Evening star., 1948-10-25
Murray Speech Held
In Error on NLRB Rule
About Mass Picketinq
Text Is Cited to Show
Boord Prohibits Only
Lines Blocking Doors
Rp Dapfd Laurence

Phil Murray, head of the CIO, is
such a pleasant and reasonable
fellow personally that one wonders
why he is given in his speeches
the personality of q "strong-arm"
labor leader interested in preserv-
ing methods Of violence in the
world. Whoever writes these
speeches-for certainly a man of
Mr.. Murray's conscience and stand
ing couldn't write them-has blum
dered in presenting the CIO as on
the side Of disorder and violence
in picketing.
Every day." says the text of the
Murray speech Of last Saturday
night, the evil consequences of this
law multiply. Just last week the
Taft-Hartley law was held to out
law picketing, however peaceful and
orderly, If engaged in by a solid
number of strikers. I say to Taft
and Hartley and their candidate
for President that labor will not
permit this invasion of our clear
constitutional rights"
But II the ghost writer's Of the
Murray speech had taken the
slightest trouble to read the text of
the decision issued by the trial ex-
aminer for the National Labor Re-
lations Board last week they would
have realized they were putting Mr..
Murray in the position Of telling
an untruth.
Distinction Made.
The examiner did not outlaw
picketing however peaceful and or
derly, if engaged in by a solid num-
Der OF strikers" The examiner was
careful to draw a distinction be-
tween the mere presence of large
numbers Of pickets and their lining
up in front Of a factory entrance
In such way as to prevent any
worker or anyone else from going
In or out Of the plant. The National
Labor Relations Board, by unani-
nous vote announced yesterday. is
sued its first ruling upholding that
view.
1t certainly cannot be said that
any such use of pickets in what is
known as mass picketing" is
peaceful or orderly" 1t is simple
use Of physical force to bar the
entry Of worker. It means de-
priving q citizen of his right to
work and q plant owner q right
to have access to his own property.
Mr.. Murray must know better than
to say that he wants such q system
or method of violence construed as
within the constitutional rights" OF
labor or anybody else.
1t Is not so long ago that violence
minded employers, Mr.. Murray will
recall, engaged "strong-arm" men
to do violence at the factory gates
or employed men to spy at union
meetings. This was all revealed
by the famous La Toilette investi-
eating committee and Federal laws
were passed to forbid importation of
"strike-breakers" from state to state
and to prohibit spying in labor
meetings.
Professional Pickets Used.
Today labor unions engage pro-
fessional pickets. and many of them
are "strong-arm" men brought from
state to State to inttn1idate workers
who happen to disagree with unions.
The Fascist and Communist idea
Is that physical force shall rule and
that liberty Of thought is not per-
mitted to the minority. Congress
ut its last session discussed a pro-
posal to bar the importation of
pickets across state lines but labor
unions were able to stifle the meas
ure and would oppose it If offered
again.
Picketing Is q lawful means Of
advertising the views of a labor
union to the public and it has been
upheld again and again by the
Supreme Court provided it is really
peaceful. Because the policing of
picketing Is a local matter, the Fed
eral Government has not entered
into the picture before. Now. how
ever, since labor in 1885 insisted on
pushing. the Federal Government
into the regulation of labor-man-
agement relations under the Wag-
ner Act, 1t Is natural for Congress
as the representative of the public
interest to insist that labor and
management have equal rights.
The Taft-Hartley law says that
the employer cannot use violence,
and that labor unions directly or
through strong armed" agents
must not intimidate workers either.
Mr.. Murrays speech contained
another blunder. He is quoted as
saying: Labor wants no part of the
Taft-Hartley law But does Mr..
Murray really mean that? Doesn't
the first part Of the Taft Hartley
law contain, word for word, the
language Of the Wagner Act COM
pelling employers to bargain with
workers and giving workers the
rights Of self-organization? Does
Mr.. Murray mean to say he doesn't
want that part of the Taft Hartley
law either? If so, that's really news
and Mr.. Murray is lining up behind
those reactionaries on both the
labor and management sides who
want NO regulation of labor-man-
agement relations at all by the
Federal Government but a return to