Viewpoint
The Battalion
Texas A&M University
Wednesday
May 27, 1981
se
Seven
m Collej
The
Dog Exi:
Mother!]
Slouch
By Jim Earle
TVe heard of flour bombs and soap bombs, but this is my first
encounter with a soot bomb.
Reagan operating
R oose velt-s tyle
By DAVID S. BRODER
WASHINGTON — One of the earmarks of
the flexibility in the American system of
government is its ability, at certain times,
to deal with public questions in a logical,
deliberative fashion and, at other times, to
postpone those questions until what appear
to be urgently needed actions are taken.
When President Truman proposed the
Marshall Plan and the NATO treaty. Con
gress paused to consider and debate the
implications of a permanent American com
mitment to the military security and econo
mic prosperity of Western Europe. But
when Presidents Roosevelt or Johnson
were shoving through the measures that
came to be called the New Deal or the
Great Society, they did not ask Congress or
the country to stop and weigh the overall
advantages and risks of sharply expanding
public-sector expenditures and the scale of
government.
Ronald Reagan is operating very much in
the Roosevelt-Johnson style. He is pressing
for action and postponing debate. No mat
ter that inflation seems to be abating and
the economy is rolling along with unex
pected vigor; Reagan insists that his budget
and tax cuts are needed to deal with “the
worst economic crisis” since the Great De
pression.
No matter that the Soviet Union is hob
bled by shortfalls in its agriculture and in
dustry, is bogged down in Afghanistan
baffled by the Solidarity movement in Po
land; Reagan asserts that record peacetime
increases in defense spending are needed
to cope with the Soviet threat.
I do not criticize Reagan for this. What
he is doing is what strong and self-confident
Pi •esidents before him have done. He is
capitalizing on the momentum of his elec
tion victory, the disarray of the political
opposition and public support for his
leadership, in order to push through as
much of his program as possible before the
inevitable second-thoughts about the wis
dom of his policies occur. Like Roosevelt
and Johnson before him, he is seizing the
moment—knowing that the question is not
if, but when, his leadership will be chal
lenged.
The American system permits such
efforts to succeed but rarely, and Reagan is
wise enough to recognize he has such an
opportunity.
But on this long holiday weekend, with
things crawling to at least a temporary halt
in Washington, it is possible to step back
Warped
‘Bathroom agitators’ are issue
Eugei
Cliattanc
names o
Zales
and vvat<
1982 \vh
By DICK WEST
United Press International
WASHINGTON — At some point this
summer the National Labor Relations
Board is expected to hand down yet
another far-reaching decision.
This one reaches all the way down the
hall to the men’s room. The question before
the board is:
Does suspicion that workers are holding
union meetings in the men’s room give su
pervisors the right to deny them access to
the facilities?
The armed services, as is well known,
have been dealing for years with certain
militant types called “guardhouse lawyers. ”
But NLRB sources tell me they believe this
is the first labor-management case to raise
the issue of “bathroom agitators. ”
Anyway, historic or not, an NLRB admi
nistrative law judge, Walter Maloney Jr.,
has ruled in the negative on the question
posed above.
After a hearing last March in Brooklyn,
Maloney held that “denying employees
bathroom privileges in reprisal for their un
ion activities” amounts to an unfair labor
practice.
But A.P.F. Electronics, Inc., the object
of the complaint, has taken exception to
some aspects of Maloney’s findings, of
which the water closet confrontations were
only a part.
The company has appealed to the full
board a Maloney order directing it, among
other things, to “cease and desist” requir
ing union activists to cease and desist using
the men’s room.
Here is a digest of the hearing record
prepared by Maloney:
Prior to negotiations on a new contract
with the Textile Workers Union, shop
manager Ronald Sartini “had occasion to
speak” with two employees, Corso Palen-
zuela and Jesus Ibarra, “while they were in
the men’s room.”
and
unfavorable
would receive an
enee.”
Palenzuela testified that PatrickCi
dar, assistant shop manager, Freqiiri
operatic:
Anotl
gold jew
Pulsar.
Moth
the expt
followed him to the bathroom, accuse! Fashions
of holding meetings in the bathroom
threatened to fire him if he continued:
other de
The i
The C
ane-pnc
Subsequently, Callendar told Pale# served o
“not to use the bathroom facilities
after.”
no charp
Corn
while th
Freshly s
"While management has the
tioned right to insist that employeesde '^Giova
working time to work, it cannot i
certain non-work related activities!
employees, such as disucssing sp
milks.
The h
Franchisi
ing work time, and single out otherps secret in
“He asked these employees if they were
holding a union meeting and accused them
of being agitators. He also told Ibarra not to
use the bathroom or else he would be fired
on-the-job conversations for cense
prohibition, Maloney wrote.
He therefore concluded thatsucl
tices as “denying employees bathro®
vileges because they have engagedin
activities’ have “close, intimate,
adverse effect on the free flow ol
The n
ing Sear
stores.
Schin
and Hof
iiing stoi
(ease no;
Post (
if Harvc
ebruar
waps'
from the frenetic pace of executive and con
gressional action of the past four months,
and note some of the large, unexamined
propositions underlying Reagan’s program.
When I say “unexamined,” I do not
mean that Reagan himself or his aides are
unaware of where they are going. Quite the
contrary. The blueprint is exceptionally
clear to those in control.
But the propositions are unexamined in
serious political debate. Jimmy Carter’s in
firmities impeded such discussion in the
course of the fall campaign and no critic has
had the platform from which to challenge
the Reagan policies since Election Day.
But do not doubt that such a rest is
coming. It is guaranteed by the very sweep
and boldness of the policies Reagan is
rushing through. Consider some of the
propositions implicit or explicit in the
Reagan program, and ask yourself if any or
all of them can long escape serious, skeptic
al examination. To support the Reagan
program, you must believe with him that:
— Alnost every disruptive and disturb
ing development in the world reflects
Soviet scheming or power-wielding:
— Federal taxes and regulations are the
main barriers to economic growth, and fed
eral spending is the main cause of inflation:
A radical reduction of the f ederal role in the
economy is the only way to energize the
economy and stabilize its growth.
— There is a natural harmony between
the interests and inclinations of business
managers and their employees, customers
and neighbors: Freeing the owners from
government restraints will automatically
work to the benefit of everyone who deals
with them.
— State and local governments are more
efficient and equitable in their distribution
of public funds and services than the na
tional government: Therefore, turning
program responsibility back to them will
both save money and increase public satis
faction .
— In this new environment, individuals,
families and private organizations can be
relied on to replace government in a wide
variety of roles, ranging from support of the
arts and scholarship to the financing of re
tirement: Social needs, and not just private
consumption desires, will be best satisfied
by a major shift of resources to private
hands.
These are just a few of Beagan’s major
propositions. Everything in our history
suggests that, sooner or later, they will be
tested. Questions like these can be post
poned, but they cannot be safely ignored.
as gone
ombinei
Americai
Suppc
y and t
irected
Adkisson
j sit\’ Syst<
The s
[against h
gents, p
mce on
; genuine <
enormou
Also ol
jgricultu
n the pri
"Whil.
lontrol c
corded,”
Dems play ball on social security b
iroductii
ntegratc
ive of tl
ithin “a
he of m
By JERELYN EDDINGS
United Press International
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats joy
fully took a chapter from last year’s tax de
bate to make the new Republican majority
buck President Reagan on Social Security.
They employed the same tactics Repub
licans used in September to push Demo
crats — then in the majority — into a prem
ature stand in favor of tax reduction.
It was uncomfortable for Democrats
then, since the GOP presidential nominee
was the one promoting the popular tax cut
idea.
It was equally uncomfortable to Republi
cans last week. Their own president had
recommended the unpopular Social Secur
ity plans against which they rebelled.
The Senate delivered a unanimous jolt to
Reagan’s Social Security proposals by vot
ing against “precipitious and unfair” cuts in
early retirement benefits and against re
ductions that go deeper than required to
make the system financially sound.
Republicans obviously preferred not to
take the action, but could not avoid it with
out looking unsympathetic to the nation’s
old people.
In September, on the day candidate
Reagan first endorsed a three-year 30 per
cent tax cut, Republicans proposed it on the
Senate floor.
Democrats defeated it, using terms like
“irresponsible,” “slapdash,” and “infla
tionary. ”
Concerned about looking like they fa
vored high taxes, Democrats met hurriedly
and declared they would propose their own
“responsible” tax cut.
The action put them on record in favor of
some type of tax reduction, and committed
them to drafting a plan.
May 20 was payback day.
Mindful of the growing public concern
about Reagan’s Social Security proposals.
Democrats proposed a “sense of the Con
gress” resolution that would have put the
Senate on record against the administration
plan to reduce future benefits.
It contained scathing political attacks on
the president’s plan and charges that the
plan was outright unfair.
Republicans, calling it a “two-bit
amendment, accused Democrats of de
magoguery and narrowly beat back the me-
But then, to show they didn't waf
tired people treated unfairly, the Ref ropdair
cans proposed their own resolution ile and
one did not contain the harsh pJl S Much
attacks on Reagan, hut it also rebuffedl pur maj
of his proposal. 1 “ ies<
Tongues firmly in cheek, Dei® Althoup
praised Republicans for seeing the 1$ j’ Ies< j t
recognizing a good idea — in fact,for? ^ sc , ai
osing a measure that lifted some of Wantbrc
very own phrases. I ecd sei
“I won’t accuse you of plagiarism,
Sen. Daniel Moynihan, D-N.Y., 1
don’t accuse me of demagoguery.’
Democratic leader Robert Byrdof
Virginia also was sarcastically
mous. He said he certainly would#
the GOP resolution “two-bit” — he'flaid
even vote for it.
.mum im
“We v
In
It was just like last year, but thist®
Democrats had fun. The used their®:
ity status effectively, which they hi
managed before, and they enjoyed#
vote to rebuff Reagan was 96-0.
By po
earns, ir
bey beli
Nosing
The E
ayeai
'at farms.
By Scott McCullar
The Battalion
L S P S 045 360
MEMBER
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Congres
LETTERS POLICY
Editor Angelique Copeland
City Editor janeG. Brust
Photo Editor Greg Gammon
Sports Editor Ritchie Priddy
Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff
News Editors Marilyn Faulkenberry,
Greg Gammon, Venita McCellon
StafTWriters Bernie Fette, Kathy O’Connell,
Denise Richter,
Cartoonist Scott McCullar
Letters to the Editor should not extyed 3#^,
length, and arc subject to being cut if they air
editorial stall reserves the right to edit letters I
length, but will make every effort to maintaintlK
intent. Each letter must also he signed, showlffw
and phone number of the writer.
Columns and guest editorials arc also wi'kw
not subject to the same length constraints as ^
Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Ed#
Battalion, 21(i Reeel McDonald. Texas A&M l™ u1 *
College Station, TX 77843.
EDITORIAL POLICY
The Battalion is n non-profit, self-snpportinf' newspaper
operated as a community service to Texas A&M Universits
and Bryan-Collef'e Station. Opinions expressed in The Bat
talion are those of the editor or the author, and do not
necessarily represent the opinions ol Texas A&M Uni\ ersi-
ty administrators or faculty members, or of the Board of
Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a lahorator} newspaper for
students in reporting, editing and photography classes
within the Department of Communications.
Questions or comments concerning any editorial matter
should he directed to the editor.
The Battalion is published Tuesday. M'edncskj
Thursday during Texas A&.M's summer scincstm
subscriptions are $16.75 per .semester. $33.25 pa*]
year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates fnnii'W
request.
Our address: The Battalion. 21() Heed McDmiaUH
ing, Texas A&M University. College Station.
United Press International is entitled exdiisinVl
use' for reproduction of all nows dispatches cmlilrJ 1 *
Rights of reproduction of all other matter hereinr« 1
Second class postage paid at College Stalina, ff.
• •
t*.
V
*
«
1