Evening star., 1948-12-05

the poLtlcal power, OF organized
labor to defeat any Senator or
Representative who fails to vote
for repeal"
In order to get clear picture of
the coming struggle in Congress, it
is first necessary to know just what
the proponents of repeal" mean.
Do they mean a return to labor
management relations, under the
law, which prevailed during the
Roosevelt and Truman administra-
tions before the enactment of the
Taft-Hartley law-that is, under
the old Wagner Labor Relations
Act?
Do they mean merely the removal
of the Taft-Hartley name from the
statute books, and the substitution
of a new law-under good Demo
cratic names CThomas of Utah and
Lesinsh of Michigan, the prospec-
tive chairmen of the Senate and
House Labor Committees)-whict
will continue in effect many OF the
provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act?
Outright Repeal Unlikely
Outright repeal of the existing
Labor Management Relations Act
of 1947, to give the law its official
title, and a return to the lopsided
Wagner Act is neither desirable nor
is it likely to happen. But If that
is what the fight is to be about
then it should be clearly announced
President Truman, who during the
recent national political campaign
again and again pledged repeal
could do much to clear up the
matter. The leaders of organized
labor, campaigning both for a new
and different Congress and for
President Truman, shouted ire
peal" and let it 60 at that.
At the AFL convention in Gin
cinnati, however, a resolution was
adopted calling upon the Eighty
first Congress to repeal "the OBJ
noxious Taft-Hartley law" But
in that resolution it was also stated
that as "the public welfare as well
as that of management and labor is
paramount '"" the economic health
safety and welfare of the Nation
must not again be placed in jeopar-
dy by the irresponsible action OF
any one" If the latter statement
means anything, it must mean
amendment of the Wagner Act
guarding against endangering pub.
Iuc health and safety through
strikes.
The resolution also made the en-.
couraging statement that labor was
conscious that for every right II
enjoyed there exists a correspond.
ing responsibility"
That is what the Taft-Hartley
Act has tried to establish in law
No such thing was attempted ir
the Wagner Act-which sought te
establish many rights of organized
labor and ignored the counter-re'
sponsibilities.
The demand of the AFL, con.
tanned in the same resolution al.
ready quoted, is for repeal of the
Taft-Hartley Act and re-enactmen1
of the Wagner Act without hiatu!
between the two actions-in othel
words that repeal and re-enact.
ment be carried in one measure
Then, presumably, the question o1
amendment of the Wagner Act L
to be taken up.
Any such procedure could NEAR
the death knell of the many proyi'
sions of the Taft Hartley Act which
should continue to be law. Further
it could mean q return to the Wag'
ner Act and no amendment. Il
seems entirely probable that thu
supporters of the Taft-Hartley Act
and many of them still remair
in the new Congress-wiH resist tt
the utmost the restoration of the
Wagner Act without first amend.
ing it.
Two Developments
They will recall the many eff.
forts made during the Roosevelt
administration to amend the Wag'
ner Act-and how, even after they
were successful in the House, these
efforts were squelched in the Sen.
ate Committee on Labor. They
were pigeonholed and allowed te
die. Even had they been passed
they would have been subject tt
veto by President who clearly was
amenable to the wishes of the lead
ers of organized labor. President
Truman, in the White House with
the aid of those same leaders oi
organized labor, might listen also
to a demand for a vote. In the
days of the discussion of the Taft
Hartley bill, Mr.. Truman never
publicly supported any changes in
the then existing Wagner Act, ex-
cept some very minor ones.
Two things are in the making
having a bearing on the Taft-Hart-
ley law. The first is rough draft
| bill for consideration of President
Truman, Secretary of Labor Tobin
and other members of the admin
|istration. The second is a report
of the Joint Congressional Commit
tee, provided for in the law itself,
to consider any-changes that may
be necessary in the act. Senator
Ball of Minnesota, Republican, who
played an important part in the
writing of the Hartley bill as
it passed the Senate, is chairman
of the joint committee. The report
is now in process of completion, and
lit will probably be submitted by
Chairman Ball, in the Senate, and
tby Representative Hartley in the
House, when the Congress convenes
not later than December 31-the