Evening star., 1947-06-21
Nv fellow countrymen:

My fellow countrymen:
At noon today I sent the Congress!
a message vetoing the Taft-Hartle,
labor bill. I vetoed this bill because
| I am convinced it is bad bill. 1t !.
bad for labor, bad for management
bad for the country.
I had hoped that the Congress.
would send me labor bill / coule
/ sign
| I have said before, and say now
that we need legislation to correct
abuses in the field of labor relations
Last January made specific rec.
concentrations to the Congress as ts
the kind of labor legislation WI
should have Immediately. / alst
urged that the Congress provide fol
commission, to be made up Of rep.
lresentatives of the Congress, thu
public, labor and management. u
study the entire field of labor man.
agement relations and to sugges'
what additional laws We shoule
have.
I believe that my proposals were
accepted by the great majority o.
our people as fair and just.
Shocking Legislation.
If the Congress had accepted
those recommendations, We woule
have today the basis for improved
labor management relations.
would gladly have signed labor bill
| If 1t had taken us in the right di.
rection of stable, peaceful labor re.
lations-even though it might no
have been drawn up exactly rs
wished.
| I would have signed bill with
some doubtful features If, taken a!
a whole, it had been good bill.
! But the Taft Hartley Bill Is 6
shocking piece of legislation.
| 1t is unfair to the working people
of this country. 1t clearly abuses
the right, which millions of oul
citizens now enjoy, to join together
and bargain with their employers
! for fair wages and fair working con-
ditions
! Under no circumstances could
have signed this bill!
! The restrictions that this bill
places on our workers go far beyond
what our people have been led te
believe. This is no innocent bill
1t is interesting to note that or
June 4, Congressman Hartley, or
the floor of the House of Represent
atives, made the following state
ment: You are going to find there
is more in this bill than may meet
the eye"
That is a revealing description OF
this bill by one of its authors.
There is so much more in 1t than
the people have been led to believe
that I am sure that very few under
stand what the Taft-Hartley bill
would do if it should become law.
Real Meaning of Bill.
That is why I am speaking to you
tonight. I want you to know the
real meaning of this bill
We have all been told, by its pro-
ponents, that this is a moderate
bill. We have been told that the bill.
was harsh and drastic" when II
was first passed by the House oi
Representatives, but that the Senate
had persuaded the House to drop out
the harsh provisions and that the
final bill-the bill sent to me-was
mild and moderate
But found no truth in the claims
that the bill sent to me was mild OF
moderate. I found that the basic
purpose and much of the language oi
the original House of Representa-
tives bill were still in the final bill
IN fact, the final bill follows the pro-
visions of the original House bill in
at least 36 separate places. 80,
We have all been told that the
Taft Hartley bill is favorable to the
wage earners OF this country. 1t has
been claimed that workers need to
be saved from their own folly and
that this bill would provide the
means of salvation. Some people
have called this bill the workers
bill of rights"
What 1t Would Do.
Let us see what this bill really
would do to our working men.
The bill is deliberately designed
to weaken labor unions. When the
sponsors of the bill claim that by
weakening unions. they are giving
rights back to individual working
men, they ignore the basic reason
why unions are important in our
democracy. Unions exist so that la
boring men can bargain with their
employers on a basis of equality
Because of unions. the living stand
ards of our working people have in
creased steadily until they are to-
day the highest in the world.
A bill which would weaken unions
would undermine our national policy
of collective bargaining. The Taft
Hartley bill would do just that. 1t
would take us back in the direction
of the old evils of individual bar
gaining. 1t would take bargaining
power away from workers and give
more power to management.
This bill would even take away
from our working men some bar
gaining rights which they enjoyed
before the Wagner Act was passed
II years ago.
If We weaken our system of COL
lective bargaining. We weaken the
position Of every working man in
the country.
This bill would again expose work
ers to the abuses of labor injunc-
tions.
1t would make unions liable fol
damage suits for actions which have
long been considered lawful
This bill would treat all unions
alike. Unions which have fine rec
ords, with long years OF peaceful re-
lations with management, would be
hurt by this bill just as much as the
few troublemakers.
What Country Needs.
The country needs legislation
which will get rid of abuses. We
do not need-and We do not want
legislation which will take funda-
mental rights away from our work
ing people.
We have been told that the Taft.