If I had to select the vote I regard as the most important of my Senate
career it would be the one I cast on the Kennedy-Ervin “Labor Reform”
Bill of 1959. The Senate passed the measure 90-1; the dissenting vote
was mine. The measure had been advertised as a cure-all for the evils
uncovered by the McClellan Committee investigation. I opposed it
because I felt certain that legislation which pretended to respond to
the popular demand for safeguards against union power, but actually did
not do so, would preclude the possibility of meaningful legislation for
some time to come.
That opinion was vindicated later on. The House of Representatives
rejected Kennedy-Ervin, and substituted in its place a much better
measure, the Landrum-Griffin bill. The ensuing conference between
representatives of the two houses made only minor changes in the House
version; I would guess that 90% of the original Landrum-Griffin bill
survived in the conferees’ report. The Senate adopted the report with
only two dissenting votes--proof to me that my initial protest had
been wise.
But the protest still holds: though the Landrum-Griffin Bill was an
improvement over the Kennedy measure, Congress has still to come to
grips with the real evil in the Labor field. Graft and corruption are
symptoms of the illness that besets the labor movement, not the cause
of it. _The cause is the enormous economic and political power now
concentrated in the hands of union leaders._
Such power hurts the nation’s economy by forcing on employers
contract terms that encourage inefficiency, lower production and high
prices--all of which result in a lower standard of living for the
American people.
It corrupts the nation’s political life by exerting undue influence on
the selection of public officials.
It gravely compromises the freedom of millions of individual workers
who are able to register a dissent against the practice of union
leaders only at the risk of losing their jobs.
All of us have heard the charge that to thus criticize the power of
Big Labor is to be anti-labor and anti-union. This is an argument that
serves the interest of union leaders, but it does not usually fit the
facts, and it certainly does not do justice to my views. I believe that
unionism, kept within its proper and natural bounds, accomplishes
a positive good for the country. Unions _can_ be an instrument for
achieving economic justice for the working man. Moreover, they are an
alternative to, and thus discourage State Socialism. Most important
of all, they are an expression of freedom. Trade unions properly
conceived, are an expression of man’s inalienable right to associate
with other men for the achievement of legitimate objectives.
_The natural function of a trade union and the one for which it was
historically conceived is to represent those employees who want
collective representation in bargaining with their employers over
terms of employment._ But note that this function is perverted the
moment a union claims the right to represent employees who do not want
representation, _or_ conducts activities that have nothing to do with
terms of employment (e.g. political activities), _or_ tries to deal
with an industry as a whole instead of with individual employers.
As America turned increasingly, in the latter half of the nineteenth
century, from an agricultural nation into an industrial one, and as the
size of business enterprises expanded, individual wage earners found
themselves at a distinct disadvantage in dealing with their employers
over terms of employment. The economic power of the large enterprises,
as compared with that of the individual employee, was such that wages
and conditions of employment were pretty much what the employer decided
they would be. Under these conditions, as a means of increasing their
economic power, many employees chose to band together and create a
common agent for negotiating with their employers.
As time went on, we found that the working man’s right to bargain
through a collective agent needed legal protection; accordingly
Congress enacted laws--notably certain provisions of the Clayton
Act, the Norris LaGuardia Act and the Wagner Act--to make sure that
employees would be able to bargain collectively.
This is not the place to examine those laws in detail. It is clear,
however, that they have _over_-accomplished their purpose. Thanks to
some unwise provisions and to the absence of others that should have
been included, the delicate balance of power we sought to achieve
between labor and management has shifted, in avalanche proportions,
to labor’s advantage. Or, more correctly to the advantage of union
leaders. This mammoth concentration of power in the hands of a few men
is, I repeat, a grave threat to the nation’s economic stability, and to
the nation’s political processes. More important, it has taken from the
individual wage earner a large portion of his freedom.
The time has come, not to abolish unions or deprive them of deserved
gains; but to redress the balance--to restore unions to their proper
role in a free society.
We have seen that unions perform their natural function when three
conditions are observed: association with the union is voluntary; the
union confines its activities to collective bargaining; the bargaining
is conducted with the employer of the workers concerned. Let us briefly
treat with each of these conditions, noting the extent to which they
are violated today, and the remedial action we are called upon to take.
_Freedom of Association._ Here the argument is so plain that I wonder
why elaboration is necessary. What could be more fundamental than the
freedom to associate with other men, or not to associate, as each
man’s conscience and reason dictates? Yet compulsory unionism is
the rule rather than the exception today in the ranks of organized
labor. Millions of laboring men are required to join the union that
is the recognized bargaining agent at the place they work. Union
shop agreements deny to these laboring men the right to decide for
themselves what union they will join, or indeed, whether they will join
at all. The exercise of freedom for many of these citizens, means the
loss of their jobs.
Here is the kind of thing that can happen as the result of compulsory
unionism. X, a family man in Pennsylvania had been a union member in
good standing for over twenty years. When the United Electrical Workers
became the recognized bargaining agent at his plant, he refused to
join on the grounds the UEW was Communist dominated--a judgment that
had been made by the CIO itself when it expelled the UEW in 1950. The
result, since his employer had a union shop agreement with the UEW, was
that X lost his job.
_The remedy here is to give freedom of association legal protection._
And that is why I strongly favor enactment of State right-to-work
laws which forbid contracts that make union membership a condition of
employment. These laws are aimed at removing a great blight on the
contemporary American scene, and I am at a loss to understand why so
many people who so often profess concern for “civil rights” and “civil
liberties” are vehemently opposed to them. Freedom of association is
one of the natural rights of man. Clearly, therefore, it should also
be a “civil” right. Right-to-work laws derive from the natural law:
they are simply an attempt to give freedom of association the added
protection of civil law.
I am well aware of the “free loader” argument, so often advanced by
union leaders in defense of compulsory unionism. The contention is that
a man ought not to enjoy the benefits of an organization’s activities
unless he contributes his fair share of their cost. I am unaware,
however, of any other organization or institution that seeks to enforce
this theory by compulsion. The Red Cross benefits all of us, directly
or indirectly, but _no one suggests that Red Cross donations be
compulsory_. It is one thing to say that a man _should_ contribute to
an association that is purportedly acting in his interest; it is quite
another thing to say that he _must_ do so. I believe that a man ought
to join a union if it is a good union that is serving the interests of
its members. I believe, moreover, that most men _will_ give support to
a union _provided it is deserving of that support_. There will always
be some men, of course, who will try to sponge off others; but let us
not express our contempt for _some_ men by denying freedom of choice to
_all_ men.
The union leaders’ further argument that right to work legislation is a
“union-busting” device is simply not borne out by the facts. A recent
survey disclosed that _in all of the nineteen States which have enacted
right-to-work laws union membership increased after the right-to-work
laws were passed_. It is also well to remember that the union movement
throughout the world has prospered when it has been put on a voluntary
basis. Contrary to popular belief compulsory unionism is not typical
of the labor movement in the free world. It prevails in the United
States and England, but in the other countries of Western Europe and in
Australia, union membership is generally on a voluntary basis. Indeed
the greatest percentage of unionized workers are found in countries
that prohibit compulsion by law. The unions in those countries operate
on the principle that a union is stronger and better if its members
give their adherence of their own free will.
Here, it seems to me, is the sensible way to combat graft and
corruption in the labor movement. As long as union leaders can
_force_ workers to join their organization, they have no incentive
to act responsibly. But if workers could choose to belong or not to
belong depending on how the union performed, the pressure to stamp
out malpractice would become irresistible. If unions had to earn the
adherence of their members the result would be--not only more freedom
for the working man--but much less dishonesty and high handedness in
the management of the union affairs.
_Political Freedom._ One way we exercise political freedom is to vote
for the candidate of our choice. Another way is to use our money to
try to persuade other voters to make a similar choice--that is, to
contribute to our candidate’s campaign. If either of these freedoms is
violated, the consequences are very grave not only for the individual
voter and contributor, but for the society whose free political
processes depend on a wide distribution of political power.
It is in the second of these areas, that of political contributions,
that labor unions seriously compromise American freedom. They do this
by spending the money of union members without prior consultation for
purposes the individual members may or may not approve of, purposes
that are decided upon by a relatively small number of union leaders.
Probably the greatest spender in the labor movement is the powerful
AFL/CIO Committee on Political Education (COPE) which is supported in
its “educational” work entirely by union general funds.
It is impossible to say just how much unions spend on political
campaigns; certainly one can’t tell from the amounts officially
reported, which invariably present a grossly distorted picture. In
1956, for example, Labor officially acknowledged expenditures of
$941,271. According to that official report, $79,939 of the total
was spent in the State of Michigan. However, a Senate investigating
committee obtained evidence that in that year each of Michigan’s
700,000 union members had been assessed $1.20 as a contribution to
a “citizenship fund,” and that this money was made available for
political activities. This suggests that labor spent, from that one
source alone, almost a million dollars in Michigan instead of $79,000.
By projecting the difference on a nation-wide scale we get a more
realistic idea of the size of Labor’s political contributions.
Union political activity is not confined, of course, to direct
financial contributions. In fact, this is one of its smallest
endeavors. Unions provide manpower for election day chores--for making
phone calls, driving cars, manning the polls and so on. Often the union
members who perform these chores are reimbursed for their time-off
out of union funds. Unions also sponsor radio and television programs
and distribute a huge volume of printed material designed to support
the candidate of the union’s choice. In short, they perform all the
functions of a regular party organization.
Now the evil here is twofold. For one thing, the union’s decision
whether to support candidate X or candidate Y--whether to help the
Republican Party or the Democratic Party--is not reached by a poll of
the union membership. It is made by a handful of top union officers.
These few men are thus able to wield tremendous political power in
virtue of their ability to spend other people’s money. No one else in
America is so privileged.
The other evil is more serious. Individual union members are denied the
right to decide for themselves how to spend their money. Certainly a
moral issue is at stake here. _Is it morally permissible to take the
money of a Republican union member, for example, and spend it on behalf
of a Democrat?_ The travesty is deeper, of course, when the money takes
the form of compulsory union dues. Under union shop conditions, the
only way an individual can avoid contributing to the political campaign
of a candidate whom he may not approve is to give up his job.
The passage of right-to-work laws will help the situation. But putting
unionism on a voluntary basis is only part of the answer. For even
though a man can leave or refuse to join a union that spends money for
purposes that he does not approve, there may be other factors that
would dissuade him from doing so. In many communities strong economic
and social pressures are exerted on behalf of joining a union--quite
aside from the threat of loss of employment. As a result, a man may
decide to join a union notwithstanding his disapproval of its political
activities. And the question remains: Should that man’s union dues
be used for political purposes? The answer is clearly, no. Unions
exist, presumably to confer economic advantages on their members, not
to perform political services for them. Unions should therefore be
forbidden to engage in any kind of political activity. I believe that
the Federal Corrupt Practices Act _does_ forbid such activity. That
legislation has been circumvented by the “education” approach and other
devices; and Congress and the courts, in effect, have looked the other
way. The only remedy, it appears, is new legislation.
_In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political
power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made
by individuals and individuals alone._ I see no reason for labor
unions--or corporations--to participate in politics. Both were created
for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted
accordingly.
_Economic Freedom._ Americans have been much disturbed in recent
years by the apparent power of Big Labor to impose its will on the
nation’s economic life whenever the impulse strikes. The recent
steel controversy, and the terms of its settlement, are the latest
illustration of Labor’s ability to get its way notwithstanding
the cost to the rest of society. When the strike began, neutral
observers--including government economists normally friendly to the
unions--agreed that the Steel Workers’ wage demands were exorbitant and
would inevitably cause further inflation; and that the steel companies
were quite right in insisting that certain “work rules” promoted
inefficiency and retarded production. Nevertheless, the steel companies
were forced to accept a settlement that postponed indefinitely revision
of work rules and granted a large portion of the union’s wage demands.
The reason the union won is quite simple: it posed to the country the
choice of tolerating stoppages in steel production that would imperil
national security, or of consenting to an abandonment of the collective
bargaining process. Since neither the steel companies nor the country
at large wanted to resort to compulsory arbitration, the alternative
was to give the unions what they asked. In this situation, the only
power superior to union power was government power, and the government
chose to yield.
One way to check the unions’ power is for the government to dictate
through compulsory arbitration, the terms of employment throughout
an entire industry. I am opposed to this course because it simply
transfers economic power from the unions to the government, and
encourages State Socialism. The other way is to disperse union power
and thus extend freedom in labor-management relations.
Eighty years ago the nation was faced with a comparable concentration
of economic power. Large corporations, by gaining monopoly control
over entire industries, had nullified the laws of competition that
are conducive to freedom. We responded to that challenge by outlawing
monopolies through the Sherman Act and other anti-trust legislation.
_These laws, however, have never been applied to labor unions._ And I
am at a loss to understand why. If it is wrong for a single corporation
to dictate prices throughout an entire industry, it is also wrong for
a single union--or, as is the actual case, a small number of union
leaders--to dictate wages and terms of employment throughout an entire
industry.
_The evil to be eliminated is the power of unions to enforce
industry-wide bargaining._ Employees have a right, as we have seen, to
select a common agent for bargaining with _their_ employer but they
do not have a right to select a national agent to bargain with all
employers in the industry. If a union has the power to enforce uniform
conditions of employment throughout the nation its power is comparable
to that of a Socialist government.
Employers are forbidden to act collusively for sound reasons. The same
reasons apply to unions. Industry-wide price-fixing causes economic
dislocations. So does industry-wide wage-fixing. A wage that is
appropriate in one part of the country may not be in another area where
economic conditions are very different. Corporate monopolies impair the
operation of the free market, and thus injure the consuming public. So
do union monopolies. When the United Automobile Workers demand a wage
increase from the auto industry, a single monolith is pitted against
a number of separate, competing companies. The contest is an unequal
one, for the union is able to play off one company against another.
The result is that individual companies are unable to resist excessive
wage demands and must, in turn, raise their prices. The consumer
ultimately suffers for he pays prices that are fixed not by free
market competition--the law of supply and demand--but by the arbitrary
decision of national union leaders. Far better if the employees of Ford
were required to deal with Ford, and those of Chrysler with Chrysler
and so on. The collective bargaining process will work for the common
good in all industries if it is confined to the employers and employees
directly concerned.
Let us henceforth make war on all monopolies--whether corporate or
union. The enemy of freedom is unrestrained power, and the champions
of freedom will fight against the concentration of power wherever they
find it.