Evening star., 1947-04-22
Senate Bill on labor
Seen os odqepod dqe'
Wording 50 Ambisuous Ii May
Defeat Purpose, Says Writer
By Dsuid Lssvrsnce

Defeat Purpose, Says Writer
By DsUid LSsyrsscs
closs examination 81 the texts of the
two bill TO regulate labor-management
rslations one passed By the House and
the other reported hy 3 II to ! vote hy
tho Senate COMMITTEES on Labor--indi.
eatss that the Senate bill Il full, of an.
bisuities and Is In reality hodgepodre,
The oaniasion from the eenAte Iii
~ not only eonspicuovs but the failurs
e dsz3ne several Of the important s,,n-
fair labor practices" In the ssEiyitaes
q labor unions y 1lagrant.
1ha Senate hill rspsats the Language
of the original Wagner Act In making il
an "unfair labor practice" for an an.
ployer to interfere with. restrain, or
cosrce .emploges In the exercise of thu
rights suAx3nteed ,inder Section 1 fcol.
leetiys barsaining.ln But there i
nothing in the bin that prohibits unions
from interfering with. restraining, or
eosrcing smployss IA the sxercise Of
their right to joan Or not 10 Join )
union.
ssns csrsess Language.
The absurdity Of the senate bill Is IL
hstratsd hy ,sens curious lankusxe
which forhids . union 80 interfere vith.
restrain, Or eoercs an employer In the
selection Of his Representatives for the
purpose Of collective bargaining Or the
ad1ustment Of grievances
One would think from the foregoing
that labor unions had been interfering
with the selection Of bargaining rsrrs-
sentatives by employers and that so,,s
abuse along this line existed. one seeks
in vain. In all the labor disputes OF the
last few years. for Z single instance in
which any labor union has interfersd
with or sought to coerce m employer
when he selects personnel director or
his general counsel or his executive star
to represent him in collective bargaining
negotiations.
The truth Is somebody sold the senats
committee the academic theory that
interference BY union with the seIsc.
uon by an employer Of his lawyer ii
parallel TO interference with individual
smployss BY other employees who coerca
them. call them epithets and generally
make lie miserable for them at the WORK
bench II they don't join unions. ,
The Senate bill ID wishy-washy If.
fair which secured the support Of II
out OF the IL members voting. Even
the opponents Of the legislation were
doubtless rejoicing secretly at the elum-
siness Of the measure and were clad
to forward 1t to the Senate.
The Senate bill not only, needs amend.
ment, but 1t ID 70 ambiguous that Il
win defeat its purposs-hy throwing the
measure into the courts .for. several years
for definition Of what Is really meant.
No worse example Of draftsmanship On
= vital subject has come out OF 4 con.
srsssional committee In many years.
House Bin II Specific.
The House bill. to bs sure, may be
criticised ~ covering more ground than
Il necessary perhaps, but thsrs can be
not the slightest doubt Of what the
sponsors Of the measure had In mind
when they specifically prohibited abuses
that have aroused the nation in labor
disturbances In recent years. i.
Incidentally the labor union spoaes-
men are crying souts sthat3the Heuse bill
was written by some Of the lawyers for
the Nationals Association Of NanufAs-
tlrerE Nobody has sconcsd6si this hut
1t Is interesting to recall that the wSg.s
ner Labor Relations Act was written BY
the CIo lawyers in 1855 and that Presi-
dent Truman's veto Of the Case bill looks
very much ~ II 1t were taken from.
the briefs nled BY the cIo lawyers
against that measure last year. s s,
It u natural that lawyers familiar
with labor-mAnagement controversies
should be brought In by members Of
Congress for technical advice. II the
lawyers for the employers were not
summoned, they should have been, for
they have hrst-hand knowledge Of the
abuses and particularly Of the adroitly
written and ingeniously deceptive de-
cisions of the National Labor Relations
Board over 3 period of years. Even the
ALL spokesmen have from tins 10 tins
insisted that the cIo lawyers controlled
the majority Of the National Labor Re-
lations Board members. One need not
inquire too closely into the origin of
existing legislation and veto messages,
for the fact Ii the labor union lawyers
have had 1t all their own way foF the
last decade or more - {