Standing up to union bullies such as Harold Daggett of the International Longshoremen’s Association is a long-standing part of National Review‘s mission. The statement explaining NR’s purpose from the first issue of the magazine said NR “will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular.”
That manifested itself in NR’s firm opposition to the United Auto Workers’ yearslong strike against Kohler. When pro-union voices called for a boycott of Kohler, NR called for people to buy Kohler products, even if they didn’t need them. The September 8, 1956, issue of NR said, “If Kohler starts producing peanut butter, we’ll eat Kohler Peanut Butter till it comes out of our ears.” In a different editorial, NR said the Kohler strike was “crucial” because it demonstrated “the determination by the majority of the community not to succumb to the intimidations of the violent predators of our society.”
At least once, a union came after NR directly. In the February 8, 1956, issue, NR republished a “form letter from Mr. William Talbot of the New York Typographical Union No. 6” that it had received. The letter said:
Dear Sir:
I have before me several copies of printed matter issued by your organization. I feel that you are friendly to organized labor, but note the omission of the New York Allied Printing Trades Council Union Label on the printing referred to.
The more than 2,000,000 members of labor unions in Greater New York, together with their friends, look for the Allied Union Label on printing. It is the only emblem recognized by the general labor movement as an assurance that the literature was produced under fair conditions in this city.
I feel that you will appreciate having your attention called to this matter.
May we anticipate that you will give consideration to this matter in the same friendly spirit in which it is presented, and that you will advise us of your cooperation to our mutual benefit. Very truly yours . . .
NR did consider the matter, and replied:
Dear Mr. Talbot:
We checked with the little job printer who printed the material in question. It seems the printers there don’t want to join your organization. They are well pleased with the management, and their pay happens to be higher than the pay you insist on for your members.
We know you will be happy to learn that there are evidently other means of assuring that printed literature is produced under fair conditions than the appearance of your label on it.
Friendlily,
National Review