The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1950-04-27
News and Views
-. By ALEXANDER S. LIPSETT, Can ILNS Feature)

management cooperation
may be to some people just high
sounding phrase. To others it is the
answer to the battling industrial
problems of today, "the key to pro-
gress," as H. A. Bradley, president
of the AFL International Chemical
Workers Union, put it. President
Bradley's thoughts on what he de-
scribed as the policy of his union
might we'll be adopted by other
union leaders, to the profit of both
labor and management.
after all, if the company doesn't
prosper and make money, the work
ers can't get along either" Brad
ley said at recent union affair
in Pearl River, New York. 'Under
the capitalistic SYSTEM" he added,
"the union is in partnership with
the company-both are dependent
on each other for their very exist
ence. When this partnership be-
comes more widely recognized, the
labor movement will gain more
dignity"
J. !. !:
Brother Bradley, it should be
noted in passing, is one of those all
too few union leaders who attend
to their jobs without fanfare and
other publicity trappings. His COM
mon sense and leadership have
proven invaluable assets to the
union movement ever since the
Chemical Workers, one of the
younger AFL affiliates, came into
being. AH aa 9
Pointedly remarking that "man-
agements the world over have
learned their share of the lesson
ALSO" Bradley urged business and
labor to correct the distorted and
often downright false attitude of
the general public toward union
ism. Wherever such opinions fam
ned by a prejudiced press prevail,
they must be fought as a menace to
the peace and progress of the Am
erican people, he said.
:. I. y
Precisely because so many trade
unionists and not a few business
executives are sold on the idea of
Encouragement cooperation, this
column confesses to be somewhat
disturbed over a recent decision of
the National Labor Relations
Board. The board, in case con-
cerning the workers of machine
concern in California, judged the
firm guilty of discrimination
against its employees for having
reduced the work week after the
men had voted to be represented by
a union.
In upholding an earlier ruling by|
a trial examiner, the NLRB found
that this action constituted in eff
feet an attempt ON the part of the
to discourage union men,
bership and interfere with the
rights of the workers to organize.
Accordingly, the firm was ordered
to reimburse the employees for the
wages and overtime pay they had
lost, since the cut from 45 to 40i
hours was intended to demonstrate
to the workers "the economic san
ctions which could be imposed upon
them because of their union activ-
ity."
So far so good. No sensible per-
son will deny the NLRB's right,
and duty, to uphold labor's organ
izing efforts and to safeguard the
workers right to a union of their
own choice. That the board inter
preted the action of the firm as al
punitive measure against the work
ers because of their vote for the
union, is also understandable. 1t isl
pertinent to ask, however, whether
the well established zeal of the
federal labor bureaucrats did not
carry them too far.
Management has certain inalien-
able rights, rights that are as es-
sential to the functioning of our
economic system as they are vital
TO the growth of free labor move
ment. Among them is the appor-
tionment of work and determna-
ton of the work week within
legal limits and subject to collec-
tive bargaining). AS see it, it be-
nooves both labor and business to
keep state interference in our eco
nomic processes within bounds; to
exclude bureaucracy from medolling
in matters that are clearly beyond
the scope of government.
:. = X
These points, | admit, are open
TO debate. What is not debatable is
that the above cut in working
hours, so sharply condemned byl
the board, created additional en-