that type. One of the major waves is 1114/100 years long. That is one of the big ones with a big amplitude. Another one with a smaller amplitude is 993100 years long, and the third wave, also of a rather large amplitude, is 335/100 years long. Along about 1930 we got three of those waves in conjunction all going down. You know when you took trigonometry when you got three waves going down and you added them together it made a very definite deep depression. That is what happened then. You got those three waves all together, and it made a very definite depression. Government must do something to offset that or there will be trouble practically every time that happens. And I think that it is the imperative duty of Government to take the necessary steps to prevent both inflation and deflation. Inflation is a predecessor of deflation, and it is necessary to attack both the inflation and deflation. When you have had a great period of inflation, as we have had in the last decade, some people say we should turn back the hands of time and go back down to the lower level. But unfortunately you cannot turn back the hands of time. And if you go down to the lower level you produce more disastrous effects than you do remedial effects. So that when you have had inflation such as we have had in the last decade, you have gotten up on a plateau, I think sound governmental policy is to keep the price level up on the plateau but keep it horizontal, don't let it tumble down. Congress always, at all times, ought to prevent inflation and deflation. Then you would not have the forces leading to these severe depressions and unemployment.

Mr. WIER. Dr. King, one more question: You made some comment on the evil of the unions, strikes, featherbedding, idleness and all of the other defects that you find in the trade-union movement, as having a tendency to cripple the production of this nature. That rather contradicts the findings of the industrialists of this country, because for the last 15 years we have become the greatest productive Nation in the world. And you can compare our presently organized industry with the slave industry of Russia or any other nation, and where is it comparable to the American productive ability and capacity? Where is it with all of these evils that you mentioned?

Dr. KING. I agree most heartily that our production here is the wonder of the world, despite the hampering features that I mentioned. Now they have these hampering features in much worse shape in most of the other countries. If you take nearly all of the European countries, they are so paralyzed by labor-union infringements piled

on

Mr. WIER. Russia is not.

Dr. KING. No; but Russia does not have anything like the resources that we have, and they do not have the spirit of free competition. And you have socialistic control, government management. You cannot get production to anything like the extent that free competition

can.

I favor free competition. That is the spur. If you have economic freedom you get maximum production. None of these countries have as much economic freedom as we do, with the exception possibly of Canada-not even Australia has as much.

Mr. WIER. Would you disagree with those that feel that labor in this country, organized and unorganized, has made a great contribution to this Nation's welfare?

29507-53-pt. 5—5

Dr. KING. Obviously. You cannot get any production at all of any consequence without labor. It is like asking which half of the shears cuts most. You have the employer and the employee working together that makes most of our production. Now they are both tremendously benefited by the inventors of the country who have invented these marvelous machines, and by the thrifty people who have saved up the capital to pay for the machines. Both employers and employees benefit by the saving and inventiveness. But you have to have the two of them, the employer and the employee, or you do not get production at all.

Mr. WIER. I am glad you brought that last one up, and this will be my last one: Do you feel that with the technology that has been demonstrated in this country, the advancement of labor-saving machinery, and do you feel that with all of the benefits of this laborsaving machinery and technology advancement, that the workers should not share in that?

Dr. KING. You find that under any system of free competition that the worker inevitably shares in all of the advancements that go along. As I pointed out, he gets just about his fixed proportion of the product. And without any regard, ethics or anything of the kind, he gets it right along. If you have free competition you do not have to worry about it in the slightest. He always gets his proportionate share.

Mr. WIER. Dr. King, let me ask you just one more question: If that is so, do you really believe that if we bar all trade unionism in this country, make it illegal, do you honestly feel that the 65 to 70 million employed workers today would share without any action of any kind in the profits of business?

Mr. KING. I think that they would share in production of the business, not the profits of the business. But they would get, I think, the same proportionate share that they are getting now, and I think the total product of industry would be larger and that their average wage rates would be higher, that the average income of the workingman of the country would be larger than it is now if all of the unions were abolished.

Now, it might be that some of the union members would fare much worse than they do now, but I think on the average the workers would get materially more than they do at the present time.

Mr. WIER. That would save the workers of this Nation, that philosphy, if put into action, would save these 17 million that are paying dues and paying initiation fees into the union that tremendous amount of money.

Mr. KING. I think that they would fare probably just as well, and all the unionized people would fare much better than they do if there were no unions in existence.

Mr. WIER. Why was that not possible before 1920, then?

Mr. KING. It was.

Mr. WIER. With the steel corporations working the 12-hour day? Mr. KING. Remember that the length of the working day depends upon the amount of pay per hour that people get. If the production is low then the people want to work long hours, because they cannot earn a decent living without working long hours.

Mr. WEIR. That is right.

Mr. KING. But when production is high they want to work short hours because there is no point in working long hours. Mr. WIER. I promised to stop, and that is all.

Chairman MCCONNELL. Doctor, I have one question, and I think it is a practical one. It deals with what we are supposed to be dealing with, which is the Taft-Hartley law, and any amendments or whatever there may be in connection with it.

Are you in favor of amending the Taft-Hartley law or repealing it or just what is your position? You do not state in this testimony of yours.

Mr. KING. I think it ought to be stiffened up all along the line. That is, I do not know how far you gentlemen are willing to go. I suggest you go all the way here, but I think that you should prohibit industrywide bargaining at least. I think that would be one good thing. I think you should stiffen up the provisions against secondary boycotts, and make the thing more workable in that line.

Of course, I think you ought to make labor subject to the Sherman. law, and repeal the Clayton Act and the Norris-LaGuardia Act. I think those ought to be repealed and make labor subject to the Sherman law the same as any other monopoly.

Chairman McCONNELL. I thought that maybe you would call forhow shall I put it-a very minimum amount of Federal control, or a very simple labor law. I know so many people that have the concept of freedom for the individual have usually thought that the Federal Government should not be very active in this field, that it should be left to the local action and so on. I was rather surprised when you made the statement about just amending the present law and making it stiffer.

Mr. KING. Well, I think that the ideal would be to merely guarantee these freedoms that we have here, wipe out all the regulatory legislation except to guarantee these freedoms. I think that would be ideal. But I understood your question to mean if you are going to merely amend the Taft-Hartley Act what would be the amendment.

Chairman McCONNELL. No; I said what would be your position with regard to the Taft-Hartley revision, amendment or repeal. I did not know what your position was. I had not heard you state it. Mr. KING. Yes. Well, my position would be that that whole type of legislation should be eliminated from the statute books and that the Government should engage merely in guaranteeing these six freedoms that we have up here, that we should not allow any monopoly to interfere, either of capital or of labor. That would be my position as to the proper thing to do. I thought you were merely referring to if you were going to amend it.

Chairman MCCONNELL. Then your thought would be repeal of the Taft-Hartley law.

Mr. KING. Repeal it and repeal all other regulatory acts.

Chairman McCONNELL. The Wagner Act and the Norris-LaGuardia Act?

Mr. KING. Yes.

Chairman McCONNELL. And the Fair Minimum Standards Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, and the Walsh-Healey Act?

Mr. KING. That is right.

Chairman McCONNELL. In other words, you would remove the Federal Government from the labor legislative field entirely, is that correct?

Mr. KING. Except to have laws against monopoly, and enforce those laws the same against labor as against capital.

Chairman McCONNELL. I thought that was your position. That is why your original statement surprised me.

Mr. KING. Yes, that would be my position.

Chairman McCONNELL. All right, Doctor, we thank you for your appearance here today. I know that we have had some interesting discussions on various points of economics, and at the end here on the Taft-Hartley law.

Mr. KING. I wish to thank you very heartily indeed for the courteous treatment and interesting discussion.

Chairman McCONNELL. The committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, when the witness will be Mr. A. J. Hayes, president of the International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L., who will be followed by Mr. Woodruff Randolph, president of the International Typographical Union, A. F. of L.

The committee is adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 5:50 p. m., the committee was recessed, to be reconvened at 10 a. m., Tuesday, March 24, 1953.)

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 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, Gwinn, Smith, Kearns, Harrison, Bosch, Holt, Rhodes, Wainwright, Frelinghuysen, Kelley, Bailey, Perkins, Howell, Wier, Elliott, Landrum, 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.

Chairman MCCONNELL. The hearings will please come to order. The first witness today is Mr. A. J. Hayes, international president of the International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L. Mr. Hayes, I see you have a statement here. I presume you plan to read it: is that correct?

STATEMENT OF A. J. HAYES, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A. F. OF L.; ACCOMPANIED BY PLATO E. PAPPS, COUNSEL FOR THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS

Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir; I would like to.

Chairman McCONNELL. All right. You may proceed.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, my name, as the chairman has stated, is A. J. Hayes. I am the international president of the International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L., a labor organization whose history goes back more than 60 years to the time of its birth in Atlanta, Ga.

During this period of 60 years we have witnessed, among others, such evils as the yellow-dog contract, the company town with all its fith and disease, the company spy, the strikebreaker, the blacklist, and the lockout. In addition, we have witnessed, with the enactment of the Morris-LaGuardia Act in 1932, the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933, and the Wagner Act in 1935, the gradual emancipation of the workingman from the shackles of this type of social and economic imprisonment. We have witnessed as well, the industrial growth of this great nation to an alltime peak both in its economie wealth and its productive capacity.