Although the bargaining power of farmers, through their cooperatives, has not reached the powerful position of the labor unions bargaining for their members, we are striving to reach that goal in an extremely competitive environment. We suggest the voluntary approach in gaining support from individuals or individual groups is successful. This is borne out by the latest report on memberships in farmer cooperatives as published by the Farmer Cooperative Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1962-63, the year which the latest data are available, there were 7,218,750 memberships in farmer cooperatives among approximately 3,475,000 farmers in the United States. It should be noted that despite the rapid decline in farm numbers during the 1950's, the memberships in cooperatives in the last 15 years has risen 1.8 percent. The average farmer in the United States, according to the information supplied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, belongs to at least two farmer cooperatives. He belongs to and supports his farmer cooperative because it is to his economic benefit and does so voluntarily. We believe this is a healthy approach to building stronger farmer cooperatives by encouraging farmers to accept the privileges and responsibilities of participating in an organization which has as its goal increasing his income or reducing the costs of his operation. We suggest labor organizations can accomplish the same goal through voluntary membership. The use of voluntarism in building organizations is not an easy one. Potential members must be convinced it is to their benefit to join. This requires a continuous educational program to show the economic benefit of belonging to a cooperative. The same could be true for a labor organization. The average farmer today is constantly being solicited by competing firms seeking to sell him the necessities for farming operations or to buy from him the products produced on his farm. Unquestionably, the role of voluntarism in labor organizations would add considerably to the efforts required on the part of a union organization. They would have to continuously "sell" their members on the value of paying dues to their organiaztion. But, with effort, it can be done. There are no mandatory requirements that farmers, in order to engage in farming, must belong to or patronize a farmer cooperative in this area. There is no requirement that a farmer must purchase stock or pay dues in a farmer cooperative if he has no intention of becoming a part of that organization. Nor are there any mandatory requirements that a farmer, in order to continue his farming operations, must become a member of a farmer cooperative. We suggest this is an appropriate analogy to the "closed shop," the "agency shop," and the "union shop." Although it has been repeated many times, we concur with Samuel Gompers on his statement on whether a worker should join a union, or from our standpoint, if he wishes to join a farmer cooperative. Mr. Gompers said, "there may be here and there a worker, who for certain reasons unexplainable to us, does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can or dare question his exercise of that legal right." We respectfully urge this committee not to pass the measure to repeal section 14(b). We appreciate the opportunity of expressing our views. A. N. MAY BUILDERS, INC., Mr. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. THOMPSON: I am in receipt of your letter of May 10 and would like the following statement incorporated in the record. My company, Arnold N. May Builders, Inc., was organized in 1950 and presently employs, as a nonunion shop, about 85 personnel. We have many former unionmen working for us that have left the union because our company offers year-around employment. In the years in business we have never laid a man off in the winter. I feel it is important to a wage earner that he have steady paychecks. Although we pay about $1 per hour less than union wages, our men in general make between $2,000 and $3,000 a year more annually than the comparable union technicians. On many different occasions we have had extensive picketing of our site, sugar put in our vehicles, and I personally have been pushed about by union organizers. I have taken the position that as long as my men don't want the union I certainly don't care for it either. We are present designing, leasing, and building a shopping center in Burlington, Wis. We started this work and pickets have appeared on the jobsite. When they saw that we were going ahead and the pickets didn't disturb us the union people have gone to the lessees of the stores and told them that they would picket their stores for 2 years if they tried to move in, that they would no longer buy at their stores. This is a very unfair pressure on the lessees and they are now wanting us to use union labor on this project. I think, and very strongly so, that my men must have the choice of whether or not they belong to a union. It would be unfair for me to put my men in the union without their approval as it is unfair for a union to force a man from a job because he doesn't care to join their organization. Yours very truly, ARNOLD N. MAY, President. LAWTON AREA AFL-CIO LABOR COUNCIL, LAWTON, OKLA. Resolution memorializing Congress to enact legislation to restore full freedom of collective bargaining as uniform national labor policy and practice throughout the United States, by repealing existing sanctions of State right-to-work laws contained in section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and section 705(b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and by other appropriate action Whereas section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and section 705(b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 sanctions the enactment of State right-to-work laws prohibiting the negotiation of agreements between unions and employers assuring union security during the term of such agreements; and Whereas by constitutional provision or statute 19 States have such right-towork laws in effect, and by ordinance or other enactment numerous municipalìties, counties, and other local bodies have adopted and put such laws into effect; and Whereas such laws are contrary to and in derogation of provisions of Federal law contained in sections 8(a) (3) and 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, which in the absence of section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and section 705(b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, permit under specified conditions the negotiation of agreements between unions and employers assuring union security during the term of such agreements; and Whereas State right-to-work laws undermine union organization and interfere with full freedom of collective bargaining between unions and employers; tend to depress wages and working conditions and to promote strikes and instability and antagonism in labor-management relations; and unfairly compel unions to represent and bargain for workers who are unwilling to bear the cost and responsibility of participation in union organization and collective bargaining: and Whereas State right-to-work laws are unfair and antilabor in their effects and are designed to weaken and harass labor unions in their organization efforts and in representing workers in bargaining with their employers; and Whereas labor unions are generally rendered less effective in promoting the welfare of wage earners, and wages and working conditions are generally lower in States having right-to-work laws than in States where such laws do not exist; and Whereas successful implementation of the national labor policy in support of union organization and collective bargaining is not possible unless unions and union security are accepted by management as desirable forms of industrial dealings: Therefore be it Resolved, That the legislature of the Lawton Area AFL-CIO Council urgently requests that the Congress of the United States enact such legislation as may be necessary and appropriate to repeal section 14 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and section 705(b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which sanction State right-to-work laws, and to restore full freedom of collective bargaining as uniform national labor policy and practice throughout the United States; and be it further Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be sent forthwith by the secretary of the Lawton Area AFL-CIO Council to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Congress, and to the Senators and Representatives representing their State in the Congress of the United States. Violet Ballou (Secretary-Treasurer, Council; President, Laborers STATEMENT BY THE ILLINOIS STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The Illinois State Chamber of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to submit this written statement on the several bills to amend the Labor Management Relations Act in the area of compulsory membership in labor organizations. We would have preferred, however, to have presented our views in person before the subcommittee as representatives of almost 19,000 individual business, industry, retail and professional men and women in the State of Illinois. Noting that much of the previous testimony before the subcommittee on the vital issue of compulsory unionism has dealt with historical background, we will not dwell in this area to any degree. Suffice it to say that various bills before this subcommittee would repeal or nullify section 14(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act. Thus, the Federal Government would preempt the right of States to enact laws against all forms of compulsory unionism or support of labor unions. The Illinois State Chamber is opposed to repeal of 14 (b) because it would violate a basic right of every citizen and, further, would contribute to extension of union monopoly power. One of the few options which the workingman retains is the right to be employed without subjecting himself to the regulation of a union, in some States. This right is specifically preserved by section 14(b) and it should be preserved. Twenty years ago Henry Simons noted that "questioning the virtues of the organized labor movement is like attacking religion, monogamy, motherhood, and the home.' More recently another economist, after analyzing the threat to the public interest posed by a labor movement which has grown too strong, suggested" *** there lies one basic task-that of taking the halo off the unions. Unions today derive most of their strength from the public image of them as battlers for the underprivileged and agents from the public welfare. This image is a tremendous distortion." As of today anyone who questions the benefit to society of uncontrolled union power over the workingman is charged with "union busting." In recent years both Federal and State laws have granted to labor unions unwarranted favoritism. Even the slightest attempt to amend these union-inspired statutes results in unleashing of emotional propaganda attacks. A recent attempt in the State of Illinois to exempt certain executive women in business and industry from coverage under the State's "8-hour-day law" is a case in point. The law prohibits women from working more than 8 hours a day. Attempts to amend the statute to exempt highly paid, executive women and top secretarial help, who must work extra hours to maintain their job equality, was viewed by labor as an attempt to return to the "old sweatshop days." Nothing could be further from the truth. (Even some unions in Illinois are interested in exempting other classifications of women, so that the women can earn overtime and progress in their jobs.) Irresponsible disregard for reality from the aggressive union leaders bent upon controlling others is highlighted by union objections to amending the State's "8-hourday law. Compulsory unionism is a form of uncontrolled union power and should be prohibited by law for the very practical reason that forced membership in any organization as a prerequisite to obtaining or holding a job is an un-American concept, and should not be permitted. Just as some workers wish to be exempt from labor-sponsored restrictive State statutes, so do many workers have sound 48-225-65-pt. 2-24 reasons for not wanting to join a union. The nonmember may not like the idea of being fined for not attending union meetings; he may not like to be assessed to support a strike in some other location where he knows nothing of the issues involved; he may not like a part of his dues money being spent for political purposes that may be in direct conflict with his own beliefs. Legislative gains resulting from the activities of the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce inure to the benefit of the nonmember company as well as to the member company. These gains provide the State chamber with excellent arguments to convince the nonmember company that it should become a member. However, most reasonable citizens would be shocked at the thought that the State chamber could have the legal right to approach a businessman and say "Our activities result in benefits to the entire business community-therefore, you are compelled by law to be a member as a condition of doing business in the State of Illinois." We submit that this is the same shocking argument that the unions advance when they castigate the "free rider" in their battle to repeal 14(b). If the State chamber properly serves its members and obtains the benefits promised, others will join voluntarily. The same holds true for unions, churches, political parties and other groups. FREEDOM VERSUS COMPULSION As to the violation of the un-American principle that is involved in compulsory unionism, it is of course possible for one who holds this point of view to refuse to grant union security provisions in collective bargaining. However, as a practical negotiating matter it is obvious that employers enjoy no power equal and comparable to the overwhelming economic power that is in the hands of labor unions, and strikes over the single issue of union security are not uncommon. Furthermore, the law books are full of instances of illegal violence during strikes over such issues. Small- and medium-sized employers are constantly presented with the union shop demand, and under the threat of a complete or permanent closing of their operations will often grant the union shop even though they believe that compulsory unionism is unfair and an un-American shackle on their employees. In recent testimony before this subcommittee, Secretary of Labor Wirtz stated "If section 14(b) is repealed, the general rule established in section 8 of the IMRA will then prevail in all States. The State laws prohibiting these agreements will be inoperative. The result will be that whether there is a union shop in any particuar case will depend on the private decision made within the union, and the private agreement made between the union and the employer." This is a fine statement, as far as it goes. However, recently the National Labor Relations Board ruled in an Illinois case that a company was guilty of unfair labor practices because of the company's adamant stand against signing a labor contract of the union-security type. This is a prime example of the union using an agency, created by statute, to obtain by edict what the union could not get through bargaining. As was stated previously, it is always possible for an employer to refuse to grant union-security provisions. The union can then exert its great economic power, or it can turn to a Government agency for a solution to the matter. This is an example of the granting to unions, by statute, of "unwarranted favoritism." Labor union leaders are not as much concerned about the so-called "right to work" laws in the 19 States which now have them, as they are anxious to see compulsory unionism retained and extended in all the 31 other States where it is legally permissible but where it has sometimes been fought by workers and employers through advocating enactment of State right-to-work laws. Illinois is one of these 31 States and while the Illinois State Chamber has historically taken no leading role to bring about enactment of such a statute, it sincerely believes that its future right to work for such a statute should not be denied. If Congress passes legislation repealing 14(b) it will be tantamount to endorsement of the idea of compulsory unionism in all work and in all business. Commenting in early February on the recent dock strike, Secretary Wirtz said "In the free American tradition of voluntarism, we urge that the matter be settled." The State chamber heartily agrees with the philosophy expressed and we denounce the grave menace to such tradition posed by the unchecked growth and continuous spread of labor's monopoly of compulsion. EXTENSION OF UNION MONOPOLY POWER Historically, our Nation has opposed monopoly. We, above all people, recognized the freedom of every man to buy and sell without restraint was most likely to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. We distrusted power. Our Government was based upon a concept of limited delegated power and of a separation of powers. In our early years our courts held that it was a crime for a minority group to attempt, through intimidation or combination, to monopolize a service to the detriment of the majority-the consuming public. The courts heard many labor conspiracy cases and found them illegal. A similar restriction upon the combined activity of businessmen to prevent another from selling except at their rigged price is still considered to be the finest type of protection for the public. In fact, this is the antitrust law-more specifically the Sherman Antitrust Act. During the years immediately following its enactment, in 1890, the Sherman Act was consistently applied by our Federal courts and our Supreme Court to activities involving restraint of interstate commerce without distinguishing as to whether such activities were committed by business groups or by labor groups. It was not until 1941 that our Supreme Court held that by implication Congress had exempted labor unions from antitrust laws. One former Acting Secretary of Labor has suggested that by so doing "*** the Supreme Court has done the labor unions a real disservice in vesting them with the worst curse of modern times too much economic power over others." Thus, we have established a double-standard wherein unions have accrued power as a special segment of our society that is denied to every other segment. The public is well aware of the monopolistic power of labor unions because of the manifestation of this power in the form of industry or area strikes in coal, steel, transportation, oil, aircraft and almost every other industry big enough to become a part of a national emergency situation. The public is not aware of the terrific monopoly power of labor unions when that power manifests itself in the form of secondary boycotts, featherbedding and countless other practices which go on every day in thousands upon thousands of cases. In these cases, small and medium sized employers also are involved and the accumulated economic cost of such restrictive practices and restraints of trade is staggering. The repeal of 14(b) will extend further union monopoly power. The Illinois State Chamber is convinced that the greatest improvement in labormanagement relations in the country will come only when labor unions are subject to the same kinds of limits on their monopolistic restraints and coercions that businessmen have been increasingly subjected to. Labor unions should not simply be made subject to the present antitrust laws, although this course of action has considerable eventual merit. However, we do recommend the establishment of a joint congressional committee to study and report on the effect of the monopolistic power of labor unions with particular reference to both domestic and foreign trade and commerce, and with reference to the cost to the American consumer and taxpayer of union restraint thereof. The report of this joint congressional committee would provide a basis for special legislation which would effectively end the monopolistic stranglehold of the dozen or two powerful, aggressive union bosses now threatening our free, competitive economy. Such a study would reveal the monopolistic implications inherent in the repeal of 14 (b). On the national level some Members of Congress have tried to draw attention to the union monopoly issue. One committee has investigated the Teamsters, and one Senator proposes to curb the monopoly power of an alliance of transportation. That Senator is John L. McClellan of Arkansas. Senator McClellan has warned against monopoly power in the following words: "The Teamsters control the trucking industry, especially in metropolitan areas. If they called a nationwide strike, you would not get ambulances to take sick people to the hospital, nor hearses to carry the dead; farmers could not get produce to urban areas; food manufacturers could not send in canned goods; milk would not be delivered; market shelves would soon be swept clean; city dwellers would face starvation *** Hoffa is reported to have said he would not call such a strike, but I believe that the American people, instead of relying on the mere word of the head of the Teamsters Union, would prefer to be protected by law * * *”. Sometimes, however, we lose sight of the real and significant meaning of union monopolistic power on the local or State scene. In Illinois we have witnessed a prime example of unjust union exploitation which has been granted |