The sub., 1945-03-17

aI1U HuIIC pIOpCLAJ oAouAN Oc union.
 Tn general there are two methods whereby worinnen can be protected from injustice at a time like this when wholesale dismiSsals appear inevitable:
 Either a union can investigate alleged favoritism and diScrimina- tion, then fight for those individuals who are not receiving what 1t be- Iieves to be fair treatment
 Or it can work with management for adoption of a clearly defined policy which will automatically protect the rights of all concerned, requiring no argument over 1n- dividua1 cases.
 Frankly, my purpose in writing this is to urge that the union fol- low this second method of proceed ure. Here's why:
 If were running a farm and, be- cause of bad times. had to lay off one out of ten men, I'd pick the least useful, trying to keep those most valuable. Then if some farm workers union came along and tried to tell me I must not lay that msu off. I should figure if could not decide who to hire and who to fire, well what rights did I have 0nyhOw9
 And there Is another angle. Sup nose I had signed a contract with the union, then the union would be the bargaining agent for ali my em- ployees = not just the union mem- bers. Therefore 1t should represent the interests of all. But would it be doing this if 1t told me must not fire the man wanted to fire - must instead fire one of the others? What about that other mans rights? Why should the union pick on him?
 On what basis should a union de- eide which man should be kept and which laid off?
 Should union favor and fight for those employed longest - even though newcomers may be paying most of the union dues? Or should 1t favor men and propose dismissal of women workers = even though it collects the same dues from both sexes?
 Should a union defend its own members and do nothing for those who have not joined? An, but, if it has a contract with the company that contract calls for 1t to represent ell workers = not just its members = and to do nothing for the others would be to encourage them to join a rival organization.
 To all of this there is one obvious exception: If a man is fired evident ly because he has been active in union. No labor organization can survive if it permits discrimination against it's members when they are reasonably within their legal rights.
 But management has rights too.
 And 1t is the right and duty of management to buy and sell. hire and fire and try to make money for the owners. That is bhe basis of capitalism. Any serious interfer- ance Is step toward either Com- munism or FaScism. Personally II am afraid of either word. but if a union is to take such step it should realize what 1t Is doing.
 How then should labor protect it. self when Iayoffs are necessary?
 It seems to me very simple, for I have seen 1t done by one conpara- lively weak union, shortly after 1t was organized and without outside support. That union was the Am erican Newspaper Guild.
 On many papers no man from the humblest copy boy to the managing editor knew from one hour to the next when he would get the old heaye ho. This was particularly true on the Hearst papers, where five, ten. or 20 might be fired evil dently without rhyme or reason at any minute. even though some of them had been on the staff for many years.
 The Newspaper Guild took the position that 1t was the right and d1Itv of mana cement to employ