Evening star., 1950-04-20
Unfair Competition
By Labor Unions Seen
In ChrysIer Strike
Trade Act Held Violated
If Workers Contribute to
Those Of Struck Plant
By David Laurence

>AAS SAOSS44AS IA OAAS SAA4 O4S4
strike may be to raise the question
as to whether the members of
the United Automobile Workers
Union (CIO) assisted in promot-
ing unfair competition" by f.
nancing the shutdown of one
company's plants for the benefit
Of competing companies in the
same line of business.
Thus, while Chrysler plants
were shut down, General Motors
and Ford and other auto COM
panieS were kept in production
through the voluntary action of
the Auto Workers Union, which
has members in virtually all the
companies. These strikes were
financed by money. collected from
the employees of competing COM
panieS.
When Chrysler Is shut down,
the other companies sell their
cars more readily. and the same
is true of Chrysler when General
Motors or Ford has a strike. In
deed, the labor union as a part
of it's strategy strikes one plant
and let's the others continue pro-
duction as a form of coercion
based primarily on the competitive
position of the different employer
companies.
What the law Saws
The Federal Trade Commission
Act does not exempt labor union
members or any other persons
from becoming accessory to steps
that bring about unfair COM
petition. Thus, If the dealers of
one automobile company organized
a fund to help finance a shut
down in production in another
company it would be plainly a
violation of the statue. But when
union members, as individuals, by
concerted action, take their money
and give 1t to strikers in order
to keep a plant closed, isn't this
bringing about aid to the plants
which are not closed and doesn't
1t enable them to take away por-
ton OF the market previously held
by competing company?
The Federal Trade Commission
law says:
THE commission is hereby en-
powered and directed to prevent
persons, partnerships, or corpora
tionS, except banks, common car
riers subject to the acts to regu-
late commerce, air carriers and
foreign air carriers from using
unfair methods of competition in
commerce and unfair or deceptive
acts in commerce"
1t will be agreed that none of
the statutes dealing with "com-
merce" affect labor unions or
their members because labor IS
not an article of commerce and
that statute says individuals can
not be restrained from lawfully
carrying out the legitimate OBJ
jects" Of labor unions.
Argument of Workers.
It may be answered that the
employees of General Motors and
Ford in this instance can function
as they please in relation to their
own employers, but when they
put out money to finance the
shutting down of a competing
plant which operates to their own
advantage as individuals, this
raises an issue of assisting unfair
competition and hence is an un-
lawful act-something that is out
side the relations which these
workers may have with their own
employers.
To put 1t another way, has
Congress granted a monopoly to
national labor unions which i'm
munizeS their individual members
from conspiring to injure a COM
pany that does not employ them
but competes with the company
that does employ them?
The contention will be made
that workers for Ford or General
Motors are obliged to contribute
to strike assessments by their
unions and that they themselves
do not take any action, but a
national union does. The Federal
Trade Commission would not deal
SO tolerantly with the individual
members of a trade association
who financed a campaign to bring
about labor strife or anything
else that would shut down the
plants of the members of a COM
peting trade association.
The law speaks of persons" as
well as corporations being subject
to the Federal Trade Commits
sion'S rules concerning unfair
competition. Thus individual
members of labor unions would
have to respond to a complaint if
issued by the Federal Trade Com
mission. 1t certainly does seem as
If the power to promote unfair
competition was never intended
by Congress to be vested in any
special groups.