STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. BARRY, SALEM, OREG.

I am William A. Barry of Salem, Oreg., and I will testify regarding the misusing of union funds by union officials of District No. 70, International Association of Machinists, Wichita, Kans.

I was a union member, in good standing, in the IAM and also a shop steward from 1954 until I was expelled from further membership in the IAM and was also denied membership in any union under the jurisdiction of the AFL-CIO. I was fined the sum of $500 for asking why our funds were being misused and what was done with the members' dues.

For example, on or about June 30, 1956, I picked up an audit statement for International Association of Machinists. From July 1, 1956, through September 30, 1965, for District Lodge No. 70, Wichita, Kans., I was amazed to see that the IAM officials had withdrawn from the following Federal savings companies the following amounts:

I found that the following officials had borrowed union funds to buy themselves

On May 27, I sent a leter to Mr. J. Terry Higgins, secretary-treasurer, International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 70, Wichita, Kans.. requesting information in regards to these outlandish amounts for auto loans. According to the IAM Constitution, it specifically prohibits the loaning or appropriating of funds. On June 8, 1957, I received a reply from Mr. J. Terry Higgins, which is attached.

On June 12, 1957, I received a registered letter from Marcella S. Beatty, recording secretary, Lodge No. 834, IAM, AFL-CIO, notifying me that I had been expelled from the IAM and that I would be fined $500.

I oppose the repeal of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act because it would add to the power union bosses now have and often misuse and because the repeal of section 14 (b) would give union officials a blank check to use against the minority of workers who do not want a union or want to improve the one they have.

Thank you.

The following is an account of the personal experience with compulsory unionism of Harold Allen, 2561 33d Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Fla.

Harold Allen was first a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and then of the United Railroad Operating Crafts, a union which adhered closely to the principle of voluntarism. He was working as an engineer for the New York Central Railroad out of Toledo, Ohio, when he was dismissed from his job in 1954 after the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen signed a "union shop" contract with his employer. Now retired, Allen was active in the right-to-work movement in Ohio. He is 69 and married. One of his two children was killed in action in World War II.

The following is an account of the personal experience with compulsory unionism of George Seay, 10247 Arletta Avenue, Arletta, Calif.

George Seay is a former member of the Hodcarriers Union (AFL-CIO) and currently an "agency fee" member of the International Association of Machinists (AFL-CIO). An employee of the Douglas Aircraft Co. at Santa Monica, Seay served as president of the Douglas Employees Right to Work Committee, which unsuccessfully fought against an "agency shop" contract at Douglas and challenged its legality in the courts. Seay is 57, married, and has no children.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS D. RAMSEY, INDIANAPOLIS, IND.

My name is Thomas D. Ramsey. I live at 431 North Keystone Avenue, Indianapolis, Ind., and operate a small farm in nearby Illinois. I am a toolroom grinder for the International Harvester Co. at its Indianapolis plant. For many years. I was an active union worker and helped enlist members for Local No. 98 of the United Auto Workers.

I am here today to respectfully urge that you reject H.R. 77 and retain section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.

In opposing this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that except for the evils of compulsory membership agreements, I today would be several thousands of dollars wealthier and my employment security-a subject which ostensibly is so vital to all union bosses-would be considerably brighter. I should add that the compulsions placed upon the worker by such contracts also affect management. Many times they place the employee in an ironlike vise between union and management and deny him even the most basic of human rights.

In my own case, I was thrown out of work because of (1) an admitted error on the part of management, and (2) an insistence upon the part of the union involved that I be denied my seniority, and thus fired, because of this error. To compound these indignities, I now again must pay dues to support that very union which caused me so much hardship.

Ironically, I believe, the union has about as much desire for my membership as I have to pay dues. It is only because the union wants the $5 I am required to pay each month and the fact that an agency shop agreement is in force, that I do not, technically, have to belong to UAW. Should the company for which I have worked so many years ever negotiate a union shop, under the terms of which I would have to belong to the union—then, I am sure, management would be forced to fire me.

I first went to work for International Harvester at its motor plant, 5565 Brookeville Road, Indianapolis, on February 11, 1942. I voluntarily joined the United Auto Workers, which was attempting to organize the workers at the plant in 1947 and helped enlist others into the union.

My first disagreement with the UAW came a year later, when the company, because of economic factors, ordered a reduction in force. Despite my seniority, an alternate steward for the union, who enjoyed the privileges of "super seniority" bumped me to a lower paying job and took my post. In the event you gentlemen are not familiar with this phase of union bossism, I will explain that "super seniority" clauses allow union officials to hold their own jobs or take the jobs of other members, despite the customary seniority practices and guarantees which are common in most labor-management contracts.

Naturally, I resented what had happened, but stuck at my job and did not complain. By 1949, I had worked my way back to my former position. My advancement was short lived. Another reduction in force was ordered and. again, one of the alternate stewards who had far less seniority than I had, "bumped" me to a lower job.

I believe you can understand the extent of my indignation with this UAW practice. After being demoted twice in a year's time by special, self-centered individuals within the union, I was thoroughly disillusioned with the "great brotherhood" and "working benefits" which had been put forward as sales arguments by the UAW during its organization period.

As a result of this mistreatment, I requested the management of International Harvester to discontinue deduction of union dues from my wages and filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board against the company and the union.

Although my request to withhold dues from UAW was granted, the NLRB induced me to withdraw the unfair labor practice charges, saying "super seniority" clauses were quite legal under terms of the National Labor Relations Act.

I thus enjoyed immunity from the evils of compulsory unionism until 1955. An industrywide contract entered into by International Harvester with the UAW on November 6 of that year, required all employees who were not members to join the union within 30 days. Obviously the contract left me but two choices: Comply or face loss of my job. Not being independently wealthy, I complied with the requirements—under protest.

In 1957 and 1958, great national attention was focused upon the brutal actions of union bosses and their lieutenants in so-called organizing drives. I am sure 48-225-65-pt. 1-20

you gentlemen will recall the infant who was shot to death in the trailer home of her father, who had been so injudicious as to cross a picket line in the PotterBrumfield strike in Princeton, Ind., as well as the many other disclosures made before the McClellan committee in the Senate.

I had read about passage of the right-to-work law, which was to abolish compulsory unionism in Indiana, and on April 29, 1958, wrote both the company and the union the following:

"I have conscientious objections to union methods and their implications. My convictions will not permit support of such actions. I request that no deductions be made from my pay, except that which is a condition of employment. If at any time such condition ceases to exist, by law or otherwise, I request my release from membership in local No. 98."

I have emphasized the latter part of the letter because of its subsequent importance.

Although the right-to-work law had been enacted, it did not apply to contracts then in force, and my continued payment of dues was a condition of my employment. Through a managerial error, however, my dues payments were stopped soon after International Harvester received my letter.

Sixty days later, the union demanded that I be fired for failure to pay dues. The company denied the union demand, pointing out that I had made provisions of the right-to-work law a conition for discontinuance of dues payments and citing a ruling of an Indiana court declaring that contracts requiring payment of union dues as a condition of employment were illegal.

From then until 1960, the union filed repeated grievances with the company regarding my nonpayment of dues for the disputed period and demanded my dismissal. Although the company refused to bow to these demands, it was forced, under terms of its contract, to submit them to arbitration. On August 18, 1960, I was called into the office and notified that the arbiter's decision had been in favor of the union and that I was to lose 16 of my 18 years' seniority.

The reasoning behind this decision was that my dues had not been paid during the brief period after Indiana's right-to-work law was in effect but before expiration of the union shop contract.

In his decision, David L. Cole, the arbitrator, said:

"Under all these circumstances, it must be held that the company was in error in failing to observe the provisions of article V, section I (of the contract) and that it was not excused therefrom by either *** the declaratory judgment (of the Indiana court) or the subsection I (c) of article V. This subsection refers to States in which the enforcement of union security provisions is prohibited by law.

"At the hearing, in the light of the peculiar time factor, the union agreed that Ramsey may be regarded as reemployed on August 1, 1958, and also that for all purposes other than the maintenance of his seniority rights relating to job tenure, it would not object if the company treats his service as unbroken ✶✶ ✶"

In short, although I had worked for International Harvester since 1942, I was to be regarded as initially employed, insofar as job tenure was concerned, in 1958.

I took my case to the NLRB, where it was heard by Trial Examiner David London, who ruled in my favor on November 13, 1961. The case was later appealed by the union and the full board reversed London on September 25, 1962. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the NLRB in a ruling handed down in 1964. A year earlier, however, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the State's right-to-work law did not apply to so-called agency shop agreements, since they required payment of dues but did not compel employees to join the unions concerned.

As a result of the ruling, the UAW obtained an agency shop agreement and I have been forced to pay dues since. When contract negotiations with International Harvester are reopened, I have no doubt that the union shop will be the prime target of union representatives. Then, because Indiana no longer has a right-to-work law and despite all the protections the employee supposedly has under the law, my dismissal perhaps will be demanded. I am sure you have heard of numerous cases where labor bosses "expelled" employees, both from union membership and their jobs, because of the power granted unions under this type of contract.

I do not want to take up too much more of your time, so will not detail the numerous abuses, insults, and obscenities which were hurled at me throughout my ordeal by union officials.

I shall conclude simply by repeating what an attorney once told me about our principle of law-that it is better that a thousand criminals go free than for one innocent man to be punished. I believe you must agree that I am, at least, one innocent man who has been punished.

I thank you.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Reed Larson. I am speaking as an individual and as spokesman for the National Right To Work Committee.

In the interest of time, and in order that we can get to the questions as quickly as possible, I will, as I go through my statement, omit some of the quotations and ask that they be included in the record, if that is permissible.

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, they will be entered in the record. Mr. LARSON. We believe that union membership should be voluntary, not compulsory. This position reflects the view of the great majority of the people. By every measure of public opinion-newspaper polls, public opinion surveys, congressional polls, editorial reaction-by every measurable evidence of public sentiment, Americans want 14 (b) preserved.

Furthermore, we speak for an overwhelming majority of the working people of this Nation. Less than one-fifth of the nearly 75 million employed people in this country have chosen to join unions. Their right to join is guaranteed by State and Federal law, yet, less than 15 million have voluntarily chosen to exercise that right.

Secretary Wirtz said before this committee that he was speaking for the Nation's working people, yet his plea was based on the expressed wish of less than 1 out of every 5 workers hardly an acceptable concept of majority rule in this or any free country.

Our organization is presenting the view of the American people. Our support comes from persons in every walk of life. Unlike those who ask you to extend compulsory unionism, we speak for a popular cause, not for a small, special-interest group who have impugned their own leadership ability by suggesting that working people must be forced to support such leadership.

I'm appalled that the spokesman for any labor organization could stand before this committee and admit that his union is so unattractive that he has to force people to belong. We have more faith in the working people of America than do those who propose that workers must be forced to join unions.

Proponents of forced unionism, in an effort to draw attention away from the real issue of freedom involved, have tried again and again to misrepresent our organization by claiming that we are a spokesman for big business and big employer groups. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We represent the grassroots of America; the workers, small businessmen, professional people who understand and are concerned with the damage being done to the union movement and to our Nation's economic fabric by the excessive growing out of compulsory union membership.

The question of compulsory unionism is not an issue between big business and the laboring man. It is an issue between the worker and union officials. The giant corporations of America have shown

a remarkable callousness about this principle. This is an issue that affects people, not giant corporations.

General Motors, United States Steel, Ford, and other industrial giants have not defended the freedom of their employees to join or not to join unions. Big companies which have the economic power to resist union demands for compulsory membership have generally failed to do so. Smaller employers are frequently unwilling or unable to pay the enormous cost of labor disputes resulting from refusal to

force workers into unions.

It is important to note that the press of the Nation almost without exception opposes the repeal of 14(b). Let me cite just a few: The New York Times, May 26, 1965:

It is strange to find Mr. Wirtz treating this as a matter indistinguishable in essence from wages, hours, plant safety, or other staples of collective bargaining. ***

But it is a callous oversimplification to suggest that no element of individual liberty is at stake and that the paramount right in the equation is that of management and labor to make whatever disposition of the workers they "deem mutually satisfactory."

New York Herald Tribune, May 19, 1965:

The chief losers if 14 (b) is repealed are relatively few in number, and have little political muscle: they're the workers who want the right, if they don't like a particular union, or its leaders, or its policies. or if they simply cherish their independence, not to join. It's extraordinary that a nation so dedicated to liberty should want to take away that right; and that compulsory unionism should become a rallying cry of people calling themselves liberals.

Annapolis, Md., Capital, April 9, 1965:

Compulsory unionism would be a paralyzing blow against the liberties we all hold so necessary to keep America strong.

Pontiac, Mich., Press, March 31, 1965:

To make 14(b) seem, in any way, an antilabor measure requires some massive twisting of plain language. It simply says that each worker *** will have the right to join or not to join a union as he chooses, and in either case he can keep his job *** If that is not basic freedom, what is?

Detroit Free Press, January 23, 1965:

Where the right-to-work law does not exist, there isn't even maintenance of the separate but equal fiction. Its absence is nothing more than legislative acquiescence to racial discrimination in union charters-for all that legislators may have to say about their hearts going out to the Negro and their desire to make him in every way a first-class citizen.

Trenton, N.J., Trentonian, May 25, 1965:

Freedom of belief *** is what the fight over 14(b) is all about. One simple, basic right that belongs to all Americans. And that's why we believewith due apologies to Congressman Thompson, who violently disagrees with us-that 14 (b) should not be repealed.

*** the basic issue that revolves around 14(b) is one of human rights. That's what makes it so surprising that dedicated liberals such as our own Frank Thompson, who have fought so long and so valiantly for the rights of all people, should now be eager to junk one particular right.

Akron, Ohio, Beacon Journal, February 21, 1965:

Union leaders have long assailed Taft-Hartley as a 'slave labor' law. actually, there is no experience which supports the 'slave labor' claim, as anyone can determine by reading the strike news. The case against 14 (b) is similarly exaggerated.