Mr. TARVER. They are on the basis of State salaries? Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. TARVER. If we accede to the recommendation of the Budget and eliminate that requirement you will need additional funds? Mr. NICKERSON. That is right, sir. Mr. TARVER. How much would you say? Mr. NICKERSON. Our estimate is $2,100,000. Mr. HARE. Did I understand you to say, Mr. Nickerson, in answer to an inquiry by Judge Tarver, that no funds are included in this estimate to place the salaries on a Federal scale basis? Mr. NICKERSON. That is correct, sir. Mr. HARE. What is the necessity, then, for eliminating the language carried in the bill last year and the substitution of new language as provided for in this justification? Mr. McKONE. If this committee will allow us to eliminate the language in the appropriation act, we would like the privilege of coming before the committee again for a supplemental appropriation to enable us to go to Federal salaries. Mr. HARE. Would you be able to justify the new language at that time? Mr. McKONE. I think that is a mechanical matter. We felt, just as a policy in making up the budget, that we would request funds which would enable us to go to Federal salaries if the committee indicated that they would allow us to withdraw the language. Mr. THOMAS. In other words, you could start operating at the beginning of the fiscal year on the Federal salary level, and then come back some time during the fiscal year for a deficiency? Mr. NICKERSON. I think Mr. A'Hearn could answer that question better than I can. Mr. A'HEARN. Yes; that was the theory that the committee approved, and, as the Governor has indicated in his statement, he would probably have to come back anyhow. Of course we would have to get permission from the Bureau of the Budget to go beyond the average annual rate. Mr. HARE. But if the language that appeared in the bill last year were eliminated and new language inserted in lieu thereof, then you would practically automatically come to the deficiency committee to secure funds in order to carry out the provisions of the act recommended by this committee? Mr. NICKERSON. That is as I understand it, sir; yes. NEED FOR GREATER COOPERATION BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT SERVICE AND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION OFFICES Mr. THOMAS. Do you have any recommendation for bringing about peace and harmony and more cooperation between the placement group and the unemployment compensation group? Mr. MOTLEY. As Mr. Nickerson pointed out, one of the things that we shall need to proceed on is to have our placement people sit down at the end of each day or at the end of each week and go over the cards of the claimants and do an actual case-work job on each one of the claimants, and by that method to bring still more closely together the placement people and the Unemployment Compensation people. That is what we did at the tail end of the W. P. A. program. We went ahead on a case-work basis, and that is what I think we have got to do now with these claimants, and have our placement people and the claims people sit down together and work out the actual bringing down the number of claimants to the lowest possible number. As Mr. Nickerson pointed out, that while we are just a block away from the Unemployment Compensation people on the Federal level, actually on the operating level, where the job is done, we work in the same office; we are together all the time. We have not been separated physically there; and I think that is the thing to do-to bring it right down to the operating people and make them work together as closely as possible. Mr. THOMAS. Some more cooperation than exists today is quite desirable, is it not? Mr. MOTLEY. It is. Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Motley, as you say, we all know that physically these two sections are divided, but they practically work in the same office? Mr. MOTLEY. Yes. Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Now, when we get right down to the practical point of view, why should they not be one group, whether State or Federal? Why would it not operate all the better if it were just two divisions of the same organization, intermingled and cooperating in every way possible? Mr. MOTLEY. Of course that has its difficulties, but from an operating point of view I would say that is desirable. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Bond has an additional statement that he would like to make for the record. Mr. BOND. Yes, sir. Mr. HARE. Will you make that statement at this time, Mr. Bond? Mr. BOND. Yes, sir. When you are actually in the field, where they do the work-in the local office, or in the district office, or in the State office, or in the regional office, you do not find this disagreement between Unemployment Compensation and the Employment Service. We never hear of it. There is a close relationship existing in at least the regions that I know about, and specifically the region that I am connected with. I can supply this committee, if they would like to have it, with information that will present another side to this story. In Texas we have a three-man commission; that is, the Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission. Perhaps this committee would like to have for the record the attitude of those other two members of the committee. Mr. HARE. You speak of the other two members. Which one are you referring to now? Mr. BOND. The Unemployment Compensation Commission. Mr. BOND. It is a three-man commission, composed of Mr. Williams, Mr. Crozier, and Mr. McKinley. Mr. Williams has stated his position, and I would like to state his views of Mr. Crozier and Mr. McKinley on the same matter. Mr. HARE. Are you qualified to present their views? Mr. BOND. I can get their views in writing for you. Mr. THOMAS. Do you feel qualified in stating them now, without putting them in writing? Mr. BOND. I feel qualified to say that those two men are entirely satisfied with the working relationship that exists between the men of our Commission and the Employment Service in Texas. Mr. THOMAS. Do you mean by that, then, that Mr. Williams does not state the view of the majority of the members of the Commission? Mr. BOND. I do not believe Mr. Williams states the view of the majority of the members of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission. Mr. THOMAS. If you will get their views in writing, in short letter form, and send them to the committee, we will be glad to put them in the record at this point. (The matter requested is as follows:) J. H. BOND, War Manpower Commission: AUSTIN, TEX., May 24, 1943. United States Employment Service for Texas is cooperating with Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission as far as procedures will permit. Operatives of both agencies are working in loyal harmony to improve system of exposing claimants to job opportunities. We are seriously concerned about and opposed to persistent tendencies in Washington to destroy the State as a primary unit of government, whether in war effort or purely domestic affairs. We want to be able to continue to cooperate with an autonomous State employment agency until service is returned to States. HARRY BENGE CROZIER, Commissioner. EL PASO, TEX., May 22, 1943. J. H. BOND, Social Security Building, Fourth and Indiana Avenue: Understand report circulated that Employment Service in Texas not rendering proper service to claimants by failure to offer job opportunities. This report not based on facts. As labor member of Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission am in close touch with situation, and records show claim load negligible and continuing downward. Our reserve increasing at rate of $5,000,000 per quarter. ROBERT M. MCKINLEY, Commissioner. INCREASE RESULTING FROM RECLASSIFICATION OF JOBS Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Nickerson, have you the facts available to show the number of reclassification jobs in the employment offices throughout the country which have resulted in higher wage levels for employees in the Employment Service? Mr. McKONE. We can give you that. It would be the classification and compensation plan developed for each State, and those classification and compensation plans must comply with the state requirements. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. KEEFE. I should like to know what the facts are. I am fully aware of the difficulties that have arisen in this whole picture, but I would like to know as to those employees who have received pay increases in the Employment Service as the result of reclassification of jobs resulting in higher salaries, where they are doing substantially the same work as they did before. Mr. McKONE. We will give you that for the record. (The information, will be presented to the committee as promptly as possible.) ESTIMATES, 1944, AND APPROPRIATIONS, 1943 Mr. HARE. We will insert at this point in the record pages 35 and 36 of the justifications for the Employment Office Facilities and Services. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Justification of estimates, fiscal year 1944, Employment Office Facilities and Services, War Manpower Commission Received by transfer from "Grants to States, Employment Service, War Manpower Commission," pursuant to the provisions of the First War Power Act, 1941, and Executive Order No. 9247‒‒‒‒‒‒ $39, 903, 173 Supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1943 (0.6 year). Less amount for labor market analysis.... $8, 304, 618 18, 173, 530 Less, allotted to War Manpower Commission, fiscal year 1943. Base for 1944 Increases requested for 1944: 48, 076,703 207, 420 47,869, 283 Personal services__ Travel expense-- Transportation of things_ Priting nd binding.. Other contractual services_ Supplies and materials. Equipment--- Total estimate or appropriation for 1944.... 1 Supplemental appropriation includes $5,000,000 for processing occupational questionnaires (distributed throughout personal services and other objects). Mr. HARE. I notice that the War Manpower Commission received by transfer to this office from the Federal Security Agency this past year $39,903,173, and received a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year 1943 of $8,304,618, from which amount you deduct $131,088 for labor market analysis, leaving the supplemental appropriation $8,173,530, or a total of $48,076,703, less an allotment to the War Manpower Commission for the fiscal year 1943 of $207,420, leaving as a base for the estimate for 1944 $47,869,283. The estimate for 1944 is placed at $55,527,000, or an increase of $7,657,717. I notice in the break-down for the increases requested for 1944 you do not furnish the allotments or the appropriation for these various items for 1943. When you say, for instance, that for personal services you request an increase of $6,982,953, the committee has no definite information as to the amount available for this purpose last year. Mr. NICKERSON. Would you like us to supply you with that information, Mr. Chairman? Mr. HARE. I suggest that you supply the committee with a breakdown for each of these items named-personal services, travel expenses, transportation of things, communication services, rents and utility services, printing and binding, other contractual services, supplies and materials, and equipment, for 1943. Mr. THOMAS. And where it will be allocated. They have all these different offices scattered all over the country. Mr. McKONE. Do you want it on a State-by-State basis, or the totals? Mr. HARE. I think we have it State by State, but we would like to have the totals. Mr. THOMAS. You have it State by State as to the employment load. You do not have the allocation of the funds to the States, do you? Mr. NICKERSON. Yes; we do. Mr. THOMAS. On what page is that? Mr. McKONE. On the sheet following page 36. Do you want that broken down into personal services and all the other categories for each State? Mr. HARE. I doubt whether it will be necessary by States. Mr. HARE. Yes; for 1943. Mr. McKONE. We have that with us. Mr. HARE. We have the allocations by States, and if there is no objection on the part of the committee, I think we will insert these tables at this point. (The matter referred to is as follows:) U. S. Employment Service-Comparative statement, Budget estimates, 1943-44 |