GUARANTEED ANNUAL WAGE

IT'S GOOD

Christian Science Monitor Washington Correspondent Joseph C. Harsch:

The wage settlement is one more piece of evidence that the world in which we are living is evolving rapidly away from the calculations of Karl Marx. The spectacle of the leaders of one of the most powerful labor unions in the United States negotiating a mutually satisfactory settlement with the managers of one of the most powerful industrial empires in the United States, and this without any overtones of class warfare or any appeal by either side to public emotionalism, belongs to a society which the mid-nineteenth-century socialist theorists did not conceive. The British election proved that socialism has lost its momentum in Britain. The Ford settlement proved that labor and industry are working out a new social system in the United States.

New York Times Labor Analyst A. H. Raskin: European unionists, reared in the Socialist tradition, always wonder why United States labor is so enthusiastic about a competitive economic system. The settlement at Ford should help supply the answer. The principal factor in Ford's decision was its desire to stay out in front in the race for mastery of the low-price automobile field. Reuther avoided the slogans of class warfare that were so much a part of the union's formative years two decades ago. The company was equally careful not to maneuver itself into "do-or-die" positions. The performance on both sides was a heartening exhibition of industrial maturity.

Paris Left-wing Franc-Tireur: How different are matters over here. What a different picture when we look at our backward employers, our divided workers, our outmoded routines, our old slogans which no longer convince anybody, and when we witness this forward movement in America, marked by technical progress and social justice.

New York Post: The agreement between the Ford Motor Co. and the Auto Workers Union is a landmark of industrial democracy in the U.S. According to the ancient Marxist cliches, the union's demand should have precipitated a long and violent class struggle. Walter Reuther was advancing a proposition that would have been generally considered revolutionary two decades ago. There will be diehards who call young Mr. Ford a "traitor to his class." But in the history books he will be remembered for a contribution to the social engineering of this century as momentous as the mechanical wizardry of his grandfather.

IT'S BAD

Columnist David Lawrence: The end result of what is happening is likely to be an inflationary price rise and a steady devaluation of the dollar over the long range. And the possibility of state socialism coming in to pay out unemployment and other benefits in a so-called "welfare state" is growing. It's a trend that gives cause for anxiety as to the ultimate effect on the economic future of America.

Los Angeles Times: The contract boosts labor costs, will be additional incentive to the company to spend money for automation. Thus what Reuther has won may not be more pay for all his members, but more pay for a smaller proportion.

Chicago Tribune: There is only one place where the Ford company can get the money for this increase. That is from the sale of its products. The unorganized portion of the public, which is three workers out of every four, gets the full impact of the price increases without any extra income. The result is inflation, reduced consumption, and reduction in the number of jobs for which no annual wage can compensate.

Wall Street Journal: Suppose the settlement had been on the basis of the company's proposal, which would have enabled the workers to buy bonds and Ford stock. Is a company-paid dole preferable to ownership in the company? By contrast with the Ford offer, the settlement the union demanded and got is a throwback to a darker age of labor relations. Yet, because the union leaders arbitrarily insisted on this one preconceived plan, they could not even consider alternatives that might have been far more valuable to those they represent.

National Association of Manufacturers President Henry G. Riter: If industry gives in to labor's demands for a guaranteed annual wage, even in principle, it could have seriously damaging effects on the American economy, perhaps leading to a socialistic state and controlled economy. And this means a socialistic or corporate state, such as England has experienced with such disastrous consequences. Evolution, rather than revolution, is what has made this country great.

Salt Lake City Tribune: Ford may be able to carry the increased load. But what of the smaller companies? A guaranteed annual wage could easily "guarantee" them right out of business. Labor must give more consideration to ownership. Profits are not guaranteed and, short of socialism, never will be. If there are no profits there will be no wages, guaranteed or otherwise.

WHICH IS IT?

New York Daily News: Whether the GAW principle is sound, even for the auto industry, remains to be seen. Will it work in bad times? Can it work in various other industries? How about coal, for example--already sick, and harried by high wage rates and competition with oil? Can seasonal businesses or industries carry the GAW load? What if public taste veers away from goods produced by some outfit which has a GAW setup? Then, too, there is the fear, expressed by many who doubt the feasibility of GAW, that it will operate chiefly to impel employers to hire as few workers as they can. Certainly guaranteed annual wages for workers are fine, if feasible.

Cleveland Plain Dealer: The Ford agreement is the camel's nose under the tent. No one can doubt that the camel will work its way into the tent. Whether in fact the principle it has established produces the benefits anticipated, or starts the American economy on the road to stagnation depends in large part on the resilience of industry and its ability to react to new conditions.

The Scripps-Howard chain: The key factor, we think, is productivity. If, as Reuther contends, this modified version of his original proposal will encourage stability in the auto industry, then there is no ground for skepticism. But if it is turned into a device by which workers get paid for not working, the economic consequences could be disastrous for workers as well as employers.

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