Evening star., 1943-06-19

bending labor V !
dispute bill. This David Lawrence.
measure is a mild piece of restric-
ton and merely states that the Gov
ernment has a right to enforce dis
cipline in plants taken over and
operated by the Government itself.
Likewise, it gives authority to the
War Labor Board to adjudicate
labor disputes.
Union labor leaders are importun-
ing the President to veto the bill.
The Presidents political foes on
Capitol Hill are saying they hope
he does. They believe it will mean
the end of his fourth-term hopes.
The issue would then turn on
whether the President meant to re-
quire equality of sacrifice or whether
he intended the war effort to be
sabotaged at will by strikes.
On such an issue, political observ-
ers in Congress say the country will
definitely vote against temporizing
with special groups or labor unions.
Certainly there is every indication
that if the 100000 persons who
are in the armed services are per-
mitted to vote, a substantial ma
jority will cast their ballots against
anybody who by legislative or Off
cial inaction seems to permit strikes
or work stoppages.
Protests From Soldiers.
What the labor union leaders do
not realize is that the letters coming
back from the Army camps both in
this country and overseas are full of
ehe most violent and intemperate
expressions concerning the leaders
of the strikes. There is no doubt
about 1.-THE men in the foxholeS
feel they are being betrayed by the
strike leaders back home. And if
the troops get chance to vote next
year their ballots may we'll furnish
the balance of power that will swing
the elections
There is much puZZlement here
concerning the strategy Of the union
leaders. Both William Green of
the AFL and Philip Murray of the
CIO are sufficiently familiar with
the way adverse public relations are
created to exercise caution. Yet the
public statements filed with the
President asking him to veto the
proposed law are so full of incon-
SistencieS as to make one wonder
how these two big organizations
could prepare so careless a case to
present to the court Of public opin-
ion
In the first place. the statements
criticize the proposed law because
they say it provides cooling-off
period. which means that strikes are
encouraged. But if the law would
permit strikes. then why all the fuss
about it from a labor viewpoint?
Also, the union leaders are saying
that if the bill becomes law they
cannot sit on the Labor Board be-
cause the measure contains a pro-
vision barring any one from sitting
on the tribunal who has a direct
interest in the controversy. Do the
labor leaders who now publicly
threaten to withdraw from the War
Labor Board If the bill becomes law
mean they will only sit on a board
in which the judges are directly
interested in the dispute? Is that
concept of justice in the matter of
governmental boards defensible?
Fail to Realize Reaction.
The difficulty is that labor unions
have had their way SO long under
the Roosevelt administration that
they do not realize how powerful a
reaction has set in, not only among
the farmers and the people of the
rural districts but among City voters
rs well. No matter what the merits
of the labor disputes, the public does
not sanction strikes In the middle of
war.
While most of the labor union To-
Gals have kept their no-strike pledge,
enough violations have occurred to
make the impression that no dis
cipline exists in the national labor
organizations. Rightly or wrongly.
the public blamed labor unions for
the coal strikes, even though the
bungling policy of the administra-
tion was to no small extent respon-
sible.
Labor unions are making a seri-
Gus mistake in opposing the Smith
Connally bill unless perhaps their
opposition is merely perfunctory and
for the record so as to prevent, if
possible, other restrictive measures.
But If the protests are seriously in
tended, and If the bill is vetoed, the
next campaign will be fought on the
strike issue.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)