the result of vengeful violence, occurs in an exaggerated form in the face of violent union strike extortion. Unions or union workers who engage in extortionate strike violence do so precisely because they wish to force the employer to factor the expectation of such violence into his collective bargaining decisions. Such union extortionate violence is, therefore, executed in a fashion which is designed to achieve the maximum impact on employer bargaining. The point the court ignored in its decision and which we make here, is that extortionate strike violence can, and often does, force an employer to make larger contract concessions than he would otherwise have made had the conduct of the union's strike been peaceful. Therefore, contract concessions which arise out of extortionate strike negotiations contain a premium for strike violence to which the employees have no legitimate claim. VIII. S.613 as a Response to the Enmons Decision The sponsors of S.613 have recognized the danger of continuing to allow unions to engage in strike violence with the expressed intent of winning otherwise unobtainable collective bargaining concessions. They have, therefore, sought to bypass the labor extortion exemption which is currently contained in the Hobbs Act by virtue of the Supreme Court's Enmons decision. To achieve this end, they have moved to strike the word "wrongful" from its current place in the statute as a qualifier for the terms "actual or threatened force." We support this proposal as an appropriate means to bring union extortion under federal jurisdiction and, to thereby remove the incentive for union members to engage in violent, extortionate behavior. IX. Arguments Against S.613 There have been two arguments voiced by the opponents of S.613 which we would like to briefly address. The first argument raises the important question of whether the jurisdiction of S.613 has been too broadly defined. It is feared that the provisions of S.613 which would make strike violence involving over $2,500 in damage or major bodily injury a federal crime, could be construed to extend to areas of criminal activity beyond the labor arena. Though this is a valid concern, we submit that the legislative discussion and history which surrounds the bill to date would preclude such an application of S.613. We would, however, support a section in the bill which would more precisely define the scope of its provisions. The second argument raises the equally valid concern as to whether the removal of the word "wrongful" could jeopardize the freedom of workers to engage in peaceful strikes. Those who voice this concern also argue that since strike activity could be construed as a legitimate form of extortion, the removal of the term "wrongful" from the definition of extortion could subject strikers to Hobbs Act penalties. The sponsors of S.613 have moved to protect the rights of legitimate strikers by inserting the term "wrongful" as a modifier for the term "fear" in the Hobbs Act's extortion definition. Positioned in this way, it would preclude the application of the Hobbs Act to union members who used legitimate tactics to inspire "fear" in their employers. Thus peaceful When the federal government extended federal jurisdiction over the field of labor relations, it should have assumed responsibility for policing all aspects of the process it was creating. S.613 would provide for this proper extension of federal jurisdiction. It has, therefore, earned the support of the NAM. The NAM urges the Criminal Law Subcommittee to vote in support of S.613. STATEMENT OF THE RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES My name is J. R. Snyder. I am National Legislative Director of United Transportation Union. This statement on S.613 is being submitted on behalf of the Railway Labor Executives Association of which I am Chairman of the Safety Committee. The names of the con stituent organizations are as follows: American Railway Supervisors Assn. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Hotel & Restaurant Employes & Bartenders Int'l. Int'l. Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Int'l. Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers Int'l. Longshoremen's Association Int'l. Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots of America National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Assn. Railway Employes Dept., AFL-CIO Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l. Assn. Seafarers Int'l. Union of North America Transport Workers Union of America United Transportation Union RLEA is strongly opposed to S. 613. The ulterior purpose of the legislation is apparent. The primary support for the legislation is the National Right to Work Committee. They are not seriously concerned about violence on the picket lines; rather, they seek another weapon to restrict workers from organizing and to seek better working conditions. Strikes are not as common as some might suggest. In fact most labor disputes are settled without the necessity to resort to a work stoppage. It is estimated that approximately 95% of the labor disputes nationally are amicably re solved. When strikes do occur they are generally peaceful. No union, and certainly not railroad unions, will advocate any violence on the picket lines. The Hobbs Act is not, and should not be, intended to interfere with exertion of peaceful economic pressures by a union through strikes to achieve legitimate labor objectives. For your Committee to vote otherwise would be a clear example of callous disregard for the workers of this country. Most legislators were not even born when labor was the victim of brutality by the management barons in this country. In 1892 the Homestead steel strike resulted in many armed detectives and strikebreakers swooping upon workers who were resisting a large pay cut. In 1894, 3,400 special deputies were sworn in by the federal government. to break the Pullman strike. These deputies were the source of much bloodshed. Interest ingly, none of those violent acts by the detectives or deputies would be considered illegal under S.613. This legislation is nothing more than a slap in the face to every working laborer in this country, and it should be resoundingly defeated. LETTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Mrs. Emily Perry Palestine, AR 72372 Honorable Charles Mc. C. Mathias 20510 Dear Senator Mathias: I would like for the Criminal Law Subcommittee to know what my family and I went throw during a strike. Please put my letter in the record of the hearings on S. 613. In 1978, AFL-CIO-Local 1106 at Sanyo, in Forrest City, Arkansas, went out onn strike, I stayed out 5 week. Then crossed the picket line (what they was asking was foolish.) It started with threating phone calls. We called the law and thay said we would have to tape the calls. A depety sherif in the office wife work at Sanyo and a big union worker was told of the call. So thay quit saying any thang. Thay would ring the phone and hang up. On Sunday night September 16th we had gone to bed. A car stoped in front of or house then started moving off slow. A shot went off and my husban jumped out of bed. By the time he could get thangs together (from a sound sleep) thay was gone. My son was out of his house trailor and in the yard by the time his father was out. The law came out the next day but could not find anythang. A couple days later thay seen where buck shot had hit a post on the front porch. And look in line and seen where some had went in the wall. Thay dug out some of the lead. At the time we was going throw all this we had a 3 month old baby in the hous. My son and his wife and baby stayed with us. We felt the trailor was unsafe for them to stay in. We wasn't the only one's that went throw this. One man was run off the road, was shot at, phone calls all night and day. His wife was threaten. She did not work at the plant. She was a house wife. Also Barbara a girl that work with me house was shot at and a big picture window was shot out and also a front door. Thay also called her and told her thay had drawed a bead on her and her son going down the hi way and could blow there head off any time. Thay told her not to go to work are thy wood have to do it. When a My husband was in the Air Force in W.W. II. He fought for my freadom and I thank every American should be able to do as thay wish as long as it is with in the law. group of people start telling you what to do and not do thay are trying to take away are freadom. When people can use the phon to call and threaten people lives come by night and shote up there homes then we are no moore free and safe in this country. We are like the other country we hear about. It seem so unreal to be happing in U.S.A. and it is all blamed on those in the union who take over. My house was shot at. My famely had to sleep in shift. And the shirfs office was not any help. One of the depety wife work there and was out on strike. I thank the United State Government should do something. Kimily Perry Emily Perry 92-211 0-82--21 |