Page images
PDF
EPUB

WALTER CHAMBLIN,

BIRMINGHAM, ALA., February 3, 1945.

National Association of Manufacturers:

In regards to your telegram Associated Industries of Alabama is in accord with National Association of Manufacturers policy on the war manpower program. Our largest manpower shortage in this district is among coal miners and iron miners, about 4,000. This shortage comes about from quitting jobs and absenteeism.

WALTER CHAMBLIN, Jr.,

National Association of Manufacturers:

D. TROTTER JONES.

CAMDEN, N. J., February 5, 1945.

In regards to your telegram we believe manpower problems in this area not serious enough to warrant a National Service Act. I cannot find one voice or argument for national service, our voluntary manpower program has worked successfully and certainly would serve every purpose if given statutory authority. SOUTH JERSEY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, W. H. RADEBAUGH, Executive Director.

(Telephone message to Walter Chamblin, Jr.:)

FEBRUARY 3, 1945. Employers Association of North Jersey favors strengthening voluntary manpower program by statutory authority for War Manpower Commission. Believes existing machinery should not be scrapped but should be made to work. Some improvement in manpower situation in our area during January. Actual production lags below schedule due slowly to labor shortage are few and not increasing. A. M. TORREY,

Secretary Employers Association of North Jersey, Newark, N. J.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing is recessed. (Whereupon, at 4:30 p. m., an adjournment was taken until Friday morning, February 9, 1945.)

MOBILIZATION OF CIVILIAN MANPOWER

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1945

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m. in the committee room of the Committee on Military Affairs, United States Capitol, Senator Elbert D. Thomas (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Thomas of Utah (chairman), Hill, Chandler, Kilgore, O'Mahoney, Maybank, Revercomb, and Burton.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Luhrsen, will you state your name and address for the record?

STATEMENT OF J. G. LUHRSEN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION

Mr. LUHRSEN. My name is J. G. Luhrsen, of 10 Independence Avenue SW., Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. Your statement is arranged in such a way that if we break in at any time it will be all right?

Mr. LUHRSEN. That is right; any time you desire.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed with your statement, will you, please? Mr. LUHRSEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am appearing in behalf of the Railway Labor Executives' Association. Our association, in the past as now, has consistently opposed all compulsory legislation, not only in peacetime but also since we are at war. Such opposition seems even more appropriate when we are fighting a war than during peacetime. Labor can only be consistent when it fights for the retention of freedom and free labor here at home so that the servicemen fighting the battle abroad for world freedom may be encouraged to greater assurance that they are not returning to a slavemade nation but to the same state of freedom as when they left it. As recently as January 24, 1945, while our association was in session, and with every one of the organizations represented, the following motion was adopted:

That the secretary and the national legislative representatives be instructed to continue opposition to the May bill (H. R. 1752) and the Bailey-Brewster bill (S. 36) and, in conjunction with other organizations, support any character of legislation that will defeat the compulsory features.

Under date of January 29, 1945, I filed with this committee a short statement in opposition to the legislation now being considered.

I can think of no statement which appeals to me as being as forceful and consistent as that made by President Gompers, of the American Federation of Labor, many years ago:

So long as we have held fast voluntary principles and have been actuated and inspired by the spirit of service, we have sustained our forward progress and we

have made our labor movement to be respected and accorded a place in the councils of our Republic. * no lasting gain has ever come from com

pulsion.

*

That quotation is worthy of broadcast to all of the American people because of its soundness.

I am sure that many, if not all, of you, as members of this committee, have read the book entitled "Adjusting Your Business to War," by Leo M. Cherne, copyrighted by the Tax Research Institute of America under date of 1939.

Mr. Chairman, I will show you that book if you have not seen it. I think you would be interested in it. It is an industrial-mobilization plan, and the contents cover a very far-reaching field. It definitely indicates that compulsion should be left out of the picture.

On page 128, under the subheading "Priorities and labor," it says: As to priorities on labor, the industrial mobilization plan contemplates the establishment of a war labor administration, but there is nothing in the plan or in proposed legislation which can be construed as providing for coercion or compulsion of labor. An employment service which is to be operated by the War Labor Administration will really be the priority agency of that body. Its task will be to bring the job and the worker together with a minimum of migration and on a purely voluntary basis on the part of the worker, with essential industries receiving first attention.

Again on page 137 he says:

The War Labor Administration must supervise this problem and provide machinery for the equitable and voluntary distribution of labor, skilled and unskilled, male and female, to industry and agriculture during the war.

Again on page 144 under the subheading "The labor policy summarized" he says:

The labor policy in industrial mobilization has been tersely summarized by Col. Roy M. Jones, Air Corps, Chief of the Contributory Division, in the following words, "Labor must not only be regarded as one of the essential elements of production, but workers must be regarded as citizens whose individual rights must be safeguarded and assured. The services of individual workers cannot be drafted by Government for the benefit of private industry."

I will quote Baruch on this later.

We cannot reconcile the inconsistent arguments advanced by those who want this legislation and claim that it is necessary when, at the same time, the same representative of the War Department who testified repeatedly, admits when questioned, the lack of necessary proof for the necessity of this legislation. Under Secretary of War, Mr. Patterson, as late as January 10, testified before the Committee on Military Affairs of the House and repeatedly nullified all argument for sponsoring this legislation because of his evident lack of knowledge where shortages actually existed. For example, on page 4 he says [House hearings on H. R. 1119]:

I want to point out that the need is for more men in war production in a civilian capacity, and it is not a need for these special service units that are mentioned in the bill. I know that the Army-and I believe the Navy, likewise-do not have need for the services of men in these special service units. The aim of the bill, I take it, under that sanction, of being inducted into those special service units, is to persuade, and force, if you like, men not now engaged in war production or in support of the war, to engage in war production.

Right there is indicated a direct challenge to that of Col. Roy M. Jones, who says: "The services of individual workers cannot be drafted by Government for the benefit of private industry." If

these men are not needed by the Army and Navy and "the need is for more men in war production in a civilian capacity," as stated by Secretary Patterson, then certainly any compulsion imposed upon the worker for the benefit of private contractors for profit becomes abhorrent.

Secretary Patterson states (on p. 5 of those hearings),

The aim of the bill is to make sure that men go where they are needed and not go where they are not needed and as we see it, the primary need is to get more manpower of the Nation into war production.

Here is an example of how this works. I would like to have the entire news article of the Champaign-News Gazette, January 26, 1945, incorporated in the record to serve as information for this committee. I wonder if there would be any objection to my putting it into the record.

The CHAIRMAN. None.

(The article referred to is as follows:)

Go WEST? JOB SEARCH FUTILE TO LOCAL TRIO

[From the Champaign News Gazette, January 26, 1945.]

Three Champaign-Urbana carpenters declared Friday that Horace Greeley may have known what he was talking about when he advised men to go west but the United States Employment Service at Champaign didn't. They agreed, however, that the Federal agency is persistent.

In a statement filed with their union, the three carpenters related that the employment service here dispatched them to Inyokern, Calif., where it was said jobs were waiting at $1.43 per hour for a 70-hour week.

One week and 160 gallons of gasoline later they arrived in California to be told by the United States Employment Service that there were no jobs to be had in Inyokern or anywhere else on the coast and that 8,500 men already had been turned back.

They were, however, allowed $111 expenses for the trip out, promises a similar amount for the trek back, and told to go home.

"During the trip out and back we met an exceptional number of house trailers and other cars going or coming from the coast. We talked to a large number of these men and found their circumstances the same as ours," they said.

TEXT OF DOCUMENT

Men who signed the statement were Lawrence McGrath, 1005 South Fourth Street; Ralph Lee Maddy, route 1, Urbana; and John R. Maddy, route 1, Urbana. This was the text of their document:

"We, the undersigned men, who are members of carpenters' local union 444, received information from the United States employment office at Champaign, Ill., of a need for carpenters on a job at Inyokern, Calif., near Bakersfield.

"On this information we telegraphed Mr. Preston Price of Bakersfield and received a reply offering employment at $1.43 per hour with seven 10-hour days as the workweek. We were allowed 160 gallons of gasoline to make the trip out to this job.

"We left Champaign on January 9, 1945, and arrived at Bakersfield on January 15.

"Upon arrival at Bakersfield we received information from Mr. Lewis, the manager of the United States Employment Service, that no job was available. He also told us that 8,500 men had already been turned back.

NO EMPLOYMENT

"Upon contacting the United States west coast construction command we were informed that we could not be placed in employment any place on the west coast.

"We were then allowed $66 for car expense plus $15 per man for expenses on the trip out. It is our understanding we are to be allowed the same amount for returning to Champaign, Ill.

"During the trip out and back we met an exceptional number of house trailers and other cars going or coming from the coast. We talked to a large number of these men and found their circumstances the same as ours."

Sherdie C. Jones, president of the Twin City Federation of Labor, said the statement will be referred to Victor Olander, secretary of the Illinois Federation of Labor, for investigation.

"We'd just like to know where this manpower shortage is," Jones said.

MANPOWER SHORTAGE?

F. D. Stevenson, business agent of the local carpenters union, declared the case "further convinces" us that "there is no shortage of manpower in the construction field."

"These men were like a lot of other boys running around looking for work," he added.

Stevenson reported that the three carpenters expect to leave this week end for a job in Louisville-secured not through the United States Employment Service but by a call from the Louisville union's business agent to the local union.

Before they landed that job, however, one of them went back to the United States Employment Service office here and said he was still looking for work. He declared the agency's representatives here told him:

"We can refer you to Inyokern, Calif. There are good jobs there."

Mr. LUHRSEN. Briefly summarized, three carpenters at Champaign-Urbana, Ill., were offered through the United States Employment Service at Champaign, jobs at $1.43 per hour for a 70-hour week at Inyokern, Calif. This is a small freight branch line station between Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park on the Southern Pacific Railroad. The three men were given 160 gallons of gasoline to make the trip in a car and they arrived in California 6 days later and were told by the United States Employment Service that there were no jobs to be had in Inyokern or anywhere else on the coast and that 8,500 men had already been turned back. They were allowed $111 expenses for the trip out, and it is expected that they will be allowed $66 for car expenses plus $15 per man for their return trip to Champaign. They say that during the trip out and back, they met an exceptional number of house trailers and other cars going and coming from the coast and in talking to them, found their circumstances the same as that of the three carpenters. Even after all of this, upon their return, one of the same carpenters again applied to the United States Employment Service at Champaign and he was again told "We can refer you to Inyokern, Calif. There are good jobs there."

Since the definite concern of the war as well as the Navy Department is with respect to war production here at home and their claim. rests entirely upon shortages of manpower unless compulsory legislation is enacted, they seem to disregard entirely the maldistribution of labor even though hundreds upon hundreds of definite cases of information are brought to the attention of the public daily. For example, the, the War Department in reply to a question as to Government bungling, states frankly:

You are quite correct in saying that it has been caused by maldistribution rather than by an actual shortage. There is no shortage in this country of anything to carry on a war.

Yet, they insist that there is a necessity for this compulsory legislation. The hearing shows very clearly, as admitted by the War Department representative, that there is no shortage of weapons, that the German breakthrough was not due to lack of weapons nor lack of manpower. They do not think that there is much hoarding of labor

« PreviousContinue »