the Board found that the union's actions violated the secondary boycott provisions of the Labor Act, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed, holding that the union's action for a legitimate primary object of forcing the employer to cease doing business with the hospital or forcing the hospital to cease doing business with the manufacturer of the pre-fabricated doors. Thus, the Circuit Court, relying primarily upon the National Woodwork decision, has all but written union product boycotts out of the National Labor Relations Act.1 Further, although the case has been remanded to the Board, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has for all practical purposes extended the National Woodwork decision to the point where the only type of secondary boycott which may fall within the proscriptions set forth in the Labor Act are the "employer A-employer B" type circumstances described above. The effect of the unions' efforts to dictate the product or condition of the product to be used or installed constitutes a serious impediment to technological growth and hence to the economic progress of the Nation. Whether the device used to accomplish this end is insistent upon contractual provisions restraining an employer's use of products or equipment offensive to the union or an actual work stoppage to accomplish these goals, the result is a restraint upon contractors from using, and in turn upon manufacturers from making, pre-fabricated products that are generally less costly, of better quality and design, and often safer than those products which have been historically used. Because prefabrication can be accomplished with the latest manufacturing techniques and subjected to standardized and often rigorous quality controls, new and better methods of facilitating construction are available on an ever increasing basis. The consumer is the ultimate beneficiary of both the improved craftsmanship and the economic savings. The American people should not be denied these benefits because of union resistance to the very type of change which has been the foundation of the American industrial system. Union-imposed restrictions on the use of products or equipment should not be permitted to stifle the technological advancement needed to raise our national productivity and insure a strong and progressive economy. S. 3373 provides a significant opportunity for the Congress to reassert its displeasure with impediments to the utilization of technological gains which will speed our national economic recovery and the Federation therefore, supports its adoption. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES, Birmingham, Ala., June 14, 1972. Senator JOHN SPARKMAN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: May I express my appreciation for your interest and concern in the National Institute of Building Sciences Bill. Your letter concerning your position on the bill is most informative and we, in the Southern Building Code Congress, as well as the building officials throughout the State of Alabama, are keenly concerned regarding this matter. It is reassuring to know you feel as we that the position of codes should be in the private sector. The purpose of this letter is to express my concern regarding Senate Bill S. 3373 by Senator Brock, "To promote the utilization of approved technology in Federally assisted housing projects and to increase productivity in order to meet our national housing goals, and for other purposes." This bill is of prime national concern and authorizes a number of criteria which we in the inspectional field feel would be detrimental to the construction industry. It undermines the rights and subjugates the principles of the model codes in the United States. You are, of course, familiar with the Southern Standard Building Code which is headquartered here in Birmingham, however, I am sure that you are unaware of many of its technical aspects. Senator Brock's bill takes away from It should also be noted that another form of product boycotts (picketing of employer B who sells the products of employer A with whom the union has a primary dispute) has been found permissible by the Supreme Court notwithstanding specific statutory language prohibiting such conduct, N.L.R.B. v. Fruit Packers, Local 760 (Tree Fruits Labor Relations Committee) 377 U.S. 58 (1964). the private sector certain inalienable rights, long ago expressed in the model codes, and delegates them to Federally sanctioned agencies, privately endowed, and gives them authority and power previously belonging expressly to the states and cities. I am opposed to this intrusion and I feel very strongly the majority of the membership of the SBCC to be also. As immediate past President of SBCC, I feel I am close to the opinions of our membership, however, I cannot speak expressly for the Southern Building Code Congress. You are aware, of course, that practically every city in the State of Alabama having a building code uses the Southern Standard Code. In fact, I know of no other model code being used within the State. Again, Senator, we are most appreciative of your continued interest in the functions of the Southern Standard Building Code and appreciate the positions you have taken in our efforts to maintain building code requirements in the private sector and within the jurisdiction of the states and cities. Yours most cordially, M. J. SASSER, P.E., Director of Inspection Services. Need For Improved Administration Noted Over A Decade Of General Accounting Office Reviews Department of Labor B-746842 BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL This report presents our findings concerning the need for improved administration of the Davis- Bacon Act by the Department of Labor noted over a decade of General Accounting Office reviews. Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). Copies of the report are being sent to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and to the Secretary of Labor. Leaves B. Pets Comptroller General of the United States 50 TH ANNIVERSARY 1921 – 1971 |