show the loyalty that workers have to their unions and was used justly as an excellent advertisement of the wishes of the membership to be represented by effective unions.

Mr. RHODES. What year was that?

Mr. PORTER. It must have been 1947 to 1951.

Mr. RHODES. You are not talking about the strike rule provision, are you, of the Taft-Hartley Act?

Mr. PORTER. No; the union provision. Conducting elections which always brought the same results was costly, however; so opponents and proponents of Taft-Hartley got together to eliminate it from the act. So far, this is the only amendment ever made to the TaftHartley Act.

Opponents of unionism have resorted to a campaign of distortion. half truths, and confusion to achieve their purposes. The very name of "right to work" in fighting union security shows that enemies of unions have had to misrepresent their program in order to put

over.

it

Believe me, Mr. Chairman, that if there were any truth in the rightto-work campaign, I would be in the vanguard of such a movement, for I am a strong believer in a real and honest right-to-work program. Until recently my own State, Oregon, was the State hardest hit by the recession, and I strongly favor a Federal program which would make it possible for every person seeking work to secure gainful employment. I also favor extended and improved unemployment insurance benefits to those who cannot find jobs. But, Mr. Chairman. none of the devotees of the so-called right-to-work movement could be found among the advocates of this progressive legislation needed by the workers of the country.

Mr. Chairman, we must expose the fraud behind the right-to-work movement and show it for what it is, a movement to weaken and harass unions. As I said, workers favor union security agreements. There is nothing more irritating to a union member who pays his dues to see free riders enjoy the benefits of unionization. The Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that unions are required to bargain for all the workers in a collective-bargaining union which they represent. Therefore, a union when it bargains for increased wages or improved fringes, benefits all the workers in the bargaining unit regardless of whether they are members or not. I believe that it is only fair that all the workers who benefit from the contributions of the union should also participate in supporting the union.

This appears to me elementary and manifestly just. Nevertheless, 18 States have passed right-to-work laws, thus weakening unions and contributing toward industrial unrest which is contrary to the policy pronounced in the Labor-Management Relations Act.

I therefore urge upon you that you give favorable consideration to H. R. 5606, and bills like it that are before your committee, which would go a long way to eliminating the misleading right-to-work campaign.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Holland?

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. Porter, I would like to agree with you a hundred percent, and I commend you for coming in with such an enlightening statement, which shows you know something about what is happening today among the labor movement, especially in right-to-work States

As you no doubt know, there is a right-to-work committee here in Washington, that Mr. Hartley is heading, raising a considerable amount of money, and also there is another committee of the investors. which had hoped to raise $70 million between now and election day. We also have Cecil DeMille here, who has a foundation dedicated to these right-to-work bills.

I do not doubt some people may think that we are not properly informed, that the worker is being slighted. But they all fail to say that the people who represent the workers are elected just like we are elected. They represent those workers, and those workers have a very fine forum in their union halls throughout the United States.

I think there has been more propaganda, more money spent within the back door to destroy the labor movement by the right-to-work bill than is realized. As you state, what we should do today is to try to find a way and means to have a continuing prosperity, showing the world that when we have a little letup in the shooting war, we need not have unemployment; that we can plan in peace like we plan in war to kill. And I am sure we would have a better advantage if the money that was being spent to destroy unions would be used to build up some type of a system so that labor and management, Government, and capital could find ways and means to see that we do not have to have 6 or 7 million people out of work.

You have expressed it very well, and I want to compliment you on a very fine job.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Rhodes?

Mr. RHODES. Mr. Porter, this will come as no surprise to either you or the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but I do not agree with your statements.

Let me tell you a little bit about how the right-to-work has worked in one State, Arizona.

We were having difficulties in labor, particularly in the building trades, before we adopted the right-to-work law. We had a wage situation where the wages in Arizona were well below the national average. We were not participating in the growth of the country to the extent that we felt we should.

I am not going to say that because we have a right-to-work law, all these tremendous things have come about. But just let me point out what is happening.

We have had no major difficulty in the building or construction trades or in any industries since we passed the right-to-work law. The heads of the various locals of the building and construction trades have told me privately-I do not know that they have said it in public-that their membership has increased tremendously. The wages, which were well below the national average, are now well above the national average, and I just want you to tell me what is bad about this picture.

Mr. PORTER. I think, if I may comment, that there are other factors which had to do with the development of the Southwest, and that your development and the higher wages have come in spite of this provision in your law, not because of it.

Mr. RHODES. That might be your opinion.

Mr. PORTER. I think the gentleman put his finger on it earlier, but I want to come back to it.

Mr. RHODES. I might have another opinion, which I think is also shared by a great many people both in and out of the labor movement in Arizona.

We put this movement, or, rather, put, this right-to-work law on the books by putting it to a vote. You said it was not a popular thing with the working people. You would probably be amazed if I told you that in some of the precincts where working people were living at that time, the right-to-work law carried right down the line. Two years later, we also had a referendum measure to put some teeth in the right-to-work law. That also carried all the way through; also in the labor districts.

Since then, there have been various attempts to have the law repealed, and there has been no movement which has been able to get off the ground in order to do that.

I will tell you my ideas about the right-to-work law. As of now, I would not support a national right-to-work law, because to me it is a matter of States rights. If I saw anything inherently immoral about the union shop, I would be in favor of a national right-to-work law. I feel that if the union is well operated and management wants to use the union as a representative in hiring, there is nothing im moral per se about the union shop. But I do feel that there is something very immoral about the Federal Government saying to the State of Arizona or any other State that it cannot, if its own situation demands it, outlaw the union or the closed shop. I think it is a matter for the States to decide and not one which we should decide for the States by repealing section 14 (b).

Mr. PORTER. The gentleman is a distinguished lawyer and of course knows that the commerce clause allows the Federal Government to do a lot of things throughout the Nation, and that is the basis for what has been done in connection with labor relations. I just suggest to the gentleman that perhaps that is the dividing line; that where the unions are engaged in activities that are in or affecting interstate commerce according to court decisions, then let us have no right-to-work law, and let the States handle it for those unions which are not so engaged in commerce. Perhaps that is the line; and that is the line I am suggesting we return to by this bill.

Mr. RHODES. May I suggest that I do not think the union leaders would like that, because it would put them in a situation of having to decide before they conducted a union shop, before they completed a union-shop contract, Is this industry or is it not affecting interstate commerce?

I think it has to be all one way or all another. I believe that the dividing line you mentioned, while logically a good one, practically would not work.

Mr. PORTER. The committee can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand there is complete union support for the repeal of 14 (b) as proposed in my bill.

Mr. RHODES. I think that is undoubtedly true. My point is this: The bill is so broad, the coverage in interstate commerce of the TaftHartley Act is so broad that for all practical purposes I do not think you would have any area in which State right-to-work laws would have operated, any significant area, if 14 (b) were not on the books.

I think it is a matter of States rights. It comes very definitely under the police power of the States to decide what they want to do in this particular area.

That is an opinion which we do not share, but I certainly am pleased that you came here to the committee and expressed your opinion, as you had every right to do, and of course I am sure you agree that I have every right to disagree.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Griffin? Do you have any questions?

Mr. GRIFFIN. No.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Kearns?

Mr. KEARNS. I am sorry, I missed your testimony. I will make it a point to read it, I am sure.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

Mr. KEARNS. I was interested in what Mr. Rhodes said about the State right-to-work law in the State of Arizona. In the last 4 or 5 days I have had some of the labor leaders and industry leaders of Ohio asking me about situations, and it is on their ballot for November. Like Mr. Rhodes, I am opposed to a national right-to-work law. I do not think you can control it in the States. I think probably it has a psychological appeal, that they have a right to work.

Mr. PORTER. Yes. I would like to submit that that is a misleading appeal, in my opinion.

Mr. KEARNS. Well, it is to the individual. Congress cannot control it, the labor leaders cannot control it, and the individualists cannot control it.

Mr. HOLLAND. Will you yield?

Mr. KEARNS. I always yield to you.

Mr. HOLLAND. Would you like to go up in the coal regions tomorrow and make a speech about the right to work?

Mr. KEARNS. No; I do not have to.

Mr. HOLLAND. I think that is one of the greatest defects of the law, the catch expression, "right to work." It is not a right to work.

Mr. KEARNS. I am for the unions a hundred percent, for the good unions. I think they have contributed more to industry and to prosperity in this country than anything else. But I do say that this appeal of right to work has a psychological effect on people. Mr. HOLLAND. Just a phrase.

Mr. KEARNS. Yes. And whoever coined it did a good job, in my opinion.

Mr. HOLLAND. There is no disagreement between us. I knew there was not. That is the reason I asked.

Mr. KEARNS. People say, "How will this come out in Ohio?" I would not make a bet either way, but it could win in Ohio just like it did in Indiana. And I understand that Indiana is the largest industrial State that has it now, and it is working out pretty good.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say I think the phrase "right to work" is becoming less attractive every day, as the workers learn more about it.

Mr. PERKINS. Have you studied the Kennedy-Ives bill, Mr. Porter? Mr. PORTER. Yes; I have.

Mr. PERKINS. What suggestions do you care to make to the committee?

Mr. PORTER. When I was in college I wrote my thesis on Democracy in Labor Unions, and I have been very much interested in that prob lem. I think that much of the furor over on the other side has tended to make us forget that most of the unions, by far the greater majority, are perfectly honest and staffed by dedicated men and women. But I do favor the enactment of the Kennedy-Ives bill. I do not think it is a perfect bill, but I think it would be better enacted than not. I am for it.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?

Mr. PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Porter, I happened to know, reading the hearings before the Senate committee, that Prof. Archibald Cox testified and was very active with Senator Kennedy. I assume he was probably one of your professors in law school.

Mr. PORTER. He was, the first year he taught labor law.

Mr. GRIFFIN. He made quite a point for the need for labor legislation in his testimony, to protect individuals against arbitrary expulsion from unions and to give them some legal protection against arbitrary denial of admission dues. I know the Kennedy-Ives bill has nothing in it about that, and I wondered if you had any comment on that.

Mr. PORTER. I am very much interested in such provisions, properly framed. My endorsement of Kennedy-Ives is that I believe it is as far as we are going to be able to go this session, and probably as far as we should try to go. I do hope we will go at least that far.

Mr. GRIFFIN. But you do see some need for legislation in that field? Mr. PORTER. In my own study I found instances where there are arbitrary expulsions, and in my own practice of law I saw such things happen occasionally. I think the legislation would have to be very carefully drawn, but I would hope that if the need can be demonstrated we could draw such a law.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Have you given any thought to the necessity or desir ability for having some procedure for the recall of union officers! Mr. PORTER. It always occurs to me that those who are for recall of union officers have to be for recall of Congressmen, too, so with that in mind I will say that a procedure would be acceptable.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Most organizations have procedures for recalling public officers, do they not?

Mr. PORTER. My state was one of the first to have such a provision. Mr. GRIFFIN. My State does. I could be recalled, I suppose.

Mr. PORTER. No, I believe that under Federal law a Representative or Senator cannot be recalled. As I say, this is something the Congressmen have to be aware of when they are passing on this problem.

I would be in favor of a fair method of recalling so you had a sufficient number so a dissident minority-and in any democracy there are always dissident minorities-would not be able to disrupt processes and cost the union a lot of money. You have to have a certain amount of stability.

I would think the provision would have to be very carefully drawn. but if the need is great enough-and I am not convinced it is-I think it is better there should be regular elections, annual elections which are conducted according to the best methods. I think that is the best provision for proceeding to get honest officers.

Mr. KEARNS. While you are here, there is something on my

mind.