While it appears to some that criticism of such governmental activity in collective bargaining and in business generally has become trite, the threat of burgeoning government is a continuing one. While government may not be consciously plotting the end of free collective bargaining, this can still happen gradually, inadvertently, and/or by default of the parties directly involved.
2.
GombergWilliam, “The Future of Collective Bargaining,”The Nation, January 20, 1962, p. 56.
3.
Set up by the Kennedy Administration in 1961, the Committee was supposed to prevent work stoppages at these sites in the interests of an uninterrupted “cold-war” effort. It was to have limited jurisdiction, and was to be based on “voluntary” pledges by the parties involved against strikes and lockouts. It can be assumed, however, that if necessary, the government would not hesitate to replace voluntarism with compulsion if it were a question of keeping the missile sites in operation.
4.
Wall Street Journal, July 31, 1963, p. 7.
5.
In addition to settling differences by collective bargaining, such means as seizure, legislation, arbitration, executive order, mediation, etc., are also available.
6.
For more extended discussions of fringe benefit problems, see the author's articles, “Product Mix for Fringe Benefits,”Harvard Business Review, July-August 1961, p. 64, and “Fringe Detriments,”Personnel Administration, May-June, 1962, p. 13.
7.
GordonMitchell, “California Food Clerks Seek Mental Care Hiring Guarantees for Older Workers,”Wall Street Journal, November 24, 1958.
8.
The “regularity” idea is somewhat similar to the adverse consequences flowing from the emergency-strike procedure under the Taft-Hartley Law. The predictable sequence required in that procedure lessens its usefulness, according to some, by allowing the parties to discount such action in advance.
9.
The not-too-imaginative coined term has become almost a “dirty word” to union people. GE prefers to call the idea its “truth in bargaining approach.”
