Detroit evening times., 1945-09-25
PAUL
NIALLON
Behind
The News

ment bill is being pushed
through Congress into law by
preponderant favor for it-and
there is no objection TO the basic
hopefulnesS Of its theory-no
one seems TO know what II
means, or even where IT came
from.
BY great odds. il is the most
uncertain and unclarified piece
of legislation of my time here.
/ have been calling 1t ClO
bill because the ClO has cam
paigned for it in the usual eX-
pensive and prepossesslng man
ner which obscures other
backing and monopolizes the
publicity.
But Go planners did not
write il.
The numerous senators whose
names are attached as CO.
authors will give you little sat-
isfaction if you inquire where
they got the notion of passing a
law proclaiming the right TO
work which has always existed,
legally -cenStitutionally- and by
custom.
The original draft Of their
bill was probably composed, as
nearly as / can ascertain, by
the Farmers Union. farthest
left of the three farmers lobhles
and often called the farmer
branch of CIO.
THE Farmers Union people will
Il say they got the idea out OF
a speech Mr.. Roosevelt made in
which he mentioned lot OF
rights, including the right TO
work.
But Mr.. Roosevelt did not say
there ought to be law, and
before he mentioned the matter,
il had gotten into a resolution
of an international labor Office
meeting in Philadelphia.
Sir William Beveridge, 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 right is
declared in the Soviet Russian
constitution.
There it has some meaning
because under dictatorship
fixing salaries, controlling hours,
renting homes and even cooking
and charging for the workers
meals. while restraining the
worker from freedom, a law
promising share whatever
work the government gives, is
a realistic right. :,
But this is all far behind
American ideals and rights
which already go 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
II perplexing except that both
spo sors and amendors OF
this right-to-work bill agree 1t
carries no legal rights.
Co-author Thomas OF Utah
NAV not have been pinned down
on that point yet, but Co-Author
Murray and Amendor Taft. and
all the others, seem agreed no
citizen could sue an employer
or the government for job, OF
get out an Injunction, or that
labor union could sue. or get
the courts TO make some one
establish jobs or wages, hours
or anything.
This. they all say, is just a
declaration OF policy by Con-
gress. no matter how 1t is
worked.
It's authors particularly deny
that il is a trick to establish a
legal basis for a whole new con-
ception of law in which The
unions or individual workers
could build up decisions through
this new supreme court TO IN
dict the government or en-
ployers and perhaps estaoiiSn
criminal penalties.
IF 1T does not do this, then
Il what does il do?
Well. its sponsors rather
frankly indicate they look on IL
as a political propaganda step,
establishing a policy-peg upon
which they can hang future leg
islative demands.