The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-07-15
JOHN |. LEWIS
 IN STATEMENT
Continued from Page D

NSSAAVAAA0SS AAVAss . ss0$ SS 
 A union representing a majority of employees wants to be recognized exclusively by the management in order to insure its right to live and protect itself from the employers act of organizing counter-a r-agencieS to supplant and displace 1t.
 Again, in collective bargaining, 1t must be remembered that the check-off is not necessarily an essential but Is merely 6 matter of convenience. It can be entered into by mutual agreement between en1- ployer and employees union.
 Closed Shop Policy
 This is also true of the closed shop. The closed shop is not funda- mentally necessary. For example, all publishers and printing estab- lishments have closed shop agree- ments with the printing trades unions. I assume this is because the contracting parties have mu- tually agreed upon such procedure.
 On the other hand, in the coal mining industry, contracts contain no closed shop verbiage. We don't bubble over 1t and yet an efficient union exists in the industry en- bracing all the men who work in the mines.
 These two items-the closed shop and the check -off-are only inci- dental to the major problems of col- lective bargaining. Unfortunately, they are too frequently used as red herrings by the employers and are given c degree of consideration above their actual importance.
 Check.off System
 Tn many industries the workers will continue to demand continua- ton of the check-od arrangement for collecting of dues merely as a matter of business expectancy. Just their own check-of in deducting 50 long as the employers operate from the gross wages of workers all items of company charges--which in many industries Is Q formidable list-it seems logical that Q similar convenience should be afforded the union.
 It Is only one more charge-one more deduction from the pay check. Some companies now make Q prac- tice of not only deducting fees for equipment--such as mining tools and insurance but also have checked of Liberty loan bonds or church contributions.
 You ask me whether members of the committee for Industrial Or- gaflization who locally support strikes called by the American Fed eration of Labor or other groups will be encouraged or punished or ignored for their sympathetic acc tivities. This is my answer:
 Never Opposed Rivals
 The 0. I. 0. has never opposed any strike on the part of the Amer ican Federation of Labor. It has co.operated everywhere. It is our policy to be friendly to other la- Dor organizations and to assist and aid them ifl obtaining improvemnts in their wage structures and work ing conditions.
 Finally, this is the situation re- garding the prospects of peace" between the o. I. o. and the A. F. of L. Ten of the 30 or more in- ternational unions affiliated with the c. I. O. were suspended from the American Federation of Labor.
 They were on the receiving end of the act of election. They are the injured parties.
 Peace Must Come from 4. r. of L..
 Any talk of peace must come from the American Federation of Labor and any such talk of peace must be predicated upon the acceptance of the principles laid down in the minority report to the federation convention in 1885 demanding the recognition of industrial unions in certain industries.
 That is our position. Any talk without this basis Is merely futile waste of time.
 Of course. if the American Fed- eration of Labor should desire to join the Committee for Industrial Organization, we would be glad to make known to them the terms upon which they could enter.