(Subsequent to the hearing, the following table was furnished by Raymond S. Smethurst, counsel of the National Association of Manufactures, which table shows the number of women in the labor force of the country on certain dates:)

Civilian labor force of the United States, by age and sex

[Source: The Labor Force Bulletin, November 1944, Bureau of the Census]
[Number by millions]

Senator CHANDLER. This bill would not apply to two-fifths of the workers in that age group.

Mr. MOSHER. No, sir.

Senator MAYBANK. But in the cotton mills you have four-fifths women, and in the majority of war plants in the South you have women workers, but the ones that are essential like navy yards, and so forth, will run to the men?

Mr. MOSHER. They will run to the men.

With this divided authority we are bound to get confusion. A man will sit back and wait to see what happens.

Recruiting of men now needed almost automatically stops under confused conditions like that. Certainly those 18 to 45 are going to wait and see what happens.

I want to point out that there are transfers going on now between plants under voluntary loan arrangements. In some cases they have worked well and in others they have not worked so well.

Men in all these age groups, pending this definition of "essential and war-supporting activities," won't risk losing their present draft status by shifting jobs without draft-board approval. Men who could be released for more essential work will have no incentive to accept other jobs until their draft board orders them to take a more essential job.

The answer is they wouldn't get the benefits provided in the bill. Look at the effect of the bill on some 16,000,000 loyal workers who have been on the job for the duration and the amount of discrimination involved against that vast majority. You have travel allowances, Federal reemployment rights, and the benefits of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act. I tried to read that act a few days ago when I first saw it, and I got lost. But under the proposed act I am ordered to take the job and I do not have to pay my bills, I don't have to pay may taxes, I don't have to pay my rent, I don't have to pay my insurance.

The CHAIRMAN. For the present.

Mr. MOSHER. If the bill goes through.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no. No one is exempt from those payments. The Government merely says that they are carried on during such period and the Government collects afterward.

Mr. MOSHER. That is true, they are deferred as such.

There is a very interesting analysis as to what happens to bills as they age. You know what happens to a bill that gets old.

The CHAIRMAN. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Act goes back to Civil War times and was put in the law just for the purpose of taking care of men who simply could not take care of themselves.

Mr. MOSHER. I don't want to indicate that in any way we are complaining of the benefits given to these soldiers.

Give them all we can give them and more too, but don't extend it to the workers we are going to force.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a grave question as to whether that section should stay in the bill or not if it is reported out.

Mr. MOSHER. I would hope that at least those provisions will be given up because it is not fair. You are trying under the bill to hit certain people who are not doing what you think should be done.

If we have to go that far, and can't do anything else, let's not give them the benefits and exclude those who have been loyal and patriotic from those benefits.

Senator REVERCOMв. Suppose you move a man and he is under lease and has to leave his premises and yet the landlord says, "Your lease is not up. You have not given me legal notice." Can he make him pay the rent during his absence?

Mr. MOSHER. I don't know, sir.

Senator REVERCOMB. It is a question to be dealt with.

Mr. MOSHER. It is very much in the picture. If he moves to my town where there aren't any rooms to be had, what do we do with him? I don't know.

Senator BURTON. You are pointing out these men are not in the same class as a soldier and sailor, and in the second place as distinguished between the man frozen in and the man ordered in, there is no distinction, and between the man frozen in and the woman who is in, there is no distinction.

Mr. MOSHER. And if he works for a private employer it is presumed he works for a profit.

The unfair discrimination we are sure will breed discord and it will wreck morale. That is why we are against the legislation and think it is not desirable.

The bill will complicate management ability to get manpower and will seriously impair plant efficiency. It will not assist materially in solving the problem.

I have taked about the limiting of control of the 18 to 45 and the majority of the men will not be affected unless the definitions of "essentiality" are determined. It will not even encourage job applications by men in those groups.

It will discourage recruiting until the effects of the bill's authority are known. A man isn't going to give up his job until he knows what he is giving up.

It won't require, or even encourage, job applications by men or women not covered by the bill. Yet immediate recruiting is our problem.

And potential workers who have left industry, who amount to about one and a half million, who left or were laid off are given another reason to stay away. They are going to stay away until they get the benefits if they think the benefits are of any value.

I hesitate to say this, but I think it is only a gesture and won't do the job. It doesn't affect turnover and it doesn't affect absenteeism which is a bigger factor by far than the shortage itself.

The words "voluntary discontinuance" can encourage conduct provoking discharge. That is where a man does or fails to do something to provoke his discharge.

I suggest that the penalties of $10,000 or a jail sentence I do not expect to see enforced by the courts. I think they are too steep and unreasonable.

Senator AUSTIN. Don't you recognize that part is entirely taken care of by the discretion of the judge to make it $1 or $10 if he wants? That is nothing but a maximum limit.

Mr. MOSHER. I understand that; yes, Senator. I guess I won't say something I was going to say.

The CHAIRMAN. The day before yesterday a boy was courtmartialed and got a death penalty and today it didn't happen. In America the tendency is to be fair on those things.

Mr. MOSHER. Isn't one of our greatest difficulties the fact that we do have laws which the public knows or at least believes there is no intention of enforcing? Isn't that one of the real troubles with much. of our morale?

The CHAIRMAN. I think the American people follow the theory of "let the punishment fit the crime."

Mr. MOSHER. There is a demand for legislation of some kind. We can't blame our fathers and mothers for wanting to get at those people

who aren't doing the kind of a job the public thinks ought to be done, but my point is we don't want to jeopardize the boys at the front by putting obstacles in the way of production and H. R. 1752 could do that very same thing.

We are apprehensive about it.

I don't want to bring up the political considerations. I don't know anything about them. I don't know how to change them.

I think what we have suggested can be made adequate and can be made effective. It could be made to be effective.

Finally, if there is anything under the sun that our Association can do we will be mighty pleased to have you call upon us. We will be glad to do it.

That, I think, Senator Thomas, completes my remarks, and I will be very glad to try to answer any more questions, if there are any. Senator HILL. Mr. Mosher, you spoke once or twice of your plant and different plants you had been associated with. Will you give us a little brief sketch of yourself, as to what have been your plants and what has been your experience?

Mr. MOSHER. I was with the American Optical Co. from 1922 to 1944, last fall.

Senator HILL. Where is the head office of that company?

Mr. MOSHER. Southbridge, Mass.

Senator HILL. The main plant?

Mr. MOSHER. The main plant is at Southbridge.

They have about 5,000 people in that plant.

And they have a plant in Putnam, Conn., one in Buffalo, N. Y., and one in Brattleboro, Vt.

And they have two Canadian plants and several English plants. I was in the leather business prior to that for some 6 years.

Senator HILL. What was your position?

Mr. MOSHER. Vice president and general manager.
Senator HILL. General manager of all the plants?

Mr. MOSHER. All the plants; yes, sir.

Meanwhile I have been in the cutlery business, manufacturing professional and industrial cutlery, and that plant has about 165 employees and normally it is 250. It is suffering from war conditions.

That is more in the nature of an investment in plant, and I have never been particularly active in anything except the financial management of it, although I am quite familiar with the details.

I had 10 or 15 years of varied experience before I went into the optical industry. My background is accounting and labor phases of factory management.

Senator HILL. Do you devote you full time presently to the National Manufacturers Association?

Mr. MOSHER. Yes, sir.

Senator HILL. How long have you been president?

Mr. MOSHER. January 1.

Senator HILL. Were you with the optical company

Mr. MOSHER. Until November 1, 1944, just 2 months before. I

had agreed to take the National Association work at that time.

Senator HILL. You severed your connection anticipating your election as president of the association?

Mr. MOSHER. Yes, sir.

Senator HILL. One interesting thing about your statement particularly is that whereas you do not favor the action proposed by the May bill as that bill passed the House of Representatives, you do feel the need for action and you come here with a course of action suggested, and when I say action I mean action that could be brought about only by legislation, by action on the part of Congress.

Mr. MOSHER. And after the legislation goes through the thing could be handled pretty promptly and speed is an element in this situation.

Senator HILL. And, of course, the legislation you suggest involves compulsion.

Mr. MOSHER. Yes, sir.

Senator HILL. Except that you approach it from the angle of the employer.

Mr. MOSHER. I put most of it on the employer.

Senator HILL. You put practically all on the employer.

Mr. MOSHER. Some is on the employee because he can't go to a job even under our plan unless he secures a referral certificate, presumably from U.S. E. S.

Senator HILL. Would you write that into the law?

Mr. MOSHER. Yes, sir. I would give the local manpower group the right to control ceilings, force employers to discharge, and control hiring.

Senator HILL. And you wouldn't let a man get a job anywhere else. Do you mean in any work anywhere? How far would you go on that? Mr. MOSHER. Oh, take the practical cases. I would expect to see U. S. E. S., if there are two or three companies in the area needing help, letting them have the help. With only one company in the area he has to go there.

Sneator REVERCOMB. If he didn't go to that place, under your idea he couldn't get a job somewhere else. Is that what you mean? When there is only one place where he is needed and he is referred there through the United States Employment Agency, if he has

reason

Mr. MOSHER. If he has a good reason he can show that.

Senator REVERCOMB. Suppose it is an arbitrary reason? You wouldn't let him go to work any place?

Mr. MOSHER. I might suggest that he might be allowed to go to work and he would fire himself the next day. You can't make him work if he doesn't want to work.

Senator REVERCOMB. But you would make him go there first?
Mr. MOSHER. Yes.

Senator HILL. What would you do about the many jobs that do not at the present time come under the U. S. E. S.?

Mr. MOSHER. I would have to say first I don't know what doesn't come under there.

Senator HILL. How many taxicab drivers have we in Washington? We used to have about 5,000. We have thousands of them. And I guess you have got 20,000 in New York City.

Senator MAYBANK. You added in the Government chauffeurs? Senator HILL. And private chauffeurs, too.

Mr. MOSHER. I can't answer your question because I don't know. If I was discussing it with a business associate I would like to know what situation U. S. E. S. could not take cognizance of.