1, 1945, they raised the compensation for the position of manager III in the amount of $20 per month for the minimum step, putting it on the same salary level with the classification of claims deputy, whereas it had previously carried $10 more per month. This had the effect of raising the unemployment compensation commission classification of claims deputy from a range of $160-$200 to $175–$225 on August 15, 1945, and then to $190-$235 effective retroactively to September 1, 1945. The employment service classification of senior employment officer was raised only from a range of $160-$200 to that of $170-$215, and the employment service classification of manager III was raised from a range of $170-$210 to $190-$235. This was the first step taken by the commission to subjugate the positions of the employment service below those used by the unemployment compensation commission. The two classifications-senior employment officer and claims deputy-had always been considered the same or substantially similar, and then the commission raised the salary for the classification of claims deputy $20 per month above that of the employinent service classification of senior employment officer. Employees of the two agencies sit side by side in local employment offices doing similar work, and one receives $20 more per month than the other. This, in effect, says that the job of paying unemployment compensation is more important than the job of registering unemployed people for work and placing them in jobs. In connection with this, I would call your attention to the classification of claims interviewer (unemployment compensation commission classification) and employment officer (employment service classification), which are the two junior positions used by the two agencies in local offices, the same as claims deputy and the senior employment officer are used. You will note that the compensation range for these two classification has been the same over the entire period. The second step taken by the unemployment compensation commission in Oregon, with the apparent objective of subjugating employment service positions below unemployment compensation commission positions, was within the top supervisory staff. You will note on the attached chart that on April 1, 1942, there were six classifications in the supervisory class which carried the same range of salaries. These classifications are supervisor of benefits, supervisor of procedures and research, supervisor of research and statistics, supervisor of contributions, supervisor of business management, and field supervisor-manager I. You will also note that on December 1, 1912, a compensation range for these classifications was changed uniformly with the exception of the supervisor of business management, and also, that the range adopted at that time continued until August 15, 1945, at which time the supervisor of business management range was brought up to conform with the other five in this class. In other words, as of August 15, 1945, all six of these classifications carried the same salary range. In the most recent salary plan effective retroactively to September 1, 1945, you will note that they have broken these six classifications into two groups, increasing the salary range for three classifications used by the commission-supervisor of benefits, supervisor of contributions, and supervisor of business management-by $25 per month, or from a range of $250-$325 to $275-$350; and have increased the minimum salary for the classifications of supervisor of research and statistics, supervisor of procedures and research and field supervisor-manager I, in the amount of $10 per month, but have not increased the maximum step in any amount. The range for these three classifications was changed from $250-$325 to $260-$325. The above comments indicate the action taken by just one State agency of the unemployment compensation commission, and represent a sample of what could happen in all of the 48 States in the Union. This action taken by the unemployment 'compensation commission in Oregon follows along the line inferred in the letter from Stanley Rector, chairman of the legislative committee of the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies, to all State administrators o fthe unemployment compensation commission dated November 29, 1945. The Rector letter indicated that under H. R. 4407 the State agencies could do pretty much what they pleased with the present personnel of the United States Employment Service, and the action taken in Oregon was at the time (December 28, 1945, retroactively effective to September 1, 1945) H. R. 4407 had passed the Senate and the House, and was on its way to becoming law. The action taken by the unemployment compensation commission in Oregon implies, in fact, that finding a man a job is secondary to paying him unemployment insurance. The Oregon chapter of the International Association of Public Employment Services believes that finding a man a job of primary importance. State of Oregon-Compensation plan of the State unemployment compensation commission, Apr. 1, 1942, to Sept. 1, 1945 (partial) Director of employment Apr. 1, 1942 $300, $315, $335, $350, $375 Dec. 1, 1942 Senior employment off $150, $160, $170, $180, $190. $160, $170, $180, $190, $200 Senior clerk-stenogra- $130, $135, $140, $145, $150 Senior telephone opera- Intermediate clerk 1. $105, $110, $115, $120, $125 $100, $105, $110, $115, $120 Classification used by USES. $200, $210, $220, $235, $250. $130, $135, $140, $150, $160. Oct. 21, 1943 $325, $350, $375, $400, $425. $200, $210, $220, $235, $250. $130, $135, $140, $150, $160 Apr. 1, 1945 Aug. 15, 1945 $200, $210, $220, $235, $250 $200, $210, $220, $235, $250 $200, $210, $220, $235, $250. $200, $210, $220, $235, $250. $170, $180, $190, $200, $210 $150, $160, $170, $180, $190 Sept. 1, 1945 $325, $350, $375, $400, $425 $210, $220, $230, $245, $260 $160, $170, $180, $190, $200 $135, $140, $145, $150, $160 JAPANESE AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR DEMOCRACY, SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Senate Building, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: The Japanese American Committee for Democracy urges your active support of the Murray Senate bill 1510 which would retain the United States Employment Service under Federal Government until June 1947, at which time employment service will be returned to the States. This period of reconversion requires that we keep confusion at a minimum, and turning the employment service under State rule will deprive veterans and war workers of efficient, responsible service. As a minority group, we are aware of the fact that Federal supervision of employment service helped to keep racial discrimination at a minimum. With the end of the war, and at a time when adjustments in employment must be made by all groups, turning over jurisdiction of employment service to the States would give rise to discriminatory practices in some States. Therefore, we ask that you actively support the Senate bill 1510, by reporting it favorably out of your committee, and work for its passage in the Senate. Sincerely yours, ERNEST S. IIYAMA, Chairman. March 25, 1946. Hon. J. M. TUNNELL, Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SENATOR TUNNELL: The Jewish Occupational Council, which is a national association of Jewish organizations conducting programs in job placement, vocational guidance, and related occupational adjustment services, urges the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor to report out favorably S. 1510. In providing for the return of the Federal Employment Service to the States with proper standards for operations and safeguards for the transfer of present personnel, and in setting June 30, 1947 as the final date for returning the Federal service to the States, S. 1510 would seem to be the most desirable employment service legislation for meeting the needs of the Nation and the several States. Respectfully yours, ELI E. COHEN, Executive Director. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PERSONNEL DIRECTORS, Chairman, Senate Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We, as a group of independent businessmen and women, wish to address the following statement to Members of the Senate concerning legislation affecting the United States Employment Service which is now pending congressional action. During the past 4 years American business has been immeasurably aided in staffing its establishments through the national system of public employment offices. During wartime, public employment offices were greatly improved to meet industry's unprecedented labor demands. As a result of their wartime experience, these offices are capable of providing vital services to both employers and workers during the reconversion period. For many months the United States faces chaotic labor market conditions. Efficient machinery for staffing expanding production and speeding reemployment is urgently needed for a successful reconversion. Many employers therefore oppose current proposals to return the USES to State control prematurely and without adequate legislative safeguards. The Senate Education and Labor Committee is now considering bills relating to the USES. Analysis of the problems involved in breaking up the USES for return of the employment office systems to State control has convinced us that a number of legislative provisions are essential: (1) June 30, 1947. as the date 80856-46-pt. 221 for return of operations to the States; (2) adequate safeguards for the transfer of personnel to the States, to prevent deterioration of services to workers and to employers because of loss of experienced personnel; (3) subsequent personnel appointments under merit plans; (4) specific standards for programs and administrative efficiency; and (5) Federal responsibility to operate the employment office system in any State which defaults under the act, in view of the fact that the Federal Government is assuming 100 percent financing of State operations. These provisions are all in S. 1510, the Murray bill. They are not in H. R. 4437, the Dirksen bill, which passed the House on January 29. We urge you to support legislation as provided in S. 1510, and to reject compromises which do not contain what we believe are minimum and essential legislative provisions. Cordially yours, MYRTLE E. JENSEN, Secretary-Treasurer. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, NATIONAL CHILD LABOR COMMITTEE, New York 16, N. Y., February 20, 1946. Chairman, Senate Education and Labor Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The National Child Labor Committee is con cerned about the proposals to return the United States Employment Service to the States. We are submitting a statement to Senator Tunnel, as chairman of the subcommittee which is considering this matter, stating our position and the reasons for our interest in this question. Knowing of your long interest in problems affecting the employment of young people, I am enclosing a copy of this statement. Very sincerely yours, (Mrs.) GERTRUDE FOLKS ZIMAND, General Secretary. STATEMENT FOR NATIONAL CHILD LABOR COMMITTEE BY MRS. GERTRUDE FOLKS ZIMAND, GENERAL SECRETARY, ON S. 1510, FEBRUARY 20, 1946 The National Child Labor Committee strongly supports S. 1510 providing for orderly return of the United States Employment Service to the States and amending the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 under which the State employment services will operate. It opposes the Dirksen bill which was substituted for H. R. 4437 in the House and which is also before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. Its support of S. 1510, as well as its opposition to H. R. 4437 as passed by the House, is based on its conviction that, in restoring the Public Employment Service to the States (1) the date of transfer to State operation should be postponed at least until June 30, 1947, in order to prevent confusion and disruption of services during the reconversion period when the problems faced by the Employment Service are especially serious in both nature and magnitude; and (2) provision must be made for continuance of all essential services in accordance with desirable standards. We are, therefore, especially interested in the retention of section 211 of S. 1510 (p. 7, line 22, through p. 8, line 4) amending section 9 of the Wagner-Peyser Act to provide that the Secretary of Labor may temporarily operate the public employment service in a State where there is a substantial failure of compliance by the State agency with the regulations and standards prescribed by the Secretary of Labor. The concern of the National Child Labor Committee is based primarily on the needs of two large groups of workers with whose problems it is familiar and whose interests it fears might suffer under State operation, if the transference to the States is too rapid or if there is not provision for Federal operation when State operation fails, namely— (1) Young workers who left school during the past 5 years for employment in war production and civilian industries. (2) New workers who leave school each year. I. Young workers who left school for employment during the war.-Beginning early in 1941 as defense industries developed and continuing at an accelerated rate through 1944 and into 1915, many boys and girls under 18 years, totaling in all several million, dropped out of school for employment before completion of their high-school course. When employment was at its highest peak in 1944 there were 1,350,000 minors 14 through 17 years, out of school for employment according to a sampling count by the United States Census. Of this number 250,000 were 14 and 15 years of age and 1,100,000 were 16 and 17 years of age; 32 percent of these young workers were in agriculture; 32 percent in manufacturing; 16 percent in wholesale and retail trades; 8 percent in domestic and personal services, and 12 percent in other occupations. For These early school leavers of the war years now range in age from about 15 to 22 years. The great majority when they left school, were 16- and 17-yearolds in the ninth and tenth grades. This suggests that, in general, they have a limited educational background and somewhat limited mental ability. the most part, except possibly for boys who subsequently entered the armed services, they have not acquired any special skills during their wartime employment that are transferable to other industries. It seems clear that the great majority of them will not return to regular school although they may be interested in short vocational courses. Skilled counseling is essential to help these young workers know what the requirements for jobs will be and what types of work may be open to them in our future peacetime economy; the possibilities of securing further training; and the available opportunities for combining training with part-time employment. Many of these young people, moreover, have been "on the move" in their quest for wartime employment and will need guidance in deciding whether their vocational future will best be served by returning to their homes or by remaining in the communities in which they now find themselves. A study made by the Federal Children's Bureau in February 1944,' revealed, for example, that "In Portland, Maine, a large shipbuilding center, approximately 600 boys and girls between 16 and 18 years of age-most of them traveling without their families-had come into the city each month during the fall and winter season and during the preceding summer the average was between 1,200 and 1,300 a month. In Forth Worth, Tex., where several large plants manufacturing airplane parts are located, a representative of the chamber of commerce, in charge of a housing center maintained for war workers, estimated that over 2,000 boys and girls under 18 years of age had been referred to lodgings in a 6- or 7-month period. A check of the age certificates issued workers 16 and 17 years of age employed in Wichita, Kans., the site of several large airplane plants, showed that 1,031, or 38 percent, of all the certificates issued in that city over a 6-month period, were for young people, largely boys, who had come to the city alone to take employment. In San Francisco and the surrounding bay area, where many of the young migrants coming in for work in the shipyards are housed in dormitories erected for single men by the Federal Public Housing Authority, figures and estimates from these dormitories indicate that more than 1,000 boys under 18 years of age were in residence in February 1944. At least as many were scattered around the bay area in crowded quarters in private homes, boarding houses, and cheap hotels.' This group of young people have an especially difficult adjustment to makeone which may involve a geographical as well as an industrial shift. Counseling and placement services for this group will have to transcend State lines and be based on the picture of the total employment situation-in their home States as well as in the communities where they have been working. This will be of the utmost importance during the coming years, not only from the point of view of the industrial adjustment of these young people, but in order to prevent the development of antisocial tendencies and delinquencies that often characterize young foot-loose workers who travel about in search of jobs. II. Young people who leave school for work each year.—Although the extraordinary wartime demands for young workers are abating, there are each year, many young people of 16 and 17 who enter industry on completion of high school or who drop out of school for employment. Counseling and placement for these beginning workers require special attention, for their immaturity and lack of prior work experience render them likely to be absorbed in routine jobs that have no educational value or opportunities for advancement. Without counseling they get shoved into blind alley jobs from 1 Adolescents Away From Home, by Mary Skinner and Alice Scott Nutt, the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, November 1944, pp. 51-59. |