STATEMENT OF HON. THOR C. TOLLEFSON, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee on Education.

As Congressman Madden has already stated to you, he and I introduced identical bills on this subject matter.

(Mr. Tollefson's bill is H. R. 6249 and is identical with H. R. 6202.) Likewise similar and identical bills were introduced on the Senate side. Hearings were held on the Senate bills a few weeks ago.

As a result of those hearings, it was suggested that certain changes in the bill would be advisable. Congressman Madden has informed you he introduced yesterday a copy of what might be considered a substitute bill and your committee, of course, has acted to consider that bill.

If I may, I should like to read my statement.
Mr. McCOWEN. You may proceed.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I am most happy to be able to appear before you gentlemen this morning in order to testify in behalf of a measure which I am firmly convinced represents a constructive step toward industrial peace.

First of all, I imagine that a short summary of the bill's provisions is in order. The bill provides for the establishment of a Labor Extension Service, along the lines already provided by the Agriculture Extension Service. Such a service would operate in the Department of Labor. It would provide funds to institutions for instructing wage and salary earners in such subjects as labor economics, labor law, collective bargaining, grievance procedure, and labor's role in our delicately balanced economic system. Requests for such instruction would come from the workers themselves. Curriculum, materials, and instructors would be provided by colleges and universities. At the State level, the bill provides for review of applications for Federal funds by a State labor extension board. Approved programs are submitted to a National Labor Extension Council for review. Local sources shall provide at least 25 percent of the funds, that is, matching funds.

I would like to recommend to the committee that they consider a substitute to the original bill in order to save the time of the committee. The substitute to the original bill makes certain changes which in no way affect the substance of the bill but which eliminate certain questionable provisions which came out in the Senate hearings. The substitute reduces the size of the National Labor Extension Council from 15 to 12 members and provides for equal representation from labor and from cooperating institutions. Equal representation is also provided on the State boards. Additions have been made to guard against Federal dictation of educational programs.

Provision is made for labor-management institutes operated by cooperating institutions. This would give an opportunity for joint. discussions on questions of concern to both groups.

The aim of the bill is to provide a climate in which labor and management can settle their differences through peaceful collective bargaining. This is one of the outstanding domestic problems which the

Eightieth Congress has faced. The headlines of the past 2 weeks, and I'm afraid for some weeks to come and perhaps throughout the spring, indicate that the problem is not yet solved.

And yet, I think each of you can agree with me that there is no basic conflict between labor and management which cannot be settled peaceably. The strike injures both. Industrial conflict is as futile for both parties as warfare between Indian tribes.

I am convinced that the answer to the problem lies in education. Labor education can eliminate misunderstanding. It can make possible a rank-and-file labor movement that understands its rights, its duties, and the manner in which a balance can be reached without resorting to industrial war.

An enlightened rank and file will not make impossible demands upon management. At the same time it will make possible a labor movement that knows what its rightful return should be.

Labor education will make possible a democratic union movement capable of defending itself against racketeering and exploitation. And it will make possible a responsibile union movement, for in general no labor leader can be any more responsible than the majority of his membership.

The measure which I am supporting is a step which is long overdue. The Congress actually made a commitment for a workers' education program in 1862. The Morrill Act of that year which has made possible our system of land-grant colleges established colleges "to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts." Out of this act has grown our present Agriculture Extension Service, but the companion phrase has been completely forgotten. It is high time the Congress rectified this situation.

You are well aware that the average industrial worker in this country has not had the advantage of advanced education. Over 50 percent have not completed high school. On the other hand, management has long been able to draw upon highly skilled and trained public-relations experts from colleges and universities. It is an unusual school indeed that does not have a large business administration department and most colleges now have excellent industrial-relations departments. It is only good business for management to hire into their ranks those people who have proper training to carry out supervisory responsibilities.

Union leadership, on the other hand has traditionally come from the ranks of the workers themselves. Many of them have made great sacrifices to get whatever education they could afford and had time for in their leisure hours. They have made valiant efforts to overcome their educational handicaps. Those colleges and universities which have set up labor exetension courses have been crowded to capacity, but they have never been able to fill even a fraction of the requests from workers for education in nonvocational fields. The labor unions, themselves, have set up departments of education in an effort to satisfy the thirst of their members for knowledge. They have thus far not even been able to supply adequate facilities for their executives and stewards. The failure in both cases is simply one of too little money.

These facts mean that management approaches the bargaining table with greater background and preparation than does labor. And yet, for equitable agreement, a parity of bargaining power is almost es

sential. If labor is going into conference with representatives of management with a feeling of educational inferiority, there will be no easy give and take of opinions. Little that is constructive can result from such a conference.

But they mean another thing. The day to day contact between union and management takes place at the steward-foreman level. These men, too, need education in bargaining, grievance procedure, and economics. And while management not only has its choice of college men for supervision, it has taken pains to conduct schools for foremen. Labor on the other hand has not had the funds to do the same for its leadership.

Education is the traditional American approach to the solution of misunderstanding and conflict. It is in this country that public scchools have gone further than in any other country to develop the talents and skills of our people. We have come a long way in teaching our people vocational subjects, but we have a long way to go in teaching our people how to live together in peace and justice. The cost of industrial strife to our society has been tremendous of recent years. I have said that the strike hurts both the worker and the employer, I hardly need to add that the public pays, too. It seems to me that the public would willingly bear the cost of a labor extension service if it only averted one major strike per year. I have hopes that it will do much more, simply because it eliminates the basic cause for strikes, which is lack of understanding.

I have passed over another very basic advantage of a labor extension service. Such an education program will have as its aim the creation of better citizens. The many wage and salary earners who will be able to take advantage of this opportunity will find in it a new concept of their importance to the whole community, and the importance of the welfare of the community to themselves. With this broader outlook they will become a valuable asset to the entire community.

Gentlemen, in the next few days, you will see a united labor movement come before you to testify on behalf of this measure. They are asking that you help them solve their problems. They are asking education which will make them effective members of their unions, and of their communities. Also testifying on behalf of this same measure you will see leaders from the field of higher education. They too see the advantages of an enlightened labor movement. I ask that you give each of them a sympathetic hearing.

I have a statement here from Dr. Allen, president of the University of Washington, which I would like included in the record. Mr. McCOWEN. Without objection, it will be so included. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND B. ALLEN, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, ON THE LABOR EXTENSION SERVICE BILL

The genuine need for this legislation is well illustrated by experience in the State of Washington. Prior to 1947 there was very little worker education in the Seattle area, and most of what there was emanated from a left-wing labor school. The latter soon lost the support of the local labor movement, with a resulting stigma attached to labor education in general. Meanwhile the need for such instruction increased rapidly. In the spring of 1947 the university, through its institute of labor economics, began offering a few small classes to both labor and management representatives. We were warned that such courses would meet

with stiff opposition, and proceeded cautiously. We were pleased to notice that the opposition failed to materialize. On the contrary, we were immediately besieged for a program of courses beyond our financial means. Wholehearted support came to our program from top labor and management executives, and we have been crowded to the limit of our capacities.

Not so many years ago labor-management disputes consisted in shows of physical strength. But increasingly briefs have supplanted brickbats, argument has displaced violence. Wage problems are no longer thought of as private matters between the parties, but are recognized as possessing importance to the entire community. The public has asserted its interest in labor relations. Among the consequences is a considerable complication in collective-bargaining procedure as well as in labor law. The demand for a competent and educated labor leadership thus becomes a matter of public concern.

At the same time local labor problems are acquiring a larger share of national significance. It is fitting and proper that a program for the education of labor leadership in the interest of the public welfare should be under the joint sponsorship of the Federal and State Governments and the State university. Neither of these units is fully qualified to carry the burden alone. Together they can offer programs designed to improve the well-being of all. Labor education is a national as well as a local responsibility. This is true because the communities in which labor education is most needed are the very ones in which the funds are unlikely to be forthcoming from local agencies. The failure of the American education system to provide adequate adult education facilities specifically for workers has left this field open to the Communists and a few other groups with special irons in the fire. It is high time that an effort is made to place this form of education on a higher level with the viewpoint of the public interest.

The State of Washington Federation of Labor has expressed suggestions to our institute of labor economics that we conduct 2-week educational institutes at various cities in the State. Although we believe that this would be highly desirable on the ground that the State university can best serve all of the people, it is unlikely that we can undertake such an ambitious program with our present budgetary limitations. Under the proposed law, Federal funds would become available for educational programs similar to the one proposed, enabling the university to extend substantial services throughout the State.

More than 30 universities throughout the Nation have established labor institutes or centers, fortunately providing a nucleus for the machinery necessary to the operation of the proposed statute. Federal support to the educational programs of these institutes would not carry with it any form of political control. On the contrary, control over instruction would rest solely with the impartial and objective staffs of the universities, agencies as free from partisan or doctrinaire influence as any in the country.

The benefits of education are never immediate in their impact upon civilization. Spectacular results can, therefore, not be expected the day after a law is enacted. But the gradual accumulation of genuine benefits is recognized and is, indeed, a part of the American way of life. Labor has supported public education since the beginning of our school systems. It is only proper that adult education, as well as elementary schools, participating in fitting their members for a complicated life in a complicated civilization.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. If I may, I understand the Senators who introduced measures on the Senate side and who testified in behalf of those measures, will not appear before this committee-as I say, I should like to read excerpts from their testimony on the Senate side.

Senator Vandenberg stated:

I am greatly interested in the objectives to which S. 1390 and H. R. 4078 are addressed. I think it is a thoroughly useful and constructive undertaking. I hope that Congress may be able to give the proposal sympathetic consideration. Senator Aiken stated:

The farmers and farm families of America have long derived educational benefits from the program of the Agricultural Extension Service in the Department of Agriculture functioning in cooperation with the higher educational institutions. A national program to provide extension education on a similar basis to the men and women who work in the factories and industrial plants is long overdue. Therefore, I am heartily in accord with the objectives of the proposed publicly

supported labor extension service which will operate cooperatively between the Department of Labor, universities and colleges in the States, and local groups of industrial workers.

Senator Ives stated as follows:

The objectives of S. 1390 and H. R. 4078 are laudatory, for they complement and supplement in the American tradition other existing programs. It seeks to establish an additional avenue through which one group of citizens may more fully develop their understanding of the prevailing patterns of their world.

Senator Thomas stated:

I am glad to sponsor this bill in which labor says, "Give us light," and I ask this Congress to give that light by establishing a Labor Extension Service for wage and salary earners.

Senator Hill:

This bill would extend the extension service into the field of labor and labo management relations, and I think we must agree that the extension service in the field of agriculture has been a success on the whole.

Senator Morse:

One of the reasons why I am so convinced in the soundness of the objective or this bill, is that by personal experience and observation, I know the need for this type of extension service to the workers of this country if they are to live up to what I think are their obligations and responsibilities in this new era of labor relations.

Mr. Chairman, I had written to the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Schwellenbach, asking him to appear before this committee, and testify on behalf of Mr. Madden's bill and mine. In response thereto, he sent me a letter saying he would be out of the city during the days when testimony was taken on the bill. He has submitted a statement in behalf of the bill.

I should like very much to introduce that in the record at this point, also.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be placed in the record. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF LABOR LEWIS B. SCHWELLENBACH ON S. 1390. THE LABOR EXTENSION SERVICE ACT OF 1947, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, FEBRUARY 16, 1948

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am very glad to have this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare which is holding hearings on S. 1390, the proposed Labor Extension Service Act of 1947. This legislation is a measure of great importance for welfare of the wage earners of this country. It should, I believe, receive early favorable action by the Congress.

The maintenance and growth of free institutions in this country depend upon the degree to which each individual participates actively in the varied aspects which affect his livelihood, his job, his business, his family, his Government. Americans have come to realize that to participate actively in work, in family life, and as citizen, means to participate intelligently.

S. 1390, the bill before you, does not undertake to attempt to deal with the whole problem of education for adults. That problem has been the subject of recent study and recommendations by the President's Commission on Higher Education. The bill you are considering deals with only a part, although an important part, of this problem; namely, the provision of a Federal-State program of workers' education on a grant-in-aid basis. Just as the Agricultural Extension Service provides essential educational opportunities for our farming population, so this bill would provide equally indispensable educational opportunities for the Nation's wage earners.