Evening star., 1949-10-17
Plan for One Big Union
10 Win Strikes Seen
Way Toward Fascism
Government Eventually
Would Have to Step In
To Curb Both Sides
By Dapid Laurence

"oa'o i'o'S ~ StSP !"
To Curb Both Sides
By Dapid Laurence
Concentration of economic pow
er through one big union which
would pool its financial resource.
to win strikes is now openly
championed by both Philip Muir
ray, head of the CIO, and John L
Lewis of the United Mine Workers
union.
The implications of such q
move. could be far-reaching ano
might conceivably pave the way
for an American type of fascism
This could come as the direct
result Of popular feeling best ex.
pressed by the plague on both.
your-houses" sentiment which Is
growing so rapidly in America.
For If the labor chiefs are right
In their argument that this pool
ing Of financial resources must
be developed to match "monop-
oily" and financial power exerted
by employers, then the end result
might be control or regulation OF
both by Government.
The wis-Murray scheme is
really a proposal to gang up or
the public-to force employers tt
yield to almost any wage demand
which. in turn, means passing or
the cost to the consumer. Even
tually, however. consumers will
grow wise to the fact that a mi
nority is dominating their eco
nomic lives and a reaction will
set in. Big unionism and big
business will then be taken ir
hand by big Government.
No Widespread Counterpart.
But is there today as yet a
comparable economic or financial
power on the part of employers
analogous to that which Mr.. Lewis
and MIR. Murray are proposing?
While there have doubtless been
scattered instances where strong
employers have privately helped
weaker ones in strike situations,
1t cannot be said to be widespread.
For one thing, If the big steel
companies sought to aid the
smaller ones, they would run
afoul of the anti-monopoly laws
which denounce any sort of pool
ing Of resources by businesses in
a given industry. Such indirect
controls over other companies
would be hailed as evidence of
>. the, power also to fix prices and
this would run right into the
antitrust laws.
Also it is doubtful whether the
Bureau Of Internal Revenue would
approve as a deduction for tax
purposes any current expenditures
made directly by one company for
the benefit of other companies.
There is the further safeguard,
moreover, that individual stock
holders could sue in the courts in
dividuals who are officers of COM
panies that give away or even lend
the corporations funds to other
companies.
Trade Group Use Suggested.
But, it would be suggested. such
contributions could be made
through trade associations. Here
again the fear of losing a tax de-
duction would restrain the cor
porations. For it would have to
be proved that the trade associa-
ton did not act for any particular
companies or use its funds in aid
Of individual enterprises or else
the trade association would lose
its tax exemption. It is doubtful
also whether the contributing
company in the first place would
be allowed a tax deduction even
If it did not make the money
available directly but did 50
through the subterfuge of a trade
association.
There have been noted at times
various proposals for mutual in
surance schemes whereby premi-
ums would be paid to those ad-
versely affected by strikes but this
type Of plan has some defects of
vulnerability from a tax angle
and nobody has come up yet with
q program that could take care
Of the huge losses by the larger
companies involved in a strike.
It may well be that Mr.. Lewis
and Mr.. Murray have started
something and that the subject
now will be explored by employers
20 as to afford protection to small
er companies which are always
the first to break the united front
and weaken the position of larger
employer units in a labor dispute.
Certainly If labor unions can
pool their financial resources,
ways may be found now whereby
employers can do the same thing.
In the end the people will grow
vexed with such misuse of eco
nomic power and demand more
and more regulation of both en-
ployers and unions "in the public
hterest"-which would be a re-
grettable defeat for voluntarism
and a triumph for governmental
coercion.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.)