CHARLOTTE
LABOR JOURNAL
t
VOL. XVII; NO. 46
CHARLOTTE, N. C.,’ THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1948
Subscription $2.00 Per Year
WORKERS VOTE AGAINST TAFT-HARTLEY LABOR ACT
EARLY RETURNS REFUTE CLAIM THAT WORKERS
FAVOR MEASURE
Washington, D. C.—By a ten to one margin, American
wrokers are registering their opposition to the Taft-Hart
ley Act in a nation-wide poll conducted by the American
Federation of Labor through the labor press.
First returns in the poll, including ballots from every
state, indicate that the tide of labor’s resentment against
the Taft-Hartley Act is overwhelming. The tabulations
were:
Againai me it*.:»,si©
For the low..588
Thus the contentions of Senator
Robert A. Toft and other spon
aora of the law that it is opposed
only by union leaders and that
the rank and file of labor union
members really are in favor of it,
are shattered.
Special precautions were taken
to conduct the poll on an entirely
open and above-oard basis with
secret ballots to shield those who
registered their opinions from any
hint or thread of intimidation.
The ballot forms were drafted by
the AFL Weekly News Service
and made available to union mem
bers through the labor press.
Each individual worker had to clip
the ballot from his union paper,
ramk it according to his own
views and mail it to the head
quarters of, the ARL. where the
votes were tabulated by the staff
of the AFL Weekly News Service.
The poll will be continued until
the total number of ballots re
ceived reacehs at least 100,000,
in order to obtain an unchal
lengeable cross-section of the
nation's workers. New reports on
the results will be published from
time to time as their significance
mounts.
At the same time, a special poll
is being conducted, along the same
lines as the general poll, among
the members of a specific union,
the Internationad Molders and
Foundry Workers Union of North
America. This was done at the
request of the union’s President,
Harry Stevenson, in order to ob
tain a full expression, from the
uion’s membership on their atti
tude toward the Taft-Hartley Act.
Results of the Holder's poll will
be published shortly.
In later reports, efforts also
will be made to break down the
vote by states to see whether la
bor's opposition to the Taft-Hart
ley v Act is concentrated in any
particular sections of the nation
or is general in character.
AFL President William Green
expressed gratification over the
huge margin being rolled up by
union members against the Taft
Hartley Act.
"The results so far confirm
fully what we told Congress,''
Mr. Green said. “We knew all
along that labor union members
solidly supported our position to
fibs infamous law. Here is the
proof.
“I hope that a large number of
labor union members respond to
this free and unfettered oppor
tunity to register their opinions
<>n this vital issue. The higher
the score, the more impressive
will this test of union labor’s
views become."
UNCLg SAM MOURNING
LEASED WAR HOUSING
Washington.—More than 40 per
cent of the privately-owned prop
erties leased by the government
during the war for conversion in
to housing for war worlces have
now been returned to their own
ess, the Public Housing Admin
istration announced.
A total of. 8,830 properties,
many of them previously of non
residential nature, were leased in
the Homes Conversion Program
and remodeled into dwelling units
for 49,613 war worker families.
More than \600 leases have now
been terminated.
Industry Draft
Is Necessary
Milwaukee. — The inclusion in
any legislation drafting man-pow
er or requiring peacetime military
service, of a requirement that in
dustry will also be drafted in time
of war, was urged by Lester
Washburn, president of the AFL’s
United Auto Workers.
The union leader presented his
views in an open telegram to
Senator Chan Gurney, chairman
of the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
Washburn’s provision would re
quire industry to produce war
materials without profit in the
event of any armed conflict be
tween this country and any other.
The UAW-AFL head termed
“unsound and disgraceful" a re
currence in “any future war of
the profiteering by industry as il
lustrated during World Wars I
and II.”
He indicated that the sacrifice
made by individuals called in the^
draft either in the postponement
or educaton if the persons are
youpng or in the financial loss to
families of those who are older,
should be “at least somewhat
matched by industry in forego
ing any profits to be made out
of war.”
Costly congressional investiga
tions of wartime profits and post
warf scandals could be prevented
by doing away with wartime prof
its in the first place, Washburn
believes.
‘“During any war our country
has far too much at stake to per
mit any individual or group to
profit from such a national ca
lamity. Profits should be entire
ly divorced from any war effort
by every class of our citizenry.”
The Golden Rule of Trade Un
ionism is to buy Union Label
goods from others as you would
have them pay Union wages unto
youl
POINTS FROM COURT RULING
Washington — Excerpts from
the decision of Federal Judge
Ren Moore > holding that the
Taft-Hartley Act's ban on poli
cal expenditures by unions is
unconstitutional, follow:
The Labor-Management Rela
tions Act passed by Congress im
poses many conditions, restric
tions, limitations and prohibitions
upon labor organizations in the
economic arena wherein the bat
tles between labor and manage
’onment are fought. With these
economic features of the act we
are not concerned in this case.
However, by one section of the
act Congress broadened its scope
to include activities of labor or
ganizations in the political field.
Section 304 (of the act) makes
it unlawful for any labor organ
isation to make an expenditure
in connection with any election at
which candidates for a federal of
fice are to be selected or voted
for. The penal sanctions of this
section extend also to an officer
of a labor organization who con
sents to such an expenditure by
the organization of which he is
an officer.
This case arises under Section
304 of the act. W
It is plain the Congress, by this
statutory provision, denounced as
unlawful acts which would other
wise be entirely innocent in na
ture, and in the exercise of which
a labor organization is coneeded
ly protected under the Bill of
Rights. (Cf. Crosjean v. Ameri
can Press Co., Inc. et al., 297 U.
S. 233; Bridges v. California. 314
U. S. 262.)
I conclude, therefore, that the
indictment charges an offense un
der Section 304 of the Labor
Management Relations Act, and it
follows that if the provisions of
that section, pursuant to which
the indictment was returned, were
constitutionally valid, the indict
ment would necessarily be sus
tained
Judged by its plain terms, the
statute on its face fails to sur
vive thd constitutional test.
I am of opinion that the ques
tioned portion of Section 304 of
the act is an unconstitutional
abridgment of freedom of speech,
freedom of the press and freedom
of assembly. At no time are those
rights so vital as when they are
exercised during, preceding or
following an election.
If they were permitted only at
times when they could have no
effect in influencing public opin
ion, and denied at the very time
and in relation to the very mat
ters that are calculated to give
the rights value, they would lose
that precious character with
which they have been clothed from
the beginning of our national life.
(Cf. Bridges v. California; Supra,
269.)
The legislative history of the
.statutory provision under consid
eration, copiously related in briefs
of counsel for the government,
clearly shows that the legislation
was aimed at the very type of
political activity which is charged
as an offense in this indictment,
namely, the publication and dis
tribution of newspapers contain
ing editorials favoring or oppos
ing candidates for federal office.
' It is insisted by the government
that Congress could abridge the
freedoms guaranteed by the First
Amendment (which the govern
ment concedes was done here)
because of its constitutional con
trol over the manner of holding
elections, and its consequent pow
er to prevent corruption therein,
and to secure clean elections.
This argument would be per
suasive if the statute prohibited
specific acts of a kind which
might conceivably be expected to
produce corruption in any of its
forms, or to prevent in any way
the holding of free elections; but
the untrammeled right of free
expression of views as to can
didates for office, through news
papers or other means of convey
ing the written or spoken word
and of the public in general to
have free access thereto, far from
being a conceivable means of cor
rupting or interfering with free
elections, is in fact one one of
the most valuable means of pro
moting puflty and freedom in Che
electoral process. (See De Jonge
v. Oregon, 229 U. S. 353, 866.)
It must be remembered that it
is not only the right of the pub
lishers of a newspaper or edi
torial sheet which is protected by
the First Amendment; but also,
and perhaps over and above that
right, there is the right of the
people to be informed of the
views represented by conflicting
interests and opinions. How are
they to get such information con
cerning the views of laboring
men and women if the organisa
tion in and through which such
persons are united in a common
purpose is forbidden to publish
any views whatsoever?
It is contended that the evil
sought to be remedied by this
legislation consists in the use of
money, paid into the treasury of
a labor organization in the form
of dues, for the purpose oft pub
lishing opinions and arguments
which may not be in accord with
the views of the organization.
Such use of money, says the
government, is fraught with im
plications of oppression and co
ercion of minorities of such im
port that Congress could act to
prevent it, even to the extent of
abridging the basic freedoms. It
is doubtful whether such a con
tention would avail, even though
the statute had been framed to
cover only such cases.
Inherent in the idea of collec
tive activity is the principle that
it shall be exercsed on behalf of
the organization pursuant to the
will of the majority of its mem
bership.
This principle is recognized in
the very' statute of which the La
bor Management Relations Aot
containing this Section 304 is an
amendment, Labor - Management
Relations Act, 1947,19U. S. C. A.
Secs. 151, 169. However, the pro
FEDERAL JUDGE DECLARES
BAN ON USE OF FUNDS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Washington. — U. S. District
Court Judare Ben Moore ruled
that the Taft-Hartley law’s ban
on the expenditure of union funds
for political purposes was uncon
stitutional.
In a sweeping decision sus
taining the contention of organ
ised labor, Judge Moore held that
Section 304 Of the law was an
unconstitutional abridgment “of
freedom of speech, freedom of
the press, and of freedom of ^j
sembly.”
Hailing: the decision, AFL Pres
ident William Green declared:
"A similar lest case, involving:
the same section of the law, has
been brought against an AFL un
ion in Connecticut and we are
hopeful of an early trial so that
the facts and the law in both
cases can be reviewed by the
Supreme Court at the same time.
“In my opinion, Judge Moore’s
ruling is the forerunner of a host
of similar decisions invalidating
other sections of the obnoxious
Taft-Hartley act which will be
challenged in the courts by the
trade union movement”
. Following the CftWj.’t, ruling,
the government announced it
would immediately appeat the
case to the Supreme Court for a
i final determination of the ques
1 lion.
If the Supreme Court upholds
Judge Moore's ruling, it will have
<ar-reaching effects on the con
i urt of political activities by or
! rani zed labor.
That the issues in the case were
clear-cut and uncomplicated was
apparent from the speed with
which Judge Moore arrived at his
decision. The case was argued
•ofore him as recently as March
>. The final ruling was rendered
viih unusual promptness.
Judge Moore stated that the
case charged an offense under
Section 304 of the act, and he
said it follows that if that sec
tion were constitutional the gov
ernment’s case would be sustained.
"Judged by its plain terms, the
statute, on its face, fails to sur
vive the constiutional test,” he de
clared.
Judge Moore held that the leg
islative history of the political
section clearly showed that it was
aimed “at the very type of polit
ical activity which is charged as
an offense in this indictment.”
However, ponting out that not
only the right of the publisher
of a newspaper or, editorial sheet
was protected by the First
Amendment of the federal consti
tution, the opinion said that over
and above that right, there is the
right of the people “to be in
formed of the views represented
by conflicting interests and opin
ions.”
Continuing, the jurist asked:
“How are they to get such in
formation concerning the views
of laboring men and women if
that organization in, and through
which such persons are united in
a common purpose is forbidden
to publish any views whatever?”