Evening star., 1939-04-01

A'U Liberties Com
mittee of the Senate, which dis
closed some shocking examples of
how employers used private detec-
tives and "strikebreakers' in sys-
tenn of industrial espionage. The
abuses are such as to cause public
opinion to insist that some correc-
tive should be forcefully applied, but
the question Immediately arises as
to whether this should be done by
the Federal Government, or by the
several States in the exercise of
their police power.
Heretofore, every suggestion which
has come from the employer side
of the labor field of controversy to
the effect that coercion from any
source" should be prohibited, has
been met by union spokesmen and by
various pro-labor Senators with the
statement that State laws ade-
quately cover the policing of labor
disputes and that it would be a
mistake to involve the Federal Gov
eminent as policeman.
"Nationalizes" Strikes.
The La Thomas bills, on
the other hand, directly seek to en-
large and apply Federal police power
and should they become law, there
would, of course, be no further basis
In logic for the argument that
strikes and labor disputes. insofar
as picketing and physical disturb
ances are concerned, should be con-
sidered local. Congress would be
urged to go further and outline "op-
pressive labor practices" on the part
of unions as we'll as employers.
The constitutional theory back Of
the proposed new legislation is that
labor disputes tend to disrupt COM
merce and that Congress has a
right to remove impediments.
The Supreme Court, in upholding
the Wagner Labor Relations Act,
held that employers could be re-
quired to sit down and negotiate
with representatives of the en-
ployes, but, hey yond a compulsion to
negotiate, there was no implication
that the Federal Government had
the power to regulate labor rela-
tions or to police labor disputes.
Thus Shutdown" strikes have been
punishable under State laws and the
Federal power was only indirectly
invoked recently when questions
arose as to whether participants in
"sit-down" strikes had to be re-
instated. The issue there. however,
arose out of violation of State law.
Court May Veto Authority.
1t is an open question whether
the Supreme Court, even under it's
present membership, would enlarge
the scope of Federal power to the
point of permitting Congress to
make rules with reference to the
conduct of strikes or the measures
which employers may take to pre-
vent destruction of their property.
The proposed law would permit the
use OF armed guards for protection
OF goods or money in transit, but
1t would compel employers to rely
on State or city police departments
to do the detective work necessary
to prevent violence or to learn of
impending violence. This is prop
erly what should be done, though
In some instances the employer is
up against an inadequate local
police department which is unable
to give him the necessary protec-
ton.
IT Congress constitutionally may
prohibit the use of private police by
company which fears a strike, it
may also prohibit the use bv anv
company of any armed guards for
any reason whatsoever, and thus
the protection of private property
which hitherto has been intrusted
to the several States will be limited
by what the. Federal Government
may by statute permit.
AS a practical matter, the abuse
sought to be reached is hard to
reach because industrial espionage
may have legitimate reasons for ex-
1stence apart from labor disputes,
and may have to do with protec-
ton against conspiracies of various
sorts which are crimes against the
State. Also to prohibit the use of
strike breaker" which is defined as
an Oppressive labor practice"
raises number of significant ques-
ton.
Definition Involved.
Who is strike breaker? Is he
professional who works merely
for the duration of dispute and is
not really a bona fide emploYe? Or