Evening star., 1937-01-26

tateS cooperation
of State and local authorities. Some
of the States which have been alert
to the dangers of floods have been
active in getting the appropriations
through. Each year as floods have
destroyed property there has been ad-
ditional stimulus to action. It would
not be surprising If the current dis
aster really launched flood control
plans on truly national basis.
But apart from the floods, the dis
turbance to the recovery program be-
ing caused by sit-down strikes is
something which Is not so readily
solved. The fight between capital and
labor used to be one that caused Gov
ernment to be cautious about enter
ing, but nowadays, 1t is three-cor-
nered fight with labor itself divided
on the question Of which method Of
collective bargaining is the most ef-
fective-through crafts or whole in
dustries.
U. S. Catching Up Rapidly.
What may eventuate is some nation
al legislation relating to the legality
or illegaHty of strikes. Many New
Dealers in the last two or three years
have pointed with pride to the fact
that legislation, under the Roosevelt
administration, has been patterned
after the British model. In fact, it Is
quite often insisted in administration
circles that the United States Is
merely catching up with her sister ma
ton, Great Britain, on the matter Of
social legislation.
But in strike legislation the United
States Is really far behind and If the
British statutes should be taken as
pattern there will be some radical
changes in the whole strike problem
In America. For one thing, the Brit
ish define strikes as legal or illegal,
and they declare that it is unlawful
for any group of men to intimidate or
coerce fellow workmen or prevent the
use Of property by overt acts.
Judging by q reading of the British
laws, q sit-down strike would be illegal.
Likewise the British are careful to
require that all funds contributed by
labor for political purposes shall be
publicly accounted for and separated
from all other assets Of labor unions.
In o sense there Is q supervision Of
the whole accounting Of funds IN labor
unions.
It may be argued that In the United
States, under the common law, ample
protection Is given to property rights
and that the British law would be
superfuous. Actually, prosecutions by
States or counties can be instituted
at present against sit-down strikers,
but because the question Is novel and
has become entangled In what some
local officials believe to be q social and
economic rather than legal question,
enforcement has virtually broken down.
Labor Disputes Act Of 1927.
In England the excuses of q gen.
eral strike led to the British labor dis
putes act Of 1927 and it was finally
sanctioned by public opinion, includ-
ing the Labor party, as the only way
to deal with industrial disturbances.
In the United States the situation
Is rapidly drifting into one which will
inevitably require some form Of gov
ernmental supervision Of labor unions
corresponding to the supervision which
the Federal and State governments
exercise over corporations. At present
there Is legislation pending which
would require corporations to take out
a Federal license If they do business
in interstate commerce. It is difficult
to see how the proposal could exclude
labor unions from the necessity Of TAX
ing out such licenses step toward
Government control-if 1t Is assumed
that all industry Is to be supervised
by Government.
Heretofore labor unions have been
exempted from the operations Of anti
trust laws and in the national labor
relations act they were specifically
exempted from prosecution for unfair
labor practices"-the latter being ap-
piled to employers alone. Today's
strike situation in Michigan shows
that the men who want to work have
no redress. This may lead to some
thing Of the type Of the British labor
disputes act being passed but not until
there Is an aggravation of the whole
strike situation, coupled with plain dis
approval by public opinion.
(Copyright, 1879