government or industrial nurseries?
" hat are the people, save wards of
In 1955 the Conference discussed
Jvnat they termed "welfare facilities
for workers." The proposal stated that
the competent authority" (meaning
jSovernment) should prepare suggestions for the operations of canteens,
ceiling equipment, types of meals,
balanced diets, food service, and feed-
lng costs. The implication was that
Sovernment should take over and
'upervise all phases of in-plant feed-
'"" in industrial institutions.
\t its 1955 Conference the ILO en-
"jtted a resolution entitled "Vocation-
Training in Agriculture." Never
av'e I seen a document more for-
?gn to the philosophy of the United
,,'t assumed, as a basic premise, that
,"' agricultural worker is an em-
' ">ee. It assumed that wages in agri-
('l|tuie are determined on the basis
Collective bargaining. And it pro-
"Sl'd th,. setting up ol an apprentice
stl;ni lor young farm workers.
rV^L in the United States most of
'' farm workers are not employees
I ll'> are members of the farmer's
• inly. Thev don't belong to unions,
collective bargaining idea has
" aPplication in our country. And as
ty ''Ppienticeships, about the only
|1("v this could be worked out would
ti, .i'" formers' sons to be apprenticed
p() 'I'thermore, embodied in this pro-
"ici"t 'S a definite pattern of govern-
,.,..," domination and control. The gen-
liil, 'stMal ''"' government should
Hjt over the vocational training of
tli|.'i'!"""si('rs on the> farm, in what
lira1 J0 calls a "systematic and cei-
in,, 'ls piograni provides that govern*
;„|(| Should provide school textbooks
l,i(i> "tlier educational material, should
*»d °n ''"' qualifications of teacher
Si|| '^"nination requirements, should
"laltl e educational facilities, and
tr„jh'! s"re that the education and
s]i(||'!'j" °f young people on the farm
•H),] . '' clone bv the government,
| ?ot,oy their parents.
1 Coy?"* think I need go any further.
I l,.|v c|te many more examples. Rut
clir. ° g'ven von enough to indicate
*tooh eu'a" trend of t,le Pr0Posa,s
i'iri(v | le ILO government-labor ma-
I Hi,.t ,Pes to enact into basic laws
ing 1'" '
Way be followed by other
-\ii,'|".S "" over ''"' world.
V'Hi " you think this is not the case.
,'"' IInTry mucn mistak(,n. Tl'"s ,ar
Of t,'u has enacted 103 conventions.
*.r\.ese- Great Britain has ratified
"'u'<' has ratified 73, Belgium has
rs PoniM News, March, 1956
ratified 55, Holland has ratified 42,
Argentina has ratified 45.
You will ask, how many conventions
have been ratified by the United
States? Here is the answer.
Seven conventions have been approved by the Senate and ratified by
the President's signature. Most of these
deal with conditions of maritime employment and are not socialistic.
Three conventions have been approved by the Senate but not signed by
the President, and seven more were
sent by Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Truman
to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for action. Several of these involve the threat of the invasion of international laws into our domestic affairs.
Now, why has no further action
been taken, with respect to these conventions? And why have the more
recent and radical ILO conventions,
for which our government voted in
ILO Conferences, never been submitted to the Senate for consideration,
which, under the ILO constitution,
our President is supposed to do?
The answer is the Bricker Amendment.
With the whole country aroused to
the clanger of having socialist measures imposed upon us by the back
door of convention ratification, the
proponents of such measures have not
eland to bring them out on the floor
of the Senate.
But in the rest of the world things
have gone the other way. A major
share of the social, labor and economic legislation enacted in Europe
anil in many other parts of the world
during the last 20 years has been born
in the ILO.
The South American countries and
the under-developed countries of the
Far East have- been following the lead
of the ILO. Thev have been told by
socialist Europeans that socialism is
the hope of the world, and that the
kind of civilization we have in the
United States is outmoded and in
some mysterious way still lingering
along, operating under old-fashioned
concepts that are hold-overs from the
The fact is that out of the entire
world, the United States and Canada
are practically the only countries left
that are still operating in the main on
the basis of the free competitive system.
RUSSIA INVADES ILO
Well —so far f have given vein the
picture ol the ILO previous to the
time tin- Iliissians moved in on us. As
I said before, Russia has been out of
this picture for a long time', but in
1954 thev moved back in a big way,
and brought their satellites along with
They precipitated a debate which is
still going on in the ILO, a debate
which is founded upon a fundamental
From the very beginning the employer delegates to the ILO, who
under its constitution are supposed to
represent free associations of free employers, contended that the Communist so-called employer delegates
could not possibly represent free associations of free employers, because
there are no such associations in Communist countries.
Our claim was that the so-called
employer delegates from Communist
countries were simply government
agents, and agents for the Communist
"NO SUCH ANIMAL"
At the 1954 Conference the em-
ployer delegates from non-Communist
nations made a determined effort to
get these Communist so-called employer delegates thrown out. We were
defeated. At the 1955 Conference we
tried to keep them off our employer
committees, and once more we were
In 1954 the United States Government supported our position. But in
1955 our government reversed its
stand and supported the Communists.
We wound up by having Communist
agents placed on the employer groups
of the ILO. Let me explain how this
The working committees of the ILO
are tripartite; that is, on each committee we are supposed to have representatives of government, employers
and workers. But what happens if we
get Communists officially seated as
members of employer groups? The
result is as preposterous as if the National Association of Manufacturers,
or the United States Chamber of
Commerce, should accept Communist
agents on their Boards of Directors.
1 simply could not face up to this
proposition. At the 1954 Conference I
protested as strongly as possible, but
to no avail. At the 1955 Conference I
withdrew the United States employer
delegation from participation in anvil.() working committees upon which
Communist so-called employers had
been seated. I felt that a time had
conic- to make a stand on principle.
Now I wonder whether you realize
what the invasion of the ILO by the
Russians actually means.
Russia has come back into the ILO
as three countries — the USSR, the
Ukraine and Byelorussia. That is tin'
basis upon which Russia belongs to the
United Nations. I do not know yet
why Russia represents three nations in
the- United Nations whereas we represent only one-. But that is the situation.
In addition, Russia is now reinforced
in the ILO, on a very active basis.
by Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Albania. That makes
(Continued on Page 53)