Worst Foot

Sitting in solemn convention in Manhattan's Hotel Waldorf-Astoria last week was the "Congress of American Industry," annual session of the National Association of Manufacturers. If the delegates, some 2,000 strong, were not all Business, at least they were a big slice of it, representatives of the employers of one-half of the country's industrial labor. However, meeting at a time when for the first time in five years the New Deal had been set back on its heels--by a new depression--they were in a new position. For the voice of Business, although far from commanding, was once again being heeded in the councils of the nation. Outstanding subjects of political importance:

Slump. To dwell long on the sad state of trade would have been no gesture of friendship to the New Deal which has the slump already too much with it. Therefore, the topic of most concern to businessmen was little touched on publicly. One man, however, raised the doleful subject in no uncertain terms: Virgil Jordan, president of the fact-finding National Industrial Conference Board. He declared:

"In the present situation honest economists do not make forecasts of business activity and if they do intelligent businessmen do not take them seriously. . . . This country is in thoroughly rotten shape. It is sick to the core with economic disorders and political diseases. In essence they are the result of more than 20 years of unsound economic policy and false economic thinking persistently pursued by both Government and the business community. . . . I believe we are now in a major depression which involves the possibility of a break-down of our economic and political organization. The chances are overwhelming that inflation will be resumed. ... I think it is beyond question that the American public will not submit to the rigorous deflation which real recovery would require in this country. They could not take it the last time. . . ."

Government Uncertainty. If Business bears no love for Franklin Roosevelt, the attitude of N. A. M. speakers towards his Administration was diplomatic. Avoiding the futile acrimony which characterized their meeting two years ago and the equally profitless sweetness which veiled their feelings last year, the delegates spoke their mind on the New Deal with dignity and restraint. In one of the most sense-making of the orations Lammot du Pont pointed out that for private industry to create jobs for 3,000,000 workers required investment of at least $25,000,000,000-- money invested "a year, two years, perhaps even ten years in advance of any hope of return." And Business could probably raise the money if given "a reasonable degree of certainty" on such things as labor, taxes, legislation. What the rules were themselves was not so important. Said he:

"As long as the lawmaking mills grind, the fog of uncertainty mocks the industrial planner. Business needs more than a mere breathing spell from legislative experimentation. It needs positive, reliable assurance that the complicated terms and conditions under which it must function are finally determined, subject only to an unmistakable public demand for their amendment. As it is, the businessman is the subject of more legislative concern than the criminal. The latter enjoys far less uncertainty of the laws prescribing his operations. The criminal laws are stabilized."

Labor Relations. As if so much restraint in treating Franklin Roosevelt moved them to let off steam in another's direction, the delegates to the Congress said and did little on the subject of Labor that would inspire confidence in William Green, much less in John L. Lewis.

Most of the labor sessions--largely devoted to undiluted labor-baiting--were closed to the Press. But reporters were led in to hear a speech by Hartley W. Barclay, the Mill & Factory editor who defied a subpoena from the National Labor Relations Board last fortnight, which he maintained was a violation of the Freedom of the Press. Before Editor Barclay spoke, a list of newspapers and wire services represented was read off to the businessmen because: "No doubt you will want to get these papers and see how they treat our people." After the Barclay speech the reporters were led out again.

At the request of Charles Fahy, general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board, reporters were also barred from a "labor clinic." An Associated Pressman who got in reported that Mr. Fahy's reception was distinctly cool--an observation borne out by the fact that Mr. Fahy was later approached by Vice President H. L. Derby of American Cyanamid Co. who declared: "That was a fine, courageous action of yours, appearing here this morning." In spite of the fact that most of the N. A. M.'s members are reconciled to collective bargaining, they managed to write a labor platform that would appeal to organized labor about as much as an anti-picketing injunction. The manufacturers asked for the easing of Federal and State restrictions on the use of labor injunctions. They asked that the Byrnes Act be amended to ban interstate transportation of "strike-makers" as well as strike breakers. They asked that a long list of strikes be declared illegal, including sitdown strikes, general strikes, strikes for a closed shop or the checkoff, strikes where grievances have not been presented in advance, strikes accompanied "by continuous and systematic acts of violence and intimidation," strikes in violation of contracts, strikes "to prevent the use of materials, equipment or services." Another N. A. M. thought: "Government should protect the right to engage in lawful strikes by lawful means, but its primary obligation is to protect the right to work."

When the business-congressmen got to the point of writing a "platform" for American Industry for 1938, they suffered as they always do, from a woeful inability to express themselves. An example of bad drafting was a labor plank asking that "the form of employe organization should be left entirely to the employes or to mutual arrangement between employes and employers, but should not be directed or controlled by any Government agency,"--a pronouncement well calculated to alarm Labor on half-a-dozen scores but not even making clear what Business specifically wanted.

The conspicuous knack of Business for putting its worst foot forward whenever it touched the subject of Labor was observed by General Hugh Johnson, who spent considerable time last week in the Congress' cloakrooms. He wrote: "Its heart was right but the draftsmanship was terrible. . . . This is a pity because in my talks with important individuals I could plainly see the most astonishing change in thinking. Some of the worst old hardshells have softened up."

Retort. With all its fulminations on Labor, with all the New Deal criticism implied in its ponderous platform, N. A. M. nevertheless made its scheduled peace gesture at the wind-up banquet, when Chairman Colby Mitchell Chester proposed a three-way conference between Business, Government and Labor (TIME, Dec. 13). No official acknowledgment from Washington was expected and none was forthcoming. But from the man whom it considers its best friend in the New Deal, Business received a sharp reproof. In a copyright interview for North American Newspaper Alliance, Joseph Patrick Kennedy advised:

"Begin to show some sense in your dealing with the Administration, or expect a national economic disaster which will be worse for you than any one else."

Pounding his well-pounded desk as he warmed to his subject, Mr. Kennedy went on: "How on earth can business people hope for any improvement if they go on crying bloody murder at every remedy the President proposes? The President has a splendid program to meet this business recession, and what's more, a program of the sort that business people in this country have wanted. But most of them just go on howling, instead of accepting the program at its face value . . . they ought to understand there are plenty of people down here [in Washington] who would like to turn their behavior to account and drive the Administration to strike back."

As an example of the kind of "nonsense" he meant, Mr. Kennedy related a recent conversation with a "pretty powerful man," who thought President Roosevelt should make a reassuring statement. Said Mr. Kennedy acidly: "He'd told me only a few months before that he wouldn't believe a word the President said if he swore to it on a pile of Bibles."

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