operated, with the bad arguments driving out the good, with emotionalism swamping rationalism." 29 As long as both sides assume a now-or-never, all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed attitude, labor-management relations will never achieve any stable mature, and responsible level. Such issues as that of RTWL's should not be resolved under the presently emotionally supercharged atmosphere, but should be given some calm and constructive thought. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) representing over 43,000 members of the homebuilding industry affiliated with 387 State and local associations in each of the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, has a direct interest in H.R. 77 and similar legislation pending before the subcommittee to repeal those sections in the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 which permit the enactment of State laws outlawing compulsory union membership as a condition of employment. A large number of our members reside and conduct their building operations in the 19 States having statutes (right to work) authorized under these Federal laws. NAHB OPPOSES H.R. 77 Our members are opposed to H.R. 77 and any comparable proposal which would change Federal labor laws to nullify existing State laws making the union closed shop unlawful under labor agreements entered into in such States. The NAHB board of directors at the December 1964 Chicago convention approved a policy resolution of the NAHB Labor Committee on this subject which reads as follows: "That NAHB members and their associations support the principle under Federal and State law that the fundamental right of employment within the industry should not be denied because of membership or nonmembership in a labor organization." The resolution clearly outlines industry support for voluntary union membership and in opposition to the closed or union security shop in the homebuilding industry. The industry is opposed to any legislation to repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley law because this would enable labor unions to enforce closed shops (worker must join a union within 7 days or lose his job). Fundamental issue The reason the homebuilding industry is opposed to repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley law is its conviction that every American should be protected in the exercise of his right to earn a livelihood for himself and his family. This section of the law authorizes legal protection of this right through the enactment of State laws that prohibit required membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment (closed shop). Abolition of such laws by repeal of section 14(b) and the nullification of the legal protection now afforded to workers is the fundamental issue involved in this legislation. Compulsion versus freedom A labor organization chosen by a majority of the employees of an employer to bargain collectively on wages, hours, and conditions of employment is required by the Taft-Hartley law to do so on behalf of all the employees. A union which seeks such representation rights knows of this statutory responsibility and, when such rights are obtained, assumes the obligation by its own action. The union's voluntary assumption of this legal responsibility does not serve to justify any claim that the law should require or compel every employee to join the particular union or contribute financially to its operating costs. Any worker who, in good conscience, objects to membership in the union should not have the exercise of his right to freedom of choice so penalized by Federal law that he loses his job, or is required to pay dues to the union to continue to earn a livelihood. Loc. cit., p. 89. Reject 14(b) change In the last decade, there has been continued emphasis by the Federal Government of the need for governmental, economic, and social change to improve the living conditions of all Americans, provide equal employment opportunities, and preserve civil liberties. If this legislation is enacted into law, we could have the complete inconsistency of the Congress going to great lengths to protect the individual in his right to vote, while at the same time denying to others the right to work except on a condition they have rejected or, if given their free choice, would reject. The present effort to delete section 14 (b) from the law, and to nullify the rights now enjoyed by employees in those States which have exercised the prerogative granted by Federal law (legislative protection of employment), is destructive of this overall objective. We ask the Congress in the greater public interest, and in consideration of the welfare of employees in this industry who could be adversely affected by deletion of this section in the Taft-Hartley law, to reject H.R. 77 and similar measures. Approval of such legislation would override the clearly expressed majority choice of many State legislative bodies and their electorate. We appreciate the opportunity to express the views of this industry on this issue and have them included in the record being made on this legislation. MAY 27, 1965. Hon. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, 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 and 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 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 pressthat 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 Comonwealth. 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 0 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 record shows 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 Viriginia 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, Division of Industrial Development and Planning, STATEMENT OF NATIONAL CRUSHED STONE ASSOCIATION The National Crushed Stone Association is a nonprofit trade association whose members engage in the quarrying of rock and the processing of it into numerous crushed stone products in all sections of the United States. The crushed stone industry is an important one. Statistics compiled by the Bureau of Mines indicate that the annual production of crushed and broken stone in the United States approximates 700 million tons and is valued at roughly $1 billion. Our industry's products are absolutely vital to the construction of roads, bridges, dams, and airports and to all types of commercial construction. In addition, the steel, lead, glass, paint, agricultural, and other so-called basic industries require our industry's products in order to produce their own. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 40,000 employees are engaged in the operations of the crushed stone industry. These employees are the lifeblood of our industry. Accordingly, the National Crushed Stone Association, on behalf of its members and the industry generally, is vitally concerned with any proposed legislation which would affect the terms and conditions of employment of these men. With more particular regard to the proposals, contained in H.R. 77 and related bills, to repeal or nullify section 14(b) of the National Labor-Management Relations Act-advocates of these proposals have questioned whether employers or employer groups do, in fact, have a legitimate interest in whether or not an employee may be compelled to join a union as a condition of keeping his job. Accordingly, further delineation of NCSA's interest in these particular proposals is, we believe, appropriate. In his testimony supporting repeal of section 14 (b) before this subcommittee, the Secretary of Labor said: "The decision about whether there should be a union shop agreement in a particular collective bargaining contract is a proper subject for private decisionmaking-by agreement between the union and the employer." [Emphasis ours.] NCSA, representing, as it does, employers, disagrees most emphatically with this statement which we note is somewhat inconsistent with the position that employers do not have a legitimate interest in these proposals. The power to decide whether an individual employee must join a union is not one which should be given to the employer and the union. Therefore, NCSA, and all employers, plainly do have a legitimate interest in the proposals contained in H.R. 77 and similar bills. Nature of the proposals Section 8 of the National Labor-Management Relations Act establishes a general rule that a company and a union may enter into an agreement which requires that all of the company's employees who are represented by the union must, as a condition of continuing their employment, pay initiation fees and dues to the union. However, section 14 (b) of the act provides for exceptions to this general rule permitting such so-called union security agreements by stating: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law." [Emphasis ours.] In other words, the individual States, by their own laws, may prohibit such union security agreements between unions and employers. To date, some 19 States have enacted such prohibitions, commonly referred to as right-to-work laws. The proposals contained in H.R. 77 and related bills would repeal or abolish section 14(b) with the result that such union security agreements would then be permitted in all States irrespective of the individual State laws. The association's position On behalf of its members and the industry, National Crushed Stone Association vigorously opposes the enactment of H.R. 77 or any similar legislation designed to repeal section 14(b) of the National Labor-Management Relations Act so as to permit the execution and application of so-called union security agreements in all States of the Union irrespective of State law. In support of its position, NCSA urges that enactment of these proposals, representing as it would an abrupt departure from the considered judgment of Congress for some 30 years, would be contrary to all accepted concepts of democratic action. It would ignore the priceless values of individual freedom for which so many have given so much and, indeed, with which this very Congress has been so concerned. It would deny to union members their most effective control over their own unions. And finally, directly contrary to the express policy of the act, it would create the specter of industrial unrest. Departure from established congressional judgment Review of the legislative histories of both the Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act makes clear that, for 30 years, it has been the considered judgment of Congress that the Federal labor laws should not prevent the individual States from outlawing agreements between unions and employers whereby employees, as a condition of keeping their job, must join the union. Thus, as stated by the conference report on the Taft-Hartley Act: "It was never the intention of the National Labor Relations Act, as is disclosed by the legislative history of that act, to preempt the field in this regard so as to deprive the States of their powers to prevent compulsory unionism. Neither the so-called closed shop proviso in section 8(3) of the existing act nor the union shop and maintenance of membership proviso in section 8(a) (3) of the conference agreement could be said to authorize arrangements of this sort in States where such arrangements were contrary to the State policy. To make certain that there should be no question about this, section 13 was included in the House bill. The conference agreement, in section 14 (b), contains a provision having the same effect." 1 This conference report was written after the Congress had fully considered each and every one of the arguments concerning "free riders." "democracy." and "uniformity," which have been advanced before this subcommittee in support of the repeal of section 14(b). Thus, it is plain that enactment of H.R. 77 or similar proposals would mark an abrupt departure from the considered judgment of Congress dating from 1935. Moreover, it would be a departure completely unsupported by any reasons other than those previously rejected by Congress as lacking sufficient merit. Violation of established concepts of democratic action Proponents of the repeal of section 14(b) urge that only by authorizing employers and unions to agree to require employees to join the union can the fundamental concepts of democracy be served. This somewhat anomalous argument is apparently based upon the theory that, where the NLRB has found the union to represent a majority of the employees of an employer, that majority has the right to insist that all of the employees financially support the union. As stated by Secretary Wirtz in his testimony before this subcommittee: "There is no 'right' of a minority to endanger the freedom of a majority of the employees to protect the security of the bargaining representative that gives them a voice in the shaping of their wages, hours, and conditions of employment." [Emphasis ours.] This theory presupposes, however, that the union does, in fact, represent a majority of the employees. We submit that, in view of the current and increasing practice of the NLRB of relying upon so-called card checks to determine whether a union represents a majority of a company's employees instead of conducting a secret ballot election, this supposition is untenable. The Board's current practice in this respect and the doubt which it necessarily casts upon whether or not the union does, in fact, represent a majority are amply demonstrated by the Board's decisions in Indiana Rayon, 58 L.R.R.M. 1348, and Winn-Dixie Stores, 58 L.R.R.M. 2475. In Indiana Rayon, the union secured the signature of 119 out of a total of 236 employees to authorization cards and then made a demand for bargaining upon the employer. The employer 1 House Conference Report No. 510 (80th Cong., 1st sess.), at p. 60. declined, whereupon the union filed an election petition. The employer consented to an election which the union lost by a vote of 120 to 85. The Board, however, set aside the results of the election and ordered the employer to bargain with the union finding that certain minor violations of the Act by the employer had dissipated the union's "preexisting majority" as demonstrated by the card check. In Winn-Dixie, the cards also added up to a majority of one. The cards were, to say the least, somewhat confusing since they stated that the union was "hereby authorized to represent me and in my behalf petition the NLRB for an election to determine bargaining rights." The Board, nevertheless, held that these cards represented a sufficient demonstration of a preexisting majority to support an order requiring the employer to bargain with the union. In light of these decisions, to say that where the Board has found the union to represent a majority of a company's employees, that majority has the right to require all of the company's employees to join the union and that only in this way can the fundamental concepts of democracy be served, is plainly untenable. Moreover, this theory by the proponents of the repeal of section 14(b) also ignores the limited legal effect of that section. Section 14(b) does not itself outlaw union security agreements. Rather, it merely permits the individual States to enact legislation prohibiting such agreements. Such legislation has, in many States, been subject to statewide referendum and thus represents an affirmative decision by a majority of all of the State's voters that such agreements should be prohibited in that State. National Crushed Stone Association submits that this method far better serves fundamental democratic concepts than does an agreement reached between an individual employer and a union which may, or well may not, represent a majority of the employees. Deprivation of individual freedom This Nation's origin was based upon the fundamental belief in the concept of individual freedom. Our history is but a narrative of how we have overcome threats to and restraints upon individual freedom. Indeed, the main purpose of the Wagner Act was to insure to the individual worker his freedom to join a labor union if he so desired. In this context, it is sadly ironic that efforts should now be made to diminish that freedom. Yet, such would plainly be the result of repeal of section 14(b). Under union security agreements, the individual is required, in order to retain his means of livelihood, to financially support the union. This financial support is required even though it may be contrary to sincere and deeply held religious convictions of the individual. It is required even though the money thus obtained may be utilized for purposes with which the individual is in complete disagreement. It is required even though the union may discriminate against fellow members of the individual's race as, for example, in acceptance into apprenticeship programs. Thus, the "free rider" about whom proponents of repeal evidence so much concern becomes a "captive (but paying) passenger." These demonstrable results are plainly abhorrent to any concept of the sanctity of individual freedom. As stated by Thomas Jefferson nearly 200 years ago in the preamble to the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "[T]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Diminution of member control over unions The most effective control that union members have to insure that the union will serve, and continue to serve, their best interests is the ability to withhold their support of the union in the event they are not satisfied with its performance. In this manner, the development of honest, healthy unions is insured since a union which does not well serve the employees is soon without resources. In other words, phrased somewhat bluntly, the union must earn its keep. The union security agreement, however, denies this means of control to union members since, if they withhold their financial support, they lose their jobs. In this context, to argue, as do the proponents of repeal, that union security agreements are necessary for the continued vitality of the labor union movement is indeed strange logic. It is highlighted by the Supreme Court's decision of just this week in United States v. Brown. In that case, the Court struck down as unconstitutional the provision Congress adopted in 1959 to bar from union office persons who are or have been members of the Communist Party. Thus, at |