Mr. LESINSKI. I have one question.

You spoke of the shortage of teachers in this type of educational work. How would you screen these teachers so that they would bring out the actual facts, and not teach any other "ism" but "Americanism"?

Miss Corr. (1) I would find the people most skilled in their fields. That is, I would be sure the teacher was a good economist, or that he was a good historian, and that he had proved that he was an able teacher.

(2) I would try to find sympathetic people who thought their job was to make other people think, instead of telling them what to think, and who had skill in drawing out a person to understand the current economic world.

As he taught economics it would help him to see the historical development that lead to the kinds of problems he was confronted with today, and who used the workers' experience to understand a broader economic picture.

I would only find a teacher who would help another person to think, rather than tell him what to think.

Mr. LESINSKI. Well, suppose he had all the qualities that you just spoke of. How could you find out in screening him that he was not thinking in back of his mind how he could throw in his own "isms"?

Miss Corr. Well, if you had certain panels prepared in local areas, of people who had proved their worth, that would be one way, I should imagine. If you had institutes for the discussion of problems with which teachers might be confronted as they tried to teach workers, their whole attitude, even in a discussion with their own fellow teachers would, I should think, suggest whether or not they were dogmatic people, or whether or not they were real teachers.

Mr. LESINSKI. Would you not then rely upon your boards that consist of educational and labor people to watch?

Miss Corr. They would need to be people who knew the picture very well, I should think, and who themselves knew what we meant by a sound program.

Mr. LESINSKI. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BREHM. That is all, Miss Coit. Thank you very much.

Miss Cort. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BREHM. The next name I have is Mr. Paul Sifton.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL SIFTON, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED AUTO WORKERS, CIO, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. SIFTON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Paul Sifton. I am national legislative representative for the UAW-CIO, Washington office at 1129 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, D. C.

Speaking for the National Committee for the Extension of Labor Education, which for 2 years has had as its single purpose the establishment by appropriate legislation of a Nation-wide Labor Extension Service, we wish to express our appreciation to your committee for the hearing that has been given these bills, H. R. 6202 and H. R. 6249, in the past 5 days.

I should like, if I may, to offer at this point for the record a statement by Victor Reuther, director of education, UAW-CIO. Mr.

74442-48- -15

Reuther hoped to be here but with the change in the schedule he was unable to do so. He asked me to have this statement filed for the record.

Mr. BREHM. Without objection it is so ordered.

Mr. SIFTON. I quote briefly from one portion of his statement later in the course of my statement.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY VICTOR REUTHER, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, UNITED AUTO WORKERS, CIO

I am educational director of the United Automobile, Aircraft, anu Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the CIO. I reside in Detroit, Mich.

I was reared in the State of West Virginia, spent 1 year at the University of West Virginia, went to Detroit, worked in an auto shop there, Kelsey-Hayes Wheel, and continued my schooling at Wayne University. I am short a few credits of graduating there.

For the past 11 years I have been associated on a full-time basis, sometimes on the pay roll, sometimes not representing the United Auto Workers, either local unions or the international union.

I feel very strongly about the need for bill H. R. 6202. I want to make it very clear in the beginning that I have much more than a casual interest in this bill because my full-time work is concerned with directing the educational activities of the UAW-CIO. I would like to say just a few words about that to give you some idea of the scope of the program, and I want to make clear also, if I thought we could meet our own educational needs with our own resources, I wouldn't be here today.

I think we are spending not only in money, but in energy, more than any other single labor organization in the country in the field of educational work with our membership. Last year we spent better than a half million dollars through the international and through our local unions for direct educational services for our members. We conducted some 9 summer institutes in 7 States last summer with an enrollment of some 2,500 workers who work in the shops at those summer institutes. We conducted week-end institutes which enrolled some 18,000, and classes offered at the local union level enrolled some 30,000 of our members.

It is because we have begun to offer services of this kind that we have begun to find expressions of real needs for its service. I want to make dear that the UAW-CIO doesn't come here asking for any hand-out for our members. It seems to me that what is proposed in this bill is something which Congress itself without any urgings from the trade-union movement should see the wisdom of. I don't think the Congress could make any better investment in strengthening our democratic way of life in this country than in providing educational opportunities for the people whom you expect to participate in our democracy. We talk a great deal in all of our assemblages about the urgent need for people themselves participating, but what are we doing to offer the kind of educational services that adult citizens need, the kind of extension services that are available to them out in the field?

Our public-school system just doesn't have the money to offer this kind of training. I know. I have gone to the schools many times and asked then. to provide these services. They don't even have the funds to meet the needs of our children, let alone adult workers.

The business groups have facilities in excess of anything which workers have. There is hardly a university that doesn't have some kind of a business school connected with it that concerns personnel for leadership in the engineering and other fields.

You tell me the names of the educational institutes in this country that will help the trade-union movement to develop the kind of leadership which its activities and problems require.

Where are they?

They aren't available. I think it is the responsibility of the community at large and the representatives of the people, the Government, to provide that kind of direct assistance to the organized groups that are trying desperately to meet this need with their own resources, but cannot because their own resources are not sufficient.

I don't think that the half-million dollars which our union spends in a year is a drop in the bucket for what is required. We have had such a response on the part of our people for training of this kind that we can't begin to meet the needs. We are fortunately in Michigan getting some assistance from the University of Michigan, but they, too, are faced with the lack of funds.

The farmers have, as has already been pointed out here, a kind of direct assistance from Federal appropriations. If we translate the kind of services which the farmers are now getting to meet their problems, translate that type of service to meet the requirements of factory workers, wage earners, and salary workers you will find that the type of service explained in this bill will be comparable to that which the farmers are now getting.

Our factory workers would like some assistance in trying to work out their budget problems. Farmers have budget problems; so do factory workers. It is certainly reasonably that they be given that assistance. If a farmer's livelihood depends on growing a good crop and marketing it, what does the worker need? He ought to get some guidance as to how to improve his own ability and how to participate in society and in the special legal machinery which has been established which is called collective bargaining, how best to participate in that so that his contribution will be more effective.

I think that the farmer is getting assistance and there is no reason why the factory workers shouldn't get it also.

Now, I think the Members of Congress, if they are interested in providing this kind of service, will want to set what minimum of expenditure for setting up machinery is necessary, so that the great bulk of the appropriation will go to direct services. That is why I don't think we ought to set up any great apparatus separate and apart from agencies that already exist that can help us administer this.

I think it belongs in the Department of Labor. The pattern established here in this bill for decentralizing the machinery by handling the actual expenditures through local agencies like the University of Michigan and others, and establishing in conjunction with those organizations local advisory bodies which can interpret the needs and see to it the money expended will go for the things that are urgently needed, will keep the kind of democratic control that is needed.

You can't find any kind of language that will be a substitute for honesty in administration or that will absolutely rule out the possibility of someone getting some bureaucratic control over machinery and so on. Language in itself will not prevent that, but I believe the best insurance is in the basic machinery that is provided for here, putting it under the Department of Labor, with the establishment of a national committee representative of organized labor and others that have a direct interest in it, and with similar bodies locally established. I think you can make sure that the moneys that are available will be spent for the things that are urgently needed.

I understand the question has been raised as to whether or not this service shouldn't be also made available to management representatives. Well, International Harvester, one of the firms under contract with our union, is spending some $10,000,000 for foreman training. God bless them. Their foremen need it. Perhaps they will also spend another 10 million for those higher in management, but they have that kind of money to spend.

If they need money beyond that and are spending a reasonable portion of their income for that kind of training and they need additional men, let them come to Congress and ask for it, and I would say more power to them because I would not want to deny any group in the community the kind of services we are asking here.

Even if every penny of the money that is envisioned in this bill is appropriated, we would still not be on an equitable basis with other groups in our society. This is urgently needed in order to give us some balance, in order to see to it that we get at least a portion of the break which agricultural workers and which business is getting from either Federal appropriations, or from existing educational institutions.

The question of representation was raised as to whether or not it is un reasonable to give organized labor such a large voice in recommending policies and procedures in the administration of this bill. Well, the organized labor representatives are those who have been chosen legally under the law of our land to speak for the industrial workers covered by their collective-bargaining agreements. If there were a way of picking representatives of the unorganized group, I would like to know how you would proceed. Who is there that could

arbitrarily say that he was in a position to select the representative of a great unorganized mass of workers?

I would think that is about as difficult as for someone to stand up and say he speaks for the millions who don't vote in time of election. Maybe they ought to be represented also. I think it is a very difficult thing to try to provide an unorganized group of workers with representatives. I think that the tradeunion movement has already tried with its limited resources to meet the problem. They are spending a considerable amount of money. They are the ones who are conscious of the need and are trying to work out the problem. I think they are the ones that ought to have the largest voice in determining what kind of programs are needed and should be obtained from the institutions of higher learning.

The question is raised about whether or not company unions shouldn't be represented. Well, company unions under the law are illegal and should not be represented in any kind of a body of this sort.

A joint program with representatives of management has been discussed. I was very directly involved in discussions at Wayne University in Detroit. I sat with representatives, the Michigan Manufacturers' Association, with George Romney, head of the Automobile Manufacturers' Association, and others. When Wayne University first discussed the establishment of the industrial institute, the representatives of the university thought it might be possible to conduct joint training sessions for management and labor, and I can report very truthfully and frankly to you that the representatives of management, Mr. George Romney and Mr. John Lovett in particular, were as vehement against conducting joint sessions as were any representatives of organized labor.

Why? Because they are practical men. They are engaged in collective bargaining, and they know very well that you cannot recruit the kind of people that are needed for training these sessions if there cannot be the utmost frankness in the discussions that take place. Management does not want us sitting in on their training sessions any more than we want them sitting in on ours. I think both parties will get a great deal more out of it if those sessions are conducted separately.

I repeat, if management has need for this kind of assistance-and I question if they actually have the need today, because they have considerable resources beyond those which we have-if they need it, let them come and make their request for it.

Meantime, unless the Federal Government gives this kind of aid, Congress will not be meeting the public responsibility to the wage and salary workers of this country who can make a real contribution to our democractic way of life, who can do a great deal if they have more facts and more understanding and more assistance placed at their disposal to work out the kind of management-labor relations that will lead to greater stability and will lead to greater activity and that will lead to a time of more abundance than that which we have known before.

Unfortunately, most times when labor has been called in on sessions down here, we have spent all our time discussing punitive legislation.

Labor is here asking for something which is constructive, something which no one can say is a selfish request, because what would the UAW be getting out of this excepting that its membership would have educational opportunities which they do not now enjoy? It would not mean a penny in the treasury of the UAW. It would mean that I, as educational director now responsible for a program that runs into half a million dollars, would not have a penny of additional money to appropriate for any project. It would be administered by local agencies over which my union and others would have no control. We would have a voice in asking for such services and in proving the need for them. That is all we ask.

If Congress is really concerned about tackling some of these problems which are constantly thrown in our teeth about irresponsibility of labor, the lack of good leadership, the lack of democratic participation, and so on, all of these alleged charges that are made-if the Congress is really concerned about working with these problems, let Congress put in our hands the kind of tools that we need to get democratic participation on the part of large numbers of our people, to see to it that we have a real understanding of democratic practices and procedure, to see to it that our local leaders know how to get up and express themselves in a meeting, that they understand parliamentary procedure so that those who don't believe in democracy and democratic practices—and who use all the rules in the book to try to throttle-will not succeed.

That is the kind of assistance we need. Here is a chance for the Congress to make a contribution for strengthening the foundation of our democracy.

Let me in conclusion state exactly our experience and the types of need we have found which we cannot meet and which we think can only be met by H. R. 6202:

The UAW-CIO has a membership of 500,000 most of them concentrated in Michigan although substantial numbers live in other industrial States. This membership is made up of men and women from all States of the Union and from many foreign countries.

These thousands of workers naturally come into the automobile industry with a variety of educational background and training. Many of them are high-school graduates; some few have had the advantage of college or university education. Thousands, however, have had little opportunity for securing even an adequate elementary schooling.

Whatever their level of educational attainment, however, we know that the many complex problems facing all workers today require a practical type of education that should extend through adult years. This education we believe should equip our members to be intelligent participants in their union activities and more effective citizens in their communities.

We have recognized the union responsibility for meeting this need by setting aside for educational purposes 2 cents per month out of every dollar of dues collected. With this fund of approximately $250,000 annually we maintain an educational department and regional educational officers in strategic centers. In addition, a number of our local unions employ full-time educational directors and carry on extensive programs out of their own resources.

Our department has sponsored classes, institutes, and summer camps for our members in all parts of the country. Last summer the United Automobile Workers conducted schools in 7 States as well as in Ontario, Canada, with an attendance of 2,500 workers. Week-end conferences and institutes enrolled 18,000 workers, and 33,000 members of our union completed courses run by UAW-CIO in 1947.

In the State of Michigan alone, classes and institutes were held in virtually every town where this union has concentrated membership in cooperation with the Michigan CIO Council and the workers' educational service of the University of Michigan. Indicative of the growth of interest in workers' education, stemming from workers themselves, is the record of our summer camp program in Michigan. Five years ago when the Michigan CIO ran its first summer school, 100 persons attended. In 1947 the enrollment at the CIO labor center near Port Huron, Mich., reached approximately 1,000.

We realize that what we have done up to this time is merely a beginning. We are planning to continue and to expand our educational program within the limit of our resources. There is a growing interest in all phases of this work which in many instances is organized and carried on through voluntary contribution of time and energy by our officers and members.

However, we also recognize that our resources do not permit us to give all the educational services needed by workers. Universities and other educational institutions have a responsibility for supplementing the work we are able to do ourselves.

We are pleased, therefore, that in Michigan as well as in other States some part of this responsibility has been assumed through the establishment of practical programs of educational service to workers. These programs through their inclusion of material and services dealing with the social sciences, health, and safety, collective bargaining, and various problems that affect the worker can be of distinct value.

Existing services, however, offered through publicly supported agencies fall far short of meeting the needs. We believe, therefore, that H. R. 6202 is timely in that it proposes to assist such agencies financially in carrying on their programs. Although the amount of the Federal grants proposed is not large in comparison with the funds that are provided through taxation for training in the field of agriculture, business, and the professions it is sufficient to get a sound program under way.

Enactment of the bill into law should stimulate unions as well as educational agencies to greater effort in development of educational services for workers. In our opinion it would constitute a long overdue recognition on the part of Government that it is vitally concerned in assisting the workers who constitute a great majority of our population in meeting their problems as producers, as consumers, and as citizens in our democracy.