Nogales international., 1945-11-16
BynULMALLON.

to work which has always existed,
legally, constitutionally and by Gus
tom. The original draft Of their bill
was probably composed, as nearly
as I can ascertain, by the Farmers
Union. farthest left of the three farm
ers lobbies and often called the
farmer branch of the CIO. But of
all things the farmers need right
now, 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 a lot of rights. including
the right to work. But Mr.. Roose-
welt did not say there ought to be
a law, and before he mentioned the
matter it had gotten into a resolu-
ton of an international labor office
meeting in Philadelphia. Sir VIII
liam 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 a
right is declared in the Soviet Rus
sian constitution.
There it 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, a law
promising to share whatever
work the government gives is
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 perplex-
ing except that both sponsors and
amenders of this right-to-work bill
agree it 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
a 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. It's
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.
If it does not do this, then
what does it do? Well, its spon-
sors rather frankly indicate they
look on it as a 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
a job has been established so
this appropriation must be made
to give him job" Or they can
build up demand that the Alu-
minum company be broken up
for that reason, or that all black
hair be made white because ii
would create jobs in the hair
dyeing industry.
This makes it seem unimportant
because congress retains the right
to appropriate or not appropriate
regardless of this underlined declara.
ton of an unagreed policy. Frank
ly. then 1 do not know what it
means, except that everyone will
ask for government funds.
A decline in work-week is another
provision. Plans to cut the govern
ment work-week again from 20 (it
was 49, to 80 have already been pro-
posed in bills. This keeps salaries
where they were and prevents nor
nal utilization of the talents. abili-
ties and aptitudes OF the nation S
manpower. 1t does not increase pur-
chasing power or create more en-
ployment opportunities; it merely
shares-the work, less work for the
nation as whole, therefore less pro-
ductivity and less tax revenues to
sustain high economy, needed for
full employment.