Newspapers / The Charlotte Labor Journal … / May 29, 1947, edition 1 / Page 3
Part of The Charlotte Labor Journal and Dixie Farm News (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
(-it, NAT SCHACHNfR , arid L/f.i.- 1 WNltl WOI WORM* 1 « HinuiLV tMTCMNC ' T* IAMI «AN< MT ««*ov TO mu Poumwi* MO IIOMT UP Mil PLANT UdWI UP PRO-UMlON AMO A RORIICNfft, CS0S6 I BROWN II ON H* m ROW K*lP... T* WHOtl TOWN • MOUHO BUT IT LOOKS AS TMOUSN TMITU M IDO UTI. Green Warns Anti Labor Bills Blow At All Workers gence of the American worker. According to Senator Taft, Congressman Hartley and the Na tional Association of Manufac turers, the present anti-labor pro gram embodied in the Taft-Hart ley Bills is the result of a man date given to the Republican Party in the election last No vember, to crack down on unions and to place the entire organised labor movement in a straight jacket of punitive and restrictive legislation. Further, we are told by the official spokesmen for the Republican Party in both Houses of Congress that the prohibitions and restrictions on trade unions in the Taft-Hartley Bills are in complete harmony with the labor policy of the Republican Party. These premises are completely false. Let us look at this so called mandate from the people. What evidence is there that the Republican Party, which was suc cessful in gaining control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate last ovember, cam paigned on the basis that it was going to eliminate the closed shop; outlaw union welfare funds; or bring back government by in junction? What evidence is there that the Republican Party went to the people with the promise to undermine and weaken trade un ions by every legislative device that the National Association of Manufacturers could conceive? Did any responsible representa tive of the Republican Party in form the voters prior to last No vember’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 Republican Party, tell the voter* that the Republican leadership in the Senate would write anti-labor laws along lines suggested by em ployers ? Senator Taft has admitted that his Bill contains three-quarters of the matters strenuously pressed upon him by employers. He has PATRONIZE JOURNAL IIVERTISERS .. ■ ' ■ .—." 1 w 1... .... SUMMER SHOES FOR Men and Young Men PUNCHED OR PLAIN Brown. Brown & White. Two-Tone Tan and All White Gilmer-Moore Co. 121 South Try on Street refused to divluge the names of these employers. But I cannot recall the Amer ican voter being told prior to last November’s election that employ ers were going to be, allowed to dictate legislation to control the lives of workers. If there was a mandate to enact legislation such as that proposed by the Taft-Hartley program, it must have been a secret mandate. 1 am sure the great mass of the voters who went to the polls last election knew nothing of any such mandate. There is evidence that the vote last year of the American elec torate was a protest against the very type of regimentation and control which the Taft-Hartley Bill now seeks to impose on la bor. It was a protest against the failure of the Administration and Congress to provide adequate housing so vitally needed by mil lions of Americans. It was a protest against the complete in ability of Congress and the Ad ministration to do anything when the country’s meat producers went on strike against the American people. It was above all a pro test against thq higher and ever higher prices for the necessities of life that were daily reducing the real wages of those who work for wages. Mr. Carroll Reece. Chairman of the Republican national Commit tee, made the following statement on q nation-wide radio broadcast ten days before election—and I quote: “The Republican Party stands unalterably for the American En terprise system of free labor and free management — the system which has made the American •standard of living the highest in the world.” Well, there are no indications from this statement nor from any thing else that happened during the campaign that the Republi can Party sought or expected a mandate to enslave labor as Mr. Taft and Mr. Hartley now pro pose. Now, let me take up the second Smokey Says: •ar»w contention—the contention of Re publican spokesman in Congress that the Taft-Hartley anti-labor pogram represents the official policy of the Republican Party. I believe that this is of tremen dous importance. Everyone who works for a living should under stand the implications of this ef fort to convince the American people that the Republican leaders in Congress are following Party policy when they attempt to place on the statute books, laws which would weaken and eventually de stroy trade unions in this coun try. This contention is inherent in the position taken by Senator Taft, who is Chairman of the Re publican Policy Committee in the United States Senate. It is also found in the actions and state ments of Speaker Martin and ot Representative Halleck,. Floor Leader for the Republicans in the House of Repesentatives. These last two gentlemen have not only placed the full weight of their of ficial positions in the Party be hind the Hartley Bill to enslave labor, but they have challenged the President of the United States to veto legislation or this type, if he dares. The question naturally arises— what is the labor policy of the Republican Party? Is it the pol icy of Messrs. Taft, Hartley and the N. A. M., or is it> the policy laid down by the delegates at tending the last National Republi can Party convention in 1944? At that time, when they se lected their candidates for Presi dent and Vice President of the United States, the delegates adopted a platform containing the following principles on Labor. I am now quoting from the Re publican Platform of 1944: “The Republican Party is the historical champion of free labor. Under Republican administrations American mapufecturing devel oped, and American workers at tained the most progressive stan dards of living of any workers in the world. Now the nation owes these workers a debt of grati tude for their magnificent pro ductive effort in support' of the war.” The platform went on to de clare that—quote—The Republi can Party accepts the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act —unquote—and promised a fair and just administration of that basic law which the Taft-Hartley Bill now proposes to repeal. Remember, this is from the of ficial platform of the Republican Party, a platform never since changed, a platform on which it sought the support of the Ameri can people in the last Presiden tial election. Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican candidate for the Presidency selected at that con vention, developed the Party's policy toward Labor in the en suing campaign. In his speech at Seattle, Washington, Governor P«wey. who was then and still is the titular head of the Party, said. “The National Labor Relations Act is a good and necessary law. It acknowledges the trend of our times and will, continue to be the law of the land." In January of 1945, address ing the New York State Legis lature, Governor Dewey stated: “The hard won rights of la bor which are a cornerstone of: economic freedom, must be pre served and strengthened as I have indicated.” On January 1st of this year, again addressing the Legislature, Governor Dewey made this state ment in regard to maintaining constitutional liberty for all, and again I quote: “When we chip away at the rights of a minority, we chip away at the rights of all of us. When we seek to reach an end by limiting the freedom of one group we undermine the freedom of every group. And it makes no difference whether that group be religious or racial, agricultural or business, factory workers or doctors. When, to cure one evil, we establish another, wo are bringing ourselves ever closer to the abyss.” One week later, on January 8, 1947 — just four months ago — Governor Dewey set forth the la bor policy of his administration in the following words: “The labor policy of the State rests on a maximum of voluntary mediation and a minimum of gov ernment compulsion. This policy I has promoted free collective bar gaining. It has been widely suc cessful in preventing strikes and violence. We propose to continue this policy.” So, even a casual examination of the record gives the lie to any contention made that the Taft Hartley-N. A. M. program of repression and restriction against labor represents the official pol icy of the Republican Party: What it does represents, how ever, is quite clear. It represents practically word for word the of ficial position of the National As sociation of Manufacturers, as proclaimed in the leading news papers of the country through the medium of paid advertisements. But the question naturally arises, in view of the actions of the of ficial Republican spokesmen in Congress: Has the Republican Party one policy on labor which it present^ to the American peo ple when it is seeking votes and another policy after it has been successful in taking control of the legislative branches of the Government in Washington? These spokesmen 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 who are over 30 years of age, remember quite vividly the late twenties and ear ly thirties. If Messrs. Taft, Hart ley and the N. A. M. boys desire to forget those days, I can as sure them that the workers do not forget. Those were the boom days. Profits, profits and ever higher profits—new millionaires every day. Those were the days of Coolidge and Hoover prosper ity, but, unfortunately, they were the days of bust as well as boom. I am sure that there are still people in America who remember 1932. After twelve years of 54 publican control of Congress and of the Executive branch of our Government, depression hung heavy over the nation. Deflation had forced prices and wages down; workers in the mass pro duction industries were complete ly organized and badly underpaid. (Continued On Page 4) ^ as *>wi CAFETERIAS ‘ own The Labor Journal is a Choice Advertising Medium Send in Your Subscription Today. We Need Your Support. A FRIENDLY CHURCH PRITCHARD MEMORIAL BAPTIST CHURCH 1117 South Boulevard ,«"5 Sunday School • :«6 a. m. ► ► ► ► ► Worship Services 11:00 a.m. ... 8:00 p. m. Trainhtff Uaia 6:30 p. m. Dr. William Harrison Williams, Pastor Your presence is very necessary at your Central Labor Union meetings. ; For Indigestion, Sour Stomach and Goo, Take NA-CO TABLETS MONET BACK GUARANTEE SELWYN CUT RATE DRUG STORE NEXT TO TOST OTTICB :. , , , , . NMMMMMMMMMMAMAMMAMMMMMAMMMMMl Send in Your Subscription Today. We Need Your Supports Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. Ml East Sixth Street ' rheas I If -ii i I i ■ f COOL WASH PANTS | 2.95 to 6.95 Sanforized-shrunk seersucker trousers in slacks and regular stylesj Also neat-look ing pin stripes. Sizes 29 to 50. SPUN RAYON SLACKS 5.95 to 8.95 Rayon slacks in cool, good-looking models for lots of wearing satisfaction during the , J warm-weather months. Light and dark shades. Sizes 29 to 52. GABARDINE SLACKS 9.95 to 14.95 All wool gahardine slacks nicely tailored to team up with your sport shirts and sport coats. Brown, tan, blue. Regular style trousers also in this group. Sizes 28 io 38, j Panfs Department on Rear Balcony of Belk’s Men’s Store BELK BROS SERVING CHARLOTTE FOR OVER HALF A CEXTURT
The Charlotte Labor Journal and Dixie Farm News (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
May 29, 1947, edition 1
3
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75