Evening star., 1952-04-28

treatment and immunity from the
price control rules.
Second, you ask whether the
closed shop was involved in this
case. The closed shop is not
an issue in this case. but the
union shop Is. I can understand
your confusion on this point. The
closed shop and the union shop
are actually quite different. How
ever, the two are commonly con-
fused and this confusion has been
deliberately exploited in the propa-
ganda of the steel industry. The
closed shop, which requires a per-
son to belong to a union before
he can be hired by an employer.
is forbidden by Federal law. How
ever, the Taft-Hartley Act spe-
cifically authorizes the union shop,
under which employers and unions
make an agreement requiring that
workers become union members
after they have been hired. There
are many variations of such
agreements. It is not uncommon
to excuse old employees from join
ing the union, or even to allow a
person to drop out of the union
after the first year, if he chooses.
Board Urged Negotiation.
"The union shop was definitely
an issue in this case. The Wage
Sterilization Board felt that the
issue was important enough to
require a recommendation. The
dispute obviously could not have
been settled If this issue were not
settled. It should be noted that
the board did not recommend any
particular form of union sliop. It
recommended that the parties
negotiate the form of union shop
to be adopted.
incidentally, the union shop
is not new to the steel industry.
Twenty-seve steel companies al
ready have some kind of union
shop arrangements in effect and
some of the leading steel COM
panies - including the United
States Steel Corp.-which are OBJ
jecting to signing union shop con-
tracts with the steelworkers, al
ready have union shop contracts
with other workers they employ. :.
Third, you asked about the
Taft-Hardley Act. A work STOP
page would have occurred Deem
Der 81. if the union had not ac-l
ceded to the Governments request
to postpone strike action SO that
the Wage Sterilization Board
could hear the dispute and rec
ommend fair settlement. BY this
means strike action was delayed,
before April 8. for 80 days-volun-
tarily-whereaS the Taft-Hartley
Act could have delayed it only 80
days-by compulsion. I don't think
it makes sense to use force when
you can get cooperation by free
consent.
Would Have Destroyed Chance.
after the board made its rec
concentrations, late in March, the
parties resumed negotiations and
Government negotiators on the
scene were hopeful of settlement
right up to the evening of April 8.
A resort to the Taft-Hartley ma
chinery during the time the par
ties were meeting, of course,
would have stopped negotiations
and destroyed any chance of set
tlement.
If I had used the Taft-Hartley
Act on April 8 there inevitably
would have been a work stoppage
because under the Taft-Hartley
Act there is an elaborate pro-
cedure which must be observed
before an injunction can be
sought. A board of inquiry must
be appointed, must hold hearings
and must prepare a report to the
President. Only then may the
President instruct the Attorney
General to seek an injunction. ALI
this takes time. On previous oc-
casions. when I have used the
Act. it has taken on
the average from a week to 10
days from the time a board of
inquiry is appointed until the