Evening star., 1941-01-11
The Right to Strike

Labor'S most potent Weapon-the
right to Strike-haS been used with
restraint during the past several
months. In only few instances
have strikes seriously interfered with
the defense program, and a number
of union leaders, notably in the
American Federation of Labor, have
given public expression to their be-
lief that strikes should not be per-
mitted to impede the speedy strength
ening of the Nations defenses.
This relatively harmonious indus
trial relationship should be a source
of qualification to labor, to industry
and to the general public. 1t DEM
onstrateS that in periods of great
emergency the special interests of
particular groups, as we'll as the eco
nomic conflicts that might normally
arise, can be Subordinated to the ma
tional welfare. Such demonstration
is especially to be desired at this
time, for only by concentrating all
energies on this larger objective of
national security can a democracy
like ours hope to safeguard itself
against the new menace of the totali-
tartan state-a system in which the
hard-won rights of both labor and
capital have been ruthlessly blotted
out.
Against the background of this
demonstrated capacity of labor and
employers to compose differences in
time of national peril, the recent
comments of Philip Murray, president
of the Congress of Industrial Organi-
cations, sound a Singularly discord-
ant note. Discussing proposals which
have been made in Congress to curb
strikes, Mr.. Murray, in a caustic ref
erence to what he called "foolhardy
statesmen" made it clear that he
intends to oppose, through the C. I.
O., any legislative impairment of the
right to strike, presumably without
regard to the effect a strike might
have on the national defense. This
attitude of unequivocal opposition
was extended even to the imposition
by law of a thirty-day waiting period
before strike could be called, al
though such a provision has been
successfully applied for years in the
railroad industry
In support of his contention that
labor in this country should have
unrestricted freedom to strike, Mr..
Murray cited the fact that there were
1O8 strikes in the British Isles during
1910, with loss of 848,000 man days
in the first ten months of the year.
Nevertheless, he added, parliament
hasn't sought the use of restrictive
measures because Great Britain hap
pens to proclaim itself democracy"
Put that, on its face, is curious
argument for the C. I. o. president
to be StreSSing.
England-desperately in need of
war material which she has been
unable to produce in her own fac
tories-is fighting for her life, and
when the projected Nazi invasion
materializeS, few hundred planes,
more or less, are apt to spell the
difference between victory and de-
feat. If the planes and other mate
rial are not available, and if the inva-
sion succeeds on that account, British
workmen and all other Britons will
pay fearful price for those $4,000
man days of labor which were lost
to strikes in 1940
Fortunately for this Nation, it
seems evident that most Americans,
including a great many members of
organized labor, are not foolhardy
enough to gamble with their liberties
in such reckless fashion, even though
some labor leaders-whether English
or American-mayb believe that MAIN
tenance of the unrestricted right to
strike is more important than attain
ment of national security.