Evening star., 1947-08-07

leaders are not to be accused OF
seeking to "evade" the penalties of
ths Taft-Hsrtley law simply because
they are seeking to avoid" being
penalized.
Basic Purpose Of Law.
One Of the basic purposes of any
good law In the field of industrial
relations Is to encourage direct and
intimate contact between employers
and employees. To the extent that
the Taft.Hartley law has been en-
couraging union Representatives and
employers to agree on procedures
for the settlement of grievances or
for the prevention of wildcat strikes.
both sides should be applauded for
legitimate action in avoidance Of
litigstion. There is difference be-
tween avoidance" and evasion"
Thus, damage suits in themselves
are not preventives OF wrongful ac-
tion. They are the result of unset
tied disagreements In which both
parties have exhausted remedies by
negotiation. To set up procedure
in which both parties will avoid be-
coming entangled In the meshes of
a penalty imposed by the law for
wrongdoing Is to be commended and
not deplored
Contrary to some published re-
ports, John l.. Lewis. In negotiating
the coal contract. did not secure an
agreement that "evsded" the law.
He did rightly seek to avoid the
very things on which the law would
allow either party to sue for dam
ages. To write contracts in such a
way as to avoid suits for damages Is
the goal of businessmen In numerous
transactions every day. Again and
again where one party feels dam
age can result from circumstances
beyond his control. provisions are
inserted to indemnify one or the
other of the parties or both against
loss.
Incorrect Reporting.
There seems to be a good deal of
incorrect reporting and comment on
the provisions of the Taft-Hartley
Law. Some of 1t emanates from
those who do not want to see the
law succeed and who are rejecting
some of the hysterical protests that
arose from unions and their sup
porters when the new statute was
passed.
Thus, there is q widespread i'm
preston. for example, that the coal
miners contract somehow "evades'
the provisions of the Taft Hartley
law because the contract says the
miners shall work only when they
are able and willing Much mis-
representation on this point has
heen circulated throughout the
country. The fact is that the able
and willing" statement is a sheer
piecs of propaganda implying that
only by means of this stipulation
In the contract can workers be saved
from Involuntary servitude"
The argument about involuntary
servitude" is. OF course, q fabrica-
ton From the very first bills out OF
which the Taft Hartley measure was
drawn till the day 1t was enacted
there was always a clause safeguard
ing the right to strike. The law as
passed contains language which is
a far greater protection to the
worker than thousand able and
willing" clauses that can be written
in private contracts.
The provision in the Taft Hartley
law says:
Nothing in this act shall be so
construed to require an individual
employe to render labor or service
without his consent. nor shall any
thing in this act be construed to
make the quitting of his labor by an
individual employe an illegal act;
nor shall any court issue any process
to compel the performance by an
individual employe OF such labor or
service, without his consent; nor
shall the quitting of labor by an
employe or employees in good faith
because Of abnormally dangerous
conditions for work at the place of
employment Of such employe or en-
ployes be deemed a strike under
this act"
Why. In view of the foregoing
language. should Mr.. Lewis or the
coal miners union be accused of
"evading" the provisions of the Taft
Hartley law when the coal contract
refers to miners who are able and
willing to work. The only explain
alton is that those who have been
doing the commenting never really
read the text Of the law for them
selves.
The only inhibition imposed by
the new law is against concerted
action by unions or concerted action
by individuals in work stoppages
which are really not individual &C.
tons at all but the result of or
sanized discipline. Even these do
not come under the ban OF the Taft
Hartley law unless the unions fail
to give the proper 60-day notices Of
the intention to strike.
HsREedust!on Rilh.s Rsssrx.al
YNX31: