of this bill last year, where he admitted to the soundness of the principle of collective bargaining and the necessity, particularly in large corporations, of some means to fulfill this principle. (2) The denial of this principle by certain companies has been very injurious to the general welfare of the people of the United States. It has directly fostered the principles of fascism, particularly through the employee-representative plans, or as it is commonly known, "the company union." It has indirectly been responsible for the strengthening of communism through the despair of workmen that real and honest collective bargaining can be achieved through the machinery provided in our present form of Government. Substance for their argument has been supplied by the defiant and rebellious front that many companies have put to the various agencies designated to effectuate the principle of collective bargaining. This is a very serious matter today and will be a hundred times more so if no relief is provided by the Seventy-fourth Congress. (3) The gross inadequacy of the so-called "employee-representative plan" for real collective bargaining and its demoralizing effect on the workmen. To understand the meaning of the above statement I will present briefly the experiences of the men in the McDonald mills of the Carnegie Steel Co. under this plan. Shortly before the date of effectiveness of the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933, announcement was made of a new and enlightened plan of collective bargaining which would be offered to the men by the company. A group was arbitrarily selected by the management to form a preliminary committee. The group was originally under the impression it was to be consulted as to the provisions of the plan. But this was not the case. On meeting with the management they were met with the completed plan and it was explained to them with the idea of selling it to the men. They were not consulted on the least detail of the plan. This undemocratic action was, of course, viewed with suspicion but the workmen concluded they would give it a trial and see if it was workable. The sole function of the workmen was to elect representatives to carry out the plan. This they did. After a few months experience, the futility of the plan was painfully evident as far as collective bargaining was concerned. It did provide, after a fashion, a sort of a grievance committee. However, with no real power and no means of acquiring that power. The discontent of the workmen climaxed in the formation of Buckeye Lodge of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, an American Federation of Labor affiliate. On February 17, 1934, a form letter was distributed to the employees announcing that certain changes were to be made in the plan, and that the representatives had recommended that the new plan be voted on by all employees. This was done and the employees of the McDonald plant voted adversely to the new plan. It was the thought of the Buckeye Lodge that if we participated in the vote and showed the company that a majority of the workmen in our plant were opposed to the employee representative plan that the plan would cease to exist and the organization preferred by the majority of the workmen, viz, Buckeye Lodge of the Amalgamated Association would be recognized by the company as the collective bargaining agency of the McDonald mills. This view was substantiated by the statements of several of the employee representatives that if an adverse vote were rendered, the plan would be eliminated. This, however, was not the case. Through the company's arbitrary decision, the plan was administered through districts and not by any logical collectivebargaining grouping such as plants. The plan received enough majority in the other two plants of the Youngstown district to impose it on the McDonald plant. A significant fact is that the plants wherein the plan was approved are without any type of true labor organization. Much confusion was made in the minds of the men because of the type of ballot used. It read, "Are you in favor of the employee representative plan as amended ", with spaces in which to make an "X" under yes" or no." The company in announcing the vote gave the impression that the men had affirmed the employee representative plan as preferred to an independent organization when nothing could be further from the truth. The employees have never had the slightest voice in independently making provisions in the plan. An interesting and peculiar feature of the voting was the erection of two large signs in the voting place, saying "vote yes", "employee representatives." Also, the employee representatives, avowed advocates of the amended plan, were the only ones to assist 66 illiterate voters in marking their ballots. A natural reluctance to participate in the next election of employee representatives was shown by the men and when this became apparent varying degrees of coercion were used to get them to vote. Among these were appeals to friendship by various bosses who said they might be criticized if their men did not vote, repeated urging by foremen, one man being approached seven times by officials before his resistance broke and he voted; the use of veiled insinuations was also prevalent. We do not believe it advisable at this time to go into detail as to the ineffectiveness of the employee representative plan as it is so generally conceded that company unions are merely fostered by the company to defeat true collective bargaining as to make this unnecessary. However, if any doubt exists in the minds of the committee, they merely have to examine the details of the plan or refer to the National Labor Board's decisions regarding company unions. (4) The repeated and discouraging refusals of the companies to deal collectively with bona fide labor organizations has fostered an air of desperation in the minds of many workmen and this "shoot the works" attitude can very possibly result in an industrial chaos, the like of which this country has never before seen. (5) We, Buckeye Lodge, can testify that since our inception and attempt to deal with the Carnegie Steel Co. there never has been made the slightest effort by the company to cooperate with us in real collective bargaining. The only results have been repeated discussions and mostly rebuffs on things of importance. This is an impossible situation that cannot long exist in a free country. We took literally the language of section 7 (a) of National Industrial Recovery Act and have cooperated with our Government to facilitate recovery in every possible way; now we feel that we have the full right to demand that our faithful performance of duty be recognized by the Congress of the United States by the enactment of the Wagner-Connery labor-relations bill. ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES, Hon. WILLIAM P. CONNERY, We believe our organization as now established conforms to all the principles laid down in the proposed act with the exception of the furnishing of financial support by our employer. Our experience through the past 15 years has been such as to confirm our belief that the furnishing of financial support if obtained as a result of collective bargaining does not hamper the proper functioning of a labor organization. We, therefore, respectfully request that the attached statement be included and become a part of the record of hearings before your committee and that the changes therein recommended regarding the proposed bill, S. 1958, be also made in a similar bill now before the Labor Committee of which you are chairman. Yours very truly, FIFTH GENERAL EXECUTIVE BOARD, TESTIMONY PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES, LONG LINES DEPARTMENT, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO., TO BE ENTERED IN AND BE PART OF THE RECORD OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR CONCERNING THE PROPOSED BILL (S. 1958) ENTITLED "NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT." We represent an organization of approximately 10,000 employees, known as the "Association of Employees. Long Lines Department, American Telephone & Telegraph Co.", and have been authorized to propose to this committee a change in paragraph 2, section 8, of the proposed bill, S. 1958. It is not our desire as an organization of employees to oppose or to discuss any other provisions of this bill. Quite naturally our individual members have varying opinions concerning each part of the bill and it would be difficult to ascertain and present a majority opinion concerning each item and particularly concerning any provision that may have political significance. Concerning the discussion of the relative merits of company unions versus other unions, it is not our desire to oppose or criticize the so-called “ regular union." We may say that the mapority of our people believe that those organizations are not only desirable but quite necessary, in a large number of cases, to adequately safeguard labor. We do, however, believe that our organization meets our needs and we do not wish to see enacted any legislation that would seriously interfere with our method of handling our problems. We wish to outline the set-up and the history of the functioning of our organization in order to provide the background for our satisfaction with our present plan and to satisfy this committee that we are doing what is expected of a conscientious labor organization, which, as we see it, is to constantly improve our members' standard of living and, in doing so, exercise a real appreciation of our responsibilities affecting our industry and the industrial health and peace of the Nation. The Association of Employees was formed December 31, 1919, by employee representatives chosen by the employees. Membership in the association has never been a condition of employment nor of participation in our pension and benefit plans. It has been, from time to time, constitutionally developed and strengthened at our own initiative to more effectively serve the employees. In order that insofar as possible our dissatisfactions may be settled at their source, our organization closely parallels the management organization. Local branches, our basic unit body, are established in the communities where our employees are located, higher bodies being successively district, division, department, and general boards. Officers are elected by each body. Representatives are sent from each body to the next higher body, composed of such representatives, and are elected from and by the members of the body being represented. Management people (roughly defined as those having the right to hire and fire) are not permitted membership and may not attend or participate in the elections or business meetings of any bodies. We have never known or heard of any attempt on the part of the management to influence any election of officers or representatives. We constantly use a provision made for carrying cases progressively to higher bodies when agreements satisfactory to employees are not reached with the managment in lower bodies. There are no restrictions within our own organization as to what type of question we may negotiate with the management nor has the management ever shown any reluctance to negotiate any type of case with us. Association members are responsible only to the association for their acts in connection with the functioning of the association. Meetings are regularly scheduled, monthly for the branch executive committees and annually and semiannually for the higher bodies. Special meetings are called at the discretion of the association. The officers and representatives are excused without loss of pay to perform their association duties. The association annually negotiates with the management a budget covering the succeeding year's association expenses and is responsible for the administration of the association's financial expenditures. We believe that this organization can continue exactly as at present should this bill be passed as proposed, with the exception of the proposed paragraph 2 of section 8. It is our conviction, based on our experience, that an employer can financially support an employee organization without violating any of the other provisions of this section. We therefore recommend that paragraph 2 of section 8 of this bill be changed to read as follows: "To dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or to contribute financial or other material supprt to it by compensating anyone for services performed in behalf of any labor organization, or by any other means whatsoever, except that it shall not be an unfair labor practice for an employer or anyone acting in his interest to contribute such financial or material support, provided that an agreement is made between the employer and the labor organization covering such material support by the employer for a definite period of not less than 1 year subsequent to the date of making the agreement." We do not believe that the act of financial support has of itself any subversive effect on the functioning of any labor organization or on the members of such an organization. The controlling effect of such support could be brought to bear if the labor organization had to obtain their company's approval for expenditures on each action they desired to take as the need for such action presented itself. With a prior agreement covering expenditures, this controlling effect is eliminated to just the extent the labor organization feels is essential. By this we mean that under the other provisions of the bill and under section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act the employees are free to organize as they choose and if they cannot obtain a financial support agreement suitable to their needs they may organize in any manner they desire. For 15 years we have handled the problems of our members scattered in groups of various sizes throughout practically the whole of the United States. In this period we have constantly improved our standard of living, have settled our cases peacefully and have been a real asset to ourselves, to the industry, and to the Nation. We know that we have the necessary ability within ourselves to handle our problems and have the intelligence to decide for ourselves the type of organization we want for collective bargaining. We have no feeling of asking for a paternalistic favor when negotiating our annual expense budget with the management and handle that detail with the same freedom as any other case furthering our interests. Our record seems to justify by those responsible for the guidance of our country, a careful consideration before eliminating such organizations as ours from their very evident field of usefulness and we ask a continuation of our right to make for ourselves those decisions affecting us as do those matters covered by this bill. These statements are in intent and purpose the same as those made on April 4. 1934, by a representative of our organization who appeared before the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor and submitted a statement of our views regarding the then proposed Wagner Labor Disputes act, S. 2926. Hon. Wм. P. CONNERY, Jr., DETROIT STEEL PRODUCTS CO., Chairman Committee on Labor, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CONNERY: It seems to me that bill H. R. 6288 will imperil tremendously the open-shop policy so satisfactorily employed in the United States for a good many years and would jeopardize the opportunity of employers dealing directly with employees on the basis satisfactory to them without coercion from outside sources. I hope, therefore, you will oppose this bill and request that my communication in this connection be made a part of the record of the committee's hearings. Yours sincerely, MASON P. RUMNEY, Vice President. AGRICULTURAL STRIKES OF 1933 The agricultural strikes which swept California agricultural districts in 1933 were the most extensive strikes of their kind in the agricultural history of California, as well as of the United States. For the total number of men involved, the crops affected, and the number of strikes taking place no comparison based on past experiences is at all possible. The magnitude of the strikes may be surmised by the fact that practically all the major crops of the State, such as grapes, peaches, sugar beets, rears, lettuce, cotton, and a number of others were affected directly and in danger of suffering serious losses. Of the total California crop value of 1933, the fruit crop, most affected by strikes, amounted to $128,124,000, while the field vegetable crops, in which strikes were extensive, amounted to $54,941,000. Together with the cotton crop, which amounted to $12,397,000, the agricultural strikes involved approximately 65 percent of the State's entire crop value of 1933. STATISTICAL DATA ON STRIKES In presenting statistical data on strikes attention must be called to the circumstance that most of the data presented below was compiled from current newspaper accounts, supplemented and corrected by such field reports of the agents of the State Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Law Enforcement, as were available. As in most instances, the newspaper estimates on the number of men involved in the individual strikes were usually guesses, often exaggerated, still more often underestimated, depending on whether the information of the reporter was obtained from the growers or the strikers; no amount of corrections made could possibly yield the actual number of workers involved in all the strikes, or even in the individual strikes. Moreover, some reports on strikes failed to mention either the number of men involved in a strike or the duration of a strike or the cause of a given strike or the settlement made, while a number of smaller strikes were not reported at all. Furthermore, in following the day-to-day development of a strike in a given locality, or in several localities, but involving the same crop, the number of strikers reported was constantly changing, sometimes more were reported as being on strike and sometimes less, depending on the progress of the strike in question and on the estimating moods of the reporter. Due to the circumstances mentioned, the strike data computed by this office is at best a rough approximation of the actual, and under no circumstances can be viewed in any other light. The following tabulation summarizes the estimated number of strikes, the estimated number of workers directly involved, and the estimated work days lost, together with the kind of crop involved and the locality of strikes : As is shown in the tabulation, close to 50,000 agricultural wage earners were involved during the 1933 strikes, with a loss of approximately 700,000 working days. It should be mentioned that the total of 37 strikes appearing in the tabulation does not necessarily represent the number of strikes which actually took place, for, as in the case of the cotton strike, although it is recorded in the tabulation as one strike, represented actually several strikes, if judged by the number of localities involved. The strikes affected, as is seen in the tabulation, 14 crops. Of the crops involved the cotton crop was the only one in which all the picking operations were tied up completely for a period of 27 days. Three strikes out of the total were participated in by over 5,000 workers, viz, the peach strike, the grape strike, and the cotton strike, which accounted for 15,000 strikers. Finally, the tabulation shows that of the 37 strikes listed 29 resulted in gains, 7 were reported as lost, with 1 unaccounted for. |