to the level of his worst sweat-shop competitor. It strikes from the hand of labor its most effective weapon-the right to strike. It discourages collective bargaining by encouraging individual bargaining, though our experience from 1920 to 1929 proved that individual bargaining can only result in reduction of wages and consequent depression. It revives company unionism as a method by which the employer may sit on both sides of the bargaining table. It lumps together for punitive action the criminal or slothful employee and the honest and conscientious worker; it deprives the patriotic citizen of long-established rights in order to punish the misguided. The bill is not designed to help employers but to punish labor. It strikes at the established Federal policy of encouraging collective bargaining, to make of the Federal Government a mere police court, taking over functions which have, with few exceptions, been well handled by States and local communities. While preaching economy, the majority would enormously increase the size of the Federal establishment devoted to the handling of labor problems. While denouncing bureaucracy, the majority would set up two new independent agencies within the executive branch of the Government. While they decry Federal intervention in local affairs, the majority would transfer from State and local authority to the Federal Government, or would duplicate within the Federal Government, matters traditionally left to State action. While purporting to defend free enterprise and free collective bargaining, the majority would throw about employers, employees, and trade-unions shackles not heretofore proposed in any legislative assembly in the country. While pretending to seek industrial peace, the majority have included in their bill proposals which would unsettle labor relations, make illegal countless heretofore accepted industrial practices, destroy many well-recognized legal rights, and bring to labor relations a confusion and chaos which must result in bitter and costly strikes. We cannot believe that such a program can commend itself to men conscious of their responsibilities. THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSALS Under the guise of punishing a few labor leaders, the majority bill strikes down many legitimate rights of the rank and file of labor. It wholly ignores the warning voiced by President Truman in his State of the Union Message to the Congress on January 6, 1947, that— We must not, under the stress of emotion, endanger, our American freedoms by taking ill-considered action which will lead to results not anticipated or desired. In reporting the bill the majority has paid little attention to the evidence before the committee on the score of major problems in labor relations and labor disputes dealt with in the bill. This bill could have been written by the would-be destroyers of organized labor just as well before as after the hearings. It is not our contention that this field is not a proper subject for fair, carefully developed legislation. We take the position that, as President Truman said in his State of the Union Message: We should enact legislation to correct certain abuses and to provide additional governmental assistance in bargaining. But we should also concern ourselves with the basic causes of labor-management difficulties. That message first outlined certain immediate steps to be taken: (a) Legislation to prevent jurisdictional strikes intended to compel employers to bargain with a minority union instead of the majority unions in their plants; (b) legislation to provide for peaceful and binding determinations of jurisdictional disputes over which union is entitled to perform a particular work task: (c) legislation to prohibit secondary boycotts "when used to further jurisdictional disputes or to compel employers to violate the National Labor Relations Act"; and (d) legislation to provide for final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning the interpretation of the terms of collective-bargaining agreements. As the second point in his program, equally as important as the first, the President urged the strengthening of facilities within the Department of Labor for assisting the processes of free and voluntary collective bargaining. As the message stated: There is need for integrated governmental machinery to provide the successive steps of mediation, voluntary arbitration, and ultimately in appropriate cases-ascertainment of the facts of the dispute and the reporting of them to the public. Such machinery would facilitate and expedite the settlement of disputes. Point 3 of the President's program called for broadening Federal programs of social legislation to alleviate the causes of workers' insecurity. The President pointed out: On June 11, 1946, in my message vetoing the Case bill, I made a comprehensive statement of my views concerning labor-management relations. I said then, and I repeat now, that the solution of labor-management difficulties is to be found not only in legislation dealing directly with labor relations but also in a program designed to remove the causes of insecurity felt by many workers in our industrial society. In this connection, for example, the Congress should consider the extension and broadening of our social-security system, better housing, a comprehensive national-health program, and provision for a fair minimum wage. Finally, the President urged creation of a temporary joint commission to inquire into the entire field of labor-management relations, composed of 12 Members of Congress chosen by the Congress and 8 members representing the public, management, and labor appointed by the President. He suggested that this commission investigate and make recommendations on certain subjects such as (1) Nationwide strikes in vital industries affecting the public interest; (2) methods and procedures for carrying out the collective-bargaining process; and (3) the underlying causes of labor-management disputes. The undersigned believe that the procedures recommended by the President represent a sound approach to the problem of legislation designed to facilitate settlement of labor controversies with a minimum of strikes and other work stoppages. The approach followed by the majority of this committee is inconsistent with the steps recommended by the President at every point. The majority bill strikes out against alleged abuses in all directions. The majority is not content to prohibit jurisdictional strikes and disputes; it would wholly destroy labor's right to strike as an organizational weapon. It wholly fails to distinguish between justified and unjustified secondary boycotts and bans all boycotts indiscriminately. Instead of providing for binding arbitration of questions concerning to the level of his worst sweat-shop competitor. It strikes from the hand of labor its most effective weapon-the right to strike. It discourages collective bargaining by encouraging individual bargaining, though our experience from 1920 to 1929 proved that individual bargaining can only result in reduction of wages and consequent depression. It revives company unionism as a method by which the employer may sit on both sides of the bargaining table. It lumps together for punitive action the criminal or slothful employee and the honest and conscientious worker; it deprives the patriotic citizen of long-established rights in order to punish the misguided. The bill is not designed to help employers but to punish labor. It strikes at the established Federal policy of encouraging collective bargaining, to make of the Federal Government a mere police court, taking over functions which have, with few exceptions, been well handled by States and local communities. While preaching economy, the majority would enormously increase the size of the Federal establishment devoted to the handling of labor problems. While denouncing bureaucracy, the majority would set up two new independent agencies within the executive branch of the Government. While they decry Federal intervention in local affairs, the majority would transfer from State and local authority to the Federal Government, or would duplicate within the Federal Government, matters traditionally left to State action. While purporting to defend free enterprise and free collective bargaining, the majority would throw about employers, employees, and trade-unions shackles not heretofore proposed in any legislative assembly in the country. While pretending to seek industrial peace, the majority have included in their bill proposals which would unsettle labor relations, make illegal countless heretofore accepted industrial practices, destroy many well-recognized legal rights, and bring to labor relations a confusion and chaos which must result in bitter and costly strikes. We cannot believe that such a program can commend itself to men conscious of their responsibilities. THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSALS Under the guise of punishing a few labor leaders, the majority bill strikes down many legitimate rights of the rank and file of labor. It wholly ignores the warning voiced by President Truman in his State of the Union Message to the Congress on January 6, 1947, that— We must not, under the stress of emotion, endanger, our American freedoms by taking ill-considered action which will lead to results not anticipated or desired. In reporting the bill the majority has paid little attention to the evidence before the committee on the score of major problems in labor relations and labor disputes dealt with in the bill. This bill could have been written by the would-be destroyers of organized labor just as well before as after the hearings. It is not our contention that this field is not a proper subject for fair, carefully developed legislation. We take the position that, as President Truman said in his State of the Union Message: We should enact legislation to correct certain abuses and to provide additional governmental assistance in bargaining. But we should also concern ourselves with the basic causes of labor-management difficulties. That message first outlined certain immediate steps to be taken: (a) Legislation to prevent jurisdictional strikes intended to compel employers to bargain with a minority union instead of the majority unions in their plants; (b) legislation to provide for peaceful and binding determinations of jurisdictional disputes over which union is entitled to perform a particular work task: (c) legislation to prohibit secondary boycotts "when used to further jurisdictional disputes or to compel employers to violate the National Labor Relations Act"; and (d) legislation to provide for final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning the interpretation of the terms of collective-bargaining agreements. As the second point in his program, equally as important as the first, the President urged the strengthening of facilities within the Department of Labor for assisting the processes of free and voluntary collective bargaining. As the message stated: There is need for integrated governmental machinery to provide the successive steps of mediation, voluntary arbitration, and, ultimately in appropriate cases-ascertainment of the facts of the dispute and the reporting of them to the public. Such machinery would facilitate and expedite the settlement of disputes. Point 3 of the President's program called for broadening Federal programs of social legislation to alleviate the causes of workers' insecurity. The President pointed out: On June 11, 1946, in my message vetoing the Case bill, I made a comprehensive statement of my views concerning labor-management relations. I said then, and I repeat now, that the solution of labor-management difficulties is to be found not only in legislation dealing directly with labor relations but also in a program designed to remove the causes of insecurity felt by many workers in our industrial society. In this connection, for example, the Congress should consider the extension and broadening of our social-security system, better housing, a comprehensive national-health program, and provision for a fair minimum wage. Finally, the President urged creation of a temporary joint commission to inquire into the entire field of labor-management relations, composed of 12 Members of Congress chosen by the Congress and 8 members representing the public, management, and labor appointed by the President. He suggested that this commission investigate and make recommendations on certain subjects such as (1) Nationwide strikes in vital industries affecting the public interest; (2) methods and procedures for carrying out the collective-bargaining process; and (3) the underlying causes of labor-management disputes. The undersigned believe that the procedures recommended by the President represent a sound approach to the problem of legislation designed to facilitate settlement of labor controversies with a minimum of strikes and other work stoppages. The approach followed by the majority of this committee is inconsistent with the steps recommended by the President at every point. The majority bill strikes out against alleged abuses in all directions. The majority is not content to prohibit jurisdictional strikes and disputes; it would wholly destroy labor's right to strike as an organizational weapon. It wholly fails to distinguish between justified and unjustified secondary boycotts and bans all boycotts indiscriminately. Instead of providing for binding arbitration of questions concerning the meaning of contract terms it opens the Federal courts wide to suits for breach of contract without regard to the ordinary prerequisites of Federal jurisdiction, such as the requirement that the amount in controversy must exceed $3,000 and the constitutional stipulation limiting suits in the Federal courts to cases arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States or involving diversity of citizenship. Far from strengthening the facilities of the United States Conciliation Service in the Department of Labor, the majority would remove these facilities from this Department. Instead of bringing greater order and effectiveness into the Government's activities in the promotion of stable labor relations and peaceful settlement of labor-management disputes, they would create a multiplicity of new agencies handling such matters, including even the courts, and would promote disorder and confusion. Little has been heard in this committee of measures designed to remove causes of workers' insecurity. Yet, such measures are pending action by this committee. Finally, this committee has had before it since January 23, 1947, House Joint Resolution 83, which would create a temporary labor relations commission to make a study and recommendations concerning labor relations along lines proposed by the President in his message. No action has been taken by the majority to report legislation authorizing such a study. The undersigned believe that such a study is an essential preliminary to any Federal legislation designed to promote labor-management peace and stability which will be fair to the public, to management, and to labor alike. Instead, the majority proposes to deal with the whole problem now in a single bill, without study, without fair or adequate consideration. They have (A) proposed a bill which completely rewrites the National Labor Relations Act and which incorporates into this act provisions which change its entire structure and destroy its purpose. In addition, they would (B) wipe out the existing Conciliation Service in the Department of Labor and establish a new agency to handle conciliation and mediation of labor disputes for the Federal Government. Finally, (C) they propose a number of miscellaneous legislative provisions relating to the application of the antitrust laws to labor unions, suits by and against unions in the Federal courts, regulation of unions and filing of financial statements, and restrictions on political contributions by labor unions. The destructive nature of these measures can best be understood by discussing them by titles and sections. A. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AMENDMENTS DECLARATION OF POLICY Section 1 (a) contains a short title and declaration of policy of the act and title I, section 101, section 1, contains a statement of policy of the National Labor Relations Act as amended. It is notable that neither declaration of policy places any emphasis upon the national interest in encouraging the use of collective bargaining for the settlement of labor disputes, though it is has long been recognized that in a free society collective bargaining is the best available means of settling industrial problems. Title I, section 101, section 1, states it to be the |