網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Powell, had intended to make a statement today. He is not going to make that statement. It apparently had some connection with the request which he made of the Teamsters Union for a brief concerning the effect of the repeal of the 14 (b) on discrimination practices, or practices in discrimination. I perused the brief, the conclusion of which is that the repeal of 14(b) in itself would not affect this question. The conclusion of the brief says: "It is clear"-and incidentally, we learned of this brief only this morning-"from the above that the repeal of section 14(b) would in no way prejudice or jeopardize employment opportunities for Negroes but would merely guarantee that all employees represented by union would share the burden as well as the benefits of union representation."

Until the chairman has had an opportunity to study the brief and the testimony, he intends to make no further statment. He will make it, if he makes one, at a time of his own choosing.

This being the case, the subcommittee will recess until 11 a.m. tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 11 a.m., Thursday, May 27, 1965.)

REPEAL OF SECTION 14(b) OF THE LABOR-MANAGE

MENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 11 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Thompson, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Thompson, O'Hara, Scott, Carey, Sickles, Scheuer, Ford, Griffin, Andrews, Reid, and Ayres.

Also present: Robert E. McCord, director of the subcommittee; Mike Bernstein, minority counsel for education, and labor; and Charles W. Radcliffe, special education counsel for minority.

Mr. THOMPSON. The subcommittee will be in order to continue our hearings on the bill H.R. 77 and related legislation.

Our first witness this morning is Mr. Clarence Mitchell, of the NAACP. Good morning, Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. MITCHELL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

You may

Mr. THOMPSON. I see you have a prepared statement. read it or you may submit it for the record or comment or whatever procedure you wish.

Mr. MITCHELL. I will do whatever the committee finds preferable.
Mr. THOMPSON. We would like you to do it the way you wish.
Mr. MITCHELL. Then I believe I should read it.

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP. The following statement represents the position of Mr. Roy Wilkins, executive director of the NAACP; Mr. Philip Randolph, president of the American Negro Labor Council; the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and Mr. James Farmer, national director of the Congress of Racial Equality.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the telegrams for the record that were sent to me authorizing the use of the names of these people.

Mr. THOMPSON. Without objection they will be entered into the record at this point.

(The telegrams referred to follow :)

CLARENCE MITCHELL,

Washington Bureau, NAACP,

Washington, D.C.:

NEW YORK, N.Y.

Am in full agreement with position of Roy Wilkins urging repeal of section 14B of Taft-Hartley Act and ask that Southern Christian Leadership Conference be included as unequivocal supporter of congressional testimony.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.,

President, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Atlanta, Ga.

CLARENCE MITCHELL,
Washington Bureau, NAACP,

NEW YORK, N.Y.

Washington, D.C.:

Heartily support statement of Roy Wilkins calling for repeal of section 14b of Taft-Hartley Act and respectfully request my name and organization be included as endorser of testimony.

A. PHILIP RANDOLPH, President, Negro American Labor Council.

CLARENCE MITCHELL,

Washington Bureau, NAACP,

NEW YORK, N.Y.

Washington, D.C.:

CORE supports repeal of section 14B of Taft-Hartley Act and wishes to be included in testimony.

[blocks in formation]

Endorse and support statement on repeal of section 14B of Taft-Hartley law. DOROTHY HEIGHT, President, National Council Negro Women.

We support H.R. 77 and urge swift action to repeal section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. This support also extends to the other parts of H.R. 77 which repeal section 705 (b) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 and amend the first proviso of section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended.

The phrase "right to work" sounds good and honest and has been used to capture the sympathy of those who favor a square deal for wage earners. But when such a slogan takes roots in States where civil rights and civil liberties are systematically violated and where Governors have openly announced their defiance of basic constitutional guarantees, then every citizen has a right to view the slogan with great suspicion and to determine whether it is for or against the best interests of working people and most Negro citizens are working people— as well as in the interests of the entire American society.

Does the slogan "Right To Work" mean that every person has an inalienable right to work? If that is so, we have certainly reached the millennium, for the problem of unemployment has at long last been solved for all time simply by enacting a right-to-work law in the various State legislatures and in the Congress. Does the slogan mean that every worker has the right to a job and to receive work at fair wages, reasonable hours, and under other decent labor standards? Does the slogan mean that every worker has a right to work and secure employment with proper provisions for paid vacations and insurance safeguards against sickness and old age? Does the slogan mean that every worker is protected against arbitrary discharge? Is the slogan "right to work" intended to strengthen the individual worker's bargaining position through a union of his own choosing, or is it intended to effectively weaken his bargaining position by keeping unions out of the factory or office where he works?

The simple truth is that the slogan "Right To Work" is nothing more than the old phrase "open shop" which the powerful industrialists of America used in the early days of the 20th century to prevent trade union organization. At that time the open shop was the ideological weapon which was used to justify violence and terror in the attack against trade unionism, and which for a period resulted in a kind of industrial barbarism associated with the tragic names of Ludlow, Colo.; Homestead, Pa.; Harlan County, Ky.; and the infamous 1938 Memorial Day massacre of steelworkers in Chicago when Negro citizens as well as white workers lost their lives. The issue then was the right of unions to exist and function in American society and the right of workers to secure collective-bargaining agents of their own choosing. As Perlman and Taft state in their "History of Labor in the United States":

What the open shop sought was the effacement of the organized labor pattern from the consciousness of the average American citizen. That object could be achieved by placing organized labor on a moral defensive. Instead of labor being viewed as a victim of oppression, the propaganda of the employers sought to convince the public that labor was both the aggressor and the oppressor * * *. This idealistic propaganda, appealing as it did to the traditional American individual, was very influential in shifting public support from the worker to the employer.

Much time has passed. Trade unionism is now an established institution in American life, but there is still a sizable group of recalcitrant employers who persist in their efforts to destroy unionism or to make it entirely ineffective. They refurbished the old discredited "open shop" concept and, employing the techniques of Madison Avenue hucksters, are now selling the new slogan "Right To Work."

Do these laws provide American workers with any guarantee of employment? They do not. Do any of these right-to-work laws embody a code of fair employment practices? They do not. Do these laws attempt to determine fair wages, provide decent hours of labor or other terms and conditions of employment? They do not. Do they provide for equitable distribution of work or guarantee that layoffs shall be in inverse order of seniority? They do not. Do they provide for vacations with pay, disability benefits, and retirement pensions? They do not.

What, then, do they do? In their commonest form they prohibit any kind of union security. They make it impossible for a labor-management agreement to provide for any form of union security.

« 上一頁繼續 »