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

R.T.W. Law
Continued from page u
bsrs of the union when the
labor-managemenf contract is
signed to remain in the union
until the eeniract expires and
that new workers who Join
the union sIso stay in the IN
ion for the duration OF The
contract.
Right to Work laws are con
cerned with these last two
types of union security and to
state the matter quite simply.
they would make illegal any
agreement between an employ
er and union whereby member.
ship in a union is a condition
for employment or continued
employment.
In short, Right to Work laws
would outlaw the union shoI
and maintenance of membership
as a part of labor contract.
II should be clear that Right
TO Work laws are not design
ed TO correct any union abvs-
Is that have shown UP in The
Mcclellan hearings but are
concerned exclusively with
the one point Of union ssevri-
ty.
A little background will show
why this issue has arisen at the
present time and why the at
tempt is being made to place il
before the voters of Ohio.
Unionism in this country goe!
back almost as far as the foun
dation of our government, thu
first attempts to form unions
having taken place in the 1890!
by the shoemakers and tn,
printers. Then, as now, one o.
their chief concerns, after wag
es and working conditions, wa
with union security and some o
the first strikes were over thei
attempts to obtain securit.
through the closed or uniol
shop.
Employers resisted. often
violently and the early his
tory Of labor relations is .
bloody one. Both employers
and workers saw from ths
very beginning that effective
organization depended upon
the union soIidifying It's bar.
gaining position by not only
representing all workers but
having all workers as msrn-
hers of the union.
Early court cases went agains
the unions on the basis of Grim
inal conspiracy but this judicia
view was modified over tn,
course of many years until tn
right to organize and to bargain
collectively became accepte'
rights.
The turning point in labo
history occurred in 1885 whel
the Wagner Act or the Nationa
Labor Relations Act was passes
by the Congress and gave an ei
fective legal guarantee of thes
natural rights. Those worker
who are under federal jurisdis
ton, that is, employed in inter
state commerce, were given b
this act federal guarantees o
their right to organize and t
have their union recognized an
accepted as the bargaining agen
with the employer. Employe
and workers were permitted III
der this law to enter into col
tracts which had closed or III
ion shop clauses in them.
This agreement on securit
could come about only throug
bargaining and had to be accep
able to both the employer an
the union before 1t became
part of the contract. 1t shout
be remembered that this La
covered only those workers VIII
are in interstate commerce, an
that other workers who do nc
fall under this jurisdiction
not have the protection of thi
law.
Some states modelled state
statutes on the federal lsgisla.
ton but Ohio has never done
so and workers. such ~
restaurant and hotel en-
ploysss and laundry workers.
are denied any way under ths
law that they can have an sn'
ploysr recognize their union.
much less bargain with II. On
less he Is willing 10 do 50.
In general, federal law supe
sedes state law but when th
Wagner Act was replaced b
the Taft Hartley Act in 1946 a
important exception was mad
to this constitutional provision
The Taft Hartley Act gave til
states jurisdiction in matters
union security, provided II
states were more strict than til
; : federal law. In other word
while the Taft-Hartley Act pc
mitted the union shop, it ga,
; to the individual states the rigl
! to legislate to remove union $
curity clauses from bargainir
: contracts or to make the uniC
ShOp or other modified forms