Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1949-06-20
Strike Control Showdown

n The Senate is expected to begin voting
Today on what will be the critical test Of
new labor legislation-the scope of the
authority to be given the President in
dealing with national emergency strikes.
III The debate In the Senate has revealed
ID wide diversity Of opinion as to the best
approach to this problem. The admins
5tration bill, bearing the name of Senator
Thomas Of Utah, does not mention in
functions or plant seizure. The theory of
this bill Is that in national strike emer-
Hency the President has inherent powers
10 cope with the situation, and that he
of course would use them.
q Senator Ives Of New York is sponsoring
In amendment which would refer all such
strikes to Congress. In effect, it would
seonvert Congress into q kind of supreme
labor court. The two amendments which
have attracted most attention are those
sponsored by Senator Douglas of Illinois
and Senator Taft of Ohio.
Il Senator Douglas would give the Presi-
dent power, in a national emergency stu
alton, to seize a struck plant and hold 1t
for ninety days. He relies on the forces
Of public opinion to keep the employees
ct work during the period of seizure, and
makes no provision for injunctive relief
IL they should refuse to work. Senator
Taft wants to include in the law q pro-
PISTON specifically giving the President
power to seize struck plant for period
sof sixty days, and the further power, to
DE used at the discretion of the President,
10 apply for an Injunction restraining a
strike for period of sixty days.
81 OF all these proposals, Senator Taft's
seems clearly to be best suited to the need.
1t recognizes the teaching of abundant
experience that something more than
moral force is needed in some situa-
tons to curb labor leaders who do
not hesitate to sacrifice the national well
fare to their own ambitions. And 1t also
recognizes that If the injunctive weapon
Is to be used against reckless labor &C
tiyity, 1t Is better to spell out by law the
conditions under which 1t may be used
than to leave this to some vague, uncer-
tain and possibly oppressive power said to
be inherent In the presidency.
ANY restraint that Is laid upon abuse
OF power by unions is certain to be loudly
opposed, for the record at least by most
Of the labor leaders. But 1t should be clear
to the people that none Of the proposed
restraints is really drastic. In fact, it may
well be that none of them is adequate to
protect the national interest.
Taking Senator Taft's proposal as being
the one most strenuously opposed by labor,
what does 1t really do? It does not prevent
workers from quitting their jobs If they
want to do 50. 1t does not attempt to 60
back to the days when private employers
were able to obtain injunctions against
their employees. At the very most 1t en-
powers the President, when the welfare
Of the Nation is at stake, to prevent an
organized strike for period of sixty, or
ut most, ninety days.
To call that oppressive labor legislation
Is simple nonsense. It is limited and
minimum protection of the public against
abuse Of the great power that has been
put In the hands of labor leaders, and 1t
unquestionably ought to be approved by
Congress.