would be devoted to management and in the afternoon session we would give the same courtesy to the labor representatives. If there is any member of management who has a short statement, and he has a reason to get away, I will take him. But I think I ought to defer to the labor representatives as well. (Following is a letter subsequently received by a member of the subcommittee, relative to this subject:) Senator NORRIS COTTON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. GLOBE MANUFACTURING CO., DEAR NORRIS: Over the past 6 or 8 months I have been considering a letter to you. It seems inadvisable to procrastinate longer. To get to the point, the Jap goods are raising havoc with us. Over the past several years we have been tied up with a Boston firm, namely the Cable Raincoat Co., the largest producer of rainwear in the country. Our plant has been supplying them with most of their requirements in the rubber coated items. About 6 months ago, Mr. Robert Cable called me in to show me a Jap coat which had just come onto the market, so similar to his it was an exact replica and looked very much like it had been copied. In fact, we concluded that it had. This coat was being offered to the American retailer at $22.50 a dozen, compared to the Cable coat which was being sold close (meaning tight pricewise) to the retailer at $30 a dozen. This circumstance demanded immediate action by Cable Raincoat. The choice was to discontinue the manufacture of his rubber coat or to meet the competition. He chose the latter in order to keep his rubber coat on the market in an effort to drive the Jap goods out, which resulted in a very unprofitable operation for us both. Apparently, however, we made ourselves felt because now the Japs have come in with a cheaper coat, with which it is absolutely impossible for us to compete. The fact of the matter is, the Federal Government sets up minimum hourly rates and their policy is such as to encourage organized labor to strike for higher wages and increased benefits, which the businessman cannot absorb without reflecting in higher prices for his goods. This, in turn, pushes up our standard of living to the point where it is impossible for us to compete with many foreign markets importing into this country. No one realizes more than myself that we must promote foreign trade in order not to isolate ourselves for protection against communism. I am a believed in laissez faire but since the Government now is entrenched in interfering, it would seem to me that it was also their duty to protect. It is a foregone conclusion that small business is the success of our economy. Why allow us little fellows to be driven against the wall? Can't something be done immediately to control the situation? I would be most happy to talk with you sometime when you are in New Hampshire either here at the plant or at your office. Thanks for any consideration you are able to give this matter. We need relief. Warm good wishes. GEORGE E. FREESE, JR., President. VOICE. I have a short statement, but I am not in a hurry. But I only have a short statement. Senator PASTORE. Were you going to stay anyway? VOICE. Yes. Senator PASTORE. All right then. Our first witness, then, is Thomas J. Pitarys, president, New Hampshire AFL-CIO, and manager, Granite State Joint Board, TWUA, 19 Monroe Street, Nashua, N. H. STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PITARYS, PRESIDENT, NEW HAMPSHIRE AFL-CIO, AND MANAGER, GRANITE STATE JOINT BOARD, TWUA, NASHUA, N. H.; ACCOMPANIED BY EDDIE E. MARTEL, SUNCOOK, N. H., AND NASHUA, N. H. Mr. PITARYS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Thomas J. Pitarys. I live in Nashua, N. H. My office address as manager of the Granite State Joint Board of the TWUA is 666 Elm Street, Manchester, N. H. My job is to administer the operations of 20 local unions affiliated with the Textile Workers Union in the State of New Hampshire. In addition, I serve as president of the New Hampshire State AFL-CIO Labor Council with an affiliation of some 50,000 workers in many industries. The big Amoskeag mill closing in Manchester was before my time, but in the years following that great tragedy I saw what happened to a city when its principal place of employment closed its doors. I saw what happened and what did not happen to the people who worked in these giant old mills along the Merrimac. In my early days as a business agent in Nashua, I lived through the bitter, painful experience which was inflicted upon us here in the State when Textron took over the historic old Nashua Manufacturing Co. and then, a few years thereafter, liquidated the vast operations entirely. There were some 3,500 employees in the Nashua operation of the Nashua Manufacturing Co., with approximately 500 added employees in Suncook, when control passed to Textron in 1946. In 1949, when Textron was about to close down the entire operation in Nashua, you will recall that the late Senator Charles Tobey conducted the widely publicized investigation of that amazing transaction. The Textron techniques for achieving mergers on a financial shoestring and the Textron tax-avoidance schemes were quite new in those days. We in textiles did not relish then the notoriety that case gave us, nor did we realize that the practices which Textron used in that situation were later applied in various other situations in New England and elsewhere. Senator Tobey performed a great service by that Textron investigation. The searchlight he brought to bear on that situation did slow down the liquidation of the Indian Head and Blanket divisions, but did not prevent the eventual tragedy. In the years between 1946 and 1951, when the end finally came, the number of people employed in those parts had been reduced from the initial 3,500 to around 1,800. I would like to add here, Mr. Chairman, that that reduction was caused primarily when the company, at the investigation, had stated it was impossible for them to operate because of competition, and that, in their opinion and in their study, they found that some of the jobs were substandard and were not producing at full production. The union and its members united and cooperated with management. In some cases, the work assignment was increased as much as 100 percent, thus laying off some of the people from the respective jobs. However, the loss of those 1,800 jobs was a major economic catastrophe in Nashua; then the 800 workers in Manchester and 500 in Suncook and in the textile industry in New Hampshire. This was an economic setback from which we have not yet recovered either in the immediate locality or in the entire industry in the State. In terms of what happened to human beings, the pain and suffering, the privations and difficulties which that affair brought in its train are still keenly felt in many, many households. In none of the scores of mill closings in New Hampshire have we in the Textile Workers Union been able to make a really complete study, case by case, of the effects of this type of calamity. What happens whenever a plant closes down or drastically curtails is that our union becomes involved in all sorts of difficulties with other employers than those directly involved. Any liquidation, even on a small and remote plant somewhere in the State, at once creates difficulties for the union in every other mill in the region. The employers who remain in business become apprehensive or take advantage of the union's weakened bargaining position. All of this results in much greater demands upon the energies of the always understaffed labor organization, so that we actually become busier attempting to deal with fewer employers on behalf of fewer employees. The result of this kind of thing is that it becomes impossible to follow up what happens to all the people who were thrown out of jobs in the first place. This is a fact which we deeply regret because, from the cases which we have been able to keep track of and to observe, we know that the impact of any mill closing has a much wider and deeper effect on the people involved than is ever brought to the attention of the general public. The Tobey Textron hearings in 1949 were followed with the closest attention. This was true of the Nashua Manufacturing Co. workers, as well as thousands of others. There was deep gratitude for the stay of execution that the earlier (Tobey) Senate committee achieved. If this committee can help to bring about not only a postponement of any liquidations and, furthermore, bring forth some answers as how to stop altogether most of these plant closings, hundreds of thousands of textile employees will be more than appreciative. In February 1951, shortly after the last of the Nashua Manufacturing Co. workers were liquidated, there were 21,000 persons employed at textile jobs in New Hampshire. As of July 1958, we estimate the total of textile employees in the State is close to 12,700. In other words, 8,400 textile jobs have been lost in this State since 1951. Just short of 40 percent of the entire work force has been liquidated in those years. One tabulation prepared by the research department of our union shows that between 1946 and 1958 in this State alone 40 mills closed completely, causing the loss of 12,055 jobs. When one realizes that total employment in all manufacturing industries in New Hampshire was 78,300 in July 1958, it is easy to understand how serious an impact the shrinkage in textiles has in a State like this. Even today textile employment is 16.2 percent of all factory employment in New Hampshire. The research department of the Textile Workers Union of America have developed another table, which I hereby file with the subcommittee. This table gives another sidelight on our deplorable situation. Machinery in place in the woolen and worsted spinning mills in New Hampshire was reduced 69 percent and 59 percent, respectively, between 1939 and 1957. Later we shall file with this subcommittee a list giving dates, places, and products manufactured for all major mill closings in New Hampshire in the past several years. I have here such a list tabulating the closings in Vermont between 1946 and 1958. Senator PASTORE. That will be made a part of the record at this time. (The document referred to is as follows:) Wage and salary workers, in the textile mill products industry, New Hampshire, February 1951 and July 1958 February 1951: Textile_ July 1958: Textile All manufacturing----. Textile as a percentage of all manufacturing_- Decline in textile employment, Feb. 2, 1951-July 7, 1958: Employment 21, 100 12, 700 78, 300 16.2 Number_. Percent_ Textile machinery in place in New Hampshire, 1939, 1949, and 1957 8, 400 39.8 Source: Textile Workers Union of America, Research Department, New York, N. Y. Senator PASTORE. And you are going to file the others with us? They are very interesting figures and we would like to have them. Mr. PITARYS. I will, Mr. Chairman. The one other New Hampshire witness affected by the closing of textile mills who accompanies me here today will tell you gentlemen a story which is typical of the stories that could be told by thousands of other flesh-and-blood human beings who ordinarily appear before a congressional hearing only as statistics on a piece of paper. We know of many, many cases dramatizing the textile situation in New Hampshire which should have been brought before this subcommittee. But these people are afraid. They are not afraid of the subcommittee, but they are in terror of losing whatever kind of jobs they now hold no matter how substandard. They are fearful that by telling their stories in public they will make it harder for themselves to find jobs in the future. They are even afraid to jeopardize the jobs that their children or relatives may hold in other industries. Senator COTTON. May I ask you there, if you will forgive me for an interruption, what do you mean by that? That disturbs me, sounds like some other country than America. You mean they are going to antagonize employers? Mr. PITARYS. The employees, textile employees, have gathered such a fear, since the plants have liquidated in New Hampshire-I am speaking particularly of my experiences in Nashua and Manchester-that when they are fortunate enough to obtain employment in some of these substandard industries that are crowding our State, industries that pay the $1 minimum, that they are fearful that in the event they would come before a committee and testify in behalf of the textile industry, that could be misconstrued by an employer. They are apprehensive that they may jeopardize their position with their company. And the eventual action would be that the company would eliminate them. Senator COTTON. That is, they apprehend that danger. Obviously we haven't had any hearings here before. You don't have any examples, where any such retributions of such nature have been visited upon anyone? Mr. PITARYS. No, I actually can't, and I wish I could produce some witnesses here who, by talking union in a shop, especially our particular union, the employer would immediately say that if you take an interest in the union, you will only do one thing, by helping us move out of the city or liquidating our operation, therefore we can't stand for that type of talk. We have had people come to our union headquarters, and say that they were laid off, with no excuse but that there is no work. Senator COTTON. I don't want to make any controversy, but I mean obviously this hearing, is interested in trying to preserve and regain the textile industry and is not in any sense dealing with the question as between management and labor, or anything of that kind. It was hard for me to feel that there were any employers in the State of New Hampshire who would resent any person who had spent their life working in textiles, coming up before a committee trying to preserve an industry, that is all. Mr. PITARYS. I understand that. Senator PASTORE. Mr. Pitarys isn't saying that. I think what he is trying to bring out-whether he is justified or unjustified, I don't think |