Mr. SMITH. You might get an instance, yes. A man may work 7 complete days in 1 week, but he may not work but part time the next week.

Mr. DURHAM. That supervisory personnel is paid on a straight. daily wage, or monthly wage?

Mr. SMITH. As I stated, some of them are on a monthly scale and others are on an hourly wage.

Mr. DURHAM. If I understand you correctly

Mr. SMITH. The bulk of them are on a monthly wage, or a salary basis.

Mr. ELSTON. What are your hours of employment?

Mr. SMITH. For the month of January of this year it averaged 47.3 per week, and if you take account of the lost time due to bad weather and absenteeism, the actual working hours of those who put in full time will be well above 48.

Mr. ELSTON. What has been your absenteeism record?

Mr. SMITH. It is not too good by any means. It is higher than it should be. It is double what it was in peacetime, and it has been one of our many problems with which we are confronted, and there are many reasons why a man is recognized to be away from the plantbecause of a compelling reason, stormy weather, and a long distance from the plant, sickness-many things that keep him away-but it is safe to say that the percentage of absenteeism is too high.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me make this statement. Our next witness here is a member of the War Labor Board and also vice president of the United Auto Workers, C. I. O., and he has to be back to his board meeting, and he wants to get rid of this witness.

Mr. HARNESS. I am glad to know that. Perhaps he can answer this question I am about to ask.

It was brought to my attention by some of the heads of industry that they had been unable to give their foremen who are on a monthly salary basis an increase in wages because of the rulings of the War Labor Board which had caused some dissension among their supervisory employees. Have you had any such trouble with the War Labor Board in trying to get an increase?

Mr. SMITH. I asked that specific question of some of our people, and they have told me they have had practically no trouble in that respect, that their feeling is there are sufficient reasons, until this order of yesterday, by which adjustments can be made to take care of natural promotions, and an increased responsibility and other situations, so that we have had very little trouble in that respect.

The CHAIRMAN. There are two general questions that I would like to ask Mr. Smith.

When one of your companies takes a contract to build ships for the Government your corporation immediately assumes responsibility for the performance of that contract on time; does it not?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; when the signature is on the contract, then the company is responsible for carrying it out.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; now, how do you do that other than through the management in your plant?

Mr. SMITH. It is the only way you can do it, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are the foremen exactly responsible for that, and are they actually required to do that in the performance of their duties?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; it is a part of their responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you lose control of them so that you cannot direct them. Would that have anything to do with the performance of your contracts, or retard your business in any way?

Mr. SMITH. Certainly. Production would go down and your costs would go up and your contracts might be very unprofitable.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you believe that if they are permitted to organize into a union and affiliate with the workers' union that will retard your work and interfere with production?

Mr. SMITH. I am sure of it.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe you stated to the extent of about 25 percent.

Mr. SMITH. I stated that was a guess, but I could easily see it could go as high as 25 percent; maybe more.

The CHAIRMAN. As one of the committee here, I am amazed at the situation of which you have told us with respect to the turn-over of manpower in these plants; likewise, I am amazed at the possibility of your being able to produce the amount of shipping you produced last year under those circumstances. I believe you gave it as 8,000,000 tons plus.

Mr. SMITH. Eight million tons plus.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir. Your testimony will be very helpful to us. We appreciate your coming.

The committee will stand adjourned until 12:15.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 the committee adjourned, to reconvene again at 12:15.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 12:15 p. m.) The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now come to order. We will now hear from Mr. Richard T. Frankensteen, vice president of the United Auto Workers, C. I. O.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD T. FRANKENSTEEN, UNITED AUTO WORKERS, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. FRANKENSTEEN. Perhaps I should qualify myself by saying that I am not speaking for the War Labor Board.

I would like to say, first of all, that I am speaking on behalf of 979,267 dues-paying members of the United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. O.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you, gentlemen.

I am appearing on behalf of close to a million members of the United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. O., engaged in producing arms and munitions for the armed forces in factories throughout the United States.

I appear also on behalf of more than 150,000 members of the U. A. W., C. I. O., now serving in the armed forces. I appeal not solely nor primarily as a leader of a group with special interests or with interests that are apart from the interests of the Nation as a whole. I want to take this occasion, before giving my views on H. R. 2239, to voice an emphatic protest against the attempts being made in Congress and elsewhere to drive a wedge between organized

labor and the rest of the Nation, particularly between organized labor and the armed forces. We in organized labor always voice the interests of the people as a whole, and especially during the present period of the Nation's history. This is clear to anyone who cares to make an honest appraisal of our consistent efforts and programs for the winning of the war in the quickest possible time. It is that aim, namely, the winning of the war with the least possible delay which determines our viewpoint on all legislation including the so-called Smith bill, H. R. 2239.

We are in full accord with the expressed aims of the bill to amend the selective service law for "the successful prosecution of the war by prohibiting acts interfering with the full utilization of the Nation's manpower during the present war." But that is not what the bill would accomplish. Although the bill purports to aid the war effort, it actually contains a many-sided attack on labor, including Congressman Smith's favorite targets, the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, better known as the Wagner Act and the wage-and-hour law, respectively.

It could nullify the minimum wage provision of the wage-andhour law through section 3, part 2, which prohibits any union contract which "proscribes," or has the effect of proscribing the period or manner of training or apprenticeship as a condition of eligibility of employment."

Through this provision of the bill it could be used to deprive workers in all branches of industry of the maximum wage rates under the wage-and-hour law by having employers make wide use of the "learner" provision of the law. These efforts have already been made by many sweatshop employers who regard the 25-cent and 30-cent minimum wages as too high. This provision is a danger also to the workers earning more than the minima under the wage and hour law. It would permit employers in the relatively high-wage automotive industry, for example, to fix rates below union contract rates for any worker whom they choose to designate as an apprentice or trainee. Under this bill the union would have no choice but to accept the most arbitrary interpretation of the employer.

The threat to the Wagner Act is contained in section 4, which states: "No executive, administrative, professional, or supervisory employee" shall be eligible for membership in any labor organization engaging in collective bargaining. These categories of workers might exclude a substantial number of people now members of the U. A. W., C. I. O. By administrative, for example, we normally mean such workers as clerks, stenographers, and other white-collar workers as well as plant protection men, thousands of whom are already in our ranks, and need the protection our union offers.

I should like to say that I do not want to address myself too lengthily on the question of foremen. I do not think that is the meat of this bill. I do not think that is the heart of this bill. I think that merely serves as the medium through which many other points more dangerous than that point are woven in.

First of all, my organization has refrained from accepting foremen into our organization. We at no time have attempted to bargain for the foremen, although we do believe that they are entitled to an association of their own choosing. But we, as I say, have refrained from accepting them in general membership in our union. In no

instance among the pretty nearly 1,000,000 members have we taken foremen in as part of our union.

It seems to me than an analogy which might be made would be this: If the employers themselves have an association it would be just as incongruous to prohibit them from having that association, which is in effect a union, as it would be to prohibit the foremen from having an association of their own. Even the manufacturers, although it is an extreme, might, if they so desired, affiliate with either the American Federation of Labor, C. I. O., or an independent. It is absurd, but it still fits the analogy of the foremen's union. They have the right to associate to protect their mutual interests just as the manufacturers do.

The term supervisory worker is not defined in the law and is commonly believed to be directed against the inclusion of foremen in unions. However, since there is no definition of the word "supervisory," it could be interpreted to include working foremen, subforemen, and straw bosses, and any worker who by any stretch of the employer's imagination may be said to have supervisory duties. This might, for instance, include a set-up man in an automotive plant; it might be used to eliminate from a contract one of two men on a cross-cut saw, in the logging industry, just as some employers now in unorganized areas now use the term "independent contractor" as a device to deprive workers of the benefits of labor legislation.

Since I understand representatives of the foremen's union are here to testify, I will not take more of the committee's time on this point, except to urge Congress to refrain from this back-door attack on labor. We oppose any abridgment of the Wagner Act, which guarantees all employees the right to join an organization of their own choosing.

Section 3 makes it illegal for union contracts to contain certain · provisions on (1) number of employees on a given job, (2) payment to apprentices, (3) increases in piece-rate eanings, (4) tools or equipment used on a job. Finally the bill prescribes any provision which "In any other manner interfers with the full utilization of the Nation's manpower in the present war."

Yesterday I was asked to speak before a subcommittee of the War Production Board whose purpose it was to work out a plan and proposals that might include incentives to production. I think this committee is fully aware of the manpower situation throughout the country, and I know that they are fully aware of the urgnt need for more airplanes and more ships. The manpower problem has become very acute and labor is most interested in doing everything within its power to increase productivity. This meeting yesterday consisted of the representatives of the manufacturers' associations of the country, the chambers of commerce, the American Federation of Labor, and the C. I. O. There were four representatives, one from each organization. We met with Mr. C. E. Wilson, War Production Board, who outlined to us his hopes on the increased productivity in these fields, and with that he hoped that we might be able to arrive at some conclusions, that we could present in the way of an incentive plan, and an incentive plan that would enable workers to increase their output, and in increasing that output, solve the two very important problems: First, the basic problem of manpower; secondly, increased earnings for the workers throughout the country through greater output.

This was discussed with Mr. Davis, Chairman of the War Labor Board, and he found nothing inflationary about it, because if the productivity is increased for a lesser number of man-hours, that does not create the spiral that we are all afraid of. Mr. Wilson made the comment that he had so discussed that with Mr. Davis of the War Labor Board, and Mr. Davis had assured him that nothing in this would be considered inflationary.

Mr. Byrnes similarly has made that statement in my presence, that on the farm problem he was hopeful that the farmers would increase their productivity and in that way make a greater return; and yet, in so doing, not create inflation by having a higher price put on the agricultural products they produce, but through greater production and get more money.

Mr. HARNESS. That is the argument that they have been putting up for 7 or 8 months.

Mr. FRANKENSTEEN. I do not think it is.

· Mr. HARNESS. You are repeating what they tell you. I say that that is contrary to what they have been telling us now for 6 or 8 months.

Mr. FRANKENSTEEN. On increased productivity.

Mr. HARNESS. By incentive payments, it seems to me there will be more money in the pockets of the individuals, whether it is the laborers, farmers, or anyone else, and that is one thing they say they do not want to see.

Mr. ARENDS. That is exactly the situation, because they go out and put an artificial ceiling on the price of corn so that the farmer cannot get a parity price, and now they turn around and say"We will give you so many hundreds of dollars."

Mr. HARNESS. And he has so much money in his pocket that creates a buying power for him, the farm laborer, or anyone else.

Mr. FRANKENSTEEN. I do not care to argue from the point of view of Mr. Byrnes, or Mr. Davis. I am on record as quoting both of them as so stating, and Mr. Wilson stated it to me yesterday.

Mr. HARNESS. I was not directing my remark to you. I am telling you what we have been hearing all along.

Mr. FRANKENSTEEN. I think that this commitee, or any committee interested in war production, ought to weigh the necessity of ir creasing production and the necessity of conserving manpower, and there is an old adage that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I think it is a good adage applied in this case. I think workers, if they are going to increase production, if they are going to turn out through their extra efforts beyond the normal production, they are going to seek and expect, and logically so, a fair return for that increased value, and I should like to point out, although I do not want to argue the question with you, that money has value even if it must be saved, and labor has as much right to a saving in this period as any other group in the country, and it is not necessarily inflationary for workers to have money to save to take care of their post-war plans, any more than it is for industry to make a return and save it for their post-war plans.

Mr. JOHNSON. That same argument applies to farmers, getting more money for their products.

Mr. FRANKENSTEEN. Absolutely it applies to products.