, 1922-10-02
Limiting Right to Strike


'sof late the principle of a mans
right to work 2 ovsrshadowed the
principle OF the riga.. to strike. at least
in cornmon d scussion observes the
Chicago Tribune The right 70 strike
has been more or less generally con
cedcd. and 20 is reduced as a subject
OF contention. But with the growing
probability of congressional action .
avoid or reduce such Oppressive influ-
ences az the coal strike and shopmen's
strike the issue OF the r ght to strike
rSail comes to the front
I'm general the right 10 strike will
still be conceded But as the demand
for federal protection Of the mass OF
people crystalizes in congress enbar-
RAISING opposition TO that right" viii
m~aterialize. Union labor. OF course.
WIN fight to the utmost against any
action 10 limit the right to strike. II
viii insist that any law which would
have the effect OF forcing men 20 work
under ~unfavorabie conditions as al
alternative to losing their Jobs Is a
slave Law. contrary to the principle Of
liberty.
''If We conceded these premises they
would be right. Practically. there is
room for a difference of opinion.
what would ave happened II the
right to strike had been denied the
coal mlners. Would they have been
onsiavedf No. They might st.f hav
quit as individuals and found other
means Of livelihood. Or 81 they pre-
ferred 10 remain miners the same law
which would have denied their right to
strike would not necessarily " de-
MED their right OF collective bargain
ing. but probably would have net up
machinery through which they could
have bargsined and adjusted their diff.
ferences without delay. Instead OF be-
ing idle and without income for five
months they could have worked as
usual while their grievances were ad-
jnsted. Their annual incomes would
have been larger than they IAN he low
after i've months OF idieness, Ind n
bin for hundreds Of millions OF dollars
which viii now be passed on to con
sumner could have been avoided.
And what OF. the railroad strike?
The shopmen exercised their right. A
month or so later they were willing TO
20 back at reduced pay. At that mo
ment they had lost. But other issues
interviewed and as a union they are
.stiil out. What IL they had been ds
nied the right to str Ike? The law which
had. made such denial would have pro
vided an alternative. Instead Of hav-
ing been idle these many weeks they
would have been working. and their
differences would have been adjusted
with far less loss TO them than any
adjustment can mean after this waste.
of time. They certainly would have
lost nothing and gained much II they
had been denied the right to strike.
They Would not have been enslaved.
Those who wished could still have
quit as individuals and gone into other
lines of work. and those who did not
20 desire would haee saved much time
arr money.
Clearly II is possible for restriction
of the right TO strike 20 be TO the ad-
vantage OF the worker as well as the
public. We do not say tina such re
striction should be arbitrary and I'M.
limited. Quite the contrary. But we
do say Legislation to safeguard the pub
lie from the shutting down of essential
industries II not necessarily a crushing
blow at either unionism or liberty and
is rot at all likely to be framed so as
TO be so. Any legislation contemplated
will and must. IL II is to have any
chance o. enactment. include protec.
don for the employees right to be
heard and TO combine for his own de.
Tense and betterment short g paraiyz-
ing an essential public service.
Agencies for the just consideration and
enforcement of his legitimate claims
will be established in recognition OF
the limitation Of his private liberty of
action. Only rhetoric can call this
state servitude."