Report of regular police force not including temporary employees acting as polici guards or watchmen during emergencies-Continued

2/20/20 to 5/31/34...$2, 753. 50 $1, 269. 00

Buffalo,

New Yot

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

(Exhibit 5223 is held in committee files. See p. 13840.)

EXHIBIT 5224

[From the Rotarian, July 1934]

Problems of employer-employee relations have claimed the thoughtful attention of Rotarians from Rotary's earliest days on to the present. . . . In March the 30-hour week problem was discussed pro and con in these columns. Here

with, two spokesmen present their views on how the collective bargaining principle, affirmed in the United States' National Industrial Recovery Act, should be applied. . . . This exchange of opinion is offered to readers of The Rotarian without prejudice, solely in the interests of a better understanding of the basic issues involved in this highly controversial question.-The Editors.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

1. THE EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION PLAN

By Tom M. Girdler, chairman of the board and president, Republic Steel Corporation

The current widespread epidemic of strikes or threatened strikes in the United States may have at least one useful result-it may help to clarify the issues involved and to bring before employees, employers, and the public at large the actual nature of the controversy existing between leaders of organized labor and leaders of industry.

The experience of the steel industry is particularly illustrative of these points. From propaganda put out by labor leaders, many people have, no doubt, gained the impression that the steel industry is opposed to collective bargaining.

This is not true. The industry stands squarely in favor of the right and the practice of collective bargaining with its employees.

The point in controversy has to do with the form of collective bargaining which is to be adopted.

The steel industry believes that the employee representation plan represents the best form of collective bargaining, for employees as well as employers, which has thus far been devised.

Labor unions, however, chiefly those affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, temporarily taking a dominating position under NRA and seeking governmental support out of all proportion to their memberships, are attempting to force the "closed shop" upon employees and employers alike, and claiming the exclusive right to represent employees in collective bargaining.

This is as objectionable to the great majority of the employees as it is to the employers. In the steel industry, only a small minority of the total number of employees belong to trade unions.

The steel industry has refused to recognize the unions because trade unionism means eventually the closed shop-and the closed shop, in the opinion of the industry, is absolutely contrary to the best interests of both employees and employers and in violation of section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which guarantees to all employees free choice of method of bargaining with employers.

Furthermore, in opposing the closed shop and union recognition, the steel industry has in mind past experience with American Federation of Labor unions-and that experience, with its examples of jurisdictional disputes, strikes, excessive dues, fines and penalties, limitation of output, philosophy of conflict, and intrusion of agents having little or no acquaintance with the industry or the rank and file of the employees they claim to represent, has not been conducive to the satisfaction of the employees or of the management.

The majority of employees in the steel industry, as well as the employers, believe that collective bargaining may best be accomplished in the interests of the employees themselves, as well as those of business and society at large, by the establishment of self-governing employees' organizations within the industry, whereby employees are free to elect representatives to deal with employers upon questions of wages, hours, working conditions, and all other matters of mutual interest.

Contrary to general opinion, the employee representation plan of collective barbaining is not new. It has been in use for years in many industries, including steel.

The employee representation plan is often referred to as a "company union." To the extent that this term indicates an organization of employees of a company for collective bargaining, this name is correct. However, the implication that management controls the affairs and decisions of the employee organization is absolutely unwarranted. In order for an employee representation plan to func

tion effectively, it is absolutely essential that employees have the right of ind pendent meetings, elections, and conclusions.

Under the employee representation plan, the employees of a company elec annually a definite number of representatives who will represent them i dealings with the management.

Supervisory employees, foremen, officers, and the like, are not permitted vote or to act as employee representatives. Elections are entirely in the hands c the employees and conducted by secret ballot. The company takes no parti the elections.

The representatives elected select their own chairman and appoint their ow committees and subcommittees. Regular meetings of these committees an scheduled for the discussion of any problems which may be raised by the en ployees. At agreed intervals, employee representatives meet jointly with repre sentatives of the management in order to facilitate the placing of questions raise by employees before the management, and to maintain a mutual interchange * opinions and ideas.

1

Any employee who has a suggestion to offer, or believes that he has a grievan may immediately bring up the matter with the proper employee representatives ¦ committee, who may, in turn, take the issue to the management. Decision then reached by mutual discussion between management and employee repre sentatives. If, however, an agreement cannot be reached, the question may then be referred for arbitration.

Questions settled and discussed under the employee representation plan includ wages, hours and working conditions, safety, health, sanitation, athletics, recre ation, education, housing, shop practice, the condition of the company's business and the like. The most intimate details of the business are discussed under these circumstances with a mutual understanding and confidence which would not and could not be done under any other arrangement.

Participation in an employee representation plan is purely voluntary. A employee may belong to a different type of labor organization, if he so chooses There is no discrimination against him for that reason. The principle of free choice is one of the foundations of the plan.

However, in most plants where the employee representation plan has beer functioning for any substantial period of time, by far the great majority of employees participate in the plan-and for that reason their representatives possess a unified opinion sufficient to lend the necessary weight to their conclusions.

It is of particular importance to review the advantages which the representation plan affords to the employees themselves-as contrasted with the method of collective bargaining offered by union labor. Among them are the following: (1) Union labor appears to have been built upon the theory that the interests of employers and employees are inevitably antagonistic-that there must be in the nature of things, a perpetual conflict between employer and employees. This accentuates class differences promotes bitterness and hostility, fosters dissatisfaction and friction, and drives a wedge between men and management. It is productive of no profit to anyone concerned.

The employee representation plan builds harmony, confidence, and understanding between employer and employees, and gives workmen a means of collective bargaining which will work to the mutual benefit of both employees and management.

(2) Under union labor, employees are represented by outsiders, often men of no mill experience, little familiarity with plant conditions, and interested chiefly in collecting dues and building up their own incomes and importance.

Under the employee representation plan, employees are represented by me whom they know personally-men who are thoroughly familiar with local conditions and know what they are talking about from experience.

(3) Leaders of union labor, in order to justify their existence, frequently deliberately create dissatisfaction, strife, disorganization, and strikes-making promises as to wages, hours, and working conditions which are impossible of fulfillment, simply in an effort to try to maintain their following among the men. The result is often destruction of confidence, falling off of business, decline in orders, and the necessity of taking men off pay rolls.

Thus organized labor in the long run defeats the best interests of the employees themselves.

Under the employee representation plan, employees as well as employers work together to preserve confidence and harmony which will make for better business and, in the long run, for better wages.

(4) Under union labor, when a question comes up between men and management, the union leaders who are supposed to represent the men may be miles away in a different city, and days may pass before they can take up the question with the management. When they do arrive, the union leaders may not know local conditions, and may not make allowances for variations between different plants or different cities. Labor unions are too large for their men to give day-to-day consideration to issues arising at various plants.

The employee representation plan provides for day-to-day action. Issues which arise may be discussed and settled immediately, and local matters pertaining to each plant may be taken up and settled in a manner satisfactory for that particular plant.

(5) Under union labor, an employee has no right as an individual. He is not allowed to take his case before his employer or make his own bargain with his employer, if he prefers to do so. Furthermore, under the closed shop demanded by the union, a man must belong to the union or lose his job.

Under the employee representation plan, any employee may present his individual case at any time. He may participate in the plan or not, as he chooses. He is guaranteed his right to free choice and free action.

(6) Trade-unionism strives to prevent men from broadening their experience or increasing their usefulness. It allows no man to do any form of work except that which falls under his own trade. It objects to promotion on the basis of reliability or merit.

The employee representation plan gives free play to individualism, encourages the use of the incentive system, permits recognition of superior ability, and offers employees opportunity for advancement based upon capacity for leadership, proven intelligence, and production efficiency.

(7) Payment of dues is the one essential qualification for membership in a labor union. Under a closed shop, if a union man does not pay his dues he is not only forced to leave his job, but is prevented from securing any other job in a union shop.

No dues are required to participate in the employee representation plan. Under this plan, the management recognizes the right of employees to elect representatives, to bargain collectively, and to consider all problems having to do with employee welfare, as an inherent privilege.

How the representation plan actually works out in practical operation may best be shown by actual facts and figures.

A survey made by the American Iron and Steel Institute of activities in employee representation plans during the first four months of operation under the Steel Code demonstrates how successfully these plans are meeting problems arising in the day's work.

Reports were received from large and small plants which employ 285,000 workers, nearly 70 per cent of all those then employed in the industry. During the four months covered by the survey of July to October, 1933, some 1,361 meetings were held and 4,082 cases were referred to representatives or to committees for consideration.

There was actual collective bargaining between employees and management in all the cases considered with the result that employees' requests were granted in 70 per cent of such cases; 18.3 per cent of them were decided in favor of the employers; 4.6 per cent were withdrawn and 7.1 per cent were compromised. The experience of our own company is typical.

During the first ten and a half months the plan was in operation, 1,536 different matters were discussed and settled. Of this number 72.5 per cent were settled in favor of employees, 12.5 per cent were settled in the negative, 3.3 per cent were withdrawn by the employees, 3.7 per cent were compromised, and only 8 per cent of the total cases were still pending settlement as of May 1, 1934.

It is especially interesting to note that 1,142 cases, or 74.3 per cent of the total, had to do with employment, working conditions, wages, safety, and welfare,

which are, of course, the most important matters in which employees are interested.

The results obtained show that employee representatives know the needs and views of employees, and have not hesitated to step forward and present these needs and views to management-and they have gotten remarkable results.

Anyone who has seen the representation plan in operation, and has watched employee representatives stand up in joint meetings with management representatives and state what the men wanted and why they wanted it, would be amazed at the intelligence and effectiveness with which the employee representatives function, and would realize in an instant how utterly unfounded were any suspicions of company domination.

These men are not afraid. They have no reason to be. They tell their side of the story to management without hesitation, and in no uncertain manner. Management representatives act in the same spirit.

One important result of this complete frankness is that the employees are taken into the confidence of the management and told facts and figures having to do with costs and earnings. In this way the men obtain a reasonable understanding of their employer's production and financial problems, so that they can realize the nature of the factors upon which employers' decisions are based. A situation of this sort would be utterly out of the question under a union labor regime.

This is simply another instance of the manner in which the employee representation plan substitutes for the old spirit of conflict the new spirit of coop eration and conference in industrial relations.

In the steel industry, the great majority of the men-to the best of our information-have already indicated that they prefer the employee representation plan. Neither these employees nor the management will be willing to submit to the dictates of a minority, dominated by outside organizers, who are urging the retention of obsolete and antiquated methods of employee organization which have neither excuse nor usefulness in an era of enlightened industrial relations.

EXHIBIT 5225

EXTRACT

REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY

Board of Directors, May 23, 1933: "The Chairman referred to the proposed Industrial Recovery Bill pending in Congress and stated that Executives of this Corporation were cooperating with those of other steel companies in study of such legislation and recommendations thereunder. He further stated that the Officers of the Corporation were giving careful consideration to adoption of plan for employees representation."

EXHIBIT 5226

Executive Committee, June 12, 1933: "The Chairman stated that the management of the Corporation had been working very actively in the development of a plan of employees representation along the lines of the Bethlehem plan and proposed to put such plan in force as promptly as practicable, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors or of the Executive Committee. Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried the officers were authorized to complete and inaugurate such a plan on the basis of the general principles of the Bethlehem plan, with such modifications as they might deem advisable."