Attacks Referendum No. 6

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your editorial on the Massachusetts labor referenda reflects clear and honestly objective thought, but I feel you have missed the real implications of referendum no. 6. Those of us who are against this proposition do not base our opposition to a required secret ballot strike vote upon the vague charge that a union may be deprived of its strike weapon through apathy of its membership, but on the more solid ground that such a provision has been tried before in federal legislation and has failed.

In a letter to the editors of all Boston newspapers, Professors Sumner Slichter, John Dunlop, James Healy, Douglas Brown, Charles Myers, and Saul Wallen, all labor relations experts and impartial arbitrators, made this observation about referendum no. 6: ". . . The practical effect of this provision would be to cause union members to arm their representatives with a strike vote before negotiations begin. As a result, negotiations will tend to be conducted in an atmosphere of hostility and tension. A similar provisions in the War Labor Disputes Act (Smith-Connally Act) tended to cause strikes rather than prevent them."

The over-all issue above and beyond objections to the individual referenda remains the fact that no industrial state has passed such bills. Passage of any of the referenda in Massachusetts would provide incentive to enemies of unions and collective bargaining all over the nation to renew their efforts to destroy by legislation these valuable democratic institutions . . . . Roy Gootenberg '49   Executive Committee,   Harvard Liberal Union