Evening star., 1947-05-09


House bill, and hence are germane
for consideration by the joint con-
ference. The conference committee
can accept or reject particular pro-
visions that differ or these may be
rewritten entirely and a new version
presented.
The various votes In the Senate,
therefore, are not too significant,
This, for instance, the amendment
on industry bargaining which
was rejected by one vote on Wednes-
day Of this week will come up again
for consideration because members
of the House may insist upon it.
Puts Lawmakers on Record.
The votes do afford an oppor-
tunity, however, for each Senator
to record himself on certain con-
troversial issues. There are many
points Of view on industry-wide
bargaining.
Thus, In some instances a ma
tional union is a constructive in
fiuence in forbidding a local union
leadership from going haywire.
Again and again national union
officers have stepped in to settle
strikes and to prevent them. In
dustry-wide bargaining in some
businesses Is urged by employers.
In others 1t is bitterly opposed, as,
for instance, In the coal industry
where John L. Lewis holds sway.
The close vote is a reflection of
the wide differences that exist on
this issue.
It is in the conference that all
viewpoints will have to be weighed
and the advantages and disadvan-
tages balanced to determine the
best way to legislate on certain
questions, If indeed on some of
them it is found desirable to legis-
late at all. -
The labor bill may be In con-
ference several weeks-possibly un-
til the latter part of June. It will
be one of the most important con-
ferences on legislation in many
years. The objective, of course,
will be to write a measure that it
will be difficult for President Tru-
man to veto.
Secret Sessions as Usual.
The conference committee will
meet In secret session as usual
1t will receive suggestions from en-
ployer organizations and unions and
doubtless will be under pressure
from all sides. But the bill that
emerges will be the product of the
members of Congress.
The labor union publicity drive
Is already claiming the labor bills
pending were written by spokesmen
for employer organizations. The
same sort of charge by analogy was
made in 1885 when the Wagner Act
was written. At that time there
were two major factions inside the
American Federation of Labor-one
which later became the CIO and
favored industrial unions and the
other which sponsored craft unions.
This correspondent in recent dis
patch referred to CIO lawyers as
having written the Wagner Act.
The CLIO was not in existence in
1885. 1t was intended to say that
lawyers who advocated the view
point of the faction inside the AFI
which subsequently became the CIO
had influenced the writing of the
Wagner Act. The power was given
to the National Labor Relations
Board to determine the appropriate
unit for collective bargaining, and.
for several years after the Wagner
Law was passed, AFL unions
charged that the CIO was being
favored in selecting appropriate
bargaining units.
1t was natural that LAWYERS
sympathetic with the industrial
union philosophy should have inf1u-
enced Senator Wagner of New York,
for in 1885 that was the dominant
note OF the radicals in the labor
movement who were calling the
leaders of the AFL "reactionary.
Even today, when there Is an effort
to merge the CIO and the AFI.
this fundamental difference In
philosophy is the chief barrier to a
reunfting Of the two major labor
organizations.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.)