OCR Text |
Show National Topics Interpreted J by William Bruckart fTl-Z Katlonal Press Building Washington, D. C. 'rElT'lIF Washington. Although it has been three weeks since the Supreme court of the Unit-Wagner Unit-Wagner Act ed States upheld Decisions the Wagner labor relations act, I doubt that there is more than a mere handful of people in this nation na-tion who are able to comprehend the full significance of those decisions of the highest court. The chances are, if our present form of government govern-ment remains and we continue to adhere to our Constitution, the full import of the so-called Wagner act decisions (there were five of them) will not be discovered within a quarter of a century. No decision of the Supreme court tn several decades contains ilie wide range of potentialities found in the decisions of April 12 and it may well be that the findings of the court at that time will constitute a turning point in United States history. There are so many potentialities to be found in the Wagner act decisions de-cisions that one may reasonably express ex-press a doubt whether states have any rights left. Likewise, one may express a doubt whether labor and the friends of labor have won or lost in the determination by the high court that the National Labor Relations board has power to compel com-pel an employer to deal with a majority ma-jority of his workers, organized into union form. Above and beyond these phases lies another, namely, the question whether the United States congress does not plso have the power to legislate strikes out of existence. First, I am convinced in reviewing review-ing the court's action that there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation mis-information spread about the findings find-ings of the court. Never in my period of service in Washington have I seen so many different constructions con-structions placed upon an official act. We have seen and heard unmeasured un-measured criticism of the court for turning business over to the labor unions; we have witnessed a renewal renew-al of attacks on the Supreme court because it did not go far enough to the radical side in granting power pow-er to congress and the President, and we have been deluged with talk of what can now be done in a legislative legis-lative way to carry out Mr. Roosevelt's Roose-velt's theme song, "The More Abundant Abun-dant Life." The truth is, however, that the Supreme court in deciding the Wagner act cases actually restated re-stated in a clarified manner a position posi-tion the court took twelve years ago. It was in 1925 that the court decided decid-ed the so-called second Coronado coal mining case. In that opinion, the court laid down the rule, although al-though it was obscured, that obstacles ob-stacles to production constituted an interference with interstate commerce. com-merce. In the cases this month, the court reaffirmed and restated that very theory of law and government, because it declared in the Jones and Laughlin Steel company case that failure of the employer to permit settlement of the strike through an official agency of the government constituted interference with interstate inter-state commerce. Hitherto, the conception con-ception jf interstate commerce generally gen-erally has been limited to transportation trans-portation of goods or communication communica-tion across state lines. To show the similarity, it is necessary nec-essary only to recall that striking miners attempted to close entrances en-trances to the Coronado mines in Colorado. The cases went to the Supreme court which held that illegal illeg-al attempts io close the mines constituted con-stituted an interference with shipment ship-ment of the products into interstate commerce. So, I am quite convinced con-vinced that the job the Supreme court did in this instance and as far as it relates to the orgy of New Deal theories consists only of clarifying clari-fying the legal definition of interstate inter-state commerce. Laymen are not concerned with legal technicalities, nor do they understand them, but they do understand facts and it was facts in the Jones-Laughlin case upon up-on which the court predicated its decision notwithstanding the wild acclaim by New Dealers for the "enlightened" construction of the Constitutior. in that opinion. Any attempt to point out what the Wagner act decisions mean and how far they go is Shies at bound to lead into Discussion a maze of complicated compli-cated discussion. I have no intention of getting myself my-self so entangled despite the degrees de-grees in law that I hold. I am a firm believer in the declaration that human nature works out its problems prob-lems after the manner of slow and orderly development. But there are certain circumstances circum-stances connected with the present court rulings and conditions of this day that may probably be discussed ' without becoming involved in despised de-spised legal technicalities. I mentioned earlier that if the court, as it did, could find that obstruction ob-struction of production constituted interference with interstate commerce, com-merce, it reems quite obvious that i interference may come from employees em-ployees as well as employers. It is a fact, theiefore, that when the steel company here concerned re- fused to obey the mandate of the I National Labor Relations board it prevented a settlement of a strike. It must be a fact, therefore, that a strike of the sit-down type constitutes con-stitutes interference with production and consequently interferes with interstate in-terstate commence. Tne next conclusion, con-clusion, and it seems perfectly obvious, ob-vious, is that if congress can legislate legis-late against employer and prevent him from interfering with interstate commerce, it can legislate to prevent pre-vent the workers from interfering A'ith interstate commerce. Now, we come to the point, mentioned men-tioned earlier, of the danger inherent in any situation where congress starts legislating on thi question of human rights. Congresses before this time have been fair and congresses con-gresses hereafter may be fair in enacting legislation dealing with the delicate matter of human rights. But where is the assurance that they will cio so? How can we tell but that at some future time a congress con-gress subservient to big business may decide to lay down ridiculous rules about employment. It is possible, pos-sible, for example, that some congress con-gress may say that employers may not hire workers above fifty years of age. They seem to have that power if they can make it appear that age becomes important to the maintenance of constant production. I admit this sounds ridiculous. I intended that it should sound ridiculous. ridic-ulous. It has been mentioned as an extreme case to show what may be possible if these new powers are not wisely used. It exemplifies, moreover, more-over, what a factor uncertainty is when too much power has been granted any agency of the government, govern-ment, be it national or state or local. lo-cal. Now, to touch upon some of the unsettled issues resulting from the court's pro-Unsettled pro-Unsettled nouncement: Issues All that has been obtained under un-der the Wagner act decisions is complete recognition of the right of organized labor groups to bargain collectively free from employer domination. The principle of majority ma-jority rule is laid down. An employer em-ployer must deal with the representatives repre-sentatives of a majority of his workers. work-ers. The rights of the minority, whether that minority be a company com-pany union or an independent union are rather much overshadowed although al-though they can present their grievances griev-ances to the National Labor Relations Rela-tions board. It is in that situation that trouble is foreseen. Most of the recent strikes have resulted from disputes over union recognition. Largely this union recognition question resulted from the maneuverings and agitation agita-tion by John L. Lewis and his Committee Com-mittee for Industrial Organization. But it is not to be forgotten that the American Federation of Labor has several million members in its craft unions. Thus, it can easily be foreseen that the National Labor Relations board is going to be confronted con-fronted many times with a fight between be-tween the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. Each one of these organizations will claim that it represents a majority ma-jority of the workers and, therefore, is entitled to be the spokesman for all of an employer's workers. Most of us have seen how bitter internal labor rows can become. I am sure that most of my readers will recall cases within their own knowledge where carpenters and bricklayers have fought it out over the question of which one was to do certain work in construction. It has happened hundreds of times and each time bitter hatred has developed. devel-oped. When the right to speak for a whole body of employees becomes the question for determination, it seems to me perfectly obvious that the controversy will develop into one of white heat. And the labor board will have to decide which one should serve as the employees' representative. rep-resentative. In the meantime, the employer can have nothing to" say. All' of this may sound a bit fantastic; fan-tastic; it may sound as an attempt to borrow trouble. Fix Hours n is neither. The and Wages situation is discussed dis-cussed for the reason that it is quite apparei.t there will be new attempts in congress con-gress now to write legislation controlling con-trolling hours and wages. Representative Repre-sentative Connery of Massachusetts, Massachu-setts, .speaking as chairman of the house labor committee, declared the other day that such legislation would be drafted and he entertained no doubt that it would pass the house. Conditions in the senate are different, bui. Mr. Connery's opinion opin-ion must be accepted as worthwhile in so far as the house is concerned. Thus, if congress undertakes such lcg.-siution it is confronted with the necessity of doing something by way of amendment of the Wagner act that will make union labor comply com-ply with federal regulation instead of leaving the Wagner act one-sided as it is. In other words, labor is entitled to its dues, to its fair share of profits, but it seems to me it is also entitled to be as subservient to law as those who pay the wages. fc. Western Newspaper Union. |