.NTM3NA.NTM3NA

£ ~e Honorable 1ayor Ivan Allen, Jro City ofAtlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia V '~ Sir: an economics professor (Georgia Tech), I have a moee than cY iinterest in the present firemen's dispute, but let me emphasize that I am writing this as a private citizeno Thus, I hope yr ou will respect my position by maintaining complete confidence. Also, please understand that my remarks, while admittedly blunt at times, are offered in good faith. J\s I note that you have said that you would not talk to the firemen until the court order is obeyed. While I agree completely, I think your original mistake was in recognizing the union as the bargaining agent for wages and hours. True, you have not granted formal recognition, as the tierm is used in Federal laws. But you have tacitly sanctioned collective action by the mere fact that you attempted a settlement on those issues. the other hand, to compound your folly, 'Yi ou have refused to recognize the firemen on ~-economic issues. There is virtually unanimous agreement among those who have stu~ied worker attitudes that the one thing heading their list of desires is freedom frmrn arbitrary action. And I strongly suspect that if you had really delved into the situation, you would have found that what the rank-and-file firemen really want is the assurance of some voice in detennining their working conditions and other non-economic items. (The American Bar Association, as early as 1955, went on record as favoring the granting of such privileges to public employees.) On Your mock "mediation" was a farce, again reflecting a short-run7 short-sighted, holding action. (And the consulting firm's report will not likely get to the bottom oftt the issue, since such reports seldom study the hwnan relations aspect.) W ou apparently did not even know the difference between mediation and fact-finding, since you appointed a fact-finder, but called him a mediator, yet did not allow him to mediate. If the outside neutral had really been allowed to mediate, he very possibly could have settled the problem amicably, and without dealing with economic is sues. As a long-time student of the subject, I would say that our attitudes toward labor problems have gone through three stages: First, the purely arbitrary approach, which means fire an'Yf one who raises a protest. Second, one of appeasement, which was reflected in the days of paternalism, which prevailed especially from the tum of this century to the late 1930 1 s. Finally, recognition was granted to worker groups, and it is only since then that we have had reasonably calm industrial relations. In my opinion, appeasement is the worst of the three, yet this was your original approach. Now, you have taken the second worst approach that of arbitrariness. And I am highly afraid that discharging and replacing the firemen, while it may close the wound innnediately, may cause a continuing festering underneath, breaking out elsewhere in time. That is, if the City gains the reputation of being an Iron Hand-type of employer, recruiting will in time become difficult, especially when we vent so wild with public funds to obtain a stadium, inter alia. O . �In addition, even in the short run, it would seem that replacing the firmmen will be cumbersome and terribly expensive. Thus, I am wondering if the matter might not be settled by taking a conciliatory approach (which you have not done at any time). If the recognition of a union as the representative OS public employees is prohibited by state law, why not promise to support legislation accordingly (some sixteen states have such legislation, usually pennitting municipalities to grant recognition on noneeconomic items). Presidential .Executive Order 10988, signed by the late President Kennedy in 1962, could sezve as a guide; it permi t s advisory arbitration, but again, prohibits strikes; also, negotiations over wages and other eoonomic issues is not pennitted, and virtually all experts agree that collective bargaining over wages is simply not compatible with public employment •. Now in closing, let me point out that if you insist on following your present approach, it behooves you to fire evecy salvo available; otherwise, we may have a general strike of the type Britain, et al, is noted . I would suggest that you inform the public of the facts of the situation. Toward that end, I have put together SOlllll items for your perusal . Since I am trying to get this leteer in the morning mail~ it is rather disjointed, but you can get the content. Again, I would much prefer a conciliator~ approach, even at this late hour. ~erely, ·) .,/ . ,~ v t f . //U~ Nack A. toore 670 Edgewater Trail, N.W. (Sandy Springs) Phone: home, 255-4172; office, 873-4211,X5543 P.S. There is no suggestion intended that you will want to contact me. above information is only in case you might. ·; i;-t,· d_ ~ H ~~ ~ (143.215.248.55 \ 7:-:= ~ef 1

-,c-u

7~ _ . ) ~ ~ Id f: ' R~ ~ ~ ~ ·~ ~ ~~ :l . ~ ~ hr:;;- , 4 ,, ~~ ~ ~ , <-/ k The ~.,e;/4c-0 �