The Michigan chronicle. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1936-current, 1945-01-20

can labor suffered through enact
ment Ot the ipfamouS Smlth-CQn-
ndlly Act That act MAS u direct re-
suit Of Lewis strikes.
I Repeal now Of the 'no-Strike'
pledge by the JAW would certain
~ invite ucN repgcSSIVc ant-iabOr
laws far worse than the Smith
Connally Act
Because of this crucial fact
which must be evident 10 every
-N+HeeFn- leader IF TT -:,,;rfrtzt-r- ii-1t1or
Il seems 20 me that those who adj
: voCT'c repeal 81 JAWS wartime
no-s'rIkc pledge, in effect are IN
llinS vicious legislative attacks on
labor. TheymuSt realize what ac-
ccpbncc OF their views VII entail
All OF us are aware that this war
is far from being won. We know.
too, that cou'inued.~incrcased and
uninterru 'cd~~production is abb
Solutcly essential - an early vic
tury~Fr~ both Europe and the Pacific.
We hardly can close our cycs 10
the lists Of battle casualties which
tell us Wo arc IN this conflict up
"a our neck and if VIC don't win
then Al is loSt--inCludinG some ten
million Of our relatives and fellow
workers who are overseas.
Those who are advocating that
JAW members rescind their
unions wartime no-Strikc pledge
are either completely out Of SYM
pathy with an Allied victory in
this struggle. or they are too short
sighted 10 be claSScd as respon-
Slble leaders Of the labor move
ment. In either instance they are
knowingly or unknOWin2ly Sabo-
t. 5ing the war effort and their adj
vice should be ignored.
! am aware of the argument adj
vanced in support Of a negative
vote, and no one can seriously
question the contention that in eff
feet labor's no-strike pledge has
in too many instances not been
reciprocated by government and
industry.
This is true But il is beside the
fundamental issue in this referen-
! dun.
The issue posed by this JAW
referendum on the no-strike pledge
is how can We best hasten the sue
ccSsful conclusion of this war.
In deciding this issue we should
recall that the no-Strike pledge
was not given in anticipation of
any presumed or promised ad-
vantagcS 10 labor. The pledge was
given, because our Communicating
Chief requested il: our country re-
quired II; and. finally. because We
had no choice in the matter In
other words. labor in l94l simply
was asked 10 do voluntarily what
an anti-labor congress was IRE
pared 10 and would have forced
us In do any way.
And we really have no choice in
tho matter now.
Let us suppose for the moment
that the no-strlke pledge is rescind-
cd by JAW.
The result would be army opera
ton of struck plants; induction Of
strikers into the armed services;
! immediate passage OF National
3 ocINlCe ACN, dllu al ash VI pGiICl
labor batting legislation so drastic
as TO make the present Smfth-Con-
nally Act seem liberal by COM
/ parison.
Fortunately, there is no reason TO
anticipate these dire happenings.
because If reports ! have received
from our membership in all parts
Of the country arc true, JAW will
uphold its wartime no-Strike
edge.
nave butrccently returned from
London where participated. as
an American DELEGATE. in pre-
lrinary, discussions with British
and Russian labor leaders | know
now. far better than did before
tho tremendous sacrifices being
made by our fclloW-workcrS in
these countries. know that some
Of the policies followed by their
governments in their dealings with
colonial peoples do not accord