Letter from Edwin S. Fern to President Harry S. Truman

9 EDWIN S. FERN REPRESENTATIVE New York Life Insurance Company 113 EAST MAPLE AVENUE PHONE 3537 OTTUMWA, IOWA 407-B May 7, 1952 Hon. Harry S. Truman, stul Singure President of the United States, Con Whitehouse, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. President:- May I congratulate you on your firm stand on civil service which brought thousands of Government employees out of politics and on the merit system. Your stand was courageous and in the interest of good government. I wonder if this letter will even be read since you are a busy man. I think the Wage Stabilization Board went way beyond its authority in recommending an increase of 26c an hour for the steel worker when 9 an hour would have brought them up to the level of many other industries. As I understand it the steel companies made a counter offer of approximately 18 an hour. Certainly this looks like a fair compromise. Now the steel union headed by Phil Murray takes an arbitrary stand insisting on the 26 per hour increase which the W.S.B. recommended. Futhermore W.S.B. under no circumstances should have been permitted to recommend a closed union shop. From what I read in newspapers 6 members of the board were labor union representatives and 3 industry. We are trying to keep down inflation and yet W.S.B. recommends one of the biggest wage increases ever authorized. Then the steel companies are expected to absorb the biggest share of the cost. It just doesn't make good sense. One of the greatest needs in our nation today is tolerance and a willing- ness to compromise and be fair. I think the offer of approximately 18c increase in wages to the steel workers is a splendid offer and all the union is entitled to. Not only that if this is allowed I think the steel companies should be allowed a raise of $5.00 to $6.00 per ton in their prices to compensate for the wage increase. If Mr. Arnall is going to insist on holding the line at $3.00 a ton then the steel workers should only be allowed 9$ an hour increase. Mr. President you have set an ominously dangerous precedent which in my opinion is unconstitutional and unlawful. You did not invoke the provisions of the Taft Hartley Law and your comments on your failure to invoke those provisions were not candid. You did not take timely action. You deliberately waited until it was too late to invoke the law and then tried to blame the law rather than accept respon- ibility for your own failure. I think the Taft Hartley law is a fine law. Fair to Member National Association of Life Underwriters "QUARTER MILLION" Winner National Quality Award