Evening star., 1947-06-20
Continued from First page.o
procedures on the free decisions
OF local employers and employees.

pI lOEhi cllPiuySfo 611o SaAsFeoySe
At a time when we are determined
to remove, as rapidly as practicable,
Federal controls established during
the war, this bill would involve the
Government In the free processes OF
our economic system to q degree ur-
preeedented in peacetime.
This is a long step toward the set
tlement of economic issues by Gov
ernment dictation. Tt Is an indica-
ton that industrial relations are to
be determined In the halls OF Con-
gress, and that political power is TO
suppant economic power as the crit
ical factor in labor relations.
II. The second basic test against
which have measured this bill is
whether it would improve human re-
lations between employers and their
employees.
Cooperation cannot be achieved
by force of law. We cannot create
mutual respect and confidence by
legislative fiat.
I am convinced that this legisla-
ton overlooks the significance OF
these principles. 1t would encour-
age distrust, suspicion and arbitrary
attitudes.
find that the National Labor Re-
lations Act would be converted from
an instrument with the major pur-
pose of protecting the right OF work
ers to organize and bargain collec-
lively into a maze OF pitfalls and
complex procedures. As a result OF
these complexities, employers and
workers would find new barriers to
mutual understanding.
The bill time and again would re-
move the settlement OF differences
from the bargaining table to courts
of law. Instead of learning to live
together, employers and unions are
invited to engage in costly, time
consuming litigation, inevitably en-
bittering both parties.
Improvement in Cooperation
OF Labor and Employers Seen
The Congress has, I think, paid
too ruch attention to the inevitable
frictions and difnculties incident to
the reconversion period. 1t has ig-
nored the unmistakable evidence
that those difficulties are receding
and that labor CO.
operation is constantly improving
There is grave danger that this
progress would be nulhfied through
enactment Of this legislation.
III. A third basic test Is whether
the bill Is workable.
There Is little point In putting
laws on the books unless they can
be executed. I have concluded that
this bill would prove to bs unwork-
able. The so-called "emerge1cy pro-
cedure' for critical Nationwide
strikes would require an immense
amount of Government effort but
would result almost inevitably in
failure. The National Labor Rela-
tions Board would be given many
new tasks, and hobbled at every
turn in attempting to carry them
out. Unique restrictions on the
boards procedure would so greatly
increase the backlog OF unsettled
cases that the parties might be
driven to turn in despair from peace
full procedures to economic force.
w. The fourth basic test by which
I have measured this bill is the test
Of fairness.
The bill prescribes unequal penal
ties for the same offense, 1t would
require the National Labor Rela-
tions Board to give priority to
charges against workers over related
charges against employers. 1t would
discriminate against workers by ar
bitrarily penalizing them for all crit
ical strikes.
Much has been made of the claim
that the bill Is intended simply to
eoualize the positions Of labor and
management. Careful analysis
shows that this claim is unfounded,
Many OF the provisions Of the bill
standing alone seem innocent but,
considered in relation to each other,
reveal a consistent pattern Of in
equality.
The failure of the bill to meet
these fundamental tests is clearly
demonstrated by more detailed
consideration of its defects.
/. THE BILL WOULD SUBSTAN-
TALLY INCREASE STRIKES.
ID 1t would discourage the grow
ing willingness of unions to include
mo strike" provisions in bargaining
agreements, since any labor organ
ization signing such an agreement
would expose itself to suit for con-
tract violation If any of its members
engaged in an unauthorized wild
cat" strike.
(2) 1t would encourage strikes by
imposing highly complex and bur-
densome reporting requirements on
labor organizations which wish to
avail themselves of their rights un-
der the National Labor Relations
Act. In connection with these re-
porting requirements, the bill would
penalize unions for any failure to
comply, no matter how inconsequen-
tial, by denying them all rights
under the act. These provisions,
which are irrelevant to the major
purposes of the bill, seem peculiarly
designed to place obstacles in the
way of labor organizations which
wish to appeal to the National Labor
Relations Board for relief, and thus
to impel them to strike or take other
direct action.
80 1t would bring on strikes by
depriving significant groups of work.
ers of the right they now enjoy to
organize and to bargain under the
protection of law For example,
broad groups of employees who for
purposes of the act would be classed
as supervisors would be removed
from the protection of the act. Such
groups would be prevented from
using peaceful machinery and would
be left no option but the use of
economic force.
"a The bill would force unions to
strike or to boycott II they wish to
have a jurisdictional dispute settled
by the National Labor Relations
Board. This peculiar situation re-
suits from the fact that the board is
given authority to determine juris-
dictional disputes over assignment