100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

December 04, 1965 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1965-12-04

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

s

Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

United Nations: History of Conflict

"'

~reOpnins reFre.420 MAYNARD ST., ANN AiBoR, MICH.
Trultl Will Prevail

NEWS PHONE: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: CLARENCE FANTO

Best Policy for 'U':
Union Recognition

THE UNIVERSITY'S present stand in
the complex controversy over what;
new state legislation has to say about its
obligations towards labor unions seems
to have put it in line for embarrassing
public criticism and possible legal defeat.
There is, however, another course to take.
The University's legal relations with
labor unions have been governed since
1947 by the Hutchinson (Labor-Manage-
ment Relations) Act, which outlaws
strikes by state employes. This summer,
however, the Legislature amended. the-
Hutchinson Act to add another provision:
that while they still may not strike,
groups of public employes may, by a ma-
jority decision, petition the state labor
mediation board to certify a union of
their choice as their sole and official
representative for, collective bargaining
with the University "with respect to
wages, hours and other terms and condi-
tions of employment."
The law requires both parties engaging
in collective bargaining to do so in good
faith, but does not require either party to
"agree to a proposal or require the mak-
ing of a concession." However, if a union
believes the University is guilty of an un-
fair labor practice-refusal to bargain in
good faith-it may bring its complaint
to the state labor mediation board for a
judgment.
THERE ARE THREE major questions in
this controversy; autonomy is the
first. University officials believe that in-
cluding the University under the amend-
ed Hutchinson Act is unconstitutional be-
cause the act allows an administrative
agency set up by statute, the labor media-
tion board, to judge the University, a con-
stitutionally - established, autonomous
body.
The University has thus declined to ap-
pear at a mediation board meeting con-
cerning certification of unions as bar-
gaining agents for University employes,
and is expected to ask the courts to de-
clare the amended Hutchinson Act un-
constitutional as it applies to the Uni-
versity.
The attorney general of the state has,
however, already issued an advisory opin-
ion-which has the force of law until
overruled by a court of record-declaring
that the 1965 amendments, because they
prohibit the "employes of the University
from striking and (afford) protection of
their constitutional rights," thereby pro-
mote the general welfare of the state.
Pointing out that the 195 amendments
do not require the University to make
specific bargaining concessions, but sim-
ply to bargain in good faith, the opinion
added that there is thus "no action of
direction and control of the expenditure
from the funds of the University that is
within the exclusive authority of the Re-
gents of the University"-and, hence, no
invasion of the University's autonomy.
We agree: the University's autonomy
is not compromised by the provisions of
the act or its amendments. Michigan
State University, indeed, has already ree-
ognized a union local as the official bar-
gaining agent for its grounds department
employes. The University's actions, more-
over, are subject at this moment to the
provisions of the workmen's compensa-
tion law and the workmen's compensa-
tion board-a statutory body like the la-
bor mediation board.
The facts of the situation clearly indi-
cate, in sum, that the University's auton-
omy is subject to the laws of the Legisla-
ture which promote the general welfare
of the people of the state, an aim which
the amended Hutchinson Act, by prevent-
ing strikes but protecting University em-
ployes' constitutional rights, clearly

achieves.
The state has granted the University its
autonomy to use, not abuse; and the act
provides that only if the University
abuses its autonomy by refusing to bar-
gain in good faithcan the labor media-
tion board intervene. The University's
autonomy, properly defined, is thus not
threatened in the least, in theory or in
fact, by the Hutchinson Act amendments.
BUT THE ISSUE of University autono-
my is not the only aspect of the Uni-
versity's stance in this controversy which
should he revnluated. There are two oth-

versity decides on opposing the amended
act in the courts, is the likely effect such
an action, and all the others which will
have to accompany it, will have on public
opinion.
The effect probably will not be salu-
tary. A court challenge of the amended
act will, in all likelihood, inspire consid-
erable adverse publicity and foster an
image of the University as anti-labor,
although the University has constantly
denied this assertion.
The idea that a court test of a. state
law involving complicated legal issues of
autonomy is "anti-labor' 'is, of course, un-
fair. And the University can point out
that its opinion survey of its employes
revealed general satisfaction with wages,
hours and conditions.
But University officials will find it dif-
ficult to explain why many employes in
numerous units are dues-paying members
of labor unions-despite the fact that
these unions cannot call a strike and de-
spite the fact that they are unable to be
the official bargaining agent for their
members.
In short, public opinion will say -
whether fairly or unfairly is irrelevant
to the effect-that in pressing its court
actions, the University is not protecting
its autonomy but using its resources and
power to crush labor unions of its em-
ployes.
This is a dangerous situation. Univer-
sity officials and Regents have had suf-
ficient experience with the opinions of
the public-and of certain legislators-to
know that public opinion often poses a
far more serious threat to autonomy than
any law.
THE UNIVERSITY could perhaps afford
to submit to such pressures if the out-
come of a legal battle will be successful.
This is the third question involved-but
here, too, the prospects do not seem en-
couraging. The attorney general of the
state has already ruled that the act is
not unconstitutional or an invasion of
University autonomy and cited an im-
pressive body of appellate court and
State Supreme Court findings to similar
effect in similar situations.
There are, certainly, few men who
would want to have to commence a court
test which would arouse such adverse
opinion, legislative sniping and possible
defeat. The snooping and political pres-
sure' tactics of Rep. Jack Faxon might in
retrospect seem pleasurable to University
administrators forced to cope with what
would ensue in this instance.
It would be unfortunate indeed if such
an affair obscured the service of Vice-
President for Business and Finance Wil-
bur K. Pierpont; and it would be equally
regrettable if the career of President
Harlan Hatcher had to end in 1967 with a
humiliating legal reversal which could
have far-reaching effects on the whole
legal question of University autonomy.
There is, however, a way to avoid pub-
lic outcry and legislative pressure, and
a court defeat while satisfying University
employes and maintaining University au-
tonomy as University officials see it.
The state labor mediation board can-
not be involved in the affairs of the Uni-
versity if no bergaining-agent certifica-
tion requests are filed by unions, or if
they are withdrawn. As its attorney has
noted, the University could itself recog-
nize these unions of its own accord. No
reference to the amended Hutchinson
Act or the labor mediation board would
be necessary.
ALL THE UNIVERSITY then would need
do is bargain in good faith with these
unions - which, of course, are simply

seeking that right. Only if the University
failed to bargain in good faith could the
labor situation possibly prompt media-
tion board intervention-which could of
course be opposed in court.
Only then could University autonomy,
as University officials see it, be jeop-
ardized. As one union official has com-
mented, the unions are seeking not to
dictate -to the University but to work
with it in sincere, good-faith collective
bargaining. As long as this bargaining
is possible, autonomy will never be at
stake.
Xyr U-4-se + .n3 1% rn ra..-. .1' .

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the
first of two articles on the
United Nations.
By NEAL BRUSS
T HE UNITED NATIONS is often
threatened by internal disunity
which can undermine its very
existence. When a schism develops
between member nations, UN
functioning is impaired, and the
strength if not life of the organ-
ization is seriously endangered.
Showdowns between member
nations in recent years have been
precipitated by disagreements over
the use of UN power, and have
involved issues such as finances
and representation.
A basic and sophisticated dif-
ference in philosophy between the
United States andthe Soviet Un-
ion regarding the use of UN power
appears to have motivated many
if not all of the Soviet-American
UN crises.
IN AN ARTICLE in a recent
Wayne. Law Review, Edwin Brown
Firmage, assistant professor of
law at the University of Missouri,
describes this dichotomy in
thought, its manifestations and
consequences.
Firmage asserts that past dif-
ferences were the result of past
power balances, dating from the
end of World War II, but that as
such balances have changed, the
basis for Soviet-American dis-
agreement was changed.
At the United Nations, the most
adverse effects of inter-group dis-
agreement have been financial.
Because of differences in philos-
ophy regarding the UN's peace-
keeping forces, this year the So-
viet Union, France and 15 other
member nations refused to pay
assassments for peace-keeping
operations in the Middle East and
Congo.
In return the United States
asserted that, on the basis of
Article19 of the UN Charter,
these nations should be deprived
of their votes in the General As-
sembly.
Article 19 states that, upon a
resolution of the General Assem-
bly, "nations in financial arrears
equal to two years' contributions
be deprived of their vote in ;the
General Assembly." This policy,
while not tested, was supported
by an advisory opinion of the
World Court.
The United States has never
forced its proposal, possibly be-
cause its officials have the somber
awareness that, if nations were
deprived of their General As-
sembly vote, the disintegration of
the United Nations might begin.
However, the implications of Ar-
ticle 19 remain obvious whenever
financial controversies occur.
FIRMAGE ASSERTS that the
disagreement was not worthy of
its adverse effects : the postpone-
ment of disarmament discussions,
of resloutions for social and eco-
nomic development, of debate
over the seating of Communist
China.
Furthermore, he feels that the
United States could have accepted
a proposal that would have estab-
lished a category similar to con-
scientious objection for members
refusing to pay for peace-keeping
missions on constitutional grounds.
Firmage says that the bases of
these differences, which made the
recent 19th Session of the Gen-
eral Assembly end "in futility,"
can be seen in earlier conflicts,
such as the 1947-49 debate sur-
rounding the creation of the Unit-
ed Nations Atomic Energy Com-
mission (UNAEC).
When the United Nations itself
was being contemplated, its Char-
ter written and initially executed,
world leaders were already con-
templating the effects of uncon-

a

-Associated Press
THE UNITED NATIONS Security Council meets Sept. 4, 1965 to debate the conflict over Kashmir between India and Pakistan. The
council's role has been a focal point of U.S.-Russian controversy.

I

trolled production and use of nu-
clear weapons. It was ironic that
at the same time the United Na-
tions was born, development was
accelerated on atomic weaponry,
potentially a great source for con-
flict.
IN NOVEMBER, 1945, Canada,
the United Kingdom, and the
United States joined as sponsors
of a resolution in the General
Assembly creating the UNAEC.
The U.S. had developed the atomic'
bomb with the help of these ,na-
tions. The motion had the support
of the Soviet Union.
In March, 1946, President Harry
Truman appointed financier and
international statesman Bernard
Baruch chief United States rep-
resentative to the UNAEC. Baruch
demanded executive policy-making
authority for the delegation.
Earlier the State Department
had authorized a planning com-
mittee to investigate American in-
terests in international atomic
weaponry. The committee had
produced the authoritative Ache-
son-Lillienthal Report.
This report provided background
for therBaruch Plan, delivered to
the Atomic Energy Committee.
THE BARUCH PLAN included a
scheme for control of ownership,
management, and licensing of pro-
duction resources, and rejected
any exemptions from inspection.
All stages of nuclear weapons
production were to be inspected by
the International Atomic Develop-
ment authority similar to that
staffing the UN Secretariat.
According to Firmage, provisions
of the Baruch Plan would have
forced the Soviet Union and other
major powers to yield their veto

to resolutions demanding inspec-
tion:
Furthermore, Baruch insisted
that, in areas of conflict over in-
spection, the Security Council
have power to apply international
sanctions against member nations
without impediment by veto.
Out of such a situation came
Soviet objection, typical of ob-
jection in many other disputes.
Soviet representatives felt that the
proposal opposed the theory of
unanimity of the Great Poyers
established at the Yalta, Dum-
barton Oaks and San Francisco
conferences.
TherBaruch Plan would have
provided for collective action to.
be taken against major powers,
including as a possibility "a decla-
ration to all nations of the United
Nations asking them to make war
on an offending state."
THE RUSSIANS further argued
that veto power had been un-
conditionally guaranteed them by
Roosevelt. As Firmage says, "per-
manent members had the assur-
ance, they thought, that no im-
portant action concerning inter-
national peace could behtaken by
the United Nations without their
assent."
Firmage considers the United
States' position unfortunate. He
feels that while "ironclad inspec-
tion privileges were absolutely.
necessary, punishment could have
been more practically left to in-
dividual states." Punishment
executed by these states could
havebeen more effective than
measures taken by the UN.
Firmage also feels that veto
power was guaranteed by the
framers of the United Nations
Charter, in Article 51, which said
that aggression committed by

major powers (i.e., the five per-
manent members of the Security
Council) would be handled out-
side the UN.
THE SOVIET Representative to
the United Nations, Andrei Gro-
myko, said at the time:
"The activity of the Atomic
Energy Commission can bring
about the desired results only
when it is in full conformity with
the principles of the Charter of
the United Nations, which are
laid down as the basis of the ac-
tivity of the Security Council, be-
cause the commission is an organ
of this organization, working un-
der the instructions of the Secur-
ity Council and responsible to the
same.
"Attempts to undermine the
principles, as established by the
charter, of the activity of the
Security Council, including una-
nimity of the members of the
Security Council in deciding ques-
tions of substance, are incompat-
ible with the interests of the Unit-
ed Nations, who created the inter-
national organization for the pres-
ervation of peace and security.
Such attempts must be rejected."
And later, "All agree that cer-
tain sanctions should be applied
against violators, if their guilt is
proved. There is a divergence of
opinion as to how, and by whom,
decisions on sanctions should be
taken. Should such decisions be
taken in accordance with the basic
principles of the United Nations,
or in violation of these principles?
The Soviet delegation considers
that such decisions should be
taken in strict conformity with
the basic principles of our or-
ganization and should be taken by,
the organ which is charged with
the primary responsibility for the

maintenance of peace, that is, by
the Security Council."
According to Firmage, "Such
a position, adopted at Baruch's
insistence, violated the underlying
principles of the Security Council.
This was tacitly admitted by Sec-
retary of State Stettinus after the
completion of the charter":
"It was taken as' axiomatic at
Dumbarton Oaks, and continued
to be the view of the sponsoring
governments at San Francisco that
the cornerstone of world security
is the unity of those nations which
formed the core of the grand
alliance against the Axis."
Baruch's Atomic Energy Com-
mission was never created. Other
UN agencies dealing with control
of atomic energy have since then,
been much less ambitious. Retalia-
tion against great powers has not
been suggested again, and even
inspection of production facilities
has' not been achieved. Perhaps,
however, the failure of Baruch to
create such a powerful UN com-
mission helped define and re-
affirm the character and purpose
of the UN.
UN POWER and its 'use: for the
maintenance of international or-
der has remained an issue for
interpretation and consequent
conflict.
An even greater question than
who should be punished has been
how punishment should be en-
acted. The peace-keeping functions
of the United Nations thus have
been constantly examined, often
under the pressure of the basic
differences in constitutional in-
terpretation among the great
powers.
TOMORROW: How should
the UN enforce its efforts 'to-'
ward peace?

4

A

Alsop:Plusses and Minuses in

By JOSEPH ALSOP
WASHINGTON-Increasing ap-
prehension is felt, in govern-
ment and out, concerning the
development of the Vietnamese
War. You cannot make sense out
of what is happening, however,
unless you use a balance sheet
approach. And the plus side of
the balance sheet is the place to
begin.
The plus side of the balance
sheet concerns Hanoi's response
to date to the quite unforeseen
arrival of powerful and increasing
American strength in Viet Nam.
When that surprise was being pre-
pared for Hanoi, our own policy-
makers argued long and hard
about the response the surprise
would produce.
A minority, mainly in the Pent-
agon, supposed that the mere
deployment of American strength
would have the effect of a move
in chess. Hanoi, in other words,
having learned the mistake of
relying on Americans' supposed
reluctance to fight, was expected
by this minority to come to terips.
Another minority, mainly in the
State Department, feared that
even the most limited deployment
of American combat forces in
Viet Nam would nromntlv lead to

respond to the entry of American
forces in the way that would have
caused maximum difficulty for
the South Vietnamese government
and its American allies as well.
The Communists were, in fact,
expected to respond by returning
to widespread but, endemic and
small-scale guerrilla action and
by digging in for a long contest
enduring for many years. Nothing
would have been harder to counter
than this kind of change of pat-
tern. -
Nothing, above all, would have
had as good a chance of realizing
Hanoi's main expectation, which
is that the irresolute Americans
and their squashy-minded gov-
ernment will finally get tired of
the war and go away.
This kind of Communist re-
sponse was not only predicted by
the majority of the analysts in
Washington, but it was also unani-
mously predicted (and much fear-
ed) by the American staff in
Saigon. Yet this prediction, too,
has proved incorrect.
INSTEAD of 'digging in and re-
turning to guerrilla tactics, the
Communists have brought in more
North Vietnamese regulars, and
they have closed for action in
large-scale battles in which they

the Communist high command.
THUS, IT IS necessary to ask
why the Communists have adopted
the costly alternative and have
rejected the logical and much
more damaging alternative they
were expected to choose. The an-
swer, surely, is that a severe strain
is always put on the whole ma-
chinery and discipline of any
movement like the Viet Cong when
the leaders have to tell the men:
"Well, the victory we promised
you is impossible now, so we must
just dig in and fight for another
10 years."
Furthermore, in anticipation of
victory this summer, the Com-
munists had undermined their
popular base by steeply increasing
taxes and brutally conscripting all

males, including teen-age
They had weakened the
rilla potential by drafting
guerrillas and men from t
vincial battalions into t
main force units. And by
the main force units in th
ner, and with conscripts
they had lowered those
morale.
The stern application of
can power in Viet Nam,
while, dealt a far heavier
morale. Thus, the concl
inescapable that the Com
could not adopt what ourE
thought was their logicalE
tive simply because thatF
tive was not really open b
Adopting it, in fact, wou
put too heavy a straint

Viet Nam,
boys. discipline and organization; there
would have been a crack.
ir guer-
'village WHAT IS HAPPENING inside
the pro- South Viet Nam must, therefore,
dhe V.C. be regarded as downright encour-
diluting aging, despite the heavy price be-
i ma ing paid. If this is all that hap-
awell,pens, the pressure we are exerting
units' must eventually cause a crack
somewhere, and the war will then
Ameri- be close to' won.
mean- The question remains, whether
blow to the Chinese and North Vietnamese
usion is will not go much further, if and
munists when they have to face the fact
analysts that the war is close to being lost.
alterna- What may happen outside South
alterna- Viet Nam is the minus side of the
to them, balance sheet, which must be
ld have examined in another report.
on V.C. (c),1965, The Washington Post Co.

4

Schutze 's Corner: Finis

WHERE LIES the future of the
new left? What will happen
when the new left gets old?
First of all, the new left will go
to a lot of cocktail parties. With
flashing eyes. and arched necks,
and gesticulating hands. the long-
haired sipping sycophants of social

Vietnamese in Viet Nam will have
to manage for themselves while
the new left pays off its mortgage
and gets little Freddy through
college and marries off Aurora
and buys a place in Florida.
The new left may even find it-

need not lose hope: there's always
senility!
Life begins over the hill, where
we can all gabble flabbily about
sweetness, light and brotherhood,
without the slightest worry of
being held -responsible for our
silly frail old words.

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan