Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1950-10-13
Regional
Views
BY Richard Gosser, Vice President
international UAW-CIO

Il been on my mind for a long time. / believe it is an i'm
portant problem. To the people concerned it is of major pro-
portions. And when I get done 1 hope you'll agree with me
that it is certainly something that should give all of us deep
concern. &C
And, of course, his workers who are members of our union.
There are something like As employers in our area who are
presently-and normally-employ anywhere from six to fifty
workers. These are small firms who are striving to make their
respective businesses profitable and secure. Most of them have
keen competition to contend with. Many of them, despite their
best efforts, are suffering from various problems that confront
ly carry on their business. Most of them, if not all, depend upon
credit sources to keep them going.
Naturally we appreciate the problems of these employers.
We want to see them make a go of their business.
At the same time, however, we have a great obligation to
our members who work in these plants workers who be-
long to our union. AS union officials we have to give just as
much service, just as much consideration to their problems as
to the problems of our other members who work in corpora
lions that employ hundreds and thousands of workers. This is
our job. our responsibility. q
THIS BRINGS us to the point. What are we going to do about
l. pensions for the employees of these small firms? The big
corporations we have already-in the main-setted. Our mem
sions and their disqualification and medical programs.
This is not true of these small concerns.
Yet these employees want the same protection that their
brothers and sisters have who are employed by the large con
GERMS. And they are entitled to the same protection, the same
benefits, the same security.
But how are we going to provide these things for them?
The small firms tell us that it is impossible for them to pro-
vide the kind of social security protection that large firms are
able to do. They haven't got enough financial reserves; they
haven't got enough people involved to make it work.
1t is obvious to anyone that where thousands of people are
covered, the cost of social neutrality-suspicious., disqualification,
medical programs relatively small. Mass contribution makes
this possible.
THE ANSWER? Well, l hate to say 81 told you SOL" but that ia
l. what it bols down to. When we started out to get pension
for our people we foresaw this problem. Our experts told us at
that time-if we needed experts to tell us the obvious-that
small concerns would run into difficulty when it came their
turn to provide security for their relatively few employees. But
we were accused of everything under the sun because of our
sane and sensible approach to this problem. l personally was
plloried by the so-called public press as an enemy of our
community as a man who tries to wreck Toledo" No one
listened to our arguments, however sane and sensible.
Unfortunately even the small employers joined in the cam
paign against us, our union and myself in particular.
So, here we are.
0ubo is +be soL,+iono % Won ,sL
For there must be a solution. The needs of our people, our
membership must be met.
FORTUNATELY, there is a solution to this problem. A sou-
l. ton that will not make it impossible for these small firms to
continue successful operation. AS l said before, and now I re-
peat, we want these concerns to continue their operations-and
proftably so. c.
But not at the expense of their workers.
And they can do both.
l believe that if these employers would wake up and real
ie that what is impossible for them individually to accomplish
becomes rather simple if they band their resources together.
That's right, / mean pooling their resources together to set up a
common fund for pensions, disqualification and medical care.
field of labor relations, six or eight months ago, it is no longer
so. In Detroit a large group of small tool and die plants did just
that. And they found the idea practical and, above all, eco
nomical. What they couldn't do individually they did together
as a group.
Does this mean a "area pension PLAN? Yes, in a limited
sense. But Blue Cross and Blue Shield is also based on the
same principle. In both instances mass participation makes pos
sible the relatively low rates.
So, why not do the same with our social security pregnant?
Some people might not like this suggestion. Some people might
even start yelling all over again and once again accuse me OF
trying to "wreck Toledo" But they will not be telling thI \
truth. For my plan does not call for the "wrecking" of any
thing. On the contrary, I'm convinced that it is the only practi-
cal solution to a problem which is facing us right now-ap prob