Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-03-07
State of the Unions

DR.. Thomas E. Mattingly's
letter attacking modern union
ism as IAN irresponsible. greedy
and uncomfortable colossus"
is a shocking example of how
a good doctor forgets what is
required for an adequate dag
nosis when he leaves the field
OF his competence. He would
do well to inform himself
better about the activities
OF unions before making
his violent. unSubstantiated
charges against them. This is
particularly important at a
time when corruption and
malfeasance of certain union
leaders are being, as they
should be. publicized.
His proposal to treat the
unions as criminal con-
Spirators" in violation Of the
antitrust laws because of high
prices paid by consumers does
not make sense. The conSum-
ers do not buy from the unions.
II prices are being set in viola
ton Of the law it is those who
set them who must be held
responsible; the unions have
no direct voice in this.
The question Of who or what
is responsible for price in
creases in areas where they are
not determined by competition
but administered by company
policy was considered on Janu-
airy 81 before the congressional
Joint Economic Committee.
Witnesses included repre-
sentatives OF unions and COM
panies and university econ
omists. Figures we're banded
about to the point where a
committee member complained
that it was not clear why you
all use the same set of figures
to come up to so many differ
ent conclusions" Long and
involved studies were put into
the record both by the United
SteelWorkers Of America and
by the American Iron and Steel
Institute. expressing opposing
points of view, which l doubt
have yet been resolved by the
Congressman who expressed
his perplexity. However. DR..
Mattingly already knows the
answer.
An opinion Of Prof. Albert
Rees of the University Of
Chicago is worth repeating,
since he was a spokesman for
neither group. Said Prof.
ReeS: unions are often
thought to be primarily re-
sponsible for imitation. AS
applied to the United States.
this view is certainly too SIM
pie and probably substantially
wrong. First, unions have had
less influence on wages. even
for their members, than is
usually assumed. Since 1889
average hourly earnings in
manufacturing have risen from
60 cents TO sos. more than
a threefold rise. Most of this
rise is surely due to the in
crease in the quantity of
money. to rising productivity.
and to the high level of de-
mand for labor. l should be
surprised If unions are respon-
Sible for as much as 10 per
cent of it, though the dra-
matte nature Of the collec-
tive bargaining process often
causes them to get credit for
much more. OF course. unions
have also made important and
desirable noneconomic gains
for their members. such as
the establishment OF machinery
for handling grievances. Nor
have unions necessarily con-
tributed TO imitation to the
extent that they have raised
the wages of their members.
Past price rises. in my
opinion. have started with in
creases in demand. In par
ticular. the price rises OF 1856
seem to me to be much more
closely related to heavy bust
ness investment than to coll
lective bargaining"
Sidney Koretz.
DR.. Mattingly's letter on
unionism was timely, though
couched in rather hopeless
vein. But maybe the time is
not far distant; maybe the
possibility does exist that leg
islation based on the funda-
mental Of individual liberty
will be enacted in the not dis
tant future.
t-Hartley. though it cor
rected some Of the evils OF the
Wagner Act. is still a slave
labor" law The union mem
bers are the slaves and their
masters are the union bosses
--"barons" would be a good
title for them--so- called rep
resentatives Of their own
choosing" to whom the work.
ers are compelled to take any
complaints OF working condi-
tions that they may have. The
law should DO amended 10