Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

insight into the nature and intent of the ILO. And I can assure you that we need go no further than the ILO to illustrate the growing threat of the use of treaties as a means of transferring legislative authority over our domestic affairs from our own law-making bodies to an international agency.

Senator DIRKSEN. Were those sessions in Geneva?

Mr. McGRATH. In Geneva, Switzerland; yes, sir.

The International Labor Organization, now affiliated with the United Nations, has been in existence for 35 years. During that time it has passed 103 conventions-which are, in effect, drafts of international laws, and which, when ratified by member nations, stand as a treaty among the nations which ratify them.

The United States has already ratified 10 of these conventions. Nine of these dealt with maritime matters. The other represented adoption of a revised ILO constitution. That leaves 93 conventionsthat is, proposed international treaties-to be considered by our Federal or State Governments.

I would like to introduce this book as exhibit 1.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the name of it?

Mr. McGRATH. The title is "Conventions and Recommendations, 1919-49," published by the International Labor Office. This book contains 98 of the 103 conventions, draft treaties enacted and approved at ILO conferences between the period 1919 and 1949. Also, it contains 87 recommendations similarly approved during the same period. This book might be referred to as the Blackstone of international law dealing with labor, social, and cultural legislation for the member nations of ILO, each convention being drafted into complete legislative text by this so-called world parliament.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McGrath, it is very nice to put in this book, but, you see, you will have to send one to each members of this subcommittee, or five, because you readily understand more than one person has to read this record.

Mr. McGRATH. I think it would be worth making that contribution. I would be delighted to get five copies and see that they are sent to the respective members of the subcommittee because this book, I am sure, will be most revealing when they begin to examine the text. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smithey will give you the names and addresses. Mr. McGRATH. I shall be very glad, Mr. Smithey, to do this. (The book referred to, entitled "Conventions and Recommendations, 1919-49," was received as an exhibit and filed with the committee.) Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. McGrath, at this point you have told us now you are an employer delegate to ILO, nominated by the Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. McGRATH. Yes, sir. My nomination came from the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Senator DIRKSEN. Tell us who are the other representatives who serve with ILO. There is a Government representative from the United States, one or more?

Mr. McGRATH. I have a list of the last delegation. You see, I have been going over for the last 4 years, Senator, and each year there are generally changes in the delegation makeup. Now I happen to have the members of the delegation who went over during the year 1952. Would you like to have me introduce that, sir?

and the mouthpiece of Russia. But Russia as a nation is not represented. In fact, about the only two countries behind the Iron Curtain that are represented there would be Czechoslovakia and Poland, and if you would consider Austria as being one of the countries behind. the Iron Curtain, they are also represented there.

But we consider as a general rule that these three countries represent Russia, and they are behind the Iron Curtain.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. McGRATH. In 1934, when the United States first became a member of the ILO, the United States was not bound by convention procedure, and joined the ILO on the basis that any proposal of the ILO would serve merely as a recommendation in the United States. I think that is very important.

The joint resolution of the House and the Senate ratifying United States membership, passed in 1934, contained this paragraph:

Whereas special provision has been made in the constitution of the International Labor Organization by which membership of the United States would not impose or be deemed to impose any obligation or agreement upon the United States to accept the proposals of that body as involving anything more than recommendations for its consideration***

Now I think you will have a difficult time trying to locate that particular paragraph. It seems to be out of print. I believe we found that on the wall of the International Labor Office here in Washington, but that is something that has been forgotten.

The Senate and the House when they ratified our membership in ILO in 1934 took the precaution to see to it that our Government or our country would not be affected by these conventions. They recognize their dangers.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be printed in the Congressional Record of that day?

Mr. McGRATH. That should be. I do not know that. That should be in the Congressional Record.

But the Senate at that time and the House took the precaution, recognizing the danger, to incorporate this exception that conventions would be treated as recommendations. Now recommendations are not international treaties. So, some very wise thinking was done at that time. Now let us follow on from there and see what happened. But when, in 1948, we approved the present ILO constitution, this act put us on the same basis as other federal countries with respect to ILO conventions.

Under the ILO constitution, once a convention has been passed by the ILO each member country is supposed to submit it to its own treaty-ratifying authority. There are therefore now pending 93 proposed ILO treaties, which under ILO procedure could be submitted to our Senate, or to the States, for ratification or implementation. In fact, several of these conventions were, as you know, submitted to the Senate by ex-President Truman. Conceivably any or all the rest of them could be submitted at any time.

What is the subject matter of these proposed treaties? I shall not attempt to go through the whole list, but will merely cite, for purposes of illustration, some of those covering matters which I would certainly consider to be "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States," and that is what I understand the Bricker resolution is supposed to provide for.

There are now in existence ILO conventions-that is, draft treaties-ready for submission, dealing with the following subjects: Safety provisions in the building industry.

Gathering of statistics on wages and hours in mining, manufacturing, building, and agriculture.

Government regulation of written contracts of employment of indigenous workers. It took me a long time to find out what an "indigenous worker" was.

Government regulation of hours of work and rest periods of bus and truck drivers.

Medical examination of children employed in industry.

Freedom of association of employees and protection in the right to organize. Take a good look at that one.

The setting up of a federal employment service.

Regulation of night work of women employed in industry.

Labor clauses in public contracts.

Regulation of methods of payment of wages.

Government regulation of employment agencies. Take a good look at that one, also.

Minimum wages in agriculture.

Equal pay for men and women for equal work.
Holidays with pay in agriculture.

Social security.

Government benefits for maternity.

Among the ILO conventions submitted by Mr. Truman and now pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are: Convention 63, concerning statistics of wages and hours of work in the principal mining and manufacturing industries, including building and construction and in agriculture, Convention 87, concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, and Convention 80, concerning the organization of the employment service. Now those are sleepers. We have been conditioned. We have passed 10 conventions. So why should we not pass some more of them? They are harmless, according to what we are told.

It may be hard to realize, gentlemen, that the International Labor Organization, with delegates from some 60 nations, debates, for a whole month each year, the actual nature and wording of proposed standard international laws covering subjects of this sort, which we in our country would consider, in many cases, even more appropriate for State than for Federal action. But such is the case.

Furthermore, a great many countries of the world, especially the socialistically inclined nations, take these ILO conventions very seriously, put many of them into effect by implementing legislation, and then ratify the conventions by their ratifying authorities. These ILO conventions in fact set the pattern for a great deal of domestic legislation in countries all over the world.

This situation is alarming because of the change in the political complexion of the ILO which has occurred chiefly during the last decade.

In its earlier years the ILO devoted its efforts to matters dealing directly with labor and did excellent constructive work. Its objective was that of endeavoring to raise living standards of employees all over the world, get them better working conditions, fuller recognition of their rights, etc.

However, as state socialism came into the ascendancy in Europe and the concept of the planned economy gained broad political acceptance, the ILO stepped beyond the field of labor proper into the field of government itself; and under the pretext of "helping the workingman," has put forward a whole series of proposals, which, if adopted and implemented in member countries, would of necessity force their governments into a socialistic mold.

The ILO is today, in my opinion, almost completely in the hands of a socialistic government-labor coalition, which apparently has as its objective the enactment of socialistic legislation, standardized along ILO lines, in the largest possible number of countries in the world. Their interest is to get these laws on the statute books. Whether or not they are actually made effective today is apparently secondary. Once a law is passed, the pattern is set. The rest can come later.

Senator DIRKSEN. When a draft convention goes before the ILO body and all the delegates are there, they vote by majority vote?

Mr. McGRATH. It takes a two-thirds majority vote to carry. But I would like to remind you that the breakdown is 2 votes for Government, 1 vote for labor, and they vote together practically all the time. So that you have a 75-25 coalition coalition. So we get licked all the time. We very seldom win a victory. The only way we win a victory is to threaten to walk out of the place, and we have done that on one occasion.

Senator DIRKSEN. But it would appear from the general membership and the concept that prevails in so many countries that our conservative attitude is almost always outvoted, I take it?

Mr. McGRATH. Unfortunately our Government delegate will practically always vote with the other countries of the world, and our labor delegate votes with the other countries of the world. So the other countries of the world believe, as a result of that expression, that the United States Government is in total and complete accord with what has been proposed, and we are just the antisocial, disgruntled employers of the world.

As I said before, we get licked all the time, but we finally developed a sort of leatherlike constitution which enables us to take our beating and come back and ask them for more, and use their Socialist soapbox to try to preach freedom of America and the private-enterprise system and the benefits it has given to this country that is supporting the rest of the world.

That is heresy when you talk like that, when you talk there about government being the servant of the people and the people being the masters, why, you are speaking disrespectfully, and you should speak in a low voice, because you are certainly not speaking in accord with the beliefs of most of the rest of the nations of the world, and you feel very much alone.

As you meet with these nations year after year you see that they do not understand at all about America. Our Government has not been telling those people the story of America. They have been telling those people over there that we are completely socialistic over here, that we are in favor of all these things. I will get to that a little later. To illustrate the Socialist nature of these proposed international laws I want to go into detail as briefly as I can with respect to some of the most recent ILO conventions.

At last June's Conference the ILO passed, a convention entitled "Minimum Standards of Social Security." This was a draft of an international law providing "government benefits" for practically "all the ills the flesh is heir to." Under this proposal, government would pay people money for the following:

Any condition requiring medical care of preventive or curative nature, including pregnancy, and any "morbid condition, whatever its cause." This would include hospitalization, medicines, and so forth.

Loss of earnings due to sickness of any sort.

Unemployment.

Survival beyond a prescribed age.

Employment injuries, including medical care, hospitalization, and medicines.

Babies: Government pays you for having them. The more you have the more money you get.

Childbirth, including medical care, hospitalization if necessary, and an allowance for suspension of earnings.

Invalidity, which is defined as "inability to engage in any gainful activity."

Death benefits, that is, life insurance.

Realizing, apparently, that full compliance with all the provisions of this Convention would break the financial back of any country which attempted it, it was voted, that any member country could ratify the Convention by adopting any three or more of the above category of benefits. By this political device a country could get credit among its voters for having "adopted the Social-Security Convention" without the obligation of fulfilling more than a fraction of its terms.

When this proposal was first considered in 1951 it contained a provision to the effect that insurance should be compulsory and subsidized by government, and that no insurance would be legal unless government paid at least one-fourth of the cost of the premiums.

This would put government in the insurance business and very shortly put private companies out of it.

Mr. Edward Stark, a member of the workers delegation from Austria, said to Mr. A. D. Marshall, a member of our United States employer delegation, that-and I quote

the proposed convention did not provide for the immediate destruction of the voluntary system of insurance, but would prevent its further extension.

He was referring to the system which we have in the United States. As a result of the violent opposition to this proposal by the employers serving on this committee, this particular article was omitted from the 1952 draft of the convention which was passed by the ILO last June. I cite it as an example of the intentions of the governmentlabor socialistic bloc in control of the ILO. These intentions do not change. Sooner or later they will try it again.

I will deviate from my text a moment to let you know why they were persuaded, why these planners were persuaded to omit that particular section.

When we came back from the 1951 conference we got in touch with a few of the insurance companies here in America and asked, "What are you fellows doing about this situation? Are you going to let this

« ÎnapoiContinuă »