Fulfilling the Pledge

The 46-word sentence seemed to be tacked almost as an afterthought to the labor message sent by President Johnson to Congress last week. It urged repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley law, "with the hope of reducing conflicts in our national labor policy that for several years have divided Americans." But that sentence was no afterthought: it was the fulfillment of a promise made by Johnson to organized labor during the last presidential campaign--and it seemed likely to set off the hottest fight of this session of Congress.

Section 14(b) gives to the states the right to enact their own right-to-work laws banning union-shop contracts. Nineteen states* have done that, and of the entire Taft-Hartley law, 14(b) has become the section most odious to labor leaders. As a Congressman, Lyndon Johnson voted for Taft-Hartley and to override President Truman's veto. But last year, as he set out to gather votes from every segment of U.S. society, he made clear to A.F.L.-C.I.O. President George Meany that he would seek repeal of 14(b), saw to it that the pledge was written into the Democratic platform.

"Sellout." Reaction to the President's message was predictable. "A sellout to organized labor," cried U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Robert Gerholz. Werner P. Gullander, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, was unhappy because 14(b), he said, "permits the states to protect employees from being forced into labor unions against their will." New Jersey's former Republican Representative Fred A. Hartley, co-author of Taft-Hartley, dismissed the President's proposal as "a ridiculous move." But labor was elated. Calling Johnson's statement "clear and unequivocal," the A.F.L.C.I.O.'s Meany said: "The question here is simply stated: Do you believe in the right of employers and unions to negotiate the kind of union security contract that best suits both?"

Because of the terse, almost offhand way in which he attached the repeal proposal to his labor message, there was some talk that the President might not work very hard for its enactment. But those who said that just didn't know their Lyndon Johnson. For one thing, he is immensely proud of his success in getting his programs through Congress, and the record will not be blemished if he can help it. For another, at a time when he is under heavy fire from academicians, he is not about to risk losing labor's support--particularly if he can keep it without suffering too badly in business circles. In that context, it is worth noting that he did not send his labor message to the Hill until just after he had proposed a $3.9 billion cut in excise taxes.

In the message, the President also proposed:

> Extension of the minimum-wage law to cover an extra 4.6 million workers, some 1.5 million of whom now earn less than $1.25 an hour.

>Double-time pay instead of time-and-a-half for work over 48 hours a week, with the cutoff to drop to 45 hours within four years. His aim, Johnson said, was to discourage overtime work, thus forcing employers to hire more workers and reducing the number of unemployed.

> Better jobless benefits, with up to 26 additional weeks of federally financed payments for workers who have exhausted their state benefits and have been out of work six months or longer.

"Public Responsibility." Those provisions might have fairly easy sailing. But the effort to repeal 14(b) is likely to tax all Johnson's skills. Most Republicans and Southern Democrats will oppose it. So, probably, will some Midwestern and Western legislators of both parties. And even some liberals are disappointed. New York's Republican Senator Jacob Javits, who favors repeal, wrote last week: "The President failed to take into account the public concern over the extension of union authority which will result from 14(b)'s repeal . . . Trade-union activity is heavily responsible for the rising standard of living, job security and better working conditions for employees throughout the country--but there have been places where the growth of a trade union's public responsibility has not kept pace with its growing authority" (see following story).

* Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.