Labor: Through a Glass Clearly

Nearing the end of its herculean first session, the 89th Congress has firmly set in place the foundations of the Great Society. It has adopted legislation that will affect nearly all Americans, but most immediately the poor, the elderly, the undereducated, those who are conspicuously deprived of political representation and economic opportunity. While thus proving itself the most liberal Congress in decades, the 89th has notably refused to act in one area that might have been expected to fit its pattern: it has not approved a single bill that would exclusively benefit organized labor.

At the start of the session, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. urgently requested enactment of a $2-an-hour minimum wage, a standard 35-hour work week and double pay for overtime. None of these proposals even came up for a vote. Last week the Senate made so bold as to reject the bill that union chiefs craved more than any other: repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act's hated 14(b), the "right to work" clause, under which 19 states have outlawed union membership as a condition of employment.

Olympian Ultimatum. It was not for lack of effort on labor's part. Swarms of hard-bitten labor lobbyists bustled around Capitol Hill all session. A.F.L.-C.I.O. President George Meany himself stumped from office to office, making gruff demands for repeal. International Typographical Union President Elmer Brown even distributed copies of an Olympian ultimatum admonishing Congress: "Our patience is about exhausted with being doublecrossed. And the Senators ought to know that they cannot doublecross the labor movement again and get away with it."

Not so long ago, most U.S. politicians would have paid heed to such fulminations. After all, during the 1958 congressional elections many Republican candidates campaigned on the right-to-work issue, arguing that the union shop was undemocratic. It was a classic blunder. Labor rose up that year, dashed Republican after Republican down to defeat for supporting 14(b), and changed the complexion of the U.S. Congress to a liberal hue that has not faded since.

Eroding Power. Nonetheless, the public prestige and political power of big labor have steadily eroded in the past seven years. The machinations of such union bosses as the Teamsters' Dave Beck and Jimmy Hoffa have tarnished the image of the crusading labor leader. Admittedly, during the 1964 campaign, Lyndon Johnson valued union support sufficiently to commit himself to repeal of 14(b). But, well aware that few Americans these days are impassioned over Taft-Hartley, the President did little to push his bill on Capitol Hill.

For labor, the moment of defeat approached last week, as Minority Leader Everett Dirksen's anti-repeal filibuster droned into its sixth day. Though the House had voted for a repeal bill in July, and a majority of Senators (at least 55) nominally opposed 14(b) for various reasons, sentiment on both sides was curiously muted. Several staunchly liberal newspapers actually opposed the bill. "There is much to be said for letting the states continue to experiment with varied statutes of their own," editorialized the Washington Post, "at least until a national consensus emerges." As of now, according to the Gallup poll, Americans are divided almost evenly on the issue: 47% against repeal, 44% in favor.