Coast Guard Reserve, and as such they are obligated to fulfill duties. as prescribed by the President of the United States.

Are these men to be permitted to join unions? And if they do join unions, will they not face a conflict of loyalties in the event of industrial disputes? Can a plant guard reasonably be expected to fulfill his responsibility to his employer, to faithfully patrol and protect the war production plant entrusted to his care, if his union orders him out on strike?

A rather interesting example of the confusion in respect to a guard's duties, which occurs when he has divided allegiance, took place in one of our shipyards. One night a guard who was a union member, though not in the bargaining unit for the yard, found a man away from his post sleeping. It is, of course, the guard's duty to report such an instance at once, but this guard, who had joined the union, instead telephoned the business agent of his union to ask whether or not the case should be reported to the company. Sometime later on, the business agent mentioned the incident at a Labor Relations Board conference; as a matter of fact, the guard never had reported the matter, apparently being confused between the duties of his job and his loyalty to another union member.

Timekeepers and counters comprise another employee group which we presume this bill would exclude from union membership. Like guards, these men are every day handling confidential information, and their duties are in all respects a phase of management.

You may be interested to know what the recent developments are with respect to union organizational drives among management groups in the Bethlehem organization.

In our coal mines, as throughout the coal-mining industry, the United Mine Workers Union is now demanding that all supervisors up to the rank of mine superintendent be forced into the union.

At two of our steel plants and in one shipyard, the Labor Board has ordered and conducted elections among the guards. In one of the steel plants, located at Los Angeles, the petition for guards was filed by the United Steelworkers of America, the same union that represents the production employees. The union lost that election.

In the other steel plant, at Lackawanna, N. Y., where the production employees are also represented by the C. I. O. steelworkers' union, the A. F. of L. filed the petition, with the guards to be in the Machinists Union. The union won that election. In the shipyard in Baltimore, where the election for guards was held, the union lost the election.

The C. I. O. shipbuilders' union is now conducting an organizing drive among the guards at another Bethlehem shipyard at Baltimore and has filed a petition with the Labor Board for an election. The C. I. O. Steelworkers' Union is also conducting an organizing drive among guards at our Johnstown, Pa., plant.

Among other parts of the management group the C. I. O. Shipbuilders' Union has won a Labor Board election of timekeepers at our Staten Island yard and has filed petitions for elections for the piecework counters at two yards located in Baltimore.

Now, suppose that after considering the bill now before your committee, Congress does not pass it. That is, of course, going to be construed as giving approval to the unionization of a large section of the management group.

To further illustrate the effect of permitting the unionization of these employees, let us consider the position of the foremen. Suppose that these men who are the direct supervisors of the employees actually on the production front, join labor organizations. They can either (1) join the same union as employees, or (2) join some other union.

If a foreman joins the same union as the men who work for him, the normal relationship between employees and management immediately disappears. When there is work to be done, someone has to direct it. It cannot be overstressed that to men in the ranks the foreman is the supervisor. When foremen join unions, supervision to a very real extent passes out of the picture.

In the disputes, the grievances, that are bound to arise, who is there to speak for management? Will the foreman, a member of the same union as his men, be likely to take the management's side in the dispute? Will he be guided by union or management policy? Then suppose that the foreman finds himself not in sympathy with the policies of his union, cannot make himself go along with the union policies? This condition would, of course, lead straight to union disputes, promote strikes, strikes to have the foreman removed.

Now, suppose a foreman does not join the union to which his employees belong, but joins a rival union. His men are going to resent his choice of the rival union; he is likely to be placed under organizational pressure. The men will be constantly on the lookout for grounds on which to charge the management with discrimination. Jurisdictional conflicts will arise, with strikes called to force recognition of one of the warring unions against the other.

Under either of the two above conditions, any effort by management to maintain production schedules, to exact any kind of standards of workmanship or output, are certain to lead to failure and a consequent loss of production.

Consider still another alternative. Suppose a good many of the foremen and plant guards prefer not to join any union, and do not join. Then there will be pressure-a great deal of it. There will be drives, there will be organizational strikes. There will be attempts to show that a foreman avoids difficulty and gets on most successfully if he belongs to a union. And there will be, no less certainly, losses in production of the war materials for our fighting men.

I have tried to indicate why I feel that it is so important that Congress enact this proposed legislation. Foremen and other supervisory employees have always been an integral part of management. Divided management would be a brake on war production, with a consequent far-reaching slowing up of the whole war effort.

I therefore most earnestly and respectfully urge the passage of

H. R. 2239.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Durham?

Mr. DURHAM. I have no questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harness?

Mr. HARNESS. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fenton?

Mr. FENTON. I have none, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clason?

Mr. CLASON. Your organization employs about 275,000 workers? Mr. LARKIN. That is right.

Mr. CLASON. They are scattered all over the United States? Mr. LARKIN. They are scattered all over the United States; yes, sir. Mr. CLASON. Do you have any difficulty in securing employees for your different plants?

Mr. LARKIN. Well, we have difficulty, but we have been able thus far to get sufficient employees with our training methods to keep our production up to practically 100 percent.

Mr. CLASON. Do you employ women as well as men?

Mr. LARKIN. We are now employing women in jobs that they can fit into.

Mr. CLASON. Do you find that their work is satisfactory?

Mr. LARKIN. We do.

Mr. CLASON. With respect to the securing of additional employees, I would like to have your opinion as to the need of a compulsory system at this time.

Mr. LARKIN. Well, Mr. Clason, I think the only answer I can give to that-that is a pretty broad question-is that whatever is necessary to further war effort should, I think, be done. If it will take compulsory legislation to do it, I think it should be done.

Mr. CLASON. At the present time you are getting along on a voluntary basis?

Mr. LARKIN. Up to the present time, so far as our organization is concerned, we have been able to man our industry by bringing in untrained people and training them to do the jobs that they are required to do.

Mr. FENTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CLASON. Yes.

Mr. FENTON. Is it not true, Mr. Larkin, that you advertise a great deal in newspapers throughout the country for workers?

Mr. LARKIN. That is right, sir.

Mr. FENTON. I have noticed that up in the anthracite coal region you advertise in the local papers for workers, and, of course, they go where they get the money.

Mr. LARKIN. Yes.

Mr. FENTON. Regardless of whether or not it is depleting the mining industry.

Mr. LARKIN. We have also worked out an arrangement-I presume it has been done elsewhere-with the United States Employment Service in our Bethlehem district to furnish them with our requirements for help, to place our men at their disposal, our advertising facilities, and so on, and they in turn have combed the district among the so-called nonessential activities and have urged the people to come into our war plant activities. We have had a cooperative relationship there which has been very helpful.

Mr. FENTON. That is all.

Mr. CLASON. At the present time, at any rate, there is no need for any compulsory system to furnish your company, at least, with employees?

Mr. LARKIN. Well, at the present time, as I say, we have been able to maintain maximum production with the employees we have by stepping up their working time and putting on all the effort we can to bring in untrained people and train them in our organization. Mr. CLASON. They are working overtime?

Mr. LARKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLASON. Is their overtime production satisfactory?

Mr. LARKIN. Production is satisfactory.

Mr. CLASON. When they work more than the base number of hours, they work just as satisfactorily on the overtime?

Mr. LARKIN. They work whatever time is necessary to maintain maximum production.

Mr. CLASON. Do you think that the number of hours they work at present is the limit of the number of hours they could work satisfactorily without injury to the employees?

Mr. LARKIN. I do not think the hours they are now working, sir, are detrimental in any way to health or safety.

Mr. CLASON. As far as you know, if it is necessary to get additional manpower, it would be possible to extend the hours of labor?

Mr. LARKIN. Well, within limits. I suppose that is true.

Mr. CLASON. How many hours are they working now?

Mr. LARKIN. Well, they are working whatever the operations require up to 48 hours; and in some cases in our shipyards in excess of 48 hours. Mr. CLASON. So far as pay is concerned, is your pay in excess of that of your competitors or is it on the same basis?

Mr. LARKIN. I Would say the pay in the shipbuilding industry has been stabilized through a governmental activity, the Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee, which works with the Government procurement department, the unions, and the employers. We have had in effect for a period of a year and a half a stabilization agreement, the intent of which was to stabilize working conditions and wages throughout the industry. So much for the shipyards.

As for the steel plants, the normal competitive situation, of course, has undoubtedly brought about an evening of rates in the industry, certainly among the larger companies.

Mr. CLASON. What about the coal mines?

Mr. LARKIN. In the coal mines the wages are fixed by contract, and they are uniform throughout.

Mr. CLASON. Do you employ as many workers in your coal mines now as you did a year ago?

Mr. LARKIN. I am sorry I have not the figures here, but my recollection is that at the time they went to the 6-day week the manager of our coal mines told me they were short about a thousand employees from what they considered a normal force.

Mr. CLASON. Are you employing more than you would normally employ in all your operations?

Mr. LARKIN. Oh, yes.

Mr. CLASON. That is true of the mines as well as of the other plants? Mr. LARKIN. It is not true of the mines; that is the only place where probably the force is subnormal.

Mr. CLASON. In your opinion, why is it that you are losing men from the mines? Is it due to lower wages?

Mr. LARKIN. The only statements I have seen with respect to that is that the draft is taking them. Maybe they are going into other lines of activity.

Mr. CLASON. How does their pay compare with what your men obtain in other lines of activity with Bethlehem?

Mr. LARKIN. I do not know; it depends on what the other line of activity is.

Mr. CLASON. And what a man's capabilities are?

Mr. LARKIN. Yes; what his capabilities are.

Mr. CLASON. Mr. McNutt has said that he feels he can handle the situation, so far as manpower is concerned, without injury to the war effort, on a voluntary basis. Based upon your relations with this very large organization, what would you say?

Mr. LARKIN. Of course, I think it is a matter for Congress to determine, but I would say that I would do whatever was necessary as it develops to make sure that nothing interfered with war production. Mr. CLASON. At the present time is there any need for any compulsion, in your opinion, in the securing of employees for Bethlehem? Mr. LARKIN. Well, I can only speak for our own organization. As I say, we are maintaining maximum production with the employees we now have.

Mr. CLASON. Do you foresee, on any contracts you have entered into, any need for greater production than you are now securing?

Mr. LARKIN. We are building a new shipyard on the west coast for the Government. It has not yet gone into operation, but it is going to require additional employees. As to what will be available in the labor market, that has not yet been determined.

Mr. CLASON. In any of your plants have you laid off any persons or employees during the last 2 or 3 months?

Mr. LARKIN. Not in our steel plants or shipyards, I would say. There was a time when there was a shift in the emphasis from light steel products to heavy steel products in one of our plants, where, for instance, tin-plate production was affected, when there was a lay-off. That was several months ago. I think that in the meantime those men have been absorbed in other divisions in the plant very largely. Mr. CLASON. Your company is a wholly integrated company, so it does not have to rely upon subcontractors to furnish it with necessary supplies in any great amount?

Mr. LARKIN. On the contrary, Mr. Clason, we have relied upon subcontractors to a very great extent and they have done a swell job.

Mr. CLASON. Then, in other words, you have not been held up, up to the present time, either by your own organization's needs or by any of your contractors' in securing materials necessary to carry out your contracts?

Mr. LARKIN. Well, that would be beyond my personal knowledge. I do not think it has been serious.

Mr. CLASON. Then, the war effort, so far as Bethlehem is concerned, has been going ahead on pretty nearly a 100-percent basis? Mr. LARKIN. It has, sir.

Mr. CLASON. That is all. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Short?

Mr. SHORT. Mr. Larkin, your position is that when a foreman joins a union he loses, certainly to some degree, his independence? Mr. LARKIN. That is correct.

Mr. SHORT. His loyalties become divided?

Mr. LARKIN. That is right.

Mr. SHORT. No longer is he able to perform the natural and necessary functions of his office?

Mr. LARKIN. That is right.

Mr. SHORT. Should that occur, we would have a serious shortage in production?