Finally a union was formed at the plant, followed by a strike for demands which the firm said would force it to move to another State.

"We who didn't honor the strike were the dirty birds," Mrs. Scott recalled. "Bricks were thrown through my window at home, and when I drove to work I had to put my radio on as loud as I could to drown out the names they were calling us. It just made me surer than ever that I didn't want anything to do with an organization that can turn human beings into such violent animals. "Unions only show the sunny side of the picture-what they'll do for you. They don't tell you what they'll do to you while they're doing it for you.

"I think compulsion in anything is wrong, and if compulsory unionism ever comes to Aero, I would have to quit and give up 12 years of seniority. I won't live as a slave."

A glass cutter in Henryette, Okla., was forced by a union shop agreement to be in a union. At a meeting he objected to the union's holding him down to 10 boxes of work a day, when he could do 24. He was fined $5 for being out-of-order.

The next month he did not attend the meeting and was fined $3 for missing a meeting. In 7 years he claims he has accumulated $503 in fines from the union. Maurice W. Lee, Sr., an industrial education teacher at an all-Negro high school in Boley, opposes compulsory unionism for a different reason. He thinks it is one of the main reasons his graduates can't get jobs.

Mr. Lee, a jolly-faced, bespectacled Negro, spoke to a Nation's Business editor in the cramped office of the factory he built. There, after school hours, he and eight employees produce Lee-invented automatic barbecuers, hamburger cookers and devices that bake pies in the shape of ice cream cones.

"I'm looking for a good year, provided my men don't go union on me," Mr. Lee said with a laugh that quickly vanished.

"The sad truth is that about nine-tenths of the union locals still do not admit Negroes. Many of them won't even admit white persons unless they are relatives of present members.

He points out that admission to a trade union is determined by the men in the locals and not by the policy of the union's national body. It is almost impossible, he says, for Negroes to get into union apprenticeship training programs.

"There's a plant near here where nine Negroes are working," Mr. Lee says. "There have been two or three attempts to put a union shop in the plant. If they get a union shop, the firm would have to let all the Negroes go. The union would not let them in.

"Today a Negro has a better chance of getting into the building trades in the South where they have right-to-work laws than in the North where they don't." In the Tulsa area alone several firms have shut up shop and moved to right-towork States. The last one was the 100-employee Orbit Valve firm which last year relocated in neighboring Arkansas.

One Tulsa firm that almost moved out was Frank Wheatley Pump and Valve manufacturer. After a long strike the firm finally built up an almost wholly new corps of workers and continued production.

Union almost choked it

Charles H. Maddux, a slim, 51-year-old supervisor at Wheatley, told how the union gradually assumed more and more control over the firm until it almost choked it out of existence:

"I came to Wheatley 29 years ago right off the farm. The only thing I knew about unions then was that some man named John L. Lewis was causing all sorts of disruptions by calling coal miners off their jobs.

"I was assigned to run a drill press. Up to then it was the best job I ever had. So I signed right up with the union when the man said I'd stand to lose my job if I didn't.

"At first the union contract was just a single sheet of paper. But after a few years it had grown about the size of a Sears catalog. The union kept asking for more every year. It got so a supervisor in the machine shop couldn't even touch a wrench if he saw it out of place. He'd have to go upstairs and bring down a machinist to move it."

Mr. Maddux says the thing that hurt most was a seniority provision adopted 10 years ago.

"If an opening came along in a highly skilled job on, say, a boring mill, and a lot of persons signed up for it, do you know who would get the job?" Mr. Maddux asked. "Not the man on the list with the most ability, but the man with the most seniority-even if he happened to be the janitor."

Mr. Maddux pounded a muscular arm on the table in disgust.

"The result was decreasing incentive and increasing inefficiency," he went on. "As the equipment got more and more expensive, management wanted to get the most able, not the oldest, employees on the complicated machines."

Mr. Maddux, then an inspector at Wheatley, could see how the seniority ruling was affecting the finished product. He asked his fellow union members to accept a plan by which labor and management would decide together who was the most able man to take a new job. The idea was vetoed by union officials and shortly afterward a violent strike erupted, lasting over a year.

Wheatley hired a new crew of nonunion men and trained them to operate the machines. After a year, Mr. Maddox and 16 other former employees were asked to return and did. Efficiency rose higher than ever.

Kangaroo court gets 17

"The union held a kangaroo court and kicked all 17 of us out and put fines as high as $500 apiece on our heads to be paid if we become members again," Mr. Maddux says. "But then they turned around and said they would drop some of the fines if the new crew would vote the union back in."

A vote on a proposal to accept the union's representation was held at Wheatley last February 10. The employees defeated it, 97 to 1.

Raymond C. Losornio is president of Local 386 of the National Federation of Federal Employees. But he looks, dresses and talks like the owner of a large corporation and is one of Tulsa's strongest supporters of right-to-work laws.

"I've gone through a lot of abuse for my right-to-work stand," Mr. Losornio says. "My wife and I have gotten all kinds of anonymous phone calls and threats. But as a union man I firmly believe a person should have some say on how his dues are used.

"We don't have compulsory membership in our union and I think the result is healthy. We have to respond to the wishes of the group. If we don't the members will quit.

"An important part of my job is selling memberships. Compulsory unionism would do away with that chore. You no longer would have to be responsible to the people who pay the dues. I would rather bear that responsibility than

deny members their right to choose."

Stern-faced Tony Jorski, 46, of Oklahoma City, had his first run-in with union bosses in 1954 when he was a laborer on a river construction project. A union man told him he would lose his job if he did not pay a $35 initiation fee to the union and $2 a month thereafter.

Mr. Jorski paid up, but later learned that he did not have to.

Angered, Mr. Jorski started attending union meetings and asking questions, such as where the money was going and why more financial reports were not given.

When it came time to reelect or vote down the old officers, Mr. Jorski's paid-up union book was stolen from the glove compartment of his car and he could not vote.

Mr. Jorski says he kept sending in his dues checks but he did not get back canceled checks. Union men tried to get him fired for failing to pay his dues— something allowed under compulsory union contracts. But Mr. Jorski showed his employer his check stubs and convinced him that he was still a union member. The day after Mr. Jorski's picture appeared in a newspaper advertisement in support of the right-to-work amendment, however, he lost his job. This time the union closed ranks on Mr. Jorski so he could not get on another construction crew in central Oklahoma. For nearly 10 months he was out of work.

"We were smart enough to have a little money saved up," Mr. Jorski says, leaning back in a big, living room easy chair. His wife Dorothy, who got a job in a drugstore when her husband was out of work, approves thoroughly of his stand against the unions.

"It's the right thing," she called out from the kitchen between clinks of dishes. "This is still America, you know."

Mr. Jorski finally got a nonunion mechanic's job paying $75 a week. He had been making more than $100 a week on construction jobs.

"I've never been happier," Mr. Jorski says, "because I know I can get more if I'm worth it. I can deal directly with my boss now. I don't need a union to talk through. The difference between $100 and $75 is what the union would have me sell my freedom for."

AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER
WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA,

Chicago, Ill., June 9, 1965.

Hon. FRANK THOMPSON,

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor,
Committee on Education and Labor,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: Because of the urgency to speed legislation to repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, President George Meany has been the sole witness of the AFL-CIO unions in your hearings. We have not asked for time to testify because we, like other unions, are greatly interested in having the repeal legislation come before the House of Representatives as quickly as possible.

We strongly favor the enactment of H.R. 77 which you have introduced. We believe that such legislation is absolutely essential for the Nation's economic well-being and for labor-management peace and stability. We therefore fully endorse the testimony delivered by President Meany.

Only on Monday, June 7, the international executive board of our union adopted a resolution which urges all of our local unions and our members to strongly support H.R. 77.

The resolution said in part:

"The time is at hand to remove one of the worst pieces of legislation which has ever dirtied the statute books. Congress has begun action to repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which permits the so-called right-to-work laws.

"Section 14(b) was spawned in an effort to cripple labor unions. It was aimed at denying unions security, at forcing them into a continuous struggle simply to exist.

"In this way, the supporters of so-called right to work believed unions could be prevented from organizing additional workers, from negotiating better contracts and from participating in our Nation's legislative and political life. Unions will be so busy battling for their very existence that they will be able to do little else, these enemies of labor hoped.

"Fortunately, in most parts of the country this prediction did not prove true. Unions did continue to make progress. But in the areas where labor was organizationally and politically weakest, the so-called right-to-work laws did take their toll. And even in well organized areas, unions at times had to divert some of their efforts from their task of making economic and social progress for their members and the rest of the Nation in order to fight against attempts to pass 'right-to-wreck' laws.

"At long last, we are engaged in a national struggle to throw off this destructive legislation. The fight will be difficult and hard, but it must be won. Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act must be repealed."

Previously, our local 425 in Arkansas submitted to your committee a statement of the effect of the so-called right-to-work laws which section 14(b) permits. That statement provides full proof of the harm which the so-called right-to-work laws cause not only to workers, but also to all segments of the population. This proof could be repeated for the 18 other States which carry the so-called rightto-work legislation on their statute books.

Also, in other States-ones which have not suffered from the enactment of the so-called right-to-work laws great harm has been done by the periodic campaigns for such union-harming laws. Great bitterness has been caused in labormanagement relations. Great divisions have taken place in American society. If our Nation is to be united, this source of bitterness must be removed. We therefore urge your subcommittee, the full Committee on Education and Labor and the entire House of Representatives to speedily pass H.R. 77.

Very truly yours,

PATRICK E. GORMAN, International Secretary-Treasurer.

STATEMENT OF GORDON M. FREEMAN, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO

I am making this statement in my capacity as international president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. The Brotherhood was organized in 1891 and has a membership of approximately 850,000 in the United States and Canada. The international union has approximately 2,000 locals holding agreements with many thousands of employers in the following industries: electrical contracting; public utilities; electrical manufacturing; railroad; radio and television broadcasting; rural electric cooperatives; marine; electric signs, and telephone.

In the railroad industry, IBEW locals are authorized by law in each of the 50 States of the Union to enter into "union shop" agreements of the same type which section 8(a)(3) of the Taft-Hartley Act authorizes. This is so because the 1951 amendments to the Railway Labor Act do not contain a 14(b)-type provision. In all other industries IBEW locals may enter into such agreements only in the 31 non-right-to-work States. They may not enter into such agreements in the 19 right-to-work States. We do not not see any reason of policy or law justifying the distinction between the railroad industry and other industries engaged in commerce. We believe that the bill to repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act is desirable not only from the standpoint of establishing a uniform Federal rule for an industry subject to the Taft-Hartley Act but also for providing uniformity among all industries which are engaged in commerce. It should be recognized that the repeal of section 14(b) will not restore the union shop as it existed prior to the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Law. Under the Wagner Act, a union could enter into a union shop agreement with an employer provided that the union was the recognized representative of the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. Such an agreement required the employee to join the union and provided further that if he lost his membership he would lose his employment. The Taft-Hartley Act cut down these rights to the point where the only substantial requirement that could be imposed as a condition of employment was the tender of initiation fees and periodic dues. The union security provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act were opposed by the supporters of labor in the Congress. The minority report of the House Committee on Education and Labor stated with respect to the Hartley bill that:

"If this bill were designed, among other things, to outlaw the closed-shop, closed-union arrangement only, and to permit union security arrangements that were not based on the closed-union practice, it has gone far beyond what was needed to achieve that purpose. An employee who offers to pay the required dues and initiation fee may not be deprived of or denied employment by the employer if the union refuses to grant or continue his membership. This, in effect, means that the union is shorn of its power to discipline its own members for good cause. A spy, a stool pigeon, an antiunionist, any individual whose sole purpose is to destroy the union or bring it into disrepute by slander, defamation, or undisciplined action, can continue his activities with impunity. If he pays his dues and initiation fee, or rather offers to pay them, expulsion from the union does not carry the penalty of loss of employment, and therefore deprives the union's disciplinary action of any element of sanction or of deterrent effect" (1 Leg. Hist. of the Labor-Management Relations Act 1947, pp. 371-372).

It is this limited authorization of union security which is available in the non-right-to-work States and which would be extended to the right-to-work States by the repeal of section 14(b). This point is made very clear by the language of the statute and the rulings of the courts.

Section 8(b) (2) makes it an unfair labor practice for labor organizations "to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership." As long ago as 1951 in the Union Starch and Refining Company case, 186 F. (2d) 1008; cert. den. 342 U.S. 815, which was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and in which certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, the court held that an individual employee can refuse to apply for membership to the union, can refuse to attend meetings, can refuse to sign an oath of obligation, and, in fact, refuse to accept any incident of membership other than tendering payment of money. The court held that the Board's interpretation which was along these lines "was in harmony with the purpose of

Congress to prevent utilization of union security agreements except to compel payments of dues and initiation fees."

In the case of NLRB v. General Motors in 1963, 373 U.S. 734, the Supreme Court said: "If an employee in a union shop unit refuses to respect any union imposed obligations other than the duty to pay dues and fees, and membership in the union is, therefore, denied or terminated, the condition of 'membership' for section 8(a) (3) purposes is nevertheless satisfied and the employee may not be discharged for nonmembership even though he is not a formal member." And in Radio Officers Union v. Labor Board (1954), 341 U.S. 17, the Supreme Court made clear that this was precisely the intent of Congress. The Court said: "This legislative history clearly indicates that Congress intended to prevent utilization of union security agreements for any purpose other than to compel payment of union dues and fees. Thus Congress recognized the validity of unions' concern about 'free riders' (i.e., employees who receive the benefits of union representation but are unwilling to contribute their fair share of financial support to such union) and gave the unions power to contract to meet that problem while withholding from unions the power to cause the discharge of employees for any other reason

The foregoing discussion indicates that the Congress is not presented with the issue of so-called compulsory unionism when it is asked to repeal section 14(b). The net effect of the repeal will be to authorize a uniform rule for union security arrangements by which an individual employee may be required to tender payment for the various services he receives from the union.

It should be remembered that section 8(a)(3) of the Taft-Hartley Act was not written by the labor movement nor the supporters of labor in the Congress. Section 8(a) (3) was written by Congressman Fred Hartley and Senator Taft and their supporters. The repeal of section 14 (b) will not validate the union shop under the Wagner Act. It will validate as a uniform Federal rule the quite limited union security arrangements permitted by section 8(a)(3).

The legal obligation of a union which serves as the collective-bargaining agent for a unit is of broad scope. As stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Humphrey, et al. v. Moore, et al. (January 6, 1964), 375 U.S. 335, 342:

"The undoubted broad authority of the union as exclusive bargaining agent in the negotiation and administration of a collective-bargaining contract is accompanied by a responsibility of equal scope, the responsibility and duty of fair representation. Syres v. Oil Workers Union, 350 U.S. 892, 100 L. ed. 785. 76 S. Ct. 152, reversing 223 F. 2d 739; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U.S. 768, 96 L. ed. 1283, 72 S. Ct. 1022; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 89 L. ed. 187, 65 S. Ct. 235; Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 89 L. ed. 173, 65 S. Ct. 226. 'By its selection as bargaining representative, it has become the agent of all the employees, charged with the responsibility of representing their interests fairly and impartially.' Wallace Corp. v. Labor Board, 323 U.S. 248, 255, 89 L. ed. 216, 227, 65 S. C. 238. The exclusive agent's obligation 'to represent all members of an appropriate unit requires [it] to make an honest effort to serve the interests of all of those members, without hostility to any ***' and its powers are 'subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion'" (Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 337-338, 97 L. ed. 1048, 1058, 73 S. Ct. 681).

The legal duty of fair representation applies to all employees in the collectivebargaining unit regardless of whether they are members of the union.

The IBEW filed a test case against the Governor of Wyoming and the various county attorneys therein seeking to restrain the enforcement of the provision of the Wyoming right-to-work law which endeavored to prohibit the union hiring hall. A basic ground for the IBEW's position was the duty of the union to represent all employees in the bargining unit as specified by Federal law. The Supreme Court of Wyoming ruled in this case, which is known as IBEW v. Hansen, that Wyoming's effort to prohibit the union hiring hall was in conflict with the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and was, therefore, unconstitutional. A copy of this decision by the Wyoming Supreme Court is attached to this statement. The court quoted from an article by Professor Cox, who is now Solicitor General of the United States, as follows:

"The bargaining representative would be guilty of a breach of duty if it refused to press a justifiable grievance either because of laziness, prejudice, or unwillingness to expend money on behalf of employees who are not members of the union."