Evening star., 1947-07-13

| tucked away the fattest contract in
history for his soft coal miners, a
number of questions Of interest to
the entire country have cropped up
as q result of the big deal bulled
through by the steel industry.
Incidentally, it IS interesting to
note that Mr.. Lewis, smacked down
hard by the courts few months
ago, won his greatest victory with
out uttering q word publicly and in
spite Of the Taft-Hartley Act, which
was designed to fence him in. Some
one remarked that 1t should be
against the law to pass a law to
aget" the miners boss and his union.
In wartime, Congress aimed the
Smith-C Conna1ly Act directly at Mr..
Lewis. He promptly used it to his
advantage.
Some of the questions raised by
the huge concessions to the miners
involve:
The general effect of the contract
on the already high-spiralling inf1a-
ton and the direct or indirect effect
on the cost of individual commodi-
ties and goods; the psychological
effect of the fat wage gains on work
ers in related industries. both now
and when their contracts come up
for renewal.
Some More Questions
Other questions: Why was the
steel industry anxious this time to
buy peace at any price when last
year it haggled over few cents an
hour increase and brought on a
strike OF its own workers? Did Mr..
Lewis, by insisting upon and getting
unprecedented monetary conces-
sions, make 1t impossible for the
coal industry to operate when the
high demand for coal falls off? Will
the new contract prove another
Jacksonville Agreement" which in
1922 started the disintegration of
his union?
First Of all, the operators esti-
mate that the new mine contract
will add around half a billion dol
lars year to the cost of producing
coal. The cost will be even higher
by the time the fuel reaches the
consumer because of the tendency
to add on at the various levels Of
distribution.
The cost of the contract will vary
greatly from section to section and
mine to mine, depending on such
factors as degree of mechanization
of the mine, accessibility and thick
ness of the coal seam. For example,
it is estimated that production costs
in the South will be raised around
Isl Is per ton and only so cents ton
in the highly mechanized Illinois
! fields. Best guess is the national
average will be about IS cents. Di-
rect labor costs now zoom up to
about 10 per cent Of the total cost
of producing coal.
Immediate Effect
The long time effect of the higher
wage on coal costs is hard to gauge,
however, because Of such impon-
derables as increases in productivity
of both men and machines and the
fact that more and more mines are
being mechanical. Machines do the
work faster and cheaper than men.
In illustration of this point, an
Illinois operator said that Is years
ago when wages were fraction of
what they are today it cost him s4
to produce a ton of coal. The cost
prior to the new contract, because
Of increased productivity of men and
machines, was only s3.65. He said
the new Lewis concessions will raise
the figure to around $4.25.
The immediate effect of the new
contract on costs, however, is diff
ferent and more important story.
A report on President Truman's
Council of Economic Advisers, which
was the subject of cabinet discus
sion Friday, is said to minimize the
effect of the coal concessions on
living costs. Such prediction is
contrary to views expressed by in
dustry so far. However, wage in
creases given to the hard coal
miners should have small effect in
dividually on living costs, since
anthracite is not used industrially
and does not bulk large as compared
to soft coal.
Directly or indirectly the manu-
facture of nearly everything we buy
is dependent upon coal. If the
higher costs of coal is not reflected
directly in the making of an article
it is felt indirectly, perhaps, In
higher price for machinery used IN