 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. A presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening, this is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, author and analyst, and Mr. Hardy Burt, author and correspondent. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable Fred A. Hartley, Jr., former United States Congressman from New Jersey. Mr. Hartley, since you are half of the Taft-Hartley Act, I imagine that most of our viewers are either for or against you rather vigorously. So we're delighted to have you again, sir. Thank you. First of all, are the labor organizations still fighting the Taft-Hartley Act as bitterly as they have for six years? No, I don't believe they're fighting it quite as bitterly as they have for the past four or five years. As you may know, most of the labor leaders who heretofore have been talking in terms of repeal of the law now talk in terms of modification. Well, why, sir, have they been so opposed to the law since its enactment? Well, the labor leaders have been opposed to the law primarily because it is true that we have curbed their authority to, shall I use the term, throw their weight around. Well, a couple of questions along that line, sir. They have called the Taft-Hartley Act a very drastic slave labor act that it makes concentration camp inhabitants of workers. Why do they say that? Well, to begin with, that's a nuttily ridiculous statement. The Taft-Hartley law is by no stretch of the imagination of slave labor law. The fact of the matter is that the individual worker, union member as well as non-union member, has more rights and more protections under the Taft-Hartley law than he ever had under the Wagner Act or any other labor law. As a matter of fact, the Taft-Hartley law to the individual worker was his bill of rights. What's he protected against? Well, he's protected against not only abuses by employer bosses because I'd remind you that when we wrote the Taft-Hartley law, we retained every protection the individual worker had under the Wagner Act and we gave him additional protections and they are protections against abuses by labor bosses. Now, sir, you say that the Taft-Hartley Act deliberately restricted the power of the labor boss. Now, how did it do it, sir? Well, for example, it prevents a labor boss from at his women caprice calling a jurisdictional strike. That is a strike between two unions over who's going to do what work. Now, the Taft-Hartley Act outlawed that type of strike, did it? It did. And the result has been that it has saved the skilled craftsmen in the American Federation of Labor alone millions of dollars in wages that they would have lost had it not been for this law. And what other way did it restrict the power of the labor boss? Well, for example, it made them responsible for the fulfillment of contracts. It stopped them from calling jurisdictional strikes. It has curbed their authority to cause nationwide strikes which threaten the national public health and safety. Congressman, do you think the Taft-Hartley Act, as it stands today, that you help write it is perfect? Oh, no. I've never contended that. The Taft-Hartley law was the result of compromise and it has some imperfections. But I would point out to you that under the law we set up a committee to study the Act and that committee made recommendations in 1948 to correct what I consider the minor imperfections in the law. Why didn't they adopt these recommendations? Well, you may recall that the Republicans lost the 1948 elections and that report was thrown out of the window and it is my further contention that the opponents of the law have deliberately kept those imperfections in the law so they could use it as a political football. Well, now sir, no law can be perfect and we know that management would like certain changes in this act because they consider the Act in some ways unfair to management. We know that labor would like certain changes. But you stand in the middle here as the architect of the law. What changes do you think should be made? Oh, I believe that there are some changes that perhaps would benefit management, some changes that would benefit labor that should be made in the law. Those are, in my judgment, the ones that you're referring to are primarily minor changes. I have two basic changes which I consider most important and they are, first of all, I would treat nationwide strikes. Keeping in mind the public interest, I would apply the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the anti-trust laws, to a labor monopoly and a straight-up trade just as we apply it to a business monopoly and then on the other hand I would give the individual workers greater protection by banning, completely banning, mass picketing and the use of force and violence. Do you regard those two things as threats? Number one, do you regard the industry-wide strike as a threat to the general welfare? I most certainly do and I suggest that the anti-trust laws be used on the premise that if it is correct to protect the public from abuses by or monopolistic practices by employers, then it is equally in the public interest to protect them from the same practices by labor bosses. And do you regard mass picketing as a threat to the general welfare? I regard mass picketing when it is used as a force and where it is violence as a threat to the individual workers and their right to work. Now I wouldn't interfere with the workers' fundamental right to strike, but what I want to do is protect what I believe to be an equally fundamental right of every American worker and that is the right to work. Now on this question of industry-wide bargaining, Congressman, do you mean that you would ban or call a monopoly in that way ban a strike that involved any kind of labor union in an industry-wide strike or just basic industries? I would rely upon the judgment of the board that is set up under the Taft-Hartley law, that is the board that the president can call to advise him as to whether or not a nationwide strike or a partial nationwide strike threatens the national public health and safety and threatens the economy. Keep in mind, I'm thinking in terms of the public interest because I think the public interest has got to be considered. Everybody remembers the great steel strike of last year. Do you call that-this is the type of strike you're referring to? I most certainly do and may I point out to you that every pressure that was brought to bear to bring about the settlement of that steel strike could have been brought to bear had the Taft-Hartley law been invoked, the only difference being that the steel workers would not have lost a total of $600 each in wages and the nation's war effort would not have suffered to the extent of 250,000 tons of steel per day over a 55-day period or nearly 20 million tons of steel. I think that's a pretty serious threat to our defense efforts. Mr. Hartley, you maintain that the Taft-Hartley Act has aided the individual worker. I'm sure that our viewers would like you to tell us how has the Taft-Hartley Act aided the individual worker? I'm going to point out protections that the individual worker never had before under the Wagner Act. First of all, today every member of the union must receive a financial statement showing how the money which he has contributed induces being spent. Today, if he's got a grievance and the union grievance committee won't take it to the boss, he can take it to the boss himself. In addition to that, no longer can the head of the union who may dislike one of his members take his card up and throw it in his face and say, I'm firing out of the union and therefore because you're out of the union you'll lose your job. They can't do that under the Taft-Hartley law because today a member of the union loses his job only if he's been fired for non-payment of dues. And in addition to that, we limit the initiation fees and fines and assessments. Now you may not think that's important, but would you believe that our committee had evidence showing that the initiation fee in some unions ran as high as $1,500? And as to fines and assessments, out on the West Coast, a painter's local, there are fine 17 men who went back to work during the course of the strike, a total of $277,000. What is a closed union, Mr. Hartley? A closed union, for example, is one which limits its membership. For example, on Long Island, the news deliverers union had a constitution which limited its membership to the sons of its members. No outsider could join. And when you have a closed union and a closed shop, then you just deny it. Do you regard the closed union as a threat to general welfare? Or is it unfair? I do regard it as unfair. Well, sir, what is the... I mean, you have the closed shop in one case, which the Taft-Hartley Act permits. They have a union shop, which the Taft-Hartley Act permits, but which in effect is a closed shop, once it's in effect. Do you think that the Taft-Hartley Act should take the union shop into consideration, too? Well, of course we permit the union shop, but the difference between the union shop and the closed shop is that the employer can hire whoever he wishes. And the person, in order to get the job, doesn't have to be a member of the union in the first place. And as Mr. Hewley pointed out, when you've got a closed union, then the fellow can't get a job at all. If he's barred from the union, he just can't get a job. Under a closed shop, they have a closed union. Well, when you've got a combination of both, a man is just barred from getting a job. A great deal is being said in our country now about civil rights. Now, do you think that it's proper for an American to have to belong to union in order to seek a job? No, I do not. No, I do not. And do you think that legislation should provide that he does not have to belong to union? No, I recognize as much to be said on this question. I know the labor leaders will stress the question of free riders. In other words, people who will get the benefits that the union may obtain while not having to pay dues to the union. But personally, I am opposed to the business of having to be a member of the union in order to have the job. Let's put it this way, Congressman. Now, the Taft-Hartley Act forbids the closed shop. Do you think it should be any stronger in your view and not requiring a worker to become a member of a union if he doesn't want to, to have a job in an industry? No, frankly, I think the law should remain as it is for the time being because I will point out to you that we made quite a step when we banned the closed shop. And I think these things have got to be approached in something of piecemeal fashion. Mr. Hartley, you spent 20 years in Congress before you voluntarily retired in 1948. Now, what do you think of the current administration, the new Republican administration? For instance, did you approve the appointment of Mr. Durkin as Secretary of Labor? I did approve the appointment of Mr. Durkin. I said so at the time he was appointed. Mr. Durkin has an excellent record as a labor leader. He has also an excellent record as an administrator in the state of Illinois. And I thought it was a move in the right direction. Mr. Huey, I point out to you that the last Secretary of Labor who came from the ranks of labor was under a Republican administration. Well, Carly, as a final question, sir, do you feel that the standard of living for the average American worker, do you feel that that standard of living will continue to rise in the future as it has in the past? Mr. Huey, I certainly do. I think that work opportunities are going to continue as they have been under this administration, that there will be plenty of jobs. I think the technological improvements that are being made in this nation will continue to provide even more jobs. And while we may not see the tremendous increases in wage scales that we've seen in the last several years, at the same time, I believe that the cost of living will, in effect, give an even greater purchasing power to the dollar and that in the total effect that labor will be far better. Well, thank you, sir, for being with us this evening. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the launch in Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Hardy Burt. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Fred A. Hartley, Jr., former United States congressman from New Jersey. The worldwide interest in the forthcoming coronation of Queen Elizabeth II brings to mind that it was in the closing days of the reign of England's last queen, the stately Victoria, that Laun Jean presented to the world a new style in watches. The bracelet watch, or as we call it today, the wrist watch. Now these commemorative Laun Jean coronation watches of 1953 are the crowning achievement of a half-century of experience in the fabrication of wrist watches. Now over these years, for excellence and elegance, Laun Jean watches have won ten World Fair Grand Prizes and twenty-eight gold medal awards. And for accuracy, more honors than any other timepiece. For a mother on Mother's Day, for a birthday and anniversary, as a magnificent present to the graduate or to the bride and groom, no other name on a watch means so much as Laun Jean. For the superlative quality of a Laun Jean watch is equaled only by its prestige and worldwide reputation. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Laun Jean Wettner watch company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wettner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wettner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Laun Jean Wettner watches. Challenging entertainment on the bus on the CBS television network.