T-H Law Is Still An Issue
Passage of the Taft-Hartley law in 1947 brought violent protests from union leaders and laboring men, but the demands for repeal of the law have changed to demands for amendment in the seven years that have passed since the bill became law.
Congress had to pass the law, officially known as the National Labor Relations act, over the President's veto. Feeling on both sides was intense, probably because it marked the end of a long line of labor laws that had been favorable to unions and the working man.
Unions were incensed over the provisions of the law, which they soon termed the "slave labor" act. The Political Action committee of the CIO promised to defeat for re-election in 1948 all Congressmen who had voted for the bill, but it was not successful. Sen. Robert Taft (R.-Ohio). co-author of the bill, was re-elected by 500,000 votes.
Probably the law was an outgrowth of a feeling that unions had grown too strong for their own good.
Dave Beck, boss of the AFL Teamster's union, said labor might need its own political party to bring changes in the nation's labor legislation. George Meany, president of the AFL, said the same thing in advocating sweeping changes in the personnel of Congress if something were not done.
And almost anyone will agree that the Taft-Hartley law could be improved. A few years ago it was said either the law should be completely overhauled or left alone.
Over the nation, however, many persons on both sides of the labor-management fence have come to the realization that the Taft-Hartley law is neither the "slave labor" act its opponents called it nor the perfect remedy its friends thought it to be.
Labor still was bitter about the law, but their outbursts were not as violent.
By 1952, however, the lines were not drawn so sharply. The presidential candidate for the Democrats—Adlai Stevenson—was on record for his opposition to the law, but Dwight D. Eisenhower's campaign promises included revision of the controversial legislation.
Almost anyone, employer or employee, will agree that the law did not ruin the labor movement, regulate production standards, or dictate contracts.
Even the Saturday Evening Post, traditionally a supporter of management, was willing to admit editorially that the law had its faults, even though it argued against any major changes.
The question today has become one of deciding what should be amended, rather than one of being either for or against. It is this problem which has held up the revisions promised by President Eisenhower during his campaign.
Page 2 University Daily Kansan Thursday, April 15. 1954
There may be more pressure on Congress to produce amendments to the Taft-Hartley law in the weeks to come, however.
Appeasing labor might go a long way toward gaining the support of unions for the Republicans in the elections this fall. The GOP undoubtedly believes it will need all the help it can get, since it has only a slim edge in the House and is in the minority in the Senate.
Recently the Senate Labor committee approved a bill containing all the revisions proposed by President Eisenhower except the amendment dealing with government supervision of strike votes, but it is still doubtful if Congress will pass new labor legislation this session.
Opponents say it would be costly and probably unworkable, as well as causing alienation of labor because of government interference. They add that few union leaders will call a strike unless the workers will go along.
Most controversial of the changes concerns the strike vote, calling for workers to give their opinion for or against a strike in their industry by secret ballot.
On the other side it is argued a vote would reduce the number of strikes if the workers are given a chance to decide themselves. It is also said that workers, reluctant to show opposition to union bosses, generally play "follow the leader."
The proposed change would allow picking of an employer doing work for another employer whose men are out on strike and also allow general picking of construction areas.
For injunctions—now mandatory for the general counsel of the National Labor Relations board if an employer charges there has been a secondary boycott—the proposal would leave the court orders up to the counsel's discretion.
Another major change advocated by the President concerns secondary boycotts, outlawed by the present law.
Another suggested change would prohibit a representation election for four months during an economic strike, and then only on a petition by the union.
In construction, amusement, and maritime industries, unions would be allowed to make contracts with employers before the workers themselves have been hired, and the union shop could be organized in seven days after hiring is complete, as compared to 30 days in other industries.
Other recommendations by the President emphasize the employer's right of free speech, reaffirm the rights of states to deal with strikes affecting health and safety, retain the injunction power and 80-day cooling off period for national emergency strikes, and propose that fact-finding boards be given power to make recommendations in disputes.
Perhaps the Taft-Hartley law will not be changed during this session of Congress. But now that tempers have cooled and the smoke has cleared, the lawmakers can make a much more realistic approach to the problems of labor legislation than they could have a few years ago.
—Sam Teaford
One Man's Opinion
Determined to be well-fortified when he meets head-on with Russia later this month, Secretary of State Dulles has lined up Great Britain and then went to Paris and did the same with France. Tuesday's declaration from London promised a bold and united front—the United States and Great Britain asserted that Communist aggression threatens the peace of all Southeast Asia and suggested that a military alliance be organized to safeguard the region from further Red penetration.
agression in Southeast Asia.
The United States alone cannot save Southeast Asia from communism. Secretary Dulles hopes to get an agreement from Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, and the three Indochina States to prevent further Red
But the age-old French-German hostility toward each other has bogged down NATO and EDC, which would give Europe a continual army. France is backing down on the pledge and so is Italy.
When NATO was formed, our government stated that the successful defense of Western Europe would depend upon "united action," the assumption by each nation of its proportionate share of responsibility.
If Secretary Dulles fares well in his program, it will be a sweet victory, for past performances of these countries indicates a willingness to join in such a "united action."
The next example of "united action" came in Korea. It consisted of 90 per cent participation by the United States and token efforts by the very nations which now Secretary Dulles hopes will form a "Southeast Asia NATO."
The "greater conflict" which we sought to avoid in Korea is now threatening us in Indochina, where the French have been fighting the Vietnam Communists for more than seven years.
These nations had their reasons for not participating—lack of finances or arms. But the United States was hoping for troops. Isolationist Congressmen didn't help matters when they held that the United States should have no "entangling foreign alliances". Yet the same Congressman cried that we were getting no aid from our allies.
The French are ready to accept any offer the Communists may make at the forthcoming Geneva conference which would enable them to get out of Indochina. Secretary Dulles wants assurance that he will get more participation from our allies than in Korea.
Tom Shannon
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibb
"GRADES ARE ALL OUT—IF ANYONE WANTS ME I'M OUT OF TOWN FOR A FEW DAY."
U.S. Faces The Problem Of Overpopulation
What has been considered one of the nation's greatest assets appears to be on the way to becoming a liability—slowly but surely!
If the United States' birth rate continues to grow at the pace it has grown during the past half-century, statisticians say that by the year 2000 most of the people in the country will be living under famine conditions unless new methods of producing food are covered before that time.
In 1900, the U.S. had a population of 76 million. In 1930, it was 123 million; in 1950, 150 million, and it now stands at more than 161 million.
For the past seven years in a row, the birth rate has been more than $ 3 \frac{1}{2} $ million babies, and in 1953, it reached a peak of 3,967,000 almost four million.
The birth rate is almost the same as if the United States had added the population of a state such as Iowa or Florida to the Union each year.
Americans are becoming parents and grandparents at an earlier age than ever before—and are living longer themselves thanks to new advances in the field of medicine. All of which means that population figures are zooming and will reach the 200 million mark by 1960.
The nation's businessmen are happy over the trend. Business should boom during the next few years. Prosperous years such as we have been going through mean more children. More children means more needs and desires. More needs and desires—more business.
Never before, they say, has a population growth such as ours gone hand-in-hand with the living standards that this country enjoys.
The effect of the birth upsure already is being felt in the nature schools and labor force—with favorable results.
However, on the darker side of the picture, the results are also being shown in the amount of cropland available for each person. In 1900, there were 4.2 acres for each person. By 1940, it had shrunk to 3 acres, and in 1950, it was down to 2.7 acres. It will be 2 acres by 1960—with a constantly growing birth ratio staring us in the face.
Thus far, modern farming methods have been able to keep up with the people's needs. Land formerly used for other purposes is being diverted to food growing, and the government is constantly searching for ways to make more land arable.
Clay Brandon
EDITORIAL STAFF Des Tice
Editorial editor
Assistanta
Letty Leung