studies in several areas, one would be the one you referred to this morning, Mr. Congressman:

Who are the unemployed, how many of them are secondary earners as compared to primary, how many really should be on the rolls?

That would be an area of great interest which we believe would be helpful.

Mr. ALGER. Where is this information? Is it in all of the States? Mr. IRELAND. Father Becker is in the room and probably knows more about this than I do. I do know that back in the basic Department employment files, in the individual States, it is pretty much there and most of the States, at least the larger States, have fairly high-grade statistical forces. I do not know how much of it is here in the Department of Labor in Washington. I am convinced that it is available and could be gotten.

Mr. CURTIS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ALGER. Yes.

Mr. CURTIS. I wonder, with the agreement of the gentleman from Texas, whether we might request the chairman to direct a communica-, tion on behalf of this committee to the Department of Labor to answer this question as to what statistics they do have, what might exist in the States and what they might get to this committee.

Mr. FORAND. The Chairman is absent. You will have to propound that question to him when he is here.

Mr. CURTIS. I will make the request on the record and I will talk to the chairman. Thank you.

Mr. ALGER. In your statement:

We believe that such a study would demonstrate that the approach taken by this bill is unwise

I am taking your statement at face value. If the statement that you make there that the approach of this bill is unwise is based on these facts in the State Labor departments and possibly the Federal Labor Department and we, in this committee, are taking action without the benefit of this information, we cannot say that you did not forewarn

us.

You have told us that this bill is unwise in your judgment, and if your judgment is correct, we might be making a grave mistake on this committee, no matter how deep our interest in helping the unemployed, if we go ahead building a bill without having this information that you claim will make all the difference because it will show this bill to be unwise.

Is there anything wrong in this analysis?

Mr. IRELAND. No, sir. I am in complete agreement with it.

I think there are several areas on which a study would yield very much information such as something that would lead to the conclusion of whether Father Becker's suggestion is sound or whether there should be a variable duration or whether after 26 weeks you should have a supplementary plan or whether you should investigate at that time going to general assistance plus a means test, because, after all, there is some limit to which the individual is entitled to support from the insurance system.

Mr. ALGER. Thank you, Mr. Ireland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORAND. If there are no further questions, we thank you, Mr. Ireland, for coming to the committee and for the information given us. (The following statement was filed with the committee:)

STATEMENT BY ROBERT A. HORNBY, SECOND VICE PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE STATEWIDE INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

A little over a year ago I submitted to the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives a statement of the position of the California State Chamber of Commerce setting forth the views of this organization to the effect that the individual States are better qualified than is any other unit of government to decide on what terms and conditions unemployment insurance benefits are payable to the citizens of the several States.

At the time the statement was filed, the issue before the Ways and Means Committee was whether Federal legislation should be enacted to provide a temporary program extending benefits to those individuals who had exhausted their benefit rights under the State system. The option was left to the States as to whether they would enter into an agreement with the Federal Government extending benefit duration.

At the time, we opposed such Federal legislation on the grounds that a standard suitable for one State, or for several States, might well be seriously deficient for many of the States subject to the uniform Federal requirements. We also pointed out that California has demonstrated both its willingness and its ability to modify its unemployment insurance program in keeping with changing economic and social conditions. To be specific, in 1945 California extended coverage to include employers having one or more employees, the requirement becoming effective in 1946. Compare this with the fact that it was not until January 1956, a decade later, that the Federal Government got around to extending coverage to employers of four or more.

The issue now before the Ways and Means Committee is in principle the issue before the committee a year ago. That issue is whether uniform standards, set by the Federal Government, are to be applicable to the widely different economic and social conditions in the several States. If there were the possibility of rejection of the Federal standard, as was the case in the temporary program extending the duration of benefits, conceivably there might be some basis on which Federal standards would be acceptable. The proposals now before the Ways and Means Committee do not provide for such rights of rejection on the part of the States. The standards are applicable to all significant areas of the unemployment insurance system and are not proposed as a solution to a temporary economic problem. The standards are a straitjacket within which the programs of all States must operate.

It has been argued repeatedly by those favoring Federal standards that unless such standards are in existence the States simply will not modify their programs to meet the changing needs. One has only to consult the annual publication of the Federal Bureau of Employment Security which itemizes the changes in the provisions of the laws of the various States to see that the argument is groundless.

The second argument put forth by those advocating Federal standards is to the effect that the changes effected by the various States are not extensive enough or liberal enough to satisfy those who advocate a single Federal standard. We acknowledge that this is true and make no apologies for the fact. At this point it is pertinent to point out that liberalizations currently receiving serious consideration in the California Legislature which would be feasible and practical in California, with an expanding industral base and a population boom of major proportions, would be little short of disastrous in an area suffering from a long-term industrial decline.

In this large country, with its widely varying economic and working conditions, any prescribed single criteria for unemployment benefits would be hazardous: Excessively generous in some locales, but inadequate in others.

In the current session of the California Legislature both management and labor are supporting legislation to provide for an extended duration of benefits when unemployment reaches a specified level. Even a casual examination of the legislative proposals in this area reveals agreement on fundamentals, although there are differences in mechanics. A third major legislative proposal would increase both the maximum taxable wage base and the maximum State tax rate, as well as provide a 25 percent increase in maximum weekly benefits. All these proposals are of major significance and importance to the unemployment insurance program in California. They are further evidence, if such is needed, that the States have both the ability and the will to modify their social insurance systems in accordance with the capacities of their economies and the wishes and needs of their citizens.

(The following article was included in the record at the request of Mr. Alger of Texas.)

[From the U.S. News & World Report, Apr. 27, 1959]

WHAT "UNEMPLOYED" REALLY MEANS

Take a closer look at "the 4.4 million unemployed."

You'll find surprises. Only about 1 million represent families whose sole breadwinner is out of work.

Others listed as jobless include workers shifting to new jobs, the temporarily laid off, the sick.

These are just a few of the facts that figures alone don't tell about unemployment now.

When you read that nearly 4.4 million workers in this country are unemployed, the question raised is this: What does "unemployed" really mean?

Are 4.4 million people walking the streets, destitute, looking for work? Are these millions as badly off as the unemployed of the early 1930's, living in families where there is no breadwinner and no income?

Start digging for answers and you find many things. You discover, first of all, that even in the best of times 3 million persons or so are classed as unemployed. These include people who are shifting from one job to another and are temporarily without income. They include young persons looking for work for the first time. They include workers laid off, but expecting to be rehired within 30 days. They include the temporarily sick and a considerable number of people who could be called "unemployables"-alcoholics, handicapped persons, those untrained for any kind of work.

So there are about 1.4 million people out of work now, over and above the number that would normally be classified as unemployed.

Lots of jobs.-You also find that, in March, 63.8 million people had jobs. That was an increase of 1.1 million workers over February and a gain of 1.5 million over March 1958. Actually, employment now is almost as high as it ever was. Does this mean that unemployment is not serious?

Being out of work is always serious for those who are unemployed. But the figures suggest that unemployment is not now a major national problem calling for a "crash" program to create jobs.

Actually, just what is an "unemployed" person?

By official definition, anyone over the age of 14 who is looking for a job and cannot find one is counted as unemployed. That includes a wife who would like to earn a little money, even though her husband is employed. It includes students and young people looking for temporary jobs. It counts retired people with pensions who would like to add to their incomes. It even includes a farmer who may be looking for an off-farm job to add to his earnings.

How are the unemployed counted?

The unemployed are estimated through samples taken each month by the Census Bureau. The sampling covers 330 areas embracing each State and the District of Columbia. Approximately 35,000 households are checked each month. Statisticians believe that estimates of unemployment are accurate to within 100,000.

Are most of the unemployed destitute?

By no means. For example, among the total number of unemployed, 1.7 million are married men who are heads of families. In these families are 500,000 working wives and 200,000 sons or daughters who have jobs. That leaves about 1 million families without a breadwinner-less than 25 percent of the total unemployed.

Then some people counted as unemployed still have incomes?"

Probably most of them have incomes. An unemployed father, for example, may be drawing $30 week in unemployment benefits, and his wife may be earning $60 a week. That's an income of $90.

Does a jobless person have to take another job when it is offered or lose his unemployment benefits?

Not always. Most State laws say that a jobless person need take only a job that offers work and pay comparable to the job he lost. A skilled machinist, for example, can refuse a job as a common workman.

How about the million families without a breadwinner? Are they destitutè? Probably not many of them are. A large proportion of the unemployed are entitled to benefits that provide some income up to 26 weeks. Others may be getting some direct relief. Still others are getting emergency benefits. Not many have been without jobs long.

How long have the jobless been out of work?

The average is 4 months for all of the unemployed. Chances are that most married men with families have been unemployed for less than the average period.

Then, for most people, unemployment is not permanent?

That is correct. Unemployment usually has been temporary for most workers. The Government estimates that, of the 1.5 million men aged 25 and over who lost their jobs during the recession, 1 million had been rehired by this spring. How many people have been out of work for a long time?

The official figures show that 1.5 million persons have been unemployed for 15 weeks or more. About half of these-around 800,000-have been jobless for 6 months or more. That's a small percentage of the total labor force. Why don't these long-term unemployed take jobs elsewhere?

A good many of them probably don't want to move because they have their homes and are settled in their communities. There probably are others who hope to be rehired, and don't want to lose seniority rights.

Then there is some rigidity in the working force in this country?

Yes, probably quite a bit. Many workers have built up seniority and pension rights and don't want to lose them by switching jobs. Also, some employers hesitate to hire a person who may quit as soon as his former job opens up again. Is that why casual labor, such as household servants and yardmen, is hard to find even when unemployment is reported as large?

The explanation for the scarcity of casual labor probably stems from a number of causes. In the first place, unemployment, for most people, does not last long. Then, as the figures show, all but a few families usually have some member employed.

The unemployed, then, are a shifting rather than a steady group?

That is quite true. This country's labor force grows year after year by about 700,000 people. That means that each year a lot of young persons are looking for jobs for the first time. They are counted as unemployed until they find work. The latest figures, for example, show that the percentage of unemployment is highest among people who are 24 years of age or younger.

Does a growing labor force mean that unemployment will be a permanent problem?

Not necessarily. In times of recession it's hard for newcomers to the labor market to find jobs. But, over the years, the country has managed to provide jobs for people able and willing to work.

Is unemployment worse for men or women?

More men than women are without jobs, both in actual numbers and as a percent of the working force. In fact, the census bureau notes that total employment of women changed very little during the recession.

How serious is unemployment among Negroes?

On a percentage basis, unemployment is about twice as high for Negroes as for white workers. That is the usual situation in periods of business recession. Also, the percentage of unskilled workers is higher among Negroes than among others, and it's usually the unskilled who are laid off in larger numbers. What happened to skilled workers in the recession?

The official report on the labor force indicates that, even during the recession, the number of professional and technical workers increased about as usual. There also was an increase in the number of clerical workers, people in service industries and salespeople. This does not mean that there was no unemployment in these groups, but it does indicate that demand for such workers stayed high, as it did for managers and business proprietors.

How many people are being forced to work only part time?

The number working less than 35 hours a week because of reductions in schedules is smaller now than a year ago, smaller than before the recession began. However, the number of people who normally work part time has increased over the last 2 years. The trend apparently is for an increase in part-time workThis group consists largely of housewives, students and older persons who do not want full-time jobs.

ers.

The increase in part-time workers is another indication that the recession was accompanied by a rather small amount of actual distress among workers. Is unemployment general throughout industry?

No. Unemployment is and has been spotty all through the recent recession. Unemployment in March was heaviest in manufacturing. About 1.2 million factory workers were without jobs in that month. And most of the unemployed factory workers usually are employed in industries that make "hard" goodsautos and machinery.

Is this situation improving?

Decidedly. In autos, for example, 1 worker in 10 is now unemployed, compared with 1 in 4 a year ago. For the hard-goods industries as a whole, unem. ployment has dropped from 11.6 percent of the labor force to 7.4 percent. In what part of the country is unemployment most serious?

Latest official surveys show that unemployment probably is most serious in the coalmining regions of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Then there are persistent unemployment problems in some textile centers in New England. Unemployment is still heavy in Detroit and other automotive centers, and in some steel centers.

Job total stayed high.—Actually, the country weathered a sharp recession with very little severe distress among workers. And total employment never dropped below 62 million.

Mr. FORAND. This concludes the calendar for today and the committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the committee adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 14, 1959.)

39678-59-46