thought because most every man that you talked to said, "Why, no bill will ever be passed which gives one man the right to do something and deprives another man of that right." Just in the last few days the men began to get busy and began to think. They asked me Monday morning if I would come down here and appear before this committee. Up until this last week there was very little thought given to the matter because we could not conceive of the idea of any bill being passed that would prohibit us from organizing into a foremen's association or anything of our own choosing.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, not being a lawyer, all you are contending for here is the right to collective bargaining as other labor groups have it under the provisions of existing law?

Mr. SANDERS. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like you to tell where you draw the line of separation for demarcation between management and their employees?

Mr. SANDERS. In the Hudson Motor Car Co. the line is very distinct. It ends with the general factory superintendent.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the top of it?

Mr. SANDERS. That is the bottom of management.

The CHAIRMAN. The bottom of management? And you just are below that, and you are between that and the workers?

Mr. SANDERS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the group that wants to be organized or permitted to organize to bargain collectively with management? Mr. SANDERS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. How did you get your job to begin with in this company?

Mr. SANDERS. I made up my mind I wanted to get back in the city of Detroit. I was working with Fairbanks Morse, & Co. as a foreman in Three Rivers, Mich., and I was not making the money that I felt I should make to maintain the standard of living for me and my family that I think every man is entitled to. I went to Detroit on Labor Day and drove out to the Hudson Motor Car Co. and walked in and had a talk with Mr. Neff who is one of the personnel directors of the company. He immediately sent me to the general superintendent of the committee and I walked out 2 hours later employed. The CHAIRMAN. At what salary were you employed?

Mr. SANDERS. I was employed at $325 a month.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your salary now?

Mr. SANDERS. $350 a month.

Mr. ARENDS. Did you have to bargain with him up and down as you talked to him? Did you have to jockey with him?

Mr. SANDERS. Well, not so much. At that time they were badly in need of supervision. They needed supervision of the type of work I was doing at the present time.

Mr. ARENDS. Were you satisfied to go to work at $325 a month? Mr. SANDERS. I went to work at that figure with the understanding that if I could handle the job at the end of 30 days I would get $350 a month.

Mr. ARENDS. And you got the $350 a month?

Mr. SANDERS. I got the $350 a month.

Mr. ARENDS. Are you still satisfied?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, with my salary; yes, I am not kicking.

Mr. SHORT. Would you be satisfied with it if you had to belong to the union?

Mr. SANDERS. One thing about my salary I am not satisfied with, the salary is all right, but I think if a man is working for me and comes in for a day and works and gets $20 or $25 a day I am worth more than 75 cents.

Mr. SHORT. That happens only on Sunday?

The CHAIRMAN. That is on Sunday? Where a fellow went out and did manual labor they paid him $25 and they gave you 75 cents? Mr. SANDERS. That is right.

Mr. HARNESS. Which pay do you think was just, the 75 cents or the $25?

Mr. SANDERS. They both were a little bit extreme; that is my personal opinion.

Mr. COSTELLO. I think you are the first witness who has definitely told us of the line of demarcation between management and labor, and this morning the gentleman told us about the Ford Motor Co. stock was owned by two men, father and son. I do not believe that is a similar condition in your plant.

Mr. SANDERS. No; I think the Hudson Motor Car Co. is a stock company and the stock is scattered over a wide field.

Mr. COSTELLO. Would you consider stockholders part of the management?

Mr. SANDERS. I consider stockholders ownership.

Mr. COSTELLO. What is the difference between management and ownership?

Mr. SANDERS. I set up three distinct divisions in industry. One is ownership, one is management, and the other is labor and the employees.

Mr. COSTELLO. There should be three bargaining agencies for each organization, such as yours?

Mr. SANDERS. We have ownership, management, and labor. Mr. COSTELLO. Do you have any trouble with ownership? Mr. SANDERS. Well, ownership I can never get to. I do not know who they are. All my dealings have to be done through my general foremen and the highest I get is to the assistant superintendent.

Mr. COSTELLO. You are definitely in a class with labor; you are not in management at all? You see that right away?

Mr. SANDERS. No; I am not in management. I am never consulted. If I want to change a tool on a machine first I must put in what we call a S. P. C. and ask for permission. If I want to change the position of a reamer on a turret lathe, I must have the permission of the tool designer. All my work is laid out.

Mr. COSTELLO. If this continues, you will have difficulty with ownership. Right now you are the bargaining agent with manage

ment.

Mr. SANDERS. I think there are a lot of practices in industry today that if ownership were aware of them they would be stopped.

Mr. COSTELLO. You mean that they would understand your problems better than management?

We have two

Mr. SANDERS. All management are not the same. kinds of management. We have good management and bad.

Mr. SHORT. The same thing is true with labor and that can be

applied even to Members of Congress.

Mr. SANDERS. That is right. We have it in all walks of life.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you think your union has a different problem than the union of the workers under you?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then of course your union should always maintain

its identity?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, sir. I think we have a different question and a different problem than labor has.

Mr. JOHNSON. You have a different set-up and a different outlook and different questions to settle?

Mr. SANDERS. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, suppose they come along-suppose this happens in your group of foremen that you did not encompass all of the members in the factory who are foremen and they began to flirt with the C. I. O., let us say, or a union group that is a bargaining agent for the working men then if they call an election and you had an election under the Wagner Act to determine that the larger union would be the bargaining agent for you, in your opinion, would that destroy your effectiveness?

Mr. SANDERS. That would not happen. I do not think it could. It could not in our plant for this reason: We have 651 members out of a total membership of 675 who are eligible.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is your situation today?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Of course, you know that these things change and sometimes quite rapidly?

Mr. SANDERS. I do not think it would be changed. I think it would be much stronger for this reason. Before we had the foremen's association, if a foreman was off sick in a department nobody else cared whether his department was running or not, because every man was trying to make the best showing that he could in his department and put a feather in his own cap. Since we have had the foremen's organization, when a man is off sick the man in the immediate vicinity will see that his job runs until he is back on the job.

Before we had the foremen's association, if I went to the machine repair man, if I had a broken-down machine to be repaired, I would go to the machine-repair foreman and say, "I have a machine down. How soon can you send a man to repair it?" And he would say, “I have got my men on the automatic and I cannot pull them off the job." Maybe they were on a job that did not need to run and I had a production job and I wanted it fixed and maybe it needed to be in operation every minute. Today I will go to him and he will pull the men off the job on which they may not be so badly needed and place them on your repair job. There is a much better spirit of cooperation among the foremen now.

Mr. JOHNSON. No, you do not get the point I am trying to find out about. Suppose your foremen's association made a contract for the ensuing year and, which sometimes happens, some of the members of your organization felt they had not made a good contract and that it was not good enough and that it did not protect them properly or that it did not get them the right wages or did not get them the right condition and then they became delinquent in your foremen's association and pretty soon some other bargaining agency came along. Assume that it was the agent that represented the workers below you and they weaned away from your group say 20 percent of them and

86329-43-24

then they ask for an election for a bargaining agent for the whole plant and in the election perhaps your group of 500 which were left would lose the election and the bargaining agent would become the .bargaining agent for you and also the workmen. Would that be derogatory to your interest, in your opinion?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, it would. I would not want to see that myself. Mr. JOHNSON. Is it your fixed opinion today from your experience that to maintain your effectiveness you think your group should always be only a foremen's union?

Mr. SANDERS. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON. And you would not want to amalgamate your forces with the forces of another group within the same plant?

Mr. SANDERS. No, sir; I would not want that. I would want to be independent.

Mr. JOHNSON. All your testimony just is directed to that one point: You feel that for your security and for your betterment you should have a foremen's association or union that would bargain only for foremen?

Mr. SANDERS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Mrs. Luce?

Mrs. LUCE. I am not sure of this, but under the existing Wagner Act isn't the provision that the union with the largest number of membership in a factory can call a general election and decide which will be the bargaining agent for the whole factory, if it wants?

Mr. SANDERS. I do not think that any group can ask for an election during the term of a contract; that is, once an election is held and a contract is signed.

Mrs. LUCE. Until the contract expired, then? As soon as the contract expired, say next year, they could decide to have a general election in your plant?

Mr. SANDERS. That is something I would not be able to say. I do not know what will happen or what could happen.

Mr. HARNESS. That is exactly what the Board held in its decision. The CHAIRMAN. That was determined by the order of the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. HARNESS. Yes, that is what the National Labor Relations Board held.

The CHAIRMAN. They ordered an election by secret ballot to determine who has the right to bargain.

Mr. HARNESS. Therefore they would be included in the contract. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Mr. SANDERS. I think the foreman is nothing more than an employee.

Mr. ARENDS. What are the dues in the union of foremen?

Mr. SANDERS. One dollar to join and one dollar a month.

Mr. ARENDS. For any foreman?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes.

Mr. ARENDS. Regardless of his salary?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, and it cannot be any higher.

Mr. ARENDS. It cannot be any higher?

Mr. SANDERS. That is right.

Mr. SPARKMAN. This question comes up right along the line that Mrs. Luce was talking about. As I understand the National Labor Relations Act there can be only one bargaining agency in a plant and

that is determined by an election. Now, according to your argument you would have a union for the workers and a separate union for the foremen?

Mr. SANDERS. That is right.

Mr. SPARKMAN. And your idea is to have the foremen bargain for these foremen separate and apart from the union representing the workers?

Mr. SANDERS. That is right.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Now, as I understand under the National Labor Relations Act as construed by this recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board such an arrangement as that would not be possible. What is your comment on that?

Mr. SANDERS. Under the law, I do not know. I am not versed in that.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Suppose my idea is right, what would you think of such a condition? Would you want a union if you could not bargain. separately, as you have proposed?

Mr. SANDERS. Well, yes, it would do a lot of good.

Mr. SPARKMAN. The foremen, of course, would have a smaller union.

Mr. SANDERS. The C. I. O. would not bargain for us. plant they absolutely will not take us in.

In our

Mr. SPARKMAN. Then what is the need of your having a union if you cannot bargain?

Mr. SANDERS. It creates better harmony amongst the foremen in the plant.

Mr. SPARKMAN. In what way?

Mr. SANDERS. You get to know each other.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Then it is nothing more than an association or nothing more than a society?

Mr. SANDERS. That is what we have.

Mr. SPARKMAN. It is more or less a social group?

Mr. SANDERS. That is what we have as the Foremen's Association. Mr. SPARKMAN. I know, but as I understand the argument that you have presented against this bill is that it goes beyond that. This bill does not forbid you to have that kind of association but it says that kind of association could not be entered into for collective bargaining.

Mr. SANDERS. Well, I cannot see where we should be deprived of the privilege under the law that is guaranteed to everyone else.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Under the rule of the National Labor Relations Board which it has made they say that you are an employee and therefore you are entitled to bargain collectively and you must do it through the agency which has been determined by the election to be the most numerous in the plant and therefore your separate union loses all of the benefits it could ever have as a collective bargaining agency.

Mr. SANDERS. Well, then, I think we should get busy and try to rectify some loopholes in the law that do not allow us to have this privilege.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Then do you agree with this, that the law should be amended, the National Labor Relations Act should be amended to say that foremen or supervisory employees or personnel are not to be included within the definition of the term "employee"?