Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1919-10-20
GRANT BARGAINING
ISSUE, URGES TAFT
Employers Should Not Be Un-
reasonable, Declares
Former President
CAN DEFEAT RED LABOR
IAN editoridl in toddVS Public Lcdger.
BY WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT


tODUFlDHT, iVIV, bU I'ubHG Ledger Go,
The employers group in the present
conference can greatly help the con.
scrvative labor leaders in their struggle
to retain and regain their control of
the unions If they will only recognize its
vital Importance and make reasonable
concessions to them. Collective bar
gaining with all it's reasonable corol
laries should be freely granted in the
present congress.
The employers in dealing with their
men should cease to act as if Il labor
leader had the typhus and was n con.
veyor of the contagion. Discussion does
not bind the employer to any course Of
conduct. while the opportunity TO be
heard through u chosen representative
is a boon highly priced by real Ameri-
cans.
Recognition of the leaders to this OK
tent strengthens them with their fol
lowers. instills in them a worthy pride
to fulfill their contracts and strengthens
their conservative influence in the
unions.
No Time for Obstinacy
The employer should not take ad
vantage of the rising feeling against Red
and radical labor unionism to be un-
reasonable and stiff in response to of
| fered compromises by conservative labor
unonism. The situation has become
such that the breaking up of the confer
ence without result will have a bad
effect. 1t will strengthen the violent in
the labor group.
Of course, employers should not con
cede away the control of their business
but collective bargaining does not invclv
| hot Trhn iycna tp hn npl-
whether the employers will allow sucl
Of their men as wish to be labor union
lists to be represented in this collectiv
| bargaining by representatives chosel
! from the union.
Is the restriction demanded by en-
| ployers that such union representative
must be employed by the same employer
vital? Why should the employer thinl
that such a representative could, by {
mere presentation of demands and dis
cussion, prejudice him or the issue?
Common Interest in Wages
Does not the right of men to organ
I ize, said to be agreed to by all the con
! ference, logically and necessarily impl!
and carry with it the right to choose ,
representative without restriction
When the conference agrees to the righ
Of men to organize in labor unions the,
do not limit membership in such unior
to one shop. Why, then, should they
| attempt to limit representatives of theil
men in such unions to men in theil
| shop?
Agreement to the existence of labor
unions is based on admission of com
mon interest in wages, hours and terms
of employment on the part of employe!
| of all shops in the same trade. If so
a consequence would seem to be that any
member of the union should be com
petent to represent all or any part O
the membership.
In the national war labor board prin
ciples it was declared that the refusa
of an employer to deal with any rep
resentatives of his men who were mo-
in his employ should not be deemed
a grievance 1t took long and heated
controversy before the union chiefs were
brought to consent to this exception t.
free labor unionism: and they were
only induced to yield by the fact tina
the war was on and the arrangement
was but temporary.
Argument of Employers
Employers argue that to deal will
"outside" labor union representative
will have tendency to force all thei
nonunion men employees into the uniOl
but. of course, such union represen
tatives will only speak for the uniol
men. The nonunion men can have thei
own representatives, and the cmploye
! will deal with both and reach his con
clusion after discussing the subject mat
ter with both.
Undoubtedly. the union men wish t,
increase their membership and will pusl