Industrial relations is certainly the most important domestic problem confronting the country today, and the measures adopted by this Congress may well affect the economic structure and the ultimate fate of this country. It is the responsibility of the Committee on Education and Labor to present to the Congress its recommendations with respect to the solution of this industrial problem. At the moment the Committee is engaged in a long and detailed study of the various issues. Representatives of labor, industry, and the public are appearing before the Committee and presenting their views. For example, during the past week they met representatives of labor and management involved in the recent strike against the Philadelphia Record – Mr. Stern as the Publisher of the paper, and for labor the representatives of the American Newspaper Guild, who led the strike.
To understand clearly the position of labor today, it is necessary to go back into the economic and social history of our country.
The economic history of the United States has been featured by the age-old struggle to limit the powers of monopolies along lines that will take full cognizance of the stake of the public in those powers. This is the fight that has occupied the attention of Congress and the courts for many years.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, passed at the end of the 19th century, set out to prevent monopolistic practices in restraint of trade and to preserve our free, competitive system. The Interstate Commerce Commission was set up to supervise the regulation of rates and the financing of railroad companies. This was our first administrative agency and from that beginning there since has developed the wide field of administrative law. Later banking presented a national problem and action was taken on a national scale when it passed the Federal Reserve Act.
Along with these limitations and the powers of our captains of industry, the public became more and more concerned with the position of the workers in the industrial machinery. Men were working twelve and fourteen and sometimes sixteen hours a day on a small salary. The conditions under which they worked were dangerous and frequently unhealthy. What was even more outrageous was the position of women and children in the factories, many of them in Massachusetts, who were working for a minimum compensation.
The Clayton Act passed in 1914 was an attempt to equalize the bargaining power of employers and employees by permitting unions to organize non-union employees – by admitting that they had an economic interest in so doing and by enlarging their sphere of legitimate operation through the economic justification theory.
The Clayton Act was loosely drawn – the Supreme Court interpreted it strictly and it was not until the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 that the economic struggle became more equalized. The Norris-LaGuardia act prohibited yellow-dog contracts – it prohibited injunctive interference with unions pursuing what was in their opinion economic free enterprise. And equally important it reinforced the Clayton Act in exempting unions from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act was followed by the National Labor Relations Act passed in 1935, the basic purpose of which was to strengthen the freedom of workers to organize by keeping them free from all possible interference by employers and by giving scope to their access to employers across the conference table. To interpret this Act and to carry it out, the National Labor Relations Board was set up and was given wide powers to use public authority to prevent employers from engaging in specified unfair labor practices.
This is all preliminary to the present day. The basic question before Congress is whether the strength of the unions through law, through the directives of the NLRB, and finally through the decisions of the Supreme Court have grown so much in relation to the employers that their powers today are monopolistic and injurious to the public welfare. Industry and much of the public say that they are – the union leaders say they are not.
The stoppages in key industries during reconversion emphasized the vulnerability of the public in the battle of opposing interests. There have been many suggestions as to the manner in which the public interests and their rights of all directly concerned may be protected. They can be listed under the following seven headings.
-
Proposals affecting the process of collective bargaining.
-
Imposing legal obligations and responsibilities on unions.
-
Designating "unfair labor practices" of unions.
-
Eliminating certain union practices.
-
Outlawing certain types of strikes.
-
Imposing requirements for internal management of unions.
-
Modification with respect to employers.
In regards to number one, "proposals affecting the process of collective bargaining," – perhaps the most discussed proposal – is to prevent bargaining on a national, all-inclusive, industry-wide basis, and to limit collective bargaining to individual plants or companies or regions. It is argued that this would prevent entire industries from being tied up – such as in the coal industry last fall – and that individual plants could come to an agreement quicker than if the bargaining was nationwide. Other proposals under this heading are cooling-off periods, making labor agreements enforceable through civil suits for damages in the federal district courts – and compulsory arbitration of grievances arising under union agreements.
Under number two, "imposing legal obligations and responsibilities on unions," there are two major suggestions frequently put forward. The outlawing of the use of force in connection with any strike, and the incorporation and registration of unions.
Under number three, "designating ‘unfair labor practices’ of unions," it is advocated that the following activities be declared unfair labor practices: (1) Coercion of employees; (2) Calling of a strike without a favorable majority vote of all employees by secret ballot; (3) Imposing of restrictions on unions conducting strikes – such as mass picketing.
Under proposal number four, "eliminating certain union practices," we find proposed (1) prohibition of requirements of "work permits" under which the employee is permitted to work for the duration of the permit – but not to join the union; (2) The prohibition against resorting to economic pressure to prevent use of cheaper or improved equipment. If this is adopted it will be necessary to increase our unemployment compensation; (3) Unions will be prohibited from compelling employers to hire unnecessary labor; (4) The prohibition against union enforced embargoes on the "importation" of goods across state, county or city lines.
On proposal number five, "outlawing certain types of strikes," we find that it is proposed that there be outlawed (1) strikes without notice or without majority vote of employees in plant. (2) strikes against the government. (3) strikes over union jurisdiction. (4) strikes to obtain closed shops. (5) strikes in public utilities.
Under proposal number six, "imposing requirements for internal management of unions," we find (1) the prevention of excess dues, for example, in parts of this country the glaziers union charges $1500 entrance fee. (2) providing for the democratic internal control. (3) requiring a fair hearing and written charges before a man can be deprived of membership.
Lastly, under number seven, "modification with respect to employers," we find (1) to give management the right of free speech. (2) to clarify the position of foremen in regard to unionization. (This is now being decided by the Supreme Court).
Of all these proposals for minimizing labor strife there are three over which there is the most controversy.
-
The "closed shop".
-
Industry wide bargaining.
-
Strikes in industries vital to the public health, welfare and safety of the public.
The opposition to the closed shop is mostly on the ground that it limits the right of the worker; that it denies him freedom to work unless he pays union dues and submits to union regulations. Its proponents say that it prevents the strife that union workers and non union workers engage in when they work side by side; that seventy five percent of the unionized workers in this country are now in the closed shop and it is "un-American" for the men to receive the benefits of the union’s fight without paying his way.
It is my belief that in spite of Senator Ball’s bill – the closed shop will be permitted.
The second most discussed subject is industry wide bargaining. Its opponents say that it gives the unions a monopolistic power forbidden to industry by the Sherman Act, and that through industry’s wide bargaining you can vitally affect the public welfare, as happened last fall in the coal strike.
Its proponents say that industry wide bargaining stabilizes wages in an industry and prevents an employer from underselling a competitor because of the advantage he gains by paying low wages.
The third disputed area and perhaps the most difficult problem to solve are strikes in essential industries. Who is to determine whether an industry is essential? Is the coal industry essential? "Yes" in December but perhaps "no" in July.
Some advocate that the President and a board be given power to declare when an industry is essential to the public health, welfare, and safety, and that when the President does so declare – the dispute must be arbitrated.
Labor objects to this on the ground that any limitation on the right to strike is an interference with the right to work or not to work and can lead to involuntary servitude. They argue that this would take away their only power – the power of association – the power of the strike.
The general counsel of the A F of L expressing his opposition to the "cooling off" period put the union position on limitation of their power to strike very clearly when he said, "Whether it is designated as a "cooling-off," or given some other term of designation, it amounts to the same thing, involuntary servitude which is prohibited by the thirteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.
They argue further that in industries essential to the public welfare there have been so few strikes that it is not a major problem.
The general position of the unions towards these suggested changes in the laws is that the proponents of these changes are attempting to break the powers of the unions and to weaken gravely their economic position. Many of the leaders of the unions have come up through decades of hard battles with industrial leaders always at their throats. They have had to fight for everything they now possess and they would not submit to what they term an "attack on their basic rights" without a stubborn fight. They argue that any changes, no matter how small, are merely the opening wedge.
In spite of the strong stand against any changes, I believe that there will be, without argument from either side, two much needed changes. One, the outlawing of the secondary boycotts, and two, the outlawing of jurisdictional strikes. Undoubtedly there will be other changes recommended. It is my own opinion that industry-wide bargaining and the closed shop, in spite of much agitation, will still be permitted. There may be laws holding unions responsible for contracts prohibiting mass picketing making the unions accountable, but it is still too early to tell the eventual form of the new labor bill.
It is well to remember in viewing the labor management problem that only in a limited field will laws ease the industrial struggle. It would, for example, be difficult to pass a law without infringing on basic freedoms which would have prevented the Stern-Guild fight in Philadelphia. Much of the struggle between management and employees comes from stubborn personalities – from old hatred – and from feelings of insecurity.
The labor problem is one of tremendous significance to the national welfare.
I myself have reached no final conclusions. Tremendous work is still required, and the legislation which is proposed must be adequate to solve the problem and at the same time not deny labor its basic rights won at so great a cost.
The most difficult thing is to rid oneself, if that is possible, of unconscious prejudices, to try to see the problem fairly, to be unsawed by emotion. I think that these thoughts are best expressed by Lord Chief Justice Scrutton in the Cambridge Law Journal:
"I am not speaking of conscious impartiality; but the habits you are trained in, the people with whom you mix, lead to your having a certain class of ideas of such a nature that, when you have to deal with other ideas, you do not give as sound and accurate judgments as you would wish. This is one of the great difficulties at present with labor. Labor says: "where are your impartial judges? They all move in the same circle as the employers, and they are all educated and nursed in the same ideas as the employers. How can a labor man or a trade unionist get impartial justice? It is very difficult sometimes to be sure that you have put yourself into a thoroughly impartial position between two disputants."
This is certainly true today. It is the problem that all of us, whether we be on the side of labor, of industry, or of the consumer, must face.
Any decisions that we now take, if they are to accomplish their purposes, must be taken with an eye to the future of our country. Beyond all group interests, above all rights, rise duties to the community.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. House of Representatives Files, Box 93, "Labor speeches (1 of 2 folders)." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.