Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1948-12-28
Glass Struggle Belle
In Unions DoyetaiIs
With Red Party Line
Bv David Laurence

struggle" as one of the effective ways
to promote the cause of trade union
ism. This dovetails with the Com
munist Party line which is designed
to disrupt ACKNOWLEDGEMENT rela-
lions and bring nearer the day OF
economic chaos out of which the
Communists hope to gain power
everywhere in the world.
The Senate and House Joint Com
mittee studying labor-management
relations has performed a public
service by its latest study of condi-
lions in the maritime industry on
the West Coast. While the industry
has had q long record of errors on
the part of both management and
labor and has been faced with low
profit margins and diminishing en-
ployment opportunities due to low
cost foreign competition, the manner
In which the Communist theory has
been applied to the workers is wildly
portrayed in the committees new
report. Says the committee report
with reference to Harry Bridges,
leader of the International Long
shoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union:
Harry Bridges has twice faced
deportation hearings charging him
with membership in and afiliation
with the Communist Party.
Remarks at Hearing.
TN the course Of hearing before
the impartial chairman in the Los
Angeles-Long Beach clerks dispute
on March 16, 1913, Mr.. Bridges made
the following remarks, according to
the official transcript:
"Do we develop, agitate. educate,
or propaganda our men to be more
loyal to the union than to the
employer? You bet we do. No mat
ter what happens in these proceed
ings we will never do otherwise. 1t
is our union policy and an official
policy-that they can't trust an en-
ployer; that If they depend upon an
employer for any type Of security
or fair treatment, they'll get stung,
And that Is what we tell them: that
their security comes through the
union; and that their living comes
through the union"
The maritime union In one Of
those which has insisted ON q closed
shop because 1t gives them through
hiring halls" the right to exact fees
for allocating jobs and for any other
favor or privilege to men holding
jobs-for after all, under the closed
shop, the union, and not manage
ment, give the Jobs.
The average trade unionist, who,
like his counterpart in business man
agement, wants the privilege Of .
monopoly because 1t give him arbi-
trary power, does not, however,
think along the same lines as Mr..
Bridges insofar as theological objec-
tives are concerned. Mr.. Bridges
frankly confesses his detectives and
makes it plain that trade unionism
can get most when it champions the
idea of o perennial class struggle.
zone Of Glass Struggle"
The committee says with respect
to Mr.. Bridges:
His concept Of the proper func-
ton Of the trade union movement Is
clearly one Of class struggle. He has
often been charged with member
ship in or affiliation with the Com
munist Party. Whether the charge
be true or false is Of little import
here. He freely admits cooperating
with Communists whenever 1t suited
his purpose to do 50, and no instance
has been found when his purpose
deviated In the slightest from the
Communist Party line OF the
moment. His attitude toward labor
management relations may be
summed up in q statement attrib-
uted to him in speech before the
University of Washington Luncheon
Club at Seattle May Il, 1887:
ave take the stand that we, as
workers, have nothing in common
with the employers. We are in a
class struggle and we subscribe to
the belief that If the employer is
not in business his products still will
be necessary and we will be provid-
ing them when there is no employ
ing class. We frankly believe that
day is coming. We use politicians as
long as they benefit the labor move
ment and when they don't, we fight
them"
The committee report comments
significantly at this point:
such an attitude makes political
compa tibility impossible. There can
be no good faith collective bargain
ing with such as this.
THAT statement by Mr.. Bridges
was made some II years ago
In May of this year, Mr.. Bridges
defined his concept Of good faith
collective bargaining to the authors
of this paper. He stated that If,
when the union makes a demand,
the employers give fiat Yes or
NO answer, good faith bargaining
has occurred. A clear statement of
the employers position so that the
union will know where it stands is
all that is required. But If the en-
ployers make counterproposal or
suggest a compromise, that Is EVIL
dence that they are bargaining in
bad faith.
Explained Concept.
Bridges explained that this con-
cept necessarily follows from the
fact that the interests Of the work.
ers and those Of the employers were
always adverse and antagonistic;
that there was therefore no common
meeting ground, no basis for any
permanent mutually satisfactory
agreement; hence any attempt to
compromise and find such nom
existent mutually Of interest neces-
sarily implies dishonesty and bad
faith.
THE best that could be hoped for
as result Of good faith collective
bargaining under Bridges defini-
ton would be a common under
standing of the economic power of
each party at any given time, recog-
nized at any time in the form of a
truce or temporary agreement, bind
ing only until one side or the other
believes that the balance of power
has shifted"
The foregoing reasoning parallels
d. s.