The Press WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1950. U.S. Coal Strike

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26032, 8 February 1950, Page 4

The Press WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1950. U.S. Coal Strike

With more than 350,000 United States soft-coal miners on strike, and the nation’s coal stocks falling steadily, President Truman has at last been compelled to invoke the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Labour Relations Act in an attempt to settle a strike which has been gradually paralysing the industrial life of the country since the beginning of this year. The decision must have been difficult for Mr Truman. Since Congress reassembled, some of his most faithful supporters, as well as his Republican opponents, have been urging him to intervene in the dispute, but he has insisted that, despite local difficulties, there is no national emergency to justify his use of the Taft-Hartley Act. It is embarrassing for him, particularly in election year, to have to resort to an act that he wants repealed, but the tactics pursued by the president of the United Mine Workers (Mr John L. Lewis) and their effect on the industrial life of the country have left him no option. For months Mr Lewis has been increasing the pressure on Mr Truman by intensifying the war of attrition against the mine-owners. Though the fact-finding board to be appointed under the Taft-Hartley Act will have to decide whether a state of emergency exists, there is already plenty of evidence that industry cannot afford a continuation of the strike. At the beginning of Decem L ber last year coal stocks were down to 45,000,000 tons, compared with 69,000,000 tons in December, 1948. This month passenger-carrying railways have been forced to reduce the number of coal-burning trains by as much as two-thirds; and coalhauling railways have been laying off thousands of men. Steel production has been reduced, and industrial plants may have to close down if the coal shortage continues. The present strike began early last month, but the United Mine Workers and Mr Lewis have been in dispute with the mine-owners since the end of June last year over demands for increases both in wages and in coal royalty contributions to the welfare and pension fund. For some weeks Mr Lewis kept the miners working short time, clearly to strengthen his hand by reducing stocks of coal. In September he brought them out fully on strike, and in November he sent them back to work full time. In December he put them back on to short timethree days a week. These tactics made little impression on the mineowners, and only a few small companies, producing in all about 3| per cent, of the country’s total output, accepted Mr Lewis’s terms. But on January 9 about 60,000 miners out of 400,000 in all, suddenly stopped working altogether. Mr Lewis announced that no strike had been ordered, and a week later “ suggested ” that the men should return to work. By then 30,000 more men had ceased work, and all defied their leader’s “ suggestion ”, which has always in the past been regarded as an order; As some of the miners declared that they were tired of part-time wages and were determined To bring the dispute to a head, it was suggested that there was a revolt against Mr Lewis’s leadership. But Mr Lewis and the union are reported to be as popular as ever among the miners, and some United States observers believe that his “ suggestion ” was just another device to spin out the dispute without incurring the odium (and the risk of an injunction under the Taft-Hartley Act) of making the strike complete. At the end of last month Mr Lewis agreed to resume contract negotiations with the mineowners, but the conference broke down. Mr Lewis claimed that the mine-owners wanted Government intervention. Their reply was that the union wanted to control production by decreeing how many days the mines may work, regardless of market demands. In the interval Mr Truman had attempted to seek a solution of the dispute outside the Taft-Hartley Act. He asked the United Mine Workers and the leading mine-owners to agree to 70 days’ full coal production, beginning on February 6, and to an investigation by a presidential board of three members of the public, which would make recommendations within 60 days for a settlement. This scheme would have saved Mr Truman from the embarrassment of invoking the act which he has attacked as fiercely as Mr Lewis, and would have given the miners the opportunity to present their case to an impartial board. Mr Lewis, however, has not accepted Mr Truman’s proposal, and now will have to take the risk of an injunction ordering his members to return to work for 80 days while attempts are made to settle the dispute. Though in the past Mr Lewis has been able to win exceptionally good terms for his members because of their unquestioning discipline, this time a severe strain has been imposed on them. For seven months they have been working short weeks. Their pay has been about one-third of the normal amount for the period since June 30 last year, when the old contract expired. Many have incurred substantial debts to the company stores, and the union’s pension and welfare fund has dwindled because many large coal-producers did not make their monthly royalty payments of 20 cents a ton last month. These are factors which must weigh with Mr Lewis when he decides what response he will make to Mr Truman’s decisive action. I