Opinion ID: 402462
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Union Shops and Union Security

Text: 81 It is absolutely crucial to distinguish congressional revulsion toward the closed shop from the congressional treatment of other union security agreements. Congress abolished the closed shop, but it retained lesser forms of union security as subjects of mandatory bargaining under federal law. The closed shop and section 14(b) were thus viewed in different contexts because they focused on different forms of union security agreements. 82 The majority opinion obfuscates this distinction. The Senate Report that it quotes on page seven, which is said to demonstrate that Congress enacted section 14(b) in order to let the states make their own judgments on the issue of free riders, is not a discussion of section 14(b) at all. The Senate Report only addressed the decision to ban the closed shop, as demonstrated by the paragraphs immediately following the paragraph quoted by the majority: 83 The committee has taken into consideration these arguments in reaching what it considers a solution of the problem which does justice to both points of view. We have felt that on the record before us the abuses of the system have become too serious and numerous to justify permitting present law to remain unchanged. It is clear that the closed shop which requires preexisting union membership as a condition of obtaining employment creates too great a barrier to free employment to be tolerated.... This not only permits unions holding such monopolies over jobs to exact excessive fees but it deprives management of any real choice of the men it hires.... If trade-unions were purely fraternal or social organizations, such instances would not be a matter of congressional concern, but since membership in such organizations in many trades or callings is essential to earning a living, Congress cannot ignore the existence of such power. 84 S.Rep.No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 6-7 (1947), Leg.Hist. at 412-13. The Senate Report could not possibly have discussed section 14(b) in any event, because that section originated in the House, was not part of the Senate bill, and was adopted by the Senate only after conference. 85 It is true that several members of Congress saw no real difference between the closed shop and the union shop, and urged that both be abolished. Representative Fisher declared that (t)he union shop and the closed shop are Siamese twins. In either case a man cannot work unless he belongs to the union, whether he wants to belong or not. 93 Cong.Rec. 3555 (1947). He observed that the right to work is one of the most sacred rights a man has, and called the union shop a form of involuntary servitude. Id. Representative Hoffman also urged that 86 a man should have the right to join or not to join, to be bound by or not to be bound by, union rules. If this Congress wants to forsake the American principle that the man who must live by toil, who must work if he would eat, have clothing, a home, and be able to provide for his family-if this Congress wants to turn its back upon that principle and say that no man shall work when the employer and the bare majority of the employees say he cannot work unless he conforms to their rules and restrictions-it has the power to do so. 87 Id. at 3554. Representative Abernathy condemned a system that would have workers paying tribute to someone else in order to work. Id. at 3555. Representative Jonkman said: 88 I have, I dare say, thousands of labor constituents in my district who cannot conscientiously become members of certain unions because they cannot and dare not accept joint responsibility for the conduct of leaders of such type. They should not be compelled by the union-shop provision in this bill to accept that stigma but have the right to refrain from joining any union whose leaders engage in disreputable practices. 89 It is, of course, true that all legislation is the result of compromise. But to compromise on this principle is as I said at the outset a further frittering away of a fundamental American freedom. 90 Id. at 3560. 91 These criticisms were unavailing, of course. Congress added provisions making it more difficult for workers to obtain a union shop, 9 but it retained the union shop as a mandatory subject of bargaining in section 8(a). Several members emphasized that this policy was required by simple equity. See, e.g., 93 Cong.Rec. 3546-47 (remarks of Representative Celler); id. at 3558 (remarks of Representative Robsion). It is significant, however, that when Representative Hoffman offered an amendment designed to make it clear that a worker could not be denied employment unless he joins, he was persuaded to withdraw that amendment after Representative Barden called his attention to section 14(b). Id. at 3561-62.