B. Freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution (first amendment): (1) It has both affirmative and negative sides the right to join, and the right not to join any voluntary association of one's free choice. (2) Trade unions attempt to limit this right which was historically asserted by them as the basis of their right to organize employees. (3) The right not to join is a necessary corollary of the right to join-just as freedom of speech carries with it the right to remain silent. (4) The right to work is recognized by the United Nations Charter to which the United States adheres by treaty, in the free worker and free enterprise sense.

II. ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION OF COMPULSORY UNIONISM

A. It is fallacious to contend that the union shop (closed except for 30 days grace to join or quit the job) agreements are voluntary contracts between the union and employer, and so should be respected under freedom of contract:

(1) It is not voluntary on the part of many if not most employers and employees; most small employers are opposed to compulsory union membership. (2) Even agreements between private parties may be reviewed for conformity with the Bill of Rights when governmental action is present. Agreements involving a statutory bargaining agency are subject to review for conformity with the Bill of Rights, say some courts. (3) Labor union officials revived the theory of freedom of contract to justify compulsory unionism after themselves practically destroying that freedom by getting Congress to outlaw the open-shop contract of some employers. (4) Labor leaders opposed contracts forbidding workers to join a union, but inconsistently favor contracts requiring workers to join a union even though it is against their will.

B. It is untrue that union shop compulsory unionism is necessary for union security.

(1) AFL-CIO and other organized labor now has more security in special legislation and administrative agencies protecting the right to organize employees into private organizations-than any other private or business organization. Both the National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. Supreme Court, in recent years, have tended to favor unions in all cases. (2) Organized labor has the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the National Labor Relation Act, exemptions from the antitrust statutes, the Railway Labor Act, and protection under comparable State laws; and big labor's political power is today the equal of or to superior to that of big business. (3) Between 1934 and 1951, the Railway Labor Act forbade compulsory unionism, but the nonoperating railway unions trebled their membership and extended their jurisdiction to almost all railroad mileage in the United States. (4) The Scharfman Labor Board, under President Roosevelt in 1942, found that compulsory unionism was not necesasry for union security. (5) Spokesmen for railroad unions admitted before the House of Representatives was not necessary for union security. The Railway Engineers Union has always stood for voluntary unionism and was the dissenting 1 out of 12 railway unions that recently demanded nationalism of U.S. railroads. (6) The Committee on Economic Development study in 1964 found that union membership and growth has not suffered in right-to-work States by comparison. (7) Labor unions are no longer weak, but full grown and powerful so they should be governed by the same laws that govern other organizations of similar standing. (8) Public opinion polls by Congressmen and Senators indicate uniformly that most citizens favor unions, but do not favor compulsory unionism, and nationwide polls confirm this finding. (9) Justice Louis Brandeis stated that the closed shop was a "serious obstacle to union progress." (10) An employer, who refuses to coerce his employees, to force them into a union, acts in the tradition of constitutional rights for individuals.

C. The union argument that the nonunion employee is a free rider is false. (1) If. as unions claim, dues are not burdensome to employees, then unions do not suffer a burden by the loss of dues of some nonmembers under right-towork laws. (2) All other voluntary organizations benefit members and nonmembers alike without the power of voluntary membership being required or demanded. (3) Forced dues are like taxes and only Government as the sovereign of all citizens has the power and right to tax. (4) In right-to-work States unions have the power to bargain for and bind nonmembers and members alike as the exclusive bargaining agent under section 9(a) as demanded by Congress by the unions. An employee who is forced to follow a union's decisions is no free rider but a forced follower-denied the right to form a minority union or to bar

gain for himself. (5) Most of the credit for periodic increases in wages and working conditions must go to improved tools and machines, inventions and scientific research--which increase output per man-hour rather than union demands on employers. European unions are older and politically more powerful yet their more socialized economies do not match the United States in per capita material wealth. Excessive wage demands have priced many unionmade products off the United States and world markets, thereby exporting American jobs. (6) Nonmember and member employees suffer a detriment from union policies such as strikes, partisan political action, and donations of union funds to causes not approved by either members or nonmembers. (7) Under modern labor legislation, unions get nominal credit for everything the employer does for his employees. If the Supreme Court upholds the recent NLRB decision in a Free Speech case of General Electric Co. no employer will have the right of free speech to his employees.

D. The use of the principle of majority rule to justify compulsory union membership is a distortion of the principle.

(1) This principle of consent of the governed does not apply to a private voluntary association which an individual may join and quit at will-but only to the State as the social institution with a monopoly of violence to insure law and order for all citizens and tax all for its support. (2) When a political party wins an election, it cannot after victory, force the losing party to join the winning party. (3) If a majority of our ex-servicemen belong to the American Legion, does that justify forcing all to join that organization? Nor in the case of any other voluntary organization. (4) Majority rule cannot be constitutionally used to suppress minority rights-so the Federal and State Constitutions wrote into law a system of checks and balances on each branch of government and every office to be filled by majority vote. It is a usurpation of power for unions to declare that they are "the government in a shop because they are a majority.” E. It is not true that the union shop is analogous to the integrated bar (State lawyers associations which all licensed lawyers must join).

(1) A State-licensed lawyer is an officer of the State courts-an officer of the judicial branch of the government. Some States require all their licensed lawyers to join a State lawyer association under the direction of the State supreme court. (2) A union is a private organization--not a Government agency. (3) Simply because an officer of the court must belong to a governmental organization does not justify the theory that an employee engaged in an ordinary occupation must belong to a private organization. (4) Lawyers are usually self-employed. The State supreme court examines them for capabilities, whereas the private employer examines the ordinary employee as to his capabilities. In most cases prospective union members are not required to pass any tests before being accepted. (5) It would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law to require that no one could work for an auto manufacturer unless he joined the UAW-CIO-AFL. It is wrong for a union to demand the same indirectly.

G. It is untrue that right-to-work laws are misnamed.

(1) The term has long been used in American constitutional law to indicate freedom from artificial bars, unnecessary prohibitions, and unreasonable conditions. Justice Hughes in Truax v. Raich, 229 U.S. 33 (1915) cites many cases in point. (2) The term is used in the same sense in Western European laws and cases. (3) It is used in the free worker and free enterprise connotation. not in the Marxist statist meaning of forced labor. (4) Open shop and union shop employer-union agreements are equally violations of the employee's right of freedom of choice. (5) If unions were frank with employees they would use the term "compulsory unionism" instead of "union security" agreements. They are certainly not employee security agreements vis-a-vis the union officials except that the bill of rights section of the Landrum-Griffin Reporting Act can be enforced by an employee who hires a lawyer and goes to court to redress his grievances against a bad union.

AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION,
Washington, D.C., June 9, 1965.

Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr.,

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor,
House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: Americans for Democratic Action supports early passage of H.R. 77 thereby repealing section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended.

For nearly 18 years the National Labor Relations Act has permitted States to enact right-to-work legislation which prohibits the union shop and lesser forms of union security in labor-management contracts. The validity of such legislation must be measured against whether it has promoted and assured freedom of choice for American workers.

The National Labor Relations Act now prohibits the closed shop. Thus no collective bargaining agreement can require that a wage earner be a union member as a condition precedent of his employment.

The National Labor Relations Act also requires that when a majority within a collective bargaining unit vote to be represented by a union that union must represent all employees in union-management matters, whether or not such employees are union members. Nonunion members within the bargaining unit as a matter of right are entitled to the economic and fringe benefits awarded union members. That law is sound and appropriate because it assures the union must treat all members of the collective bargaining unit fairly and equally. ADA would oppose any modification of this requirement.

Thus the precise issue posed by the repeal by section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act is whether management and labor should be able to nego tiate an agreement that provides for the union shop or a lesser form of union security. In the 19 States that have right-to-work laws, management and labor are prohibited from negotiating such agreements. We believe that such right-to-work laws represent an unwise infringement on collective bargaining. We believe that if management and labor wish to contract for a union shop, modified union shop, or no union security, they should have the right to do

So.

Repeal of section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act must be viewed within the context of the American labor movement's solid and unique contribution to American democracy. Before collective bargaining became the normal pattern of labor-management relations, American labor industrialization was literally one of jungle warfare. Under collective bargaining, unions insisted that grievance and arbitration machinery be introduced to keep the labor peace. Grievance and arbitration procedures rationalized efficiency and at the same time adequately protected the rights and dignities of workers from petty tyranny in the ranks of some management heirarchs. In a real sense the American labor movement, through collective bargaining, contributed to the tremendous productive capacity of the American economy. The American labor movement was able to show the American workers that they could share in the economy's reward by expanding production. The days of yesteryear when workers performed willful acts of sabotage of products in order to express their resentment and frustration are now gone.

Collective bargaining has truly been a civilizing force in American industrial relations. It is for this reason that we support repeal of section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act and urge passage of H.R. 77.

On behalf of the officers and members of ADA, I would request that this letter appear in the record of hearings held on H.R. 77 and related measures. Thank you.

Sincerely,

LEON SHULL, National Director.

[Article in the Washington Post, June 1, 1965]

AFTER 14(B)

Whatever the pros and cons of the question now before Congress concerning the revision of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Harley Act, one thing is clear: Should section 14(b) be simply eliminated from the law, this would amount to granting to union-management negotiations unexceptional power of compulsory unionization without relief. But where is the guarantee that this additional power will be used responsibly?

It has been established beyond doubt that union-management contracts damage the common good whenever the cost of their collective settlements exceed the limits set by increases in real output due to improved efficiency. To secure that such cost-productivity balance be maintained for the economy as a whole, the "guidelines for noninflationary wage and price behavior" have been formulated under the authority of the President.

While these guidelines are not perfect, their basic economic logic is unquestionable. It is impossible to distribute more than has been produced, except through the illusion of inflation and unemployment. If competition were perfect throughout the economy, the fundamental cost-productivity balance would maintain itself spontaneously. Powerful institutions, however, can and do violate it unless they are prevented from doing so.

If public interest is invoked as the reason for repelling section 14(b), then it must be pointed out that the same common good provides at least as much justification that appropriate cost-productivity guidelines be included in a revised Labor-Management Relations Act as an additional criterion of bargaining "in good faith." This would at least protect the Nation from inflation and unemployment stemming from excessive collective settlements in a tempting framework of generally compelled unionization regardless of the preference of individual employees.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: The Washington Building and Construction Trades Council representing over 20,000 AFL-CIO building tradesmen, strongly urges the repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.

With kind personal regards, I am,

Very truly yours,

JOSEPH F. CURTICE, Executive Secretary.

[Press release, National Farmers Union]

NFU BLASTS TAFT-HARTLEY ORGANIZATION

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 1.-The National Farmers Union said today it would vigorously oppose the antiunion efforts of the Citizens Committee to Preserve Taft-Hartley because "family farmers would also be the losers of efforts to retain section 14(b) of the act."

In a statement released here the general farm organization attacked the group of multimillionaire industrial farmers, antiunion businessmen and leaders of the radical right as being anti-family-farmer.

Charles Shuman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, is included in the Farmers Union statement which gives thumbnail sketches of those on the committee "connected" with agriculture, noting how you can pinch one and the others yell ouch.

Farmers Union noted that Shuman heads a National Food Conference Association whose members are processors or middlemen, three of which are on the agriculture committee of the chamber of commerce. The Farm Bureau was originally organized by the antiunion chamber of commerce. "The Farm Bureau lauded the voting record of candidate Goldwater last fall and shares platforms with many identified with the right wing."

The statement notes the Goldwater and right-wing contacts of Walter Knott, Knotts Berry Farm in California.

It ties W. B. Camp, multimillionaire head of a big California corporate farm, to the chamber of commerce and Farm Bureau.

The statement easily links S. M. McAshon, Jr. president of Anderson, Clayton & Co., world's largest cotton broker, and W. H. Ruffin, chairman of Erwin Textile Mills, to the chamber of commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. "We have only mentioned those who are involved with agriculture," the Farmers Union statement said. "It would be just as easy to run down the remainder of the 34-member committee linking them to either the anticollective bargaining National Right-to-Work Committee, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the 1964 Goldwater campaign and/or the rightwing movement in our Nation.

"The National Farmers Union and its 750,000 family farm members understand that so-called right-to-work laws were devised to destroy collective bargaining. They do not provide any right to work; in fact, they take away this right. Their purpose is to outlaw the right and freedom of the Nation's working people to have a voice in determining the worth of their labor and to bargain collectively with management for fair wages and working conditions. They are disruptive of industrial peace and a brake on the national economy," the statement said.

(Full text of Farmers Union statement is attached.)

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Action to weaken the bargaining power of labor unions and working people tends to reduce their purchasing power. The farmer's best customers are the working people and they are adversely affected when their best customers lose income.

The National Farmers Union will therefore vigorously oppose the efforts of the Citizens Committee To Preserve Taft-Hartley because family farmers will continue to be the losers of efforts to retain section 14 (b) of the act.

It is apparent that leaders of the radical right, multimillionaire industrial farmers and antiunion businessmen are joining forces in this all-out effort to keep so-called right -to-work laws on the statute books.

One needs only to look at those on the committee "connected" with agriculture, Wofford B. Camp, Allan Grant, Walter Knott, S. M. McAshon, Jr., W. H. Ruffin and Charles B. Shuman, to realize you can pinch one and the others yell ouch. Wofford B. Camp, multimillionaire head of a big California corporate farm enterprise and former director of the California Farm Bureau, is a member and former chairman of the Agriculture Committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a member of the chamber's special committee for voluntary unionism and a member of the National Chamber's board of directors.

Allan Grant is the president of the California Farm Bureau.

Walter Knott of Knotts Berry Farm in California helped finance campaigns of two former California Congressmen who were avowed members of the John Birch Society, and was himself a member of American Businessmen for Goldwater during the 1964 campaign. Senator Goldwater endorsed the phony rightto-work laws. Knott has been readily linked with other rightwing activities, including serving as treasurer of a committee to repeal the Federal income tax, contributing to Americans for Constitutional Action (former AFBF President Allen B. Kline is a director of this group whose objective is to elect "constitutional conservatives" to the U.S. Congress), and member of the National Advisory Board of Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade.

S. M. McAshon, Jr., is president of Anderson, Clayton & Co., the world's largest distributor of raw cotton, which at last report had 33 subsidiary companies owning 369 cotton gins, as well as many factories for margarine, soap, textiles; ect. Its net income was once estimated to exceed $15 million annually, including that from an irrigated farm of 56,475 acres in California. Anderson, Clayton Co.'s vice president, T. J. Barlow, is a member of the agriculture committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

48-225-65-pt. 2—26