Bishop Buddy Scrapbook 1941-1945

His Excellency, The Most Rev. C:harles F. Buddy, Ph.D., Il.D., Bishop of San Diego Diocese, Opposes Proposition No. 12

In response to a request by representatives of Union labor in San Diego for an opinion regarding proposed legislation known as Proposition No 12, I have no hesitation in declaring that it should be defeated, be- cause: (a) It could be used by employers to break up established Unions, or to weaken Union security. (b) It would be a constant menace to public peace by fomenting strikes and disorder. (c) It benefits neither the Union nor the non-Union man, nor even management. Anti-Union Rehash The wording of Proposition No. 12, if taken as it stands, appears obscure. It "Declares right of employ- ment, free from interference"-0bviously a rehash of old standard anti-Union language-confusing, dis- ruptive. Throughout the country, before legislatures, attorneys of corporations hostile to Unions urge the same argument. Security Blighter It might be added that the terms "right of employ- ment, free from interference" as used in Proposition No. 12, involve a certain amount of contradiction be- cause if a man employed in an open shop can be forced to work for a wage less than the Union scale, his right to a living wage is thus interfered with and he is re- duced to a condition of slavery. Moreover, in practice, if regulations and restrictions necessary to protect the well being of all concerned be interpreted as "interference," then every business and profession suffers "interference" because multiple laws, codes, ethical standards are set up in an effort to regulate the conduct of a business, a profession, or an individual for the protection of the majority. Admitting the popularity of the slogans, "liberty," "freedom of action," "right to act without inter£er-

ence," they still require prudent explanation, for the plain reason that in civilized communities no one can justly claim freedom to trample on the rights of others. Certainly, no one is morally free to batten on the sweat of unrequited labor. To Widen Rift Moreover, those responsible for Proposition No. 12 may not realize that they are promoting hostility between two classes of society, Capital and Labor. This is abhorrent, especially in view of the present world conflict and the magnificent record of both manage- ment and labor, not only in producing war materials, but in sending their sons and daughters to the front. Without resorting to courts and radical legislation, in- telligent representatives of labor and management can discuss and compose their differences around a table. Capital will not deny that as soon as labor develops an alert and capable leader, effort is made (and too often, successfully) to "promote" him to the management. Now, what is the actual record of the open shop? It has been given a fair trial and, for the most part, has proved a failure. The majority of responsible business- men, who respect the rights of labor, and who have had a wide experience with both open and closed shops, prefer the latter, and have expressed that preference by going on record as opposed to Proposition No. 12. Sound Principle "In summary, let this be laid down as a general and constant law: "Workers' associations ought to be so constituted and so governed as to furnish the most suitable and most convenient means to attain the object proposed, which consists in this, that the individual members of the association secure, so far as possible, an increase in the goods of body, of soul, and of property." ("Rerum Novarum," May 15, 1891.)