Mr. ROOSEVELT. Is that sound? Secretary MITCHELL. I think so. I think so in the case of the man who is an official, elected by his brothers to a position of responsibility. The McClellan committee has hearings which are rife with instances of conflicts of interest, where a union official, because of his official job, is able to buy into or buy a business that is related or not related to the union. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Even a part-time union official? Secretary MITCHELL. Yes. I think the obligation of a union official is a much more serious one, and a much more far-reaching one than, say, the obligation of the ordinary citizen. He is taking on the responsibility of representing his people in a situation on which their livelihood depends. It seems to me that he has a moral responsibility and an ethical responsibility to be devoted solely and exclusively to the welfare of his people. We deal here in our bill only with businesses or interests that would or could be deemed to be conflicts of interest, and the determination of whether or not there is a conflict of interest. Mr. ROOSEVELT. That is not quite right, is it? Are you not required, if you hold any position, to make a report of your assets and liabilities? Secretary MITCHELL. Where there is a conflict of interest. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I thought it said if you made more than $7,000. Secretary MITCHELL. From the union. Mr. ROOSEVELT. That, then you had to put everything into the report, whether or not it was a conflict or not? Mr. ROTHMAN. In our bill, if the amount of compensation and allowances exceeds $10,000, the union must report all that it has paid to or on behalf of that employee or officer. That provision has nothing to do with his compensation from other sources, not union sources. Mr. ROOSEVELT. And that employee makes no report himself on his own? Mr. ROTHMAN. That is correct. If he has a conflict of interest situation in which he is receiving compensation or funds or loans or gifts from an employer with whom he has union business, then he must report those payments. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I misread it, then, because I did not read it quite that way. As long as it says that, that puts a slightly different light on it. May I ask why it is not proper for any corporation official who is dealing with the union in labor matters to have the same requirement with regard to him, or is it, in your opinion, already in the bill in that respect? Secretary MITCHELL. We believe it is in the bill where there is the relationship and the conflict of interest determined; yes. It is section 206, I believe. Mr. ROOSEVELT. These are things that I am going to want to look at more carefully and discuss with you later. Would you think it might be helpful to have registered with the Department the names and personnel data of attorneys and consultants paid by both the union and management? I am aiming at a specific thing here. In order that both union and management might always know who was officially authorized to come and talk to them, so that if Mr. John Jones comes in and says, "Look, I can fix something for you," the fellow can look up and see is he the registered representative of the union or the registered representative of management and, if not, proper action can be taken. At least we would know exactly who we were dealing with. Secretary MITCHELL. I would have to examine that, Mr. Roosevelt. I m sure that the factor of whether a fixer is registered or not is not going to deter him in his work or the people he is in contact with. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think if you make it improper for anyone who is not registered to do it, you would do so. That is the basis, of course, of other legislation, security fields and other fields of that kind. Mr. KEARNS. Did you have a case in mind? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think there are a good many cases which I could go into, and I would be happy to cite them for the people, where people have claimed to represent the union and the employer did not know whether they were or not. After he had been more or less forced into something, the fellow then went into the labor union and said, "Look what I have for you," and this has created, I think, a very unhealthy situation. I would appreciate it if perhaps you could give some consideration to that, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, I notice also in your bill you have considerably changed from the provisions of the Kennedy bill and, frankly, I think wisely, the provisions that deal with those who shall not be allowed to hold office because of previous criminal records. I ask this just for my information: Are the laws in the various States more or less uniform as to those who are denied their constitutional rights? I was once told, for instance, that rape in a certain State, I think in Minnesota, is a misdemeanor. Secretary MITCHELL. My counsel is from Minnesota. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Well, I have used the wrong State, then. What I am aiming at is this: How much difference is there in those things which deny you your constitutional rights under the various State laws? I would be interested in knowing because if I am to be barred and my friend over here is not to be barred for doing exactly the same thing, that would seem to me somehow or another not to be very fair. Secretary MITCHELL. I am told, Mr. Roosevelt, that when the laws are not uniform as to what differences there are, we could attempt to furnish the committee with a list of those differences. I am told that they are not uniform. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Then, of course, again I would be interested in trying to work out a slightly better provision. The only other recourse, as I get it from the bill now, is if you have early in life, for instance, done something which has barred you from voting in that State, unless you have secured a pardon you would be barred for the rest of your life. Somebody said you should. I am not always sure that one offense should bar you forever. I think there are individual cases where some machinery should make it possible for you not to be barred for the rest of your life. If you had moved, you might not be able to get a pardon. I think there are questions, again, of individual rights that need a little more attention than has so far been given to it. Mr. Secretary, the only other think I would like to say is that I, very frankly, looking at this bill, am mostly worried not at the objectives, not at the basic objectives, but the amount of redtape, the amount of misunderstanding or fear which would come into the minds of good people who ought to become responsible union leaders, to know exactly what their rights are. For instance, if I am to become responsible as the president of an organization, and if I interpret what the law now says, to become subject to criminal penalties for something which I honest to goodness did not know was there or know was wrong, but I signed the report because that is what the bylaws said I must do in order to get it forwarded up the line, I feel that we have to look at this pretty carefully or we are going to destroy the ability of a lot of unions to get proper representation in their officer ranks. I am just not satisfied yet in my own mind that we have done that. Secretary MITCHELL. I think, Mr. Roosevelt, you have hit upon a very fundamental difference between the Green and Kennedy bills and our bill. The Green and Kennedy bill provides only for criminal penalties in the case of failure to file, or inaccurate filing, and so forth; whereas, our bill provides administrative hearings; it provides judicial review; it has as many safeguards as we could put in it to safeguard the official who unwittingly, or through ignorance, falsified or submitted a false report. That difference is a very fundamental one which I think the committee should bear in mind. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Do we specifically state that proof of the fact that it was not willful shall automatically be vindication? Secretary MITCHELL. We say in our bill, as I recall the words, that it is willful failure to file, and the determination of willful failure is a matter for the administrative process. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Your bill requires it must be willful? Secretary MITCHELL. Yes, sir. And the determination of willfulness is a matter for hearings and so on. So in the compilation that I would like to make for the committee of the differences between our bill and the Green bill and the Barden bill, I think this point will be brought out. Mr. ROOSEVELT. That will be very helpful. Lastly, and I am trying to hurry through this, the provisions that have to do with picketing and secondary boycotts, is in general what you have referred to as improper use of secondary boycotts fully covered by the quotation you make on page 4, or are there other practices which you could point out to us that we should be aware of? Secretary MITCHELL. Page 4 of the statement, do you mean? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes, sir; of your statement: The weapon of organizational picketing has been abused by some of the unions. and then you list (a), (b), and (c). Secretary MITCHELL. This is organizational picketing. This is a quotation from the McClellan committee report. Mr. ROOSEVELT. In general, does this cover the things which you think are the main complaints? Secretary MITCHELL. Yes, I would say in general. Mr. ROOSEVELT. You would also, I hope, give us your opinion as to the Barden bill's further application of the denial of organizational picketing rights? Secretary MITCHELL. Yes. That would be brought out in the comparisons which we would like to make; yes, sir. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Dent? Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, the hour being late Mr. PERKINS. You have plenty of time. Go ahead. Mr. DENT. I do not want to burden the Secretary with the other members that are to speak, but I would like to make just a short statement on my position as an individual. Mr. PERKINS. Go ahead. Mr. DENT. First of all, I disagree with those who want no legislation at all. I agree that there is a field in which we must operate and legislation must be passed, if we keep in mind the cold, sober facts and try to aim at curing the evident conditions that have been pointed out not alone by the McClellan committee, but by history itself in labormanagement relationships. But I also disagree violently with those who take the attitude that Dooley took in Peter Dunne's book when he gave a description of a labor union that he would subscribe to, and that would be one without contracts, without dues, without a treasury and bylaws and constitution, without officers, and preferably without members. There are a great number who are today promoting legislation with the sole idea in mind of destroying that labor movement. I do not say the Secretary has, because I see mary fine points, and I think there is an honest desire on the part of the Secretary to arrive at some answer. I think he will forgive me if I do not agree with all of the provisions that he has in his bill. I do not agree with the secondary boycott explanations or definitions as they are written, because I can see some of the dangers that are inherent in that kind of a description. I do not agree with the jurisdictional provisions in the act, with the National Labor Relations Board being left in a position of writing its own ticket. I can see a violation of the intent of the Secretary and of those who sincerely want to clear up this matter by some persons. You know, all of us are acquainted with the well-founded method of operation in many district attorneys' offices where a district attorney will hand to an assistant district attorney all the cases except the juicy ones. We do not want to be in a position of having the Labor Relations Board only taking certain cases in certain areas that have in them some kind of value over and above trying to get justice for those involved in the case. I think that that is a human interest, that those of us in politics probably are afflicted with, but many outside are afflicted with it. So I am ready to sit down and try to work out with the committee, with the aid of the administration spokesmen, some kind of legislation that will do the three things that we want to do: 38488-59-pt. 1-5 No. 1: Attack that particular phase of labor relations that has become a black mark not alone upon the body politic, but upon the escutcheon of labor itself, and which could, if allowed to grow, destroy the labor movement itself. None of us want to see that done. I do not believe we do. At least thinking men do not. No. 2: I think we have to establish rules, these rules to be rules of behavior without going into the very undemocratic process of writing every little labor bylaw that a local union abides and lives with. I think there are many good unions, and most of the ones that I have had dealings with, and I served as an executive board member at the early age of 20 of an international union; we had all secret ballots. I never knew of any open ballots in our operational functions of our organization, and especially in electing our officers and especially in electing and setting up salaries of our officers. One of the things I think you have to look into is the reporting of so-called relationship contacts in your bills. All of the bills cover this to a certain extent. A man very well may be an officer of a union first and marry a girl later who happens to have a contract with the company that he is representing the employees of, on a leasehold, on a contractual arrangement for, perhaps, some fabrication work, or anything at all, and yet, he would be in the position of exposing his wife's income from her purely personal business to the membership of the union. Many of us know the memberships of unions. In some instances it has about the same membership as Congress itself. There are weaklings in Congress the same as there are in any other body. There are strong men and strong women in unions, the same as in management. We could relate here for hours some of the sins that have been committed by management in the early days, when our knuckles were cracked in the coal towns of Pennsylvania, the same as your illustrious father had to contend with in years gone by. I might say to the group here, Mr. Secretary, that my father knew your father and thought a great deal of him. I think that the committee has the full intent of trying to come out with legislation, not punitive where it can be averted, with less restrictions than normally apply if we pass any of the bills that are now before us. I think most men in this bill, without getting specific, which I hope to do in the committee, are intelligent enough to know that the labor force has grown up in America. It is a large part of our economy. When we find in that force anything that needs stamping out, it is our duty to stamp it out. But in so doing, let us not kill the movement itself, because too many men, sincere men and women--and I might say and pay a compliment to your illustrious forebears-have given their life, time, and energies to see that the workingman was emancipated in the early days. They have done some bad things, but in the main they have created a healthy condition for working men and women to live and prosper in this country. Nothing that I intend to do will in any way hamper the growth of the organizations in trying to do that which is best to give their membership the kind of representation that will give them a better way of life. That is just a statement for the record. |