Only the Jimmy Hoffas and the Nathan Sheffermans can find satisfaction in the failure of this Congress to pass the Labor Reform Bill – generally known as the Kennedy-Ives bill. Honest union members, informed business men, responsible labor leaders, law enforcement officers, and the general public – all of these will suffer as the result of this bill’s death in the House of Representatives.
Those who voted against this bill, and who lobbied for its defeat, must bear a heavy responsibility during the coming months when racketeering and gangsterism in the labor movement continue unchecked. I cannot believe that the American people will accept some technical or procedural argument offered by way of excuse for the defeat of a bill which would have put Mr. Hoffa and his ilk out of business.
No two experts in labor affairs could probably agree on a draft bill in this controversial and sensitive area. Therefore it was natural that criticism and controversy should surround it. As the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McClellan) put it during the debate in the Senate – “Each Senator, no doubt, feels that if he were privileged to write it he could improve on this measure.”
He went on in the same colloquy to express what I believe we all felt when he said,
“I say let us take what we know all of us want, and pass the bill, and then move on.”
And the Senate did just that and passed the bill by an 88 to 1 vote.
That this bill displeases extremists is not surprising – for it has been these same extremists who have prevented the enactment of any progressive labor legislation since 1947. But this bill passed the Senate precisely because the members of this body demonstrated, in the words of Business Week magazine, how “wise guidance in the public interest can be substituted for concern over wide apart partisan positions.”
The Kennedy-Ives bill as it passed the Senate was a strong, bipartisan measure. Whatever might be said about what the Congress might do on some other bill at some other time, this bill represented a real opportunity for effective labor reform in this Congress. Failure to enact it only means that Hoffa and the handful of irresponsible and arrogant labor leaders who plague an otherwise clean labor movement will continue to operate.
Of one thing we may be sure – next year there will be more scandals, more racketeering, more abuses by the hoodlums who have infiltrated a tiny fringe of the American labor movement. But we will lack an effective remedy to stop them – and those who defeated this bill are apparently willing to assume responsibility for tying our hands.
More union funds will be embezzled or otherwise misused next year – and the members and the public will know nothing about it.
More union elections will be “rigged” next year – and nothing will be done about it.
More ex-convicts will serve as union officers - more Nathan Shefferman middle-men will take pay-offs - more picket lines will be set up for extortionate purposes – more trusteeships will be used for Jimmy Hoffa-type power plays – more Johnny Dio paper locals will be established to front for racketeers – we will be able to do nothing about it.
The results of nearly two years of McClellan Committee hearings, of several weeks of hearings, discussion, and drafting by the Labor Committee, of long, constructive debates on the Senate floor – all this is to go for naught because of the short-sighted opposition stemming mostly from one party and one interest group.
Provisions of the Kennedy Ives Bill
No one who thoughtfully examined the Kennedy-Ives bill could doubt its effectiveness as a labor reform measure. The key provisions of the bill, as passed by the Senate, included the following:
Comprehensive detailed disclosure of union financial data – to members, press, public, and law enforcement agencies.
Full reports by union officers on any personal conflict-of-interest transactions.
Criminal sanctions for embezzlement of union funds, false reporting, false entries in books, failure to report, or destruction of union books.
Suits by union members for recovery of funds embezzled or misappropriated by union officers.
Prohibition of loans by employers or unions to union officers.
Secret ballot for all union officers or the convention delegates who select them.
Due notice of all union elections and real opportunity to nominate opposing candidates.
Requirement that union officers be elected by secret ballot every four years by international unions and every three years by local unions.
Prohibition on the use of union funds to support candidacy of any union officer.
Prohibition on persons convicted of felony serving as union officers.
Power to Secretary of Labor to institute court action to set improper elections aside and conduct a new election.
Limit on union trusteeships to 18 months.
Mandatory annual report to Secretary and union members on every trusteeship, the reasons for its establishment, continuance, and operation.
Prohibition on counting votes of delegates of trustee bodies unless delegates elected by secret ballot, and on transfer of funds from trusteed local union to international except normal dues and assessments.
Power to Secretary of Labor to begin a court proceeding to break improper trusteeships.
Prohibition of picketing for extortion or to secure pay-off from employer.
Prohibition of solicitation or payment of fictitious fees for unloading cargo from interstate carriers.
Public financial reports of the operations of Shefferman-type middle-men; and a prohibition of channeling bribes and improper influence through such middle-men.
Elimination of the “no man’s land” problem which prevented NLRB actions on local labor racketeering, by directing the NLRB to exercise its full jurisdiction under the Taft-Hartley Act.
A Strong Labor Reform Bill
It will be noted that this bill would have implemented every one of the McClellan Committee’s legislative recommendations (the welfare fund protection bill having already passed).
It provided for complete financial disclosure by unions, with broad investigative powers for the Secretary of Labor to insure compliance;
It imposed strict standards of union democracy, including free elections by secret ballot and the regulation of trusteeships;
It curbed labor-management middle-men;
It provided an effective solution to the no-man’s land problem.
The bill, as passed by the Senate, was recognized by knowledgeable men on both sides of the aisle as an effective instrument of labor reform. The Senator from Arkansas, Mr. McClellan, said of the bill:
“If enacted, and properly administered, it will drive many unreformed ex-convicts, racketeers, gangsters, and crooked officials out of the union movement and strengthen the position of honest, decent unionism and its leaders.”
Senator Knowland, the distinguished Minority Leader, indicated that the bill marked “real progress” and said, “. . . in the final analysis, the workers will be the ones who will suffer if Congress does not finally act on legislation of this sort at this session.” And the ranking Republican member of our Senate Committee on Labor, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, has termed the bill “one of the important landmarks of this Congress.”
Taft-Hartley Amendments
There have been objections that this bill does not go far enough – that it does not restrict labor’s rights in the field of collective bargaining or political activity. But the Senate demonstrated repeatedly that it regarded this as a labor reform bill, designed primarily to carry out the recommendations of the McClellan Committee – and that it should not be loaded down with broad new measures in the various areas of industrial relations.
The Taft-Hartley amendments contained in the bill were placed in it at the repeated urging of Administration spokesmen. The Secretary of Labor in his appearance before our Committee insisted on the inclusion of these amendments as did the ranking minority member of our Committee, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) both in Committee and on the floor of the Senate.
The following excerpt, for instance, is taken from page 32 of the hearings before our Committee:
Senator KENNEDY. I will say to the Secretary, the Secretary knows quite well that I would be delighted to see reforms in the Taft-Hartley law, which are long overdue.
The legislative recommendations of the McClellan committee include five areas: Legislation to regulate control of pension health and welfare funds, which, as I have said, we have done something about.
Second, to legislate to regulate control of union funds; and three, legislation to insure union democracy; and four, legislation to curb activities of middlemen in labor management relations; and five, legislation to clarify the “no man’s land” in labor-management relations.
I will say that if it is the desire of any member of the committee to offer amendments on any question, when the subcommittee finally meets to decide on legislation, that, of course, is his privilege.
I am merely hoping to the extent possible that we will attempt to confine ourselves to this immediate challenge.
From our experience since 1947, I am aware of the error of attempting a full-scale revision of the Taft-Hartley Act which, I believe, ought to take place.
Now, it may be possible, if the subcommittee could reach a consensus, we could do something about matters like non-Communist affidavits, and the right of economic strikers, and the problem of the building trades, and matters about which I think there is quite general agreement.
However, I am anxious that we do not get into too broad a field, because the result will be that nothing will be done.
Secretary MITCHELL. Certainly, in my answers to questions, I will abide by the chairman’s ruling.
Senator KENNEDY. It is not a ruling. It is just an expression of hope.
Secretary MITCHELL. I would like to say it is the reason why I thought it was to the interest of all concerned to unfold a complete labor-management program, in my opinion this program should be approached in the broadest way.
All of the recommendations we have made, we think, are needed reforms.
And then again on page 278 the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) had this to say:
I do want to emphasize the importance of giving serious consideration to the entire program contained in S. 3097, S. 3098 and S. 3099 which I introduced for the administration. . . .
For this reason I agree with the distinguished chairman, Mr. Kennedy, that in the time available, it is impossible to write a major revision of the Taft-Hartley Act, especially if consideration is to be given to the recommendations of the McClellan committee dealing with the urgent problems of racketeering and union democracy, and such testimony as we received from Senator Knowland yesterday, and Senator McClellan yesterday in their splendid presentation before this committee.
However, although the administration’s proposals do not contemplate a major revision of Taft-Hartley, some of them are directed at specific, longstanding inequities and deficiencies, the correction of which are of immediate urgency.
This being so, I hope that it will be possible for us to deal with these proposals at this time
The only major recommendations of the Administration not included in the bill related to organizational picketing and secondary boycotts. But the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McClellan) has clearly indicated that the question of secondary boycotts and picketing would be the subject of future investigations by the Committee, and consequently, action on these two specific areas was deferred. I refer the members of the Senate to Page 10259 of the Congressional Record where this whole matter was discussed, and I quote from that page now:
“. . .our committee has only begun to investigate that particular area. We have received some testimony regarding it, and I have repeatedly stated that the secondary boycott problem must be dealt with.
“. . .But it is my theory that if we are to have good legislation, we must give it some care and thought. This is all I am asking for.
“. . .If the Senate is now to try to legislate at this session, by means of this bill, in the entire labor and management field, then the select committee should be discharged, because then there would be nothing left for it to do.
“I want to have good legislation enacted, and I want the Senate to go into this field. But I repeat that I want these proposals properly investigated and considered, rather than to take hasty action and get bad legislation enacted.”
Other Criticisms
Exaggerated criticism came from some quarters about the provisions of the bill requiring reports from employers concerning deals with labor-management middlemen. This provision of the bill prohibited nothing – it merely required information to be reported from employers concerning dealings with what the McClellan Committee report called “shadowy figures”. Neither did this provision in any way interfere with, nor was it ever intended to, normal employer-employee relations.
Another provision of the bill, clearly designed to prohibit bribes by employers to prevent unionization, was requested by National Labor Relations Board representatives when they appeared before the McClellan Committee. This unambiguous anti-bribery section certainly did not preclude normal wage or other payments as was charged by some.
Kennedy-Ives Strongest Available Bill
The hard facts of the matter are that the Kennedy-Ives bill was not only the strongest bill which could pass the Congress – and the only bill which could be enacted at this Congress – it was also the strongest bill available. In most key areas it was much stronger than the proposals of the Administration. Permit me to list some of them:
The Administration proposals contained no effective regulation of trusteeships. This bill set strict standards and provided means by which union members could protect themselves against arbitrary imposition of trusteeships by international unions.
The Administration’s bill contained weak and ineffective provisions to protect union members’ voting providing only a report from a union that it follows its own rules for elections. The Senate-passed bill, on the other hand, would have required secret periodic elections of all important union officers. It went further and provided machinery to upset improperly held elections and established a method by which new elections could be held.
The Administration’s bill merely reenacted present law dealing with union financial reports while the Senate-passed bill contained a comprehensive reporting requirement including reports by union officers of conflicts of interest.
The Administration bill contained a very limited provision requiring employers to report only payments to any union officer or employee. This is already covered by Section 302 of Taft-Hartley. The Senate-passed bill, on the other hand, contained a strong, detailed provision requiring employers and middle-men to report transactions and arrangements as well as payments and expenditures for activities intended to influence or affect employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Labor Act.
The Senate-passed bill contained a strong specific provision against “shakedown picketing” in general and against unlawful exactions from interstate truckers. These safeguards were not specifically covered in the Administration bill.
The Senate-passed bill specifically prevented convicted criminals from holding union office. This subject is not covered by the Administration bill.
The Senate-passed bill contained a specific prohibition against using union funds to influence union elections. The Administration bill was silent on this subject.
The Senate-passed bill contained specific provisions making it a criminal offense to refuse to submit to the Secretary of Labor records, and to refuse to permit the Secretary of Labor to enter and inspect books and accounts. The Administration bill would have required the Secretary to resort to protracted court proceedings for this purpose.
The Senate-passed bill contained strong criminal penalties against false entries in union books and against destruction of records. The Administration bill was either silent or contained much weaker provisions dealing with this subject.
The Senate-passed bill contained provisions designed to encourage unions to enforce strict codes of ethical practices binding upon affiliates and members. The Administration bill was silent on the subject.
The Senate-passed bill contained a strong provision directing the Labor Board to exercise its jurisdiction in situations warranting such action and presently not covered by reason of the Board’s refusal to exercise its statutory jurisdiction. The Administration bill would have perpetuated the present Board-created “no man’s land” by ceding jurisdiction to states, thirty-six of which have no state labor relations laws. This would mean applying greatly dissimilar state labor laws ranging from New York’s pro-labor, closed shop law to restrictive “right to work” statutes on the books in several states. More importantly it would have left thousands of employers and employees in such major industrial states as California and Illinois without the protection of a uniform national labor law.
Mr. President, neither Senator Ives nor I have ever sought to make this labor reform measure a partisan political issue. We knew that there was too much at stake. I have cited these comparisons with the Administration bill to demonstrate that the bill rejected by the House yesterday was a strong and effective measure.
Until this week, it was never a party measure. The bill had a bipartisan origin and sponsorship, and included the recommendations of the President as well as those of the bipartisan McClellan Committee. It was reported by the Senate Labor Committee with only one dissenting vote. It passed the Senate with only one dissenting vote. It received the endorsement of those members on both sides of the aisle who have taken a special interest in labor affairs.
But now partisanship has killed the Labor Reform Bill. Two-thirds of the members were required to pass the bill in the other body. More than two-thirds of the Democrats supported the bill. More than three-fourths of the Republicans opposed it.
This is a fantastic performance. The Republicans have long assailed the Democratic party for its supposed labor ties. They have long cried out for labor reform. They have long assailed the Democratic Congressional leadership for not passing a bill to implement the findings of the McClellan Committee. Now, finally given an opportunity to vote for labor reform – for a bill that would have crippled the free-wheeling operations of Mr. Hoffa and his ilk – they chose to defeat the bill and preserve the issue.
I have already commented on the false propaganda campaign against this bill initiated by the N. A. M., Retail Federation, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Their success in planting fear and confusion on the Republican side – regarding a bill thoroughly and carefully considered here before it passed 88 to 1 – has now been demonstrated.
But none of this would have been possible had it not been for the sabotage of the bill effectively worked by the official Republican spokesman on labor affairs – Secretary of Labor James Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell has talked long and piously about the need for labor reform. He has sought to give the credit for action in carrying out the McClellan Committee recommendations to the Republican Administration. He has sought to place the blame for inaction upon the Democratic Congressional leadership. But the facts of the matter are that the chief stumbling-block to labor reform legislation in this Congress has been Secretary Mitchell.
At no time has he lifted one finger in favor of this bill. At not time has he urged his party members in either house to vote for the bill. He first attempted to sabotage the bill from Geneva, calling it “weak and ineffective,” after it had been reported out of Committee by a nearly unanimous vote. He has continued these negative and misleading comments up to this very week. Finally, at the crucial moment in the House debate, just before the vote on the measure, he authorized a statement on the floor of the other body calling the bill a “bad bill”. The inevitable result of his interference followed – seventy-nine per cent of the Republican members voted against the bill.
The reason is plain: Mr. Mitchell did not want a labor reform bill. His public statements about needing a tougher bill were designed to kill the only bill that could pass, appease those anti-labor elements in his party that wanted a more restrictive bill, and maintain a synthetic political issue. For Mr. Mitchell’s true attitude on labor reform was disclosed at an academic seminar some months ago. The opposition to labor reform legislation which he expressed at that meeting has since been reported in the press, and I have independently checked these quotations and found them to be accurate. Mr. Mitchell opposed democracy in labor unions, stating it could lead to “anarchy.” He opposed receiving authority to disclose union financial reports, saying he would “prefer to defer this.” He opposed effective labor reform legislation, stating that he did not think “anybody is going to be able to write and pass legislation that will correct the evils that the McClellan Committee has uncovered. The job must be done by the labor movement itself – my job is to quiet the hysteria so we don’t get the kind of legislation that would be dangerous to the American labor movement. Maybe the right way to put it is: feed a little innocuous legislation to the lions, and this may give us the time to put the thing in the right perspective.”
First, the bill does contain very adequate power to enforce the standards imposed by the bill. Under the bill, the Secretary is authorized to make investigations, enter and inspect records and is specifically directed to compile the reports required by the bill when any person neglects to do so. The bill also contains stiff criminal penalties which if properly administered will compel adherence to standards.
Second, the bill does deal with shakedown picketing, and it seems strange to say that we should not take a good bill because we might have gotten a better one. The problem of secondary boycotts I have already discussed.
Third, the President complains about the Taft-Hartley amendments in the bill. The fact of the matter is that the Taft-Hartley amendments contained in this bill, as I have already pointed out, are all based on recommendations in the President’s own labor message of last January or have been recommended in the past by prominent Republican labor spokesmen. That message called for restoring the right of economic strikers to vote – so did this bill. It called for pre-hire contracts in the construction industry – so did this bill.
Fourth, the President mentions the no-man’s land problem. The solution proposed by the Administration was no solution at all for they would have turned over to the States jurisdiction in labor matters where no labor law exists. Thousands of workers and employees under the Administration proposal would have been left without the protection of a uniform labor law.
It is unfortunate that this kind of partisan politics has killed a bipartisan bill desperately needed by the American working people and public, regardless of party. I can only say that constructive labor reform legislation will be brought forward again next year; and I can only hope that it will pass the Congress in 1959 with the same constructive spirit that enabled it to pass the Senate by 88 to 1 this year.
Source: David F. Powers Personal Papers, Box 30, "Labor Reform Bill, Washington, D.C., 22 August 1958." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.