Congressman, because I do not think you have taken into consideration the magnitude in connection with the application of this measure if it was passed. For instance, you say here that "any labor organization may," and the penalty for not doing lies in the fact that it will not be recognized under the National Labor Relations Act. You know, long before the National Labor Relations Act was passed we had a pretty good, strong labor movement in this country, and there may be quite a number of organizations that may not elect to supply this information to the Secretary of Labor, because they can take care of their own affairs in their own way, like they did it in the good old days. That is bound to bring about a certain amount of confusion.

As I read through this bill I am wondering why it is that, after we have heard so much about bureaucrats and autocracy in government, we rush in with another bill to give another agency power over approximately 12,000,000 people in this country. I say that you do not fully appreciate the magnitude of this.

The young man who was just on the stand said that there must be at least 10,000 unions in the country. I do not know what you mean by a labor organization, but we will start off with the American Federation of Labor. That is a labor organization composed of 102 national and international unions, who in turn have 37,000 local unions. Now, in addition to that there are 1,540 Federal labor unions that are attached directly to the American Federation of Labor. Add to that 752 central labor unions scattered throughout the country. Add to that 49 State federations. In addition to that, we have hundreds of metal trades councils. We have 4 departments in the American Federation of Labor-the metal trades council, the building construction trades council, the printing trades council, and the labor trades council. All in turn have their separate units scattered throughout the country in the various cities.

I do not know what this will all add up to, but it will come up to at least 50,000 organizations. These organizations are going to be compelled

Mr. SCANLON. May I interrupt you, Mr. Hines? You did not include the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.

Mr. HINES. I am talking strictly about the American Federation of Labor. I do not know how many the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen or the other brotherhoods have or the C. I. O., or the independent organizations have; but you are going to compel all these organizations to file with the Secretary of Labor-for whom, incidentally, I have the greatest respect, but a Government official-certain information under certain conditions as he or she may set up in accordance with the rules and regulations. In other words, you are simply going to say, "Go ahead and do the job and set up your own rules and regulations."

What kind of rules is the Secretary going to make; either this Secretary or some subsequent Secretary? I have had some dealings with Federal agencies and, brother, they are pretty tough, if you ask me; and they are going to set up certain rules and regulations under which certain information is going to be filed. For what purpose, after they have done all this?

The young man who was here previously said they do not have the facilities. Of course, they do not have the facilities. It is going to

require a huge appropriation and a huge army to get this done, and it is going to take the time of thousands of those secretaries, many of whom are working in defense plants, who will have to take time off to file this information, and it is going thereby to retard the war effort. There is no question about that.

After we have done all that, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to scrutinize this to find out where some local union might have been in collusion with an unscrupulous employer and resorted to hiring and firing men so that they could get fees into the organization? Is that the information that we are seeking here? Mr. LANDIS. That is one phase of it.

Mr. HINES. I think you would be better off if you gave this Labor Committee power to go out and investigate the conditions in the field. Mr. LANDIS. We have tried that. They won't do that.

Mr. HINES. Then you ought to introduce a bill to that effect.
Mr. LANDIS. We have a bill in there.

Mr. HINES. But you are not going to get it by this method.

Perhaps you have in mind that somebody wants to know the number of members in a certain given union, the amount of initiation fees, and the amount of money in the treasury. That is the kind of information that the employers a short decade ago paid millions of dollars to get through espionage agencies you have heard of the La Follette investigating committee-who planted spies. Our unions were literally lousy with spies that were planted in them by these industrial espionage agencies to get the kind of information-the very kind of information-that you want to get and give to the employer free of charge.

If there is any question about the number of members we have or any question of the amount of expenditures, you can go to any one of our organizations and I am quite sure that they will be glad to give you copies of their financial reports. The American Federation of Labor publishes one either quarterly or semiannually, and it is distributed to the labor leaders throughout the country. At every convention that you go to there is one lying on the desk of every delegate. They are given to the newspapers. There is one sent to the local union.

What is the purpose of gathering this information? To find out the annual salary paid to organizers? That is all contained in the report, even the amount that is spent for ice water or postage.

It does not seem to me that this is a practical proposition, aside from the ethics that might be involved.

Mr. LANDIS. They won't turn their reports over to the Secretary of Labor. This would make them.

Mr. HINES. For what purpose?

Mr. LANDIS. What would you have against that? Would you be against that?

Mr. HINES. Certainly. Why does the Secretary of Labor need the report? If she wants one she can ask for it. That is governmental regimentation, and we are against it. It is a step in that directionGovernment control-and we are against it.

If the Secretary of I abor wants a report from any of our organizations, I am quite certain they will be very happy to give it to her-in fact, they have given her many reports of various kinds, and we are very happy to do so.

You say it would be unlawful for an organization to make a financial contribution. You do not even say "financial contribution." You say "to make a contribution." You do not even narrow it down to a financial contribution. Does that mean if we want to publish the record or if our membership writes us and asks for a record of a certain Congressman

Mr. LANDIS. That could be easily amended.

Mr. HINES. As the bill reads now, it would even prohibit us from writing in our labor paper the record of a public official or from disseminating in any way whatsoever information regarding the good or bad record of a public official if he happened to be-

Mr. SCANLON. As it now stands, it prohibits you from endorsing any person in a local election.

Mr. HINES. That would be a contribution, and it would prohibit the president of the American Federation of Labor from telling the constituents in your locality what measures you had voted on and whether they reflected a bad or good labor record.

Mr. LANDIS. The intent was to confine it to financial contribution. Mr. HINES. If we were to amend it and narrow it down to financial contributions, the only thing I can say about that, brother, is this:" That for many years the financial interests of this country have held. sway; they have held pretty much their own way, and it has been done with money. That is the only thing that made any impression.

Labor unions have grown strong. Labor unions recently have started to take an active interest in politics. Labor unions have money. Perhaps they have learned a good many lessons from opponents and they have decided in some instances to apply the same methods. What is wrong with that? If it has been good over the years for the employers to elect Representatives to Congress-and there are many Representatives in Congress elected by the employers-why is it not good for organized labor and the trade-union movement to put forth a little effort and financial support, if necessary, to help elect their friends who have passed humanitarian legislation? The fact of the matter is, to be practical again with you, you cannot legislate against such a practice. There will be a way found.

Mr. LANDIS. Legislation has helped. You will agree to that? Mr. HINES. The only comment I have to make is this: I have been in the movement for some 30 years. I have taken part in campaigns. It is hard to get brothers and sisters to contribute. If this is any indication that they are coming across, I am happy about it, because it is about time they are willing to spend money to support their friends. No law will circumvent that.

Mr. LANDIS. You will admit that the Hatch Act has had some effect?

Mr. HINES. I was the administrator of close on to 4,000 employees for a period of 4 years, up until the first of this year. I did not see much difference in the situation as a result of the Hatch Act. They made their voluntary contributions. You cannot stop people from making a voluntary contribution. These 4,000 employees under my supervision made voluntary contributions, and it did not happen to be the political party that I was a member of. They were not interfered with, because they were voluntary contributions. So the Hatch Act has not done much outside of just putting it on a subterranean basis.

I do hear from the rank and file of labor. The rank and file has come in to me and said, "Stop this racketeering. I am a union member. Union officials come around in some of our defense plants. They take our money. They are overcharging us. They are firing and hiring us. They are having collusion with the contractors, and they are kicking us off as fast as we pay our dues and permit fees. This is not fair to our organization, which has been a good union all these years."

I was with the Mine Workers in 1902. I have worn the helmet of the mine-rescue squad. I have worked at the tipple, too. The rank and file out there want to stop the racketeers.

Mr. HINES. It is not very easy to give an answer to your question when you are not very specific as to the circumstances.

Mr. LANDIS. The intent was to get at the racketeers with H. R. 1483.

Mr. HINES. If you can show me where there are any racketeers in the American Federation of Labor, I am quite sure that we will take the appropriate action. As anything crops up that does not appear to be what it should be, we are constantly taking the necessary action to eradicate it. It is very easy to have a fellow make a statement that he has been mistreated, that he has been denied his rights, and so forth, by a labor union, because there are plenty of fellows who have not been very good members, who sometimes find themselves outside of the union.

I have been a business agent of my union. I am a fairly good student of psychology. I know a little something about people. I handle a lot of people, and I know something about their traits, and I know something about the fellow who wants to take everything and give nothing, and I know about the sacrificing fellow, and he is the fellow who has made the unions possible in this country, who will give everything with the expectation of getting nothing, whose only desire is to build an organization to protect his family and his fellow man. They are the real union men.

I do not have much patience with the fellow who is going to complain, because there is plenty of room to right any wrongs that may exist. I have had them come to me and tell me that they cannot get their rights. I have been in the minority many times in my union, but I never quit fighting. I have always gotten my rights and I have always had my say. There has never been a time when I have had occasion to complain, from an international officer to a local officer, even if I were in the minority.

That is true generally speaking. We lay too much stress at times upon the malcontent who, if we were to examine him pretty closely, does not come into court with clean hands, so to speak.

Mr. SCANLON. Mr. Hines, I would like to ask you a question. Mr. Landis time and again, has brought up the allegation that excessive initis

fees are being charged at the war plants. I do not know of
ou know of any unions in the war plants that are charging
fee today that would be exorbitant?
ES. Ik

of them, as I understand, in these new war ganizations, and they are charging very low y little dues. I know that at the start of the was quite a bit of controversy at some of the

Mr. LANDIS. The question I want to know is if that section is as drastic as any section in the Smith bill.

Mr. HINES. Whom is this aimed at? Is it aimed at the 99.9 percent of the workers in this country who are doing an honest-togoodness job?

Mr. LANDIS. No. How would you get at those fellows?

Mr. HINES. At what fellows?

Mr. LANDIS. These racketeers.

Mr. HINES. What racketeers are you talking about?

Mr. LANDIS. The fellows who are charging the high initiation fees. Mr. HINES. What are high initiation fees?

Mr. LANDIS. Twenty-five, thirty-five, fifty, seventy, one hundred, and up to one thousand dollars.

Mr. HINES. Let me ask you a question. I have told you I have been in the labor movement for 30 years. I have seen the movement go up and down. I have seen the time when they were strong and I have seen times again when my organization was literally impotent, when they could not lift a finger to prevent a wage decrease. Yet there were certain members who kept the faith and held on and held on. Times changed, and these people who remained in the organization gave their time and their money; had the vehicle whereby the new fellows could come in and take advantage of what was already made for them. These fellows coming into the union today are reaping the benefits of the decent wages and decent working conditions that have been made by the members of organized labor over the years. They have contributed nothing, while the member in the union has contributed many times more than the new fellow is asked to contribute as an initiation fee.

Do you think there is anything unfair about that?

Mr. LANDIS. I agree with that.

Mr. HINES. Many times the new fellow does not intend to stay in very long. He is just coming in to reap the harvest, so to speak.

The unions in this country-I do not mind saying this intend to maintain conditions as they are for the soldiers who have gone. You heard the young man talking about 175,000 auto workers. It is estimated that there are approximately 80,000 United Mine Workers in the service. In the American Federation of Labor we must have at least 500,000 members who have gone into the service. We have many members of our building trades who were interned as captives by the Japanese, who dropped their tools at Wake Island and picked up guns to defend the flag when we were attacked. We are going to maintain conditions so that when those boys come back the same conditions will be here and we won't go through another situation as we did in 1918 and 1919 and shortly thereafter, when concerted attacks were made upon us by unscrupulous employers. Those attacks are being made now.

Mr. LANDIS. That is not the point.

Mr. HINES. I am not accusing you, Congressman.

Mr. LANDIS. I have made only one questionable vote against labor since I have been here at least, what labor calls a bad vote on the Smith bill. A few days before that vote the landing gear and the tank axle companies went out on strike. As a result they could not finish the airplanes and the tank axles. That has been my only vote against labor.