Evening star., 1949-01-27
SteamroIIer Tactics
Seen in Move 10 Bar
Taft Act Hearings
Labor Heads Questioned
On Reason for Wanting
Entire Law Repealed
By David Laurence

Why are the labor union leaders
so anxious to avoid extensive public
hearings on the Hartley Act
that they have put the heat on the
Democrats in Congress?
This question is beginning to be
asked on every side as it becomes
apparent that the steamroller may
be used in both houses to prevent a
public explanation of why the labor
unions are unwilling to submit to
cross-examination as to their rea-
sons for wanting the entire Taft
Hartley Act repealed without any
substitute for its major provisions.
The expressed view of the labor
union leaders, of course. Is that the
country in the last election ordered
repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and
that everything has been said that
could be said in any hearings or
that the subject was fully covered
in 1947 when the Republicans held
hearings.
Real Issue Not Met.
This, however, does not meet the
real issue, for the idea of the hear
ings was to ask the labor-union
leaders in what respects in actual
practice they found the Taft-Hart-
ley Act to be defective. They can
make a good argument, to be sure,
against some sections which were
ambiguously written in the first
place. But it would be construc-
tive piece of education if the United
States Senate could discover just
why the labor union leaders are un-
willing to answer questions about
the operation Of the present law,
Some of these questions are as fol-
lows:
l.. Why do labor unions want to
repeal the provision which requires
unions to reveal to their members
what is being done with the funds
collected each year?
2. Why do labor unions want to
repeal the provision which protects
the right of the citizen to work at
his job unmolested by other workers
or by strong-arm men hired for the
picket lines?
g.. Why do labor unions want to
abolish the right of free speech for
the employers and yet retain on the
picket line the right to say what
they please in denouncing the en-
ployer or his customers?
4. Why do the labor r-union leaders
want to repeal that section Of the
law which forbids them to take a
workers dues money and use it for
political purposes even though he
may belong to another political
party?
5. Why do the labor-union leaders
want repealed the section of the law
which requires labor union to give
90 days notice before calling a
strike and thus permit a return to
wildcat" strikes whereby work can
be stopped by eny small group at
any time and a whole line of en-
ployes forced to quit work?
6. Why do labor union leaders
want to remove from the law any
provision that enumerates the "un-
fair labor practices" that a labor
union may commit. thus leaving
labor unions immune from any re-
straint whatsoever and confining all
unfair labor practices" to en-
ployers?
License" Demanded.
These are but few of the several
questions that probably would be
asked If there were hearings with
an opportunity to ask labor leaders
some direct questions. The labor
chieftains, however, believe they can
force repeal without much discussion
and without making a case except to
repeat that the people gave them a
mandate"
Will President Truman stand by
and allow a one-sided labor-rela-
tions bill to be jammed through
Congress? Is that the practical
meaning of the so-called fair DEAL?
Unquestionably such license as is
being demanded will lead to strikes
and work stoppages and economic
losses to the country and Mr.. Tru-
man will have no authority, for in
stance, to stop a coal strike or any
other major strike that paralyZes
the national economy. Maybe that
is the kind of shock that Congress
needs to awaken it to its respon-
sibilities. Then, overnight, Congress
may be compelled to pass something
far more drastic than the Taft
Hartley Act.
It will be sad epoch in labor
management relations when the ex-
tremists are In control-and that is
what the squelching of hearings
really means at this time
Reproduction Rights ReservedD