Evening star., 1947-02-16
Showdown at Capitol
Seen on Closed Shop
Union Security Plays Major
Role in Labor Debate
By Gerard D. Reilly

NOlS LdDOI DSDdtG
By Gerard D. Reilly
AS Senator Ball of Minnesota pre-
'dicted several weeks before the new
Congress met, the issue of the closed
shop has emerged as the major ques-
ton of policy in the labor legislation
program. This, of course, does not
mean that other issues, such as the re-
visions of the Wagner and Norris-La
Guardia Acts to cope with the problem
of supervisory organizations, secondary
boycotts and jurisdictional strikes, do
not also pose questions of great impor-
tance. But, the closed shop issue is
unique in that it furnishes the clue not
only to what the Senators and Repre-
sentatives feel about controversies be-
tween employers and labor organizations,
but the extent to which they are con-
cerned with the third, but usually for
gotten, party interest in every problem
which affects organized capital and Or
ganized labor, viz, the individual wage
Garner.
Any rational discussion of this prob
lem for years has been handicapped at
the threshold by pickering over words.
In fact one commentator, in defending
the preservation for employers and labor
organizations of the right to compel
workers to belong to organizations they
wished to repudiate for obviously no
union would insist upon compulsory
membership if all the workers were will
ing members), remarked that the main
the term CLOSED shop" has unpleasant
connotations The implied suggestion
that. some new phrases should be in
vented apparently overlooks the fact
that most CIO publicists now generally
use the term union security'-a euphe-
mism popularized by the War Labor
Board-to refer to every kind of COM
pulsory union membership agreement.
A number of purists have suggested
that that any debate on the topic would
be clarified by subdividing it into three
categories:
ca A closed shop-a contract under
only union members who are supplied
by the union
(b) A union shop-a contract under
which an employer agrees to require all
his employees to become and remain
members of the union. (ThiS nomencla-
ture is ambiguous, for many economists
use this term to cover any plant, where
in contradistinction to an "open shop"
the wages and hours of work are regu-
lated by contract with union)
Co Maintenance of memberships
contract under which an employer agrees
that all employees who are members OF
the union at certain given date must
remain members during the life OF the
contract.
Neither of these contributions from
the rose = by any other-name" school
seems particularly helpful. or course,
there are factual distinctions in such
arrangements, but neither of our Federal
statutes on the subject, the Railway
Labor Act or the National Labor Rela-
tions Act takes account of them The
Railway Labor Act fatty forbids any
agreements which require membership
in a labor organization as a condition of
employment. The Wagner Act, on the
contrary exempts from the central prln-
ciple of the act-the prohibition against
an employer discriminating against his
employees to encourage or discourage
membership in labor organizations
agreements requiring membership In
labor organization as condition of en-
ployment, provided the union Is net
employer dominated and represents
majority at the time it is signed. The
Ball bill, by eliminating this incongruous
proviso preserves unimpaired the basic
principle of the Wagner Act, which Is to
assure an employee freedom of choice
and immunity from discrimination,
irrespective of whether he is union
or non-union man. Thus it would re-
move from industries producing goods
for interstate commerce all forms of COM
pulsory membership or union security
clauses, irrespective of whether they
establish CLOSED shops or maintenance
of membership"
Nor is there any moral distinction
between these factual niceties. Each
has the same common denominator-
the assertion by employer and union
of a right to direct all or part of the
working force to belong to a particular
labor organization. Each type of con-
tract empowers private society, i'm
mune from Government regulations to
decide whether or not worker who falls
within their scope may still earn his
livelihood with the signatory employer
or group of employers A worker may
sign an application card, tender his dues
and initial fee and still be deprived of
his job, if the union out of pique or
because it fears his influence upon the
other members decides to reject his
application. Or he can be admitted to
the union and still lose his job if the
union expels him for anti-union con-
duct, e.g, putting up a rival slate of
union candidates. De Miles testimony
about being ousted from his union and
in consequence prevented from appear
ing on radio program, for refusing to
pay union assessment for a political
cause to which he was opposed, merely
brings into bold relief practice inherent
in the closed shop.
X X X X
Despite the fact that individual work.
ers, relieved of employer domination by
the Wagner Act, are simply transferred
to the domination of another private
~, +rio ,11