author, but the absence of Negroes in apprenticeship programs in the metal trades was equally apparent. Recruitment of Journeymen. The only maintenance unit in which the company placed Negroes during the open-shop period was that later represented by the machinists, whose local policy differed from that of the other craft unions as noted. The three Negroes placed were accepted, and others were subsequently assigned there. At the time of the study, this was still the only such shop in any of the three plants where Negroes were employed as journeymen, or where a significant number of Negroes were employed. The interview and placement procedures were the same for maintenance as for production workers, but the company recruited such workers mainly through the craft unions, which controlled the supply of skilled labor in Louisville. It had hired skilled journeymen on the open market but found them inferior to those referred by craft unions. Therefore, while it did not officially seek union referrals, the shop stewards in these bargaining units ascertained from the foremen when there were openings and notified members to apply at the company office. In view of the craft locals' current racial practices, this procedure effectively excluded Negroes in most instances. Evaluating the prospects for change, Mr. Hope agreed that it would be difficult in the immediate future to find an appreciable number of qualified Negro applicants. Also, both managerial and union officials continued to expect resistance to a company move in this direction. They varied widely, however, on the probable form and intensity of opposition and the ultimate outcome. Managerial views ranged from considering a full plant shutdown possible (because of these workers' strategic positions in the plant) to the belief that journeymen were accustomed to working with Negroes and any opposition could easily be handled. The author stressed the importance of the internationals' position in this connection, pointing out that the plumbers' international would probably not support such a company move but giving other instances in which local opposition would not have the backing of the parent body. None of the union leaders queried felt that rankand-file opposition could long prevail in an open test of strength with the company. Chamber of Commerce Industrial Relations Session, 1953 EDITOR'S NOTE.-The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, in cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia and the Labor Relations Council of Chambers of Commerce, held its annual meeting on industrial relations in Philadelphia, November 19. The following are summaries of three of the papers delivered at the session. Wage Movements and Collective Bargaining Basic data relating to the overall movement of wages in manufacturing during the 4-year period ending in August 1953 and their implication for contract negotiation in 1954 were presented in an address by W. S. Woytinsky. The determination of wages, the continuous revision of wage rates, and their adjustment to changing conditions in the labor market were held to constitute the principal issues in industrial relations and collective bargaining. Mr. Woytinsky discussed the trend of real average hourly earnings in all-manufacturing, the share of wages in the national income, labor productivity and earnings, the interrelationship between wages and prices, and changes in interindustry wage differentials for the 4-year period. "Second, to the gains in straight money wages must be added the concessions gained by workers in the settlement of so-called fringe issues: vacations with pay, additional payment for night work, reclassification of jobs, and-the most important item-welfare programs financed by employers. It is extremely difficult to estimate all these concessions as equivalent to a rise in average hourly earnings. In some industries, this item represents an appreciable part of the increase in labor costs; in others, it is negligible. "Since the two corrections run in opposite directions, their joint effect will hardly change the general conclusion. The increase in real hourly earnings during the 4 years was at an average rate of 3 percent per year somewhat higher for durable-goods in. dustries, and somewhat lower for nondurablegoods industries. The share of employees' compensation in national income rose from an average of 64.2 percent in the first half of 1949 to 66.7 percent in 1953. The increase, however, was due largely to the increased compensation of military personnel and the diminishing share of farm income in national income. Eliminating these two factors, the compensation of civilian employees remained about constant over the 4-year period at slightly under two-thirds of the national income (excluding income of farmers). Wages and Labor Productivity. Although the question of the relationship between wages and the productivity of labor has become a fixture in wage negotiations, according to Mr. Woytinsky, "changes in the output per worker in single industries and individual establishments are not among the principal factors in the determination of wages." Rather, "the overall level of real wages is ultimately determined by the efficiency of the whole economic system... its average output per man-hour of work." The productivity of labor in all-manufacturing over the 4-year period registered an increase 3 of 14.1 percent per employed worker, or 16.1 percent per production worker. In durable-goods industries, the rise was 18.1 and 19.7 percent, respectively, and in nondurable-goods industries, 12.1 and 15 percent, respectively. During the period as a whole, the physical output per worker in manufacturing industries increased in about the same proportion as real hourly earnings. Wages and Prices. "The rise in productivity in 1950 in manufacturing industries as a whole opened the possibility for a substantial rise in real wages without an increase in prices." After the second half of 1951, there was no consistent rise in prices, although wage rates continued to "inch up" and real wages increased more rapidly than theretofore. The movement of wage rates and the wholesale price index were fairly independent of each other during the 4-year period. Thus, in 1949, wholesale prices declined, whereas hourly earnings in manufacturing industries fluctuated without any clear tendency in either direction. From June 1950 to January-February 1951-the early phase of the Korean war-wholesale prices. increased by 16 percent, whereas hourly earnings rose by only 7 percent. From the beginning of 1951 to August 1953, the wholesale price index declined by 5 percent, whereas wages in manufacturing industries increased by 14 percent. Interindustry Differentials in Wage Increases. "In some industries, average wage rates rose appreciably in 1949-50, in others, the adjustment came later." However, hourly earnings ultimately were increased in most industries, in roughly the same proportion. For manufacturing as a whole, the average increase during the 4-year period was 26 percent; for contract construction, 28 percent; and for transportation and public utilities, 27 percent. Bituminous-coal mining (the main branch of mining) also had a 27percent increase in average hourly earnings. Increases ranged from 23 to 29 percent for most branches of manufacturing, those of less than 22 percent or more than 30 percent being the exception. Relatively large increases in average "wage rates were recorded in industries that expanded rapidly during the Korean war, such as ordnance (36 percent), and in industries in which hourly earnings had been out of line with other * Compensation of military personnel rose from $4,150 million in 1949 to about $10 billion, at an annual rate, in the first half of 1953; farm income declined from 6.2 percent of national income in 1949 to 4.1 percent in the first half of 1953. Computed as a ratio of the Federal Reserve production index to the index of factory employment. comparable industries in 1949 (35 percent in the lumber industry, 47 percent in metal mining). Comparatively small gains were recorded in 'depressed' industries (13 percent in textile mills, 11 percent in the apparel industry), and in service industries, which employ a large proportion of marginal workers (19 percent in retail trade, 17 percent in laundries, 15 percent in cleaning and dyeing establishments)." Outlook. Mr. Woytinsky did not find any evidence that business conditions would deteriorate, with resultant weakening of pressure by labor unions in 1954, as many observers have forecast. "If a minor setback develops, it will not affect all industries simultaneously. . . . if demand for mass consumption goods begins to decline, labor unions will make full use of the purchasing power argument, and their reasoning will have a strong appeal to public opinion." "Contracts," according to the speaker, "are likely to be renegotiated in 1954 under economic conditions similar to those in 1952 and 1953, in the same spirit of adjusting wage rates in each single industry to the arrangements reached in other industries. An overall increase in wage rates by 3 to 4 percent can be anticipated-less than the average in 'depressed' industries, more in expanding branches. The interest of unions in fringe issues will probably increase, and it will be up to management to determine the extent to which settlements of such issues will be traded for a straight raise in wage rates. . "Guaranteed annual wages will probably emerge as one of the most important fringe issues. Approached . . . as a partial improvement of [the] existing unemployment insurance system... the guaranteed wage would appear as a comparatively inexpensive measure of considerable psychological value for labor and promising serious advantages to management. "It is fairly probable, also, that arrangements will be made for widening the range between the wage rates of skilled and those of unskilled labor or, at least, for preventing a further shrinking in this range." In addition to these "fairly obvious" tendencies, the speaker pointed out that, producers, under market pressure, might try to reduce production cost by streamlining production plans. He expressed the belief that both management and labor "will realize that their main goal in renegotiating contracts in 1954 should be to create the conditions most favorable to a rise in the productivity of labor and a continuous growth of purchasing power of the community." How To Change Taft-Hartley Fairness, experience, and common sense, not political expediency, should guide Congress and the administration in amending the Taft-Hartley Act, said Theodore R. Iserman, New York City attorney. The same considerations, he continued, certainly should guide businessmen in proposing or opposing specific changes. His address outlined changes which he believed should be adopted by Congress and a number which he thought probably would be adopted. Congress should make these changes, Mr. Iserman advised, on five points: (1) Assure States the authority to regulate strikes, picketing and lockouts, enabling them to exercise their traditional powers; (2) authorize the courts to extend injunctions beyond 80 days; (3) strengthen the provisions against secondary boycotts; (4) assure to employers the loyalty of persons employed on highly confidential work, e. g., on time studies and budgets; and (5) forbid strikes for recognition in every case, not merely when the National Labor Relations Board has certified another union as bargaining agent. To repeal the provisions for injunctions against secondary boycotts would leave us, said Mr. Iserman, without any effective protection against them. He suggested: (a) Permit picketing only at the struck employer's premises; (b) forbid inducing secondary boycotts by any means; (c) forbid acting directly upon secondary employers, as by threatening them, as well as by inducing their employees to refuse to work; (d) forbid inducing secondary boycotts by unions of persons who are not "employees" under the act; (e) invalidate agreements between unions and secondary employers that permit secondary activity; (f) forbid secondary strikes against an operation of an employer where there is no dispute that is separate from another operation where there is a primary dispute; and (g) permit individual employees to refuse to cross picket lines only if they do so on their individual initiative. The speaker outlined specifically the situations to which application of a "struck work" clause should be strictly limited, whereby employees of secondary employers would be allowed to refuse to do work farmed out to their employers by struck primary employers. The situations would be those in which (a) the strike is lawful, is not in violation of a contract, and is authorized by the primary employees' bargaining agent; (b) the same union is the representative of both the primary and secondary employees; (c) the contract between the secondary employees' union and their employer authorizes the secondary boycott; (d) the secondary employer is doing the struck work for the account of the primary employer pursuant to an agreement with him; and (e) the struck work is work that striking employees of the primary employer normally would do. Mr. Iserman also proposed eventual modification of industrywide bargaining. He preferred complete separation of the Labor Board's deciding functions from its investigating and prosecuting functions, vesting the latter in an Administrator of the National Labor Relations Act. The rules on evidence and procedure that govern in United States district courts would be made applicable to cases before the Labor Board, and appellate courts would have enlarged powers in reviewing board rulings. Unions and employers could appeal directly to the circuit court of appeals from rulings in representation cases. Charging parties would have statutory right to intervene in cases before the Board. Changes that the speaker thought Congress "probably" would adopt included: (1) Giving employers full right to free speech in election cases. Congress thought that in Taft-Hartley it had assured this right to employers. (2) Providing for seizure as an alternative to injunctions against national emergency strikes; empower emergency boards to make recommendations; and itself undertake to deal with emergency disputes on a case-by-case basis. (3) Enacting some sort of a "struck work” clause. (See Mr. Iserman's recommendations on content above.) (4) Equating the right to lock out with the right to strike, overruling the Morand Bros. and the Davis Furniture cases. (5) Excluding small employers and their employees from Taft-Hartley coverage. (6) Forbidding replaced economic strikers to vote, but postponing elections for 3 or 4 months after a strike begins. An American Employer's Appraisal of ILO The International Labor Organization should regard itself as the informed source of ideas concerning proper labor legislation, maximizing guidance through the means of free forum discussions, Richard P. Doherty told the conference. The ILO, he said, is ideally equipped through its tripartite structure to supply expert guidance on labor-management problems. According to the speaker, the ILO should reveal itself more broadly as the one free world forum where labor and management may openly discuss broad problems of mutual concern. He felt that the atmosphere in which ILO standards are prepared creates a negotiating frame of mind, so that bargaining-table objectives hold and maneuvering takes place to obtain or avoid approval. When parties clearly intend to exchange experiences and prepare informal reports (as distinguished from draft legislation), only then will there be an atmosphere conducive to free exchange of ideas. and substantial collaboration toward agreement on end results. Mr. Doherty considered that at present the ILO placed distorted emphasis on conventions (standards proposals approved for submission to member countries for adoption). He urged that the ILO stop writing conventions except on labormanagement matters strictly international in scope and except through a clear-cut voting process calling for a majority of favorable votes from each of the three parties. On the other hand, technical assistance is concrete aid born of mature experience; it is the helping hand of labor and management extended to countries which need assistance in their climb up the ladder of economic progress. If the ILO is to perform a constructive service, its technical assistance projects should (1) be restricted to labormanagement matters; (2) employ only qualified experts concerned with the job to be done rather than a political crusade, with no project undertaken if adequate and qualified field personnel are not available; and (3) originate with the needs and wishes of individual nations, with accompanying justifying evidence that labor-management col laboration will be forthcoming and that both management and labor want the job done. Mr. Doherty advised that a small committee of experts, tripartite based, be substituted for staff work on many subjects, with impartiality and genuine objectivity the guiding standard. Every report prepared by the staff prior to initial discussion at ILO conferences should be limited, he recommended, strictly to objective presentation of basic underlying information, without inferential slants or presumed opinions and evaluations. "We, the American employers," said Mr. Doherty, "want to collaborate with effective world agencies which honestly advance the cause of freedom and encourage economic advancement . . . We can and should cooperate with an ILO which "(a) Is not an activator of social causes unless there is a clear-cut recognition of the validity of such causes among both the employer and worker groups of the ILO member states. "(b) Concentrates on improving the atmosphere of understanding between labor and management. "(c) Recognizes that its purview is strictly within the area of labor-management problems. "(d) Recognizes that its proper functioning is definitely not concerned with political philosophies and that it does a disservice when it undertakes activities or promotes conventions which are incompatible with the political precepts of any single member state. "(e) Promotes, with equal fervor, the interests of employers and workers and rejects, as alien to its structural composition, any projects or programs which serve the selfish aims of either labor or management to the detriment of the other party's interests. " Provides a free forum for the candid exchange of ideas and experiences among labor and management leaders of the world. "(g) Recognizes that free labor and free management cannot-and will not-compromise with the Communist way of life which suppresses and destroys free unionism and private enterprise. "(h) Provides guidance to nations through studies, technical assistance, and appropriate recommendations. "(i) Rigidly limits and restricts draft treaty conventions to those specific labor-management items which are endowed with genuine international characteristics and on which there is concurrence by the respective majority of labor, management, and government delegates. "(j) Recognizes the sovereign right of each nation to govern itself and, thereby, does not attempt to superimpose superstate legislation upon. member nations." 1953 Convention of Industrial Accident Agencies COORDINATION of safety and workmen's compensation was one of the topics featured at the 39th annual convention of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions,1 along with discussions of rehabilitation activities, second-injury funds, permanent disability rating, and other matters of concern to administrative officers, employers, and workers. Safety and Accident Prevention The IAIABC president, S. W. MacDonald,2 emphasized early in the sessions that the best interests of society, of all workers, and of industry are served by preventing accidents, rather than by attempting to compensate them afterwards. The coordination of safety and workmen's compensation was illustrated by experience in Oregon. The Oregon Industrial Accident Commission, explained its chairman, Paul E. Gurske, has authority to use in any 1 year up to 5 percent of the average annual receipts of the exclusive State fund in the 5 previous fiscal years toward accident prevention and safety education. During the 1 Held in Coronado, Calif,. October 4-8, 1953. For the year 1954, Joachim Grenier, Q. C., president of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, Quebec, Canada, was elevated to president of the Association; John Moulin of the Illinois Industrial Commission was elected vice president; and William L. Connolly, Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor, was re-elected secretary-treasurer. The next annual meeting was set for October 3-7, 1954, at Quebec. 2 Mr. MacDonald is chairman of the California Industrial Accident Commission. |