Dr. LEDERER. I call it regimentation if we have to report every time we do something to several agencies..

Mr. Wood. What agencies?

Dr. LEDERER. Governmental agencies and State agencies, on all of the details of your business. I do not mean that we want to hide anything, but I want to say, Mr. Congressman, that in conducting a small company like our own, I know personally we had to take on eight additional clerks just to make all of the red-tape reports.

Mr. WOOD. Then you are opposed to that regimentation from your own testimony?

Dr. LEDERER. No; not in principle.

Mr. WOOD. I mean in actual practice. I am not talking about in principle, but I mean as is operated under the National Recovery Act. Dr. LEDERER. Yes; there is room for lots of improvement, but I state again here, as I stated in my statement, that it takes time to develop those things.

Mr. Wood. Did you know that the National Manufacturers Association and the National Chamber of Commerce asked the Seventythird Congress to pass the provisions that are now embodied in the National Recovery Act relative to trade associations and industry? Did you know that?

Dr. LEDERER. I know something about that; yes.

Mr. WOOD. If I am not mistaken, the language of the law is almost exactly in accordance with the language recommended by Mr. Harriman and others. In 1933, in the special session of Congress, representatives of employers throughout this country came to this committee room in hearings we were then conducting on the ConneryBlack 6-hour bill, and on one or two other measures, oil interests, steel, coal, manufacturing, the electrical industry, and all of these large corporations were represented here. They came here by the scores, and we conducted some 3 weeks of hearings, and they were not 30- or 40-minute hearings either. We started in at 10 o'clock in the morning; sometimes we finished at 4 or 5 o'clock in the evening, being excused from having to answer to the roll call in the House when it was in session, and without one single exception, every one of those employers came here and begged Congress to do something. They said, we are destroyed, or nearly destroyed. They all testified to the fact that industry was stagnant, the channels of trade and commerce were stagnant, cut-throat competition was rampant throughout the United States. They testified here that they could not get even the cost of production of their articles of commerce on account of the ravenous competition that endured since 1929. They begged this Congress and they begged the administration, came here upon their knees, admitted that industry had failed, and as a result of the importuning of all of these trade associations and groups, that session of Congress enacted the National Recovery Act as one of the 13 or 14 measures passed in that session for national recovery.

They agreed, or almost every industry, that they were in a desperate plight, that they could not help themselves and they were here humbly begging Congress to do something for them and save them from the crash and Congress did that. Congress passed the National Recovery Act, and they put in that law sections that not only accorded trade associations the right of organization, but the

very law itself, its essence, its contents was practically a mandate to the employers of this country to get in their organizations and by and through the operation of the law, the trade associations of this country have practically 100 percent of membership in their organizations due to this so-called "regimentation " you are talking about. Now, since industry is on the upturn, since they have, by and through the action of the Congress and the President of this United States, been saved from the crash and they very frankly predicted that they did not know what was going to happen and that is a matter of record in the House hearings, that they predicted they did not know what was going to happen, they were all fearful. They predicted, in a word, revolution, and they said they did not know what was going to become of our American institutions if we continued on very much longer. It was the consensus of opinion of nearly every man that appeared before that committee at that time that something had to be done immediately to save this American democracy. Congress rose to the situation and did it.

In every hearing we have held since then in the regular session and in this session of the Seventy-fourth Congress, every single employer that has appeared before this committee on any bill that we have here has agreed that they are in better shape now, far better shape than they were in on March 4, 1933, and they have all agreed in unison that the upturn is here, business is constantly improving, by and through the things that this administration has done and Congress, together with their own cooperation and the cooperation of all parties, that we are now on a sound foundation.

But, through all of this, with the consummation of over 700 codes, representing that many industries, large and small, we have the spectacle now of some 11 or 12 million people still unemployed. We have 21,000,000 or 22,000,000 upon relief. Wages have not risen, as had been expected by the Congress, and the hours of labor have not been reduced, as was the purpose, and expectation, of Congress when they passed the National Recovery Act.

It was immediately predicted, and it was the supposition of the Members of Congress that with the enactment and administration of the National Recovery Act that we would come back here in the Seventy-fourth Congress with a general 40-hour week, which we have not. We have failed, and we have fallen far short of the 40-hour week.

Now, this bill is designed to do no other thing than to give the wage earners just the right to organize and to prevent employers from discriminating against them, to prevent employers from intimidation and discrimination, and the records show that in spite of the provisions of section 7 (a) that employers, both large and small, have violated the purpose and intent, and the very spirit of section 7 (a) with impunity. They have discharged employees wholesale for the mere offense of identifying themselves with an organization of their choosing, or in joining an organization, or if they were organized, for attempting to get an agreement with collective bargaining. The employers have ignored, even brazenly violated the law of the land, in that they have carried on a systematic campaign in the last 8 or 9 months prior to the convening of this session of Congress, and I say a systematic, coordinated campaign of intimida

tion and coercion of the employees of industry to prevent them from exercising their right under the law to organize in an organization of their own choosing.

Now, this law is merely for the purpose of giving the wage earner an opportunity, without molestation from the employer, to join and form, or to organize a union of his own choosing, nothing else. The law, as I said before, has made it almost mandatory that the employers perfect their unions, which are called trade associations, and the employers themselves, the Manufacturers' Association, in their preamble recognize the right, or the rule of the majority in industry. The law recognizes that with respect to the employer, but when it comes to the employee, they do not recognize the right of the majority. In other words, the employers in all of their codes insist that whatever agreements are made with respect to prices, or the condition of industry, or any other condition, that when that code is adopted and a minimum price is set for a commodity, that all industries, although they do not belong to the trade associations, must abide by that rule of the majority, but when it comes to the wage earners, then they desert their former position, and then they contend that proportional representation should be the rule. In other words, that the minorities should be dealt with.

The automobile industry now is contending that in any plant where a majority of the employees have, by their vote, expressed their desire to become affiliated with the American Federation of Labor or a bona fide labor union, even though 90 percent of the employees of the industry, or of that plant, vote to become members or to be represented by that organization in collective bargaining, even in that situation, the automobile industry contends that they should also deal with this minority that voted for some other kind of an organization.

They know just as well as any other intelligent man or woman that that very rule tends to destroy any influence that the employee may have through the organization because, as is usually the case, where they have to grant a wage increase, if they have a company union of 20 percent of the men, and they have a bona fide union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor with 80 percent of the men in that union, if the majority exercise so much influence that the company is compelled to grant an increase, and they see that in order to prevent a cessation of work that they must make some concessions, when they decide to do that they go to the small company group and say:

Now, we have decided in our own mind, after giving the matter consideration, that we are going to give you boys a raise in wages, but when we give it to you we are going to give it to these other fellows, these 80 percent. They are from the outside union, but we are going to give it to you.

They deal with the company union. Now, what effect does that have when the majority brings about the condition where the employer must make some concessions and then he makes that little minority company group believe that because he loves them he is giving them an increase, and he tells them that he will give it to the others also?

Now, that has been the practice throughout the country, and that is an unfair labor practice. That is not in accordance with the purpose and intent of this law. That is not in accord with the

Executive order issued by President Roosevelt in February of 1934, and this law attempts only to guarantee the freedom of the employee to become a member of a union of his own choosing. Now, if it is fair for one, it is fair for the other, and no one can gainsay that had it not been for the drastic measures that this Congress has enacted, we would not have saved business as we have. They said that we had turned radical. We were called communistic, socialistic, and we were called advocates of Russia by some people, all manner of criticism, most of it coming from business. After the laws have been passed, and administrations have been had, although some of the administrations have been very lax, we have gotten to the point where we all recognize that we are on the upward turn, and that is the purpose of those laws. I think it is the duty of the employers, in view of the fact that they have reaped the benefits of the National Recovery Act, and they have been saved from destruction and dissolution, that they ought to, in justice, accord the workers the right to organize if they so choose.

Dr. LEDERER. Will you permit me to make just one remark?
Mr. WOOD. Yes.

Dr. LEDERER. Ì want to go on record again and state that in our industry we have reemployed in 1 year 217,000 men, and have increased our pay roll about $34,000,000 a month. We are now at 107 percent of the 1929 peak standard of employment and almost 100 percent in actual dollars of wages, and 107 percent in real wages, based on the purchasing power of the dollar.

Mr. Wood. I am glad to hear you make that statement. That coincides with just about what every employer has testified here. Some of them have not testified quite so rosily, but others have concurred with your testimony.

Dr. LEDERER. I still maintain, gentlemen, that I know a little bit about the oil business and labor relations. I do not talk about any other industry. I still maintain that the employees in our industry are of a very intelligent standard and type. I still maintain that most of them make a fair living, and realize that if the employers get more money we can pay more, and that the industry has always treated its employees fairly. I further contend that if their labor organizations have not yet had a larger membership in our employees, in spite of the fact that they tried mighty hard to get more, it is only because the employees in our industry are, I do not say, perfectly satisfied, but certainly happier than those in the coal mines or in other industries I know of.

Mr. WOOD. Of course, we have a difference of opinion, but we have had a very pleasant hearing and we have enjoyed your being here and appreciate your testimony. Is there any other witness who cares to appear? If not, we want to thank you for appearing.

Dr. LEDERER. Not at all. I thank you for the opportunity to appear. The only way to get together and make progress is by exchanging views.

Mr. WOOD. If there is no other witness who desires to testify, the committee will recess until next Tuesday morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m., the committee adjourned until Tuesday, Apr. 9, 1935, at 10 a. m.)

MISCELLANEOUS

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, UNITED STATES SENATE

As counsel for the American Federation of Labor and for a large number of their affiliated unions, including the electric-railway unions, the bus unions, the steel unions, the automobile unions, and a number of others, I have given my time mainly for the past 12 months to the trial of what are called "7 (a) cases" before the National Labor Board, the National Labor Relations Board, the Steel Board, the Automobile Labor Board, the Petroleum Labor Policy Board, and a number of regional labor boards. I feel, therefore, qualified to speak in support of this bill.

This bill represents a logical advance in the necessarily expanding role of government in labor matters. The long neglect of this field of government must be remedied. The State's sanction to combinations of capital into large corporations, and mergers of those corporations into huge holding companies, some with assets in excess of two billions of dollars, the alliance of these employing concerns into trade associations and chambers of commerce, have placed employees, who rely on individual bargaining, completely at the mercy of their employers. This wrong must be redressed. Employees must have an equality of bargaining power. This can come only through self-organization and collective bargaining.

My duties carry me to different parts of the country where I am constantly in touch with workers. I am deeply impressed by the fact that what the worker wants above all else is the right to organize. He wants a say-so in the terms of his employment. He knows that as an individual employee he can never have this say-so; he knows it can come only through an organization with his fellow-employees, and through their joint spokesmen selected to deal with the employer.

What the worker asks through that great friend of labor, Senator Wagner, in this bill you have for consideration, is that the Government forbid the employer to interfere in the self-organization of the employees. That seems a simple request, but it is all that the worker asks. The day when the worker owned his own tools and had a shop of his own is long past. The passing is due to the laws enacted by the State, permitting combinations of capital and of employers. Great as these combinations have become during this century, in such huge corporations the the U. S. Steel, Bethlehem Steel, General Motors, and the utility holding companies, their cooperation as employers was immeasurably advanced by the provisions of the N. R. A., under which competing manufacturers could, with the sanction of law for the first time in 300 years, sit around the table and fix the price of their own product and limit the output of their own mills. These vast privileges are not without burdens, and these burdens fall on labor. This Congress, therefore, wisely concluded that some offsetting advantages should be granted to labor and so into the Recovery Act were written the famous words:

66

Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and shall be free from interference, restraint, or coercion of employers ", known through the land as "section 7 (a)." The great steel strike, which would have come on the 16th of last June, was averted in the nick of time on the 15th of June by a promise to the steel workers of a Government board to enforce their rights. The following day the Seventythird Congress passed its Joint Resolution No. 44, which was signed by the President 3 days later, and 10 days later he appointed the Steel Board. This Board and the Executive order appointing it were accepted by the steel industry, and the Board was notified by the largest of the steel corporations that