Evening star., 1947-05-05

SolQlerS1 refused bAFfd LAwfenees
another shakedown In our piace--so
the union fired them. The rest of
us had to pay because we have
children.
"It's getting 50 we are Just slaves.
Not only that, but the unions hold
back production. II q fellow does a
good job and tries to get ahead,
they pass the word take it easy, kid,
you're doing too much on this job"
The clipping has a two-column
headline: 'Vets fired for not buying
union raffle tickets" The article
says:
Because they refused to buy
union rattle tickets, two combat
veterans were declared not in good
standing by the union and fired
from their jobs at Shapleigh Hard
ware Co., 1t was learned today.
Both Were Prewar Employees.
1.-THE men are Edward Richards,
"A. of 1852 Wyoming avenue, Navy
veteran of the Pacific who worked
as a clerk and packer in the hard
ware company, and Harry Leach, %,
Army veteran Of the Pacific and
former packer at Shapleigh. Both
had worked for the hardware COM
pany before their war service.
"T probably would have taken
them (the tickets but when they
told me had to or lose my job,
that was a different story Rich
ards declared yesterday. T spent
two years fighting against that sort
Of thing"
The article goes on to say that
the tickets were chances on a new
automobile ratified off by the st.
Louis Joint Board of Retail, Whole
sale and Department Store Unions,
C1O. Officers and shop stewards
voted last February that each of the
1000 union members be required to
take a 81 book Of tickets, SO as to
raise $4,000 for organizational pur-
poses.
It appears that about $50 Of the
TOO members Of the Shap1eigh unit
first decided to hold out against
taking the tickets but the union
put the heat on" The unions
contract with the Shapleigh COM
pariy provides for a union shop"
and maintenance of membership.
When the union declares any en-
ploye no longer In good standing"
the company is obligated to dismiss
the employe without further ques-
ton. Is ~
Men Could Appeal Decision.
Both men were told they could
appeal the decision, before a Trial
Committee" of the union, but they
felt 1t would be useless. This is
typical instance In which the en-
ployer is required by contract to
fire workers at the mere request of
the union. The Senate bill would
change all this and set forth that
nobody could be fired from either
closed shop" or union shop"
for anything else except refusal to
pay regular dues.
Even this concession by the Sen
ate bill is wrong in principle, for
the right to work Is not protected
When authority Is delegated to a
private organization "a union - to
deprive a man OF his Job for reasons
that have absolutely nothing to do
with the service he is performing
for his employer.
The union bosses of America
the group which benefits from
CLOSED shops and union shops
naturally are crying out against the
pending labor legislation. They
are trying to make the people
believe that the purpose of the
legislation Is to destroy unions"
when the truth Is the new bill,
II enacted, would require that
unions operate democratically and
honestly.
The mere fact that the union
lobby here is fighting so strenuously
against the simple safeguards that
would protect the workers against
abuse by union bosses, who are
perpetuated in power by the CLOSED
shop" or the union shop,a creates
a suspicion that much of the
union membership strength of to-
day has been obtained under duress
and that some of these unions
cannot face the issues involved in
the Senate bill.
The fact that the Senate, by a
vote of 60 to 28-a two-thirds vote
adopted last week an amendment
pfehloltlng coercion when a man
Is trying to decide whether to Join
q union is a sign that Congress
IS not being intimidated but is
sincerely trying to protect the