Requirements of a National Labor Policy
| Author | Ludwig Teller |
| Date | 01 November 1946 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271624624800124 |
| Published date | 01 November 1946 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
173
Requirements
of
a
National
Labor
Policy
By
LUDWIG
TELLER
THE
basic
task
in
any
blueprint
rep-
senting
the
hopes
of
a
democratic
society
is
to
reconcile
freedom
with
se-
curity
and
a
better
life.
It
is
becoming
increasingly
clear
that the
effectuation
of
this
task
is
being
hindered
in
the
field
of
labor
relations
by
the
absence
of
a
national
labor
policy.
Few
will
contend
today
that
the
Wagner
Act
ex-
presses
anything
more
than
a
segment
of
a
labor
policy,
albeit
concededly
an
important
segment.
That
act
says
simply
that
labor
unions
should
grow,
like
Topsy.
But
the
idea
of
a
policy
in
any
fair
system
of
government
imports
definitions
of
rights
and
wrongs,
of
rules
of
the
game
to
which
all
parties
in
con-
troversy
are
required
to
conform.
Now
what
are
the
requirements
of
a
national
labor
policy?
A
distinction
should
be
drawn
between
the
role
of
law
in
labor
controversies,
and
the
ques-
tion
whether
and
to
what
extent
the
government
ought
to
intervene
as
me-
diator
to
bring
about
the
adjustment
of
lawful
controversies.
The
role
of
law
in
labor
controversies
deals
with
the
formulation
of
social
and
public
inter-
ests
which
take
precedence
over
rights
and
interests
asserted
by
given
persons
or
groups
at
given
times
and
places.
The
settlement
of
disputes
has
to
do
with
the
numerous
subjects
of
quarrel
which
arise
in
the
field
of
collective
bargaining,
such
as
wages,
hours,
job
security,
and
management
functions.
THE
ROLE
OF
LAW
IN
LABOR
CONTROVERSIES
More
than
a
decade
has
passed
since
the
Wagner
Act
became
law
on
July
5,
1935,
during
which
scores
of
labor
bills
have
been
proposed
in
Congress.
Ex-
cept
for
the
so-called
&dquo;Petrillo
Law&dquo;
(the
Lea
Act)
and
the
Hobbs
Anti-
Racketeering
Law,
both
of
limited
ap-
plication,
and
the
Smith-Connally
Anti-
Strike
Act
(which
was
no
antistrike
act
at
all,
but
a
strike-encouragement
law),
none
have
passed.
It
is
well
that
they
did
not
pass.
Most
of
them
incorpo-
rated
repressive
labor
legislation,
often
reflecting
the
pet
peeves
of
the
pro-
posers.
Some
of
them
were
in
the
na-
ture
of
crisis
legislation,
ignoring
equally
pressing
long-time
problems.
As
many
were
simply
innocuous.
Others,
like
the
recently
vetoed
Case
bill,
were
dis-
orderly
assortments
of
random
preju-
dices.
A
substantial
number
ignored
the
basic
problem,
preferring
instead
to
concentrate
on
irrelevant
and
less
press-
ing
proposals
often
grounded
in
ignor-
ance
of
established
law,
like
the
sug-
gestions
that
labor
unions
should
be
required
to
incorporate,
or
open
their
books
to
the
public,
or
secure
licenses
to
carry on
their
affairs.
The
basic
problem
is
one
of
labor
policy
patterned
on
a
labor
relations
point
of
view.
The
antitrust
laws
should
be
restricted
to
business
re-
straints.
Their
extension
to
labor
unions
and
union
activities
cannot
be
the
proper
basis
of
a
sound
labor
policy,
for
the
problems
in
the
two
fields
are
radically
different.
Combinations
of
capital
or
enterprise
have
backgrounds
and
objectives
which
are
foreign
to
or-
ganizations
of
workingmen
formed
to
secure
a
greater
share
of
the
Nation’s
resources
and
productivity
in
return
for
personal
services.
The
peril
to
public
and
social
interests
may
be
as
great in
one
case
as
in
the
other,
but
it
is
a
different
kind
of
peril,
requiring
differ-
ent
kinds
of
solutions.
Similarly,
the
antiracketeering
law
is
aimed
at
crimi-
nal
extortion
and
plans
for
securing
ob-
at SAGE PUBLICATIONS on December 4, 2012ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
To continue reading
Request your trial