Evening star., 1947-06-15
Discounts Significance
Of Labor Bill Protests
Political Effects of Veto Declared to Be
Exaggerated by Union Leaders
"a. n a~n.d n PoiIIaf
BIZ Gerard D. Reilly


By Gerard D. Reilly
The Presidents refusal to reveal his course
of action on the TRft- Hartley labor bill before
he left for Canada has brought to bear upon
the White House the same pressure which the
Senate withstood last week In approving the
conference report on the bill. While these
efforts all stem from the hysterical denuncia-
ton Of the legislation by officials of organized
labor. recent events indicate they are being
abetted from an unexpected source.
Among the pro-veto forces are a group Of
politicians. mostly from New York State, who
have been telling the inner circle that unless
veto is forthcoming, the labor vote will be
lost to the Democratic Party in 1948. 1t is un-
likely that the President will succumb to these
Establishments, for as a Senator MIR. Truman
demonstrated on several occasions Cncluding
the famous Kaiser shipyards racket that his
Judgment on legislative issues affecting labor
was not influenced by the threats of the labor
lobby. The political phase Of the matter de-
serves some comment, however, as it illustrates
how little the old-fashioned politicians under
stand the intricacies of trade union politics.
An interesting survey Of worker opinion made
by the magazine Factory Management reveals
that the rank and file do not agree that the
Almost all the major proposals embodied in
the conference agreement are acceptable to the
majority of workers, union and non union. In
fact, majorities were recorded even in favor of
some of the tougher" provisions of the House
bill which the conferees rejected
One of these was the requirement that no
strikes should be permitted until the workers
were polled by secret ballot. Fifty-eight per
cent of the workers canvassed felt that strike
ballot was desirable. The conferees also dis
carded a provision limiting initiation fees to
no more than $25. Nevertheless, 78 per cent of
the workers were reported in favor Of this lini-
tation and many thought that $25 was far
too much. In fact the only provision retained
by the conferees which seems to meet with the
disfavor of factory workers is the permission
given employers to replace with permanent
employees, workers who strike for higher wages.
But the objection of workers to this aspect
Of the Taft-Hartley bill Is equally applicable
TO existing law under interpretations of the
Supreme Court.
Workers were also opposed to any prohibi-
ton against employer contributions to union
welfare funds, but they were not polled
specifically as to whether or not the safeguards
upon such welfare funds written into the
measure by the Taft-Ball amendment were
desirable. It is therefore obvious that when
politicians speak about labor's opposition to
the Taft-Hartley bill they are referring only
to the opinions of AFL and CIO ofhcialdom
which are quite out of line with the view of
the men for whom they profess to speak.
OF course, because of the vast funds which
unions command and their access to such
channels of propaganda as the press and radio
some politicians are inclined to fear even
purely official labor opposition. This applies
to the CIO rather than the AFL, since the
latter organization-in marked contrast to
the highly centralized CIO political machine
has never been able to muster any semblance
Of unanlmity among its officials in national
political campaign.
1t is the height of folly, however, for Demo-
cratic politicians to believe that the CLOS
attitude toward President Truman in the next
campaign will be affected in the slightest
degree by anything that he may or may
not do on labor legislation. Whether CIO
leaders support Mr.. Truman, his Republican
opponent, or a third party candidate like
Henry Wallace will depend entirely upon the
extent to which issues of foreign policy present
genuine cleavage between the two major
parties in 1948. Should the Republicans NOM
resentative Hoffman of Michigan, they would
have far better chance Of capturing CIO
support than the Democrats, even though Mr.
Hoffman refused to sign the conference report
on the ground that the Hartley bill had been
made weak and ineffective
The reason for this seeming paradox Is that
the Communists and their satellites are SO
powerful within the CIO that they can dictate
the official policy of the whole organization
on any political subject. 1t will he recalled
that in the 1910 campaign, when the Repub-
licans were making the administration Of
the Wagner Act and Wage-Hour Act an issue,
the CIO bureaucracy nevertheless made
every effort possible to prevent President
Roosevelt's reelection.
This phenomenon has since been explained
by insiders as the result of John L. Lewis
pique over his frustrated vice presidential
ambitions. While this was undoubtedly
factor in Mr. Lewis personal approach, he
would never have been able to swing his
organization behind him had 1t not been that
his position coincided with current Moscow
policy. The Hitler-Stalin treaty being then
in full effect, Mr.. Lewis principal ieutenants
were bending every effort to discredit Presi-
dent Roosevelt with working people as a war
monger.
AS any person VINO understands internal
CIO politics is aware, the men who engineered
the Lewis "bolt" are still as dominant as ever
in CIO affairs They hold lions share OF
the appointments to the Washington CIO staff
and the major Offices in about two-thirds
of its constituent unions.
An interesting illustration was the Wisconsin
primary of last summer in which Senator
La Toilette, the most effective champion Of
organized labor in the Senate, went down to
defeat. Although from every conceivable CIO
test the Senator had perfect labor record.
his temerity in attacking. postwar Russian
policy had aroused the ire Of our domestic
Communists. During his campaign a special
edition of the CIO News was published in
Wisconsin for the deliberate purpose of dis
credtinp him Although Mr. Murray after