75-20-B1
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1975
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Common Situs Picketing[edit]
Transcript[edit]If you work in the construction industry and you value your right to make a living, there are some new bills in Congress you may not like. I'll be right back. If you worked for a non-union subcontractor on a construction job and the union of another building trade was able to shut down all work over a beef it was having with its contractor, you'd be out of work and pretty angry about it. But that's exactly what will happen if twin bills being debated in Congress now become law. They're called H.R. 5900 and Senate Bill 1479, the Common Situs Picketing bills. These bills would give any building trades union the power to shut down an entire construction project involving perhaps several dozen contractors because of a dispute with, say, only one of them. They could shut down work simply by setting up a job site picket line which no construction worker, truck driver or delivery man in his right mind would dare cross. It would force all of them to participate in secondary boycotts which are now illegal. The big international unions have wanted for a long time to eliminate any non-union workers from construction jobs. If the Common Situs Picketing bill passes and is signed by the president, they'll get their way. About the bills, the Denver Post recently said, "Unions do not deny that a major aim is to force out non-union workers. If a contractor hires 10 subcontractors and one of these is non-union it is expected the other subcontractors will have a strike on their hands. The blackmail effect is obvious." Unquote. These bills are apparently part of some horse trading between Secretary of Labor John Dunlop and the international unions. Dunlop wants a new collective bargaining bill ostensibly to prevent the administration's national energy development program from becoming tied up by jurisdictional and wage disputes. It looks as if the Common Situs Picketing bill and thus compulsory unionism in the construction business are the prices he's willing to pay. The collective bargaining bill would create a construction industry collection bargaining committee composed of labor management and public members. One of its chief features would be to provide cooling off periods prior to strikes. Another feature would give the hierarchy of the international unions veto power over the contracts of their locals. They'll be specifically exempt from liability for their actions. Speaking of trade-offs the international union bosses have wanted this veto power for a long time. Theoretically they've had it, but didn't exercise it, fearful that if they did they wouldn't be re-elected to their comfortable jobs by the officials of their locals, but if the veto power is written into federal law they'd be off the hook. They're selling the locals on this feature by telling them it's necessary in order to get the Common Situs Picketing bill. The losers in all this game playing will be the worker who has no interest in someone else's dispute. The taxpayers who will bear the brunt of public assistance costs if such picketing throws large numbers of workers out on the streets and the American economy which badly needs a healthy construction industry at stake is a person's right to earn a living whether or not he chooses to join a union. The Secretary of Labor seems willing to trade this right for some dubious collective bargaining measures. The debate is going on right now. I'll bet your Congressman would like to know how you feel about compulsory unionism. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit] |
