Evening star., 1951-03-02
Rule or Ruin


Policy Committee boils down, to borrow one of
their own adjectives, to an arrogant" refusal
to play ball unless labor is permitted to make
the rules of the game.
There is, of course, no such admission as
this in the statement The claim is that the
decision to withdraw all labor representatives
from the mobilization program was taken as
the only way to impress upon the American
people the great wrongs" being perpetrated
against them When the statement Is read, how
ever, it seems plain enough that what these
gentlemen really are saying is this: We do not
like Charles E. Wilson and we do not like the
way he is running the mobilization program. He
has refused to adopt our views as to how the job
should be done. Therefore, we are going home
and we are going to stay there until our wishes
in this matter are satisfied.
This is not the act Of responsible men, and
it is not consistent with the committees own
recognition that "an effective mobilization pro-
gram" is imperatively required "for the defense
of our free institutions and of our great demo-
cratic traditions" For the fact is that labor's
refusal to cooperate, no matter how sincere the
motivation may be, is likely to produce, not
more effective mobilization program, but less
effective one. And no greater wrong" could
be done to the American people than to cripple
or destroy the defense program.
The labor leaders may well believe that they
have some legitimate grievances. The provisions
of law which hamper food price controls are
inequitable, although the fault there rests with
Congress, not with Mr.. Wilson. 1t is also true
that Mr.. Wilson is by no means the most tactful
of men, Given tough job to do his instinct
is to get it DONE and he is apt to bruise feelings
in the process. Wounded sensibilities will heal
in time, however, but If labor's decision to take
a walk wrecks the defense program time is not
going to repair that damage.
There is also certain amount of sheer
hokum in the labor statement. This excerpt is
an example: $50 long as the control of man.
power rests in the Office of Defense Mobilization,
no American wage or salary Garner may feel
safe that the big business clique in control of
that agency may not suddenly seek to achieve a
compulsory draft of the Nations workers. Such
an action, under big business control and super
vision, would endanger our traditional concepts
of free labor and voluntary cooperation. We do
not believe that free Americans want civilian
labor to be conscripted."
That is trickily -phrased scare talk and as
phony as a So bill. No one in MIR. Wilson's office
Is even considering CONSUMPTION of civilian labor.
The "big business clique" could not order a COM
pulSory draft of the Nations workers If it wanted
to. The labor leaders know this, and the adroit
phrasiag of their statement shows that they
know it. Why, then, do they throw it in, If not
to divert attention from their own untenable
position by pointing with alarm to bogey man
that exists only in their imagination?
It is to be hoped that these labor leaders,
when they have had time to think things over
and perhaps to cool off bit, will return to the
mobilization program and assume their obliga-
tions as the representatives of an important ele
ment of our society If they should persist in
their refusal to cooperate, great deal of harm
may be done. But great deal more harm would
be done If the President should capitulate to
their rule-or-ruin attitude, and-it is most graft
flying, therefore, to note his firm indication that
he intends to stand behind Mr.. Wilson.