Evening star., 1938-11-04

mostly the procedural side Of the
law and certainly did not propose
ANYTHING which could even remotely
be construed as sabotaging of the
law or weakening the workers rights
to collective bargaining.
On top of this, the Labor Board
members themselves have gone to
the White House to say that no
amendments at all are needed, and
the c. I. o. has announced that 1t
agrees with the Labor Board. The
only plausible explanation of what
has happened comes from the c.
T. O., which organization expresses
. its fears that once the law is opened
to amendments it will mean hostile
proposals, too, and that persons
mpathetic with the law ought not
to be advocating changes.
A. F. L. Assumes Risk.
From the standpoint of strategy,
tie C. I. o. officials are right. The
law is the best protection the work.
ingmen have ever had on the mat
ter of collective bargaining, and
unquestionably attempts to weaken
that law may be anticipated, so
the G. I. O., takes at this time, any,
way, the position it will not attack
the law. The A. F. of L., on the
iother hand, feeling that it has been
Disseminated against by the Labor
Board with respect to the designa-
; ton of appropriate UNITS for col
lective bargaining, takes the risk
Of offering changes, even though
it does open up the law to general
amendment.
Each organization, therefore, has
Justification for the strategic posi-
ton assumed. Each has an interest
In the matter which might be de-
scribed as protection. Even
the Labor Board members are most
reluctant to agree publicly with the
nrocedural changes advocated by the
A. F. of L. for fear this will be
interpreted as confession of bad
administrative behavior on their
part when the members feel they
nave endeavored conscientiously to
carry out the letter as we'll as the
spirit of the law written by Con-
gress.
But what of Congress? What of
the members of the Senate and
House who used to be known as
legislators, or at least as sponsors
Of legislation, even as recently as a
year or so ago, though, to be sure,
the actual bills were handed to
them by brain trust" aides Of the
President? Some pretense used to
De made of the fact that Congress
wrote the laws, but now it is openly
acknowledged by such action as the
labor groups are taking that it is
The President who decides whether
IN act of Congress shall or shall
not be amended.
Presidents Power Is Great.
It takes more than a mere ma
iority of both houses to amend a
law. The popular belief is that a
majority is sufficient. But the
President can veto an amendment
70 the Wagner law passed by
majority. He can prevent passage
even if two-thirds of the House
favor the amendment and one Sena-
tor less than tWo-thirds of the
Senate should also favor the change.
The veto power will come more and
more into vogue as the President
loses few seats in Congress or
when an anti-New Deal majority
Is achieved through a combination
of Republicans and independent
Democrats. But such stalemate
would only lead to more friction and
ultimately to the forcing of a two
thirds against the President. What
Is important at the moment is that,
because the President controls a
majority of both houses, he can de-
eide whether or not to permit
changes in the Wagner law. Hence
on the outcome of the elections next
week depends whether the country
as a whole indicates a desire to have
members of Congress vote inde-
pendently of the White House or
whether a rubber stamp Congress
Is what the people want.
(Copyright, 1881