DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING, Representative FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., Respectfully request following statement be made part of House Labor Subcommittee's record of hearings on section 14 (b) of Taft-Hartley labor law : "As director of Industrial Development & Planning, Commonwealth of Virginia, and as former head of a privately owned industrial development company which helped locate new industrial plants all over the South, I must strongly disagree with statements made before your subcommittee by Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz. "Secretary Wirtz is misinformed when he tells the American people that State right-to-work laws, which assure American workers of constitutional rights to join or not to join a labor union, have caused 'disruptive' competition between the States to attract new industry. I am unaware of any such disruptive competition and I have been in the industrial development business for 10 years. Indeed there is competition but presence or absence of a right-to-work law is seldom a determining factor in a company's choice of where it will locate a new plant or whether it will expand an existing one. "The Secretary is equally guilty of error when he says, as quoted by the press, that no so-called right-to-work State has advertised its attractions in terms of an assurance to workers that they need not belong to labor unions. "Virginia, for one, has indeed done so. Virginia makes a point, in its industrial development advertising and in other publicly circulated material, that its laws, including its right-to-work statute, provide equitable treatment which protects the rights of both industry and its workers. (See Fortune magazine, April 1965.) "The Virginia general assembly approved the right-to-work law in 1947, as a reflection of the will of the citizens of the Commonwealth. It is interesting to note that the vote in the house of delegates was 77 to 20 in favor, and in the senate, 36 to 20 for passage. "The industrial climate of Virginia is favorable both to labor and management. As many as 100,000 workers in the Commonwealth may be represented by organized labor. The records show that little time has been lost through strikes and other work stoppages in Virginia. The U.S. Department of Labor reported that man-days lost as a percentage of man-days worked was 0.03 percent in Virginia in 1963, the last year for which figures have been published. This rate was about one-fifth of the national average. "Another good barometer of the economic climate of Virginia is the rate of growth. The U.S. Department of Commerce has published statistics on the rate of growth in per capita personal income. The rate in Virginia (7 percent) was exceeded only by that in Alaska (10 percent) and equaled only by that in Maine. "The right to work,the right to join or not join any organization is not, as some persons have tried to make it, a regional issue and should not be presented as such. Coercion of the type inherent in repeal of section 14(b) is alien to American democracy. JOSEPH G. HAMRICK, Director. 48-225-65-pt. 2--27 NEW YORK YOUNG REPUBLICAN CLUB, Hon. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN POWELL: As you know, the President has proposed a package of labor law reforms including legislation to repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act thereby to outlaw the so-called right-to-work laws which now obtain in some 19 States. Those measures will doubtless be referred in the House to your committee. We respectfully request that there be added to the legislative package thus proposed a measure which we deem to be as important as those proposed by the President. We urge that legislation be proposed and enacted which would deny representation rights to any union, or local thereof, subject to Federal regulations in which there is found to exist a pattern of discrimination either in membership, or in any of the rights or privileges pertaining thereto, or in connection with the participation in any apprenticeship or training program, or in any other activity engaged in or under the control of such union. We propose that such denial of representation rights should continue until the discriminating union shall have made a satisfactory showing that such practices have been permanently discontinued. By way of background, we note that the National Labor Relations Board determined last year, by a 3 to 2 split decision in the Hughes Tool Co. case (147 N.L.R.B. No. 166, 1964 CCH N.L.R.B. para. 13,250), that a union's certification could be rescinded because of discrimination "on the basis of race in determining eligibility for full and equal membership" in the union. Obviously, the Hughes Tool Co. case is a step in the right direction. However, in our judgment, it does not afford sufficient protection against discriminatory practices now engaged in by certain unions. For example, this was a split decision by the NLRB and there is no guarantee that at some future date the NLRB may not reverse itself. Similarly, we have no way of knowing whether the courts will ultimately sustain that decision based on existing law. More importantly, however, the denial of certification does not seem to us to be a sufficient penalty for racial, religious, or other discrimination on the part of unions since it is, of course, true that an uncertified union can represent employees if the employer is willing to deal with it. Additionally, the remedy which might flow from the Hughes Tool Co. case would not apply to those unions which have not been certified at all and, hence, would be unaffected by the action of decertification. Thus, the denial of representational rights along the lines which we have proposed would go further to assure that discrimination on the part of those unions which still engage in that practice would finally be ended. We should note that we are not unaware of H.R. 4350, the proposal made by Congressman Griffin for repeal of section 14(b) and including various provisions, one of them pertaining to discrimination on the part of unions. It should be noted that the discrimination provision in Congressman Griffin's bill does not go as far as we believe the Congress must go in order finally to assure that all persons, regardless of race, creed, or religion, are afforded equal job opportunities. For example, the penalty which Congressman Griffin proposes is simply a finding that the union has engaged in unfair labor practice. As we have pointed out above, that kind of a penalty is, in our judgment, not enough to assure an end to bigotry. Additionally, the Griffin bill lumps together in a single bill various proposals which, perhaps, might more suitably be considered separately, although contemporaneously. There are, we submit, other limitations as well in the Griffin bill. That there is a need for legislation along the lines which we have proposed cannot fairly be denied. Mere reference to the city of New York will suffice to establish such a need. For some time now, many organizations, including this club, have sought to secure from the present city administration and from union leadership assurances that steps were finally being taken to insure equal job opportunities in, for example, the construction trades unions. By and large, those efforts have proven unavailing. As you well know, in this metropolis, minorities still are denied equal access to several unions and there have been many reports of instances where, though membership has been granted, they have not been accorded equal job opportunities. If such a situation can continue to exist in the city of New York, it quite obviously must flourish and conditions must be far worse in other areas of this Nation. The President, in proposing his package of labor reforms, has urged their enactment in order to reduce "conflicts in our national labor policy that for several years have divided Americans in various States." We submit that such conflicts and divisions cannot be laid to rest until all Americans are finally given an equal opportunity to earn a livelihood. This cannot be accomplished unless the bars of discrimination that still exist in some unions are finally lowered. The legislation which we propose would achieve that result and we respectfully urge that as chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee you press for its enactment. Respectfully yours, CHARLES G. MOERDLER. [From the New York Herald Tribune, Mar. 20, 1965] "IT'S ALL TAKEN CARE OF" MAYOR HIT FOR INACTION ON BUILDING BIAS (By Barry Gottehrer of the Herald Tribune Staff) A fight between Mayor Wagner and the New York Young Republican Club exploded yesterday over the Mayor's 2-year delay in taking action to end bias in the construction-trades unions. In an exchange of letters between the club and the mayor released yesterday, Charles G. Moerdler, club president, criticized the city administration for failing to give any assurances that Negroes and Puerto Ricans will be granted equal job opportunity in the construction of "Co-op City." "Co-op City" is a Bronx middle-income housing project to be financed by a $263 million mortgage loan provided by the State under the Mitchell-Lama housing program. Calling on the mayor "to withhold public funds and tax abatements from any new construction to be erected by segregated labor," Mr. Moerdler charged that an effective city administration "would urge organized labor to oust from its midst those unions that persist in discriminatory practices and would make it most unprofitable for those businesses which persist in doing so. "None of these things," charged Mr. Moerdler, "has been done by Mayor Wagner." STILL STUDYING Though the mayor's failure to act on several "urgent" proposals on bias in the construction unions dates back to 1963, when he received a series of recommendations from the Commission on Human Rights and his own Action Panel, (the mayor's office said yesterday he was planning a "progress” report), yesterday's controversy is only 1 month old. On February 9, at a press conference announcing plans for "Co-op City," the mayor was asked what employment opportunities would be made available for minority group workers. "We have been working on that problem," the mayor said. "Peter Brennan (president of the Building Trades Council) is working on that." At this point, Mr. Brennan called out from the rear of the room, "Tell them it's all taken care of, Bob, that's all you have to answer." That was all the mayor did answer and Mr. Brennan later was unavailable to outline exactly how it was all taken care of. To get an answer to this question, the New York Young Republican Club wrote the mayor on March 10, citing the article from the Herald Tribune's "New York City in Crisis" series about the press conference. In the letter, Mr. Moerdler demanded to know what Mr. Brennan had meant and "what guarantees have been given to assure that equal job opportunities will finally become a reality with respect to all construction in this city." On March 13, Julius C. C. Edelstein, executive assistant to the mayor and his answer man, answered Mr. Moerdler. According to Mr. Edelstein, the mayor "had no recollection of the exchange" between himself and Mr. Brennan although "he knows that an account along the lines you cited did appear in one of the newspapers. "Indeed many reports are given currency these days whose accuracy the mayor would not care to underwrite." Expressing the mayor's appreciation for the Young Republicans' concern as a "sign of the times and the year [an election year]," Mr. Edelstein said the alleged exchange does not reflect the mayor's attitude. "The mayor," continued Mr. Edelstein, "has not ceased to exert both pressure and persuasion upon those few unions which have resisted steps toward the equalization of opportunity for admission into these unions. Contrary to the implications*** substantial progress has been made by many of the unions in changing long-standing practices and rules. Of course, the progress made could not be considered sufficient in the light of magnitude of the problem." THE COUNTERATTACK Failing to cite a single statistic or specific to document his claim of "substantial progress," Mr. Edelstein concluded by saying, "The question is, however, what efforts could have been exerted, and by whom, to have achieved a greater result? What power does the city government possess which, if applied, could produce this more gratifying result? Would shutting down city constructiona coercive measure which is suggested in your letter-contribute to the desired outcome? And by what steps? "If such coercion is proposed as a proper measure by the city government, should it not also be urged upon the State government and upon the private construction industry, too? "This is not to say that your letter indulges in such over-simplification. But the mayor thought I ought to call the possibility of it to your attention." It was this letter-and another by Mr. Moerdler dated March 18-that led to the open controversy yesterday. Though Mr. Edelstein, the mayor, and Peter Brennan could not be reached for comment yesterday afternoon, two reporters from the World-Telegram & Sun and a spokesman for the Human Rights Commission were. The two newsmen, who also covered the press conference at which the exchange between the mayor and Mr. Brennan was reported in the Herald Tribune and denied by the mayor, corroborated the Herald Tribune's version. AND STILL WAITING A spokesman for the Human Rights Commission, which asked the mayor in 1963 to cancel contracts with construction firms shown to have engaged in discriminatory practices, said the commission is still waiting for an answerand some action-from city hall. Asked what Mr. Brennan meant by his statement that the matter was being taken care of, a spokesman for Mr. Brennan said yesterday that the building trades unions have been asked to send reports in to the central office detailing exactly how many Negroes and Puerto Ricans have entered each union. When would some information be available? "I just can't say," the spokesman said. "It will take us a while compiling the information." In his letter of March 18, Mr. Moerdler told Mr. Edelstein, "If these various reports do not, as you suggest, 'reflect the mayor's attitude on this matter,' it behooves him to speak for himself. "It is difficult to believe that there is, as you suggest, a conspiracy afoot on the part of the press to publish reports * * * whose accuracy the mayor would not care to underwrite.' "Your question as to what an effective and conscientious mayor might do finally to end discrimination in this city is a most shocking admission of the moral decline of this city's government." Mr. Moerdler concluded by saying he was delighted that the mayor appreciates the club's interest in the achievement of equal opportunity. "Through such distinguished former club officers and members as Congressman Lindsay, Senator Javits, Governors Rockefeller and Dewey, Jackie Robinson, and the late Stanley M. Isaacs, to name a few, we have tried over the years to make our contribution. "I hope that we can finally persuade the mayor to make his." STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. DEDE, ROCKVILLE CENTRE, N.Y. This statement is being submitted to the Special Subcommittee on Labor of the U.S. House of Representatives because a letter from Representative Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey, indicates that the committee will not be able to schedule me as a witness when hearings are held on the pending legislation to repeal section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. As the members of the committee know, section 14(b) permits any State to outlaw the union shop. Nineteen States currently have such right-to-work laws on their books. Some of these right-to-work laws were passed as the result of legislative action, and others were passed by vote of the people in the respective States. Labor leaders decry the so-called right-to-work laws of these States on the single principle that all beneficiaries of a union-negotiated contract should pay union dues. Anyone who does not is considered a "free rider" and, therefore, a parasite. Reduced to its simplest terms it means that a man will have to pay for the right to hold a job, even though it might be against his principles. Congress has heard many arguments pro and con in the last year or so regarding the arguments with respect to poll taxes in certain States. I am opposed to a poll tax on the very simple theory that no citizen should have to pay tribute to exercise his right to vote. For the same reason, I am opposed to the repeal of section 14 (b) for those States that choose to have right-to-work laws, on the same theory that no individual should be forced to pay dues in order to hold a job. This great Nation composed of 50 States which are separated widely geographically, have tremendous differences in population, the type of employment offered, and the basic thinking of different types of people by virtue of their background and heritage. The 19 open-shop States do not discriminate against unions. In many of these shops union membership actually has risen, while in others there has been no marked decline in union membership. This is despite the fact that all of these States have shown substantial increases in manufacturing employment. In conclusion, I would like to quote from an editorial in Life magazine of January 29, 1962: "Let the Federal Government face up honestly to the fact that free collective bargaining' is impossible when one party comes to the table with monopoly powers. Labor union membership should be voluntary and unions should be brought under the antitrust laws. If truly free collective bargaining prevailed, the mobility of labor would be increased; featherbedding would be reduced; productivity would be improved; and real wages would generally advance with productivity ***" I urge that the members of the committee and those of Congress who might read this statement as it appears in the record of the committee, will give serious thought to preserving the right of choice to the American workingman. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL GLASS DEALERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. The National Glass Dealers Association is a nonprofit trade association composed of independent retail dealers located throughout the United States. These typical small, independent businessmen purchase automobile and flat glass products from glass manufacturers and suppliers, and then install and sell such glass products to a wide variety of purchasers. The National Glass Dealers Association believes that every employee and prospective employee should be guaranteed freedom, without intimidation or coercion from any source, to join or not join a labor organization. Membership or nonmembership in a labor organization should not determine the right of any individual to secure or keep a job. This is the basic and common purpose of the right-to-work laws adopted in 19 States. The principle behind these laws is neither antiunion nor prounion; it is simply a matter of voluntary choice. In this country, we have a deeply imbedded tradition of relying on voluntary methods and organizations. The 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States implicitly protect the right to work. They prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law" and forbid abridgment of "the privileges and immunities of citizens." |
