Roosevelt ‘truce’ is Assailed by Dressmakers’ Union Head

A warning against the “truce” between capital and labor, proposed by President Roosevelt in his recent radio address, was issued yesterday by Charles S. Zimmerman, spokesman of the progressive movement in the American Federation of Labor unions.

The statement of Zimmerman, who is the head of Dressmakers Union Local 22, I. L. G. W. U., an organization of 30,000 members, declared:

“The proposal for a ‘truce’ between capital and labor, made by President Roosevelt in his recent radio address, is full of danger for the labor movement and will have to be treated as such by labor leaders.

“The reckless and uncritical enthusiasm with which this proposal has been hailed in some labor quarters is certainly not the attitude likely to bring any good to the trade unions.”

FAILED UNDER HOOVER

Asserting that “such a truce would only mean a perpetuation of company unionism,” Zimmerman continued:

“The truce plan, presented to us now as the last word of the New Deal, was already tried under the old order and failed miserably, at least as far as the workers were concerned. There is all the reason in the world for labor to distrust such schemes.

“We can still remember the truce entered into by President Hoover and Mr. Green in the early days of the depression, a truce binding labor hand and foot and delivering it helpless to the tender mercies of the employers. So disastrous did this truce turn out to be that it was finally condemned by President Green himself and publicly denounced by the A. F.

MUST AVOID PITFALL

“Organized labor must now avoid a similar pitfall. Never can it accept any sort of truce arrangement which takes existing conditions for granted or which restricts even to the smallest extent its freedom to resort to the strike.

“Bitter experience has taught us that the workers can hope for nothing under the present setup except what they are ready, willing and able to win from the employers by means of their organized power.

“The strike is a weapon that labor must always have at its command and be ready to use it if its voice is to be listened to with respect in the councils of the employers.

“Even when it comes to enforcing decisions of NRA boards or government bodies, where such decisions are unfavorable to the employers, the threat of a strike has been found to bring better and quicker results than official prosecution, which the employers usually and with good reason regard as an empty threat.

STRIKE ONLY WEAPON

“The workers cannot, therefore, afford to surrender, even though voluntarily, temporarily or indirectly, the only weapon that has proved of any value to them.

“The truce is proposed on the basis of present conditions. What are these conditions? Over ten million unemployed and greater numbers on relief than ever before. A constant fall in real wages due to the mounting cost of living.

“Company unionism spreading menacingly in the most important industries of the country. The right of collective bargaining and union organization turned into a mere phrase. Of course, the employers are glad enough to make a truce on the basis of such conditions; such a truce would only mean a perpetuation of company unionism, starvation wages, long work weeks and the practical nullification of the collective bargaining guarantee of Section 7a.

ASKS RISE IN PAY

“Labor, on the other hand, cannot take such conditions for granted. Labor demands an end to the open shop and company unions, a rise in wages to meet the rising cost of living and to increase buying power, the shortening of hours to allow for real re-employment and a genuine guarantee of collective bargaining.

“These will never be obtained by labor simply agreeing to disarm itself in the face of a bitterly hostile enemy; they can be achieved only by a policy of militant action against the employers.

“Under such conditions, to agree to any sort of truce on the basis of things as they are would be sheer suicide for organized labor.”