Evening star., 1941-08-27
Union Security

Union Security
William H. Davis, chairman of the
National Defense Mediation Board,
has said that the defense emergency
should not be used to build up or
tear down unions" With that state
ment, standing as generality, few
will disagree, but it is not easy to see
what application it has to the sub
ject the board chairman was discuss
ing-the union security recommen-
dation in the Federal Shipbuilding
g. Drydock Company case.
Mr.. Davis seems to be of the
opinion that the union was entitled
to the security clause in this in
stance because it had accepted a
two-year stabilization agreement
among Atlantic Coast shipyards,
under which it agreed not to strike
and received in return certain con-
cessions, such as substantial wage
increase. This agreement, Incl
dentally, was entered into in June
and to all intents and purposes was
violated in August when the strike
was called.
Disregarding the strike question,
however, since it has been confused
by a claim that the no-strike agree
ment was contingent upon accept
ance of the Mediation Boards rec
concentrations, MIR. Davis still fails
to make clear what special circum-
stances existed in this case to war
rant the security clause proposal.
OF particular interest is his sug-
gestion that the union should have
the security provision because Of its
supposed waiver of the right to strike.
That is a curious position for the
board chairman to take. In this
case the union and the company
were in agreement on wages and
working conditions. In the absence
of any legitimate dispute on these
matters there is no reason what
soever why any union engaged on
defense work should strike. Does
Mr.. Davis contend that a union, in
the absence of dispute over wages
or working conditions. is entitled to
some special reward merely for keep
ing its members at work on a ma
tional defense job? His statement,
in effect, seems to be another way of
saying that, in the absence of
security agreement, union is en-
titled to retain the right to strike
and presumably to exercise it, even
though the employer has met all
reasonable demands as to wages and
working conditions.
Without attempting to read into
Mr.. Davis statement something
which he did not say, it seems rea-
sonable, nevertheless, to conclude
that his attitude on the, union Sc
curity question is about as follows:
A union, by subscribing to a no
strike agreement, may risk decline
in membership, and certainly faces
a possible falling of in payment of
dues. These things are apt to result
from natural loss Of interest on
the part of members during a period
when there is no normal union agi-
tation, and, during a time of rising
employment, new members may be
enrolled who might prove less ame-,
nable to union discipline than older
members. Therefore, the union
should be insured against any loss of
strength during the life of the no
strike agreement.
That, however, is situation which
makes an employer the guardian of
the union. He must collect its dues
and maintain its membership. And
all that he gets in return is what Mr..
Davis seems to regard as the privi-
lege Of keeping his factory working
on defense orders without interfer-
ence from strikes.
1t should be borne in mind that in
this instance there was no claim that
the employer was trying to destroy
the union or that he would do so
during the no-strike period. On the
contrary, he had demonstrated his
willingness to recognize and deal
with the union, but his plant was
taken over by the Government be-
cause he was unwilling to be put in
the position Of compelling men to
stay in union when, theoretically,
at least, some of them might have
wanted to withdraw. In other words,
he has been penalized because he
refused to assume responsibilities
which should be attended to by
union officials.
The employer in this instance has
paid a heavy price to focus public
attention on the basic issue involved,
and it is to be hoped that his action
will have a salutary effect in future
comparable cases.