Evening star., 1955-07-19
What to Do About 1t?

In view OF the apparent
deadlock in the transit strike,
drastic legislation is being con-
sidered that would authorize
seizure of the company and
operation of the service by the
District of Columbia or by the
United States. Senator Morse
has proposed another course
the cancellation of the COM
pany's franchise on a years
notice.
Before either of these al
ternatiyes is adopted, I should
like to call attention to still
another alternative which
seems to have received little or
no consideration in the cur
rent controversy; namely, leg
islation by Congress that would
provide for compulsory arbi-
tration Of the current dispute.
More broadly. such legislation
might set up a plan for COM
pulsory arbitration of all labor
disputes in the chief public
utility services in the District
of Columbia such as public
transportation, telephone serv-
ice and electricity and gas
service.
Compulsory arbitr a tion"
means a system for securing a
rational solution or settlement.
by impartial arbitrators. of la
bor disputes between employers
and employees without forcing
on the general public the inn
nlense inconvenience and spe-
cial costs Of a complete sus-
pension Of the services Of the
strike-bound organization for
indefinitely long periods Of
time. The award of the arbi-
traitors has to be made legally
binding on both the employers
and the employees. This sys-
tenn should be confined in its
operation to labor disputes in
public utilities strictly So
called, leaving the great ma
jority of industrial employ
ments as well as agricultural
and other employments to the
existing regime of unrestricted
private bargaining.
The chief advantage of COM
pulsory arbitration in our
present situation in the Dis
trict of Columbia is that it
would dispose of the present
strike as a labor dispute, be-
tween private parties, without
forcing the District govern
ment casually and without
proper preparation into a
regime of socialistic manage
ment and perhaps permanent
ownership of the public trans
portation system. The policy
of public management and
ownership of public utilities,
if 1t is to be adopted at all.
should be adopted because of
free statesmanlike preference.
and not as a mere undesired
by-product of a costly and
disastrous strike.
Compulsory arbitration is
capable of settling this labor
dispute and others that may
ensue. Seizure of the properties
will not in itself settle the
labor dispute. We might very
likely have another strike and
a direct clash between the
United States Government and
a powerful labor union like the
dramatic conflict between the
United Mine Workers and the
United States, represented di-
rectly by Secretary of the In
terror Krug as Coal Mines Ad-
ministrator, in 1916, described
so fully in the Supreme Court
decision in the case of United
States v. United Mine Workers
800 U. s. 258.
Charles S. Collier,
Professor Of Law.
George Washington Uni
versity.
X n y X
The Stars editorial position
on the transit strike is a mat
ter of extreme arnaZement to
me, as it must be to many
other Washingtonians. Your
immense fear that poor old
Louis Wolfson is being done
wrong seems to have so be-
clouded your thinking con-
cerning the strike that some
very pertinent facts have been
forgotten.
These facts are:
/. The transit workers, in
stead of being a bunch of un-
conciliatory fellows who are
trying to take Capital Tran
sits shirt away (as the edi-
torials would indicate). have
been extremely moderate and
throughout the strike sought
q settlement and compromises.
The company, on the other
hand, has consistently refused
compromises. w..
2. Capital Transit has not
made q single offer to the