View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

May 17, 19h6

TO i

Mr« Thurston

Attached is a suggested draft
of reply« There is something incongruous
about asking the Government to guarantee
higher swages for picketing duty«


April 9,1946
Osborn, Ohio.

ISarriner S. Eccles,
Chairman federal Reserve Board,
Washington D.C.

Dear Mr. EeclesIn reference to your statements on present and
coming labor strife.
It is my beleif that the unfair practices of labor can be
greatly curtailed if the present labor laws are amended to protect the rights of workers against unscrupulous labor leaders.
The financial damage done to a worker and his family during
a short ^prolonged strike can never be repaired by the pittance
they receive while on strike nor by the meager gains they receive
when a strike is terminated.
Union officials harang the workers into striking and then
force them to participate in strike activities for a salary which
is frequently less than most states grant their indigent citizens.
This is in flagrant violation of the present labor laws and against
all that labor has fought for in the past. Strikers are illegally
exploited by the unions. They are compelled to put in an eight hour
day of work for the union while on strike. If they do not do so
they are fined or ousted as undesirable members. The salary paid
the striker does not vary to suit his individual needs, namely the
size of his family. This is to me the cruelest kind of unlawful
exploitation ever inflicted upon a helpless citizen by any group
for which our labor laws came into being.
to curb this lawlessness I suggest that the government act at
once to consider the following salaries for union members on strike.

1- That unions must pay all strikers a salary equal to that
received by them from the company against whom they are striking.
2~ Or the unions must pay a salary to the striker equal to that
which the Unemployment Compensation Laws grant him.
3- Or the unions must pay a striker not less than the federal or
state labor laws allow. If no laws exist, federal or state legislation should be enacted to cover same.
Unions scream about the poll tax laws in some states but to
my way of thinking, union due?and entrance fees are frequently
just as obnoxious to fair minded people. Laws should be passed
to govern the initiation and entrance fees and the monthly dues.
That is to govern the maximum amount which can be charged.
There should be noyf closed shops anywhere,even if the workers
themselves vote for the same. No matter which way a person looks
at a closed shop it oomes under the heading of unfair business
practice. And if our courts would challange the closed shop and
the rights of a worker to join or not as he so chooses, they will
find that the Constitutional Rights of good Americans is being
indecently abused by present union activities. Also union closed
shops and the exclusion of workers from unions who wish to become
members, creates a labor monopoly. It cannot rightly be called by
any other name. We have laws to protect us from business monopolies
and the time is ripe to curb and protect our citizens from labor
monopolies. In so doing we will ward of civil strife that is sure
to errupt in the near future.

Most sincerely yours,
323 Willian
Osborn, Ohio.

Apt. C

May 20, 1946.

Mrs. Mabel Wiley Beale
323 Williams Street, Apt. C
Osborne, Ohio
Dear Mrs. Beale:
1'hank you for your letter of April 9 concerning
my statements about the necessity for obtaining quick
settlement of our labor-management disputes.
The problems of maintaining a fair balance of
bargaining power between management and labor, safeguarding the public interest, and encouraging the growth of
democratic responsibility within unions, are exceptionally
difficult, Those in Washington responsible for such
problems are giving serious attention to them.
Labor matters are outside my area of direct
responsibility but unless some way can be found to avoid
prolonged shutdowns of key industries, it will be difficult to prevent further substantial increases in living
Sincerely yours,

Marriner S. Eccles,