February 9, 1966
Page 2723
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as I think back to what has been said in this chamber during the course of this filibuster, I am struck by one glaring omission.
Much has been said here about unions as an economic and political force. There have been discussions of union structure, the application of union contracts and much more. But all of this has been in terms of statistics or of legal and constitutional interpretations.
At no point that I can recall has there been any recognition of the social and ethical principles that are the heart of the labor movement -- the spirit of mutual effort for the benefit of all, without which the labor movement would not exist.
There has been no indication that my distinguished colleagues are aware that fundamentally a union is a brotherhood, not merely in the sense that all men are brothers, but in the specific dedication of a group to a common cause. And for that reason a union does not function with the same degree of self-interest as a business enterprise whose primary obligation is to make a profit. The concern of a union is the people who comprise it, and the people it is obligated to protect.
I am sure it will be argued by those who are on the other side of this issue, that such a brotherhood should, therefore, be voluntary; that a worker who is brought into membership under a union shop contract does not automatically become endowed with the spirit of brotherhood. But this argument misses the point. A union brotherhood has a function to perform, the function of safeguarding and advancing the interests of all those who are part of the group, even those whose feelings may be unbrotherly to the point of selfishness.
This often leads unions to behave in what, by other standards, would be regarded as a quixotic way. Just such a case came to my attention yesterday. It was described in the current issue of the American Newspaper Guild's publication, the Guild Reporter.
During the newspaper strike of 1962, a New York Times photographer who had refused to join the guild during his 8 years of employment also crossed the guild picket line and went to work. This, of course, is the ultimate trade union crime -- indeed, it is regarded more nearly as a sin.
Subsequently, some time after the strike, the photographer was injured on an assignment and lost the sight of one eye. The Times management fired him, offering no reason.
The guild -- to the astonishment of management -- filed a grievance and fought the discharge up to the point of arbitration. A day before the arbitration hearing the Times capitulated and reinstated the photographer with back pay for the year he had been idle.
Here, Mr. President, we see a union fighting for the rights of a man who not only was not a member, but who had been, by union principles the most offensive of all creatures -- a scab.
It is reported that management asked, "Why do you bother?"
The answer, of course, is that the union bothered because it was its moral obligation to bother -- its duty, as a brotherhood, to seek justice for all.
This is the true nature of the labor movement; a quality far more pertinent than involved dissertations against the union shop, based upon false premises and imaginary fears.
A calm, dispassionate look at the issue of the repeal of section 14(b) long ago led me to the conclusion that this part of our Federal law is harmful to our Nation and, when the opportunity comes, I shall vote for repeal.
However, before we come to that moment of decision, I feel that we must ponder the effects of any further protraction on the issue of section 14(b).
Let us consider what our failure to deal with this issue will bring about in many parts of our country. Already, it has been announced by an organization calling itself the National Right-to-Work Committee that it intends to launch right-to-work campaigns in several States, and committees to that purpose have been formed.
Now, it is one thing to discuss section 14(b) here in the Congress, but, for anyone who has been through such a campaign, it is a totally different creature when a bill to enact a right to work is introduced into a State legislature.
The effect is instantaneous. Any industrial harmony that has been achieved, any labor-management responsibility, any joint activity in behalf of the community, whether it be a united givers fund or a school bond issue, will disappear overnight.
In every community, in every State where a battle is undertaken for a so-called right-to-work law, the sides will be drawn and the fight will be bitter. And, whatever the outcome, the scars and the hurts win remain for years thereafter.
Is this the kind of labor-management harmony we seek to promote? Is this the kind of Federal labor legislation we really had in mind when section 14(b) was written into the law? I think not, but the effect of the nearly 20 years of section 14 (b) has brought it to this.
The National Right-To-Work Committee says it will seek "early expansion" of the number of right-to-work States. The head of that organization told a business association in Charleston, S.C., recently that he hoped to get the campaign underway in 1966 in various States.
He later told newsmen that the committee was hoping to raise more than $1 million to carry out its campaigns.
This is what our failure to act could bring about in the States. Perhaps there are some who welcome such warfare, but they are not the responsible voices in the community. The overwhelming number of labor-management relationships are stable, with respect for the rights of each party. The overwhelming majority of collective bargaining contracts are agreed upon each year without strikes or work stoppages. Our industrial labor climate is, for the most part, excellent in the United States. But the failure of this body to act will be the signal for right-to-work campaigns in many States, and the patiently built labor-management relationships will disappear and America will suffer as a result.
I urge consideration and repeal of section 14(b) in the interest of the Nation's best interest and economic health.