In Washington last week a million dollars’ worth of steel-industry talent for-gathered, by some mischance, in the wrong room. When the mistake was discovered, the high-priced executives, economists, public-relations counselors, lawyers, et al. put on their Homburgs, gathered up their brief cases, and marched, 100 strong, to the Smithsonian Institution. Upstairs past the stuffed moose, not far from Lindbergh’s rickety-looking little Spirit of St. Louis, and in an auditorium surrounded by herds of dinosaurs and mastodons, they sat down to hear what they had come for: the most determined assault on the Little Steel formula in all its 20-month history.
The delay was typical of present-day steel negotiations. Industry has fought a slow retreat; labor has methodically exhausted every lower authority to make its case correct; WLB is in no hurry. The barrage began with Phil Murray, in a quiet, dark blue suit, saying quietly: “I do not come before the Board for the purpose of wielding a stick or threatening a strike. I don’t want any commotion . . . to arise out of these discussions that might precipitate a disruption of production.”
His mildness was only apparent. Soon he was referring to Little Steel’s gain under the formula tailored for it as “a lousy nickel” an hour. Under the same percentage formula, building tradesmen got a 22½¢-an-hour increase, he said. What was fair about that? Soon, well warmed up, Murray was speaking of Miami-and-Mex-ico-tanned executives daring to suggest that steelworkers are “getting too much money.” He talked of the “wise men, fat men, men who are enjoying war fat.”
All this was in the approved labor tradition of infighting. But all the time Phil Murray knew that the WLB panel would not give his 450,000 steelworkers their 17¢-an-hour increase.
WLB’s wrinkled, canny Chairman William H. Davis made that slow-spokenly clear. To a Congressional committee, a day before Phil Murray spoke, Davis said that WLB is “bound to adhere” to its stabilization line, which includes the Little Steel formula. He would adhere, at least as long as the Administration’s cost-of-living line was held by food subsidies. WLB hoped to delay any decision until Congress makes up its mind.
More Must-Reads from TIME
- Introducing the 2024 TIME100 Next
- Sabrina Carpenter Has Waited Her Whole Life for This
- What Lies Ahead for the Middle East
- Why It's So Hard to Quit Vaping
- Jeremy Strong on Taking a Risk With a New Film About Trump
- Our Guide to Voting in the 2024 Election
- The 10 Races That Will Determine Control of the Senate
- Column: How My Shame Became My Strength
Contact us at letters@time.com