Labor, Industry and Government
by
[Appleton-Century, $2.00]
MATTHEW WOLL, a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, has prepared a philosophic basis for the conduct of organized labor in the United States. Curiously enough, much that Mr. Woll says conflicts with the actual manifestations of labor policy at the present time. For instance, Mr. Woll contends that ‘there is no employer or group of employers who can keep employees from organizing if they want to organize. The law says that employees have the right to organize. Labor should not expect much more than that.‘
As a matter of fact, under the New Deal the American Federation of Labor has consistently expected much more than that. It has held not only that labor should organize, but that it should organize for collective bargaining, and that a majority of the organized laborers in each enterprise should completely dominate the situation without any proportional representation to minorities; and furthermore that, as specified in the Wagner Bill, industry should be so restricted that no other form of employee representation should be tolerated but the American Federation of Labor.
Mr. Woll seems to hold that the American Federation of Labor’s entire theory of collective bargaining as represented by Section 7(a) of the NIRA, by the Wagner Bill, by the Guffey Bill, and by countless speeches and statements of officials, is wrong. His chapter on collective bargaining might have been written by any industrialist.
It becomes obvious that Mr. Woll’s difficulty arises from his antagonism to Communism and Fascism. On the one hand, he wants labor to fight for higher wages, shorter hours, and all the benefits for which his organization has been contending; on the other hand, he dreads the possibility of government participation in the codification of industry, which might lead either to Communism or to Fascism.
He says, ‘It must be clearly evident to all right-thinking persons that the government cannot bind employers into any form of employment contract without at the same time binding employees as well,’ This is, of course, the view of industrialists and is antagonistic to the policy of the Federation of Labor. If one will scrutinize the Wagner Bill, it becomes immediately evident that the objective of this measure is to hind employers and to release labor from any responsibilities. On this point Mr. Woll stands for individualistic conduct by the workers and seems to defend individualism on the part of the employer; and his fear of government action which might limit the workers’ right to strike leads him to suggest that in the end the only protection for labor may be sabotage.
In his defense of the right to strike he comes upon this idea: ‘Labor is justified in its suspicions of governmentalism. It leads to compulsory adjustments. It leads to rules and governmental enforcement of rules. . . . Dictatorships the world over begin with the weakening of labor by limiting or denying the right to strike, and when that has happened the subjection of labor is partially completed. The cartelization of American industry which has gone on under codes is a familiar story in the early history of Fascist Italy. Are we heading toward a business Fascism? ’
Mr. Woll has undoubtedly contributed a valuable treatise to the general discussion of labor under the New Deal. Few American labor leaders have thought out their problem as thoroughly as he has. Most of them function politically without adhering to any basic principles except the opportunism of Sam Gompers. When Mr. Woll attempts to work out a set of basic principles to guide American labor, he seems to develop the same line of thought which, during the past year, has actuated many critics of his own organization.
GEORGE E. SOKOLSKY