« PreviousContinue »
whatever. They only carry out the orders of the superintendent, who is the direct voice of the operators.
If these employees are denied the right to organize, they will surely be forced back into the dark days of economic starvation that existed prior to their unionization, and may I suggest that for a complete picture of the economic standing of these employees the pay rolls of some coal companies for the past few years be examined.
It has also been charged here that to have these employees unionized would result in a let-down in enforcement of discipline and safety rules and enforcement of the mining law. I take just the opposite view and declare that safety, discipline, efficiency, and enforcement of the law will be more rigidly enforced because of the fact that the employees will no longer be forced through fear of reprisal on the part of management to ignore safety violations or violations of the law. It is a matter of public knowledge that officials in the mines today are forced through fear of discharge to ignore many violations of the law and safety rules. Under the job protection furnished by a union, this condition will be eliminated and greater safety in the mines attained. As to the contention that the mining law will be violated by these employees, I defy any operator who has appeared here or elsewhere to prove that joining a union makes a man more prone to break the law.
The various coal associations and operators raised the same cry when the United Mine Workers were organizing the production employees, yet the records show that since unionization of these men that accidents have decreased and production has increased. As a matter of fact, the coal operators have a record of opposing any change which will tend to destroy their despotic control over the mining industry and over the lives of the men and women who work therein. In 1939 Mr. Battles, secretary of the Western Pennsylvania Coal Operators Association, bitterly opposed passage of the Federal inspection bill. Claiming it was an invasion of States' rights and that it would add extra cost to the mining of coal, hamper the coal companies in coal production, and result in confusion and chaos within the coal industry.
The duties of supervisory employees are defined by statute, and no union, no matter how strong, can or will protect a criminal. In Pennsylvania we have a State mining law. We have a department of mines with a secretary and mine inspectors. However, the department and its personnel are completely dominated by the coal operators. The personnel are recommended by the coal operators, and it is impossible to get a job without their backing. I think that what the operators really are afraid of is that, with these employees organized, they will be forced to put into effect rules and regulations which will really protect the workers and that the State department of mines will no longer be able to protect them in their dangerous and lawless mining practices. It is a matter of public knowledge that the inspectors are forced many times to overlook dangerous practices in order to placate some operator who might use his influence to have him removed.
The State mining law of Pennsylvania definitely states that before any men enter a gaseous mine, an examination must be made by a certified fire boss. Yet the coal operators continuously violate this law by working men on idle days without an examination being made. This practice has resulted in many explosions and fires down through
the years. Two of the most recent being the Harwick mine explosion, which resulted in 12 men losing their lives and the Kramer mine explosion, which resulted in 48 men being killed. If the supervisors at these mines had been protected by a union at this time, they would have insisted that the law be complied with. It is our contention that these practices are carried on with the full knowledge and consent of the department of mines of Pennsylvania, otherwise they would not exist.
The coal operators of Pennsylvania have organized themselves into various associations and they have given to these associations the right, power, and authority to bargain collectively for the individual members. These associations are designated, such as the Western Penna Coal Operators Association, the Central Penna Coal Operators Association, and so forth. There are similar associations in the States of West Virginia and Ohio and in meny other States. The coal operators, by their action in joining these associations and in delegating to the association their rights to collective bargaining, seem to find no fault whatsoever in such actions. If it is right for the coal company to join an association for such purposes, why, therefore, is it wrong for the supervisory employees of these coal companies to likewise band themselves together for the same purpose.
Similarly the mine inspectors, including secretary of mines for the State of Pennsylvania, have formed an organization known as the Mine Inspectors Institute of America. These men who are directly and undeniably employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other States by whom they are employed have found it necessary and proper to belong to such an association. Naturally the association was formed for the purpose of advancing the interests of its members. As a matter of fact, this association has worked with the various coal companies in a very amicable manner, and I can assure you that if the coal companies had any objections to these associations, they would never have been formed. Again if it is right and proper for the mine inspectors and the secretary of the department of mines to belong to an association, wherein is the evil if the supervisory employees do likewise ? Certainly Congress will not now, in the year 1943, deprive the thousands of supervisory employees from forming an association or a labor union for the purpose of promoting the health, the welfare, the security, and the safety of the coal industry, as well as to increase and promote the production of coal.
If it is right for the association for the advancement of management to work collectively and for the mine inspectors to have the inspectors' institute to organize on an industry-wide basis, why in the name of democracy cannot the supervisory employees organize for their advancement and protection and for collective bargaining?
I could go on here for hours quoting illustrations, but I see no reason to go into detail now. However, if it is the desire of this committee that I appear personally before them, then I stand ready and willing to appear and to answer any questions.
In closing, I feel that it is a sad day in American history if the laborhating, antiunion employers can take advantage of this grave emergency to try to push through Congress such bills as this; if that day has come and this can be accomplished, then surely democracy is a farce, our Constitution is void, and our boys are dying in vain.
STATEMENT OF ALBERT E. CONRADIS, SOUTHERN STATES
INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL OF NASHVILLE, TENN.
Mr. CONRADIS. My name is Albert E. Conradis. I am associated with Mr. Taylor in the practice of law. My office is located at 712 Jackson Place NW., in this city. I am appearing today in behalf of the Southern States Industrial Council, of Nashville, Tenn. The council represents various industries throughout the South, including lumber, textiles, chemicals, steel mills, coal mines, furniture factories, food-processing factories, and so forth. It has approximately 2,500 members.
The council strongly favors H. R. 2239, and, Mr. Chairman, I am only addressing myself to that bill this morning.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. CONRADIS. We feel that the passage of this bill will prevent the already badly muddled manpower situation from becoming more SO
First, by preventing the unionization of individuals in an executive, administrative, professional, or supervisory capacity; second, by preventing "featherbedding”; and, third, by eliminating certain other union practices which interfere with the full utilization of the Nation's manpower.
Suppose we consider first the effect of unionization of individuals in an executive, administrative, professional, or supervisory capacity. On June 15, 1942, in the Union Collieries decision, the National Labor Relations Board' held that the definition of "employees" was broad enough to permit the inclusion of managerial and supervisory personnel within the definition. On February 20, 1943, Mr. John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers of America, instructed all district and local union officers of the United Mine Workers to enroll some 60,000 management representatives of bituminous coal companies. In this instruction Mr. Lewis announced his determination to enroll every supervisory employee below the rank of mine superintendent.
Now we respectfully raise the question, gentlemen, if this is done, what will happen to the basic principle of collective bargainingnamely, that there must be two parties to a bargain?
Individuals engaged in a managerial or supervisory capacity are employed to represent and safeguard the legitimate interests and rights of the employer. I am aware, of course, that the assumption that the employer still has rights which, under Federal law, labor is bound to respect may be a violent assumption, and former Assistant Attorney General, now District Appeals Court Judge, Thurman Arnold thought it was. Testifying a year ago before the House Judiciary Committee, Judge Arnold said:
I think today, under the Federal law, there is no right in the farmer which labor is bound to respect; there is no right in the consumer which labor is bound to respect; and the independent businessman has no right which labor is bound to respect. In other words, labor's pressure on these three groups is independent of any law whatever. It is entirely up to the will of the particular labor union.
But assuming the employer does still have some rights which his managerial and supervisory employees are supposed to safeguard and represent, what would happen to these rights and these interests if
these employees are taken into the union? How could the employer protect his legitimate interests if, in collective bargaining, the allegiance of these individuals is transferred to the other side of the table?
Mr. John L. Lewis has stated that all supervisory employees below the rank of mine superintendents are prospective members of the union. But if the principle is admissible, why stop there? Why not include the other executive and managerial officers, including the president of the company! And leave on the other side of the fence the owners, presumably the stockholders of the company.
In other words, why not put them all on the same side of the tablejust as has been done in Communist Russia, speaking of the idealogy and not the political aspects of Russia, Mr. Chairman. Make no mistake about it, gentlemen, that is the direction in which this proposal points—to the ultimate sovietization of American industry.
And if the supervisory and managerial employees of the bituminous coal industry are unionized, can there be any doubt but that similar moves will be made with respect to all other industries?
Of course management will resist any such development. It would be traitorous to its trust if it failed to do so. You and I know that for 10 years now the national policy has been heavily and purposefully weighted on the side of organized labor and its leaders. We have even gone so far as to provide immunity from prosecution for many things that would ordinarily be crimes providing only they are committed in the name of a labor union. Obviously, the restoration of any sort of balance would require that the position of management be affirmatively strengthened—but I shall not go into this. What I do wish to emphasize is that any fight between management and labor at this time can lead to only one thing-loss of vital production. If the Smith bill did no more than postpone this needless controversy for the duration, and I emphasize for the duration, gentlemen, it should command the support of all who desire the speediest possible victory over our foreign enemies. But it does more. Sections 5 and 6 of the bill cover such practices-indefensible even in peacetime—as "featherbedding” and other union practices which interfere with a full utilization of the Nation's manpower.
"Featherbedding”—as you probably know-consists of the rather common practice of requiring two or three, or more men to do a job that can be done just as readily, and more expeditiously, by one man or by machines. The following examples are furnished by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice: I am going to take a few moments to cite some of these to you, Mr. Chairman. They are obtained from hearings which were held by Subcommittee No: 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on H. R. 6144 in regard to the registration of labor organizations and business and trade associations. Those hearings were held in March 1942. These particular instances I am going to cite to you are found on page 88 of these hearings and were submitted by the Honorable Thurman Arnold.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the number of that bill?
Mr. CONRADIS. H. R. 6444. And I picked out certain of these examples that I thought fit in with the manpower situation. There are others that I do not believe do so I left them out. But on page 88 are
all of the examples. It is headed “Examples of labor-union activity in restraint of trade" and subdivided into the various examples and submitted by Thurman Arnold.
Complainant's driver required to hire union unloaders at $10.10 a load.
Fish merchant complains that local teamsters require out-of-town truck drivers to hire union unloaders at $4.50 a day's pay, regardless of time it takes to do the job.
Union, through control of unloading privilege, forces owner-operators to hire local truck driver to ride with them from 50-mile radius outside city to point of delivery. That driver incidentally performs no service whatsoever except he goes along for the ride.
Complaint that local teamsters require tribute payment of $4.50 before permitting out-of-town drivers to unload. I think that was in the New York area, although I am not sure.
Complaint of truck operator that he is required to pay 80 cents an hour and minimum total of $3.20 for unloading and loading, regardless of size of pick-up. Payment is made to the labor union.
Complain that union unloaders require minimum payment for 4 hours' work regardless of size of load.
Flour mill complains that longshoremen's union local imposes arbitrary "loading charge" of 3 to 6 cents per barrel of flour. No service performed. Estimated total unnecessary charge of $2,000,000 annually.
Fruit merchant complains of excessive pierhead charges in unloading oranges. Costs 10 cents a box to get fruit from pier to street, which is more than truckers get for loading, hauling, and unloading a box from origin to seaport.
Complainant's drivers prevented from unloading grapes in three cities without paying union $4.50 per load. Can produce truck driver witnesses, plus receipts.
Complainant sold truckload of tomatoes in large eastern city. Union forced reloading and delivery by local union truck at unnecessary charge of $35.
Attorney for certain banana dealers complains they must pay excessive cartage charges and are not allowed to use their own trucks in city.
Union contractor complains that in two cities he is forced to hire engineer at $1.30 per hour, whose only function is to start one-cylinder gas engine.
Farmer complains that union insists he unload all his strawberries at one place. His driver has been a member of union in good standing for years.
The musicians' union requirement that stand-by musicians be hired by concerns which broadcast music from records or electrical transcriptions.
Local 807 of the teamsters' union in New York required that every produce truck entering the city must pay $9.42 as wages for a pilot driver in addition to the union driver already on the truck.
In Peoria, Ili., Racine, Wis., and in Washington, D. C., electricians require that all piping, wire, and other materials shall be cut, bent, and assembled on the job.
Requirement of a local of the electrical union in New York that electrical equipment manufactured by union labor outside of New York be disassembled and reassembled on the job site.
The railroads are said by Mr. Eastman to be short 168,000 workers. And yet "featherbedding” in this industry has almost attained the proportions of a national scandal. I am going to ask permission to submit for the record a Readers Digest article for March 1943 an article on page 25 called Featherbedding Hampers the War Effort, which was condensed from Barron's Publishing Co., Barron's February 8, 1943, written by John Patric with Frank J. Taylor.
The CHAIRMAN. How many pages are there?
Mr. CONRADIS. That is all, Mr. Chairman, about four pages. I intended to take certain extracts from there if I may.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. You may have it printed in the record. (The matter referred to follows:)