1 - American Memory

178
Our conclusions are that the first proposal would be wholly Ineffective, that
the second would be n long, arduous and controversial matter with the results
uncertain, and that the best approach is the third. I>et us now discuss the rea-
sons for these conclusions.
PROPOSAL A. RECOGNIZE REOIO.NAI, EMER0E:^CIES TTSDEB EJISTING LEGISLATION
Since the longshore and maritime industries are subject to Taft-Hartley emer-
gcnc.v dispute procedures and since the airlines are subject to the Railway Labor
Act emergency dispute procedures, it could be argued that the easiest and sim-
plest solution would be to recognize regional as well as national emergencies in
both of these acts, so that were Hawaii once again faced with a cutting of one
of her two lifelines, this would be sufficient emergency to permit the President
to trigger into operation the appropriate emergency dispute legislation.
This action alone would be wholly Ineffective simply because the Railway
Labor Act has not succeeded in dealing with major rail or airline strikes, and
Taft-Hartley has been practically useless in dealing with longshore and mari-
time strikes. Nine times in less than a decade Congress has had to pass ad hoc
legislation to prevent or end crippling rail strikes. The one big airline strike
(1966) outlasted Railway I,abor Act procedures and was only settled after
emergency legislation had passed the Senate and was pending in the House.
Since Taft-Hartley was passed in 1947, it has been invoked 32 times in a
v«st array of industries—coal mining, meatpacking, atomic energy, basic steel,
nonferrous metals, fabricated metal products, shipbuilding, telephone, aircraft-
aerospace, longshore and maritime. On nine of these 32 occasions, the strike has
been resumed after the 80-day procedure WAS exhausted, seven times in long-
shore and two times in the maritime industry. Taft-Hartley may have worked
in the nontran.sportation field, but it has been a dismal failure in the longshore
and maritime Industries.
The conclusion is obvious: merely to Include under Taft-Hartley and the
Railway Labor Act regional emergencies such as would arise if Hawaii were
cut off from the Mainland U.S. would do little, if anything, for Hawaii.
PROPOSAL B. MAKE A MAJOR REVISION OF TArT-HARTLEY AND INCLUDE RAILROADS
AND AIRLINES UNDER THIS ACT RATHER THAN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT
As already noted, our studies have convinced us (as other studies have con-
vinced almost every student of emergency disputes legislation) that the Railway
Labor Act and the Taft-Hartley Act as it relates to transportation disputes are
relatively ineffective and should be overhauled. With an effective emergency
disputes law that would apply to regional and local emergencies, it is argued
that not only would Hawaii be freed from crippling strikes but that other parts
of the country (while not as seriously affected as Hawaii) would also be freed.
Furthermore, while there is disagreement about details, there is widespread
agreement as to the general form of such legislation.
The majority of students of emergency strike legislation conclude that the
best approach is what is variously called the "choice of procedures" approach
or the "arsenal of weapons" approach. This approach has been described as being
one "under which the President would have the authority in each dispute to
choose from among several different strike controls. . . . Each and every type
of control is attacked on one ground or another: for giving the President too
much power or not enough, for being to vague or too precise, for favoring one
party or the other. How better to make a virtue out of necessity than by
abandoning the fruitless search for a single weapon that the parties will find
equitable and, instead, threatening them with most of the weapons they find
inequitable? Faced with this invitation to play Russian roulette with the man
in the White House, the parties may well elect to .settle their dispute without
a strike."'
The reason why this approach has such appeal is that no one single approach
can possibly fit every situation. As David CuUen .said, "It mu.st now be clear
that one of the easiest parlor games imaginable is puncturing other people's
ideas for handling emergency strikes."' This is because every strike is different.
^ D. CuUen, National Emergency Strikei, Cornell University, Itbaca, N.Y., 1968, pp.
I07-.S.
'IMd., p. 121.