HUE *r WRITE to
Yur CHpwm to
Pretest Agaiast All
ARTI-LABOR Bills!
CHARLOTTE
LABOR JOURNAL
VOL XVII; NO. 4
CHARLOTTE. N. C- THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1917
PUNITIVE LABOR MEASURES ARE ASSAILED
GREEN WARNS ANTI
LABOR BILLS BLOW AT
ALL AMERICAN WORKERS
Washington, D. C. — Warning
that the anti-labor legislation
now being considered in Congress
is a blow, not only at unions, but
at everyone who works for a
living, was sounded by AFL
President William Green in a na
tion-wide radio address over an
NBC hookup.
Declaring that the pending leg
islation ' presents “the greatest
domestic issue facing our Nation
today—the question of whether
free trade unionism shall survive
and function effectively,” Mr.
Green told the country:
“The first result of such leg
islation would be wage cuts all
down the line, for non-union
workers as.f well as union mem
bers, because in modern industry
the union wage level sets the
standard for all other wages.”
Analyzing bills sponsored by
Rep. Hartley (R) of New Jersey,
and Senator Taft (R) of Ohio,
chairmen of the two Congressional
Labor Committees, Mr. Green
said:
“Suppose the Taft - Hartley
slave - labor legislation becomes
law, and wages are forced down.
Do you believe that the ■ great
mass of American workers, af
flicted as they are today by con
tinuously rising prices, would be
able to sustain the blow? Do
you t£iink our American ecenomy
as a whole would be able to stand
the shock of a drastic cut in
mass purchasing power?
“People would just have to stop
buying many of the things they
need, business would shrivel, pro
duction would drop, millions of
workers would lose their jobs and
our country would find itself
bogged down in another danger
ous depression.
“This is not an exaggerated
picture I have presented. It is
the natural, and inevitable conse
quence of the present drive in
Congress to tear down the unions
and grind down the workers
through punitive legislation.
“Of course the sponsors of this
legislation deny any such pur
pose. They claim they have
a mandate from the people to
adopt legislation to curb the ef
fectiveness of unions.
“Let us examine this claimed
4mandate.’ Undoubtedly, the vo
ters in the last election were dis
turbed by high prices, by post
war shortages, by the failure of
Government controls and by re
curring labor-management strife.
The people were sick of war on
the industrial front. They wanted
peace and production.
“But if the Taft-Hartley pro
gram passes, the people will not
get what they want. Instead,
(they will get complete chaos in
the Nation’s industrial life. By
destroying the most effective
methods of peaceful collective
bargaining, by attacking union
security and by giving hostile
employers unfair advantages over
labor, these bills would promote
the worst outbreak of industrial
strife ever seen in this country.”
Mr. Green told the radio audi
ence that “for every employer the
sponsors of this legislation claimed
was ‘pressing’ for such labor
curbs, he could produce 100 em
ployers who would oppose them.
“The real purpose behind this
proposed legislation,” Mr. Green
“1* to weaken and destroy
labor unions. That purpose is
reflected in every line, sentence
and section of the Taft and Hart
ley bills. No pious denials can
■change this fact.
“In my sincere opinion, no new
legislation is necessary. Labor
■relations, as many a wise em
ployer has discovered, are really
a problem in human relations.
The problem cannot be , solved
merely by passing a law. Good
will and sincere compliance with
^Hating laws calling for fair col
(Ceatiaaed ea Page 4)
All-Out ^Fight Declared
On Enemy Legislators
By Georgia Labor Chief
An all-out fight was declared
at the annual convention of the
Georgia Federation of Labor, held
in Savannah, Ga., May 20-23 by
George L. Googe, Southern Di
rector, American Federation of
Labor, when he. stated to the con
vention that he was asking .the
members of unions “to refuse to
work for employers who declined
to continue present contracts.”
He further stated that legal
tests would come in the first case
where the state of Georgia was
sustained against any union in the
state.
i In the address delivered by Mr.
Googe he dwelt at some length
on the Hartley-Taft bill pending
before the National Congress and
stated that the passage of such
legislation would virtually destroy
free' trade unionism in America,
and that unions would become so
cial clubs instead of aggressive
organizations representing the
sentiment of the workers. In the
special appeal to the delegate as
sembled, Mr. Googe called upon
members of organized labor to
contact their Congressmen and
reveal to them the feelings of the
trade unionists in Georgia.
Georgia’s two senators came in
for a drubbing. It was pointed
out that Senator Russell was sup
ported by Labor when he made
his first campaign for the Sen
ate “because of. the Talmadge la
bor record and he has had no
serious opposition since that time.
“But if he cannot support the po
sition of Labor in regard to the
present legislation he should at
least support the President and
the party and not line up with
Senator Taft and the tory ring
of the Republican party.” He
pointed out that the Georgia Fed
eration of Labor and the Ameri
can Federation of Labor broke
violently with President Roosevelt
and his advisors in the “purge
campaign” of 1938 which was
launched against Senator George
of Georgia.
Mr. Googe further stated that
“every student of Georgia and
National history knows that had
it not been for the support of
Labor that President Roosevelt
would have “purged” Senator
George from the Senate. Labor
feels that the Senior Senator
from Georgia is perfectly able to
see through the hysterical smoke
screen against organised labor.
He, too, should support the Pres
ident and thd Democratic party.”
The Southern Director for the
American Federation of Labor
pointed out that the hysteria of
industry and the anti-labor groups
in Georgia was founded on un
sound ground and that one of the
major industries in Georgia, tex
tiles/ i* 97 per cent unorganized
and that since such a high per
cent olj workers in that industry
are unorganized, that there is
certainly no fear of union domi- j
nation and that their argument j
as to threats of union control of
their business is without founds- j
tk>n. He pointed out further
that the wood working industry,
including the saw mills and kin
dred types of plants were “99.44
per cent” unorganized and that
the same rule applied to that in
dustry in regard to- claims that
unions would dominate their busi
ness.
Mr. Googe reported that the
Georgia delegation that has ap- .
proximately 375,000 new members '
in the South had been brought into !
the AFL in the South during the
past year bScStisre of an extremely
active and effective organizing
campaign in the Southern states.
Mr. Charles B. Gramling, Pres
ident of the Georgia Federation
of Labor, made an appeal to the
delegation to "pfepire them
selves to vote en masse at the
polls at the coming election in
order to make the anti labor del
egation in the Georgia General
Assembly* “stay at home." Mr.
Gramling stated, “We resent the
fact that the government tries
to regulate collective bargaining
agreements reached around the
conference table between employ
ers and employe. We resent that.
We protest against it, and this
conference will register our pro
test of government control in our
economic life.”
More than 400 delegates as
sembled in the ball room of the
Hotel Savannah in attendance of
the 1947 convention of the Geor
gia Federation of Labor, repre
senting every city and hamlet
in the state of Georgia.
Officers for the next twelve
month period were re-elected Fri
day of this week. Charles B.
Gramling was re-elected President
and Henry W. Chandler, Secre
tary-Treasurer. The following
were elected for the office of
Vice-President: Frank H. Heape,
Savannah, J. A. Harper, incum
bent, Atlanta; W. W. Holly, in
cumbent, Augusta; L. W. Bennett,
incumbent, Brunswick; J. A. Mc
Donald, incumbent, Rome; J. W.
Pate, Macon; W. H. Reed, incum
bent, Waycross, and Howard An
thony, Columbus.
Matthew WoU Cited
For Aid to Workers
Philadelphia — Matthew WoU,
president of the Labor League for
Human Rights and vice-president
of the American Federation of
Labor, will receive the 1947 Clen
denin Award of the Workers De
fense League at a dinner cere
mony here. The award is going
to Mr. Well this year in recog
nition of his vigorous leadership
in the fight against slave labor
all over the world.
Previous recipients have bees
Robert M. La Follette, John F,
Finerty, A. Phillip Randolph, Rev
James Myers and Dr. Frank P
Graham. The award was namdi
in honor of David L. Clendenin
a founder of the WDL and its
chief executive for five year*.
Mr. Clendenin died in 1M1.
Ax chairman of the Internation
al Labor Relations Committee of
the AFLs Mr. WoU has devoted
major efforts for the revival of
a free democratic trade union
movement in Europe.
William L. Batt, Jr„ radio com
mentator, and M. Herbert Syme,
labor attorney, are co-chairmen of
the committee of sponsors of the
dinner at which the League's an
nual Honor Roll scrolls will also
be presented.
Dee Moines, Iowa. — A policy
committee of 100 A7L leaders in
this area are mapping out labor
strategy in connection with new
Iowa antilabor laws.
SPOTLIGHT FOCUSED ON
GOP LABOR POLICY
Washington—The spotlight of
publicity was focused on the of
ficial labor policy of the Repub
lican Party, as revealed in the
party’s platform and in addresses
and statements by party leaders,
by Secretary - Treasurer George
Meany of the American Federa
tion of Labor in a coast-to-coast
address Saturday night. May 24,
1947, over the NBC network.
Mr. Meany’s speech — entitled
“Who Makes Republican Labor
Policy?”—pointed out that “even
a casual examination of the rec
ord gives the lie” to claims by
the supporters of anti-labor leg
islation that the joint Taft-Hart
ley-National Association of Manu
facturers program of repression
and emasculation of trade unions
“represents the official policy of
the Republican Party."
Revealing the sharp contrast
between the actions of the Re
publican leaders in Congress—
who are carrying the ball for the
N. A. M. against the American
workingman — and the 19441 Re
publican platform, the 1944 state
ments on labor by the Republi
can Presidential candidate. Gov
ernor Thomas E. Dewey of New
York, and other and more recent
G. O. P. pronouncements in the
identical vein, Mr. Meany said:
“The question naturally arises,
in view of the actions of the of
ficial Republican spokesmen in
Congress: ,
“Has the HepublKan' party one
policy on Labor which it presents
to the American people when it
is seeking votes and another pol
icy after it has been successful
in taking control of the legisla
tive branches of the government
in Washington?
“These spokesman for the Re
publican Party on Capitol Hill
must have a very low estimate
of the intelligence of American
workers. In addition, they must
be convinced that the wage-earn
ers of the nation have very short
memories. Surely they must know
that the workers of America—at
least all of them over 30 years
of age—remember quite vividly
the late twenties and early thir
ties. If Messrs. Taft, Hartley
and the N. A. M. boys desire
to forget those days, I can as
sure them that the workers do
not forget.”
Taking up the claim of Con
gressional Republican leaders that
their anti-labor actions are in re
sponse to an alleged election man
date, Mr. Meany said:
“Did any responsible represen
tative of the Republican Party
inform the voters prior to last
November's election that the serv
ices of lawyers representing the
National Association of Manu
facturers would be utilised, as
they were utilized, to write anti
labor laws for Mr. Hartley and
his committee colleagues?
“Did Senator Taft, or any other
responsible spokesman for the Re
publican Party, tell the voters
that the Republican leadership
in the Senate would write anti
labor laws along lines suggested
by employers? ... I cannot re
call the American voter being
told prior to last November’s elec
tion that employers were going
to be allowed to dictate legisla
tion to control the lives of work
ers.
“If there was a mandate to en
act legislation such as that pro
posed by the Taft-Hartley pro
gram, it must have been a Sec
ret Mandate. I am sure the great
mass of the voters who ^rent to
the polls last election knew
nothing of any such mandate.”
The full text of Mr. Meany’s
address was as follows:
The attempt of reactionary big
business and its Congressional
collaborators to sett the idea of
government domination and con
trol as a means to industrial
peace is an insalt to the intelli
(Coatfamod On Page l>
Anti-Labor Measures
May Drop Full Ban
On Welfare Funds
Washington, D. C.—Indications
here after the second meeting of
Senate and House conference
groups on anti-labor legislation
were that the conferees would
agree on abandonment of an out
right ban on union health and
welfare funds.
Though no “final decision on
anything were reached” at the
second conference. Senator Taft
! of Ohio, chairman of the Senate
I Labor Committee and author of
l the Senate bill, expressed con
j fidence that the outright ban on
| the union health and welfare
I funds, financed by employers, as
1 adopted by the House, woul be
' dropped. The bill passed by the
| Senate would bar only those
; solely administered by unions,
| but permit those directed jointly
! by union and employer.
Under this understanding, the
fund collected by the United Mine
Workers (AFL) would be per
j missible.
The Taft bill, approved by the
Senate, 68 to 24, was somewhat
milder than that passed by the
House, 308 to 107, but contained
many provisions deeply injurious
to organised labor.
Discussing the tentative legis
lation which awaits Senate and
House concurrence, President told
a news conference that he is
sticking to the four points he
outlined to Congress in his State
of the Union message last Jan
uary. These called for:
1. Prevention of some juris
dictional strikes and secondary
ooycotts.
2. Expansion of the Labor De
partment’s mediation and concili
ation services.
3. Creation of a commission to
study the entire field of labor
management relations.
4. Broadening of the social se
curity program to "alleviate the
cause of workers’ insecurity.
The Senate bill does nothing
about the latter point. It covers
the others, but not in all cases
the way the President suggested.
For example, Mr. Truman
wants an expanded conciliation
service within the Labor Depart
ment. The Senate bill divorces
the service from the department.
The Senate bill would give the
Federal Government the right by
injunction to ban "national paral
ysis” strikes regarded as threat
ening the country’s welfare. It
would prohibit jurisdictional
strikes, secondary boycotts and
the closed shop and restrict the
union shop.
The major differences between
the House and Senate bills are:
1. The House bill substantially
prohibits industry-wide bargain
ing;. The Senate bill, doesn’t
touch this Subject.
2. Private employers, under
the House bill, would be permit
ted to obtain injunctions against
unions for various “unlawful con
certed activities” such as second
ary boycotts and jurisdictional
strikes. The Senate bill in no
case would permit private use
of the injunction, although un
ions could be sued for simple
damages for jurisdictional strikes
and boycotts.
3. The House bill would im
pose upon the union shop very
sharp restrictions not carried in
the Senate bill.
4. The House bill, unlike the
Senate bill, enters deeply into the
I internal union reguation.
5. The National Labor Rela
tions Board would be abolished
under the House bill.
6. Every strike would be made
illegal under terms of the House
bill unless the majority of the
affected employes had voted for
it in a rigidly prescribed manner.
The Senate bill would place no
: limitations an the ri^ht to strike
save In so-calletf "public Interest"
cases.
Features common to both meas
ures, although not identical in all
details include the outlawing of
the closed shop, withdrawing
rights to national unions with of
ficers who are Communists, pro
vision for Government injunctions
in “public interest” strikes, trans
ferral of the Conciliation Serv
ice from the Labor Department,
establishment of “unfair prac
tices” for unions, guaranteeing
“free speech” to employers.
The measure approved by the
House also would provide:
1. Establishment of a long
list of “unlawful concerted activ
ities by unions.”
2. Place unions under the
anti-trust acts.
3. Declare mass picketing il
legal.
4. Ban political contributions
by unions in national elections or
primaries.
5. Make unlawful a strike or
an “encouragement to strike” by
Federal employes.
Boston—A “first” contract has
just been signed here between
employes of the Warhauser and
Frank Co. and members of the
International Ladies’ Garment
Workers’ Union (AFL). Across
the-board wage increases of 10
per cent have been won.
Shoe Workers Given
Free Life Insurance
MeSherrytown, Pa. — Complete
free life insurance and hospitili
sation coverage has been won by
District 50 of the United Mine
Workers of America (AFL) from
the Cannon Shoe Co. of this city.
The policy starts at 5500 for
each employe, to be increased at
the rate of 9100 each year until it
reaches the maximum amount of
fl,600. This insurance policy in
cludes coverage for accidental
death and dismemberment.
Weekly accident and sickness
benefits under terms of the agree
ment are 910 a week from the first
day of disability doe to non-oc
cupational accident and beginning
the eighth day of disability due
to sickness not covered by work
men’s compensation laws. The
benefits continue for a maximum
of 13 weeks during any one dis
ability.
The policy includes payments
for room and board during hos
pital confinement due to non-oc
cupational accident or sickness up
to a maximum of 81 days. The
policy provides for fS a day pay
ment for room and board at the
hospital. It also includes an ad
ditional payment of charges for
hospital service during confine
ment up to a maximum of |25.
Should a surgical operation bo
necessary in case of non-occupa
tional accident or sickness. ♦i»o
poUcy authorises paymsnts up to
a maximum tt |1M.
i
AFL LEADER SMOTHERS
ANTI-LABOR ARGUMENTS
MADE BY NAM CHIEF
Washington, D. C.—Points
raised by Earl Bunting,
President of the National As
sociation of Manufacturers,
in favor of the vicious anti
labor legislation pending in
Congress were completely
smothered by AFL President
William Green in a dramatic
Nation-wide debate over the i
facilities of the Mutual
Broadcasting System.
Taking up the points
raised by Mr. Bunting, Mr.
Green told the Nation:
“The National Association
of Manufactruers is an or
ganization dominated by the
most reactionary, labor-hat
ing interests in America. It
is the real sponsor of the
1 stave-labor provisions of the
Taft-Hartley Bill. Let me
cite a few of the black spots
in the NAM’s record:
“The NAM opposed the . -
Child Labor Amendment, be
cause in taking children out
of school and putting them
to work in factories, certain
employers can cut wage
costs. Isn’t that a noble posi
tion?
“The NAM opposed Social Se
curity, bank deposit insurance,
the Wage-Hour Act and the whole
body of social justice legislation
intended to make life a little bet
ter and safer far the great masses
promised thdt prices would be re
duced if only price controls were
killed—and then its members pro
ceeded to make a killing at the
expense of the American people.
"Today the NAM opposes leg
islation to provide millions of
new homes for veterans and work
ers and instead it demands the
abolition of rent control, a step
which would subject every family
living in a rented house or apart
ment to the mercies of profiteer
ing landlords.
"This organization—the NAM
—that has consistently fought in
the past against every decent
measure to protect the public
welfare and is still battling
against such measures, now has
the effontery to claim that the
anti-labor legislation which it ac
tively sponsors will serve the pub
lic welfare!
"In view of the record, I think
the American people have a right
to view with suspicion anything
that the NAM stands for.
"Mr. Bunting, the President of
the NAM, has challenged me to
answer two questions in this de
bate and I am more than glad
to do so.
“First, he make, 'Is one legiti
mate gain of labor denied in th«
proposed legislation?’
“That question is almost child
ish. Congressman Hartley admits
that, his bill virutally repeals the
National Labor Relations Act,
which is labor’s Magna Carta.
Senator Taft admits that his bill
has rewritten the National Labor
Relations Act from beginning to
end. These provisions alone dis
tort) and destroy the whole basis
of free collective bargaining. For
instance. Senator Taft'a bill per
mit* employers to say ‘No’ and
keep on saying ’No’ to all union
proposals instead of requiring
them to sit down and try to reach
a friendly and co-operative agree
ment with the representatives of
their workers. How could collec
tive bargaining operate on such
a basis?
“Further than that, the Taft
Hartley program is aimed at de
stroying union security. It opens
the doors wide to a flood of
damage suits in the courts
against unions. This would make
it impossible for them to function
effectively. It provides for a re- \
turn at Government by injunction.
That would compel free American