Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1941-03-11
TT IS hard to believe that

10 nara 10 oelieve .hat
President Roosevelt thinks
the labor unions have been
guilty of large fees from defense
works IN only a few eases, when
the unions in question not only
admit that they exact initia-
ton or permit fees practically
everywhere, but attempt to
justify them.
The question, however, is not
one Of amount.
The issue is the amazing arro-
CANT proposition that any pri-
waite organization. which is all
that a labor union is, has the
right to compel an American
citizen to pay for the right to
work at any lawful occupation.
This is aside from the con-
Sideration of national defense.
A man working on a defense
project should have no more
protection from this than man
driving a truck for a grocer or
tending bar in a saloon.
TAKE the word of the New
L York Times that the Presi-
dent did. in fact, say in a press
conference the other day that
he had heard of lone Of two
cases in which large fees were
charged, but that they had been
taken up with the union Off
Gals, and that the practices had
been eliminated.
l ara surprised that the Presi-
dent has heard of only "one or
two cases"
Whatever may be made OF
that, it goes as it lays because
the President is man who
knows a lot about everything
that goes on in this country. and
is especially we'll posted on union
practices.
This being so it follows that he
doubtless knows very well that
certain unions have been greedy
AT the expense not only of the
earnings of the workers but OF
their citizenship as well.
Before rearmament they even
took money from unfortunaies
who kept up in their dues while
otherwise unemployed. so that
they would not fall hopelessly
into debt TO their locals.
ME ARE now on the point OF
w debating in Congress, and
wherever free workmen meet
this condition. whether labor
unions are TO be granted by law
or by consent. the status of ma
tional. state and local subgov-
eminent. with the right TO force
American citizens TO take out
citizenship on their rolls and the
power to tax them at will with
the alternative of total ostracism
from all employment if it be
decided that these private or
CARNATIONS somehow have estab-
lShed such alright.
Then il will follow that any
American who still refuses TO
ION or for any reason has been
expelled from union, will enjoy
no better economic status in the
United States than a slave has
IN Hltler's Reich.
The question is not one of ma
tlonal defense. although the
urgency of the defense jobs and
the lmprudence of the profess
sional unioneers on these works
have served TO emphasize the
fundamental issue of the citi-
Zens' rights.
If by law or by consent, these
private organizations should be
conceded the rights of subgov-
eminent which they now pre-
sumo to exercise. then the
national government will have
10 establish some authority over
the unions as a means of assur-
ing the workers a fair deal. in
Guiding definition of the pow-
ers of union officers. absolute
financial responsibility and ac-
countability and the transfer
from the union councils to the
public courts of trials in which
men may be fined, suspended,
expelled or otherwise punished.
IT MAY be pointed out that
many unions charge more for
initiation than many first-ciass
golf clubs, and that most OF
them levy income taxes which
may be deducted at the source
so that the worker never sees
the money. from groups of men
whom the government has al
ways exempted from the federal
income tax on the ground that
it would be a shame to take
their money.
And certainly an initiation fee
of SIS for temporary job at
manual labor will seem out OF
line.
1t will seem the more so when
il is remembered that certain
unions are run privately by
an exclusive, self-perpetuating
nroftn