quite ready to meet. It was, therefore, necessary to revitalize the whole organization. New literature, greater financial resources, more highly integrated organization of employer groups, greater coordination and unification of employer attitudes, and a broader educational campaign than had ever before been attempted, were necessary. The years 1933, 1934, and 1935 were devoted to reorganization and replenishing the association's resources.

The details of this reorganization, summarized here, are given in the report of the Senate Civil Liberties Committee on the N. A. M.50 First, a group of business leaders, representing certain large corporations in the steel, chemical, shipbuilding, and other large-scale industries, decided to underwrite an expanded program of activities. As a condition of the financial aid so promised, they stipulated a change in the management of the association to bring in a large number of industrialists and more active leadership. At the same time, a vigorous campaign for new members was initiated, and a new educational campaign instituted, with appropriate committees and separate financial provision. Finally, the National Industrial Council was put upon a more formal basis, and its cooperative relations with the N. A. M. were systematized and highly coordinated.

These changes brought quick results. Membership increased from 1,469 in 1933 to over 3,000 in 1937.51 During the same period the association's total annual income expanded from $240,900 to $1,439,548.52 The amount of this income derived from subscription for the public information program grew from nothing in 1933 to $793,043 in 1937.53 The association's enlarged program was being financed increasingly by large contributors whose interest was aroused by what they considered the danger confronting industry by the legislative program of the Government. Between 1933 and 1937 the 15 largest contributors increased their contributions from $13,712 to $219,460, and half of the income of the N. A. M. during this period was supplied by some 265 large contributors out of a membership ranging between 1,469 to 3,008.54

The board of directors of the N. A. M. was enlarged, and the large contributors gained a majority.55 Under the leadership of William Frew Long, general manager of the Associated Industries of Cleveland, and Homer D. Sayre, commissioner of the National Metal Trades Association, the National Industrial Council was reorganized on a membership basis, thereby making affiliation with this more closely knit organization a necessary step before N. A. M. advice, counsel, and propaganda material could be obtained. During this process, it was able to eliminate a competing organization, the American Plan Open Shop Conference (which in 1933 changed its name to the Council of American Industry). Thus, the National Industrial Council became the only federation of employers' associations active in coor

S. Rept. No. 6, 76th Cong., 1st sess., pt. 6, pp. 44-69.

1 Ibid., p. 48.

52 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

54 Ibid., p. 51. E. I. du Pont de Nemours Co. was the biggest contributor. It increased its contribution from $725 in 1933 to $55,000 in 1937, General Motors Corporation from $1,950 to $13,310, National Steel Corporation from $1,050 to $15,000, Chrysler Corporation from $500 to $15,000, Texas Corporation from $750 to $15,000, Republic Steel Co. from $237.50 to $12,750, Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey from $100 to $11,000. The other 8 largest contributors were U. S. Steel Corporation, Monsanto Chemical Co., Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co., Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Borg-Warner Corporation, Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Swift & Co., and Eastman Kodak Co.

55 Ibid., table 4, pp. 54-56.

dination of business attitude toward labor.56 Industrialists well known for their leadership in certain open shop employers' associations represented the employment relations group of the National Industrial Council in meeting with the staff of the N. A. M. to discuss pending legislation and to reach conclusions on unified policy.57

The results of these conferences were conveyed to all council affiliates. This group also acted in the capacity of a general staff whose viewpoint was forcefully represented in Washington to bring pressure upon Congress.

For 30 years the association had fought wage-hour legislation and had opposed restrictions on injunctions and the application of antitrust laws against labor. It had fought against regulation of hours and wages of women and children in industry. It had opposed protection of the workers' right to organize and bargain collectively. The only factor that differentiated the activities of the association from 1933 onward was the intensity with which it carried on its obstructive tactics.

National Industrial Recovery Act.

From the day of its introduction in Congress, the N. A. M. opposed the labor provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act.58 A special manufacturers' committee appointed at an emergency conference on April 28 stated that the bill as introduced was unworkable. One of the five amendments which the committee insisted "must be adopted before the legislation can receive the support of industry" recommended the "elimination or revision of the labor provision" so as to "operate equally upon both employers and employees." 59

Robert L. Lund, Ñ. A. M. president, issued a public statement on May 26, in which he held that the labor provisions might "promote industrial conflicts * * and force employers to deal with racketeering organizations." "Management in industry has no wish,” he said, "to use this legislation to change existing satisfactory labor conditions and believes that their employees, in the vast majority, are of the same mind." 60 In a general meeting of industry held in Washington on June 3, a resolution was adopted, urging modification of the labor provisions to make it clear that there is neither the intention nor the power to reorganize present mutually satisfactory employment relations, nor to establish any rule which will deny the right of employers and employees to bargain, either individually or collectively, in such form as is mutually agreeable to them.61 This was a typical argument in favor of individual bargaining, which had been the rule in industry and which the N. A. M. had found satisfactory. The N. A. M. did not want these relations disturbed.

50 Ibid., pp. 57-62.

Ibid., pp. 65-66.

Several outstanding pressure groups were active in the drafting of this legislation. The A. F. of L. wrote sec. 7 (a), which the N. A. M. opposed so forcefully and the code sec. 3 was largely the work of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the American Bar Association. On May 1, 1933, the N. A. M. itself put out a model code which it had prepared in collaboration with the National Association of Furniture Manufacturers and the trade association section of the Commerce Department's Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.

60 Hearings before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, op. cit., pt. 17. Exhibit 3813, p. 7562.

Ibid., p. 7563.

1 Ibid., pt. 35, Exhibit 5316, p. 14149.

Representatives of the association appeared before the Senate Finance Committee to express their apprehension of the encouragement that section 7 (a) would give to the organization of labor unions. James A. Emery attacked this provision on the grounds that it tended to identify collective bargaining with trade unionism, interfered with the employee's liberty to choose the form of organization and relationship best suited to his interests, and did not provide sufficient protection for employers. Charles R. Hook criticized section 7 (a) on the basis that it did not prohibit non-employees from interfering with the employees of a corporation-a direct attack on union organizers. The American Iron & Steel Institute, represented by Robert P. Lamont, formerly Secretary of Commerce, also opposed section 7 (a) because the institute stood for the open-shop, and refused to deal with anyone except its own employees. Each of these men proposed amendments which would in effect nullify the basic objectives of the section.62

After the act was passed and approved by President Roosevelt on June 16, 1933, the National Association of Manufacturers began a campaign of nullification. On June 20, it sponsored a national industrial conference in Chicago. Resolutions were adopted urging trade groups to include in codes of fair competition clauses upholding constitutional rights to bargain individually and operate an open-shop, and making individual merit the basis of selection, retention, and advancement; also, urging employers to inform employees that open shop conditions would be maintained.63 By By a circular letter from its secretary, the N. A. M. brought these resolutions to the attention of its members and circularized bulletin board posters for employee education to the effect that "there is nothing in the bill that compels, or even encourages, employees to join any organization." 64 N. A. M. President Lund, in a press release on September 7, 1933, urged "the strongest possible employer opposition to union organization," hinting at an employer campaign to set up company unions, and stating that the N. A. M. legislative program envisaged, among other things, the repeal of section 7 (a), or, if that appeared impracticable, repeal of the Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act (1932), and enactment of legislation imposing responsibility upon labor unions for the acts of its officers and agents.

65

This organized opposition naturally hampered the operation of the National Labor Board, which was established by the President in August 1933, with Senator Robert F. Wagner of New York as chairman. The coup de grace was dealt to the power of this Board by E. T. Weir, president of Weirton Steel Co., and at that time an active member of the American Iron & Steel Institute and a very energetic supporter of the National Association of Manufacturers. His refusal to recognize the jurisdiction of the Board in a case involving election of employee representatives in December 1933, finally resulted in a sweeping decision by Judge Nields of the United States District Court of Delaware on May 29, 1934, questioning the statutory power of the Board in this case. The N. A. M. publicly supported Mr. Weir against the National Labor Board.66

S. Rept. No. 6, pt. 6. 76th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 77-78.

Hearings before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, op. cit., pt. 17, exhibit 3815, pp. 7571-7572.

Ibid., pt. 17, exhibits 3814, 3815, and 3816, pp. 7570-7572.

65 Ibid., pt. 17, exhibit 3807, p. 7549.

S. Rept. No. 6, 76th Cong., 1st sess., pt. 6, pp. 82-83.

Labor Disputes Bill.

It was clear early in 1934 that section 7 (a) of N. I. R. A. would have to be strengthened in order to accomplish the purposes of the act. On March 1 Senator Wagner (New York) and Representative Connery (Massachusetts) introduced similar labor disputes bills in the Senate and House.67

During the hearings held in the Senate, James A. Emery testified in opposition to the measure. A committee of the N. A. M. was also appointed to see Hugh S. Johnson and President Roosevelt. A radio program was started, and the executive committee was authorized to arrange for a meeting of manufacturers in Washington to oppose the bill.68

The newspapers, too, were flooded with propaganda about the bill, charging that it disregarded "every fundamental concept of legal right and remedies." The association also urged a public inquiry, for the purpose of discovering "the amount of money union organizers take from the wages of working men.” 69

Urgent appeals from the association were sent to other employers' organizations. The National Metal Trades Association, in particular, became active, and telegraphed its members, suggesting that they send the "strongest possible industrial group" to appear at the hearing, but warned that request for appearance be made "in the name of individuals or local groups and not in the name of the association." It pointed out that the bill, if enacted, would "completely unionize Amercan industry; assure domination of Labor Boards by American Federation of Labor, abolish all employee representation plans, discourage employer-employee cooperation, encourage strikes." 72 Commissioner Sayre of the association wrote:

If this measure should become a law, it would simply act as a wedge between employers and employees, and instead of promoting cooperation in the interests of national recovery, it would establish a permanent caste system in the United States which would have a most lasting detrimental effect upon the economic and social welfare of our citizens."3

74

He advised employers to meet in Chicago to appoint a spokesman in Washington, and suggested that delegations to Washington should communicate with him at "either the Mayflower Hotel or at the office of the National Association of Manufacturers in the Investment Building." 75

Sayre also suggested to members of his association that they try to have their employees appear in opposition to the bill, or, if this was not possible, to have "as many employees as possible write their Congressmen and the committee chairman in opposition to it." 76 Sayre

7 The labor disputes bill made it an unfair labor practice for employers to interfere with organizations of employees; to refuse to recognize or to deal with representatives of employees for purposes of collective bargaining; or to maintain and support a labor organization. A board of seven members-two representing employers-could hold elec tions to determine collective bargaining representatives and designate the proper unit of bargaining. It could also act as an arbitrator in labor disputes.

68 Hearings before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, op. cit., pt. 35, exhibit 5258, p. 14056.

National Association of Manufacturers, news release, March 13. 1934.

70 Hearings before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, pt. 35, exhibit 5258, pp. 14055-14056; exhibit 5335, pp. 14153-14154; news release, March 13, 1934. National Metal Trades Association, mimeographed letter to members, March 12, 1934. 72 Ibid.

73 Ibid.

74 National Metal Trades Association, mimeographed letter, March 22, 1934.

78 Mimeographed letter to members, March 14, 1934.

76 Ibid.

also organized group action on the part of employers' associations located in the Chicago district: The Illinois Manufacturers' Association, Chicago Association of Commerce, National Founders' Association, Chicago Employers' Assocation, and the Chicago branch of the National Metal Trades Association." On May 1, Sayre wrote to members of his association in Pennsylvania, suggesting that they write to their Congressmen and Senators. "As we have previously pointed out," he warned, "the results would be disastrous if any bill of this nature were passed as an employee cannot be forced to work against his will, but the employer would be forced to live up to the Board's mandates." 78 On June 6, Sayre passed on to the membership of his association a wire received from the N. A. M., which said:

Do not be misled by newspaper reports into thinking Wagner bill situation is hopeless. It is not. If expressions are especially heavy to Congress and President next 2 or 3 days it will be most effective."

The Wagner bill did not reach the floor of the Senate. The N. A. M. itself claimed credit for this in a bulletin issued in January 1935, summarizing the association's work in the 73d Congress:

Wagner labor disputes bill to create permanent National Labor Board: Secured three important concessions from Wagner, which made bill less acceptable to labor. Mustered witnesses against bill, conducted Nation-wide educational campaign against it. Obtained compromise resolution."

On August 20, 1934, Walter B. Weisenburger, executive vice president of the N. A. M., wrote to Charles R. Hook, saying, in part:

Much of our attention was devoted last winter to the Wagner labor disputes bill. There are those kind enough to say that but for the National Association of Manufacturers being the spearhead of this attack it would have gone over. Now when it comes to firms and manufacturers who have benefited by the failure of this act to pass, it cannot be said that the interest north of the Mason and Dixon line is greater than that south.

*

**

*

When the National Association of Manufacturers almost lonehanded went down the line against the provisions of 7A, and told the industrial world what it pretended, we took what was for the nonce considered a rather unpopular position. But the basis of our position and the soundness of our arguments are being brought home more clearly every day, as the working out of this particular section continues to harass progress and recovery.81

National Labor Relations Act.

The compromise resolution mentioned above was passed by the Congress on June 16, 1934. This resolution empowered the President to appoint a board or boards to investigate violations of section 7 (a), and also to hold elections to determine representatives for collective bargaining. Under this act, the National Labor Board was replaced by the National Labor Relations Board, with three members: Lloyd K. Garrison, chairman, and dean of Wisconsin Law School (resigned in December 1934, and replaced by Francis Biddle); Harry A. Millis, professor of economics at the University of Chicago; and Edwin A. Smith, former Commissioner of Labor in Massachusetts. This Board served from June 29, 1934, until August 1935, when it was replaced by a new board under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.

"National Metal Trades Association, mimeographed letter to branch secretaries, March 22, 1934. 78 National Metal Trades Association, mimeographed letter, May 1, 1934.

79 Mimeographed letter, June 6, 1934.

Hearings before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor,

op. cit., pt. 17, exhibit 3793, p. 7534.

81 Ibid., pt. 35, exhibit 5401, p. 14264.