ARE out New Jex FOREWORD There is clear sanction in public policy for collective bargaining as a desirable medium for securing agreement between unions and management. All too often the emphasis is put on breakdowns in collective bargaining. As a useful background for legislation in this field it was thought worth while to explore, what most experts in the field agree is the more characteristic condition, successful collective bargaining. We requested the Library of Congress to analyze the current ATIONS literature in this field and to provide our subcommittee with a general survey. Dr. Peck's survey is a factual study and, of course, does not purport to commit the subcommittee or any individual Senator to its conclusions. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor and Labor Management Relations. III I. Purpose of the report to throw light on factors promoting successful II. The strike threat in collective bargaining- III. The National Planning Association's findings on the conditions of IV. Attitudes and bargaining forms and practices affecting industrial V. Some expert advice on making collective bargaining work. VI. Collective bargaining essential in a democratic society. 82D CONGRESS 1st Session SENATE { REPORT No. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING1 Mr. HUMPHREY, from the Subcommittee on Labor and LaborManagement Relations, submitted the following REPORT [Pursuant to S. Res. 71, 81st Cong.] CHAPTER I PURPOSE OF THE REPORT TO THROW LIGHT ON FACTORS PROMOTING SUCCESSFUL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING The adjustments in production and employment and the accompanying changes in prices, wages, and profits after World War II have taken place in an environment of great stress in industrial relations. While collective bargaining had by this time become the most common means by which wages and working conditions were to be determined, the hope embodied in the preamble of the Wagner Act that the acceptance of collective bargaining would avoid strikes and would bring about a smooth settlement of labor-management relations had not been fulfilled. Throughout the period many final agreements were arrived at only after menacing threats and postures and work stoppages which seemed to jeopardize the procedure of collective bargaining, while the Government had frequently to be called in to make a settlement possible. The surge in the volume of work stoppages, particularly in the basic or large industries, where the secondary and tertiary effects of stoppages are keenly felt, made many doubt whether the procedures of collective bargaining were adequate to maintain industrial peace and stability. An increasing number of State legislatures imposed conditions and limitations on collective bargaining. Congress also took early cognizance of the situation and attempted to grapple with it. The Case bill, which was passed but vetoed by the President, would have radically changed the rules of collective bargaining. The TaftHartley Act, passed over the President's veto, accomplished some of the same purposes. A number of the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act were intended to make collective bargaining work more effectively, Prepared for the Subcommittee on Labor and Labor-Management Relations by Gustav Peck, senior specialist in labor, Legislative Reference Service, January 1951. |