The union times., 1943-09-18
See Possibility Of
 A Frankenstein

dl ' tul llIliS dSdlllSl llIC FlClOuo OlLlAA- Connally law. Though it was con- ceived as weapon to cripple and perhaps destroy unions, arrangements are already beginning to fear they have created a Frankenstein that will overwhelm them.
 One of the most smashing attacks upon the law came recently from Business Week." a leading national publication of employer interests.
 Tt is already apparent" said the magazine, 'that as far as management Is concerned, the new law will make more trouble than it will eliminate. /"
 Editors of the magazine predicted that the law twill end in failure that will be costly alike to management and the war production pogram."
 Editors of the magazine pre- dicted that the law twill end in a failure that will be costly alike to management and the war prOduc- tiOn program"
 They agreed with the forecasts made by labor spokesmen and by Progress sives in Congress, before the law was passed-namely, that far from reduc- ing strikes the new measure would provoke them.
 Minority groups in every war pro- duction plant now have license to call for strike on the basis Of any demands they care to present., the magazine asserted.
 Similar reactions came from em- ployers in a poll conducted by the National Industrial Conference Board, management research organization.
 At least half the employers sounded out declared the bill will prove set back to satisfactory labor relations, the board revealed.
 At least half the employers sounded out declared the bill will prove setback to satisfactory labor relations, the board revealed.
 Typical of the response was one from an industrialist who said bluntly the shackling measure would not work, becadse "it is just an attack on what is conceived to be an adversary rather than an attempt to solve the problem after reasoned analysis"
 From almost all sides there came criticism that the bill is glaring example of poor drafting and workmanship, drawn by men Obvi- ousIy ignorant of the fundamentals of American law.
 This lambasting of the law IS no compliment to its authors-Congress- man Howard w. Smith (Dem., Va.) and Senator Tom Connally (Dem., Texas)-and it won't increase their reputation as lawyers. They are Vi cious propagandists, but evidently don't know much about drafting legis- lation.
 In fact, from the moment the bill was put through Congress over the Presidents veto, there has been con troversy over its meaning.
 The National War Labor Board was compelled to make a strained ln- depreciation of the law, simply to re- main alive. Uncertainty prevails over whether the bill prevents the board from making "union security" deci- sions, which are necessary to stabilize labor relations in war plants.
 Some labor-hating employers have already taken advantage of this confusion to defy board rul- ings. and SO far the VILE. has been helpless to enforce its man. dates.
 The muddIe has been intensified as a result of an interpretation by Attorney General Francis Riddle, who held that under the law any group of workers, minority or ma- iority. may petition for strike vote.
 Riddle Ruling Denounced
 As result of his opinion, the Ma -tional Labor Relations Board con- ducted strike poll at plant of the Allis-C Chalmers Manufacturing Com pany in Springfield, H., on demand of District No. 30 of the United Mine Workers, even though the union hold ing the collective bargaining contract opposed a vote.
 By a decisive majority, the 2,20O workers ballotted in favor of strike. However, District No. 50 said ii would not call the workers out for the present, but would merely use the strike referendum as a means of forcing a new collective bargaining election.
 Labor chiefs stressed that the fault lies not so much with Riddle as with the law. They declared the measure is so ambiguous1y worded that it seems to invite strikes by any group under the sun.
 This is confirmed by the fact that over 60 applications for strike ballots are already in the hands of the Labor Board and the number is climbing rapidly. Except for the Smith-Connally law, there would be no such threats hanging over war plants. LabOr's voluntary ''no- strike" pledge would prevent them.
 That was exactly the warming made by Secretary of Labor Frances Per kins and heads of seven other gov ernment agencies, prior to enactment of the law.
 But rather than listen to the ad- vice of these authorities, the House Naval Affairs Committee at that time called Secretary Perkins and other agency chieftains on the carpet and