(2 of 2)
Union Boss McDonald exploited the break by signing Kaiser-style contracts with Detroit Steel Corp. and Granite City Steel Co., small companies (less than 1% of U.S. capacity each) that have been operating throughout the strike on union-granted contract extensions. But McDonald's drive never got beyond the easy pickings of the minors, soon hit the stiffened wall of major company resistance. Top steel negotiators declared that the Kaiser contract 1) would cost non-Kaiser companies nearly half again as much, 2) provided contract reopening in 1961, which was "intolerable to all," and 3) left work rules to be settled "on a case-by-case basis at the pleasure of the union."
Court-Order Delay. Coupled with its attempt to split management ranks was McDonald's attempt to keep up the strike pressure by delaying or destroying the back-to-work injunction handed down in Pittsburgh Oct. 21 by U.S. District Judge Herbert P. Sorg. Union Lawyer Arthur Goldberg, though losing a 2-to-1 decision appealing the case to the Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, won Supreme Court agreement to review his arguments that 1) Taft-Hartley injunction procedure is unconstitutional, and 2) in seeking the injunction on the ground of damage to "national health and safety," the U.S. had not proved that there was real damage. His delay tactics had won two extra weeks or more for the strike's effects to wear upon management, postponed the end of the So-day period until late January. This prevented the union-feared prospect of ordering members to resume the strike on the heels of the Christmas holidays, but it also guaranteed that a strike-weary Congress would be in session when the injunction expired, possibly tempted to solve the impasse with compulsory arbitration.
Injunction or no, the unprecedented steel strike badly needed some kind of cooling-off period. Some industry men were talking grimly about a war of attrition that might rage on for an additional six months. The steelworkers were working hard to convince other unions that this was a basic fight for all labor.
In demanding work-rules changes to increase efficiency, the steel companies had a strong case to make. And the steelworkers, for their part, had never been a union dedicated to featherbedding. By trying to make the changes in a sweeping manner, the steelmen had solidified labor into a newly militant front and lost much public support. Like many a controversy based on principle, the differences were far more apparent than substantial, might well yield to settlement if both sides would make the most of a cooling-off period to try a new approach.