Evening star., 1938-02-18

duced docu-
ment of fairness alike to employer
and employe Close inspection of the
published statements. however will
reveal that union labor would never
accept amendments of the kind sug-
gested and, after all. whether busi-
ness men like it or not, labor. and
not President Roosevelt, will dictate
whether there are going to be any
basic changes in the Wagner law.
The most conspicuous recommended
tion-and it follows many of the same
kind maoe by business organizations
in the past-is that employees shall
'be free in self-organization and COL
lective bargaining from interference,
restraint or coercion from any source"
Too Broad for Business.
This appears plausible enough till
its true meaning is examined. Intimi-
dation by workmen of other workmen
is a matter that comes under the
powers of State and city governments.
To put the Federal government into
the police business is to add a power
to the central government which the
business men themselves on reflection
would hardly favor. The words from
any source" are too broad
Physical coercion is something with
which the Wagner law does not at
tempt to deal What it does concern
itself with is economic coercion, and
this is exercised either by collective
Of 1ot
plcketlng, boycotts. strikes, ETC., or by
employers when, by their right to hire
or fire. they punish employees seeking
to persuade their fellow workers to
join unions.
To make the Wagner Act absolutely
fair to both employers and employees
1t could be amended, of course to re-
strain certain forms of economic CO.
Arcion. such as strikes called without
. vote of the membership or strikes
called when there have not been ex-
hausted the prescribed forms or pro-
cesses of conciliation and negotiation.
Something of the same kind is already
written into Federal law with respect
to railroad labor in what is known
as the National Mediation Act.
Another Objection Possible.
When the council suggests that "any
party to labor dispute" shall be able
to invoke the services of the board,
this touches on a problem which has
many ramifications. If the purpose
is merely to give the employer a right
to find out officially through an elec-
tion what the majority of his employees
wish in the way of a bargaining agent,
the plan would hardly be Objectionable
from labor sources. But if it intended
to give the employer a right to enjoin
by court action the operations of labor
unions or to restrain in any way the
efforts at self-organization undertaken
even by minority of the employees,
especially in the absence of any clear
majority, then the labor unions which
hold the balance of power in Congress
today would never consent to such an
amendment
The council offered another recon-
mendation: Neither the act nor its
administration will favor any particu-
lar form of any bona fide labor organ
ization"
This, too. looks fair enough. but
what does it really mean? Does It
clear the air any? At present. the
Wagner law does not permit the board
to favor any particular form of labor
organization, merely stipulating that,
for the purpose of holding elections,
the board shall determine what the
appropriate unit for collective bar
gaining" shall be, whether a whole
plant or special departments or crafts
or other groups within big industrial
operation.
Charged With Duty Today.
Certainly. the Wagner law today re-
quires the board to find out what is
and what is not bona fide labor
organization" and presumably this
discretionary or fact-finding power
would continue to be lodged in the
board if the councils recommended
tions were adopted. To ascertain what
u bona fide" labor organization,
the board now takes testimony and
evidence bearing on whether an en-
ployer seeks by indirect means to in
nuence the action of any of his en-
ployes. whether the employer favors
one group of employees as against
smother, whether the company pays
the expenses of a union of its own
choosing rather than a union really
wanted by majority of the workers
- in given unit.
The Supreme Court of the United
States, in various decisions has drawn
. distinction between bona fide labor
organizations and those which are the
tools or instruments of employer
action. The Wagner law provides for
business and industry generally in this
respect means of ascertaining
whether an organization is bona
fide," just as the National Mediation
Act had for years determined the same
point with respect to labor organiza-
tions on the Nations transportation
systems.
There is much, of course, to be said
on the point of stabilizing labor rela-
tions by law and preventing unneces-
sary Interruptions to production
through the abuse Of the right to
strike. But any such amendments to
existing law will come with greater
ease and will be compelled by public
opinion and accepted by labor groups
themselves only when business men,
in their proposals to amend the Ma
tional Labor Relations Act, do not
make suggestions that could, if en-
bodied In actual amendments to the
Law, be used to frustrate the basic pur-
J poses Of the act. These purposes are
to guarantee and assure workmen of
absolutely no interference or restraint
against them by employers when work.
ers seek to choose their own form of
organization or bargaining agents.
(Copyr.ght. 1850