at Runnymede in 1215, the battle of those who toil for a livelihood has been fought in the name of freedom. Two worldwide wars have been fought within the last half century to defend and retain it. Stripped of all extraneous argument, freedom is the stuff of which State right-to-work laws are made. What is freedom? Freedom is the right to choose, the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice and the exercise of that choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing. Shall we consider the more than 58 million workers who have chosen to exercise their choice by not joining a union as men or things? We pray that the Members of Congress, sworn to uphold the freedom of the people as a whole under our Constitution, will not permit these freedoms to be restricted by any organization, be it social, fraternal, religious or a union. RESOLUTION No. 4-REPEAL OF SECTION 14(b) RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS Whereas section 14 (b) was added to the National Labor Relations Act by the reactionary antilabor 80th Congress of unhappy memory; Whereas the Congress of the United States, by this amendment, abdicated its constitutional powers in the field of interstate commerce and authorized the. States to substitute their own policies for the national policy in respect to union security agreements; and Whereas every campaign for the adoption under the protective cover of section 14(b) of a State law prohibiting union security agreements has loosed a torrent of distortions, calumnies, and outright lies about the institutions of organized labor; and Whereas 18 years of experience has conclusively demonstrated the cynical hypocrisy of the proponents of so-called right-to-work laws and their unalterable hostility to any free and independent organizations of labor; and Whereas unimpeachable statistics show that the economies of all the States which have enacted the falsely named right-to-work laws have stagnated in comparison to those States which abide by the national policy of allowing full freedom of contract to employers and unions in respect to union security: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America, in convention assembled, calls upon the Congress of the United States to repeal section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act; be it further Resolved, That we will cooperate in every feasible way with all other organizations of labor to accomplish the repeal of section 14(b); and be it further Resolved, That every member of this international union be urged to regard the position of every candidate for the House of Representatives or the Senate of the United States on the repeal of section 14(b) as a critical test of such candidate's qualifications. Only in very rare circumstances where the positions of candidates on other issues of vital importance require it, can a vote for a candidate who refuses to commit himself to repeal of section 14(b) be justified to the conscience of a loyal member of this International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America; and be it finally Resolved, That the secretary-treasurer of this international union be directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to each Member of the Congress of the United States. Respectfully submitted by, INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE BOARD, UPGWA. Adopted by unanimous decision of the delegates assembled at the Sixth Constitutional Convention of the International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America, Fontainebleau Hotel, Miami Beach, Fla., May 28, 1965. RESOLUTION 6-RESOLUTION OF REPLACEMENT OF UNION GUARDS WITH Whereas a large number of our brother members are employed in security work at our Nation's space and defense installations throughout the country; and Whereas our brother members have for many years, and do presently enjoy the union wage scales and benefits of collective bargaining through representation by this international union; and Whereas our brother members have performed their security functions faithfully and dutifully and in the best interests of our national security, and through training, education and practical experience are qualified to provide the topnotch security service which our space and defense programs so vitally require; and Whereas many of our brother members answered the request of our Government to transfer their families to the different space and defense sites in the early phases of this program in order that these programs would have experienced guards to protect our Nation's security, and Whereas many of these sites were located in remote and inaccessible areas to which our fellow members transferred at great personal expense and sacrifice to themselves and their families to establish homes in the areas of the space and defense sites, enroll their children in schools, and they have become an integral part of the communities through church, social, and political activities; and Whereas as a result of an apparent recent change in governmental policy the Defense Department and other agencies of the Federal Government which had previously enjoyed the devotion and services of our guard members do now seek to replace these guard members at the various space and defense installations with surplus civil service employees receiving substandard wages and benefits; and Whereas, such a policy is destructive of the collective bargaining process and senfority rights and which policy further unjustly penalizes our guard members and their families who responded so faithfully to the call for assistance at these sites in the time of national need: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this convention hereby petition the Congress and the President of the United States to continue the national policy regarding the use of civilian contractors and their union employees in providing security services in the national space and defense programs. Such policy was established under the administration of President Eisenhower and reaffirmed under the administration of President Kennedy and should be continued so this Nation may continue to advance in the field of space exploration and defense without unfairly discriminating against union members of depriving them of the fruits of their collective bargaining benefits through the employment of underpaid surplus civil service employees; and, be it further Resolved, That the Secretary-Treasurer of the international union forward a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States and all Members of the U.S. Congress. Respectfully submitted by. INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE BOARD, UPGWA. Adopted by unanimous decision of the delegates assembled at the sixth Constitutional Convention of the International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America, Fontainebleau Hotel, Miami Beach, Fla., May 28, 1965. INLAND EMPIRE CHAPTER, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRATORS ASSOCIATION, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, GENTLEMEN: We note that the president of our national association, Harold A. Webster, has testified of NECA's endorsement of the proposed legislation to repeal section 14 (b) of the Labor-Management Relations Act. The report we received indicates Mr. Webster reported lack of concurrence by NECA members in "Southern States" with the national association's position but expressed the assumption that everyone who did not object specifically to his intent to testify was in favor of his position. (We only had notice of this intent one day before the testimony was given.) Perhaps Mr. Webster had not yet received our telegram on the subject before leaving for the hearing, but this chapter and the Puget Sound chapter in Seattle are two we know of which requested him not to testify either for or against repeal of section 14(b) because the NECA membership or chapters had never been polled. We considered this a matter of States' rights on which our national association should not take a position without the clear-cut concurrence of a decisive majority of the chapters or members throughout the country. Our chapter has not taken any position on right-to-work laws and did not support right-to-work initiatives and bills when they were promoted in the three States in which we have members. However, we do not believe that Congress should act to eliminate this one remaining item on which States retain some policymaking authority on labor relations. It was basic to the adoption of the Taft-Hartley law and according to our observations is not contrary to Federal labor policy. We can hardly understand our national association's testimony on the harm right-to-work laws do employers when members and chapters in the States having right-to-work laws apparently are in favor of their continuation and in opposition to the national's testimony in favor of repeal of section 14(b). No State can change the Federal labor policy of allowing a union having the right to represent a majority of employees to determine the wages and conditions of all of the employees. This is the condition which is supposed to provide orderly labor-management relations, and is unrelated to section 14 (b). Nineteen States have decided that the power to establish wages and conditions binding upon all employees should be sufficient without permitting a union and management to "agree" (probably to settle a strike) to give the union the added power to collect dues and exercise disciplinary authority over people who have not voluntarily decided to join the union. After all, such people are "free riders" only to the extent that they are forced, against their will sometimes, to work only under the conditions negotiated by a union selected by some other employees as the bargaining representatives of all the employees. The "free riders" have not usually chosen to have the union "represent" them. But these are arguments which we feel the States should weigh, not Congress. If you feel impelled to endorse repeal of section 14 (b) for the reason Mr. Webster and others have advanced-to prevent States from inhibiting the freedom of an employer and a majority of his employees from entering into union shop contracts-we would urge your committee to adopt a compromise which would assure this objective without inviting the troubles opponents of repeal apparently fear. Such a compromise would: (1) Restore the wording of sections 8(a)(3) and 9(c) (1) and (2) which was deleted and replaced by present wording October 22, 1951, and which provided for a Board-certified election by a majority of employees to authorize a union shop. (2) Prohibit economic strikes, boycotts or other measures to coerce, threaten or force any employer to agree to a union security clause. Very truly yours, ROBERT L. WILKINSON, Manager. MEDFORD PEAR SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION, Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., DEAR MR. THOMPSON: On behalf of the members of the Medford Pear Shippers Association who handle all the commercial pears shipped from this district, we wish to register strong opposition to the administration's request, and the union's demand for the repeal of section 14 (b) (the right-to-work clause) of the TaftHartley Act. We do support, in every detail, the position taken by the International Apple Association, Inc., of Washington, D.C., and in particular, their comment on "the two principles involved in the question of repeal or no repeal of section 14(b). On the unions' repeal side the principle of coercion and compulsion. On the no repeal side the principle is one of democratic freedom, noncorecion and voluntarism." Of particular concern, to us, is the millions of young people who enter the work force every year. If the repeal is effected by the Congress, they will be denied their right of freedom under our Constitution; the right to work at an occupation of their choice without paying homage to a union whose activities and thinking may be entirely contrary to their own. It is for the above reasons that we oppose the repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, and request that this letter be made a part of the hearings record. Very truly yours, SHELBY M. TUTTLE, Executive Secretary. STATEMENT OF ARTHUR J. PACKARD, CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AMERICAN HOTEL & MOTEL ASSOCIATION The American Hotel & Motel Association is a federation of 50 State associations having a membership in excess of 6,000 hotels and motels located in all sections of the United States. The association maintains offices at 221 West 57th Street, New York, N.Y., and at 777 14th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. The association is pleased to have the opportunity to register, with this subcommittee, its views on those pieces of legislation which propose the repeal of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. Essentially, the so-termed right-to-work statutes make it unlawful to require membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. In short, these statutes as they exist in 19 States of the Union prevent the making of agreements requiring an employee to be a union member if he wants to work for a particular employer. The American Hotel & Motel Association fully recognizes that such laws do not create jobs; do not give one a right to hold a job; do not aid the unemployed but we do not avail ourselves of such thinking in opposing the repeal of section 14 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. At the same time, while A.H. & M.A. opposes total repeal of section 14(b), we cannot accept the label of "union busting" as it is applied to all those who voice an expression similar to ours. To be for or against the repeal of section 14(b) has been equated with being for or against unions per se, or passing judgment on the fruits of the labor movement. This is begging the question. There is only one true issue involved: Should an indiivdual be forced to accept union membership as a condition of employment? Historically, the union movement has been one of collective voluntary action. The workingman could join, or refuse to join, as he himself saw fit. By demonstrating their "salt" did the unions advertise their appeal to the workingman. Withdrawal from the union without fear of loss of employment was possible. Thus, the unions had to "produce" to retain the membership; union leaders were compelled to serve the interests of the dues-paying membership. The "union shop" on the other hand equals compulsory unionism-nothing more, nothing less. It means forced membership in what is described as a democratically structured organization (an anomaly in itself). Of the several grounds upon which the right-to-work laws have been attacked, the validity of the two main arguments of those seeking repeal of section 14(b) is open to doubt upon examination. The proponents of repeal of section 14(b) state that the right-to-work laws permit and encourage “free riders." They also state that organized labor requires the security of compulsory unionism if it is to survive-not thrive, but survive. As to the first argument, free riders are most often defined as those employees who get union benefits without the payment of union dues. The charge on the first count assumes that the only reason an employee might want out of a union would be the avoidance of dues payment. Is it not reasonable to assume that an employee may, e.g., "want out" for religious purposes or because of individual opposition to the union leadership? Even assuming, arguendo, that avoidance of dues payment is the sole motivation for refusing union membership, does this nonetheless support the proponents of repeal? (The argument proceeds that "responsibilities of union membership" require the employee to pay his share for that which is obtained at the bargaining table.) If dues were expended for collective bargaining efforts alone, the answer might be "Yes." But dues may be and are spent for much more than collective bargaining efforts. They are apportioned for lobbying purposes; for social and economic propaganda campaigns; for strike benefits to other unions; etc. What of the employee who seeks to withdraw from the union because of these expenditures he finds personally objectionable? Looking at the other side of the free-rider coin, compulsory unionism, as sought by the proponents of repeal, creates a "captive audience." The worker is in effect truly a "captive" for he cannot, as a practical matter, withdraw his support from the union and still hold his job. He cannot, in many instances, freely or safely oppose the stand of organized labor. It is an accepted social concept, as well as an approved precept, that competition is not only desirable but it is to be fostered and protected. Organized labor, if it expects to truly serve its intended purpose, cannot do without the nonorganized. Unorganized labor quite simply serves as a check against organized labor not meeting its obligation to the employee. The second main argument of the proponents of repeal is that organized labor requires the security of compulsory unionism if it is to survive. Organized labor deems repeal of section 14 (b) a necessity "because we regard this as the greatest deterrent to organizing and the greatest deterrent to maintaining a strong labor movement, that there is in America today." Experience shows, however, that voluntary unionism is successful unionism. Having produced for the membership and having looked after and supported its rights, the union need not concern itself with the matter of "raiding" unions. When membership becomes a desirous thing, membership recruitment ceases to be a major problem. When union membership is compulsory, incentive disappears for the union leaders to wholeheartedly fulfill their responsibilities to the employees. In such a situation, the union does not have to justify-by word or deed-the need for its existence and continuation. When organized labor argues that such right-to-work laws are the "greatest deterrent to maintaining a strong labor movement," one wonders whether it does not impliedly admit to a desire to obtain a dictatorial hold in the area of deciding-from the top-the employees' rights. Organized labor considers section 14 (b) of Taft-Hartley a ridiculous piece of legislation. Congress did not deliberate extensively and debate heatedly with the end result being a ridiculous piece of legislation. The reasons for the enactment-cogent then-are cogent now as to why the several States should be allowed, if they see fit, to enact and enforce statutes regulating and restricting compulsory unionism. The committees of Congress in 1935-reporting the bill which became the original National Labor Relations Act-made it clear, as did those amending the acts in 1947 and 1959, that State laws regulating compulsory unionism were to be left in force and approved. The several States were left free to pursue their own more restrictive policies in the matter of union-security agreements. It was precisely the matter of compulsory unionism which was being attacked by the earlier Congresses-to be implemented by the labor legislation. It was the sense of Congress as it was of the people that "voluntary" unionism should be the byword. The Federal labor law serves as a protection for organized labor. It protects the right of labor to organize and bargain collectively, and it requires the employer to bargain with the authorized representatives. The State right-towork laws offer no threat in this area. On the contrary, they protect organized labor's rights. At the same time, however, these State statutes protect the individual's basic freedom to choose. They guarantee to him the privilege, voluntarily, to make his own free choice and to assert his constitutional rights. A.H. & M.A. has never advocated the enactment of a right-to-work law in any particular State, nor does it intend to do so. We do believe, however, that the option of the States to do so should not be closed to our citizenry. This will remain possible only through the retention of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., MID-SOUTH COTTON GINNERS COUNCIL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, DEAR MR. THOMPSON: The Mid-South Cotton Ginners Council would like to state its views concerning the elimination of section 14(b) from the LaborManagement Relations Act of 1947. This council is comprised of the ArkansasMissouri Cotton Ginners Association, Louisiana-Mississippi Ginners Association, and the Tennessee Ginners Association and represents over 1,800 cotton gins in these 5 States. This organization strongly believes that section 14(b) should be retained and failure to do so is detrimental to southern economy and un-American. It is a basic right that an employee or any person should not be forced to join any organization to retain his right to earn a livelihood. Indeed, the union will better serve its membership if it must continually prove its advantages to encourage employees belonging to the union. When the union does not protect the right of the individual, that individual should be free to withdraw his support of the union without sacrificing his livelihood. |