L4af b - "-ateA 'no~)AdT7-i -7 ; l

UNIONMONOPOLYPOW'E R:

~-,-- ,.I

TO FRI 01

'

T! 8

!: -

ICNSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL|RELATIONS LIBRARY JAN 2 L

.

.ATO LIAUNIVERSITY OF CALO IlORNIAUATUg ~BERKELEY|

0

4"- -b I 4C:) - r-,

The entire nation is aroused at the evi-dence which is being broight to lightof corruption, racketeering, strong-armtactics, violation of individual rights,and dictatorial arrogance on the partof union leadership in dealing withemployers, employees and the public.

In a recent address, Cola G. Parker,Chairman of the Board of the NationalAssociation of MAanufacturers, pointedout these evils arise when union leadersare permitted to exercise monopolypowers, and that they will not be cor-rected until these powers are broughtunder control.

The following excerpts from thisaddress present, briefly and tersely, thebasis on which union monopoly restsand the steps which must be taken toremove this threat to the nation's free-dom and economic stability.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS2 Fast 48tfi Street, New York 17, N. Y.

May, 1957 Price 10¢

UNION

MONOPOLY POWER

Challenge toFreedom

AN ADDRESS BY

COLA G. PARKER

A MERICANS always have been proud of the term"free labor." We consider this one of our strongestassets. We tell ourselves it is the one advantagewe possess which, in the long run, is sure to winout over the slave labor of Communism. But someof us here in America interpret this phrase differ-ently from others.The phrase "free labor" can have only one true

meaning- freedom for the individual workingman- freedom to work at any trade or calling forwhich he has the capability; freedom to join aunion if he wants to; freedom not to join if hedoesn't want to; freedom to get out of a union ifhe is opposed to its actions; freedom to do hisbest in his work and to progress to the full extentof his capacities; freedom to support the politicalparty or candidate of his choice.Many union leaders interpret this phrase differ-

ently. They believe it means freedom for theunion, not for the people who belong to it. Theybelieve it means freedom for them to exercisemonopolistic powers- to do as they please, un-controlled and uncontrollable. And to anyonewho challenges their freedom to ride roughshod

3

over the rights of others, including their ownmembers, they cry "union buster" and "laborbaiter."

In most of our important industries today, thereis no such thing as collective bargaining betweenemployers and the representatives of their ownemployees. The inevitable demands for wage in-creases and fringe benefits are formulated anddictated in the far-off headquarters of the nationalor international union. They are presented toindividual employers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.There is not much chance to argue- to protest.It's sign on the dotted line or take a strike. It iscollective bludgeoning - not collective bargaining.

It is a fact that a handful of men- and in somecases, one man- has the power to stop the wheelsof our major industries; to bring the economy ofthe nation to a dead halt. The government of theUnited States does not have this power. The Presi-dent does not have it. The Congress does not haveit. But the few men in control of the labor supplyof basic industries- some of them among the menwho sit together on the Executive Council of theAF-CIO- do have it. When they don't get theirway, they use it- and seemingly no power in theUnited States is able to stop them.Now, we may well ask, how did these few men

get such power? Did Congress give it to them? Dothey exercise such power under a charter fromthe American people, or even from the people theyare supposed to represent? The answer is NO!The intent of Congress in enacting the labor-

management legislation now on the books was tosafeguard the rights of individual working people.It was not, and could not have been, the intentionof Congress to set up union monopolies.The intent of the courts in interpreting these

statutes, again, was not to create union monopo-lies. It was to secure to the individual the rightof self-organization and collective bargaining withhis employer.

4

Power Rests on CompulsionBut the laws and the decisions of the courts,

while not designed to create union monopolies,have provided no definite prohibition against themand in aggregate effect have encouraged them.And through this loophole the union bosses havedriven with all their energy and determination tocreate monopolies, in fact, in most of our basicindustries.The cornerstone on which union monopoly

power rests is compulsion- compulsion on theemployer to sign a union-shop agreement; andcompulsion on the working man to join the unionif he wants to make a living. And the basic reasonfor seeking monopoly power is to be able to usecompulsion whenever it seems, to the holder ofthat power, necessary or even just desirable; asan example to others, perhaps.

Union monopoly power is sustained financiallyby the compulsory collection of union dues- thecheck-off. Members must agree in writing to havedues deducted from their pay, or they will findthemselves out of jobs. Whenever the union over-lords decide they need extra money for somepurpose, the members are assessed. If they don'tpay the assessment, there are various direct andindirect ways to compel payment.

Unions Unfettered by LawUnion monopoly power and its exercise is per-

missible because unions are exempt from the legalliabilities under Federal law to which all otherpersons and organizations are subject. Because ofthe doctrine of Federal pre-emption promulgatedby the Supreme Court, which holds that the stateshave no power to act in a field over which theFederal Government has taken jurisdiction, thereis little the several states can do to control orregulate the operations of unions. The one excep-tion of note is section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley

5

Act permitting state right-to-work laws; hence, theunremitting effort of union leadership to effect itsrepeal.

Thus, unions are in effect separate sovereignties.Their leaders are answerable to no one but them-selves.

There are some in America who think this situ-ation is perfectly all right- some people in highplaces, in intellectual circles, in government, andeven in business. The argument goes that theso-called union shop- which in actual practicebecomes the closed shop- should be a matter ofcontract between an employer and a union; andthat any prohibition of such agreements by law isa curtailment of the right of contract.

Individual Rights ViolatedBut what about the rights of the individual?

Have we drifted so far from the principles ofindividual freedom on which America was foundedthat contract rights take precedence over the in-herent rights of the individual?

If two parties - an employer and a union -bargaining in their own interests, can enter intoa contract which violates the rights of the indi-vidual who works for that employer, personalfreedom for the working man is dead in America.

Yet, efforts are being made to extend andstrengthen union monopoly still further. Proposalshave been made to Congress that employers andunions in the construction industries be permittedto enter into "pre-hire" union-shop contracts.Such proposals, if enacted into law, would makethe unions the virtual owners of jobs in the build-ing trades throughout the country. And obviously,then, no workman could enter the constructionfield without becoming a member of a union.What happens to the human dignity and rights

of the individual craftsman under these circum-stances? His representation in the important mat-ter of earning a living is all staked out for him.

6

He must accept it no matter how arrogant orvenal it might be; and he must maintain himselfin the good graces of the union if he wants toearn a living at his trade. If he opposes the unionboss, he won't be certified for a job. He must, ineffect, surrender his dignity, his self-respect, andhis birthright as a free American.Many who support such forced surrender of

individual rights justify it on the ground that it is"practical,, that it will encourage labor-manage-ment "peace," a matter in which the public has animportant stake. Well, it may encourage peace allright- the 'peace of surrender; the peace whichprevails under a dictatorship when all oppositionhas been liquidated. That kind of peace is the kindtrue Americans never have and never will accept.

In Bondage to UnionMonopoly power and compulsion are being used

to maintain crooks, racketeers, gangsters, andhoodlums- or their puppets and front men- inthe top positions in many unions. With one handthey keep a tight grip on the working man's throat,so that he can neither move nor cry out in protest;with the other they reach into his pay envelopeand into his welfare fund in order to enrich them-selves.The AFL-CIO can adopt codes of ethical prac-

tice; it can eject from its councils those whoviolate such codes; it can withdraw its supportfrom union leaders revealed to be crooked- butwe won't have a cleaned-up labor movement in thiscountry as long as compulsory unionism andmonopoly power are allowed to existThe AFL-CIO codes of ethical practice deal

with the personal misdeeds of union leadership.They do not touch- or even recognize - the rootcause-which makes corruption possible. They treatsymptoms of the disease and not the disease itself.It is like giving cough syrup to a victim oftuberculosis.

7

Uncontrolled PowerWith a captive membership, every head of a

union is a law unto himself. He can be thrown offthe AFL-CIO Executive Council. His union canbe ejected from the big labor combine, as hap-pened in the case of the International Longshore-men's Association in New York several years ago.But the officers of this union were not deposed.The AFL-CIO could not deprive them of accessto the financial resources of the union, or oftheir steady incomes from members' dues, or oftheir authority over the union's welfare fund. Forall of its prestige and authority, neither the AFLnor the AFL-CIO has been able to defeat the ILAin three representation elections. It now has givenup trying.

So, in short, these union officials against whomcharges of corruption were made could not beshorn of their power - their autocratic powerwhich rests on compulsory unionism.

It is this power which enables union leaders toperpetuate themselves in office; to appoint theirown henchmen to the key positions and to theelective bodies which elect the union officials; toremove from office any local official who dares toquestion the actions of the top man and put a"stooge" in his place as trustee. It is this powerwhich enables them to operate unions as their ownprivate principalities. It is this power which mustbe curbed.

It is being used to compel many people to joinunions against their will and once they are in, topush them around with no regard whatsoever fortheir rights or their feelings as human beings. Theinstances which can be cited run into the thou-sands and tens of thousands. Union members havebeen beaten, thrown out of the hall, shot, intimi-dated, fined, suspended, and reduced to whiningsupplicants because they dared to question theactions of their union leaders. Mlany unions, from

8

the locals up to the front office of the international,are run by tightly knit cliques, who, like stormtroopers, take orders and carry them out ruth-lessly. In these, the rank-and-file member hasnothing- absolutely nothing to say. He is shouteddown if he tries to protest within the union; he isbrought up on charges "unbecoming a union mem-ber" if he protests outside the union; he cannotresign in protest without forfeiting his job and hislivelihood.

Three Props to Afonopoly PowerThe props which gave rise to and now sustain

union monopoly power are three in number: theimmunities under the law which are available tounions but denied to all other persons and organi-zations; compulsory union membership in thirtyof our forty-eight states, including nearly all ofthe highly industrialized ones; and the ability ofunion leaders to tap the funds of union membersto support political candidates who will do theirbidding and to defeat candidates they fear willcurtail their power.

If unions are subjected to the same kind oflaws which govern the conduct of all the rest of us,they will not be able to engage in the anti-Ameri-can and anti-social practices which are commontoday. Boycotts, restraints of trade, price fixing,allocation of territories and similar harmful actsnow engaged in by unions will become subject tolegal process.

If compulsory unionism is outlawed, unions willhave to devote more attention to service to theirmembers and service to the community, and lessto extending their power and authority over both.Any supposedly voluntary association which needscompulsory membership in order to survive andthrive is obviously not operating in the best inter-ests of those whose money supports it. Accordingto union leadership, the union shop is necessaryfor union security. But they are the only voluntary

9

organizations making claim to the necessity forcompulsion; and Samuel Gompers always foughtagainst it. In my opinion the only kind of securitythey are entitled to is the security which comesvoluntarily from a loyal and enthusiastic member-ship for whose true interest they are always work-ing. The fact that union leaders say they needcompulsion for security is positive evidence theyare not doing this kind of job in many cases today.

Return to Rightful FunctionIf union leaders are forced to rely on truly

voluntary contributions from their members forpartisan political purposes, their political reachfor more power will be sharply curtailed.

If these three props are taken away, we shallremove the basis of union monopoly power inAmerica; and unions can go about their rightfulfunction, which is to represent their members incollective bargaining negotiations. Furthermore,they will do a much better job of it for all con-cerned, and mutual cooperation between em-ployers and workers for the good of the nationwill become a reality.

10