The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1940-10-24
Facing The Facts
With PHILIP PEARL

ADVISORY council announced a state
ment of labor policy which provided
that corporations seeking Government
defense contracts should comply with
Federal labor laws. This policy was
adopted unanimously by the Defense
Commission. The representatives Of
industry on the Commission agreed to
it without murmur. Likewise, when
President Roosevelt sent the document
to Congress on September 13, the
guardians of the public interest on
Capitol Hill failed to utter peep of
protest.
But now, month later, suddenly
comes pandemonium. Leaders of in
dustry are roaring, the newspapers
are shrieking, Congressional commit
tees are investigating.
What is all the fuss about? Simply
this-in order to clarity it's policy the
Defense Commission asked Attorney
General Jackson to rule whether a
company found guilty of unfair labor
practices by the National Labor Re-
lations Board is to be considered a
violator of the Federal labor laws by
other Federal agencies which are ne
gotiating defense contracts. Of course,
Mr.. Jackson replied that such COM
pany must be considered violator of
the Act by other Federal agencies
until and unless the courts reverse the
Labor Boards findings.
Enter the Labor Board
Mr.. Jackson's ruling appears to be
perfectly sound, logical and legal. No
one has questioned that. The trouble
is that all of a sudden people are
waking up to the fact that the speed
with which we build up our national
defense may depend to some extent on
the frequently unfair decisions of the
discredited National Labor Relations
Board.
Naturally, this situation has aroused
tumult of controversy. In the heat
of argument, the facts may become
obscured We, therefore, want to point
out a few facts which should not be
overlooked
In the first place, it is a sad COM
mentary on law enforcement and re-
spect for law if so many large cor
porations are violating the law that
there aren't enough left to produce
what America needs for national de-
fense.
In our opinion national defense can
not be promoted by permitting cor
porations to fout the law. We cannot
defend a government of laws with
lawbreakers. We cannot defend our
democracy by denying industrial de-
mocracy to the nations workers.
After all, what is there in the Natl
onal Labor Relations Act that i'm
poses such insupportable hardships on
corporations What is it that they are
required to do by this law which is
so fearfully onerous? All they have
to do under the law is to recognize
and bargain collectively with represen-
tatives freely chosen by a majority
Of their workers. The great majority
of businessmen in America are doing
that now and learning that business
benefits thereby. Why should any cor
poration object to such sane and SEN
sible requirements
Yes, We Have No NLRB
1t all comes down to the way the
law has been administered by the
National Labor Relations Board. The
conduct of the Labor Board has been
indefensible. The American Fedora
| ton of Labor was victimized by the
| Labor Board to such an extent that
it went to Congress and demanded the
enactment of amendments abolishing
the present Board and establishing a
new one.
To this extent, then, objections to
permitting the Labor Board to black
list any company and prevent it from
obtaining Government contracts are
understandable. However, we are GER
tain that the Defense Commission and
the War and Navy Departments, while
giving due weight to the decisions OF
the Labor Board, will not let them
be controlling in the awarding Of con-
tracts necessary to the national de-
fense.
In any case, the whole problem
could have been easily avoided by
prompt enactment Of the Legislation
sought by the American Federation OF
| Labor.
This legislation is still pending ir
Congress and the Labor Board itself
is still completely up in the air. The
term of office of former Chairman
Madden expired last August. He was
not reappointed, due chiefly to the op
position Of the American Federation
of Labor and majority of the Unitet
States Senate. The post remains va
cant at this writing. That leaves two
members of the Labor Board sup
posed to be functioning. They are
Members LieSerson and Smith. Neither
can agree on any important issue. Mr.
Leiserson is sensible but Mr.. Smith
is a fanatic.
And so, from a practical standpoint
we have no Labor Board today. 1t i!
unlikely that a new member will b'
appointed until after the nationa
elections. Under the circumstances i
is not too much to expect that tn