The union times., 1945-07-28
On TheScene
 In Washington
By Travis K. Hedrick ARGUING WITH A LIBERAL.

l have a bone to pick with Thomas l.. Stokes, the able column lst Of the Scripps-Howard Alliance. whose column appears in scores of newspapers, and who is by most definitions of the term, liberal.
 Tom wrote a column not SO long ago that said American labor is a big, strapping fellow now and should put on long pants and take the chip off his shoulder"
 What Stokes meant was the shouts of anger that came from labor's ranks when Sens. Ball, Burton and Hatch introduced their new labor relations bill-the "straighGacket bill"
 Undoubtedly Stokes has a right to say whatever he chooses about the bill and about labor. But the fault l find with liberals such as Tom Stokes is that they all have blind spot. You can't be for the Ball-Burton-Hatch bill and be friend of labor. I don't believe you can do so and be liberal. either.)
 Stokes says he is alarmed that labor's ''carping standoffishness" may hurt labor's best interests. He also champions the ''sincerity of purpose of the three senator's" and calls them ''estimable and respected gentlemen =. sympathetic to labor and progressive in inclination.''
 Now Sen. Joseph Ball, the Min nesota Republican, is no fried of labor. You can prove that by ask ing the AFL Congressman from Minnesota, Rep. William J. CalIa- gher, and also the members of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Newspaper Guild. Ball is regarded as a phoney by the AFL in Minnesota, and as a renegade uniOnist by the Newspa- per Guild. He was a member of the staff of the St. Paul Dispatch and left the union when he disagreed with the outcome of national re- ferendum election. Neither of the other two has union record as a union member.
 Stokes doesn't like the "shrieks let out by professional labor leaders" and he opines that 'labor's hyper-suspi- clouS attitude seems unjustihed." He honestly believes that. labor should agree to certain notifications to protect employers"
 My gawd, Tom The employer has all of the protection necessary. Mo- body is taking over his business :. the barricades aren't up and nobody's armed. The Wagner act is not an act to protect employers. It is simply law to define the Rights of labor and to insure the protection of those elementary principles against in- fringement by employers. To say that we have to let that law be amended to protect employers" simply means a watering down of the Rights of labor.
 Any employer, anywhere, can go into court and challenge infringe ment of his rights under Iong-es- tablished law. There is no doubt of that. The employers have been well represented in the national and state legislatures for genera tiOns. Any court from a simple squire or justice of the peace to a circuit or supreme court would be ready and eager to act on an em- plOyer petition defending one of his legal rights.
 The trouble with Stokes and other liberals who think along these lines is that they refuse to see that after years of giving employ CTS a free rein with their workers, law was necessary to check their unfair practices. It does not follow, however, that the law defending la- bOr's rights must be amended to give employers the right to WEAK FEN those rights in order to be FAIR. That just doesn't make sense.
 Labor is justly suspicious of any attempt to change the Wagner act. Especially so when David Lawrence comes out and says hatly that the Bal1-Burton-Hatch bill would change 1t almost beyond recognition"
 Compulsory arbitration and the virtual abo11shment of the closed shop as provided ir the strait jacket bill will never be accepted by labor in America.
 Labor in America is wearing its long pants. It has no chip on its shoulder but it has both hands free and has learned ito use them either to grasp an outstretched mitt across friendly conference table or to double them into fighting fists.
 At this time it seems that Ameri- can labor, with the AFL, CIO and United Mine Workers united on the issue, must form a fighting team to turn back this new anti-Ia- bor bill. It can't be done by prais- ing Joe Ball and his associates as ''estimable and respected gentle men sympathetic to labor and progressive in inclination" Ger tainly they are not sympathetic to labor or prOgressives.
 And Tom Stokes is no Heywood