Better Management and Better Union Leadership
| Published date | 01 November 1946 |
| Author | C.F. Mugridge |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271624624800112 |
| Date | 01 November 1946 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
76
Better
Management
and
Better
Union
Leadership
By
C.
F.
MUGRIDGE
UP
TO
1935,
our
country
had
been
L-J
giving
almost
no
support
to
col-
lective
action
by
workers.
The
Wagner
Act-of ten
cited
as
labor’s
Magna
Charta-signed
on
July
5,
1935,
made
it
illegal
for
employers
to
interfere
with
union
organization
of
workers.
Now
for
the
first
time
workers
no
longer
had
to
fear
loss
of
jobs
or
permanent
ostra-
cism
because
of
flirtation
with
unioniza-
tion.
The
public
had
at
last
followed
other
democratic
nations
in
encouraging
collective
bargaining
and
signed
agree-
ments
between
unions
and
employers.
And
by
this
action
unions
were
destined
to
become
important
and
controversial
factors
in
our
economic,
political,
and
industrial
life.
The
law
was
heralded
by
its
advo-
cates
as
the
foundation
of
everlasting
industrial
harmony.
It
was-so
they
proclaimed-a
long-needed
democratic
implement
enabling
workers
to
cope
with
the
power
of
employers.
It
would
mark
the
beginning
of
unparalleled
in-
dustrial
progress.
The
autocratic
and
unilateral
system,
traditional
in
in-
dustry,
would
give
way
to
democratic
processes
and
industrial
jurisprudence.
Workers,
through
their
representatives,
would
negotiate
contracts
ensuring
a
higher
standard
of
living
and
improved
working
conditions.
These
contracts,
clearly
defining
the
rights
and
obliga-
tions
of
labor
and
management,
would
dispel
suspicion
and
misunderstanding.
All
of
this
would
assure
the
public
of
prodigious
benefits.
But
the
advocates
of
the
law
failed
to
recognize
that
the
field
of
labor
rela-
tions
is
primarily
one
of
human
rela-
tions
fraught
with
human
frailties
and
emotions
difficult
to
control
by
a
code
of
behavior
spelled
out
in
a
dull
labor
contract.
The
sponsors
of
the
act
had
given
little
or
no
heed
to
the
paucity
of
union
and
industrial
leadership
prepared
to
solve
unforeseen
obstacles.
They
had
discounted,
apparently,
the
stu-
pendous
task
of
creating
trade-union
consciousness
and
responsibility
among
the
millions
of
union
recruits.
They
had
missed
sight
of
a
split
in
the
labor
movement
and
its
devastating
results.
They
had
overestimated
industry’s
ca-
pacity
to
adapt
itself
to
a
new
type
of
employer-employee
relationship.
They
had
discounted
the
opportunities
for
abuse
by
power-drunk
union
leaders.
Perhaps
the
sponsors
of
the
act
did
foresee
these
perplexing
aspects;
and
perhaps
they
were
content
to
rely
on
public
pressure
for
arresting
any
social
evils
arising
from
collective
bargaining.
THE
PLEDGE
TO
PUBLIC
WELFARE
That
the
act
has
served
its
main
pur-
pose
in
expanding
unionization
and
con-
tractual
relationships
is
now
a
matter
of
record;
for
at
the
end
of
1942,
accord-
ing
to
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
over
fifty
thousand
labor
contracts
were
in
operation.
Although
only
in
rare
in-
stances
does
a
labor
contract
directly
refer
to
public
interest,
almost
all
labor
agreements
are
prefaced
by
the
follow-
ing
type
of
clause:
The
Employer
and
the
Union
each
repre-
sents
that
the
purpose
and
the
intent
of
this
agreement
is
to
promote
co-operation
and
harmony,
to
recognize
mutual
inter-
ests,
to
provide
a
channel
through
which
information,
and
problems
may
be
trans-
mitted
from
one
to
the
other,
to
formulate
rules
to
govern
the
relationship
between
the
Union
and
the
Employer,
to
promote
efhciency
and
service,
and
to
set
forth
the
basic
agreements
covering
rates
of
pay,
hours
of
work,
and
conditions
of
employ-
ment.
at SAGE PUBLICATIONS on December 4, 2012ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
To continue reading
Request your trial