Evening star., 1949-10-29
Sets Forth His Views
On Industry Wide Bargaining

To the Editor of The Star:
William Donald Smith in Wednesdays
Star protests industry wide bargaining and
suggests individual hearings with "conclu-
sions based upon situations which exist in
the individual companies" May comment?
Clearly Mr.. Smith is more concerned
with the "private rights" of companies than
with the private rights of labor In effect
he asks that the smaller less efficient and
consequently less competitive companies be
subsidized by their workers I would ask
"Why cannot all plants engaged in the same
industrial enterprise pay the same wage for
equal jobs?" There is but one answer that
being that management in certain plants is
unable to manage its business equally we'll
with the more efficient and progressive
Would not Mr.. Smith be among the first
to ask that an employe be fired for in
efficiency? But what about the manage
ment that is inefficient? I see no difference.
Why should labor bear the burden of
competition for an inefficient or less pro-
ductive plant? Should this burden not be
placed SQuarely on those who profit most
from the enterprise? Should not efficiency
be dependent only on progressive methods
through intelligent management planning
and modern machinery? How can one ask
that the difference in managerial efficiency
be made up by demanding either equal
work at less pay, or more work for equal
pay" from labor?
Today's tremendous industrial production
capacity is largely the result of machinery
Probably 900 to $50 of the actual labor
is performed by machines in modern plants
However, in most of the small plants that
Mr.. Smith wants to protect at labors ex-
pense it will be found that they are not
equipped with modern machines and are
attempting to compensate the failure Of
reactionary and backward management by
extra demands on labor. Now that is what
individual bargaining would attempt to do.
but that can hardly be an undisputed "pri-
vate right" of management. Any one would
be able to compete against well-equipped
plants providing he could obtain human
slaves to match the machine slaves.
1t is the exclusive private duty" of man
agement to give its labor the tools that
will enable the individual plant to compete
successfully in business That is the purpose
of capital under capitalism! If capital is
not used properly, maintain that the
laborer-who has no say in the use of that
capital-has no duty to those who misuse it.
Industry-wide bargaining is completely
1alr. 1t WILL place the burden OF competl-
tion on whom it belongs, It will force man
agement to supply the machines that will
help not only the workers, but management
itself and the public as whole. If it
makes labor's work easier, what wrong can
there be in that? Let the conservatives
put aside this fetish of private rights"
Labor is too aware of the atrocities that
are performed in the name of private
rights" But also, let labor know that it
is to be judged on the same basis. Let it
understand that individual inefficiency can
no more be tolerated than management
ineficiency. If it wants equal pay for equal
work on an industry wide basis. it must
likewise be willing to accept the fact that
the lazy worker must be .culled from his job
without &reprisals by the union against
management. Would not this be justice for
all concerned? VIM. H. REYNOLDS.