The Wilmington morning star., 1946-12-18
Labor S~chizophreni
BY RoYsTER

Vii tHS VIC AAo1iQ ~ ID oAo66|AA5 ~ e0hS
it's first few toddling steps toward maturity
and responsibility and on the other, it clings
stubbornly to its militant, chip : on-the-
it's bitter heritage from the past. The struggle
shoulder, public-be-damned attitude which is
between these two opposed instincts and de-
sires will be a long and hard one. 1t cannot
be easily resolved.
The labor movement, OF course, has always
factionalized. There is nothing new in finding
iabor's leaders at loggerheads with one an
other. What is distinctive is that the current
division in the labor movement is not so much
a clash between rival political organizations
as it is q clash between economic and po-
litical ideas.
The immediate result of this schizophrenia
will be a continuation of uncertainty and con-
fusion within the labor movement, and prob
ably, too, more chaos in the nations eco
nomic and business life. 1t means Illustration
for labor's leadership and bewilderment for
the rank-and-file.
the movement, however small it may be now,
which is beginning to question militancy and
to think in terms of the whole public good
is significant.
Obviously, the labor movement has not yet
come to Intellectual maturity. Nevertheless, a
surprising number of its officials in Washing.
ton have begun to take stock OF the situation
and to speak in more conservative tones.
Some of this change is voluntary; more of it
is due to the fact that labor's leaders, as
Mr.. Dooley remarked of Supreme Court
justices, follow the election returns.
Labor leaders might ignore any Grant phil
osophers in their midst. But they have given
the election and the public's reaction 10 the
coal strike a ten pound look. What they saw
worries them.
There is unanimity Of alarm. The fracture
develops as the leaders debate which road
labor should now f~ollow-should it fight back
with more militancy, or should it, accept a
new role of joint responsibility with business
for public welfare? Both sides Of this split
personality were displayed here last week.
Mr.. Philip Murray Of the CLIO, without
waiting to reach the bargaining table, began
to threaten business with another round of
wage demands, the strong implication being
that his unions are prepared to strike to get.
them. To argue his case that more wage
boosts are justifiable and that they can be
granted without raising prices he hired Mr..
Robert Nathan, a former New Deal govern
ment economist, to supply him with an ap-
propriate number of statistics, charts and dia-
grams.
With the Nathan study as a springboard,
Mr.. Murray yesterday urged the Federal Gov
eminent to adopt a high wage policy" He
told the Presidents council of economic ad-
visers that higher wages are necessary to
maintain purchasing power but that industry
should not be permitted to raise prices.
Thus, before the new year has even begun.
Mr.. Murray has faced the. nation with the
not unlikely prospect OF a winters tale of
strikes in the steel and auto industries.
Contrasted with this was the attitude Of the
labor members of the National Planning AS
which held a tWo-day session earlier
in the week. Their attitude was embodied in
a little publicized statement which set forth
in very clear language some novel concepts
Of the responsibilities of union leadership
novel, that is, for labor to express.
In brief, this statement set forth four propo-
sitions: % That union well-being and PROS
perity depends upon the employer and that
a union Injuries itself if it Injuries its en-
ployer; (2) that union leaders have a major
job in informing their members of the prob
lens which the employer faces and in teach
ing loyalty to the employer as well as to the
union; Cd that unions should actually bar
gain, not demand; and a that agreements
once reached should be fully binding upon
both sides.
What makes the N.P.A. statement signiei-
can't is the position Of the men who joined
in it. The N.P.A. is a non-profit, unaffiliated
association of men prominent in business,
government and labor. It's labor. committee
includes such diversified voices as those of
Hedges OF the Electrical Workers
Brotherhood. Clinton Golden of the United
Steelworkers Union, Solomon Barkin of the
Textile Workers, Boris Shiskin of the Araeri-
can Federation of Labor and James Carey
of the CLIO.
The statement, it is true, leaves much un-
said. But SO far as it goes it is sound and.
if adhered to, would do much to improve
the present standing OF unions both with bust
ness and the public.
1--WE believe" said these labor officials,
that unions should be operated for the bene-
fit for four parties: The public, the consumers
union members and the company. Any man.
agement, or any union, which conceives its
responsibilities toward a business or society
to extend no further than it's own narrow in
terest is an anachronism and has lost its
social useeuless."
1t is not easy to reconcile this statement
with the actual conduct of the unions as ex-
emplified in the coal strike and the CLIO.
tactics of pre-conference table threats and of
strikes If all demands are not met forthwith.
The first suspicion is that labor, like Elmer
Gantry, believes in saying one thing on Sun
day and doing something else on Monday.
The explanation, however, is not quite so
simple. The fact is that there is today a
deep cleavage within the labor movement.
The top leaders, who are essentially poll.
ticians, are bewildered by the turn of events.
They, are. uncertain as to the future. But
their instincts and training are militant and
it is difficult for them to change at this late
hour. Furthermore, they are prodded on by
the extreme left-wing group, some o. whom