Jackson advocate. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1939-current, 1960-12-03
management.

m6uaScincIt.
Here again the different indi-
vidual unions had varying records.
A few showed equal and joint rep
resentation in all their contracts,
but the typical union had it in
less than 25 percent Of its agree
ments.
This finding gives hollow ring
to the pleading of many manage
ments for cooperation" between
labor and management in the safe
ty and occupational health area.
There is no denying that manage
ment has a fright" to provide
safe and healthful working places
for wage earners. Equally so, no
one can deny the fright" Of union
members whose lives and limbs
are in jeopardy to take active
steps to insure their safety on the
job. Common sense, therefore, die
tates that labor and management
have a joint duty to achieve the
goal. The means to that end is the
joint and equal labor-management
safety committee.
Two facts are clear. Joint COM
mittees are in daily use; they are
no mere theory of the labor move
ment. Secondly, the trade union
movement is faced with the prac-
teal problem of making truly joint
committees universal. 1t cannot be
given the duty of cooperating"
with management without being
given the right to participate
equally.
Specific provisions making the
grievance machinery available for
safety problems were found in 81
percent of the contracts with safe
ty clauses. Where such provisos
were missing, the right to use the
grievance setup for this purpose
was established by common prac-
tice.
Perhaps no finding of the study
underscored more heavily the fact
that the trade union movement
considers safety an integral part
of labor-management relations. 1t
demonstrated the unassailable fact
that all unions believe their bar
gaining relationships include safe
ty matters. Safety by contract"
is a practical approach of trade
unionism.
This use of the grievance ma
chinery, both regular and special,
is an effective answer to critics
of labor's role in safety. Time
and again such critics have alleged
that the unions will not tolerate
enforcement and disciplining of
their members for safety matters.
But nowhere in the safety clauses
submitted is there any indication
that a member cannot be discip-
lined for just cause, subject to the
grievance machinery.
Where safety is made a part of
the collective bargaining machin-
cry it is no less enforceable than
any other part of the contract.
Trade unions learned long ago
that mutually acceptable con-
tract bestows both duties and
rights, and that the stature of
unionism in America is measured
by demonstrated responsibility of
the parties to a collective bargain
ing agreement. The safety clauses
in most contracts are no excep-
tons to this conclusion. In fact, a
clearly written safety clause which
includes explicit procedures for
handling safety grievances re-
moves any doubt as to its enforce
ability.
The survey demonstrated clear
ly that turning over the response
bility for safety to the state
through legislation is not salts
factory answer for labor unions.
At best, safety laws set up mini
mum requirements only, and they
leave administration in the hands
of government employees rather
than management and labor. Safe
ty legislation of course is a form
CT protection for unorganized
workers and therefore is necessary
But in matters of life and death
and safety means just that =
trade unions have demonstrated by
this survey that they prefer to
rely primarily upon the voluntary
actions of management and labor
to provide the essential safeguards
against disabling injury or death.
Nevertheless, the fact remains
that just as the United States
needs minimum wage laws to pro-
tect all wage earners, so it needs
safety and occupational health leg