keep their word and live up to their agreements with employers. That is a simple matter of integrity and good faith.

But look at what happens when a wildcat strike occurs, and they do; inevitably the employer demands that the union get the men back to work, usually threatening or actually filing suit. When the union does its best to get the strikers back to work, since the strike was unauthorized, sometimes threatening not to handle the strikers' cases if they are discharged or otherwise disciplined, and puts on enough pressure, the strikers usually go back.

But the more pressure, the madder the strikers will be at the union. It is not unknown for strikers to go back to work and then resign from the union in a "right-to-work" State.

So, in short, a union needs union security to be able to discharge its responsibilities as collective-bargaining representative.

Without union security, it may have a choice between irresponsibility or disintegration.

In conclusion, let me reaffirm our conviction that the repeal of section 14(b) is a matter that transcends the specific interests of the labor movement.

As President Meany has said, and I use his words, "The denial of union security agreements to workers and employers has weakened unions and has hampered the operation of free collective bargaining, including the observance of good-faith agreements." But we do not

base our case on this alone.

Other aspects are more important to the Nation, and, therefore, we are sure, to this committee.

There is the purposeless waste of money and manpower, and the baseless antagonisms, which are the inevitable products of "right-towork" contests. And there is the regressive effect of so-called "rightto-work" on every aspect of American life.

We in the AFL-CIO are proud that virtually all the great legislative accomplishments of this Congress and its recent predecessors were brought about by our active support.

We can say, in all modesty, that in some instances our support was decisive. And I am referring to measures which directly affected unions or union members only to the degree that they affected the population as a whole.

I submit that the existence of a strong labor movement, able to act as the "people's lobby," able to speak out strongly for the public interest, is of vital importance to the Nation; just as strong unions, able to bargain for fair wages and working conditions, are of vital importance to workers.

So, we urge you put an end to this fruitless strife over an indefensible cause. Let the labor movement-yes, and its antagonistsdevote the energies they now waste in sterile combat to the advancement of the greater society we all seek.

All these ends will be served by the bill before you. We hope you will give it your full approval.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you very much, Mr. Biemiller. That statement of yours is very helpful and we are glad to have it for the record.

Are there any questions or comments?

Senator Prouty?

Senator PROUTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Biemiller, as usual you made a very effective statement in support of your position and I certainly agree with many of the things that you have suggested.

Yesterday when Secretary Wirtz was before the committee I asked him if he would be in favor of a national referendum on the question of the repeal of section 14 b and I would like to quote his exact words which were taken from the transcript.

He replied as follows:

I would be in favor if that referendum could be held sufficiently quickly that is would not slow up what I consider to be the Congress discharge of its obligation at this point, and if that issue could be fairly posed so that it would be understood. Then he continued, and I quote again:

I would think the testing of the popular will would be a good thing but again I say only that it be done under circumstances and time that would permit the discharge by the Government of what seems to me its obligation at this point.

Now, I have proposed an amendment which would do just that and I would like your comment with respect to my amendment or particularly with respect to Secretary Wirtz' view on the question.

Mr. BIEMILLER. Senator, I think we would be opposed to any referendum.

In the first place there is no provision in the Constitution for a national referendum of any nature. You would have a very devil of a time setting up the machinery. Many States do not have any procedure for referendums, as well as the lack of such a provision in the Federal Government.

And I think if you are going to start putting national laws to referendums, you will just in effect negate the whole purpose of the Congress.

We have a system of representative government and that is the system to which the American labor movement has long been dedicated.

I just do not see the feasibility of putting this or any other Federal law to a referendum.

Senator PROUTY. Of course, under my proposal Congress would have to vote on this first before the referendum.

Mr. BIEMILLER. Right.

Senator PROUTY. And it does seem to me that, frankly, it might help your case. Some people in Congress may personally favor the repeal, but for political reasons at home feel they could not vote for it unless the people had an opportunity to express their opinion, you might pick up quite a few votes that otherwise you might lose.

I have been informed this is going to be a very close vote when it comes before the Congress.

Frankly, the President's recommendation which involved, I believe, only one sentence that section 14(b) be repealed, which appeared in his labor message to the Congress, did not demonstrate in my judgment any great enthusiasm for his recommendation.

I do not know what his attitude actually is, but based on that single statement, single sentence it does not, in my judgment, express a tremendous interest in this particular problem.

Mr. BIEMILLER. Senator, I would disagree with your interpretation of the President's statement. After all, what is there to say on this issue except that you are either for it or against it. This is not the sort

of thing that in a presidential message one has to develop into any great, lengthy discussion as you do when you go into a matter of unemployment compensation where there are many aspects of the law that have to be considered; and I think furthermore, that Secretary Wirtz should have given the end to any rumors that this administration is not interested in pushing the passage of S. 256 when he testified here yesterday and made it perfectly clear that the administration is going to throw its full resources into the repeal of section 14(b).

Senator PROUTY. I think we have both agreed that this has been a question posed in the political arena for the last 20 years. Certainly statements have been made both by proponents of "right-to-work" laws and by those opposed to them which cannot be justified by the facts, and I would like to get it out of that posture, and I think insomuch as many State laws are going to be invalidated if Congress repeals 14(b), that the people in these States as well as the other States should have an opportunity to express their views.

Unless somebody feels that from his point of view he will lose such a referendum, I cannot for the life of me understand why either side should object.

Senator MCNAMARA. Will the Senator yield?

Senator PROUTY. Yes, sir.

Senator MCNAMARA. In the view of the chairman, it seems to me we had a national referendum in the last national election.

We had two candidates for public office running for the Presidency of the United States, one of them was unquestionably opposed to the repeal of 14(b) and the other one was unquestionably in favor of repeal of 14(b).

It would seem to me that we had a recent referendum, national referendum, in that area, because it was one of the very clear issues in the campaign.

Senator PROUTY. I think the chairman will agree with me, that many who supported the Republican candidate for the Presidency may have disagreed with him on the question of 14(b), and I am sure there are other issues in the campaign, namely, the one involving war and peace, which were of far greater interest and concern to the rank and file of the American people than anything else.

Senator MCNAMARA. I thank the Senator for yielding. Go right ahead.

Senator PROUTY. I have just one further question, Mr. Biemiller. Do you have the figures indicating the number of union members in "right-to-work" States?

Mr. THOMAS HARRIS (counsel for the AFL-CIO). We have some figures which we secured from the Labor Department, which in turn got them from the AFL-CIO State organizations, which indicate AFL-CIO membership by States.

They do not include unions not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Senator PROUTY. Is there any way we could get those figures? Do you suppose the Labor Department has anything?

Mr. HARRIS. These are the only figures there are. We asked the Labor Department and this is what they gave us.

Senator PROUTY. Well, if we could get them I would like these figures in the record.

Mr. HARRIS. We can supply you with these figures the Labor Department supplied us with.

Senator PROUTY. Also, is there any way of determining

Mr. HARRIS. I may have misunderstood you. If you are asking about total figures which would include things like the United Mine Workers, which are not affiliated with us, or the Teamsters, those figures do not exist.

Senator PROUTY. There is no way of obtaining those figures that you know of?

Mr. HARRIS. I would not say that. It would be possible to do it, but it would involve a great deal of work for the Labor Department. You see, the reports that are filed under the Landrum-Griffin Act, the financial reports showing dues receipts do disclose union membership, but those 60,000 reports would have to be pulled out and compiled by States, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics has never done that. All that they have is the membership figures which they got from the State AFL-CIO bodies which show affiliation with those bodies.

Senator PROUTY. I think it would beʼmost belpful if we could get the figures of all union members in the "right-to-work" States and also the number of nonunion members who were covered by union contracts in those States.

Mr. HARRIS. The latter figure does not exist anywhere.

Senator MCNAMARA. Without objection the figures that have been mentioned here and that are available will be included in the record. Senator PROUTY. On a percentage basis, I realize this would have to be a guess on your part, how many union-I mean nonunion members would be protected by unions in the "right-to-work" States?

Mr. HARRIS. There is no way of determining that. Even if you examined the local union financial reports, they would only show union membership in the particular local, and would not show the number of employees in that unit who were represented by the local bureau but were not members.

What we have are figures showing AFL-CIO membership by States and we got this for 1958 and 1962, trying to determine what the impact of "right-to-work" laws has been over that 5-year period, and it is fairly evident that the "right-to-work" laws have had an adverse impact upon union membership.

They are not the only factor that has had an impact, but the overall picture shows that unions have fared less well in "right-to-work" States during that 5-year period than elsewhere.

Now, I could also supply you with the table showing AFL-CIO membership by States in relation to nonagricultural employment, that is both absolutely and as a percentage of employment which I think will show the same thing.

Senator PROUTY. I would like to have those included in the record. Mr. HARRIS. We can supply that.

Senator MCNAMARA. Without objection, that will be included at this point in the record.

(The information requested follows:)

INCREASES AND DECREASES IN UNION MEMBERSHIP, BY STATE

No statistics are available for recent years showing total union membreship by State.

Beginning with 1958, however, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, has published figures showing AFL-CIO membership by States. These figures are published every 2 years. The most recent are for the year 1962, as published in the Bureau's 1963 Directory of National and International Labor Unions. The State figures are based on reports by AFL-CIO State bodies. Since not all locals of AFL-CIO national and international unions affiliate with State bodies, estimates of total AFL-CIO membership in any given State are not precise. However, since these are the only estimates available for recent years, they are used in this memorandum.

Overall figures on total union membership including both AFL-CIO and nonaffiliated unions show a decline from 1958 to 1962. The Bureau of Labor Statistics hs reported a drop in total union membership (exclusive of Canada) from 17.1 in 1958 to 16.6 million in 1962. Union membership as a percentage of workers in nonagricultural employment fell from 33.1 to 29.7 percent during this period. Union membership has increased since 1962, but there are no updated Labor Department reports by States.

The specific figures by States, for AFL-CIO unions, show membership drops or no gains in over half the States. Overall, the percentage drop in membership was greater for the "right-to-work" group than for States without "right-to-work" laws. In 1958 total AFL-CIO membership in the States with "right-to-work" laws (as of 1965) was 1,842,220. By 1962, the number had dropped to 1,715,000, a loss of 6.7 percent.

AFL-CIO membership, in States without "right-to-work" laws, was 10,813,308 in 1958 and 10,414,500 in 1962, a drop of 3.7 percent. These figures exclude Hawaii. Also excluded is Pennsylvania since no report was available for that State in 1958.

Overall, the 19 States with "right-to-work" laws included approximately 15 percent of the AFL-CIO membership reported for States in 1958 and 14 percent in 1962 (13 percent if Pennsylvania is included in the 1962 figures). These "right to-work" States, however, accounted for 24 percent of the total membership drop of 526,028 between the two dates.

Specific figures for each State on increases and decreases in AFL-CIO membership are shown in table 1.

In 1962, AFL-CIO members accounted for only 12.7 percent of the 13,451,400 nonagricultural workers in States with "right-to-work" laws. By contrast, AFL-CIO members made up 27.9 percent of the 41,828,700 nonagricultural workers in non-"right-to-work" States (excluding Hawaii).

A comparison can be made with 1958 by excluding Pennsylvania (for which membership figures were not available) and Alaska (for which employment figures were not availble). Hawaii remains excluded on both dates.

On this basis, AFL-CIO membership in "right-to-work" States made up 15.2 percent of the 12,092,200 nonagricultural workers in those States in 1958 as compared with 12.7 percent in 1962. In non "right-to-work" States, AFL-CIO members accounted for 30.4 percent of 35,478,000 nonagricultural workers in 1958, as against 27.3 percent of 38,071,100 nonagricultural workers in 1962.

Detailed figures on total nonagricultural employment in 1958 and 1962 for each State are shown in table 2.