These independent businessmen, represented by the National Oil Jobbers Council, vigorously oppose passage of H.R. 77, which would repeal section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.

Numerically, most of the Nation's independent oil jobbers have not been subjected to unionization of their employees. The exceptions are jobbers located in large metropolitan areas and in areas heavily dominated by organized labor. In those instances where jobbers have been compelled to employ union labor, man-hour productivity is lower than with jobbers who have more selectivity in employment and greater voice in termination of employees who do not measure up to standards of productivity necessary to insure the jobber's economic existence. An example is the case of truckdrivers where all drivers of a certain category are required by union contract to be paid the same wage. The productivity of the good driver tends to lower toward the productivity of the mediocre since the pay is the same. In a nonunion jobber operation, the jobber may pay the more productive jobbers higher wages than those which are less productive. In brief, unionization of the jobber's operation, even with identical pay scales for the nonunion operation, results in less per man-hour productivity.

The jobber is not opposed to union organization and collective-bargaining as a matter of principle-he simply has learned from experience that both he and his employees fare better under the nonunion shop arrangement. This is probably due to the fact that the great majority of jobbers have only a few employees, work closely with them and, in effect, the whole operation is of such a nature that no single employee needs a bargaining agent but, to the contrary, can bargain better for himself since he has access to the "boss" on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, many of the jobber's employees are men who do not wish to become members of a union but, to the contrary, treasure their independence and still believe that by giving an honest day's work he can bargain for himself an honest day's pay.

Jobbers not only oppose this bill from the standpoint of the potential economic impact on their own operations but, probably of more consequence, oppose the bill as a matter of principle. Jobbers-like all small, independent businessmen-treasure their independence. They recognize that this independence is not a state or condition which, when once attained, is tattooed on forever. To the contrary, thy recognize that independence-whether as an individual, a group, or a nation-is a privilege or state that requires daily effort and toil to preserve. No jobber is compelled to belong to any State or National trade association before he can procure supplies for resale to his customers, and every jobber would fight with all vigor to oppose a law which required him to do so. He likewise feels that his employees should be left with the free choice for determining whether they wish to belong to a labor union or not, and certainly that no employee should ever be required to belong to anything before he could get a job at a place of business where he wanted to work and from an employer who wanted his services.

For all too many years, the Federal Government has viewed employers as solely consisting of large, well capitalized monopolies on the one hand, and employees as underpaid, oppressed individuals on the other hand. The end result of this viewpoint has been to give more and more power to organized labor and with too little thought for the small businessman and the employee who wants no part of organized labor but prefers to stand or fall on his own abilities. There are still many employees in this country who do not wish to be bound to any labor organization and the elimination of so-called right-towork laws minimizes the opportunity for these individuals to procure employment without first joining the "club."

We vigorously support freedom to worship, freedom of speech, and a limited few other freedoms which have not been taken away by legislative or judicial edict. Why should we deprive the laborer of his freedom to work except after paying dues to a labor organization? Why should we deprive the small business employer of his right to employ one of these laborers, who still prizes his independence, and instead require that employer to tell this man that he first must join the union?

What this bill in essence does is to tell the independent workingman that he no longer has that privilege of independence; it has been transferred to the local union who will henceforth do his bargaining for him and, thereafter. he becomes a union chattel bound by viewpoints and policies that he has no voice in making, subjected to rules and regulations that he disagrees with, and to pay dues for something that he has always been able to do better for himself.

If this be considered an extension of freedom, a stimulant for initiative and an act in furtherance of preserving what little pride of craftsmanship that remains in this Nation, then pass the law. When the Congress has done so. however, they have driven another nail in the citizen's individual coffin of liberty.

NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION,

Washington, D.C., June 9, 1965.

Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., Chairman, Special Labor Subcommittee of the House, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. THOMPSON: At the 1964 annual meeting of the National Milk Producers Federation, attended by dairy cooperative association leaders from all over the Nation, the federation members unanimously voted to oppose repeal of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act which guarantees the rights of the States to outlaw labor-management agreements that serve to deny the right to work to individuals who do not wish to join a union. The reason for the federation's position is, of course, embodied in the ideals of the cooperative associations owned by the dairy farmers represented through the National Milk Producers Federation. Dairy farmers, through their cooperatives, have consistently supported the right of individuals to voluntarily join together for the purpose of furthering mutual ideals and objectives, but individuals should not be required to join unions against their will. The federation, by this position, does not mean to imply opposition to labor unions as such, nor do we question the right of any individual to become a member of any organization he may choose. However, the decision to join a union, or for that matter, any other organization, should be left to each individual worker.

In the event that the Congress passes a bill which repeals section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, the right of the individual to decide for himself whether or not to join a union, as well as the right of the States to insure that its citizens shall have the right to obtain and maintain employment for which they are qualified, will be nullified. The result of such a law would be to impose compulsory unionism upon workers who, for entirely valid reasons of their own, do not desire to join a union.

It is the contention of proponents of the repeal of section 14 (b) of the TaftHartley Act that compulsory unionism and the union shop are merely extensions of the democratic principle of majority rule. Such a proposition completely overlooks the right of the minority to refuse to support organizations with which they are not in agreement.

Similarly, the argument that all individuals are benefited by union representation and, therefore, all individuals should be required to belong to the union so as to share the cost is not a valid argument. There are many situations other than in the labor field where the benefits received are not always commensurate with the contribution made by the individuals receiving the benefits.

In order to protect the freedom of choice of the individual, the Federation must oppose repeal of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.

We appreciate the opportunity to express our views to the Special Labor Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor and respectfully ask that you make this letter a part of the record of the hearings on this subject.

Sincerely,

E. M. NORTON, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. KILLICK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE NATIONAL INDEPENDENT MEAT PACKERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is John A. Killick. I am executive secretary of the National Independent Meat Packers Association, the offices of which are located at 1820 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. We wish to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present to it this statement expressing the opposition of the National Independent Meat Packers Association to H.R. 77 and other bills which would repeal section 14(b) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947.

Our association is comprised of several hundred meatpacking plants located in all parts of the United States which are engaged in virtually every aspect

of meatpacking industry operations. The word "independent" in the title of our association's name in general (although there are notable exceptions) indicates that our members operate a single plant serving a community or region, in contrast to meatpackers whose products have national or near-national distribution. Essentially, our members are important factors in the economic and civic life of their local communities, with very little "absentee" ownership or management represented amongst them.

Repeal of section 14(b) of the Labor-Management Relations Act would enable unions to demand that employers enter into agreements with them which would require that an individual employee must join the union, even though he may not wish to do so, or else lose his job. At present, individual workers in the numerous States which have enacted "right to work" laws are permitted the freedom to choose whether or not they wish to belong to a union. Repeal of section 14(b) would wipe out this freedom with one stroke and would undo, by Federal legislative fiat, all of the efforts of the States which one-by-one over the past 18 years have been enacting laws to preserve this freedom. The board of directors of the National Independent Meat Packers Association (NIMPA) therefore passed, on April 8, 1965, the following policy resolution:

"NIMPA is opposed to any legislation which would deprive individuals of their freedom of association or which would prevent any State from protecting its sovereign citizens against compulsory membership in any association or group, including a labor organization, as a requisite of employment."

The right of an individual employee not to have to join a labor union if he does not wish to do so is not just an academic right but is one which has very practical ramifications. In the first place, the right of individuals to withhold support from a union which is not responsive to their wishes is a very beneficial force toward responsible unionism, since this tends to make the union leadership consider and be responsive to the wishes of all the members and not solely the majority. Furthermore, it tends to prevent "bossism" among union leadership since the members can freely express their dissatisfaction by resigning from the union instead of being compelled to support financially a regime which they believe to be contrary to their best interests.

The proponents of repeal of 14(b) have argued that compulsory unionism does not require individual employees to attend union meetings and participate in union activities, but only to pay the unions' initiation fees and dues. It is important to note, however, the very substantial and active amount of lobbying activities now carried on by unions on both the national and local level. This factor produces what perhaps is the most insidious result of compulsory unionism, i.e., a requirement that an individual employee, in order to keep his job, must support financially an organization which is actively engaged in political activities which may be directly contrary to his own political beliefs. For the reasons set forth above, the National Independent Meat Packers Association is strongly opposed to any legislation which would repeal section 14(b) of the Labor-Management Relations Act.

I am authorized to state that the views expressed above also reflect the position of the Eastern Meat Packers Association, which I serve as secretary. This association, organized in 1927, is a separate and autonomous group of the leading independent meatpacking firms located along the eastern seaboard, from New England as far south as Maryland and Delaware, all the members of which belong to one or, usually, both of the two national industry trade associations.

We wish to close by again thanking the subcommittee for this opportunity to present, for your record, the viewpoints of these responsible groups of the Nation's independent meatpackers.

Hon. FRANK THOMPSON,

RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., June 10, 1965.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, House Education and Labor Committee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: I am pleased to furnish you with the following statement of the position of the Retail Clerks International Association on the proposed legislation to repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, as requested.

We should like to express our thanks to the subcommittee for the opportunity to state our views on the proposed legislation to eliminate section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. The RCIA now represents almost 450,000 workers in the retail industry of the United States. As this committee is no doubt aware, retailing is an industry in which wages are quite low as compared to other industries and in which hours are frequently long.

Ever since the founding of our organization we have sought to improve the standards for wages and hours, and in many areas where we have achieved modest economic strength we have been able to attain our objectives. Inspection of the terms of the more than 3,000 collective bargaining agreements we have on file reveals that wage rates in our contracts range on the average 25 percent higher than in adjacent nonunionized sectors. Further, the 40-hour workweek is standard in our agreements.

These achievements, in which we take pride, are in a sense reflections of the traditional national labor policy established in this country under the original Wagner Act. A strong labor movement contributes immeasurably to the national economy. It provides institutional support for an adequate level of purchasing power and by insistence on decent standards in the store or shop it enables workers to enjoy the fruits of their labor. But the efforts of the labor unions extend beyond the limits of their members' interests; nowhere is this revealed more strikingly than in the case of minimum wage legislation which protects all employees. The wages of our members are markedly above statutory minimums, yet our support of the 1961 extension was an expression of our deep concern for the millions of unorganized retail workers who in many cases were being paid as little as 50 cents an hour. And it is interesting to observe that most of the States which have taken advantage of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act are precisely those in which such low wage rate levels were prevalent.

For the fact is that earnings in the so-called right-to-work States continuously run below the national average. The Department of Labor reported in its Bulletin No. 1380 (Employee Earnings in Retail Trade, June 1962), that average hourly earnings for nonsupervisory employees in retailing for the United States as a whole had been $1.68 an hour, in the southern section, however, which includes most of the right-to-work States the average is $1.39 an hour. In the Northeastern States the average was $1.81 an hour and in the West $2.05 an hour. The average wage rate for RCIA contracts runs even higher than these earnings averages close to $2.50 an hour.

It seems evident that there is a close relationship between the desire of certain States to maintain open shop conditions and the low level of wage rates and earnings of workers in those States. Nor can it be said tha minimum wage legislation entirely solves the problem for the workers in these States, for the fact is that as of June 1962, 27 percent of male retail workers and 38 percent of female retail workers in these States were still receiving less than $1 an hour in straight time earnings. While part of this situation may be corrected by further strengthening of minimum wage legislation, the major factor will be, no doubt, an active, determined labor movement seeking to improve standards through free collective bargaining.

But in our experience the right-to-work States desire open shop conditions as a device for weakening the labor movement. A union which is certified as a bargaining agent must under the law represent all the workers in an establishment. Open shop conditions merely result in a dissipation of the union's energies and efforts, for they create situations of turnover in membership that create insecurity for the union as an organization seeking to provide service not only for its members, but all the workers in the establishment. Those who are not members derive a service benefit for which they have not contributed their fair share. They are freeloaders, the type of person that would not be tolerated in any other service organization, whether it be a "Y" or a Kiwanis or a fraternal organization.

Further, in an industry such as retailing, in which turnover tends to be higher than in other fields and which is afflicted by heavy part-time employment. the position of the union is weakened and diluted under open shop conditions. We insist that the ultimate sufferer is the worker himself. He has no opportunity to learn about the nature and function of unions and the services unions provide unless he has experienced union membership. And he cannot participate in that experience when the union has been weakened by open shop legislation.

Most workers are aware of these facts: otherwise we could not explain the fact that in the union shop authorization polls conducted by the NLRB in the late 1940's, 97 percent of employees voted for the union shop. Moreover, employers have come to recognize the value of the union shop, for it stabilizes labor-management relations, provides for responsibility by placing the union in a better position to maintain its agreements, and encourages more effective cooperation between employer and employee.

It might be of interest to this committee to know that 95 percent of RCIA agreements have some form of union security, while 86 percent are straightforward union shop agreements. None of the horrendous situations described by proponents of 14(b) have yet occurred in the areas where union shop conditions prevail. Our relations with management are normal. On the other hand, there are large chains operating in the right-to-work States who have used open shop legislation to keep unions out of their stores and to continue to exploit their employees-and I use the word "exploit" advisedly, for their wages and working conditions can only be described as primitive.

The term "right to work" is a misnomer. The correct term should be "open shop"-a device that notoriously has been used to undermine unions. We know that such is not the policy advocated by Congress. We know that a strong trade union movement contributes enormously to a healthy and vigorous America. We know that Congress agrees on that objective with the labor movement. It is for these reasons that we urge passage of legislation to effectuate repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.

Sincerely,

JAMES A. SUFFRIDGE, International President.

STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC.

This statement is filed on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. of Baltimore, Md., an employers' organization most of whose members are engaged in the construction industry. There are 1,358 of these members, located in 8 States and having some 70,000 employees.

The members of this association are opposed to the enactment of H.R. 77 or similar legislation and urge that section 14 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act should be continued in its present form. In taking this position this association suggests that this issue is one of the most important to confront the 89th Congress. It is highly important for two reasons:

First, labor laws of which section 14 (c) is representative are a matter of extreme public concern because they directly affect more people than any other type of legislation except our tax laws.

Second, in the issue of 14 (b) repeal a basic freedom of millions of individuals is involved. Without this provision in the law powerful unions would always be able to extract contracts from many employers that would take away from employees their freedom of choice to join or not to join a union. This power for certain unions as a possible fact of industrial life is in itself enough to make the problem one of serious concern.

Who urges repeal of section 14(b)?

Why does this issue confront us? It confronts us basically because labor union officials are trying to arrogate more power to themselves. It is the same group that tenaciously opposed any revision of the Wagner Act and called the Taft-Hartley Act a slave labor law. It is the same group that always opposed legislation to protect neutrals against the evils of the secondary boycott. It is the same group that opposed the reforms that were embodied in the Landrum-Griffin Act.

This group has always believed it quite proper to compel union membership of minority employees. It would take us back to the Wagner Act days, when the closed shop was valid, if it could. Unable to do that, it goes as far as it can when it seeks repeal of section 14(b) so as to validate the union shop as a form of compulsory unionism in all 50 States.

It was a group of such union leaders who called at the White House last December and urged repeal. They were in turn the hard core to promote repeal through the powerful AFL-CIO Legislative Conference in Washington last January. They have been the foremost exponents of repeal in the hearings on the subject before the Special Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee.