Evening star., 1943-08-30

the AFL and CIO is limited to the
two sections opposed by the Presi-
dent. Otherwise the AFL and CIO
would be obliged, in order to be
consistent, to oppose the reelection
of President Roosevelt for a fourth
term.
If, therefore, the CIO and AFI
are going to rest their case on the
two sections of the law to which
Mr.. Roosevelt objected, then these
two labor organizations are saying
In effect that they want the right
to use union dues for political pur-
poses and also that they oppose
the filing of a 30-day notice of
intention to call strikes. These are
the main points covered in the two
sections to which they are objecting
and which the President also gives
as the only reasons for his veto.
Corporations Restricted.
A campaign based on those two
Issues would not be difficult to
understand. The right of labor
unions to be exempt from the same
law which for years has prohibited
corporations from using stockhold-
ers' money to make political cam
paign contributions is one that will
interest the rank and file of labor
unions throughout the country,
especially at time when the pay
ment of dues is beginning to be so
irksome that 1t has brought about
actual support of the administra-
ton for dues collection through
maintenance of membership clauses
In labor contracts.
If public attention is to be focused
In the coming political campaign on
what is being done with workers
money and on the apparent in
sistence of high officers that politi-
cal slush funds and lobby war
chest be maintained, the way will be
opened for discussion of whether
repeal of both the ban against labor
unions and corporations should be
sought. For if one is eliminated by
Congress, so will the other.
AS for the taking of the strike
votes, the issue will test the posi-
ton of the leadership of the ma
tional unions before the bar of pub
lie opinion. A simple law requiring
notice of strike is being attacked on
the ground that this provokes
strikes Actually the records show
that before the 3o-day cooling period
expires, the notice of a strike be-
comes academic and the strike call
in every instance is withdrawn.
This is the record to date since the
law was passed.
The fact that in many plants,
workers have voted to strike when
the issue is put on a ballot is no
reflection on the Smith Connaly
law, but raises the question of
whether the antistrike pledge given
by the national unions and their
leaders is one that the unions them
selves can fulfill. 1t raises the
question of the responsibility of
labor unions and whether the lead
ership will be as effective as it has
professed to be in carrying out the
terms of the informal pledge. For
the pledge not to strike is no less
binding when it is given informally
than when it is reduced to formal
ballot.
To Assume Great Importance.
The widespread tale that the ex-
lstence of the privilege of balloting
on strikes causes agitation is fall
lacious. Wherever grievances or
demands for wages are deeply
rooted, they cause agitation anyway.
1t is true the Smith -Connally law
has added to the burdens of Fed
eral agencies like the National Labor
Relations Board and War Labor
Board, but as soon as rival labor
unions find they cannot upset COL
lective bargaining elections by strike
polls and when the machinery of the
War Labor Disputes Act is fully set
forth In few key decisions, the
law will take on the Importance to
labor that the National Railway
Mediation Act has had for years.
And In that law there has always
been a provision for taking strike
votes and cooling off periods, and