Now, take section 8 (b), which provided for the first time what would be unfair labor practice that is (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which was an amendment to the Wagner Act. The Wagner Act, you will recall, only defines unfair labor practices by the employer. It was meant to be a one-sided act, and simply meant for the employers to be good. Now, we did find abuses in big labor, and to be fair we said we should define practices in that area. All you find in unfair labor practices on the labor side or the union side are the jurisdictional strikes, and I commend you for meeting that difficulty there, although I do not think you are broad enough in your conclusion. Secretary TOBIN. Also, secondary boycotts of the type defined in the bill. Senator SMITH. But there is where you stop. There is nothing in here what I am getting at, first, was to protect the individual worker the way we tried to protect him in the union-shop idea, to protect him in the closed shop that way. Frankly, you have not satisfactorily answered my question as to why you should not use the same procedure to protect him in the closed shop. There is provision 5 in the Taft-Hartley Act which forbids requiring of employees covered by an agreement authorized under subsection (a) (3) the payment, as a condition precedent to becoming a member of such organization, of a fee in an amount which the Board finds excessive or discriminatory under all the circumstances. That is just to protect the workers against excessive fees. Secretary TOBIN. And I tell you in 18 months we have not one complaint before the National Labor Relations Board. At least, we have asked about it, and have not had one complaint called to our attention. Senator SMITH. But we have, and it seems to me there can be no possible objection to protecting your workers against that, and to leave it to the National Labor Relations Act to decide whether the fee is excessive. I cannot believe it is right to leave the power of life and death over these people to earn their livelihood with no control at all, with no protection against excessive initiation fees. I have had men say to me that, before they can get a job, they have to put down $50 in cash. Secretary TOBIN. Well, I think, Senator, I know the history pretty well. Most of it occurred in the wartime; most of those who perpetrated those practices were new labor leaders and in areas of cantonments where they were taking in all kinds of workers. There is quite a difference. Senator SMITH. Why shouldn't the Government protect the workers against that kind of abusive practice? Secretary TOBIN. The day that the terrific demand for work ceased, it was impossible to-with respect to those practices they just went with the war. Senator SMITH. Let us be thankful that it is all over; but unless the National Labor Relations Board can take care of those cases, as we did here, it seems to me we are on the wrong track. It seems to me it would be indefensible not to do it. Secretary TOBIN. What you are talking about is what occurred in the early days during the war. nator SMITH. Mr. Secretary, I am older than you and I have not see the temptations of racketeering and greed ever disappear unless * took some steps to prevent them. You would not say that condits have changed and these things will not happen. The first time 2y have a chance they will do the same thing. I have had too many pesiple come to me and say, "Can't we be protected by law? Can't we get a job unless we have to pay $50 or $100?” The CHAIRMAN. I will have to break in here. I am bound by Sator Morse's motion, and the Senate has called for a quorum, and have all had a chance to ask questions. Lator TAFT. Mr. Chairman, I have not had a chance, and I would La to ask the Secretary a number of questions. I certainly will not long. I do not threaten anything like Senator Morse's 3 hours, I do have a series of questions about what the new law means, and then there are certain questions on this thing that I do not think be very long. The CHAIRMAN. Does the Senator want to ask them in open bam stor TAFT. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. We will have to adjourn because we are bound by Instruction given us as a result of Senator Morse's motion and ng, and may I ask that the witnesses collate and prepare their mony as quickly as possible, because, due to the limitation of hearing, there will be a request for the printed hearings right away, I am sure. We will meet again tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. retary TOBIN. Senator, may I present this for the record? Lator TAFT. May I make some comment on it, if you do, Mr. retary? On the whole, the comparison is a very fair comparison, It is read. I do want to call attention, however, to the fact that enges are always greater in times of prosperity than in times like 165 to 1939 when there were many millions of people out of work, and the effort to strike was very much deterred, so I think that addital fact should be noted when this paper is presented. The CHAIRMAN. That has already been received for entry into the Dwand. stor PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, may I insert a paragraph from *, New York Herald Tribune of Monday, January 31, 1949, into "record? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The paragraph referred to follows:) Ideaing with strikes which affect the national health and safety, the new gh at first glance less strong than the act it would repeal, may turn out * ∞ to be an improvement. Much depends upon the reasoning which the stration reveals as underlying its suggestions. A 35-day cooling-off period Tay conceivably serve better than a period of 80 days. And, unlike the former want of inquiry, the new emergency boards to be appointed by the President have the power to make recommendations for a settlement. These should * pubie opinion and canalize the efforts of those seeking to mediate the T The CHAIRMAN. We will recess now until 10 o'clock tomorrow Whereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, February 1, 1949.) LABOR RELATIONS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1949 The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 210, Senate Office Building, Hon. Elbert D. Thomas (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Thomas, Murray, Pepper, Hill, Neely, Douglas, Humphrey, Taft, Aiken, Smith of New Jersey, Morse, and Donnell. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. We have this morning Mr. Ching, of the Mediation and Concilia tion Service. Mr. Ching, will you state whatever you wish to have appear after your name in the record, and then proceed. Let me repeat, the committee is in order; I would appreciate no more conversation, please, as it is hard to hear in this room. STATEMENT OF CYRUS S. CHING, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL Mr. CHING. My name is Cyrus S. Ching, Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great privilege to appear before this committee to give you whatever help I can in connection with the pending legislative proposal. It is most important that I say, at the outset, that I am speaking only for Cyrus S. Ching; nobody else takes responsibility for my remarks. I may disagree with some provisions of this bill. The only valid conclusion that can be drawn from this apparent lack of 100 percent unanimity among officials of the executive branch is this: It is a fine thing to have a President who recognizes the value of having divergent views and opinions in his administrative family presented to Congress in order that it might write the best possible legislation in the public interest. ways of life and our standard of living rest largely upon our success in The future of our country, progress, and security in our democratic mastering the problems of industrial and labor relations. As the most highly industrialized of all countries, the eyes of the world are focused upon us to determine whether we can make our system work without Sacrificing freedoms which we regard as precious. Our responsibility law by the Congress is historic. We must not make missteps. We is historic, and, I may add, the current consideration of a new labor must all be bigger than our own stature if we are to measure up to the bulk of our responsibilities. 53 Although most of my life has been spent as a representative of industry who has had extensive dealings with unions, some people seem to feel that I am qualified to stand in an impartial position between employers and unions. I flatter myself by believing that among my most valued friends holding this opinion are many whose lives have been devoted to the cause of organized labor. I hope that they are correct in their judgment that I am a completely impartial and disinterested fellow-but my age, experience, and natural skepticism have taught me to recognize the force of these two truths: First, no human being is qualified to testify that he, himself, is impartial any more than he is qualified to testify that he has a sense of humor. I never heard anyone deny that he had a sense of humor; nor have I heard anyone admit that he was biased. Second, impartiality, to the extent that it can be actually achieved, depends considerably upon the institutional settings in which a man finds himself. Show me the judge of the courts of the United States. most honored for his objectivity and lack of bias. That reputation would not survive the act of sitting on a case in which a former client or a relative is an interested party. However impartial he may be in his own estimation, he is no longer impartial in the eyes of the bench, the bar, or the public. What I mean to convey is that the important thing about impartiality and disinterestedness is that it is to be measured not by the internal personal convictions of the man himself, but by the way in which he is regarded by others. Personal impartiality which is not supplemented and supported by a reputation for impartiality may help to get a soul through the gates of Heaven; it is of little value to a judge or to the mediators of labor disputes. And the nature of the organizational setting in which he pursues his calling vitally affects his repu tation for impartiality. The CHAIRMAN. I cannot help but say, Mr. Ching, that this is the first time I have ever heard in my life that there was an impartiality up in Heaven. [Laughter.] It seems to me the whole theory of religion shows it is very much one-sided. [Laughter.] There must be some meaning in that story about the goats and the sheep. Mr. CHING. That was probably a poor analogy. The CHAIRMAN. Probably on a higher plane up there, but I hope that is the case. Mr. CHING. Nothing is more important to the effective mediation. of labor disputes than the known, recognized, and acknowledged impartiality of the mediator with respect to the conflict of interests and aspirations between employers and unions. This is so because mediation depends exclusively on persuasion; because a mediator cannot be persuasive if he does not possess the unqualified confidence and trust of the parties in dispute; and because any suspicion or belief that he favors the interest of one side or another corrodes and destroys that confidence. For many years I have given serious thought to the problem of the character of mediation as it should be performed by governmental officials and to the qualifications of mediators. Permit me to read some of my major conclusions from the introduction to the First Annual Report of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service: |