ustxtxb_obs_1980_12_26_50_00018-00000_000.pdf

When freed, however, from the constraint of defending the Carter record, Marshall grew increasingly candid, criticizing the behavior of American industry, and sounding like the “friend of the American worker,” as he’s often described at many a labor gathering. * * * Observer: In Youngstown, Ohio, the Lykes Corp. bought up .. . Marshall: Youngstown Sheet and Tube . . . Observer: Essentially to destroy the company. And improve their cash flow. Marshall: Yeah. And I think that’s an illustration of the basic problem that the steel industry faces. Observer: Isn’t it a problem with laws and incentives? Marshall: I think the basic problem is the way American management makes decisions. And that is in terms of shortterm profit maximizing rather than longterm interest of the industry. And I think the best way to look at that is to contrast the way the American steel industries and conglomerates make decisions about investment and re-investment in the steel industry and the way, say, the Japanese make those decisions. The basic problem in the American steel industry is that the industries have not been reinvesting in themselves. See, Lykes wouldn’t reinvest in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube even though it was a profitable operation in the sense of being able to more than return cost because it was not the most profitable thing they could do with their money in the short run. Now, if you contrast that, say, with Nippon Steel I was talking with the officers of Nippon Steel Corporation in August and I put that question to them. I said, ‘I notice the return to investments in other industries in Japan tends to be greater than the return to steel and yet you keep reinvesting in the steel industry. Why do you do that?’ And they had never even thought of it. Investing in any other industry. They even had to kind of caucus with each other to come up with an answer. And they came back and their response was: `Well, we’re in the steel business. And Japan needs a strong and economically competitive steel industry. If we don’t invest in the steel industry, who will? We believe that if we reinvest in a modern, and up-to-date and competitive \(indusin the long run.’ You see, that contrasts vividly with the attitude of the American steel companies. Their view is, first, the short view, that I think is a mistake. That you look at today’s stock market quotations 18 DECEMBER 26, 1980 or the returns and you make your investments on that basis, rather than taking this long view that if you keep the industry competitive and up-to-date, you’ll be able to make adequate profits in the long run. That was the attitude that the Japanese steel producers took. In fact, the way that it’s contrast when I put the same question to American steel producers, their response is: `We don’t make steel; we make money.’ And what they mean is: money in the The basic problem in the American steel industry is that the industries have not been reinvesting in themselves. See, Lykes wouldn’t reinvest in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube even though it was a profitable operation in the sense of being able to more than return cost because it was not the most profitable thing they could do with their money in the short run. Now, if you contrast that, say, with Nippon Steel I was talking with the officers of Nippon Steel Corporation in August and I put that question to them. I said, ‘I notice the return to investments in other industries in Japan tends to be greater than the return to steel and yet you keep reinvesting in the steel industry. Why do you do that?’ And they had never even thought of it. Investing in any other industry. short run. Observer: This leads to a question .. . Ought there not to be a change in the structure of industry to give more worker control over . . . well, over the decisions in the workplace? I understand that foreign countries have labor on the make more decisions about what kind of work they’ll be doing and they’re even involved in decisions about the products. Marshall: Sure. And in some coun tries like Germany, where they have codetermination they’ve carried that to the point of having equal representation of the workers on the boards of directors. Observer: Have you pushed in any way for some of these changes? Instead of just regulations, for example, on health and safety, if you had workers involved, and if workers have more power in the workplace. Marshall: That was the direction we were heading for, of course, to try to get labor management committees .. . Observer: What exactly? Marshall: Well, there are several things. One, of course, was to protect the right of workers in the workplace to protest unsafe health conditions without a penalty. We did that in the Whirlpool decision. And we fought for the right of spectors when they went around. Observer: Walkaround rights? Marshall: Walkaround rights. And we tried to improve our New Directions Program in OSHA. Observer: That’s the training program at universities .. . Marshall: And through unions and knowledge of the safety and health conditions on the job. As well as the power to deal with it. You see, knowledge without the power is not going to do you any good. That’s the reason for the of an unsafe job. But we were also moving in the direction of labor-management safety and health committees, which I would ultimately like to have required by law. Observer: How would you work that in a non-union plant? Marshall: The employees would have to elect some members to serve on those committees, just like, say, a workers council does in most of the other industrialized countries in the world. In fact, one of the thing that we were doing was carefully examining the experiences of all industrialized countries with the labor-management safety and health committees. And we had one company in the construction industry and we’re trying to experiment with it. Because the basic idea, I’m convinced, is sound and that is that that mechanism will do a lot more to protect the safety and health of the workers on the job than inspections. Because you could inspect a job today and workers could get killed on it tomorrow. Observer: What about labor taking the funds from pension funds and so on and refusing to invest in runaway shops and companies like I understand that there’s