Evening star., 1947-09-02

law, for that is really its right name
if content is considered, because the
backbone of the Wagner law is still
included word for word in the Taft
Hartley law. In fact, there is more
of the Wagner law text in the new
statute than there is of the House
measure known as the Hartley bill.
So when labor unions call for the
rereal of the Taft-Hartley law they
are in effect calling for a repeal of
the old Wagner law, too. This, of
course, is not what they mean. They
want the same one-sided labor law
and one-sided labor board that they
had before.
It would be great step forward
and in keeping with the spirit of
President Truman's Labor Day mes
sage if the spokesmen for labor
unions frankly called for the repeal
of the Taft-Hartley law and ad-
mitted also that they did not want
the Wagner law put back in its
place.
For what the labor unions during
the last IL years have defended is
a law that put the clamps on en-
plovers and gave labor unions the
license to do as they pleased. Such
a statute was for IL years pro-
tected against the slightest amend
ment by Congress through the
efforts of the most powerful labor
lobby the National Capital has ever
seen and by the most brazen alli-
ance of money and votes that sup
ported a national administration.
Throughout the length and
breadth of the land, during the last
decade, union organizers misled
workers into believing it was Or
dered by law that they join union.
To. this day this sort of misrep-
resentation exists, aided and abetted
by statements made by the President
and members of his Cabinet at
every opportunity. Thus, in the
Labor Day statement, Mr.. Truman
said
THE right to join a union of ones
own choice is unquestioned today
and is sanctioned and protected by
law"
Mr.. Truman did not tell all of the
story. The fact is that the right to
refrain from joining union is also
sanctioned and protected by law to-
day. This is the great contribution
that the Taft Hartley law has made
to the civil liberties of the present
epoch. Certainly candor should have
required the making of this addi-
tional statement in view of the fact
that this right was given protection
for the first time a few weeks ago.
It was the big chance for balanced
comment in a Labor Day statement
by the Nations Chief Executive.
Labor relations would be ideal of
course If there were no compulsion
of law about them, and If workers
and employers could sit down to-
gether through chosen representa-
tives and arrive at agreements with
out threatening economic and >physi-
cal violence. Clearly. it would be bet
ter If the Federal Government kept
out Of the bargaining process.
But for IL years the Federal Gov
ernment has been in 1t with both
feet, using the Wagner Act as its
instrument of intervention. 1t is a
matter of record that the Supreme
Court of the United States actually
said in one of its opinions-in the
Newport News Shipbuilding Co. case
that although relations between
management and labor had been for
years mutually satisfactory, never
theless, the order of the National
Labor Relations Board disestablish-
ing the workers union had to be
obeyed literally and those good re-
lations had to be upset. This, 1t said.
was the responsibility of Congress
when 1t passed the Wagner Act-not
the courts.
Collective bargaining was making
rapid progress in America before
1885. 1t didn't really need the Wag-
ner law and It's mischievous inter-
pretations by prejudiced board. II
labor union leaders, however, are
sincere and will pledge themselves
to repeal the Taft-Hartley law In
entirety and not attempt to put any
other in its place. relying solely on
the great power of voluntary action
and common sense, employers ought
to join enthusiastically in that
movement for repeal and thus
carry out the letter as we'll as the
SPIRIT Of President Truman's decla-
ration on Labor Day.
(Reproduction Rights RescrvedD