The year just past--like the year after the first World War--was marred by
labor management strife.
Despite this outbreak of economic warfare in 1946, we are today producing
goods and services in record volume. Nevertheless, it is essential to
improve the methods for reaching agreement between labor and management and
to reduce the number of strikes and lockouts.
We must not, however, adopt punitive legislation. We must not in order to
punish a few labor leaders, pass vindictive laws which will restrict the
proper rights of the rank and file of labor. We must not, under the stress
of emotion, endanger our American freedoms by taking ill-considered action
which will lead to results not anticipated or desired.
We must remember, in reviewing the record of disputes in 1946, that
management shares with labor the responsibility for failure to reach
agreements which would have averted strikes. For that reason, we must
realize that industrial peace cannot be achieved merely by laws directed
against labor unions.
During the last decade and a half, we have established a national labor
policy in this country based upon free collective bargaining as the process
for determining wages and working conditions.
That is still the national policy.
And it should continue to be the national policy!
But as yet, not all of us have learned what it means to bargain freely and
fairly. Nor have all of us learned to carry the mutual responsibilities
that accompany the right to bargain. There have been abuses and harmful
practices which limit the effectiveness of our system of collective
bargaining. Furthermore, we have lacked sufficient governmental machinery
to aid labor and management in resolving their differences.
Certain labor-management problems need attention at once and certain
others, by reason of their complexity, need exhaustive investigation and
study.
We should enact legislation to correct certain abuses and to provide
additional governmental assistance in bargaining. But we should also
concern ourselves with the basic causes of labor-management difficulties.
In the light of these considerations, I propose to you and urge your
cooperation in effecting the following four-point program to reduce
industrial strife:
Point number one is the early enactment of legislation to prevent certain
unjustifiable practices.
First, under this point, are jurisdictional strikes. In such strikes the
public and the employer are innocent bystanders who are injured by a
collision between rival unions. This type of dispute hurts production,
industry, and the public--and labor itself. I consider jurisdictional
strikes indefensible.
The National Labor Relations Act provides procedures for determining which
union represents employees of a particular employer. In some jurisdictional
disputes, however, minority unions strike to compel employers to deal with
them despite a legal duty to bargain with the majority union. Strikes to
compel an employer to violate the law are inexcusable. Legislation to
prevent such strikes is clearly desirable.
Another form of inter-union disagreement is the jurisdictional strike
involving the question of which labor union is entitled to perform a
particular task. When rival unions are unable to settle such disputes
themselves, provision must be made for peaceful and binding determination
of the issues.
A second unjustifiable practice is the secondary boycott, when used to
further jurisdictional disputes or to compel employers to violate the
National Labor Relations Act.
Not all secondary boycotts are unjustified. We must judge them on the basis
of their objectives. For example, boycotts intended to protect wage rates
and working conditions should be distinguished from those in furtherance of
jurisdictional disputes. The structure of industry sometimes requires
unions, as a matter of self-preservation, to extend the conflict beyond a
particular employer. There should be no blanket prohibition against
boycotts. The appropriate goal is legislation which prohibits secondary
boycotts in pursuance of unjustifiable objectives, but does not impair the
union's right to preserve its own existence and the gains made in genuine
collective bargaining.
A third practice that should be corrected is the use of economic force, by
either labor or management, to decide issues arising out of the
interpretation of existing contracts.
Collective bargaining agreements, like other contracts, should be
faithfully adhered to by both parties. In the most enlightened
union-management relationships, disputes over the interpretation of
contract terms are settled peaceably by negotiation or arbitration.
Legislation should be enacted to provide machinery whereby unsettled
disputes concerning the interpretation of an existing agreement may be
referred by either party to final and binding arbitration.
Point number two is the extension of facilities within the Department of
Labor for assisting collective bargaining.
One of our difficulties in avoiding labor strife arises from a lack of
order in the collective bargaining process. The parties often do not have a
dear understanding of their responsibility for settling disputes through
their own negotiations. We constantly see instances where labor or
management resorts to economic force without exhausting the possibilities
for agreement through the bargaining process. Neither the parties nor the
Government have a definite yardstick for determining when and how
Government assistance should be invoked. There is need for integrated
governmental machinery to provide the successive steps of mediation,
voluntary arbitration, and--ultimately in appropriate cases--ascertainment
of the facts of the dispute and the reporting of the facts to the public.
Such machinery would facilitate and expedite the settlement of disputes.
Point number three is the broadening of our program of social legislation
to alleviate the causes of workers' insecurity.
On June 11, 1946, in my message vetoing the Case Bill, I made a
comprehensive statement of my views concerning labor-management relations.
I said then, and I repeat now, that the solution of labor-management
difficulties is to be found not only in legislation dealing directly with
labor relations, but also in a program designed to remove the causes of
insecurity felt by many workers in our industrial society. In this
connection, for example, the Congress should consider the extension and
broadening of our social security system, better housing, a comprehensive
national health program, and provision for a fair minimum wage.
Point number four is the appointment of a Temporary Joint Commission to
inquire into the entire field of labor-management relations.
I recommend that the Congress provide for the appointment of a Temporary
Joint Commission to undertake this broad study.
The President, the Congress, and management and labor have a continuing
responsibility to cooperate in seeking and finding the solution of these
problems. I therefore recommend that the Commission be composed as follows:
twelve to be chosen by the Congress from members of both parties in the
House and the Senate, and eight representing the public, management and
labor, to be appointed by the President.
The Commission should be charged with investigating and making
recommendations upon certain major subjects, among others:
First, the special and unique problem of nationwide strikes in vital
industries affecting the public interest. In particular, the Commission
should examine into the question of how to settle or prevent such strikes
without endangering our general democratic freedoms.
Upon a proper solution of this problem may depend the whole industrial
future of the United States. The paralyzing effects of a nationwide strike
in such industries as transportation, coal, oil, steel, or communications
can result in national disaster. We have been able to avoid such disaster,
in recent years, only by the use of extraordinary war powers. All those
powers will soon be gone. In their place there must be created an adequate
system and effective machinery in these vital fields. This problem will
require careful study and a bold approach, but an approach consistent with
the preservation of the rights of our people. The need is pressing. The
Commission should give this its earliest attention.
Second, the best methods and procedures for carrying out the collective
bargaining process. This should include the responsibilities of labor and
management to negotiate freely and fairly with each other, and to refrain
from strikes or lockouts until all possibilities of negotiation have been
exhausted.
Third, the underlying causes of labor management disputes.
Some of the subjects presented here for investigation involve long-range
study. Others can be considered immediately by the Commission and its
recommendations can be submitted to the Congress in the near future.
I recommend that this Commission make its first report, including specific
legislative recommendations, not later than March 15, 1947.