TO CREATE A NATIONAL LABOR BOARD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 1934 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room 318, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., Senator David I. Walsh (chairman), presiding. Present: Senators Walsh (chairman), Davis. Senator DAVIS. The meeting will come to order. Mr. Balleisen will come forward. The Chairman will be here in a few minutes. STATEMENT OF L. L. BALLEISEN, SECRETARY INDUSTRIAL DIVISION, BROOKLYN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Senator DAVIS. Will you state your name for the record? Senator DAVIS. Where do you reside? Mr. BALLEISEN. My name is L. L. Balleisen. I am secretary of the industrial division of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commere, the representative organization of Brooklyn industry and commerce, having over 2,000 members engaged in the various walks of commercial and industrial life, in one of the largest industrial and commercial communities in the United States. The population of the borough of Brooklyn is surpassed only by that of Chicago, and, of course, Greater New York, of which Brooklyn is the largest borough. In industry, Brooklyn ranks third largest city as to the number of industrial establishments, fourth in the number of people employed in industry, and fifth in the value of products manufactured. Twenty-five percent of all water-borne foreign commerce of this country is shipped through Brooklyn, and we do a retail business exceeding $1,000,000,000 a year, which is exclusive of our industrial business which totals over $850,000,000 annually. This bill is predicated on the assumption that "modern economic life * * * has long since destroyed the balance of bargaining power between the individual employer and the individual employee' leaving the "individual unorganized worker helpless to exercise liberty of contract", and thus "secure a just reward for his services and preserve a decent standard of living" and that "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 economic strife." It is proposed to equalize the "bargaining power of employers and employees" by providing "agencies for the peaceful settlement of disputes." The expressed intent of the bill-to provide for the "peaceful settlement of labor disputes" on an equitable basis-represents a principle, the complete effectuation of which is largely sought by employer and employee alike, and would greatly stimulate the economic recovery of the Nation. Yet the various provisions of the bill in their present form are so drawn as to defeat its avowed purpose. Sections of this measure are of such character; are subject to such interpretation; and are based upon such obvious fallacies as to incite industrial strife, rather than assure the peaceful and equitable settlement of labor disputes. Under section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act employees are guaranteed "the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." It is therefore not the lack of "bargaining power" or the "inadequate recognition" of the right of employees to bargain collectively that has caused "strikes, lockouts, and similar manifestations of economic strife" during recent months, but the deliberate misinterpretation of section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act on the part of various radical labor organizations and self-appointed labor leaders to further their own ends, and the lack of equitable and proper enforcement of section 7 (a). Consequently, the employer is frequently coerced into dealing with alleged representatives of employees who are radicals and Communists and whose avowed purposes are the destruction of the Constitution and an orderly form of government, and the blocking of the President's recovery program. Employers have not resisted section 7 (a), but have resisted the attempts of such professional labor agitators and fomentors of trouble and have resisted dealing with alleged representatives of employees who by coercion and force and violence have become self-appointed leaders of the workers. These labor agitators do not have the interests of the worker at heart, but are only concerned with what personal gain they may win for themselves. This is what has caused many of the strikes and lockouts during the past 9 months. The further provision of section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act that, "No employee and no one seeking employment shall be required as a condition of employment to join any company union or to refrain from joining, organizing, or assisting a labor organization of his own choosing" establishes the right to "exercise liberty of contract" to the fullest degree. Regardless of this, Mr. William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, and other labor leaders have repeatedly in public speeches stated that collective bargaining can only be accomplished through labor unions; that there shall be only one labor union; and that that labor union shall be the American Federation of Labor. Senator DAVIS. May I ask you when Mr. Green made that statement. Mr. BALLEISEN. He made it in a statement I believe at Cleveland. The CHAIRMAN. Recently? Mr. BALLEISEN. No; I believe it was in September. Senator DAVIS. Of last year? Mr. BALLEISEN. Last year. I do not happen to have that speech with me, but I could send it to you if you wish. Senator DAVIS. I would appreciate you sending it to me. Senator DAVIS. I am Senator Davis. Mr. BALLEISEN. I will make a note of that. If section 7 (a) is being thus utilized to force employees into the membership of labor unions and labor organizations (as it is), this bill will give such organizations complete domination over employee and employer alike, and destroy completely any semblance of a balance of bargaining power between employer and employee. It is our belief that this bill would (1) Give employees monopolistic powers and deprive the employers of their constitutional rights. (2) Restrict the employer in negotiating directly with his own employees. (3) Place organized labor in the position of controlling terms and conditions of employment of all wage earners in the country, whether they so desire or not. (4) Give labor undue advantages in any labor dispute. (5) Tend to retard the national recovery movement and the reemployment of workers. (6) Increase labor disputes and industrial unrest. (7) Impose unfair restrictions on the employer to the advantage of organized labor. (8) Place extra expense and burden upon the small employer since the bill provides that when hearings are held the expense of witnesses called by the National Labor Board would be borne by the Government, whereas the expense of witnesses called by the employer would have to be borne by him personally, thus preventing many small employers from presenting a complete defense. (9) Tend to close factories, stores, and other places of business. (10) React to the definite disadvantage of the employee, the employer, and industry. (11) Put more people out of work. We recommend the following revision of the various provisions of the bill: Title I, section 2: This section should read as follows: Strikes, lockouts, the actions of unscrupulous labor agitators and the actions or near-sighted and selfish employers have caused untold industrial loss and the destruction of capital assets invested in enterprise, have destroyed peaceful relationship between employer and employee, have rendered ineffective section 7-A of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and have retarded the return to normal industrial and living conditions. It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress 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. Section 3, paragraph 2: This paragraph should read: The term "employer" means a person who has one or more employees, except that the term "employer" shall not include the United States, any State, munici pal corporation, or other governmental instrumentality, or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended from time to time. There is no reason why a labor organization or anyone acting in the capacity of an officer or agent of such labor organization who hires employees should not be termed and considered an employer. No reason exists why labor organizations should be exempt from the provisions of this act. Section 3, paragraph 3: On line 17 of page 3, it is stated: * * * Provided, That the term "employee" shall not include an individual who has replaced a striking employee. This clause should be stricken out. A worker is a citizen whether he replaces another worker or not, and is entitled to the pursuit of happiness and to seek engagement in gainful employment. Section 3, paragraph 4: This paragraph should read: The term "representative" includes any individual who is a law-abiding citizen and who has not sought the destruction of the Constitution and the overthrow of the orderly form of government or any labor organization whose avowed purpose is to uphold the Constitution and the orderly form of government, and that has received a certificate of recognition from the National Labor Board, and who has been duly elected and accredited by a majority of the workers in that particular company to represent them. This paragraph would remove the fear of an employer that he must deal with men of questionable character. This does not aim against the legitimate labor organization formed by the workers for their mutual benefit. There is no reason why employers shall be requested to deal with representatives of their workers unless definite proof is established that said representatives have been duly elected and accredited by a majority of the workers in their company. Section 3, paragraph 5: This paragraph should read: The term "labor organization" means any organization, labor union, association, corporation, or society of any kind in which employees participate to any degree whatsoever which has received a certificate of recognition, and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, or hours of employment. Section 4: This section should be changed to read: Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and shall be free from interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; that no employee and no one seeking employment shall be required as a condition of employment to join any company union or to refrain from joining, organizing, or assisting a labor organization of his own choosing. This is merely a restatement of section 7-A of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which gives full protection to the worker. Section 5, paragraph 1: This paragraph should read: To attempt by coercion, force, or lockout to impair the right of employees guaranteed in section 4. Section 5, paragraph 2: This paragraph should read: To refuse to recognize and/or deal with duly elected and accredited representatives of his employees or to fail to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements with such representatives concerning wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. There is no reason why an employer should have to deal with anyone who has not been duly elected and accredited as representa tive of his employees. As was stated previously, the reason for the resistance on the part of employers to section 7 (a) is due to the fact that it is not clear as to whom the employer shall deal with in negotiating with his men. Section 5, paragraphs 3 and 4: These two paragraphs should be eliminated. There is no reason why beneficial relationships between employee and employer should not exist nor why they should be legislated against. Company unions, when conducted in an equitable and fair manner, work to the advantage of both employer and employee. Thousands of workers have been working under company-union conditions for years and have derived far more benefit therefrom than may have been derived from most labor organizations. As paragraph 3 is now worded, a company would be prohibited from actually making an agreement with a labor union since it states: Το * * * participate in organization. * ** operations of any labor Certainly to participate in operations would also mean forbidding entering into agreements. It would also prevent a company from granting their employees the privilege of holding an election during working hours without loss of pay. Surely that is not an objectionable feature. Companies should not be restrained from treating their employees with consideration. Section 5, paragraph 6. Beginning on line 7, page 6, it is stated: Provided further, That 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, if no attempt is made to influence such labor organization by any unfair labor practice, if such labor organization is composed of at least a majority of such employer's employees, and if the said agreement does not cover a period in excess of one year. This clause should be eliminated. It would practically guarantee the leading labor organizations in this country the closed-shop principle. Approximately 3,000,000 workers (a small minority) would then decide the policies, conditions and destinies of the 40,000,000 workers gainfully employed in the United States. This is not even representation by majority vote. It would take away the right of an individual to earn his livelihood unless he became a member of a labor organization. The labor leaders would take this to mean that a man could not work under the law unless he was a member of a union. They would read into this clause interpretations that were never dreamt of the same as they are attempting to read interpretations into section 7-A of the National Industrial Recovery Act. No one would think of drawing up a similar clause which would practically force employers to band together and to join associations whether they so desired or not. This would certainly impair the rights guaranteed a citizen under the Constitution of the United States. The practical result would be that every worker would have to pay tribute to some labor organization in order to earn a living. Section 5, paragraph 7. We suggest that a paragraph be added to section 5, which would state as follows: To cause or institute a lockout for any reason whatsoever prior to the submission of their grievances to the National Labor Board for arbitration and prior to the rendering of a decision by the National Labor Board, and without having resorted to every possible peaceful means of settlement of such grievances. |