Evening star., 1949-09-15
Fact-Finders Indicate
Security Policy Vital
For Steel Workers
Report Says Unions Will
Demand and Probably Get
Welfare Funds Control

Demand and Probably Gel
Welfare Funds Control
By David Laurence
Plenty Of implications Of ma
tional policy are to be found in
the recommendations made by
the Presidents finding board,
which has just issued its report
on the steel industry. For one
thing industry as a whole has been
put on notice that, unless it gets
back Of some nationwide plan
for pension Of more substantial
amounts than are available today,
labor unions will demand and
probably get control Of more and
more such welfare funds. The
report says significantly on this
point:
80 long as Government does
not provide the security at all, we
believe that industry should.
$50 long as Government fails
to provide an adequate amount,
industry should take up the slack.
"It is inevitable that the thou
sands Of private insurance and
pension funds now in existence
should multiply in number and
amount. It should be cause Of
great concern that, as a result of
the growing search for security,
there is growing up haphazardly
all over the country this large
number of unequal and unco-or-
dinated insurance funds, with
little or no public control.
Entitled to Security.
mo thoughtful citizen, interest
ed In the human resources OF our
Nation, can expect labor to wait
patiently by until Government
makes up its mind. Workers are
entitled to security in the mean
time-with the thought that. if
Government should finally decide
to provide adequate security
through a nationwide compulsory
plan, changes in private plans
could be made"
The foregoing illustrates the
complexity of the whole pension
problem. What kind of a system
should be imposed by companies
now? Should it be entirely at
company expense? If, as the
Presidents board recommends,
this is done. then obviously the
huge amount of expense involved
will mean relatively small benefits
for each employe. whereas a plan
in which the employe supplements
the company's contribution would
be better for all concerned and in
the end gives the employe larger
benefits at retirement.
It Is unfortunate that second
or top layer comprising employe
contributions was not suggested
by the Presidents board, because
it would have clarified the situa-
tion.
The subject is so intricate that
It is naturally difficult for the
companies to say now that they
will accept 100 per cent all the
suggestions made by the Pres
ident's board. There are so many
other factors of expense involved
that it will take considerable time
and study to come up with a plan
satisfactory to both sides.
This is why CIO President
Murray was asking just a little
too much when he demanded an
acceptance in a legal sense of the
recommendations of the Pres
ident's board as something to be
incorporated in the forthcoming
collective-b bargaining contract.
The steel companies quite prop
erly insist that the Presidents
board made a report which states
the case in principle and not in
detail.
ncpOTt OH i his fO1ut.
On this very point the boards
report says:
These recommendations should
cover the framework, rather than
the details, of settlement, which
should be left to the parties for
negotiation"
The exchange of kilograms be-
tween Mr.. Murray Of the CIO and
Mr.. Fairless of U. S. Steel Cor
poration shows that when the
company indicated its willingness
4 to resume collective bargaining,
the CIO executive wanted a writ
ten assurance first that the rec
concentrations had been accepted.
The steel corporation undoubtedly
wanted to reserve for itself deci-
sion on acceptance or rejection
when the collective-bargaining
negotiations had progressed suf-
f1ciently to determine whether
such decision was required. Mr..
Murray asked that the recon-
mendations" of the Presidents
board be used as a basis" for the
negotiations.
When both sides fully under
stand that collective bargaining
permits any issues, new or old, to
be raised, they will enter the
negotiations without entangling
themselves in the legal niceties of
an agreement that was never sup
posed to be legally binding in
advance on either side. If the
boards report is to have d moral
rather than a legal influence on
the negotiations, it is important
that legal technicalities should
not be permitted to arise before
the collective-bargaining negotia-
tions themselves are begun. The
sparring thus far would appear
to be not too consequential.