Evening star., 1949-09-19
Fact.Finding Board
In Steel Issue Seen
Aid 10 Bargaining
Value Held Limited;
But New Negotiations
Show 1t Justified
By David Laurence


why outside instrumentalities such
as fact-finding boards and con-
Citation agencies are necessary in
the relations of large-scale unions
and business enterprises.
The battle of kilograms between
CIO President Philip Murray and
United States Steel President Ben
Jamin Fairless had back of it
more than a quibble over words.
Both sides knew exactly what the
words meant. Mr.. Murray wanted
the fact-finding boards recon-
mendations used as basis" for
collective bargaining negotiations
and he used the word "basis" sew
eral times in his kilograms. But
he also used the word accept" +"
This looked like an adroit move
to get an advance commitment.
II he had asked the steel corpora
ton to start negotiations and had
said the boards report should be
regarded as basis" or even
submitted as a basis" for discus
sion and negotiation. there would
have been no difficulty.
The selection of words and
phrases in this instance had a
bearing on the fact-finding board
idea as a device. The particular
report issued by the fact-flnding
board in the steel industry can be
hailed as q splendid piece of
writing and social philosophy but
the public can easily be misled by
efforts to get one side or the other
to accept" a report as if it were
a draft of a proposed settlement
or a memorandum out of which
whole sections could be incorpo-
rated into a collective bargaining
contract.
Boards of Limited Values.
Fact finding boards would fail
If they attempted any such over
all task. They can be useful only
to the extent that they draw at
tention to basic principles and dis
cuss those principles. Even though
a fact-finding board may speak
approvingly of a principle, this
does not mean that honest differ
ences of opinion cannot occur
when the practical application OF
such principle has to be made or.
the language of an agreement or
contract has~to be written.
Take the problem of social in
surance and pensions. for ex-
ample. These cannot be taken as
binding because they cannot be
treated as isolated sentences. 1t
could conceivably be acceptable in
some companies to pay the entire
expense of social insurance or
pensions, but the amount that
would have to be paid out would
depend on the capacity OF a COM
pany to lay aside such sum each
year. If it's capacity to pay was
small, the amount of social insur-
ance or pensions would be limited
and would prove inconsequential
from a benefit standpoint.
So what good is a company
financed plan if it doesn't bring
security? When employees add
their own contributions, however,
they make it possible for more
money per month eventually to be
paid as retirement benefits. So
it all comes back to a question OF
cost.
Here, again, it is not practical
to concentrate on the mere state
ment that a plan should be COM
pany-financed. The fact-finding
board wisely pointed out that a
fourth round of wage increases
would commit the companies to
a fixed expense and possibly
bring higher prices. The same
can be said about an unbalanced
pension or social insurance plan,
whose cost must be calculated
accurately and estimates made
running into future years.
Cost Is Basic Matter.
This matter of cost is basic and
emphasizes why a simple Eyes"
or mo- answer on the principle
of a company-fi financed program
is not feasible. Nor would it be
desirable, even from a union
standpoint. to place such a bur-
den on the employers so that
when strikes occurred or when
recessions developed, companies
would be tempted to suspend their
pension plans. Once a jointly
financed program is in effect, it
has an impact on policies of both
unions and employers. So there
are good reasons why the unions
will want to discuss the principles
OF social insurance and pensions.
The board may be said to have
recommended in effect adequate
pensions and adequate social in
surance. This is advanced think
ing and will be commended. But
the problem of cost and how such
a long-range program shall be
set up cannot be decided either
for whole industry by a rule of
thumb nor for individual COM
panies.
These are complex matters that
even collective bargaining negoti-
ators will not be able to settle In
the same way that contracts are
made in labor management rela-
tions. Actual estimates, trustees,
regulations for the handling of
the fund and payment of benefits
are all parts of such a large prob
lem that they require prolonged
study by experts representing
both unions and management.
About all that can be expected
out of the parleys now is an agree
ment that the company will pay
cents and that the unions will
agree to nav a share of the ex-