like to challenge such employers to give the same careful study to ways and means of getting the most out of their employees that they apply to their mechanical equipment. If they accept the challenge they will discover that they have been wasting one of the most valuable assets at their command. And they can have this asset for much less money than they invest in their machines. The absurd thing about the refusal of hard-boiled industrialists to treat their employees as human beings is that they refuse to apply to them the very attitudes and methods they have found necessary in order to get the most out of those with whom they are most closely associated, particularly those they regard as more nearly equals than they do the general run of their employees. If the industrialists of this country devoted more of their time to discovering what their job is as leaders and constructive builders of a coordinated system of production and consumption they would find that they have not any time to waste fighting labor. The time, effort, and expense devoted to fighting labor would yield much bigger returns if devoted to trying to understand the problems of labor and to enlisting labor in a program of cooperation. In fact the industrialists by fighting labor are passing up one of the biggest opportunities ever offered any controlling group in the history of civilization. The labor forces of this country are not indoctrinated with destructive views. On the contrary they are very ready to respond to suggestions and plans for making the capitalistic system more workable and equitable. They are asking to be treated as citizens who have some economic as well as political rights. Only those drunk with power and with determination to exploit the workers can fail to see this. If the industrialists do not rise to their opportunity, Government will find that it faces the supreme task of throwing its weight against forces which threaten its overthrow. Looking at the whole situation in perspective it would seem that at present the chief threat to the overthrow of representative government comes from employers who are determined to maintain their economic hierarchy and if necessary mold the Government to suit their purposes. This administration has the support of the masses and it should use the occasion to establish institutions which will promulgate welfare and democracy as needed in relation to changing conditions. We are at the crossroads to a new era and if the present Government does not lead in building new foundations it will sson find iself without followers. A National Labor Board as provided in this bill should stand as a bulwark against the abuse of economic power, whether by employers or employees. I think that is all I have, Senator, except that I would like to see that advertisement go in the record as an exhibit with a question as to what its main purpose is. The CHAIRMAN. You quoted from it before you made your reply? Mr. SUFFREN. No; that was another thing I quoted from. What I quoted from was a progaganda statement in the New York Times of March 17. The CHAIRMAN. You would like it inserted in the record, the advertisement of the automobile manufacturers, published in the New York Times? Mr. SUFFREN. The New York Times of March 20. The CHAIRMAN. An appeal to the employees not to strike? It may go in the record. (The matter referred to is as follows:) [From New York Times, Mar. 20, 1934] TO EMPLOYEES OF THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY This is what is happening: The American Federation of Labor and other outside unions are trying to force you to join their union and pay dues to support professional labor leaders. They are trying to destroy the present satisfactory arrangement between you and the management under which your right to collective bargaining is fully recognized. These employee representation plans-which the labor leaders call company unions-have been set up by more than 80 percent of the employees themselves. They are working satisfactorily. Any one of you can see his supervisory officer at any reasonable time and settle any questions that may arise. Most of the questions that have come up have been peacefully settled. No one has to join any union. Your employment does not depend on your membership or nonmembership in any organization. It depends on merit alone. The outside labor leaders are trying by force, by coercion, by intimidation of you and your families and threat of strike to make you join their union. Regardless of what you want, these labor leaders want the right to speak for all of you. They want dues-paying members. But the N.I.R.A. does not say that the American Federation of Labor or any other union shall speak for you. It is up to each one of you to decide for yourself whether these outside unions can secure any right that you cannot secure yourself. It is up to you to say whether you want to surrender to professional labor leaders your own right to deal with the management of your companies. To get what they want, regardless of what you want, the American Federation of Labor is using its usual weapons, namely a threat to call a strike. Sunday's newspapers quoted William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, as saying: The question as to whether a strike in the automobile industry involving more than 100,000 workers shall or shall not occur on Wednesday morning, March 21, rests with the automobile manufacturers. Their decision will decide the question. The cause of the strike is directly traceable to the attempt of the automobile manufacturers to impose company unions upon their workers and to force them to accept. That is not the issue. You know that the companies have not coerced you into employee representation plans. You well know that you have taken part voluntarily in setting up employee representation plans. You know, too, that hours have been shortened voluntarily to an annual average of 36 hours per week, that wage rates have been increased more than 30 percent within the past year, and in many cases are higher than they were in 1929 at the peak of prosperity, and that twice as many men are at work today as during the depres sion. That is only one fundamental issue here namely: Whether the automobile industry is to be run by the American Federation of Labor or any other outside union; Whether you have to get a union card in order to work in these plants; Whether your job and your advancement in the industry will be based on merit; Whether the employee representative shall be ousted in favor of outside labor leaders who have interests to serve other than your interests. If the strike comes, it won't be because you want to strike. The strike threat comes from the American Federation of Labor and not from the automobile workers. Let there be no misunderstanding as to the companies' attitude toward the automobile representation plans. The automobile manufacturers intend to abide by the employee representation plans as they may be modified from time to time by the employees themselves. And bear this in mind, the automobile industry is unquestionably leading the way back to prosperity. People are buying more automobiles than they have been for years. This increased demand means more jobs at good wages; not only in the automobile industry but in thousands of other industries, supplying materials and parts to the automobile manufacturers. A strike at this time will not only work hardship on you and your families but will interfere with the recovery efforts of the President of the United States. The automobile industry has reached its present state of high efficiency, low cost, with the consequent wide demand for its products, high wages, and plentiful jobs without the help of the American Federation of Labor and without any serious labor trouble. Unasked and unwanted, the American Federation of Labor is now trying to get control of this industry and destroy what we have taken years to build. This industry does not intend to yield to such un-American and unpatriotic procedure. National Automobile Chamber of Commerce, members: The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other witnesses? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. I will ask the stenographer to insert in the record two letters I have received dealing with this subject. (The letters referred to are as follows:) CHAIRMAN SENATE LABOR COMMITTEE, THE JOHN W. CowPER Co., Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand you are holding hearings on the bill recently presented by Senator Wagner, giving broader powers to the National Labor Board. May I have the privilege of offering you a copy of a letter (hereto attached) I have written to Senator Wagner giving my views on this subject, and respectfully ask that this letter be made a part of the record. With great respect, I am J. W. COWPER, President.. Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER, THE JOHN W. CowPER CO., INC., United States Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I have read with a great deal of interest your bill, introduced in the Senate on March 1, giving broader powers to the National Labor Board. In offering the following comments, which I hope you will find constructive, I wish you first to understand that we are employers of union labor, therefore I can speak without prejudice. Under section 3, paragraph 2, "Definitions", the bill states, "It shall not include United States or any State municipal corporation or other governmental instrumentality. This exception may be reasonable enough if it applies purely to governmental agencies but where these governmental divisions are engaged in pursuits, competing with private enterprise, then there should be no exception and such agencies should be under the same restrictions as a corporation or private employer. As an example of what I mean, where different departments of the Government are engaged in construction projects, buying materials and hiring labor, doing such work without guaranties as to cost, in competition with private enterprise. The same is true of municipal or governmental utilities, such as power, light or other plants of this nature not affecting safety and health; the Navy Department in their yards constructing new ships, running foundries, paint plants and other activities, in direct competition with private enterprise. Also such agencies as the Tennessee Valley Authority and many other governmental agencies, building and operating various projects, that are directly competing with private enterprise. Of course, this act, whether designed to or not, in actual practice will mean legalized unionism. It may be desirable that labor should be protected against unfair practices of many employers but it is not desirable to attempt to cure this evil by a law that will create greater evils on the other side. Under section 5, paragraph 6, I quote, "Nothing in this act shall preclude an employer and a labor organization from agreeing that a person seeking employment shall be required, as a condition of employment, to join such labor organization." This practically eliminates the employment of any other than members of the Union because in actual practice, the union will not agree to this. I think this part of the clause should read: "Nothing in this act shall preclude the employer from employing a person seeking employment who is not a member of the labor organization and the employer shall not in any way attempt to prevent such employee from joining such labor organization." Section 207 raises the question as to representatives of employees. Under unionisms the representative of the employee is elected by all members of the union or local and employees of many individual employers often may have little or no say in the selection of their representatives and, as you may know, in many cases coercion is used by labor organizations in electing their officers. While there are many capable fairminded men representing labor organizations, there are also many who take the job solely for the purpose of racketeering. Being from New York, you must know that this has been so in many of the building trades unions. So it seems to me if you are going to legally establish the union and give them the broad powers that this bill will do in actual practice, then as an employer, I say groups of employees should be entitled to elect their own representative from among themselves. By all means, if such a bill is enacted, it should go further and safeguard the interest of the employer to the same extent that you propose to safeguard those of the employee. To do this would mean to prohibit the calling of a strike for any cause whatever and the matter shall be heard by the Labor Board, or such of its agencies as are competent to act, and a decision rendered by them. The Labor Board must have the power to enforce its mandates on labor as well as on the employer. By the same token, lockouts should be prohibited in the same manner. Probably in order to do this, it will be necessary to enact legislation compelling the Labor Unions to incorporate, giving them in a legal way responsible representatives with whom to deal. If it be admitted that the present methods of dealing with labor need correcting, I feel that in correcting them, we should do so in a really constructive manner and not legislate a favoritism for labor that will create an evil on the opposite side as great as we have had in the past. In other words, if you are going to legislate a correction of these things, make it equal, equitable, and just for both sides. I trust my remarks will be of some help to you, and I have the honor to be Yours very truly, J. W. COWPER, President. Hon. DAVID I. WALSH, UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE On Banking and CurrencY, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I quote you from a letter received from Mr. William B. Terry, 190 Magnolia Avenue, Hillsdale, N.J. "I believe that industry and labor would be materially benefited and recovery would be speeded up if we had legislation along the following lines: "1. A national minimum wage law, with no differential for any section of the country. "Any manufacturer who has to compete with plants located in the South, for example, will verify that it is impossible today to successfully compete and that if a differential is going to be maintained in the South it is going to mean removing manufacturing plants to that area to take advantage of the materially lower manufacturing costs. This means a further shifting of industry and an increasing of the unemployment problem in the areas affected. "2. A national maximum working hour law, with no differentials or exceptions. "This does not mean that productive machinery cannot work two or three shifts if necessary, but that labor can only be employed a maximum number of hours per week. "3. All collective bargaining organizations, whether affiliated with the A.F.L. or voluntary associations of employees within a plant, be incorporated and that their books be audited by a certified public accountant and that the actual expense be prorated among the members. The payment of fixed dues, usually dependent upon the average pay roll of the employees, had led to many abuses and should be prohibited. The subject of sick benefits, unemployment benefits, and old-age pensions should not be made a part of legislation of this type, which affects only strictly industrial relationships. The above being Mr. Terry's views, it occurred to me your committee would like them for the record. If you wish Mr. Terry to appear before your committee, I shall be glad to so advise him. Yours very truly, HAMILTON F. KEAN. The CHAIRMAN. I wish to announce that the last meeting for hearing those who are in favor of the bill will be held tomorrow at 10 |