| 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
|
