TO REGULATE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1943 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The Committee on Labor met in the committee room, Old House Office Building, at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Thomas E. Scanlon, acting chairman, presiding. Members present were: Hon. Augustine B. Kelley, Hon. Thomas F. Burchill, of New York, Hon. Gerald W. Landis, and Hon. Stephen A. Day. Mr. SCANLON. The meeting will come to order. The first witness this morning will be Mr. T. R. Owens, representing the United Rubber Workers of the C. I. O. Mr. Owens, will you please come forward. STATEMENT OF T. R. OWENS, UNITED RUBBER WORKERS, C. I. O. I Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. might say that I am appearing in behalf of Mr. Nathan Cowan, legislative representative of the C. I. O. He was unable to be here this morning but I, being a member of the committee representing the United Rubber Workers of America, am presenting a statement in behalf of Mr. Cowan on the Woodruff bill, H. R. 804, and the Landis bill, H. R. 1483. This is the statement of Mr. Cowan, of our legislative committee (reading): I am greatly disturbed to learn that the House Labor Committee has found it necessary to undertake a serious consideration of two bills such as those now pending before this subcommittee. I shall address myself to the contents and merits of these bills in a moment. I should like, however, to take this opportunity to make some brief comments at the outset on the general situation which now confronts Congress and this committee, particularly with reference to labor problems. These comments are directly related to the committee's consideration of the two bills before it. The labor movement in this country is being precipitated by policies which have been pushed in Congress and elsewhere into what may be a very real crisis. You are all undoubtedly aware that wage levels, particularly since the President's hold-the-line order of April 8, have been substantially frozen or, at best, very severely limited in their movement. On the other hand, you are all aware that although wage levels were fixed under the Little Steel formula on the basis of the cost of living increases up to May 1942, the fact is that price levels have spiralled far above the levels of a year ago. Even the general statistics covering general price increases are deceptive, since food prices, particularly in many individual important items, have arisen far above the general levels of increase. In large measure these uncontrolled price increases have developed from the pressures of private business groups which have forced the O. P. A. into the establishment of ceilings far above previous levels. Even where ceilings have been fixed, we are faced with the horrifying spectacle of widespread violation. Only two days ago the O. P. A. itself released the results of one of its own surveys, which indicated that in many items prices were being charged in mining communities at levels 40 and 45 percent above ceiling prices. All of this is not merely a theoretical issue, it is not a statistical debatethese are important facts which have their significance in the reactions and in the views and in the activities of men and women in the steel mills, in the war plants, and in the coal mines. We in the Congress of Industrial Organizations, together with the leaders of the American Federation of Labor, took a pledge immediately after Pearl Harbor in 1941-a pledge to assure continuous production of war materials. We took that pledge not out of rear of any penalty. There is no penalty to fear. We took that pledge because we and the workers whom we represent are going to take up and carry this war to a speedy and victorious conclusion. We and the workers whom we represent want to produce and will produce continuously for victory. We have performed that pledge to a degree which every fair-minded person must recognize as miraculous. Month after month a nearly perfect no-strike record has been chalked up with the degree of strike losses ranging somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.03 of 1 percent. This is a record which has been made because the workers of America accept this war as their war and because the workers of America, as free men in a free democracy which they cherish, are anxious to turn in their every ounce of strength and blood for war production. It is a record which was chalked up, however, in the face of some very serious obstacles. Those rising prices coupled with frozen wages have produced very constantly a real pinch. They have produced a pinch in terms of inadequate food, in terms of inadequate clothing supplies, in terms of workers' health and, therefore, workers' productive efficiency. I don't know how many of you, for example, were privileged to read the article by Mrs. Meyer in the Washington Post of 2 days ago. She painted a picture of empty lunch baskets carried by coal miners into their 8 hours underground, which could be repeated by surveys of the lunch baskets of steel workers, machinists, men engaged in heavy tasks of war production. These are real facts, these are harsh facts, these are facts which cannot be eliminated by any attempts to seal the lips of men who may raise their voices in an effort to rectify such situations. These are harsh facts which call for effective remedial action in the interests of war production. These are the circumstances which have made the task of responsible labor leadership trying, serious, and difficult. These are the facts which unfortunately furnish ammunition to those who might seek to utilize them in manners contrary to and inimical to the best interests of our war productive efforts. We in the Congress of Industrial Organizations have directed our efforts in the constructive direction of alleviating these conditions in a manner calculated to improve and strengthen our war-production machinery. We have pleaded and urged and fought and today continue to press for sharper and stricter price control, for a ruthless roll-back of prices to levels which assure in these critical times that every one of our working citizens may share equally in our limited supply of food, that every one of our citizens may receive out of our food supply an allotment which will preserve his or her strength for continued war production. The fact is that we do not yet have that kind of a price-control or rationing program. The fact is that no man or woman sincerely interested in solving and stabilizing our labor relations, no man or woman sincerely interested in mobilizing our workers in their greatest vigor and strength for war production can rest assured until that task has been completed. Now, while we in labor are carrying on this gigantic task, while we in labor are struggling against these difficulties, while we in labor-the rank and file of labor— are facing day-to-day hardships, day-to-day grievances, day-to-day hungers and thirsts and are endeavoring to achieve the kind of mobilization of our resources which will overcome these obstacles; and while we in labor are combatting any and all influences which might wish to take advantage of these same hardships for vicious purposes, the least we might expect from responsible public officials is an understanding and support of the role played by the great majority of the labor movement, an understanding and support of the real stature of organized labor in the current war effort. Instead, from the very start of this Congress we have been faced with backknifing and sniping; instead, from the very start of this Congress, and even before, American workmen and women have been faced with attacks upon them individually and collectively, with legislation directed toward destroying their legitimate organizations, with legislation based upon an implied denial of the patriotic impulses of American workers. They have been faced with the kind of activity from many sources in Congress which has played into the hands of those individuals not sincerely devoted to the effective prosecution of the war. The Labor Committee of the House by structure, personnel, and basic understanding of labor problems I trust and know will not make itself part of this campaign. There are many important constructive jobs which can and must be done by this committee. I trust and I know that this committee will not make itself party to any program of interference with, obstruction and attack upon the effective mobilization and organization of American workers for greater and even more effective contribution to the war effort. I turn to the two bills now before this body. The Woodruff bill, H. R. 804, is short and direct. It prohibits noncitizens from acting as officers or agents of, or even from voting on any question of policy or in any election in any labor organization. No more un-American, war-obstructing measure could be conceived in these times. The United States Government, the President of the United States are urging and calling for the fullest utilization of all of our manpower, both in our armed forces and in our war factories. We are using, and gratefully using the services of thousands upon thousands of loyal Americans of foreign birth who have not yet been able to complete their arrangements for acquiring American citizenship. These aliens want to serve us, America wants and needs their services. Yet, despite all of this, the Woodruff bill proposes to deny to these aliens the right to participate in votes within their own labor organizations. The Woodruff bill would, in effect, require labor unions to violate all democratic principles by creating for aliens a sort of secondclass membership, and to deny to them the rights of all members to participate equally in the formulation of policies and election of officers. This proposal should be considered further in the light of the fact that our Nation as a member of the United Nations is attempting to rally all of the United Nations in the single endeavor to participate equally in the victory of this war. We are attempting to rally all groups and all nationalities within the borders of the United States to unity of action. Yet the Woodruff bill urges the drawing of lines and divisions among our own ranks. There is, of course, a further fact which should be noted. Almost every major American union has cemented the closest possible relationships with our neighbors to the north and has locals and officers in Canada with representatives on national policy-making boards of the unions. The Woodruff bill, in effect, proposes to deny to a large segment of each of these international unions the right to participate in the policy formation and the election of international officers. I might interpose there, Mr. Chairman, and state that our organization, the United Rubber Workers of America, has locals in Canada and if this bill is passed it would deprive those people from participating and being a part and enacting laws in our organization and forming policies which are formed in the conventions of the international organization whereby we can establish a basic wage for the best interests of all concerned. We could not do that if this bill is passed. The Landis bill, H. R. 1483, repeats this year a proposal which in past years has regularly been sponsored by groups most actively opposed to the organization of workers. The bill has two important sets of proposed terms: (1) Those requiring the regular filing by labor organizations of certain information, including specifically the receipts and expenditures of the organization with detailed indication of the sources of its receipts, and in general with such specificity as the Secretary of Labor might require; and (2) the provisions prohibiting political contributions by labor organizations. With respect to the first, I do not wish to repeat here the arguments which over the many years have demonstrated conclusively to all fair-minded legislators that the filing of financial returns such as would be required by the Landis bill, on the one hand serves no legitimate purpose, and on the other, is a basic threat to American labor organization. These proposals are usually based on the argument that the members should be protected in their rights to know the financial details of their organization. The simple fact is that every labor organization is accountable by law to its members. Every responsible and stable labor organization issues regularly to its members financial statements. Our United Steelworkers, for example, has only within the last few months, issued to all members, attested by a certified public accountant of national standing, an analysis and report of financial conditions more fully and completely than that which any corporation has ever issued to its shareholders. I might say, Mr. Chairman, not only does the United Steel Workers, but the United Rubber Workers, every year at the international organization_meeting, 87639-43-7 the finances of it are audited by certified public accountants; and every local that is a part of the international organization, their finances are audited by a certified public accountant and those statements are sent in to the international organization and each member of every local is given a pamphlet with a report of the certified public accountant's statement on the affairs of each local in the international organization. It is significant that this call for a requirement that unions file their financial statements has in the past come in the first instance from employers-persons and corporations having no legitimate concern with the internal operations of labor organizations. The purpose of the demand has always been clear. In the course of collective bargaining with a labor organization it is always to the employer's advantage to be fully aware of the internal and financial strength of the union so that he may take advantage of any weakness he may discover, and so that he may gage and be fully informed as to the strength of the other party to the collective bargain. This is particularly true with respect to unions in the process of organization. The section of the Landis bill with reference to political contributions contains a deceptive implication of impartiality as relating to corporations as well as to labor unions. The fact is that corporations are today prohibited from making political contributions, so that the proposal is literally directed solely against labor organizations. This, too, is not a newly conceived notion. It has been offered in past years by other members of Congress, notably by Congressman Smith of Virginia. In fact Mr. Smith has in the present session an identical bill. It is somewhat disturbing to find the same proposal being sponsored by Mr. Landis. It is usually suggested in support of such proposals that labor unions should be subjected to the same prohibitions as corporations. The fact is, of course, that a private corporation exists to conduct a business for profit. A labor union is a membership association created to advance the interests of its members and of American working men and women. Voting power in a corporation depends upon wealth as expressed in the number of shares owned; in a labor union every member speaks and votes with equal right regardless of wealth. America's wealthiest individuals and families do not have to pool their wealth in order to make political contributions. Contributions aggregating fifty and sixty and ninety and one hundred thousand dollars have been made by individual members of a single family in a single election campaign. American workers cannot make such contributions individually or by families. They attempt to exercise their rights and make their voices heard by pooling their resources through their labor unions. They act as Americans have traditionally acted through membership in associations. It is significant indeed of the discriminatory nature of these proposals which have been made by Congressmen Smith and Hoffman in the past, and which is today made by Mr. Landis, that it is not suggested that all membership associations be prohibited from making political contributions. Only labor organizations would be subjected to that prohibition. Let me return in conclusion some of the thoughts expressed at the beginning of my testimony. I should not have to plead with members of the House Labor Committee to refuse to make themselves parties to a policy of goading and sniping at American workers, particularly in these trying and crucial times. I should not have to plead with the members of the House Labor Committee to reject a policy and a program of action with respect to labor which plays into the hands of the enemies of the Nation. What is unfortunate, however, is the fact that there have not been enough to stand up in the Halls of Congress and in the committees of Congress, not merely to vote "nay" on these proposals and these policies, but to make their voices heard in determined denunciation of the entire policy and principle underlying the approach embodied in these bills. To make their voices heard each day on the floors of Congress and in committee and in the press, in an explanation of the real issues before the Nation and in a demand for the kind of constructive program which will meet these issues. As a committee which I know would wish to address itself to the formulation of a constructive policy on labor issues, the House Labor Committee might well turn its attention to a consideration of food and living conditions in industrial and war production centers. This committee might well turn its attention to an investigation of the conditions which permit prices in industrial centers to rise 40 and 45 percent above ceiling levels. This committee might well turn its attention to a consideration of the food and housing and clothing problems of workers, solely in the interests of the working efficiency of those workers in war plants. This committee, in short, might well demonstrate to the American public and to American workers that the Members of Congress are sincerely concerned with effective war production, that they have an eye to the effective and continuous war production, and that the Members of Congress can be relied upon to examine and consider all of the problems of American workers and to take such action as will be necessary for assuring sound health to the American working population and for providing machinery for the elimination of any grievances. That demonstration would do more to strengthen the basis upon which the no-strike pledge may be carried out as effectively and even more effectively than in the past than would any attempt through legislative action to impose upon American workers involuntary servitude. That kind of a constructive program emanating from this committee would mean the greatest possible contribution to the war effort and to war production. The passage and the continued devotion of time and energy to bills such as these two now before this committee can only foster disunity and deliver a sharp blow to the effort sof the partiotic working men and women of American to achieve a sound labor policy during this war period. Mr. SCANLON. Are there any questions, Mr. Landis? Mr. LANDIS. Do you think it would be possible, Mr. Owens, for a Member of Congress to get a copy of your financial reports if he requested it? Mr. OWENS. Yes, sir. I will gladly get you a copy of the financial report of our organization upon your individual request. Mr. LANDIS. Mr. Owens, I think that practically all unions are made up of members of all political parties. Mr. OWENS. That is right. Mr. LANDIS. And if the union makes a contribution to a political party, do you think it would be fair to take part of those dues and give it to the opposite political party? Mr. OWENS. We do not take part of our membership dues and pay to a political party, but the members vote contributions. It is not part of their dues. We do not take anything from any man. Mr. LANDIS. The point I am trying to make is that where these members are part of your organization and may have paid in dues and initiation fees, there has been some criticism from certain members of voting a certain amount of money to an opposite political party. I know of the instance some time ago when the United Mine Workers made a contribution to the Democratic Party. It made some of the Republicans "sore" who were members of the union because they gave to the Democratic Party. Mr. OWENS. It would have been all right if they had given it to the Republican Party. Mr. LANDIS. They said next time they would give as much to the Republican Party. However, as far as individual contributions are concerned, under the Hatch Act, you know, they are limited now to $5,000. Mr. OWENS. Yes, sir. Mr. LANDIS. That is, each union is limited to a maximum of $5,000 and each union member would be allowed to give up to $5,000. They have the same privilege. Mr. OWENS. I might say in that connection, Congressman, practically all the contributions I know of have been voted from the membership. If the membership is a majority, it votes for it. Mr. LANDIS. But I say that some of the minority are probably opposed to it. Mr. SCANLON. Are there any questions, Mr. Kelley? Mr. KELLEY. I wonder if Mr. Owens is cognizant of the fact that the chairman of this Labor Committee has asked for a rule author |