JUNE 16, 1961

PAGE 10609

RIGHT-TO-WORK LEGISLATION

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I call attention to the recent action by the 173rd General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States in reaffirming its condemnation of so-called right-to-work laws and in upholding the democratic processes of collective bargaining between management and labor as the pathway to industrial peace.

This eminent church body, which speaks for nearly 4 million Presbyterians in our Nation, merits the commendation of all fairminded Americans for having negated an attempt to sway the judgment and official pronouncement of the 171st general assembly, in its convocation 2 years ago, that "union membership as a basis of continued employment should be neither required by law nor forbidden by law," and the corollary expression of "its confidence in collective bargaining as the most responsible and democratic way of resolving issues in labor-management relations."

I call attention to the fact that the 173rd general assembly has declared that the propaganda labels "right to work" and "compulsory unionism" are "inaccurate"' and that the term "compulsory open shop" is a more accurate description of the legislative proposals that seek to destroy the right of management and labor to agree to union security provisions in collective bargaining.

It is important, in the interest of a truthful representation of the nature of these anti-collective bargaining proposals, that the Presbyterian Church, in its latest pronouncement, states:

Compulsory open shop legislation interposes the power of State government to produce in that State a compulsory open shop in all industries, regardless of their size or nature.

The absence of compulsory open shop legislation permits management and union in each industry to bargain collectively and work out voluntarily the arrangement that is a workable compromise between their respective interests.

I have a special interest in the wise position taken by the United Presbyterian Church on this issue because of recent events in my home State of Maine.

An effort was made this year by a so-called national right-to-work committee to persuade the Maine Legislature to disrupt our excellent labor-management relations by enacting a compulsory open shop law, which they called a right-to-work law.

This reactionary proposal was opposed by Gov. John Reed and was defeated in both branches of the State legislature by bipartisan voting.

In view of the importance of this issue to continuance of the collective bargaining process and to sound and stable labor-management relations, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Social Education and Action as adopted on May 24, 1961, at Buffalo, N.Y., by the 173rd General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

In 1959 the 171st General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America made a pronouncement on collective bargaining which stated, in part, that "union membership as a basis of continued employment should be neither required by law nor forbidden by law."

The Presbytery of Omaha in its stated meeting on January 17, 1961, overturned the general assembly "to reconsider this matter, that it may possibly remove the present commitments against laws requiring or forbidding compulsory unionism."

The subcommittee has reconsidered the issue on labor-management relations and recommends no action.

Studies are now underway in the entire field of labor-management relations and will be continued under the auspices of the counseling committee.

We feel that the 1959 pronouncement dealt clearly and fairly with the issue of collective bargaining. The general assembly that year expressed its confidence in collective bargaining as the most responsible and democratic way of resolving issues in labor-management relations.

This brings up the issue related to "closed shop," "union shop," and "open shop." Closed shop practices are already prohibited by Federal laws. We feel that the 171st general assembly was correct in recommending that the question of union shop or other maintenance-of -membership arrangements should be settled by collective bargaining (and not by the force of government) which meets the basic requirements for responsible and democratic negotiation. And we feel the general assembly would be ill advised in taking an action which would be widely interpreted as recommending State legislation which makes open shop compulsory.

We feel that the terms "right to work" and "compulsory unionism" are not accurate as described in this overture, and that the term "compulsory open shop" is a more exact description. Compulsory open shop legislation interposes the power of State government to produce in that State a compulsory open shop in all industries, regardless of their size or nature.

The absence of compulsory open-shop legislation permits management and union in each industry to bargain collectively and work out voluntarily the arrangement that is a workable compromise between their respective interests.

There are really two questions involved: (1) Shall union and management together mutually decide the outcome of the collective bargaining process, or shall the Government predetermine the outcome by making an open shop compulsory (which is what right to work does)? (2) Beyond protecting both employer and employees from gangsterism, communism, kickbacks, racketeering, misuse of funds, and other forms of corruption, shall the State prohibit the kind of union-management contract (i.e., working conditions, wages, etc.) that the collective bargaining agents can agree upon?