McPherson, William H.

English

University of Chicago Law School: Chicago Unbound

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEWwhether or not represented in the Council, would still have a de facto veto over adverserecommendations. The veto of the Palestine partition exercised by the Arabs and/orthe United States is an instructive example.2S Whether the de facto veto would beexercised in a given case would depend on subtle calculus by a nation prejudiced bythe recommendation and in a position to prevent compliance. The immediate anddirect impairment of its position resulting from compliance would be weighed againstthe "goodwill" cost of flouting the organization's recommendation.Generalizations about the varying responsiveness of different nations to inter-national "moral" pressure are dangerous, particularly when the pressure seems to begoing largely in one direction. But since proposals to change the veto have been stimu-lated by, and are directed at, the practices of Russia and her satellites, we may notethat these countries appear to have rather tough hides. Even if Russia could not pre-vent uncongenial recommendations by the use of the formal veto within the Council,she could often prevent compliance with these recommendations by the use of thede facto veto outside the Council.The crucial veto problem results from the retention of right and power by eachmember of the United Nations Organization to exercise the de facto veto after theCouncil has made its recommendation. Formal or informal exclusion of the veto fromthe field of pacific settlement would not touch this problem. The problem is inherent inthe basic character of the United Nations as a league of "sovereign states," each oneof which is legally and physically immune to coercion by the organization designed toeffect compliance with the Organization's recommendations for pacific settlement.In addition to the exercise of the restraint in the use of the veto, Dr. Evatt makessome sound, although necessarily general, proposals for procedural revisions, the im-provement of the secretariat, bolder participation by the Secretary-General in thework of the Organization, the avoidance of duplication by the various committees,commissions, and specialized agencies which have mushroomed in the internationaleconomic and social field, the expansion of world economic statistics, and the avoidanceof propaganda in United Nations debate.He concludes with an admission of the secondary character of all of his proposals:They cannot "lead to a substantial improvement in the work of the United Nations solong as there are suspicion and lack of good will and understanding among its members,particularly several major powers." He properly implies that the United Nations Or-ganization can do very little to achieve this understanding. The conclusion, unstatedin his book, but underscored by the headlines, is that the Organization has only theremotest relevance to the current search for international peace and security.BERNAPm D. MELTZER*Patterns of Union-Management Relations. By Frederick H. Harbison and RobertDubin. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1947. Pp. ix, 229. $3.75.Analysis of labor-management relations has lately entered a new stage of develop-ment as a result of group planning of research projects that is now taking place in re-25 There was, of course, an assembly recommendation in the Palestine case, but its legalconsequences are no different from those of a recommendation by the Security Council.26 See Carr, The Twenty Year Crisis, Chap. 9, esp. p. 213 (1939).* Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School.ioo8BOOK REVIEWScently established units within a number of our universities, such as the Industrial Re-lations Center at the University of Chicago, from which this present volume comes. Inthis instance an economist and sociologist have combined their efforts to analyze labor-management relations within a "new framework." This book deals chiefly with the re-lations of General Motors and Studebaker with the United Automobile Workers(CIO). Its description is interesting, and its analysis is stimulating and provocative.It seems certain to make a real contribution to the study of this field because of thequestions it raises and the controversies to which it will surely give rise.The description of labor-management relations in these two automotive companiesis cast in a novel setting. The authors emphasize a concept of power centers or ....situations wherein both the union and the company, by virtue of their size andstrength, have a far-reaching influence on many other union-management relation-ships, if not on the economy as a whole.", The parties in these power centers are there-fore pattern-setters, while the parties elsewhere follow the pattern, at least in part.General Motors is classified as setting a pattern; Studebaker as following it, especiallywith regard to wage rates.At General Motors, as in every power center, a strong management and a strongunion are playing for high stakes. In this instance, the long-run consequences of eachmove are carefully analyzed. The parties compete for the loyalty of the employees andthe support of public opinion. Problems are handled in a formal and legalistic manner,with major emphasis on consistency with established policies. There is considerablefriction and distrust between the parties. The company seeks to "contain" the unionwithin its present sphere of activity, while the union seeks a scope of collective bargain-ing broader than is generally found in American industry, and has on several occasionsmade public appeals for joint or public industrial planning. The union thinks that thecompany would like to break it, and the company is convinced that an ultimate goalof the union is major revision of our capitalistic economy.This is indeed a picture of sharp conflict. The authors recognize that it is only theless attractive part of the total picture. They indicate that relations at many of the in-dividual plants are wholesome and mutually satisfactory and that both parties do asuccessful job of contract administration. Though the authors devote considerablespace to this brighter part of the picture, their focusing of attention on contract negoti-ation (in accordance with their power-center concept) may give the reader an undulydark impression of the character of the over-all relations. The extent to which the re-lations in many General Motors plants are equally satisfactory to management, theunion and the employees seems less vividly portrayed than in the case of Studebaker,because in the subsequent analysis attention is centered on the company-wide functionof contract negotiation.The situation at Studebaker is characterized as" .... a practical working model ofwhat we term 'constructive union-management relations.' "2 The company has neverhad a major strike. The union is stable and secure, with extensive membership par-ticipation. The scope of collective bargaining is almost unlimited, negotiations beingconducted on a "problem-solving" approach without particular regard to pre-estab-' P. I8X.2 p. 202.IOO9THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEWlished policies. The parties demonstrate a high degree of mutual trust. The authors arepersuasive in indicating that the development of these policies and attitudes was facili-tated by the financial insecurity of the company during the previous decade and the de-pendence of the community (South Bend) on the 12,000 jobs involved. One might wish,however, for a more detailed exposition of the early relations and of the subsequentmajor changes of policy or attitude by the parties. Such an addition might permit a con-clusion regarding the significance of initial management attitudes toward union recog-nition as a partial explanation of the differences in the current labor relations of the twocompanies.*The reviewer finds himself in general agreement with the descriptive portions of thevolume, but in considerable disagreement with the analytical portions. The "newframework" in which this study is set is mentioned but not explained. It is to be setforth in a later book. However, one can surmise, from the organization of this book andfrom statements made elsewhere by the authors, that the central core of the frameworkincludes a separation and contrasting of pattern-setting and pattern-following rela-tions. Together with this is the characterization of pattern-setting situations as "pow-er centers" and some emphasis on the "bigness" of the parties at these focal points,plus a concept of "constructive labor-management relations" as here exemplified byconditions at Studebaker. However, the two concluding chapters do not contrast thesituations at General Motors and Studebaker directly, but only indirectly. The first ofthese chapters contains a discussion of some characteristics and problems of power cen-ters. The second presents conclusions regarding the nature of constructive relations.Whatever the central purpose of the book, the choice of General Motors and Stude-baker as sources of contrasting material is difficult to understand. If the purpose wasto contrast a leader and a follower, might it not have been better to compare GeneralMotors and Chrysler? The authors say that Chrysler seldom sets the pattern, yet it isin other respects much more analogous to General Motors.General Motors and Studebaker are so entirely dissimilar in all respects except typeof industry that it is difficult to conclude which of the differences are responsible for thecontrasts in their labor relations. The implication of the authors that pattern-followingis a major explanation is not convincing. In the first place, the conformity to patternapplies chiefly to basic wage rates, yet even in wage administration the similarity is soslight that Studebaker uses an incentive wage system in contrast to the general patternof straight hourly rates. Second, why should the authors conclude that negotiation oftheir own basic wage rates by the parties at Studebaker would adversely affect theirrelations when it is said3 that wages have not been a major bone of contention at Gen-eral Motors? Incidentally, the General Motors-Studebaker contrast might have beenmore fruitful if the study had included a detailed analysis of relations in some singleGeneral Motors plant of about the same size as Studebaker and located in a city similarto South Bend.If a major purpose of the book was to reach conclusions regarding pattern-setters (asmight be inferred from chapter vi), should not the study have covered other powercenters? Some references are made to the relations at U.S. Steel in support of the gen-eralizations that are drawn, but the reader may wonder whether the similarities be-3P. 86.1010BOOK REVIEWStween the relations at General Motors and U.S. Steel are not emphasized at the ex-pense of the differences. Moreover, the factors listed in this chapter as characteristicsof relations in a power center seem to apply much more to size than to leadership. Per-haps there is need for sharper differentiation between the concepts of "bigness," "pow-er center" and "pattern-setter." After all, it may well be that Studebaker itself doesa good deal of pattern-setting for other companies in South Bend, though there is noreference to this in the book.If a main purpose of the volume was to determine the nature of constructive labor-management relations, the conclusions would be more convincing if some other com-panies had been included in the study or even if some of the more successful aspects ofrelations at some General Motors plants had been drawn upon for this purpose. Itwould be very useful to analyze a number of instances of constructive relations in orderto see what are the common causal factors. It would be necessary to use some criteria inselecting the instances. The authors suggest that constructive relations exist " ...when a union and a company harmonize divergent goals into an effective workingagreement."4This definition needs more elaboration than it receives in the final chapter.For example, is not labor efficiency an essential element in an effective working agree-ment? The authors, however, give only slight attention to labor productivity in eithercompany.In summary, it seems doubtful that some of the conclusions are adequately support-ed by the material set forth in this book or could possibly be supported by a study ofthis necessarily limited scope. In formulating their conclusions, the authors have in-evitably drawn upon their wide knowledge of labor relations throughout American in-dustry. To suggest, that some of the conclusions are insufficiently supported is not tosay that they are necessarily invalid. It is suggested, rather, that they are at least pre-mature. This is only the first of a series of publications planned by the authors andtheir immediate associates. When more of these studies have appeared, the presentconclusions may be much more thoroughly substantiated.In view of the current extensive research activity in this field, it is to be hoped thatthe authors will give in their future publications a more complete description of theirmethodology than is contained in the single footnote on this subject in the presentvolume.Lawyers who serve as consultants on labor-management relations should find inthis book many suggestions regarding methods that are conducive to the achievementof good relations.WILmIAm H. McPHERsoN*Men of Law. By William Seagle. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1947. Pp. 391. $5.00.This volume, in a literary style which is delightful, crams into 355 pages a wealth ofinformation concerning the lives and achievements of fourteen illustrious men who en-riched jurisprudence.4 P. 202.* Professor of Economics, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of li-nois.1011

Review of \u3ci\u3ePatterns of Union-Management Relations\u3c/i\u3e by Frederick H. Harbison, Robert Dubin

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2527&amp;context=uclrev

Review of \u3ci\u3ePatterns of Union-Management Relations\u3c/i\u3e by Frederick H. Harbison, Robert Dubin

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Chicago Law School: Chicago Unbound