The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-11-17

We have recently stated the out- standing facts in regard to the origin of Union Maintenance" and other Issues arising out of recent governmental policies in regard to labor. Let us now draw some con- clusionS from these facts.
 First, repeated occurrences of rec cent weeks show that c union agree- ment not to strike by either the c. I. Q. or the A. F. of L., has no binding effect upon its members or leaders. It Is questionable whether union members ever had fair op- portunity to vote in the Kearny strike. In this case, as In many others, only showing Of hands at a mass meeting was called for.
 Second, there is shown to be a basic contradiction in the National Labor Relations Act. It insists that no employer may coerce an employe as regards union membership. Yet q majority of the employees may coerce Q minority. The act must be amended SO that the same stand ards of right and wrong apply to the employer and to all of the ern- ployes.
 Third, the use Of coercion and in. timidation establishes a control and direction over labor which is con- trary to all of our ideals Of main taining freedom to bargain for ons,s labor at any time or under any conditions. The right to wcrk-a most fundamental right the govern ment now seeks to deny by compel ing the employer to make the pay ment of union dues a condition of employment
 Fourth, the National Labor Rela- tions Act results in union agree mentS which are binding upon the employer but not upon the employe. Tn addition, 1t has become the pol- Icy of the administration, egtab- liShed by executive fiat and the acts of the National Defense Mediation Board, to insure the continuance of | closed shops by guaranteeing the payment of the salaries of leaders through the seizure of plants if necessary. This has been accom- pliShed in some cases without a vote of the employees concerned, and without the consent of Con- gress as to seizure. which had re- gently been refused.
 Fifth, it has hitherto been an es- tablished policy of the government not to recognize any union in deal- ing with over one million of its employees. To do so would destroy Its influence as the government of all the people. What the Govern ment realizes it must not do. it seeks to force the employer to do, to wit. to coerce employees to main tain and support particular union and it's leaders.
 Sixth, the recent Currier case has proposed a governmental pol- icy that 8 low bid may be reject ed (contrary to laW) and an award made to higher bidder in order to establish a labor monopoly in the wide field of building con struction. The government would thus permit the A. r. of L. and the c. l. O. to carry out a con- spiracy to divide the several fields of labor with the object of com- polling it q. c. the taxpayers) to increase the cost of construction by some 25 per cent. What the Gov. ernment has expressly and repeat edly forbidden private individuals or corporations to do. 1t now not only permits but encourages labor unions to undertake, thus placing them above the law and against the public interest. Further, in cr- der to enforce this policy, the Gov- ernment has taken nos~- on of plants, notwithstaI fact that Congress has Aug ust s, i04l, refuse sde 10 the requests of the ration