Report from Harold Enarson, Analysis of Report and Recommendations of Wage Stabilization Board in the Steel Case

for The President March 27, 1952 Analysis of Report and Recommendations of Wage Stabilization Board in the Steel Case A nine page statement by Chairman Feinsinger supplemented the 31 page report of the Wage Stabilization Board, and both were issued late-after news of the recommendations had already leaked to the presso Both documents, though illuminating, have been generally ignored in a rash of hasty judgments by the press, the Congress, and mobilization officials. Failure to read these documents carefully or in their entirety may explain the common charge that the recommendations are "too high," as well as the confusion as to just how high they are. At this point everyone has his own version of the size of the package. The New York Times uses an 186 figure; the Wall Street Journal calls it 26; and the steel companies and industry members of the Board call it a 304 package. When people can't even agree on the size of the package it is hardly surprising that there are heated quarrels over whether the package is "too high." Actually, the package has a different impact at different times. It is futile to talk of the cost of the package except in relation to a specified time period. The current sense of outrage at the WSB's recommendations has overtones of humore The three blindfolded men of childhood fable quarreled violently because they touched different parts of the elephanto Similarly, many persons are touching only part of the recommendations while ignoring others. The recommendations, like the elephant, must be looked at as a whole. A Board majority declared the recommendations were not unstabilizing, that they were not inconsistent with the Board's existing wage regulations. Mr. Wilson, like the industry members of the Board, obviously felt the recommendations went beyond existing regulations of the Board. What are the facts? It is useful to look at the recommendations piece=by=piece and then look at their total impacto 1. General Wage Increase Recommendation: per hour effective January 1, 1952, plus 22 effective June 30, 1952, and more on January 1, 1953. It is asserted that "the initial increase (the 1226 increase) is clearly justified under existing policies. Also, "The total arrangement is designed to avoid increase in inflationary pressures through frequent wage reopenings and to promote stability in the parties relations and in the industry. The amounts requested take into account all the equities and arguments advanced by the parties including cost of living, productivity, the maintenance of a balanced wage structure, comparative wage movements in other industries, and the recommendation that there be no further wage reopenings in 1952." Board Regulations: It is obvious from the rationale quoted above that the Board related the immediate 12% increase to Regs. 6 and 8 but has not related the prospective increase of 5c to any specific regulation or policy of the Board. The