Evening star., 1937-05-06


company but it had an independent
status,
Recently, when the c. l. O. insisted
on an election, the National Labor
Relations Board fixed the ballot to
read as follows:
do you wish to be represented by
Local 100 International Union. United
Automobile Workers of America, as
the sole representative for collective
bargaining?"
There was no alternative. The
worker had to take the c. l. o. or
nothing. The wonder is that there
resulted any division in vote. For
the question really was do you want
anybody to represent you in collective
bargaining with the management"
Negative Ballots Interesting.
In spite of the wording of the
ballot, about $500 votes out of the
1900 were negative. 1t is difficult
to understand what the negative bal
lots meant. Did they mean that these
2,600 workmen wanted to bargain as
individuals? This is hardly credible
for that's a lot Of workmen and they
usually want some representative to
speak for them.
The effect of the phraseology of the
ballot is to imply that the Government
OF the United States wants the work
men to sustain just one union and
that's the C. l. o. Certainly so far
as the Packard employees were con-
cerned, it wasn't an election in the
same sense in which the term is
usually applied for there was no
choice between alternatives
The balloting, incidentally, has been
called by an attache Of the National
Labor Relations Board a consent
election" This means that the en-
ployers and representatives of a given
union signed an agreement about it.
It Is curious how often Senator Wag-
ner and other sponsors Of the present
labor law on collective bargaining
insist when it is to their advantage
in debate that the employer has no
rights at all in an election, that he
must refrain from in any way in
fuencing its result and yet an election
contract is placed before the employer
and an agreement promulgated.
Extreme Attitude for U. S.
One of the terms Of the agreement
in the Packard case included stipula-
ton that the election was to hold good
for year. This means that no other
means of exercising choice was to
be made available for - months to
the workers in the Packard plant.
Just why the company should be made
. party to the agreement about an
election which concerns the employees
only is something OF a mystery, un-
less it illustrates the extremes to
which Government officials are will
ing to go nowadays to help the G. I. O.
against the A. F. of L.
The circumstances surrounding the
Packard election" will bear watch
ing. The Packard Co. obeyed every
phase Of the Wagner law 1t con-
ceded the right of collective bargain
Ing and even consented to an i'm
mediate election" on the terms set
forth by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board. No oportunity was given
the company to set forth its views
to the workmen and no means were
provided for explaining to the work.
men that they could have ali organi-
Bation of their own and that the
National Labor Relations Board would
accord such an independent union the
same rights on the ballot as C. I. O.
union.
Today with the c. I. O. selected as
the sole agency for collective bargain
ing by reason Of the ma ajority vote in
the election the first legal hurdle
has been passed. Now the question
Is what does the collective bargaining
bring? The workmen in advance of
the election" were told that the SO
month charge for dues would be
reduced to 25 cents if the Packard
workers would vote for c. I. o. I'm
der the labor law the giving OF in
ducements by labor unions to get
votes is not an inducement but the
willingness Of an employer to pay the
expenses OF an employe organization