as to dues, protection, assessments, and reasons for firing, and all that sort of thing? In other words, if we are legalizing the closed shop or union shop, don't we need necessarily to protect the poor worker who is between two fires? He is in danger of exploitation by the employer on the one hand in places where he was not protected prior to the Wagner Act, and now he is in danger of exploitation by the union under the conditions you bring out. Mr. BRINTON. We felt it was better to have the open-shop provision, since the unions were voluntary associations, and we didn't want to tell them how to run their business. We felt it would be better the other way. May I answer Senator Humphrey. He wanted to know how other side feels. I think the fact that the vote twice shows how the people of Arizona feel-we voted twice overwhelmingly in favor of this-and as to the other side, I think it would be one thing to get a statement from the labor leaders and it is another thing to get a statement from the union members. I think that is a point that should be borne in mind, that there is a difference. Senator TAFT. You spoke of advertisements which were run by the unions. Mr. BRINTON. Yes, sir. Senator TAFT. Would you submit those also, as part of the report? Mr. BRINTON. We will get copies of those where they said they would "beat our damned brains out," and also some of the other things we have mentioned. Senator SMITH. Could you get statements from members of the unions as well as the leaders, the workers as well as the leaders, to give us evidence of what the general opinion was? Mr. BRINTON. We have some statements in the case where the labor leader came in and said, "We are here to sign you up." We have signed statements from the workers to that effect. That statement has been published in advertisements in the State during the campaign where it says, "Dean Sisk came to the management and said, 'We don't give a damn about the men working with you, we are here to unionize you. If you join, the workers have to come in'." Senator SMITH. I am open to being convinced on this thing, but I feel if we are going into the closed-shop situation, we have to do something to protect the worker against abuses that may be in the set-up. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brinton, we have to stop. Any material that you are going to send in to us should be sent with dispatch so it will get into the record soon. Mr. BRINTON. Shall I send it to you? The CHAIRMAN. Send it to me. (Mr. Brinton submitted the following prepared statement:) LABOR LEGISLATION (Statement by Dilworth Brinton, Mesa, Ariz., for the Veterans' Right-to-Work Committee) TITLE I. INTRODUCTION OF SPEAKER I am Dilworth Brinton, age 31, of Mesa, Ariz., a city of about 15,000. I was born in Idaho, but moved with my parents to Arizona when I was three. I worked my way through the University of Arizona, graduating in 1940. During 85905-49-pt. 3-23 the war I volunteered for service with the O. S. S. and served 18 months in Burma and Siam. Part of this time was spent behind the enemy lines in Siam. In 1946 I was a member of the Veterans' Right-to-Work Committee, and in 1948 served as the committee chairman. By profession I am an insurance agent. In a city as small as ours we feel each other's problems very keenly. I work with small businesses, laborers and farmers. When one of our men can't work, we all feel it. It was for this reason that I became interested in a right-to-work campaign to give all persons-veterans and nonveterans alike the right to apply for a job wherever they are qualified. Our men who fought for freedom abroad were made to pay tribute at home. Veterans and other workers did not have the right to join any union, but were denied jobs because of nonmembership. We did not and do not believe it fair for any group to set restrictions on who may work in a free country. I am here to urge that Arizona people be allowed to vote according to their wishes and needs concerning the question of the closed shop. TITLE II. ARIZONA'S RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW In appearing here I want to confine my remarks to that part of the administration's proposal that would reach into my State to do away with laws which we in Arizona have found proper and necessary to prevent certain abuses. The Veterans' Right-to-Work Committee placed on the ballot in 1946 a proposed amendment to the State constitution, which, if enacted, would prohibit the execution of compulsory union-membership contracts. The text of that amendment is attached as exhibit A. Also attached (exhibit B) is a percentage chart, which shows that every county in our State voted for the enactment of our amendment. EXHIBIT A. ARIZONA VETERANS' RIGHT-TO-WORK COMMITTEE (Initiated constitutional amendment, adopted at the general election, November 5, 1946) Be it enacted by the people of the State of Arizona: That the Constitution of the State of Arizona be amended by adding thereto another article to read as follows: "No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization, nor shall the State or any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization." Immediately after its passage, our amendment was subjected to litigation to test its constitutionality. It was declared constitutional in our State courts, and on January 3 of this year, the United States Supreme Court declared it to be constitutional. Meanwhile, in February of 1947, the Arizona Legislature, in response to the peoples' will, passed a measure to make the amendment operative by providing penalties for those who would infract its closed-shop provisions. That measure as attached as exhibit C. Our late Governor Osborn, a lifelong champion of Arizona's organized-labor movement, signed the act, stating that he was carrying out the wishes of the Arizona people in so doing. However, the will of the people (and that includes many of Arizona's 70,000 labor members, who must have voted for the amendment) was not the will of the State's labor leaders. Petitions were filed by organized labor referring the legislative act to the electorate. In the recent, 1948, general election the act was voted into law by an even greater majority (numerically and percentagewise) than that which supported the original amendment in 1946. Chart (by Counties) showing percentage favoring Right-to-Work Amendment November 1946 Totals 61,875 Yes TITLE III. OTHER STATE LAWS Arizona was not alone in this matter, since 12 other States have found compulsory union membership objectionable and have made the practice illegal, while 5 more States prohibit the closed shop, permitting the union shop after certain requirements have been met. (See attached exhibit E.) TITLE IV. CONDITIONS WHICH REQUIRED ENACTMENT OF ARIZONA'S RIGHT-TO WORK LAW It became apparent soon after the cessation of hostilities that so-called unionsecurity provisions gained during the war had grown into full-fledged and in creasing closed shops in Arizona. Labor organizations in Arizona were negotiating with management to force workers into their union rather than representing labor in dealing with management. In the realm of my experience, a small plant in Mesa, which manufactures building blocks, employs about 10 men. The business agent for the union declared to the plant manager, "I don't give a damn about your men, if you sign up the plant, they'll have to join. We're here to unionize you." EXHIBIT C. ARIZONA VETERANS' RIGHT-TO-WORK COMMITTEE [Passed by Arizona Eighteenth Legislature in regular session, 1947. Signed by Governor Osborn, March 20, 1947. Referred to the people and adopted at the general election November 2, 1948] [Ch. 81, Senate Bill No. 65] AN ACT Relating to employment; prohibiting the denial of employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization; prohibiting agreements excluding any person from employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization; prohibiting strikes or picketing to induce violation of this act; making illegal compelling or attempting to compel a person to join a labor organization or leave his employment against his will; prohibiting conspiracies to cause the discharge of any persons because of nonmembership in a labor organization; prescribing penalties; and declaring an emergency Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: SECTION 1. Definition of labor organization: The term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. SEC. 2. Agreements prohibiting employment because of nonmembership in labor organization prohibited: No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization, nor shall the state, or any subdivision thereof or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization. SEC. 3. Certain contracts declared illegal and void: Any act or any provision in any agreement which is in violation of this act shall be illegal and void. Any strike or picketing to force or induce any employer to make an agreement in writing or orally in violation of this act shall be for an illegal purpose. SEC. 4. Compelling person to join labor organization or to strike against his will or to leave his employment prohibited: It shall be unlawful for any employee, labor organization, or officer, agent, or member thereof to compel or attempt to compel any person to join any labor organization or to strike against his will or to leave his employment by any threatened or actual interference with his person, immediate family or property. SEC. 5. Conspiracies to violate act prohibited: Any combination or conspiracy by two or more persons to cause the discharge of any person or to cause him to be denied employment because he is not a member of a labor organization, by inducing or attempting to induce any other person to refuse to work with such person, shall be illegal. SEC. 6. Liability for damages: Any person who violates any provision of this act, or who enters into any agreement containing a provision declared illegal by this act, or who shall bring about the discharge or the denial of employment of any person because of nonmembership in a labor organization shall be liable to the person injured as the result of such act or provision and may be sued therefor, and in any such action any labor organization, subdivision or local thereof shall be held to be bound by the acts of its duly authorized agents acting within the scope of their authority, and may sue or be sued in its common name. SEC. 7. Injunctive relief: Any person injured or threatened with injury by any act declared illegal by this act, shall, notwithstanding any other provision of the law to the contrary, be entitled to injunctive relief therefrom. SEC. 8. Definition of person: The word "person" includes a corporation, association, company, firm or labor organization, as well as a natural person. SEC. 9. Severability of provisions: If any word, clause, phrase, sentence, provision or other part of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of this act and the application of such invalid word, clause, phrase, sentence or other provision of this act to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. SEC. 10. Emergency: To preserve the public peace, health, and safety it is necessary that this act become immediately operative. It is therefore declared to be an emergency measure, to take effect as provided by law. Passed the senate, and house with insufficient votes to carry emergency clause. Approved by the Governor, March 20, 1947. Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, March 20, 1947. Chart (by Counties) showing percentage favoring Right-to-Work Amendment November 1948 Totals 86,880 YES |