CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

February 7, 1966

Page 2267

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the absurd antics to which this, the greatest deliberative body in the world, has been subjected over the past several weeks are, according to popular speculation, about to end.

If the speculation in the press turns out to be correct -- and I fervently hope it does not -- it will mean the defeat, by a willful minority, of the wishes of a majority of the Members of the Senate who have openly declared themselves in favor of the repeal of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.

It will mean that the Senate will not even have the opportunity to debate, much less vote, on the substantive issue before us.

I have hesitated before today to rise to discuss those issues, for, mindful of the fact that 14 (b) has not been formally before us, I did not want to prolong the endless discussion to which we have been subjected by the opponents of unionism. However, on this eve of a scheduled crucial procedural vote, I wish to take this opportunity to dispel some of the misrepresentations and misunderstandings which have been foisted upon the Congress and the people by the anti-union propagandists.

I wish, also, to present the case for repeal.

And that is a case which does not, because it need not, rely upon the use of clever phrases and false arguments appealing to flag-waving emotionalism.

Mr. President, the majority will in this case, and the majority will in the country, is confronted by a public relations gimmick -- a standard Madison Avenue trick of catchy phrase coining. I refer, of course, to the use of the false label "right to work."

The phrase "right to work" has, I am certain, been responsible for "99 and 44/100ths" percent of the opposition generated by the anti-union lobbies. That phrase, together with the talk of compulsory unionism, serves only to mislead the unsophisticated. It has been largely, if not wholly responsible for the fact that 19 malapportioned State legislatures have adopted so-called right-to-work laws prohibiting union shop contracts.

The issue involved in the repeal of 14 (b) is not the right to work. That right is guaranteed elsewhere in the Taft-Hartley Act which prohibits the closed shop under which a worker must be a union member before he can be hired.

The repeal of 14(b) will do nothing to inhibit the freedom of employers to hire whomever they choose or workers to work for whomever they desire.

What the repeal of 14(b) will do is to let employer and employee decide for themselves whether, as part of their bargaining agreement, they wish to require workers, after they are hired, to formally join a union within a stated period of time.

The issue involved, as Secretary Willard Wirtz has said:

It is not whether there is to be a right to work. It is whether there is to be a right to decide.

Let me emphasize this point. The repeal of 14(b) will only permit a union representing a majority of the employees and their employer through the collective bargaining process to arrive at a joint agreement to institute a union shop.

Repeal of section 14(b) will not mean the establishment of compulsory unionism. No law, State or Federal, will force employer and employee to establish a union shop.

So much for the ill-founded and illusory fears of the anti-unionists.

Why must union shop agreements be permitted? To answer that question we must place 14(b) in the historical perspective of our national labor policy. Looked at through the eyes of history and national policy, 14(b) is a fundamental anomaly.

The Wagner Act of 1935 established the policy that there be but one employees' agent for collective bargaining purposes. That policy was reaffirmed by the Taft-Hartley Act. The union thus granted exclusive jurisdiction was required to bargain for all employees in the unit.

All employees benefit equally from improved wages, shorter hours, fringe benefits, and improved working conditions. A union cannot confine its benefits to its own members.

Yet the States were permitted to circumvent this policy by prohibiting union shop contracts.

Why should one who reaps all the benefits of collective bargaining be permitted to stand aside and refuse to contribute to the costs of agent who acts for him? Why should he get a free ride from the organization which by law and public policy must do all this for him?

That was not the intent of the Senate when it voted approval of the Taft bill in 1947 without section 14(b). Indeed, Senator Robert A. Taft himself approved of union shop contracts -- agreements which are now condemned as un-American by those who consider themselves his legatees.

I quote from Senator Taft:

So I think, it would be a mistake to go to the extreme of absolutely outlawing a contract which provides for a union shop, if that arrangement meets with the approval of the employer and meets with the approval of a majority of the employees and is embodied in a written contract.

Section 14(b), as many senior Senators will remember, was accepted by Senator Taft in conference.

Today, 14(b) stands as the isolated exception to the rule that Federal labor law preempts conflicting State laws. Section 14(b) subverts our national labor policy of uniform regulation of labor management relations. It has, certainly in the 19 States that have outlawed the union shop, seriously weakened collective bargaining as an institution which Congress since 1935 has repeatedly endeavored to foster.

Mr. President, it may be an exercise in futility to try to convert the hard-fast opponents of unionism. A look at the record, however, discloses that their number is diminishing. It has, in fact, dwindled to a small minority whose only strength lies in its readiness to take advantage of every parliamentary trick in the book to prevent the Senate from ever voting on the repeal of section 14(b).

Let us end this fruitless debate over whether or not we will be permitted to take up this important matter. Let us take up the repeal of 14(b), discuss its merits, in depth if necessary, but responsibly. Then, let the majority of the Senate express its will, for this is a legislative body which should be able to act when its majority is ready for action.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CLARK. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. MUSKIE. I compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania for what I consider to be a succinct and excellent analysis of the substance of the issues of section 14(b) on the side opposite that which we have been hearing for many days.

I particularly appreciate the fact that the Senator pinpointed something that I believe the country at large is unaware of. The Senator discussed the substance of the issue. Am I correct in stating that the substance of the issue is not now before the Senate.

Mr. CLARK. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MUSKIE. Because of my present responsibilities, I have had to sit in this chair and listen to long debate on section 14(b). Am I correct in stating that the issue before the Senate now is whether or not we will get down to the business of discussing the substance of the question?

Mr. CLARK. The Senator is correct. It was only because I was fearful that we would never get a chance that I made my speech today.

Mr. MUSKIE. I take it that the Senator's speech demonstrates again that in all the hours I have spent in this Chamber listening to a discussion of section 14 (b) on the part of those who oppose its repeal, I have not heard a single argument related to the issue which is before us, and that issue is whether we shall get down to the substance of the question. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania agree?

Mr. CLARK. I wholeheartedly agree. I thank the Senator from Maine for his comments.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his great courtesy in permitting me to make this speech while he held the floor, even though I know he does not agree with what I have just said.

Mr. FANNIN.Mr. President, I do not agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania, but I shall, later in my speech, cover some of the material to which he referred.