Montana labor news., 1937-01-28

pledged themselves to refuse the fink
books on all coasts hove done SO because
they will not accept such ON %dnti-union
book-ond they do not intend to be bonn
boozled into taking such q book by any
or all amendments" clever politicians
con invent. As long ds the fink book re-
mains marine workers must dnd will op-
pose ii.
As far as the terms of the law" ore
concerned. which the Western Worker
is worried about. there ore no express
provisions in the low for blocklisiing seq
men. Who could think thot Congress
would be SO stupid us to openly expose
its real intentions? Any employment
book which q worker is compelled to
Gerry and without which he cannot OBJ
tuin q job is q fink book-und it will be
used to blocklisi militunts in any critical
situotion. oil the amendment" in the
world to the contrary.
After all. if the fink book is not for the
purpose of controlling the activities of
seufuring workers. why should it exist ut
oil? The Government will readily con
cede an "unii-blocklist" clause. because
it will still have the doo-collur clomped
on the eurnen A few clauses and prom
ises con olwuYs be sacrificed cheoply in
order to keep the essence OF q law.
Just let those who advocate acceptance
of the fink book if it hos On "anttbldcklist
clause" explain this one question: Why
have q government discharge book ot
all? Of course Copeland. government
Officials and lobor fdkers have their an
swer-thot the. book will weed out in
competents. "mdintdin high standards
Of sedmdnship dnd similar bdllYhoo.
The conclusion is inevitable: the fund
omentol purpose Of the Copeland fink
book is and dlwoYs will be to bind the
seaman hand and foot so as the better
to strUngle oil activity in any critical con
dition-for example q strike OF Wdr.
The above urticle in the Western Work
er shows also q subtle uttempt 10 avoid
completely the most bosic issue-thot OF
the Governments role as shipowners'
agent. The workers ore opposed, says
the criticize. to the terms Of the low which
-. give the ship lines OH opportunity TO
blacklist employees. 80" As q mutter Of
fact it is the shipowners which maritime
workers ore least worried about in this
connection. The orninous element is the
Intervention OF the Government.
All waterfront workers know from their
own experiences thdt the shipoWners
could Gerry on their bldcklisting only
when the workers rel unoTgdnized.
When the workers were 100 per cent or
gdnized into militont unions they could
throw off this yoke. This explains why
the shipowners have called upon the
government to establish q control which
they were unable to establish by them
selves.
1t is not the shipowners who would do
The blocklistinq. but rather the Govern
men. for the shipowners. And when the
Government sturted to discriminate
against seornen it didn't like. it wouldn'i
be culled "blucklisting." II would be
culled elimination of the incompetents.
or getting rid of the aliens" or some
thing similar.
1t is outright ~tredcherY to the rdnk and
file Of the maritime unions to attempt tc
interpret their militant struggle in expos
ing the vicious legislation Of last June as
merely q struggle against q few terms
Of the law" Far beyond such q puny
perspective, the fight OF these workers
hos been against the vicious dnd re-
dictionary development in recent Yeors.
the moving in" Of the government tc
throttle the rising American labor move
ment.