Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 1956
File 043
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 1956 - File 043. 1956-03. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. November 20, 2019. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/979/show/952.

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. (1956-03). Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 1956 - File 043. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/979/show/952

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. 3, March 1956 - File 043, 1956-03, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed November 20, 2019, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/979/show/952.

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. 3, March 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date March 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 043
Transcript government or industrial nurseries? " hat are the people, save wards of fie State? 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. FOREIGN PHILOSOPHY \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 States. ,,'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, 50 the rio . for The 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 0*eir fathers. 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- -r,"at,'d program." 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 s, whaj t beef! VlKith ing 1'" ' °o, 'cli UlM 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 last century. 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 them. They precipitated a debate which is still going on in the ILO, a debate which is founded upon a fundamental premise. 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 party. "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 defeated. 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 works out. 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) Page 41 V \
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n003_043.jpg