Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

8 THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA TWO VIEWS ON THE “OPEN SHOP” I THE ATTITUDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN LABOR CONTROVERSIES. By WINFIELD P. JONES. The most stupendous issue before the people of this country is that raised by the conflict of Capital and Labor. This issue turns around the question as to whether or not a “closed,” or an exclusively union shop or an “open shop,” or one in which union as well as non-union labor is employed, shall be the economic policy of the country. The union, on the one hand, is insisting upon the “closed shop,” while Capital, representing the employer, is fighting for the “open shop.” It is, of course, a matter of history that within a score of years Capital has, through appropriate legis lation, National as well as State, been wholesomely restricted and restrained; while unions, on the other hand, having during this period attained their max imum growth, have now reached the point where, ac cording to popular opinion, restriction upon them is essential to the welfare of the country. That this is true the last National election amply demonstrated, since the primary issue before the electorate was whether the Republican policy of “open shop” should be approved. There is no gainsaying the fact that the growth and evolution of the union was a prime necessity in the economic world for the protection of Labor as against the aggressions of Capital; but the use of its power, although arising through the force of num bers, is as likely to be abused as was the attempted misuse of enormous sums of money. There is no ph ase of religion involved in this con troversy. The question at issue, apart from its eco nomic aspect, involves the application of well settled principles of law and constitutional guarantees. While Labor ha3 the right to organize and increase its mem bership, Capital has an equal right to refuse to em ploy only union men or, in other words, to maintain “closed” shops. Agreements, whether voluntary or coercive, between employers and unions for “closed” shops have repeatedly been held by the courts to be illegal as opposed to public policy; and the employer is, of course, well within his rights in refusing to agree to the maintenance of such shops. Collective bargaining is, within proper limitations, an appro priate economic means of settling controversies; but when labor unions seek to compel employers to em ploy only union men, thereby denying employment to a larger percentage of the laboring men of the country than constitute the membership of unions, the union is trespassing upon the rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, not only possessed by Capital of selecting its employes, independently of their affilia tions with unions, but also enjoyed in common by that vast number of laboring men, who are not and do not care to become members of a union. If, as a result of the contest, Capital is compelled to close its shops to the unions or to employ only non-union labor, with the resultant destruction to the unions, this unfortunate consequence of this titanic war can only be attributed to the unions themselves, since the fight was precipitated by them in their efforts to force the adoption of the “closed” shop. The Church occupies a strictly neutral attitude with respect to the legal or juridical side of this contro versy. It exhorts its followers, regardless of the class to which they may belong, and although many of them belong to neither class, to obey the law and to uphold the supremacy of the courts. It does tell the employer that he must be considerate of his em ployes and endeavor to accord them reasonable work ing hours, proper wages, and satisfactory working conditions, consistent with the legitimate progress of his business; but beyond this the Church can not go. It tells Labor, on the other side, that it must, to the extent of its ability, furnish service commensurate with its compensation and be considerate of its em ployers. It appeals, in other words, to the consciences of its followers, and instructs them that in their busi ness lives they must so comport themselves as to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. Many followers of the Church, lay as well as ec clesiastical, have been among the leaders on both sides of this controversy. The late Archbishop Ire land was one of the foremost representatives of labor in this country, while many distinguished 'Catholic laymen have been prominent among the upholders of the capital side of the issue. A large bulk of the laboring men of the country, who comprise the unions, including many of its prominent leaders, are members of the Catholic Church; and included in its member ship is a very large percentage of those who make up the suffering public, who are wedged in between the contending hosts. The Church’s attitude, therefore, so far as the main issue is concerned, is merely that, in the event of determination of any phase of this issue in any section of the country by the civil tribunals, desig nated under the Constitution for that purpose, the supremacy of the civil laws must be upheld and the decrees and judgments of our courts must be obeyed. It bids both sides to remember that at all times neither must be guilty of conduct that does not comport with good morals, Christian duty or the laws of the land; (Continued on Page 15.)