Bull Session

In Miami last week, Secretary of Labor James P. Mitchell tried a bold experiment. He had a speaking engagement at the C.I.O. International Union of Electrical Workers' convention, and such occasions, he knew from experience, were likely to be routine and cause little excitement. As a moderate spokesman of labor in a businessman's administration, Mitchell had no prepared pyrotechnics for dazzling the delegates. And besides, he was intensely interested in learning what was on the workingmen's minds. So he decided to skip the speech and present himself as a target for all questioners.

It was a brave and highly successful performance. For upwards of an hour, the 700 sport-shirted union leaders pelted questions at him and Mitchell affably fielded them back. The Secretary's responses drew both boos and cheers from his audience, but in the end, the electrical workers gave Mitchell a roaring, standing ovation that indicated that, although they have doubts about the Republicans, they at least admire and respect Republican Jim Mitchell. Excerpts from the tape recording:

Delegate Frank Canada, Local 1199 (Chicago): I would like to ask Mr. Mitchell what the Republican Party or himself did. They put in a movement for the excess-profits tax for the manufacturers, which in our shops saved them $200,000 in this last year. Did they do anything for the working people? Have they ever done anything for a union member . . . ?

Mitchell: That is a question I am very happy to answer . . . I refer you particularly to the Social Security Act, which has increased the number of people covered by social security by some 10 million . . . I refer you to the President's comment in his economic message that the states of this Union should review the adequacy of benefits of unemployment compensation . . . In addition to that, as Secretary of Labor, I have written to the governors of every state, urging them to look to the adequacy of their unemployment-compensation benefits . . . I refer you to the housing program, which adds some 35,000 additional units, which helps the working men and women of this country . . . I refer you to the federal road-building program which was passed by this Congress . . . Our program has been directed at the working people of this country to the fullest extent that it is conceivable to have been done in one legislative session.

Delegate Albin Hartnett, Local 113 (Philadelphia): I read to you from the 1953 convention proceedings of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. In your address, you said: "We are working hard to find ways and means to bring about an increase in the present 75-c- an-hour minimum to a more realistic level, in keeping with the present-day wage levels. We do not know yet what that level should be. I do know that the C.I.O. platform calls for $1.25. Just as soon as we come up with our findings, the Department of Labor will make recommendations to the President for action by Congress this coming session." Congress has met; Congress has adjourned. How much longer must we wait for the study?

Mitchell: You, who are bargainers of the first water . . . you know that you cannot get what you want all the time when you want it. All I can do is to tell you that as far as you and I are concerned ... we think alike. We will endeavor to get it as soon as it is practically possible to get it, and we need your support in getting it.

Delegate Mary Callahan, Local 105 (Philadelphia): I was under the impression that the platform of the Republican Party was that, "If you put us in, you will get this and that." I did not know we were going into collective bargaining with the President of the United States . . . The question I am really interested in now . . . is what about workmen's compensation?

Mitchell: We are trying to bring to the attention of the states--because that is our only recourse at this time--the inadequacy of the workmen's compensation laws in this country. I agree with the delegate that they are woefully inadequate . . .

Delegate Michael Alois, Local 301 (Schenectady): I am on the placement committee at 301. We have quite an unemployment problem. My question is: What is the Government going to do about unemployment that results when companies such as G.E. move whole departments to the South, or to low-wage areas to make more profit for themselves? I.U.E. President James B. Carey: I am awfully anxious to hear that reply.

Mitchell: So am I . . . I might ask the question: What authority, if it wanted to assert it, has the Federal Government to direct any employer as to where he should put his plants, and how, and why? I am sure that you would not want any government to have that authority over any employer, because we would be moving away from the democratic system under which we live. I don't decry at all the real problem that you present . . . The answer is in organization, and you people, I am told, have done a good job in organizing the South. I am sure that I cannot stand here and give you the answer to an economic problem of such great magnitude, and I don't intend to.

Voice from the Crowd: Give us the answer!

Mitchell: If I may say so, ladies and gentlemen. I came here in good faith and spirit--rather than subject you to a trite talk concocted by somebody else who might write talks for public officials--to try to do this thing. I hope that it is received in that spirit. I really mean that. Probably what I have to say to this gentleman, which I hate to say, is that I cannot answer your question.

Carey: We are not suggesting that the United States Government determine what wages should be paid by employers or where they should locate their plants, but we do say very specifically that the present law provides a means by which General Electric can be denied the use of federal funds through tax amortization and through the large profits that they receive for rendering at great profit services to our Government, as well as the enactment of an adequate minimum wage . . . We must have a better answer to the question: What is the Government going to do to prevent unfair competition by these profitable corporations, like G.E., in moving to the South?

Mitchell: I will tell you this, that within the next two weeks hearings will be held . . .

At the end of the meeting, Jim Mitchell had the last word. Quoting from the I.U.E.'s Officers' Report, he commented: "I was struck with the opening paragraphs of the report where your officers say that not since 1950 has the I.U.E.-C.I.O.. and I quote, 'enjoyed so many contractual advances, or such accomplishments in political, legislative and civil-rights activities as you have in the past year.'

"You know," said the Secretary with a smile, "if I were to say that. I would be accused of partisan politics.''

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