Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1935-05-30

Wagner Bill and swallowing the
nurerous camels. Its latest
camel that was swal-
,owod at one gulp and with the same
case as the man on the flying trapeze
noe massage of the so-called Wagner
labor disputes bill. The consensus
soems to be that reformers in the
senate reached the highwater mark
when they capitulated to the labor
lobby and put further insurmountable
diAiculties in the way of recovery for
business.
of course, the Wagner bill still must
RIM the gauntlet of house passage. 1t
annears however, that the labor lobby
will drive 1t through there substan-
tally in its present form unless small
or communities In the United States
awaken to the dangers of such legisla-
tion. The probabilities are that house
members will not hear from home In
time to influence their votes and pre-
vent passage of the legislation.
The bill, drafted by the German-born
Senator Wagner (Dem., N. W creates
a national labor relations board. This
body will have almost judicial powers
in settling labor disputes and in con-
nection with those powers the board
can actually say to an employer Of
workers that he must not promote an
organization among them other than
of the type of their own choosing. In
other words, a labor agitator repre-
senting the American Federation of
Labor will be permitted to enter any
body's shop and organize the workers
and the employer will be powerless to
prevent 1t. If, however, he sought to
have his workers organize themselves
into a union not affiliated with organ
lied labor, the proposed labor relations
board can order it stopped. Actually,
and there seems to De little dispute of
this potentiality in the legislation, 1t
is designed to establish the American
Federation of Labor in this country
as a class strong enough to control
the management of commerce and in
dustry.
Although the senate action in pas
sage of the bill was overwhelming, it
was not accomplished until the Demo-
cratic Senator Tydings of Maryland
shouted over the din the warning that
the measure would ruin chances of
business recovery. The Maryland sena-
tor sought to amend the bill with
provision prohibiting coercion and in
timidation of employees by ANYONE
whatsoever" Then Senator Tydings
told the senate:
"If you do not accept this amend
ment, talk of freedom for labor is
farce"
Senator Hastings (Rep., Del.) was
another opponent of the measure who
fought vigorously until the bill was
called for a VOTE He declared it made
him feel that the senate was passing
legislation ito force every man In
America to join a particular union
whether he wants to or not" The
amendment was killed.
The Wagner bill is an outgrowth Of
attempts to develop through the ma
tional industrial re-
Claus for covery act a policy
Blue Eagle compelling employers
to bargain collective
" with their employees. That is. the
famed section IA was intended to
make 1t impossible for employers to
enter into an agreement with their en-
ployers except by dealing with a COM
mittee selected by a majority of the
workers. 1t was the assumption when
this provision was written two years
ago that the American Federation Of
Labor would have a majority In all of
the important industries. 1t developed,
however, that company unions, not at
filiated with any other organization,
constituted majority in scores Of fac
tories and plants. Thus, the A. F. Of
L. encountered an unexpected obstacle.
Now Senator Wagner, whose radical
tendencies are well known, has at
tempted to give the Blue Eagle some
claws By enactment of the labor dis
putes bill and the creation of a sepa-
rate labor relations board.
The measure as 1t passed the senate
makes it unfair" for employers to do
any Of the following things:
l. To interfere with, or to coerce
employees, in the exercise Of collective
bargaining through representatives Of
their own choosing.
2. To dominate or to interfere with
the formation or administration of any
labor organization or to contribute
financially or aid in the support of 1t.
3. To encourage or discourage men,
oership in any labor organization by
discrimination.
A. To discriminate against any en-
ployee for filing charges or giving
testimony under the proposed act.
.. To refuse to bargain collective
ly with representatives Of their en-
ployees.
No prohibitions against labor agi-
tators are to be found in the leglsla-
ton. From all of the debate and COM
mittee hearings which lave examined,
1t appeared that business interests
WprQ fiOhfinU fha Ia0fcIofian not Oplv