proper, in various plants throughout the country, to operate a plantand under State laws, some of them cannot operate-unless they maintain their temperature at a certain standard.

Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. That is a standard, yes. But that does not mean that we can go into plant A, where they have no public contract, and say, "You must maintain your temperature at 70 degrees.'

Mr. HARE. That is correct. Now, I have made that point. Let me go to the next one. A few years ago I made inquiry as to whether or not the Bureau of Labor standards made any investigation or inquiry as to what effect excessively high temperatures in a plant would have on the health and production capacities of individuals.

The question in my mind is if the Bureau of Labor Standards has the right, the duty, the responsibility, the function, of making inquiry as to what effect a minimum standard of temperature may have, then why should it not have the right to make a study of the effect of maximum temperature. The question in my mind is, if you find that a certain minimum temperature should be maintained, you might find that the health of the employees of the plant would be better, that they would be more productive in their effort, they would lose less time, if a maximum temperature were maintained, and then the plant might be able to decide whether it would be advisable or feasible or profitable to the plant and to its employees to install air-conditioning units, because the Division of Labor Standards had found on investigation and study that such units contribute to such healthful conditions.

Now, we had some investigations made by this committee in an office in a building in New York 2 years ago, used by civilian employees, stenographers and clerks, and so forth. And it was reported back that their efficiency in the months of July and August was increased from 15 to 25 percent where they had air-conditioning units as contrasted with places where they did not have them. They had a fewer number of cases of absenteeism, they had better health among their employees, better facilities for working, more endurance in their job.

Now I am wondering whether or not the Division of Labor Standards could not find that out. Would it have authority to find that out? Would it have authority to make investigation and determine whether that is a scientific fact, whether it can be demonstrated conclusively and, if so, that information could be passed on to plant A and to plant B and to plant C.

Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. It does not have authority to go into plant A or plant B or plant C to find that out. It can use its influence to get the State

Mr. HARE. I know, but it cannot have any influence, Mr. Secretary, until it finds out whether the information is going to be worth a continental rattle or not.

Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. I say, it can use its influence to get the State to go in and make the investigation in plant A and plant B and plant C. But it does not have the authority.

Mr. HARE. It cannot make any investigations at all, let us say chemical investigations, as to atmospheric conditions?

Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. It can, through the cooperation of these management-labor committees, get them to make an investigation.

Mr. HARE. The question is whether or not the Division of Labor Standards had any right or authority or any responsibility to investigate what is an unsanitary situation and fix a standard for sanitation; to find out what is contributing to the ill-health of people in an industry, and give that information to the country. Apparently it does not have that authority?

Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. It can go to various State labor offices and get the benefit of their investigations and all of their experience and as a result of that reach a conclusion and give advice, but so far as going into any one particular place and saying, "You have to do this

Mr. HARE, NO; I did not say, "You have to do this." In research work we make investigations and try to get information.

Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. When I say, "You have to do this" I mean they would have to let them stay around and check their records and their temperature conditions, and things of that kind. It has no authority to do that.

Mr. HARE. It has no authority whatever?
Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. No.

Mr. HARE. That answers my question..

Mr. TARVER. To make investigations is one thing and to bring about the correction of bad conditions is another and distinctly different thing. It is clear from the discussion so far that the Federal Government has no authority to bring about the correction of bad conditions in the interest of the health of employees in industry, even that industry which is engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce. That is a field which has been left to the States. What is the over-all picture as to what the States have done about it? My observation has been, in some States, if they have laws which would enable them to deal effectively with such matters, the laws are not enforced.

Have you had any study made of the laws of the various States to determine whether or not each State has effective legislation which, if properly enforced, would enable them to bring about the correction of conditions in employment injurious to the health of employees? Could you give us some idea about what that picture would be?

Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. I think Mr. Gibson here, who is the Assistant Secretary, can answer your question, if you want him to do that now. I think he can come as close to answering that question as anybody in the country.

Mr. TARVER. I would be glad to have him do it.

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, I would like to clear up one point first, that I think is a little bit confusing as between you and the chairman. I think under the organic act of the Department, the Division of Labor Standards does have the right to conduct such surveys as you asked a question about. And the Secretary is right when he says that if an employer wants to refuse them entry into his plant, he can do that and make it stick. But we have never had cases where that has ever happened.

If we start out to conduct a study, usually the employer welcomes us into the plant, because he is going to derive some benefits out of that study, too. The Division of Labor Standards could conduct a study on heating conditions and on other standards. I do not know whether they ever have or not on that particular question, I cannot say

definitely, but there have been standards published by the American Standards Association, people like that.

Now, getting back to your question

Mr. HARE. I am glad to have that cleared up, because I had that impression all the while.

Mr. GIBSON. You are right. Under the organic act, we have the right, where the welfare of the wage earners are concerned, to make such studies and publish such reports. We have that right. But we do not have the legal right to say to employer X, "You must open your plant and let us come in and check these conditions." If there is a bad condition that needs a special study, an employer cannot very well refuse to allow our people to come in and we have had the greatest of cooperation on that score.

Mr. HARE. I understand the Division of Labor Standards is not an inspection service.

Mr. GIBSON. No; that is right.

Mr. HARE. It is not a detective agency.

Mr. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. HARE. It is a research agency primarily for the purpose of establishing standards, by reason of experience here and experience there, and observation here and observation there: Here is a standard that will operate well in any establishment, if followed.

Mr. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. HARE. It will contribute to the health, improve sanitation and the welfare of all concerned.

STATE LAWS REGULATING SAFETY, SANITATION, ETC., IN PLANTS,

MINES, ETC.

Mr. GIBSON. That is right. Now, getting back to your question, Judge Tarver, the picture in the States is very spotty as far as State laws are concerned. Some States have fairly good laws. The better State laws usually provide that the labor commissioner has codemaking authority so, as safety conditions and new processes change, new codes can be developed by special committees composed of labor and industry and the Government, and they have the same force and effect as law.

I would judge-I do not know the exact figure, but I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 States have that type of legislation. A large number of them have never set up a set of safety codes and standards. Others established them in the twenties and have not done anything about them since.

Ohio, for instance, is just in the process of revising its code, and the problem is this: There is not a State in the Union that has an adequate factory-inspection force, a force sufficient to comply with their State inspection laws. Most of them require an inspection every 6 months or a year. New York State probably comes closer than any other, but I do not know a State in the Union that has an adequate inspection force to do this job.

Mr. TARVER. How many States in the Union have laws under which, if an inspector from the State labor office visits a factory or a mine, and working conditions in that factory or mine are unhealthful, insanitary, or dangerous to the employees, they may direct that employer to correct those conditions and enforce the direction? How many States have laws of that type?

Mr. GIBSON. I think every State has some law, good or bad, of that general type. There is not a State in the Union that does not have some type of factory inspection laws. Some States have only one inspector for a whole State, however, and there are conditions like that. But I do not know of a State that does not have some sort of law, good, bad, or indifferent, which gives them the right of entry and the right to inspect and order corrections. Some of them are very limited, but they have them, nevertheless.

Mr. TARVER. Those laws are not generally enforced, are they? Mr. GIBSON. Not very adequaetly. Some States do a fairly good job. I do not want to leave the impression that all States are defunct in that respect, but in many States they do a very poor job.

For one thing, they have improperly trained inspectors, and improperly paid inspectors to maintain or to get the caliber of people that you have to have to compete with safety engineers, and that type of people. You need high-caliber people if you are going to do a constructive job in that field.

Their force is certainly inadequate in number and their training programs are in many cases insufficient.

I was talking to a group of inspectors one time, and one fellow said, "I have been on this job 4 years and this is the first time that I actually knew what my job was. They gave me a correction order and a copy of the law and said, 'Go out and inspect factories.'"

Then there is the question of political turn-over in States, and where they have no civil-service status these fellows, every couple of years, are changed and they never do get the proper amount of training or actually know how to do a good job of inspection.

Mr. KEEFE. On that question I would like to have the record show that in those States where they have workmen's compensation lawsand most States do-you will find a provision in those compensation laws which provides for the imposition of penalties in cases where the accident or injury results from a violation of the safety code adopted in the State; such as in my State.

Mr. GIBSON. Your State is one of the exceptions.

Mr. KEEFE. All right. But, if you want to go places, that is there, at least. So that the employer has a very distinct interest in seeing to it that his factory operation does comply with the safety regulations because they do not have, as you have already stated, Mr. Gibson, the trained force of inspectors in the States adequately to inspect and advise with employers. I have found that employers are hungry and anxious to accept the advice of volunteer organizations, insurance carriers, maintain inspection services, and so forth.

TRAINING OF INSPECTORS IN THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION

I thought at one time we were on the way to accomplishment in that direction and I have wondered why, with the large inspection force that you have in the Wage and Hour Division, the Department of Labor did not follow through on the suggestion which was made that they set up a training school for those inspectors. They started it, that I know. The wage-and-hour inspectors go into these plants. These men should be trained to make inspections and to give advice and to report back to the Bureau of Labor Standards, or whatever

86595 46-pt. 1-2

other bureau in the Labor Department they should report to, on the question of safety and sanitation..

I believe it would take a little time to educate these people, but, as I have observed them, these inspectors of the Wage and Hour Division are usually pretty competent men, and with the right kind of education they could learn to perform a very vital function in this field.

I recall bringing that to the attention of Secretary Perkins and I gathered the impression that a program had been set up by which trained factory inspectors were being developed, that they had started some classes in which they were going to train inspectors of the Wage and Hour Division. Then all of a sudden the project puffed out, due to some interdepartmental difficulty down there, where it was thought that the Wage and Hour Division was usurping some of the authority of the Bureau of Labor Standards.

What I am seeking to do is to get a job done. I do not care about anything else. I would like to see the Labor Department function in the field effectively, if it can be done. So far as my own State is concerned, I have not found anybody outside of Mr. Rabbitz and two or three other men that are intimately associated with it, who know anything about it. So far as industry is concerned, I cannot find anybody who knows anything about the Bureau of Labor Standards. They never heard of it, have had no contact with them, and so forth. And yet, if these fellows who are going into those plants all the time, making inspections periodically for the Wage and Hour Division, could be associated in some way with this effort, I think they could do a salesmanship job, because that is all the Division of Labor Standards has to do, anyway, a job of salesmanship, to carry this message out to the people.

Mr. KEEFE. I am offering that for your information, Mr. Secretary, for whatever it may be worth.

Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. There was an effort made to carry out the suggestion, but there was a great turn-over, during wartime, in the inspection service of the Wage and Hour Division, which was so great that it was very difficult to do not only the ordinary work, but to take care of this matter; and that is the reason why the work has not been carried through.

Mr. KEEFE. I am reoffering the suggestion, and I assure you that I shall continue to study it myself with the idea that ultimately it may be brought to fruition. It can be done; there is no doubt about that.

Mr. DODSON. The work is one that involves going over books, figures, and accounts. Safety inspection is in a foreign field, so to speak. The wage-and-hour inspectors have been trained, so far as we have been able to do so, in general safety; but where it gets down to the technical problem of the weight on a floor and the safety of elevators, they have to take on other people to do that kind of work, or we have to specialize a limited number of inspectors in the Wage and Hour Division in the technique of safety inspection.

Mr. KEEFE. You do not have enough in Labor Standards to do that work, either. With 9 or 10 men on the pay roll, how can you cover that field? That is done by the insurance companies.

Mr. DODSON. I am referring to the safety engineers from private industry whom we had available during wartime-wl.om we will have