With President Eisenhower apparently about to invoke the injunction provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act in the national steel strike the CRIMSON questioned three professors in the Department of Economics for their opinions on the issue.

Despite frequent agreement in details among Edward H. Chamberlin, David A. Wells Professor of Political Economy, John T. Dunlop, professor of Economics, and Arthur Smithies, Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Political Economy, a difference in outlook towards the eighty-five day old strike was often revealed in their answers to questions on possible effectiveness of the eighty-day injunction, on the effect of the strike upon the national economy, and on the influence a settlement would have on other industrial disputes.

There was general agreement as to why a strike, which according to predictions in the spring would be but a short one, has turned out to be the longest in the industry's post-war history. "The careful preparations destroyed any particular incentive to settle," Smithies said. Both he and Chamberlain think that work rules are "an intractable issue" on which there is little common ground for compromise.

None of the professors were optimistic about the chances of an early settlement. Chamberlin, although favoring use of the injunction at this time in order to prevent spreading of a situation which he described as "desperately serious now," expressed the fear that it "may just postpone everything for eighty days."

Dunlop expressed the same concern, declaring that the Taft-Hartley machinery was ineffective in encouraging settlement because it eliminates the "uncertainty" necessary for bargaining and because the machinery does not provide for the government board to make recommendations. As a result, negotiations are carried on in a vacuum. He pointed out that in the airline and railroad industries, emergency boards do make recommendations in labor disputes.

Dunlop, however, in contrast to Chamberlin, does not feel that the work stoppage has severely injured anyone, since much of the wages and profits forgone during the summer were in reality transferred into the first half year by the extensive preparations. He offered the opinion that when the strike is over, "there will be no evidence that the strike has hurt the economy."

Smithies approaches the issue of the settlement in terms of its effect on the inflationary wage-price spiral. The toughened industry stand this year, he suggests, is due to their fear that the "pattern of periodic wage increases" will price them out of both the domestic and foreign markets. It is "terribly important to stop the wage-price spiral at this juncture," he said, by settling without a price increase. Chamberlin agreed that "the real issue of inflation is the reaction on other wages. Whether the price of steel will have to go up is "only a small part of the problem."

Dunlop, however, thinks a settlement without a price rise is "unlikely," but minimized its inflationary effect since all the other outstanding contract negotiations this year have already been decided. "Steel will follow, not set the pace," he suggested.