Evening star., 1962-05-03
E for Effort

President Kennedy, receiving the
report Of his Advisory Committee on
Labor-Management Policy, described it
as "a highly meaningful and significant
document" This, we suppose, is the sort
Of comment that can cover a multitude
Of sins.
In our opinion, the committee shad-
owboxed with the basic question. The
report speaks of the need for a more
lively awareneSs on the part Of both
management and labor Of the great
public interest in the peaceful settle
ment Of disputes, and this certainly Is
all to the good. The report also urges
a change in the Taft-Hartley Act so the
President, instead Of going to court for
an injunction in a national emergency
strike, could direct the parties (for 80
days) to resume operations in whole
"or In part" We cannot see where this
Is an improvement on the Injunction
process, and we wonder what the Pres
ident would do If one of the parties
refused to obey his direction. "a court
would punish the offender for con-
tempt.) A third proposal-that fact
finding boards be authorized to make
public recommendations for settling q
dispute-has considerable merit.
We very much fear, however, that
the truly "meaningful and significant"
suggestion in this report has had its
brief hour in the limelight and will not
be heard from again.
This came in the form of q pro-
posal by DR.. Arthur F. Burns, chairman
Of the Council Of Economic Advisers
under President Eisenhower. DR.. Burns
said: Labor disputes which involve q
Nationwide industry commonly have
their origin in the monopoly power Of
private groups. If the power Of monop-
olies, whether Of business or labor, were
suf1ciently curbed by law, there would
be little or no need for the large intru-
sion Of Government into collective bar
gaining recommended In this report"
We say Amen! But the labor mem
bers on the committee said Mol And
the upshot was that Dr. Burns sugges-
ton was put aside for further study and,
we suspect, decent but quiet burial.
Still, DR.. Burns is so right. The
public interest would be greatly served
II the power Of all monopolies were to
be curbed by law. Business and indus
trial "monopolies" live under the con-
tinuing shadow and threat Of the anti
trust laws. (Witness the speedy con-
vening Of grand juries by the Depart
ment of Justice last month to probe
monopoly aspects Of the increase in
steel priceS.1 Labor monopolieS are un-
der no comparable restraint. A few
weeks ago monopoly union Of elec-
tricianS In New York City, over the
protests Of the President, struck and
obtained unconscionable wage and
work-week concessions. It was case
Of either pay through the nose, and
damn the public interest, or try to get
along without electricians. Why is this?
Because Congress, back in the days when
unions were fighting for their lives
against Big Business, granted them spe-
cial immunity from the monopoly pro-
visions Of the antitrust laws.
Times have changed and the unions
now are as big or bigger than Big Busi-
ness. Certainly their monopoly power Is
much greater. VIII the President OF
Congress do something about this at
the risk Of repriSals at the polls? We
doubt 1t very much. Still, in passing
we would like to propose that DR.. Burns
be awarded a big E for effort.