The Ypsilanti daily press. (Ypsilanti, Mich.) 1928-1962, 1945-10-11
By PAUL MALLoN

| WhouiN11 ON.-hlnOuku uie tuli
employment. bill Is being pushed
through congress into law by a pre-
ponderant favor for it-and there 10
no objection to the basic hopefulness
OF Its theory--no one seems TO know
what II means. or even where II
, came from. BY great odds. II Is
the most uncertain and unclarihed
piece Of legislation of my time here.
have been calling Il . CLIO
bill because the CLIO has cam
paimcd for Il In the usual ex-
pensive and progressing man
ner which obscures other back
Ing and monopoliIes the publ
city. But CLIO planners did not
write II.
The numerous senator's whose
names are attached as co-authors
will give you little satisfaction II you
inquire where they got the notion OF
passing q law proclaiming the fight
TO work which has always existed.
legally. constitutionally and by Gus
tom. The original draft Of their bill
was probably composed. as nearly
as l can ascertain, by the Farmers
Union, farthest left Of the three farm
ers Hobbies and often called the
farmer branch Of the CLIO. But Of
all things the farmers need right
now. a law declaring their right to
work must run behind help short
ages, equipment shortages. price
fears and practically every other ex-
listing agricultural consideration
The Farmers Union people will
say they got the idea out Of speech
Mr.. Roosevelt made In which he
mentioned lot Of rights, including
the right to work. But Mr.. Roose-
welt did not say there ought to be
law. and before he mentioned the
matter II had gotten into a resolu-
ton Of an international labor office
meeting in Philadelphia. Sir VII
liam Beverage, whose vast social
security hopes were swamped in the
last election. was an ardent
champion Of legislation to declare
the right to work. Going behind and
beyond him. an investigation will
bring you to the fact that such q
right is declared in the Soviet Rus
san constitution.
There II has some meaning
because under . Dictatorship FIX
ing salaries, controlling hours,
renting homes and even cooking
and charging for the workers
meals, while restraining the
worker from freedom, . law
promising TO share whatever
work the government gives isa
realistic right. But this Is all
far behind American ideals and
rights which already 60 much
further, promising among other
things, freedom OF work at one
place or another and the right
not TO work.
Even this would not be so perplex-
ing except that both sponsors and
amenders Of this right-to-work bill
agree 1t carries no legal rights. CO.
author Thomas of Utah may not
have been pinned down on that point
yet, but Co-author Murray and
Amender Taft and all the others,
seem agreed no citizen could sue
an employer or the government for
job or get out an injunction, or
that a labor union could sue. or get
the courts to make someone estab-
| lish jobs or wages, hours or any
thing. This, they all say, is Just a
declaration of policy by congress,
no matter how It is worked. Its
authors particularly deny that It Is
a trick to establish legal basis for
a whole new conception Of law in
which the unions or individual work.
ers could build up decisions through
this new Supreme court to indict
the government or employers and
perhaps establish criminal penal
ties.
II II does not do this, then
what does It dof Well, its spon-
sors rather frankly Indicate they
look on II as political propa-
ganda step, establishing a pol
icy-peg upon which they can
hang future legislative demands.
Particularly they want big
spending appropriations made In
the future, and they will then
say: The policy Of every man
. job has been established SO
this appropriation must be made
to give him = job" Or they can
build mp q demand that the Alu-