The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1958-04-04

1.-THE sponsors of the proposed legislation
claim that a fundamental right of the indi-
vidual is invaded if he must join union. | do
not agree with that viewpoint. 1t is neither
immoral or unethical to require union men,
bership for the greater common good of the
group"
The overwhelming majority of Catholic
priests who have studied. taught and written
about labor matters oppose right to-work''
laws. 1t is their opinion that such laws unduly
restrict labor's right to organize.
This latest Weighty objection from six Ohio
Bishops will do a great deal to fire the con
troversy. We look forward to comment from
our own Witness labor %columnist, Father Will
liam J. Smith, ST.. We are also anxious to
read what Father Keller, csc, will have to
say.-The Witness, Dubuque Iowa.
The bishops of Ohio must have known that
some important members of their respective
flocks were not going to like one bit the joint
statement of the bishops opposing the Right
to.Work law in Ohio. When you are as heav-
lily burdened with the financial requirements
of a growing American diocese, as are most
bishops, you don't go around idly infuriating
the most capable and helpful members of your
diocese by giving ill-considered opinions on
matters which will affect their interests.
You think about it. Not only about the
right and wrong of the issue involved, but
the likelihood of doing harm or good by speak
ing out. The bishops of Ohio, we are sure,
were not looking for an issue to make a state
ment on. An issue presented itself.
The Right-to-W Work controversy is certainly
not a doctrinal issue. 1t is not strictly a moral
issue, as some of, the controversialists would
have it. But it does involve a prudential judy
ment on public policy that has important bear
inc On fha OOO1 of cOaipfy and tho wnlfarp Of
individuals. This consideration urged the
bishops to speak. They realized that their
united voice would not be without listeners
in the populous and heavily Catholic state
of Ohio.
The temperate and reasoned tone of the
bishops statement is uniquely persuasive. The
Right-to-Work proposal seems to inspire Wig.
orous, emotional, and extreme reactions on
both sides.
To the advocates of such a law it is a
crusade for justice" a last ditch battle for
the rights of the vanishing individualist.
To opponents the proposed law is a deceitful
attempt by selfish employers to cripple the
labor unions and return the workers to a state
of helplessness.
The bishops statement puts the issue in
less vivid terms. They. oppose the enactment
of a Right-to-Work law, not because it is a vile
maneuver of selfish employers. They see it
as an unwise law-one that, whatever its mer-
its, is calculated to do more harm than good
to society.
This approach, we are convinced. is going
to win the grudging assent of a lot of people
who think something must be done about Ia
Dor unions. Something, yes. Maybe laws about
financial accountability or democratic election
practices, but not the Right-to-Work law.
This law will cause no evils of unionism
without killing the patient. Surely none but
the most rank individualists will think kill
ing unionism is good for our industrialized
society.-lndians Catholic and Record.