Evening star., 1946-05-09
Coal Crisis Called Aid
To British Loan Foes
Minority Seeks to Sidetrack
Measure By Amy Means
By David Laurence

By Dauid Laurence
Test votes in the Senate indicate
clearly that the loan to Great Britain
will pass Congress. Amendments that
are tackled on in the course of the
measures progress through the two
Houses can be ironed out in conference.
But the fact is that the vote against
demanding permanent possession of
bases at present leased to the United
States by Britain was a true reflection
of the Senate's attitude toward the loan
itself. A majority favors the idea.
There's no question about that now.
The real problem is whether a mi
nority, which is bent on using almost
any tactics to defeat the will of the
majority, will succeed presently in side
tracking the bill or in keeping it from
ever getting into the conference COM
mittee stage.
The coal strike has undoubtedly given
aid to the opponents of the British loan
who want delay. There are some Sena-
tors, favorable to the loan, who feel
that the country should be protected
against further damage to the economic
system through the prolongation of the
strike.
One thing seems sure-if the loan bill
/ is set aside, it will not be without some
agreement as to fixing a time for vot-
ing. If that kind of understanding is
reached in the Senate, it is probable
that some form of antistrike legisla-
ton will then be passed. If the Senate
ever acts, the House of Representatives
would move quickly to accept the Sen
ate measure.
The truth is the House of Representa-
tives for several years has had sub
stantial majority in favor of legislation
to cure monopolistic practices by labor
unions that have closed shops. The
Senate has repeatedly blocked action.
The miners union has complete con-
troll over the miners of the country and
the insistence by the miners chieftains
on an acceptance of one demand before
any others will be discussed is, of course.
an abuse OF the right of collective bar
gaining. Certainly no such extreme
power was ever contemplated by the
members of Congress who voted for the
Wagner Labor Relations Law in the first
instance
Pressure on Congress to do something
about the coal strikes effects on the
economic life of the country has been
increasing in the last "a hours. The
people are beginning to wonder how far
the situation must drift before the leg
islators will do something about it.
The difficulty is that, since this is an
election year, members do not like to
stick their necks out and push for leg
islation which in few days might seem
to be superf1uous. For John L. Lewis
is capable of calling off strikes as quick
ly as he initiates them. He can do an
about-face rapidly and leave the legis-
| lation hanging in the air-but the men,
bers of Congress who sponsored it might
then feel they had incurred the antago-
nism of certain labor unions unneces-
sarily.
The curious thing about the present
situation, however, is that not a single
spokesman of organized labor in the
upper levels of the movement has ven-
! tured to speak out on the coal strike
or its issues. Both the AFL and the CIO
leaders apparently approve of the eco
nomic disturbance that has been caused
and of the widespread suffering that
has resulted from the breakdown of
the collective bargaining process which
they so frequently extoll.
Before the Wagner law was passed
Congress was assured that, if collec-
tive bargaining could only be written
into the statutes, a prolific cause of
strikes would be eliminated. The rec
ord shows that strikes are as severe
as they were before 1885, when the law
was passed.
In the Senate this week, Senator
Barkley, the majority leader, asked
what strike had ever been prevented by
the cooling off provisions of the Smith
Connally law and not single member
present on the floor knew enough about
the situation to tell him that through
out the war the law had served as a
deterrent because the 30-day provision
did afford time in many cases for the
collective bargaining process to function.
A better question might have been
whether the Wagner Law had prevented
serious strikes in the last decade. If
the answer is in the negative then the
inference might be drawn that MI.
Barkleys expressed antipathy to legis-
lation about strikes could be con-
strued to mean that he favored a re-
peal of the Wagner Law-which of
course, he doesn't. His question illus
trates the lack of realism surrounding
the whole debate on labor legislation.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)