delegates, not by the individual members. For instance, George Harrison's term, as president of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, has continued for more than 30 years.

Union staff representatives, who are beholden to top officials of the international are in a position to manipulate and control most of the decisionmaking at the focal union level including the selection of delegates. That way they keep their own regimes in office.

While union constitutions have some trappings of democracy, the system shows the distrust of rank and file workers, which George Harrison admitted and which George Meany revealed before this committee last week.

The situation has not changed a bit in 14 years. Mr. Meany still contends that workers must be herded into unions under compulsion because they are not smart enough to support a union in their own interest.

Some employers have demonstrated that they care little about the freedom of choice of their employees. Spokesmen for two such groups appeared before this committee last week.

Other employers feel, for economic reasons, that they must submit to union demands for compulsory unionism. In any case, it has been shown repeatedly that employees cannot look to the employer or to the union to protect their freedom of choice.

Nineteen States have provided this protection in their laws. This is the only protection that the employee has from exploitation by dictatorial union bosses and by a disinterested employer.

The widespread existence of sweetheart contracts, in which workers are the losers, is a fact well known to all who have followed the investigation of union operations by congressional committees.

Congress and State legislatures for many years made attempt after attempt to protect some of the rights that are taken away from employees through compulsory unionism.

Laws have been passed aimed at guaranteeing "free speech" in union affairs; employees are supposed to be protected from discrimination in union membership because of race, creed, or color; are supposed to be protected from the use of their compulsory dues money for political purposes; and are supposed to have protections from racketeer or Communist-dominated unions. Yet, the record shows that while these laws are on the books, they are not being enforced.

So long as union officials and employers are permitted to agree on contracts which force workers to support a particular union in order to earn a livelihood, the rights of the individual workers can never be adequately protected.

The record has shown that good unions don't need compulsory unionism. I'm sure you gentlemen will agree with me that bad unions don't deserve it.

Most of the union members-and there are millions-who share our point of view, do not dare to speak out publicly.

Those who have had the courage to do so have been harassed, forced into expensive litigation and deprived of their livelihood, it goes on today, just as it has for many years, yet in the face of it there is this demand today to repeal section 14(b) and lessen, even further, the little chance an individual worker has for proper protection of his rights.

I have here in my hand a letter, received just a few days ago, from a woman union member, enclosing her entire week's paycheck, $85.20, which she wants used to fight repeal of 14(b)--and which she wants kept secret because she fears reprisal from both her company and her union.

I have another letter from a veteran, as well as a union member, who states, and I quote: "I would gladly pay double my present union dues just to be free to choose."

Here, seated with me, are a number of workers, right-to-workers, if you will, all of whom have had the courage to speak out against compulsion in unionism. They are:

Mr. Cecil C. Mitchell, Tujunga, Calif., member of International Association of Machinists.

Mr. John Mosberger, Cleveland, Ohio, former member United Steel Workers.

Mr. John Alexander, Montpelier, Ind., former member of Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman & Enginemen; also, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.

Mr. Syl Ehr, Portland, Oreg., member Sign, Scene and Pictorial Artists.

Mr. John Seeley, Sepulveda, Calif., former member and organizer of CIO.

Mr. Lafayette A. Hooser, Silver Spring, Md., former member of Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen; also, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.

Mr. Ted Engel, Santa Maria, Calif., former business agent of Painters, Decorators & Paper Hangers of America.

Mr. E. R. Reid, Tulsa, Okla., agency fee member of United Auto Workers.

Mr. Louis Buben, Duncan, Okla., former member of International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers. Mr. Howard Brown, Trenton, N.J., member Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers & Station Employees. Mrs. Anne Stewart, Chicago, Ill., member Chicago Waitresses Union, Local 484.

Mr. Raymond C. Losornio, Tulsa, Okla., member National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE).

Mr. H. E. Kelley, Winslow, Ariz., member of American Train Dispatchers Association.

Mr. Alvin F. Schmidt, Miami, Fla., former member of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Mr. Arthur J. Hazeltine, Atlantic Highlands, N.J., member, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Mr. William Barry, Salem, Oreg., former member of International Union of Building Service Employees.

Mr. Harold D. Allen, St. Petersburg, Fla., former member of Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen; and the United Railway Operating Crafts.

Mr. George L. Seay, Arleta, Calif., agency fee member of International Association of Machinists.

Mr. Thomas Ramsey, Indianapolis, Ind., member of United Automobile Workers.

Gentlemen, I have these stories of their experiences through compulsion, and I offer these for the record.

Mr. Scort (presiding). Without objection, they will be included. Mr. CADWALLADER. Will these statements be entered?

Mr. SCOTT. It is in the interest of time that you offer the statements rather than call the witnesses?

Mr. CADWALLADER. Yes, sir. I might also add that all of these people made an effort to come before this committee and the committee has said in the interest of time all of them could not appear, but they offered to appear. The committee said they could offer their testimony

for the record.

Gentlemen, we are employees, caught in the middle. Unless you, the Members of Congress, help us in maintaining our personal freedom in dealing with our unions, we have no place to turn.

I urge you, on behalf of the thousands who work for a living, just as I do, to reject the repeal of section 14(b). I do so from bitter experience as to what can and will happen unless you do reject it.

I want to thank you for your courtesy in listening to me and to introduce to you Mr. Reed Larson.

As chairman of the board of the National Right To Work Committee, I personally contacted Mr. Larson in November of 1958, and asked him to come to Washington to serve as head of the staff of the National Right To Work Committee, the position which he now holds. Mr. Reed Larson, executive vice president of the National Right To Work Committee.

(Statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF CECIL MITCHELL, TUJUNGA, CALIF.

My name is Cecil Mitchell and I live at 7750 Kyle Street, Tujunga, Calif. At the outset, I wish to thank the members and staff of this committee for allowing me to testify today concerning an issue with which I have had intimate, perhaps unique, contact.

I believe I am safe in assuming that all the members of this subcommittee and its parent committee are wholeheartedly opposed to unfair discrimination in any form, particularly that which is based upon race, religion, or political belief. I also am aware that this legislative body would be a complete sham were its members subjected to iron-bound rules which prohibit the discussion, either on the floor or in private, of views and opinions which differ with those of the administration. Indeed, we have witnessed in recent weeks the debate within the majority party itself of many issues affecting our national security, and I am sure all of us feel pride in a system which allows such open giveand-take by the chosen representatives of our people.

It would be fantastic to assume that this body could deteriorate to the point where Members who dissent with the majority would be called before the full House, stripped of their buttons and drummed out of the corps. But that is exactly what can and has happened to some members of unions where labor bosses are cloaked in such dictatorial powers.

I know because it happened to me.

I am an engineering research mechanic for the Lockheed Aircraft Corp. in Saugus, Calif. I have been employed at Lockheed for 20 years. I also am a member of the International Association of Machinists. In 1955, I was elected president of IAM Lodge 727-E, and in 1956 and 1957 I served as vice president of my IAM district, which includes 13 lodges with 20,000 members. Although I consider myself a strong supporter of unionism and believe my record establishes me as such, I am even more strongly dedicated to the American freedoms of speech and association. I am convinced that only those who hold these freedoms sacred can adequately and fairly serve the cause of the workingman. Those who do not can but levy obnoxious tribute and working

conditions upon many who must earn their livelihood in an atmosphere dominated by dictatorial power.

I say this because I have experienced both longstanding humiliation and the prospect of permanent loss of livelihood under the latter circumstances. My sin, if it may be called that, was that I exercised a right guaranteed to all Americans by our Federal Constitution, but which today is being denied countless thousands of American workers by those who feel that only our labor bosses are omnipotent enough to determine the politics of their workers. The "crime" for which I suffered is the same as is committed every day in this body and, I feel, would be defended to the last ditch by every Member of Congress.

During the 1958 election campaign in California, I was so bold as to speak out in behalf of voluntarism, or freedom of choice for the workingman. I was not alone. Many other members of my union joined me in the campaign to outlaw compulsory unionism.

Although our union was on record in opposition to proposition 18, which would have barred compulsory unionism clauses in labor contracts, we acted in behalf of what was and is to us a far greater cause, the freedom of choice for workers throughout our State.

We also were doing what we felt would strengthen our organization. We backed proposition 18 because we are convinced that if we didn't do something to clean up our unions, they would die of self-destruction, or, eventually destroy our democratic form of government.

Because of this activity and my interest in human freedom, I was hauled before a trial board of lodge No. 727 on charges of "disloyalty" and "conduct unbecoming a member." The ridiculous nature of these charges preclude the necessity of my commenting on the fairness or objectivity of my "hearing." In any event, I was expelled from the union.

After I was ousted by the IAM "trial board," I appealed the ruling to International President Al Hayes. In ruling against me, Hayes said:

"While it is agreed that the right freely to express one's view is a privilege guaranteed by the Constitution, this does not mean that a member of our association is entitled to openly denounce the considered opinion of the labor movement."

In other words, I was told that although I had the right of free speech under the Constitution, the union had both the power and the jurisdiction to take that right away from me.

After being subjected to such a brazen and arrogant attack on what I considered to be the basic rights of all Americans, I took recourse in the courts, the only avenue of relief left open to me. My battle consumed all of 3 years until the California Supreme Court finally ruled that the IAM must reinstate me. I fully understand, of course, that the purpose of these hearings is to determine the advisability of repealing section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, and does not pertain, per se, to the abuses of power by union bosses. This presentation, however, should be pertinent to the principal subject if considered in the light that what took place in my case occurred in an open shop, not in a place where the dictatorial power of union officials is made complete by virtue of union or agency shop agreements.

Had my expulsion taken place under such circumstances, and had not the courts ordered my reinstatement, I would have been, literally, deprived of my means of livelihood. Even so, members of unions in States which do not bar compulsory membership are faced with the prospect that their unions can, on any future contract negotiation with management, obtain the necessary power to exercise complete control over their membership. This, indeed, is a prospect I and all those who expressed ourselves on the subject of voluntarism now face.

As one of the founding members of "California Employees of Right-To-Work," I shall continue to work for the enactment of laws banning compulsory union membership in my State. This is a right I now enjoy under the Constitution of the United States, despite the efforts of union bosses to penalize me for exercising it. It also is the privilege of the people of California to enact such a law if they find it to be in the public interest.

It is my sincere hope that this Congress will neither deprive me of this right or deny the State of California its privilege when considering this vital legislation. I earnestly urge you to reject the measure now under consideration and to preserve section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.

I thank you.

The following is an account of the personal experience with compulsory unionism of John Mosberger, 2909 Seymour Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio.

John Mosberger is a former member of the United Steel Workers (AFL-CIO). During the period from 1950 to 1960 while he was employed by the National Tool Co. at Cleveland, Mosberger served as steward, committeeman, and treasurer for USW Local No. 4827. In September of 1960, he wrote a letter which was published in the Cleveland newspaper, supporting the candidacy of Richard M. Nixon for President. Because of the letter, officers of the union, which had endorsed the rival candidate, subjected him to harassment, demands for his resignation, and demands for retraction of the letter. His difficulties with the union because of his public expression of personal political views led to the loss of his job. Mosberger now works for the Wetmore-Reamei Co. as a milling machine operator. He is 56, married, and has one daughter.

The following is an account of the personal experience with compulsory unionism of John Alexander, 433 West Henderson, Montpelier, Ind.

John Alexander is a former member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. During the more than 15 years he was with the Pennsylvania Railroad, he worked out of Cleveland, Ohio, both as an engineer and as a fireman. Because of shifts between the two jobs, Alexander became caught between the two unions. Charges were brought against him by the firemen's union for working as a fireman while he was a member of the engineers' union, and he lost his job with the railroad. is 37, married, and has two children.

He

STATEMENT OF SYL EHR, PORTLAND, OREG.

Except for one or two very brief periods I have been a member of local No. 428 (Sign, Scene, and Pictorial Artists) since 1924. However, I did take a withdrawal during World War II at which time I was with the Naval Architect's Office for approximately 4 years.

Over the years I have worked in the trade as an apprentice, a helper, and a journeyman sign painter. At the present time, I own and operate the West Coast Sign Co. which I established in about 1930. I also authored a book, "Signpainters Don't Read Signs," which enjoyed some success.

From 1924 until the present time I have witnessed a disturbing change in all phases of organized labor. This feeling is shared by my many friends in organized labor who see in this gradual takeover by the union bosses who are now, for the most part, replacing the leadership we had enjoyed in the past, the final disintegration of the labor movement.

Where, in the past, we had been proud to be a part of organized labor we now find ourselves supporting an alien philosophy forced upon us by labor bosses some of whom have been trained in a foreign land.

The time is drawing near, if indeed it has not already arrived, in which no organized labor at all will be far better for the workingman than what we are being led into.

Many of us regard a closed shop as a slave labor camp. Only here the workman is a slave to the union boss instead of the owner of the respective business. It is no longer a case of what is best for the workman or what is best for the industry, but what is best for the union boss.

Our only hope, as members of organized labor, to hold the line against the complete takeover and consequent eventual disintegration of the union movement is to retain section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. It is a tragic admittance of the power of the union bosses that so few union members dare to make their feelings public.

Of course we recognize only too well that we do have the greedy and shortsighted in our ranks who are aiding and abetting the undermining of the movement by the bosses of organized labor but every poll, public or private, that we have been able to find indicates that the majority are Americans first and union members second.