Returning to the German discussion, Janssen asserted that "Germany has no strikes nor prospects of any strike today." "When radicals try to start trouble of that sort there the government gets after them right away and they are soon taken care of," he continued. "But in the United States we just let them run loose and do nothing about it. But they have nothing to gain this time, and I hope it will not be long before the whole situation is settled and the strike is over. "Hitler is doing wonderful work in Germany and the country is being well and wisely governed. He has the confidence of the people, as well as their mass affection and respect. He is bringing the country through a difficult economic period with a firm hand and excellent judgment. "Business conditions there are far from excellent yet. However, I have a sound respect for Hitler's ability to bring Germany back to prosperity, and I am sure that it will not come through strikes. I can also add that there is no truth in reports of a food shortage in Germany. The first thing I saw when we landed there was a whole trainload of potatoes." Janssen, who is one of the creators of the Wyomissing Industries, which control the Berkshire Knitting Mills, the Textile Machine Workers and the Narrow Fabric Company, left here for Germany on June 20. He and Mrs. Janssen landed at Hamburg, and the manufacturer saw Hitler on July 6. He spent three days in Berlin. The two returned on the liner Hamburg, arriving in New York Friday. EXTRACT FROM LETTER OF OSWALD GARRISON VILLARD TO JOHN W. EDELMAN "Replying to your letter of August 19, I am very deeply stirred by what you write and am very glad to have the press extracts which you enclose. I shall very soon devote my page in the Nation to an attack upon the Carl Shurz Foundation based on them and I shall make it just as strong as I possibly can. I had not known of the antiunion attitude of Oberlander, Thun, and Janssen, but that is in keeping. I resigned from the Foundation because I would not be a part to the supplying of the sinews of war to the Nazis. I think that these gentlemen were the only ones not connected with universities who were singled out for degrees at Heidelberg. It was shrewd tactics by the Nazi propagandists. Wilbur Thomas, the Secretary of the Foundation, is an able man and knows better. He did a swell job in Germany with the Quakers working for child relief; it is the reason why the triumvirate put him in.” We, the undersigned, surviving relatives and warm personal friends of Carl Schurz, earnestly protest against the use of his name in connection with the Carl Schurz Foundation in this country. The former has been taken over by the Hitler State; the latter continues to aid German universities and render other services to the despotism which has succeeded the Republic of Weimar. Nothing could be more grotesque than the use of the name of Carl Schurz in any such connection. He was a rebel against the despotism of the King of Bavaria and the King of Prussia, took up his sword against them and escaped with his life only by a miracle. In America he was one of our greatest democrats, to the end of his days unswervingly opposed to anything smacking of despotism. No more eloquent defender of democracy ever came to our shores. He served our Republic on the battlefield, in the diplomatic service, on a thousand platforms, and in the Senate of the United States without once ever failing to make clear his belief, his complete and absolute faith in what he called "the great colony of free humanity." As far back as 1859 his speech on "True Americanism" thrilled the entire United States. All who ever knew him well must believe that at this hour his magnificent eloquence would be pouring forth denunciations of the tyrants who have again enslaved Germany were he here in the flesh. To think that he could for an instant approve of continuing intercourse with a government guilty of such injustices, such intolerance, such pre judice, such tortures and bloodshed as we have witnessed in Berlin in the last year and a half is entirely to misread his character. No American was a more ardent champion of freedom for the Negro, justice and freedom for the Indian, and tolerance and freedom of liberty and action for every sect and every group in our democracy. A friend to many Jews, he never failed to denounce antiSemitism. A distinguished veteran of many battlefields, he abhorred from the depths of his soul every manifestation of militarism, every militaristic regimentation, every effort to uniform and goose-step the youth of the Nation. A statesman of international renown, he fought to the end of his life against all imperialism, all exaltation that "No man is good enough to govern any other man without that other man's consent." Justice to this man, to his life and his noble teachings, makes it impossible for us to withhold the most vigorous and outspoken protest against the use of his name in connection with the societies we have cited. We earnestly ask that it be immediately discontinued. Marie J. Monroe (Niece), Wilhelmine Schiffer (Niece), Nannie J. [From Reading Eagle, Sept. 10, 1934] HITLER LAUDED BY READING MAN-GUSTAV OBERLAENDER SAYS GERMANY IS BETTER OFF THAN AMERICA NEW YORK (Special) The dispatch with which Chancellor Hitler executed his "purge" has strengthened the Nazi party and has heightened the love and respect the German people held for their leader, Gustav Oberlaender, of Reading, founder of the Oberlaender Trust, declared here this morning on his return with his wife aboard the Milwaukee from a three months' trip abroad. The Philanthropist, who appeared and described himself as in the best of health, was met by an Eagle correspondent, who boarded the liner at Quarantine. "I have not found a single person who is not convinced by the absolute sincerity and honesty of the man," Mr. Oberlaender said. He added that the only possible resentment was caused by "the way in which his policies are carried out by his followers." Mr. Oberlaender spent five weeks at Bad Nauheim. "I was there when the 'putsch' took place, and if we had not read about it in the newspapers we would not have known anything was amiss," he said. Mr. Oberlaender was at Oberammergau when Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, of Austria, was assassinated. "Everything was quiet," he asserted. "As a matter of fact, throughout, there has been less disorder in Germany than in the United States, where strikes are progressing everywhere." While interested in news of latest developments in the textile strike, he said he was not sufficiently informed to comment. "Hitler believes that no State can exist, in the long run, where one class is pitted against another. For that reason," he pointed out, "he has forbidden strikes and lock-outs." Mr. Oberlaender was in Berlin when the people voted to combine the presidency and the chancellorship. Explaining away the reports of Hitler's waning popularity, as evidenced by the 10-percent negative vote, he stated, "I spoke to many people before the election, and it was generally believed the chancellor would poll over 85 percent. The vote was due to the fact that some religious persons objected to his attitude toward the church and naturally voted 'no,' although generally sunpporting his policies." The philanthropist crossed the frontier for a short visit in Austria. While he perceived no particular anti-Nazi sentiment, he pointed out, since Hitler has practically forbidden travel in Austria, the Bavarian resorts were crowded, while Austrian resorts were only partially filled." While in Berlin he met a number of Oberlaender fellows and was particularly impressed by the enthusiasm shown by the group of 10 Americans chosen to study German forestry methods. Mr. and Mrs. Oberlaender expected to be met at the pier by their daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Harold Leinbach, and planned to return with them to Reading later today. [From Daily News Record, Nov. 16, 1932] MILL HEADS ENTERTAIN CREW OF GERMAN CRUISER READING, PA. Ferdinand Thun, Henry K. Janssen, and Gustav Oberlaender, owners of Wyomissing Industries, textile plants at Wyomissing, entertained the entire staff of officers and crew, 531 officers and men, together with a band of the German Cruiser Karlsruhe, for a day, while the ship was docked in Philadelphia. Dinner was served in the Berkshire Knitting Mills cafeteria. EXHIBIT NO. 119 NOVEMBER 13, 1936. Mr. LOUIS E. KIRSTEIN, Wm. Filene's Sons Company, Boston, Massachusetts. DEAR MR. KIRSTEIN: I am enclosing a letter and material received from John Edelman regarding the Berkshire Knitting Mills. I note what Mr. Edelman says in the next to the last paragraph of his letter. If you would like me to get a copy of this stenographic report, I should be pleased to try to do so. I hope this information may prove of use and interest to you. I met Mr. Rieve, the head of the Hosiery Workers, in Washington the other night, and asked him about the Berkshire situation. He said that prospects were none too bright from the workers' end, but that they had been meeting with some success in the way of pressure by customers of the Berkshire Company. He did not mention any names in this connection. Director of Research, American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 935 Oley Street, Reading, Pennsylvania. DEAR JOHN: I am enclosing copy of a letter which has been received from Mr. Kirstein. Would you like the material back? It appears to be difficult to tell from this letter just what action, if any, Mr. Kirstein contemplates. I should be interested to learn from you any further developments. Sincerely yours, ess/vl. Enc. EXHIBIT No. 156-A EDWIN S. SMITH. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Release for Papers Published after 12 Noon, May 28, 1937] ADDRESS BY EDWIN S. SMITH, MEMBER, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SOCIAL WORK, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, MAY 28, 1937 When the depression of 1929 broke, it found the American Labor movement, after long years of bitter experience, thoroughly aware of the determination of powerful sections of the employing class to oppose by cajolement, threat, and force, the organization of their workers into independent labor unions. These actions by employers ran directly counter to the right established by statute and court decisions of labor's freedom to organize for its collective protection. They ran counter also to the most passionately held traditions of our Democracy as embodied in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the preamble of the Constitution, and more importantly, perhaps, in the Bill of Rights. How widely and how unscrupulously the American employer has allowed himself to flout these traditions has been amply laid before the country in decisions of the National Labor Relations Board and in the testimony before the La Follette Civil Liberties Committee. I will leave to the next speaker on the program a detailed exposition of the disgraceful methods used by employers to combat organization of labor by resort to espionage and violence. Even before Section 7 (a) of the Recovery Act was embodied in the codes, and before the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act, these methods had become known to large sections of the reading and thinking public. They were certainly seared into the consciousness of the organized workers. I be lieve that knowledge of these practices is one reason why the American Congress saw the necessity on broad, philosophical grounds of protecting by federal law the right of labor to organize free from interference by the employer. That the American Federation of Labor should take advantage of the misery brought on the mass of workers by the depression, and of the liberal tendencies of the New Deal in order to insist upon practical governmental protection of its right to organize was inevitable. There were immediate reasons from the point of view of national economic policy why the Congress should fall in with such a program. The freedom of employers to organize collectively, and the advantages taken of this freedom, were apparent before the depression in the existence of large numbers of powerful trade associations. The National Industrial Recovery Act was specifically designed to foster further collective action by employer groups. In order to bring about some balancing of economic forces the necessity of encouraging organization by labor was recognized. Hence the appearance of Section 7 (a) as a compulsory provision in all codes of fair competition to be adopted under the Recovery Act. Some experience with the kind of administrative machinery needed to make 7 (a) effective existed in the record of the War Labor Board and in the current activities of the Board administering the Railway Labor Act. Both the National Labor Board and its successor, the first National Labor Relations Board, labored to make the general principles of Section 7 (a) a reality for the workers who claimed that their employers were violating its provisions. The National Labor Relations Act which clarified, extended, and made permament the objectives of Section 7 (a), became a law on July 5, 1935. Labor organization under the protection of the Act as under its predecessor, Section 7 (a), has grown prodigiously. Reluctantly but decisively employers have been forced to yield ground in their opposition to unions. The inevitability of such organizations has at last been driven home to the American people of all classes years after England, whose political temperament among European nations most resembles our own, had learned the same lesson. The extraordinarily rapid growth of big business in America outdistanced and had almost overwhelmed the growth of American labor. The manner of attack of business on labor unions ran counter to the cherished traditions of the American people. Both for idealistic reasons and political and economic reasons it became apparent that either government must prevent the organization of labor from going down in defeat, or else our American industrial system would become an unfettered economic obligarchy and our American workers, a class of economie serfs. The National Labor Relations Act was a frank attempt on the part of government to prevent the employers of the country, with their acknowledged antiunion animus, from interfering with the freedom of their employes to organize. Because strikes to enforce organizations have been a potent cause of interruption of production, preventing the transportation of goods in commerce, the constitutional basis of the Act now affirmed by the decisions of the Supreme Court was declared to be the protection of interstate commerce. In defining certain kinds of conduct prohibited to employers, called in the Act "unfair labor practices," the statute draws upon the common experience of the labor movement. The Act forbids employers to discharge or otherwise discr'minate against employees because of their union affiliation or activity. Weeding out the more active union spirits has long been a favorite and very successful device to discourage unionism among the employees. Refusal to hire workers because they belong to unions is another tried and trusted method which also is banned by the Act. Unfortunately this kind of discrimination is rather hard to prove. The employer will not usually be stupid enough to announce that he is refusing to employ a man because he is a union member. It is harder to cover up a discharge for union activity. If an employee's record can be proved to be satisfactory up to the time he began zealously recruiting for the union it takes no Sherlock Holmes to discover something flimsy in the excuse that the man was fired for inefficiency. A more subtle form of interfering with the normal growth of unionism is the fostering of company unions. The common form of company unions in the United States is the employee representation plan. The history of company unionism is a fascinating chapter in American labor relations. On the one hand it stems from the practice of scientific management which was started by Frederick Taylor and propagated by numerous other industrial engineers. One of the weaknesses of scientific management, which was soon disclosed, was that it paid too little attention to the human equation. A special branch of scientific management grew up to fill this lack. Its current technical name is personnel administration. Welfare work was one of its manifestations, although this obviously over-paternalistic designation was found to provoke so much criticism from unions that it was gradually dropped from use. One of the more important offspring of welfare work was the employee representation plan or works committee, a machinery by which elected representatives of employees presented grievances to management, usually through a succession of steps beginning with the foreman and ending with a joint committee of workers' representatives and higher officials of the company. As a managerial device, particularly in large plants where the ordinary worker is an atom far beyond the ken of all but a few of his more immediate executive supervisors, employee-representation plans have undoubtedly been useful in straightening out individual difficulties and so contributing to plant efficiency. Another purpose behind the fostering of these company unions is more important for this discussion. In the war period and more recently in the era of the N. R. A. a veritable rash of representation plans broke out on the industrial scene. Their thinly concealed objective was to forestall the affiliation of workers with independent labor unions. In this respect they have had a considerable success, though it is probable that their ineffectiveness as collective bargaining agencies could not long serve to distract the workers from seeking more economically forceful expressions of their collective will. The National Labor Relations Act prohibits the employer from giving financial or other support to company unions and from otherwise interfering with or dominating their activities. There is in the Act a general prohibition against any kind of interference by the employer with his workers' self-organization, such as threatening an employee with unpleasant consequences if he joins a labor union. The Act says that the employer must not refuse to bargain collectively with the agency representing the majority of his employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. The Board is empowered when a controversy concerning representation has arisen to determine the appropriate bargaining unit or units and to certify representatives by means of an election or otherwise. Much ink and moral fervor has been spilled by employers and their legal counsel on the subject of the iniquity of majority rule. Because of limitation of time I cannot enter upon a discussion of this interesting subiect. Suffice it to say that the clamor about the alleged injustice done to minorities under this rule is most frequently a subterfuge for the employers' desires to have multiple bargaining organizations, because they offer such tempting possibilities under the old divide and rule principle. It is significant that the cause of employee minorities is sponsored almost exclusively by individual employers and employers associations. The supposed victims of the injustice remain strangely silent. One fact about the collective bargaining provision of the National Labor Relations Act must be stressed. The Act is not concerned with what the terms of a bargain shall be. It rarely requires that the employer shall not deprive his employees of the fruits of their organization by refusing to deal with their representatives in seriousness and good faith. In administering the Act under the terms of the statute the Board has developed a simple procedure. When an unfair labor practice is charged, an investigation is made by one of the Board's twenty-one regional offices. If the evidence points to a substantiation of the charge a hearing is held at which the employer, the union, and the government are afforded full opportunity by the production of witnesses and documents to develop the relevant facts. There are provisions for an intermediate report by the official presiding at the hearing. If this report does not settle the matter a formal decision is rendered by the Board itself. When the Board finds the employer in the wrong it orders him to cease and desist, and to make specific restitutions, such as reinstating discharged workers with back pay, and posting notices that he will not henceforth interfere |