In this connection the report of the labor committee of the Twentieth Century Fund issued in 1947, said: A basic criterion of the value of any proposed legislation is that it should be helpful to genuine collective bargaining, not harmful; that the legislation should be calculated to build up creative conditions of labor peace on the foundations of industrial self-government. The committee which wrote this report, which was unanimous on this point, was headed by William H. Davis as chairman. The other members of the committee included Sumner H. Slichter, Lamont university professor, Harvard University; Edwin E. Witte, professor of economics, University of Wisconsin; William L. Chenery, publisher, Colliers Weekly; Howard Coonley, chairman of the board, Walworth Co., Inc., formerly president, National Association of Manufacturers; Clinton S. Golden, formerly vice president, United Steel Workers of America, CIO; and the late Robert J. Watt, formerly international representative, American Federation of Labor. Title IV of the bill would continue in full force and effect the prohibitions in the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the Clayton Act against the issuance of labor injunctions. However, the National Labor Relations Board would be able to enforce its orders in the Federal circuit courts just as it used to do under the original National Labor Relations Act. Title V would restore the political contributions provision of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act as it existed before the War Labor Disputes Act. Both President Roosevelt and President Truman have pointed out that amendments to this statute have no place in a labor law. There is a specific statement in title IV that titles II and III shall not be applicable with respect to any matter which is subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. In conclusion, I should like to express my firm conviction that the original Wagner Act, with the improvements proposed in the committee print, contains the essential elements of a sound national labor policy. The 1947 act impairs the hard-won gains of organized workers and hampers the efforts of the unorganized to form labor organizations. It is important to bear in mind, as I mentioned earlier in my statement, the economic conditions which characterized the period in 1947 when the Labor Management Relations Act was passed. At that time we were still in the midst of the upheavals and readjustments that always follow a major war. Just as we had such upheavals in the years 1919, 1920, and 1921 after the First World War, so we had them in the years 1946, 1947, and 1948. In fact, the readjustments after the First World War were characterized by even greater disturbances than those occasioned by World War II. In 1919, for example, there were 20.8 percent of all employed workers who were involved in work stoppages. In the comparable year after World War II, 1946, 14.5 percent of all employed workers were involved in work stoppages. In the third year after World War I, 1921, 6.4 percent of employed workers were involved in work stoppages. In the third year after World War II, 1948, it is estimated that 5.6 percent of employed workers were involved in work stoppages. It is true that the strikes which occurred between August 1945 and June 1947 played a large part in creating the emotional atmosphere in which a law like the Labor-Management Relations Act could be passed. We should remember, however, that at the time the act was passed economic controls had been off for all practical purposes for almost one full year. In the period between June 1946 and June 1947 the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumers' price index rose from 133.3 to 157.1, or 17.8 percent. During the same period average hourly earnings, exclusive of overtime, increased from $1.05 to $1.17, or 11.4 percent. Throughout the period the widening spread between wages and the cost of living caused dislocations which inevitably produced exasperation and conflict. A law written at such a time, as was the Labor-Management Relations Act, inevitably reflects such exasperation and emotional reactions to such conflicts. The Congress was under great pressure from the people to pass legislation to deal with these conflicts. Had the Congress been faced in the spring and summer of 1947 with writing a Federal labor law under different economic and psychological conditions the result would undoubtedly have been very different law from the law we have today. Today, the balance between prices and wages is beginning to adjust itself, and economic conditions are on a more settled basis-of course, on a level of production, employment and income substantially higher than that which prevailed in the years 1935-39. There is an opportunity now again to return to the basic principle of free collective bargaining which the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 established as the fundamental basis of our national labor policy. To carry out this purpose is the objective of the bill before this committee. I urge the Congress speedily to enact the National Labor Relations Act of 1949. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Do the members of the committee wish to ask the Secretary any questions? Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Secretary a few questions if I may, and this is in line with the request I made earlier, and at the moment I would ask him to consider the question of the individual worker. Senator AIKEN. May I interrupt? Mr. Chairman, I am wondering what the procedure is in the matter of questioning. If it is going to be every man for himself, I can see where we will not get very far. I am wondering whether the chairman has determined upon any regular order of questioning. The CHAIRMAN. The chairman has not determined upon any regular order, because he wanted to see how the questioning was going; but I am sure the committee would not sustain the chairman if one Senator took all the time. If it is more advantageous to the committee, it is perfectly easy for us to start and run through the committee. Senator TAFT. I suggest that the chairman call on members, let them finish, and then go on. The CHAIRMAN. Is that all right with Senator Smith, then? Senator TAFT. May I ask one other thing? This committee, when. it adjourns at 12 o'clock, when will it meet again? The CHAIRMAN. It meets tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in this room, and I might as well explain now that Mr. Ching, Mr. Herzog, 85905-49-pt. 1-3 and the Attorney General will be the witnesses, and then we will get into further business from Senator Murray, as the committee works itself out. Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I asked my question simply in the interest of assisting the committee in meeting the February 10 date line as nearly as possible, and I realize that if it developed into a free-forall, probably even March 10 would not be adequate. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I may remind the committee, while I am on announcements, of our executive session this afternoon at 3 o'clock. We adjourned, to meet at that time, when we adjourned last time. Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a point as to procedure. I do not see how we could possibly finish with the Secretary of Labor this morning in the hour that remains. It seems to me that the Secretary of Labor sits here as the Administration spokesman in support of this bill and I think that he is entitled to every consideration from this committee in so arranging our period of examination so that it will be to the mutual satisfaction of the committee and the Secretary. Senator TAFT. I do not think it will be possible to finish before 12 o'clock. After all, in his opening statement, he has opened every issue of the Taft-Hartley law, and if there is going to be just one question relating to each, it is going to take longer, I think, than 12 o'clock. Senator MORSE. I have this suggestion to make, Mr. Chairman, that we do not determine that question at the meeting this morning. We will determine it this afternoon at 3 o'clock if we cannot determine it this morning, but in the interests of orderly procedure, it seems to me that we ought to go down the line of this committee, Senator by Senator, giving to each Senator such time as he wishes to take in crossexamining the Secretary, and such assistants as he may wish to have speak for him in regard to some points. It is the position of the junior Senator from Oregon that this excellent statement of the Secretary of Labor lays out the Administration's case as far as its contentions are concerned, but it needs to be heavily supplemented in detail with certain evidence that, in my judgment, this committee must have in order to reach an impartial judgment on the contentions of the Secretary of Labor. If you are going to do it in orderly fashion, it is going to take a great deal of time. I cannot imagine my cross-examination of the Secretary and his assistants being completed in less than a period of 3 hours, and to do that, Mr. Chairman, I do not think you ought to proceed to invite Mr. Ching in tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, if the purpose of this committee is really to try to find out the proof that supports the administration's position on this bill. Now, we cannot get the proof unless we are free to examine at length the administration's witnesses. I am perfectly willing to follow whatever procedure the chairman and the Democratic members of this committee wish to lay down, reserving my right, of course, to file exceptions. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, of course, is guided by the actions of the committee. There is no use of my arguing now, as we have in the past, that the time limit does do certain things in the way of cutting off questions and the rest of it. But we will proceed in this way until the subcommittee recommends a different arrangement. We will call upon the various Senators, beginning with the ascendent Democratic Senator, and then crossing the table to the ascendent Republican Senator, until we finish. This, I believe, is agreeable to everyone. Also to keep to one line of thought of the witness entirely all the time would be wrong. Therefore, Senator Murray, you have the right-of-way. Senator MURRAY. I have no questions, but I would like to ask if it would not expedite the matter if the cross-examination of the Secretary could be deferred until after the testimony is all in. It seems to me that, as has been suggested, his statement would have to be supplemented by testimony, and when the testimony is all in, it may be that many of the questions that will be asked now will be eliminated. I, therefore, would suggest that his cross-examination be allowed to go over until after the testimony is concluded. I have no questions to ask. His statement is entirely satisfactory to me. The CHAIRMAN. You mean testimony of the other witnesses? Senator TAFT. Mr. Chairman, I do not agree to that. It would be a very unusual procedure, and I think if we would question the Secretary now, it would suit the course the committee should take. I hope we can go a little faster than Senator Murray suggests. The CHAIRMAN. I do not wish to rule on this, but I am sure that it is fair to the witness that he be asked his questions right after his testimony. We have always followed that rule, Senator Murray. We can call him back if we want him, in executive session, or during the hearing at any time. Senator MURRAY. I have no questions to ask. I merely wish to compliment him on the excellence of his statement. I think it covers the situation perfectly. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. Senator Taft. Senator TAFT. Mr. Chairman, I prefer to waive my right at the present time and come back, and to let Senator Aiken come back at this time and ask questions, if it is agreeable to you. The CHAIRMAN. It is Senator Pepper's turn. Senator PEPPER. I have no questions. I share what has been said here, that the Secretary has given a very excellent, comprehensive and clear statement of this problem, and I think in his statement he proposes industrial peace and continued production. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Aiken. Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I will not take much of any time this morning, but I do want just to get clear in my mind a few points which occurred to me as the Secretary was reading his testimony. The first one, Governor Tobin, is on the first page, where you say: This bill, as recommended by the President in his State of the Union message. I take that to mean that the President is in full accord with the provisions of the bill which you have presented to us? Secretary TоBIN. Yes. Senator AIKEN. As the administration bill? Secretary TOBIN. Yes. The President is in full accord with the bill. You will remember that the President made recommendations for four changes. One, boycotts; two, jurisdictional disputes; three, differences as to interpretation or application of a contract during the lifetime of a contract, differences arising out of the interpretation of the contract; and, fourth, national emergencies. Senator AIKEN. I just wanted to make Secretary TOBIN. We have covered all of those in the law. Senator AIKEN. I wanted just to make it clear that the President is in full accord with the provisions of the bill. The next is on page 5, where you recommend that the Conciliation Service be returned to the Department of Labor, and I assume that you believe that the National Labor Relations Board should remain an independent agency, as it is now. Senator TOBIN. I have no definite ideas on that. I definitely would say that the judicial functions of the Board should remain independent. Senator AIKEN. And that would mean that the NLRB would remain independent. And where you would eliminate the general counsel, who now determines what complaints come before the Board, you would leave that a matter of determination for the Board itself in the case of the office of general counsel, where it is eliminated. Secretary TоBIN. The division would be made within the administration of the Board so that, as is the custom in all of the other quasijudicial agencies in the Federal Government, is where it is. I believe this is probably the only exception. Senator AIKEN. And the Board would make a determination as to which cases should have precedence, and, in other words, the whole thing would be left in the hands of the Board. The next point which I would like to clarify is on page 8, where you state: The Taft-Hartley Act's broad ban upon political contributions and expenditures by labor organizations and so on. The fact is, isn't it, that political contributions were banned in, I think, the Corrupt Practices Act before the enactment of the TaftHartley Act, but that the Taft-Hartley Act prohibited expenditures of any kind? Secretary ТоBIN. It was in the War Senator AIKEN. Including, we will say Secretary TOBIN. War Labor Disputes Act that the ban was first put into effect, and then taken over into the Taft-Hartley Act. Senator AIKEN. Yes. Secretary TOBIN. Then this amendment restores it to the condition that existed prior to the enactment of the War Labor Disputes Act, under which this procedure was first incorporated, and then changed in the Taft-Hartley Act. Under the present set-up now, as the law is amended, unions would be able to make contributions and expenditures, and corporations will be able to make expenditures Senator AIKEN. But not contributions. Secretary TOBIN. In political campaigns, but not contributions. Senator TAFT. Is that so? That is an extraordinary statement. That is your interpretation? Secretary TоBIN. Yes. |