Free Men vs. The Union Closed Shop - St. Louis FedFree Men vs. the Union Closed Shop By DONALD R. RICHBERG ... If a man can no longer earn a living except by ... goo men develop powerful

the

FREEMANExtra Edition

Free Menvs.

The Union Closed ShopBy DONALD R. RICHBERG

the FREEMAN MAGAZINE 240 Madison Ave., New York 16Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Free Men vs. the Union Closed ShopBy DONALD R. RICHBERG

Donald R. Richberg is one of the country's out-standing authorities on labor legislation. He wasco-author of the Railway Labor Act passed by Con-gress in 1926 and of the National Industrial Re-covery Act of 1933. In the first Roosevelt Adminis-tration he served as General Counsel of NRA from1933 to 1935 and as Chairman of the NRA Boardin 1935. In the following article he weighs the prosand cons of the union closed shop, and concludesthat such a shop is an attempt "to deprive men ofan essential of 'life' (the earning of a livelihood),an essential of 'liberty' (freedom to work at one'strade), and an essential of 'property' (the abilityto sell one'8 own labor)."

IN A "closed shop" no one can become and remainemployed unless he is already a union member.In a "union shop" no one can hold a job unless

he becomes a union member.In either case this is a "union closed shop," be-

cause the door of continuous employment is openonly to union members.

Would the establishment everywhere of unionclosed shops be good or bad for 1) the workers, 2)the employers, or 3) all the people?

1. Is the union closed shop good or bad for theworkers ?

Let us have no quarrel over the right of workersto organize, and no question about the benefits thatworkers can gain through a good labor organiza-tion.

The only question we propose to discuss is: Whatis a "good" organization—one that is good for theworkers? Is it a union composed entirely of volun-tary members who join willingly and continue tosupport it because they believe that it protects andpromotes their interests ? Or is it a union composedpartly of unwilling members who are compelled tojoin and support it, in order to be able to get orhold a job and thus earn a living? Which is thestronger, more reliable union to advance the bestinterests of its members?

These are not easy questions; and despite thenatural objection of free men and women to anyavoidable compulsion, we all recognize that in ademocratic, self-governing society we must estab-lish many rules of good conduct and enforce themagainst people who will not voluntarily obey them.

Those who advocate the union closed shop arguevery earnestly and sincerely that the "rule of themajority" is the "American Way"—and the "demo-cratic way"—which makes it possible for men tolive and work together effectively and peaceably.

That is partly true. But let us not forget that in

our democratic American way of life there are alsorights of minorities and of individuals which mustbe maintained and which a majority is not per-mitted to deny or destroy. Is the "right to work,"without being compelled to join a union, one ofthese "democratic" rights?

The founders of our Republic were so fearfulthat the "tyranny of a majority" would eventuallydestroy our liberties that they prohibited the gov-ernment itself from making any laws that wouldlimit free speech, a free press, freedom of religionor freedom of association, or would deny anyonetime-honored protections, such as trial by jury, orwould deprive anyone of the essential enjoymentsof "life, liberty or property."

When unions were small only a limited numberof wage earners were affected by their insistencethat employers, with whom they made a contract,should employ only union members. So long asthere were many "open shop" employers and therewas no nation-wide organization of workers, the"closed shop" in one plant did not mean that aworker must join the union in order to earn aliving.

But today, when a nation-wide, or industry-wide,or city-wide, union demands that all employersmake a union closed shop contract, the union istrying to do precisely what the government of theUnited States is forbidden to do. The union is try-ing to deprive men of an essential of "life" (theearning of a livelihood), an essential of "liberty"(freedom to work at one's trade), and an essentialof "property" (the ability to sell one's own labor).

The Union Argument

If a man can no longer earn a living except bypaying dues to a private organization and becom-ing practically, if not legally, subject to its lawsand discipline, he is forced to become the subjectof a private government in order to live.

If he voluntarily joins and remains in a union,this is "government by the consent of the gov-erned." But if he is forced to join, and forced tostay in, this is government without consent, whichthe Declaration of Independence denounces as tyr-anny.

The Freeman is published fortnightly. Publication Office, MilfordTurnpike, Orange, Conn., Editorial and General Offices, 240 MadisonAvenue, New York 16, N. Y. Copyrighted in the United States,1951, by The Freeman Magazine Inc. John Chamberlain, President;Henry Haslitt, Vice President; Suzanne La Follette, Secretary; Al-fred Kohlberg, Treasurer. Application pending for second class en-try at the Post Office at Orange, Conn. Rates: Twenty-five cents thecopy; five dollars a year in the United States, nine dollars for twoyears; six dollars a year elsewhere.

the FREEMAN

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

But advocates of the union closed shop will saythat this criticism is unfair and exaggerated be-cause, first, the unions have no nation-wide mon-opoly of jobs, and secondly, the union "government"is controlled by the workers themselves, and alsoby the government of the nation. However, the testof what is right and what is good for the workersis found not only in what the unions are doingtoday, but also in what they are trying to do andwill do if, as they intend, they organize all workersand establish the monopoly of the union closed shopin all important industries. Then they will controlall the opportunities of employment for practicallyall workers. Today they already control most ofthe opportunities for employment of a very largepercentage of the workers.

The present and future intentions and desires ofthe unions have been plainly stated. Their author-ized spokesmen argued recently in the SupremeCourt of the United States that labor monopoliesthrough a union shop were "indispensable." Theysaid that "workers can not thrive but can only dieunder competition between themselves," and thattherefore union membership must be "a conditionof employment."

They said that "the worker becomes a memberof an economic society when he takes employment,"and that "the union is the organization or govern-ment of this society," with the "powers and respon-sibilities of a government," and that union member-ship must be "compulsory upon individuals."

Thus it has been made plain beyond all argu-ment that the goal of the union closed shop advo-cates is a complete monopoly control of all jobs andthe compulsory submission of all workers to gov-ernment by the unions. Of course such a controlover all employment of labor would carry with itcontrol of all industries and, eventually, dominionover the public government through the votingpower of unionists and union control of the eco-nomic power upon which political power depends.

Socialism and Fascism

In a word, the inevitable result of establishingnationally a union closed shop monopoly must be toaccept national socialism under labor domination—the triumph of what can be most accurately de-scribed as "labor fascism." This description is notemotional but coldly realistic. The word "fascism"is ordinarily used to describe the rule of industryand government by a monopolistic combination ofproperty managers of industry. But the rule of in-dustry and government by a monopolistic combina-tion of labor managers of industry would providethe same sort of tyranny. In one case the tyrantswould be elected by politically organized stock-holders, and in the other case by politically organ-ized workers. But in both cases the individual citi-zen would become a dependent servant of his po-litical-economic masters.

It is the common complaint that small stockhold-ers and bondholders of corporations (of whom

there are millions) are unable directly to controltheir managers. But they do have an indirect con-trol that is quite effective. They can sell their stocksand bonds in a free market, withdraw from an en-terprise, and refuse to provide additional capital.So business managers are under strong pressure tomaintain the support of bond and stockholders. Itis equally well known that the millions of membersof a big union are unable directly to control theirmanagers. Individual refusals to obey powerfulunion officers are very dangerous, and campaignsto change them are both dangerous and expensive.It has been proved repeatedly that an Americancoal miner is nearly as helpless to oppose John L.Lewis as a Russian is to oppose Joseph Stalin.

Under compulsory unionism, workers are unableto withdraw from or to cease to support theirunions. They can not, like stockholders, simply takea loss, if necessary, and get out of their associa-tion, and invest their property (their labor) in an-other enterprise. Under a union closed shop mon-opoly they are like prisoners in a vast jail whichthey have built for themselves. Only by trying adesperate revolt can they set themselves free—andif the revolt fails they stand to lose their oppor-tunity to earn a living.

"Security" for Whom?

That is why the "security" of workers, as wellas the freedom of all our people, depends on whetherthe workers themselves can and will prevent theestablishment of a labor union monopoly of allwork opportunities—and the resulting control ofindustry and public government by a private gov-ernment of labor Fascists. The very term "unionsecurity" which is given to a union shop agreementshows that it is the union and not the individualthat gets the "security." Monopoly power may giveto labor managers a feeling of "union security,"but it should give no feeling of "job security" tothe workers. Whoever before claimed that a mon-opoly gave "security" to those forced to let monopo-lists rule their lives? Those dependent upon thearbitrary power of someone else to bless or cursethem are always most insecure.

There is probably not an outstanding leader ofAmerican labor who is willing to believe that thetriumph of the union closed shop policy would es-tablish a labor tyranny such as has been described.Like all zealous, ambitious men who gain popularfollowings, honest labor leaders undoubtedly be-lieve in the sincerity of their purposes to advancethe interests of those who follow them. But whengood men develop powerful machines for good pur-poses they can be sure that eventually bad men willoperate them for bad purposes, if they are giventhe chance. Great power to do good carries with itgreat power to do evil.

Where great power is created for good ends, theresulting great power to do evil either must bedenied to vicious or reckless users, or, if that isimpractical, all uses of such power must be subject

JULY 16, 1951


to public controls that will protect public interestsand the general welfare.

The socialist doctrines of Karl Marx were putforth as a program to free the submerged massesof the people from anticipated slavery to economicmasters. But today the propagation of socialisticdoctrines provides the means whereby the criminalmasters of millions of people, who are actually livingin poverty-ridden slavery, are trying to force thewhole world to submit to their despotism. Thesedictators are threatening by wicked and recklessuses of brute force to destroy all the wealth andthe advances in material welfare gained by severalhundred million people who for over a centuryexercised the wisdom and courage to experimentwith free enterprise and with democratic forms ofgovernment. Thus they freed themselves and theirenergies from the stifling oppression of politicalmonopolies and tyrannies that the Marxian Social-ists are once more trying to impose upon the world.The regimentation of all workers into compulsoryunions is essential to the seizure and holding ofpolitical power by either labor Communists or laborFascists. Without the union closed shop they cannot win. But with the union closed shop they may.

Purpose and Value of Unions

Good purposes and present good deeds of well-meaning rulers should not blind a free people tothe everlasting truth that the voluntary coopera-tion of self-reliant men and women is the way tofreedom, peace and progress in a human society,and that the compulsory "cooperation" of a fear-ridden, subservient people is the way to slavery,war and degradation. Let us review briefly theoriginal purposes and reasons for organizing laborunions, so that we can see again clearly why theymust remain voluntary organizations, or else theywill do more harm than good.

The wage earners of modern industry felt them-selves individually helpless to resist oppression andexploitation by the selfish, inhumane type of em-ployer. They organized themselves so that by col-lective action they could force such employers topay just wages and maintain fair conditions of em-ployment. They chose labor managers whom theycould trust to protect their interests in makingagreements with property managers, because theycould control those labor managers whom theychose and could remove, and they could not controlthe property managers whom they did not chooseand could not remove.

The entire value of labor organization to theworkers lies in this power of the workers to controltheir representatives. The basis of that control,and the only assurance that it will continue, isfound in the right and freedom of the individualworker to refuse to support an organization or arepresentative whose judgment or good will hedoes not trust. But how can a man trust his servantwho assumes to be his master and says: "You mustobey me, or I will cut your throat!"

In a small union a worker can insist that hisideas shall be considered and that officers whom hetrusts shall be elected. If he is in the minority hemay wisely accept majority rule. But if he feelsthat the majority is utterly wrong, or is doinghim more harm than good, he as a free man shouldbe able to withdraw from the union without havinghis ability to earn a living destroyed.

Even small unions have been sometimes con-trolled by criminals or Communists or self-seekingmen whom no sensible, self-respecting man couldsupport. In such unions gangsters and professionalsluggers have often made any opposition hopelessand dangerous. What relief from such brutal tyr-anny is open to a single worker, unless he has free-dom to withdraw without loss of his ability to sup-port himself and his family?

Hundreds of electrical workers in Chicago wereonce forced to live and work under the rule of theirlodge by a gang of thieving gunmen and sluggers,until the national IBEW officers finally had thecourage to intervene and abolish that lodge. If thenational leadership had been completely terrorized,or had been as bad as the local gangsters, none ofthose workers would have had any way under theunion closed shop to earn a living except by sup-porting and paying tribute (thousands of dollars aweek) to this gang of hardened criminals led by anotorious murderer. (As the lawyer who advisedthe national union and fought their battle againstthe criminals in the courts, I know exactly how evilthe situation was and how helpless the individualworkers were made by the union closed shop.)

What Is Democracy?

In any one of the large industry-wide unions theindividual worker is as helpless as a single Demo-crat or Republican to control his party or its pro-gram, or to select its ruling politicians. But a citi-zen, although compelled to pay taxes and in generalsupport his government, is entirely free to refuseto support a political party or to pay dues to it.Our government is largely a party government;but a citizen can change his party and vote forwhom he pleases, without losing his ability to earna living. There is democracy in "majority rule" solong as a minority or a single person is not com-pelled to remain an unwilling but contributing sup-porter of the majority—so long as he is free tosupport or to organize a minority opposition thatmay eventually become a majority.

There is no democracy in a labor organizationwhich every one is compelled to join and support,which no one can oppose, and from which no onecan withdraw except by sacrificing his livelihood.There is no "freedom of labor" in transferring thecontrol of all opportunities of employment from aruling class of property managers to a ruling classof labor managers. Indeed, no combination of prop-erty managers ever dared to assert a right to mon-opolize. The government has always demanded thatbusinessmen compete; and the prevailing demand

the FREEMAN!


of American businessmen themselves has been for"free enterprise"—that is, for free competition.

Few business monopolies have ever had the hardi-J hood even to try to use force to end all competition.

Therefore job seekers have always had a vast num-ber of big and little employers from whom employ-ment could be obtained. But the union closed shopcloses the open doors of all these competing em-ployers and leaves open only one door to continuousemployment, which is the union door. The advo-cates of the union closed shop plainly demand thatthere shall be no competition with the labor mon-opoly—no choice of wages and working conditions.For example, if an employer wants to establish anincentive wage and to pay more for better work,and many ambitious workers want that arrange-ment, no worker can obtain such employment solong as the union is determined and able to insiston rigid standard wages. The worker must seekemployment either in the exceptional union shopwhere the local union is permitted and willing toagree to incentive wages, or in a non-union shopwhich all the unions will blacklist and seek todestroy.

Union-Employer Monopolies

Thus, instead of the recognized, but only occa-sional and temporary, evil of a limited managementmonopoly, the union closed shop promises the muchgreater permanent evil of an unlimited labormonopoly. It is, in addition, evident from the prac-tices of many union closed shop monopolies whichhave been erected in a business area (such as NewYork City) that the union closed shop offers toemployers an opportunity to join with a union inestablishing a complete business monopoly withina labor-monopoly wall built around an entire city.Recently a liberal-minded Supreme Court found itnecessary to point out that, if this practice werepermitted to continue under a legal immunity fromthe anti-trust laws, the result must be "to shiftour society from a competitive to a monopolisticeconomy." (Opinion by Mr. Justice Black in AllenBradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, IBEW, 325 U. S.797)

Perhaps the reasons why a union closed shop isa bad labor organization for the worker, in sub-jecting him to the uncontrolled tyranny of laborFascists, have been sufficiently revealed so that wemay turn at this point to the next question:

2. Is a union closed shop good or bad for em-ployers ?

In view of the dominant power of labor managersunder universal union closed shop conditions, itmay seem that there are no arguments to persuadeemployers to welcome such conditions. But, on thecontrary, there are a good many fancy argumentswhich persuade many employers that they are bet-ter off (at least temporarily) with a union closedshop than without one.

Some of these are:a. It is a protection against union rivalries (as

between the AFL and the CIO) and against fac-tionalism in the union. In other words, if everyemployee must become and remain subject to thediscipline of one set of labor managers, then allthat is necessary for peaceful cooperation is tosatisfy these labor bosses. According to the samephilosophy it would be better to establish one des-potic government in the United States than to besubject to the uncertainties and dissensions ofdemocratic self-government. To those who preferthe security of a well-run jail to the insecurity ofa free world, this argument has a strong appeal. Itshould have no appeal whatever to anyone whoknows that the independence of self-support andself-control is the strongest guardian of individualliberty.

b. There are real advantages in standardizedwages and working conditions, because an em-ployer, able and willing to pay good wages and tomaintain good conditions, will not be compelled tomeet the competition of sweatshoppers, chiselersand half-bankrupt concerns that will cut prices byunfair cutting of labor costs. Also unions can im-pose, as they often do, standards of quality andcraftsmanship that will effectively prevent the com-petition of shoddy or ill-made goods or inferiorservices which the conscientious manufacturerwishes to avoid.

There is sound reasoning in these contentions sofar as they show the desirability of encouragingthe maintenance of strong, responsible unions andthe establishment of good working conditionseverywhere. But they disregard the fact that allthese advantages can be and have been gainedwithout compelling all employees to join whateverunion holds the contract. An ever-increasing volumeof reliable and effective information is flowing toboth workers and customers. This makes it lessand less possible for an employer to find in sub-standard wages and working conditions any ele-ments of success. They are more likely to be por-tents of failure. Furthermore, the employer wholags behind in the improvement of labor conditionswill probably fall behind also as his competitorsadvance in the research, the operating efficiency,and the service to customers, which are the maincomponents of success.

The employer himself should be deeply concernedwith the ability of the men to control their union,and fearful of labor bosses who control their con-stituents. The freedom of men to get out of a badlyrun union is the only way to protect an employerfrom forced cooperation with bad labor managers.The freedom of local workers to deal with localemployers in mutual adjustments to local conditionscan only be preserved by preserving the individualand minority rights of workers to dissent from aremotely determined policy that may be harmfulalike to local employers and their employees.

Living conditions vary, and wages and workingconditions should vary greatly according to climate,population density, access to natural resources andother conditions surrounding local enterprises. In-


dustry-wide standards are often undesirable, yetalmost inevitable with national labor organization,unless the power of local self-government is leftwith local units. The union closed shop doctrine ofnon-competitive labor is destructive of a large partof that healthy competition between enterprises indifferent localities which, again, must be desiredby anyone who really believes in "free enterprise."

c. Cooperation with union labor is much easierif the discipline of the union compels employees toaccept the union settlement of grievances and ifthe union is fully supported in its expenses bydues from all employees. Employers are often per-suaded that non-union employees—"free riders,"who do not pay dues and are not subject to unionlaws—are troublemakers for them. Union men willnot support the grievances of non-union men, andthese discontented employees make sore spots inwhat might be a healthy morale. But this argumentoverlooks the fact that union officers possessing thearbitrary power of a union closed shop may go toeither one of two extremes. They may become neg-ligent and dilatory in ironing out complaints oftheir own members, who can not prosecute theirown grievances. The management is blamed andemployees are disgruntled. Or the labor bosses maybecome so arrogant and anxious to assert theirpower that they will use excessive force to wintrivial victories. Then both employers and em-ployees suffer the losses of repeated strikes or slow-downs or long-drawn-out, expensive negotiations inorder to demonstrate that the demands of unionofficers must be complied with, even when most un-reasonable.

The employer who agrees to a union closed shopnot only makes himself a tool of labor managers tohelp them do their work and to force employees tosupport them, but also makes himself their accom-plice in any wrongs they inflict upon their members—and upon himself!

It is an old story. If we will not learn from his-tory, we will be taught by bitter experience. A wise,benevolent autocrat may promote justice, efficiencyand security. But if we are to avoid the menace ofinjustice, inefficiency and insecurity from the ruleof a foolish, malevolent autocrat (and the certaintythat arbitrary power will be abused), we should notconsent to establishing autocratic power anywhere.The only sure safeguard against the abuses of toomuch power is to retain in individuals the freedomto refuse to support any longer an authority overtheir lives which they feel is doing them more harmthan good. Employers as well as employees have alasting interest in preserving democratic, compet-itive controls of industry and in preventing theestablishment of any monopolistic controls of theirenterprises.

3). 7s a union closed shop good or bad for all thepeople? It must be plain that if monopolistic con-trols of industry by a union closed shop monopoly,or by a combined union-employer monopoly, are badfor both workers and employers, they are evenworse for all the rest of the people. Farmers, small

the FREEMAN

businessmen, independent professionals, governmentemployees, consumers as a class (which includes allworkers, business managers, investors and holdersof insurance policies)—all must depend for security >ra *from oppression and exploitation upon a free com-petitive system to regulate prices, quality and pro-duction. The only real alternatives to such auto-matic regulation are imposition of temporary gov-ernment controls to meet the demands of such anational emergency as the threat or existence ofinternational war, or submission to the permanentpolitical tyrannies of national socialism.

A private monopoly control of any vital industryis utterly intolerable. Inevitably the people willdemand in the future as they have in the past thattheir government destroy or at least take control ofsuch a monopoly.

Thus it follows that if a monopoly of all em-ployment were ever obtained by labor managersthrough a universal union closed shop program,this private government monopoly would be de-stroyed or taken over by the public government. Ifthe unions continue to use their political power toprevent the government from outlawing the unionclosed shop, they will present two alternatives to theworkers and business managers. Either they willthemselves stop the spread of the union closed shop,by the workers refusing to join and the managersrefusing to support compulsory unions, or freeworkers and managers will organize and support amovement for government control of the union.

Warning Voices

If a monopolistic rule of industry becomes in-evitable, the people will certainly insist that at leastthe rulers be selected by all the people as publicservants and not chosen by one class to serve itsspecial interests. The growth of a private laborgovernment within industry will either be stoppedor in time a public government—a national social-istic government—over industry will be imposed.Indeed, the transformation of a private labor gov-ernment to a public labor government—which oc-curred in England—would be inevitable herebecause, in achieving its complete monopoly control,the unions must achieve at the same time a politicalcontrol to protect their monopoly which will becomemore and more oppressive, even to those whom itassumes to favor. When men seek to rule by forcethey must control the ultimate force which residesin the public government, because it has the powerto enact and enforce laws that all must obey.

Justifications of the union closed shop, whichappealed to many friends of labor in the early dayswhen unions were small and fighting a bitter battlefor the simple right of the workers to organizethemselves, can no longer be offered. The unionsare no longer small organizations struggling forthe right to exist and to have a voice in the councilsof industry and government. They are the largest,most militantly organized, and most influentialorganizations of class-conscious citizens in the na-


tion. Their power is enormous and often terrifyingin its destructive use. Their continued existence isassured. The right of workers to organize, forwhich the early labor leaders had to fight, is todayrecognized not only in the United States but almostuniversally, although in such socialistic governmentsas those of Soviet Russia, Facist Italy, and NaziGermany, labor organizations have always beenmade completely subject to government control. Asimilar socialistic policy is becoming evident inEngland.

The rise to power of organized labor in the UnitedStates has come so rapidly that the dangers andinevitable consequences of compulsory unionismhave become apparent only recently. Liberal opinionin our country has generally and persistently sup-ported the efforts of labor unions to expand theirmemberships and to increase their powers, on theblind assumption that these were democratic or-ganizations which aimed at advancing the welfareand freedom of their members and of society.

Long ago, however, some of the outstandingchampions of labor organization had the foresightto see that, as in all organizations of human beings,labor unions might be controlled by evil or mis-guided men as well as by good and wise men. Suchfarsighted liberals warned the workers and thepublic that the laws of human behavior should notbe disregarded and that the only way to make surethat human beings would not abuse powers given tothem was to limit and to provide restraints uponall powers which are capable of serious abuse.

Among these early warning voices none spokemore clearly, perhaps, than the long-outstandingchampion of labor interests, the late JusticeBrandeis. His notable disciple, the present JusticeFrankfurter, quoted Brandeis at some length in arecent opinion which he delivered in the SupremeCourt, and these quotations are worthy of earneststudy by all those who today either advocate ortolerate the union closed shop doctrine.

In 1910 Brandeis wrote:

The objections, legal, economic and social, againstthe closed shop are so strong, and the idea of theclosed shop so antagonistic to the American spirit,that the insistence upon it has been a serious ob-stacle to union progress.

In 1912 Brandeis wrote:But the American people should not, and will notaccept unionism if it involves the closed shop. Theywill not consent to the exchange of the tyranny ofthe employer for the tyranny of the employees.

Even earlier, in 1905, Brandeis said:It is not true that the "success of a labor union" nec-essarily means "a perfect monopoly." The union,in order to attain and to preserve for its membersindustrial liberty, must be strong and stable. Itneed not include every member of the trade. In-deed, it is desirable for both the employer and theunion that it should not. Absolute power leads toexcesses and to weakness. Neither our characternor our intelligence can long bear the strain of un-restricted power. The union attains success whenit reaches the ideal condition, and the ideal condi-

tion for a union is to be strong and stable, and yetto have in the trade outside its own ranks an ap-preciable number of men who are non-unionist. Inany free community the diversity of character, ofbeliefs, of taste — indeed mere selfishness — willinsure such a supply, if the enjoyment of thisprivilege of individualism is protected by law. Sucha nucleus of unorganized labor will check oppres-sion by the union as the union checks oppressionby the employer.

Other liberal-minded students of industrial rela-tions have over and over again uttered similarwarnings. In recent years the menace of labor mo-nopolies and the wrong of compulsory unionismhave been clearly shown in the frightening abusesof power by union leaders that have sapped theindustrial strength of America even when we werefighting for national existence against foreignenemies.

It is time for all Americans to realize that theunion closed shop creates a monopoly power toogreat to be entrusted to any person or organization—a monopoly power that will inevitably so weakenand disorganize our industrial energies and be soabused by power-intoxicated, privately chosen dic-tators that there will be no way left to rescue ourindustries from demoralized inefficiency—no wayleft to oppose successfully foreign aggression andto preserve some remnants of our liberties—exceptto subject all our industries and all our people tothe dictatorial rule of a socialized national govern-ment. This is not a tolerable prospect for a freepeople.

When we find ourselves rushing to destructionbecause we are losing control of our motive power itis time to put on the brakes while we can check ourmomentum. It is not "progressive," "courageous"or "liberal" to step on the gas when our car is hurt-ling down hill past red flags that warn us of im-minent disaster. Certainly there are enough redflags along the industrial road now so that, if theunion drivers themselves will not put on the brakes,their fellow-passengers should do it for them.

ConclusionLiberal-minded men and women in America have

been slow to recognize the illiberal character of thepolicies and programs of all the major labor or-ganizations of today. Their demands for, and theirabusive exercise of monopoly power are still de-fended as necessary to protect "exploited" workersfrom continuining "oppression" by employers. Yetthese "oppressive" employers have been proved,again and again, to be practically helpless to resistdemands which were plainly unreasonable and in-jurious to the general welfare.

It was logical for Communists to try to developand to dominate revolutionary labor unions. But togain their ends the capture of official positionswould have to follow, and not precede, the conver-sion of the rank and file. That is being accomplishedby the conversion of labor leaders to what theycomplacently regard as "democratic socialism,"

JULY 16, 1951


which is nothing but communism watered down forpopular consumption. In this form it can be advo-cated by those who sincerely detest the cruelty,terror and tyranny of an orthodox Communistseizure and exercise of power.

The menace of communism today is as great in itsefforts to corrupt the minds and to control the or-ganizations of American labor as in its plan formilitary conquest from abroad. Those labor leaderswho today join in supporting every project for so-cializing the industries of the United States canhardly be trusted to exercise wisely a monopolypower over industry. Even if they could be reliedupon today to use such power to advance the gen-eral welfare and to preserve the freedom of allpeople, they might be led further astray tomorrow,or be supplanted by more extreme labor Fascists, orby the Communists who are now plotting to over-throw them.

The concentration of power in a few places andin a few hands always holds the menace that such akey position may be captured, and a vast organiza-tion of men and machines may be demoralized ormisdirected by a few enemies. The only sure defenseagainst such castastrophe is to avoid and to preventany such dangerous concentration of power. Theunion closed shop now provides the means of cen-tralizing a power of life and death over the indus-tries of America. This power has already been soabused that, by the action of a few men, our vitalindustries several times have been temporarilyparalyzed in a time of national peril. There is noway to prevent the recurrence and extension of suchintolerable abuses of union monopoly power exceptby stopping its further growth: by making it un-lawful to compel any worker to join a union in orderto earn a living; by outlawing compulsory unionismand the union closed shop.

NUT CONCER1VELEADERS OF LABOR . . . EMPLOYERSAND WORKERS . . . EVERYONE is con-

cerned with this vital subject of individual rights.

The very roots of American freedom are involved

in the problem so capably analyzed in this extra

edition of the Freeman.

YOU W I L L W A N T C O P I E S . . .to send to friends and associates immediately in

order that they may better understand the dangers

whenever an overbalance of power is vested in the

hands of any labor leader. This edition is a text-

book on freedom. Order your copies NOW!

th FREEMANDept. R

240 Madison Avenue

New York 16, New York

PRICE LISTSingle copy .10 cents12 copies 1.00100 copies 8.00

Larger quantities .07 per copy

WE SHALL BE PLEASED TO SEND A SAMPLE COPY OF THE FREEMAN ON REQUEST

the FREEMANDigitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Free Men vs. The Union Closed Shop - St. Louis FedFree Men vs. the Union Closed Shop By DONALD R. RICHBERG ... If a man can no longer earn a living except by ... goo men develop powerful

Documents