The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Have you got a statement you can put in the record?

Mr. LONG. Yes, sir.

(The statement above referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT FOR THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, RE: COMPANY UNION OF THE WEIRTON STEEL CO.

We, the committee who appeared before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor on March 20, 1934, represent 18,000 employees of the National Steel Corporation. The Weirton Steel Co. is a subsidiary of the National Steel Corporation.

Weirton Steel Co. employees took for granted that section 7 (a) of N.R.A. guaranteed them the right to join a bona fide trade organization. The employees of said company, by popular and free choice, joined of their own free will the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, to act as their representative for collective bargaining and for their mutual aid and protection. Employees of the company have shown good faith in responding.

Meanwhile the company held an election in June for representatives under the employee-representation plan, which they introduced soon after they heard of section 7 (a). Previously the employees had had no representation of any kind. This plan, an exact duplicate of the plan at Wheeling Steel Corporation, was introduced for no other purpose than to defeat the intentions of section 7 (a). During this election the foremen came to men on the job and insisted that they go and vote, stating that it was compulsory. A ready-picked slate was presented to the men, with no opposition slate. The company counted the votes.

Knowing, however, what section 7 (a) guaranteed us, we took advantage of that. We have shown a majority of approximately 90 percent of the employees, now signed members in the Amalgamated Association. But Weirton Steel Co still insists that employees deal only through their representation plan.

Because the company ignored representatives that the employees chose freely at their own meetings, employees at Clarksburg, Weirton, and Steubenville finally struck September 26, 1933, and 95 percent of the employees came out. The only ones in the plant were maintenance men whom we permitted to go in at the company's request. In fact we had to coax our men to go in and carry on the maintenance the company requested.

The strike ended October 16 through an agreement drawn up before the National Labor Board. This agreement stated that all employees now on strike should go back to work immediately, without prejudice, discrimination or physical examination. An election shall be held the second week of December 1933. Methods and procedure for the election shall be prescribed by the National Labor Board. The election shall be held under supervision of the National Labor Board. Any dispute arising from this agreement shall be submitted to the National Labor Board for decision. The agreement was signed by E. T. Weir of the Weirton Steel Co., William J. Long of the strikers' committee, and Senator Robert F. Wagner of the Board.

As soon as employees returned to work, discrimination, intimidation, and coercion was immediately shown by the company, men being laid off daily by the score. Protests were sent at once to Senator Wagner on the National Labor Board at Pittsburgh November 20. The Board issued a summons for E. T. Weir, but he did not appear. Efforts to settle the controversy came to nothing because of E. T. Weir's refusal to appear before the Board.

Over 400 Weirton Steel employees who were active in the union have been laid off and discharged; some were told that this was because the company had to reduce forces, and others were frankly told that it was because of their union activities. Meanwhile by a careful check up we have ascertained that the company has hired about twice that number of new men.

We have affidavits of workers that E. M. Mentzer, employment agent and safety director for the Weirton Steel Co., told them, when they applied for work, that they were blacklisted and would never again work for the Weirton Steel Co. Sons and daughters and nephews of men who have been active in the A.A. have had difficulty getting jobs, since the strike. In some cases, after working a few days they would be dismissed, with no explanation. Such cases occurred not only in Weirton but in other towns up and down the valley. Men seeking work in other towns are not hired if they admit they came from Weirton. A sister

of an active unionist (she had worked for the company 10 years) was discharged from the office.

Although the company had agreed to let the National Labor Board supervise the election in December, the company refused to abide by this agreement and conducted its own primary and final election. In the primary election, held December 11, less than 3 percent of the employees voted at all. The company, realizing that employees would not freely accept their plan, used more drastic methods in the final election held December 15.

They had State police patrolling the town of Weirton, which is company owned and unincorporated, and their own mill police force had riot sticks and cooperated with foremen in forcing men to poll. They used extra men to relieve regular workers to vote, and foremen stated that if we did not vote they would discharge us and give the job to the extra men. In one case in the sheet mill department, Benny Jones, a foreman, in trying to force a man to the polls, knocked him over a pile of iron, so injuring his wrist that he had to go to the hospital. Although the company shut down some departments that day so that leading unionists might not be present, they sent around to the homes of others on the crews demanding that they come down to the mill and vote; that if they did not they need not report to work any more. Pay day was moved up 2 days to coincide with this election day. And the ballot boxes were placed next to the pay windows and men were required to vote before they drew their pay.

Nevertheless some men refused to vote, and many of them have since been discharged. Their families have been told that mortgages would be foreclosed on their homes, and some have had their furniture sold. Local banks refuse to buy the bonds for home owners loans for these people.

Even now, when we hold union meetings, managers, supers, and foremen stand across the street watching to see who goes in, usually one boss from each department. When Mrs. Pinchot, wife of the Governor of Pennsylvania, spoke to a union meeting, there were 30 bosses across the street from the manager down, and Mrs. Pinchot has already reported this.

Now these union men who are discharged, and their hungry children, are really victims of section 7 (a), because they joined the union in the confidence that section 7 (a) guaranteed them that right. Almost 6 months ago they tried to organize for collective bargaining. Governmental agencies have ruled that Weir is in the wrong, but they have so far failed to coerce him in the slightest. He is still pouring funds into the company union, paying the salaries of officers, and taking revenge on those who prefer some other union. The Department of Justice has said it may seek an injunction to restrain Weirton Steel from interfering with an outside election held by the Labor Board. But this procedure may take 6 months or a year. And then the fight will start all over again to try to get Mr. Weir to recognize and contract with the union the men chose in that election.

We demand that Congress cut through all this red tape and make it illegal for an employer to finance a union. Let the workers have a union they are willing to pay for themselves, not a company union run by the other party. There can be no collective bargaining and no enforcement of section 7 (a) as long as one party to the bargain can dominate both sides.

Submitted on behalf of the Weirton, Clarksburg, Steubenville, and Ecorse lodges of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers.

Wm. J. Long, president of Weir Cove Lodge No. 30; Mel Moore, president of Valley Lodge No. 31; Jake Entinger, president of Good Will Lodge No. 39; Chas. E. Anderson, president of N.R.A. Lodge No. 35; Jack Reese, president of Steubenville Lodge No. 150; Charles Greenwood, president of New Deal No. 33; William C. Milstead, president of Blue Eagle Lodge No. 32; T. I. Lewis, president of Michigan Steel Lodge No. 4.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Raushenbush.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN RAUSHENBUSH, FORMER DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name for the record?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Štephen Raushenbush. Former director of industrial relations, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The CHAIRMAN. You reside where?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Harrisburg, Pa.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be pleased to have your views in regard to this bill.

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. The first thing I would like to do would be to introduce for your consideration the statement made by President John A. Phillips of the Pennsylvania Federation of Labor in support of this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. You may submit it for the record. (The statement above referred to is as follows:)

Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER,

HARRISBURG, PA., March 19, 1934.

United States Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR WAGNER: The Wagner bill is supported by laboring men and women throughout Pennsylvania because they have had a long and bitter experience with the privately paid and privately owned company unions. The operation of these unions has helped make Pennsylvania the low-wage State of the North. It has helped keep purchasing power in Pennsylvania low, and has made it a drag on the recovery of the rest of the Nation. These unions, originated, financed, and managed by the company officials, who have the unquestioned power of firing men, have scared every man and woman who values his job to death. They dare not attend open meetings. They dare not raise the question of a real union or a real vote. Such exercise of the rights of freedom means discharge. It takes only a few discharges to intimidate a whole community.

This bill will stop company unions if it is enforced. For that reason we are for the bill to the limit. It makes possible real democracy in choosing representatives instead of making every worker into a candidate for the bread lines. At present the slightest opposition to his employer's private organization means economic suicide for practically every worker in Pennsylvania.

Our long experience with these employe representation organizations has brought us to the conclusion that they are nothing but a fraud on the word "representation." They are part and parcel of the drive toward fascism in America. One of the most important features of fascism is control by the industries and the Government of the workers, and the abolition of free unions. These company unions fit neatly into that picture. Where they have been established for a long time, as in the steel industry and the captive mines of that industry, there has been a practice of using State police and company police commissioned as deputy sheriffs to shoot down men who are trying to get such rights as were given to them in section 7 (a) of the National Recovery Act. This was done in Pennsylvania all last summer. To shoot down the opposition to company unions is a natural part of the fascist development established by such organizations. In behalf of the Pennsylvania Federation of Labor we ask you to stop this development from going any further and to do it by passing this bill. Respectfully submitted.

JOHN A. PHILLIPS, President.

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. The interest of Pennsylvania in this bill is partly due to the fact that it is a low-wage state and has, through the whole depression, been among the two or three lowest wage paying states in the whole north and west. We see a close connection between this fact and company unions, for Pennsylvania is a state in which these unions are very prevalent.

During my two years as director of industrial relations for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, reports on approximately 900 disputes were handled by the State Bureau of Industrial Relations which was working in cooperation with the United States Bureau of Mediation. The element of company unions and the fear generated by it entered into a great number of these disputes. This was especially true during the whole coal strike of the summer of 1933, which devolved out of the company town and company union system. It is only with an

understanding of this company union system and the fear that it generates in workers, that people can appreciate the indignation of the workers against the decision by General Johnson in regard to the Budd case. The decision, made just the other day, was to the effect that the police should be assigned at a certain union election. To the laymen this meant nothing at all. To the workers, trained in the fear of discharge, the matter of signing their names to a ballot against the company, meant economic suicide, and all of them understood it in that way, that is the loss of their jobs as soon as the management found out how they had voted. The result was an indignation meeting against the conduct of the election, and a wave of resentment through the state. Only those who had known the inside workings of companies who are trying their best to keep out regular unions, and who have, in many cases, spent millions of dollars over a period of years in this activity, could appreciate the fact that a discharge or a failure to get promotion followed almost automatically any attempt to secure free expression.

During the coal strike of 1933, in the course of which I was in the field a great deal and talked with both the company union men and the others, as well as the deputy sheriffs, the picture became fairly clear that this was one of the companies which had invested some millions of dollars in keeping unions out, and that involved a very interesting development. It involved protecting the people, the members of the company union who had been "loyal" to the company for a long time, at the expense of the noncompany union men, that apparently involved some special privileges in the mines for themselves, some freedom from fear of discharge on their part, some preference, perhaps, in housing. It produced a group solidarity among the favored and hand-picked employees, which had important results.

The provision in most of the company union plans, including the Frick plan, that citizens should be American has a significance that is often neglected. In this particular case "American" meant that no foreigners could possibly get in, and many of the workers who had been brought into that district by the coal companies originally were of alien origin. The raising of this particular qualification as a barrier produced a situation in the course of which several fiery crosses were burned. In other words, the religious issue was raised, and that seemed at the time to be a natural concomitant of the whole company union plan.

President Phillips, in his statement, has pointed out that these company unions fit into a Fascist development. He says that one of the most important features of Fascism is control by the industries and the government of the workers and the abolition of free unions. These company unions fit neatly into that picture. He makes the point, which I think is important, that where these company unions have been established for a long time there has been a practice of using State police and company police commissioned as deputy sheriffs to shoot down men who are trying to get such rights as were given to them in section 7 (a) of the National Recovery Act. In other words, government police, in this case privately paid by the companies, but commissioned by the various county governments, were carrying out the will of the men who are trying to keep out real

ins.

You will hear later in the testimony of Mr. Abelman of two incidents in February, and one incident in March, in Nazareth, Bangor, and Reading of company union meetings policed by the companies, in the course of which the union men were thrown out by policemen and prevented from any participation in the meetings of the company

unions.

The main point I wish to make in this connection is that where you have an uncontrolled power to dismiss, which has been used over a period of years, very definitely, people are so scared that they will not buck a company union unless they have some guaranty that their rights to free speech and free election are protected.

There has been nothing so far in the enforcement of the N.R.A., particularly in the compliance angle, which has given people faith in the protection the N.R.A. gives anybody. I have been informed from various sources that a good number of people who make complaints about compliance in regard to hours and wages have been dismissed. Of course, a few dismissals intimidate a whole community.

The need for this bill is increased because of the failure of the N.R.A. compliance to date. The situation, as far as the confidence of people in securing protection is concerned, is far worse now than it was in the early days of the N.R.A. and if there is to be an end to the restrictive power of employers to intimidate workers in company unions, it must be accompanied by a very considerable measure of enforcement power on the part of the National Labor Board in regard to the various practices mentioned.

I wish particularly to second the statement in general made by Dr. Leiserson and the amendments suggested by Professor Witte this morning. The differentiation between employee-representation plans and real unions is very important and should be incorporated in the bill in the two places suggested.

In the main, the whole problem of this act depends upon the strength and intent of enforcement, and certainly some system may be devised whereby quicker action can be secured than has been secured In this connection I wish to make emphatic dissent to the proposal by Mr. Beyer that strikes should be held in status quo for 30 days or 60 days. That is exactly what was attempted in the Weir case and Budd case, with the result that the workers felt that the Government had deserted them and left them during that period of time at the mercy of the employers. In both cases there seems to have been discrimination.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned to tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at the hour of 1 p.m. the committee adjourned until 10 a.m. of the following day, Wednesday, Mar. 21, 1934.)