In the course of this discussion I do not feel it incumbent upon me to argue the case of wage stabilization. It is one of the facts of our war-time economy and whether we agree with its basic philosophy or not we must live with it. As I see it, the chief function of this discussion is to highlight the wage stabilization program so that your task as practicing attorneys who are frequently faced with wage stabilization problems will be made easier. In the measure which I can accomplish that result our task on the Twelfth Regional Board is also simplified. The public which understands the governmental regulations with which it must live will have fewer problems. It will therefore be my purpose to make this discussion as purely expository as possible in an effort to meet the daily problems which face the practicing attorney. Because of the limitations of time, it will be impossible for me to touch upon many of the phases of the War Labor Board's activities. Union maintenance of membership clauses, jurisdictional disputes in inter-state and intra-state commerce, the relationship between the War Labor Board and the National Labor Relations Board and many other related problems are matters in which the public has always expressed a great interest. The ratio between voluntary wage stabilization cases and dispute cases is thirty to one in favor of voluntary cases. Because of this fact; namely, that the average practitioner may never see a labor dispute case but will in all probability be called upon to participate in some phase of voluntary adjustments, this discussion will be confined to problems pertaining to the latter. One of four papers delivered at the Legal Institute of the Seattle Bar Association held at the University of Washington Law School on April 7, 1944.
Harold A. Seering,
19 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol19/iss2/4