Evening star., 1937-09-06


right? How shall
the nublic interest be protected? How
shall strife be diminished SO prouuc-
ton can increase an more OF the un-
employed be absorbed into business
and industry.
The first thing the average man
thinks about when there is dispute
is some way to adjust 1t peaceably.
The last thing the average man thinks
about is some method of violence to
attain justice.
Basically. it is human nature to seek
fairness of treatment. Heretofore
courts have been relied upon as one
way to get justice. But the courts
cannot be encumbered with the huge
Job Of adjusting employer and empnye
relations in every business and in
dustry. even conceding that the courts
can and do lay down fundamental
principles.
It is in the application Of these
principles-the administrative task OF
sitting the all-important details and
facts-that impartial Government
tribunals, Federal or State or both,
are needed.
Progress in Labor Relations.
Ever since I came to Washington
some 26 years ago there never has
been a year in which some aspect OF
labor controversy has not been pro-
jected into the realm of acrimonious
debate Yet through this quarter of
century there has been steady progress
toward q realization of what the
paramount difficulty really is.
Briefly stated, the underlying need
always is for an impartial tribunal,
one that can really be trusted by both
sides. Along with it must come also
some clear-cut rules of law. The two
together, honestly administered, can
prevent labor Disputes from getting
to the stage of economic self-destruc-
ton The railway labor act is a case
In point 1t works satisfactorily to
both employers and employees.
There has been feeling for many
years that labor disputes could be set
tied by mobilizing public opinion back
of one side or the other as the facts
are disclosed by impartial investigat-
Ing bodies. But while this is desir-
able in major disputes of Nationwide
or regional importance, 1t is costly
way to try to settle local disputes.
What is needed, of course, is sys-
tenn Of law which employers and en-
ployes can both accept and obey
without feeling that there is partian-
ship or discrimination in the umpire
or mediator.
This is vital for many reasons. 1t
does no good, for instance, to say
when a union makes demands for in
creased wages, beyond the capacity of
an employer to pay and stay in busi-
ness, that such a strike is on all fours
with another strike where an employer
can well afford to grant the increase.
Yet what is the employer to do who
Is losing money and striving to COM
pete with a Wellfinanced competitor?
Is he to give up the struggle and
thereby cause more unemployment?
Who is to tell the strikers they are
in the wrong? How can the truth of
the employers statement be verified
and, if it is, what influence can be
brought to bear on the striking union
to yield and forego its demands?
The Right to Work"
Father Mcguire told the Williams
town Conference last week that there
was no right to work. for anybody
who sought to replace strikers. If
this is accepted as general rule then
what factor is to be brought into play
to decide the merits of the strike in
which the strikers are on the wrong
side from an economic standpoint?
Heretofore responsible national union
organizations have used influence with
their local chapters to eliminate or
settle strikes of this type. But, too,
there are two rival national groups
and the question of their jurisdiction
and local responsibility is becoming
an increasing menace to the public
interest-to production and to unin-
terrupted employment. Logically here
Is field for judicial action of some
kind The right of workers to Or
ganize without interference by en-
ployers now is granted by law and is
upheld, too, by the Supreme Court of
the United States. The right of an
A. F. Of L. Union to be free in its con-
tracts with employers from interfer-
ence by the c. I. o. and vice versa is
an equally important immunity under
the law. So also is the right of any
group of workmen to be free from in
timidating tactics by either A. F. of
L. or C. I. o. supposed to be funda-
mental privilege under the Wagner
act.
Yet who is there in Government
10 decide these so-called jurisdictional
disputes? Theoretically the national
labor relations act was passed to set
up machinery for the decision of
disputes growing out of collective
bargaining. The employer is not per-
mitted under the present Federal law
to make formal complaints of abuses
and injuries to him, resulting from
collective bargaining controversies
Likewise the employees are not pro-
tected against unfair tactics by other
workers.
Extremists Prevent Progress.
The extremists on the labor side
are preventing progress by insisting
that the Wagner law shall not be
amended to make it fair to all sides.
They want partisan law and they
want it partisanly administered. The
extremists on the employer side, de-
spairing of fairness at the hands of
the National Labor Relations Board,
are resorting to "vigilante' move
ments and in the South the Ku
klux Klan is riding again to drive
union organizers out of mill towns.
The situation is not improving
largely because Government itself has
refused to be impartial. This can
only mean more and more proyoca-
ton to violence of various kinds. The
Roosevelt administration Is in an en-