specific provision for research, information, and educational extension services for workers through universities, colleges, and research agencies: Therefore be it Resolved, That the American Federation of Labor in convention assembled reiterate its support for the immediate establishment of a Labor Extension Service to provide research, information, and extension services to workers throughout the Nation through the enactment of this bill. At its 1942 convention in Toronto, Canada, the American Federation of Labor endorsed a recommendation of the committee on education favoring establishment in the Federal Government of an educational and service program for organized labor similar to the services provided for employers by the Department of Commerce and for farmers by the Department of Agriculture. This action of the A. F. of L. was followed by similar action of other groups, with the result that S. 1390 has been introduced in the Congress of the United States to provide extensive educational, research, and informational services for organized labor. The permanent committee on education of the A. F. of L. has studied, and in some cases changed, the original draft of S. 1390. The committee, therefore, recommends concurrence in this resolution and urges all affiliated unions to cooperate in securing the passage of S. 1390. That is a verbatim record from the official proceedings of the last convention of the American Federation of Labor held in San Francisco, to which I was a delegate and where I participated in drafting this committee report. The recommendation of the committee, when it came into the convention, was unanimously adopted. The reason for referring in the proceedings of the convention to S. 1390, you will appreciate, was that at that time, last October, that was the bill that had been introduced into the Senate. The bill we are discussing this morning, H. R. 6202, is the amended version of the original draft known as S. 1390. The Workers' Education Bureau of America is vitally concerned about the whole subject of workers' education. It is the oldest national organization in this field, having served as a national clearing house of information and a coordinating agency for the past 27 years. In addition to the educational work being conducted by the unions themselves, the bureau has always been interested in developing participation on the part of universities and other educational agencies in the future training and education of workers. In fact, the bureau pioneered 18 years ago in setting up the first labor institute ever held in this country. That labor institute was sponsored jointly by Rutgers University-now the State University of New Jersey-and the New Jersey State Federation of Labor, and it has been held annually ever since that time. Our thought in initiating the Rutgers Labor Institute was to bring together the world of labor and the world of learning to discuss realistically and objectively the problems which concern labor. The pattern set up in 1931 has served as a model for similar institutes in 38 States. Out of this early cooperation came the realization by the universities that they should be serving the educational needs of labor as they have been serving those of the farmer, the businessman, and the other groups which make up our American community. Today over 75 universities in this country have set up programs in workers' education or industrial relations; to mention but a few, Rhode Island State College, the new Rutgers Institute of Management and Labor Relations, the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell, the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations at the University of Illinois, the pioneer School for Workers at the Univer sity of Wisconsin, and the Institute of Industrial Relations at the University of California. In these programs classes are conducted in such subjects as the history of the American labor movement, publicity and public relations, collective bargaining techniques, shop-steward training, and labor legislation. It is my understanding that representatives from the University of Michigan, Pennsylvania State College, and possibly other universities active in this field, will explain in detail before this subcommittee the outstandng labor extension programs they have been carrying on in recent years. In all of these programs, however, the surface has only been scratched, and such assistance to the labor group cannot be greatly extended or expanded unless the additional funds provided for in this bill are made available to the various States by the Federal Government. For many years the Federal Government has been subsidizing, to the extent of over $20,000,000 annually, a widespread agricultural extension program to service the 6,000,000 farmers of America and their families. Labor feels that it is entitled to similar extension services for the 45,000,000 wage earners of the country and their families. Labor feels, however, that any permanent Government program of workers' education must be based upon certain fundamental principles. The first of these is one which should be inherent in any Federal educational program: that control over plans and content must be at the State or local level and not centralized in Washington. Any of the activities conducted through the Labor Extension Service should be undertaken only at the request of those to be served and should never be compulsory. At all levels-National, State, and local-the program should be administered in consultation with advisory committees chosen by organized labor. These committees would participate in determining policy and set standards for the conduct of the program. H. R. 6202 contains these safeguards and labor is united in its support of this proposed legislation. We feel that such a Labor Extension Service, wisely advised and administered, supplementing the educational program now being conducted by and for labor, can well take us a long step forward upon the road to industrial peace. The Workers' Education Bureau of America respectfully requests this committee to bring in a favorable report on the labor extension bill, to the Eightieth Congress. Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared statement. I would be very happy to answer any questions from you, or any member of the committee. This is my particular field, and perhaps I can help some. Mr. McCOWEN. Without any objection, your statement will be included in the record. I might say if there are no objections, we better limit the questions to 3 minutes each, because there are two other witnesses besides this gentleman, with only 15 minutes remaining. Mr. Gwinn. Mr. GWINN. Mr. Connors, I think you could make out a case. If our country is going to be committed to a policy of having education supported and directed from Washington, logically there is no way to exclude this program, as I see it. I think you are coming forward, as many others are coming forward now, to increase library facilities, and so forth, and to add enormously to appropriations, because as the communities give up their responsibility and as this Government forces them to give up the means for supporting education, the people have to come here more and more. After a while they will be clamoring with their hands out to Washington. I don't know whether they will be calling this a God State or a Devil State, but they will say, "Please send back to us some of our means that we might educate our people, clothe them, build houses for them, and heal the sick." That is all that interests me in this whole program. I would like to ask you this question, as an educator: Should we use this as an illustration, try to get straight in our policy of determining whether we are going to have a voluntary society, a free and responsble society in the townships, in the counties, in the local subdivisions, where they will tax themselves to the extent they feel they should, and employ the services of the teachers, manage their own education, and be responsible for it, or are we going to give that up and look to Washington? Have you thought anything about that? Are you committed to the proposition that we can turn away from the voluntary society, the free movement of society, and turn at least to some extent to the compulsory State? Mr. CONNORS. I have given considerable thought to it. I do not think we are turning away from that voluntary society. There are safeguards set up in this bill to protect and make sure the control of content of the courses is at the local and State level. It is my understanding that you come from a section of New York just out of New York City proper, but in your general area, I believe, the Agricultural Extension Service operates. I recognize that the farms are very small in that section, but, of course, there are a few. When you get up in western New York you would have a better example of the Agricultural Extension Service. This service has been doing a magnificent job over the years. Mr. GWINN. I think we assume that, but we are in a controversy right now in my district over the fact that we have a useless and somewhat conflicting duplication of effort between the county and the State work, and the Federal work. That brings up just the point I am making. Mr. CONNORS. The point is that the Federal taxes do come from the country. It is the Federal Government's power to tax. That money comes practically from the same sources that it comes from in the city and on State levels. Wherever the money comes from, it is the function of government to finance education-so far we agree completely with you, that the control over the content of what is to be taught and the choice of the teachers should always be at the local and the State level. Mr. GWINN. I think we are just fooling ourselves into thinking that we can separate those two functions. Mr. CONNORS. So far as I know, they have done it in the Agricultural Extension Service, Mr. Gwinn. Mr. GWINN. That story is not complete yet. That is the trouble. Mr. McCOWEN. Mr. Kearns. Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Connors, I notice you are director of the Workers Education Bureau. What are your qualifications as an educator? Mr. CONNORS. I can give them to you briefly. I was born and raised in Massachusetts. I attended the public schools there. I graduated from Boston University and did graduate work at Harvard University. I taught in the public schools of Massachusetts for 17 years, 2 years in my home town, Medford, Mass., and for 15 years in the high school of New Bedford. About 7 or 8 years ago I left public-school work and went into this work, and now devote full time to it. Mr. KEARNS. You were a certificated teacher in Massachusetts? Mr. CONNORS. Oh, very definitely. Mr. KEARNS. Would this committee be led to believe-if we approve this bill to the full committee, and then the full committee to the Congress, and this money is appropriated for the education of workers, pertaining to all the phases of legislation, and so forth, that has to deal with union members, and through this source of education that the rank and file of all the unions in America would accept the fact that the provisions of the National Labor Relations. Act of 1948 were a good thing for the men-that the leaders then would acquiesce and would accept the law? Mr. CONNORS. I have been in the labor movement for many, many years. In my opinion it is a democratic movement. I do not think it is a perfect movement, but I think it is truly responsive to the will of the members. I think if the hypothesis you state did happen the leaders would be responsive to the will of their members. All these unions have their meetings regularly, with their conventions usually annuallyfor instance, this resolution I read to you came from the A. F. of L. convention in San Francisco. The resolution was referred to a committee and brought out on the floor. That process is true all the way through. I would say very definitely that if the majority of the rank-and-file members took a definite position, the leaders would conform with the wishes of their members. Mr. KEARNS. That is a very good educational approach. That is all I have. Mr. McCowEN. Mr. Lesinski? Mr. LESINSKI. No questions. Mr. McCowEN. Mr. Barden? Mr. BARDEN. I am rather impressed with your practical approach to this situation, and I must confess I think you know something about your subject. Of course, I think you will agree with my view, that the labor movement is an effort on the part of the vast majority of labor leaders, and the vast majority of the people who are members of those unions, to better their conditions. Mr. CONNORS. That is right. Mr. BARDEN. Just like the merchants' association, the chamber of commerce, the lawyers, the doctors, or anybody else. It is an honest effort to better their conditions. Mr. CONNORS. I would agree with that. Mr. CONNORS. And I think that is what we should have in a democracy. Mr. BARDEN. But the parting of the ways comes when we begin to say: Now, the merchants' association can organize to a certain point, but if it goes beyond that point it is then entering the field of a monopoly which is not to the best interest of the general public, and therefore you must curb yourself. None of us like to wear a bridle; do we? Mr. CONNORS. Not in a democracy. Mr. BARDEN. That is right; we do not like it, but we have to wear it just the same. Because if you go and park in the wrong place downtown they will put a bridle on you, won't they? That is to protect the fellow coming along later, and you might get in a wreck. I notice in your statement here what I regard as a very sound statement-up to a certain point. You say that Labor feels, however, that any permanent Government program of workers' education must be based upon certain fundamental principles. Well, we can get along with that, all right. The first of these is one which should be inherent in any Federal educational program: That control over plans and content must be at the State or local level and not centralized in Washington. We can get along pretty well up to that point. Any of the activities conducted through the Labor Extension Service should be undertaken only at the request of those to be served and should never be compulsory. We are still getting along all right. But here is where we do not do so well: At all levels-National, State, and local-the program should be administered in consultation with advisory committees chosen by organized labor. Now, you are dealing with all the people. Mr. CONNORS. That is correct. Mr. BARDEN. Wouldn't you have a one-sided educational program? I don't care what profession you happen to be attached to, if you are any good at that profession-whether it is in your field or my field, if you are any good in that profession you are very partial to it and very enthusiastic over it; aren't you? Mr. CONNORS. That is correct. Mr. BARDEN. That is, if you put your best in it. So wouldn't you have a one-sided proposition? Mr. CONNORS. Not under this bill, Mr. Congressman, because the bill provides this is at the national level, in the National Advisory Council-that there shall be 12 members appointed by the Secretary of Labor. Now, only half of that committee, six, are appointed from a panel submitted by the national bona fide labor organizations. Six are from a panel submitted by the cooperating institutions. Mr. BARDEN. Yes, but I was taking your statement here. I was not reading the bill. I do not know whether you agree that your statement fits the bill or not. You say here: at all levels-National, State, and local-the program should be administered in consultation with advisory committees |