LABOR: Wagner on the Wagner Act

Last week A. F. of L.’s apple-headed William Green tooted a blast against the Smith Committee Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act (TIME, March 18). He said they “strike in a destructive way at vital, fundamental principles.” There was something sour about this note that made those within earshot wince sharply. For Mr. Green had inveighed against both the NLRAct and the NLRBoard for many months, and his words had given most comfort to enemies of the Act. But little attention was paid him, for a man of bigger wind and deeper tone was playing.

A temperate character is Robert Ferdinand Wagner, New York’s senior Senator, of manner meek and mild. A man of goodwill, Prussian-born Mr. Wagner knows only one way to get things done: the hard way. Last week he took the Senate floor for his first full-dress defense of the Act he had authored. His cool statistical analysis was more devastating than any amount of emotional argument.

Looking like a disconsolate mastiff, Mr. Wagner used the slide rule of economic statistics. His points:

> In January 1940, fewer working days were lost through strikes than in any month since February 1933.

> Under present procedure, NLRB has adjusted 93% of all cases without formal proceedings, complaints or hearings.

> No other U. S. administrative agency in history has equaled NLRB’s success in the courts.*

> In 1938, the proportion of workers involved in strikes to the total employed was lower than in any year since 1932, substantially lower than the average for the last 60 years.

> In 1938, average working time lost per strike was less than in any year since 1927.

> In 1939 (first six months) number of strikes was 20% lower than the same period in 1938—a trend still continuing.

Mr. Wagner reminded the Senate that: 1) none of the three members of the Smith committee who sponsored the “ripper” amendments had fought for the original Act, and that Chairman Howard Smith had strongly opposed it; 2) the Smith investigation resolution ignored facts when it preambled: “There has been an alarming increase in strikes and labor disputes generally.”

Senator Wagner then bore down:

> Denial of reinstatement to workers who engaged in willful violence would make NLRB a glorified police court.

> Permission to employers to propagandize workers and public would overrule Supreme Court decisions holding such practices unfair.

> Redefining of “collective bargaining,” as suggested by the Smith committee, would tend to exclude negotiations on basic pay rates, wages, hours, working conditions, would “empty the collective-bargaining process of any serious content.”

> Requiring a reviewing Court to weigh evidence, substitute its judgment for the Board’s, “has been universally condemned by students of American law.” Half the legal experts think this scheme would paralyze administrative agencies, half think it would paralyze the courts.

> Creation of an independent administrator would divide responsibility and confuse policy to “farcical heights.”

> The Smith amendments would “more than repeal the Labor Act.”

> The administrative defects revealed by the Smith investigation must be corrected. Probably best plan: to follow recommendations of Dr. William M. Leiserson, last appointee to the NLRB, for changes in personnel.

> Investigation has proved bias and misdirected zeal by some NLRBsters. Addition of two Board members is advisable.

Mr. Wagner quietly sat down. At week’s end no one had challenged him.

* Federal Trade Commission’s record: first 15 years, 22 cases before the Supreme Court, upheld five times, modified once, reversed 16 times. Interstate Commerce Commission: first 15 years, twelve cases, upheld once, modified once, reversed ten times. NLRB, four years, 24 cases, upheld 19 times, modified thrice, reversed twice.

In more than 100 final orders taken to the courts, NLRB was only once ruled as having exceeded its jurisdiction.