Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1944-05-14
WLB Pursued by
Security Issue
BIZ John II. Cline,

lions are that it is going to cause a con-
siderable rumpuS before peace and quiet
are restored in our national household
The maintenance clause, as it is famil-
1arly known, is the fundamental issue in
the controversy between the WLB and
Montgomery Ward, although it was
pushed into the background by other
aspects of the recent seizure of Wards
| chicago mail-order house But there is
no more relentless foe of the clause than
Sewel Avery, Wards executive head,
and his latest statement to the effect
that he will not consent to inclusion of
a maintenance provision in new con-
tract with his union employees probably
means that the Labor Board is in for
another hard fight If Mr.. Avery is the
most conspicuous opponent of the clause,
the United Steel Workers of America
can be counted among it's most ardent
champions. At the recent convention of
the steel workers in Cleveland, Van A.
Blttner, assistant to the president of the
union and an able labor member of the
WLB, told the delegates that the board
mad granted union maintenance to A.
ooo,OOo workers, and added that this
would Justify the boards existence if IT,
had done nothing else. Obviously. and
with good reason, the clause is we'll liked
by labor leaders.
In view of the controversy which the
clause has aroused and the heat which
1t has engendered, it is curious fact
That 1t Is rather widely misunderstood
and misrepresented.
X
The charge is frequently heard that
the maintenance clause, in effect. sets
up closed shop. This is not true
with appropriate reservations, it NAV be
described as a modified closed shop, and
there Is basis for the contention that IL
involves the principle of the closed shop.
requiring union memberships a con-
d1t1on of employment-for employees
who accept it. But that is quite a diff
1erent thing from saying that the clause
IN practical effect is the equivalent of
closed shop. Where the latter pre-
walls, the employer can hire only per-
sons Who belong to the union. The
employees cannot withdraw from the I'M
Ion In any circumstances without for
Ielting thelr jobs. Under the main
tenance clause, however, the EMPLOYER Is
free 10 hire any one. The employee need
not JOIN any union. If he happens to be
member when the clause is authorized
ne mas TWO weeks in which to withdraw
from the union and thereby escape the
application of the maintenance nrovi-
sions. 1t Is only when he voluntarily re-
mans in the union, or voluntarily Joins
aIter the contract has gone into effect,
thae ne becomes subject to the clause
ana must maintain himself as a member
IN good standing for the life of the con-
tract In order to hold his job. Whatever
else that may add I'D to. il is NOT q
closed shop.
another complaint often heard is that
the imposition of the maintenance
clause by the WLB has never been ALL
| tnorlzed by Congress. That is the truth.
Inc record shows that on the only oc-
| caslon when proposal to ban the clause
was brought before the House it was
beaten by a vote of 2O4 to 73. -.
| ~, vac pcioodsIVe OpJeclOnS to
the imposition of the maintenance pro-
VISIONS on industrial workers and in
ouSer1al managers, one must look in
otner directions than the two which
nave been mentioned. One source of
| crltlclsm which merits examination has
70 DO with the theory which underlies
tne birth and development of the clause
AN argument commonly advanced in
!ustlncat1on of the clause is that labor
leaders, having given the no-strika
pleoge, were In equity entitled to union
maintenance as compensa ton in lien of
"nat might have been obtained thro,ob
strikes such as the union or closed shon
TOT What 1t may signify as to the boards
mental attitude, one of the public MEM
bers' speaking for the majority, has de-
Ieloeo the maintenance clause as a.
guarantee against the tragedy" of the
alslntegration of responsible unions dur
ing the war and the defenselessness of
industrial workers after the war.
| X
But Where does this predeliction of
the board for union protection leave tho
employer? 1t Is sometimes forgotten.
and seldom stressed, that labor's M.
Str1ke pledge was accompanied nv
no-iockout pledge on the part of indus
Try Practically speaking, this means
mat Doth parties have foregone the use
VI tnelr economic power in the settle.
ment OF disputes. Yet the board nre.
sumed to act as impartial arbiter is &C
lnoluerent to the equities" on the en.
ployer,s side as it is sympathetic to m
ion claims.
lake the hypothetical case of Plant A.
winch has always been an omen sbon
ana whose owner is an earnest and sim
cere believer in the open shon He
wants 10 keep it. Then an appropriate
union comes along with demand for
'loSeo Shop, and the case finally reaches
the WLR. On the theory that the IN.
ION has voluntarily given I'D it's right to
sCrlKe Tor the closed shop, the hoard
Will compensate it with a union mainte-
nance clause In other words, the I'M
loii' winch formerly had nothing. now
HAS nan loaf. And the employer, who
voluntarily gave up his right to use his
economic strength to resist the Union
nhdS That the latter received the half
loaf at his expense. Where he once had
an open Snop he now has setup that is
Soille"hefe between that status and the
CLOSED shop. That is what the board
consistently and no doubt sincerely do.
lelloS as an equitable and reasonable
| settlement. Yet it would pever 5roox,.