Harold L. Sheppard

When Labor Votes: A Study of Auto Workers.

The subject of government-conducted strike ballots became prominent when President Eisenhower, in his labor message to Congress in 1954, made a proposal for compulsory balloting in strike situations. This proposal was repeated in his labor messages of 1955 and 1956. The recommendation had no known labor-management sponsors; it was almost universally condemned by academicians; labor and management spokesmen; and by public labor experts, headed by Senator Irving Ives (Republican, New York). Labor spokesmen contended that the proposal was politically inspired to prevent amending the Taft-Hartley law. This volume by Professor Parnes is a partial attempt to apply to labor relations problems the methods of empirical research. Professor Parnes utilized the questionnaire and interview methods with fifty-nine local unions of various affiliations and seventy-four local unions of one international union. We subscribe wholeheartedly to this extension of the empirical method. In this regard, Professor Parnes has done an excellent job. In the present volume, the empirical testing was very limited in relation to the average of 2,700,000 workers involved annually in strikes in recent years. Nevertheless, it confirms what every other method of study of this problem has revealed: namely, that union members overwhelmingly support their leaders in strike balloting, which is primarily a collective bargaining technique, and that compulsory strike balloting legislation would make no positive contribution to labor relations. The study of the state strike-ballot laws, with special emphasis on Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, is a thoroughgoing study, although only the Michigan experience is relevant, as it alone provides for balloting under state supervision. The study of experiences under analagous previous federal laws, such as the War Labor Disputes Act, and the national emergency disputes section of the Taft-Hartley Act, is a good summary. It is not, however, on a par with other sections of the book, as this field has been adequately covered by other writers. In many instances, Professor Parnes conclusions are qualified to an extent which is not justified by his findings of fact. Apparently, he was not willing to let the facts speak for themselves but frequently hedges them with an on-theother-hand type of phrase and thinking. It is also regrettable that Professor Parnes does not suggest applying the much needed method of empirical research to the problem of trade union democracy but instead proposes further research in this fruitless field.