Evening star., 1935-05-13
STRIFE ERA SEEN
IN WAGNER BILL
Business Expects Trouble
From Failure to Curb
EmpIoye Coercion.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

ing that If Senator Wagner had en-
titled his labor disputes bill AN act
to increase unemployment and pro-
mote industrial warfare in the United
States" he could hardly have chosen
q more appropriate title.
For the bill, which now has been
reported by the Senate and House
Committees on Labor, is a measure
to prohibit unfair labor practices
on the part of employers and delib-
erately omits any prohibition of un-
fair labor practices on the part of
one group of employees who may
threaten, intimidate or coerce another
group.
This omission is recognized and
even defended in the Senate COM
mittee's report and the reasons given
are that it is really unnecessary. An
amazing circumstance, however, is
that the Senate committee models
its proposed statute on the terms OF
the railway mediation act of 1884 and
yet significantly ignores the fact that
this law governing railroad labor does
specifically provide safeguard against
coercion by one employe as against
another.
Text Quoted.
Here Is the text of the all-important
provision on collective bargaining in
the railway mediation act:
Representatives, for the purposes
of this act, shall be designated by
the respective parties without inter-
ference, influence. or coercion by
either party over the designation OF
representatives by the other, and
neither party shall in any way inter-
fere with influence or coerce the other
In its choice of representatives"
This law was approved by Congress
and signed by President Roosevelt IN
June. 1894. If Senator Wagner would
accept such a provision for insertion
in his bill, 90 per cent of the oppo-
sition to it would disappear and 30
per cent of the violence that has
grown up in labor disputes would be
eliminated.
But while the Senate Labor Com
mittee is apparently anxious to show
what an excellent precedent the rail-
way mediation act is for various other
provisions which have been copied
word for word and put into the Wag-
ner bill. the section on coercion is evl-
dently not regarded as good law. For
here is what the Senate committee
says:
"One suggestion in regard to this
bill has been advanced so frequently
that the committee deems it advisable
to set forth its reason for rejecting
it. This proposal is that employees and
labor organizations. as well as en-
ployes should be prohibited from in
terfering with. restraining or coercing
employees in their organization activi-
ties or their choice of representatives.
sNot Germane."
THE argument most frequently
made for this proposal is the abstract
one that it is necessary in order to
provide fair and equal treatment of
the employers and the employees.
The bill prohibits employers from
interfering with the rights of the
employees to organize. The CORE
spending right of employers is that
they should be free to organize with
out interference on the part of en-
ployes; no showing has been made
that this right Of employers to organ
ize needs Federal protection as against
employees.
Regulation of the activities of en-
ployes and labor organizations in re-
gard to the organization Of employees
is no more germane to the purposes
of this bill than would be the regula-
ton of activities of employers and en-
ployer associations in connection with
the organization of employers in trade
associations"
The foregoing is quoted verbatim
because it was unquestionably written
for the Senate committee by the
American Federation Of Labor. It has
been said over and over again by the
union leaders and completely ignores
the fact that nobody ever heard Of
any employees trying to interfere with
associations Of fellow employers and
that industrial disputes involve almost
always some form of coercion or in
timidation or violence by non-union
versus union men. Throughout the
history of America, the quarrel over
the right to work and the protection
afforded workers by law has been a
tragic chapter Of death and blood
shed.
Coercion Continues.
The idea Of collective bargaining
has been that workmen could choose
their own spokesmen and that, if
necessary, the Government would see
that secret ballot election would be
held. But the election at Toledo last
week proved conclusively how inter-
ference and coercion between fellow
workmen prevents free choice or
decision by the laboring men who
want to go back to work.
If labor group happens to lose
a collective bargaining election ther
Is nothing to prevent its strong arm"
men or its boycotters or other auxil-
iary forces from making threats that
cause minority to be turned into
a majority through forced member
ships. Shops and plants free from
industrial trouble for years have had
violence because there is no protec-
tion to the man who really doesn't
want to affiliate with any outside la
Dor union or who prefers the plant
union that costs him less and ac-
comphshes just as much in most in
stances as outside unions claim.
The A. F. of L. strategy Is to pre-
vent any organizers from being sub
ject to Federal law. The contention
Is made that violence is punishable by
local State laws. But the evils which
the railway mediation act plainly rec
ogniZes, such as intimidation and CO.
ercion, which may not In themselves
involve violence or be reachable by
State laws, are specifically met in the
railroad labor statute.
Criticized by Moiey.
Will Congress write as fair law