Evening star., 1946-04-21
Senate Labor Bill
Evudes Real Issues
Measure Would Protect Strikes
Regardless of Public Injury
By John H. Cline.

the Case bill. This measure was de-
signed to facilitate peaceful settlement
of labor disputes, provide for judicial
enforcement of collective bargaining
contracts, outlaw the use of force and
violence in labor controversies, prohibit
certain types of labor boycotts and
exclude supervisory employees from the
scope of the Wagner Act.
In due course this bill made its way to
the Senate Committee on Education and
Labor, which has come to be known as
the burying ground of House-approved
labor bills, and which ran true to form
in this instance.
Last week the Senate committee re-
ported out its version of labor bill
toothless, spineless measure which
bears not the slightest resemblance to
the Case bill, and which, If approved in
its present form, could prove little better
than useless in dealing with the ex-
tremely serious problems raised by the
current state of industrial relations in
this country.
The Senate committee, or rather
majority of that committee has failed to
propose anything adequate to deal with
labor problems because it has proceeded
on the basis of two false premises. One
is expressed in plain words, namely,
that the right of labor to strike cam
not be abolished or limited under our
democratic system" The other, while
not set out in SO many words is i'm
plicit in every line of the majority's
argument in behalf of its bill. 1t is
that no legislation should be enacted to
bring about an equality of bargaining
strength between labor and manage
ment: that the enormous and dispro-
poItionate powers now exercised by
labor unions. aside from the strike
weapon, should not be abridged or regu-
lated by Congress, regardless OF the
extent to which these powers may be
abused or the degree to which the pubic
may be called upon to suffer as result
of these abuses. In the whole OF the
committees proposal there was but one
minor concession. Under its Dill, union
racketeers who have been preylng upon
farmers would be forbidden to use force
or violence or threats to eXtort money
for permitting the delivery OF perish
able" farm products. II product Is not
perlshable the committee Is no more
concerned with this particular evil than
it Is with other abuses
There is no rational basis for the
committees statement that the right
to strike cannot be abolished or limited
under our democratic system. we nave
advanced to the point where individuals
are no longer permitted to settle
difference by the process OF tghtlng IL
out and let the best man win. They
are required by law to settle their dlt-
ferences through the courts Similarly,
on the international plane, this country
currently is taking the lead in an at
tempt to outlaw war, to deny to nations
the right to settle their differences by
fighting them out. II these things can
be done within our democratic system,
it is simply absurd to say that there
is something inherent in democracy
which makes an exception in the case
of management and labor. which re-
serves to them and to them alone the
right to fight out their disputes regard
less of the resulting injury to themselves
and to the country. In our modern
society there is a public interest which
rises higher than the rights of unions
or the rights of management. This is
the public right, or the national right.
to receive goods and services essential
to existence. Ultimately. if not now.
Congress will be forced to recognize that
this is SO.
The committee quotes with approval
from William H Davis, former chairman
of the War Labor Board, to this effect:
1T is. in the last analysis, the pressure
of this right to strike or to lockout that
keeps the parties at the conference
table; that tests their courage, resource
fulness and decision" In other words,
the right to strike or to lockout is a
useful thing, and, according to the COM
mittee, it must be preserved.
Does this mean that the management
of vital public utility for example, in
an effort to reduce the wages of it's
employees, has right to lock them out
and let the public suffer until the
workers come to terms? On the face
of its argument the committee says
that management has this right. But
it is foregone conclusion that no
member of the committee would condone
for a moment a lockout in a public
utility which deprived the people of a
vital public service. and if any men,
Der did so he would deserve to be retired
from the Senate at the earliest possible
moment. Of course, except by necessary
implication, the committee does not say
that it would condone a public utility
lockout. But it does say, and in so
many words, that it approves the right
to strike in public utility, even though
the result would be the same as in the
case of a lockout. 1t comedies that in
such strike the public would suffer,
but its conclusion is that it is better for
the public to suffer than for Congress to
abolish or limit the right to strike. I'VE
should guard" says the committee,
against any tendency to penalize these
public utility) workers or to deprive
them of basic rights just because their
work is important
This is a point of view which is
fatally shortsighted because it places
the welfare of a minority. often of a
very small minority, ahead of the well
fare of the whole people. Hardly less
shortsighted is the committees conten-
ton that other powers exercised by
ho hriI