Seventy-Sixth Year
EDiTED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLJCATIONS
:.,".W w .:.:....:.. ''V.. II.*v~ n~.'
POWER*+
andUniverstiy- nion Battle:* What If We Win? 1
POETRY by MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH
Where O -nionz Are rep
420 MAYNARD ST.. ANN APBOR, MICJI.
Niws PvoNr: 764-0552
Ldiiorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
I
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1966
NIGHT EDITOR: LEONARD PRATT
Recognizing the Real Threat'
Of Communist China
"KARACHI, PAKISTAN, Feb. 20-Paki-
stan criticized the United States to-
night for apparently having made its eco-
nomic aid dependent on Pakistan's aware-
ness of 'the threat of Communist China'."
This article, which appeared in The New
York Times, illustrates once again the in-
eptness with which we handle our for-
eign policy. Vice-President Humphrey,
on his recent peace mission throughout
Southeast Asia, ably demonstrated his
diplomatic agility by stating that Paki-
stan was "fully aware of the threat of
Communist China."
It is perceptive comments such as this,
which have caused Senator Fulbright and
his committee to investigate our foreign
policy with such thoroughness. It is such
comments, coupled with administrative
evasions, that have caused people across
the nation to question our foreign policy
with a growing fervor. It is a condition
such as being "aware of the threat of
Communist China" that has spread in-
tense d i s t r u s t and dissatisfaction
throughout the world with the foreign
policies of the United States.
Our lack of administrative foresight,
and knowledge of international politics in
Southeast Asia is currently in the lime-,
light on the world stage. Our demonstrat-
ed ignorance in similar situations all over
the world is only exceeded by our naivete:
We are so convinced that the "American
way of life" is far superior to any other
that we do not recognize situations where
the "American way" is inappropriate and
is, therefore, being challenged.
WVE FIRST BEGAN sending aid to Paki-
stan when it appeared that she would
use it to contain Communism. What bet-
ter reason for giving? Her entrance into
SEATO confirmed our hope that she
would develop into a fine old ally in our,
never-ending battle. We stipulated, how-
ever, that the weapons were not to be used
against.India, they could only be used to
contain Communism.
Meanwhile, back on the other side of
the border, we find India engaged in a
conflict with Communist China over long--
disputed boundaries. Needless to say, we
came to India's rescue. We continued giv-
ing her military aid, as well as economic
assistance, long after the original con-
flict was over. Again there was a stipula-
tion on how the weapons were to be used;
they could not be directed against Paki-
stan.
We were "foiled again" in our struggle
to play both ends against the middle. We
had told the world that Communism was
its greatest enemy, but the world, in this
case India and Pakistan, was not doing
her homework. India regarded Pakistan
as her greatest enemy and Pakistan re-
turned the sentiment. In their battle over
Kashmir they broke their promise to
"Uncle Sam" and used his weapons
against each other.
"Uncle Sam" became very, very angry
with these naughty children and threat-
ened to take away all their new toys.
Pakistan decided that playing with some-
one else mnight prove more advantageous
and proceeded to court Red China. How
could she pull such a "dastardIy deed?"
How could she be so blind? We had told
her not to play with fire. How could she
ignore the "threat of Communist China?"
THIS QUESTION is the crux of the mat-
ter. It is not Pakistan who-is ignoring
"the threat of Communist China," but
the United States. For the United States
to ask a country the size of Pakistan, lo-
cated in Southeast Asia, to show aware-
ness that China poses a threat is ridicu-
lous. We cannot jeopardize the future of
underdeveloped nations in this area by
making our much-needed aid dependent
on their awareness of a threat which they
cannot concede to be a threat.
In addition, our continued failure to
recognize this rapidly developing super-
power is a policy that is at best unen-
lightened. To ignore is to become ignor-
ant, and we cannot afford ignorance in
our foreign policy. We cannot ask a
country to be "aware of the threat of
Communist China" when we refuse to
recognize China's existence.
WE MUST DEVELOP an understanding
of the political mind as it operates
outside of the United States. 'We must
understand that there are other ways of
life besides ours which may prove equally
beneficial to the countries in which they
are adopted. It may be painful to some,
but it must be done. The cost of blinders
cannot be paid with the price of human
lives as is now being done in Viet Nam.
It may be too late to look beyond our
own shores so that we may better under-
stand the people whom we are aiding and
protecting, but the effort must be made.
At least a semblance of knowledge must
be shown in our diplomatic dealings. We
cannot have the Vice-President of the
United States telling the world he "be-
lieves that Pakistan is fully aware of the
threat of Communist China" when Paki-
stan, not only does not recognize such a
threat, but criticizes the United States
for attaching a condition to its foreign
aid.
SUCH BLATANT IGNORANCE, founded
on blind and faulty communication, is
bound to prove costly. How much can even
the wealthiest of nations afford to pay?
-PAT O'DONOHUE
tHE UNIVERSITY is in a court
fight over a new law providing
for public employe collective bar-
gaining-and the battle has been
noisy so far. Most of it comes
from the University's oponents.
A. L. Zwerdling, an attorney
representing one of several unions
involved in the dispute, has said.
"the Regents are afraid collective
bargaining will end their tradition
of exploiting employs individual-
ly" and he blasts that attitude as
"the classic position of every re-
actionary employer."
August Sholle, president of the
Michigan AFL-CIO, says that "it's
very unfortunate that the Regents
and the University administration
can't accept the realities of the
20th century."
And Regent Carl Brablec, who
with the rest of the Regents voted
last fall to oppose the new law.
nevertheless pointed out at last
month's Regents meeting that the
University has already lost one
legal skirmish on the issue. "I
hope the Regents will reassess
their position and become a co-
operative body with respect to
this law," he said.
THE BATTLE BEGAN after the
legislature passed Public Act 379,
the Public Employment Relations
Act of 1965, this summer. The
Hutchinson Act, passed in 1947,
had prohibited strikes by public
employes and provided nonbind-
ing mediation and fact-finding
machinery to help settle public
employer-employe disputes.
PA 379 amended the Hutchinson
Act to provide that, althouh pub-
lic employe strikes were still pro-
hibited, groups of public employes
could be represented by unions.
Under PA 379, a' union must
submit to the State Labor Media-
tions Board a petition indicating
at least 30 per cent of the em-
ployes in an employment unit
support it.
The board then holds a hearing
to set up appropriate bargaining
unit boundaries, which is essential
if several unions want to repre-
sent overlapping units, and con-
ducts a secret-ballot election.
If a union gets a majority vote
of the employes within the unit,
itbecome their sole collective bar-
gaining agent, and the public em-
ployer must bargain with the un-
ion in good faith on wages, hours
and working conditions.
If the public employer is guilty
of an unfair labor practice-if it
does not bargain in good faith-
then the labor mediation board
can apply sanctions. And if the
union and the employer can't
agree on a contract, the board can
compel them to seek agreement,
although it cannot force either
party to accept specific provisions.
THE PRESENT situation stands
this way:
Four unions-the Teamsters, the
Operating Engineers, the Wash-
tenaw County Construction Trades
Council, and the State, County
and Municipal Employes - are
seeking to represent workers in
six sometimes' overlapping bar-
gaining units.
The University made and was
denied a request for a temporary
injunction to prevent the media-
tion board from holding certifica-
tion elections. Circuit Judge Wil-
liam Ager ruled in January that
the University failed to prove it
would suffer harm at that point
if the board proceeded.
The University suit also chal-
lenges the constitutionality of the
law itself as it applies to the
University. It is still waiting for
Attorney General Frank Kelley
to file a reply to its bill of com-
plaint,
Since the University's request
for a temporary injunction was
denied, the state board will very
shortly draw bargaining units and
hold certification elections. When
the court decision on the law it-
self will come out is anybody's
guess.
BEHIND the University's fight
in the courts and the increasingly
vociferous criticism from labor
leaders, however, lie a number of
tangled legal and industrial rela-
tions questions.
" Autonomy. A key issue most
administrators stress in public,
and the basis for the University's
court fight, is their feeling that,
,because the act allows thelabor
mediation board - a statutory
agency - to judge the University.
a Constitutionally-created, auton-
omous body, the law is unconstitu-
tional.
"This University is as good as it
is because the state's constitutions
have provided for its autonomy,"
one vice-president told atvisitor
recently.
"We have independent legal ad-
vice saying the law is unconstitu-
tional, and I think we would be
derelict in our duties if we failed
to oppose it, he added.
Attorney General Frank Kelley
ruled in November, however, that
since the board cannot force the
University to make specific con-
cessions, there is no "direction or
control" of University funds,
The ruling also notes the con-
stitutionality of the workmens
compensation board-similar in
nature to the mediation board-
and of Social Security, which af-
fects University payrolls. Legal ob-
servers are hesitant to comment
on the act, and are waiting for the
court's verdict.
* Bargaining units. University
officials privately show much more
concern over the example of the
University of Illinois, which re-
cently bowed to a public employe
law and now has well over 30
different bargaining units of em-
ployes to contend with.
This has placed serious demands
on the time of many of its ad-
ministrators, and the possibilities
of a "whipsaw"-in which each of
the unions tries to sandbag the
employer into giving its small
group of members more than the
last union got---looms large in
such a fragmented situation,
That is not what a university
is about, many observers say, and
add it is wrong to accept any law
which says so.
! White-collar organization.
The possibility that not only non-
academic employes, but professors
as well, might get collective bar-
gaining rights is another worry
for some top University adminis-
trators.
"What 'would happen if some
years from now professors in, say,
the law school get together and
start a union and demand that we
bargain with them?" one asks. "I
tell that to some of our critics and
they just brush it aside, but it's a
very real possibility," he says.
Another declares, "The State
Board of Education, not the Labor
Mediation Board; could very easily
become the supervisory board for
such unions. And that would be
the end as far as University au-
tonomy is concerned, because the
State Board might in effect be
regulating salaries themselves
rather than the University decid-
ing it."
" Money. Other administrators
are deeply 'concerned that union
negotiations will, as one in the
Office of Academic Affairs puts it.
"mean a prior commitment of
funds before we have a clear idea
what appropriations we're getting
from the state.
"We might be able to work that
out by setting the contract bar-
gaining dates," he adds, "but .,
The concern he'e is that, unlike
industrial concerns where unions
have a clear grasp of manage-
ment's financial status, the Uni-
versity might be unable to make
an effective case against union
demands if its final budget figures
-which take up to 6 weeks to
prepare after the state legislature
votes its appropriation-.aren't
available.
" The nature of a university.
The sum of these issues is one
essential pointtall administrators
make: the University is not an
industrial concern. The state of
"normal" labor relations is bad
enough, they say, citing the New
York transit and newspaper strikes
as just two examples, and 'that
the University doesn't even fit into
that traditional labor relations
context.
"We need a new kind of labor
relations for a university, and
PA 379 doesn't provide it" one
top vice-president asserts. "When
a shoe store is being struck, you
can go out and buy shoes some-
place else. But you can't do that
here; it's simply impossible. A
university is a competely different
kind of thing." Another vice-
president uses the identical shoe-
store example.
And the University simply is not
an industrial concern, University
officials stress. "The University is
a whole, a unit, and you shouldn't
have the divisive situation in
which one part of the community
is demanding things from another
part," one says. "You can't divide
the University up into separate
warring groups, It must be one
group, with each individual work-
ing towards the common goal."
ALL THESE ISSUES except
autonomy-bargaining units, white
collar unions, money problems and
the nature of a university--are
industrial relations q u e s t i o n s
which only the experts can an
swer fully.
Yet, as far as can be ascertain-
ed, the administration decided to
fight PA 379 without consulting'
any of the collective bargaining
experts in the economics depart-
ment, the Institute for Labor and
Industrial Relations, the law
school and the business school.
And it has generally shrugged off
the advice these experts have
volunteered.
"I'm not offended," says one
disappointed observer. "But I was
surprised that, while the Univer-
sity has a large number of people
who have gained national recog-
nition as consultants to public
employers and experts on indus-
trial relations, the administration
didn't call on them."
IT SEEMS CLEAR that this is
the kind of perspective the ad-
ministration needs badly. A visi-
tor recently asked one vice-presi-
dent-who had finished reciting
the difficulties of PA 379-if that
didn't boil down to the observation
that collective bargaining isn't the
greatest thing in the world from
the employer's viewpoint.
A little surprised at the thought,
the administrator admitted that,
on reflection, yes, that was about
the way it looked.
This, say the University's labor'
relations experts, is the real point:
of course it won't be easy to live
under PA 379, but it won't be im-
possible, and from a public-policy
point of view it is desirable.
It is hard to disagree. While a
university is not an industrial
producer, it is nevertheless an
employer. This University has
about 8300 nonacademic employes,
and it has a responsibility to them.
The University's labor relations
experts feel strongly that the Un-
versity hasn't yet realized that, n
1966, this means collective bar-
gaining.
Some of the concern admin-
istrators feel appears to come from
a misunderstanding of the act
itself. Employes are strictly pro-
hibited from striking (and hence
the "shoe-store" argument is in-
valid) and the University can't be
compelled to accept a specific pro-
posalor make a specific con-
cession.'
BUT MUCH of the University
administration's feelings about the
act come from a serious miscon-
ception of what collective bar-
gaining is today'
"The administration doesn't
realize that this is a new world
in public employe unionism," one
critic notes. "The University does
provide for union representation
of employes in grievance procedure
and permits union dues payroll
checkoff.
"That may have been good
enough five .years ago," he adds.
"But today it simply doesn't meet
the legitimate ekpectations of
unions."
That applies to white-collar em-
ployes as well as nonacademic
workers, it would seem. While the
University is a "whole," adminis-
trators well know it is also a place
where diverse and often antagon-
istic interests constantly bargain
and mediate on issues from budget
allocations to course offerings.
Collective bargaining thus would
not create "factions" in the Uni-
versity community; it would be
a creative and affirmative way of
giving University employes a
meaningful say about their sal-
aries and their work.
Over 800,000 federal employes
are already working under union
contracts; that is certainly not too
much to give the University's non-
academic. employes, who clearly
want it. And surely it would not
be too much to give to as sophis-
ticated and intelligent a group of
individuals as the faculty, should
they ever want it.
THE OTHER TWO problems--
prior commitment of. University
funds and the number of bargain-
ing units-ate easily solved if the
University devotes some time and
attention to them, the experts say.
"They're seeing bogeymen when
they talk about Illinois," one says.
that situation by faling to pre-
"Hell, Illinois just walked into
that situation, by failing to pre-
pare for it." The signs that the
University intends to do better at
the, upcoming hearings on bar-
gaining unit size and certification
elections are thus encouraging, for
they are crucial proceedings.
But there is another issue-and
if the University ignores it, the
experts believe, the University will
be in very serious trouble. This
question concerns the practical
consequences of the University's
fight over PA 379.
The labor press alone gives the
observer adequate basis for con-
cluding that the University's re-
lations with labor and with the
Democratic Party have been dis-
astrously impaired by its battle.
Hyman Parker, the chief media-
tor for the state labor mediation
board, recently got a call from an
irate union leader close to the
legislature, who vowed the Uni-
versity would suffer in terms of
appropriations ifw it continued its
fight.
And the AFL-CIO's August
Scholle, while he says cuttingap-
propriations would be "beating the
students and the faculty, the in-
nocent bystanders," is quick to
add that "if the Regents and the
administration want to stick to
their stand, it's inevitably going to
create problems for both of them,
and ultimately for the students as
:well."
And the unions here, if they
want to, can also make trouble. If
they get angry enough with the
University, they could, for ex-
ample, appeal all employe griev-
ances up to the Regents them-
selves-who are 'the final step in
the University's grievance process
-and turn Regents meetings into
arbitration hearings.,
But the administration appar-
ently still doesn't realize how ser-
ious this problem is. It knew a
month before the event occurred,
that the state AFL-CIO executive
council would denounce the Uni-
versity. But it did nothing to
change its policy or to discuss it
with the AFL-CIO.
"We just don't seem to have
to be disturbed by this aspect of
the controversy.
IN SHORT, two basic issues
emerge: University autonomy, and
collective bargaining and its in-
ternal and external consequences.
The courts will decide the auton-
omy issue. But what the University
will do after that is an open
question.,
Up to this point University of-
ficials have been careful to point
out that their fight is a legal one
concerning autonomy, pure and
simple, and is by no means "anti-
union," as the labor press claims.
If the University loses its court
case the next steps are obvious.
The University's attorneys will
have already prepared for these
steps at the mediation board's
hearings on bargaining units and
election procedures.
BUT WHAT WILL the Univer-
versity do if it wins? Here the
need for a flexible, sophisticated
policy towards unions is essential.
For, as one labor relations expert
puts it, "We won't have 'won' a
damned thing.",
Noting that over 600 University
employes are dues-paying mem-
bers despite the fact that their
organizations presently have no
power whatever, he ad's, "The
win. They will still want the same
things. The situation will be the
same from an industrial relations
standpoint. And so will the situa-
tion with the unions, the Demo-
crats and the legislature. We
simply can't afford not to accept
the "spirit of the legislation even
though we might be exempted
from the jurisdiction of the labor
mediation board itself."
But comments from the vice-
presidents and President Hatcher
himself indicate the administra-
tion has strong doubts about col-
lective bargaining in any form-
under the Hutchinson Act or not.
And ,if this is a correct reading of
their sentiment, the University is'
in very serious trouble indeed.
Administrators now are even
considering establishing a director
of industrial relations ("it would
have been unthinkable last year,"
a professor comMents) and just
recently raised employe benefits
and overtime rates; both are at-
tempts, probably futile, to balk
union organization.
THERE MORE, however, more
hopeful signs as well. Asked if the
University might fight unions re-
gardless of the outcome of the
court case, one influential ad-
ministrator retorted, "Most of us
are more in touch with. reality
than that."
Several University administra-
tors, including Vice-President for
Business and Finance Wilbur K.
Pierpont, may discuss the ques-
tion wiih interested outside par-
ties to see if a creative approach
to the problem can be found. It
will be a long-overdue get-
together, and offers an encourag-
ing prospect of fruitful results.
The University may also have
something to say to the public
about its legal stand on PA 379.
It should take the opportunity, if
it makes such an explanation, to
stress that it is challenging only
what it believes is the law's threat
to autonomy-and to declare that,
regardless of the outcome of the
court test, the University will pro-
ceed to recognizd unions and bar-
gain collectively with them when
the autonomy issue is settled.
PRESIDENT KENNEDY was
faced with a similar situation in
1962. Following the recommenda-
tions of a task force on employe-
management cooperation in the
federal government (whoserchair-
man was Arthur Goldberg ,T.nd
Sorensen and Defense Secretary
McNamara), Kennedy provided in
an Executive Order for exactly the
sort of collective bargaining ar-
rangement at issue at the Univer-
sity.
This kind of flexibility-and
this kind of wise resourcefulness-
is an example full of significance
for the University.
Time is running out, and the
stakes are very high. The Uni-
versity's best interests quite clear-
ly require a flexible, creative policy
towards labor unions, for the legi-
timate aspirations 'of University
employes go beyond what they
presently have. The University
would be courting disaster, here
and in Lansing, if it failed to
recognize them.
If the University loses its law-
suit, its course is prescribed. The
University should take great care
at the upcoming labor mediation
board hearings to avoid the situa-
tion at Illinois, and devote all the
resources at its command towards
ensuring that the labor mediation
board establishes a small number
of logically-defined bargaining
units.
AGAIN: WHAT IF the University
should win in court? Its plans for
this circumstance are still in-
definite. It is time for those who
-- ,...aA aeicant~i flexible
0
0
M
Student Rental Service:
We Lose Again
THE ESTABLISHMENT of the Student
Rental Service to help students to sub-
let apartments for the summer has been
hailed by off-campus housing official Mrs.
Elizabeth Leslie as a "very, very good
idea." It is-for the property managers.
The SRS is owned by two of Ann Arbor's
largest property management companies,
Misco and Apartments Limited. For a
fee of $25 and $15 for drawing up sub-let
leases, the service will try to assist stu-
.dents to sublet their apartments during
the summer. If the service cannot find
renters, it still will charge $10 for its
trouble in trying to locate them.
As one of the employes at the SRS
said, the managers "don't want to bother
with all the paperwork" they are involved
in when students decide to sublet. Now
they can have their bookkeeping costs
paid by students, who cough up $40 to
have their apartments rented and who
forfeit $10 if they do not obtain renters.
P1REVIOUSLY, managers charged only
$25 to draw up subletting documents
and offered soie assistance in finding
summer tenants.
Acting Editorial Staff
A $40 fee is a little steep to provide for
the mere convenience of having someone
else seek subletters. And, it is very unlike-
ly that 'the SRS will be no more effec-
tive than the present system of personal
advertising via Daily classifieds, the spe-
cial apartment supplement and bulletin
board signs.
Until the summer trimester gains more
popularity, there will continue to be less
demand for summer housing and a con-
sequent lowering of summer rental rates.
No amount of coordination and centrali-
zation can change the supply-demand sit-
uation and help students to sublet with
a smaller loss.
YET, MRS. LESLIE says the Off-Campus
Housing Office was "well aware" of
plans for the SRS and even "encouraged"
its formation. This sudden enthusiasm
seems strange, considering that she once
told a Daily reporter she was completely
unaware of University Tower's plan to
offer an eight-month lease and, at that
time, appeared to be doing little to "en-
courage" other landlords to do the same.
This state of affairs is even stranger
when one considers that the 20-odd
property managers in Ann Arbor and Uni-
versity representatives meet monthly to
discuss student-landlord relations.
.. ao.r
II
I }(1r
a