rule in the plants the American Federation of Labor unions had more than a majority of the total number of employees. Now, those American Federation of Labor local unions contained a vast number of men who ostensibly were members of the company union because because they became members of the company union in August and September when the company required them to march up past a ballot box in the shop and drop a ballot in the box and that has made them a member in good standing of the company union.

Senator BORAH. That is

Senator WAGNER. I think there is one step further that the Senator would be interested in; that in view of that controversy all the workers have asked of our Board was to have an election, supervised by some Government agency, so that the men would have free choice to determine that question of representation.

Mr. LEWIS. That is right, Senator.

Senator BORAH. Would this law remedy the proposition of the automobile companies refusing to recognize the American Federation of Labor?

Mr. LEWIS. That is not involved, Senator.

Senator BORAH. I know, but you say that is one of the points. Mr LEWIS. No; not the recognition of the American Federation of Labor, but the bargaining, to meet in joint conference to bargain with those groups of employees who have joined local unions which are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. The question of recognizing that union as the American Federation of Labor is not involved.

Senator WAGNER. It might be any other union or any other independent group. That is not the question.

The CHAIRMAN. It would compel them to recognize the representatives of the employees in that particular industry chosen by themselves.

Senator WAGNER. After they have been elected, exactly, and that is all the issue is in this case.

The CHAIRMAN. What I have been wondering about, and perhaps Senator Wagner can answer the inquiry, or you, Mr. Lewis, both being members of the Labor Board-in the National Recovery Act. we had a good deal of discussion about the issuing of licenses and it was assumed that if that power was given the administration of the act it could enforce the provisions of the act. Why has not that power of issuing and taking away licenses been exercised in connection with the troubles you have had in getting action under section 7 (a)? Mr. LEWIS. Senator, I am unable to give you an intelligent answer to your question. Like yourself, I think that as a matter of policy the licensing of corporations in certain instances should have been followed. To my knowledge it has not been done. There may be certain legal questions which involve the Department of Justice or other branches of the Government, with which I am not familiar. I have no other knowledge as to why that has not been done and I deeply regret that it has not been done, because I believe that the licensing feature of the Recovery Act is one of its very important elements.

The CHAIRMAN. It was included in the law for the purpose of giving the Administrator the authority to enforce the rules and regulations. Mr. LEWIS. I so understood at the time.

Senator BORAH. Perhaps it would raise some legal questions which have not been settled yet.

Mr. LEWIS. Perhaps so.

Senator WAGNER. That right, by the way, expires in June of this

year.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LEWIS. Continuing

Senator BORAH. Before you go ahead, Mr. Lewis, what you people are contending for is freedom of these workingmen to do as they please about the union?

Mr. LEWIS. Senator, we think the workers have a right to form the kind of a labor organization that they desire and that the corporation which employs them has no right to dictate that form of organization and no right to subsidize that organization and no right to administer its functions.

Senator BORAH. You would concede that the working men had the right to a choice of the union?

Mr. LEWIS. Oh, certainly, Senator, certainly.

Senator BORAH. Without pressure from anybody, either from other union organizations or the corporation?

Mr. LEWIS. Precisely so, sir. We fully agree with the principle. In other words, if the workers want to form a union not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor they certainly have that right and, as a matter of fact, there are a number of very fine legitimate unions in this country that are not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. The four railroad brotherhoods are not affiliated and yet they are recognized as the standard type of labor organizations in this country. The Amalgamated Garment Workers Union for 20 years was not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, but within the last year have become affiliated with the American Federation of Labor by voluntary initiative on their own part and their own motion. They sought affiliation with it. There are other unions throughout the country, less in consequence, legitimate in themselves, that for reasons of their own have not seen fit to affiliate with the national movement.

The American Federation of Labor is merely a federation of labor unions and undertakes to act as the spokesman for those organizations, at the same time giving to the subordinate organizations the most full autonomy in the conduct of their affairs.

The Federation of Labor does not undertake to say to any of its affiliated unions that it shall do this or shall do that with respect to their own internal affairs or their relationships with their own industry or employees, and we certainly agree with you, sir, that the right indutiably exists for these workers to select their own form of organization.

That is what we are asking in this bill, and the bill sets up certainthe heart of the bill, as I understand it, Senator, is contained in the six unfair labor provisions set forth in the act, and the bill would forbid a powerful employer from calling his workers on company time into a shop meeting and saying, "Do this, do that, or do the other thing under our supervision as the form of union you shall have."

Senator WAGNER. Mr. Lewis, do you know a single instance where a company union has ever negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with its employers?

Mr. LEWIS. I only know of instances where they imply some form of agreement. I do not know of any instance where there has been a negotiation and agreement or the formal execution of such an agreement.

Senator WAGNER. The reason I asked you is because you will remember we inquired of representatives that were selected under the representation plan of the company unions in the automobile industry if they ever attempted to negotiate collective bargaining agreements providing for wages and hours with thier employers and they said they never had.

Mr. LEWIS. His answer was in the negative, and, undoubtedly, in the automobile industry by that testimony there are no such agreements and there have been no attempts to negotiate such agreements, and apparently the automobile manufacturers do not intend to permit their men to undertake to negotiate collective bargaining agreements.

As a matter of fact, if you get right down to it, why should a corporation permit its own privately owned union to do anything distasteful to the corporation? They pay the fiddler and undoubtedly they think they have the right to call the tune. They own it and they ought to regulate it if they have the right to own it, but it is the right to own it that we challenge now.

Labor does not undertake to regulate the internal affairs of a corporation. All the labor unions of this country give to the corporations the right to regulate their own affairs. Then why should not a corporation yield to labor the right to regulate its affairs?

Senator BORAH. Do the unions ever undertake to say to a corporation whom they shall employ?

Mr. LEWIS. Whom it shall employ?

Senator BORAH. Yes.

Mr. LEWIS. I have no knowledge of such policy.

Senator BORAH. What I mean is, do the different labor organizations ever undertake to impose upon the corporations their union? Mr. LEWIS. Oh, they ask for the recognition of their unions, yes. They ask for everything.

Senator BORAH. Of course they ask to be recognized, but do they ever undertake by strikes or otherwise to force the corporation to employ

The CHAIRMAN. A member of the union?

Senator BORAH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. They sometimes require, do they not, a member of the union to be employed in some trade unions?

Mr. LEWIS. I have no doubt that certain contracts provide for employment of none but members of the union, the so-called "closedshop" contracts.

The CHAIRMAN. It is particularly true in the building trades, is it not?

Mr. LEWIS. I do not have specific knowledge of the building trades but I do know that such contracts are in existence. May I say, however, that in the mining industry we do not press that point. In large areas of the mining industry every miner belongs to the United Mine Workers but we do not press that consideration as a matter of contract. We think that the average man who works for a living would like to join a union and have the services of that union to pro

tect him in his daily employment and represent him, unless he has some reason not to accept the services of the union, some interests, some reason, some motive, some purpose, some solicitation, some profit.

We find that the average man who refuses to join a union has some personal motive. It may be because his brother-in-law is a foreman and his brother-in-law asked him not to join a union and that is why he refrains from joining; it may be that he has a promise of preferment if he does not join a union; it may be any question of personal equation or personal ambition or personal relationship that keeps him from wanting to join the union. But, we find from experience in the mining industry, and I speak specifically of that because I am more familiar with it, that the average man likes to have the union protect him and represent him and he wants to be a member of the union. In exemplification of that fact, sir, may I point out that in 1933 in less than 6 weeks time in the mining industry after the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act that 360,000 mine workers joined the United Mine Workers of America, an act which hitherto they had not been able to do because they were restricted from doing it by the conditions of their employment and the conduct of their employers by court injunctions, by armed guards, by living on private property, and a host of other conditions.

Before that time we told committees of the Congress that if you would pass legislation that would give these men freedom of action they would of themselves join the union. They join an organization because they know enough to know that the union is a beneficent influence for a man who works with his hands because it can protect him better than he can protect himself as an individual, and it does not need the impassioned pleadings of a fervent orator to convince the modern American workman that it is to his advantage to join a union; he will join a union and avail himself of its influence and its privileges if you give him conditions that will enable him to do it.

The same is true in the iron and steel industry. There is no particular organization right now in the iron and steel industry. Why? Well, because the steel companies imposed a plan of company union on the men, because they prohibit them from joining other unions, and because the men are not free; they maintain an espionage system, they discharge them if they join the union or if they look like they are going to join the union, and there is no organization there. But give the workers in the iron and steel industry freedom from certain ghastly company unions that are imposed upon them and they will join to a man the legitimate unions of this country. They are trying to protect themselves through the modern practice of collective bargaining and increase their wages and improve their working conditions.

Now, the United Mine Workers, which is one of the standard organizations of the country, of course, does not have to go out and ask for anything that will compel men to join the organization. We do not want that. All we ask is freedom of opportunity for the individual and we know he will join the United Mine Workers and we know he will pay his dues, and that is demonstrated by the fact that now, as I sit here, we have between 600,000 and 700,000 of the United Mine Workers of America in the bituminous and anthracite coal industry, practically all there is. We have a few little localities

where we have a company union or two that are holding out, or something of that sort, but they are in themselves relatively insignificant and the matter is rapidly being adjusted.

Just the day before yesterday in one of the last strongholds of the Bourbon coal operators of this country, in the State of Alabama, 85 percent of the commercial coal operators of that State signed a contract with the United Mine Workers of America, and a convention is today meeting in Birmingham to pass upon and ratify that agreement with the United Mine Workers of America.

Not in the lifetime of any of us has there been any collective bargaining agreements in the coal industry in Alabama. There has been strike after strike all through the years and each time the workers undertook to organize they were discharged, and after they were starving they were finally allowed to go back to their underground working places. But now it has come even in Alabama, even in Alabama. Alabama is about to join the Union, about to become a part of the United States in that industrial sense, and it is due to the fact that the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act created the opportunity for the workers of that State to exercise their economic influence.

Now, we are asking the Congress of the United States to pass the Wagner bill which does not contain any new principle, does not contain any principles not already recognized by Congress, because it has been recognized in the Norris Act and in the National Industrial Recovery Act, but it sets forth here these unfair labor practices, so that it will be impossible for the Tennessee Coal & Iron Co. in Alabama to continue to operate, finance, maintain, administer, and enforce a company union in the coal mines of that State.

I think that there is intense interest in this measure in the minds of all the workers of this country. I think the overwhelming sentiment of the millions of American workmen, American workers, whether men or women, is behind this measure. I think there is no

one against it except the corporations who have selfish motives to

serve.

The American workmen think the corporations are unfair in their attitude. They think it is a selfish attitude, they think they are trying to maintain rather a medieval relationship with their employees in industry, and they think they are trying to maintain it for pure questions of corporation expediency, and the corporations like the Steel Corporation which profited last year to the extent of $42,000,000 at the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, should certainly have no right in fact or in morals to join the Iron and Steel Institute yesterday in denouncing the Wagner bill.

Senator BORAH. How did the corporation experience a gain of $42,000,000 by reason of the National Recovery Act?

Mr. LEWIS. You were not here when I was discussing that matter a few minutes ago.

Senator BORAH. You need not go over it again.

Mr. LEWIS. Yes; I will briefly. In 1932 the United States Steel Corporation operated at a loss of about $92,000,000, which is some loss-12 months, $8,000,000 a month, more or less-some loss. The United States Steel Corporation could mathematically compute the life of the corporation at that ratio of loss. Its operating cash was being diminished at such a rate that it was merely a question of time