The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1950-05-25
Reuther Debunks
Nine Arguments
OF Pension Foes

New York (LPA)-The people
who oppose pensions are the same
who predicted economic catastrophe
before, whenever labor proposed a
social advance, says Victor Reuther
in the May % issue of Reporter
magazine.
They are the people who saw ma
tional doom in the eight-hour day
and the income tax, and unemploy-
ment compensation, and social Sc.
curity, and bank-deposit insurance
and minimum wages, and price sup
port for farmers, says Reuther
who is educational director Of tht
United Auto Workers.
In his articles Reuther answers
nine arguments of the anti-pensior
economists. They are given below
in "bunk" and because" form.
BUNK: Auto workers shouldn't
get pensions when textile and farm
workers do not have them.
BECAUSE: "All workers are
morally entitled to adequate pen
sions-The fact that all workers
cannot win these pensions now is
no reason why some shouldn't.
Once the breach is made it will be
easier for other workers to win
pensions for themselves"
BUNK: The cost of pensions will
inevitably be passed along to the
consumer.
BECAUSE: "The cost of pen
sions is a labor cost, but not all
labor costs are passed on to con-
sumers. Some are; some are abb
sorbed by chronological advances
some come out of profits; and
some are paid for by reducing
wages"
BUNK: The economy cannot af-
ford to maintain the aged 10 per
cent of the population on pensions.
BECAUSE: During the war,
about half the population support
ed the rest in totally unproductive
activity-making war. In peace
time it is certainly possible to
maintain the older 10 per cent"
BUNK: A huge investment pro-
blem will be created as the funds
to guarantee the payment of pen
sions in various industries accu-
mulate.
BECAUSE: Large sums of
money in pension funds will have
to be invested, but the problem
will be no more insoluble than the
problem created by the accumula-
lion of funds in the Federal Social
Security Trust Fund. That fund
makes it unnecessary to sell as
many government bonds to the
public as other wise would have to
De DONE"
BUNK: An industrial pension
ties worker to a particular plant.
BECAUSE: Workers who get
pension "would be able to retain
their mobility and freedom if they
were guaranteed a dismissal wage
equal to their pension rights in
case they left a company, or if pen
sion credits were transferable from
one company to another. We
haven't won such provisions yet,
but eventually, l am convinced, we
will. In the meantime, we have to
begin somewhere"
BUNK: Employers cannot afford
pensions.
BECAUSE: "No employer ever
admits that he can afford wage in
creases. The current demand for
pensions and health security adds
up to a ten cent per hour cost per
worker. Under this heading, a
special plea is made that small
business cannot afford pensions.
Actually, however, the cost of pen
sions increases or decreases de-
pending on the number of employees
concerned. If a small employer can
afford a ten cents an hour wage
increase, he can afford ten cents
an hour for pensions"
BUNK: An industrial pension
destroys a workers incentive to
save for old age.
BECAUSE: even when work
ers do have pensions, they will have
an incentive to save. The real ques-
ton is, when are they going to get
enough in wages to enable them to
save?"
BUNK: Pensions will fix on in
dustry an unbearable fixed cost,
which will discourage risk taking
and chronological advances.
BECAUSE: "A pension cost isl
only a cents-per-hour cost, and isl
no different from a wage increase
Of the same amount. Wage in |
creases, as almost all economists
admit, act as an incentive to indus
try to start making new techno-
logical advances"
The argument that pensions
should be paid for through the
Federal Social Security program
under a uniform system cannot bel
listed as BUNK because it is true.
Reuther points out, however, that
The winning of industrial pensionsN
mas "tuyned such notorious fight
ers against social-security benefits
- GnnnrnI Mn+nrr En,.d and tho