Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1947-03-19
Separate Labor Bills
Would Serve G. O. P.
All-Embracing Measure Could
Scare Away Support
Bv David Laurence

By David Laurence
Reports that members of the House
committee on labor are divided as to
whether to draft one or two bills on
labor regulation are linked with the
question of averting a Presidential veto.
At present, for instance, 1t Is highly
doubtful whether President Truman will
sign any labor bill. A tip-off on his
attitude may be discerned from a read
ing of the brief filed by the National
Labor Relations Board with the Senate
Labor Committee. That brief rejects
virtually every suggested amendment to
existing labor laws and reflects, as do all
board announcements, the desires Of
the CLIO and AFL national unions which
1t is the professed purpose of the board
to champion.
Mr.. Trumans political future is, ac-
cording to many of his Ieutenants, tied
up inextricably with the help that the
CIO-PAC and the AFL may be ready
to give him at the polls. Mr.. Truman
vetoed the mild and inoffensive Case
bill at the last session of Congress, and
there is every reason to believe he will
veto any or all labor bills sent him by
Congress hereafter.
Separate Bills Sound.
Under such circumstances, the argu-
ment for six or seven separate pieces of
legislation is a sound political maneu-
yer for the Republicans. 1t will be
easier to get a two-thirds vote in both
Houses for specific issues than on an
overall bill, which naturally would in
clude such a variety of changes as to
permit timid members of the House to
take refuge in technicalities of the kind
that the Labor Boards brief contains
in abundance.
ANY one who wants a technical reason
for voting against any changes in exist
ing labor laws will find the boards brief
a virtual encyclopedia of alarms and
dangers and pitfalls One would think,
after reading it, that Congress is in
omniscience and wisdom on labor mat
tiers is confined wholly to the ULRB.
Actually, Congress has the upper
hand If Mr. Truman vetoes every one
of the six or seven measures that could
conceivably be sent to him, Congress
could answer such an arbitrary though
technically defensible position by using
majority vote to refuse to appropriate
any funds for the NLRB.
Labor Problem Understood.
This would be an extreme measure,
but not less extreme than series OF
vetoes.
The country understands the labor
problem all too well. 1t is fitting that
the 1913 election campaign should make
the labor monopolies and their regllla-
ton the central issue.
The issue is not collective bargaining
at all but the application Of collectivist
philosophy to the American way Of life.
It's philosophy which seeks to under
mine the dignity and self-reliance Of the
individual and to exton the virtues Of
socialist state in which the government
is master and the individual Is servant.
The Wagner Act was not intended as
an unlimited delegation OF power by
Congress to governmental agency, with
unqualified discretion to that agency to
write laws and make decisions govern
ing labor management relations.
s. Fallacy on Strike Drop.
Congress wrote some vague phrases
into the Wagner Act in 1885 which the
Labor Board, backed up by decisions
from the New Deal Supreme Court, has
now interpreted as broad grant Of
discretion to do whatever the board
wishes to do to encourage unioniZation
as against individual bargaining or to
coerce or threaten or intimidate en-
ployers in their negotiations with labor
units already recognized.
One of the fallacies offered by the
board and its defenders Is that the num-
Der Of strikes for organization demands
that Is, for "recognition"-have "dra-
matically declined" This is a mislead-
ing statement The Labor Boards power
of intimidation is greatest after labor
unit has been recognized and collective
bargaining starts and strikes are threat
ened or called.
Indeed, If Congress could undertake
a comprehensive investigation Of the
many-sided and inconsistent decisions
rendered by the Labor Board in the last
10 years in connection with strikes or
threats of strikes, it would have to come
to the conclusion that the Wagner Act
and the Labor Board have been funda-
mentally the cause of and have actually
promoted good deal of labor strife and
engendered much of the bitterness in
present-day labor management relations.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)