The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1958-04-11
IRTW Law
Continued from page u


Continued from page u
approved their unions
for the union shop in
of the cases. In these So
900 elections, 91To of the work
ers voted in favor of the union
security asked for from the
employer.
This condition of prior ap-
proyal was dropped from the
law in 1851 because of this over.
whelming evidence that the
workers wanted a union shop.
Workers did not seem to con-
slider the union shop an abridge-
ment of their freedom.
The proponents of Right-to-
Work laws insist that the right
to compel membership in a I'M
ion as a condition of employ
ment even if a majority of the
workers desire it is contrary to
the freedom of those workers
who do not want to belong to
the union. The statement of the
Bishops of Ohio lays down the
ethical argument on this point.
The Bishops say,
Man has . right and q duty
TO work for his livelihood.
This right cannot be cirevm-
seribed TO the extent that
man loses his liberty Of choice
Of q vocation; nor TO fhe sx-
tent that he is deprived Of on
opportunity 70 support him.
self and his family. II does not
follow that . man has the IN
conditional right 70 work in
any and every industry or bus
mess at will. For reasons Of So
eiaI Justice il may be desirable
and often Advantageous to the
common good that . mans
right be restricted by certain
specific conditions. One Of
these imposed conditions may
require that he belong TO . Ia
Dor union or at least be
obliged to Join the union sub
seqvently, 50 as 70 share with
his fellow workmsn in sup
port Of the vnion."
What proponents of Right t.
Work seem to have missed al
along is the principal that is The
very heart of the Bishops rea
soning, that is, that there is M
such thing as unconditional free
dom.
Liberty In . particular area
only exists because IL is re-
strietsd. otherwise there is
anarchy.
Not only in the field Of la
Dor relations but in every felt
where liberty is not circumscrib
ed by very definite restriction
liberty gives way to licens'
which means freedom for thu
strong and oppression for tn
weak.
In other words. the worke.
has freedom in his job and il
his relations with his employee
precisely because his liberty il
conditioned.
If anyone doubts that, let hin
contrast the freedom Of thu
worker in a union shop today
with the so-called freedom ;
worker had in the open or non
union shop Of fifty years ago.
Every society makes demands
on its members in the form o.
obligations that they must &C
cept If the society is to promote
the good of its members as
group and as individuals.
The proper functioning of the
group requires the individual
in it to accept the conditions
that are agreed upon and in in
dustrial society this agreement
is the contract between the EN-
ployer and the workers repre-
sentatives.
It is not considered an in
%fringement of the right to worl
for the employer to lay dowr
conditions that will make fol
good order, efficient production
or promote safety. The worker
accepts these as desirable ant
necessary. The rub seems to b.
if the condition is one agreed
to between management and thu
union as an aid in industrial re
lations. When q worker accept
employment in a plant he be
comes a member Of that partic
ular industrial community, sub
ject to its regulations and obi
cations in the same way that h
is subject to those of the par
ticular civic community int
which he moves.
He is no Robinson Crusoe
free to establish the type of 90
u-AA