Labor Union Demands Mean More Inflation


Mr. Fertig is an economic columnist. This article appears by permission of Columbia Features, Inc.

By a 5 to 4 decision in mid-April the United States Supreme Court nudged our economy back toward the era of handwritten ledgers and the hand loom. This, in an age of computers and high-speed cost-cutting machines!

The learned Justices decided that labor unions have a right to strike over automation. Some building contractors in Pennsyl­vania tried to cut the cost of mod­estly priced homes by installing 3,600 prefabricated doors. The carpenters struck because they wanted to construct these doors by hand on the site. The Court’s decision in this and a companion case upheld the strikers because of the "employer’s efforts to abolish their jobs."

If United States industry must protect specific jobs at whatever cost, instead of trying to serve the American public by adopting improved methods of production which lower costs and prices, the vaunted dynamism of the United States would, obviously, be de­stroyed.

Because of automation Ameri­can industry is absorbing more than 1.5 million new workers each year. Because of automation pay of the average factory worker has increased to $110.00 per week from the prewar wage of $21.00 per week. If strictly applied, the High Court’s decision would, of course, curb this progress. This decision is just one more straw on the back of a heavily laden camel. That camel is the American productive machine — American industry. American industry to­day — and therefore the nation — faces a crisis. The nature of that crisis is quite simple.

Labor unions are striking for higher pay. Unions in transport, rubber, automobiles, and other major industries threaten to para­lyze production. Disturbing as this prospect is, production shut­downs due to strikes are not the real threat to the economy. The real danger is uneconomic wage settlements wrung from reluctant industry in order to prevent work stoppage.

The nub of the problem is that wage costs are rising at the rate of 5 per cent to 7 per cent annual­ly, while productivity of Ameri­can industry is not increasing by more than half that amount. When costs increase at nearly double the rate of industry productivity, there is bound to be trouble. In the first quarter this year, the median wage increases in 520 wage agreements was nearly 13 cents an hour — a twenty-year high.

When costs out-race productiv­ity, the result is a squeeze on prof­its. As profits decline, industrial activity is curbed, jobs are affect­ed, and so is capital investment for more efficient, increased pro­duction. All this adversely affects industry growth and national in­come.

To off-set these depressing ef­fects, it has been the practice of our monetary authorities to in­flate the money supply by encour­aging plentiful, low-cost bank loans. This tends to create acceler­ated business activity. But, as in 1965, such a policy results in sharply higher consumer prices and an inflationary spiral that is dangerous for the economy in the long run. So, the basic problem is how to prevent steep wage rises which are brought about by the monopoly power of labor unions. The labor union problem is wor­rying both the Administration and Congress these days. On the one hand, there is threat of crippling national strikes. On the other, un­ions defy Presidential commis­sions which recommend even as high as 5 per cent annual wage rises. There are literally dozens of plans for meeting this problem now being discussed in Washing­ton.

Practically every solution now being proposed embodies some form of compulsory arbitration. Big government is to step in with the big stick and enforce wage decisions on management, as well as on unions. The point is that all these plans evade the central problem. There would be no need for more government action if present monopolistic powers of unions were curbed.

A better balance between the power of labor unions and the power of management is the direc­tion in which a solution should be made. But, neither the Congress nor the President has a stomach for curbing the overweening pow­er of labor unions today. This be­ing the case, continued inflation seems to be inevitable.


July 1967

comments powered by Disqus


* indicates required


December 2014

Unfortunately, educating people about phenomena that are counterintuitive, not-so-easy to remember, and suggest our individual lack of human control (for starters) can seem like an uphill battle in the war of ideas. So we sally forth into a kind of wilderness, an economic fairyland. We are myth busters in a world where people crave myths more than reality. Why do they so readily embrace untruth? Primarily because the immediate costs of doing so are so low and the psychic benefits are so high.
Download Free PDF




Essential Works from FEE

Economics in One Lesson (full text)


The full text of Hazlitt's famed primer on economic principles: read this first!


Frederic Bastiat's timeless defense of liberty for all. Once read and understood, nothing ever looks the same.


There can be little doubt that man owes some of his greatest suc­cesses in the past to the fact that he has not been able to control so­cial life.


Leonard Read took the lessons of entrepreneurship with him when he started his ideological venture.


No one knows how to make a pencil: Leonard Read's classic (Audio, HTML, and PDF)