The Labor Month in Review

LEADERS OF ORGANIZED LABOR agreed to join the National Advisory Board on Mobilization Policy after a conference with President Truman, April 5. High point of union activity during the 5-week absence of labor representatives from all defense mobilization agencies was the March 21 meeting of 1,000 union leaders in Washington, called by the United Labor Policy Committee.

A series of collective-bargaining settlements, reached during March, appearing to break through the 10-percent allowable wage "catch-up" formula awaited reconstitution of the Wage Stabilization Board before being acted upon. Administration officials worked throughout the month on plans for reorganizing defense agencies and policies. For the first time since Chinese intervention in Korea, the rapid rise of prices showed signs of abating.

Labor Accepts Defense Advisory Posts

Union leaders, acting through the United Labor Policy Committee, accepted membership on the new National Advisory Board on Mobilization Policy at a meeting with President Truman, April 5, marking the end of a 5-week union absence from the defense mobilization agencies.

The 17-man Advisory Board will be composed of 4 members each from labor, management, agriculture, and the public, with Defense Mobilization Director Wilson acting as chairman. The Board, responsible directly to the President, met first on April 9; it will meet at least monthly in the future.

William Green and George Meany of the AFL and Philip Murray and Walter P. Reuther of the CIO were appointed as the four labor members of the Board by the President.

ULPC leaders expressed the hope that the decision to join the Mobilization Advisory Board would pave the way for return of labor to participation on other defense agencies from which they withdrew entirely February 28.

United Labor Policy Committee Meeting

Organized labor's dissatisfaction with political and economic aspects of the administration of defense mobilization dominated labor develop

ments throughout March; this dissatisfaction was dramatized in Washington on March 20 and 21. On the call of the United Labor Policy Committee, composed of AFL, CIO, Machinist, and Railroad union leaders, 1,000 trade-unionists met together in demonstration of labor unity. Not since the AFL-sponsored rally in support of the Wagner bill in the spring of 1935 has such unison of purpose been shown by American labor unions.

A seven-point "Declaration of Principles" was adopted pledging wholehearted support to the defense effort of the Nation. Calling for "equality of sacrifice," the Declaration insisted on "equality of representation" for "the major groups in our economy.' Crystalizing arguments which had been advanced by ULPC leaders during the fortnight preceding the meeting, the declaration itemized labor's position on defense mobilization:

1. Revision of the Defense Production Act "in the national interest and not for special interests" to replace the present law which expires June 30, 1951.

2. Stronger and simpler price controls. "No one should be allowed to profiteer out of the national emergency," it stated. Fair returns to the farmers through the parity system were endorsed.

3. A flexible wage stabilization policy. Any decision to join a reconstituted Wage Stabilization Board was limited to June 30 or until the provisions of the new Defense Production Act are known.

4. More housing and "tight rent controls."

5. Revision of the tax structure to insure "equality of sacrifice."

6. Solution of civilian manpower problems by voluntary methods.

7. Equal participation in the defense mobilization program by all segments of the Nation in order to "inspire renewed public confidence and public support."

Organized labor sought the support of other sections of the population for its demand for a substantial revision of the defense economy. In the days following the March 21 meeting, ULPC leaders voiced sharpened criticisms of the defense program until the agreement to participate on the President's Advisory Board.

Wage Agreements Pending

During March several significant labor-management negotiations produced wage agreements

appearing to exceed the 10 percent "catch-up" formula of the Wage Stabilization Board. Economic Stabilizer Eric Johnston declared his inability to approve the new settlements until the WSB was reconstituted. The three union members resigned from WSB on February 15. Strike threats were made by packinghouse and by shipyard workers to enforce their new wage agreements. Wage settlements for both cotton and woolen textile workers and by TV musicians added still other cases to the accumulating docket of unapproved increases.

The first cost-of-living review for a million nonoperating railroad workers under their March 1 agreement gave them a 6-cent-an-hour adjustment when the February 15 Adujusted Consumer's Price Index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was announced at a record high of 183.8. When added to the 12.5-cents-an-hour gain in their March 1 contract, wage increases for this group of workers was above the WSB's 10-percent "catch-up" formula. Mr. Johnston was unable to approve this exception to the WSB formula. An emergency panel was named by him to determine what action could be taken.

Settlement of the wage-increase problem of the "nonops" and reconstitution of the Wage Stabilization Board became the first order of business when the National Advisory Board on Mobilization Policy held its first meeting April 9.

Revision of Defense Agencies

Efforts were made throughout the month to work out policies and organizational forms which would induce labor representatives to return to places in the defense agencies.

ESA Director Johnston advanced plans for an 18-man Wage Stabilization Board. At issue was the question of powers which the new board would have over labor-dispute settlements. The ULPC favored inclusion of nonwage matters in the new board's jurisdiction. Management insisted that the board's scope be limited strictly to "economic" issues.

ODM Director Wilson announced that a LaborManagement Advisory Committee would be established in the Office of Defense Mobilization. Mr. Wilson said this Advisory Committee will serve under the joint chairmanship of ODM Manpower Advisor Arthur S. Flemming and Frank P. Graham, Defense Manpower Administrator in the Department of Labor.

By Executive order on March 15, President Truman created the 17-man National Advisory Board on Mobilization Policy on which AFL and CIO union leaders accepted membership on April 5. The Month's Economy

For the first time since Chinese intervention in Korea, the rapid upsweep in prices showed some evidences of slowing. Beginning February 13, declines in some wholesale food prices and in grains almost offset continuing slow increases in industrial prices. Also lower were some commodities where prices were rolled back by specific ceiling regulations or, as in the case of tin and rubber where unified Government purchase control broke the speculative markets. The weekly Wholesale Price Index declined in the week ended February 27, the first such turn since October 1950. The Agriculture Department's Farm Price Index for the month ending March 15 showed a decline of a little less than 1 percent.

Factors credited with slowing the price advance included a halt in the boom buying which had featured January, Federal Reserve Board credit restrictions, and increased effectiveness of OPS controls. Price rollbacks were ordered for cattle hides and skins; the rollback for tallow, solid oils, and soap lowered retail soap prices as much as 2 cents a bar.

Price Stabilization Director DiSalle announced 3 orders bringing 60 percent of groceries under percentage margin controls on March 28. By April 6, over 1,600 products were covered by more than 110 controls issued either by OPS or NPA.

Employment continued high. The labor market tightened gradually. Unemployment in March dropped to 2.1 million, lowest figure for this month since the end of World War II. Nonfarm employment continued at an all-time high, with the greatest gains being in manufacturing. Defense contract allocations of 4.4 billions in January and 3.3 billions in February pointed toward still more marked increases in metalworking employment. Continuing this winter's abnormal activity, construction employment in February of 2.2 million marked a new high; construction expenditures of 2.1 billions for March, 21 percent above March 1950, brought new construction volume for the first quarter of 1951 to the highest figure ever recorded. Automobile production continued ahead of 1950.

Part II.

VLADIMIR GSOVSKI*

Labor's Loss of Freedom on the Job

1

THE CONSTANT INCREASE of managerial power over workers since the suppression of private enterprise in the Soviet Union is revealed by successive amendments to some individual provisions of the Labor Code. Provisions defining the right of the employer to dismiss the employee summarily because of failure to appear for work may serve as an illustration. The Labor Code of 1922 incorporated the provision of Czarist law permitting management to dismiss a worker for failure to appear without justifiable reason for 3 consecutive days or for 6 days during a month. In 1927, this was changed.3 Failure to appear for a total of any 3 days during a month constituted grounds for dismissal. In 1932, only 1 day's unjustified absence was sufficient and mandatory ground for dismissal of a worker in a government enterprise, to be followed by an automatic eviction, without a court action, from the living quarters which he occupied because of his employment.

2

An act of December 28, 1938, was directed against tardiness, leaving work before the scheduled time, undue prolonging of lunch time, and loitering on the job. Those who committed such infractions were subject to warning or to transfer to lower grade jobs. Three violations in 1 month or four in 2 months, led to dismissal (sec. 1). An official interpretation of the act, issued on January 9, 1939, states that penalties milder than dismissal should be applied only in cases of tardiness not exceeding 20 minutes. A single tar

6

diness exceeding 20 minutes should result in immediate dismissal.

Later, by an edict of June 26, 1940,7 job freezing was enacted, and unauthorized quitting was made an offense punishable in court by imprisonment. Then, according to the Soviet jurists, the possibility arose that a worker might purposely fail to appear on time in order to be dismissed and thereby obtain a chance to find a better job. Therefore, the June 1940 edict rescinded mandatory dismissals for tardiness and absenteeism and declared them to be offenses punishable by disciplinary penalty in case of tardiness or court sentence for absenteeism.

The act of December 28, 1938, made managers subject to dismissal and penal prosecution in court for failure to inflict the prescribed penalties (sec. 2).

The Standard Rules of Internal Labor Organization, enacted on January 18, 1941,8 stress that "every violation of labor discipline shall entail either a disciplinary penalty or prosecution in court" (sec. 19). Disciplinary penalty is imposed by management as soon as it becomes aware of the violation. The imposition of the penalty does not relieve the employee from the duty to compensate for damage caused by any defective work.

Among the violations, the rules specify tardiness, loitering on the job, absenteeism, and unauthorized quitting of the job (secs. 21, 25, 26). Coming to work late, going out for lunch ahead of time, being late in returning from lunch, or

leaving work ahead of time, if done without a justifiable reason, subjects the worker to managerial discipline in instances where the loss of time does not exceed 20 minutes and does not occur thrice a month or four times within two consecutive months. In the latter instances violators are considered absentees and are punished in court.

If an employee appears at work in a state of intoxication, he is guilty of absenteeism (sec. 26). Unauthorized quitting a job is an offense punishable in court. Loitering on the job is subject to disciplinary penalties.

The application of so many penal clauses raised fine legal problems for Soviet jurists, who have perhaps shown an attachment more for legal niceties than common sense. Following is a discussion of the legal definition of sleeping on the job in a treatise on Soviet labor law printed in 1946:

9

The question whether loitering on the job or sleeping during working hours should be considered absenteeism came up in judicial practice several times. Legal writers answered this question in various ways. Some thought that "there is no reason to exclude . . . loitering on the job from the concept of absenteeism" 10 [reference on an article in a law review is made], while others were of the opposite opinion [another reference].11

From the comparison of sections 21 and 26 of the Standard Rules of Internal Order, it becomes evident that loitering on the job, regardless of how long it lasts and how often it occurs, entails a disciplinary penalty and not punishment in court. Sleeping during working hours is a form of loitering on the job and therefore should not be considered absenteeism. This conclusion is supported by the following ruling of the Trial Criminal Division of the U. S. S. R. Supreme Court: "Insofar as sleeping on the job is a violation of labor discipline, not connected with the absence of the worker from his post but, on the contrary, necessarily presumes his presence there, such an offense may not be qualified as absenteeism. Being a kind of loitering, sleeping during working hours, if it did not and could not cause serious harm, must be visited by disciplinary penalty." 12

Leaving the place of employment without the express permission of management has been punishable in court by imprisonment for from 2 to 4 months since June 26, 1940. Previously a month's notice by the employee was adequate for quitting.13 In defense industry the penalty would be imprisonment up to 8 years.14

The provisions relating to this penalty are broadly interpreted. Thus, an employee who, twice convicted for absenteeism and serving a compulsory labor sentence at the place of his employment in lieu of jail, commits absenteeism (tardiness of more than 20 minutes) again, must be prosecuted for unauthorized quitting." An employee who violates the shop rules for the purpose of being dismissed must be prosecuted in a like manner.16 The U. S. S. R. Supreme Court has also held:

A lengthy failure to appear for work may be considered absenteeism only in instances where the court has established that the employee had no intention to quit the given job. If the court establishes that the person concerned intentionally stayed away from work with the design to quit it without authorization, such act must be qualified as quitting of the job without authorization even if the perpetrator appears again on the job before the trial.17

Finally, by the Edict of October 19, 1940, Government department heads were authorized to allow to transfer certain categories of technical personnel and skilled labor, regardless of their wishes, from one establishment to another. A series of decrees lists the jobs coming under the decree. Failure to obey the transfer is punished as unauthorized leaving of the job.18 It is characteristic that the imposition of penalties for infraction of labor discipline are heard in court by a single professional judge with the exclusion of two lay "assessors" required for all other trials.19

In several branches of industry especially severe rules of discipline are established granting the "bosses" power to impose penal confinement up to 20 days at their own discretion without a court action.

Railroad employees were placed under strict military discipline in 1943 by virtue of a special disciplinary code.20 Arrests not to exceed 20 days could be imposed at the discretion of a superior. Appeals could be made to the next higher superior whose decision is final, but appeal had to be filed within 3 days with the superior who imposed the penalty. No court appeal is permitted.

Similar provisions are contained in the new disciplinary codes for the following employees: maritime and inland waterways transportation lines; the main bureau of the Civil Air Fleet; postal, telegraph, and radio systems; and municipal electric power plants. Militarized watchmen of ware

houses and workmen in air defense and fire protection of defense industries are also covered.

Wages and Hours

The Labor Code of 1922, enacted when limited private enterprise was tolerated, provided for payment by time or by piece, leaving the determination of individual pay to the individual employment contract or to collective agreements. The remuneration was not, however, to be less than the minimum wage fixed by competent authority (secs. 58-60). These provisions may be considered totally out of date. In the first place, the principle of piecework since 1931 has been given official preference and, by 1934, 70 percent of the work done in large industrial plants was paid for by piece rate. Secondly, the practice of making collective agreements was abandoned for 14 years in1933 when "the transition from regulation of wages by a contract to their regulation by the Government was completed."21 When collective agreements were resumed in 1947, only such rates of wages could be included as were previously established by the Government. The all-embracing governmental plan, Soviet writers declare, does not exclude collective agreements altogether, as some of them thought in 1946, but certainly excludes wages from bargaining.22 The definition of schedules and rates of wages and salaries is reserved to the higher agencies of the principal employer the Government. As the official compilation of labor laws of 1947 puts it:

The amount of wages and salaries is at the present time fixed by the decisions of the Government (or on the basis of its directives) . . .

The agreement of parties plays a subordinate role in the determination of the amount of wages or salaries. It should not be contrary to law and is allowed only within limits strictly provided for by the statute, for example, where the precise amount is fixed in instances in which the approved table of organization defines the rate as "from"-"to"; or fixing the remuneration for part-time employment of a person holding another position, and the like.23

The schedules established by the Government are subject to constant changes and are too complex to be analyzed in the present article. It should suffice to state three basic features common to all schedules: highly progressive piecework rates, bonuses, and, absence of a guaranteed minimum wage. Bonuses are of two kinds; those

based upon output and periodically paid as part of the wages; and individual bonuses given at the discretion of the administration. The overriding principle is that in order to receive the minimum rate the worker "must attain the standard of output prescribed for him." (Labor Code, sec. 57 as amended in 1934).

Originally the Labor Code as enacted in 1922 (when some private enterprise existed) left determination of the standard of output to agreement between the administration of the plant or factory and the appropriate trade-union.

But since the Acts of June 4, 1938, and January 14, 1939, the revision of standards of output has been in the hands of the Ministers in charge of the individual industry branches who must, however, consult the Central Council of the Trade Unions, i. e., the labor department (supra, Part I), but not the individual unions. As an example, the official textbook on labor law of 1944 refers to the Order of the Minister of the Aviation Industry of April 20, 1942, No. 117. By this order, new standards of output and new rates are to be approved by the directors of individual plants upon the recommendation of the heads of the shops, and immediately put into effect.24 In some instances, standards of output and rates are directly enacted by the Council of Ministers (prior to March 1946, of People's Commissars), e. g., the schedule for the cotton textile industry and for motor transportation.25 Thus, the tradeunions, though controlled by the Government and the Communist Party, have in certain instances. no part in establishing the major conditions determining wages.

As mentioned in Part I, the Edict of the Presidium of June 26, 1940, lengthened the working day from 7 to 8 hours for plants and offices, except for especially dangerous jobs, for which the 6-hour day was retained. Moreover, the edict restored the 6-day workweek with Sunday as the day of rest.26 Since 1931 there had been a 5-day work schedule with each sixth day a day of rest. This meant an addition of 33 hours per month for laborers and of 58 hours for office workers. Salaries paid on a time basis remained unchanged, and the piecework rates were correspondingly lowered to keep wages at the same level.27

It should also be mentioned that on June 26, 1941,28 the management of individual enterprises could impose mandatory daily overtime up to 3