LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, House Office Building, Hon. Samuel K. McConnell, Jr. (chairman), presiding.

Present: Representatives McConnell, Smith, Kearns, Bosch, Holt, Rhodes, Wainwright, Frelinghuysen, Barden, Bailey, Perkins, Howell, Wier, Elliott, Metcalf, and Miller.

Present also: John O. Graham, chief clerk; Fred G. Hussey, minority clerk; Edward A. McCabe, general counsel, Jock Hoghland, assistant general counsel; Russell C. Derrickson, chief investigator; and Ben H. Johnson, investigator.

Mr. SMITH (presiding). The hearings will be in order.

The first witness this morning is Mr. Doherty. Will you proceed, Mr. Doherty?

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. DOHERTY, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTERS, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES H. TOWER, ASSISTANT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT

Mr. DOHERTY. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to introduce my associate here, Charles H. Tower, who is the assistant director of employee-employer relations of the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters, and with your kind permission when we come to the question period I would appreciate the opportunity on occasion to have Mr. Tower answer some of those questions which might come within the area I feel he is expert in.

My name is Richard P. Doherty. I am vice president of the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters. From May 1951 to July 1952, I was an industry member of the National Wage Stabilization Board. Since 1949 I have had the pleasure of serving as management delegate and representative to the International Labor Organization, participating in ILO conferences in Geneva, Switzerland. I am appearing before your committee in my capacity as vice president in charge of employer-employee relations of the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters.

You have before you a copy of my statement. I shall definitely not attempt to read it. I do not want to bore you to that extent, but I shall try to summarize the major points, as I see it, in my statement, and

call attention particularly to certain specific proposals or recommendations which I am making.

I think it might be well to comment on the first part of my statement. I feel very strongly that the future of American democracy does require a positive labor policy. I believe that such a policy should not be borne of punitive motives, with any effort or intent at punishing either labor or management. It should obviously have, as its primary goal, the establishment of an environment which is conducive to effective employer-employee relations.

I think it should proceed on the basic principle that collective bargaining cannot be created and achieved by legislative fiat. I think it must recognize that all parties, labor, management, union, and nonunion employees are citizens of the Nation and therefore that a policy must regard equality of such citizens in their rights.

I think, furthermore, it must proceed on the thesis that the economic welfare of society at large does supersede the so-called rights and freedom of either labor or management.

The philosophy of free and unrestrained competition is no more applicable to labor relations in today's complex economic society than to private business operations. A completely free and unregulated economy has the self-generating capacity to produce monopolies and other restraints of free trade. We have strengthened and preserved free enterprise by establishing ground rules which have safguarded individual rights, outlawed those practices which would undermine competition and erected barriers against actions which would trespass upon the general public welfare.

To me, it seems basic that individual rights must be harmonized with the total rights of society at large. When the right of private ownership was so exercised by certain persons and groups as to cause monopolies in restraint of trade, Congress saw fit to enact corrective legislation. This procedure was deemed necessary to preserve the full meaning of private property and to insure the maintenance of the competitive system.

We must consider a thought which has been expressed by some people, namely, that the effective functioning of collective bargaining should require little or no regulation. To me, this assumption should be approached somewhat as we approach the basic concepts of private ownership. We know perfectly well that the preservation and protection of the principles and concepts of private property do require a certain amount of regulation to prevent the destruction of this right. We have seen, for example, that when the right of private property was so exercised by certain persons and groups as to cause monopolies in restraint of trade, that Congress saw fit to enact corrective legislation. The purpose of this procedure was not to suppress the right of private property, but to give full meaning to the right of private property and to insure the maintenance of the competitive system.

Över the past 20 years, particularly, we have witnessed a growth of unionism which has naturally paralleled the great economic growth of the United States. It seems to me inevitable and logical therefore that as large-scale mass production should develop as an economically sound mode of life in certain types of industries, that large-scale union development would take place.

It does seem to me that we have had the development of monopolistic conditions in certain areas of this union development. I believe

that no greater economic power has ever fitted into the hands of any one man or any small group of men than rests with some of the union leaders today.

Yet, I hasten to add that I am not condemning monopoly per se, whether it exists in the field of business or in the field of unionism. I think the only thing which we need to concern ourselves basically with, so far as monopoly is concerned, is the abusive use of monopoly. I do not believe that labor relations in this area are any more sacred than any other area of economic and social relations so far as the desire on the part of the public that Congress provide adequate rules and curbs against abusive practices..

Mr. KEARNS. Will the gentleman yield there? How are you ever going to regulate abuses in monopoly? Now, you support monopoly, either union or industry, but how are you ever going to regulate the abuses on either side?

Mr. DOHERTY. I believe in the field of business, Mr. Congressman, the fundamental premise on which we have operated our antitrust laws has been that there are economic benefits to certain monopolistic types of developments, and what the antitrust laws are concerned with is setting up an area of fair play, and setting up certain curbs and restraints upon what I will call the abusive use of monopoly.

Mr. KEARNS. But they all make an end run around the law, and they do not bother with the law.

Mr. DOHERTY. Possibly, Mr. Congressman, but I believe where monopoly exists that the approach is not necessarily one of trying to destroy the monopoly if it is based upon fundamental economic factors, but to try to prevent that monopoly power from being used in a manner which would be destructive of our basic principles of competition and free private enterprise, and other concepts of American life.

I think we have done a fairly good job in the field of antitrust regulations so far as industry is concerned. In other areas we recognize that monopoly is inevitable, and I am referring now specifically to your public-utility field. Very few Americans would want 7 or 8 different competing electric light and power companies in a given city, and so, recognizing the fact that a single monopoly can produce that service more efficiently for the public welfare, we do not seek to destroy that monopoly or to force competition upon it, but to curb its operations in a fashion that the public interest will be served. I think that is, to a certain extent, the basic approach that we must have with regard to labor.

In other words, it is to set up an area of fair play with a workable set of rules which recognizes the rights and responsibilities of both labor and management, and also recognizes that the public has a very positive interest in labor-management relations.

What are some of the rules that I feel are necessary in a national labor policy? Very briefly I think there are five; they hardly need repetition, I feel. First, it is to recognize that workers should have the right to organize and bargain collectively. Secondly, where collective bargaining does exist, we should see to it that neither labor nor management uses dirty plays or destructive practices, and the fact that such practices may be beneficial to the practitioners is not the important point at hand.

I believe, in other words, elaborating on this particular point, that left more or less unregulated collective bargaining in certain areas actually undermine itself and destroy itself, just as we have found that in certain areas the completely free and unrestrained right of private property has resulted in the emergence of abuse and destruction of the fundamental practice of those rights. If we are going to make collective bargaining work, it is necessary to protect itself, namely, the collective-bargaining process, against practices which would tend to destroy effective collective bargaining.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are you going to go into more detail later on about labor and management using dirty plays and destructive practices, and are you going to give us instances of what you are talking about?

Mr. DOHERTY. I think very definitely, Mr. Congressman.

I think, thirdly, we should protect the rights of all citizens with full equality and without special favors to some and disadvantages to others, whether these citizens are unionized or nonunionized workers, owners of property, investors and their management agents, farmers or other groups. Collective bargaining should not be clothed with individual or group privileges which violate or vitiate the fundamental guaranties of our constitution.

Fourth, I believe we should protect the public against industrial warfare which, on occasions, boils over and trespasses upon the public

interest.

When we have the national emergency strikes, it is rather common in the newspaper and the radio and other public forums to discuss the position of management and the position of labor and the so-called rights of labor and rights of management, but we hear very little about the rights of the public in such a situation. Yet I still go back to my fundamental thesis that in this area of life, as in all other areas of life, the rights and responsibilities of any individual segment never should exceed the rights and responsibilities of total society, namely, the public as a whole.

Fifthly, I think we should strive to establish the environment within which constructive employer-employee relations may function with a maximum degree of industrial peace.

The foundation of industrial peace and economic advancement is the harmonious and mutually beneficial relationship between employees and their employers. Approximately one-third of American employees sanction the collective approach to their relations with employers; approximately two-thirds of our Nation's employees accept something other than the collective pattern in the determination. of their wage and working conditions.

At this point I think it is worthwhile that we cogitate upon the fact that the basis for cur economic development largely rests upon sound and progressive employer-employee relations; the relations existing between the 2 people, 2 parties, labor and management, who produce the goods and services of the country.

Now, within this relationship we find an area of approximately onethird of the total area where the relationship is conducted on a collective basis. We should not lose sight of the fact, however, that nearly two-thirds of the total area of employer-employee relations is conducted on some method other than the collective approach. It seems to

me therefore that in thinking out loud with regard to national labor policy, we should be concerned with collective bargaining. Yes, that is a basic reason for congressional thinking on labor policy. But in anything about the improvement of collective bargaining, we should not lose sight of the fact that what we are striving for is an environment which will make conducive good employer-employee relations, whether they be on the collective or noncollective basis.

I know there has been a tendency on the part of some people to argue that the only way to achieve industrial peace is through unionism. There is no question about the fact that first we want industrial peace where unionism exists, and yet, for the life of me, I cannot see that unionism by itself, and in itself alone, is a guaranty of industrial peace, or economic achievement.

For example, unionism under communistic or subversive leadership becomes an instrumentality which implements industrial strife, not peace. Unionism under the leadership of inept, corrupt, and selfish leaders can well produce industrial strife, and not peace.

Now, without laws of almost any kind, I am thoroughly and honestly convinced that the vast majority of the American union leaders will meet the responsiblity of sound, progresive relationships. I am not concerned with the majority of these union leaders. We have, in this country today, something like one hundred and fifty to two hundred and twenty-five thousand contracts. We know perfectly well from the statistical record that the vast majority of these contracts result in progressive and peaceful relationships between the worker and his employer.

I think, without any question of doubt, that the majority of union leaders recognize their responsibilities as American citizens, and recognize their responsibility to their constituents, the union members. But is it not true that in virtually all areas of social and economic relationships we think of laws, not because of the transgressions of the majority, but because of the looming threat and the reality of transgression by the minority?

I think the radio and television industry, if I may give a commercial at this particular point, can be cited as a good example of an industry where progressive employer-employee relations exist, and where good union-management relations exist. I think our record of industrial disputes in the radio and television industry is a very laudable one. I grant that there are other industries that probably can display an equally good record, but there are few able to display a better record.

Furthermore, I think the statistical records would clearly indicate that within that union-managment relationship, there has been a very progressive, constantly improving relationship between the worker and the employer; that the wages and working conditions within this industry have steadily expanded, and I think can stand the test of statistical records and remain among the top industries of the Nation with regard to average wages and with regard to general working conditions.

Mr. KEARNS. Will the gentleman yield?

Do you not think that that is true because, with the major union you deal with, when you make a contract and you have a time specification there of the duration of the contract, the contract is lived