Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

ELBERT D. THOMAS, Utah, Chairman

DAVID I. WALSH, Massachusetts

JAMES E. MURRAY, Montana

VIC DONAHEY, Ohio

RUSH D. HOLT, West Virginia

CLAUDE PEPPER, Florida

ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Louisiana

JOSH LEE, Oklahoma

LISTER HILL, Alabama

WILLIAM E. BORAH, Idaho

ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, JR., Wisconsin JAMES J. DAVIS, Pennsylvania

ROBERT A. TAFT, Ohio

EARL B. WIXCEY, Clerk

W. ALAN THODY, Assistant Clerk

DATE OF HEARING AND STATEMENT OF WITNESSES

June 12, 1939:

Stephenson, Stanley J., executive secretary of the Utah Manufacturers
Association, Salt Lake City, Utah..

1771

LIST OF STATEMENTS, TABLETS, ETC., SUBMITTED

Caldwell, Robert T., Ashland, Ky., representing industrial employees in
that section:

Letter received from Philip G. Phillips, regional director, dated
June 16, 1937__.

Page.

1821

Excerpt of the Cincinnati Post of June 1, 1938-
List of documents demanded by subpenas-.

1823

1825

Submitted memorandum with reference to the proposal to require Labor Board hearings to be conducted under appropriate rules of evidence

1859

Submitted proposed amendment of National Labor Relations Act with reference to rules of evidence___

Falk, Harold S., Milwaukee, Wis., representing the Falk Corporation:
Excerpts from the decision of the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Falk Corporation case-----
Ellender, Hon. Allen J.:

Excerpts from the decision of the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Falk Corporation case------
Excerpts from the report of the Senate Civil Liberties Committee on
the National Metal Trades Association____

Lamfrom, Leon B., attorney for the Falk Corporation:

1861

1903

1904

1908

Excerpts from the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Falk Corporation case_- 1912, 1917 Chapter 25 of the laws of 1939 of the State of Wisconsin__. Swiren, Max, counsel for Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation: Letter under date of February 16, 1939, addressed to Senator Edward R. Burke

1924

1928

Gelt, Louis E., attorney at law, Denver, Colo.: Letter under date of
March 16, 1939, addressed to Senator Edward R. Burke__

1959

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1939

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m. in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator Elbert D. Thomas (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Thomas (chairman), Ellender, and Davis.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Stephenson, for the purposes of the record, will you state your name, your address, what you represent, and any other descriptive material that you would like to appear in the record in regard to your coming down here, before you make your statement? Maybe that is incorporated in your statement.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY J. STEPHENSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, UTAH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Mr. STEPHENSON. My name is Stanley J. Stephenson, executive secretary, Utah Manufacturers' Association, Salt Lake City, Utah. I have reduced to writing a brief I intend to place in the record, and am adding thereto a detailed record of a particular case which I was not able to complete until just a few hours before my departure, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to read your brief without interruption, or if we desire to ask questions, will that matter?

Mr. STEPHENSON. You are quite welcome to ask any questions at any time during the course of my presentation.

Shall I proceed, Senator?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. STEPHENSON. A blue print of Utah's industrial activities discloses an economy of very small units with a range of products so diversified in character, their production and sale are directly affected by national legislation. Mining and utilities furnish the only units which are classified in the minds of the public as big business, and these contribute toward making this Utah pattern sufficiently rounded out to serve as an ideal proving ground for testing whether the Wagner Act as now extant and now administered actually serves to accomplish that which is set forth in the findings and policy of the act, which reads:

Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impair

ment or interruption and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes and rising out of difficulties as to wages, hours, or other working conditions and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.

There are no sweatshops in Utah, no speed-up systems, no squalid work conditions in Utah; one of the lowest mortality rates of any State in the Union attests the healthful conditions surrounding our work people. Our employees are high-class, intelligent, homespun people, who are makers and owners of homes; in some cases two or three generations of the same family work in the same concerns. Brothers and sisters are found side by side in these concerns. Labor turn-over is very negligible because of these natural favorable conditions. The wage level is undesirably low in some industries which find it impossible to lift these wages materially because of a high cost transportation and long distances to competitive markets, which, after all, determine whether they shall survive and pay a reasonable wage or whether they shall close.

There has been no noticeable labor strife in Utah for 15 years, our State labor leaders are well thought of, so there has been no deeply grooved feeling of antipathy between labor and management.

I have given you this much background to the Utah industrial structure in support of the idea that in a territory which has been peculiarly free from prejudices, bitterness, strife, or antagonisms and where relationships between employees and employers has been tantamount to working friendships over a period ranging from 5 to 30 years, the Labor Relations Act, as it is interpreted and administered, has tended to disrupt rather than foster the principle of genuine collective bargaining.

What has the Labor Relations Act done in Utah?

At the very inception of the law there was diffused a veritable poisonous smoke screen beclouding and strangling the minds of employers and employees to the extent that employers were actually afraid to discuss common problems with employees with whom they have been friends for years and transversely, many of these employees wondered whether they had new rights or new obligations or whether they were in the hands of an outside agency which under the law was supposed to withdraw their rights and determine the obligations. It is hardly conceivable that any employer was stupid enough to believe that if at any time 51 percent of his employees actually belonged to a union or were genuinely desirous of belonging to a union he could ignore or evade a law so clearly defined in that respect. However, when employees came to the management and insisted that they did not want to join a union and frankly asked what their individual and personal rights were under the law, the employer at most could only tell them that the law was supposed to protect their rights to join, not to join, or to form their own organization. In the actual application of the law it has only ansulated their rights against any helpful advice the employer might proffer because of his liability to the charge of coercion, but left them wholly exposed and unprotected against any kind of force or coercion that others might bring to bear, and this force has been rather savory of ruffianism in some cases.

« AnteriorContinuar »