eliminate discrimination and segregation within affiliated international and local unions. The response of the AFL-CIO Executive Council was to censure Randolph and to reject his proposals.

Because the NAACP has now concluded, on the basis of the factual record, that the national AFL-CIO and its affiliated international unions are either unable or unwilling to move decisively against racist elements and to eliminate widespread anti-Negro practices, the association is attempting to develop a new body of labor law on behalf of Negro workers.

This effort involves the Federal courts as well as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). On February 4, 1964, an NLRB trial examiner ruled that Negroes who are required by their unions to join racially segregated locals and to work under union contracts that discriminate can have those unions found guilty of unfair labor practices.

This ruling involving the AFL-CIO International Longshoreman's Association in Brownsville, Tex., represented an important step forward in the Negro workers' long fight against racial discrimination by trade unions. On July 2, 1964, the National Labor Relations Board in a historic decision ruled that racial discrimination by labor unions is an unfair labor practice and that unions may lose their certification as the collective-bargaining agent as a result of such practices.

The charges of discrimination were filed on behalf of members of the all-Negro Local 2 of the Independent Metal Workers Union. In 1962, when Ivory Davis, a Negro member of local 2, was denied admission to a company-sponsored apprenticeship training course, the white local (local 1) refused to process his grievance. At the request of local 2, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People entered the case on October 4, 1962, and filed a motion with the National Labor Relations Board asking that local 1's certification be rescinded. The NAACP also asked that this motion be consolidated with unfair labor practices proceedings previously instituted by the National Labor Relations Board against local 1.

For the first time in the Board's history, it has ruled that racial discrimination by a union in membership practices such as exclusion or segregation of Negroes-is a violation of the duty of fair representation under section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. In this case involving Negro workers at the Hughes Tool Co. in Houston, Tex., a new principle in administrative labor law was established that will have far-reaching consequences if sustained by the Federal courts.

The NAACP has other cases pending in State and Federal district courts and with the NLRB in an effort to eliminate discriminatory practices within organized labor and by employers. The intent of these cases is to establish a new legal standard of responsibility for trade unions to represent all workers within their jurisdiction fairly and equitably and without regard to considerations of race and color. New cases will be initiated in State and Federal courts in addition to further complaints before the NLRB on behalf of aggrieved Negro workers in the near future.

The civil rights issue has emerged as the central question confronting the entire American society. It is evident that the AFL-CIO and all other institutions will be judged by the Negro on the basis of their actual day-to-day performance and not on the exercise of empty ritual.

Negroes may be winning the broad legal and social struggles for equality in the United States, but they are losing the battle for equal employment opportunity and economic justice. At the present time, the historic civil rights gains won by Negroes in the past 20 years are in danger of being destroyed by the growing crisis of unemployment and underemployment that directly affects the well-being of the entire Negro community and leads to acute social dislocation and despair.

The emergence of a large "underclass" of the Negro unemployed. the growth of a permanent black lumpenproletariat, might very well alter the character of the Negro civil rights movement-a movement that in the past has operated in the classic tradition of protest and reform-and thus lead to developments that have the gravest implication for the whole of American society.

(This article explains why right-to-work laws do not mean what they seem to mean)

(By Herbert Hill 2)

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has taken a clear and forthright position in opposition to the so-called right-to-work bills now pending in several State legislatures. Negro wage earners in the North as well as in the South are deeply concerned with the right to work, the right to equal job training, and the right to work at their highest skills. But an analysis of all the existing right-to-work laws makes it very clear that while the slogan sounds fair and equitable, in reality it is based upon a total disregard for truth. 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 is advanced by the National Association of Manufacturers, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and by union-busting open-shop employers and takes root in States where civil rights and civil liberties are systematically violated and where Governors and Congressmen 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 the entire community.

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 millenium, 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. 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,

Or does the slogan mean that workers have a right to work but only under conditions unilaterally established by their employers? Is the slogan "Right To Work" a revival of the old concept of "liberty of contract"; namely, that the worker merely has a constitutional right to work where he can find it and at substandard wages, long hours, and unfair labor conditions if those conditions prevail? 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 his employer's factory or office?

MEANING OF SLOGAN

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.; the Homestead, Ill., plant of the McCormack Reaper Co.; Harlan County, Ky., and the infamous 1937 Memorial Day massacre of steelworkers in Chicago. 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 stated in their "History of Labor In the U.S.": "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."

1 This article is based on an address delivered at the 10th Constitution Convention of the United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, may 13, 1958, at the Belmont-Plaza Hotel, New York City. 2 Herbert Hill is labor secretary of the NAACP.

A half century has passed. Trade unonism 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 have refurbished the old slogan "Open Shop," and employing the techniques of the Madison Avenue hucksters, are now selling the new slogan "Right To Work" and have caused such laws to be adopted by the legislatures in 19 States.

PROHIBIT SECURITY

Do these laws provide the 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 wages, hours of labor, or other terms and conditions of employment? They do not. Do they contain provisions against arbitrary discharge? 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. Nineteen States today have gone beyond the limitations contained in the Taft-Hartley law of 1947. They have not only outlawed any form of union security in a collective bargaining agreement, but have made it a crime to even enter any agreement which contains such a provision.

areas.

The States which enacted right-to-work laws are in the main nonindustrial Their primary purpose in adopting these laws is to suppress and prevent union organization and to bring about the return of the era of the open shop. Employers in these States know that without a union security provision the workers in their plants are less likely to join unions; and even if the majority of them do so, a large minority will refuse because as "free riders" they would be entitled to precisely the same benefits as those received by the majority under union auspices.

Under these circumstances the urge of workers to join a union becomes dissipated or entirely lost. In this way open shop employers again hope to efface "the organized labor pattern from the consciousness of the average American citizen" and by adopting the high-sounding slogan "Right To Work" they attempt to convince the public that the union-busting employer is the protector and bene factor of the workers and that the labor movement is their "aggressor and oppressor." The result of the suppression of unionization as the result of rightto-work laws is that wages are kept low, hours long, and conditions of work substandard.

ONLY ONE PURPOSE

The truth is that the forces supporting the right-to-work laws have no interest in the welfare of working men and women, they have only one purpose. By weakening the organized labor movement they hope to systematically lower wages, lengthen hours of work, and otherwise prevent decent and wholesome labor conditions.

Whatever may be the name by which these laws are called they are simply a union-busting offensive which must be stopped in the interest of all who work for a living in the United States.

In many States where campaigns have been conducted for the adoption of right-to-work laws, special efforts to secure support for passage of these unionbusting proposals were carried out within the Negro community. At the present time, in both California and Ohio, vigorous efforts to secure the support of Negro workers for the enactment of right-to-work laws are taking place. Recent events in Ohio are most interesting. In the course of circulating a so-called freedom-ofchoice petition to place a right-to-work bill before the State legislature spokesmen for the right-to-work movement tried to sell the bill as "a little fair employment practices law" and "a substitute for fair employment practices legislation" within the Negro community. This effort was immediately denounced by the Cleveland branch of the NAACP in a well-publicized statement which declared that "the passage of right-to-work laws not only endangered the organized labor movement but also has a most detrimental effect on the rights of colored wage earners and the economic well-being of the entire Negro community, and further called upon all of its members to refuse to sign the so-called freedom-of-choice petition. Similar activity has taken place in California where the NAACP

west coast regional office has been directly involved in a vigorous campaign to defeat right-to-work proposals. In the State of Kansas the NAACP organization worked closely with trade union groups to expose the intent of pending rightto-work legislation. The action of the NAACP in Ohio, in California, in Kansas, and elsewhere is the result of the clear and unequivocal position taken by the national organization, which adopted at its last annual convention the following policy resolution concerning so-called right-to-work laws; this states in part: "We call upon our members, branches, and State conferences to use their influence in cooperation with organized labor to repeal and defeat State laws and proposed laws which tend to hamper organized labor, often under such highsounding names as right-to-work law, antiviolence laws, etc., and to help instead to get enacted laws which are fair to organized labor and will aid labor's work ***"

Because the Negro citizen is playing such a decisive role in the current civil rights conflict the matter of developing a firm and secure economic base within the Negro community is of the greatest importance. The disparity in the economic status between Negro and white workers and their vulnerability in terms of economic distress are clearly indicated by the facts on unemployment and income distribution.

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

During the week of March 9, 1958, 14.4 percent of the total nonwhite civilian labor force in the United States was unemployed. The comparable rate for white workers was 6.9 percent. Although only 1 out of every 10 persons in the labor force is nonwhite more than 1 out of every 5 persons currently unemployed is nonwhite. The nonwhite unemployment rate as estimated by the Census Bureau is higher now than at any time during the last 11 years in which the Census Bureau has reported unemployment statistics by color.

The nonwhite unemployment rate today is approaching the level recorded at the time of the 1940 census when the United States was still recovering from the post-1929 depression. Nonwhite unemployment was then 18 percent; today it exceeds 14 percent. Unemployment among nonwhites since the 1949-50 recession has remained consistently high. At no quarterly point has it fallen below 6 percent and on a number of occasions even prior to 1957 it exceeded 8 percent. Almost without exception during the entire period since the 1953-54 recession the unemployment gap between white and nonwhites has been greater than prior to 1954. During the past 3 years the nonwhite unemployment rate has been almost, consistently, more than double the white unemployment rate. This would indicate that very limited progress has been made in securing for the Negro worker the same relative degree of employment stability that the white worker enjoys. It is clear that the differential in employment stability between white and Negro workers has been extended both in years of prosperity as well as in years of economic decline. All available data clearly indicates that the ratio

of unemployment among nonwhites as compared to that of whites has been steadily increasing since 1951.

In 1953, the typical Negro worker earned an average of $364 a year in wages or salary; the white worker in that year earned $956; that is 21⁄2 times as much. By 1954, the average wage or salary income of a Negro worker had risen to $1.589 while the average white worker earned $3,174. This means that the income of the white wage earner was still twice as much as that of the Negro, ("Statistical Abstract," 1956, p. 311.)

In 1954, 17.6 percent of all white families in the United States were living on an annual income of $2,000 or less, but of nonwhite families 42.3 percent were living on an annual income below $2,000.

It is, therefore, evident that despite great changes in the employment and occupational characteristics of Negro workers in the last decade, the economic level of Negroes remains substantially below that of the white population.

STATUS OF NEGRO WORKERS

In many industries in basic sectors of the American economy the racial practices of the trade union certified as the collective bargaining agent will be the decisive factor in determining the status of Negro workers. All too often there is a significant disparity between the declared public policy of international unions and the day-to-day reality as experienced by Negro wage earners in the North as well as in the South. It is not enough simply to formulate proper convention resolutions and policy statements. It is not enough to make speeches and distribute civil rights tracts. It is not enough to hold interminable civil

rights conferences with more speeches and resolutions. What is needed toda is to invoke the full power and authority of the organized labor movement i eliminating discriminatory racial practices where they exist in the workshops c this country.

Statements of policy are necessary and welcome but totally inadequate in re solving conflicts unless backed by decisive organizational authority. Unfortu nately, there has been a tendency to substitute hollow ritual for vigorous actio: when conflicts develop within local unions in matters involving the rights o Negro workers. Invariably the leadership of most national unions will tak the right position, but frequently too late and will often act only after a pro longed crisis. When a local union brazenly defies an order of a State o municipal fair employment practices commission and refuses to end its dis criminatory practices, the national trade union leadership must act immediately not 1 or 2 or 3 years after a valid complaint has been filed with a governmenta agency or with the civil rights department of the AFL-CIO, or after a fail employment practices commission has issued a cease-and-desist order. Such delays often permit the enemies of organized labor to mobilize support for antitrade union measures and serves to alienate Negro workers from the trade union movement. It is no accident that newspapers in Ohio have cited the discriminatory practices of some building trades unions in urging that Negro workers support right-to-work proposals in their own interest.

In addition to three international unions which have anti-Negro exclusion provisions in their constitutions (Brotherhood of Firemen & Engineers, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and the National Postal Transport Association), there remain a significant number of segregated local unions and unions where colored workers are excluded by tacit consent. The national leadership of the AFL-CIO must immediately initiate a frontal attack on these blatant violations of basic AFL-CIO policy decisions and against the many separate lines of progression based upon race found in collective bargaining agreements.

The organized labor movement in America has made many important contributions in the struggle for full civil rights for all citizens. The NAACP deeply welcomes this support and is proud of its long years of cooperation and joint activity with many trade union organizations. Now more than ever before when this country is faced with a grave national civil rights crisis it is most important that the trade union movement give top priority to eliminating the vicious evils of racial discrimination and segregation at the workplace and within the entire American community.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I would like to focus attention particularly on this statement by Mr. Hill in that article where he said on page 43:

As long as union membership remains a condition of employment in many trades and crafts and Negroes are barred from union membership solely because of their color then trade union discrimination is the decisive factor in determining whether Negro workers in a given industry shall have an opportunity to earn a living for themselves and their families.

At another point on page 45 of that same article Mr. Hill writes: As is evident the pattern of Negro exclusion from the major AFL-CIO building trades unions continues unabated even in cities and States where there has long been a fair employment practices law. This is significant as it indicates the serious inability of such agencies to reach the skilled craft occupations that are characterized by a pattern of discrimination and expanding job opportunities. Thus, today in the United States there are more Negroes with Ph. D. degrees than there are Negroes who are licensed plumbers and/or licensed electricians. You talk about the apprenticeship programs and the small number of Negroes admitted to the apprenticeship program. I know you are concerned, of course, about these problems and apparently have satisfied yourself that some assurance from the leaders of the AFL-CIO unions and the introduction of a bill separately is going to satisfy you in this regard; is that correct?

Mr. Mitchell. No, it is not correct, Mr. Griffin. I would like to preface what I said, being mindful of your 8 minutes. I want to thank you too as well as the other members of the minority side who