The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1947-05-15
Taft Sfooges Aid
New Poison To
Slave Lubor Bill

gains Va eiC VI ddC uiilOu ulOFCuiCfi
over the past so years were crush
ed underneath.
The original nion-wrecking Taft
bill was made even more vicious
ai,d nrohanly more certain of 6
Presidential veto-by the addition
OF three new amendments.
A fourth amendment-to outlaw
industry-wide bargaining-was LOST
by an eye-lash as a startling Re
publican revolt against the Taft
machine combined with COP alb
senteeism gave the Ohio Presiden
tai hopeful his first setback.
First of the three amendments
made it an unfair labor practice
for unions to "coerce" or restrain
worker in selecting a bargaining
agent. This was passed 60 to %.
The second amendment was dou.
ble-edged: it outlawed union-con-
trolled health and welfare funds
and also banned the involuntary
dues checkoff. Violation of the
health and welfare prohibition car
ried maximum penalty of $4,000
fine and year in Jail. The vote
on this was 48 to 40.
The third amendment, permit.
ting employers to sue unions into
bankruptcy on the claim that they
have allegedly been injured by jur-
isdictional strikes or secondary boy
colts, was approved by a 65 to
26 vote.
The unexpected upset of the in
dustry-wide bargaining ban occur
red when 16 Republicans broke
from the party line to join with
% Democrats to defeat the propos-
al by "A to 43. Five Senators whose
votes would certainly have been
thrown in favor of the amendment
were absent. Two of them would
have been enough to pass the cher
ished program of Sen. Joe Ball (R.,
Mimi.
The Republican revolt, headed by
Senators Irving Ives IN. W and
Wayne Morse (Ore.), drew bitter
complaints from Taft that the
amendment had been utterly and
completely misrepresented." Never
theless, it would have done two
things: Barred national unions
from instructing their locals to
sign uniform agreements covering
wage scales, hours, etc. 2-Prohib-
tied national unions from bargain
ing except on company-wide
basis or where different employers
are located in the same county or
metropolitan area. '''''.'' = 81.
While the disappointed Taft
complained that with everybody
here, l figured we would have
carried it," Ives and Morse express
ed belief that the chances of the
bill meeting a Truman veto were
reduced. Pro-labor Demo-
Gratis, however, were gleeful, con-
tending that now more than ever
before Truman had clinching evil
dence that the COP could not
a two-thirds vote in the
Senate to overrule veto.
Ives fought strongly against the
amendment, arguing that although
Taft and Ball claimed it would
only limit industry-wide bargain
ing it actually could prevent it"
and result in the ''disintegration of
labor" He sounded a
vigorous warning that "The elimi-
nation of trade unionism as a
force in our society would probably
contribute more than anything else
to the destruction of freedom in
Morse maintained that the ban
would "play into the hands of those
groups who consider the only good
lnions to be weak unions" He con-
ended that the ban "would strike
1T the very heart of democratic
rends in organized labor and set
trade unions back 20
yearS."
Ives voted for but Morse opposed
he coercion" amendment. Morse
that there were four kinds
# coercion that could be alleged:
'hysical violence; threats of vio-
ence, name calling or the closed
hop. Local and state laws already
the first three, he assert
d, and the closed shop is outlawed
n the Taft bill. The amendment,
e charged would permit employ
RS to hire "stooges" to bring coer-
ion charges against unionists "to
low up union organizational ac-
ivities."
There was absolutely no doubt |
\ the minds Of Taft and other |
;OP machine leaders that the final
i'll would pass the Senate easily. |
heir confidence stemmed from
ote taken on Monday on a motion
y pro-labor Sen. Harley Kilgore
d., w. Va.). Kilgore's proposal to
ut the bill aside for 10 days was
rushed 60 to II as solid front
f 43 Republicans was joined by II
'em0crats.