them. As I read the first amendment it forbids any abridgment by Government whether directly or indirectly."

Mr. Justice Hugo Black said: "Compelling a man by law to pay his money to elect candidates or advocate laws or doctrines he is against differs only in degree, if at all, from compelling him by law to speak for a candidate, a party, or a cause he is against. The very reason for the first amendment is to make the people of this country free to think, speak, write, and worship as they wish, not as the Government commands. * * * The stark fact is that this act of Congress is being used as a means to exact money from these employees to help get votes to win elections for parties and candidates and to support doctrines they are against. If this is constitutional, the first amendment is not the charter of political and religious liberty its sponsors believed it to be.

"That (first) amendment leaves the Federal Government no power whatever to compel one man to expend his energy, his time, or his money to advance the fortunes of candidates he would like to see defeated or to urge ideologies and causes he believes would be hurtful to the country."

Unions are using tax-exempt status to do the things Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Black declare unconstitutional. If this be true, Internal Revenue Service is indirectly subordinating first amendment rights where union shops exist, by allowing tax exemption for purposes described herein.

I have reported these facts to Internal Revenue Service by registered letter. Unions are even now so powerful that IRS will no doubt sweep the evidence under the rug.

Even if unions actually confined their activities to collective bargaining, there is much to be said against compulsory membership. Any and all methods, fair or foul, sabotage or lies, are the sacred rights of the working class to accomplish their purpose and to gain fringe benefits. These same methods have never been and would not be tolerated by management. Carried to an ultimate conclusion, this can lead only to despotism, tyranny, and ruin. Free enterprise must give way to collectivism. We cannot repeatedly scorn the divine laws of God, using any method to gain an end, without becoming degenerates. Man without God is nothing.

Vigilant Cicero, over 2.000 years ago, warned that only evil persons promise the people luxuries that have not been earned. Their only concern is for power, their only wish to enslave the people. Rome was once strong with faith, patriotism, and justice. Its bloody road to despotism and ruin should serve as a warning beacon to us now.

We have the history of Israel's prosperity under God, captivity and ruin when they deserted their faith and principles. Israel's King Ahab made one unholy alliance after another for political expedience and his kingdom_never recovered. One such alliance was his marriage to the heathen princess Jezebel of Tyre. She was an evil person of ability and forcefulness, as are our labor leaders today. She deluded and led Israel to foreign and idolatrous altars. The kingdom was swept with immorality.

Today our Government, like Ahab, is making one unholy alliance after another with Jezebels for political expedience. Take a look at the congressional investigations of labor leaders. They all took refuge in the fifth amendment. Today these same men are demanding absolute power and control over the individual. By their own admission, they want the union shop for power of discipline. We have Apostle John's divinely inspired message to the church at Thyatira written in the first century A.D., while a slave on the Island of Patmos. John had been sent there because he was a Christian leader. Rome's ambitions had made her an ally of Satan. Christ was speaking through John on that island of rock and his message was for all generations.

In Revelations 2:18-29, John commends the Christians at Thyatira for their works, charity, and service, but warns them against tolerating the evil Jezebel, that death and destruction would come to all who committed spiritual adultery with her. In Revelations, Jezebel is a symbol for evil, corruption, and government without God.

Thyatira was a small town in Asia Minor with little importance in that day, except that it was a town of trade guilds. All crafts were organized, the baker's the potters, tanners, workers in wool and flax, etc. No one could buy or sell without guild membership. The guilds, as our unions today, did a lot of good. However, gluttony, drunkenness, and sexual orgies were a common practice, so that there was a growing laxity about God.

Will America, the world's greatest Nation, become as a Thyatira? Will America be led to foreign and idolatrous altars by the evil genius Jezebel in the name of fringe benefits?

To repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act is to sentence the American working class to the Socialist Party, U.S.A. It may well lead to the end of the free enterprise system and all it means to us.

I will be glad to answer any questions conerning my litigation or experience with organized labor. My office phone is NA 8-4460, ext. 377. Home phone: 387-4128.

STATEMENT OF SYL EHR, PORTLAND, OREG.

Except for one or two very brief periods, I have been a member of local No. 428 (Sign, Scene and Pictorial Artists) since 1924. However, I did take a withdrawal during World War II at which time I was with the Naval Architects Office for approximately 4 years.

Over the years I have worked in the trade as an apprentice, a helper, and a journeyman signpainter. At the present time, I own and operate the West Coast Sign Co. which I established in about 1930. I also authored a book, "Signpainters Don't Read Signs," which enjoyed some success.

From 1924 until the present time I have witnessed a disturbing change in all phases of organized labor. This feeling is shared by my many friends in organized labor who see in this gradual takeover by the union bosses who are now, for the most part, replacing the leadership we had enjoyed in the past, the final disintegration of the labor movement.

Where, in the past, we had been proud to be a part of organized labor we now find ourselves supporting an alien philosophy forced upon us by labor bosses some of whom have trained in a foreign land.

The time is drawing near, if indeed it has not already arrived, in which no organized labor at all will be far better for the workingman that what we are being, led into.

Many of us regard a closed shop as a slave labor camp. Only here the workman is a slave to the union boss instead of the owner of the respective business. It is no longer a case of what is best for the workman or what is best for the industry, but what is best for the union boss.

Our only hope, as members of organized labor, to hold the line against the complete takeover and consequent eventual disintegration of the union movement is to retain section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. It is a tragic admittance of the power of the union bosses that so few union members dare to make their feelings public.

Of course we recognize only too well that we do have the greedy and shortsighted in our ranks who are aiding and abetting the undermining of the movement by the bosses of organized labor but every poll, public or private, that we have been able to find indicates that the majority are Americans first and union members second.

I humbly submit this as the basis on which I believe it is vital that section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act be retained. I am convinced this view is shared by the majority of union members.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS D. RAMSEY, INDIANAPOLIS, IND.

My name is Thomas D. Ramsey. I live at 431 North Keystone Avenue, Indianapolis, Ind., and operate a small farm in nearby Illinois. I am a toolroom grinder for the International Harvester Co. at its Indianapolis plant. For many years, I was an active union worker and helped enlist members for local 98 of the United Auto Workers.

I am here today to respectfully urge that you reject S. 256 and retain section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.

In opposing this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that except for the evils of compulsory membership agreements, I today would be several thousands of dollars wealthier and my employment security-a subject which ostensibly is so vital to all union bosses-would be considerably brighter. I should add that the compulsions placed upon the worker by such contracts also effect management. Many times they place the employee in an ironlike vise between union and management and deny him even the most basic of human rights.

In my own case, I was thrown out of work because of (1) an admitted error on the part of management, and (2) an insistence upon the part of the union involved that I be denied my seniority, and thus fired, because of this error. To compound these indignities, I now again must pay dues to support that very union which caused me so much hardship.

Ironically, I believe, the union has about as much desire for my membership as I have to pay dues. It is only because the union wants the $5 I am required to pay each month and the fact that an agency shop agreement is in force, that I do not, technically, have to belong to UAW. Should the company for which I have worked so many years ever negotiate a union shop, under the terms of which I would have to belong to the union-then, I am sure, management would be forced to fire me.

I first went to work for International Harvester at its motor plant, 5565 Brookeville Road, Indianapolis, on February 11, 1942. I voluntarily joined the United Auto Workers, which was attempting to organize the workers at the plant, in 1947 and helped enlist others into the union.

My first disagreement with the UAW came a year later, when the company, because of economic factors, ordered a reduction in force. Despite my seniority, an alternate steward for the union. who enjoyed the privilege of "super seniority" bumped me to a lower paying job and took my post. In the event you gentlemen are not familiar with this phase of union bossism, I will explain that "super seniority" clauses allow union officials to hold their own jobs or take the jobs of other members, despite the customary seniority practices and guarantees which are common in most labor-management contracts.

Naturally, I resented what had happened, but stuck at my job and did not complain. By 1949, I had worked my way back up to my former position. My advancement was short lived. Another reduction in force was ordered and, again, one of the alternate stewards who had far less seniority than I had, "bumped" me to a lower job.

I believe you can understand the extent of my indignation with this UAW practice. After being demoted twice in a year's time by special, self-centered individuals within the union, I was thoroughly disillusioned with the "great brotherhood" and "working benefits" which had been put forward as sales arguments by the UAW during its organization period.

As a result of this mistreatment, I requested the management of International Harvester to discontinue deduction of union dues from my wages and filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board against the company and the union.

Although my request to withhold dues from UAW was granted, the NRLB induced me to withdraw the unfair labor practice charges, saying "super seniority" clauses were quite legal under terms of the National Labor Relations Act.

I thus enjoyed immunity from the evils of compulsory unionism until 1955. An industrywide contract entered into by International Harvester with the UAW on November 6 of that year, required all employees who were not members to join the union within 30 days. Obviously the contract left me but two choices: Comply or face loss of my job. Not being independently wealthy, I complied with the requirements under protest.

In 1957 and 1958, great national attention was focused upon the brutal actions of union bosses and their lieutenants in so-called organizing drives. I am sure you gentlemen will recall the infant who was shot through the head in the trailer home of her father, who had been so injudicious as to cross a picket line in the Potter-Brumfield strike in Princeton, Ind., as well as the many other disclosures made before the McClellan committee in the Senate.

I had read about passage of the "right-to-work" law, which was to abolish compulsory unionism in Indiana, and on April 29, 1958, wrote both the company and the union the following:

"I have conscientious objections to union methods and their implications. My convictions will no permit support of such actions. I request that no deductions be made from my pay, except that which is a condition of employment. If at any time such condition ceases to exist, by law or otherwise, I request my release from membership in local No. 98."

I have emphasized the latter part of the letter because of its subsequent importance.

Although the "right-to-work” law had been enacted, it did not apply to contracts then in force, and my continued payment of dues was a condition of my employment. Through a managerial error, however, my dues payments were stopped soon after International Harvester received my letter.

Sixty days later, the union demanded that I be fired for failure to pay dues. The company denied the union demand, pointing out that I had made provisions of the "right-to-work" law a condition for discontinuance of dues payments and citing a ruling of an Indiana court declaring that contracts requiring payment of union dues as a condition of employment were illegal.

From then until 1960, the union filed repeated grievances with the company regarding my nonpayment of dues for the disputed period and demanded my dismissal. Although the company refused to bow to these demands, it was forced, under terms of its contract, to submit them to arbitration. On August 18, 1960, I was called into the office and notified that the arbiter's decision had been in favor of the union and that I was to lose 16 of my 18 years' seniority.

The reasoning behind this decision was that my dues had not been paid during the brief period after Indiana's "right-to-work" law was in effect but before expiration of the union shop contract.

In his decision, David L. Cole, the arbitrator, said:

"Under all these circumstances, it must be held that the company was in error in failing to observe the provisions of article V, section I (of the contract) and that it was not excused therefrom by either *** the declaratory judgment (of the Indiana court) or the subsection I(c) of article V. This subsection refers to States in which the enforcement of union security provisions is prohibited by law. "At the hearing, in the light of the peculiar time factor, the union agreed that Ramsey may be regarded as reemployed on August 1, 1958, and also that for all purposes other than the maintenance of his seniority rights relating to job tenure, it would not object if the company treats his service as unbroken ***"

In short, although I had worked for International Harvester since 1942, I was to be regarded as initially employed, insofar as job tenure was concerned, in 1958. I took my case to the NLRB, where it was heard by Trial Examiner David London, who ruled in my favor on November 13, 1961. The case was later appealed by the union and the full board reversed London on September 25, 1962. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the NLRB in a ruling handed down in 1964. A year earlier, however, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the State's "right-to-work" law did not apply to so-called agency shop agreements, since they required payment of dues but did not compel employees to join the unions concerned.

As a result of the ruling, the UAW obtained an agency shop agreement and I have been forced to pay dues since. When contract negotiations with International Harvester are reopened, I have no doubt that the union shop will be the prime target of union representatives. Then, because Indiana no longer has a "right-to-work" law and despite all the protections the employee supposedly has under the law, my dismissal perhaps will be demanded. I am sure you have heard of numerous cases where labor bosses expelled employees, both from union membership and their jobs, because of the power granted unions under this type of contract.

I do not want to take up too much more of your time, so will not detail the numerous abuses, insults, and obscenities which were hurled at me throughout my ordeal by union officials.

I shall conclude simply by repeating what an attorney once told me about our principle of law-that it is better that a thousand criminals go free than for one innocent man to be punished. I believe you must agree that I am, at least, one innocent man who has been punished.

I thank you.

Mr. LARSON. Freedom of association is a precious right. In our society no group should have the power to compel any person to join, to obey, or to conform to their rules. We believe that the average American citizen, the man in the street, is firmly committed to this idea and opposes any program of forced association or forced financial support to any group.

The Government alone should have the right to tax the citizen or to require him to conform to its laws and regulations. No private organization, whether it be a labor union, a church, a fraternal body, or any other type of organization, should have such power.

By every measure of public opinion-newspaper polls, public opinion surveys, congressional polls, editorial reaction-by every measurable evidence of public sentiment-Americans want 14(b) preserved.

Furthermore, on that point I might add that all surveys further indicate that most Americans believe that union membership should

50-202-65— -12

be voluntary, not compulsory, aside from the question here of whether or not the States' right to rule in this area should be preserved.

Beyond that, Americans overwhelmingly agree with the idea that compulsory membership in unions is wrong.

We hear so much about this free rider argument I think it is important that I cover that and emphasize that point.

It is also argued that an employee who does not join the union or pay his fair share of the costs of collective bargaining is a free rider who enjoys the benefits gained for him by the union without paying for them. This free rider argument assumes that the only reason an employee would want to stay out or withdraw from the union is to avoid payment of dues.

The fact of the matter is, however, that there are many people who are unwilling to join or support a union on religious or moral grounds or because the union leadership is corrupt or because the union is using the dues money for political action and other causes to which they object.

Others may feel that the union is not giving them proper representation. There are many workers in the more highly skilled occupations who genuinely feel that without union imposed restrictions and limitations upon their productive ability, their earning power would be greater.

These and many other workers feel that the individual employee under a compulsory union shop contract is more a captive passenger than a free rider.

We urge the members of this distinguished committee, and all the Members of the U.S. Senate, to take note of the very important fact that the demand for repeal of section 14 (b) is not one that has welled up from the people of this country, or even from the people in the union ranks.

It is a demand which originates from and is being pushed by a small group of union officers and agents, a relative handful of people, who have the sole objective of enhancing their own power and privilege. Our opposition to repeal of section 14(b) can be summed up in the observation made by one union member that "good unions don't need compulsory unionism; and bad unions don't deserve it." Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you very much, Mr. Larson, I am sure your testimony will add a great deal to our record. I am glad you could be here this morning to present it.

Any questions, Senator Morse?

Senator MORSE. No questions.

Senator MCNAMARA. Senator Prouty?

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Larson, in your statement you indicate that in your opinion at least a vast majority of the American people prefer retention of 14(b). Is this correct?

Mr. LARSON. The vast majority are in favor.

Senator PROUTY. Of 14(b)?

Mr. LARSON. Yes; that is our firm conclusion by every available yardstick.

Senator PROUTY. I have proposed an amendment with which you may be familiar, which would provide for a national referendum in which all eligible voters would have an opportunity to vote on this question in the event that Congress should repeal 14(b).