Mr. BOND. The procedure in connection with claims is as follows: The applicant arrives at a local office and either wishes to file a claim for unemployment compensation or secure a job. Every interviewer or claims-taker at the counter has a list of current job openings. If the qualifications of the worker appear to match a job which is available the worker is referred to the job. If the worker refuses to accept referral to a job opening the claims examiners are advised of this fact and they make the proper determination as to the claimant's status. Mr. KEEFE. What about the Houston office?

Mr. BOND. I can speak directly of the Houston office.

The claimant goes to a counter and is received by an interviewer. Every interviewer has a list of job openings. If the man is a carpenter, a sheet-metal worker, or a bricklayer he is referred to a job before his claim is filed, if there is a job open for which he is qualified. There is not a chance in the world of a claimant coming in to this office and filing a claim without being referred to a job if there is any demand for men of his skill.

Mr. ENGEL. Suppose a man comes in and says that he wants a job in a grocery store or a dry-goods store and you have no application or no such opening, do you refer him to some other job?

Mr. BOND. When a man comes in we try to refer him to the job for which he is best qualified. If there is no opening calling for a man of his regular skill we refer him to another job for which he is also qualified.

In connection with the advertisements the shipbuilding company ran in the newspapers-the Houston Shipbuilding Co. and the Brown Shipbuilding Co., and others, have very close working relationships with the Employment Service. These advertisements are run because we ask them to run them. We recruit the workers for them. We screen them out.

The men are first interviewed by skilled interviewers in the Employment Service. Those who qualify for the job will be sent to the employer, or his representative, who is then in the employment office.' He hires them on the spot. That saves the worker an extra trip to the shipbuilding company. They report right to work from the employment office.

Mr. KEEFE. Judge Hake, of Tennessee, testified before this com

mittee

we hammered on the Manpower Commission, claiming that they were not doing a complete replacement job, and the Manpower Commission has conceded that our point was well taken. I will say for Tennessee that they are doing a better job than they were, because they are getting more people and they are referring them now to less essential jobs than they were 4 or 5 months ago.

The complaint has been made. I have been in constant contact with the Unemployment Compensation directors of the country. It is rather strange that there has been almost unanimous opinion among these men charged with the direction of unemployment compensation throughout the country that in many States-in many, many officesthe emphasis has been placed upon war industries to the utter exclusion of placement in nonessential industry, with the result that a person who is out of a job, and who seeks employment in a nonessential industry, is not referred to employment, and it is necessary to pay that person unemployment compensation until such time as he has been referred. That is the situation which is not clear to me.

Mr. NICKERSON. We have encouraged our State directors to work closely with the Unemployment Compensation people.

We have recognized that in a tight labor market it is a crime to pay claims to anyone who will not work.

Mr. KEEFE. You are aware of the fact that it was the subject of a grand-jury investigation in Baltimore-and the grand jury investigated the payment of these moneys?

Mr. NICKERSON. I have recognized that it is not an easy task. I recognize that all matters between the Unemployment Compensation Commission and the Employment Service will not be satisfactorily settled on a local level. We have said to them: If you have any cases where you are dissatisfied with the operation of the Employment Service, let us know, and we will not only review it but we will make a case study of every one of these claims.

It seems to me to be a sad commentary of two agencies which should work together to have such indictments made, at a hearing of this kind. We do not get these reports. It is only on occasions like this when these blanket indictments are made. We solicit criticism.

Mr. KEEFE. You have been disassociated in your close relationship by transfer out of the Federal Security Agency and into the War Manpower Commission.

Mr. NICKERSON. We are only one city block away. It would be a very simple thing for them, if they had any unhappy situation, to call us up. We do not get the information from them. It is only on an occasion like this when these indictments are made.

We are willing and anxious to straighten this thing out.

Mr. KEEFE. You understand that this committee is not in a position to control the mental attitude of these people all around the country. The members of the committee can only go by what the record shows. I think they are a competent set of men.

Mr. NICKERSON. As I have said, we have invited their criticism. We are just as interested as they are. We are prepared to do anything in our power to straighten the thing out.

Mr. BOND. Claims in Texas have been reduced from 19,000 to 1,500. Very few claims are filed after the initial filing. There is quite a difference between the first filing and the second filing when they start to draw benefits. They usually find a job before the time of the second filing.

Mr. MOTLEY. There was some language placed in the appropriation bill about a year ago which allowed the executive directors of the Unemployment Compensation Commission to take over the claim taking functions which were at one time the responsibilities of the Employment Service. Some of the State unemployment commissions objected to taking over those functions. Not all the States in the Union went into that agreement.

POLICY, RE-PLACEMENT OF WORKERS WHERE ACCUSTOMED WORK IS

UNAVAILABLE

Mr. TARVER. I was interested in the statement with reference to the Baltimore situation, with particular reference to certain textile employees who were temporarily unemployed because of a stoppage of work in the plants where they are customarily employed. You said they wanted to resume employment with their old employers and for that reason they were not willing to accept referrals to other jobs.

I can see where that is a perfectly normal attitude for an employee to take under circumstances of that kind, and I can conceive of employees in trades, with higher pay, being unwilling to accept referrals to jobs that pay less money than they are accustomed to earning. I think they should have a reasonable opportunity to secure employment of the higher type, and for which they are fitted.

I wonder how long you allow a position of that kind to be maintained by an employee-take, for example, a textile employee out of work 2 weeks; let us say that he refuses to accept other work because he expects that the plant of his employer will be in operation again. Suppose the man is out of work for a month, 2 months, or 3 months. What would be your attitude toward him.

Mr. NICKERSON. The clothing industry has presented an unusually difficult problem. Traditionally, their work is rather spotty. The Employment Service could wreck that industry by screening the different employees against jobs-with steady employment and higher rates of pay. The Employment Service has tried not to do that for the reason that the clothing industry is essential.

Mr. TARVER. What I am trying to get is this: How long would you allow a man to occupy temporarily unemployed status? What length of time would you consider temporary? Also, how long would you allow a man to occupy a partially employed status?

Mr. MOTLEY. I discussed this with our director in the Baltimore area. This is the policy that he has followed: He has gone to the textile plants, at the time of the temporary lay-off, to learn the possibility of resuming operations. If it seems rather vague and that these men will be out for some time he tries to transfer them to other textile plants, or put them temporarily into war industries in Baltimore.

Mr. TARVER. You have no set period of time which you consider as temporary?

Mr. MOTLEY. It depends upon the industry. If it is an industry where the men are particularly skilled we would be more lenient than in an unskilled industry.

We do not have set rules.

Mr. KEEFE. The fact is, although I may be incorrectly informed, that the unions try to cooperate in that respect. I have been ad vised that they have done so for a considerable time up in New York. I do not know about Baltimore. I am told that some of the unions maintain their own hiring policies. I am told that if they have a large group out of work and a group working, they will take one group off, the group working, and put the other group back to work, so you would have one group working and the other group trying for unemployment compensation. They have tried to keep their people employed, and those who are not employed receive unemployment compensation benefits so that they may have something to live on.

The question relates itself to Judge Tarver's inquiry as to whether or not there comes a period of time when your department insists that these men be exposed to jobs in business outside of the garment workers business.

What we are trying to learn, what we would like to know, is when that period of time arrives, if at all.

Mr. MOTLEY. I would like to refer to the building construction industry, which is very similar to the textile industry.

Mr. KEEFE. My statement is substantially correct, is it not?

Mr. MOTLEY. I know of no situation where our local offices have participated in any such plan.

Mr. LEVINE. I would like to say something about the Baltimore problem.

These men and women are specialists. Frequently they are nonEnglish speaking and would have difficulties in trying to adapt themselves to other types of jobs.

These people are perfectly willing to take their chances-frequently for a week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, or longer-to return to their former employer.

A very small percentage of them are highly skilled. If you were to pull those out of there you would endanger the employment of the remaining folks.

The younger people, the second generation, are able to speak English. These people have gone, in increasing numbers, into other employment than garment making.

If there was likehood of a complete lay-off then the situation would be entirely different.

There have been some plants in Baltimore engaged in the manufacture of military uniforms. They were under contract with the Government. The Government has found that it could get the uniforms cheaper or quicker somewhere else, from somebody else; that particular plant employed 200 or 300 people. The plant was faced with the alternative of going out of business or attempting to renew its civilian business. Where such a situation develops the Employment Service goes into the plant and makes a complete registration of every employee, and it offers these employees jobs elsewhere.

In the Baltimore area, with the shipbuilding, iron works, and so forth as the major labor demand, it is extremely difficult to transfer these specialized clothing makers-these dyeing machine operators.

Mr. MOTLEY. With reference to Baltimore, I give you a figure of 1,026 in May and I said that about 600 were temporarily or partially employed.

The Baltimore office handles a total load of 3,000-18,000 people a week.

Out of the 18,000 applicants which come into that office only 400 are receiving benefits, so you will see that the claims are but a very small percentage of the total load which the office is handling.

DISCUSSION OF LIMITING SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES IN EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

TO STATE LEVELS

Mr. TARVER. Do your budget figures for the Employment Service contemplate the elimination, as recommended by the Budget, of the language inserted in the appropriation bill for the present fiscal year limiting the salaries of employees in the Employment Service to State levels?

Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TARVER. In the event that committee does not eliminate that restriction, what difference in the amount of funds estimated for it will be needed?

Mr. NICKERSON. The funds requested for 1944 are on the basis of State salaries.