Evening star., 1945-11-09

people will see Frank R. Kent.
through the bunk and bluster OF
the professional labor leaders and
realize what the game they have
rigged with the party politicians is
costing them.
One might think, for example
that the case of the labor unions
against the Higgins Industries, Inc.
could, if the facts were fully grasped
hasten the inevitable revolt against
the domination which, through their
alliance with the Roosevelt admin
istration (an alliance which Mr.
Truman's political agents seem
anxious to continue for HIM, the
labor leaders achieved in 1886 and
have increased since.
THE right to strike" is a basic
principal Of the union creed. 1t is
recognized by law and constantly
proclaimed by every labor spokes-
man, journalistic and political, in
the country. No one denies this
right. No one contends that work
man can be forced to work when
he does not want to work. The
right of workman to quit is indis-
putable. About that we have heard
q great deal in the last few years
Employer, Too, Can Quit.
What we have not heard anything
about, however, is the equally indis-
putable right of the employer to
quit. If the workman has a right to
stop work, certainly the employer
has just as much right to quit busi-
ness. If you concede the right for
one you must concede 1t for the
other.
The unions have been exercising
their right to strike, with or without
just cause. for years. Not until last
week has there been an outstanding
example of an employer exercising
his right to go out of business. Down
in New Orleans last week Andrew
Jackson Higgins, head of the great
bodybuilding plant there, did exact
ly that.
Tired of being badgered by work
stoppages, strikes, contract break
ing and other forms of union heck
ling, Mr.. Higgins suddenly an
nounced that he was through. Con-
ceiving that he has just as much
right to quit work as any union
man, he declared that so far as his
three New Orleans plants were con-
cerned, he was closing them down
If. he said. the unions had money
enough to buy them, he would be
glad to sell. They could take the
business over and operate it but
not under his name They-the
unions-had made it practically
impossible for him to do business
and make money. Perhaps Mr.
Higgins may weaken under the
Washington pressure now being ap-
piled to him, but at the moment
his plants are closed and he is out
of business.
Was this exercise by an employer
Of his rights well received? 1t cer-
tainly was not. Instead of conced-
quit work an employer has an equal
right to go out of business, there was
a loud outburst of union indigna-
ton.
Condemnation Pours Out.
One would have thought that Mr.
Higgins had committed a cardinal
crime He was roundly denounced
by the labor propagandists. 1ntima-
tons that he is a corruptionist, a
tax dosger and a phony were spread
abroad in print and over the air.
And, finally, there was union de-
mand, under threat of a general
strike in New Orleans, that Congress
make an investigation of both sides.
Altogether, it was a revealing dem
onstration of the attitude of the
present-day labor leaders who trucu-
lently assert their rights" but are
unwilling to concede any rights" to
the employer side-even the right of
man to retire from business when
he finds it improbable and unpleas-
ant to continue.
Assumption that Congress can
compel an employer to work when he
chooses to stop any more than it can
compel workman to work is, of
course, absurd. To invoke congress
sional power against an employer
who says he can no longer stand la
bor, badgering calculated to ruin his
business shows how necessary it is to
the professional labor bosses to keep
things one-sided.
Thou fn fhi,o1y
never concede anything. Perhaps II
more employers asserted their rights
in the Higgins way, it would tend to
convince these unrestrained labor
leaders that there is a point beyond
which 1t is not profitable to go. Per-
haps, too, it might stimulate con-
gressional action along the Ball