The Biggest Strike

Within an hour one day last week the C.I.O.'s United Steelworkers accepted and the U.S. Steel Corp. rejected President Truman's compromise wage offer in the steel negotiations. The steel strike--the inconceivable strike, the biggest strike in U.S. history--was born.

The President had issued what amounted to an ultimatum. He had asked C.I.O. President Phil Murray and U.S. Steel President Ben Fairless to settle for an 18 1/2-c--an-hour wage increase. This was 3 1/2-c- more than Ben Fairless' final offer of 15-c-; 1-c- less than Phil Murray's final demand of 19 1/2-c-.

Replying, Phil Murray said yes in less than 100 words. Ben Fairless took longer. Said he:

"Your proposal is almost equivalent to granting in full the union's revised demand ... of 19 1/2-c- an hour. In our opinion there is no just basis from any point of view for wage increase of the large size proposed. . . . There is a limit in the extent to which wage demands can be met by us. ...

"Much as we desire to avoid a steel strike, we cannot overlook the effect both on this corporation and on our customers and American business in general. An 18 1/2-c--an-hour wage increase . . . must result in higher prices for steel than have previously been proposed by the Government. Great financial harm would soon follow for all users of steel. . . . Such a high and unjustified wage scale might well spell financial disaster for many of the smaller steel companies and for a large number of steel fabricators and processors. The nation needs the output of these companies. . . ."

Hijacking? On reading Ben Fairless' reply, Phil Murray waxed loquacious. He called newsmen to the green-paneled conference room of C.I.O.'s Washington headquarters--where his portrait hangs alongside those of Jefferson and Lincoln--and issued a burning statement:

"American industry, fattened with war profits . . . has deliberately set out to destroy labor unions, to provoke strikes and economic chaos, and hijack the American people through uncontrolled profits and inflations. ... Its clear aim is to exact unconditional surrender of the American people and the United States Government. . . . The steel industry now has the full and sole responsibility for the strike which must take place. . . ." . Had Big Steel really been merely stubborn in refusing to compromise for the President's proposal and thus avert a strike? One industrialist thought so. Big, bustling Henry Kaiser rushed to the White House with Phil Murray, emerged to announce that he had signed with the Steelworkers at 18 1/2-c- for his plant at Fontana, Calif, (which employs only 3,000 men and enjoys a favorable price differential of $12 a ton). Cried Big Henry:

"Three and a half cents is 2% of steel wages. Who can estimate costs down to 2%? Can anyone hesitate to save this country for 3 1/2-c- ?"

Behind the Statement. While Henry Kaiser got his usual bumper crop of headlines, Big Steel--which always moves slowly--remained mum. But there were other reasons to consider, beyond Ben Fairless' statement that "there is a limit," for Big Steel's stand.

P:Any wage increase granted now would apply only to the Steelworkers' present contract, which expires in nine months. The higher an increase Big Steel gives now, the higher the long-run increase when bargaining begins all over again in October.

P:The rumblings of John L. Lewis are not far off. By April he will probably demand a wage increase for his coal miners. If he gets his demand, coal prices will doubtless increase and the cost of steel production will rise.

P:Although Big Steel expects big sales in the next few years, it will have to face the unpredictable competition of war-perfected light metals and plastics.*

P:High production does not cut the unit cost of carbon steel nearly so much as in industries like autos, electrical gadgets, etc.

Destroy Unions? Whatever the merits of Big Steel's case, it was not presented very effectively to the public. Newspaper cartoonists broke out in a rash of drawings showing both industry and labor tramping on the helpless public. Many a citizen, fed up with the loud and prolonged bickering, began thinking plague-on-both-your-houses thoughts.

It remained for the New York Times to suggest that the union, rather than Big Steel, was the stubborn party to the fight. Editorialized the Times:

"Was the 15-cents-an-hour offer . . . evidence of a desire to destroy labor unions? Was the 13 1/2 cents an hour offer made by General Motors? Were the increases offered in petroleum, meat packing, and many other industries devices being used to destroy unions? Collective bargaining cannot be a one-way street. We cannot have effective collective bargaining if the refusal by one party to accede to excessive demands by the other is considered to be an act of bad faith."

But it was too late for theory. Twelve hours after the deadline, the strike was 100% effective. The union, plotting long-range strategy, made plans for 13 weeks of radio broadcasts, costing $195,000, to keep its case before the public.

* The very minute after Henry Kaiser had signed his new steel contract, he told White House correspondents about a new dishwasher he is manufacturing. Said he: "We had it planned and designed, but we couldn't get the steel. So we changed plans in less than a week, and now we're going to make it with aluminum."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.