against another-the head of their organization told me that they were getting 95 percent of the things that they were selling on their shelves in Latin America being manufactured in Latin America.

They were even bringing small employers in Latin America up to the United States and schooling them on how to make certain articles, helping finance them, buying machine tools, all for the purpose of building up the standard of life of the people that they expect to shop in their stores in Latin America.

So I think American industry has taken a new look at the world, and I think they have taken a new look at the idea of freedom in the world, and certainly if they believe in human freedom throughout the world they certainly have to believe in free trade unions because there is no human freedom anywhere in this world unless there are free trade unions.

Mr. SCHEUER. I do not mean to put words in your mouth, but would it be a fair statement from your point of view to say that the experience of northern corporations with three decades of unionism has been that it promotes industrial peace, worker well-being, and a market for the very products which they produce?

Mr. MEANY. I can't draw any conclusions for them except that I can say that the record will show the same corporations that appeared in the series of volumes put out by the La Follette Committee back in the 1930's have been doing business with unions for quite a few years.

I think while they have their problems with the unions when they have to sign up new contracts and all that, I do not think they have anything like the idea of putting the unions out of business, which was quite evidently and quite definitely a way of life with them back 30 years ago.

I think that has definitely changed.

Mr. SCHEUER. Would you think that the reason for that might be that their experience over three decades has been that union security leads to responsible unionism and industrial peace?

Mr. MEANY. I think the automobile companies, for instance, like the idea of employees who can buy the cars they make. This was not true 30 years ago. You see, this is the time when one of the big automobile companies had an outright thug as a labor relations man. Now they have intelligent people as labor relations men.

Mr. THOMPSON. The time of the gentleman has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ford.
Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Meany, I would like to compliment you on your very fine and straightforward statement, not only your prepared testimony but the way you have answered questions. I am particularly impressed by the first paragraph of your formal statement, which identifies very clearly who you are, why you are here, and who you speak for.

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the gentleman yield? I did not identify you properly. You are Mr. William Ford.

Mr. FORD. William D., as in Democrat.

I should hope that, for the benefit of the people of this country and particularly those who are concerned over this issue, that the people who appear here in the future will be equally as candid about identifying who they are and who they really speak for.

I come from a part of the country where we have long since passed through some of the curtains that are being raised in conjunction with this legislation, where there is more mutual trust between the workingmen and management than is displayed by some of the very callous people who have been propagandizing other parts of the country. I hope that some of these propagandizers who are peddling the candycoated platitudes will come here when we offer them a national and open forum and tell us who they are really talking for and what they are really supporting, for the retention of 14 (b).

I would like to say that I came to Congress on a promise to the people in my district that I would work vigorously for the repeal of 14(b). I am in a State where no responsible public official has attempted to pass a right-to-work law in recent years.

I honestly believe that the people of my district who depend on companies like the Ford Motor Co., whether in management or labor, would be sorely distressed to see the kind of labor peace that we have in Michigan now destroyed by the kind of thing that might come from an irresponsible legislature at some time in the form of a right-towork law.

I thank you very much for your contribution.

Mr. MEANY. Thank you.

Mr. THOMPSON. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Meeds.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I also, Mr. Meany, add my voice to the compliments on your testimony. I think the main value in it is that it is a factual, unemotional appeal based on logic and law. For that I would like to compliment you.

I have a brief request. Mr. Scott has asked for statistics on the increase or decrease of union membership in right-to-work States. If it is not too much trouble, I would like to ask, as a concomitant of that, if you will provide us, at the same time, in the same area that you are working, the overall increase in jobs in those areas which are available to union membership, and also the percentage increase for the time since the adoption of the right-to-work statutes in those States as compared with a base percentage increase for average years. Would that be posible?

Mr. MEANY. I hope we can get the figures. We have a lot of figures. Whether they include those or not, I don't know.

Mr. MEEDS. I think these last two things will be particularly revealing.

Thank you, Mr. Meany.

Mr. THOMPSON. Before going back to the gentleman from Ohio I would like to say that there has been, to some extent, perhaps because of things which the Chair has not said, the impression that this is a partisan measure. It is indeed not a partisan measure. Not only does our distinguished ranking Member from Ohio, Mr. Ayres, support in principle the repeal of 14(b), and has said so on the floor of the House, but a number of others do.

Mr. Ayres, have you further questions?

Mr. AYRES. No: I think we have covered it very well.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Meany, Mr. Harris, Mr. Biemiller-

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, would you yield to me for a very brief question that can be answered "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Meany, there has been some discussion of whether or not title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides for effective enforcement of the rights guaranteed therein. Recalling, again, your organization's activity on behalf of effective enforcement in 1963, I would like to ask you if you will support an amendment to title VII which would make the enforcement provisions of that title as effective as they can possibly be?

Mr. MEANY. We will support any amendment to title VII that would make it more effective. We were the ones that pushed mostly for an FEPC section in this bill. When it came out, it was not the bill that we had hoped, not the section that we had hoped to write in the bill.

However, it doesn't take effect until the first of July, and I suppose it would be rather ridiculous to say that it has to be improved on even before it has been tried out. But I can say to you without reservation that in any way that we can make it more effective we will be very, very glad to cooperate.

Mr. O'HARA. I appreciate that. I will be talking to you about that a little later. Perhaps Mr. Reid would care to join me in sponsoring a bill that would do that. Since Mr. Griffin has now become a convert to administrative enforcement, maybe he will do so, also.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Meany.

(Memorandum on additional information requested of Mr. Meany follows:)

MEMORANDUM ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF GEORGE MEANY,

PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO

This memorandum supplies additional data requested by various members of the Special Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor at the time of Mr. Meany's appearance before the subcommittee on May 25, 1965, on H.R. 77 and related measures.

I. INCREASES AND DECREASES IN UNION MEMBERSHIP, BY STATE

No statistics are available for recent years showing total union membership by State.

Beginning with 1958, however, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, has published figures showing AFL-CIO membership by States. These figures are published every 2 years. The most recent are for the year 1962, as published in the Bureau's 1963 Directory of National and International Labor Unions. The State figures are based on reports by AFL-CIO State bodies. Since not all locals of AFL-CIO national and international unions affiliate with State bodies, estimates of total AFL-CIO membership in any given State are not precise. However, since these are the only estimates available for recent years, they are used in this memorandum.

Overall figures on total union membership including both AFL-CIO and nonaffiliated unions show a decline from 1958 to 1962. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported a drop in total union membership (exclusive of Canada) from 17.1 million in 1958 to 16.6 million in 1962. Union membership as a percentage of workers in nonagricultural employment fell from 33.1 to 29.7 percent during this period. Union membership has increased since 1962, but there are no updated Labor Department reports by States.

The specific figures by States, for AFL-CIO unions, show membership drops or no gains in over half the States. Overall, the percentage drop in membership was greater for the right-to-work group than for States without right-to-work laws.

In 1958, total AFL-CIO membership in the States with right-to-work laws (as of 1965) was 1,842,220. By 1962, the number had dropped to 1,715,000, a loss of 6.7 percent.

AFL-CIO membership, in States without right-to-work laws, was 10,813,308 in 1958 and 10,414,500 in 1962, a drop of 3.7 percent. These figures exclude Hawaii. Also excluded is Pennsylvania since no report was available for that State in 1958.

Overall, the 19 States with right-to-work laws included approximately 15 percent of the AFL-CIO membership reported for States in 1958 and 14 percent in 1962 (13 percent of Pennsylvania is included in the 1962 figures). These rightto-work States, however, accounted for 24 percent of the total membership drop of 526,028 between the two dates.

Specific figures for each State on increases and decreases in AFL-CIO membership are shown in table 1.

In 1962, AFL-CIO members accounted for only 12.7 percent of the 13,451,400 nonagricultural workers in States with right-to-work laws. By contrast, AFLCIO members made up 27.9 percent of the 41,828,700 nonagricultural workers in non-right-to-work States (excluding Hawaii).

A comparison can be made with 1958 by excluding Pennsylvania (for which membership figures were not available) and Alaska (for which employment figures were not available). Hawaii remains excluded on both dates.

On this basis, AFL-CIO membership in right-to-work States made up 15.2 percent of the 12,092,200 nonagricultural workers in those States in 1958 as compared with 12.7 percent in 1962. In non-right-to-work States, AFL-CIO members accounted for 30.4 percent of 35,478,000 non-agricultural workers in 1958, as against 27.3 percent of 38,071,100 nonagricultural workers in 1962. Detailed figures on total nonagricultural employment in 1958 and 1962 for each State are shown in table 2.

TABLE 2.-State AFL-CIO membership in relation to nonagricultural employment, 1958-62

[Asterisk (*) indicates States with right-to-work laws, 1965]