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.