"ONE PAGE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES"

What good is a foreign policy if domestic policy will not stand up as basically sound and free?

The homefront comes first. Labor-management relations are headed for a erash.

The Congress is incapable of legislating the details of labor-management relations even if that course were desirable.

Organization of labor unions and genuine good-faith collective bargaining is the only way to successful operation of industry.

The only legislative action necessary is to protect and encourage genuine goodfaith collective bargaining. The only reason such legislation is necessary is because of the record established by management resisting and preventing organization and collective bargaining.

The Taft-Hartley law was adopted specifically to legislate control over labor unions and aid management in its historic resistance to organization and genuine good-faith collective bargaining.

Until these basic facts are understood, no progress is possible toward fair and proper amendment of the Taft-Hartley law to get basically sound labormanagement relations.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Randolph, I just want to make this request again: That you will try to get those cases for us and also spell out what section of the law caused the locals to cease to exist as unions and ceased to have bargaining with the owners or these various publishers that you speak of, the little unions. I do not want 15 or 20 of them, just 7 or 8. Give 7 or 8 examples. Mr. Kaiser ought to be able to get that for you or some of your legal staff. It is very valuable to us to have it, and it is really very valuable.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I doubt that I can get it.

Mr. KEARNS. Why do you make the statement here then?

Mr. RANDOLPH. The record shows that there are 55 unions gone. Mr. KEARNS. Your record does not mean anything to me unless you can come in here with concrete examples of it, and I think, Mr. Chairman, I am just fed up with this business of everybody coming in here and saying this was the cause and that was the cause, and then when you pin them down and ask them for something, you cannot get it. I yield back the floor. I am through.

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. Randolph, is not part of the answer to Mr. Kearns' question as to why some of these locals have folded up in addition to a few specific parts of the act, the fact that there is so much involved procedure and compliance with the act, and so much paper work and so much legal work and so forth necessary that a small union just does not have the manpower or the financial resources or the energy to cope with all of these things in the aggregate, and thus some of them are inclined to just give up the ghost?

Mr. RANDOLPH. That is what I tried to explain. And perhaps you have given it in better language, but I tried to cover that in what I said.

Mr. HOWELL. I thought that was one thing you were trying to say and would be part of the answer to Mr. Kearns' question.

Mr. RANDOLPH. That is right.

Mr. KEARNS. I still want the names.

Mr. HOWELL. I think it is perfectly proper, but it might be a little difficult to single out all of the little provisions that might have caused this or that union to fold when in most cases it was the aggregate of a lot of things.

Mr. SMITH. I am still confused, because I cannot understand if that contract from the local has to come to you, when they start making a

contract, so that you can tell them back at the local what they have to do about the Taft-Hartley, then it goes back to them, and then it has to come back for final approval, why it is such an increase in burden on you?

Mr. RANDOLPH. We have been committed by our laws to that procedure for a great many years.

Mr. SMITH. Why cannot you send it out to them when they first send their contract in?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not understand.

Mr. SMITH. You can tell them what the Taft-Hartley law requires and what they have got to do.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I have been trying to tell them that for 5 years, but you try to tell 90,000 people what the Taft-Hartley law means. I am about ready to give up, because they do not seem to grasp it at all. They do not understand it, and what they have been doing for 100 years, when you try to change it and say you can't do this and you can't do that, it is getting to be a tremendous burden on me.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Randolph, I am a new Member of Congress, and I am a new member of this committee. I want to help to write new legislation and help to clarify and simplify the Taft-Hartley law, and I know nothing about your union or your trade, and I want to learn.

One of the ways I want to learn is I want to find out how you lost 50 locals, and if you are going to have the privilege of coming before us and complaining about the law and say you are having trouble selling it to your people, and not explain to us and give us a chance to read why you lost these 50 locals or list 10 or 15 of them, I do not see why you feel you should come and complain and not help us solve your problem.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is in perfect order to request that we get that.

Mr. SMITH. I think that that is a proper request, and they ought to be specific.

I

Mr. HOLT. All I want to know is why. I do not want to argue. want to know why you lost 50 locals, and I think it is a legitimate complaint, and you say it takes too much time to dig up that information and tell us.

Mr. BAILEY. May I call your attention to the fact that in the capital city of the State of West Virginia we have a Charleston, W. Va., daily newspaper called the Charleston Daily Mail. For over 3 years now there has been at least 2 to 3 pickets picketing that newspaper plant, and that union has been hanging along on the point of being completely destroyed and will eventually unless they win the point that they are fighting for. That is an illustration right in process now, and that picketing and that disturbance there started more than 3 years ago, and they are still picketing that newspaper.

Mr. HOLT. Thank you very much. That is a good example. Now I want some more from Mr. Randolph.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I will try and remember. I will try and give you an illustration; and I hate to name these places. I hate to put in there charges against people.

Mr. HOLT. I understand that.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Because then I am immediately attacked with putting something of record that they will say is not true. I believe I have a fair conception of what is right and wrong, but I do not like

ever to use anyone's name in a way that they can attack me for say

ing it is wrong.

Mr. HOLT. We do not want you to do it now, and we do not want you to make it public. We just want you to give it to the committee sometime in the future.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I want to point out one of the things; in Warren, Ohio, for instance, that is a one-newspaper town, and we still have a local there. I anticipate that when the year is over it will probably be dissolved. The union was unable to get a contract. The publisher would not bargain for the things the union wanted to bargain for.

They started to hire nonunion help. Gradually the nonunion help under a nonunion foreman is squeezing our people to the point of them either quitting and leaving or becoming in the minority, because more and more nonunion people will be hired, and conditions under which they work are unsatisfactory, and it will make them leave. They are not firing them, but making them leave. I anticipate before the year is out that we will lose the charter in Warren, Ohio.

I am just mentioning that to show you how it is developing. The union will simply give up the ghost.

Now, the members of the union will not have been lost as members, they will move on to another local, and all they have to do is take a traveling card and deposit that traveling card some place else and go to work. That is, if there is work there for them.

Now, I am trying to explain how it is done. I mention that particular place that I know about, and I am very reluctant to talk here unless I know what I am talking about. In looking up some of these other locations, I am satisfied I can find others that have expired for the same reasons that it may expire there.

Mr. KEARNS. Will the gentleman yield? Now, Mr. Randolph, I know about that case in Warren, Ohio, and I know how long it has been going on, and I think that you fellows are right about it. But here we are trying to clarify a situation like that in the Taft-Hartley law, and one of the most wonderful ways we could do it would be to have that publisher sitting down where you are and the head of that union up there in Warren sitting down there and telling us just what their grievances are and what is wrong with Taft-Hartley, and why it will not work, and if it will not work in a place in Warren, it might not work some other place.

But how in the name of goodness are we going to get the facts if we do not know anything about these cases, and if we are keeping them all under a blanket and we never learn anything about them? How are we ever going to clarify the law? That is the contribution you can make that is invaluable to this committee.

Mr. RHODES. I would like to ask you a little about the Warren, Ohio, situation. I will tell you beforehand I know absolutely nothing about it. Did your union there have a contract as the bargaining representative, with the publisher?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I think it had one several years ago, and I am not sure of that. I think they did.

Mr. RHODES. You feel that they do not have one now
Mr. RANDOLPH. I know they do not.

?

Mr. RHODES. And you picketed and you have done everything else that you can?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; we have done all of those things.

Mr. RHODES. You think that the employer has agreed to bargain for a union shop?

Mr. RANDOLPH. The so-called union shop is not available to us. We would not have it. We would not want that.

Mr. RHODES. What you are saying is that you refuse to avail yourself of the provisions of the Taft-Hartley law?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, that is one way of putting it. We feel that there is absolutely nothing to be had by our availing ourselves of any so-called privileges or rights. As I say, we would not have that union shop that the Taft-Hartley law is willing to give us.

Mr. RHODES. In going back to the loss of your 55 unions, maybe the loss could be best blamed on the policy of your own union rather than on the law. You have not tested the law, and you do not know whether you would lose them or not if you used the law, do you?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, that is a very difficult question. I never answer a question that I do not

Mr. RHODES. It is probably an unfair question, and a difficult question, but at the same time that is what is in my mind. If you do not bargain for the things that the law gives you permission to bargain for, I really do not see how you can come up with all of these beautiful generalities in which you try to show that the law is bad.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, if you will read all of the statement that we have given you, the printed statement, it will give you some more information about it. But the big story has to do with a lot of questions, and we are weakened in our ability to bargain because of the particular provisions of the Taft-Hartley law.

Mr. RHODES. And your ability to bargain as you want to bargain? Mr. RANDOLPH. Burgain for the things we want to accomplish. Mr. RHODES. In other words, to resort to a generality, you feel that the Taft-Hartley law restricts free collective bargaining?

Mr. RANDOLPH. We know it does. Now, I want to be helpful. This is your problem, you see.

Mr. RHODES. NO. It is our problem. It is everybody's problem. Mr. RANDOLPH. But the job of legislation is your problem, you see, I am only here to be helpful.

Here is the way in which the Taft-Hartley law operates; I think it does: We will say a union wants to represent a certain number of employees and they get their consent to represent them, or they get them as members of the union. Then they ask the Board for an election to determine that the union is the bargaining agent for that group. The Board might say that they were to be the agent or they might turn them down, as the Board did turn down the International Printing Pressmen's Assistants Union which represents a great many paper handlers in the trade, but they sought through the Board the right to bargain for the paper handlers, I believe, in San Francisco.

The Board decided, in its wisdom, that the Printing Pressmen was a skilled union and that these paper handlers were not skilled enough to be represented by the Printing Pressmen's Union. It is that type of bureaucracy that we resent and abhor.

If we, without any blessing of Taft-Hartley, can organize the paper handlers, and we want to organize them, and we get a majority of them or we get all of them, and we want to say to the employer, "We want a contract for these people with you," and he says, "No, I won't";

and we give them the opportunity and they vote for a strike; they strike the place, and they picket the place for recognition and a contract, there is nothing in the law that says they cannot do it.

Mr. RHODES. That is right.

Mr. RANDOPH. That is what I want to point out to you, that we believe that the Government should not interfere in a circumstance of that kind and say who is to bargain under those circumstances. We want to organize who we think belong in our craft and in our union, and we resent the interference of the Board into that question.

Now, that is one of the biggest reasons why we have not availed ourselves, as you say, of these Taft-Hartley prerogatives. We do not want any part of it.

Mr. RHODES. Well, of course, the matter which you just brought up is almost the prime example of a jurisdictional strike.

Mr. RANDOLPH. It has nothing to do with jurisdiction at all.
Mr. RHODES. I misunderstood you then.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Here are some unorganized people, and a union organizes them and wants to bargain for them, and the Board says, "You can't do that."

Mr. RHODES. Well, I think the Board does not say that. The Board says that you have to be certified as a proper bargaining representative and then they will give you an election which is supervised.

Mr. RANDOLPH. We do not want an election.

Mr. RHODES. Well, but the machinery is there, is it not?

Mr. RANDOLPH. We do not want it. We just do not want it, and there is nothing in the law that says we have to take it.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Rhodes, if you will yield, he admitted to me that he had no competition in bargaining. Do you remember that?

Mr. RANDOLPH. As between unions; we have got a lot of competition from the employers.

Mr. KEARNS. But you do not have to worry about someone coming in. The reason I was leading up to that question, I have an amendment in to make it 51 percent instead of 30 percent, but it does not apply to you because you do not have any competition. You have everything in your own lap, that is for sure.

Mr. RANDOLPH. No; don't be so generous about giving us such a reputation for power. We have not got it.

Mr. KEARNS. It is pretty good.

Mr. RANDOLPH. What little we had, we are losing right along.
Mr. RHODES. Now, I would like to go to another subject.

Mr. HOLT. I have one more question. I would like to ask you one more question and then I will yield back to the Chair.

How do you feel about this? Your industry is not affected by these strikes, but how do you feel about the use of injunction in nationalemergency strikes? You realize we have a certain problem there, and I do not know whether you heard the gentleman testify this morning or not, and the supplemental testimony he gave about setting up a special board. How do you feel about those yourself? And do you want to leave it up to Congress or what procedure do you want to

offer?

Mr. RANDOLPH. We have not had any problem.

Mr. HOLT. You are a union man, however, and you represent a large union, and how do you feel about that, speaking as a union man?