The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Union Security and Checkoff Provisions in Major Union Contracts 1958-59 Bulletin No. 1272 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR James P. Mitchell, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Ewan Clague, Commissioner Union Security and Checkoff Provisions in M ajor Union Contracts 19 58-59 Bulletin No. 1272 March I960 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR James P. Mitchell, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Ewan Clague, Commissioner For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. Price 20 cents From the Monthly Labor Review of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 1959 and January I960 issues. ii This study deals with the prevalence of different types of union security and checkoff provisions in major collective bargaining agreements. Virtually all agreements covering 1,000 or more workers, exclusive of railroad and airline agreements, were analyzed. The 1,631 agreements in this category covered approximately 7.5 million workers, or almost half of the estimated total agreement coverage in the United States, outside of the railroad and airline industries. The provisions of these agreements do not necessarily reflect policy in smaller collective bargaining situations. The agreements studied were part of the file of current agreements maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for public and governmental use in accordance with section 211 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. This report was prepared in the Bureau’ s Division of Wages and Industrial Rela tions by Rose Theodore, under the supervision of Harry P. Cohany. iii Page Union security provisions -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Scope of study ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Union shop ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Maintenance of membership--------------------------------------------------------------------Sole bargaining---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The agency s h o p ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Regional and State variations ----------------------------------------------------------------Saving cla u se ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hiring provisions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 1 2 4 5 5 6 6 8 Union checkoff provisions -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Scope of study-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Prevalence ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Checkoff authorization----------------------------------------------------------------------------Cost of checking off union dues -------------------------------------------------------------- 11 11 12 15 16 v Union Security and Checkoff Provisions in Major Union Contracts, 1958-59 Union Security Provisions S t r o n g u n i o n s e c u r i t y c l a u s e s in collective bar gaining agreements have traditionally been an important objective of unions in the United States. In recent years, relative stability has marked the collective bargaining front, and union concern has shifted to combating State aright-to-work” laws which ban all forms of union security pro visions. Meanwhile, negotiators of collective bargaining agreements, increasingly mindful of Federal and State requirements and National Labor Relations Board rulings, have shown a tendency to dress union security provisions in le galistic language or, in some cases, to strip them of any exact meaning. The Labor Management Relations (Taft-H artley) Act of 1947, applicable to industries affecting interstate commerce,1 prohibits the closed shop but permits union shop and maintenance of member ship clauses. However, State legislation, which is given precedence over provisions of the LM RA with regard to union membership under section 14 (b) of the act, outlaws any requirement of union membership as a condition of employment in 19 States.2 Two of these “right-to-work” laws were enacted recently— Indiana in 1957 and Kansas in 1958.8 Within this framework, closed shop provisions are now found in relatively few agreements cov ering 1,000 or more workers. On the other hand, during the past 5 years, union shop provisions, the predominant form of union security, have con tinued to spread among major agreements. How ever, this increase has come entirely at the expense of maintenance of membership provisions, since the proportion of agreements without any form of union security has not changed since 1954. In an analysis of 1,631 major collective bargaining agreements in effect in 1958-59, covering 7.5 mil lion workers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 74 percent of the workers were cov ered by agreements providing for a union shop (including a small number of closed shop agree ments), 7 percent by maintenance of membership provisions, and 19 percent by agreements recog nizing the union as sole bargaining agent but containing no requirement regarding union mem bership. The proportions found by the Bureau in a study of agreements in effect in 1954 4 were 64,17, and 19 percent, respectively (chart). Scope of Study For its 1958-59 analysis of union security pro visions, the Bureau studied 1,631 collective bar gaining agreements, each covering 1,000 or more workers, or virtually all agreements of this size in the United States, exclusive of those relating to railroads and airlines.5 The total of 7.5 million workers covered represented almost half of all the workers estimated to be under agreements in the United States, exclusive of railroad and air line agreements. O f these, 4.7 million workers, covered by 1,054 agreements, were in manufac turing, and 577 agreements applied to 2.8 million 1 The railroad and airline industries come under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, which was amended in 1951 to permit negotiation of union shop agreements. 2 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Another State, Louisiana, has a “ right-to-work” law limited to agricultural laborers and workers engaged in the processing of certain agricultural products; this law was passed in 1956, after a 1954 “right-to-work” law, general in application, was repealed. 8 In the 1958 elections, right-to-work proposals were rejected by voters in 5 States. See State Right-to-Work Legislative Action in 1958 (in Monthly Labor Review, December 1958, pp. 1380-1381). * See Union-Security Provisions in Agreements, 1954 (in Monthly Labor Review, June 1955, pp. 6 49-658). For earlier studies, see Union Status Provisions in Collective Agreements, 1952 (in Monthly Labor Review, April 1953, pp. 383-387) ; Union Status Under Collective Agreements, 1950-51 (in Monthly Labor Review, November 1951, pp. 552-556) ; Union-Security Provisions in Agreements, 1940-50 (in Monthly Labor Review, August 1950, pp. 224-227) ; and Extent of Collective Bargaining and Union Recognition, 1946, BLS Bull. 909 (1947). 5 The Bureau does not maintain a file of railroad and airline agreements; hence their omission from this study. 1 2 workers in nonmanufacturing establishments. Seventy-five percent of the agreements were in force after January 1, 1959; the rest had expired during the period June-December 1958. Overall results of the study were not signifi cantly affected by agreements in the 19 “right-towork States,” since such agreements represented only about 10 percent (164) of the contracts exam ined and only slightly over 5 percent of all workers involved. Moreover, the recently enacted laws in Indiana and Kansas did not affect the agreements in effect at the time of their enactment. Union Security Provisions in Major Collective Bargainins Agreements1 Percent of Workers Studied Sole Bargaining j:*25% :j Maintenance jiliji of Membership:; Union Shop Provisions for a union shop and its variations, including, for purposes of this study, the closed shop, were found in 71 percent (1,162) of the 1,631 agreements analyzed, covering 74 percent of the workers (table 1). Excluding the 164 contracts in “right-to-work” States, the percentage of union shop agreements and of workers covered would be increased to 78 percent. The union shop provisions were of three major types, with the following requirements: 1. A ll employees in the bargaining unit are re quired, as a condition of employment, to be or become union members within a specified tim e6 after the effective date of the agreement or of hiring. A typical clause read as follows: All the present employees shall, on and after the 30th day from the date hereof, as a condition o f continued employment maintain their membership in the union dur ing the life o f this agreement by paying their current dues and initiation fees. All new employees shall, as a condi tion of continued employment, 30 days after the date hereof or the date of their employment, whichever is the later, become and remain members o f the union in good standing during the life of this agreement by paying their current dues and initiation fees. More than three-fourths of the 1,162 union shop agreements were of this type (table 2 ). 2. Approximately a fifth of the union shop agreements (224) modified the union shop by ex empting certain groups in the bargaining unit 6 The time allowed was generally 30 days, which Is the mini mum specified by the LMRA. A few agreements merely provided for a union shop “ to the extent permitted by law,” as in the national anthracite and bituminous coal agreements, which read in p art: . It is further agreed that as a condition of employment all employees should be or become members of the United Mine Workers of America, to the extent and in the manner permitted by law. . . .” 1946 1949-50 1954 1958-59 1 The 1946 estimates relate to the proportion of all workers under agreement covered by each type of union status. Closed and union shop clauses are not shown separately for subsequent years. Bureau reports issued since passage of the Labor Management Relations Act have classified closed shop as a type of union shop. from membership requirements. The exemptions, in most instances, applied to employees who were not members on the effective date of the agree ment. In a few cases, only employees with rela tively long service were exempted; in some in stances, the exemption applied only to members of religious groups with prohibitions on member ship in a labor organization. 3. Under a closed shop provision, all employees must be members of the union before beginning work. Usually such agreements provide that only union members may be hired. However, if no union members are available, other workers may be hired provided they join the union prior to or shortly after starting work. The closed shop was found in 45 (less than 4 percent) of the 1,162 agreements designated as union shop agree ments, principally in local trade or service in dustries not subject to the LM RA. For example: Each employer hereby agrees to employ none but mem bers of the union in good standing in his [establishment] 3 now owned, operated, and/or maintained by him in the city of New York or in any [establishment] which he may acquire, operate, and/or maintain in the city of New York at any time during the term o f this agreement. Each employer agrees to hire all employees through the office of the union. The union agrees to supply each employer with compe tent employees within 48 hours after a request therefor. In the event that the union shall fail to supply any em ployer with competent employees within 48 hours after a request therefor, said employer shall have the right to procure in any other way the help needed, provided how ever, that such new employee or employees, before starting work, shall apply for membership in and receive working cards from the said union, said cards to be signed by a duly authorized representative of said union. It is specif ically understood and agreed that the union may refuse for cause to issue working cards to any such new em ployees who are not members of the union. Since 1954, the date of the Bureau’s previous survey of union security provisions, the propor tion of workers covered by union shop agreements increased from 64 percent of the total to 74 per cent. A major factor accounting for this increase T a b l e 1. U n io n S e c u r i t y P r o v is io n s i n was the action taken by major steel producers and the United Steelworkers of America in 1956, re placing membership maintenance with a modified union shop. This pattern was followed in some agreements in related industries. Another significant development, though not affecting the proportion of union shop provisions, took place in mid-1955 when the Automobile Workers negotiated full union shop provisions in major contracts in the automobile industry, re placing the modified union shop which had been in effect since 1950. The provisions in the earlier automobile agreements, in addition to exempting from membership requirements nonunion em ployees when the agreements became effective, also permitted new employees to withdraw from the union after maintaining membership for 1 year. In the present study, only 17 modified union shop agreements, covering 95,000 workers, contained such escape clauses. These agreements repre sented approximately 8 percent of the modified union shop Agreements and workers covered, com- M ajo r C o l l e c t iv e Number studied B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n t s , b y I n d u s t r y , Union shop Industry Agree ments Workers (thousands) Agree ments Agree ments Workers (thousands) All industries....................... .................... — .............. — 1,631 7,472.0 Manufacturing................... — .............. - ----------------------Ordnance and accessories_________ _______________ Food and kindred products.................... ................... Tobacco manufactures............................ _................... Textile mill products................................ ........... ........ Apparel and other finished products_______________ Lumber and wood products, except furniture______ Furniture and fixtures................................... ............... Paper and allied products________________________ Printing, publishing, and allied industries_________ Chemicals and allied products----------- ----------------Petroleum refining and related industries__________ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products________ Leather and leather products_____________________ Stone, clay, and glass products__ _____ ___________ Primary metal industries---------- ------ -------------------Fabricated metal products.----------------------------------Machinery, except electrical______________________ Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies_____ Transportation equipment...... .................... .............. Instruments and related products...... ........... ............ Miscellaneous manufacturing industries___________ 1,054 13 114 12 38 45 11 18 43 36 46 17 25 21 32 124 57 125 108 120 25 15 4,659.7 31.1 381.3 32.0 97.2 472.7 36.8 32.6 101.2 72.9 97.8 60.3 132.2 73.3 95.9 729.8 163.8 354.9 474.2 1,134. 8 58.2 27.0 776~ 7 92 3 21 44 10 15 34 34 18 2 23 18 28 101 50 94 70 85 14 13 3,668.3 19.5 297.2 5.2 58.7 471.5 33.3 26.1 88.0 70.5 34.4 2.7 130.1 68.7 88.3 676.6 151.7 293.6 241.4 857.4 30.7 23.2 94~ 2 7 1 3 Nonmanufacturing.............................................................. Mining, crude petroleum, and natural gas production. Transportation *............... ............................................ Communications________________ _____ ___________ Utilities: Electric and gas........... ...... ..................... . Wholesale trade...__ ________ ___________________ Retail trade.------------ --------- --------- ----------------------Hotels and restaurants_____ _____________________ Services.......................................................................... 577 16 109 74 75 12 65 33 48 138 7 2,812.3 261.2 591.5 572.0 194.9 23.2 172.6 166. 7 172.0 646.9 12.4 386 11 76 5 44 11 60 28 41 105 5 1,864.3 253.2 481.9 17.4 114.8 22.2 165.4 136.7 142.9 521.7 8.3 . ...... . ........ Miscellaneous nonmanufacturing industries............... 1Each agreement included in this tabulation covered 1,000 or more workers. Provisions in these agreements may not be representative of provisions covering smaller establishments. * Includes 8 agreements with provision for preferential hiring but no ex plicit statement as to nondiscrimination between members and nonmembers of the union, and 4 agreements with provision for an agency shop. 1,162 Workers (thousands) Membership mainte nance 5,532.6 125 1958-591 Sole bargaining * Agree ments Workers (thousands) 546.8 344 1,392.6 358.3 4.4 20.6 1.3 6.4 184 4 15 8 14 1 1 1 9 2 20 13 2 1 1 13 5 18 25 25 4 2 633.1 7.3 63.5 25.6 32.2 1.2 3. 5 a!o 13.3 2.4 42.3 54.4 21 1.3 2.0 36.3 9.4 38.9 162.4 121.0 7.6 3.8 160 5 27 56 24 1 2 4 6 33 2 759.5 8.1 94.9 417.5 54.9 1.0 2.0 24.0 27.9 125.3 4!l 2 3.6 8 2 21.2 3.2 2 3 10 2 13 13 19 7 3.4 5.6 16.9 2.7 22.4 70.5 156.5 20.0 31 188.5 6 13 7 14.7 137.2 25.2 3 1 1 5.2 5.0 1.3 ............ * Excludes railroad and airline industries. N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may'Inot"equal totals. 4 T a b l e 2. V a r ia t io n s i n T y p e s o p U n io n S e c u r it y P r o v is io n s i n M a j o r C o l l e c t iv e B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n t s , b y T y p e o f H ir in g C l a u s e , 1958-59 Hiring provision Total Preferential hiring 1 Union security provision Agreements Workers (thousands) Consideration to union in hiring * Agreements Workers (thousands) Agreements No hiring provision Workers (thousands) Agreements Workers (thousands) All agreements studied............................. 1,631 7,472.0 125 391.9 232 1,466.8 1,274 5,613.3 Union shop................................................. Employees must be union members before date of employment *........... Union shop—all employees required to join within a specified time........ Modified union shop—certain groups exempted from membership re quirements «..................................... Modified union shop plus agency shop for the exempted groups......... 1,162 5,532.6 112 326.6 191 1,261.4 859 3,944.7 45 121.9 45 121.9 893 4,244.9 63 198.6 177 1,158.5 653 2,887.8 221 1,160.9 4 6.1 14 102.9 203 1,051.9 3 5.0 Maintenance of membership.................... Maintenance of membership only *_. Maintenance of membership and agency shop *................................... 125 117 546.8 499.8 8 47.0 Sole bargaining.......................................... Sole bargaining plus preferential hiring 1.......................................... Sole bargaining plus agency shop___ Sole bargaining plus harmony clause. Sole bargaining only......................... 344 8 4 11 321 3 5.0 525.6 478.6 5 5 15.0 15.0 3 3 6.2 6.2 117 109 8 47.0 1,392.6 8 50.3 38 199.3 298 1,143.0 50.3 19.7 23.4 1,299.2 8 50.3 1 4 33 15.0 7.1 177.2 3 7 288 4.7 16.3 1,122.0 1No explicit statement as to nondiscrimination between members and nonmembers of the union. * Agreements provided for hiring on a nondiscriminatory basis. * This is the closed shop, which was outlawed in establishments covered by the Labor Management Relations Act. Although these figures are indicative of the prevalence of the closed shop in major agreements, they are not necessarily representative of all agreements because of the under representation in this study of agreements covering small establishments. 4 Includes agreements with escape clause, which permits members to withdraw from the union at specified periods (usually after 1 year) during term of agreement. N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. pared to 20 percent of the modified union shop agreements and almost 50 percent of the workers covered in the Bureau’s study of agreements in effect in 1954. Virtually all 17 agreements per mitted employees to withdraw from the union after 1 year of membership or provided for the exercise of this option annually at specified periods. The frequency of union shop provisions in the 1958-59 agreements studied was slightly higher in manufacturing than in nonmanufacturing indus tries. Union shop provisions representing over 90 percent of the major agreements or workers covered were found in 11 industries: apparel; lumber; printing and publishing; rubber; leather and leather products; stone, clay, and glass prod ucts; primary metals; fabricated metal products; mining and crude petroleum production; whole sale trade; and retail trade. Union shop coverage of 25 percent or less was found in only 3 indus tries: tobacco; products of petroleum and coal; and communications. Three-fourths of the major agreements negoti ated by A F L -C IO affiliates, as against slightly more than one-half of those negotiated by un affiliated unions, provided for a union shop. Maintenance of Membership Membership maintenance provisions have be come relatively insignificant as a type of union security during the post-World W ar I I years. Only 125 of the 1958-59 agreements analyzed, covering 547,000 workers, contained maintenance of membership provisions. This represented less than 8 percent of all major agreements and 7 per cent of the workers covered, compared to the Bu reau’s estimate of 25 percent of all workers under agreement in 1946 (chart). Under maintenance of membership clauses, the employee is not required to join the union. How ever, those who are members when the clause be comes effective, or who later choose to become members, are required to maintain their member ship as a condition of employment, usually for the term of the contract or, less frequently, for short er periods. Although the union is granted some measure of security under maintenance of mem- 5 bership provisions, it must undertake the job of recruiting new members and of retaining members when an escape clause is provided for withdrawal from the union. Usually such agreements pro vide for an escape period (e.g., 10 to 30 days) im mediately following the signing of the agreement and/or prior to its expiration or renewal. In either case, employees are given a choice of with drawing from the union or retaining their mem bership for the period specified. Approximately three-fourths of the 125 agree ments with membership maintenance provided for an escape period immediately prior to the effective date or the expiration or renewal of the contract. Escape periods during the term of the contract were provided by 18 agreements. These permitted resignation from the union after 1 year or at an nual periods, or in a few instances, after a year and a half. Sole Bargaining One-fifth (344) of the agreements analyzed for union security provisions limited the union’s sta tus to sole bargaining rights, which is inherent in virtually all collective bargaining agreements in the United States. Under such contracts, the union is recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent for all employees, union and nonunion, in the bargaining unit, but union membership is not required as a condition of employment for any worker. Eleven agreements providing for sole bargain ing incorporated a statement of the company’s policy of encouraging union membership for all employees, often referred to as a “harmony clause.” An example follows: The union agrees that it will accept into membership employees regularly hired by the employer and it will not force any unusual requirements for their admission to membership in the union. The employer states to the union that it has no ob jection to and it believes that it is in the best interests of the employees, the union, and the employer, that all employees within the unit become and remain members of the union. The employer agrees to cooperate with the union in the achievement of that objective within the limits permitted by law. About a sixth of the agreements negotiated by A F L -C IO affiliates provided for sole bargaining rights only. The corresponding proportion for unaffiliated unions was almost two-fifths. The Agency Shop Agency shop provisions were found in 15 of the 1,631 agreements examined (table 2 ). Under such arrangements, all workers who do not wish to join the union are required to pay a fixed sum monthly, usually the equivalent of union dues, to help de fray the union’s expense in acting as their bargain ing agent. Interest in the agency shop has been increasing in recent years, particularly in some States which have enacted laws banning union membership as a condition of employment. Since some of these “right-to-work” laws merely prohibit condition ing employment on union membership, while others, in addition, contain a proscription on con ditioning employment on payment of dues, fees, or charges to a union, the validity of the agency shop in “right-to-work” States may depend largely on the manner in which such laws are written. Authorities in a few of these States have issued rulings upholding the legality of the agency shop.7 Several new agency shop provisions were nego tiated in 1958. O f note was the Corn Products Refining Co. multiplant agreement with the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union.8 O f the 15 agency shop clauses included in this study, 3 were combined with a modified union shop, i.e., employees who were exempted from the union shop provision and who did not join the union were required to pay the equivalent of union dues, as in the following example: 1. Subject to the limitations of section 8A(3) and 8B (2) o f the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, the following will govern: (a ) Present employees who are now members of the union, or who hereafter become members, shall as a con dition of continued employment maintain their member ship in good standing for the duration of the contract. (b) New employees hired after the execution date of the contract shall, as a condition of employment, become union members in good standing within not more than 30 calendar days after the date of their hiring; and these 7 For instance, in June 1959, the Indiana appellate court up held a decision of an Indiana superior court that agency shop contracts did not violate the “right-to-work” act adopted in that State in 1957. On the other hand, the attorney general of Nevada, in an opinion rendered in Sepember 1958, ruled that agency shop clauses violated the “ right-to-work” law in Nevada; this reversed a previous attorney general's opinion rendered in 1952. * This agreement exempts employees in a Texas plant from the agency shop provision because of a “right-to-work” law in that State. 6 new employees shall, as a condition of continued employ ment, maintain their membership in the union in good standing for the duration of the contract. 2. Present employees who are not union members, and who do not in the future make application for member ship shall, as a condition o f employment, pay to the union each month a service charge as a contribution toward the administration of this agreement in an amount equal to the regular monthly dues. Eight agreements which provided for member ship maintenance included an agency shop ar rangement for nonmembers. The remaining four agency shop clauses were found in sole bargaining agreements, which gave further recognition to the union’s responsibility to bargain for all employees by requiring nonmembers to pay the equivalent of monthly dues. Regional and State Variations Excluding 251 multiplant agreements which covered more than one geographical region, the highest concentration of union shop clauses was found in major agreements in.the Middle Atlantic region (83 percent), closely followed by the East North Central and the Pacific regions (78 per cent) , and New England (77 percent). (See table 3.) In the southern regions, where States with “right-to-work” laws predominate, the proportion of union shop agreements was as follows: South Atlantic, 30 percent; East South Central, 19 per cent ; and West South Central, 24 percent. Seventy-two percent of the interregional agreements provided for the union shop. Saving Clause Because of Federal and State regulations, many agreements include a general saving clause— usually a statement to the effect that provisions of the agreement found to be in conflict with the law will become invalid. Generally, these clauses refer to the actual provisions of the agreement, as in the following: Should any Federal or State law or regulation, or the final decision of any court or board o f competent jurisdic tion, affect any practice or provision of this contract, the practice or provision so affected shall be made to comply with the requirements of such law, regulation, or decision for the localities within the jurisdiction; otherwise all other provisions of and practices under this contract shall remain in full force and effect. Any changes made under this article shall be discussed jointly by the company and the union before written revisions are issued. Another type of saving clause, commonly found in International Typographical Union agreements in the printing industry, also extends to the union’s general laws which are typically incorporated into the agreement: . . . the union’s general laws . . . not in conflict with Federal or territorial (State) law or this contract shall govern relations between the parties on conditions not specifically enumerated herein. Saving clauses which relate to a specific pro vision" ,of the contract are less prevalent than the general saving clause. For purposes of this study, only clauses relating to union security were tabu lated. These were found in slightly over onefifth of the agreements, covering almost two-fifths of the workers, and were classified into two cate gories: (1) clauses which provided for a different form of union security, either to become effective or to be negotiated, in event of a change in the law, and (2) those which stipulated that the union security provision would be inoperative if in con flict with (Federal or State) laws. Illustrative clauses follow : The following provision shaU immediately be substi tuted in place of Article “13” hereof should the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley L aw ), be repealed or should said law be amended so as not to pro hibit such provision: . . . * * * In the event that the union shop provisions o f the TaftHartley Act, so-called the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, shall be repealed or amended during the period of this agreement, then the parties hereto agree to renegotiate this Article III upon 30 days’ written notice given by one party to the other of its desire for such renegotiation. * * * (4b) Anything herein to the contrary notwithstand ing, an employee shall not be required to become a member of, or continue membership in, the union, as a condition of employment, if employed in any State which prohibits, or otherwise makes unlawful, membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. * * * Any provisions o f the Trade Agreement hereinabove mentioned which provides for union security or employ ment in a manner and to an extent prohibited by any law or the determination o f any governmental board or agency, shall be and hereby is of no force or effect during the term of any such prohibition. In general, specific saving clauses were more prevalent in agreements involving workers in States which banned union security provisions 7 T a b l e 3. U n io n S e c u r it y P r o v is io n s in M a j o r C o l l e c t iv e B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n t s , 1 9 5 8 -5 9 1 Union shop Total Region and State Agreements Workers (thousands) Agreements by Membership maintenance R e g io n and St a t e , Sole bargaining Workers (thousands) Agreements Workers (thousands) Agreements Workers (thousands) All agreements studied___ 1,631 7,472.0 1,162 5,532.6 125 546.8 344 1,392.6 Interregional agreements*. 251 3,187.3 181 2,559.7 21 182.1 49 445.6 New England..................... Intraregion»................. Maine.......................... New Hampshire.......... Vermont...................... Massachusetts.......... -. Rhode Island............... Connecticut................. 116 7 9 5 2 48 3 42 322.9 52.5 17.5 8.8 2.2 115.7 4.5 121.8 89 5 7 3 1 39 3 31 224.6 32.0 12.2 5.4 1.1 99.1 4.5 70.4 10 22.8 17 2 2 2 1 2 5.3 3.4 1.1 7.1 75.5 20.5 7 9.6 3 6.0 8 45.4 Middle Atlantic................. Intraregion *................ New York.................... New Jersey.................. Pennsylvania........ ...... 384 27 178 67 112 1,256.5 142.2 630.7 176.1 307.5 317 25 148 53 91 1,027.6 135.4 525.8 120.5 246.0 31 1 13 9 8 101.3 1.6 39.5 46.0 14.3 36 1 17 5 13 127.6 5.3 65.5 9.7 47.2 East North Central......... Intraregion»_________ Ohio............................ Indiana______ _______ Illinois______ ________ Michigan.......... .......... Wisconsin.................... 399 13 93 34 125 82 52 1,107.5 105.4 221.7 75.1 404.7 191.1 109.5 311 12 70 21 98 71 39 834.6 96.9 136.7 40.4 321.8 155.8 83.0 27 80.9 8 4 10 4 1 13.2 12.5 44.8 9.0 1.5 61 1 15 9 17 7 12 192.0 8.5 71.8 22.2 38.2 26.4 25.0 West North Central-------Intraregion*_________ Minnesota..... .............. Iowa............................. Missouri................... . North Dakota_______ South Dakota............ . Nebraska......._........... . 85 4 31 10 29 203.6 23.8 70.1 21.5 54.4 57 2 27 104.8 2.0 50.5 8 37.3 2 10.2 26 48.6 1 2.5 20 2 2 10 2 61.6 21.8 9.4 21.5 3.3 1 3 7 2.5 3.2 28.3 2 3.7 5 24.6 1 3 2.5 3.2 South Atlantic................ Intraregion *..... ........ Delaware.................. Maryland................. District of Columbia Virginia.................... West Virginia........... North Carolina........ South Carolina......... Georgia........ ............ Florida...................... 84 15 1 18 6 16 4 6 5 5 8 255.7 41.4 1.5 56.4 18.9 49.9 9.1 16.1 8.7 14.2 39.8 25 5 1 13 5 66.1 10.0 1.5 41.3 12.4 6 13.7 53 10 175.9 31.4 4 9.7 1 1.0 1 1 16 3 6 4 5 7 5.4 6.5 49.9 8.1 16.1 7.4 14.2 37.1 East South Central____ Intraregion*............. Kentucky____ _____ Tennessee......... ........ Alabama................... Mississippi............... 43 2 12 16 11 2 94.1 9.1 20.0 34.8 24.0 6.4 8 8 32 2 3 16 9 2 76.7 9.1 4.6 34.8 21.9 6.4 West South Central____ Intraregion *_______ Arkansas__________ Louisiana__________ Oklahoma_________ Texas_____ ________ 50 5 2 15 2 26 132.1 19.1 2.9 38.2 7.2 64.8 12 2 36 3 2 4 1 26 90.5 11.0 2.9 10.7 1.2 64.8 Mountain_____ ________ Intraregion *..... ........ Montana............ ...... Idaho_____________ Wyoming.............. Colorado......... ......... New Mexico........ . Arizona................ . Utah____ _________ Nevada..................... 24 2 3 2 Pacific............................. Intraregion *_______ Washington.............. Oregon____________ California................. Alaska___ _________ 1 1.3 1 2.7 14.2 3 3.3 14.2 1 1.3 2 2.1 34.5 8.1 2 7.2 10 26.4 1 1 1.2 6.0 45.2 2.7 9.0 4.6 10 1 3 2 22.0 1.4 9.0 4.6 1 1.8 13 1 21.4 1.4 6 1 3 5 2 12.8 1.1 5.3 7.3 2.4 4 7.0 1 1.8 1 1 3 5 2 4.0 1.1 5.3 7.3 2.4 195 8 23 9 152 3 867.2 63.5 63.0 19.1 716.4 5.2 152 7 21 7 115 2 644.8 48.5 57.5 12.3 522.5 4.1 16 96.5 16 96.5 27 1 2 2 21 1 125.9 15.0 5.5 6.8 97.5 1.1 i Each agreement included in this tabulation covered 1,000 or more workers. Provisions in these agreements may not be representative of provisions covering smaller establishments. * Each of these agreements covers 2 or more plants located in different regions. * Each of these agreements covers 2 or more plants located in different States in the same region. N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 8 (table 4 ). Almost three-fourths of the company wide or association agreements which covered plants in States with and without “right-to-work” laws contained saving clauses exempting workers in “right-to-work” States from the union security provisions. O f the agreements covering plants in “right-to-work” States exclusively, one-fourth contained specific saving clauses. Most of the lat ter agreements were limited to sole bargaining rights, and the saving clauses, in most instances, provided for a different form of union security in event of a change in the law. Specific saving clauses were more prevalent in union shop agreements, accounting for almost onehalf of the workers under this type of union se curity. The majority of these workers were cov T a b l e 4. ered by master agreements which exempted those in “right-to-work” States from the union shop ar rangement. Agreements covering approximately one-fourth of the workers under membership maintenance and one-sixth under sole bargaining included saving clauses. Hiring Provisions The LM RA insures the employer’s preroga tive to hire employees by banning hiring arrange ments which restrict employment to those holding membership in the union at the time of hiring. However, the act does not bar hiring through a union-operated hiring hall, so long as nonunion applicants are not discriminated against. U n io n S e c u r it y P r o v is io n s in M a jo r C o l l e c t iv e B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n t s in S t a t e s W it h “ R ig h t - t o - W o r k ’ ’ L a w s , b y T y p e o f S a v in g C l a u s e , 1958-59 W it h o u t Union security provision Total Union shop Type of saving clause Agreements and Workers (thousands) Agreements Membership maintenance Sole bargaining i Workers (thousands) Agreements Workers (thousands) Agreements Workers (thousands) All agreements studied............................ 1,631 7,472.0 1,162 5,532.6 125 546.8 344 1,392.6 Agreements with saving clause.............. 359 2,824.8 283 2,478.0 19 125.2 57 221.9 1,295 201 4, 595.8 880.6 1,028 181 3,619.6 786.7 101 5 355.7 14.7 166 15 620.5 79.2 141 674.0 131 616.1 1 1.2 9 56.7 60 1,094 206. 6 3,715.3 50 847 170.6 2,832.9 4 96 13.5 341.1 6 151 22.5 541.3 164 41 410.9 114.2 * 23 4 44.1 6.6 8 3 18.6 9.8 133 34 348.2 97.9 34 100.3 1 2.5 1 2.7 32 95.1 7 123 14.0 296.7 3 19 4.1 37.5 2 5 7.1 8.8 2 99 2.8 250.4 161 112 2,419.8 1,808.1 105 95 1,846.3 1,671.7 16 11 172.6 100.6 40 6 401.0 35.9 12 110.4 10 97.4 2 13.0 100 49 1, 697.7 611.7 85 10 1,574.3 174.6 4 34 22.9 365.2 11 5 45.5 21.9 6 3 22.6 13.0 5 2 22.9 8.9 4 14.9 3 13.0 1 1.9 1 6 7.0 23.7 3 9.6 1 3 7.0 14.1 All workers covered in States without “ right-to-work" laws________________ Saving clause______________ ___ __ Different form of union security effective or negotiated if law changes 2__ _______________ Provision not operative if in conflict with law or in States where prohibited.................... No specific saving clause___________ All workers covered in States with "right-to-work" laws________________ Saving clause___________________ Different form of union security effective or negotiated if law changes 2_______________ ___ Provision not operative if in conflict with law or in States where prohibited____________ No specific saving clause.......... ......... Mixed State coverage—some workers in States with "right-to-work" laws Saving clause________ _______ Different form of union security effective or negotiated if law changes*.___ ____ __________ Provision not operative if in conflict with law or in States where prohibited__________ No specific saving clause___________ State coverage not known _ __________ Saving clause_______________ _ Different form of union security effective or negotiated if law changes________ _____ Provision not operative if in conflict with law or in States where prohibited . . . _ _ N o s p e c ific s a v in g cla u se * Includes 8 agreements with provision for preferential hiring but no ex plicit statement as to nondiscrimination between members and nonmembers of the union, and 4 agreements with provision for an agency shop. * Includes several agreements which also specified that the provision was not operative in States where prohibited by law. 11 5 100.6 72.0 * All of these agreements were negotiated in Indiana prior to June 25,1957, the effective date of that State's “ right-to-work" law. N o t e : Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 9 T a b l e 5. H ir in g P r o v is io n s in M a jo r C o l l e c t iv e B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n t s , b y C o v e r a g e W it h o u t “ R ig h t - t o - W o r k ” L a w s , 19 5 8-5 9 in S t a t e s W it h and Hiring provision Total Preferential hiring 1 State coverage of agreements All agreements studied............................ Agreements with all or some workers covered in States with “right-to-work” lawra............................................. ........... All workers covered in States with “ right-to-work” laws____________ Mixed coverage—some workers in States with “ right-to-work” laws.. Agreements with all workers covered in States without “right-to-work” laws.. Coverage not known_________ _______ _ No hiring provision Consideration to union in hiring * Agreements Workers (thousands) Agreements Workers (thousands) Agreements 1,631 7,472.0 125 391.9 232 1,466.8 325 2,830.7 6 22.2 47 164 410.9 19 161 2,419.8 6 22.2 1,295 11 4,595.8 45.5 119 369.7 Agreements Workers (thousands) Workers (thousands) 1,274 5,613.3 530.1 272 2,278.4 64.2 145 346.7 28 466.0 127 1,931.7 180 5 922.1 14.6 996 6 3,304.0 30.9 * No explicit statement as to nondiscrimination between members and nonmembers of the union. 2 Agreements provided for hiring on a nondiscriminatory basis. N o t e : Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Less than 10 percent (125) of the 1,631 agree ments examined, including the 45 closed shop agreements, provided for preference to union members in hiring, in some instances through a union hiring hall. These agreements did not con tain any explicit statement as to nondiscrimination between members and nonmembers. Many of the clauses were ambiguous and difficult to interpret. For instance, some required preference in employ ment to workers with previous training and ex perience in the industry and often referred to employment prior to 1947, when closed shop ar rangements may have prevailed. Such clauses, even when incorporated in agreements otherwise limited to sole bargaining, could result in virtually closed shop conditions, since applicants with pre vious experience in industries with a history of extensive unionization would presumably be union members. For purposes of this study, clauses of this type were tabulated as sole bargaining with preferential hiring. However, these represented only a very small portion of the sole bargaining agreements. Following is an example of more typical prefer ential hiring clauses in union shop agreements, which may, in practice, result in a closed shop. found in 14 percent (232) of the agreements. Usually union members were to be referred to the employer for job vacancies and were to be given equal consideration with other applicants, or re ferrals were made through a hiring hall operated by the union, or jointly by the union and manage ment, for both union and nonunion workers, on a nondiscriminatory basis. For example: The employer shall be the judge o f the qualification of all employees, but in the filling of vacancies or new posi tions and in the employment of extra help, the employer shall employ such persons through the office of the union and shall give preference of employment to qualified members of the union who are in good standing. . . . Provisions for consideration to union members, specifically on a nondiscriminatory basis, were When the employer needs additional men he shall give the local union equal opportunity with all other sources to provide suitable applicants, but the employer shall not be required to hire those referred by the local union. * * * The union will maintain a hiring hall and will solicit qualified workmen, both union and nonunion, in order to fill necessary requisitions for such workmen. The em ployer shall have the right to use the services o f such hiring hall and may call upon the union to furnish such qualified workmen as he may require in the classifications herein mentioned. The union agrees that it will not dis criminate against nonunion workmen in the operation of such hiring hall. * * * A provision for a nondiscriminatory, exclusive hiring hall shall be incorporated into this agreement consistent with the announced standards o f the National Labor Re lations Board and statement of its General Counsel on union hiring halls. Distribution of hiring clauses in States with “right-to-work” laws and States without such laws is shown in table 5. Both types of hiring clauses were more prevalent in States which did not have “right-to-work” laws. 11 Union Checkoff Provisions A ch eck o ff syste m is a procedure by which the employer regularly deducts union dues and, in many cases, other financial obligations to the union from employees’ pay for transmittal to the union. In the union’s view, a checkoff arrangement eliminates the need to solicit in dividual members each month and insures finan cial stability. To the employer who agrees to such an arrangement, checkoff eliminates on-thejob interruptions caused by dues collection and, where a union shop prevails, safeguards operations against the discharge problems that would arise through dues delinquency. Checkoff provisions in union contracts in the past were a controversial issue, and their growth represents, in some measure, a victory of efficiency over principle. According to earlier Bureau of Labor Statistics studies, the proportion of workers under agreements with checkoff provisions rose from 20 percent in 1942 to 40 percent in 1946, and to 78 percent by 1951.1 It has remained at this level since. A Bureau study covering major contracts in effect in 1958-59 revealed 77 percent of the workers under agreements with checkoff provisions. W hy a substantial proportion (29 percent) of major agreements do not contain checkoff provisions has not been studied. Un doubtedly, checkoff is not readily adaptable to collective bargaining situations in which small establishments predominate (perhaps another type of delinquency might arise here). In some in dustries, e.g., construction, employment is typi cally of short duration and the worker looks to the union for job leads— circumstances which provide the union member with sufficient reason to maintain his good standing without checkoff and without much solicitation. Beyond these situations, however, it can be presumed that ob jections on the part of employers to assisting unions in dues collections, and a reluctance on the part of unions to abandon personal solicitations, which encourages closer contacts between union representatives and members, still persist, al though in diminished strength. Checkoff is permitted under the Labor Manage ment Relations Act, but only on written authoriza tion of the employee. A few of the State “rightto-work” laws include similar checkoff regulations. Under the LM R A, the employee’s authorization may not continue for more than a year or the duration of the agreement, whichever is shorter, without an opportunity for withdrawal or renewal. Scope of Study For its 1958-59 analysis of checkoff provisions, the Bureau studied 1,631 collective bargaining agreements, each covering 1,000 or more workers, or virtually all agreements of this size in the United States, exclusive of those relating to railroads and airlines.2 The total of 7.5 million workers covered represented almost half of all the workers esti mated to be under agreements in the United States, exclusive of railroad and airline agreements. Of these, 4.7 million workers, covered by 1,054 agreements, were in manufacturing, and 577 agreements applied to 2.8 million workers in non manufacturing establishments. Seventy-five per cent of the agreements were in force after Jan uary 1,1959; the rest had expired during the period June-December 1958. i See Extent of Collective Bargaining and Union Recognition, 1046, BLS Bull. 909 (1947); Union Status Under Collective Agreements, 1950-51 (in Monthly Labor Review, November 1951, pp. 552-556); and Union-Security Provisions in Agreements, 1954 (in Monthly Labor Review, June 1955, pp. 649-658). * The Bureau does not maintain a file of railroad and airline agreements; hence their omission from this study. 12 T a b l e 1. C h e c k o f f P r o v is io n s in M a jo r C o l l e c t iv e B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n t s b y I n d u s t r y , Total studied Total with checkoff provisions Industry 1958-59 1 Items checked off Dues only Dues and initiation fees Dues and assessments Dues, initia tion fees, and assessments Other combinations Agree Workers Agree Workers Agree Workers Agree Workers Agree Workers Agree Workers Agree Workers ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou sands) sands) sands) sands) sands) sands) sands) All agreements. _ _______ 1,631 7 ,4 7 2 .0 1,163 5,72 8 .7 376 1,5 4 5 .2 Manufacturing _ 1,054 Ordnance and accessories................... 13 Food and kindred products............... 114 Tobacco manufactures....................... 12 Textile mill products.......................... 38 Apparel and other finished products. 45 Lumber and wood products, except 11 furniture.......................................... Furniture and fixtures........................ 18 Paper and allied products.................. 43 Printing, publishing, and allied industries......................................... 36 Chemicals and allied products........... 46 Petroleum refining and related industries.............................. ......... 17 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products________________________ 25 Leather and leather products............ 21 Stone, clay, and glass products_____ 32 Primary metal industries 124 Fabricated metal products................ 57 Machinery, except electrical________ 125 Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies..................................... 108 Transportation equipment................ 129 Instruments and related products___ 25 Miscellaneous manufacturing indus tries __ 15 4,659 .7 3 1.1 381.3 3 2 .0 9 7.2 472.7 886 12 86 12 33 23 4,0 91.2 29.7 317 .6 3 2 .0 7 7.6 285.7 239 3 17 6 20 5 811.2 6 .3 3 2 .7 2 1 .3 36.1 78.6 36.8 3 2 .6 101.2 7 11 36 2 0 .3 19.0 89.3 2 8 .7 21 48.5 3 7 14 5. S 11.2 3 9 .3 7 2 .9 97.8 8 45 13 .5 96.8 3 19 5 .1 46.7 4 20 6 .5 34.6 60.3 15 4 3 .9 13 40.3 2 3 .6 132.2 7 3 .3 95.9 729.8 163.8 354.9 25 15 29 116 46 114 132.2 5 7 .5 89.8 716.9 134.3 339.8 16 7 8 7 6 27 90.2 24.9 20.6 2 5 .5 15.1 60.8 7 3 15 39 20 53 10.6 2 1 .3 39.6 86.0 39.1 194.5 474.2 1,134.8 58.2 97 123 21 447.8 1,070.9 53.9 23 26 7 119.5 113.9 12 .0 65 74 13 295.5 767.0 3 2 .9 2 7 .0 12 2 3 .0 3 4.9 8 16.6 N onmanufacturing__________ Mining, crude petroleum, and natural gas production Transportation * ...... __ Communications__________________ Utilities: Electric and gas.............. . Wholesale trade Retail trade . _ Hotels and restaurants____ 577 2 ,8 1 2 .3 277 1,6 37.6 137 734.0 53 234.1 16 109 74 75 12 65 33 48 138 261.2 591.5 5 72.0 194.9 2 3 .2 172.6 165.7 172.0 646.9 13 67 72 49 6 25 14 23 6 2 5 5 .3 400.5 562.7 114.8 11.4 80.4 105.5 85.1 19.7 2 19 59 35 2 12 2 3 1 5 .7 82.5 487.2 81.2 2 .7 5 1 .2 1 3 .5 5 .8 2 .0 2 8 10 6 3 8 5 7 4 3 .5 12 .5 5 5.6 18.3 7 .7 19.1 59.2 4 1 .5 16.7 7 12 .4 2 2 .3 2 2 .3 S e rv ice s . _ _ . Construction_____________________ Miscellaneous nonmanufacturing in dustries 1 Each agreement included in this tabulation covered 1,000 or more workers. Provisions in these agreements may not be representative of provisions covering smaller establishments. Prevalence Seventy-one percent of the major agreements studied contained checkoff provisions (table 1). Of the 1,163 checkoff clauses, 469 provided for the deduction of dues and initiation fees, 273 specified dues, initiation fees and assessments, and 376 specified dues only. Other combinations, found in a few agreements, also included fines. Against the total of 1,631 agreements studied, 71 percent checked off dues; 46 percent, initiation fees; 19 percent, assessments; and 1 percent, fines. (See table 2). Checkoff arrangements were far less prevalent in multiemployer or association agreements than 2 ,11 4 .4 29 84.1 273 1,938.9 16 46 .2 416 ~ L 8 8 0 .4 20.9 7 45 213.9 4 7 .1 10 2 3 .1 3 11.8 469 15 4 7.3 lfTl 15.8 1 3 3 .5 6 .9 1 ,3 3 7 .2 2 .6 5 5 .3 3 .7 15 .0 188.5 5 3 211 2 21 2 2 12 2 4 1 5 .8 7 .8 1 .5 6 15.6 28.0 6 .8 19.7 600.6 80.1 76.6 1 3 10 .0 3 .8 1 1 .3 1 2 .0 1 1 3 .5 4 .5 1 1 .0 3 6 .8 1 4 5 66 20 30 3 .4 9 22 1 3 2 .8 186.6 9 .0 1 1 .5 1 14 36.8 7 26.1 4 5 .7 1 1 1 2 .5 1 .5 1 .0 62 601.7 9 31 3 4 1 3 4 7 246.1 267.8 19.9 9 .8 1 .0 7 .3 2 5 .2 24.8 . 11 3 1 .2 2 11.6 2 2 5 2 .9 5 .1 11.6 * Excludes railroad and airline industries. N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. in agreements negotiated by a single company. About a third of the multiemployer agreements studied contained checkoff provisions, as against 9 out of 10 single employer agreements. This difference is reflected in table 1 where checkoff provisions are presented on an industry basis; the proportion of agreements with checkoff was low est in industries such as construction, maritime, and printing, where multiemployer bargaining is the rule. For all nonmanufacturing industries, checkoff agreements accounted for 48 percent of the total, compared with 84 percent for manufacturing. The proportion of checkoff provisions varied relatively little as between agreements with union 13 Checkoff Provisions, by Type of Union Security, in Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, 19 58-5 9 -,-,--- ---- - P e r c e n t o f W o r k e r s S t u d ie d 0 20 1 40 1 60 1 1 1 80 1 1 100 1 Union Shop Maintenance of Membership W it h c h e c k o ff p r o v is io n W it h o u t c h e c k o ff p r o v i s io n Sole Bargaining security clauses and those without. Checkoff arrangements were found in 76 percent of the sole bargaining contracts (no form of union secu rity) covering 80 percent of the workers under such contracts; and in 70 percent of those with union security provisions (union shop and mem bership maintenance), representing 76 percent of the workers (table 2 and chart). However, the distribution of checkoff clauses varied by type of union security; 89 percent of the workers under T a b l e 2. C h e c k o f f P r o v is io n s in membership maintenance were covered by check off provisions, compared to 75 percent under union shop. About half of the checkoff arrangements under sole bargaining agreements were limited to dues checkoff; the corresponding proportion under some form of union security was about one-fourth (table 2). Regional and State distribution of checkoff clauses, by combined types of payments specified, are shown in table 3. Checkoff arrangements were most prevalent in interregional agreements and the following four regions: New England, East North Central, South Atlantic, and East South Central. Eighty percent or more of the major agreements in these regions, covering a similar proportion of workers, provided for checkoff, in contrast to approximately 40 percent of the agree ments in the Pacific region, where checkoff was least prevalent. State bans on union security clauses appear to have intensified efforts to include checkoff provisions. Thus, 85 percent of the work ers under major agreements in States with “rightto-work” laws were covered by such provisions, as against 68 percent under agreements in States without such laws (table 4). 3 3 None of the State “ right-to-work** laws prohibits checkoff. M a jo r C o l l e c t iv e B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n t s , S e c u r it y , 1 9 5 8-5 9 by T ype of U n io n Type of union security Total Union shop Type of checkoff provision Agreements All agreements studied No provision fnf nhAntnff Number w it h c h e c k o ff , . _ . _ ____ Membership mainte nance Sole bargaining Workers Agreements Workers Agreements Workers Agreements Workers (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) 1,631 7,472.0 1,162 5,532.6 125 546.8 344 1,392.6 468 1,163 1,743.2 6,728.7 376 787 1,397.9 4,134.7 11 114 62.4 484.4 82 262 283.0 1,109.6 1,163 767 314 16 6,728.7 4,091.0 2,063.2 46.2 787 567 269 14 4,134.7 3,387.7 1,929.0 43.5 114 67 14 484.4 243.9 34.5 262 123 32 2 1,109.6 459.4 89.7 2.7 376 469 1,646.2 2,114.4 84.1 194 321 668.5 1,523.7 77.1 46 54 239.1 210.9 136 94 1 13 1 .5 3 3 .0 3 27 379.8 5 .5 84.0 2 2 .7 TYPE OP PAYM ENT1 Dues * _____________________________________________ Initiation fees ..... Assessments ______ _____________________ Fines COMBINED TYPES OP PAYMENT Dues only____________ . . . . . . . . . _______ _____________ Dues and initiation fnes Dues and assessments______________ - _____ - _____ - ___ Dues, initiation fees, and assessments. Dues, initiation fees, and fines ___ Dues, assessments, end fines _ ___ Dues, initiation fees, assessments, and fines ____ ____ 29 273 4 1 11 1,938.9 13.6 1 .4 3 1 .3 i Nonadditive. These items may appear singly, or in combination, in one agreement. * Includes agreements which also specified convention dues. 25 233 4 1 9 1,821.9 1 3 .5 1.4 28.6 637.6 N otk: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 14 T a b l e 3. C h e c k o f f P r o v is io n s in M a jo r C o l l e c t iv e B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n t s , 1 9 5 8-5 9 1 by R e g io n and St a te , Items checked off Total studied Region and State Total with checkoff Dues only Dues and initiation fees Dues and assessments Dues, initiation fees, and assessments Other com binations Agree- Workers Agree- Workers Agree Workers Agree Workers Agree Workers Agree Workers Agree Workers ments (thou- ments (thou- ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou sands) sands) sands) sands) sands) sands) sands) 1,631 7, 472.0 1,163 5, 728.7 376 1, 545.2 469 2, 114.4 29 84.1 273 1, 938.9 16 46.2 Interregional agreements *. 251 3 , 187.3 193 2, 853.5 54 527.2 67 1, 002.7 7 26.0 64 1, 287.6 1 10.0 New England................... Intraregion *.......... ..... Maine....... ................. . New Hampshire_____ Vermont____________ Massachusetts............. Rhode Island............ . Connecticut................ Middle Atlantic_________ Intraregion ....... ..... New York_____ ____ _ New Jersey__________ Pennsylvania........ ..... East North Central.......... Intraregion *............. Ohio..................... ....... Indiana_______ ______ Illinois____ _________ Michigan..................... Wisconsin.................... West North Central_____ Intraregion 3__....... ..... Minnesota__________ Iowa........................... . Missouri........ .............. North Dakota_______ South Dakota_______ Nebraska............. ....... Kansas...................... . South Atlantic__________ Intraregion *_________ Delaware............. ....... Maryland___________ District of Columbia.. Virginia_____________ West Virginia.............. North Carolina______ South Carolina______ Georgia____ ________ Florida................. ....... East South Central.......... . Intraregion 3________ _ Kentucky______ _____ Tennessee.................. . Alabama____________ Mississippi_________ _ West South Central........ . Intraregion«..... .......... Arkansas....... ............ . Louisiana........ ........... . Oklahoma....... ........... . Texas.................. ......... 116 7 9 5 2 48 3 42 322.9 52.5 17.5 8.8 2.2 115.7 4.5 121.8 93 5 8 5 2 35 2 36 257.1 36.5 16.3 8.8 2.2 84.6 3.5 105.3 44 5 6 4 1 13 2 13 122.3 36.5 12.4 7.5 1.1 29.6 3.5 31.7 35 106.5 3 6.1 11 22.4 2 1 1 11 3.9 1.3 1.1 32.3 3 6.1 8 16.7 20 67.9 384 27 178 67 112 1, 256.5 142.2 630.7 176.1 307.5 266 19 100 56 91 844.2 118.2 324.4 149.5 252.2 85 2 35 26 22 320.1 32.8 123.4 95.6 68.4 97 5 38 21 33 257.3 14.0 129.9 36.2 77.3 11 3 5 37.1 17.4 14.8 4 9.6 3 4.9 399 13 93 34 125 82 52 1, 107.5 105.4 221.7 75.1 404.7 191.1 109.5 320 12 90 30 87 72 29 894.9 93.4 218.1 64.4 280.4 172.0 66.6 91 2 29 10 23 18 9 273.1 14.1 95.4 28.6 70.5 46.9 17.7 140 4 39 17 32 36 12 309.1 12.2 73.9 31.0 102.7 61.7 27.7 4 1 2 7.5 2.0 4.0 1 1.5 85 4 31 10 29 203.6 23.8 70.1 21.5 54.4 49 1 15 10 14 129.1 20.3 29.8 21.5 26.0 12 1 4 2 4 36.9 20.3 6.0 4.1 5.3 23 59.1 2 4 6 6 5.0 10.5 15.7 2 1 3 7 2.5 3.2 28.3 1 2 6 2.5 2.2 27.0 1 1.2 1 6 1.0 27.0 84 15 1 18 6 16 4 6 5 5 8 255.7 41.4 1.5 56.4 18.9 49.9 9.1 16.1 8.7 14.2 39.8 71 13 215.1 35.1 28 6 87.9 22.5 29 4 83.7 6.7 1 2.2 14 3 2 6 2 3 2 1 3 4.6 7.5 26.2 6.2 7.2 3.0 1.2 9.6 8 2 2.2 2 3 3 1 2 32.9 7.6 6.6 2.9 8.9 5.7 9.3 3.2 1 6 5 3 7 44.4 17.9 38.1 9.1 16.1 8.7 12.2 33.8 43 2 12 16 11 2 94.1 9.1 20.0 34.8 24.0 6.4 37 73.8 14 27.8 15 11 14 10 2 19.0 26.7 21.8 6.4 4 8 2 6.2 18.2 3.5 2 6 5 2 All regions......................... 5 14 4 4 3 5.7 •69 9 20 9 31 220.3 54.1 51.0 17.8 97.5 79 5 20 3 28 16 7 285.8 65.2 44.9 4.8 91.5 59.7 19.8 4.4 9 4.4 4 2 2 1 2.5 12 3 39.8 5.9 4 2 1 4.7 2.8 5.4 2 21.1 32.1 7 12.9 3.0 8.6 14.2 6.4 5 9.8 2 3.1 6 2 15.0 8.1 3 5.2 50 5 2 15 2 26 132.1 19.1 2.9 38.2 7.2 64.8 38 4 2 10 2 20 93.7 11.1 2.9 17.1 7.2 55.5 17 1 1 1 9 39.3 2.0 1.8 9.7 1.2 24.7 Mountain........................... Intraregion *________ _ Montana.................... . Idaho.......................... Wyoming................... . Colorado____________ New Mexico.......... ..... Arizona....................... . Utah........................... Nevada....................... . 24 2 3 2 45.2 2.7 9.0 4.6 15 1 2 2 30.1 1.4 7.0 4.6 7 15.6 2 7.0 6 1 3 5 2 12.8 1.1 5.3 7.3 2.4 4 7.8 1.1 4.3 2.8 1.2 3 6.3 1 1.5 1 1 1.1 1.2 1 1 3.3 1.6 Pacific............. ................. . Intraregion *............... . Washington................. Oregon........................ . California______ ____ _ Alaska........................ . 195 8 23 867.2 63.5 63.0 19! 1 716*4 5.2 81 337.3 31.5 14.4 11*4 278*9 24 95.4 11.0 1.4 6.3 75.6 43 2 213.4 20.5 13.0 4.1 175.8 o 152 3 1 2 2 1 5 g 6 61 1 ill 1 Each agreement included in this tabulation covered 1,000 or more workers. Provisions in these agreements may not be representative of provisions covering smaller establishments. >Each of these agreements covers 2 or more plants located in different regions. 5 3 1 2 17 1 l!l 14 38.4 1 2 1 10 1.1 2.3 6.0 29.0 6 1 12.3 1.4 2 4.6 7 3 31 1 1 1.0 1.0 2 5.5 2 4.1 6 19.6 4 2 15.8 3.8 24.5 3 4.4 12.3 6.9 2.8 1 2.1 2 2.3 1 1.7 1 1.7 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.8 2 2.3 1 1.1 1 1.2 14 28.6 1 13 1.0 27.6 * Each of these agreements covers 2 or more plants located in different States in the same region. N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 15 T a b l e 4. C h e c k o f f P r o v is io n s in M a jo r C o l l e c t iv e B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n t s , W it h o u t “ R ig h t - t o - W o r k ” L a w s , 1958-59 by C overage in S t a t e s W it h Items checked off Total studied Total with checkoff Dues only State coverage of agreements Initiation fees Assessments and Other combi nations Initiation fees and assess ments Work Work Work Work Work Work Work Agree ers Agree ers Agree ers Agree ers Agree ers Agree ers Agree ers ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou sands) sands) sands) sands) sands) sands) sands) All agreements................................................ 1,631 7,472.0 All workers covered In States without “ right-to-work” laws. ................... ............. 1,296 4,695.8 All workers covered in States with “ right164 410.9 to-work” laws_________________________ Mixed State coverage—some workers in States with “ right-to-work” laws.............. 161 2,419.8 11 45.5 Coverage not known...................................... 1,163 5,728.7 376 890 3,120.8 139 1,545.2 469 2,114.4 283 1,009.1 355 1,075.7 348.1 53 143.9 66 146.1 131 2,245.5 3 14.4 38 2 383.8 8.4 48 892.6 29 ===== 24 5 84.1 273 1,938.9 74.0 213 19 40 1 959.0 6.0 10.1 16 46.2 917.5 15 44.5 56.4 1 1.7 = N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Checkoff Authorization Of the 1,163 contracts with checkoff arrange ments, 710 (61 percent) specified the length of time for which the authorization was to be effec tive (table 5). The term of authorization most frequently specified was for the duration of the contract or 1 year, whichever was shorter, during which time the authorization was irrevocable. This appeared in over half (363) of the 710 clauses, representing 44 percent of the workers. Over three-fourths (276) of these clauses also provided for automatic renewal of the authorization, unless the employee gave written notice of cancellation during a specified escape period at the end of the term of authorization. Nearly all of such clauses specifically stated that the automatic renewal would be effective from year to year, unless notice was given. Frequently, the agreement included a copy of the authorization form to be used, as in the following: The authorization for the deductions . . . shall be in the following form: Pursuant to this authorization and assignment, please deduct from my pay each month, while I am in employment within the collective bargaining unit in the company, monthly dues, assessments and (if owing by me) an initiation fee each as designated by the international secretary-treasurer of the union, as my membership dues in said union. The aforesaid membership dues shall be remitted promptly by you to [union official]. This assignment and authorization shall be effective and cannot be canceled for a period of 1 year from the date appearing above or until the termination date of the current collective bargaining agreement between the company and the union, whichever occurs sooner. I hereby voluntarily authorize you to continue the above authorization and assignment in effect after the expiration of the shorter of the periods above specified, for further successive periods of 1 year from such date. I agree that this authorization and assignment shall become effective and cannot be canceled by me dur ing any such years, but that I may cancel and revoke by giving to the appropriate management representa tive of the plant in which I am then employed, an in dividual written notice signed by me and which shall be postmarked or received by the company within 15 days following the expiration of any such year or within the 15 days following the termination date of any collective bargaining agreement between the com pany and the union covering my employment if such date shall occur within one of such annual periods. Such notice of revocation shall become effective re specting the dues for the month following the month in which such written notice is given; a copy of any such notice will be given by me to the financial secre tary of the local union. A small group of agreements (30) merely stipu lated that the authorization was irrevocable for the term of the contract. Another group (59) made the authorization irrevocable for 1 year. Over half (50) of the clauses in these two groups also provided for automatic renewal of the author ization, unless notice was given. The majority of these renewal clauses were effective from year to year. 16 T a b l e 5. C h e c k o f f A u t h o r iz a t io n a n d R e n e w a l P r o v is io n s in M a jo r C o l l e c t iv e B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n t s , 1958-59 Total Checkoff authorization With renewal provision 1 Without renewal provision Work Work* Work Agree ers Agree ers Agree ers ments (thou ments (thou ments (thou sands) sands) sands) dues and initiation fees insofar as permitted by State or Federal laws, upon receipt of and in accordance with a duly executed authorization by the employee in the form agreed upon by the company and the union. The remaining 156 clauses stipulated that the authorization was irrevocable at any time. Cost of Checking Off Union Dues Number with checkoff.......... ...... 1,163 5t728.7 Number with provision for term 710 3,913.2 of authorization________ _____ 156 744.9 Revocable at any time..____ Irrevocable for term of con tract or 1 year, whichever 363 1,707.3 is shorter________________ 59 280.4 Irrevocable for 1 year_______ Irrevocable for term of con 88.6 25 tract____________________ Irrevocable for term of con tract or any renewal 13.4 5 thereof__________________ Checkoff consistent with 102 1,078.6 Federal and/or State law... 326 1.619.7 837 4,109.0 326 1.619.7 384 2,293.5 156 744.9 276 1,385.4 40 172.8 7 54.3 3 7.2 87 19 321.9 107.6 18 34.3 2 6.2 102 1,078.6 i After “ escape” period during term of agreement. All of these clauses provided for automatic renewal of the authorization unless notice was given; all but a few specified renewal from year to year. N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may hot equal totals. A checkoff provision which simply stated that it was to be consistent with Federal and/or State law was stipulated in 102 contracts, covering over one-fourth of the workers. No other details were given in the provision which follows: The company will deduct out of the current net earnings payable to an employee covered by this agreement union Provisions for assessing the union for the expense incurred by the company in checking off dues, etc., are rare. This function is generally carried out by the employer without charge to the union, although only eight agreements, covering 1 percent of the workers, specifically stated that the company agreed to assume the cost of making dues deductions. Only 12 agreements, covering 2 percent of the workers under checkoff arrangements, provided for payment by the union to the employer to cover the cost of checkoff; all but 2 were in the telephone industry. Most of these clauses specified payment of a fixed charge or percent. A few did not stipu late the cost to be paid, but merely stated that the union would reimburse the company for the ex pense incurred, or that the company would notify the union of the cost for this service. * U.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : I960 0 — 544723
@FedFRASER