If industrial peace means only that employers of labor are free to deny the law in any manner they see fit, if it means that employees are not to have freedom of action, then we do not want, and we most certainly shall not have, industrial peace. There is nothing to any industrial peace, as far as I am concerned, so long as these workers are denied the exercise of their rights under section 7 (a) of the National Recovery Act.

What we do want is real industrial peace founded upon freedom from restraint or coercion on the part of either employer or employees, founded upon the cooperation of employers and employees, and guarded and-when necessary-enforced by the Government.

Now, I have submitted the case. It has been submitted as an argument in support of this bill. I have tried as best I could to present to this honorable committee the underlying reasons why this proposed bill should be enacted into law. Remember these men who are suffering, persecuted, discharged, because they will not join these, company unions, are red-blooded men; they have pride; they are the men who make the munitions when we go to war; they are skilled workers of the country; they are the men who bear their breasts for our Nation; they are red blooded; they are proud; they resent fraternalism. They want nothing conferred; they are workers, human beings; they want to stand on a basis of equality with the management, with industry, and face them across the table and talk to them straight, in the face about their common problems.

They know they cannot do it if they are submitted to the conditions. of the company union; they do not want a suit put to them, brought to them, and placed on them. Their destiny is in their own hands and they want to be free, and I urge with all the authority I possess, speaking for millions of working men and women, that Congress enact this measure into law.

Now, if I may, I wish to offer a statement here that was presented by our attorney in which he defends the constitutionality of the act. absolutely, and some minor suggested amendments.

(The statement referred to by Mr. Green is as follows):

SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING SENATE BILL 2926 AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BILL 8423 TO CREATE A NATIONAL LABOR BOARD, ETC., AND AMENDMENTS THERETO

1. CONSTITUTIONALITY

It may be urged that the bills now pending in Congress to create a National Labor Board (being not of emergent but of permanent nature) are unconstitutional because their provisions are not limited in applicability to interstate commerce but are applicable to purely intrastate commerce and industry; that is to say, commerce and industry confined within an individual State.

It seems to be clear, however, that the power of Congress to legislate in matters of this sort arises out of provisions of the Constitution other than the interstate commerce clause.

Section 4 of Article IV of the Constitution provides that: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government

Recent history and present conditions in many countries of the world, all of them within the knowledge of well-informed men (and of which the courts and legislatures will take judicial notice), clearly show the tendency toward, either. (1) the preservation of a republican form of government; or (2) creation of dictatorships.

It is also perfectly clear, from recent and present experiences, that the preservaindustrial democracy is essential to the preservation of a republican form ment.

34-PT 1- -8

The whole purpose and tendency of these bills are to preserve industrial democracy; and if this be admitted it is clear that the Congress has the right to enact these bills into law and that they are valid and consitutional.

NOTE. Examples of present conditions are to be found in Russia, Germany, and Italy, where absolute dictatorships have been created. The creation of such dictatorships has been coincident with the complete destruction of labor unions and the rights of laborers as recognized in republican countries and even in monarchies. The clearest example of this is found in the recent developments in Germany, where labor unions have been destroyed by the ipse dixit or edict of the sole dictator, Hitler.

See also preamble to Constitution, that it is adopted "in order to promote the general welfare

* * * ""

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

In section 2 of the bills (lines 10 and 11, p. 2, S. 2926 and lines 9 and 10, p. 2, H.R. 8423) it is declared to be "the policy of Congress" to do certain things.

It is suggested that this should be changed so as to read "the policy of the United States."

It is further suggested that section 2 of the bills be amended as follows:

After "Sec. 2", strike out the word "The" and insert "Whereas the", and continue the section as contained in the bills to and including the word "welfare" on line 10 of page 2 of S. 2926 and line 9 of page 2 of H.R. 8423.

Strike out the following words, namely: "It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress", and insert in lieu thereof: "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States."

Then continue the said section as contained in the pending bills.

It is further suggested that this entire section be redrafted (there being no substantive changes) by inserting at the beginning of section 2 of the bills the following paragraph, based upon the so-called "Anti-Injunction Law" (U.S.C., title 29, sec. 101), and also embodying the first above-suggested change, so that the whole section will read as follows:

"SEC. 2. Public Policy in Industrial Disputes Declared.—In the interpretation and application of this act and in determining the powers, jurisdiction, and authority of the National Labor Board hereby created, and of the courts of the United States, as such powers, jurisdiction, and authority are herein created, defined, and limited, the public policy of the United States is hereby declared as follows:

"Whereas the tendency of modern economic life toward integration and centralized control has long since destroyed the balance of bargaining power between the individual employer and the individual employees, and has rendered the individual, unorganized worker helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract, to secure a just reward for his services, and to preserve a decent standard of living, with consequent detriment to the general welfare and the free flow of commerce; and inadequate recognition of the right of employees to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing has been one of the causes of strikes, lockouts, and similar manifestations of industrial strife, obstructing commerce and imperiling the general welfare; therefore, in order to remove obstructions to the free flow of commerce, to encourage the establishment of uniform labor standards, and to provide for the general welfare, by removing the obstacles which prevent the organization of labor for the purpose of cooperative action in maintaining its standards of living, by encouraging the equalization of the bargaining power of employers and employees, and by providing agencies for the peaceful settlement of disputes, the following provisions are hereby enacted: (The amendment proposed by Mr. Green is as follows:)

“Provided further, That no provisions of said acts or of the so-called 'Prevailing Wage Scale Act' approved March 3, 1931, shall be construed to be repealed by any of the provisions of this act."

Mr. GREEN. Now, in addition, I wish to suggest an amendment to the section which provides for the creation of the National Labor Board.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment may be printed in the record also.

Mr. GREEN. It is this, I have not got it prepared but I will submit it.

Instead of the Labor Board being composed of 2 representatives of employers, 2 representatives of employees, and 3 from the public, I suggest that it be balanced on the basis of an equal representation of employers and employees with an impartial chairman, a man of the caliber of the distinguished Senator from the State of New York.

Now, I believe that that will create a better state of mind among the working people and the employers of the Nation.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you would have the Board constituted with one man who would be the chairman and representing the public interests?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And 2 or 3 representatives of the employees and 2 or 3 representatives of the employers?

Mr. GREEN. That is right; equal representation.

The CHAIRMAN. Would they all be full-time officials?

Mr. GREEN. That is a matter that I leave to your discretion.

As

it is, Senator, those of us serving on the National Labor Board give our services free and we are glad to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. You may draft an amendment along that line and we shall be glad to have it for our deliberations.

Mr. GREEN. It appears to me also that the selection of these men ought to be carefully safeguarded. I am not sure as to how that can be done, but I understand that under your proposal, Senator, members of the Board, the appointees, are to be confirmed by the Senate? Senator WAGNER. Yes.

Mr. GREEN. That is a very fine safeguard. We are thinking about the future and we want to be sure that members of the Board are really representative of industry and really representative of labor.

Now, there is one other section, and that is where you limit wage agreements to 1 year.

Senator WAGNER. I myself am already going to suggest to the committee that that limitation be eliminated.

Mr. GREEN. That completes my presentation of the case, and I thank you sincerely for your patience.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Green; you have made a comprehensive presentation.

Senator Davis. How many have joined company unions since the passage of the National Recovery Act?

Mr. GREEN. Well, the report is, Senator, that the company unions have increased 169 percent. That is the most recent report, and that means about between 1,600,000 and 2,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is in the record, Senator.

Senator DAVIS. What has been the gains to the unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor since the passage of the National Recovery Act?

Mr. GREEN. The membership of the American Federation of Labor has increased to perhaps in excess of 3,000,000 since the passage of the National Recovery Act.

Senator WAGNER. From what low point, Mr. Green? What was your lowest point in membership in the American Federation of Labor?

Mr. GREEN. I think we had gone down to a paid-up membershipyou see, our membership is always on the basis of paid up. Of course there are always a large number of the members of the American Federation of Labor who are not represented in the paid-up membership, but I am referring to paid-up membership. Our lowest point, as I recall it, was 2,400,000 or 2,500,000 in that neighborhood.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Green, I want to know if I understand the background of your agitation in favor of this bill.

The National Recovery Act was a law passed by Congress for the purpose of bringing about industrial recovery and was characterized at the time as a partnership between Government and industry to help industry, is that correct?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In that act were many concessions made by the Government to help industry, and concessions were made which industry was demanding to remedy the ruthless competition that was then prevailing?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir; that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, there was not only a definition of what the Government was ready and willing to do to help industry by permitting it to organize and suspending the antitrust laws in order to bring about general prosperity, but there was an enunciation of the rights of employees in industry?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And those rights are contained in section 7 (a) of that act?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Those rights can be summarized as follows: First, that in every agreement, code, or license issued under the N.R.A. there should be asserted the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, and do it through representatives of their own choosing?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the outstanding and notable right enunciated in favor of the employees in that legislation?

Now, in addition to that, it was agreed and asserted that the employees should be free from interference and coercion of employers or their agents in three particulars; first, in the designation of their representatives?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Secondly, in self-organization; and, thirdly, in their concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, you say, as a member of the Labor Board, authorized to interpret and promote and protect these rights, that your experience has been that these provisions have been violated and that the rights granted by the Congress have not been. generally exercised because there was no power in the act to punish or to bring force upon any employer to protect the rights granted in this act in favor of the employees?

Mr. GREEN. You have stated the case, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now, you say that this pending bill protects these rights that Congress has already defined, reiterates them, and tends to put teeth into the law that will compel employers to defend and protect these simple but valuable rights that were named in section 7 (a)?

Mr. GREEN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I understand the background.

Senator WAGNER. May I just ask one other question? Under the law, as the Senator stated, industry has the right to organize and to perform such organizations which before the enactment of the act they were not able to organize for the purpose of exchanging economic information and agreeing upon certain business practices which heretofore have been prevented by the antitrust law?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Senator WAGNER. They were given those extraordinary privileges and they were allowed to organize, which they have done, so that they are better organized than ever, and I want to ask whether labor has interfered with business in business organizing?

Mr. GREEN. Certainly not, but on the contrary, we have stated that we believed that employers of labor were entitled to and should be permitted to exercise all their rights under the provisions of the National Recovery Act. As you know, the procedure is that industry must organize first in order to present a code, an industrial code of fair practice, because the code submitted must be a code submitted by an organization truly representative of the industry.

Then, when the code is adopted a code authority is created, made up of representatives of the industry, to administer that code, to punish those in the industry who engage in unfair trade practices, and maintain prices, if you wish.

The CHAIRMAN. And the unfair practices were rampant and threatened the destruction of industry?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Now, they have appropriated to themselves all the benefits of organization, and we hold that the Government has been the organizer of industry. Now, industry says, "Yes, we enjoy all the rights conferred by the Government, even to the suspension of the antitrust laws, but labor shall not organize, as provided for in section 7 (a)."

The CHAIRMAN. Again, Mr. Green, we thank you, and I think it is quite a compliment to you that so many people in the room here have remained until you finished your lengthy address.

We stand adjourned until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m. a recess was taken until 2 p.m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Haas.

STATEMENT OF DR. FRANCIS J. HAAS, NATIONAL LABOR BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The CHAIRMAN. Your full name for the record, please.

Dr. HAAS. Francis J. Haas, Director of the National Catholic School Social Service; member of the National Labor Board since October 6, 1933; a member of the Labor Advisory Board, National Recovery Administration, since June 20, 1933.