Evening star., 1938-08-27

lean Federation of Labor for further
membership drives and that none of
the labor organizations will support
the kind of amendments, for instance,
just proposed by the Chamber of COM
merce of the United States.
Some of the proposals made by the
chamber, such as the grant to an en-
ployer of the right to petition the
Labor Board for certiflcation of the
proper bargaining agency when there
is dispute between two rival units,
will doubtless be adopted, but any at
tempt to revive the old coercion
from-any-source" idea taboo, which
has been the chief bone of conten-
ton from employers associations, will
find the A. F. of l.. and the c. I. O..
Indifferent. if not absolutely opposed.
Membership Drives Protected.
On paper it seems logical, of course,
for both employers and employees to be
prohibited from using coercion or in
timidation to gain their ends. But
the right to strike is fundamental OF
labor philosophy, and along with 1t
drives without interference from en-
ployers If employees are coerced or
intimidated, they now have a right
under State laws to enjoin the intlml-
dators and even to sue them for DAM
ages, but it is significant that,
throughout the whole three years of
Wagner Act operation, instances Of
resort to State laws by employees as
protection against coercion or violence
from fellow employees have been rare,
II, indeed, they have ever been filed
anywhere.
The majority in Congress, when
this question of coercion from any
source came up, insisted that employees
already were protected by State laws
and that to put the anti-coercion fea-
ture in the Wagner Act would make
the Federal Government policeman
In every labor dispute and would require
taking over the State police powers.
The employer spokesmen point out
that the Wagner Act makes police
man Of the Fedral Government now
by allowing agents of the Labor Board
to investigate and prosecite charges of
coercion or intimidation against en-
ployers.
The question for employers organ
izations to decide, therefore, Is
whether they want to concede the prin-
ciple of Federal police power over CO.
ercion and violence in labor disputes
and ask for its extension to cover en-
ployes, or whether they want to insist
that the Wagner Act be amended so
that coercion is defined, even with
respect to employers, as economic
coercion" only rather than physical
violence. This latter alternative would
leave it to State laws to protect both
employer and employe in the event
that physical coercion or intimidation
Of a physical character is involved.
Both on Same Basis.
Such plan certainly would put both
sides on equal terms. If the distinction
between physical and economic coer-
cion is made, then employers would
still be restrained from using their
economic power, such as hiring nom
union men and rejecting or dismissing
employees for union activities. Like
wise. employers would continue to be
restrained from interfering directly or
indirectly in processes by which work.
men chose their bargaining representa-
tives or agents.
What mostly is needed by way of
amendment to existing law is penalty
for employees or their organizations
which file mischievous charges with
the Labor Board, thus taking up the
time of the board and inflicting eco
nomic loss on the employers through
the bringing of charges requiring
litigation when such charges are them
selves of no real point in connection
with recognition of bona fide unions.
Perhaps more alertness on the part
of the board in administering the ex-
isting act would take care of annoying
incidents of this type, which cause
labor disputes to become bitter, and
prevent conciliatory processes from be-
ing applied.
What the A. F. of L. wants primarily,
vi toulSt, 10 n llIllIphtiOll bll tilc puNCI
of the Labor Board to designate the
appropriate unit" for collective bar
gaining. This goes to the heart of
the craft versus industrial union con-
troversy. Once this power is taken
from the board, however, the question
Of what is an appropriate unit is left
to the field of labor warfare, with
strikes as the only weapon apparently
available for its settlement.
Definition May Be Required.
The A. F. of L. will doubtless be
urged to make clear what it will sub
stitute for the all-important question
of what constitutes bargaining unit.
Is it the craft always, or, in some
mass industries. may it be the en-
ployes of plant, or shall it be broad
enough to cover all employees of a
company regardless of where the
plants are located? These are per-
tinent questions, certain to be raised
when amendments are up for con-
sideration.
In the appropriate unit" contro-
versy, employers will be intensely in
terested, but they will find themselves
out on limb if they confuse it by
attenpts to revive these features of
the original dispute over the passage
of the Wagner Act, which both the
c. I. o. and the A. F. of L. now con-
slider settled. AS practical matter,
the employers cannot command enough
votes in Congress as yet to change
the basic structure of the Wagner
Act. Their only hope for amendment
will come through the insistence of
labor organizations themselves, but the
latter by no means want the kind of
amendments proposed by employers,
and the c. I, o. will not be slow to
embarrass the A. F. of l.. If it should