The Wilmington morning star., 1947-04-30
As Pegler Sees 1t
BY WEsTBROOK PEGLER

Copyright by King Features Syndicate, Inc.)
Although the voters last fall expressed a
plain demand for laws to protect themselves,
as workers, from oppression by union ottl-
Gals, the progress toward reform IN Congress
was Immediately opposed on the ground that
somehow all this was the doing of the tories,
the dictionaries and the National Association
of Manufacturers
For refutation, let us consider the Barnes
bill in Massachusetts,.
The Barnes bill required only that unions
file financial with the ommon
wealth. This reform is meager, because 1t
does not restrict the uses of union money nor
forbid such familiar rackets as the permit
fee. the prohlbitive initiation fee, political
assessments or enormous fines imposed to
drive out troublesome members. Union filing
financial statements may still bestoW sub
stantial checks on grating officials by vote
of their executive councils in appreciation
of their invaluable services. The bosses may
still vote themselves birthday presents, win
ter homes in Florida and bonuses, as they
have done for many years.
Clarence A. Barnes, the Attorney General of
Massachusetts had seen the union squeeze
and shakedoWn at its worst. During the war
some little Massachusetts locals in the con-
s%truction trades suddenly found suckers COM
ing their way in droves. Big construction jobs
"NAS 0HoNSNo 40 EoHo> 1SNA ~N
thousands of men who came in from far
away had to buy work permits from the resi-
dent locals. When the transients drifted away,
the locals could declare dividends among the
few permanent members, or, where rack
eteers ran the locals, they could divide the
surplus. The permit or initiation fees seldom
were less than $50, even for common labor
ers- They ran as high as $500 for electricians.
This condition existed almost everywhere. 1t
was exposed in Congress, but it was protected
to the very end and hundreds of millions of
dollars vanished into the pockets of predatory
locals and racketeers.
Mr.. Barnes presented two bills to the legis-
lature regarding union funds. One forbade po-
litical contributions by unions. The other re-
quired unions to file financial statemets.
Both bills were beaten in the legislature
and Mr.. Barnes carried them to the people
by referendum.
The state Supreme Court ruled out the bill
forbldding political contributions on c%onStitu-
tional flaws. The other one was placed on the
ballot and unions Immediately began pouring
money INTO the fall campaign OF 1916 to beat il.
I'm New Bedford" wrote Charles J. Levin.
the editor of the Standard-Times and Morning
union members employed by one
Dig company refused to pay a special assess
ment to fight the Barnes bill. The head of a
Weavers' local announced that the local sup
ported the bill and he was expelled from the
Central Labor Union"
The voters gave the Barnes bill a majority
of about 2 to l, this ratio held even in the
strongly organized cities. In New Bedford,
the vote was 81, 900 to 7,400; in Lynn, 17,778
to 10. 157; in Fall River, 1888 to 5,272; in
Haverbill, 1922 to 3, 655; in Lawrence, II, 1863
to 1903.
Obviously this was a more significant vote
than the majorities in favor Of open shop
amendments in Southern and Western states
where unions were not intrenched. This was
strong union country and still the rank and
file voted for Accountability. This was rebellion
among the workers.
Undoubtedly, if the Supreme Court had not
ruled out the proposal against political con-
that, too, would have passed.
The unloneers used all the old. stock argu-
ments against accountability. They emphasized
the one about the need OF secrecy to conceal
the weakness of unions from the employers.
However, the rank and file knew that they
had been assessed for strike benefits for other
locals and that a given unions weakness
was no measure of its ability to
stand a strike. They knew also that the bur-
den Of strike benefits had largely been placed
on the shoulders of the whole body of tax
payers through unemployment benefits for
strikers.
Anyway, they were sore.
One teanSter, Who had been thrown out for
supporting Mr.. Barnes program. organized
a group Of truck drivers to pass out handbills.
They were photographed under a big poster
which read: Guys like ME pay S24, 900, 900 a
year to labor unions in Massachusetts,, only
the union big shots know how it's used. I'd
like to know, too. That's why I am going to
vote yes
This was only one contest among many in
which the boss unioneers were showed under
in the election ratI1rnc the fret time tho rank
and file had a chance. But it happened in
Massachusetts, a strong union state, and the
Barnes bill could not have passed if the con.
temptible faceless man had been against it.