President Adopted Truman Maxim On Airlines Strike

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31151, 30 August 1966, Page 8

President Adopted Truman Maxim On Airlines Strike

(From FRANK OLIVER. N.Z P.A. Special correspondent; WASHINGTON, Aug. 28. Some Congressmen are still irritated with the White House over the recent air lines strike. In the end collective bargaining reached a bargain (it was quite a bargain for the strikers) to save Congress the unwanted Job of forcing strikers back to work. There are 12 commandments in the United States, the extra two being, never cross a picket line and never force strikers back to work against their will. Congress was put on the hot seat by the President who, when his advocated settlement was turned down, lapsed into silence and went back to his ranch. He followed, as Arthur Krock said in the “New York Times,” the famous maxim of Harry Truman—“lf you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.” He “got” and Congress was far from happy at having to draft compulsory legislation to get the strikers back to work. But he left behind a hot debate in house circles about the future role of the Federal Government in strikes which impinge on the national interest. Nothing is likely to be done this session, but irritated congressmen are getting their ideas in order for a new “emergency” strike law for passage in the new year. Unfitness Apparent As one newspaper commented, never has the unfitness of Congress to make controversial decisions in a hurry on its own been more painfully apparent than in its “clumsy, indecisive” handling of the airlines strike. It is now becoming clear that a consensus is developing in Congress on these two precepts: Short of a strong call from the President, Congress has no business jumping into the middle of a labour dispute. Even if the President decides Government intervention is necessary it is better to be equipped in advance with suitable tools for the job rathen

than have to set cumbersome legislative machinery in motion for a stopgap purpose.

This problem has cropped up a number of times since the end of World War 11, but Congress has never seen fit to do much about it. Now, having been on the hot seat and expected to send strikers back to work in an election year, Congress, it is predicted, will give serious consideration to a permanent emergency strike law which the President could use effectively to induce labour and management to settle their differences and get on with the job. The fact that a settlement was negotiated and the men went back to work obviated the need of legislation at this time, but the need of some type of legislation has not been eased. On the contrary, says the “Washington Post’” “the need has been pointedly re-emphasised.”

Problem Recognised

The President recognised the problem last January when, in his State of the Union Message, he promised to ask Congress to consider measures which “will enable us effectively to deal with strikes which threaten irreparable damage to the national interest.” Such measures have not yet emerged from the White House and the presumption is that no acceptable formula has been found. In the newspapers and in public discussion there has, naturally, been talk of compulsory arbitration but in spite of its recent unhappy experience the Congress does not seem willing to go as far as that.

The dilemma of Congress was that while it was under pressure from constituents affected by the airline strike to “do something about it,” it was reluctant to antagonise another section of the electorate, the Labour vote. Some of its serious-minded members also felt, as one of them put it, that ad hoc emergency legislation is inherently unwise because in a crisis atmosphere the fact-finding job to discover the impact of a particular strike cannot possibly be done.

There is considerable support for the position of one Republican who said the House was placed in a ridiculous position which should never be allowed to arise again. There is much agreement on dont’s but so far not too much on what should be done.

Too Extreme

Legislation authorising a President to seize an industry or to order arbitration is regarded by many in Congress as too extreme. There is agreement that it might be good to devise ways of intensifying the economic pinch which affects both labour and management in a long and costly strike, but so far not much in the way of ideas about how to achieve this.

There is considerable support for legislation which would give a President broader authority to halt a strike, but ultra liberals do not like the idea because it seems to them it would favour management, because once labour has gone back to work its bargaining power is gone. But at this stage there does seem to be a consensus in favour of giving the President more flexible use of powers he already has under the Taft-Hartley Act, the 80day cooling off period. Many feel like giving the President discretion in breaking the 80day period into shorter periods, the object being to keep management guessing about how long the period of grace will be and thus putting on pressure for concerted bargaining efforts. Whatever is eventually done the mood of Congress is to do something that will stop prolonged and costly strikes that does not, as one newspaper puts it, form stepping stones leading back to Congress. Congressmen do not want the President to be able to leave them in the position they recently occupied of facing the task of passing unpalatable ad hoc legislation which would have hurt them at the polls.

SAVB Money, time and energy. For as little as 2s 10d “Tbe Press - Classifieds will quote your message to more than 70.000 families EARLY. Dial 50 180 any time.