Evening star., 1949-07-17

lay week in soft coal mines east o.
evidence of the darkening plight o1
commercial side Of this industr!
the United Mine Workers O.
America can and will.
80 next year. in 1949, or at an!
other time. when evil days com,
upon this industry. you will fine
the United Mine Workers moving
in. and If there are only thre,
days work in this industry, W,
will all have the three days work
80, II needs must, the mine
workers are prepared to move
into that field Of stabilization O.
the industry and If we are goint
to starve in this industry at any
time we will just all starve to.
gether."
In the same speech, Mr.. Levi.
pointed out that "the productive
capacity of our coal industry ex.
ceeds at any normal time the
consuming capacity Of our mar.
kets" and that in the ms jority oi
coal-producing States there were
almost chronically" less than 20(
work days per year.
Reasons for Slump
Many bituminous operators an6
miners have started on a starva.
ton diet. Events since Mr.. Lewis
observation about less than 20(
work days q year indicate thai
they might go as low as $50 work
days q year. The basic reasons
for the decline in soft coal con.
sumption are:
!. Decline of the war and post.
war export market now that Euro
pean production is increasing.
2. Cheaper costs of competitive
fuels. such as natural gas, hydro
electricity and heavy residual oils
The last named. a comparative
newcomer, is the by-product o1
refining and, while it's present
price is low, the supply would be
curtailed in the event of war.
8. Higher costs of coal trans.
portation and handling.
4. Higher wages and other work.
ers' benefits.
S. Increased productivity in bet.
ter-financed mines, especially the
captive" mines of the large stee.
companies.
The price Of coal is the decisive
factor in the industry's plight.
Labor Figures Cited
The latest figures from the Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics on soft
coal mining, issued In June last
year. disclose what has happened.
Using 1889 as a base Of 100, the
BIS found that the output per
man-hour had increased to 1908
by 1947. But payrolls, on this
same base, had increased to 270.7,
and unit labor cost jumped to
172.8. These figures did not in
clude increased transportation and
handling costs and covered times
of substantially full employment.
If the industry goes on a perma-
nent three-day work week, the
unit labor cost-or the cost of
producing a ton Of coal-would
naturally rise because the con-
slant overhead charges would be
distributed over q smaller num-
Der of units.
These same BIS figures show
that total production increased
percentagewise from 100 in 1889
to 1867 in 1947, while production
workers declined from 100 to 98.3
per cent in 1947.
These figures present the fun
damental problem facing the
miners. the operators and the
public. The situation is very like
the 1920s, when consumption
would not support all the mines
and all the workers. AS produc-
tivity increases in the more eff
cient mines, some mines will be
closed and some miners will be
without work. That is what Mr.
Lewis is trying to remedy with
his "stabilization" plan.
Action Doubtful
The bigger question, and one of
popular concern, is whether the
national welfare will permit one
man-acting alone or in cooper
alton with management-to de-
termine what production shall be
in an essential industry.
There is doubt as to what the
Government can do If Mr.. Lewis
acts alone. The Clayton anti
monopoly law Of 1914 and the
Norris-La Guardia Anti-injunc-
ton Act Of 1882 appear to give
official sanction to restraints on
commerce by labor unions.
In 1945 the court in Allen Brad
ley Co. vs. Local 3 of Electrical
Workers Brotherhood case spe-
,ifically ruled that a combination
Of a union with New York con-
tractors and manufacturers was a
violation Of the anti-monopoly
laws. In that case the union OBJ
many closed-shop agree
nents with contractors and manu-
lecturers. who in turn agreed not
ID deal with open-shop concerns
md to bar from the area equip
ment manufactured outside its
The court held that this was
between the union and
It can be argued, but not
that Mr.. Lewis and the
operators do not have to take
|oint affirmative action together