The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1937-02-25

se}931l|||ElE! |||
a!| | I'|| Az |2'|d Ef66fSrzs

are going to pay for the cost OF
this strike. I have mentioned ways
in which they have lost by it and
it seems equally clear that when
the Lewis unions get through with
the use of force, it is likely to bring
about an increase in the cost of the
automobiles they produce. 1t is like
ly to go further than just automo-
biles. There is a move on now to
attempt something of the same sort
of labor attack on the steel manu-
facturers. If that materializes, it
is easy to see how widespread the
increased costs will be and how
consumers will pay in the end.
This may seem to be an argu-
ment against increased wages. It
may seem to be a defense of steel
boots that used to be worn by in
dustrialists and with which they
trod upon defenseless labor. But it
resolves itself into a question of
justice and a consideration of the
problem as it concerns consumers
as well as workers. If there is
anything in the theory that labor
is entitled to a fair wage, there
must be likewise some merit in the
contention that the public which
consumes the product of labor is
entitled to an equal amount of con-
sideration.
Political leaders have been quick
at all times in recent years to sit
astride the neck
Federal of business, es-
Charters pecially big bust
ness. Corporations
were held up as something to be
despised, especially if they were
large corporations. Lately there has
been quite a definite movement for
legislation in congress that would
force corporations to have federal
charters; that is, charters issued
by the government at Washington
which, therefore, could control such
corporations with whatever regula-
tons were deemed necessary. This
legislation, it is true, has not ap-
preached the stage where a pre-
diction Of its passage can be made.
The point is, however, that it rep
resents the thoughts of a certain
percentage of the people. The ques-
ton of legality of such a statute
obviously remains to be determined
but it is to be noted that this prop
osition is simply another step in the
movement to cast a stigma upon
business, a move to make business
appear immoral or criminal or gen.
orally infamous.
Business has found it advan-
tageous to incorporate. 1t removes
certain responsibilities from the in
dividuals joining in a corporation
and adds certain commitments at
the same time. Here again are the
rights and counter obligations aris-
ing with those rights and I think no
one can dispute the fact that our
nation has moved forward more
rapidly because of the use of the
corporation as business entity.
But I have been unable to find
an answer to the question why the
federal government should take
control by law of business corpora
tons without at the same time TAX
ing control of labor organizations.
Now, it is to be noted that labor
unions have Steadfastly avoided
taking the step of incorporation. 1t
is not true abroad where many la
Dor organizations hold corporate
charters just as would a business
enterprise.
The fact that labor unions have
not incorporated leads one to the
presumption that the unions have
felt such a step would hamper their
activities. And, indeed, it might.
For example, there have been
scores of instances where labor
unions, through their authorized Off
Gals or bargaining committees,
have signed wage contracts with
their employers-only to ditch that
contract subsequently without re-
gard for its binding force.
AS labor unions are now or
ganized, they are very loosely knit
associations and there is nothing by
which the individual members are
bound except their own will to per-
form. In the case of a business
corporation, for example, the stock
holders have invested money and
obviously when the CORPORATION is
sued in court or accumulateS any
kind of liability the stockholders
money in the corporation is avail
able to pay whatever obligations
develop. Hence, the lack of a cor
porate organization on the part of
a union removes all responsibility
insofar as law is concerned from
the unit into which the workers have
organized themselves. AS the union
associations now exist, therefore, it
is matter of enforcing any obi
cations against them by dealing
with each Individual member. Nee
essarily, that is impossible as was
shown by the court injunction in
Michigan that sought to force the
sit-down strikers to leave the plants.
It would have taken an army to
have driven those sit-down strikers
off the property which was not their
own and undoubtedly there would
have been bloodshed. This seems
conclusive: as long as union work
ers choose to organize themselves
into associations instead of into in
corporated units, business has no
protection because it cannot enforce
any contracts that the workers
| cbooco tn break