| OCR Text |
Show National Topics Interpreted I X" I'.t by William Eruckart f V National Press Building Walngton, P. C yJj-jitTj perform the very functions for which it was created. I mentioned earlier some of the signs and portents that are visible Sit Down tion. One of the Strikes most important of these is the significance sig-nificance of the "sit down" type of strike. I find many informed authorities au-thorities who refer to the "sit down" strike as a key point in present labor la-bor problems. It is something new in this country. coun-try. It is a program of striking in which labor is entirely passive but by which it usurps the rights of ownership. own-ership. The workers simply stay in the plants, offering no trouble and for the most part avoiding destructive destruc-tive tactics. But it is the fact that they remain in the plants, the property prop-erty of their employers, that is causing caus-ing considerable worry in government govern-ment circles. The reason why this phase of strike tactics is creating concern lies in the fact that it amounts to the seizure of private property by individuals who have no right or warrant in law. It would be the same thing as far as legal rights are concerned if a group of strikers went to your home or mine and announced they expected to stay therf There is no difference in the two situations. While the effect ef-fect on you or me would be less important to the country as a whole, it remains as a fact that our rights would be violated in exactly the same manner as rights of corporations corpora-tions were violated, say, in the General Gen-eral Motors strike. After all, you and I are merely units of the great mass of people that make up the United States of America. Now, it takes no great stretch of the imagination imagi-nation to recognize that if union labor establishes its ability to occupy oc-cupy the property of others and fixes that as a precedent, then where are the rights of any person who owns property. It matters not whether it is a small eottage, a farm home or a great industrial plant the right to own property, guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States, is virtually nullified. One of the rights of American citizenship cit-izenship is a right to own property. prop-erty. It is a principle that has grown to be sacred with us since the Boston tea party. Yet, it is being challenged and thus far the Washington. The arrival of the first robin is only a sign of the com-ing com-ing of spring. It Danger does not bring Signs spring wea-ther. Nevertheless, we Americans watch for signs all ur lives and lately there have been several sev-eral of them in national affairs that are worthy of notice. There never has been a time in our country's history, as far as I have been able to discover, when the tension surrounding labor conditions con-ditions has been as dangerous as it is right now. I do not believe anyone any-one can forecast what the results are going to be; what all of these strikes and factional fights in organized or-ganized labor mean and I am convinced con-vinced that they represent something some-thing much deeper than just dissatisfaction dis-satisfaction with wages or growing pains of expanding business. In other words, there are many students stu-dents of national affairs who are attempting to analyze current labor conditions as signs of new times. Most observers with whom I have discussed the present labor problems, prob-lems, are hopeful that these troubles trou-bles mean only continued increases in the demand for labor. That is, they want to accept these signs as indicative of a returning and sound prosperity in commerce and industry. indus-try. Yet, none of them is quite sure. There are too many "ifs" and too many uncertainties for anyone to attempt a complete diagnosis of the circumstances. Some weeks ago I ventured the opinion in these columns that the rift in organized labor between William Wil-liam Green as head of the American Ameri-can Federation of Labor and John L. Lewis as sponsor of the industrial indus-trial union idea, likely would result in serious trouble for the labor unions un-ions themselves. I was unable to report then that which I can write at this time, namely, that the schism in organized labor appears certain to set back the cause of organized labor many years. Indeed, In-deed, it seems that the split, tangled tan-gled as it is with partisan politics, may prove to be the uncharted rock in union labor's course and its ship may founder on it. But the situation is fraught with graver possibilities, I am sure. There are ele-Grave ele-Grave ments and influ- Possibilities ences at work in the labor situation today that easily could lead to riots and bloodshed. From riots and bloodshed it is only a step to revolution revo-lution of a political sort. None here knows exactly what the administration's labor policies are beyond the exaggerated promises prom-ises made during the last Presidential Presi-dential campaign. Of course, President Pres-ident Roosevelt and the bulk of his New Deal spokesmen are exceedingly exceed-ingly friendly, overfriendly some believe, be-lieve, to organized labor. The Ne Dealers had organized labor with them in the last campaign. Now, however, it is made to appear that the support of labor in the campaign cam-paign is proving more or less embarrassing em-barrassing to the administration which has just started on its second four-year term. Some of the critics of the administration admin-istration are outspoken in their statements that Mr. Roosevelt is trying to dodge, trying to avoid, getting get-ting mixed up too deeply in labor's problems. Some of his subordinates have been active but the President has stayed out of the picture just as far as he could and as long as he could. federal government has made no move to break it up. As long as employers organize and tread on labor la-bor with a steel boot, just so long the workers are entitled to organize to combat mistreatment from business. busi-ness. But it does not seem to me to be a right of labor to actually taks private property. To that extent I cannot feel very kindly toward those strikers at present asserting such a right through use of the "sit down" strike. Now, there are reasons why the federal government has not acted. If troops were sent into private factories, fac-tories, to drive out the "sit down" strikers, one can readily see what a riot would result. But if the federal government fails to enforce this inherent in-herent right, it is not doing its sworn duty to the rest of the people. And it was only a few weeks ago that Mr. Roosevelt again took the oath of office as President, swearing to enforce as well as defend the Constitution. Then, another phase of the situation situa-tion is being discussed. The Wagner Wag-ner law says employers must negotiate nego-tiate collectively "with the majority" major-ity" organization of employees and it decrees further that the labor relations re-lations board shall determine which is the majority organization; that it can decide this question on evidence evi-dence or order an election among employees. None can tell usually whether union or company organization organiza-tion employees are in the majority major-ity in some of these strikes, so the labor relations board has kept out of them.. Taking this labor situat.on as a whole, I believe I am justified in saying, as I said earlier, that it portends a crisis. Preaching of class hatred has been the main occupation occupa-tion of certain elements in the last three or four years and now those elements are reaping what they sowed. The tragedy of it all is that the rest of us have to reap the same reward. Western Newspaper Union. I am inclined to believe that these assertions that Mr. Roosevelt is afraid to take leadership too frequently fre-quently in labor's problems are unfair un-fair to the President. They amount to a statement that he lacks cour-age cour-age which is not true. On the contrary, con-trary, there are many who believe with me that Mr. Roosevelt senses developments yet to arise in the labor la-bor situation and he is, therefore, being cautious as to his steps thus early in what threatens to be a national labor crisis. On the other hand, it is difficult to explain why the national labor relations rela-tions board has been so nearly quiescent qui-escent through such strikes as the plate glass and portions of the automobile auto-mobile workers. If there ever was a situation made to order for use of the agency set up under the so-called Wagner law, that situation was to be found in the two strikes just mentioned. The board did so little in those circumstances cir-cumstances that its existence can be said to have been forgotten. It amounted to a dead letter insofar as the law itself is concerned. In some quarters one can hear discussion discus-sion to the effect that sponsors of the national labor relations act and board were unwilling to have that agency and the law receive a real test at this time. I have been unable un-able to confirm this thought at all but frankly the circumstances that one sees indicate there is some truth in the rumor that too much of a burden should not be unloaded on the board for its first real test. Business interests never have believed be-lieved the law to be constitutional. The New Dealers, however, have contended vociferously that it is valid and yet we have the picture of a New Deal agency failing to |
