you what that survey shows. If right to work had been on the ballot last October, it would have carried Pennsylvania by 69 percent. Moreover, out of every 10 trade union members who are in the sample that was interrogated, 3 out of every 10 trade union members would have voted for right-to-work legislation.

The people of Pennsylvania are deeply disturbed over the thought that the Congress, acting under pressure from national union officials, might close their door before a right-to-work law is enacted in the State. Pennsylvanians for right to work asks that the committee and the Congress put an end to this concern with a reaffirmation of the wisdom and the fundamental rightness of including section 14(b) in the Taft-Hartley Act.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Are there any questions? If not, we shall now hear our colleague, Mr. Baring, of Nevada.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER S. BARING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. BARING. Mr. Chairman, I am diametrically opposed to the repeal of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. My opposition to such all-encompassing Federal legislation is backed up by the fact that my State has three times voted to keep the right-to-work law in effect, in 1952, 1954, and 1956. In 1954, the attempt to repeal section 14(b) failed by 100 percent more votes than it did when it first appeared on the ballot. In 1956, it failed by 150 percent more votes than in the initial election. In addition, union leaders have failed to get the required minimum number of signatures to again place the issue on the ballot.

To repeal section 14(b) in a State which democratically voted to retain it would be tyranny. The appeal of the citizens of Nevada is loud and clear. They do not want compulsory unionism. I believe that every State through its electorate has the parallel right to decide the question. Some 58 million people in 19 States, including my own, have decided to retain section 14(b).

Our democracy is set up so the opinions of the minority are protected. Will we destroy this protection and a fundamental concept of our democracy? I say we should not.

Aside from the involvement of States rights in considering the repeal of section 14(b), there is a real moral consideration, which involves the rights of the individual as well as the rights of the minority. Reason and logic cannot dispute the fact that the fair employment practice provision of the Civil Rights Act is but an extension of the philosophy of the right to work. If we could act on what is termed a moral and constitutional obligation to guarantee equal access to employment by forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, it is equally right and moral to preserve, in this case, freedom from restraint and discrimination for the same reason.

Gentlemen, I appeal to your sense of justice: Workers have an inherent right to make their own decisions as to whether they can benefit fairly from union membership. This freedom to choose, this cornerstone of our way of life must not be taken away.

It is neither morally right nor legally right nor in keeping with our national tradition of freedom for the individual to deprive, by Fed

eral statute, even one individual of the opportunity for livelihood, or to force an individual into a union's taxation and discipline against his will.

I would ask you, why repeal section 14 (b)? What is the reason behind such action? I do not believe that there are such unbearable conditions in labor-management relations that they cannot be remedied through any other means than repeal. Repeal will not serve to strengthen already powerful interests; it will only weaken the Government's ability to cope with the labor situations that threaten national interests, health, and welfare.

A real need for repeal is not evident. This legislation asks for something which may have been appropriate 30 years ago. Today we pride ourselves with an enlightened outlook that recognizes the employees as the major resource and their well-being as essential to the prosperity of the enterprise. This outlook combined with the existing law structure provides more than adequate assurance for continued balanced progress.

A right-to-work law merely guarantees that no individual can be denied employment because of membership or nonmembership in any labor organization.

President Johnson, when he was seeking reelection to the Senate in 1960, supported Texas' right-to-work law in this statement: "We restate our belief in the free enterprise system which holds the true key to growth and prosperity, and support adequate financing of the Texas Industrial Commission and the tourist program of the State highway department. Necessary to this development are the preservation of good labor relations, the right-to-work law, improvements in industrial and occupational safety, and strict enforcement of our antitrust laws."

It is also significant to note that the opinion of the American public is with the retention of 14(b). Opinion Research of Princeton, N.J., showed that 67 percent of the people are for right to work and this is compared with 48 percent in 1956. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in December 1963 that State open shop laws were legal.

I believe that the right not to join a union is as sacred as the right to join one. The main issues in the union shop controversy are equitable relations among workers and the rights of the individual workers. The right to work is the operative part of the right to life, liberty, and property. If a man cannot earn a living as he pleases, he cannot dispose of it as he pleases. Unions have countered this argument by accusing the nonunion worker of being a "free rider” who is willing to share the union victories without bearing any of the cost of winning them. However, the fact remains, that nonunion members are "forced followers" in the union. Unions have actively sought exclusive bargaining rights, which necessarily includes the responsibility of representing nonunion workers. The rights of workers to effective representation by a union are not abridged by the failure of other workers to join.

No rationalization can get around the fact that enforced membership is the denial of a fundamental right.

It is curious to note that unions are the only organizations in the United States which can force membership.

Just as we have a system of checks and balances on the power of our Government, so too we need such a system of checks on unions. For here the drive for power can just as well get disproportionately out of hand as it could have in our Government without the control through these checks and balances. Section 14 (b) is just such a check on power of unions. We have antitrust legislation which make monopolies in business illegal. But it is possible, if 14(b) is repealed, to give unions a green light to create monopolies of their

own.

Nevada enjoys the third highest per capita income in the United States. This figure is far above the national average and was achieved without compulsory unionism. The right-to-work law in the State of Nevada has certainly not been detrimental in light of this statistic. It has instead been a help to Nevada's economic development. Nevada's actual experience díspels arguments of those who call for nullification of the right to work.

Since 1952, when the right to work became law in Nevada, to 1963 there was an increase of 114 percent of workers on nonagricultural payrolls. Wages have increased substantially since passage of the right-to-work law. U.S. Department of Labor reports disclose that in Nevada the gross average weekly earnings of production workers on manufacturing payrolls increased from $94.28 in 1952 to $123.28 in 1963, a gain of $29.50 a week.

In 1963, the gross average earning of production workers on Nevada manufacturing payrolls was $3.11 an hour. This is 23 cents an hour higher than comparable figures for neighboring California, 24 cents higher than Washington, 59 cents higher than New York, 52 cents higher than New Jersey, 63 cents higher than Pennsylvania, and 9 cents higher than Michigan's hourly wage.

As for the strength of unions in Nevada, the Department of Labor reports that there were 10,070 AFL-CIO members in the State in 1958. In 1962, union membership increased to 18,000. This is a jump of 79 percent.

The final decision must be based on our concept of individual freedom. We must guarantee the freedom of choice as we do in choosing religion, political party, and other aspects of life. A man can join a union if he chooses. The right to work guarantees the right to stay out of a union if a worker chooses.

If 14(b) is repealed, the freedom of choice is denied. Neither union, nor individual, nor any group should be given the power to force such a demand. If we take away this freedom to make this choice, we deny a fundamental right-a right which is not ours to tamper with, a right that we have no business legislating against. Gentlemen, I urge you to rely on your ethical and moral sense in considering section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. If you do, I am sure your decision will lie where the opinion polls tell us they should, with the majority of the American people.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Baring. We are running a little late, but counsel has a communication to read.

Mr. McCORD. Mr. Chairman, you have received a letter and a statement from Mr. Ernest P. White, Jr., of San Jose, Calif., which he has

Appearing as proponents it is ther by sen

You will also, I hope, have beard from T Commerce, the president of the Natical Assist i be, some professors and economists wit as parents i case for the status quo.

You may even hear from the leaders of the ma

at least in the cloakrooms, reminding members of the p legislation for the prestige of the President.

Some proponents of repeal will, I am sure, agged a de unions equal power in all 50 States. In rebuttal I can ay deserve the privilege of union shop in the 19 States with the books, let them have their members in these States erase them from the bo in the fine American tradition, at the polls. So long as these laws

it can only mean that the working people of these 19 States appar IC of them. And so long as these laws are valid, there is always the opgeruim I fe independent thinking working people in other States to get same legisual, a Se themselves.

Repeal section 14(b) and you forever deny to the workers of all States the opportunity for personal freedom now enjoyed by their counterparts in the so-called right-to-work States.

As to the prestige of the President as regards this legislation, I can only sar that, in my opinion, as you sow, so shall you reap. In politics you must pay the price of accepting special-interest support, and if a decline in prestige is part of this price, so be it. The perical prestige of the individual holding the office of President can never be allowed to taxe precedence over the rights of individual citizens.

The most bearsed serponents of repeat w." ture up visions of how concerned ther are fre the senque aut we are paxi miy for the people and have won't you or 11. I am "A" people, 1:11 y moly do not speak for the,

4

Just as we have a system of checks and balances on the power of our Government, so too we need such a system of checks on unions. For here the drive for power can just as well get disproportionately out of hand as it could have in our Government without the control through these checks and balances. Section 14 (b) is just such a check on power of unions. We have antitrust legislation which make monopolies in business illegal. But it is possible, if 14(b) is repealed, to give unions a green light to create monopolies of their

own.

Nevada enjoys the third highest per capita income in the United States. This figure is far above the national average and was achieved without compulsory unionism. The right-to-work law in the State of Nevada has certainly not been detrimental in light of this statistic. It has instead been a help to Nevada's economic development. Nevada's actual experience dispels arguments of those who call for nullification of the right to work.

Since 1952, when the right to work became law in Nevada, to 1963 there was an increase of 114 percent of workers on nonagricultural payrolls. Wages have increased substantially since passage of the right-to-work law. U.S. Department of Labor reports disclose that in Nevada the gross average weekly earnings of production workers on manufacturing payrolls increased from $94.28 in 1952 to $123.28 in 1963, a gain of $29.50 a week.

In 1963, the gross average earning of production workers on Nevada manufacturing payrolls was $3.11 an hour. This is 23 cents an hour higher than comparable figures for neighboring California, 24 cents higher than Washington, 59 cents higher than New York, 52 cents higher than New Jersey, 63 cents higher than Pennsylvania, and 9 cents higher than Michigan's hourly wage.

As for the strength of unions in Nevada, the Department of Labor reports that there were 10,070 AFL-CIO members in the State in 1958. In 1962, union membership increased to 18,000. This is a jump of 79 percent.

The final decision must be based on our concept of individual freedom. We must guarantee the freedom of choice as we do in choosing religion, political party, and other aspects of life. A man can join a union if he chooses. The right to work guarantees the right to stay out of a union if a worker chooses.

If 14(b) is repealed, the freedom of choice is denied. Neither union, nor individual, nor any group should be given the power to force such a demand. If we take away this freedom to make this choice, we deny a fundamental right-a right which is not ours to tamper with, a right that we have no business legislating against. Gentlemen, I urge you to rely on your ethical and moral sense in considering section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. If you do, I am sure your decision will lie where the opinion polls tell us they should, with the majority of the American people.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Baring. We are running a little late, but counsel has a communication to read.

Mr. McCORD. Mr. Chairman, you have received a letter and a statement from Mr. Ernest P. White, Jr., of San Jose, Calif., which he has