Evening star., 1947-05-30

workers VINO Is mostly Responsible
for the legislation.
It was Mr.. Lewis who educated
the whole country to the fact that
a Nationwide strike paralyzing the
distribution of fuel and impairing
the public health could be brought
about and that the Federal Govern
ment had no power in peacetime to
get an Injunction. The fact that
even under a wartime statute there
was doubt and the Supreme Court
of the United States divided on the
issue served only to emphasize the
need for some law to protect the
public interest.
Injunction Limited.
The new measure doesn't 60 back
TO the days of the yellow dog" in
functions, as the labor leaders claim,
for private employers can't get any
injunctions. Only the Federal Gov
eminent can get an injunction when
the national safety is imperilled by
O. Nationwide strike and then only
for 80 days. After that, If still un-
solved, the situation is to be sub
mitted to Congress for further ac-
ton.
John Lewis Is responsible also for
the provisions in the new bill which
prohibit so-called welfare funds
from being managed solely by
unions when employers make con-
tributions as a result of a labor
contract. Broadly speaking, there
are other parts Of the bill which
never would have had behind them
the public sentiment that has been
reflected by more than a tWo-thirdS
vote irS both houses of Congress If
it had not been for the Lewis tactics
in handling the coal strike.
So the best name would be the
Lewis-Taft- Hartley bill, as it is to be
noted that Senator Taft of Ohio,
chairman of the Senate Labor Com
mittee, and Representative Hartley
of New Jersey, chairman OF the
House Labor Committee, had much
to do with the writing Of the con-
ference bill.
The measure which has emerged
from conference is closer to the
Senate bill than to that Of the
House. 1t is, of course, weak bill
and does not go to the heart of the
labor problem in America. 1t cor
rects some abuses, but the principal
one-the right of the National Labor
Relations Board to interfere with
free speech by employers-has not
been curtailed.
Meaning of Provision.
The new provision says: "
"The expressing of any views, ar
gument, or opinion, or the dissem-
ination thereof, whether in written,
printed, graphic. or visual form,
shall not constitute or be evidence
of an unfair labor practice under
any Of the provisions of this act,
II such expression contains no threat
of reprisal or force or promise of
benefit"
This means that the Labor Board,
in the future as in the past, will
arbitrarily interpret in each case
whether. anything an employer says
is a threat" or a promise of bene-
fit" These words are broad enough
to allow the Labor Board the leeway
1t has exercised before in intimidat-
ing employers who wish to talk
frankly and candidly to their own
employees.
The House bill was a much better
expression of the free-speech idea
than the Senate version, which was
exactly what the Labor Board has
hitherto used as the support for It's
decisions. 1t must be conceded that
the new language prevents to some
extent the tying up Of speeches or
statements with acts of foremen or
employers and the taking of the two
together to form an unfair labor
practice, but the phraseology still
permits the board to decide for
itself what an employer means when
he says he thinks his employees will
be better off by accepting his pro-
posals than by turning them down.
The employer can be construed to
be making threat" no matter
what words he uses.
The new legislation. If enacted,
Will stop certain abuses but it fails
to touch the principal handicap in
labor-management relations, namely
the barrier set up by the Wagner
law. and confirmed by the new bill,
preventing employers and employees
from reasoning together on trouble
some issues without risking a law
suit.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)