Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 2 · column 2 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
As the 83rd Congress settles down to business, doubtless certain changes will be made in our so-called labor laws. But if these changes are to be beneficial to the nation as a whole, they must not be confined to technicalities, window dressing or downright camouflage. They must get down to brass tacks. They must take into consideration each of the four elements that make up the industrial picture: labor, management, capital investment and the general public.
Psychologically, the problem begins with the very name of the law—that is, its official title. While not caring to engage the ghost of Shakesphere in a duel, we must insist that there ; is indeed something in a name. The title of a statue, for example, should certainly explain its essential coverage. ,
If this is true, then the title of our present labor law—the National Labor-Management Relations Act—is inexact, incomplete and inadequate for the area it purports, or should purport, to cover. For its province is industrial relations, wherein the public is very much concerned—not merely labor-management relations, wherein the public is all too frequently coldly ignored. Therefore, if we are to have an expressive and fully understandable tide for so vital an ace of legislation, it should be the “National Industrial Relations Act.'
A tide of so all-inclusive and apt a character would offer at once a. psychological spark for the creation' of a law that would be equitable not only to our organized workers but to our unorganized wage earners as wed—with full and equal consider^*i
• T
67.1%