Labor Force

Charles E. Wilson is a tough man. He is Mobilization chief because he has the forcefulness to get production out. He was tough enough to demand and get more sweeping authority over the nation's economy than any man except the President in World War II. Last week, tired of repeated failures to advise Mr. Wilson, labor decided to get just as tough.

On Wednesday the United Labor Policy Committee voted to withdraw all union men from the mobilization machinery, in protest against Wilson's management. Specifically, they complained that wages had been frozen though rents, retail and farm prices, and profits were allowed to rise. Economic Stabilizer Johnston answered these criticisms Thursday by several concessions, allowing cost-of-living pay increases to carry wages above the previously-announced ceiling. But the deadlock remains, founded on a deeper dissatisfaction of labor.

For a long time union leaders have been asking for a chance to assist in directing the national defense. In response to their overtures, Wilson has been brusque to the point of hostility. Men with a union background, the unions claim, have served merely as "window-dressing," while executives from industrial and financial corporations fill all top-level posts.

When reporters asked if he really did not intend to include a labor leader among his advisers, Wilson commented ingenuously that he would be glad to do so if someone would suggest a man of ability. Such remarks are symptomatic of the attitude that has so antagonized labor. Union heads agree with Wilson that government officials must serve the public rather than any special interest; they resent bitterly Wilson's apparent lack of confidence in the willingness of labor leaders to do this, or to perform on a par with business executives. As one top C.I.O. official has put their case: "We don't want a man we can control; we want a man we can talk to. The only people who can talk to Wilson are those from industry. We certainly can't."

Disputes over the ability of labor leaders to act for national goals must be set in a context of economic realities. Effective mobilization is impossible without the wholehearted cooperation of the nation's 15 million union workers and their leaders--cooperation based on mutual confidence, not coercion or exhortation. If the price of such confidence is the appointment of a top-level adviser trusted by labor, it is reasonable. Wilson has finally recognized this in offering to appoint a man from labor's ranks. So far, however, he has neglected to be specific about the exact scope of the post, and the unions remain leery of his promises until he does so. It is still Mr. Wilson's move.