« PreviousContinue »
That is the position of the American Federation of Labor on these three bills.
Mr. Brooks (presiding). Is that the full statement of Mr. Green?
Mr. Brooks. I want to ask you two or three questions with reference to your testimony here. You referred to the first bill here, about supervisory personnel. Suppose a man is elevated from the ranks, we will say, of employment to a supervisory position. Ordinarily does he lose his union affiliation?
Mr. Hines. I think I stated here, Mr. Chairman, that in some unions it depends upon the degree of promotion he receives. In the Typographical Union and the other printing-trade unions he must retain his membership. If he is what is commonly known as a foreman or supervisory employee, who works in and about the shop and at times works on the machines—in my own trade if he works on the machines he must retain his membership in the union.
Mr. BROOKS. What percentage would you say that bears to the whole industry!
Mr. Hines. That I am referring to now?
Mr. Hines. If you are talking about the unions in the American Federation of Labor—and I am not familiar with the practice in the Congress of Industrial Organizations I would say that it would include a very high percentage of those in what is known as the strawboss group, the foremen's group, and the supervisory employees' group.
Mr. BROOKS. After the man is elevated, suppose he loses his position as foreman, straw boss, or whatever you want to call him, and goes back into the ranks of labor again.
Mr. HINES. Yes.
Mr. Hixes. In the American Federation of Labor set-up he would be in the union; he would not have changed his membership at all.
Mr. BROOKS. Even though in some of the industries he has to suspend his affiliations in order to be in a supervisory capacity?
Mr. Hines. I would say yes. I feel pretty sure that he would go back into the union and retain the position he formerly held. If he had taken a withdrawal card out, he would deposit the withdrawal card and take up active membership again.
Mr. BROOKS. It has been testified here that there are areas in the country that are actually areas of surplus labor. For instance, someone said that the city of New York has a surplus of labor. Have you anything that you can give the committee for the record to indicate how it would be best to handle that problem, in the event it is the case ?
Mr. HINES. My suggestion would be to place contracts in those localities where there is a surplus of labor. I feel pretty strongly about this, because I have been closely associated with the problem. I think that the anthracite region of Pennsylvania, embracing several counties up there, and several fairly large cities, like Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Pottsville, and other towns, could very well use more contracts. I think there are plenty of available places where they could be used. That is just an example of what could be done, generally speaking, throughout the country.
I think that in the South, from my meager knowledge of the situation, they have not utilized Negro manpower and womanpower fully. I think the Negro could be very well used in industry to a greater extent than he is being used today.
Mr. BROOKS. Then you feel that someone has fallen down in the matter of placing contracts whereby we may gain 100 percent utilization of all the manpower!
Mr. HINES. I do not know whether I would like to use the term “fallen down." There may be an honest difference of opinion why the contracts have not been placed. I feel that they should be placed there, and I feel that someone is not giving the matter as serious consideration as he should. Maybe that is a better term.
Mr. Clason. In the New York area there are very few heavy industries; is that not so?
Mr. Hines. The heavy industries sort of center around Pittsburgh, for steel; Detroit, for automobiles; the west coast, of course, for aircraft, with considerable aircraft on the east coast as well. But I would say, in answer to your question, no, New York does not have the percentage of heavy industries to be found in other sections.
Mr. Clason. The industries which they have and which can be utilized for war purposes are pretty well supplied with contracts, are they not?
Mr. HINES. I do not think so. If there is a labor surplus in New York City--and I understand there is then they could use more contracts.
Mr. CLASON. What industries would be affected that way?
Mr. Hines. No, not necessarily. They make more than clothes. Now York is adjacent to Connecticut, which makes a considerable number of brass products, light machine tools, and light machine products. It seems to me that New York could employ a larger number of people at that type of work.
I might say this, if I may be permitted to do so: In my experience the employer has been too exacting, in many instances. I would suggest to the committee that it get someone qualified to speak on behalf of the United States Employment Service, someone who could tell the committee of the many instances in which employers have not cooperated with the United States Employment Service as a means of getting employees for their plants and as a means of helping to achieve a smooth flow of people into their plants. I should also like to have you ask some qualified research man if the employers have not been too exacting in the past and are not too exacting now in their qualifications. I know that that was my experience when I administered the employment service in the State of Pennsylvania. We found many employers who had requirements that were so high that, although we had people out of work, the employers would not employ them because the requirements were so exacting.
Mr. Clason. What effect would that have on cost? If you do not get high-grade labor, your cost is going to go up.
Mr. Hines. From what I see of cost, it is not important now. The way some employers are throwing money around on cost-plus contracts, you would not think it amounted to very much.
Mr. Clason. Do you not think that in the interest of the taxpayers it ought to be a matter of concern?
Mr. Hines. I am not concerned about the taxpayers at this moment; I am concerned about winning the war. If it is a little more expensive to get the work done, we can talk about taxes after a while.
Mr. Clason. Do you think that at the present time production is not going as fast as it should be to win the war?
Mr. Hines. Wait a minute; I would not say that. We are going to win the war. Let us start on that basis. When we shall win or how soon we shall win depends upon how fast we get out the production necessary to win. I think we could speed up a little more than we are doing now through the proper utilization of manpower and through the allocating of contracts where there is a surplus of manpower, and in other ways that would be more efficient.
Mr. Clason. You spoke of the case in Pennsylvania where 6,000 people were being let out of one plant where tanks were manufactured. It might be that they could be used in other places, 100 in one factory, 400 in another, and so on. Is that the responsibility of the manufacturer, or is that the responsibility of the persons handling the program of the Government?
Mr. Hines. I would say it is the responsibility of the persons handling the program for the Government. Here is another thing that we should be aware of. The building trades industry, I think, is going to slow
when many of the contracts it is working on at the present time are finished, and I think considerable thought should be given to how we can utilize those men who are bound to become idle when the building trades industry slows down.
Mr. Clason. The morning paper says that the machine tool industry will begin to show a shrinkage this week.
Mr. Hines. Somebody ought to be cognizant of this situation; I do not know who is. Maybe Mr. McNutt knows. He is pretty busy right now.
Mr. Clason. For the purpose of informing this committee, would you think that some Government officials could give us information on manpower that would be helpful! If so, whom would you suggest ?
Mr. HINES. Well, Mr. MeNutt is the logical person, but whether or not he is close enough to the situation is another question. He should bring along with him or be able to supply you with the names of persons who are familiar with this situation. That should include someone who is intimate with the workings of the local employment offices. They can give you a world of information about happenings in their particular localities and as to what employers are cooperating and what the employers are doing to try to utilize all the manpower and womanpower available in those localities.
Mr. Clason. What have you to say concerning the recent order of Mr. McNutt forcing 27,000,000 persons to remain in their present positions?
Mr. Hines. I would like to preface that answer by saying that I am not prepared at the moment. Mr. Green most likely will make an official statement. In my own opinion, it is going to add to the confusion, I think.
Mr. Clason. How would you view that particular set of regulations as compared with the Wadsworth-Austin bill?
Mr. Hines. How would I view the regulation?
Mr. Clason. Do you think it is a better way for the Government to proceed?
Mr. Hines. It is practically the same way, only to a limited degree.
Mr. CLASON. In other words, you feel that the Government has taken over the Wadsworth-Austin bill, in effect, already?
Mr. HINES. I would say to some extent, yes.
Mr. CLASON. If that is so, would you see any need for the Congress passing legislation, in view of the fact that the executive has already shown that it has the power to carry out the provisions of the law without having any such law?
Mr. Hines. I would say that that being the case, there does not seem to be any need of a further law. The Chairman of the War Manpower Commission apparently assumes that he has authority to go right ahead and do the things the Austin-Wadsworth bill provides shall be done.
Mr. CLASON. As far as that particular bill is concerned, do you see any special need for it under present conditions ?
Mr. HINES. No. Mr. Clason. Do you know very much about the anthracite industry? You mentioned it several times.
Mr. Hines. Yes; quite a bit.
Mr. CLASON. What is the tie-up between the railroads and the mine operators at the present time? Is there any real tie-up?
Mr. HiNEs. Oh, yes; the railroads own the anthracite mines, or the anthracite operators own the railroads, whichever way you want to term it.
Anthracite was discovered about 125 years ago. If I am incorrect, probably Congressman Fenton can straighten me out. It was hauled to the consuming centers by canals. The industry built the railroads, and you will find in many instances that the railroads parallel one another from the industrial centers to the populous centers.
Mr. Clason. What I have in mind is this: I come from the western part of Massachusetts, where there was a very serious fuel shortage during the past winter. It is my understanding that the anthracitemine operators and the railroads have brought about a sort of impossible situation in view of the fact that their interlocking responsibilities cause the mine operators to ship anthracite as far as they can on the railroads, which at the present time means Chicago, Detroit, and Canada, to the exclusion of the market in New England, which ordinarily would get the coal. Has that ever been brought to your attention ?
Mr. Hines. I know that many times the raili Jads have been accused of charging a higher tariff for coal than they do for stone, cement, or other products. It was advantageous to them to charge higher rates because everything went into the same pool. If there is a shortage of anthracite in New England, it is due perhaps to the railroad situation rather than to the mining situation, because anthracite production at the present time is considerably below what it was 15 to 18 years ago. We used to turn out, in round figures, 100,000,000 tons a year. Today if we get out 55,000,000 to 60,000,000 tons, we are doing pretty well. We employed 160,000 employees in 1925; today we have between 95,000 and 99.000.
I made a very interesting survey for the Governor of Pennsylvania back in 1925, 1926, or 1927, on the use of substitutes right up in your locality-New England. We delved into the oil question, the bituminous-coal question, coke, gas, and other substitutes. As a result of the survey, I came to the conclusion that the real problem in connection with the loss of anthracite markets was not necessarily the markets, but the decreased tonnage was brought about by the improvement in heating equipment. Less anthracite is used today than was used 20 years ago because the heating equipment has been improved. Oil has been a factor, of course. Gas has been a factor, too. But bituminous coal has been not so much a factor.
I remember that one of your Governors, Governor Fuller, at one time during a strike in Pennsylvania, told us that Massachusetts was not going to use any more anthracite in her State institutions after
strike was settled. He said Massachusetts was going to eliminate it entirely and was not going to be held up so often as a result of strikes in Pennsylvania. He said Massachusetts was going to use bituminous. As a gesture, he took 36 tons out of the executive mansion and distributed it to the hospitals and other institutions. When the strike was settled, New England was the first to holler for its quota and came right back into the market. Anthracite fuel is a good fuel. I might get that plug in here.
Mr. DURHAM. I gather from your statement, then, that you do not think there is any shortage of manpower in this country?
Mr. Hines. I do not say that there is no shortage of manpower. In some of the basic industries, such as shipbuilding, it appears that with the increased productivity in the building of ships there is a manpower shortage. But it is not nearly as acute as these people would indicate.
Mr. DURHAM. We have had evidence from Admiral Land that at the present time there is a shortage of 70,000, and that the shipbuilding industry expects to employ this year 750,000. Are we going to go along under present procedure and not get any ships?
Mr. HINES. I believe we can get manpower. While I am not an expert on employment matters in the shipbuilding industry, I believe that a plan can be worked out.
Mr. DURHAM. Are you working on it at this time?
Mr. HINES. Yes; our Mr. Frey has spent considerable time on the west coast. He is head of the metal trades department of the American Federation of Labor, and is working on that one problem.
Mr. DURHAM. We all admit, of course, that the most important things at the present time are food and ships, or ships and food.
Mr. Hines. I think you are right.
Mr. DURHAM. You mentioned a few minutes ago that you felt we were not using all the colored population. I happen to come from the South. If you can find anybody down there who is unemployed, I would like to know about it.
Mr. Hines. Maybe they all went up to Philadelphia. As far as the taxpayers in Pennsylvania are concerned, you can have a lot of