Evening star., 1947-04-18

lOn Wagner lubor Act
New House Bill Seen Attempting
to 'Equalize' Economic Power
| By Dapid laurence
| A strange psychology has been built
| around the effort to enact legislation
regulating labor relations.
Thus, the bill passed by q majority
Of the House of Representatiyes-in-
cluding substantial number Of Demo-
Gratis as well as Republicans often
been described in the news dispatches as
severe" or tough" If amendments
were offered. they were usually referred
to as an effort to ease" the bill or to
soften 1t.
Such phrases, used as they are occa-
sionally even by the objective corre-
spondents, emphasize the habit Of
thinking and writing that has been
formed under the New Deal WHAT
ever tends to remove the severe restric-
tions imposed on employers Is now
called destructive of liberty or ''anti-
labor" One radio commentator from
Washington in the early morning hours
the other day spoke Of the House bill
as ''man-eating" bin.
The truth Is that the Wagner Labor
Relations Act, passed in 1885. was the
most restrictive measure ever enacted
on the subject of labor-management
relations.
BLANK Check" for 10 Years.
Although for $50 years the subject Of
management-labor relations had always
been regarded as one coming under the
police power of the States, and not a
single constitutional amendment had
ever been passed by either House OF
Congress to allow the Federal Govern
ment to legislate on either wages or
working conditions or strikes, except in
transportation and strictly interstate
business. the Supreme Court of the
United States nevertheless upheld the
Wagner Act in 1887 by vote of to I
and applied it to virtually all businesses.
Under this decision and under the
broad discretion then assumed by the
National Labor Relations Board, scarcely
week passed when the board did not
issue decision that really made new
law.
For nearly ten years the Labor Board,
and not Congress, has been making the
pro-labor laws. Now when Congress
which at last realizes that it had
granted blank check on labor rela-
tions-undertakes to prescribe standards
and specify just what an employer or
union can or cannot do, the "left wing"
cries out in horror that the clock Is
being turned back to "reactionary" days.
A reactionary is one who believes IN
letting the state be master and restrict
human rights, or one who lpholds pri-
vate mastery or monopoly of the goods
or services Of other individuals. A lib
eral Is one who espouses individual lib
erty and opposes monopoly. The left
wing" today insists on the right of
monopoly for labor union. 1t COM
| pletely distorts the right to strike" and
calls any limitation on that right Elm
voluntary servitude." The right OF an
individual to work or not to work is the
| cardinal right of all. When two or more
individuals band together however, to
coerce or intimidate or even to persuade
others to quit work, this is q question:
able right which the Constitution will
protect only as long as exercise Of the
right does not damage the interests Of
other citizens by depriving them of the
necessities of life.
Involuntary Seryitude.s.
To band together as employers and fix
| prices or gobble up competitors is ac-
knowledged to be monopoly. but for a
group of citizens to form labor-union
monopoly and to control whether men
shall or shall not work, as John Lewis
does with the Nationwide miners
union, doesn't seem to impress the cleft
wingers" as being monopoly Nor do
they concede that there is any "involun-
tary servitude" when a miner is bound
by his unions "closed shop" and can be
read out of the union and deprived Of
a job If he refuses to obey Lewis.
Congress now is trying to prohibit the
closed shop" but the left wing" wants
1t preserved. The Republican majority
in the House has yielded to the mo-
nopolists to the point of sanctioning
compulsory unionization in the So
called union shop" where worker is
told by the employer at the time he Is
hired that after 80 days he must Join
the existing union or lose his job. Under
the Wagner law at present it is an sun
fair labor practice" for an employer to
refuse to hire man because he is a
member OF the union, but 1t is not an
| unfair labor practice for the employer
to agree with union to fire a worker
who, after 80 days, refuses to belong to
| union.
Isn't it involuntary servitude" when
a man can't retain his job without ac-
cepting union control of his livelihood?
Even conscientious objector against
compulsory unionism loses his right to
work in his own trade and industry.
To establish justice in these matters
is not to pass tough" bill but to apply
long overdue reforms. The House bill
just passed has In it some faults, but
its main objective Is to correct ineoui-
ties In existing law-not really to intro
duce new law. An accurate description
is to say the new House bill attempts
to "equalize" economic power which has
been thrown out of balance through
the one-sided Wagner Labor Relations
/ Law.