Now, it seems to me, unless you put that in, you are making it possible for the employers of the country to organize nationally into automobile chambers of commerce, into steel institutes, into various organizations, to dictate collectively wages to individuals who must, of necessity, bargain against each other in a cut-throat way; and then they may organize themselves into a national industrial conference board, or chamber of commerce, or anything, and these must be recognized, but they will not stand for the same right to labor.

If you want anything more calculated to bring unrest, disorder, discontent, and failure of the whole program than that, I do not know how you can figure anything out better than that. You have the chance here to stop that and make the National Recovery Act operate by explaining that this section 5 of the unfair practices, that section 7 (a) was meant to give the employees exactly the same rights that the employers have.

Senator DAVIS. Doctor, what would you think of having a division of conciliation and arbitration for the transportation industry in the Department of Labor, and the Railway Labor Board come under that with the supervision of this particular board that is now in this Wagner bill?

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, I haven't given any thought to the matter. It might be desirable to unify those things, I don't know Senator DAVIS. That would mean one board, then. Dr. LEISERSON. It might be too much for one board. It is almost too much for the National Labor Board, as it is, when you have so many industries to deal with.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you considered whether or not this bill ought to be restricted to businesses where there is a limited number of employees?

Dr. LEISERSON. How do you mean "a limited number"?

The CHAIRMAN. One of the criticisms made to the bill was that it applies to a man who has one employee.

Senator WAGNER. No; it is 10.

Dr. LEISERSON. You cannot have collective bargaining very wel! where there is only one employee.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wagner suggests it is 10 employees.

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, of course I did not know about that. You might want to make an exception, but I would not except the small plant. We have a notion that the big problems of labor and the meanness of the relation between employer and employee comes only in the large plant, when the small employer knows every man by his first name. Yes; but what names does he call them? In handling labor disputes, you have more difficulty, more serious difficulties in smaller plants where the personalities enter into it, and where you have not the standard labor practices, than in the larger plants. You might want to except a small farmer with a few employees, but you certainly would not want to except him in a situation like the one you have out in the Imperial Valley now, with a great number of people working in agricultural employment.

The CHAIRMAN. As the bill is drafted, there is no limitation at all. Dr. LEISERSON. There might be an exception made in certain cases. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wagner's impression was it was limited to 10. Your answer to my question is you would apply the principles of this bill to the small employer as well as the larger or big employer?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes; but I would say where 1, 3, or 5 employees were employed, perhaps 10, you might take it out, but in the main I would not except the small employer, what is ordinarily known as a small employer.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your presentation. Is Mr. Witte here?

Mr. WITTE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Witte, could you come tomorrow morning?
Mr. WITTE. Unfortunately, I have got to get back to Madison.
The CHAIRMAN. How long will you take?

Mr. WITTE. I will make it very short.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

STATEMENT OF EDWIN E. WITTE, LABOR EXPERT, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your full name, please?

Mr. WITTE. Edwin E. Witte, professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin.

The CHAIRMAN. You live at Madison, Wis.?

Mr. WITTE. I live at Madison, Wis.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been a professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin?

Mr. WITTE. Well, I have been connected with the university since 1920, but I was chief of the Wisconsin Legislative Library; secretary of the industrial commission, before that.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you succeed Mr. McCarthy?

Mr. WITTE. I did; yes, sir.

Because of the lateness of the hour, I will not go into the arguments at all as to why I am appearing in support of this bill. I only want to say that there evidently is a very great misunderstanding of the provisions of the bill. I was approached by a Wisconsin employer on Saturday when I left, in regard to this bill. The impression seems to be that this bill somehow outlaws plant unions. Of course it does nothing of the kind. The impression seems to be it establishes a compulsory closed shop. It does nothing of the kind. It legalizes voluntary closed shop agreements. Every local of every State in the Union, including even the State of Massachusetts, where the law has been pretty restrictive on activities of labor unions, the voluntary agreement for the closed shop is legal, even in Massachusetts.

Of

The CHAIRMAN. But it is comprehensive and broad, it is liberal in its legislation for the improvement of labor conditions generally. Mr. WITTE. I certainly would acknowledge that, Senator. course it does not give the American Federation of Labor domination of industry. The very people that make that claim are also calling attention to the fact that only 10 percent of all employees are in the American Federation of Labor, and the situation, as I see it, is much more likely to be a situation in which the American Federation of Labor unions will be unable to function in many of the major industries of the country, unless legislation of this kind is enacted. It means not the domination of the American Federation of Labor, but giving the American Federation of Labor unions a chance.

As I see it, the essential provisions of the bill are just three: Recog nition of collective bargaining, and the corresponding duty of the employers to try to arrive at agreements; second, the employers are

not to interfere with labor in self-organization; and, finally, it sets up machinery for the interpretation and enforcement of these provisions.

The employers, as Dr. Leiserson well stated, are insisting on free self-regulation in industry, and yet, illogically, they would not permit self-organization on the part of the employees. I endorce every statement that has been made here by Dr. Leiserson, and wish to be recorded strongly in support of this bill.

What I mainly wish to do is to call attention to certain amendments that have not been brought to your attention before, that I I think should be inserted in this bill. The major amendment that I would suggest, I would insert on page 23, section 304, and the purpose of the amendment or suggestion is to prevent the employers who have set up company-dominated unions from barring elections or from claiming that elections are barred. In paragraph (b) you

say:

Any term of a contract or agreement of any kind which conflicts with the provisions of this Act is hereby abrogated, and every employer who is a party to such contract or agreement shall immediately so notify his employees by appropriate action.

I submit that in practically all cases there are no contracts or agreements. That hasn't been what company unionism has meant. Company unionism has not culminated in agreements at all. It certainly is doubtful whether this is effective in barring, what appeared to me to be the plain violation of the intent of section 7 (a), from being now made a permanent bar against labor organizations. I suggest, consequently, an insertion of a new paragraph, something like this:

(c) Any election on the adoption of any employee representation plan or for the election of representatives of the employees for purposes of collective bargaining held subsequent to June 16, 1933—

I am inserting that date. That is the date of the Industrial Recovery Act, when section 7 became effective

and prior to the effective date of this Act in relation to which the employer was guilty of any of the unfair labor practices specified in subsections (3) and (4) of this Act, shall not be binding, but the National Labor Board shall have authority to ascertain the wishes of the employees as to collective bargaining and the selection of representatives as provided in section 207.

That is to determine the wishes of employees in the relation of collective bargaining and in the selection of representatives.

With the very phenomenal development of the so-called "company" unions since section 7 (a) was enacted, there is grave danger that section 7 (a) will become the greatest travesty on labor that has ever existed, if these arrangements are now, in a sense, validated and no provision is made expressly abrogating them.

Next I want to raise another point which to me is very essential, and that relates to the question of whether section 5, as it stands, covers the situation that is most prevalent in this whole field of company unionism, that loose organization, if you can call it an organization, that has no members, no dues, that is merely a method of electing representatives. I call your attention to the fact that in subsection (5) of section 3, the definition of labor organizations, you speak of the term "labor organization" as meaning—

onization, labor union, association, corporation or society of any kind, The employees participate to any degree whatsoever, which exists for the

purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, or hours of employment.

I am not certain that that includes what is known as the "employee representation" committee, which is the most prevalent form of company union. There are two forms of company unions, the employee association and the employee representation committee, a mere election of representatives, no organization whatsoever, and, of course, no dues. I am not at all sure that the employee representation committee is covered. That doubt arises further because in other places in this act you distinguish between labor organizations and representatives, you distinguish in subsection (4) of section 3, "The term 'representatives' includes any individual or labor organization", evidently referring to these employee representation committees.

Now, in section 4 on page 4, you say, "Employees shall have the right to organize and join labor organization, and to engage in concerted activities, either in labor organizations or otherwise.' You imply that there is something besides a labor organization that engages in these collective activities.

Similarly, in subsection (2) of section 5, you speak only of representatives of the employees, and I submit that there is danger that your language does not include this most prevalent form of company unionism that we now know, the employee representation committee. Senator WAGNER. Will you suggest the word which ought to be added there?

Mr. WITTE. I am suggesting two alternatives, Senator. In the definition of "labor organization", at the end, you could insert the words:

This term shall include every plan for the selection of employee representatives for purposes of collective bargaining, although there is no definite organization of employees.

Or, preferably, this is my own preference, my own preference would be to distinguish between labor organizations and employee representation committees. I think it is strained language that calls an employee representation committee an organization of any kind, and the sections I have called your attention to do not so call it. They refer to it as something else besides an organization. I would define an employee representation committee something in this fashion:

The term "employee representation committee" means any committee or group of representatives of employees not a labor organization, who are elected to confer with the employer or representatives of the employer concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, or hours of employment.

If that alternative were adopted you would have to insert in subsections (3) and (4) on page 5, following "labor organization", the words, "or employee representation committee", which I think is really what this is. It is not a labor organization at all, and it is a confusion of terms to define it as such.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a frequent agency designed for employees? Mr. WITTE. That is the principal agency of company unionism. The employee association type of company union is very, very rare, and practically all of the new company unions that have been started since the National Industrial Recovery Act was passed, are not unions in any proper sense of the term at all, they are loose plans for the election of representatives only.

The CHAIRMAN. And this language embraces them?

Mr. WITTE. I think so. That is why I am submitting it, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WITTE. My final point, I endorse some of the amendments suggested here before, but I am calling attention to some that have not been, perhaps, brought to your attention. I am concerned with this question of majority representation that is raised now in the automobile difficulty, and it has been raised in other concerns. As I understand it, this is what the automobile man says, "We will deal with the representatives of those of our employees who want to join the labor union, but we must have a list of those employees. The CHAIRMAN. Any labor union?

Mr. WITTE. Any labor union. "We will deal with those of our employees who wish to deal through these company unions, we will deal with them through the company unions." They do not say they will deal with the Communist unions, but I presume that is inferred too. "We will deal individually with such employees." They want to deal individually, rather than collectively. Now, that may, at first blush, seem a fair position, but I submit, gentlemen, that exactly parallels the situation which would prevail, if, instead of you gentlemen here representing your respective States, all of the people who voted for your opponents were represented by them, and if, for each of you, instead of you all being here, all of your opponents here were representing the people that particularly preferred them. Moreover, this is not even quite parallel to that. This says, "You want to all meet together. We will meet one group here; we will meet another group here; we will draw bargains with each group.' In industrial government, just as in political government, there has to be majority rule, when it comes to actual government. The only type of representation that individuals can have is the right of petition. The right of petition, the right to lay grievances before Congress is a right that any individual and every group must have. Similarly, in industrial government, the right of petition, the right to lay grievances before the employer seems to me is a right that every group should be accorded, and every individual. As a matter of fact, that is all the employers that are promoting the company unions have in mind. They only have the right to petition in mind; they do not have the collective bargaining in mind, in the sense of making laws for the industry through the joint action of employer and employee. That is not contemplated at all. What is contemplated is merely a right to present a point of view.

That is proper, but if it comes to determining conditions of employment by making some kind of rules of governing wages and hours, there obviously has to be a determination on the basis of majority rule, or you have pure anarchy, just as you would have in government. To meet that situation, I suggest a possible change in subsection (2) of section 5. I would split that section into two parts. In section (a) I would make it an unfair labor practice to refuse to recognize representatives of any group of his employees who have not been duly selected by them to take up with the employer any grievance or any matter concerning their employment.

It certainly is placing no burden on the employer to meet with representatives of any group of employees that have a grievance or ake up some matter with him, but obviously he cannot every group of employees or with individuals. There