to which he is not a party; curtails his freedom of association; associates him with a group to which, for whatever reason-good, bad, or indifferent-he does not wish to belong; coerces him to organize although he prefers to remain unattached; spurns outsiders; scorns minority protection; merges minorities with majorities; and makes unions all-inclusive of employees eligible for membership. In producing compulsory unionism, the union shop contract partakes in two major social orders of compulsion and servility, both repugnant to the American people and Government.

The union shop contract partakes in the social order of medieval feudalism. That order developed an institution equivalent to what we call the union shop. It was in fact all union. A major tenet of feudalism was the rule, nulle terre sans seigneur-no land without its overlord. To Prof. Goetz A. Briefs of Georgetown University, a lifelong protagonist of organized labor, we owe the realization that the union shop contract resuscitates that ancient rule. The feudal order swallowed the independent yeomanry; forced every freeman into submission and into payment of dues to a lord. Similarly the union shop contract swallows the independent employee; forces him into submission and into the payment of dues to a union. It insures that in an organized trade there be no job without its union. The union shop contract belongs to the Dark Ages. It represents a social institution that we had thought had been forever buried in the tombs of history.

The union shop contract also partakes in modern totalitarianism. Compulsory unionism is a Fascist and a Communist institution. Consistent with their basic social philosophy, both fascism and communism insure the organizing of all wage and salary earners, scorn minorities, and do not tolerate outsiders. The totalitarians merely differ in the techniques of coercion used.

In the case of Mussolini's Italy, membership in the official unions was automatic. Coercion was a legal arrangement. Every employee had to pay dues to and was represented and supervised by the proper association or federation. In the case of Nazi Germany an act of joining was required. Coercion was extralegal. The official organizations compelled employees to join. The German Labor Front openly boasted about the pressure it exercised. Moreover, membership in the Labor Front was a prerequisite for any job. In the case of the Soviet Union, not unlike Nazi Germany, employees are technically free to join or not to join. The shop is not ostensibly "closed." Signing up is none the less in fact compulsory. The coercion is institutional, in addition to being a matter of pressure from both government and management. It is in the overwhelming power position of the unions. The unions perform most of the functions of a Ministry of Labor. They administer the social security system. They distribute vacation privileges such as accommodation in rest homes and health resorts. They even share responsibility in allocating much of the available housing space. It is practically impossible for a wage or salary earner to stay outside the proper union, though official Soviet figures suggest that some manage to do so, perhaps temporarily, or perhaps because they work only parttime or casually. The ILO, which can be depended upon for anxiously avoiding to hurt the feelings of any member government, reported in a 1960 monograph on the Trade Union Situation in the U.S.S.R. that "it has become a socially accepted tradition that all workers in a factory join the union."

Admittedly, the outsider is a "free rider." He fails to support the union whose action benefits him; he gets something for nothing. But this is an argument against rather than in favor of the union shop contract. It is not abnormal in our society for a person to be a free rider. It is in fact an accepted and widely practised norm. My local Citizens Association includes but 400 out of some 10,000 neighbors eligible for membership. The nonmembers benefit from the action of the group without supporting it. They get something for nothing. They are free riders. This may disappoint but does not incense the group, and we do not raise a fuss about it. Nor of course would the group dream of pleading a law enabling Citizens Associations to compel outsiders to affiliate. Or take the case of the American Cancer Society. How many Americans adhere to or otherwise support it? A handful. Yet the Society distributes its services and achievements indiscriminately and uncomplainingly to members and to nonmembers, to contributors and to noncontributors, indeed to the public at large, even to other countries, and while it may be desirable for you and me to join, we neither blame ourselves nor are we being blamed for staying out. We are all free riders. In fact, short of carrying hundreds or thousands of membership cards, none of us can help riding free on somebody else.

Nor is there anything wrong with free ridership, if practiced within reason. Our society is not a merely commercial one, a society of equivalents, of barter and exchange, of payment for services rendered, of quid pro quo. It is also a generous, an openhanded one. It is a Christian society, a society of mutual responsibilities where, under the command of God, by common consent, we are to some degree one another's keeper; a society where we nearly all do things for one another without expecting or receiving returns or compensations other than the consciousness of having assisted our fellowman, of supporting a good cause, of fulfilling a moral obligation. Free ridership in unions falls not only in an unquestioned and unquestionable social pattern. It is also perfectly consistent with our basic social philosophy for unions to live with and to bestow benefits upon free riders.

Moreover, it is not for labor unions to object to free ridership. For they themselves are free riders par excellence. They claim and they get more for nothing than any other group in the community. In negotiating agreements it is their policy to demand, and they usually will receive, increases in the compensation of workers in direct ratio to the increases in the productivity of labor. But labor contributes relatively little to its rising productivity. The rising productivity of labor is principally due to the theoretical and applied sciences, to the advances of technology, to the investment decisions of capital, to the skills of management, to countless organizing and educational endeavors, in short to the concerted efforts of the community. Yet the unions do not hesitate to assert preferential rights in the fruits of those efforts, in fruits not primarily of their own growing, rather than seeing to it, as well they might, that those fruits be redistributed to the whole community, including labor, by way of lowering prices.

The preceding statement does not make a case for the blackleg. The friend of organized labor will wish unions to be as fully inclusive of eligibles as possible. But in our free society the answer to the blackleg is not compulsory unionism. It is in the appeal for solidarity; in more attractive unions; in unions shorn of abuse of power; of corruption; of cutthroats; of overpaid executives; and of stolen votes.

IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

FOURTH LEGISLATURE FIRST SESSION

In the Senate-By the Labor and Management Committee

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 52

Relating to legislation to repeal section 14(b) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 authorizing State enactment of right-to-work laws

Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Alaska:

Whereas section 14(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 permits States and territories of the United States to prohibit contractual agreements between labor and management requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition to continued employment; and

Whereas section 14(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 is not in the public interest and is a detriment to the entire economy of the United States because it restricts the right of labor to collective bargain freely with management, thereby reducing the opportunity of individual working men and women to realize the full economic and social benefits of our society; and

Whereas a substantial number of the Members of the Congress of the United States has recognized that section 14(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 is not in the public interest and the Congress is presently considering legislation which would repeal section 14(b); Be it

Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of Alaska supports the repeal of section 14(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, and urges the Congress of the United States to repeal section 14(b); and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the Honorable Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the United States; the Honorable Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor; the Honorable Lister Hill, chairman of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee; the Honorable Adam C. Powell, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee; and the Honorable E. L. Bartlett and the Honorable Ernest Gruening, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Ralph J. Rivers, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress.

AUTHENTICATION

The following officers of the legislature certify that the attached enrolled resolution, Senate Joint Resolution No. 52, was passed in conformity with the requirements of the constitution and laws of the State of Alaska and the uniform rules of the legislature.

Passed by the senate, March 5, 1965.

INTERNATIONAL APPLE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Washington, D.C., May 25, 1965.

Congressman FRANK THOMPSON, Jr.,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, House Education and Labor Commit-
tee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: The freedom of choice is yours-your committee's-and the Congress.

The "choice" is simple-to keep section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, or to repeal it.

However, if Congress were to repeal the right-to-work clause, they would be denying the right of freedom of choice to countless hundreds of thousands of American citizens—a right granted under our Constitution for freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of association. Repeal would seriously weaken the fundamental right of every citizen to work in his chosen occupation. Without the protection of 14(b), it would be possible for organized labor, across our 50 States, to force an employee to join a union and pay dues to secure and hold a job. This would be true even though the employee's dues money could be used to support activities and philosophy completely contrary to his thinking or even his religion in some cases.

As we all know, section 14(b) simply outlaws compulsory unionism in those States which, under our democratic processes, enact a right-to-work law. In those States the law will not permit any person to compel any other person to join and/or pay money to a union. Persuasion is allowed and encouraged. Compulsion alone is forbidden. The State law simply keeps the door to unionism open both ways.

State right-to-work laws do not discriminate against unions or subvert any national ideal. On the contrary, these laws maintain a standard of noncoercion and voluntarism so basic to our American ideals and democracy.

To us the moral question involved is clearly in favor of nonrepeal. From the economic point of view the same is true. Information based on data from various U.S. Government agencies dramatically emphasizes the greater rate of economic progress during the past decade in right-to-work States as compared with the national average and the rate in States not having right-to-work laws. In these right-to-work States the rate of increase in nonagricultural employees, new manufacturing jobs, production workers, capital expenditures, per capita income, hourly earnings of manufacturing workers, bank deposits, motor vehicle registrations, retail sales and retail establishments, to list a few, exceeds the national average and the rate of progress in non-right-to-work States. Details confirming this economic progress, we assume will be submitted for the record by the National Right-to-Work Committee.

In our opinion there are two principles involved in this question of repeal or no repeal of section 14(b). On the unions' repeal side the principle is one of coercion and compulsion. On the no repeal side the principle is one of democratic freedom, noncoercion, and voluntarism.

During the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act the validity and consequences of these two divergent principles were carefully studied and fully debated. Congress in its wisdom decided on the democratic and constitutional principle; namely, approval of section 14 (b).

On behalf of the members of the International Apple Association, Inc., who produce and/or handle in excess of 75 percent of the commercial apple and winter pear crops, we vigorously and sincerely urge your subcommittee to reject the move to repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. In so doing you will be approving the earlier footsteps of President Johnson who voted for the Taft-Hartley Act, voted against a veto of 14 (b) and campaigned for a right-to-work law in Texas.

Since the hearings have been reportedly limited to oral testimony by the larger interests and groups involved, we request this letter be made part of the record of the hearings re repeal of section 14(b).

Sincerely,

FRED W. BURROWS.

WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
Laramie, Wyo., April 29, 1965.

Congressman FRANK THOMPSON, Jr.,
Chairman, Labor Subcommittee,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: We would appreciate having the following remarks entered into the records of your subcommittee hearing with respect to section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley law. This statement represents the position of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation.

"The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation is the largest agricultural organization in Wyoming, representing approximately 8,000 family members. Our policy positions are determined by the members through a series of policy development meetings.

"In 1962, the delegates to the State annual meeting reaffirmed their position on right-to-work laws. Our policy statement reads in part *** 'We believe it is fundamental that the right to voluntary unionism should once again be reestablished in this Nation and that State right-to-work laws should be maintained inviolate.'

"As a consequence of this position, our organization strongly supported the passage of right-to-work legislation by the Wyoming Legislature in 1963, and worked to retain the law in 1965.

"In our minds, the issue is very clear-should a private organization be granted the monopoly power to force membership or should the decision lie with the employee himself? We feel that Congress has the responsibility of guaranteeing the individual his freedom to choose.

"We further feel that Congress would be clearly in error to take from the States their right to decide for themselves in this important issue.

"American agriculture now faces a difficult time, characterized by an evertightening cost-price squeeze. The repeal of section 14(b) would serve to make even more difficult the position of the farmer in this respect.

"The American Farm Bureau Federation policy regarding compulsory unionism, which we helped to develop, States in part * * * 'We support section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which authorizes State legislation prohibiting compulsory unionism.'

"We wholeheartedly support this position and urge your committee to uphold section 14(b) and the individual and State rights which are inherent in it." Thank you for the opportunity to submit these views. Sincerely yours,

CRAIG L. THOMAS,
Executive Secretary.

RIGHT-TO-WORK RESOLUTION

Eighteen years ago section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act gave to the States the right to enact legislation prohibiting union membership as a condition of employment.

Successive Congresses refused to repeal this section of Taft-Hartley, which gave the States a negative jurisdiction in an area that the Federal Government

otherwise had properly preempted. The tide of so-called right-to-work laws by States reached a crest of more than 20, and 19 States still have them.

Now, however, the election of many labor-supported liberals and moderates to the 89th Congress, and the support of President Johnson, who called for repeal of section 14 (b) in his state of the Union message, give labor reason to hope that this Congress at last will rescind this unfair provision which denies organized workers and their employers freedom of contract and imposes on union members the burden of subsidizing those who refuse to join a union even though they are covered by the union's contract and enjoy its benefits and protections.

The Indiana Legislature already has repealed that State's so-called right-towork law, and the New Mexico Legislature has refused to enact one.

Labor's opponents in Congress, recognizing that repeal of section 14(b) is now likely, have embarked on a new tack: to impose new restrictions on labor as the price of its repeal.

Representative Griffin, Michigan Republican, who was coauthor of the Landrum-Griffin Act, has announced he favors 14(b) repeal-but with several strings attached, the main one barring unions from spending dues on political action or in support of social legislation if the legislation did not pertain directly to collective bargaining.

Union members have had to pay the price of 14 (b) for 18 years. No further price should be exacted. No new restrictions should be placed on union members' right to decide democratically how their dues should be spent, either to advance their interests as workers or as citizens.

The IEB of the ANG calls upon the 89th Congress to repeal section 14(b) without imposing new restrictions on organized labor. It calls upon the President to use his offices in support of repeal without new restrictions. It calls upon ANG locals to urge Congressmen from their districts to work for repeal without new restrictions.

Adopted by the International Executive Board of the American Newspaper Guild, in session February 15-18, 1965, Washington, D.C.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES

I am Richard T. O'Connell, secretary of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. The national council is an organization of farmer-owned and farmer-controlled cooperatives consisting of 92 direct members which are affiliated with 5,700 local farmer cooperatives serving approximately 3 million farmer memberships.

.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on the proposed repeal of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.

The policy of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives on this subject is as follows:

"Voluntary participation in organizations.-The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives believe individuals or individual groups have the right to organize for many economic purposes, such as improvement of their economic position through increased bargaining power. The Federal Government should encour age such activity. Participation in, and loyalty to, such organizations can best be achieved when each individual or individual group has the privilege of joining, on a voluntary basis, as do farmers when forming and supporting a cooperative association.

"We urge Congress to refrain from enacting legislation which will remove the right of an individual to decide whether any existing or proposed organization serves his best interests. We also urge Congress to refrain from enacting legislation to remove from State or territorial governments the right to pass laws protecting individuals from being required to join an organization, or paying a sum equivalent to dues in an organization, as a prerequisite for hiring or continuing employment."

The policy of the national council states clearly our position on organizations created for economic betterment of individuals or individual groups. Therefore, we are opposed, as a matter of principle, to the repeal of section 14(b).

We believe the objectives of farmer cooperatives are analogous to those of labor unions. They both operate to increase the bargaining power and the income of the members of their respective organizations. However, it is our belief that the best system in obtaining strong and viable farmer cooperatives is through voluntary memberships. We suggest the same approach for organized labor.