And it should continue to be the national policy!

But as yet, not all of us have learned what it means to bargain freely and fairly.  Nor have all of us learned to carry the mutual responsibilities that accompany the right to bargain.  There have been abuses and harmful practices which limit the effectiveness of our system of collective bargaining.  Furthermore, we have lacked sufficient governmental machinery to aid labor and management in resolving their differences.

Certain labor-management problems need attention at once and certain others, by reason of their complexity, need exhaustive investigation and study.

We should enact legislation to correct certain abuses and to provide additional governmental assistance in bargaining.  But we should also concern ourselves with the basic causes of labor-management difficulties.

In the light of these considerations, I propose to you and urge your cooperation in effecting the following four-point program to reduce industrial strife: 

Point number one is the early enactment of legislation to prevent certain unjustifiable practices.

First, under this point, are jurisdictional strikes.  In such strikes the public and the employer are innocent bystanders who are injured by a collision between rival unions.  This type of dispute hurts production, industry, and the public—­and labor itself.  I consider jurisdictional strikes indefensible.

The National Labor Relations Act provides procedures for determining which union represents employees of a particular employer.  In some jurisdictional disputes, however, minority unions strike to compel employers to deal with them despite a legal duty to bargain with the majority union.  Strikes to compel an employer to violate the law are inexcusable.  Legislation to prevent such strikes is clearly desirable.

Another form of inter-union disagreement is the jurisdictional strike involving the question of which labor union is entitled to perform a particular task.  When rival unions are unable to settle such disputes themselves, provision must be made for peaceful and binding determination of the issues.

A second unjustifiable practice is the secondary boycott, when used to further jurisdictional disputes or to compel employers to violate the National Labor Relations Act.

Not all secondary boycotts are unjustified.  We must judge them on the basis of their objectives.  For example, boycotts intended to protect wage rates and working conditions should be distinguished from those in furtherance of jurisdictional disputes.  The structure of industry sometimes requires unions, as a matter of self-preservation, to extend the conflict beyond a particular employer.  There should be no blanket prohibition against boycotts.  The appropriate goal is legislation which prohibits secondary boycotts in pursuance of unjustifiable objectives, but does not impair the union’s right to preserve its own existence and the gains made in genuine collective bargaining.