First I would like to say that, on the question of the Congress' concern about democracy in the unions, we consider ourselves as democratic as any organization in the United States, and if the Congressmen care to read our constitution, they will see that for themselves, and we will be happy to supply that if they are interested. On the question of dues, which has been discussed here, our dues are $1 per month for all members. The initiation fee is $1 and, to my knowledge, there has been a single assessment of $1 on the membership during the past year.

Mr. LANDIS. What is the initiation fee?

Mr. RICHTER. One dollar.

Mr. LANDIS. I would just like to make a comment, to make this clear. Those initiation fees are much lower than those of other organizations. The old-line unions really give their members the benefit of what they pay in. The members get benefits for sickness, health, and death. The others may claim to have that. The old unions have always given these benefits, but some of these new organizations which have sprung up in the war plants will probably not give the benefits they should to the members. The members of these locals pay excessive dues and initiation fees and do not get the benefits. Mr. RICHTER. I do not know whether you are inferringMr. LANDIS. War plants especially.

Mr. RICHTER. I do not know whether you are inferring that the war plants that we have organized are being charged excessive dues because they are not being given enough service for their dollar. I think the men, by joining, have shown that they have been given their money's worth. I do not want to get into that, because the rest of the statement I want to make covers what I think is more important.

I want to say that I am very happy to see that the Labor Committee is considering this legislation. We have been much concerned with the trend of shifting many labor bills into the Military Affairs Committee and other committees of Congress, when the bills should properly be handled by Members of Congress who have studied labor problems. Therefore, we are happy to see that these labor bills are being studied here.

I would like to see more reports coming out of Congress such as the one put out by the Labor Committee recently on absenteeism. It faced the issue squarely and provided useful facts to the public, instead of coming forth with a lot of restrictive legislation, such as some other committees have been issuing lately without substantial basis in fact or without any explanation.

On the alleged racketeering aspects in H. R. 1483, which I presume is the basis for the requirement that detailed statements be issued, and for the other reports requested, we do not deny that there are, in the 10 to 11 million members of organized labor, some racketeering elements. You will find that true in many bodies with smaller memberships. If you find a racketeer in the Army, you are not going to pass an antiracketeering law against the Army. You will take care of that racketeer by adequate Federal, State, or local laws. We believe such laws exist for racketeering.

Congressman Landis said that the rank and file are very much concerned about the failure to submit financial statements. We believe that the rank and file are very much concerned with day-to-day im

portant problems, such as the cost of living, the inefficiencies that are obvious in many war plants, the failure to ration properly, and many other problems which this committee should properly give its attention to.

I would like to point out that in New York, where Mr. Dewey launched his antiracketeering drive, the greatest help he got was from organized labor. Organized labor as a whole is not any more interested in protecting and shielding racketeers than anyone else is. On the contrary, the great majority of unions have shown that they want to clean out whatever racketeering elements exist.

On this question of submitting detailed reports of financial statements and of similar data, that sounds very reasonable and fair, and no one should object to it; but when you examine it you will notice that, first, the reports required are very voluminous, and it seems strange that Members of Congress, who are going to the press each day about the voluminous reports required of businessmen by the Government, should come in and demand reports which are far more bulky. It would require much more work and it would divert important labor union people from their war work to a series of clerical and mathematical problems such as are presented here.

The gentlemen from the railroad brotherhoods have already pointed out the great problems that that would involve, and I do not need to go into any great detail on that.

I would like to bring out one point that the able spokesmen from. the brotherhoods did not develop. When you ask a new labor organization which is weak and has very little financial resources to publish a full statement of all of its strength and all of its money, you are opening up the way for an unscrupulous employer to destroy the union. The employer would be impelled by that fact to provoke a strike, because he knows it won't have any resources and he knows they would not be able to stay out on strike very long.

Mr. LANDIS. Can you give us an example of an organization that would be weak?

Mr. RICHTER. Let us take, for example, any number of C. I. O. unions which have come into the field only in the last 6 or 7 years. When the auto workers were just getting started and breaking away from the open shops in Detroit and elsewhere, they had a membership of only 1,000 or 1,500 to get started with. Naturally, their resources were very limited. They were pitted up against corporations with many millions of dollars, who had shown that they would not countenance unions, and did all they could to break unions.

If they knew that at a given moment a local union, let us say at the General Motors plant, had no resources and had no assistance that they could count on to help the men while they were out on strike, they would hit then.

Mr. LANDIS. What would the national organization do? Would it not back up its locals? The United Mine Workers backed up their locals.

Mr. RICHTER. We do not know what the national organization would do. In the case of the C. I. O. in 1935, the national organization itself was very weak; and you know, Congressman, that there are many independent unions.

Mr. LANDIS. You may have an argument for an independent union, but I think the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. and the bigger unions will

take care of themselves as far as finances are concerned. They would back up their locals.

Mr. RICHTER. I am sure that would be the case, but that was not the case in 1936, at least as far as the C. I. O. is concerned.

Now, mention was made a moment ago of jurisdictional strikes. As far as I know or from reading these bills, there is nothing in them that would prevent or ameliorate jurisdictional strikes. On the contrary, I could see where these bills, especially H. R. 1483, would provoke jurisdictional fights, and I have this in mind. It goes back to the same point about a weak union publishing finances. You would thereby encourage any new union or any other union group that wanted to challenge it at that particular moment to call a strike, or in some way or another make the legitimate union or the established union meet the test of whether it should join or the challenging union should represent the workers.

Mr. LANDIS. Of course, you are arguing against the C. I. O. then. Mr. RICHTER. I am not arguing against the C. I. O. at all.

Mr. LANDIS. That argument would be for an independent union. Mr. RICHTER. It would not be independent or C. I. O. The same facts would prevail whether it was affiliated or independent.

Mr. LANDIS. You would be arguing against the C. I. O., because really the strongest union in the United States is the A. F. of L., according to membership and finances.

Mr. SCANLON. We will have to have a recess because of the call of the House.

Mr. LANDIS. I am willing to come back and continue the discussion. Mr. SCANLON. Are you willing to come back tomorrow morning, Mr. Richter?

Mr. RICHTER. I will be back; yes.

Mr. SCANLON. We will meet again at 10:30 o'clock in the morning, and you will be the first witness, Mr. Richter.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m. the subcommittee adjourned until Thursday, May 13, 1943, at 10:30 a. m.)

TO REGULATE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1943

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Thomas E. Scanlon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF IRVING RICHTER-Resumed

Mr. SCANLON. Gentlemen, we will come to order and we will proceed with the gentleman who was on the witness stand yesterday when we adjourned.

Mr. RICHTER. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I will just resume informally the discussion I started yesterday.

On the question of financial statements by the unions, it appears somewhat academic to discuss it at this point, because, as I understand from the newspaper account of the Smith bill as reported out by the Military Affairs Committee, it calls for substantially what the Landis bill would require. I do want to make our position clear on the problem, however, because I feel it important to persuade the gentlemen of this committee to fight against the Connally bill or the Smith bill when it comes up on the floor.

It was pointed out yesterday by the representatives of the brotherhoods that the registration requirement is discriminatory in that it requires registration by labor organizations but not other nonprofit associations. It is hard for us to understand why labor organizations should be singled out from among a large variety of similar nonprofit voluntary associations.

I think it particularly pertinent to point out to the committee that employer associations, which are not covered by the legislation, have engaged in activities which should properly demand watch by Congress.

I should like to read from a report, with which you gentlemen undoubtedly are familiar, but it is several years old and you may not recall. It is one of the reports put out by the so-called La Follette committee, or the Committee on Education and Labor, in the Seventyfourth Congress. I quote from page 116 of the report, Labor policies of employers' associations, part I:

Social legislation has made great strides in the last generation through the collective efforts of organizations. This evolutionary improvement of the lot of wage earners is one of the principal virtues of democratic institutions; and the responsiveness of democracy to the hopes and yearnings of its constituents is its principal bulwark of strength.

87639-43- 5

63