Evening star., 1949-11-17

Those Responsible tor Loss
In Costly Dispute Seen
Likely to Escape Blame
By David Laurence
Enough has happened since
President Truman appointed a
fact-finding board in the steel
industry to weigh the merits Of
this device as a means Of settling
labor disputes.
For what occurred before and
after the strike in the steel in
dustry is a matter Of transcendent
Importance to the American
people. 1t was one of the costliest
strikes in history and yet those
who were responsible for inflicting
this loss are apparently to escape
blame.
When the Presidents fact-find-
ing board made its report there
came from one end of the country
to the other applause for the find
ings and the recommendations. 1t
was supposed that principles were
to be considered and that details
were to be left to collective bar
gaining.
But the settlements finally made
show that the CIO steel unions
spokesmen, while claiming to ac-
cept the boards recommendations,
In fact did not do so. An important
principle was rejected because the
board had recommended that q
Joint study be made of the pension
problem and that a report be made
in time for the March 1850 nego-
tiations. Phil Murray refused to
permit such study.
Hodge-Podge Is Result.
Today, as a result, there is q
hodge-podge. In a few hours of
collective bargaining. pension
plans were agreed to which can
not possibly afford the protection
that workers and companies alike
should have. If the few hours
that were given to negotiating
agreements in haste and without
scientific study of the many rani-
f1cations of the pension issue are
all that the two parties could
afford to give to such a problem,
then it was a mistake to have a
fact-f1nding board at all.
It appears now that If the steel
companies had it to do over again
they would have risked the CEN
sure of public opinion rather than
allow themselves to be drawn
into a situation such as they have
just experienced.
Congress should investigate
what happened in the steel con-
troversy. The public interest has
suffered 80 grievously that the
American people are entitled to
know how economic power is used
or misused.
For now it becomes clear that
what Phil Murray got out Of the
Bethlehem Company he could
easily have gotten last July. The
variations which Bethlehem agreed
to in comparison with the already
existing pension plan at Bethle-
hem are so slight as to make
people wonder why the CIO didn't
make it's agreement with this
company several months ago and
without q fact-f1nding board,
either. Certainly, whatever lever
age there was in respect to the
other steel companies in settling
with Bethlehem first would have
been present without a strike or a
fact finding board.
Why Was Strike Forced?
While the CIO published some
of its demands early in the game,
it is clear that it did not press
seriously for collective bargaining.
Did the CIO know ahead Of time
that the White House would ap-
point a fact finding board? II
it did not expect such contin-
gency, then why was a costly
strike forced on the country
when the same settlement could
readily have been obtained with
out such an expensive work stop
page?.
The fact-finding boards re-
commendation to avoid fourth
round increase in wages was ac-
cepted by the union before the
strike was called. leaving only
the pension issue.
An investigation would reveal
Just what was done on each OF the
days intervening before and after
the fact finding board report was
formulated, and also whether
there was good-faith collective
bargaining on one side or on both.
Clearly the country is entitled to
know what broke down. Was it
the fact-f1nding instrument? Was
it collective bargaining? Or were
labor power and politics inside
the labor unions responsible for
the fact that an agreement along
the lines of the Bethlehem plan
was not made earlier?
If the fact-f1nding board idea
Is to prevail and gain prestige, an
inquiry into what actually hap
pened and who really rejected
what would be most helpful for
the future.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.)