Right-to-work laws destroy sound labor-management relations. We, in New York City, have learned that collective bargaining between management and union is the democratic way. Very truly yours, ELI ELIAS, President. PRODUCE PACKAGING ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, DEAR MR. THOMPSON: The Produce Packaging Association is a national trade association of fresh fruit and vegetable packaging companies located throughout the country. Our membership represents all segments of the vast produce distribution industry from individual farmer to supermarket corporation. We respectfully request the views of the Produce Packaging Association regarding repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act be duly noted by the committee and entered into the record of committee hearings on this vital issue. It is our belief that the right to belong or not to belong to a trade union rests solely with the individual employee. Legislation that will deny this fundamental right of all workers in this age of greater civil rights awareness is deplorable. Voluntary unionism is not only morally right but it also forces labor organizations to sell themselves on merit and not by force or other means. The authority of States to enact right-to-work legislation is embodied in section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley bill. We, therefore, oppose any effort to repeal or weaken this act and thereby deprive workers of their freedom of choice regarding union membership. We urge the committee to reject any and all legislative proposals that would eliminate section 14(b). Otherwise, individual freedom will surely suffer. Sincerely yours, ROBERT L. CAREY, STATEMENT OF THE TEXAS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, POST OFFICE BOX 52428, HOUSTON, TEX. The Texas Manufacturers Association is a nonprofit Texas corporation composed of more than 2,800 member companies whose business executives work to improve the Texas business climate through united organized effort. The Texas Manufacturers Association believes that the natural and inalienable right of every person to exercise "freedom of choice" should be vigorously protected by the agents and agencies of government at every level of authority. To assure that this "freedom of choice" continues, the Texas Manufacturers Association respectfully urges retention of section 14(b) as a part of the TaftHartley Act. The following thoughts in support of retention are offered: Freedom to contract.-It has been stated by those seeking repeal that 14(b) should be repealed because it allows States to restrict the right of employers and unions to decide contract conditions. But shouldn't the right of employers and unions to contract be restricted in some areas, especially in those areas which have to do with a person's natural or inalienable right to associate, to exercise his "freedom of choice," for example, as to whether he will or will not join a labor union? How can the contractual rights of managements and unions transcend the natural right of a person to be free to make an uncoerced choice with respect to, in the final analysis, the earning of "daily bread" for himself and his family? How can a government, in good conscience, move to take away one's natural right to choose in this vital area of life without moving into the realm of tyranny? The Federal Government, in the past, has labored meticulously to protect the individual from any form of coercion or discrimination, contractual or otherwise, in the employment situation as evidenced in section 7 of Taft-Hartley which guarantees the right of the worker to engage in or refrain from any or all union activity. In fact, section 8(a)(1) prohibits the employer from interfering with the employee's right to choose. Further, the act makes it illegal for the employer to seek to contractually interfere with the employee's free choice. Would not repeal of 14 (b), in effect, present the paradox of a union and employer contracting away an employee's "right to choose"? Would not the employer be guilty of violating the act because of his aid to the union in agreeing to the union shop, thus organizing the unorganized through a "sweetheart" type of agreement? Repeal of 14(b) would open the door to discrimination of the worst sort.-This is inconsistent with our Nation's efforts to wipe out discrimination. Is not the administration putting itself in the paradoxical position of sponsoring discrimination against a person in violation of section 8(a) (3) which forbids an employer to discriminate in employment so as to encourage or discourage membership in a labor union? Is not the administration's effort to repeal 14 (b) in conflict with the antidiscrimination principles of this Nation as expressed in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? We submit that the enactment of repeal legislation would place the Federal Government in the position of switching its posture from one of antidiscrimination to one of discrimination against the worker in his employment situaton. The President in his labor message is quoted as saying, "Finally, with the hope of reducing conflicts in our national labor policy that for several years have divided Americans in various States, I recommend the repeal of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act with such other technical changes as are made necessary by this action." Does this statement imply that the coerced conformity to a "no-freedom-ofchoice" oneness will reduce conflicts? How? We submit that conflicts are not necessarily reduced by compulsion. The present loud protests of labor's leaders regarding 14 (b) may possibly be silenced by repeal, but in their place may arise the equally loud complaints of the coerced and neglected. We suggest that voluntarism disciplines the union leaders in that they must earn and keep their positions on the basis of merit. The unserved and disillusioned member may choose to withdraw his support; hence the principle of voluntarism reduces conflicts by making the union leadership more responsive to the needs and goals of the membership they represent. At the present time 14 (b) conveniently places the locale of the decision regarding the union shop at the statehouse level of the several States; thus tending to contain any conflict at that level. Would not repeal scatter any such conflict across our States like a prairie fire, intensifying it to a great degree? If labor peace is the goal of repeal of 14(b), how does the administration explain the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report to the effect that right-to-work States in 1963 experienced a loss of only 0.09 percent of their working time in strikes as compared to 0.14 percent in non-right-to-work States? The administration's stated hope that repeal of 14 (b) will reduce conflicts seems debatable in view of the fact that a 1964 opinion research corporation poll shows that: (1) Sixty-seven percent of the American people now believe that no person should be forced to belong to a union in order to hold his job, (2) Approximately 60 percent of the union members polled favored retention of 14 (b). The unions use the very questionable “free-rider” argument in support of repeal of 14(b).—This argument seems to be inconsistent because of the fact that the unions eagerly sought and pressured for the privileges to represent all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, regardless of the wishes of the minority employees, who are, in reality, "unwilling passengers." Why should the unions be given a second big privilege because of their complaint with their first big privilege? Would it not be the better part of wisdom for them to seek changes in Taft-Hartley that would require them to represent only their bargaining-unit members? Union leaders content that State right-to-work laws impede their organizational drives.-Does the evidence support this contention? The record shows that organized labor has grown to the point where some 17 million of our Nation's nonagricultural workers are now in their ranks. A Library of Congress publication reports that union membership went up in 40 percent of the right-to-work States in the period from 1958 to 1962. In the same period membership increased in only 30 percent of the non-right-to work States. Michigan, which has no right-to-work law, has been experiencing a rather static condition with respect to union growth; on the other hand, Arizona, a right-to-work State, has been experiencing a steady union growth. In the first quarter of 1965, for example, the unions in Texas, a right-to-work State, won 43 of 56 NLRB-conducted elections for a win figure of 76.8 percent as compared with a win figure of approximately 60 percent for the 2 previous years in Texas. The union's claim that right to work impedes progress and promotes low wages is of dubious validity.-The Bureau of Labor Statistics and other nationally recognized reports show that, in the 10-year period from 1953 to 1963, three right-to-work States led the Nation in the rate of new jobs created in business and industry, and that 3 of the top 5 and 7 of the top 10 States in the Nation in rate of gain in manufacturing hourly wage rates were right-to-work States. Too, isn't it a fact that wages, to a very great degree, are a function of productivity and capital investment, and thus tend to be highest where such investment has been most intense? Regional differences in wage levels, which appear to have little to do with union organization, also enter the wage picture to some degree. In the final analysis, must not some measure of wages, to be meaningful, be considered in terms of "real wages"? As to whether they are "low" or "high" must be decided in terms of what the wages will buy. The unions contend that “right to work” is a misnomer in that it does not guarantee employment.-Granted, but unions cannot guarantee employment either. Productivity and capital investment in an atmosphere of voluntarism create the most dynamic employment opportunities. Restrictions, whether by labor or Government policy, cause the employment opportunities to go elsewhere as in the case of jobs associated with steel wire products, that is, nails, barbed wire, et cetera. "Made in Belgium" now appears on many shipments received in the United States; and the job opportunities have gone overseas where, incidentally, there is a widespread dedication to the principle of voluntarism. Unions contend that the majority will should be imposed on all.-Isn't this an attempt to equate the union with a sovereignty? We have long recognized the rightful place of majority decisions at the various levels of government, but the principle of voluntarism has prevailed otherwise in private organizations. Has the time come when labor unions are to be accorded the status and privileges of a sovereignty? Exposure to unions notwithstanding, many workers choose not to belong.—All of the reasons for this choice are not based on a desire to avoid dues and assessments; among the other reasons are: (1) Confidence in the leadership of management. (2) Objections to the union leadership. (3) Objections to the union policies. (4) Objections due to conscience. (5) Objections based on religion. (6) Objections to the union in principle. In fact, 39 million of almost 56 million workers in nonagricultural establishments have not joined unions, and a substantial number of the nonjoiners have had many years of exposure to unionism. The following example demonstrates that many workers do not want to join a union: In the first quarter of 1965 in Texas, unions won 43 of 56 NLRBconducted representation elections in which 3,482 employees voted for the union and 2.336, or 40 percent of the employees voting, rejected the union. In the event or repeal of 14(b), the union leaders will surely use their new power to insist on (and possibly get) a union shop in every bargaining situation. And those great numbers of employees who have elected to reject the union will be coerced, on pain of losing their employment, into the union fold against their wishes and in violation of their natural "right to choose." Expanded union privileges will tend toward a power structure that will surely curtail the personal freedoms of all Americans. What are the union leaders really after?-complete domination of the political, social, and economic life of this Nation? If this is true, repeal of 14(b) will greatly enhance their position of dominance. Dominance of the several branches of our Federal Government could ultimately bring the administration to the position of "housekeeper" for the AFL-CIO executive council. What about the future of the minority political parties who have so long been effective "watchdogs" of our personal liberties? An increased concentration of political power into the hands of the union hierarchy would very possibly ultimately result in a single political party in the United States; thus it would follow that contests for office would be within the framework of the one party. CONCLUSION It has been wisely said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. A thorough examination of the history of the growth of power structures should convince all Americans that our Nation's best hope lies in the area of voluntarism with its attendant checks and balances against excesses. RESOLUTION Whereas section 14(b) of the so-called Taft-Hartley law presently provides for the determination by the several States of the need or desirability for the people of such States of so-called right-to-work laws to insure that no person shall be denied employment by reason of membership or nonmembership in organized labor unions and associations; and Whereas there have been recent indications of renewed and more strenuous efforts to amend this provision of the Taft-Hartley law so as to eliminate this right of determination by the several States and to deny by Federal legislation the right of an individual to join or refrain from joining such a union or association if a sufficient number of his coworkers desire to require him to join as a prerequisite to his employment, and Whereas the members of the board of directors of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Harlingen, Tex., are unanimously of the opinion that the right to join such union or association and that employment should not be denied an individual by reason of his election either way, and that, in any event, it should remain the prerogative of the people of the several States to determine such issue; Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the board of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Harlingen, Tex., That it express itself as favoring the retention of the present provision of the Taft-Hartley law regarding "right to work" laws as determined by the several States and that a copy of this resolution be signed by the President of the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Harlingen and forwarded to Senators Yarborough and Tower and Representative de la Garza, and to the chairmen of the appropriate committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for their consideration. DON BODENHAMER, President, Harlingen Chamber of Commerce. SCHENECTADY COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC., DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: Very shortly your subcommittee will hear comment concerning repeal of Taft-Hartley 14(b). We are convinced that H.R. 77, the repeal bill, is undesirable. Simply stated, we believe that every American should have the privilege of voluntarily deciding if he wishes to join a labor union without the threat of losing his job. Repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act would remove this protection of a basic right of American citizens and it is therefore an unacceptable proposal in our opinion. In addition, we have combed many sources of information and have failed to find satisfactory evidence of economic advantages in non-right-to-work law States or any other reasons for repeal of 14 (b). We respectfully request that our objections to H.R. 77 be made known to your subcommittee. Sincerely, R. C. BUELL, Chairman, National Affairs Committee. PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM TAYLOR HARRISON ON BEHALF OF THE KENTUCKY FREEDOM TO WORK COUNCIL, INC., LOUISVILLE, KY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is William Taylor Harrison. I am executive director of the Kentucky Freedom To Work Council, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, organized, established, and incorporated under the laws of Kentucky in February 1963. The council was founded and incorporated by myself and three other Louisville citizens, all of whom are former longtime labor union members who were either expelled or withdrew from membership due to our opposition to compulsory union membership and active support of State right-to-work laws. The purpose and objective of the organization is to inform Kentucky citizens with respect to the evils of compulsory union membership in the belief that an enlightened public opinion will banish from our State this menace to traditional American liberties by passage of a right-to-work law. As an indication of the result 26 Kentucky cities have passed local right-to-work ordinances. As a clerical employee of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad I was a member of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks for over 25 years and served as district chairman and member of the L. & N. system board for 7 years and delegate to the 1947 national convention of the brotherhood. Unanimously elected as delegate to the convention of 1951, I was expelled prior to that convention by the grand president for having written letters to Members of the Congress opposing a proposed amendment to the Railway Labor Act which would permit compulsory union membership. These letters were placed in the Congressional Record (Congressional Record, 81st Cong., 2d sess., House of Representatives, Friday, Dec. 29, 1950, vol. 96, No. 216, App. p. A8405 Jan. 1, 1951, extension of remarks of Hon. Frank W. Boykin of Alabama). In so voicing this opposition I was representing the opinion of my local lodge which had voted 208 to 1 against the passage of such an amendment in a referendum which was held by the local lodge officers when no vote was granted by the brotherhood. In case there is any question as to my evidence having any bearing on the Taft-Hartley Act, the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks is subject to that act because they represent other industries outside the railroads. This is specifically proven by the testimony of Geo. M. Harrison, grand president of that organization before Emergency Board No. 98 (p. 2653, vol. 19, transcript of proceedings of Emergency Board No. 98, Washington, D.C., Jan. 28, 1952). Mr. Harrison said: "Now we are subject to the Taft-Hartley law because we represent workers in other industries besides the railroad industry." The constitution of the brotherhood applies in the same manner to both the railroad and other industry employees, and the brotherhood is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO. In addition I have worked on behalf of the right-to-work laws on a part-time, nonsalaried basis from 1950 to 1956 and on a full-time, salaried basis from 1956 to the present. This included being chairman of the National Committee for Union Shop Abolition, Chicago, Ill.; executive secretary and president of the National Right To Work Committee, Washington, D.C.; vice president of the Council for Individual Freedom, Portland, Ind.; assistant to the president and executive vice president of the National Labor-Management Foundation, Chicago, Ill., and as cofounder and executive director of the present Kentucky Freedom To Work Council. Each of these organizations deals with the entire scope of compulsory union membership. In the above capacities I have personally assisted in the passage of right-to-work laws in a number of States. We would first firmly and emphatically set forth that the individuals comprising this group are not opposed to unions as such so long as the membership in the union is on a voluntary basis and is so operated that the leadership acts in such a manner as to not violate the fundamental rights of the membership under the laws of the land nor endanger this country by assuming powers that could be so broad as to interrupt the flow of commerce which is essential to the survival of government itself. Members of this group, which each as individuals voluntarily joined, and have on a voluntary basis supported both financially and otherwise, have believed and do believe in such voluntary organizations, but are basically opposed to anyone being forced to remain as members or to have those desiring to remain out of the organization forced to join. This opposition is based on a personal knowledge of the operation of the unions as now set up and their accomplishments and failings, as well as the instinctive and inherent desire of each for the freedom under which we have been born and lived. It is also strengthened by the examples seen |