Newspaper Page Text
PAGE FOUR ■f i 1 I I- i? Teamsters. K 4 U' dr .rt I A I’ ■r I' s QTfje JMUr? Herold OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF V THE NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF OPERATIVE POTTERS EAST LIVERPOOL TRADES A LABOR COUNCIL PuMtiihH every Thursctay at East Liverpool, Ohio, by the N. B. of O. P., owning and' egeratin* tlx Beat Trade* Newspaper and Job Printing Plant in the State. fettered at Post Office. East Liverpool, Ohio, An Hl 20, 1902 as second-class matter. Aceactod for mailing at Special Rates of Pnei.u'* provided for in Section 1109. Act October IS. 1917, authorised August 20, l'. GENERAL OFFICE. N. B. of O.P. BUILDING, W. SIXTH ST., BELL PHONE 575 HARRY L. ^*T T. ,------ --------Editor and Business Manager One Tear to Any Part of the United States or Canada———————-------- —82.00 YU NCI PrtsHwit---- James M. Duffy, P. O. Box 752, East Liverpool, Ohio First Vico President—E. L. Wheatley, Room 215. Broad Stroet, National Bank Build in*, Trenton 8, Now Jersey Second Tiee Preeident Frank Hull, 8111 Pacific Blvd.. Huntington Park. Calif. Third Vice President——. James Slaven, Cannons Milla, East Liverpool, Ohio Fourth Vice President Charles Zimmer, 1045 Ohio Avenue, Trenton 8, New Jersey Fifth Vice President______________ Arthur Devlin. Ai ore Ave., Trenton, N. J. Sixth Viee President. ..l ank Ines, East Liverpool, Oh o Seventh Vico President T. J. Desmorui E. 1. I,, Way, Minerva, Ohio Eighth Vice President Joshua Cht i k, Gr .nt S'rest, Newell, W. V«u Secretary-Treasurer————Chas. F. Jordan, P. O. Box 752, JEaat JLjverpooI^jOhio GENERAL WARE STANDING COMMITTEE Manufacturers— M. J. LYNCH. W. A. BETZ, J. T. HALL Operatives CHAff. F. JORDAN, FREDERICK GLYNN, ERNEST TORRENCE CHINA WARE STANDING COMMITTEE Manufacturers—, ,, E. K. KOOS, H. M. WALKER. W. A. BETZ BERT CLARK. DAVID BEVAN, CHAS JORDAN DECORATING STANDING COMMITTEE Manufacturers. ROBERT DIETZ, Sr., W. A. BETZ, RAY BROOKES ■usnuiacwrwr james SLAVEN, OSCAR EWAN, ROSE STEWART I Promotes Union Label Great stride in promoting the purchase of union-made goods and services were reported to the 41st convention of the AFL’s Union Label Trades Department. Renewed efforts to increase the purchase of articles E'fT bearing union labels were planned. Department President i Matthew Woll said this will be even more necessary this year because of the greater competition expected from Bri tish and other foreign made goods as a result of the devalu ation of the British pound sterling and other European cur rencies. AFL President William Green praised the department for the success of the fourth union label industries show held last May in Cleveland. The fifth show will be staged in Philadelphia next May. Department officers reelected were: President, Matt hew Woll, 2d vice president of the AFL I. M. Ornburn, sec retary-treasurer, and the following vice presidents: John J. Mara, president Boot and JShoe Workers Joseph P. McCurdy, president United Garment Workers James M. Duffy, president National Brotherhood of Operative Potters Herman Winter, president Bakery and Confectionery Work v ers Dave Beck, executive vice president Brotherhood of A Balance Sheet At a time when wild estimates on pension and expanded social security costs fill the American air, the experience of Britain’s public health service offers a sobering example. Rarely have the guesses of men farther strayed away from the facts than in this scheme which the Labor government I hails as the most comprehensive and socially enlightening public health experiment in the world. These are the facts cited by Health Minister Aneurin (1) Costs so far exceed £300,000,(MM) ($840,000, 000) a year, or more than twice the original estimates. (2) Administrative expenses run close to 3 per cent of the total bill, this despite the fact that most of the administrative burden is borne by 12,000 volunteers. (3) Contributions out of pay envelopes, that is by /the workers themselves, amount roughly to 13.5 per .: cent of the total. More or less the same amount was paid by the workers under the old health scheme which i served 20,000,000 people, as against the present system embracing 42,000,000 Britons. (4) Public demand for spectacles, teeth and other prescribed articles has so far outstripped the supply, but things will be straightened out early in 1950. On the other side of the ledger: (1) Public health service does not present a new burden on the nation. It is, or so Mr. Bevan likes to put it, “a gigantic change-over from the private jiocket to the public purse.” The money spent by the British peo ple on health before the scheme went into effect has k been estimated at $700,000,000 a year. (2) Health is steadily improving. It is safe to say that Britain, in years to come, will present a much bet ter health picture than ever before. This, of course, is an enormous national asset. Whether the first year of Britain’s public health service furnishes an accurate gauge is doubtful. In any event, the alxive analysis shows that a program of such far-reaching dimensions, carried almost wholly by the taxpayer, is bound 4o play havoc with prudent budget considerations—-a thought particularly pertinent at a moment when America is ^confronted with similar schemes on an even more gigantic scale. I 'Limited Understanding* i According to latest estimates of the Housing and Home I. Finance Agency, from 17 to 18 million new dwellings will have to Im? built by 1960 to make up the existing housing shortage and to provide for the new families which will be added to the population. This would mean an average of about 1,500,000 new homes a year. The real estate interests have made much of the fact that the 930,(MM) houses built in 1948 came close to equalling the all-time record of 937,(MM) units built in 1925. The pride which the private builders have shown in their 1918 pro lf* duction only seems to emphasize how limited is their under standing of the housing problems of the American people. 'Ev ri if one million homes had been built in 1918, this would still have been one-third less than the number which should have been built if the housing shortage is to be nu by 1960. Furthermore, the homes which are being built do not jneet our most acute needs. Workers should not be forced to ■buy homes at the high prices houses are being offered for sale today. The most acute need is for rental housing. In (the far'* of this fact, only about 15 percent of all houses built in 1910 were rental-type dwellings and while this figure may be increased in 1949, there is no chance whatsoever that the |ercemage will reach the 40 percent figure prevalent in the 1920’s. It is my opinion that, conscious of our resjxinsibilities ana our duties, and of the power that we •*kf jmxsmoss, of the workers of the nation can be mobilized, united, and caat in the ballot box, and freedom again restored to the workers to engage in collective bargaining without legisla tive restrictions of any kind whaUoe ver .-—William Green. the votes Really Worth Fighting For You’ve got to go back rfiany years to grasp the full sig nificance—-and full importance—of the battle the Steelwork er are now waging on the picket line throughout a large part of the country. As the U. S. was becoming a great industrial nation the owners and managers of mills and factories began treating employes as if they were so much coal—to be used up and burned out for the benefit of the stockholders. A man had a right to work hard—if his work was need ed at the moment—and that was about all. Gradually men got together through unions and fought for better working conditions, for more pay, for more secur ity. The government began giving real recognition to the welfare of workers—and to the rights of workers. The Wagner Act, unemployment compensation and social secur ity law s were enacted. Despite legislation and official encouragement, the steel union and others had to fight bitterly even to gain recogni tion. This was so because the unions battled for human rights. The battle has taken many forma. Many unions have contributed to the advancement that has been made. Now another fight is going on. It’s being waged be tween the financial and industrial giants of the nation and a strong'union. The amount of money involved in the current contro versy is, of course, important. But it’s not nearly as import ant as the principle involved. The industry already has recognized the principle inso far as many top executives are concerned. The union wants it extended to those who actually make the steel. Matter of Principle The Steelworkers went on strike in an effort to firmly establish the principle of non-contributory pension-insurance programs in the basic industries. It was as simple as that, on the surface, but behind the scenes the close observer sees another important battle in the long “war” of human rights vs. property rights. The union isn’t merely attempting to get the steel in dustry to agree to set aside 10c an hour for each employe to finance insurance and pensions. It is attempting to force open and widespread recogni tion of the fact that industry should shoulder a larger mea sure of responsibility for the welfare of those it employs. Or, to put it another way: The union is fighting to establish the principle that men should be given as much consideration as machines. Industry certainly has no illusions about the importance or magnitude of the principle involved. It has long fought for the “superiority” of property over men. Unions, since their very beginning, have been challeng ing this concept. Unions were forced to strike to obtain recognition, to establish union security, to set up realistic grievance pro cedures, to obtain a shorter work week, to secure paid vaca tions. Now the steel union is engaged in a campaign to estab lish another important principle. The future of millions of workers outside the steel in dustry-probably will be greatly affected by the outcome cf the walkout. It's A Promise 4 It now can be said with reasonable certainty that repeal of the unfair federal margarine taxes and license fees is a matter of only a few more months. One branch of Congress—the House—passed the repeal bill by a 287-to-89 vote last April. The Senate, however, hasn’t acted on it. And, a few weeks ago, the Senate’s Dem ocratic policy committee decided to shelve it until early in the next session, which begins in January. The remaining question then was, how early? And Sen ator Lucas of Illinois, the Democratic leader, has now answ ered that one. Replying to Senator Fulbright of Arkansas, who had inquired whether the bill would be the first consid ered after the new session meets, Lucas said: “The Senator is correct. When we return the oleomar garine bill will be the first bill to be considered by the Sen ate. Of course, the determined and resourceful butter lobby may have a few more tricks up its sleeve. But it seems as sure as anything can Ik* that, given opportunity, a majority of the Senate will vote for this bill. Senator Lucas’ definite promise means that the opportunity will be given early in 1950. Suppressed Fifteen years ago, Congress armed the Treasury De partment with a useful weapon to help turn up income tax dodgers. That weapon was the publication each year of all taxpayers reporting salaries of more than $15,000. By 1938, Congress had amended that law to raise the figure to $75,000. A majority in this GO I‘-Byrd Congress has now voted to suppress the publication of this list of high salaries. The excuse: “Economy.” In our opinion that excuse is so thin anyone can see through it. In matter of fact, this Congress has voted to suppress publication of the highest salaries, liecause the publication of that list embarrassed some of the nation’s biggest business executives. It also provided union mem bers of this country a measure against which to judge their efforts to add a few cents each year to their hourly wages. Railroads' 8th Round Increase The daily press is lambasting trade unions for asking for a fourth round wage increase. Little mention has been made of the fact that the railroads have just been granted their EIGHTH freight increase since July, 1946. As of Sept. 1, freight rates will be exactly 50 percent over what they were at the end of the war. How are you doing? If you are an average worker you now make $10.40 more a week than you did on July 1, 1946 —or an increase of 21 percent. While the papers howled at labor, industry has been doing very nicely. This may ex plain why the worker’s share of the national income dollar lias dropped 4 percent since the middle of ’46 while corpor ate profits have almost doubled. Farmers' Prices Price's farmers received in August of this year declined 48 txiints from August 1948. Prices funnel's paid declined only 8 points in that jier iod. The figures, computed by the Department of Agricul ture,iLse prices of the 1909-14 period as a base of 100. The anti-farmer crowd (which is always anti-worker as well) in Congress and legislature should chew that over a bit. THE POTTERS HERALD, EAST LIVEBP00E, OHTO 'Tell Your Fat Friend To Move Over!" News and Views 0 .... By ALEXANDER S. LIPSETT, (An ILNS Feature) AFL President William Green’s ringing reaffirmation of the work ing man’s right to increased pay has made once again clear that the older branch of American trade unionism will not stand for state in terference in the process of collective bargaining and government recommended waivers of justified pay rises for dubious pension schemes. Labor, as the head of the AFL put it, is “opposed to govern ment boards setting our wage standards anywhere or any place. This is a very fundamental principle.” The manner in which the national spokesman of 8,000,000 union ists and their families linked wage demands to the employers’ finan cial status, “many of whom can grant increases without increasing the selling price of their products,” is indicative of the high level thinking of the AFL and its understanding of the ties that bind Amer ican industry and labor together. Similar confirmation of this “vital and fundamental” principle come from John L. Lewis’ official organ, the United Mine Workers Journal, which in a ricent analysis of the steel board findings con demns the report as “another major adventure into the never-never land of governmental wage fixing, similar in its basic aspects to the wartime Little Steel wage-freezing formula.” The report of the board, the paper bitingly states, “has shattered the hopes of the steel workers for a wage increase, deferred for an other year their prospects of a limited pension plan, and offered a mis •erly social insurance program as the only immediate gain.” Turning with equal venom against the board’s attempt to “lay down a formula that should guide the negotiations a year hence,” the paper calls this “a strange new quirk in collective bargaining, achiev ing a new low in bureaucratic distortion.” 4* The Miners Journal also charges the board with “departing in a fundamental manner from the principle of the UMWA and other well establi.'.hed pension plans,” adding that it (the board) was “evidently trying to console the" steel workers with the thought that eventually they may approach the United Mine Workers pension standard.” Lastly the article, which clearly expresses John L. Lewis’ views xi the subject, maintains that the board decision against wage in Acneases rested “not so much on the merits of the steel workers case, but because it feared that an increase in steel might lead to increases in other industries. “Thus, again, as in the days of the War Labor Board, this is a wage determination by formula applied to all industry, not a judicial weighing of the facts in each respective case.” 4» 4* Congressional debate on the Administration’s social security ex pansion bill, passed by the impressive House vote .of 333 to 14, throws an interesting sidelight on newspaper men and their stake in social security. The point was raised by Representative Russell V. Mack, Rep., a newspaper publisher himself, who asked why newspaper editors were not included among new groups proposed for coverage in the old-age insurance program. Representative Jere Cooper, ranking Democratic member of the House Ways and Means Committee, replied that the committee had received no indication that publishers and editors de sired to be "brought into the system. This was supplemented by Con gressman Herman P. Eberharter, Dem., who explained that according to the committee hearings editors and publishers seldom retire at 65, the age which old-age benefit payments can begin. In other words, editors either die before attaining the social se curity retirement age or they refuse to give up working at all. WASHINGTON LABOR REPORT— Some Conditioning That's What You're In For By BRADFORD V. ARTER Even Brother Taft (Robert A. of Ohio, that is) has admitted there are a few things wrong with his gift to the nation—the Labor Management Relations act of 1947, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act. Even Taft, a McKinley in modern dress, was willing to make some changes. Fifteen million Americans in the organized trade union movement want no part of T-H, and have said so, and have turned on those in Congress who voted for the law. You’d think by now the T-H act was not so popular, with anybody. Well, you’ve overlooked the magazine calk'd Business Week. Listen: “Many people took the Taft-Hartley act as the definite answer to our labor problems. ... It should now be evident to everyone that vbile an important first step, the Taft-Hartley act is not the full Ual code needed to stabilize the labor front.” That’s a quote from the issue of Oct. 8, where the editors take a full page to wring their hands and cry out in horror over the steel and coal strikes. What’s needed, say these lineal descendants of the Tories of the Revolution, is an addition to Taft-Hartley, banning in dustry-wide bargaining. It’s simple: No industry-wide bargaining, no industry-wide strikes. (Of course, it’s ok for industry-wide price setting, for industry-wide restrictive trade agreements, for industry wide throttling of independent competitors.) Trouble is, ays Business Week, that Philip Murray is a monopol ist, who all* by himself decides what the steel industry shall pay. “He doesn’t allow one of his local unions to bargain with one company management in competition with other union locals,” wails Business Week. Ah, me. Of course, no giant corporation sets a price and makes us like it. Of course, all the corporations are owned by millions of widows and orphans, and they set all the policies. You don’t believe it? Well, Business Week wants industry to go to work on you until you do believe it. “Industry-wide bargaining won’t be abolished by wishful thinking”, the editorial says. “The first step is to see that the ‘educational opportunities’ which the current crop of strikes pro vide, are fully realized.” So, Brother, get ready for a dose of being “conditioned”. Or would you rather take in a good movie? Full Use Of Labor Press Labor is not unmindful of the fact that the metropolitan news papers everywhere have very largely misinformed the public on the various anti-union activity of our Congress and Senate. To offset this nii leadiiig it formation, we should make full use of our labor papers which w.ll channel all information dealing with the campaign to re peal the Taft-Hartley Act so that the workers everywhere can be in formed and transmit this correct information to their friends and neighbors. We need have no fear as to how they will vote but there are 3 things that must lie done get them ail registered so they are quahiied to vote and then have them read the labor press so that they will be intelligently informed, not this week and next week but continuously until the last vote has been cast and counted. SfCVBITY 3^' 'S Thursday, October 20, IMS For the first time in U. S. history the nation’s steelworkers and coal miners were out on strike at the same time. Even by the end of its first week the double walkout, involving nearly 1,000,000 workers, had already turned up memorable new contributions to American labor folklore. —In West Virginia, striking coal miners discovered that the com pany had imported 50 scabs into their small mining town. Eighty of the strikers promptly obtained hunting licenses in order “to go squir rel shooting while the strike lasts.” The next night 80 miners walked in a group down the main street of the town, each man carrying a squirrel rifle on his shoulder. Starting at one end of the street they marched into every cafe, tavern and saloon on the thoroughfare. Whenever they encountered one of the scabs they walked up to him, looked him squarely in the eye, said “Hello, squirrel!”—and then turned around and walked out. The next morning there wasn’t a single scab left in town. —In Lackawanna, N. Y., steelworkers’ pickets at the nine gates of the Bethlehem Steel plant were given portable radios by the man agement so they could listen to the World Series. But in Aliquippa, Pa., the steel pickets carried signs reading, “This Plant Temporarily Closed While Company Officials Figure Up Their $75,0C0-A-Year Pensions.” —In Virginia, miners who knew their strike was 100% solid fin ally got disgusted with company claims, published in the newspapers, that the mine was working at 75% capacity. However, because the mine property was surrounded by electrically charged wire there was no way that union officers could get into the mine to disprove the company’s claims. After brooding over it for a week the union fin ally came up with the perfect plan. In their small southern Virginia town there had never been a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, so the miners organized one and elected their own leaders as officers. That done the new SPCA went to the District Court and charged that the mine owners were violating the state humane laws by not feeding five cats that the men had taken into the mine to chase rats. Company attorneys contended there were no cats the miners claimed there were. The judge ordered an investigation with the SPCA officials as part of the committee. Thoughtfully the SPCA in vited an Associated Press photographer along. The group explored every inch of the mine and took pictures as they went. Just as the SPCA officials expected: they didn’t find a single cat or a single miner underground. —In Gary, Indiana, an independent steel company didn’t learn a thing from the appalling experience of the strikebound Bell Aircraft Co. in Buffalo. The steel firm announced that any of their employees who wanted to come back to work the next day would be guaranteed protection against their union leaders. Promptly at 7:30 the next morning 350 men lined up at the plant gate and went in to work. Ex actly an hour and a half later the 350 walked out again but preceding them were 90 pale and frightened looking men who had been sleeping and eating inside the plant. —In Wilkes-Burre, Pa., a group of miners decided that now would be the time, while the men were on strike and had lots of leisure, to undertake a long-overdue revision of the local’s by-laws. One problem had always plagued the local. Always just a few minutes before the union meetings closed the men would make a rush for the door. At a special meeting called to rewrite the by-laws this question was de bated for four hours. Finally at 1 o’clock in the morning when every one was nearly asleep one miner proposed a solution which was adopt ed and now stands as part of the by-laws. Since then, however, the entire membership-and officers have been trying to figure out how to obey the new rule which provides: “So that there will be no confusion at the door, all members will remain in their seats until everyone else has left.” —The silliest timing of a strike in many years occurred in Pitts burgh. The day after the steelworkers walked out, automatically end ing all the soot and smoke that normally blankets Pittsburgh from steel plant chimneys, the AFL Window Cleaners Local No. 16 also went out on strike. BEHIND THE HEADLINES— Depressions Always Start When Profits™ Are Highest Report Points Out y n By NATHAN ROBERTSON Washington (LPA)—A staff memorandum submitted this week to the Joint Congressional Economic Committee provides powerful sup- X* port for the argument long advanced by labor and liberal economists that a high wage-low profit policy is the way to keep our economic system going so there will always be plenty of jobs for all workers. This is not the way big business tells the story. Every time wage earners force an increase the managers of big business push up their prices to maintain or increase profits. Then they spend millions of dollars telling the public high profits such as they have been enjoying in recent years are necessary to finance the expansion of business and to maintain employment. The best answer to this argument is contained in a single short paragraph buried in the 200 pages of the factual memorandum sub mitted to the Congressional Committee which says “The proposition is sometimes defended that all that is needed to guarantee high-level production is profits und that depressions are due to lack of profits. Yet depressions always start in years of high est profits.” The memorandum is filled with other answers to the arguments of big business. For instance, the document notes that in a “boom and bust” economy “prosperity profits an needed to weather depression losses”. But it adds that these “prosperity profits undermine the very type of high-volume, high wage, low-profit-margin economy needed to sustain high level employment. Another section of the memorandum describes how high profits in 1929 may have operated in just this way. It describes how the big depression came at a time when profits were at the highest point in history, when labor unions were-comparatively weak, when taxes were low, when the government budget was balanced and the administra tion was entirely favorable to business. While the cause of the 1929 depression is listed as one of the “big unanswered riddles of economic history”, the memorandum con cludes it probably started with a feeling among businessmen who had been breaking all records in plant expansion that they had all the pro duction facilities needed to meet demand. Productivity was increasing rapidly, but the benefits were going into profits, rather than wages. Farm income was declining. “As a result”, the memorandum notes, “there was inadequate purchasing power for the nation’s product.” This suspicion that depressions start when businessmen suddenly curtail their investment in plant expansion is what caused the Joint Congressional Economic Committee to make its present investigation of investments. Much data is presented to indicate that in good times, when profits are high, businessmen engage in an orgy of expansion, but fight off wage increases that would provide purchasing power hig|r enough to buy the expanded production. Then they suddenly get scar- V ed, find that production is outrunning consumption, and cut their spending. This throws the whole country into depression. How few men have to suddenly change their minds to throw the whole country into a cruel and devastating depression is indicated by the following sentence in the memorandum: “There is a widespread consensus that investment policy for a substantial part of American industry may depend primarily on the information, attitudes, and decisions of a few as 300 business execu tives who with solidarity of selfish inten*st act more or less as a unit, move in the same social circles, belong to the same clubs, read the same newspapers and trade journals, and by and large share the same economic ideology anef-political convictions”. This, as the memorandum points out, is the danger of such highly concentrated industrial control as we have in our country today. A comparatively few men can control prices and production. If they guess wrong, the whole country pays the cost. If control were not so centralized the wrong guesses of a few men would not make so much difference. When competition, instead of monopoly control prevails, there is no such power concentrated in a few hands. Prices and production are controlled by the market place. Each producer makes as much as heX. can sell and sells at the lowest possible price in order to get as much of the market as possible. If we could break up some of our big con centrations of monopoly power, as the anti-trust division is now try ing to do, there would be more such competition—and therefore less danger of depression. When businessmen have the power to 4ix prices, they naturally tend to fix them too high, to make all they can in good times so thev can last through the depression their actions cause. That is why, if there is any power to fix prices anywhere outside of the market place, it should be in the hands of government, which is responsible to the people and presumably acts in the public interest, rather than have that power in the hands of businessmen. Government might also, guess wrong, but it would not have the selfish interest that effects the judgment of business men. The course of business during the past year indicates that business men guessed wrong, and started the country toward depression—but government was able to counterbalance their mistake and avert a real catastrophe.