The Wilmington morning star., 1942-05-10
Editorial Comment
TO CURB LABOR RACKETEERING
New York Times

subcommittee of the House Judiciary
Committee is conducting hearings on several
bills intended to place labor unions under the
regulation of antitrust statutes and to bring
them within the provisions Of the anti-racke.
teering law of 1884. These bills are drawn
with unusual care and restraint. Yet they are
being fought tooth and nail by spokesmen for
labor unions Charles H. Tuttle, appearing rs
special counsel for the International Brother
hood of Carpenters has condemned the anti
racketeering measure introduced by Represen-
tative Hobbs as threat to peaceful activities
Of organized labor He has condemned the
Walter bill as one drawing the line between
freedom as we know it and totalitarian dicta-
torship extremely thin Joseph A. Padway
general counsel for the American Federation
of Labor and for the International Brother
hood of Teamsters, adds that the group OF
bills would handcuff labor in its attempts to
bargain with employers
What are the measures against which these
violent words are used? They are measures
to prevent acts that are clearly anti-social.
They measures to curb outright racketeer-
ing The Hobbs bill does not mention the word
labor it does make guilty o. felony any
one who in connection with any act affecting
commerce obtains or attempts to obtain, by
the use of or attempt to use threat to use
force, violence or coercion, money or other
valuable considerations; or who commits or
threatens physical violence to any person or
property in furtherance Of such plan. Is
this what Mr.. Tuttle calls threat to peace
fuP' labor activities?
The Monroney and Walter bills are closely
similar in language and purpose. The Mon
roney bill, for example, declares that it shall
not be within the legitimate objects Of unions
ID to force an employer to deal with or en-
ploy members Of one union instead Of another
when the second union has been designated
the exclusive bargainig agency under the
Wagner act; (2) to require an employer to
pay any officer OF a union money unless ''the
payment is pursuant to publicly announced
terms of an existing collective bargaining
agreement and no part thereof is for the per-
sonal benefit Of such officer" (:) to require
an employer to impose unreasonable restric-
tons or conditions upon the use of any mater
lal, machines or equipment" a. to combine
with any employment or any nonlabor group
to fix prices. allocate customers, restrict pro-
duction, eliminate competing employers, mo-
nopolize" any part OF trade or commerce, or
to) TO require any employer to employ or to
pay any wages, salary, or other compensa.
tlon 70 any person when such person is in fact
IN excess OF the number of persons reason
ably required TO perform the work in which
the employer is engaged" No restrictions are
imposed On union activities directly and ap-
propriately related to the wages hours health
sa1ety or working conditions of the employees -
thurman Arnold's long recital of abuses and
lhe dcclsion OF the Supreme Court in the case
OF the tearnsters' union, shows that such leeis-
lation is now needed badly. Yet spokesmen
Tor unions who should themselves be urging
such legislation to purge their own ranks of
racketeers and to stop practices which tend
10 prlhg decent unions into discredit are in
STEAD opposing such legislation, and talking
exTaVagant nonsense about it.