Are you affiliated with any labor organization?

Dr. WARE. I am a member of the teachers' union.

Mr. KEARNS. A. F. of L.?

Dr. WARE. I was a member of the A. F. of L. while the A. F. of L was in the place where I am teaching. I am a member now of the CIO, which is the teachers' organization in my present place of employment.

Mr. KEARNS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCOWEN. Mr. Lesinski.

Mr. LESINSKI. Miss Ware, I believe we are getting away from the actual facts of this legislation. Apparently all questions are always brought about as to why the States with their regular tax income do not take care of this type of legislation. I think under our Constitution elementary education is a question of direct taxation. This is something new, the same as agricultural extension. I think this is an interstate and not an intrastate thing. I am glad you brought out the question of Michigan, because I happen to be from Detroit and I know something about Michigan.

I believe Michigan has the largest per capita enrollment in parochial schools of any State. We pay for our own education, plus the taxation put on us for others. Still, we are willing to help educate any underprivileged State and be taxed for it, provided they have compulsory education, and not have the money used up freely for one portion of the population, with nothing left for the other portion.

The people who attend classes under this bill are not going to stay in Michigan, that is, all of them. Neither Michigan nor Pennsylvania should pay for the other 46 States, to have this education. I will agree we have plenty of labor organizations that are willing to throw in a certain amount of money, but that is taxation on the people in Michigan, and the individuals belonging to that union. The people who attend these schools naturally will not stay in Michigan, they will move all over the other States.

I feel this is a Government matter and not a local matter, brought down either to the State, country, or township level. I believe this type of legislation should be supported.

Dr. WARE. Obviously, I would agree. I would not be here if I did agree with you, Mr. Congressman, but I want to underline again the fact that this bill does call for a contribution from the States. It does call for the initiative coming locally, and if those provisions were not in the bill, I would consider it a bad bill.

Mr. LESINSKI. I would state again that we in Michigan do not mind taxation, provided it is used in the proper manner for the proper people, and all of the people. We will more than take care of our own taxes, because I think we can afford it. But there are States that cannot afford this type of education, and it should come through the Central Government.

Dr. WARE. Your statement that workers do not stay in one place is important; one of the things we have depended upon is the mobility of labor from State to State, so that the Nation tends to gain from what workers secure in any given place.

Mr. LESINSKI. That is all.

Mr. McCOWEN. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your very splendid presentation.

We have one more witness. Without objection, we will go on.

Mr. Rafsky, for the purpose of the record, would you state your name, address, and your connection?

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM L. RAFSKY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS

Mr. RAFSKY. My name is William L. Rafsky. I am representing the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, a labor union. The address is 2319 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I realize the lateness of the hour. If it is permissible, I will forego a verbatim reading of my testimony and summarize by giving some high lights and perhaps reading a paragraph here and there.

Mr. McCowEN. That will be very fine. Without objection, your statement will be included in the record, so you may proceed.

Mr. RAFSKY. Thank you.

Gentlemen, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to testify on behalf of the labor-extension bill, not only because of the direct bearing it has on the work that I am doing, but basically because the enactment of this legislation will have a beneficial effect upon the entire economic structure. In discussing the objectives and intent of this bill with people in all walks of life-educators, arbitrators, businessmen, workers, attorneys, newspapermen-I receive an enthusiastic response that such legislation is a very desirable positive approach to obtaining peaceful industrial relations. A careful reading of the bill permits no other conclusion.

That Congress, and the country at large, is vitally concerned with developing intelligent labor relations is uncontestably evidenced by the long history of legislation in this field. In recent years this interest has become considerably intensified. Yet from the Norris-LaGuardia Act to the Taft-Hartley Act the approach has been primarily corrective-an attempt to cure the problems rather than prevent them.

It is the purpose and policy of this act, in order to promote the full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees and employers in their relations affecting commerce

is the declaration of policy of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947. These "legitimate rights" are most clearly set forth in the labor contract between union and management. But is it fair or honest to expect more than a handful of working people to read 50 pages of necessary semilegal language, even though every employee receives an individual printed contract? The education program of my union is based on the experience that the contract has to be explained in clear, simple language, and abundantly illustrated with actual shop incidents. "Seniority shall prevail in determining promotions only if the ability of the applicants are equal," reads the promotion clause in most hosiery-union agreements. Careful explanation of the meaning of this clause, measurement of ability, and how it is applied is needed before the employee is to truly understand his rights, the rights of other employees, and the rights of the employer.

Congress has fully demonstrated its understanding of, and has long devoted itself to, protecting our precious forest resources. This protection, however, is not merely fire-fighting equipment. The program provides for replanting, for proper care of the trees, for demonstration of how to avoid such dangers as forest fires. In the sphere of indus

74442-48-10

trial relations, Congress has provided the apparatus to combat fires, although there may be some difference among us as to its effectiveness or its suitability. There can be no dispute, though, that conservation or education programs are lacking in this field.

How valuable such a program may be is best measured by the intent that will be available if the labor extension bill receives the approval of the Eightieth Congress.

New employees and new union members should be given the opportunity just as soon as they enter, to know what regulations govern labor-management relations, to know what the privileges and responsibilities are as a member of a labor organization. The handing out of the printed union constitution is not enough, even in the comparatively few instances when it is carefully read. Workers just starting in should learn about the background of the union, the development of collective bargaining, the hundred and one little things that make the difference between being just another dues payer and an alert member who can participate in the activities of the organization and can make full use of its democratic procedure.

Leadership among workers should not most readily fall on the person who yells the loudest, or who have always asked for the most, or the friend of the boss. Every member should have the chance to obtain the know-how of acting as an official of the workers' organization, and to acquire the technique of getting along with and obtaining the respect of their fellow workers-in short, leadership. Such training is the safety valve in the building of responsible labor leaders.

Participation in the activities of labor organizations is the right of every worker. He is limited, however, if he does not know how to make a motion properly at a meeting, or if he lacks confidence to speak his mind before a group. This bill means opening the gates for everybody to take a part in the labor organization.

Labor unions today for the most part are an accepted part of the community. It is only proper, that along with other institutions and organizations, they participate in community affairs. The contributions made and being made to such activities as the Community Chest, the Red Cross, aid to the war-torn countries, sale of savings bonds, add up to an impressive record. Again, however, it takes training and technical understanding to obtain the cooperation between labor and the community. Whether it is fund-raising or evaluating the merits of a hospital improvement program, this bill gives labor people the wherewithal to mobilize the energies and resources of workers on behalf of community good.

The labor extension bill will make it possible to reach the millions of nonagricultural wage earners to make them aware of our democratic heritage, and the application of democratic procedures in everyday activity. The study of American history and that of its labor movement provides the type of necessary background. For the most part, those affected by the bill are not readily reached or appealed to by other avenues of adult education.

Promoting constructive relations between workers and management, singled out sharply in the proposed bill, is one of the greatest benefits that will flow from enactment of this legislation. The need to live up to a collective-bargaining contract, knowing management's prerogatives, the proper processing of grievances all lead to orderly and harmonious relations between labor and management.

These objectives cannot be achieved through the standard adult education media. My experience has shown clearly that a special type of approach in teaching workers is essential to hold their interest and to make a lasting impression. Special materials have to be developed and different techniques devised for people who have had only a minimum of formal education. The demand is there, but the appeal must be different. A comparative handful of the educational facilities of the Nation are at present devoted to this important aspect of education. Much has to be done in training instructors and developing different types of facilities. It is the job that the labor extension bill can accomplish because it combines the rich experience and trained personnel of our educational institutions with the intimate knowledge of working people acquired by representatives of labor organizations.

My strong belief of the practical nature of this bill to achieve its stated purpose is not based on wishful thinking, but on the experience of our union. Workers' education is not new to us. The federation held its first class in 1919. Since 1926, there has been a paid person on our staff with responsibility to carry on a workers' educational program. This was not an activity installed from on top. It came about and developed because of demand from our membership as expressed in convention resolutions.

As an American labor union, we have always proudly pointed to our record of not a single authorized strike in mills in the northern producing area with which we have contracts, and very, very few "wildcat" stoppages. As an American labor union, we point with pride to our holding of conventions every year since our founding in 1913, to our publication of full financial data long before any Government requirement, to the mandatory referendum vote on questions of union dues, to a national executive board on which at least two-thirds must be members who actually work in the shop.

Some may claim that this development of responsible and democratic unionism is due to the collective bargaining machinery developed. Such conclusions, however, ignore the fact that it took people to build that machinery and people to administer it. A large number of our leaders participated in the union's training programs. It is significant to contrast the post-World War I period, in which the industry was racked with strikes for 31⁄2 painful years, to the period after 1926, when the educational program was intensified and during which strikes have been a rarity.

Our membership appreciates that if this record is to continue, and if the union is to maintain its democratic structure, education must be a continuing process. Our program has only been limited by the resources available. We have not been able to keep up with the demand from our local unions and our membership.

In this regard, the trend of some universities to undertake workers' education activities permitted us to expand in this direction. We had worked closely with one or two in the past, and now schedule, regularly, training sessions with such schools as the University of Wisconsin, Penn State College, and the University of North Carolina. It is our considered judgment that coming out of these training institutes are people well equipped to participate in the democratic union procedure and to carry on responsible collective bargaining.

In spite of this increase in workers' education activity, which is actually very small in comparison to need, our union has still not been able to involve more than 1 percent of its membership in direct training work. No labor organization, particularly one as small as ours, could possibly set up and administer a thoroughgoing and extensive education program. The cost would be stratospheric. The work would in many instances be only a poor duplication of the existing educational institutions. The solution, as provided for in the labor extension bill, is the bringing of the university to that crucial economic resource of the United States-the working man and woman. Certainly there is need and demand for such training. Requests for instruction by our local unions must go unheeded because sufficient facilities are unavailable. Only 2 weeks ago, our Des Moines, Iowa, local union wrote

As you know, last year branch 50 started classes for new members. These were conducted as informal discussions with branch officers and educational. committee members participating. This year's committee has followed this same pattern but attendance has never been too good and we are finding it increasingly difficult to interest people. I am wondering if a more definite program, with films, transcriptions, and so forth might prove more effective. It would be desirable, in my opinion, to have an instructor trained in labor education, but to my knowledge, there are none in this vicinity.

This is typical of the demand going unattended.

My purpose in appearing before you is to respectfully urge your approval of the labor extension bill as a force for economic good in the industrial relations field. The money to be expended will truly be an investment. The dividends that will flow from trained workers and leaders cannot help but be reflected in the wages, production and profits gained because of harmonious industrial relations. The bill extends the know-how of the university to people who really need the training the working people of the United States.

I am confident that passage of the pending legislation is a long positive step in bringing industrial peace to our Nation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. McCowEN. Questions, Mr. Kearns?

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Rafsky, I think your union is to be congratulated on the steps it has taken. You have a good record.

Mr. RAFSKY. Thank you.

Mr. KEARNS. I do not think there is any reason why you will ever quit the program we now have before us.

You mentioned, for example, the understanding of collective bargaining. We should have a bill that would make it mandatory that the heads of industry and labor leaders go to school and learn about it, instead of the rank and file, I think they would be a lot better off. If they got along as far as you fellows have, I think we would be all right.

Mr. RAFSKY. I would hope that any good program would provide for training of all leadership at all levels.

Mr. KEARNS. That is all.

Mr. McCOWEN. Any questions, Mr. Lesinski?

Mr. LESINSKI. No questions.

Mr. McCOWEN. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your presentation.

The committee will adjourn until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 .m. of the following day, Friday, April 16, 1948.)