STRIKE TRENDS, SELECTED PERIODS The number of work stoppages occurring in the three postwar years (1946, 1947, and 1948) has, with a single exception (1937), remained consistently higher than during the 1930's. This trend is even more pronounced when the lost time factor is considered. Idleness of approximately 34,000,000 man-days for 1948 was greater than for any prewar year on record. In the 18 months since the passage of the Taft-Hartley law (July 1947 through December 1948), 259 strikes began, on the average, each month. This level is below the abnormal war and immediate postwar period but is above the 1935 to 1939 average of 239 strikes per month. In other words, the number of stoppages occurring each month since June 1947 has been 8 percent higher than during the 5-year prewar period under the National Labor Relations Act. On the basis of number of workers involved, the Taft-Hartley period since June 1947 has witnessed, each month, an average of 46,000 more workers on strike than during the more peaceful 1935 to 1939 period, or an increase of 50 percent. Idleness occasioned by labor-management disputes in the 18 months ending with December 1948 was 80 percent greater than during 1935 to 1939. In round figures, approximately 2,530,000 days of strike idleness were recorded each month since June 1947 as against a prewar monthly average of but 1,410,000 man-days. Thus, compared with the prewar Wagner Act era, the Taft-Hartley period has witnessed 8 percent more strikes, 50 percent more workers involved, and 80 percent more idleness. Work stoppages, year 1948 as compared with 1935-39 average 1,950,000 1,125,000 3. Number of workers involved in strikes as percent of total employed (per cent). 5.6 4. Man-days idle. 34,000,000 4.4 16,900,000 5. Percent of estimated working time lost in relation to total time worked (percent) 1 Preliminary estimates. RELATION OF STRIKE ACTIVITY TO SIZE OF LABOR FORCE Line 3 shows that in 1948 relatively more workers were involved in stoppages (as compared with the total employed) than the average for the 5 years 1935-1939. Line 5 shows that idleness resulting from stoppages in 1948 was somewhat greater (in relation to total time worked) than during the 5 years 1935-39. Senator SMITH. Let me make it clear, Mr. Secretary, that I am as much in favor as you are of eliminating as much legislation as we can. I was a member of the group working on that legislation, and I can say there was no more sincere committee that ever worked on such legislation. Secretary ТоBIN. That is fine. Senator SMITH. But there were certain things that we came to the conclusion had to be met, and you leave some of them out, and I am simply trying to find out why you left them out. Now, take section 8 (b), which provided for the first time what would be unfair labor practice that is (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which was an amendment to the Wagner Act. The Wagner Act, you will recall, only defines unfair labor practices by the employer. It was meant to be a one-sided act, and simply meant for the employers to be good. Now, we did find abuses in big labor, and to be fair we said we should define practices in that area. All you find in unfair labor practices on the labor side or the union side are the jurisdictional strikes, and I commend you for meeting that difficulty there, although I do not think you are broad enough in your conclusion. Secretary TOBIN. Also, secondary boycotts of the type defined in the bill. Senator SMITH. But there is where you stop. There is nothing in here-what I am getting at, first, was to protect the individual worker the way we tried to protect him in the union-shop idea, to protect him in the closed shop that way. Frankly, you have not satisfactorily answered my question as to why y you should not use the same procedure to protect him in the closed shop. There is provision 5 in the Taft-Hartley Act which forbids requiring of employees covered by an agreement authorized under subsection (a) (3) the payment, as a condition precedent to becoming a member of such organization, of a fee in an amount which the Board finds excessive or discriminatory under all the circumstances. That is just to protect the workers against excessive fees. Secretary TOBIN. And I tell you in 18 months we have not one complaint before the National Labor Relations Board. At least, we have asked about it, and have not had one complaint called to our attention. Senator SMITH. But we have, and it seems to me there can be no possible objection to protecting your workers against that, and to leave it to the National Labor Relations Act to decide whether the fee is excessive. I cannot believe it is right to leave the power of life and death over these people to earn their livelihood with no control at all, with no protection against excessive initiation fees. I have had men say to me that, before they can get a job, they have to put down $50 in cash. Secretary TOBIN. Well, I think, Senator, I know the history pretty well. Most of it occurred in the wartime; most of those who perpetrated those practices were new labor leaders and in areas of cantonments where they were taking in all kinds of workers. There is quite a difference. Senator SMITH. Why shouldn't the Government protect the workers against that kind of abusive practice? Secretary TOBIN. The day that the terrific demand for work ceased, it was impossible to-with respect to those practices they just went with the war. Senator SMITH. Let us be thankful that it is all over; but unless the National Labor Relations Board can take care of those cases, as we did here, it seems to me we are on the wrong track. It seems to me it would be indefensible not to do it. Secretary ТоBIN. What you are talking about is what occurred in the early days during the war. Senator SMITH. Mr. Secretary, I am older than you and I have not seen the temptations of racketeering and greed ever disappear unless we took some steps to prevent them. You would not say that conditions have changed and these things will not happen. The first time they have a chance they will do the same thing. I have had too many people come to me and say, "Can't we be protected by law? Can't we get a job unless we have to pay $50 or $100?" The CHAIRMAN. I will have to break in here. I am bound by Senator Morse's motion, and the Senate has called for a quorum, and we have all had a chance to ask questions. Senator TAFT. Mr. Chairman, I have not had a chance, and I would like to ask the Secretary a number of questions. I certainly will not be long. I do not threaten anything like Senator Morse's 3 hours, but I do have a series of questions about what the new law means, and then there are certain questions on this thing that I do not think will be very long. The CHAIRMAN. Does the Senator want to ask them in open hearings? Senator TAFT. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. We will have to adjourn because we are bound by the instruction given us as a result of Senator Morse's motion and warning, and may I ask that the witnesses collate and prepare their testimony as quickly as possible, because, due to the limitation of this hearing, there will be a request for the printed hearings right away, I am sure. We will meet again tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. Senator TAFT. May I make some comment on it, if you do, Mr. Secretary? On the whole, the comparison is a very fair comparison, if it is read. I do want to call attention, however, to the fact that strikes are always greater in times of prosperity than in times like 1935 to 1939 when there were many millions of people out of work, and the effort to strike was very much deterred, so I think that additional fact should be noted when this paper is presented. The CHAIRMAN. That has already been received for entry into the record. Senator PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, may I insert a paragraph from the New York Herald Tribune of Monday, January 31, 1949, into the record? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. (The paragraph referred to follows:) In dealing with strikes which affect the national health and safety, the new bill, though at first glance less strong than the act it would repeal, may turn out in practice to be an improvement. Much depends upon the reasoning which the administration reveals as underlying its suggestions. A 35-day cooling-off period may conceivably serve better than a period of 80 days. And, unlike the former boards of inquiry, the new emergency boards to be appointed by the President will have the power to make recommendations for a settlement. These should guide public opinion and canalize the efforts of those seeking to mediate the disputes. The CHAIRMAN. We will recess now until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, February 1, 1949.) LABOR RELATIONS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1949 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 210, Senate Office Building, Hon. Elbert D. Thomas (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Thomas, Murray, Pepper, Hill, Neely, Douglas, Humphrey, Taft, Aiken, Smith of New Jersey, Morse, and Donnell. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. We have this morning Mr. Ching, of the Mediation and Conciliation Service. Mr. Ching, will you state whatever you wish to have appear after your name in the record, and then proceed. Let me repeat, the committee is in order; I would appreciate no more conversation, please, as it is hard to hear in this room. STATEMENT OF CYRUS S. CHING, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL Mr. CHING. My name is Cyrus S. Ching, Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great privilege to appear before this committee to give you whatever help I can in connection with the pending legislative proposal. It is most important that I say, at the outset, that I am speaking only for Cyrus S. Ching; nobody else takes responsibility for my remarks. I may disagree with some provisions of this bill. The only valid conclusion that can be drawn from this apparent lack of 100 percent unanimity among officials of the executive branch is this: It is a fine thing to have a President who recognizes the value of having divergent views and opinions in his administrative family presented to Congress in order that it might write the best possible legislation in the public interest. The future of our country, progress, and security in our democratic ways of life and our standard of living rest largely upon our success in mastering the problems of industrial and labor relations. As the most highly industrialized of all countries, the eyes of the world are focused upon us to determine whether we can make our system work without sacrificing freedoms which we regard as precious. Our responsibility is historic, and, I may add, the current consideration of a new labor law by the Congress is historic. We must not make missteps. We must all be bigger than our own stature if we are to measure up to the bulk of our responsibilities. 53 |