Evening star., 1947-04-25
Defense Of Labor Bill
By | oft Called Lome

By oft Called Lome
Measure, in Some Ways, Better
for Unions Than Wagner Act
By David laurence
Senator Taft has made . rather lame
defense Of his labor bill. The measure
Is in some respects even better for
the labor unions than the existing
Wagner Labor Relations Act.
True enough, the bill introduces some
new mediation machinery and puts on
labor some obligations never before
written into statute. But, on the
so-called free speech issue, the bill
reported by the Senate committee
merely confirms all the erratic decisions
Of the National Labor Relations Board
over the last 10 years.
Here, for instance, is the language
Of the Senate bill:
The National Labor Relations Board
shall not base any finding Of unfair
labor practice upon any statement of
views or arguments, either written or
oral. II such statement contains under
all the circumstances no threat, ex-
press or implied. of reprisal or force,
or offer, express or implied, Of benefit =
Narrows Employers Rights.
This language narrows considerably
the rights OF the employer hitherto
stated by the Supreme Court OF the
United States and by the Federal Courts
IN reversing Labor Board decisions. It
cuts the ground from the court deci.
sions and restores to the Labor Board
the full power it thought it had before
the courts began reversing the board.
For there never has been a single
case over the last 10 years OF decisions
by the National Labor Relations Board
involving the so-called free speech"
issue in which the board has ever
claimed that 1t based finding solely
on statements or arguments that wers
devoid Of threat or implied benefits.
Again and again, the examiners for
the board have found and the board
has upheld findings that an employer
had addressed his employees, either oral
ly or in writing, but that his words
were Of an intimidating character or
were threatening or were tied up with
acts that were clearly indicative Of
an anti-union attitude.
The new Senate bill, If enacted, in
dicates that the Labor Board will have
no trouble with the courts hereafter.
Either the board will find that an
employer threatened employees with loss
of benefits or that he offered them
benefits" If they refrained from choos-
ing a union as their bargaining agent.
This effort by the Senate bill to mar
row an employers rights contradicts the
expressions OF the courts, where 1t has
been plainly said that an employer may
discuss unionism and even oppose the
unionization of his plant and that he
is free from an unfair labor practice"
so long as he doesn't threaten group
action or individual punishment to those
engaged in union activity. An en-
ployer, on the other hand, has had
under past court decisions the right to
point out wherein his employees would
not benefit from unionization or he has
had the right to point out that he does
not believe he can operate as eff
ciently under union as under nonunion
auspices because of the necessity, for in
stance, Of conforming to some national
pattern which his larger competitors can
meet and he cannot.
RiN of Rfohfv Nat
Under the language of the Senate
bill, the Labor Relations Boards Of
the future would have no difficulty de-
claring unfair labor practices" for such
statements and almost any other state
ment an employer might make.
The Senate committee, therefore, has
not restored the Bill OF Rights but has
written into the provision Of the pro-
posed law phrases that permit labor
board to multiply the findings Of an
unfair labor practice"
The Senate committee bill has made
another grave error in ignoring the CO.
ercion now practiced among workers
to dragoon other workers into unions.
This fragrant abuse Is not touched by
the Senate committee, though it does
write into the bill clause that al
legedly balances the clause in existing
law with reference to interference by
an employer in the affairs OF the workers
IN choosing bargaining agent. Sena-
tor Taft defends the new clause, which
prohibits unions from interfering in the
of hor iv,ty1
tive by the employer. Actually these
are rare instances and could be amply
covered by slight change in an en-
tirely different provision of the bill,
stating that 1t Is an unfair labor prac-
tice for labor unions to refuse to bar
gain with the representatives chosen
by an employer.
Unions really are not concerned with
the process whereby the employers bar
gaining representatives are chosen or
any actual methods used in selection.
The unions often are unwilling to accept
the representatives that are chosen, but
this Is refusal to bargain" and not
an interference with the process of selec-
ton. Some Of the Senators who wrote
the committee bill appear to be neo-
phytes in the writing OF labor legisla-
ton and are falling for some of the
tricks and devices that have given the
Labor Board so much power In the past.
tReproduction Rights Rsssryed9
MethodicuI?
From the Cleveland News.
Molotoy seems to have changed little
since Lenin called him "Russias best
filing CLERK