The globe-independent. (Hagerstown, Md.) 1943-19??, 1946-09-19

somewhat less
than important.
The whole situation has started me
10 wondering about some thing that l
have always taken for granted-the
right to strike. From the cradle,
practically, one is taught to believe
in unions and it becomes almost an
automatic mental process to defend
the right of union members to strike.
Just now, as l said before, I'm be
ginning to wonder.
The war has been over for more
than a year. Our much talked of re-
conversion seems to have struck a
snag-in fact, if one is to judge by
the endless shortages of every known
type of consumer goods, one might
say that reconversion hasn't even
started
The closing down of vast war
plants means that hundreds of thou
sands of people are without employ
ment. Since war plants haven't been
reconverted for the most part, and
shortages of raw materials keep go
ing industries throttled down to a
minimum of production, there is
nothing at hand to absorb the unem-
ployed
Every strike in the country slows
down any possible industrial up
swing by weeks, months and in some
cases, years.
In the meantime prices are sky
rocketing and all of the people out on
strike, as well as the unemployed,
must eat, pay rent, clothe themselves
and their families all at eXtortionist
prices.
am absolutely unable to imagine
how people on fixed incomes, people
drawing unemployment compenSa-
ton and people out on strike manage
to exist at all under present circum-
stances.
Which brings me again to the point
of wondering about this business of
the right to strike.
Just how far, for instance, should
any group or organization, or any in
dividual, be permitted to trespass
against the common good?
The shipping strike now in prog
reSs has not only tied our country in
knot for many days now, but it
means that goods desperately needed
overseas may not be shipped. What
ever their grievances our merchant
seaman are not starving, they are not
even hungry. The people from whom
their strike is withholding the bare
necessities of life have been under
nourished and in many cases actually
starved for years. They are now liv-
ing in countries still unimaginably
devastated, their needs are much
greater than those of the most under
privileged sections of our own pop
ulation.
Under that particular set of cir
cumbstances alone, how does the
right to strike stand up?
Examining my own reactions, it
doesn't stand up at all. ...
Let the goods move while someone
+ does the mediating and you have at
least decency and consideration for
the rights of others. Paralyse trans
portation and shipping within and
without the nation and you have
blackmal. At least that's how it
looks to me.
In fact I've been mulling this
whole union problem over and I've
come to conclusion or two about
the whole business. Looking back
over the history of the exploitation
Of the working classes feel, as I
have always felt, that management
is entirely responsible for the exist
ence of unions. Originally the unions
accomplished a great deal, not only
in securing decent living wages for
union members, but in improving
working conditions, industrial safety
measures, and security of sort
against old age. No one can quarrel
with that and / don't suppose that
even the most violently anti-union
person in the country wants to.
However, things seem to have got
ten trifie out of hand-not because
of the average worker, but because
union leaders just aren't what they
used to be. Unions have themselves