Evening star., 1946-06-09
Against
Continued From First Page.)

the employer is most sensitive to
this economic pressure"
The ban is "negation of effective
exercise of a basic constitutional
right" because it restricts the right
of individual workers to quit their
jobs. THE simple fact is that the
right of individual workers to quit
their jobs has meaning only when
they may quit in concert, so that in
their quitting or in their threat to
quit they have a real bargaining
strength. That is what is meant by
collective bargaining"
SECTION 6.
This further cripples the union
not only by providing a longer COOL
ing off period but puts no time
limit on the Presidents appointment
of an emergency commission when
requested by the Mediation Board
in public utilities cases.
Such a commission would report
within 80 days from the date of ap-
pointment. The 60-day waiting Pc
riod, set in Section 3 for all en-
ployes, would be continued where a
commission was appointed and until
five days after the commission re-
ported. Thus public utilities en-
ployes could be burdened by an ad-
ditional 35-day ban. But, the lack
of time limit on appointment of
commission could tie them up in
definitely depending on the whim of
the Mediation Board dn requesting
appointment of commission) or of
the President"
This provision protects the en-
ployer and hampers the effective
ness of employees in demanding wage
increases and in timing strikes.
The anti-labor group which is
pressing hardest for repressive leg
islation would throw up its hands
in horror at the notion that the
Importance of the service of these
public utilities should result in Gov
ernment ownership of these prop
critics. But this same group is
willing to urge that the Importance
of those services should result in
Government suppression of the en-
ployes of those utilities"
The CIO contends also that this
provision exemplifies IAN extremely
dangerous notion" that we must
make a second-class citizen of a
worker precisely because he is i'm
portant in our economic scheme"
SECTION 7.
The anti-racketeering provision is
in substance proposal repeatedly
rejected by past Congresses func-
tioning in calmer atmosphere than
that prevailing today" 1t is de-
signed for the "harassment" of labor
organizations by making it a felony
for any one to obtain the property
of another by actual or threatened
force. violence or fear of injury" to
persons or property.
That would lead, as it formerly
did in courts operating in the hey
day of the labor injunction" to
narrow and biased Interpretation
and application of such words as
force, violence or fear of injury.
Every alteration in an otherwise
peaceful picket line could be auto
matically raised to the level of a
Federal felony with penalties as
high as 20 years in Jail or a $4,000
fine.
The penalties could be applied
also to those who "conspire" or act
in concert" to commit acts prohib-
tied by the bill. That could be used
as weapon against all who voted
at union meeting for strike. Or
all persons in picket line.
1T Is the dream of every labor
batter once again to authorize Fed
eral courts to punish labor organ
izations for acts of so-called force
and violence. The objectives of this
bill are to encourage settlement of
disputes between labor and manage
ment by collective bargaining Just
how Section Z will accomplish this
is beyond me. 1t is gratuitous bit
of persecution skillfullly inserted by
the labor -baiters who now deem the
season appropriate for its successful
enactment"
SECTION 8.
Concerning employer contributions
to welfare and similar funds. this
imposes wholly unjustifiable" re-
strictions on both employers and
labor organizations and is "incon-
sistent" with free enterprise and COL
lective bargaining.
1t ignores" the existence of many
employer-supported welfare funds,
in some of which employer admin
istration predominates.
These funds "are part of an
evolving pattern of industrial rela-
tons"
Many employers believe it makes
for better. labor relations if they do