first 8 months in 1952, which is 3,500, and I think the representation cases will go up, too.

Mr. BUSBEY. Senator Murdock, would you like to add something? Mr. MURDOCK. I think the only thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, is this. I was in the Congress when it adopted the policy that collective bargaining was a good thing for the Nation as a whole and that it was better to provide certain facilities for the peaceful settlement of labor-relations problems than to let them help themselves. Having adopted that policy in 1935 and having continued it down to the present day, indicates certainly that Congress and the people as a whole believe that collective bargaining is very essential to the welfare of the entire population of this country. Having adopted that policy and continued it down to the present time, we must either facilitate it in a speedy and efficient way, or we are not doing the full job that the people expect us to do.

I think that the Board and the General Counsel have in the last 18 months improved tremendously our efficiency and as the Chairman has pointed out, we have reached a momentum now which, in my opinion, is such that the people whom we serve, and that is the working people of the entire country and the employers, are beginning to realize that they can have their cases handled with dispatch.

Elections now are being handled in a few months, whereas, formerly, it took a much longer time. This is largely due to improvement in regional-office procedure instituted by Mr. Bott, General Counsel. Unfair-labor-practices cases are being handled under the present momentum of the Board in a way which, in my opinion, does not allow much room for criticism and complaint. I think that is what the Congress is interested in, that is what the people are interested in and that is what this Board is interested in.

I think it has resolved itself, as our chairman has pointed out, into a question of how fast do you people want us to do the job. I am quite sure you want it done in a way that does not allow valid criticism of the Board or of Congress in the disposition of these cases.

I think when you look at our prophesies as to our intake and look at the time involved now in the handling of cases, you cannot help but agree that the Board is not trying to get every dollar that it can for these matters out of Congress.

We have demonstrated as the chairman has pointed out, that our estimates are not for the purpose of getting every dollar that we can, but that we have hewed pretty close to the line and what may be anticipated in the future, and because of that, I hope that this committee will consider the present substantially improved momentum that the Board cases are moving at and give us sufficient money, Mr. Chairman, to keep our activities rolling as they now are. That is all I have to say. Mr. BUSBEY. Thank you, Senator. We have with us, and I am sure he has something which he wishes to say.

Mr. Styles,

DIFFICULTY OF TRAINING AND RETAINING PERSONNEL

Mr. STYLES. Just as Mr. Bott, I have been in this agency about 17 years, or will have been with it 17 years in September. That period includes service as a field examiner and regional director and now a member of the Board.

The heartbreaking thing about our operation has always been that it takes so long to train a man in this work. Most of our work is done by the examiners in the field and field attorneys. It is not the type of work where you can take a man right out of law school and throw him into it and turn him loose. His training requires a great deal of time, and not only time but great effort on the part of the people who train him. This is a very sensitive field. He comes in, perhaps, fresh from school and he starts dealing with people in industry who are paid $100,000 or $150,000 a year, and who are very competent in handling labor relations and matters of that sort. He is also dealing with union people who have come up through the ranks and who have learned the hard way how to handle labor relations. It is a field where a tremendous amount of not only intelligence but tact and real ability in human relations is involved.

We put in 6 to 8 months training those people; and, if we get an appropriation cut in the next year, not only have we lost that man and that amount of time-and, when I say "we", I am talking about the fellows who file a return on March 15 like all of us do--but have lost the time of the experienced people in the office who had to train him.

We actually have a very young staff and our staff turnover is very fast. It has turned over in the past several times because of appropriation cuts, and about the time we started getting this momentum going, as we have in the past, we would get an appropriation cut.

We lose these people in other ways. Most of the industrial-relations directors in this country are old NLRB people. They have gone to greener fields. They stayed with us 4 or 5 or 6 years and moved on. All of that costs the taxpayers money, and there is no way to stop that last cause which I mentioned, and I do not know whether there is any real way to stop the first one or not. If it were possibleand I do not think this is really possible-but, if it were, this would be a perfect situation if we had something like a 4- or 5-year program that Congress could give us and I think we could lick this problem. We should try to enforce a law such as this, not by the technique of stamping out a grass fire with a big pair of shoes but, rather, by having somebody stand by to prevent the fire in the first place. We cannot afford the man-days lost at a time when we are fighting in Korea.

That is about all I have to say, but it is heartbreaking to be in a regional office, or to be on this Board, and watch the staff go up and down and realize that our efficiency and our ability to deal with the final problem is going up and down with that. It is all right when it is going up, but it is hell on earth when it is going down.

Mr. BUSBEY. Thank you, Mr. Styles.

Mr. HERZOG. Mr. Peterson, our junior Board member, is here. I know you would like to hear from him and that he has something which be wishes to say.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add. I certainly agree with the Chairman, the General Counsel, and my other colleagues too, that it is vitally important that we maintain and improve our efficiency in this field, and I hope we will be able to do so.

ACCURACY OF ORIGINAL CASELOAD ESTIMATES

Mr. BUSBEY. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Herzog, how does your present caseload compare with the estimate made when the original Taft-Hartley law or, more technically, the Labor-Management Relations Act was under consideration?

Mr. HERZOG. I do not have before me, sir, the estimate of the caseload that the Board made at that time.

I think, probably, for fiscal 1948, which was the first year when we operated under the Taft-Hartley Act, we guessed as to what the caseload would be, but we were given an open-end budget. There was an understanding, since no one knew what the caseload was going to be and since it was speculative, that we could have a supplemental if we needed it. Actually, I do not think we used any of it. I do not want to avoid your question, and Mr. Wright might have some figures here. The first year that we really got tested any would be 1949, the first full fiscal year that the statute had been on the books. If you would like those figures, I can give those to you. The 1948 figures were very high. I remember definitely, when we appeared before the deficiency subcommittee right after the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, that we had to guess. We did not know what sort of cases were going to be filed and we did not know whether the passage of the act would discourage the filing of the old Wagner Act cases, and we did not know how many new-type cases would be filed. One place where we guessed very low on, and it was on something that is now eliminated, and that was union-shop-authorization elections. I think in the course of 4 years we spent $3 million on that. A great deal of that was in the first year or two.

The original estimate for fiscal 1949 was for a total of 7,900 unfairlabor-practice cases, 22,500 representation cases, and 30,000 of these union-shop-election cases, making a total of about 60,000. I do not remember what we came out with that year, but I am not sure that is contained in the figures which we put in last year on page 84 of the

record.

Mr. Wright tells me that the estimate I gave you was really made when the act was a baby. It was the estimate made to the Bureau of the Budget within 3 or 4 months after the Taft-Hartley Act went on the books. In other words, in the fall of 1947.

In fiscal 1949 we actually received 5,300 unfair-labor-practice cases, about 8,400 representation cases, and about 12,000 union-shopelection cases. I think the figures for the years that follow are probably in that chart that you were good enough to let me put in the record, which is for fiscal 1950, 1951, and 1952. We were pretty far off in 1948, as I said, and the committee recognized it when they gave us this open-end budget. We overstated it then, but not since, except for this trouble in representation cases this year.

RATE OF PERSONNEL TURNOVER

Mr. BUSBEY. For the benefit of the committee, would you give us a little statistical data on the turnover of personnel other than clerical-say, from grade 9 up.

Mr. HERZOG. You mean how frequently do they leave and have to be replaced, regardless of appropriation cuts, just normal departures of the people Mr. Styles was speaking about who left to take other jobs?

Mr. BUSBEY. Yes.

Mr. HERZOG. I think the General Counsel could probably give you much more accurate facts on that than I could.

Mr. BOTT. We do know that about 60 percent of the personnel in the regional offices under my jurisdiction have been hired since 1947-between 60 and 65 percent. That includes everyone, field examiners, lawyers, and clerical. There is a large turnover in our attorneys.

Mr. BUSBEY. That does not give me much help in arriving at what I am trying to find out.

Mr. BOTT. We would have to get that for you, specifically. For example, half of the lawyers in the regional offices are new and have come on in the last few years. They get up to a certain grade and we have a maximum in Government for the average employee, and they may get up to about $5,500 or $6,000, and if he is a good lawyer, he looks for a better job, and he has more children and other expenses after 3 or 4 years, and there he goes and God bless him.

Mr. STYLES. If you compare the top salary we are able to pay in the field and that is where it is really important, as Mr. Bott has been saying there the top Government attorney and top field examiner is probably a GS-11 or GS-12, and the kind of work to which he may go in private industry, you will find, in most instances, he adds 50 percent to his income, and you try to keep one of those fellows from leaving. I have tried as regional director and it is really tough. You can tell him it is a good thing to work for the Government, and it is, but when he starts talking about he cannot buy another house on his salary and buy a car and things of that sort, he just leaves you.

Mr. HERZOG. I think one example of an extraordinary factor that caused turnover which we had, was the creation of the Wage Stabilization Board a couple of years ago. We lost a number of our best people to them. They were able to offer much higher salaries than we could offer. However, now, these people are beginning to come back. That had an artificial impact on the turnover figures in the last 2 years, and I do not know how many we lost. May we submit those figures to you?

Mr. BUSBEY. Yes; if you will, please. (The information follows:)

Fiscal-year rates of turnover for field professional employees (1950 fiscal year through 1953 fiscal year)

Percent of turn

over

17.6

15. 6

1951.

11. 3

1950_.

15. O

1 Actual for July 1952 to February 1953 projected to annual basis.

Mr. BUSBEY. Then, the elimination of the Wage Stabilization Board will eliminate one factor you had to contend with in keeping personnel.

Mr. HERZOG. Yes; that is right, but private industry and the unions will still be competing, but from that particular factor, it will be gone;

yes.

ORIGINAL AND REVISED BUDGET ESTIMATES

Mr. BUSBEY. Inasmuch as this is the first time that this committee has had before it the two budgets, I think it might be well to put the tables for both budgets in the record at this point, and, without objection, we will insert in the record pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9.

And I hope the printer will try to arrange these tables so they can be on opposite pages, and as close together as possible, where a comparison can be made more easily. In other words, the table on page 1 of each justification should, if feasible, be opposite the page of the

other.

Mr. HERZOG. We will put some little statement in before it goes to the printer, so they can be readily identified, Mr. Chairman; you will note that the original budget submitted to the Bureau of the Budget in October, is the Truman budget, and the estimate that is more up to date and became the later estimate is the so-called Eisenhower budget, if I may identify them in that fashion.

Mr. BUSBEY. Very well, if you will present such a statement.
Mr. HERZOG. Yes.

(The tables and statement referred to follow :)