Amendments to the Wagner Act.-Following extended discussion of the Wagner Act the Committee adopted the following statement:

The National Labor Relations Act is incomplete

in not affording protection to employees against coercion by fellow employees or anyone else whether or not members of rival unions;

in affording no protection to minority groups of employees against demands or agreements made by majority groups of employees;

by inadequate definition of the "majority" which may elect representatives to deal with management.

The National Labor Relations Act is inadequate with respect to employers by affording them no protection, even where dealing collectively with their employees, against either jurisdictional disputes or sympathetic strikes; the employer, moreover, is given no right to appeal to the Labor Board to determine the representatives of company employees.

Following subsequent discussion of suggested amendments to the Wagner Act previously submitted by cooperating industrial associations, it was moved by Mr. J. O. Carr, seconded by Mr. Morrell and carried that the following amendments to the Wagner Act (to be incorporated in Section 9 or Section 24 in such wording, and at such points, as considered desirable by the legal staff of the N. A. M.) be approved:

"No labor organization shall be certified as qualified to represent employees or otherwise claim rights under the Act, which:

"a. Does not submit audited financial reports to its membership and to the public;

"b. Makes political contributions;

"c. Requests the employer to deduct union dues from payrolls without the written consent of the individual employee;

"d. Approves a general strike;

"e. Sanctions strikes not approved by a majority of members in a secret ballot; "f. Sanctions strikes in which the property of any person is illegally occupied ; "g. Denies legal responsibility for the acts of its officers and agents, in accordance with the established rules of agency which govern all other persons and organizations;

"h. Permits aliens to hold office or be employed in any capacity."

Moved by Mr. J. O. Carr, seconded by Mr. Drew and carried, that the Wagner Labor Relations Act be amended in such a way that employers be specifically allowed to demand an election and that after either party requests an election no strikes or lockouts can be called until after the election.

Moved by Mr. Drew, seconded by Mr. J. O. Carr and carried, that Section 7 or Section 8 (1) of the N. L. R. A. be amended in such a way that coercion or intimidation of employees be prohibited from any source whatsoever.

Moved by Mr. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Poole that in Paragraph 9, Section 2, 5th line of the N. L. R. A., the words "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee" be deleted. After considerable discussion this motion was not carried.

Labor relations platform.-A suggested labor relation platform of industry and a policy memorandum on labor relations were considered and after an extensive discussion several sections of the original drafts were deleted and other sections were revised. A motion was made and carried to accept the revised statements, which in combined form are submitted as an Appendix with these minutes.

Closed shop.-Mr. Hollaender made a motion, seconded by Mr. Morrell that we oppose and do everything possible to resist the closed shop. A substitute motion was made by Mr. Poole, seconded by Mr. Sperry and carried that the N. A. M. reaffirm the following stand in its Declaration of Principles for American Industry as adopted at our 1936 meeting:

"We believe in and support the right of labor to seek, secure and retain em ployment without regard to membership or nonmembership in any organization without interference or coercion by anyone, either collectively or individually. Ballot form.-After a consideration of the various types of ballots used in different Labor Board elections, it was requested that there be reprinted i our Labor Relations Bulletin samples of such ballots.

Unemployment census.-The next matter taken up by the Committee was what method should be used to conduct an unemployment census if an unemployment census is to be taken. Mr. Harrington, who was Chairman of the Committee which had this problem under consideration last year, after pointing out the various difficulties involved, moved that the most feasible plan was to have the Census Bureau take an unemployment census and that the national government should be urged to anticipate the 1940 population census and take an unemployment census in connection with such population census as soon as possible; seconded by Mr. Poole and carried.

The pending Maloney Bill was next considered in conjunction with the unemployment census. The principle involved in this Bill as originally introduced, wherein the working hours in industry would be set up on a sliding scale according to the amount of unemployment as revealed by a Federal census, was discussed. It was moved by Mr. Poole, seconded by Mr. Harrington and carried, that any such principle wherein the working hours of industry would be adjusted according to the number of unemployed as revealed by the census, be opposed.

Byrnes Bill.-Attention was called to Senate Bill #2403, which was introduced by Senator Byrnes, which would prohibit the transportation of certain persons in interstate or foreign commerce during labor controversies. There was some discussion of this Bill, but no action was taken at this time. Labor monopoly.-Mr. Webster, Chairman of the Committee, made the following statement on labor monopoly, which he wished to be transmitted to the Board of Directors:

"Monopoly has long been abhorent to American public opinion and strict laws have been enacted and enforced relating to monopolies having to do with commodities. The reason for this is that monopolies enhance the price which consumers must pay for commodities.

"The policies of the labor unions involve the setting up of the most gigantic monopoly that the world has ever known. It would require all commodity producers to extract from purchasers enormous sums of money and to turn them over to the officers of the labor unions who make no accounting of them. "The best method of dealing with such a situation is to apply corrective measures before the monopoly becomes an accomplished fact."

A motion was made, seconded and carried that the views expressed should be elaborated upon and incorporated in the educational and public information campaign which the N. A. M. is undertaking in order to call attention of the consuming public to the very serious consequences of such a policy. Respectfully submitted.

NOEL SARGENT, Secretary.

INDUSTRY'S LABOR RELATIONS PLATFORM

Current discussion of labor relations indicates that there is a need for constructive analysis and statement, for the benefit of both industry and the public, of the economic importance of sound employment relations, the basis of mutually satisfactory employer-employee relations, and the application of sound employment relations principles to current labor problems.

At its last annual meeting the Association emphasized the necessity of "full and free cooperation between management and employees"; it further accepted a detailed analysis of sound employment procedures presented by the Association's Employment Relations Committee, following careful study for over eight months.

With this broad basis we now submit the following recommendations dealing with both principles and policies of employment relations

A. Principles

1. Employment exists only when industry is operating.

2. Industry can operate only when it can sell its products.

3. Industry can sell its products only when their prices are reasonable; if prices are too high the public won't buy and both the employees and employers will suffer.

4. Prices depend primarily on the total cost of production.

5. Costs of production decrease when employers and employees cooperate efficiently and go up when employers and employees do not cooperate; efficient production is increased when employers select, promote and retain employees on the basis of their individual ability and accomplishment.

6. Employer-employee cooperation depends upon the existence of mutually satisfactory employment relations.

7. Since satisfactory employment relations must be based upon cooperation between employers and employees both should be free to propose any method or plan for employer-employee cooperation.

8. Since the employer can assist in the development and maintenance of mutually satisfactory employment relations by having a sound company employment relations policy every company should possess such a policy.

9. In addition to possessing a soundly planned employment relations policy it is necessary to provide that it be effectively administered at all times.

10. When conditions become such that individual contact by managers with employee and employment problems becomes difficult and even impossible then there should exist means of cooperative collective negotiation between individual employees and managements.

11. The employer should not engage in the compulsory collection of union dues by deducting such dues from the wages due the employee. This is generally known as the check-off system.

12. Government owes the same duty to the industrial taxpayer as to all other taxpayers to protect them in the right to peaceful occupation and use of their property.

13. Government efforts to regulate employment conditions and relations should be primarily used only when health, morals or safety are involved.

14. In the public interest the government should prevent collusive combination or agreements between employers and employees which will result in increased living costs to consumers as a whole.

15. Employers and employees should make every reasonable effort to voluntarily arbitrate labor disputes, but compulsory governmental arbitration of such disputes is contrary to American principles, since it involves government compulsion upon the acts of both employers and employees.

B. Memorandum on Legislative and Public Relations Application of Sound Employment Relations Principles

(NOTE. The following sections were approved by the Employment Relations Committee as sound in principle and policy, and as a base for one or more public statements on labor relations.)

1. Advocacy of any legislation might well center upon this idea, which could advantageously be repeated time and again:

A Democratic form of government is not based upon the right of individuals or groups or temporary majorities to do as they see fit without limitations. It is, instead, based on the idea that rights must be subject to limitations designed to protect the whole of society. In other words, the objective of Democracy is to preserve society and not individuals, groups, or even temporary majorities. Absolute liberty is anarchy. Our form of government recognizes that and consequently places limitations upon the rights of all. However, exceptions have been made of labor organizations. They enjoy special privileges, special exemptions, which are extended to no other group. For the protection of society, it is essential that unions be required to abide by limitations essential to the preservation of the whole.

Thus, by advocating labor responsibility legislation, we are not seeking preferential treatment for employers or for any group, but we are seeking to protect society as a whole.

2. The interests of the public and sound relations between employers and employees would be promoted by the passage of legislation which would regulate labor union activities in the following respects:

(a) Yearly reporting of audited receipts and expenditures to public authorities and their official publication.

(b) Prohibition of political contributions.

(c) Prohibition of sympathetic and general strikes.

(d) Penalizing non-observance of contracts.

(e) Apprenticeship ratios which do not arbitrarily restrict the opportunity to learn a trade.

COERCION

3. The purpose behind recent labor legislation is to assure to individuals freedom in the choice of whether they will join a union and what union they will join, for purposes of collective bargaining. The Wagner Law, however, protects employees only from coercion by employers. It says nothing about the notorious types of pressure which may be exerted upon an employee by fellow employees or by outside organizers.

As the law now stands, there is a legal obligation upon the employer to avoid coercing his employees with respect to whether they will join the union and if so which union. There is also an implied moral obligation because of the basic intent of the Wagner Act, for the employer to refuse to deal with a labor organization which has coerced his employees. If, for example, an employer is confronted with demands from two labor organizations for the right to represent his employees in collective bargaining and if he knows that one of those organizations has used coercion to obtain members, he would be morally justified-though not legally, if a majority vote had been cast for the coercing group-in dealing with the other.

Should not the law be so amended that an impartial individual or agency should make this decision instead of the employer?

INTER-UNION DISPUTES

4. Two labor unions, without using coercion to obtain members, may simultaneously present demands to an employer, both groups insisting that they represent a majority of his employees. Each may threaten to strike if the employer negotiates with the other. Under the law, as applied by the National Labor Relations Board, the employer must decide with which group he will deal. If he guesses wrong, it is conceivable that subsequent proceedings may be brought against him by the Board on the complaint of the unsuccessful union. In any event, he may have a strike on his hands regardless of the correctness of his decision.

Should some definite method be established to protect the employer, the employees, and the public in such a case? If so, what?

UNION FINANCES

5. (a) Unions should be required to make annual financial statements to their members as well as to the public.

(b) Unions should be forbidden to make political campaign contributions. Corporations are already forbidden to make such contributions. The reasons behind that prohibition are (a) that the funds do not belong to the organization but to the individual members and that the diversity of political wishes would make impossible a proper use of the money and (b) that contributors may expect and demand preferential treatment not only in the enactment of new laws but in the administration and enforcement of existing laws. Unions represent minorities and individuals with differing political views just as corporations do. They have no more right to expect to buy preferential treatment than do corporations.

STRIKE REGULATIONS

6. Strikes are expensive.-In many recent cases, striking employees themselves even though they obtained wage increases have lost more by striking than they will earn on the new wage scale in years. Furthermore, the general public-the consumer-must bear the burden of any strike because it is to him that the cost is finally passed. Should there not, therefore, be some limitation upon the right to strike?

89562-39-pt. 35—6

Some of the following suggested points could be covered by State legislation; others by Federal.

(a) No strike should become legal until employees demands are formally presented and reasonable time has been allowed for settlement by peaceable means. With increasing frequency, strikes are being called for two purposes: (a) to show the new union member that his organization is effective, and (b) to win a favorable position, or an advantage, for subsequent dealings with the employer. In many cases, strikes could be avoided by the simple presentation of demands and negotiations.

(b) Strikes in violation of agreements should be forbidden.-To illustrate, an employer and his employees may make an agreement on wages and hours with the understanding that it is to be in effect for a year. Subsequently, the union may decide that it did not ask enough in the first place and call a strike before the agreement has expired. The employer, in such circumstances, has little if any recourse.

A further illustration is when an employer and an employee group may make an agreement to remain effective for a specified period and may include in that agreement a stipulation that subsequent differences will be arbitrated or negotiated before a strike is resorted to. If the union calls a strike, the employer again has little or no recourse.

(c) Strikes to compel an employer to violate the law should be forbidden.— To illustrate, longshoremen may strike, demanding that a certain ship operator refuse to accept goods brought to him by non-union teamsters. Under the law, the employer is required to accept goods brought to him by any individual without discrimination and acceptance of union demands in such a case as this would require him to violate the law.

(d) Strikes to coerce public officers-government officials-into any course of ACTION should be forbidden.-Instrumentalities of government created and operated in the interest of the general public, should be protected from interference by strikes.

(e) Strikes involving essential public services—transportation, water supply, electrical supply, telephone service, etc.-should be forbidden.-Employers who supply public utilities are required by law to provide continuous service at reasonable rate to all who apply for service.

or

(f) The Byrnes law forbids interstate transportation of persons for the purpose of using them to interfere with peaceful picketing. The same law, another, should forbid interstate transportation of strike makers.-The use of flying squadrons is notorious. In the recent automobile riots at Anderson, Indiana, it is common knowledge that outsiders stimulated trouble. probably would have been no violence, or at least less violence had interstate transportation of trouble makers been prohibited.

There

(g) General and sympathetic strikes should be forbidden.-A general strike in America today would in effect be revolution; it would stop all the normal processes of government and would endanger the lives of millions of Americans While general public opinion probably would prevent a general strike, there should be direct and definite legislation on the subject. Many sympathetic strikes involve both employers and employees in disputes which do not concern them and which they would prefer to avoid.

MISCELLANEOUS

(7) Sit down strikes are illegal and should not be permitted or tolerated Their participants should not be allowed the protection of the Wagner Labo Act or other labor legislation.

(8) Labor organizations should be legally responsible for their conduct of the conduct of their agents. Many such organizations exercise tremendou power on a Nation-wide scale and such power is a public menace and deterren to fair and harmonious relations between employer and employee unless accom panied by corresponding responsibility.