Th_e Case for a Fair Deal Labor Policy Speeches of HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY of Minnesota In the Senate of the United States l June 10 and 14, 1949 "I submit that the processes of democracy are a s relentless and ever-flowing as the )ide itself ..• the American people, the worlcing people of this country, the people who have been oppressed by this law-, are determined that they are going to remove this kind of punitive legislation from the statute books, and are determine.d that they are going to have something to say about the proc­ esses of government, because this country is their r-- country, as well as it is yours and mine." NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNM~NT EXPENSE 844385---30518 <tongrrssional Rrcord PROCEEDINGS AND DilBATES OF THE 81st CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION A Case For a Fair .Labor Policy SPEECHES of the appropriate purposes· of such pol­ OF icy. What can_a Government labor pol­ icy achieve and what are its limits? Table of Contents HON. -HUBERT H. HUMPHREY What should a Government try to do in OF MINNESOTA that field, and what should it refrain IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES from trying to do? Page June 10 and 14, 1949 Statements of objectives too often are Objectives of a. National L abor Policy____________ 3 mere generalizations on which everyone The P lace of Labor Unions in Our Economy______ 8 can agree. This is true of much of the June 10, 1949 "declaration of policy" in the preamble H istorical Background of Government's Attitude The Senate resumed the consideration of. the Taft-Hartley Act. Few will dis­ of the bill <S. 249) to diminish the causes agree with the following statement from T oward L abor R elations ____________________ _ 18 of labcr disputes burdening or obstruct­ the preamble of that act: Employers and Employers' Organiz'ations _______ _ 25 ing interstate and foreign commerce, and Industrial strife which interferes with the . for other purpos-es. normal flow of commerce and with the full The Wagner Act_ _____________________________ _ 30 Mr. HUMPHREY. · Mr. President, "i production of articles and commodities for .commerce, can be avoided or substantially The Taft-HarUey Act_ ________________________ _ 40 d.esire to speak at some length ·on the minimized if .employers, employees, and labor pending measure, Senate bill 249, to di­ organizations each recognize under law one The Taft-Hartley Act and the Taft Amendments_ 42 minish the causes of l'abor disputes bur­ another's legftimate rights in their relations Union Security _______________________________ _ dening or obstructing interstate and for­ with each other, and above all recognize un­ 44 eign commerce, and for other purposes . der law that neither party has _any right in Injunctions ___________________________________ _ Before I beg-in my formal remarks· I its relations with any other to engage in acts 49 or _practices· which jeopardize the public ::vt ust say that I was deeply interested in health, safety, or interest. Secondary Boycotts ___________________________ _ 56 A~ remarks just made by the- Senator ~.rom New Hampshire. [Mr. BRIDGES], in The second paragraph of the preamble D amage Suits --------------------------------- 59 which he pointed out that the Repub- of the Taft-Hartley Act also states some .Conciliation Service ___________________________ _ 61 lican Party has not lived up to its re­ laudable objectives. The purpose of the sponsibilities in foreign-policy matters. act, it is stated, is to promote the full fiow Conclusion------------------------------------- 63 There are some of us who believe that the of commerce, to prescribe the 'legitimate Republican Party has not lived up to its rights of both employers and employees responsibilities in terms of labor-man­ in their relations affecting commerce, to agement policy, and I intend to direct provide orderly-and peaceful procedures, my remarks. toward the consideration of to protect the rights of the public, and what I and many of us consider to be a so forth. But even in the highly gener­ sound, constructive, modern labor-man­ alized statement of objectives the pre­ agement policy for the industrial econ­ amble of the act betrays the bias of the omy of the United. States. act when it states that its aim is "to pro­ I wish to trace the development and tect the rights of individual employees in the growth of the trade-union movement t_heir relations with labor organizations." in this Nation and the growth of legis­ That .aim._in its.elf may ·sound . praise­ lation which deals with the problems of worthy, but what about-the 'protection of labor-management relationships. the individual employee in his relations The first subject of my remarks is, with his employer and in his relations therefore, I believe, a timely one at this with the Government? stage of the debate on the pending When various provisions of the act are measure. considered it is apparent that the objec­ tive of the act, in respect to the so-called Objectives of a National Labor Policy rights of the individual employee, is to A sound and workable labor policy go back to a condition of industry and adopted by the Government of the United industrial relations that ceased to exist States must begin with an understanding when large companies and gigantic cor- C44385-30518 (3) 4 5 porations came upon the scene. The act and labor in a free economy are to meet ernment but by the parties-free action Davis, of William . M ~ Leiserson, and of ignores a fundamental fact which was together, the strong arm of government by .free citizens in a free economy in a Dr. Nathan P. Feinsinger, professor of recognized by numerous Supreme Court should project itself and be the final de­ free country. law, of the University of Wisconsin, decisions, as when the Court in the Jones terminer of what is just and right. The Wagner Act in its statement of three eminent men, who have been hired and Laughlin case relied in its decision Is this a biased view? If so, the bias is policy recognizes the actual facts of in­ by business, who have been used by Gov­ on the helplessness of the single em­ not restricted to those who are commonly equality in bargaining power between ernment, and who have proved 'them­ ployee, his complete dependence on his charged with pro-labor bias. In evidence employees when they do not have full selves o.ver the years ·as knowing the daily wage and consequent inability sepa­ it is worth while to recall the editorial freedom of association and collective sound ·economic .facts of labor-manage­ rately to resist arbitrary and unfair treat­ views expressed in Business Week of bargaining rights and employers who ment relationships. They think in terms ment, and his dependence on his union February 19, 1949. The following is a are organized in corporate or other forms of public policy, not in terms of special for equality in dealing with his employer. quotation from the editorial in tr \Jf ownership association. The preamble privilege or of private advantage. In other words, Mr. President, labor re­ journal: ,if the Wagner Act recognizes the fact What did Mr. Leiserson say ih his ar­ lations in the year 1949 cannot be con­ What was wrong was that the Taft-Hartley that this inequality interferes with the ticle in the New York Times? Act went ceived of as being in some s.ort of fairy­ too far. It crossed the narrow line flow · of commerce, tends to aggravate A good way to begin thinking about a new land, as might have been the case in the separating a law which aims only to regulate business depressions, and causes indus­ labor law, now tal{ing shape in congressional days of 1800, before the growth of the from one which could destroy. trial strife or unrest. The whole pur­ h earings, is to compare the policy pronounce­ giant corporation or what is commonly Given a few million unemployed in Amer­ pose of the act was consistent with the r.lents of the Taft-Hartley Act and the Wag­ known as big business. Labor relations ica, given an administration in Washington traditional ner Act. which and basic principles of Gov­ cannot be considered in a theoretical was not pro-union-and the Taft­ ernment in the United States. lt'sought The Taft-Hartley Act says: "It Is the pur­ vacuum. Hartley Act conceivably could _wreck the pose and policy of this act to prescribe the That question is no longer an labor movement. to avoid unnecessary positive interven­ academic one; it is the very substance of legitimate rights of both employees and em­ These are the provisions that could do it: tion by Government. It sought merely to ployers, to (prevent) interference by either a sound, productive economy. (1) Picketing can be restrained by injunc­ use the functions of Government for re­ with the legitimate rights of the other, to Equally important is the fact that the tion; (2) employers can petition for a col­ moving obstructions and inequalities and protect the rights of Individual employees in individual employee is helpless as com­ lective-bargaining election; (3) strikers can encouraging free and equal collective their relations with labor organizations pared with his employer in making use be held ineligible to vote-while the strike bargaining. It • • •, to define and prescribe practices replacements assumed the carrying on of the laws of the land designed cast the only ballots; and (4) (inimical to general welfare). on ~he ·part for the if the outcome of this of industrial relations, not by Govern­ maintenance of rights, and in appealing is a "no union" vote.