The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1939-12-21
RESTRICTING LABOR'S RIGHTS


RESTRICTING LABOR'S RIGHTS
IT seems a very difficult task for unions to pro-
tect their freedom against those who would
force us to conform to their purposes and con-
veniences. Certain governmental agencies were
anxious to see the construction industry recover
from the paralysis of depression and have under
taken to proceed under the antitrust law against
whatever obstructs such recovery. AS we know,
ANTITRUST law was intended to protect society
against anti-socal consequences of large scale
monopoly business. It has not been successful in
carrying out that purpose, but it has been used to
prosecute trade unions and to interfere in their
carrying out their legitimate purposes.
The project now under way under the super
vision of the United States Department of Justice
lis avowedly to reduce the costs of construction of
small homes-an objective with direct appeal for
|Wage-earners In endeavoring to deal with such
lprOblems as fair trade practices and fair labor
practices, the Department of Justice is utilizing
the methods of grand jury indictments and Grim
lina procedure under antitrust law, whereas this
lis clearly field for the development of better
standards through the administrative process
Punishment of bad practices without responsible
ty for developing better practices does not assure
progress. Workers, through their unions, stand
ready to cooperate in developing better procedures
land better practices If there is crime in the in
|dustry that is another matter and one with which
|Only the Government can deal. Unions would well
come protection against racketeers and other GRIM
|inals, but punishment should be meted out to the
|criminals-not the unions.
Labor does deeply resent, however, the pro-
cess of indirection and the application of anti
trust law to the activities of the organized labor
movement. Samuel GOmpers has told us that an
amendment specifically eXempting unions from
the Sherman Act was proposed, but dropped, be-
cause the lawmakers believed that such interpre-
|tation would not be made. The Sherman Act was
INTENDED to protect Society against the abuses Of
monopoly, but the law proved unenforceabe until
the judiciary amended it by interpoating the So
called rule of reason. Against unions using their
labor and consumer power to advance standards OF
living for the masses of Society," antitrust laws
have been used most vigorously. Upon petition by
the American Federation of Labor, Congress wrote
into the Clayton Antitrust law specific exemption
for labor unions and farmers organizations:
Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall
he construed to forbid the existence and operation
LOT labor, agricultural and horticultural organiza-
tions instituted for the purpose of mutual help,
and not having capital stock or conducted for
profit or to forbid or restrain individual members
)of such organizations from lawfully carrying out
the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such or
|ganizations or the members thereof, be held or
construed to be illegal combinations or conspir-
Iaces in restraint of trade, under the antitrust
laws"
In the debate in Congress it was clearly stated
that the intent of this amendment was to exempt
labor and farmer organizations.
Now punitive campaign against Labor
lis planned. Within the past year the Department
of Justice has built up division for the enforce
ment Of antitrust law in the construction indus
TRY. Assistant Attorney General Arnold in charge
of this division in effect undertook to reverse this
Legislation when he announced his program
lagainst unions classifying procedures which
would be considered to constitute unreasonable
restraint of trade These include:
0) Unreasonable restraints designed to pre-
vent the use of cheaper material improved equip
ment more efficient methods.
GU Unreasonable restraints designed to COM
pei the hiring of useless and unnecessary labor
(3) Unreasonable restraints designed to en-
force systems Of graft and extortion
(4) Unreasonable restraints designed to en-
force illegally fixed prices.
| 90 Unreasonable restraints designed to de-
stroy established and legal system of collective
bargaining.
By these interpretations Mr.. Arnold extends
the jurisdiction of the judiciary over wide field
formerly determined by private decisions within
Industry, such as relative cheapness Of materials,
superiority OF equipment, efficiency Of methods,
legality OF strikes, ct cetera In other words, the
Arnold proposals constitute, program for super
vSlng and restricting the activities Of unions out
lawlng all activities which appear to the Division
as unreasonable restraints. 1t is obvious that
practically every provision customary in union
contracts will be subject to review by this Division
land proceedings instituted at it's discretion. Such
assumption of discretion practically nullifies the
right to free collective bargaining. Against such
ia program American labor is unalterably opposed
THE proposal is contrary to American procedures
9practica experience and future progress Progress
'lles along other paths.