Evening star., 1934-05-28
BILL FAILS TO BAN
WORKER COERCION
Wagner Measure Assists
Strike Settlements,
However.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

The rewritten wagner Dill now De-
for the Senate is a much more work.
able measure than Its predecessor, and
represents a long step forward in ad-
Indication of labor troubles in Amer
lea, provided, Of course, the Federal
Governments right to deal with local
employer and employe relations Is as
sumed to be constitutional.
The new bill will not, Of course,
prevent strikes. On the contrary. 1t
reafnrms the right to strike. What
the bill strives to do is to set up q
machinery of adjustment which will
make strikes less frequent or provide
a voluntary method of settlement
when once they break out.
Despite the improvement in the
fairness of the bill toward employers
and employees, and the evident at
tempt of Senator Bob Wagner, DEM
ocrat, Of New York, and his colleagues
to write a bill that would answer the
criticisms and objections voiced
against his first proposal, there are
many broad aspects which are so i'm
portant to the industrial peace OF
America that it will hardly be possible
for even the new measure to be ef-
fective unless certain amendments are
made
Clarifies Bargaining Clauses.
First of all, the bill does clarity
the collective bargaining provisions OF
the national industrial recovery act
But it fails conspicuously to deal with
the principal source of disputes and
controversies in America from the
very beginning of industrial unionism
1t does not provide. for instance. for
any prohibition Of coercion or intim-
idation practiced by one employe or
group of employees toward fellow en-
ployes. Thus, the members Of what
is known as a company union can
continue to intimidate and coerce the
members Of an American Federation
Of Labor local union, and vice versa.
The only prohibition Of coercion
applying to an employe against any
body else is against his employer. For
there's a paragraph which says en-
ployes cannot by intimidation or coer-
cion attempt to interfere with the
right Of employers to organize. This
provision has caused much amuse-
ment, because employees are not In the
habit Of interfering in the affairs OF
employer trade associations because
these are combinations Of manage
ment.
There are, one the other hand
everyday occurrences in which visits
are made to the homes of workers
and threats are made by fellow work.
ers II they join particular unions OF
II they fail to join unions that domi-
nate a particular shop or plant or
locality.
Would Give U. s. Control.
The right of the individual to work
and get protection when he does work
is something. perhaps, that does not
need to be stated again, for it Is a
matter Of State law and police power
But. on the other hand, the Wagner
bill endeavors to put the whole ques-
ton of control of industrial relations
under Federal authority by stating
in the preamble that it 'is declared
to be the policy Of the United States
to remove unnecessary Instructions to
the free flow of commerce"
This would introduce into the Fed
ersl Government police power over
labor matters. which has been de-
clared by the Supreme Court to be
valid here before only when used by
Congress in connection with labor dis
putes affecting railroad and interstate
transportation. In those cases, the
interstate feature has been stressed,
but the new Wagner bill now seeks
to cover work done onsany products
moving into interstate commerce.
There Is in the new Wagner bill
provision which says no employe
shall be required to render labor or
service without his consent, but there
Is no protection provided whereby
he can continue to work if he wishes
and if his fellow employees seek to
rule him out either by intimidation
or by threatening his employer with
a strike if such an employe or group
OF employees is out of harmony with
the other employees.
Valuable for Publicity.
Most of the friction in recent
months has grown out of this par
ticular point. In the Wagner bill an
effort Is made to give the new Ma
tional Adjustment Board the power
to say who shall be eligible to repre-
sent workmen in negotiations and the
board may certify that a majority
group shall speak for the minority
"a confusion of political thinking
and the right Of individual contract.
But this clause is valuable only for
publicity purposes and for its effect
on employees opinion in strikes and
election controversies. For there is
no way an employer can be compelled
to accept the viewpoint of the major
ity delegation in a plant because the
new bill says an employer may at
any time discuss grievances with any
employe. Hence, the way is always
open for minority expression and dis
cusSion.
Perhaps the best feature of the bill
Is the provision for machinery for
voluntary arbitration and for investi-
cation Of collective bargaining dis
putes. It Is unfortunate that nothing
in the Wagner bill takes care of the
numerous controversies that so often
arise between labor organizations
themselves, such as national and inter-
national unions. This has come to be
known as 'jurisdictional disputes" and
involve in no way issues such as are
found in company unions or employer
dominated unions. An amendment
that would withhold certain Blue
Eagle benefits or prohibit the calling
of strike until after local union off,
GERS had given national officers Of
these unions the facts and an oppOr-