strikes of 1943 and the automobile sit-down strikes of 1936-37, which always raise the total of man-days lost. The course of strikes during the past 9 years was as follows: The most that can be said for this performance is that strikes, through Government intervention, were held to brief duration. We have built up during the war an enormous labor adjustment machinery-the National War Labor Board and its subordinate regional and industrial agencies, divisions of the war boards and of the Army and Navy and the permanent conciliation service of the Department of Labor-which if it failed to prevent strikes, at least kept them from developing into prolonged stoppages of work. NO LOSSES ARE DISCERNIBLE AS RESULT OF ACTION Among the many reasons advanced to account for this situation, the most persuasive is certainly the absence, in Government policy, of any serious penalty for striking. Men can nowadays strike with impunity. Neither they nor their unions are calculated to suffer discernible losses as a result of strikes. The War Labor Board has, it is true, occasionally withheld the concession of maintenance of membership from unions which have ordered and conducted stoppages. But this penalty has not been frequently invoked and in the few cases in which it has been applied, it is questionable whether the unions, which have been favored by the authorities in such a variety of other ways, have suffered much thereby. A good case might indeed be made for the proposition that organized labor has employed the strike, during the war, for getting what it was unable to exact by negotiating and bargaining. John Lewis won the closed shop in that way. He certainly used the strike as a means of forcing several valuable concessions from the Government and the coal industry in 1943. It is feared that he will do the same in 1945. Mr. Petrillo and his musicians' union wrested from the radio industry one of the most valuable concessions in labor history by ordering strikes and defying anyone in the Government to stop him. FOREMEN EXPERIENCE SHOWS BAN NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY Because the Government, through its agents, often seems amenable to such pressure, it is not surprising unions will take the small risks involved in striking. This is what the foreman's union has been consistently doing. Barred from further progress by a decision of the National Labor Relations Board which in substance held that employers could not be required, under the Wagner Act, to bargain with unions of foremen, foremen's unions began to put the heat on by striking in essential war plants in Detroit and elsewhere. Before long, their policy showed results. The Labor Relations Board ruled that supervisors unions could organize and not bargain. The War Labor Board appointed a panel whose report may well open the way for the rise of precisely such unions. In the face of this experience, no one should expect organized labor to take the ban on striking too seriously. This public policy of eradicating the risks of striking presents to this country a peace, as well as a war, problem. It is only another side of the larger question of the wisdom of policies which grant private organizations immense power and fail to hold them responsible for what they do. Senator MAYBANK. Might I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Senator MAYBANK. You said "inducted for military service." Suppose they were in such physical condition that they couldn't be drafted for military service-would it follow that they should be drafted for work on the farm or in industry? Mr. OGG. Well of course necessarily you would have to take into consideration whether they were able to perform the work that they are asked to do. Senator MAYBANK. Oh yes. Mr. OGG. But to the extent that they are needed in essential work, the people who are not in essential jobs should be called upon to get into essential war jobs. Senator MAYBANK. Suppose they won't do it, would you put them in there? Mr. OGG. They should be subjected to the same penalties as any other violator of the Selective Service Act. Senator MAYBANK. Have you had general reports from the farmers throughout the country, similar to the ones that I have had, that, in many instances when men were working on the farm and were exempted for work on the farm, sometimes they have been called to the Board and failed physically, and were put in IV-F, and the tendency on a good many farms was for these people to leave because the farm work was hard, and get a job as a bellboy, or some job in a hotel in the city? Have those complaints been general? Mr. OGG. We have had some complaints. I think there is an urgent need right now to clarify the Tydings amendment on that point because they are requiring all these boys from 18 to 25 to have a preinduction physical examination. Once they have been turned down for the Army there is no penalty in the law now except induction, and if the Army doesn't want them the penalty is of no force. Senator MAYBANK. And a good many of them leave the farm. Mr. OGG. Well, they might. Senator MAYBANK. Down in South Carolina they do. Mr. OGG. Some have, I have no doubt. Senator Tydings has introduced an amendment which will take care of that, and I will come to that in a minute. Much has been said about "compulsion" in connection with "work or fight" legislation. Let us not forget that this "compulsion" is only applied to men who have been excused from military duty for one reason or another, and who either are unwilling to accept employment in an essential war industry or who leave such an essential job either in industry or agriculture without good cause. Let us not forget, either, that millions of men have already been subjected to "compulsion" and have been inducted into the armed forces and are now fighting our battles throughout the world, and many of them have already given their lives. A of them are foregoing the comforts and safety of civilian life here. Surely, the least that men of draft age here on the home front can do is to get in an essential job in industry or agriculture and stay in such essential occupation. Furthermore, the element of "compulsion" in "work or fight" legislation is only applied when the voluntary system fails to meet essential war requirements. At the present time, and for many months past, according to the highest authorities, the voluntary system, so-called-and it is not entirely voluntary, there are some compulsions has failed to provide sufficient workers in highly critical war industries, with the result that we are behind schedule on many 68966-45 -18 critical war supplies which our boys who are fighting our battles need, and which doubtless would aid in the saving of a great many lives. We believe the House bill, H. R. 1752, is preferable to S. 36. We favor the amendments added by the House which are intended to include agriculture in the benefits to be derived from this legislation, in obtaining additional workers for essential war jobs in agriculture as well as industry. We also favor the substitution of civil penalties for the original proposal which provided as a penalty the induction into the armed forces with denial of all veterans' benefits. We believe that violators of "work or fight" legislation should be subject to the same penalties as any other violators of the Selective Service Act. It is vitally important to further safeguard the Tydings amendment to clear up recent misunderstandings and misinterpretations of this amendment which have arisen, particularly in connection with the issuance of recent instructions by the Selective Service System relative to the induction of men 18 through 25 years of age. I am sure that all responsible leaders in agriculture, so far as I know, have never in the past nor are they now, interested in protecting the agricultural deferment of any unworthy registrant, but we are convinced that if any large number of the deferred registrants 18 to 25 are removed from farms at this time, it will result in substantial reduction in the over-all production of food, that it will result in substantial liquidation of livestock and dairy cattle, and later in a substantial reduction in production of soil crops. We feel that it is our obligation at this time to give to the Congress and to responsible administrators in government the best judgment of farm people with respect to this situation. These deferred registrants, particularly in this age group, are key men. In many instances they are the only able-bodied men on these farms, and the elderly people and children who are supplementing their work would be unable to carry on the farming operations at their present production levels if these men are taken and are not replaced. It should be borne in mind also that on December 1, 1944, according to the report published by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, there was the smallest farm employment for that date on record. I have just been advised this morning that the B. A. E. has issued its February 1 report which shows that that situation still prevails, that on February 1 of this year we had the smallest number of workers available since they have been keeping records in the Department of Agriculture. In order to enable farmers to meet their food production goals, we therefore believe that immediate steps should be taken to suspend or clarify the recent instructions with respect to the induction of key farm workers. The farmers are greatly disturbed over the recent directive issued by Justice Byrnes and the regulations issued by Selective Service directing the reexamination and requiring of preinduction physical examination of all deferred registrants in agriculture 18 to 25 years of age. We don't object, of course, to reexamining these registrants to see if they have proper cause for deferments, but apparently the impression has gone out pretty generally to the country that this represents a virtual annulment of the Tydings amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Didn't Director Byrnes take that matter up with the Advisory Committee before he issued his directive? Mr. OGG. I don't believe so; no, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Why do you assume that it would be contrary to the Tydings amendment when, as a matter of fact, the Tydings amendment assumes, doesn't it, that if a man is deferred for agricultural purposes he will stay in agricultural pursuits? Mr. OGG. I am going to cover that in a moment. The point is that in this directive, under which General Hershey issued these recent instructions, there was a statement which quoted the President as finding that these deferred workers in agriculture, 18 to 25, in most cases were more needed for the armed services at this time than they were on the farm. The CHAIRMAN. That was brought out yesterday in a discussion in the Senate. Mr. OGG. Many of the local draft boards took that virtually as an order from the Commander in Chief to induct most of these boys, regardless of how essential they might be on the farm. The CHAIRMAN. We heard Senator Mead yesterday, and Senator Tydings, and if your point is the same as the point which they made, we have got that in the record. The only thing I was interested in was your conclusion, first to see whether Judge Byrnes is working with his advisory group; and, second, to see whether it is Mr. OGG (interposing). It is my understanding that Mr. O'Neal as a member was not consulted before that was issued. We protested immediately to Selective Service and President O'Neal also sent a letter to Justice Byrnes, asking that the directive be clarified. I will be glad to put the letters in the record if you would like to have them. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would like to have them. Mr. OGG. Mr. O'Neal protested also to General Hershey and I have a copy of his letter to General Hershey. But we are still getting Senator BURTON (interposing). Have you copies of the replies from these people? Mr. OGG. Yes. Senator BURTON. Will you put those into the record? Mr. OGG. Yes. (The letters referred to follow:) AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Maj. Gen. LEWIS B. HERSHEY, Washington, D. C. DEAR GENERAL HERSHEY: We are getting telegrams and phone calls from our leaders in various parts of the country inquiring about the status of the Tydings amendment. Apparently there is a very general impression that your recent instructions to draft boards abrogate the provisions of the Tydings amendment, and require immediate reclassification of men who have been deferred as essential workers in agriculture, between the ages of 18 and 25. Farmers believe that any further inroads on efficient agricultural workers will have serious effects upon the volume of agricultural production. We would appreciate it very much if you will give us your official interpretation of your recent instructions to local draft boards, and the present status of the Tydings amendment, in order that we may properly inform our people. Very truly yours, EDW. A. O'NEAL, President. Subject: Classification of farmers. Mr. EDWARD A. O'NEAL, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, Washington, D. C., January 13, 1945. President, American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. O'NEAL: This acknowledges the receipt of your letter of January 12, 1945, concerning the classification of farm workers. The armed forces have strongly indicated that they want their now substantially increased calls filled to the utmost possible extent from the available registrants under 26 years of age. As of the first of this year, out of the total labor pool in all war activities other than agriculture, only 40,000 registrants, under 26 years of age (apart from the merchant marine), were deferred. Out of a total farm-labor pool of something over 8,000,000, over 360,000 registrants under 26 years of age were occupationally deferred. The above-mentioned numbers of registrants occupationally deferred in agriculture and in other activities do not include registrants who have been found not qualified for general military service. In other words, a war-production and war-activity group many times as large as the farm-labor group had less than one-ninth as many occupational deferments within the age brackets out of which we must to the largest possible extent fill the calls made on us by the armed forces. Under those circumstances, the Selective Service System received, from the Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion, and transmitted on January 3, 1945, to all State directors of Selective Service, a letter stating, in part, that the President "has found that the further deferment of all men now deferred in the 18- through 25-age group because of agricultural occupation is not as essential to the best interest of our war effort as is the urgent and more essential need of the Army and Navy for young men. The President feels in view of existing conditions, agriculture like our other war industries can, with few exceptions, be carried on by those in the older-age groups. "The President has authorized me to ask you to take such action in connection with the administration of the Tydings amendment as may be necessary to proviae to the full extent permitted by law for the reclassification and induction of the men agriculturally deferred in the age group 18 through 25.” In accordance with Justice Byrnes' letter, we have directed all local boards to review the classification of agriculturally deferred registrants ages 18 to 25, inclusive, to make absolutely sure that they fully meet the requirements of the Tydings amendment, i. e., that they are necessary to an agricultural occupation or endeavor, that they are regularly engaged in it, that it is essential to the war effort, and that no replacement can be obtained. Sincerely yours, LEWIS B. HERSHEY, Director. AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Hon. JAMES F. BYRNES, Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR DIRECTOR BYRNES: The recent instructions sent out by Selective Service System headquarters requiring reexamination and preinduction physical examinations of all deferred registrants in agriculture are causing a lot of confusion. We are getting many distressing appeals by telephone, telegraph, and letters, indicating that a great many farmers are panicky over the situation, as they do not see how they will be able to continue operations at present levels and meet their food-production goals if they lose their trained keymen. Apparently the impression has gone out pretty generally over the country that these regulations mean, for all practical purposes, the nullification of the Tydings amendment, requiring the deferment of all essential agricultural workers who cannot be replaced. Another thing which is very upsetting is the requirement for preinduction physical examination. The mere fact that every man is called up for a physical examination before his essentiality is determined, creates such uncertainty that many of these young men will leave the farm, even though they are urgently needed. |