[Copied from the files of the National Association of Manufacturers] DEAR WALTER: There appears to be a considerable divergence of opinion on the question of entering into written contracts with labor unions. This is so even where the union is clearly the lawful bargaining force and other terms are equal and acceptable to both sides. It seems to me that those of us, to whom employers look for counsel, ought to take a position on this question. For my own part, I favor the written contract. I think if there is any safety for the employer it lies in a contract, the terms of which are plain to any one who can read English. The verbal understanding is capable of too much misrepresentation. The employer, presenting his side of a disagreement under the terms of a verbal arrangement has no chance at all to impress a public committed in advance, as it is, to the other side. Then there is the question of documentary evidence of union irresponsibility under its own contracts. How can we build a body of evidence of labor union irresponsibility looking to final regulation of labor unions upon hearsay stories? One man's word against another's? I cannot escape the conclusion that our job does not lie in the direction of fighting labor union per se but in shaping the kind of labor unionism we shall have. Don't you think our legislative committee should get together some time soon and discuss this whole question? It seems to me that we should tie together as many of our associations as possible and start definitely to collect at one central point the evidence that may, one day, bring about the regulation that must come if the industrial future is to be at all tolerable. Yours very truly, Mr. G. L. HOSTETTER, Employers Association of Chicago, 35 E. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois. DEAR MR. HOSTETTER: We have considered your recent suggestion that the League for Industrial Rights be invited to join the National Industrial Council. Upon examination we find that the League as a body is not eligible for membership. We shall, however, be delighted to have you invite Mr. Williams to attend with you when another meeting is called. I think this is perhaps the best way of enabling Mr. Williams to participate in the meetings. Very truly yours, 1 See exhibit 5450-D. NOEL SARGENT, Secretary. 89562-39-pt. 35-23 DEAR MR. DODGE: We particularly direct your attention to the enclosed statement by the General Motors Corporation, since it reflects essential principles of sound labor relations. Labor difficulties seem to be on the increase in all industry. It is important, therefore, that all Council affiliates follow the course of this situation in the automobile industry, as it is developing the newer technique of "labor dictation". We will continue to send you from time to time information concerning the developments in this situation, and urge that you transmit to your own membership such of the material as seems to be of particular value. We also suggest that all industrialists should be particularly advised at this time of the advantage of making a special check into their industrial relations policies in order that no practice be pursued that could be twisted or misinterpreted to the public as a reason for seeking labor dictation. A FEDERATION OF NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATIONS SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS DECEMBER 13, 1937. It would be helpful to us in our research work if we could obtain a nationwide picture of the amount of dues and revenues that are being paid into union treasuries. We realize of course the difficulties involved in getting an absolute accurate statement. However, we believe that if you can furnish us at your early convenience an approximate figure of the average monthly dues and assessments paid by union members in your area, we can then secure a fairly accurate estimate as to the total amount. If you have no average for all union members, perhaps you could supply the information for at least one or two union groups. We will also greatly appreciate any other information on this general subject which might be of value to us in determining the total amount of revenue insofar as your locality is concerned; such as the approximate amount of dues paid, total union members by various classes, etc. Thanking you sincerely for your cooperation in this matter, we remain AJB/al. ARMAND J. BRISSETTE, N. A. M. PRESS RELEASES RELATING TO LABOR EXHIBIT 5460 RAND DEFENDS COMPANY LABOR PLANS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS OF THE UNITED STATES General Offices: 11 West 42d Street, New York City Law Department: Investment Building, Washington, D. C. Release in Morning Papers of The attack by President William Green of the American Federation of Labor on employee representation plans was described today (Wednesday, September 20) by James H. Rand, Jr., Chairman of the Remington Rand Company1 as "unwarranted interference with existing satisfactory labor relationships in American industry." Describing the plan of employee representation in his own company, Mr. Rand declared that "the system of employee representation existing in the plants of the Remington Rand Company has been developed as a result of the specific actions and desires of the employees. Management and employees in our company are cooperating on a mutually satisfactory basis, and we believe such operation is in strict accord with the principles and intent of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Any effort at this time to disturb existing satisfactory relations in American industrial plants will tend to destroy the aims of President Roosevelt in increasing the stability and volume of employment. "Employees in our company are entirely free, as far as the management is concerned, to join or to refrain from joining any organization. Our employees prefer to deal with the management of their own company through their own representatives, and this plan of operation is working satisfactorily. In American industry as a whole probably more manufacturing workers are employed in employee representation or so-called company union plans than under the closed shop contracts advocated by the American Federation of Labor, under which employees who do not voluntarily choose to belong to a labor union are denied employment. "Our company employs men on a basis of their individual efficiency and without regard to their membership or non-membership in any organization, and is dealing with its own employees on a collective basis, which is mutually satisfactory. Attacks upon such method of operation tend to destroy the ability of the National Industrial Recovery Act to accomplish its purposes.' EXHIBIT 5461 SAN FRANCISCO STRIKE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS OF THE UNITED STATES Law Department: Investment Building, Washington, D. C. Future Release for Morning Papers of Friday, July 20, 1934. WASHINGTON, July 19.-The following statement dealing with the San Francisco strike and the denial of responsibility for conditions there by organized labor was issued today by the National Association of Manufacturers: 1 For testimony concerning N. A. M. article on Remington Rand labor policies see pt 18, pp. 7779 ff. "In the San Francisco threat to orderly government, the Nation has its answer in a spectacular and regrettable manner to the question of why employers are unwilling to submit to complete unionization of their plants. "Four major contentions have been advanced in recent months by industrialists who have opposed high pressure activities by labor organizations and against legislation proposed in Congress designed to accomplish a labor union monopoly. They were: "First, that if organized labor is to be recognized as a dominant part of society, it must in justice to employers and the public, accept legal and social responsibility for its acts to an extent equal to its power. "Second, that not only should coercion on the part of employers against workers be condemned, but employes who wish to work must be protected against intimidation and coercion on the part of other workers. "Third, that employers must not be stripped of their rights to combat radical movements. Organized labor will not or can not shoulder this responsibility for the suppression of radicalism. "Fourth, that with every public effort bent to recovery, agitation and strikes openly fomented by union leaders are playing America directly into the hands of radicals who are sowing the seeds of discontent with an un-American doctrine while wages are being increased and hours of work shortened. "A study of developments in the Pacific Coast area is ample justification of this position taken by employers and illustrates the wisdom of making illegal the sympathetic strike which at least one country has done already. "But national union officials now lightly disclaim responsibility for the acts of those for whom they claim to speak and deny the national significance of the San Francisco situation. There thousands of workers with whom employers in good faith had entered into contracts laid down their tools and walked out without presenting grievances. A city is paralyzed. The citizens suffer. Yet union officers who have sought to force employers to deal with them because they claimed to speak for workers now insist that it is a purely local action which they cannot control. "And quite aside from the employers' interest, the public has a right to ask: At what point in such a controversy are the public interests greater than those of the comparatively few union members involved and at what juncture of intimidation does the Constitutional promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' supersede the domination of irresponsible labor units? "If Government itself is to endure society must repudiate the idea that any labor union or other private group has a right to engage in activities such as preventing workers from accepting employment on terms satisfactory to themselves and their employers, closing city thoroughfares to citizens, saying which stores shall be allowed to sell to the public, apportioning a hungry populace to certain union restaurants, usurping governmental functions by declaring any class of goods contraband, denying farmers access to city markets, and similar high-handed activity not consistent with the rights of a free people?" EXHIBIT 5462 THE TEXTILE STRIKE PRESS [SEAL] SERVICE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS General Offices: 11 West 42d Street, New York City Law Department: Investment Building, Washington, D. C. Future Release for Morning Papers of Friday, September 7. NEW YORK. The unsuccessful effort of union leaders to call out a million men on strike in the cotton textile and allied fields was described today by the National Association of Manufacturers as "an open challenge to the Nation as to whether we shall have lawful procedure or government by force, threats or intimidation." "The calling of a general textile strike at this time with its accompanying violence and loss of work to thousands of men must be viewed as a direct threat to orderly government," the Association's statement said. "If code changes are to be made because of economic force displayed by labor unions instead of upon a basis of economic justification, then industry will collapse and government will be a subservient agency moving at the dictate of an organized minority." The Association also criticized the financing of strikes with Federal relief funds, asserting that union organizers were promising such funds to encourage strife. "Such a policy is tantamount to the Government underwriting force instead of preserving peace," the statement said. The statement follows: "The calling of a general textile strike at this time with its accompanying violence and loss of work to thousands of men must be viewed as a direct threat to orderly government. It constitutes an open challenge to the Nation as to whether we shall have lawful procedure or government by force, threats and intimidation. "If code changes are to be made because of economic force displayed by labor unions instead of upon a basis of economic justification, then industry will collapse and government will be a subservient agency moving at the dictate of an organized minority. Such a course would be a flat repudiation of the code procedure under which industry has cooperated in raising wages and curtailing hours of work to aid recovery. "This ill-advised strike was fomented in the face of steady and patriotic support of the recovery program from the textile industry. This industry was the first to go to the Recovery Administration last Spring with a code of fair competition. It was praised by President Roosevelt and General Johnson for its spirit, and the code as finally promulgated was described officially as fair to all. "Average hourly wages are now 37.3 cents per hour compared to 22 cents a year ago and between 32 and 33 cents in 1928 and 1929. This represents an increase of 70 per cent from a year ago and 15 per cent from 1929. "Only two months ago the Division of Research and Planning of the NRA in a special survey made at the request of organized labor reported that 'under existing conditions, there is no factual or statistical basis for any general increase in cotton textile code wage rates.' This conclusion, the Government report said, was based upon the fact that increased costs could not readily be passed on to consumers without lessening consumption, that the 'margin available for payment of wages has been squeezed between falling finished goods prices and rising raw material prices,' and that 'a further increase in costs can not readily be absorbed by industry, for apparently even present costs have to be met to some extent by dissipation of working capital.' "These were the conclusions of the government agency charged with determining whether code changes were possible at this time. It was the orderly way of determining the economic situation. Yet, despite this, union leaders seek to call a million men from their jobs in open defiance of the factual survey and through forceful means compel alteration of a code which is a law of the land. Fortunately, a majority of the loyal American citizens who work in the textile mills were not to be misled. "This strike demonstrates the necessity of making trade unions legally responsible for their acts and for observance of their contracts since both in the cotton textile fields and in allied textile industries workers in many plants have been ordered to leave their jobs despite non-strike clauses in contracts with their employers. "The result will be increased unwillingness on the part of employers to make contracts with unions unless and until they accept legislation imposing legal responsibility for their acts and for observance of contracts. |