jobs. I mean this question of transfer of men from one section where there is no work to other sections where their skill can be used is something, too, that is capable of solution.

In addition to the available experienced miners, we must take into account the new crops of young men in the mining areas and camps ready and eager to work, able after a little experience to become the experienced miners of the coming decate.

Now, we reach a number of other fundamental points, Senator. There are some mines in the country where the miner does every job; he drills, he blasts, he shovels, timbers, hauls his tools, and so on; each service part of his assignment taking away from his basic production job. There are other mines in which there is a degree of job specialization, where miners primarily drill and blast, others "muck” the rock, and still others do the necessary timbering. But in no mine has the whole question of work specialization been carried out in the most efficient manner possible. The operators have always worked on the assumption that if they can get one man to do more than one job at a time they are saving money.

In terms of total output and highest productivity per man-shift, as compared to, let's say, the Ford plant, the mining operators are of course an anachronism in industrial engineering and labor relations. The reason for this, I think, lies in the fact that mining operations have always been more profitable even under poor efficiency than factory operations, and that profits per worker tend to be larger in mining than in manufacturing, so that the pressure for this division of labor which manufacturers have always felt has, for the most part, been lacking in mining operators.

If special service crews were constantly available to see that the necessary auxiliary work was done, the miners could continue their production job without delay.

Aside from more efficient division of work and the other problems already touched upon is that simple question of servicing.

Necessary supplies and tools are too often either inadequate or difficult of access to the miner. In many mines, a miner has to carry his tools a considerable distance on foot underground; in others, long delays are incurred waiting for the ore trains to take the men.

Increased efficiency in these matters is sorely needed in all parts of the metal mining industry. We had iron ore miners in Alabama report a situation wherein some 80 handloading workers are forced to transfer the ore some 25 to 30 feet before being able to load the ore into cars. If the company would lay the tracks right up to the face, a job easily and quickly done, the men claim they could load six ore cars in the same time they now load three. In every case we are trying to give practical illustrations of what can be done.

Another problem is the haulage system, the taking away of the ore. A committee of our miners from Butte Miners' Union No. 1, go into some lengthy detail in describing why this haulage system is inefficient and how it can be simplified.

The CHAIRMAN. We will make that a part of the record. That has been introduced as an exhibit.

Mr. RISKIN. Yes; that doesn't have to go in again. I would like to point out that in some instances, two, at least, at our union's request and insistence two companies added 100 cars each to their properties

and thus were enabled to have more efficient and more rapid haulage of their rock.

Another problem is the hoisting bottleneck. Some operators toss the question of multiple shifts aside with the comment that their hoisting capacity is too limited to handle all the rock that can be broken in three shifts, that they cannot get all the rock out through the small shafts in their mines.

Even in the cases where it is not practical to enlarge the shafts, to add new shafts, or to improve the hoisting equipment generally, this does not necessarily waive the possibilities of continuous operations. There are some mining operations which operate 24 hours a day using two production shifts, but three service and hauling shifts. In cases where more rock can be broken per shift than can be hauled away through the shaft, the shaft can be operated three shifts a day while drilling and blasting goes on two-shift operations.

These, gentlemen, are some of the specific problems which we propose and which we discuss.

Senator JOHNSON of Colorado. May I interrupt to ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Riskin, in this study of underproduction, have you given any thought to the destructive policy of taxation which has been adopted by the Government? Have you treated on that or made a study of that?

Mr. RISKIN. I tell you, Senator, I have concentrated this study, that is, the union has concentrated this study, on the practical question of production itself rather than on some of these other supplementary features, because, as a matter of fact, despite the taxation, despite the heavy increase in taxation, a review of the corporation profit returns will show that their profits had increased despite the taxes so that hasn't, to me, been an immediate problem.

Senator JOHNSON of Colorado. Taxation, of course, and production are tied so closely together, I don't see how you can avoid a study of taxation. For instance, why should an industry increase its capacity in one particular year three times, as you suggest there, when they know that the taxation policy of the Government will cause them to pay it all, mostly in taxes? They deplete their ore bodies. in 1 year instead of taking a normal 4 or 5 years' time to do it. Isn't that one of the reasons that some of the mines are not operating at full capacity at the present time?

Mr. RISKIN. You raise a very important point.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask Mr. Rice, the president of the United Smelting & Refining Co. to testify after you do, and I think he will take up that point very completely.

Senator JOHNSON of Colorado. I hope he does, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RISKIN. I would like to say just this much in that respect. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. RISKIN. The Senator raised a very important question. Why should the mining operators deplete their ore, use next year's reserves, the reserves for the coming 3 or 4 years, right now, if they are not going to be able to make a profit out of it? Senator, our approach is this, that our Nation is at war and that we need every pound of rock that we can get on the surface. Now, I don't consider any

corporation as being justified in saying, "Why should I mine next year's copper now?" There is no such thing as next year's copper now. I say that every pound of copper we can get to the surface now, is this year's copper that is needed by the Government for its total defense effort. And I just can't understand the terms. By what God-given right have they to say that they are not going to use next year's or the year's after copper, lead or zinc today? Who gave them the rock? The United States Government has permitted them to mine those properties in the private fashion instead of taking them over. As far as I can see, they were public land once. And they have no right to assume that this is their rock and that they can decide when they are going to mine it, if the Nation needs it today. Senator JOHNSON of Colorado. Haven't they a right, Mr. Riskin, to expect cooperation on the part of the Government? That is all they are asking.

Mr. RISKIN. And on the part of labor, and I am here to say that labor wants to cooperate with management and with Government on these problems, but the thing we want to cooperate for is getting rock to the surface for national defense.

Senator JOHNSON of Colorado. Yes; and you can't do it unless you have cooperation on the part of everybody, including the tax agencies of the Federal Government.

Mr. RISKIN. I say to you, Senator, that insofar as labor is concerned, by our coming here, you have had a chance to listen to me for about an hour. You haven't seen me destructively criticize either industry or Government. I think you will agree that labor here is offering constructive suggestions to show that it is willing to cooperate in this war effort of our country. And I say that in my opinion, if we are going to lick Japan and Germany, where the consideration is maximum efficiency for war purposes, in my opinion. my consideration can only be how are we going to get more copper, lead, and zinc out, more bullets, more tanks, more battleships, more airplanes. I can't think in any other terms but more production; I mean that is my problem. The companies may have the problem of taxation, and this is a question that should be handled through round-table conferences.

Senator JOHNSON of Colorado. I think labor has a great interest in confiscation just the same as the mine operators have an interest in it. I don't think you can separate yourself from the problems, from such problems as destructive taxation.

Mr. RISKIN. I don't say we can separate ourselves from that, Senator. I said that the emphasis of the union's discussion must be on increased production.

The CHAIRMAN. As quickly as you can, finish.

Mr. RISKIN. I will go through the rest very quickly.

Senator MURDOCK. May I ask this question?

Mr. RISKIN. Yes.

Senator MURDOCK. In connection with the statement I made a while ago coming from Mr. Snyder of New York City, that fissure vein mines would have to close down.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would answer the Senator's question before you quit.

Senator MURDOCK. The question is, whether or not there has been a material rise in labor costs which is resulting in the closing down of some of these mines.

Mr. RISKIN. I would like to point out that a survey made by the United States Government, Technology Employment and Output Per Man, has shown conclusively that despite increased wages per hour, the labor costs in the industries have declined. There is a regular trend there and the thing is definitely established. It isn't an opinion on our part. But labor costs have not increased, despite the increase in wages, in relationship to total cost. There has been a declining trend there because of your increased productivity of your mechanical introductions to the mine and so forth. But on the question of the increased cost, that plays a very important part in our analysis.

I would like to mention from the viewpoint of the men, that insofar as this whole question of new brass fabricating capacity is

concerned

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Proceed. The reason I am anxious for you to get through is that it is absolutely essential that the Senators be on the floor at 12 o'clock. We can't hold much longer than 5 minutes more, and I want to say at this point that Mr. Nixon is ill and has sent his statement for the record. Just as soon as the Senate adjourns, we will hear Mr. Rice; I think I will be safe in saying at 2:30. We will continue the hearing at 2:30, but there is a possibility there will be another declaration of war on the Senate floor this morning and we will have to be there this morning.

RELATION OF PRICE INCREASES TO ACTUAL PRODUCTION

Mr. RISKIN. I will be through in just a few minutes. I would like to point out that this isn't going to end here. I would like to discuss the problem of priorities problems on our workers, how that can be avoided, what needs to be done, the fact that in a number of these cases, a lot of these problems can be handled easily without any national troubles at all, through elementary collective bargaining, and come down to the point raised by Senator Murdock. It is impossible to discuss the question of increased output of copper, lead, and zinc, as the Senators here have continued to raise the question, without coming head-on into the question of price.

Now I want to say this thing because of the history of wage and price relations in this industry. It is necessary for labor to make very clear that in our discussion of the price of this metal, we are basing our discussions solely on considerations involving production and the Government's purchase policies. Labor does not seek price increases to raise its own wages. In the past we had the sliding scale and wage payments in our industry, and any time that an emergency arose, management was able to say that labor is demanding higher prices in order to get higher wages. We want it clearly understood that this is not so. In the last year and a half, as a result of our convention position on the wage question, we have broken the backbone of this wage payment. We are getting in more and more of our contracts, wage payments for labor disassociated from price. We stress this so that it will be clear, labor does not seek price increases to raise its own wages.

Now, fundamentally, we maintain, of course, that prices themselves do not dig rock. Until the conditions we discussed are remedied, you wouldn't be able to get more rock. But there is a question involving price, three problems, three relationships. The nature of industry in relation to price, the time element in relation to price, the type of price increase that should be given. Now, your industry is a complex one as we agreed at the beginning. The question of a rise in the price of copper, zinc, or lead is complicated by the fact that none of these metals is isolated from, or independent of the others, as it is in coal. Metalliferous ores are complex ores, they contain all these various metals in some combination or other. If an over-all price increase is to be used to expand output, the Government must inevitably find itself in the position of meeting demands from the major operators in the industry for price increases for each of the different metals taken from the same ore. For example, O. P. A. on October 9, granted a 1 cent a pound increase in the price of zinc. On October 10, when reporting the price of zinc, the Wall Street Journal foreshadowed the fact that zinc and lead are mined together and there the producers, the operators, are going to ask for a price increase in lead because too often there is more lead in the rock than zine and therefore the lead producers aren't get ting a good break.

On October 18 the Wall Street Journal reported the copper industry wanted the same treatment as the other nonferrous metal producers were going to get, a straight line advance in prices. Now, that is a problem which I must discuss in a minute. Here I would like to point out simply that mine operators having zinc lead mines, or zinc copper mines, are pressing for straight price increases on the lead or on the copper in their ores, having already received a 13 percent price increase on the zinc in the same ore, ore that is dug from the same rock, by the same work shaft, using the same machinery and same opera

tion.

The operators, be it noted, don't argue that since their particular ore has more lead than zinc they should therefore be given a higher price for the lead alone, and not receive a higher price for the zinc, no; they want higher prices for both metals, they want to get paid twice for the same rock.

Now, it must be understood that the producers who supply the great bulk of the nonferrous metals in our nation and exert the major influence in the industry, are tightly integrated concerns dominating copper, zinc, and lead production and distribution as well as fabri

cation.

Thus, having won an over-all price increase in zinc, the major operators return to Washington again in their capacities as lead producers and ask for the same treatment that the zinc producers_got. Going out of one door, they return to O. P. A. through the other door, this time in the guise of copper producers and demand the same treatment as the zinc and lead interests.

This, then, is one consideration that we have to weigh when we talk about price changes in nonferrous metals. Just how many times. should the United States Government pay any one company for the same piece of rock without in any way guaranteeing increased output? Now, the second factor, the time element in relation to price. Indicative of the gamble involved in giving a price increase to win more