Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1947-05-08

an employer and threaten to cause
him untold financial loss. They can
threaten him through union COM
n1ittee by declaring that, unless he
accepts their proposals. his factory
will be shut down. This is called
the collective right to strike and is
a development Of the basic right OF
the individual to quit job If he
wishes.
But while an employer, acting as
an individual and not necessarily
In concert with any other employ
ers. mas the right to shut down his
own factory when he thinks he
can't make ends meet, he can't tell
his employees about it In advance.
For this, according to the decisions
and rulings of the National Labor
Relations Board and according to-
the language of both the pending
Senate and House bills, is construed
to be an unfair labor practice"
punishable by law.
Must Keep Silent.
The employer must keep silent,
and In many cases he actually does
discontinue operations and the
workers consequently are thrown
out of Jobs. If the employer, how
ever. had been able to talk freely
to his employees and give them the
facts without running the risk OF a
charge of refusal to bargain" or
an unfair labor practice" and all
the costs of litigation before the
Labor Board, maybe these en-
ployes would have kept their Jobs.
The real difficulty, of course, isl
that union groups and certain per-
sons In the New Deal decided that
workers we're better off with unions
than without them. In many in
stances, the workers themselves. will
admit they would have been better
off without union. But the Labor
Board has construed the Wagner
Act to mean that individual bar
gaining must be discouraged and
union bargaining encouraged. Be
cause of the force of a one-sided
law, many hundreds of thousands
of workers have been dragooned
into unions against their will.
If free speech prevailed on this
issue, the employer would have the
right to point out that he can do
better for the workers than union
can. II he didn't make good, the
workers could at any time resort to
a union. The idea that all employ
ers are bad-especially If they think
they can do better for employees than
a union can-has been nurtured by
the New Deal and the fallacy has
been continued under the Truman
Administration. Plainly this is
subject on which opinions do differ,
but it is subject in which one
party to the dispute is muzzled.
Where 1t Comes In.
The suppression Of free speech Is
carried on under the Senate bill by
giving the Labor Relations Board
the power to interpret under all
circumstance" what is or is not a
speech of intimidation or an offer of
benefit. If an employer points out
frankly how much better off the
employees would be without a union
than with, he could be accused of
an unfair labor practice, and, under
both Senate and House bills, he
would be subject to an injunction
never to say anything like that
again. This is where the suppress
sion of free speech comes in.
One wonders why union leaders
are afraid of such discussion and
why they must have law to pro-
tect workers against hearing any
thing but one side of the argument.
There is a danger. of course. of
certain kinds of discrimination such
as discharges by employers for union
activity or the penalizing Of particu-
lar workers who are leaders or
officers of unions, but this is amply
covered under the existing Wagner
Law and the rulings of the Labor
Board. Where any punitive action
Is taken against individuals, the
law is adequate and there is no need
to tie up such intimidating processes
with limitations on free speech.
An employer ought to have
right to threaten to close down
his plant, Just as union has a
right tor threaten to close down the
employers factory. Both are lawful
uses of economic power either before
or after a union has been organized
In a plant. The cure for friction in
q democracy is not to give a govern
mental agancy the right to interpret
the meaning of words but to let
everybody speak as many words as
he pleases, Words. unless SANDER
Gus or libelous, are the greatest
force for good in world of free men.