xt7wwp9t2q46_24 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61.dao.xml American Liberty League 37 linear feet archival material English University of Kentucky This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Physical rights are retained by the owning repository. Copyright is retained in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. For information about permissions to reproduce or publish, contact the Special Collections Research Center. Jouett Shouse Collection (American Liberty League Pamphlets), No. 27 "The Labor Relations Bill: An Analysis of a Measure Which Would do Violence to the Constitution, Stimulate Industrial Strife and Give One Labor Organization a Monopoly in the Representation of Workers Without Regard to the Wishes of the Latter," April 15, 1935 text No. 27 "The Labor Relations Bill: An Analysis of a Measure Which Would do Violence to the Constitution, Stimulate Industrial Strife and Give One Labor Organization a Monopoly in the Representation of Workers Without Regard to the Wishes of the Latter," April 15, 1935 2013 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61/59m61_27/Am_Lib_Lg_27_001/Am_Lib_Lg_27_001.pdf section false xt7wwp9t2q46_24 xt7wwp9t2q46 Pamphlets Available * *
ir
Copies of the following pamphlets may L
be obtained upon application to the
League’s national headquarters:
Why, The American Liberty League?
Statement of Principles and Purposes
Progress vs. Change-Speech by Jouett Shouse
Recovery, Relief and the Constitution—Speech
by Jouett Shouse .
American Liberty League—Its Platform
An Analysis of the President’s Budget Message I * * *
N. R. A.-Its Past, and Recommendations for
the Future
Analysis of the $4,880,000,000 Emergency Relief
Appropriation Act.
Economic Security—A Study of Proposed Legis-
laiwn An Analysis of a Measure Which
Degrlilocracy or Bureaucracy?-—Speech by Jouett would do Violence to the Constié
0%% . . . .
The Bamis_Aii Anlalysis al Leaislaliae pi.a_ tut1on,St1mulate Industrial Strife
POSGZS and Give One Labor Organiza-
The Constitution Still Stands-——Speech by Jouett tion si Monopoly in the R€Prc’
Shouse _ _
Inf1ation—Possibilities Involved in Existing and Scntatlon of Workers Wlthout
Proposed Loywlotion Regard to the Wishes of
The Thirty Hour Week—Dangers Inherent in the Latter
Proposed Legislation l
The Pending Banking Bil1—A Proposal to Sub-
ject the Nation’s Monetary Structure to the
Exigencies of Politics ’ l i
The Legislative Situation—Speech by Jouett
Shouse
The Holding Company Bill—An Analysis of x·hE _ C· IS legal under the l9eW·
tary of Labor; Francis Biddle, Chairman of the i Judge Neelde Saldl
National Labor Relations Board; EdWiI1 S. li “If _defendant’s manufacturing plants and manu-
eeeete Meeeeee ee eee Beeeee were K Geeee f.;;¥.‘2;eee..fezi:;3“i‘;‘2;ei;iJe...*;$.;.i%;;ee.2l agree;
son, former Chairman; and Dr. W. M. Leiserson, · - M
Cheirrnnn ef the Rniireed Medintien Beard, iiiiiii§iiyt}ei°rii;&°ff§ilid Sllatgi iirleiiidilaiildlftiteliileiii
were among the WitI1eSSeS appearing for it. within the control of the Federal government. Such
Miss Perkins, who has testified before beth the result has received the unqualihed condemnation of
Senate Committee on Education and Labor and the Supreme C°“l"l·”
the House Committee on Labor, differed with Judge Nields held that there is no analogy be-
other sponsors of the bill only with respect to the tween an industrial plant and the situation in-
character of the proposed board. She favored a volved in stockyards and grain exchange cases
board within her own department instead of an wherein regulatory laws were upheld on the
independent board as provided by the bill. ground that the businesses were a part of a
The members of the present board asserted “flow" of commerce. On the basis of the Nields
that enforcement of collective bargaining pro- decision the courts could not sustain the validity
visions of the existing law had broken down. of the Labor Relations bill as applied to industry
They advocated the far-reaching proposals of generally merely because, as asserted in the
the pending bill. measure, a labor dispute "might burden or affect
In apparent conflict with the position of those commerce or obstruct the free flow of commerce."
favoring the enactment of the Labor Relations Judge Nields’ decision dismissing the Federal
bill as permanent legislation is the statement of government’s suit against the Weirton Steel
Donald R. Richberg, Chairman of the National Company was announced in Wilmington, Dela-
Industrial Recovery Board, in testimony before ware, on February 27, 1935. No effort has been
the Senate Finance Committee. While not re- made by the government to obtain a speedy deci-
ferring specifically to any section of the present sion by the Supreme Court.
National Industrial Recovery Act, Mr. Rich- The government also instituted a suit in an-
berg made the following general declaration: other collective bargaining case which has been
reirhe Act eheuld be Extended enbetentielb, in the tried and awaits decision in the Federal District
present form for two years, so as to allow for a Court at Buffalo, New York. Tl11S 1S the Case
further l1eY§1<>l>mentf0€h ndmgnietfetige P1‘¤<=g against the Houde Engineering Corporation. It
1011 O G GH 1I‘€ I'O SID I'1OI‘ • • ·
iillrlfe €;8,gli?IIii2Iil3aOf Sl1Cll p€I`II12LD€Dl`r l§glSl&l3iOI1p&S II13»y l` is requlre cqlmpany to bairgaln COI-
then seem desirable." _€Ci0l6V€l}i_ W1’0hkr€preSeDtat1VeS selected by 3, ma-
lori y o wor ers.
Constitutionality l Pending final rulings by the Supreme Court on
_ " issues involved in the Weirton and Houde cases
_ _ThI`€ 1S_ mason {OY gmvg doubt ne te the com the Congress should not write any collective bar-
eral 0011t1`01 0V€1‘ 1Y1d¤Sl¤1fY OH Such dt broad WSIS Features of the pending Labor Relations bill,
as doot the Labor Reietrene bill- It ie eeneeded __ other than the collective bargaining sections, have
that production is not commerce as construed by also been attacked by competent legal eutbe.I.l_
et 5
ties. It is contended that the procedure provided show that under employee representation plans
in the bill denies due process of law in the tak- in many of the large industries, good feeling be-
ing of evidence, that the inquisitorial authority tween the workers and the company management
is in violation of the constitutional guaranty has been promoted and the best interests of the
against search and seizure and that powers workers have been furthered. It was shown that
vested in the proposed board constitute a denial while companies have contributed financial sup-
of trial by jury. port to many of these plans, they have not demi-
nated them. Under them it has been possib e to
Injuricus EH`cc1:S adclusga genuine giglevanlees of wereers and to pro-
_ _ V1 e or improve wor ing con 1 ions.
. The Netttmet Imimetrmt Reeenenv Aet Wee Recent elections participated in by employees
Intended ne Prernete bnenneee reeeVerY· Its eel' in the automobile industry proved conclusively
lective bargaining section has not had that effect- their Satigfactign with the operation of employee
The Labor Relations bill would impede recovery r€pr€S_€nta,tiOn plains. Only eeven ner eene ef
ne en even greener eneene- . time wang favored amiaaarm with the Amm-
Workers are entitled to every protection. On ll can Federation er Leben
ine ennen mm.d> rt ee tmlttet ne me management ef " Under the present Section 7 (ai) of the NIRA,
industry to give labor a club with which to force it re prevrded there everv eede ef ferr eernnen-
eeneeeeiene Wnren ineneeee eeene by enen en tion agreement and license shall contain the fol-
amount as to hamper recovery. The actual effect levvirrg eendrererner
of Section 7 (a) of the NIRA has been to retard M _
rather than to promote recovery. (ri Then der}nP1°¥eee Snag. nevetlitne gene ne
The rneeenn eeneenne neneninine eeenen nee §§§?§‘f€a“(§? aeiittiffn ‘i§im%Z1§’§ rend Liiii $$55
been responsible rer much industrial strife, rn" from the interference, restraint, br coercion of em-
eluding mOst of the actual and threatened strikes ployers of labor, or their agents, in the designation
in major industries during the past, y€&I·_ Instead of SLlCh I‘€pI'€S€I1l3&l]lYQS· OI' IH Sif-OI'g8»I11Z&t1(;I1 OH 111
ef nnnnenne eeee feenne benneen Weneene end 2$t§”`b§$§§?§?§§ Sfttltéisntttaf£3“%2S€pr%t..§;‘Z1§§T
their employers it has tended to occasion con- (2) that no employee and DO One Seeking employ;
tI‘0Ve1‘sy and bitterness. It has array ed class ment shall be required as a condition of employment
against C1aSS_ tO. _lOlI1 ally ·CQIDp8I1y l1l11QIl OI` to I'€fI'8.1I1.
_ Conflicts in the automobile, steel and textile getrggebgrfieltgggeéger atfatstettg teggeggnlggggengggg
lnduennnee meant never have eeennred exeepe fer comply with the maximum hours of labor, minimum
the existence of this laW. The United Mine rates of pay, and other conditions of employment,
Workers of America would not have been in a S ’ nppreved OY prescribed by the PfeS1d€¤t·"
1 position to threaten a strike throughout the _
bituminous coal industry rece-ntly except for the The_ Harrison-Doughton bill for a two-year
power gained by an industry-wide contract under rexxtrensicrnl of tlée Jleatiienal Induletrial Reteogery
a code. c con ainsa ec ion a w 1C isamos 1 en-
The provisions of the Labor Relations_ bill tical with that of the present law as above
would accentuate a feeling of hostility between quoted. '_
capital and labor. It makes no pretense of so The pending Labor Relations bill, on the other
adjusting labor relations as to avoid strikes. hand, contains permanent collective bargaining
Section 15 provides that "nothing in this Act provisions which apply to industries that have no
shall be construed so as to interfere with or im- codes. Such legal basis as may be provided by
pede or diminish in any way the right to strike." eonletractualohobligatrions under the codes 1S thus
· ac ing in e new measure.
· Section 7 of the Labor Relations bill provides
Company Unlons J that "employees shall have the right to self-
The Labor Relations bill is aimed at employee , organization, to form, join, or assist labor organi-
representation plans, or company unions. While zations, to bargain collectively through repre-
it does not prohibit the existence of unions of this sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage
kind, it imposes restrictions which are designed in concerted activities, for the purpose of col-
to make it diflicult, if not impossible, for them to lective leargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
continue. tection.
A mass of evidence was presented before the Section 8 specines four unfair labor practices
Senate Committee on Education and Labor to on the part of employers. These include (1) in-
6 7
terference with, restraint, or coercion of em- The Closed ShOP
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in The Leben Reletiene bill Wenld edvenee en
Section 7; (2) domination or interference with ( enized lebel, ev len We S teWeI.d eenieveneent
the formation or administration of any labor or- gf e eleeed She thrgn nglnt indnetl.
gaaiaaiiaawa aaaiiiaaaiaa ai iiaaaaiai ai aiiiai A eereereeieri m eoimeetion withnthe unfair
gupport to lt; (3) dlscmmmamm m employment labor practice provisions would facilitate this
m Such a Way as to encourage Or dlscoumge movement After rohibitin discrimination "in
membership in any labor organization; and (4) rd te nine er ftenure efgem le ment el. any
aiaaiiaiga ai aiiaaiiaiiaaiiaa agaiaai aaai aaa- {Sie? or eeeemee er employmeijntyto encourage
. n1°Y€"’ Wh° has nad °h*“Tg€S Or given “€S*‘m°nY or discourage membership in any labor organiza-
iiiiaiai iiia aiaaaiiaaa aiaraiai br iiiaaai- tion ~ the mir provides that nothing m me eee
Tia aaiiiaaiai giaviaiaa Wiiiaii iiiia ai aaai- or m the National Industrial Recovery Act as
pany unions is the second which makes it an un- emeeded frem time te time er in env eede el.
iaii iabai piaaiiaa iai aa aiaaiarai "ia aiaiaiaaia agreement, shall preclude me employer "fr0m
or interfere with the formation or administration making en eereement With e label, ereenizetien
of any labor organization or contribute financial ( t eetebnehed meinteined el, eeeieted bv any
or other support to it." The effect undoubtedly ag defined in this eet ee en unfen, label.
would be to destroy many employee representa- aa 1(t1;ee) te re une ee e eenditien ef ennn1ev_
iiag giaaa rgiiaii iiaiga giaaa aaa ag Wiaii gilgaaaig ggrizt membershilp tnereamirr such labor organiza-
ilglne §3§;2aéOi;11%;;1Fg(;eIedOb Cglilxnles Even Dug tion is the _representative_of the majority of the
EX - d th Y 1 ' h th t employees in the appropriate collective bargain-
pemme aa Gr BSB P ms S OWS 3 them ° 't covered b such a reement when made "
is no justification for arbitrary restrictions of previee gnmite in lebel, ergenizetien
the kmd proposed claiming representation of a ntsjority Inf the em-
loyees "in the appropriate co ective argaining
A Labor Monopoly Enit" to negotiate a clctsed shop ang1;eement.lSuclt
an agreement manifest y is inten e to app y no
The tendency under the bill would be to give merely to a single company but to an entire in-
unions affiliated with the American Federation of dustry which may be brought within the terms
Labor a monopoly in collective bargaining, al- of a single wage agreement. The proviso is so
though 77 per cent of all workers are not aflili— phrased as to eliminate a closed shop agreement
ated with any organization. Under the present with a company union. _
law the American Federation of Labor has en- Enactment of the Labor Relations bill would
joyed a large growth in membership. It is ob- be followed by a drive on the part of organized
vious that its rolls would be further expanded labor for the closed shop.
under the conditions created by the Labor Rela- M R 1
tions bill. a`ori1: u c
The imposition of new restrictions against J_ _ ,
company unions would in most industries make The Labor Relationsbill would write into law
it easy for a national labor organization with its the controversial ngajority rule: Section 9 of the
superior financial and other resources to drive T b1}1nr?iV;dggtvthai inPinS€n}°Cn(;°ff’ig§n3§Sl;in;;‘;I(3iI$;
out an independent union. S9 €0 6 OY _€ PUYPOSQS 0 6 _ _
The motives of most of the recognized lead- by the m8»J0I`1’6y of the €inPl0Y€€S in n uma nP‘
ers of the American Federation of Labor are propriate for snch purposes, shall be the exclu-
above ]·gpy·O&(;h_ It, has proved jmpgggjblg, S1\/i€ I‘€pI‘€S€D}t3.l)1V€S of all illlé €lI1plOy€€S•1Ii S1.1Ql1
however, for them to control the racketeers ; uH1’6 f01‘ the D¤1`P0S€S of gohggtivg bargaining in
who promote unionization for personal profit and 1`€SD€0b hb FMGS bf bay, W·‘aig€Sr n0ni`S of €§nP10Y‘
power. Within the past year the national offi- ment, or other conditions ofvernployment. The
( cers of the American Federation of Labor stood _ only €X0€Ph1011 1S that any individual nnnblnynn
by helpless while jurisdictional disputes among ' or group of employees shall have the right at
different unions tied up for weeks at a time the any time to presentgrievances to their employer
construction of government buildings across the through representatives of tneir own choosing.
street from the headquarters of the NRA. The The. majority rule 1S designed. to strengthen
newspapers record almost daily instances of thevgrip of organized labor over_1ndustry. Mt-
abuses of power by labor unions. nority groups would not be permitted to partici-
8 9
pate in collective bargaining. The liberties vided that the Board or its agent "sha11 at all
guaranteed to individuals under the Constitution reasonable times have access to, for the purpose
are destroyed by provisions of this bill. of examination, and the right to copy any evi-
Coupled with the closed shop provision, the dence of any person being investigated or pro-
above quoted section means that when 51 per ceeded against that relates to any matter under
cent of the workers in a collective bargaining I i investigation or in question." This is despite the
unit, the scope of which may be determined by guaranty against search and seizure in the Con-
the National Labor Relations Board, insist upon stitution.
and obtain a contract requiring membership in a ,
union as a condition of employment, the other 49 A11th01‘1i3Y of States
Per eerii Win be disehereed irriiess they ieiri sueh The centralization of nnttontly oyer labor dist
union. ° ih Fe era overnmen
The meieriiy ride provision is one ef the new llillriiilieolo iilioonhinlolligiti oi the state?. In many
features not contained in the present law. While of the States there are mediation departments
the existing National Labor Relations Board has i and boards Whioh properly eliould assist in tho
srriied the msierity rule, the sutemebiie in- l settlement of local industrial,difIiculties.
blrlorry agroomonlv Sbolloororl by rllo, Proolrlollrv L The effect of setting up a permanent board at
Proylrloo ror robrooonrarlon sr mlnorlry gronloo- Washington would be to weaken the influence of
Eyoll lr bllo oerieress rrereses to go So rar as the state mediation agencies. In the atmosphere
boorlaor rllo malorlby rule lllbo iewr lr sheuid oor‘ of the national capital, adjustment of many dis-
tainly await a decision by the Supreme Court in putes Would bgcgmg more difhgulfh
the Houde case as to whether the provision is A “B d B_11”
constitutiona . 8 1
R°SP°“Sll°lllo’ °l balm nairiiigoiil l;ll3§‘“§lE§tiZ'l%l?ii l§5“§§§f` é’$`l2ii§‘lTt§l2l3?
While rho Labor Rolarlorlo blll blaooo ro' tives of th; present administration, summarizes
straints upon employers, it fails to restrict the the Labor Relations bill as follows;
activities of employees. Coercive tactics have qt is a bad brit it extends the Scope of the
been practiced by labor groups against em- governmenifs responsibility beyond the govemmenfs
ployers with resultant serious injury to industry. power to discharge that resP<>¤siblliW· It sets no
If the Congress persists in enacting this legisla- tllrldoooorll) rlgllrs alfgcgsgorzorsiitfoatoggogfd lhfglggglr
rloll> labor ollorllol be maoo roobollalblo fer its tioenruili ptne device oi elections pby the
acts. The British law bestowing privileges upon untrue assumption that elections will show a clear
labor also imposes responsibility, Ari employer majority. _The administration _and Congress w1ll_
in Great Britain has much more adequate pro_ settle nothing by passing this bill. On the contrary
. . i. t. . they will mult1ply_many times the troubles they
toogog erer labor Praorlooa lillall lo have Iliad wittlit Seiotion 7_(}a), tlte levtseitsathe nou-
• 00Hlp 1&I1C€, B 1S8.ppO1I1 IDBI] O 3. OI`.
The unfair labor practice provisions of the bill Th Collective bm. ainin rovision of the
are markedly one-sided. There is no prohibition G 1 Should, noi be bgrogdoned in tem o_
gseirst eeereirisletid rrrrsidsssr er emsierees l§’§$§°‘f§gi§`€Ition. ii an National inoootnoi rio-
Y pm Gssmml rl er Orgamzem _ oovery Act is extended for a twaiéyear perripct,
Unusual Procgdurc there is excuse for carrying orwar ection a
` . ti nal Labor
The National Labor Relations Board under r QglaigggslggfgdglsgluxayQ)-[`i·13§)g:§§,rl§)g extended
the terms of the bill is given very broad and arbi- for two yeare
trary powers. An unusual procedure is author- The public aeeepted the NIRA under emer-
ized- lll orroolo rllo Board may aoll es oomPloln· i genoy conditions despite objectionable features.
alla Proooonlior _an(l_.lnol§o· It nlo»y_nio€llo”¤oi <>o¤· In the Labor Relations bill there is an attempt
olllara malro lnonlry es oomnlalnro from any to write some of its provisions into permanent
sourcedand conduct tr1als without regard to rules i iaW_
o ovl olloo· , , _ _ _ An form of ermanent legislation dealing
Tllo blll allrllorlzoo (fr-lolllllg oxborlllilonor lnlio with lrabor relatiorlrs as well as with other phases
tho orfolro ef lllduollrloor sueli ao, llayo, boon of industrial recovery should await a clarincation
lrowlloo rlborl by bllo oonrlla The lnolllloltoriol of eonstitutional points by the Supreme Court of
powers of the Board are very great. It 1S pro- the United gtatee
10 11