Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 5, May 1956
File 006
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 5, May 1956 - File 006. 1956-05. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. November 22, 2019. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1329/show/1265.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-05). Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 5, May 1956 - File 006. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1329/show/1265

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 5, May 1956 - File 006, 1956-05, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed November 22, 2019, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1329/show/1265.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 5, May 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date May 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 006
Transcript —•*»»•»»»— ^ e& (Continued from Page 2) already taken legislative action. Additionally, state laws tire the No. 1 target of national labor unions. It is said that if union officials are allowed to have their way, the sixty million working people in this country, two-thirds of whom belong to no union, will eventually be able to keep no job without a union's say-so. Call it social dictatorship or whatever — in this case a thorn by any other name is still a thorn. There will be both economic and political domination of the country. Especially is this true since the marriage of AFL and CIO. And now the wary wonder whether a cretin offspring will inherit the earth, literally. The newlyweds have announced, as objectives, a repeal of the 18-state right-to-work laws, as well as amendment of the Taft-Hartley Act. And, if the wedded bliss continues, the country may well "enjoy" an unofficial labor dictatorship. The favorite argument of union officials against a man who works at a job and accepts raises, bettered working conditions, etc., secured for him by the union to which he does not belong, is that he is a "free rider." This, most agree, is a half-truth, cleverly camouflaged more often than not by evasive gobbledygook. He is no more a free rider than is the man who benefits from the work of various charity, community and religious organizations to which be has contributed nothing. By the same token, state tbe scoffers, could not unions themselves be termed "free riders"? Certainly they pay no taxes, but they receive governmental services through the medium of any one of a number of agencies. The "free rider" thing was backhanded by the Supreme Court of Nebraska in a decision that the union shop contract between the Union Pacific Railroad and several railroad unions was illegal, this under the First Amendment to tbe Constitution. The Court made the following statement: Assuming it would he reasonahle to require free riders to pay their proportionate share of the cost of collective bargaining . . . we do not think the means selected has any real and substantia] relation to the object sought to he obtained. First, and primarily . . . his right to join or not to join a union, has no relationship to the object sought, and, second, by requiring him to pay initiation fees, dues and assessments, he is required to pay for many things besides the cost of collective bargaining." Taking note of the fact that unions bad welfare funds, participated in lobbying and political activities, etc., which were not directly associated with collective bargaining per se, the Court said: In some instances, compulsory membership would compel support, financial and otherwise, of policies which an employee might deem objectionable from the standpoint of free government and the liberties of the individual under it. To compel an employee to make involuntary contributions, from his compensation, for such purposes is a taking of his property without i\ue process of law.7 It is common knowledge that, as a rule, the employer who forces compulsory unionism on a minority of his employees doesn't like the task. He does this to placate the unions, so that he may stay in business. Leaders of labor unions realize that mass picketing has been prohibited by ""The Richt tn Work National Wwslerter," Aug. 15, 1955, Vol. I, No. 5, published by the National Right to Work Committee, Washington, D. C. ■Ilml. win,: WORLD PHOTO The lote Somuel Gompers, AFL's "grand old mon of lobor," testifying before a House Judiciary Committee. Against compulsory unionism, Gompers said, ". . . Base your all upon voluntary principles." Page 4 TU "nioiis I jn anv oi ,n actua state law in many places, and ths picketing always leads to violent! Nevertheless, they go ahead with tlie' mass demonstrations, wanting t frighten the workers who wish to tt turn to work. In times past some eg ployers used to intimidate workers b the use of "goon squads." The court jo low-v punished them for this. But now' they ha\ days labor unions are so strong thi P°nimun they are almost above the law; th? lng stanc can threaten to defeat mayors a" State r governors if they use public authori' ^Urse, st to put down violence.8 , f'Shts mt Paradoxically, America spends m> uthority lions on defense, and it spends grl'; ernment , sums checking security risks. Yet ] J^sintaini seems unperturbed by the fact tbj thousands of citizens are losing thcf civil liberties one by one. amendment to the TaH jf ts as section kiiO*! . . . One simpl, Hartley Act (repeal of tin as 14-B) would remove the states' rig"'i to pass and enforce Might to Work La^J and would wipe out the laws in all ei| een states. . . . The big labor union leaders. rein forced in their gigantic political P<*H through the . . . AFL and CIO rnetl are determined to seek this amendment Taft-Hartley in the next Congress . . ." The Right Honorable Lord b,sti] Denning, Lord Justice of Appc;1' ' England, in a speech before a delphia session of the American •! Association, said that, although tlj Se«led in . The ei teruiinol , 'guises >ld em PWctioi '7 wo,, „ Jt shou Nona! gnomic fght-to-w rty-e ,0'U-t rfor ^ket. S -* a seei ;l'""u'"1"", »«*»« .....i, i..i...,..f,.. unions in both our countries provi1! workmen with greater bargaufl power, they also led to the cl"*] shop. And a man bad no right to >*, there unless he was a member of a fj ticular trade union. And this, he p"'! ed out, led to private tribunals v*\ Ngeofi £? w«h ""'tlion, Br, fllVor ffeents ol L^tn nee doe Oils contract between the men themselve* between them and the union. But ther in no sense a contract freely negotiate -\ man must accept them or go without *■ n ployment ^^^^^^ I suggest that where the law falls s is that it puts too much emphasis °n J supposed contract between the man | his union and too little emphasis °" right to work. 11 is right to work is lift "P'"i s wrongfully depn* w ld1 tcct him against wrongful exclusion ™ marauders. If he his right tn work, the courts shou vene to protect him. They should u^.ll '"'V or if Wfefact there was no recourse to courts of J %c-r ]1|m| when a man was punished. He i"™ _1hr the following statements: When a man joins a trade union o bound bv the rules. They are said to vl i i L_> aU .L l,eS*f 1( he lik, s„ "is. is ener pa h0' union. Lord Justice Denning qu<)tc J Charles Geddes, chairman ol th''. ish Trade Unions Congress, as (Continued on '" J s^Wesdnghouse Mass Pickets Called I'""C ;'/| Rights." by David Lawrence. N. Y. Herdo January 4, 1950. ""The Rich! to Work - a Basic Moral '"'j '■ address by E. S. Dillard, Chairman. S.,t""' to Work Committee. the Right to Work National \V«J''" 1955, Vol. I, No. (i. Washington, 1). C. j Facts Forum News, MW\ fetter fct,for an f|, /'"'und |L*orke fen. "^es, j. .' man ErLe?ec ii Eights it> loo Ho iS look Hri Etj lMl|y ia .or "''cess V fob? E>e tr; E^erab], •l < III,;. s P, out
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n005_006.jpg