Evening star., 1952-05-16
Un-Americon?

vice PRESIDENT barKleyS speech 10 the ClO
Steelworkers is a measure Of the lengths to
which this administration will go to pay its
political debt to organized labor. 1t also amply
demonstrates the futility of turning over indus
trial disputes to partisan political agencies.
Mr. Barkley was more restrained than that
self-avowed partisan, Secretary of>Labor Tobin.
But his remarks, to put it mildly, were far from
factual.
He started out by saying that he was in no
position to comment on the steel dispute or on
the legal issues of the seizure Then he proceeded
to denounce the steel industry. "It is as un-
American" he said "for any group any inter-
est to defy or to deny or disregard the verdict of
governmental agency set up to settle these mat
ters as it is to defy the verdict of jury In
court of justice in this country"
One thing wrong with this statement as
applied to the steel situation is that it is not
true. 1t places the prestige of the vice presidency
behind as gross distortion of fact as has come
out of this whole business. And it reveals the
hopelessness of expecting anything approaching
impartiality when politicians become involved in
labor dispute.
Why is it un-American, whatever that may
mean, for any group to refuse to bow to the pro-
poSals of the Wage Sterilization Board? Even
the President has said that board recommended
tions are not binding or compulsory. They are
supposed to be nothing more than impartial ad-
vsory proposals which might be helpful in lead
ing to an agreement in an industrial dispute
Neither party it has been repeatedly stated, is
bound by them. So how does it happen that it
suddenly becomes un-American for the steel
industry to refuse to accept in full the boards
recommendations in this instance, including the
recommendation for union shop? To argue as
Mr. Barkley does is to rob words of their mean
ing tn StultifV assurances SO1cmnlv 0iven hv our
highest governmental authorities.
This, however, is something that can be
expected under any administration which tries
to adjust labor disputes with the methods now
in effect It's evil aspects may be carried to an
extreme under the Truman administration, for
it is almost abjectly sensitive to pressure from
organized labor. But the same thing, to some
degree, will be true under any administration.
Our political system being what it is, any party
in office is going to try to appease the groups to
which it believes it owes its political success.
The best way to avoid this is to set up ma
chinery for adjusting the major industrial dis
putes on a non-poltical, non-partisan basis.
The ideal thing would be to establish these labor
courts. or whatever they might be called on
footing comparable to that of the Federal judi
ciary, which commands respect, not so much
because of the powers it possesses, but because
the people as a whole have confidence in the
integrity and the impartiality of the Judges.
The country may not yet be ready for such
an innovation as this. But Mr.. Barkley however
unintentionaly, argues persuasvely for it. And
the day of its establishment is brought closer
every time a labor union, with the implicit
Endorsement of highly placed politicians, threat
ems to shut down until hell freezes over" an
industry that is essential to the national welfare.
For the real threat in this is not directed to the
industry 1t is directed to the American people,
and all experience teaches that the people will
not indefinitely permit any group to retain the
power to put such threat into effect