Evening star., 1943-01-23
Labor LEGISLATION

| ican Federation of Labor. speaking
through President William Green,
has called upon the new Congress to
refrain from enactment of danger
Gus and foolhardy anti-labor meas
| ureS." Every one will agree that Mr..
Green is right in making this re-
quest, but the real question Is
| whether Congress can and should
adopt legislation which is neither
dangerous nor foolhardy. but which
would eliminate certain continuing
labor abuses.
From the text of Mr.. Green's mes
sage, it appears that the opposition
OF the AFL runs to the enactment of
any anti-strike law or any legisla-
tlon modifying the forty-hour week
standard for overtime compensation.
Presumably, in Mr.. Green's estima-
tion, any such enactment would be
foolhardy and dangerous. But it Is
not easy to follow his reasoning.
For example, the AFJ says that
anti-strike laws would penalize
more than SO per cent of the Nations
soldiers of production. who have re-
malned Steadfastly on the Job, for
the acts of small minority" The
AFI, the council members say, is
opposed to strike for any cause for
the duration Of the war, but will
fight to preserve the right to strike.
This is paradoXical to say the least.
II SO per cent of the workers intend
to stay on the job, how would they
be penalized by legislation curbing
the irresponsible minority who want
to strike and who cannot be con-
trolled by their national leaders?
Since labor has pledged that there
will be no strikes, and if the AFL is
opposed to strikes for any cause.
why should Mr.. Green and his aSso-
clates want to fight to preserve the
right to strike? Traditionally, labor
has opposed legislative abridgement
OF the strike weapon, and there have
been persuasive reasons for this atti-
tude IN the past, But with the Ma
ton at war, which is the more i'm
portant-the maintenance of a right
which responsible labor has agreed
not to exercise, or the enactment of
carefully prepared law to deal with
an irresponsible and uncomfortable
minority?
Nor are these the only aspects of
the matter with which Congress
should be concerned. Representa-
tive Anderson of California has told
the House of the activities of two
West Coast shipbuilding unions
which are defying the Presidents
order abolishing premium pay for
work on Saturdays and Sundays
within five-day week. This is the
work of a few high-handed local
labor bosses, who fine their own
union members for attempting to
work In compliance with the order
issued by the President with the
approval OF the national labor lead
ers. These thoroughly reprehensible
activities have held up convoys
loaded with supplies urgently needed
in the South Pacific and have de-
layed the sailing of troop ships The
national leaders-Mr. Green and
Philip Murray of the CIO-have
failed to wipe out these fragrant
abuses, yet it is argued that Con-
gresS should not act because the
great majority of workers are loyal
and want to stay on the job.
If Congress undertakes to deal
with the darker aspects of the labor
picture, as seems probable, it is to
be hoped the members will realize
that restrictive legislation in this
field is a serious matter. Extreme
| care should be taken to avoid any,
thing that would injure loyal work
erS or tend to impair any legitimate
right of labor. But it would be
| strange state of affairs indeed if
Congress, while staying within these
limitations, were to find itself in
capable of enacting legislation which
would protect the great majority of
patriotic workers and the Nation as
a whole against the depredations of
that Wlllful union minority which
has demonstrated that it is beyond
the control of its own leadership.