Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1947-06-06
Conference Labor
Bill Neors Vote
.Wanted 40 Bargaln

Finally, it became clearly es.
tablished in the final days OF
conference pickering that Taft,
as party leader, wanted the
House bill to appear more re-
strictive in order to give the
Senate conferees greater bar.
gaining power and also to shape
public opinion behind the idea
that it was a touchdown" bill
and therefore should not be
vetoed.
This sham did not fool two of
the conferees. The final bill was
condemned by Sen. James Muir
ray 3D., Mont.) and Rep. John
Lesinski d., Mich), who
charged jointly that the confer.
ience made a bad piece of leg
islation worse" and marked "a
milestone on the road back"
The two liberals contended
that because it strengthens
every tendency in American life
toward industrial concentration
and profiteering while it weak
ems the chef agency that pro-
tects the purchasing power of
American consumers 1t is bad
economics" ="
Give Fake Issue
The final stumbling block
was supposedly a clause to bar
nearly 250,000 workers in food
processing and packing plants
from collective barga in / n g
rights. This, too, was fake is
sue, according to labor leaders.
The final compromise, so simple
it made reporters laugh, was to
omit any description of such
workers and let the issue ride
until the next appropriation for
the National Labor Relations
Board comes up.
Ironically, the two liberal
conferees who dissented from
the final bill were joined by
Congress number one labor
hater Rep. Clare Hoffman (R.
Mich.), who objected because
the bill failed TO restrict labor
rights more than it did. Hoff.
man was bitter that the final
version did not completely out
law both union security and in.
dusetry.wide bargaining.
With the final form of the bill
almost a foregone conclusion
that it would follow Party
Leader Taft's own bill - the
question remained as to whether
Truman would veto the bill.
Two members OF the cabinet,
Labor Secretary Schwellenbach
and Postmaster Gen. Robert
Hannegan were known TO favor
veto, but the others were re-
ported TO be either mildly or
strongly in favor Of Truman's
signing the bill or letting 1t be-
come law without his signature.
Labor Seeks Veto
Throughout the country both
AFL and CIO state and local or
ganizations pressed campaigns
both for a veto and for Senate
vote to sustain a veto. joint
AEL-CIO campaigns increased
and many localities planned to
follow the lead of the AFL and
CIO in New York in holding
VETO Day" demonstrations.
Hartley was sure that the Re-
publicans with southern Demo.
cratic help could override a
veto. His supporters pointed
out that seven Senators who
voted for the original Wagner
Act voted for the Taft bill. They
were: Democrats George (Ga),
Hatch IN. Mex), Mcclellan
TENN, Connally (Tex), and
OVerton tLa. Two Republicans
who voted for the Wagner bill
also voted for its emasculation
BY the Taft measure: White
(Me), and Capper (Kan.)
Final Provisions
The final Taft.Hartley pro.
gram shaped up with the fol-
lowing provisions:
1-Authorizes the Justice De.
partment to obtain injunctions
for 80 days against strikes
which allegedly imperil national
health and welfare. A coal,
steel, trucking, railroad, ship.
ping, or telephone strike could
easily be considered in this
category.
2-Bans the closed shop Per
mits union shop only after ma
jority vote favors IT,
3 - Prohibits juriSdictional .
strikes and secondary boycotts
and instructs the NLRB to get
injunctions 10 halt them.
4-Outlaws union-controlled