ity. To overcome these natural tendencies the employer must create an essentially unnatural atmosphere. The ingredients of that unnatural atmosphere are nearly always fear, suspicion, division, and hatred. Employers are not reluctant to create this atmosphere even though they violate the law by doing so because they know that the sanctions they will incur are similar in effect to a slingshot used against a charging elephant. Unless something more than a slingshot is found, that elephant will continue charging. The conclusion is obvious. To combat elephantile employer unfair labor practices we need better weapons.

I might say here that I would be surprised if the NLRB at sometime in these hearings doesn't point out that, inasmuch as it is attacked on the one side by the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce, and on the other side by the AFL-CIO, this must be a pretty good indication that they are doing a fair job of administering the act and we would certainly hope that the committee will look a lot deeper than just that kind of superficial criteria with respect to the job that is being done.

But thus far I have been talking in general terms about unfair labor practices. Let me indicate to you in more specific terms the types of employer tactics used to engender fear, suspicion, and hatred.

Frequently the story of the union organizing compaign starts with the decision by a group of local businessmen in a small and rural-dominated community to attract industry. Rather than appeal to companies on the basis of the skill or their work force and the natural resources of the area, they take what must seem to them a more expedient route. They attempt to offer financial incentives to the company, they float bond issues, and, most, importantly, they promise cheap "cooperative" labor.

Once the company arrives the power structure in the community feels they have a God-sent mission to keep the union out. Union to them means trouble-it means an undesirable liberal element in the community, it means a bad reputation for the community in comparison to industrial recruitment organizations in other communities.

For example, an editorial in the Kosciusko, Miss., Star Herald for Thursday, November 19, 1964, shortly before a collective-bargaining election at a local plant stated

People who vote to bring a union to Kosciusko will, if successful, change the entire labor climate of this community. In our opinion, they will be guilty of destroying our local industrial effort.

The editorial continues

It matters not what you personally think about organized labor. The basic fact remains that the presence of a militant national union in Attala County in a major local industry will destroy the one major advantage that we have had over other areas contending for new industrial prospects.

In light of this statement, you can undestand why employers who have satisfactory relations with the union in other parts of the country sometimes tell our organizers that they are not opposed to the union but have to fight it because of community pressure to do so.

Incidentally, this God-sent mission to keep the union out is frequently strengthened by local business participation in the bond issue and perhaps even a partial, though minority, share in the company. How sad it is that this method of luring business turns into a trap that often enslaves the entire community. For, at the slightest hint

of union activity, the company which has put minimal capital investment into the project can simply refer to the fact that they have had "unpleasant" experiences with unions and that they might have to leave if the union gets in.

In campaign after campaign in the southeastern, southwestern, and midwestern part of the United States, this issue is raised. Our study of NLRB elections indicated that it was invariably raised in oral communications-rather than being stressed in writing by the employer. The community enslavement forms a common ground of resistance against the union.

From the time the union representative arrives on the scene-and usually it is at the behest of the employee in the plant-the pattern which develops is very predictable and very illegal. The local police are alerted to his presence-sometimes by the motel manager where the organizer is staying. From that time on it is quite common for them to follow him constantly while he is in the town. After all, he is a troublemaker.

Quite frequently, this approach is more direct and intimidating. Sometimes they will inform the organizer that he has been stirring up a great deal of controversy, that they can see a confrontation coming and that they can offer him no protection. They therefore "suggest" that he get out of town. But most union organizers are generally unreceptive to such suggestions.

In the type of community which we have been describing, it is not always necessary for the employer to play an active part in the campaign-the local power structure is quite capable of handling the matter itself. The local newspaper is frequently deluged with antiunion editorials with the usual warnings of dire consequences if the union. wins. Slanted news stories begin to appear. One recent example occurred at Forest Industries, an electrical plant at Forest, Miss.

In that case the NLRB affirmed the trial examiner's findings of extensive violations of sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3). But it modified the trial examiner's recommended order, thereby providing for one less remedy than the trial examiner had requested.

The headline of the Scott County Times, the local newspaper, in reporting the Board decision, proclaimed, "Forest Industries Registers Victory." Incredible as it may seem, at no place in the news story was there a statement that the NLRB had found the employer guilty of unfair labor practices.

The town banker or local merchant who has extended credit to the employees is also an effective weapon in amassing pressure on the worker. Employees generally will be reminded of their debts and queried as to what they would do in the event of a strike.

Union adherents often find that their credit is no longer good or that the prior relaxed rural repayment policy is suddenly stiffened. Some creditors and businessmen go so far as to tell the employee that if he signs a union authorization card or votes for the union, his credit will no longer be good.

But surely the most heinous of all violations is blacklisting-the most primitive of all unfair labor practices.

This practice can work formally or informally. Under the formal system an employer in an area who fires an employee for his union. activity notifies the other employers in the area. Another variation of this method involves the referral of all job applications by the em

ployer to the local industrial development committee. The applicant's background is then investigated to determine his past affiliation, if any, with the union.

Under the informal method the employee is required to state the reason for past discharges on the application form a rather innocent requirement in itself. But if he indicates that he was discharged for union activity he is unlikely to obtain a job in the area even from companies which are in need of his services. A veiled admission that the practice of blacklisting exists is contained in the Tupelo, Miss., Daily Journal with the September 15, 1965, editorial, stating:

And if that plant (Dean Industries) is forced to close, not only would its unionized workers have extreme difficulty getting jobs in non-union plants of our area but to some degree the union taint would rub off on other Pontotoc County men forced to seek jobs in other towns because none would be available at home.

Two years earlier the following statement appeared in the same paper:

Question. If plants do start closing around here can the workers find other jobs? Answer. Probably a handful could. But on the basis of comments we have heard from time to time in industrial circles we are convinced that most of the workers losing jobs in plants unionized against the wishes of management would have extreme difficulty in ever getting a job in another plant for they probably would be looked upon as troublemakers. And since nobody knows how any individual votes, the suspicion falls on all.

Since we are talking about plants, and in this case, Mississippi, so that nobody gets the idea that this doesn't happen in higher levels, I say, by the way, I am not so sure that this practice does not exist also even among the so-called higher employment levels. The New York Times for August 1, 1967, notes, "The president of Southern Illinois University has refused to hire a leader of the St. John's teachers strike (in New York) despite favorable recommendations from the Illinois institution's dean and vice president for academic affairs." The gentleman in question is, of course, a Catholic priest.

Once an employee finds himself blacklisted as the Tupelo Daily Journal intimated, there are only two things he can do if he has a wife and family to support. He can move them as far away as is necessary to come in contact with a union-oriented community.

Or he can join the antiunion persecutors and after a good job of spying on his fellow employees and their union activity, then maybe the power structure will forgive him for his former flirtations with the union.

I am reminded of those days about 15 years ago and I remember one of the greatest editorial cartoons that I think was ever drawn was by Herblock that showed a very vicious looking spotted leopard with a can of white paint and with the one hand he was painting his spots out and with the other he was pointing at a docile looking old Holstein saying, "He is one. He ought to know. I used to be one myself."

The issue of race is often a useful tool of these union busters. If the union is attempting to organize a predominantly Negro work force, then the company pictures the union as responsible for wholesale discrimination in the building trades. But where the unit is comprised primarily of whites, the company stresses contributions made by unions to civil rights groups and more specifically hints that if the union wins, Negroes will replace whites in the work force.

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kircher, I hope you will forgive my interruption, but this is a very salient point you make here in view of the troubles we are having across the country.

Can you give us specifics on this particular type of tactic?

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes, we will.

Mr. CAREY. References to newspaper articles or journals in any way that will spell this out as a specific tactic on the part of employers? Mr. KIRCHER. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I think there are probably pretty substantial records with the Board itself on this sort of thing.

As we say, Congressman, in the next sentence, occasionally the NLRB will find the appeals so inflammatory that they will set aside the election when the union loses, and order a new one. But the poisoned climate created by these racial appeals will continue into the second -election.

There is a substantial amount of documentation with the Board and I might say that-this is more of an observation, but I think it is valid-in the past several years there has been a lessening I think of this sort of thing because there has been a more aggressive attitude and policy on the part of the Board with respect to dealing with it. Mr. THOMPSON. If the gentleman will yield

Mr. CAREY. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. An article by Daniel Pollitt in the Stanford University Law Review of about 2 years ago will be entered into the record. In this article, these cases are specifically discussed.

(The article referred to appears in the appendix at p. 425.) Mr. CAREY. I appreciate the Chairman's notation of this. I just comment here that it would seem to be a matter of joint effort not only for the National Labor Relations Board, but also the Federal Equal Opportunity Commission.

Mr. HARRIS. If I may, Mr. Congressman, we can furnish you with two quite interesting documents which are in current use in Mississippi. One is a flyer bearing the emblem of the Ku Klux Klan warning people not to join the unions because they are procivil rights and pro-Negro.

The other is a flyer copy from a northern paper reciting that such and such a union has been accused of race discrimination. If the plant has a white majority the Klan flyer is used. If it has a Negro majority the clipping accusing a union of race discrimination is used.

We will be happy to bring it to you.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAREY. It sounds like this group plans to do something which even Herblock couldn't do. They have been painting the leopard on one side and a cow on the other.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Dellenback.

Mr. DELLENBACK. I think that even one instance of this is one too many, but I think that it would also be important for the committee if we are going to get this sort of evidence given to us if you will give us also some indication of how frequently this appears.

You have this number of cases that you have examined, some 495 elections. Will you indicate in how many of those you found this type of thing. Give us some statistical background rather than just the isolated case.

Mr. KIRCHER. All right, Congressman. To the extent that the study would reflect that we will certainly do it. I would call attention to the fact that this is the kind of practice that we find almost exclusively in the southeastern part of the United States. Our sampling is a national sampling so that we will try to point out the extent to which our 495 cases were from those sections of the country where we have found this kind of a practice to occur.

Mr. DELLENBACK. You understand what I am reaching for. I think, as I indicated to begin with, even one case is one too many, but I would like to see this in proper perspective. You have added another factor; namely, that you find these predominantly in the Southeast. If there is anything like that that also is relevant to whatever examples you give us I think it would be important that the committee have this type of tie-in also.

Mr. KIRCHER. Very good.

Mr. ASHBROOK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Ashbrook.

Mr. ASHBROOK. Yes, I think it would be most interesting also. Is the gentleman totally sure that discrimination of this type comes from management, not from the union? We have heard quite a bit of comment, particularly by our former chairman, who was also most vociferous when it came to the building trades, that it is the unions and certain brotherhoods and not the employer who seem to be the particular purveyors of discrimination.

I wonder what the gentleman's study has found out on this part. Mr. KIRCHER. Mr. Congressman, I don't recall having suggested that either party was or was not guilty of discrimination. What we are suggesting is that employers in campaigns to resist unions where they can find some kind of an indication of discrimination, whichever direction in which it might go, that they can use to their advantage they use it.

Mr. ASHBROOK. Isn't it true that some unions have used this in representation fights also?

Mr. KIRCHER. Can you be a little more specific please?

Mr. ASHBROOK. In some places in the South I think some of our testimony indicates or that I have information on that certain unions would refer to UAW-type unions that are a little more liberal in that respect and clearly lay it on the line to fellow employees that their money was going to Martin Luther King and so forth. I have particular evidence of that. I think it probably works both ways and we ought to make the record clear that it isn't one sided, and I am sure some of the testimony we had several years ago which I dug out, points this

out.

In particular representation battles in the South some union organizers hold out to the employees that they are more lily white than the others. Particularly if you are a UAW-type union down South you are really in trouble, so I assume it works both ways.

Mr. KIRCHER. You may if you want to put that construction on it. I would think that probably one party has more of a right to tell how it is than another party has to tell how it is. I think that there is probably more of a right for a union to tell about its policies as part of its organizational practices than for the employer.

Mr. ASHBROOK. Even if it relates to discrimination?