in wages,
three weeks vacation at double pay
and So an hour for regular overtime.
The Union Printer" says, in effect,
that there is nothing wrong with ex-
| treme demands and that there is no
more honorable or lawful way to win
things than by presenting demands, his
inference being that there can be con-
| cessions and he adds that collective
bargaining is matter of give and
take" Let us see whether this is so.
If the demands presented are not ac-
| cepted, the union calls strike or en-
cages in that most honorable" method
of enforcing it's demands, namely, the
continuous" meeting of union employees
whereby the union can avoid the penal
ties of strike, but can cause a work
stoppage-a practice condemned by the
National War Labor Board, but en-
gagged in just the same in 1914 by the
union in question. causing financial
losses to many companies in Washing
ton which no union has ever offered to
pay. There was certainly no give and
take" in that work stoppage. 1t was
all take"
Now let us examine the current situa-
ton. The Union Printer speaks Of
the big profits earned during the war,
but does he know of any way that some
body else's profits can be channeled into
the pockets of the employer who didn't
earn such profits and who is now op-
Grating at loss? What does collective
bargaining do for that employer?
happen to know of a certain print
ing establishment in Washington which,
owing to the problems of reconversion
from wartime to peacetime, is now los
ing considerable sum of money per
month on the publications which are
manufactured in Washington-publica-
tions, incidentally, which do not carry
advertising. The only revenue therefore
Is from the subscribers. This business
in question has no excess profit credit
or carryback to absorb such loss. 1t is
an establishment employing several
hundred people. happen to know that
the employer in question treated his EN-
ployes we'll and notwithstanding the
fact that his union contract didn't re-
quire it, he nevertheless gave all his en-
ployes, including the printers, group in
surance free, disqualification free. and
even paid them special bonuses during
the war years. Given another year or
SO in which to work out his reconversion
problems, this employer can save that
business and keep a lot of people en-
ployed But his employees cannot CO.
operate with him even If they wish to
do so. They are held in a straitjacket
of CLOSED shop or union. They can
not agree to work for him for the same
| high wages they are now getting. They
must acquieSce in the inSiStence by
others in the union on an increase be-
cause collective bargaining is conducted
on city-wide basis and the union says
that all printers must be paid the same
irrespective of single employers Ca
pacity to pay.
Then it will be contended, let the en-
ployer withdraw from the employers
association TO which he belongs and bar
gain separately Would the union men,
| bers withdraw from their organization?
Of course not. Would the union permit
a separate contract at no increase in
wages to cover those particular en-
ployes even If the employees were will
ing? OF course not And how long
would the employer keep his employees
if few blocks away the other printing
establishments who need men are pay
ing higher wages? What has collective
bargaining done for printing estab-
lishment that loses money?
An employer in such an instance must
find some other city where the wage
scale approXimates the present Wash
ington scale and transfer his work there
This means that his own employees who
have been faithful to him would lose
their jobs. Many of them cannot go
to other cities. They own their own
homes. They have their friends and
ralo twas iy VIC chi, otop ord thov moot
to continue to live here. Does collective
bargaining take these human problems
into account2 These men are a minor
ity in the union and they apparently
would have to bear the consequences of
what an irresponsible and thoughtless
| majority does to them.
And why should the employer con-
tinue in the printing business anyway?
What reward is there for him, especially
when he is told that the Washington
union is setting the pattern for the
whole country with its demand for 100
per cent increase in wages, and that
other cities and towns, too, will soon
boost their scales substantially? Isn't
this an invitation to the employer to call
it day and 60 fishing for a while or
perhaps become printer himself and
| join a union and eliminate the head
aches which the CLOSED shop" and mod
ern collective bargaining impose on
management? Then the big monopolies,
of course, will swallow up the work of
the plant. Another small business will
| have been killed.
There is one point remaining. 1t will
be asked why doesn't the employer
increase his prices and pass the extra