Newspapers / The Charlotte Labor Journal … / Jan. 4, 1951, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Charlotte Labor Journal and Dixie Farm News (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
•'V'. By SEN. WAYNB MORSE I have been a member of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare ever jince I came to the Senate. I am also a mem . ber of that committee’s Subcom mittee on Labor-Management Re lations, which was created last year and empowered to conduct investigations of labor-manage ment relations throughout Amer ican industry. Some of these in vestigations have been completed; others are still in progress. Oar investigation! that far have revealed that, while labor management relatione generally are good, nevertheless—in some segments of our industry — bad relations exist, and more impor tant, those bad relations are ac tually stimulated and made more bitter by existing federal law. One of the basic principles up on which our democracy is built is that of voluntary co-operation. Good labor relations -are simply that — voluntary co-operation between management and labor for their mutual benefit and for the public good. One of the strongest proofs of the strength and vitality of our democracy is that, during World War II, American industry and labor united to complete successfully the largest production program in history without serious disrup tion either by strike or lockout, and accomplished this by volun tary co-operation. Unfortunately,, there are still industries in America which are tainted by the perverted philoso phy of the robber baron who said, "The public be damned.” It is in such industries that selfish, mis guided employers, while asserting to the utmost their own rights, have still resisted to the utmost the constitutional and rtatutory rights of their employes. These delinquent industries have made necessary the investigations undertaken' by the Labor-Manage ment Subcommittee and these in dustries have demonstrated that some federal laws encourage and implement the determination of some employers to deny to their workers the rights of self-organi sation and collective bargaining. Three years of experience under the Taft-Hartley Act have proved that it is an act of legislative hypocrisy. On the one hand, and in the most pious phrases, it pur ports to protect and provide .the means for enforcing the rights of self-organization and collective bargaining; whereas, on the other hand, by some of its terms, by the interpolation of "trick phras es,” by the establishment of de vious and endless procedures, and by a monstrous separation of powers which sets one part of the administrative agency against the other, it makes it possible for anti-social employers to frustrate and defeat these selfsame rights. Proponents of the Taft-Hartley Act have frequently challenged its opponents to cite examples oi the ways in which the law ope rates to impede and destroy la bor organisations. As a result of the investigations of the La bor - Management Subcommittee, we have filled the record with such examples. In the Northern states the tex tile industry is thoroughly or ganised. Most of the Northern textile manufacturers have rec ognised the permanence and val ue of labor unions, and. in con sequence, wholesome and produc tive collective bargaining exists as a continuing process between employers and employes But in recent years the textile industry has begun to move into the South., and thia movement Is growing like a flood. In some respects the Southern movement of the textile industry Is sound economically, and particularly so in the case of cotton textiles. * Ten years ago thqre was prac tically no organization among Southern textile wofkers, but during the war, and largely as a result of the voluntary co operation to which I have prtv f 'to / iously referred, some Souuien textile manufacturers recognizee organisations representing theft employes. la some Southen textile areas labor unions floor ished. However, since 1947 largely because of the Taft-Hart ley Act and its administratioi by the former general counse and the Labor Board, the organi sation of Southern textile work era not only has come to 4 stand still but the employers are non engaged in stifling collective bar gaining and destroying existing unions. The most regrettable aspect oi the deliberate destruction of 01 ganized labor in the Southern tex tile industry is that it is done, not contrary to but under covei of the Taft-Hartley Act. Let me cite a few examples which have been investigated by the Labor Management Relations Subcom mittee. Let me tell you briefly the highlights of successful frustra tion of organization at the Amer ican Thread Company’s mill in Tallapoosa. Georgia. Tallapoosa is a typical Southern mill town of about 2,000 inhabitants. It has only one real industry, the American Thread Company, which provides the only steady payroll, employs most of the workers in the town and completely domi nates the community economical ly, socially and politically. At tne request oi employes 01 this plant, the United Textile Workers of America, A. P. of L., sent in an organizer. Almost im mediately a subversive but per fectly co-ordinated anti-union mfchine went into action. This is set forth in the sworn testimony of WWtWttmt and ""reliable wit nesses who appeared before our sub-committee investigating these anti-union practices of Southern textile owners — testimony that is as shocking as much of the testimony that was brought to light a few years ago by the famous' La Follette Committee. The leading citizens of Talla poosa, including lawyers who be long to the Bar Association, one of the great closed shops of Am erica, businessmen who belong to the Chamber of Commerce and representatives of other “respect ablet” types of closed shop, met under the leadership of a distin guished lawyer who, incidentally it is reported, had as his prin cipal client the American Thread Company. There are those who say that the American Thread Company had nothing whatever to do with this incident. However, this self constituted “citizens’ committee” met the A. F. of L. organizer, informed him that organizers were not welcome in Tallapoosa, ordered him to leave town im mediately and to croas the state line into Alabama, threatened him with ivolence if he did not obey and then escorted him to the state line, not too gently. The American Thread Company employes then tried to get help from the Textile Workers Union of America, CJ.O. The CXO. sent a woman organiser. From the moment she first entered Tal lapoosa, she was kept under strict surveillance by a company em ploye who, although derived his 1 1 WftAROH C —i-JLl: J JANUARY 15-31 H JOIN '"‘MARCH OF DIMES I THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION pOR INFAN5' 1 AfiAl mk -k D &88MW0 "iiWJif 1 h -Uk ',4''.4,V*BS entire income from the American Thread Company, was also a dep uty sheriff—an interesting coin cidence. The first night she was in town a mob broke into the rooming house where she was staying, forcibly loaded her and her be longings into a truck, drove her many miles out into a bleak coun tryside and pitched her out by the side of the road with a warn ing that she roust never return. Within two days the outstand ing leaders of the employes who desired organization were first suspended and later fired. Others who had shown an interest in or ganization were warned and threatened by non-supervisory employes. record of this case that they were always careful to have these threats Issued by non-supervis ory employes, by stooges. at the management. Organisers who attempted to distribute leaflets at the plant gate were met with armed vio lence. A company union was established. Meetings were or ganised by non-supervisory em ployes and addressed by the gen eral manager, who caiefufly re frained from using the word “union,” but spoke in sinister j terras of “Yankee influences” which were “threatening the tranquility of this gentle vil lage..” A heroic attempt was made by the employes under the Taft Hartley Act to correct these un fair labor practices. The union filed chargee. A complaint was issued in due course. A hearing was held with the speed that has come to characterise Taft-Hart lty administration—that is, about a year later. No doubt the trial examiner fairly considered all the evidence and wrote his intermediate re port in strict accordance with the Taft-Hartley Act. He found some acts to be unlawful and also rec ommended disestablishment of the company union. However, the kidnaping of organisers was not blamed oa the company since the evidence showed that only non-ifcpervisory employe* had been involved. The anti-union speech of the general manager to a captive sudien.'e was also held to be pro jected under the Taft-Hartley Act. The trial examiner said hat t’ e employe who admittedly was hired for the purpose of keeping strangers, and particu larly union organizers, under sur veillance was only an officious busybody and, since he was not a supervisory employe, the com-( pany could not be held responsi ble for his act*. The Board followed these ree mendations without exception. It ssued a cease and desist order, j requiring the employer to refrain ! from unlawful acts and to disea- ‘ tabliah the company union. After the order ^as posted, new organ izing efforts were made, but again the company engaged in nractically the same acta of re straint, «m«*tiag of threat* and promise* and accompanied by violence of the *ort usually as sociated with lynching*. The paper cease and desist order fluttered in the breeze, ‘otally ineffective either to pro tect the right of self-organiza * on or to restrain the employer from unlawful acts. Airain the union complained to *he Labor Board. A new iaves tia-ation was conducted—the same old merry-jo-round. A new com plaint was issued Presumably, at some unknown date in the re mote future, a hearing will b* held. Since the company makes practically no effort to defend It self against these charges, it is safe to presume that an inter mediate report condemning the anti-union activities of the em ployer will he issued. In due coarse, no doubt, the Board win again issue a cease and desist order. And it is ssfe to predict that it will flutter in the breese just as ineffectively as scares of other Board orders are now fluttering in textile milk all over tbe South. Prom our study of the Talk poosa case and other cases of similar type, the situation in I broad outline seems to be this in the Southern textile field: Em ployers continue to practice fla grant unfair labor acta, resorting to or permitting every anti-la bor stratagem from subtle in sinuation to armed violence. Or ganizers are kidnapped and beat en and expelled. Union leaders are threatened and attacked. Where no union now exists, the employes are kept disorganized, and established unions are fight ing for their very existence. In spite of the pious phrases of Section I of the Taft-Hartley Act, Southern employes are be ing denied the rights which Con gress has so solemnly declared they are entitled to exercise. The Tallapoosa case is illustrative of many in which the rights of labor are lynched by means of the fan tastic red tape of the Taft-Hart ley Act. In the 1947 fight agajnst the Taft-Hartley bill I repeatedly pointed out in the Senate that It would work great hardship in un organised industries, I said it would enable a lawyer to take a ease from any employer inter ested in keeping organisation out of his shop on the understanding that the legal fee of the lawyer would not have to be paid unless the lawyer succeeded in his mis sion of. frustrating organization. The textile industry in the South is a good example of the validity of this statement. What most people don’t under stand about the Taft-Hartley Ad is that It is honeycombed with provisions which permit any law yer to engage in delay and dela) and delay, with the result that organization is choked off even tually. Let me cite another example which our investigations hav* brought to light showing hoa strong, alert unions may bo de stroyed, thanks to the Taft-Hart ley Act. . During the war the Anchor Rome Mill at Rome.Gaprgia, rec ognized a CJ.O. organization ai the bargaining representative oi its employes and entered into i contract with it.„ AM agaiir 1 give you the finding of our com mittee on the basin of testimonj taken under oath. Under the ontract, relations between the ?mployer and the employes were ?ood—in fact, excellent, as com pared with relations in other Southern textile mills. Right after the war the plant was acquired by a large textile chain which has had bad labor relations throughout its history in all of its plants. It immedi itely became apparent that the abor - management honeymoon va* over, that henceforth an an i-union management would make 1 deliberate attempt to destroy lie union. Conflict rapidly de •loped and the opposing parties juared off for a long and bitter 'ruggle. In this state of affairs 'he Taft-Hartley Act was passed. Now, in the old days, before he Norris-LaGuardia Act and lhe Wagner Act, the accepted ‘echnique for destroying a union •vas the importation of strike breakers. . Although that tech nicue is still used, and in certain ?it nations is highly practicable md«r the Taft-Hartley Act., it a no longer necessary except as • lost resort. Instead of plug-uglies, the mart anti-union employer now, etains a smart lawyer versed n the technicalities of the Taft iartloy Act. IV . One of the most vicious things bout the , Taft-Hsrtley Act is hat—as some ot us predicted— t is a makework project for la 1 bor lawyers. Its procedures; are | as devious, as complicated and as endless as astute lawyer could make- them. Its language is so involved, its processes so tortu ous, ita eantradictioiu j*o pro found, that only a lawyer—and » lawyer 'respect'' t< ever1 hope to understand It and manipulate it. Shop stewards and union negotiators can't un derstand it. Management can’t understand it. The inevitable result is that under the Taft Hartley Act collective bargaining becomes an exercise in legal mumbo-jumbo between lawyers. Now let us see what results ! this perverted legalism produced at Anchor-Rome Mill. The old contract expired. The union aaked for bargaining con | ferences. The management re tained a skillful lawyer who smilingly agreed to meet for confeWiiefc. Many meetings be tween the union and the com pany lawyer followed. The com pany lawyer resorted sometimes to postponement and sometimes to delay,but always in the end he was willing to meet. General ' discussions of the whole situation were had; details of the projected agreement were haggled ore* I the meaning of words was ex plored and re-explored; and the. negotiations continued unabated like a sort of cyclone of words. But no agreement was reached. Vo agreement on a single item vas ever reached. Days pasaed. Weeks passed. Months passed. Noi# this ip all possible be cause, while the Taft-Hartley \ct provides, in Section 8 (a) (8), that refusal to bargain hr can unfair labor practice, it alto pro* vides in Section 8 (d) that tho obligation to bargain collectively “does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.” Weird results have followed in evitably from this provision and its interpretation by the Board ar.d the courts. Here is an ex ample: At one so-called bargain ing session of the Anchor-Rone Mill negotiators the company lawyer demanded that from the new contract there should be ex cluded the language specifying the company’s duty to bargain ‘ “in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment.” He also insisted that no check off clause should be included, that there should be no preferential seniority for members of the gen eral shop committee, that the company be given the right to make a unilateral determination as to what physical unfitness would constitute just grounds for discharge, that there be no leaves of absence for union business, no arbitration, etc., etc., etc. It is not only incredible but fantastic that in view of these undisputed facts, the trial examiner of the Labor Board was unable to find that the company had refused to bargain in good faith. At the time these negotiations were going on there were suspen sions and discharges of union members. There were many of the other practices which the La- ,—' Follette hearings made notorious^ As to some of these, the Bogrd found the employer ror example, during the nego tiations and priqr^tp the stirite the permits” they are ceiled in Geor gia—for some forty of its super visory end semi-supervisory em ployes. It imported pistols end ammunition. It allowed employes to carry gans eg end off the company property, and it blinked at, if it did not inspire, somo shootings. The trial examiner said that, since the strikers had not known of the obtaining of the permits, and the pistols, this conduct could not have influenced the minds of the strikers and there fore was not an unfair labor practice. To this even the Board demurred. Eventually the Board did issue a cease and desist order which the company duly posted upon the bulletin board. But while the order fluttered like the tattered banner of a lost cans*, the company continued its anti union activities. with deadly ef fectiveness. New charges wert filed. Some day in the dim fu ture the Board will undoubtedly issue another cease and desist order. But the important fact* are that at Anchor-Boms Mill there is now no anion, there mro no union organisers and employe* have either gently or violently, been deprived of their rights. A great many inch casaa hav# been investigated by onr sub committee. They aomonstrate why the Taft-Hartley Act, which purports to guarantee and make effective those rights, is a piece of legislative hypocrisy. I relate these facts merely as esamples of why the democratic rights of self-organisation and collective bargaining cannot thrive under the regime of the Taft-Hartley Act. Our subcommittee has Just completed a long investigation of how the Taft-Hartley Act ope rates in the telephone industry. We have listened' to the leaden of labor unions and to the presi dents and high officials of tele phone companies spread from coast to coast. There are many unions in the telephone industry. Some of them are A. F. of L. unions, some of them are C.I.O.. some art in dependent. But in the management of the telephone companies w/ have found remarkable uniform ity. Union organisation is compare (Continued on Page S) . rv. 1
The Charlotte Labor Journal and Dixie Farm News (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Jan. 4, 1951, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75