Mr. MARCANTONIO. It is so rare that we have the pleasure of having the Secretary of Labor with us that I should like to direct a question to the Secretary, which question need not be answered. It has nothing to do with the pending bill but it is interesting to members of the committee to realize that he unemploymen plan came here and we have not had a real opportunity to discuss it. Unemployment insurance will be carried by a pay-roll tax? Secretary PERKINS. Yes. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Exclusively? Secretary PERKINS. Yes. According to the Wagner-Lewis-Doughton bill, the insurance would not be carried by a pay-roll tax. Mr. MARCANTONIO. But the annuities would be? Secretary PERKINS. Yes; but the unemployment insurance would not be carried by a pay-roll tax. It imposes a pay-roll tax for revenue. It limits that tax if any employer is contributing to an unemployment fund under State laws. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Suppose some States do not have unemployment funds? The fact remains that the unemployment-insurance revenue will be raised by a pay-roll tax. Secretary PERKINS. The pay-roll tax which is assessed according to the Wagner-Lewis-Doughton bill cannot be used to pay unemployment benefits. Mr. MARCANTONIO. The revenue for that is raised through a payroll tax? Secretary PERKINS. Yes; in the States. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Like the sales tax, it falls upon the consumer. What is there to prevent the shifting of this tax to the employee by means of wage reductions? Secretary PERKINS. The right of collective bargaining, which I hope will be established by this bill. Mr. MARCANTONIO. The collective bargaining is established so far as the statute books are concerned, but it can be enforced only by the workers, depending upon the economic situation. If unemployment remains at its present status, you appreciate that it is impossible for employees to insist upon their present scale of wages? Wages are bound to come down, and if the pay-roll tax is shifted to the workers by cutting wages the result will be that the poor of this Nation will carry the burden of unemployment insurance. I predict that the die-hard reactionaries will gladly vote for this bill when it comes up for consideration in the House. Mr. Wood. Do you know any group of employees that has taken a decrease? Mr. MARCANTONIO. Not to any great extent. reached the point where industry will cut wages. within the next 2 years. I think we have The CHAIRMAN. The day we passed the Economy Act the United States Steel Corporation made a 15-percent cut in wages. I predicted that 2 weeks before it was done. Mr. DUNN of Pennsylvania. The railroads are to receive an increase in freight rates. The railroad employees are getting back the last 5 percent of the wage reduction, and the railroads are going to increase rates and thereby make you and me pay more for beans and onions. Mr. Wood. The railroad workers reclaimed 10 percent of their reduction, and this 5-percent increase in freight rates is not commensurate with the amount necessary to pay the increase given the railroad employees. They did not raise freight rates when the railroad men got back their 10 percent. In short, the Interstate Commerce Commission has not allowed enough increase in freight rates to cover the increase in wages. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I want to say to Mr. Wood that one of the main reasons I believe wages are going to come down is because we are going to throw a good portion of the $4,000,000,000 relief money into the labor market to employ men at $50 a month, and wage scales will come down to that level. I think you agree with me. Mr. WOOD. But that has not anything to do with unemploymentinsurance pay-roll tax. Mr. MARCANTONIO. It has a great deal to do with shoving the burden of the pay-roll tax to the employees. The CHAIRMAN. It has been testified here that you went to some town in Pennsylvania, I think it was, and you were not allowed to speak there. You had to go to the post office to speak. Is that true? Secretary PERKINS. No. The CHAIRMAN. That was testified to by somebody in connection with old-age-pension legislation here. It was said that you went to Pennsylvania and were not allowed to speak. Secretary PERKINS. Since this has been mentioned, I shall be glad to tell you exactly what happened. I spent a day in a town in Pennsylvania where I spoke twice to two different groups. As I left the city hall where I visited the mayor, or as he is called there the burgess, I found a group of working people who said they were citizens of that place and had been excluded, that they had not had an opportunity to hear me. I was not doing the talking; they wanted to talk to me. I had been talking in the burgess' office with workmen and these other persons said they wanted to see me but were excluded. I told them I should be glad to hear them. It was then that the burgess would not allow them to come to the city hall. They wanted to tell me something and I suggested that we go over and sit in the park, but the burgess would not allow those men to go into the public park, which is the property of the town. I saw the post office across the street and, recognizing that we must talk somewhere, I suggested that we go into the post office. We did so and they told me what they had in mind for about 20 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Referring to this provision containing the penalty clause, which provision you would strike out, suppose we had an example of Harlan County, Ky., where they drove out certain persons; suppose we had an instance like they had at Elizabethtown, Tenn., where they drove out Mr. McGrady, or an instance like they had in Imperial Valley when they drove out Mr. Roarty when he went there to write a newspaper article? Suppose some representative of this proposed board went to a county to learn what was going on and they drove him out? Should there not be a penalty in connection with such conduct? Secretary PERKINS. The officers of the Federal Government are protected by other laws and statutes and I do not think this particu lar protection is necessary. They have the protection as we understand. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose a representative of this board walked into some place in Georgia or Massachusetts and he was taken for a ride, could you do anything about it? Mr. WYZANSKI. It might be a conspiracy. The CHAIRMAN. What if only one man did it? Mr. WYZANSKI. That would not be a conspiracy. The CHAIRMAN. We do not want the McGradys or anybody else. run out of any place. Secretary PERKINS. I think it is unlikely that an officer will have such trouble. The CHAIRMAN. It seems like the burgess in Pennsylvania was discourteous to you. Secretary PERKINS. No; he did nothing that was not within his rights. The CHAIRMAN. But the Secretary of Labor is quite an important personage. Secretary PERKINS. He can have whoever he wants to come into his own office. The CHAIRMAN. On page 10, line 1, it provides That any individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer through representatives of their own choosing. That looks to me as if the employer could build up another company union. Secretary PERKINS. I have proposed an amendment that would make that language read— That nothing in this section shall deprive any individual employee or group of employees of the right at any time to present grievances to their employer. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that your proposed amendment would take care of that? Secretary PERKINS. Yes; that is our judgment. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, your understanding is that if a majority of the plant employees decide to form a union and they were the ones to do the collective bargaining-suppose there was a minority of 40 percent and they went to the employer and presented their grievance, the collective-bargaining proposition would still have to be taken care of by the majority? Secretary PERKINS. That is my understanding. The CHAIRMAN. The language as it reads would leave an opportunity for the employer, as Senator Wagner and Mr. Green told us, to give all favors to the 40 percent. If the employer granted an increase in wages he could give it to the 40 percent and break up the legitimate union. Mr. SCHNEIDER. How would that work out? Let us say that there are two, three, or four craft unions in a big printing plant. Who would represent the employees? Secretary PERKINS. This bill provides that the National Labor Relations Board shall determine the unit for collective bargaining. If there are three or four existing unions, as in the printing industry and other industries, then the Labor Relations Board will return how many units will bargain collectively. There are other industries into which there are not divisions into crafts. The Board then might indicate that the whole plant was a unit. You cannot legislate in connection with that because there is variation. It seems necessary to leave it to somebody to determine. The CHAIRMAN. There is a probability at least that the McSwain bill to take the profits out of war will be called up very soon, and it is a very dangerous bill for labor, according to Mr. Green's statement of yesterday. Therefore let us adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. We want to thank you again for your very splendid and informative statement. (Thereupon, at 12:30 p. m., Wednesday, Apr. 3, 1935, the committee adjourned, to meet at 10 a. m., Thursday, Apr. 4, 1935.) LABOR DISPUTES ACT THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1935 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hearings on H. R. 6288 were resumed at 10:30 a. m., Hon. William P. Connery (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Our witness this morning will be Dr. E. R. Lederer, chairman of the labor subcommittee of the Planning and Coordination Committee for the Petroleum Industry. Is Dr. Lederer here? Dr. LEDERER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. You may go ahead, Dr. Lederer, in your own way. STATEMENT OF DR. E. R. LEDERER, CHAIRMAN LABOR SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY Dr. LEDERER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Labor Committee, I have been delegated by the Planning and Coordination Committee to present to you the attitude of the petroleum industry toward H. R. 6288, National Labor Relations Act. We have heard and read some very important and impressive legal arguments during the hearings before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor against the companion bill, S. 1958, the Wagner disputes bill. I am qualified through my training and 31 years of practical experience in all branches of the petroleum industry, a large portion of which was either in or in closest contact with the army of employees in our industry, to look at this bill only from the practical point of view and visualize its consequences upon our own industry, should it become the law in its present form. In order to explain our position, I must present a brief and very condensed picture of our industry and its operations. The President, recognized that the petroleum industry is unique and different in its many ramifications and placed it under a separate administration. We have our own Oil Administrator, the Secretary of the Interior, who delegates most of the details of supervision to the Petroleum Administrative Board. Our labor relations are regulated by the Petroleum Labor Policy Board. The Planning and Coordination Committee represents the industry. This is a body of 21 men, partly executives of corporations, large, medium, and small, integrated and nonintegrated, and partly independent producers and marketers. This committee presents a true cross section of the industry, which 133130-35-20 |