The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-11-04
Government Seizure! Is It to Be the Policy of This Country, Either in War or Peace, to Lend Its Power and Sup port to the Maintenance of Labor Mon-
 opolies Under the Closed Shop?

The seizure by the government on August 23rd of the Federal Ship building Dry Dock Company plant at KeaTney, New Jersey has aroused an acute controversy both as to the legality and the equity of this pro- ceeding. There have been other cases similar to 1t but of less iIn- portance because they involved smaller plants or only Q temporary operation of the plant by the gov- ernment. Tn the Kearney incident, however, the United States Gov- ernment took possession of Q plant employing l8,o00 men,
 A discussion of the law and equity of these proceedings Is interesting; but to get at what Is most vital in the matter, we must go directly to the basic principle involved. Is 1t to be the policy of this country, either ir war or in peace to lend It's power and support to the maintenance Of labor moropolies under closed shop? The other factors In the con- troversy are of importance, but only as they contribute to this principle.
 The union maintenance" clause which the National Defense Media ton Board insisted upon and the Company refused to accept, must be judged by It's purpose as being de- signed to establish the closed shop. Its obvious intention is to gtlaran- tee the continuance of certain closed shop unions. Its continuing effect is to make it impossible for a man who has once joined union to leave 1t without losing his job. It seeks by compulsion to make man give up portion of his freedom of action. By so much 1t closes certain opportun- ities of employment of action. By so much 1t closes certain opportun- tiles of employment to him. It is generally recognized and designed by labor leaders that the union maintenance clause leads to closed shop.
 Daniel W. Tracy, a Department of Labor official, and formerly a labor union leader, is quoted as having said at the recent convention of the American Federation of Labor at Seattle, Washington, that labor ought not to ask the Government to force employers to give them a closed shop. Labor's job is to do its own organizing The law pro- hibits an employer from exercising any compulsion on the employe. It should apply equally when the gov- ernment is doing the employing.
 Free enterprise and monopoly are inconsistent and antagonistic con- cepts. So are the open and closed shops. Since the passage of the Sherman Act in the late 80's the public has been in approval of the principle of maintaining free mar ket, open to all on equal terms, in which commodities could be ex- changed solely on the basis of free competition. This became the eStab- lished policy of the United States in the exchange of labor as well as commodities, until the recent deci- sions of the Supreme Court for the first time effectively exempted la- Dor from the provisions of the anti monopoly laws. Any law is a chal- lenge to free enterprise which seeks to establish an advantage in the hands of one person over another other than on the basis of free com- petition. The closed shop is an un- questioned example of the applica- tion of the monopolistic principle ir the field of labor. Not only this. but 1t is direct challenge Of our Con- situation (Amendment V) which guarantees the right to life, liberty and property" to every individual in the country. The closed shop permits only those who are members of a union to work in a particular job and as 1t is now developing, in a particular trade. The right to worl; Is the right to support life. It is the most essential right that man pos- sesses, for without 1t he cannot be self-suppoTting.
 The right to work where and upon whatever terms one wishes. so long as one does not injure his nelghbor Is the life blood of our system oi