« PreviousContinue »
Mrs. LUCE. What do you think will happen to girls who, in spite of their wishes, their family's wishes, are compelled to leave home! Would not the problem be even more serious ?
Dr. COLE. I think the problem need not be more serious, if it is provided for in advance. I do not feel that this particular phase should blind us to the fact that our major job is to get on with the war.
Mrs. Luce. Then you do think we might plan some on perfecting this part of the bill, to see that these women are protected ?
Dr. Cole. Obviously. I could not be a minister of any spiritual value without being concerned about this particular phase.
Mrs. LUCE. Let me ask you one question apart from this particular subject. You seem to indicate in your statement that only 3 percent of the war material went to China. Of course, I do not think the Wadsworth-Austin bill would affect that. May I ask you where you stoodrather, I would prefer not to ask you where you stood, but why you think so much of our scrap iron and oil went to Japan before Pearl Harbor ?
Dr. COLE. May I quote an address which I gave in Kings Chapel, in Boston, this month. When the very gracious Mme. Chiang Kaishek visited us in Wellesley and Boston, when she visited us in 1938, she said, “British appeasement, American profiteering, and French fear may mean that you will lose your chance." When she said that, we were not very receptive.
Mrs. LUCE. Of course, you are aware of the fact that the Gallup polls of that period showed that even then a majority of the American people were totally in favor of an embargo on scrap?
Dr. COLE. I fought for an embargo.
Mrs. LUCE. However, then, it was not possible, with the administration's policy. Now I am certain the Wadsworth-Austin bill would not change the ratio of materials going to China, as against that which was going to Europe.
Dr. COLE. May I interpose just this: I was not discussing it in terms of the ratio. One of the reasons why none of the allies have had enough materials is that we have not produced enough materials.
Mrs. LUCE. I am asking specifically about China. According to your own information, there was a limit to the amount of material which could be carried over the Burma Road, according to traffic experts whom we sent over there to study the question, and if we had had, as indeed we did have, a great deal of material which we might have sent to China, a certain amount only could have been carried over the Burma Road. Now, the Wadsworth-Austin bill will really not make it, I am very sorry to say, much easier to fly over the mountains of Burma than it is now. There may be more planes to fly over there, but it will still be just as difficult.
Dr. COLE. It won't be as difficult. It will be less difficult. If we had 10 times as many planes, if we had 10 times as much material, China would get a little more than 3 percent of what she has asked for. There would be a chance
Mrs. LUCE. You mean she might get 312 percent?
Dr. COLE. She might get 25 percent. I am allowing for the time period to make up for our lag in coming to a realistic compromise with this great problem. I do not feel this bill will solve all of our problems; I am thinking solely of the one of production.
Mrs. LUCE. May I repeat-you are in favor, if it should become necessary, of drafting all private means of transportation, all private homes, and also are in favor of studying very carefully the provisions of this bill which apply to conscripting the labor of women and sending those women far from home! Those things we agree about?
Dr. COLE. I would like to state this, if I may: I am in favor of every citizen having a chance to know what his specific obligations are in every area
Mrs. LUCE. I wish you would answer my question on what things we agree.
Dr. COLE. I shall be specific-in every area in which there is great need. This bill is not concerned with the conscription of private houses; it is not concerned with the conscription of transportation. I am simply stating I am in favor of this bill so that it will increase our production. Also, I want to win this war and, should it be necessary in other areas to be as realistic as this bill is, I would give that such consideration as I have tried to devote to this. I would be inclined to say at the moment-I am not inclined to say; I will say
I would put human life and spiritual values before that of comfort, of convenience, and of property.
The CHAIRMAN. The lady Mrs. Luce) does not know, perhaps, about the bill we passed authorizing the Maritime Commission, for instance, in order to take care of transportation, to take over all means of transportation where they wanted to, and the only limitation on it right now is that they cannot take over the general railroad situation. That is the only limit on it.
Mr. SPARKMAN. As I understand, you are not attempting to discuss the technical details of this measure at all?
Dr. Cole. I am not posing as a technical expert; I am discussing what seems to me to be the desirability of our coming to a deep conviction of the need of shortening the war, and that the American people would like to have a responsibility and would be willing to assume the responsibility-
Mr. SPARKMAN. As I understand, your general theme is that we need not be afraid of this bill from the standpoint of destroying our democratic system of government?
Dr. COLE. I would say that precisely. I would say we are not going to become a Fascist state because we have the Selective Service Act of 1940, which will, when the war is over, itself be out of existence. I am not fearful that we cannot hold onto our democracy when this war is over, if, meanwhile, we have voluntarily said, "Show us the job we have to do and give us a legal means of doing it.”
Mr. SPARKMAN. Of course, under the various orders issued by the War Manpower Commission, we already have a type of compulsory labor and you think compulsion, if there must be compulsion, as a result of legislative enactment, is certainly preferable to that of compulsion from administrative departments?
Dr. COLE. I would say so; decidedly. I would rather have Representatives and Senators of America, representing the people directly, pass the legislation, than to have any means used whereby coercion is employed without congressional and senatorial legality under an act.
Mr. SPARKMAN. You feel that the whole thing, summed up, is to the effect that we are in a total war and that whatever effort is necessary to win that total war we must be ready and willing to give to it!
Dr. COLE. I should say that; yes-whatever democratic method is necessary to take, we should take.
Mr. SPARKMAN. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson. Doctor, I wish you would address yourself to this problem: Is there any distinction between conscripting men to go out and work for a private employer who, under our law, has a right to make a reasonable profit, and taking a boy and putting him in the Army?
Dr. COLE. I have two boys. I would not feel that my boys are being discriminated against if one boy were in the Army by reason of the fact that his country said “You have a right and a duty," and my other boy worked in the Fore River Shipyard because his countrey said “You have a special aptitude in this particular field; this is where you can do your best job for the country, and where you will find the greatest satisfaction.” I think Rice would be receiving the same basic treatment as Philip.
Mr. JOHNSON. In other words, you think the principle involved is identical, then?
Dr. COLE. I think it is the identical principle. I grant you it is a new measure, but this is a new kind of war. This is the first time I have had to have an air raid shelter in my church. It is a new kind of war, involving all of us.
Mr. Johnson. I think we all agree that we want to win the war. It is just a matter of what steps we can take to bring that end about quickly.
Now, you cited several individuals, I think, who stated we were only one-third mobilized, or 40 percent mobilized. You realize, of course, that is purely one man's opinion, do you not? .
Dr. COLE. I recognize that. And, in medical cases, competent doctors disagree on å precise diagnosis. I realize we have not made a complete study of the manpower situation, that we do not have the figure broken down in percentage; but I do feel that all studies like the Baltimore survey, studies by practical and competent experts, do indicate pretty clearly that we are not mobilized in proportion, nowhere near mobilized in proportion to Great Britain. And the ratio may be 30 or 40 percent, but I think differences in fractions need not concern us. The main thing is we are not now doing the job we could do.
Mr. Johnson. I think everybody agrees to that, but what would you conceive to be total mobilization? What is your general idea on that?
Dr. COLE. I would say that when Admiral Land builds as many ships as he needs to build, when we build enough tanks and planes to satisfy our armed forces, when our allies' commitments are met, that we probably have done what we need to do. I would not be in a position to give precise figures, and I do not think that is my obligation.
Mr. Johnson. Regarding the embargo on scrap iron, did you make any comments on that in 1938 ?
Dr. COLE. Yes. One of the representative members of my parish, Mr. Olinger, and I worked for quite a considerable period on that very struggle. I was deeply concerned. I worried about the boys in
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks that is a little foreign to the issue, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is all.
Mr. STEWART. Doctor, I came in a little later, but did I understand that you are the pastor of the Old North Church
Dr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. STEWART. Speaking of your predecessor, I just want to make this observation, that a layman may have hung the lanterns in the Old North Church, but you rung the bell. [Laughter.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The next witness is Mr. Otis A. Pendergras. Will you state your qualifications, whom you represent, and tell us, as briefly as you can, just what you think about this legislation ? STATEMENT OF OTIS A. PENDERGRAS, FOREMAN, DELCO-REMY
DIVISION OF GENERAL MOTORS, ANDERSON, IND. Mr. PENDERGRAS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will only take a very few minutes to tell what I have to say.
I am Otis A. Pendergras and I am foreman of department No. 215 of the Delco-Remy Division of General Motors Corporation at Anderson, Ind. My home is at 724 East Thirty-first Street, Anderson, Ind., and I have lived in that community all my life.
In 1925, when I was 17 years old, I started to work for Delco-Remy. Before that time, I drove a grocery truck. I started on an assembly line at 30 cents per hour and, in less than a year, I was promoted to a group leader. On this job, I was in charge of about 35 people. My duties were to see that these operators were properly instructed, that they were supplied with stock, to see to it that the benches were kept clean and orderly, and to see that the machines were set up properly to get as many pieces through this group and attain the highest standard of quality possible; also, to report all questions or differences to my foreman.
In 1929 I was promoted to assistant foreman. My duties were much broader. I was now a part of the management. I helped to organize the personnel of this department, placed the operators on jobs that were best suited to them, and saw to it that we had the right men as instructors.
In 1938 I was promoted to department foreman. I now had charge of the assembly department in which I had started to work as an operator. Long before this I had made up my mind that I liked the work and that I was going to go as far in this kind of work as possible. At this time the factory manager, also my direct superior the superintendent, both of them, had started on the bench as operators, just as I had. If they could do those things, there was no reason why I could not.
I believe the system under which I have worked is the American way. If you have the initiative, the will to do, the know-how, and know how to treat people fairly, you do not need any union to bargain for you. There is no limit as to how far you can go.
In February 1941 I was promoted to a machining department in the same capacity as when I was in the assembly. I say promoted," because it is generally understood that a machining job is a tougher assignment. We have such machining jobs as gear shaping; gear
hobbing; external, internal, and surface grinding; light milling; heat treating of steel, using both electric and gas furnaces. I have 180 people in this department. I have people who belong to the union and some that do not. In helping men iron out their difficulties and settling their problems, I approach them all alike. Only in this way could I represent management, of which I am a part, presenting management problems to the people and the problems of the people to the management, and do this in as fair a way as I can.
Up to now, I have settled the grievances of my people satisfactorily to them and to my superiors, with only one grievance going into writing and sent to higher management to be settled. Now, if I belonged to a union, I do not see how I could be fair to both the union and to management, of which I am a part.
As to my duties as a foreman, I have to see to it that we have enough help, manpower, to get the needed production; to see to it that I have the equipment and tools and also see to it that this equipment and tools are kept in good shape; to see to it that I have capable men to instruct the operators; that the operators work in a safe way; that ihe operators work is done right; that our production meets the required specifications. I also see to it that management gets a fair day's work from each operator, and also see to it that the operators are treated fairly by management.
Now, these functions and differences that come up in my department, I believe, should be settled by people right in the department where they arise; because the operators, and myself as a part of manage ment, should and do know more about them than anybody on the outside. If I belong to a union, I do not see how I could settle these difficulties in a fair way in the interest both of the operators and management. If I belong to a union, I would also answer to a third party. an outside party, and I do not see how I could serve two masters.
Now, I have no objections to foremen belonging to organizations. As a matter of fact, I am president of a foremen's social organization in the particular plant in which I work. But I do not think foremen should belong to bargaining organizations, my principal reason being that it is beyond my understanding as to how a man can be a part of management and then join a collective bargaining organization for the purpose of bargaining with management. What it finally resolves itself to is a matter of one actually bergaining with one's self. I just do not see how this can be done.
That is all I have to say. If you gentlemen have any questions, I will try to answer them.
The CHAIRMAN. I just want to get a little clarification on your position. This concern you are employed by as a foreman is a subsidiary of General Motors?
Mr. PENDERGRAS. That is right; yes, sir.
Mr. PENDERGRAS. No; it makes part of your trucks, tanks, airplanes
The CHAIRMAN. They are engaged in war work?
Mr. COSTELLO. You feel, then, that foremen generally are a part of management !