The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1943-07-15
THE ANTI-STRIKE BILL


|podge. 1t is an illustration of what happens when
Ia legislative body which has given no basic
Thought to balanced labor legislation for peace
time for wartime acts suddenly in response to
IA particular crisis 1t is difficult to say whether
this ant-strike bill will mean substantially more
peaceful and orderly labor relations. 1t is an at
tempt to deal with final symptom without proper
diagnosis of the disease which leads to it.
The bill is designed to make striking illegal in
wartime This is corollary of the compulsory
arbitration provided by the War Labor Board. If
the Government determines what the terms and
conditions of work shall be- the excuse for strike
lis removed. On this reasoning it would seem diff
fcult to forbid strikes in wartime on the ground
that the merits Of a case would be decided by Gov
ernment adjudication rather than by the strike
weapon. The need for Government seizure of
plant would arise only in cases where there was
good reason to suppose that the management was
failing would fail to abide by Government
decision on wages, hours or working conditions.
But the Smith -Connally bill provides for seiz-
ure of plant in which strike occurs whether or
not the employer shares responsibility for the
strike The strike does not become illegal merely
on the ground that union has struck against the
order of Government agency. You are not ''strk-
ing against the Government according to the
theory of the BILL unless in addition still another
Government agency announces that 1T has seized
and is operating the plant. The effect of this STEP
which would otherwise be unnecessary or lrrele-
want will be in many cases to confuse the issue.
The employer will often be in appearance and in
effect punished for conditions beyond his control.
Workers may sometimes strike for the very pur
pose of forcing Government seizure of the en-
plOyer's plant.
The heart of the Smith-Connay bill is Section
6 (a) This makes it unlawful, when plant has
been seized, for any person 'to coerce, lnstlgate
induce cOnsplre with, OF encourage any other
person to strike. 1t also makes it unlawful to-
direct strike OF to provide OF distribute funds or
benefits for it. But the section continues: No in
dividual shall be deemed to have violated the pro-
visions of this section by only of his having
ceased work or having refused to continue to work
Or to accept employment.
This Immediately raises a question. If John
Doe refuses to continue to work at the same time
as his fellows refuse to do so, is he guilty OF Vo-
latng this section or not? Is he guilty because he
prma facie evidence would indicate? Or IS he in
nocent because he has "ony" refused to continued
to work? The section is needlessly ambiguous. lfI
it means, on one plausible Interpretation lt|
could, that it is unlawful to encourage" another|
person to strike but not unlawful to strike your
self, then it would be very odd law indeed. Under
it newspaper editor might be jailed for approx
ing strike, while the individual strikers them
selves could not be touched. Congress that hur-
riediy frames Or accepts such ambiguous legIsla-
tiOn has poor excuse to complain later about
"judge-made'' law.
The provision of the bill that peases many
commentators most is Section (b): "Any person.
who Willfuy violates any provision Of this sectlOnI
shall be subject to a fine OF not more than $5,OOO,I
or to imprisonment for not more than one year. or|
both If we are to forbid strikes in wartime wei
must of course have penalties for violation But it'll
does not necessarily follow that this bill will
achieve it's aim. Suppose that John l.. Lewis orI
some other labor leader deliberately invites jail
sentence for political reasons, posing a martyr|
for 'the rights Of hungry miners? The strike
problem is a difficult one. We cannot assume that
the present bill or even better drawn bill would
provide any automatic solution of it.
If we are to have War Labor Board with
powers Of compulsory arbitration, then it should
have the weight of statutory authority behind t.l
This the bill provides. But here also there are
ambiguous provisions. Section (c) declares: "NoI
member of the Board shall be permitted to par
ticipate in any decision in which such member has
a direct interest as an officer, employe repre-
sentative of either party to the dispute. What of
the present labor members of the Board? They
are officers of the c. |. o. and of the A. +. of L..
Most of the unions engaged in labor disputes aleI
G.. |. O. or A. f. of l.. unions Does not this giveI
the labor members pretty direct interest in these
disputes? Was the bill intended to strike at these
members, or not?
The final bill retains modified versions of the|
3O-day "cooling-ofP' period and secret strike bal
lot under Government auspices These con-
fusing and foolish provisions to put into law
strikes illegal. If strike is to be in any case i'll
legal, why take Government-cond ballot onI
it? Suppose 81 per cent of the workers in q WarI
plant vote for a strike. What then?
One Of the few good provisions of the act
though irrelevant to its main pulpose-is thatI
barring labor unions from making contributions
to Federal elections. This meEely extends to labor
unions provision of the Federal Corrupt Prac-
tices Act that has applied to ANY corporation|
since 1925. Election funds should come|