Certainly I believe in civil liberty, and in all legislation which will safeguard it to each citizen, regardless of his views on any subject, and regardless of whether his views are those of the majority or those of the minority. It is probable that labor has, in many instances, been denied certain civil liberties, but it is also probable that labor leaders have also attempted to deny certain civil liberties to others. For many years I have been an active member of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, having first joined that organization in the days of my youth when I was employed in active railroad service; but I do not believe that the mere fact that a man or a group of men work for wages makes him or them righteous and virtuous above all others. The rank and file of labor must guard against a violation of the civil rights and liberties of cthers on the part of its leaders. There is today in session in Cleveland a convention of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. This convention has been in session for 5 weeks and will probably continue for another week. It is made up of 975 delegates, one from each of the subordinate lodges of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, located at important railroad terminals from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Hudson Bay country. These conventions are held every 4 years, and each quadrennial convention elects the officers of the brotherhood for the ensuing 4 years. Mr. A. F. Whitney, now the president of the B. of R. T., is a candidate for another 4-year term. Many of the delegates have expressed dissatisfaction with the Whitney administration. Charges have been made of extravagance, mismanagement, and discord between the officers of the organization. It is even claimed that on one occasion Whitney and Anderson, the general secretary and treasurer, engaged in a personal encounter, in which Whitney struck Anderson with the butt end of a pistol. On a number of recent occasions in Cleveland I have expressed my opinion that the present convention should retire both Whitney and Anderson. As a member of the brotherhood, I have the civil right to express such an opinion. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when on Monday, May 29, while chatting with a friend, Hon. Myron S. Korach, in the lobby of the Hollenden Hotel in Cleveland, I was approached by an active worker for the Whitney high command, who took hold of me and told me "to get going out of here." When I declined to leave the hotel, but went on into the restaurant for lunch, the same Whitney worker again came up to me and said: "Unless you want to go out of here feet first and in a wooden overcoat, you stay away from this hotel." Therefore, based on my own personal experience, I suggest that this committee take under consideration the fact that labor leaders themselves are not always considerate of the civil rights and liberties of those who differ with them. I thank you for your attention. Senator LA FOLLETTE. You are welcome. The Chair will direct that a statement sent to the clerk of the full committee from the National Manufacturers Association in relation to this bill shall be incorporated in the record, also certain reports which have been received from various departments and agencies of the Government concerning this measure, together with other material; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. (Attention: Subcommittee considering S. 1970.) GENTLEMEN: In connection with public hearings now being conducted by your subcommittee on S. 1970, I am submitting herewith statement of the National Association of Manufacturers prepared by its law department at the direction of our board of directors. I respectfully request that this statement be included in the record of the hearings now in progress. Very truly yours, NOEL SARGENT, Secretary. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS WITH REFERENCE TO S. 1970, A BILL TO ELIMINATE CERTAIN OPPRESSIVE LABOR PRACTICES, INTRODUCED BY SENATOR THOMAS OF UTAH, AND SENATOR LA FOLLETTE OF WISCONSIN Before expressing the views of the National Association of Manufacturers toward the bill now before your subcommittee for public hearings, we wish to remind the committee that this association itself has been under constant investigation by the so-called Civil Liberties Committee, which drafted and now sponsors S. 1970. The National Association of Manufacturers, including numerous officers and directors, was placed under subpena by the Civil Liberties Committee in October 1937, and all phases of its activities have been subjected to the closest scrutiny from that date to the present. During this time public hearings were held at which officers and other representatives of the association were exposed to detailed examination concerning various activities of the association having any conceivable reference to the subjects covered by Senate Resolution 266. While this phase of the investigation was apparently conIcluded in March 1938, the subpenas issued against the association have been continued in effect even until this date, and on numerous occasions the association has been requested to submit additional information. As a practical matter, we are even now subject to the committee's subpena and still under its surveillance. This background of experience is referred to for the very simple reason that any objection to S. 1970 coming from an organization directly involved in the investigation can easily be distorted and twisted to serve the selfish purposes of those who will temporarily benefit most from approval of the legislation now before your committee. We are not unmindful of the tactics usually employed to avoid consideration of pending legislation on its merits by branding opponents. as "antiunion" or as proponents of violence, intimidation, and coercion in controversies between employers and employees. Notwithstanding this obvious danger of being misconstrued, we believe this pending legislation is so drastic and unfair as to require public expression of our viewpoint. Before proceeding with an analysis of this bill and with a detailed discussion of our objections, the following general observations seem in order: First: While the National Association of Manufacturers, as indicated above, has been subjected to continued investigation by the Senate subcommittee investigating alleged violation of civil liberties, not one iota of evidence has been found to suggest that this association has ever engaged in or advised or suggested that its members should employ or utilize any of the practices defined in S. 1970. Second: The National Association of Manufacturers strongly opposes and condemns the use of espionage, strikebreaking agencies, professional strikebreakers, armed guards, or munitions for the purpose of interfering with or destroying the legitimate rights of labor to self-organization and collective bargaining. Third. The National Association of Manufacturers is just as vigorously opposed to strong-armed and coercive methods employed by labor organizations in obtaining members or during strikes called to enforce their demands. By "strong-armed methods" we refer to the common use of mass picketing, em ployment of professional pickets (now called "professional strikemakers"), illegal possession or destruction of property and the possession and use of weapons and numbers to intimidate, threaten, or inflict injury upon employees, the employer, and the public. Fourth. The National Association of Manufacturers is opposed to S. 1970 (a) because it goes far beyond the prohibition of espionage, strikebreakers, armed guards, and so-called "industrial munitions," as such terms are commonly understood; (b) because the facts do not sustain the contention that any of these practices are now widely used to an extent justifying enactment of Federal legislation imposing penalties far more drastic than ever before included in any legislation regulating the employment relation and even more drastic than many other criminal statutes; (c) because the practices which this bill purports to condemn are already prohibited by State and Federal law; and (d) because the legislation is based upon an investigation which failed even to consider the activities of organized labor which in many cases have made these practices necessary or justifiable as the case may be. While these objections constitute the primary reason for submitting our views to the committee, our decision to do so was motivated in part by the source and kind of testimony which has been presented in support of the legis lation. We refer in particular to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Congress of Industrial Organizations, both of which have joined in common effort to obstruct and defeat any amendments whatever to the National Labor Relations Act. Their support for drastic supplemental legislation as contained in S. 1970 should not be permitted to go unchallenged. NECESSITY FOR ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION In spite of the long and oftentimes oppressive investigation conducted by the so-called Civil Liberties Committee, we doubt whether fair and impartial consideration of the record of that investigation will disclose the necessity for the bill which that subcommittee has drafted and recommended. We are certain that the sampling process used by this subcommittee is no warrant whatever for any assumption that the practices prohibited by this bill are generally desired or used by the vast majority of employers throughout the country. In fact, Senator La Follette has himself stated that: "In seeking to curb the excesses of a few employers, the bill imposes no burdens or restrictions upon the majority of employers who have refrained from these practices. The fair-minded employer is not subjected to any hazards; there are no regulations or orders which change from day to day and which must be obeyed under serious penalties." While the Senator emphasizes that the bill is designed "to curb the excesses of a few employers," his subsequent assurance to the great majority is not sustained by the drastic provisions of the bill itself. This legislation is not confined to "excesses" nor does it refrain from imposing drastic burdens and unfair restrictions upon the majority of employers. In considering the necessity for this legislation it should also be emphasized that these practices, to the extent they are reprehensible and actually interfere with the rights of employees to organize and bargain collectively, are already prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. An examination of decisions of the National Labor Relations Board reveals that the use of strikebreaking agencies, strikebreakers, espionage, and armed guards have been defined and prohibited as "unfair labor practices" in numerous decisions of the National Labor Relations Board. In exploring these decisions we have examined bound volumes Nos. I through VIII, from December 7, 1935, to September 30, 1938. Using the index prepared by the Board for each volume of decisions the following tabulation appears: "The Board has listed 15 cases in which some reference is made to the use of strikebreaking agencies, 5 cases in which use of strikebreakers is mentioned, 25 cases in which the use of labor spies or espionage was in some manner involved, and 14 cases in which armed guards were employed." While this record reveals the total number of instances in which these practices were found to exist, the actual number of employers involved is considerably less. Also, it should be noted that in many of these cases the Board found no improper use of the practices and did not cite such use as a violation of the act. Further, the Board in its decisions has used these sinister terms promiscuously and loosely. In cases cited as involving the use of armed guards, the Board has included such cases as those involving Fansteel Metallurgical Co. and Peninsular & Occidental Steamship Co., in which local sheriffs attempted to serve writs of attachment or arrest sit-down strikers. The term "strikebreaker" has also been used by the Board to cover any employee hired to replace a striker irrespective of the terms or conditions of his employment, and the term "espionage" has been used by the Board to include practically any attempt or suspected effort to obtain information relative to a labor organization irrespective of the means employed or the nature of the information sought to be obtained. While this review of Board decisions definitely establishes that these practices have been prohibited, the tabulation likewise demonstrates beyond any doubt whatever that these practices have not been employed to an extent justifying enactment of this unfair and one-sided legislation. In spite of the fact that these practices are already prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act and similar State statutes, this bill has received the approval and support of the National Labor Relations Board. In testifying before this subcommittee, Mr. Madden, Chairman of the Board, has stated that: "The practices condemned by this bill deserve more drastic punishment (than the preventive measures authorized by the Wagner Act). And to the extent that they persist despite the Wagner Act, the desirability of more drastic and more deterrent penalties seems clear." While Mr. Madden is not satisfied that the penalties for violation of the National Labor Relations Act are sufficiently drastic to act as a deterrent, the obvious answer is contained in the record of the Board's decisions already discussed in detail above. This record demonstrates that the practices condemned by S. 1970 were found to exist in only 38 cases handled by the Board prior to September 30, 1938, out of a total of approximately 21,000 cases which the Board has handled since the National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935. The record does not sustain Mr. Madden's contention. In connection with Mr. Madden's testimony, another factor is significant. This bill (S. 1970) is obviously a police regulation. Section 1 (a) expressly declares that use of the practices to be prohibited "causes and provokes acts of violence, breaches of the peace, and destruction of property, affecting commerce." Furthermore, since all of the practices condemned, except one, can be engaged in only during a "labor dispute," as that term is defined, it is clear beyond doubt that the bill is based on the theory that local law enforcement or police protection is not adequate and that Federal legislation is necessary to protect employees and labor organizations against violence. ** * On another occasion Mr. Madden and the National Labor Relations Board have taken the position that it is not the function of the Federal Government to invade this field. On April 18 Mr. Madden appeared before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor in opposition to amendments proposed to the National Labor Relations Act. Among these amendments was one designed merely to discourage interference, restraint, or coercion, or particular acts of violence committed by labor organizations or their agents. In opposing this amendment Mr. Madden stated as his first objection that “* insofar as the proposal seeks to prohibit violence, threates of violence, or similar coercion on the part of employees, it is wholly unnecessary. Such practices everywhere constitute a violation of local penal laws and are subject to correction by the local authorities. Not only are such matters traditionally within the province of local police regulation but there is no evidence whatsoever that the local enforcement officers have been unduly lax in the application of the penal law to employee offenders. Further, where such practices by employees do affect interstate commerce, and therefore become a Federal issue, they are subject to regulation under the Federal antitrust laws. In this respect, therefore, the proposal is entirely superfluous." (At p. 94). It is obvious that the National Labor Relations Board is concerned only with preserving its own unlimited powers and discretion, and in supporting supplemental legislation designed to reenforce an already one-sided law; it has no objection to Federal usurpation of local police powers as a matter of principle so long as labor combinations are left free of restraint. Summarizing these obvious factors which demonstrate that there is no necessity for this legislation, we wish to point out (1) that the practices prohibited by this bill are not commonly employed and that drastic legislation of this character should not be inflicted upon all industry under the guise of reaching a few isolated instances of improper use; (2) these practices are already prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act, the Byrnes Act and State legislation comparable to the National Labor Relations Act, and (3) that cease and desist orders of the National Labor Relations Board, which in practical effect become perpetual injunctions when enforced by the appropriate courts, provide penalties drastic enough to deter use of these practices for the purpose of interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the legitimate exercise of rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO S. 1970 To this point we have assumed that this legislation merely prohibited the use of strikebreaking agencies, strikebreakers, armed guards, espionage, and industrial munitions as those terms are commonly used, when such practices interfere with or destroy civil rights. The fact is, however, that the bill is much broader in scope and far more drastic in its prohibitions. Three obvious illustrations are sufficient to demonstrate that, by use of unpopular descriptive names, the bill is designed to place the employer even more at the mercy of unscrupulous and militant labor organizations and leaders. ESPIONAGE Section 4 of the bill would make it unlawful for any person to engage in any oppressive labor practice or to furnish any person "with supplies or services for engaging in any oppressive labor practice affecting commerce or involving or affecting employees employed in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce." The term "oppressive labor practice" is defined in esction 3 (a) to include employment or utilization of "any labor spy." The term "labor spy" is defined in section 2 (1) to mean "any person who for any compensation, promise of compensation, or other inducement, and whether done as a separate duty or as an additional duty in connection with other work, engages in industrial espionage, and includes any person engaged, in whole or in part, in the business of hiring, recruiting, enlisting, or inducing any person to engage in industrial espionage.' Finally, by the above circuitous route, the term "industrial espionage" is denned in section 3 (m) to mean "reporting, securing, and reporting, or attempting to secure and report, to an employer, directly or indirectly "1. Information with respect to the plans or activities of any of his employees or any labor organization with reference to self-organization or mutual aid or protection, or with respect to the identity, number, or composition of the membership of any labor organization, without the express consent of such employees or of such labor organization, as the case may be; or "2. Information with respect to the political or economic views or activities of any of his employees or prospective employees, or of any organizer, officer, or member of a labor organization, or with respect to the affiliation of any or his employees or prospective employees with a labor organization, without the express consent of such employees or prospective employees, or of such organizer, officer, or member of a labor organization, as the case may be." Paraphrasing these pertinent portions of the bill, it would constitute an oppressive labor practice for any person to secure, report or attempt to secure and report to an employer directly or indirectly any information pertaining "to the plans or activities of any of his employees or any labor organization" without their consent, or any information concerning "the political or economic views or activities of any of his employees or prospective employees, or of any organizer, officer, or member of a labor organization" without their express consent. The effect of these broad prohibitions is clear. Labor organizations, their officers, agents, and organizers are now to be given another preferred status in American law. Neither they nor their affairs are to be discussed or made the subject of any kind of report, written or oral, published or unpublished, without their express consent. Their views and activities, whether economic or political, whether legal or illegal, are to be given a cloak of enforced secrecy, not only from the employer but from the public at large. Under the guise of restricting the activities of detective agencies or strikebreaking agencies covered by the investigation pursuant to Senate Resolution 266, freedom of speech and freedom of the press would now be subjected to the most rigid restraint. Since this bill prohibits reporting to an employer, directly or indirectly, any information pertaining "to the plans or activities" of his employees or any labor organization, it would obviously forbid reports or discussion of these |