We are not saying that this would necessarily lead to more strikes. What we are saying is that it leads to a bad atmosphere in the whole milieu of labor management relations, and this is the thing which

concerns us.

Our people get all wrought up, which is understandable, the opposition gets all wrought up, name calling goes on that in more sober moments both sides probably wish they had not done.

This is the inevitable thing that happens when you get a highly charged emotional fight on, such as there was in California, Washington, Ohio, and three other States in 1958, and such as goes on wherever this issue comes before a State legislature or a referendum. This is the point we are making.

Senator FANNIN. I think if you would check the facts that there are fewer strikes and less controversies in "right-to-work" States than in the other States.

Mr. BIEMILLER. There is less controversy in one sense because there is a complete lack of labor-management relationship in most "rightto-work" States.

Senator FANNIN. I would like to place in the record at this time the work stoppages by States, the number of workers involved, the number of man-days idle.

Senator MCNAMARA. Without objection it will be included in the record.

(The information requested follows:)

Senator FANNIN. This is from the Library of Congress.

You also made a statement that section 14(b) is an exception to other Federal laws.

Now, speaking of exceptions I would just like to cite a few that I think should be considered Congress and the National Labor Relations Board and the courts have already granted the unions a long list of special privileges enjoyed by no other organization or institution in our society and let me just quote a few.

Unions may prescribe their own rules for acquisition or retention of membership; they are immune from taxation in many instances; they are virtually exempted from antitrust laws; they are protected in many situations against the issuance of a Federal court injunction; in 31 of the 50 States unions can force employees to pay dues in order to hold their jobs; they have the exclusive right to act as collective bargaining agents even for those workers who do not want to join the

union.

They also have the right in some instances to invade the privacy of workers against their will, thus depriving them of the legal right granted to all other individuals in our society; they can and do use dues which members have been compelled to contribute to financial campaigns which some of their members oppose.

These are all special privileges. What do you say about this side of the street?

Mr. HARRIS. I would say that list you read is a collection of false statements, irrelevances, and even some true statements. The very first statement you read was incorrect entirely.

Senator FANNIN. Many prescribe their own rules on acquisition and retention of membership. You know in actuality that is true.

Mr. HARRIS. I suggest you read title 7 of the Civil Rights Act. Senator FANNIN. I am talking from the practical standpoint. Mr. HARRIS. We are talking about the practical standpoint and the legal standpoint. The statement you read is entirely inaccurate. Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act specifically forbids unions to discriminate in membership on the grounds of race, religion, sex, and so on. That is not giving them freedom to prescribe their own rules.

Senator FANNIN. You are certainly not sitting there and taking the position that this is what happens in the relationship of union with management. I am sure you are not taking that position, because you know better.

Mr. HARRIS. I would say that the AFL-CIO has been working very hard to see that this is what happens and that it does happen for the most part.

There are certainly still a few spots where some local unions do discriminate.

You, however, are talking about special privileges under the lawat least that is what you said you were talking about.

Senator FANNIN. That is right.

Mr. HARRIS. Your statement was certainly 100 percent inaccurate on that.

Senator FANNIN. I mean what I have observed and you have observed throughout the country.

Mr. HARRIS. You are shifting the ground of the discussion, you started off saying these are special legal privileges enjoyed by unions. When I called it to your attention that the first one you list is not a

special legal privilege, that in fact the Civil Rights Act passed last year deprives unions of that, and I may say we supported the act, but it does specifically say that they may not prescribe their own rules for membership.

Senator FANNIN. They set up their rules within the law, that is true. They set up their own rules, they are not set down by the

courts.

Now, we will go ahead, you say

Mr. HARRIS. They are set down by the Congress insofar as the Civil Rights Act applies, not by the courts.

Senator FANNIN. "Sometimes union security provisions are essential to the very survival of a union in a specific work place." You talk about all of the benefits that accrue to all of the workers and you come back inconsistent with this statement.

Why cannot the unions justify their membership solicitation on the basis of the services performed?

Mr. HARRIS. The phrase in the statement you referred to has reference to situations like the building trades where employment is for brief periods, and is sporadic, and unless the union has some voice in hiring it is very difficult to maintain a union there; or, again, to such employment as in restaurants, where there is a very large percentage of turnover during the course of a year.

There a union may not be able to maintain itself without some union security arrangements, because of the difficulty of picking up new employees as they come in and leave.

Senator FANNIN. But do you not agree that if they are not performing a service they do not justify their existence?

Mr. HARRIS. We, of course, think that they do perform the service. What I am endeavoring to explain to you is that no matter what service the union performs if the work is sufficiently sporadic or sufficiently short in duration, a union simply cannot be created and organized in the available time. The time to organize the people, the time to persuade them to join, the time for them to realize the service that is given them, just does not exist.

To give you a very simple example, if a dance band is hired for a single performance, it is either going to be a union band when it is hired or it is not. The people who show up to play for a dance cannot at that point be sold on the merits of unionism.

Senator FANNIN. You are just giving an exception.

Mr. HARRIS. I wanted to make it very simple, but when you come to the building trades, the situation is essentially the same-the job is not a 1-night job but it may be a 2-week job. Even on a large project, the electricians may be employed for 2 weeks.

Now, there is not much time there for the unions to persuade them as to what it has done for them.

Senator FANNIN. Of course, the record would certainly be in evidence for the workers so they would not need to make that decision. on the spur of the moment.

Mr. HARRIS. Well, that is going to be a union job from the inception or else it is going to be a nonunion job from the inception and throughout.

It

It simply is not possible for the employees after they go on a job like that in the limited time available to decide to join a union. is impossible for the labor board to hold an election in that period.

50-202 0-65--8