Evening star., 1947-08-10

This information was elected by asking these
employees how they would vote, If they were in
Congress, on laws to do specified things. They
were not told that all Of the foregoing provisions
were already incorporated in the bill which
Congress had passed over the Presidents veto.
What this means from political standpoint
Is that in advance Of any primary or general
election campaign, members Of Congress would
be well advised to circulate among the workers
in their district and explain the provisions in
the act. They will find that in important par.
ticulars the worker will then discover that the
act was precisely the kind Of statute which he
himself would have written. for one significant
thing that the canvassers found out was that
even among those employees who had read about
the law more than one-half were unable to
describe correctly single specific provision.
An interesting revelation in the table cited
Is that on certain Issues union workers are as
strong, or stronger, for some features Of the
bill than the nonunion group. These include
the requirement that unions publish financial
statements, the elimination of Communists in
union Office, the necessity for a secret ballot
as q condition precedent to a union shop. and
the restriction which allows checkoff Of dues
only with the consent Of the individual worker.
Nevertheless, 1t Is not surprising that the
percentage of workers who profess themselves
opposed to the new act is higher among union
men. The constant propaganda by union
leaders to the effect that the new act was
slave labor bill" and an instrument of op-
preston" has had its effect.
typical Cro publication. the UE News
(the organ Of the United Electrical Workers.,
for example, last week carried in a conspicuous
&;aIs JsL
Answers on the Taft-Hartley Law" signed
by David Scribner, the general counsel Of the
union. Although the new statute re-enacted
virtually all the provisions Of the Wagner Act,
which protected workers In their rights to Join
unions and to make collective bargaining ef-
fective, this article explains that the reason
many unions have decided not to resort to
the Labor Relations Board Is that the act
"sets up a new board whose major function
will be to protect employers in their right
to deprive workers OF their right to Join unions
and bargain collectively" 1t also states that
the board will encourage and permit employers
to fire active union workers" and that unions
might Just as well 60 to the National Associa-
ton Of Manufacturers and ask an impartial
decision in an election proceeding or In an
unfair labor practice charge against an em-
ployer."
While, OF course, there Is nothing IN the law
or in the composition Of the reorganized board
which affords the slightest foundation for these
statements, there Is little wonder that an
uninformed worker should be filled with appre-
hension when he reads such comments coming
from member Of the bar.
The distortions In the union press are not
the whole answer, since the majority of the
employees interviewed said they obtained their
ideas ab0tIt the hill mostly from the SOiIrcea
every citizen uses: Newspaper. radio conversa-
tions with friends and fellow employees. This
would seem to indicate that the much -maligned
"capitalstic" press did not color It's news
columns to champion the legislation, and that
the lasting impression which workers received
was the label placed on the law by Its op-
pOnents