« PreviousContinue »
many other things in this bill besides that one sentence in section 4 that I have talked about. For example, there are the subjects of feather-bedding, full crew, and union tools.
Mr. Martin. This is a rather technical bill; is it not?
Mr. CLARK. Well, if you would call things by the names that most people call them, I am not sure that it would be. You know what feather-bedding is.
Mr. MARTIN. To a Member of Congress who is just an Iowa farm boy, plunging headlong into the study of national defense is one thing; but to bring in on the heels of that a very technical bill in the field of labor, of which I know nothing, leaves me with quite a struggle to understand just where your statement bears on a general bill or how far you go with it.
Mr. CLARK. Perhaps I could do it in this way. The manpower question is the concern of this particular committee. The efficient and economic utilization of our manpower is certainly one of the most pressing of the problems that confront this country today. There are in this bill certain provisions that to my mind go directly to the problem of the most efficient use of all the manpower we have available. We must divide it among the armed forces, the industrial forces, and the agricultural forces. Here is a bill, as I see it, that attempts to cure, change, and improve certain practices that have grown up in labor, and to put a brake, for the period of the war only, as I read it, on the utilization of manpower as it has grown up in this country. It seeks to stop those things that impair the most efficient utilization of manpower.
Mr. MARTIN. Your testimony is confined to the coal business and to the labor relationship of that business, as to whether foremen should be allowed to organize, and you confine it largely to the point that they are part of management ?
Mr. CLARK. I say to you that the organization of the supervisory forces in and about a coal mine will make for less efficient utilization of manpower in the coal mine. We are short of manpower in the coal industry. This bill will make for efficient utilization of it, and it will make for an increased production of coal by the men who are available to work in the mine." That is my honest conviction.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I understand that there is present, representing the anthracite producers, a very capable attorney, so these legal questions may be developed through him in a few minutes.
Mr. FENTON. Mr. Clark, I appreciate everything you have said here, together with the testimony that was given yesterday by Mr. Battle and Senator Burke. I am just wondering if this particular item we are discussing here today is germane to this bill. I think it is unfortunate that this bill is brought in at this time, on account of the negotiations that are going on at the present time between the mine workers and the operators, because I understand that this is one of the controversial points being discussed in New York.
Mr. CLARK. That is right.
Mr. FENTON. If this is germane to this particular bill, are any of the other points under discussion germane to this bill!
Mr. CLARK. I think there are some other points in this bill that are germane, that would affect some of the demands that the union has made public; for instance, the reduction of the number of shifts
per day. Certainly that would reduce coal production in some very vital spots. It would affect particularly the production of specialpurpose coal-byproduct coking coal and metallurgical coal. I thought when I read this bill that subsection (6) in section 3 applied to them. Mr. Lewis has made the demand that there be standardization of the crews. I think that is a full-crew bill, and I would be very much surprised if Mr. Lewis wants to reduce the number of men on those machines. I think he wants to increase them, but I do not know; I have not participated in the negotiations up there. The question of union materials, supplies, and tools, which is in one of those provisions of a subsection of section 3, is also demanded by Mr. Lewis in this conference. Mr. FENTON. What about the increase in the wage rate?
Mr. CLARK. I do not find anything in H. R. 2239 that pertains to that.
Mr. FENTON. I think that that has just as much to do with the manpower situation, as far as the morale of the workers is concerned, as this particular item.
Mr. CLARK. I would not think so.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask a question. If you pay a man $7 a day to work for you and you then increase the rate to $9 a day, will not that man sometimes have enough money at the end of 4 days to quit for the other 2 days of the week?
Mr. CLARK. They do quit now on $7 a day, Mr. Chairman; I will say that very definitely.
Mr. Johnson. If you reduce it to $3 a day, do you think that would help their working conditions?
The CHAIRMAN. No; I did not say that. I said that increasing it gave a man so much in his pocket on Thursday evening that he would figure he could go over the other 2 days of the week without hurting himself very much.
Mr. JOHNSON. I think that is irrelevant.
Mr. FENTON. Mining is the most hazardous occupation in the world. I do not think that is a fair question.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead with your questions.
Mr. JOHNSON. Approximately how many of the men in your mines are under 38 years of age?
Mr. CLARK. I cannot answer that question, because I do not remember the figures; but a substantial number of them.
Mr. JOHNSON. Would it be half of them?
Mr. Johnson. Do these various types of men to whom you have referred mine foremen, and the like-participate in the employee benefits under the Pennsylvania laws, such as the Workmen's Compensation Act?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, they do.
Mr. JOHNSON. In other words, they receive the same benefits, as far as welfare acts are concerned, as the other employees?
Mr. CLARK. Well, I participate in them, and I am president of the company.
Mr. JOHNSON. Are you eligible for workmen's compensation?
Mr. CLARK. If I were injured in the course of my duties; that is my understanding of our law.
Mr. Johnson. Do you mean that if you made a trip down into the mine and got hurt, you would enjoy workmen's compensation benefits?
Mr. Clark. That is my understanding of the law. I will admit that I never knew of a case where it happened; but that is my understanding.
Perhaps Mr. Fenton, who is from Pennsylvania, would know that.
Mr. JOHNSON. In what way is the situation of your mine foremen different with respect to their relationship to their employer than that of shop foreman in railroad yards!
Mr. CLARK. My trouble is that I do not know enough about what shop foremen in railroad yards do to be able to make a comparison. I do know this
Mr. JOHNSON. Is it a fact that the shop foremen do have a union?
Mr. JOHNSON. The conductor is in charge of the train and the whole crew; is he not?
Mr. CLARK, Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to have your version of how the situation of the mine foreman differs from that of the conductor of a railroad train,
Mr. CLARK. I do not think a conductor has very much to do with the wages or supervision, any more than to have carried out the few rules or duties on the part of the brakeman. It is altogether different from operations in a coal mine. The foremen I am talking about spend our money.
Mr. JOHNSON. When the conductor is on a trip with his train, he really represents the railroad owners, does he not, in directing the operations of the train?
Mr. CLARK. He does; but I think the scope of his direction is very limited.
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, do you think that the relationship between the conductor and the railroad owners is different from the relationship between your people and the owners?
Mr. CLARK. Yes.' I think there is a great deal more responsibility and managerial functioning in our supervisory forces than there is in the conductor of a train, as I know what his duties are.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is what you brought out for us this morningdetailed operations. Do all your foremen work on a wage scale, or do they work on a piece basis?
Mr. CLARK. These foremen are paid salaries, as a rule. Some of these supervisory men, when you get down to watchmen, if they are
supervisory men, are usually paid an hourly rate or a daily rate. The assistant foremen are usually paid monthly salaries.
Mr. JOHNSON. You have read the bill here?
Mr. JOHNSON. Of course, as far as your personal inclination is concerned, I assume you would like to hold in your mines as many competent men as you can. In other words, you do not want to have your mines depleted by withdrawals for the military service!
Mr. CLARK. My feeling has always been that someone other than myself had to settle that question. Somebody has to say how many men are needed in the Army, and somebody has to say how many men are going to be left for industry. It is not a matter for the individual. Personally I would like to have as many men as we can have, producing as much coal as we can produce.
Mr. JOHNSON. I understand that, but your responsibility is to run mines successfully; is not that correct?
Mr. CLARK. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have a system of applications for deferment when men are withdrawn?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. You have a regular form that you fill out for those men when the Army proposes to withdraw them?
Mr. CLARK. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. The basis of that is that their operations and work are essential to the national war effort ?
Mr. CLARK. That is right.
Mr. JOHNSON. So your main object is to try to create a situation wherein the situation will be the best; is not that correct?
Mr. CLARK. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. Is not your main interest in this bill not a military interest but the fact that you think certain practices are derogatory of the efficient management of your mines?
Mr. CLARK. That is right; but I know that men are going to be taken from our mines into the military forces. They have been taken, and they are going to continue to be taken up to a point. But I want the ones who are left to work under the circumstances that make for the most production of coal, because I think that this country needs coal for its war effort-I am sure it does.
Mr. Johnson. I am not quarreling with your viewpoint; I am trying to get what that viewpoint is. Your main objective is not as much concerned with the men going into the Army as it is with having as many men as you can get and having them work efficiently and in a capable manner?
Mr. CLARK. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. Do you believe that the rules which you suggested, which would incorporate branches of management in the labor union, would be derogatory of the effective operation of the mines?
Mr. CLARK. I believe they would.
Mr. CLARK. That is correct. It seems to me that it fits right in with the Selective Service Act, because you cannot look at one without looking at the other. You cannot say that there should be an Army of 20,000,000 men if enough men are not left in the country to support
Mr. JOHNSON. Of course, the selective service is intended for the drafting of younger men?
Mr. CLARK. Yes.
Mr. Martin. Now that we are on a military question, I am a little more at home. I have always been in favor of “work or fight” in wartime; but I do not look at this bill as a work-or-fight bill. Another general principle that I have always followed has been not to legislate large bodies of law violators into the armed forces. I am having a little difficulty in taking section 2 and section 7 of H. R. 2239 and seeing this bill as anything less than legislation that makes one who atetmpts to organize, a violator of a law under section 7 for his efforts to organize under section 2 and to turn all such men over to Selective Service, apparently with the hope that they will be taken en masse into the service. You are running counter to two or three rather fundamental military principles that I think need a little attention, either by you or some of the other proponents of this bill. I do not want to be placed in the position of legislating a whole group of Jaw violators into the armed forces as such.
The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt you, Mr. Martin? I have been trying for some time to get a lawyer up here.
Mr. MARTIN. This will be a little preview of what I will want him to explain. I am giving him a little forewarning that I am trying to get this question cleared up.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark.
STATEMENT OF WALTER GORDON MERRITT, NEW YORK, N. Y.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Merritt, we will hear from you at this time. Be as brief as you can, because the House will be in session in a few minutes. State your name, your business, your residence, and what your interest in this bill is.
Mr. MERRITT. My name is Walter Gordon Merritt. My office is at 40 Wall Street, New York City. My New York City residence is the Hotel Carlyle, Seventy-sixth Street and Madison Avenue.
I have been counsel for the anthracite industry for nearly 20 years. I was caught down here yesterday on other matters and was asked to appear here and register the attitude of the anthracite industry toward certain particular provisions of this bill. The only provisions I have in mind are those provisions which relate to prohibitions upon the supervisory forces joining labor unions and to any concerted action or threats designed to coerce employers to deal collectively with labor organizations, and including such supervisory forces in their group.
Very briefly, the industry for which I speak is, I think important in. the war effort. It produces upward of 60,000,000 tons of anthracite a year. There have been threatened shortages. We are being certified in every respect as important to the war effort. We are confronted, as is the bituminous industry, with the demands of the mine workers to radically change our relations by including within the collective bargaining unit the supervisory forces. We know that if these supervisory forces join the union, the efficiency of the mines will be reduced very much, particularly if they join a union which is the