(The articles referred to are as follows:)

[The Washington Post and Times Herald, April 19, 1958]

DIP REPORTED IN JOBLESS FOR MARCH

There was a slight drop in unemployment last month in the Washington area, but the number of jobless remains near a 4-year high. It was 42 percent higher last month than in March 1957.

There was a drop of 700 in the number of jobless and an increase of 3,000 in the number of employed from February to March, the United States Employment Service office reported.

There remain 25,800 persons unemployed in the latest figures. That is 7,700— or 42 percent-more than were out of work in March 1957.

For the third month in a row, the unemployment rate here exceeds 3 percent. It was 3.1 percent in January, 3.5 percent in February, and 3.4 percent in the latest figures. The percentage is lower than in any other major area. The national estimate is 6.8 percent.

The drop in the number of jobless and the pickup in employment in March were not as great as had been hoped, said Fred Hetzel, director of the USES Office here. Unemployment dropped nearly three times as much in the same period last year. It dropped by 1,900 to a total of 18,100.

It is believed poor weather has been a factor in slowing down construction activity, Hetzel said. Though 2,300 of the 3,000 new jobs were in construction last month, the total construction employment figure of 33,400 is 4,400 lower than in March 1957. Construction remains almost 12 percent below 1957 levels. Area employment stood at 641,500 last month, 10,600 under the March 1957 figure. Minor gains in employment were reported in most categories, with the exception of railroads, retail trade, and the Federal Government, where minor losses were recorded, ranging from 100 to 300.

Metropolitan Washington has dropped from the Labor Department's group B classification to group C, which means job seekers are in "slight excess" over job openings and unemployment has been between 3 and 5.9 percent for more than 4 months.

[Washington Evening Star, April 10, 1958]

D. C. JOBLESS DROP LESS THAN USUAL

There were 1,000 fewer jobless in the Washington area in March, preliminary figures of the United States Employment Service here revealed today. But the customary spring employment pickup has not been as strong as usual this year. March showed 25,500 unemployed compared with February's 36,500, which was a 4-year peak with 3.5 percent of the labor force unemployed, according to Ernest V. Connolly, assistant director of the Washington office. But he pointed out that a detailed analysis of the situation has not yet been made and that the figures are preliminary.

Normally the number of jobless drops about 10 percent in March, Mr. Connolly said. In March 1957 there were 18,100 unemployed in the Washington area, down from 20,000 in February.

Mr. Connolly said with better weather the construction trades gradually have been moving back to work. Tourist, hotel, and restaurant business has been stimulated by the influx of visitors.

New job applicants within the District dropped 276 to a total of 5,406 in March. In 1957 the decline was 352 to 4,482 in the same period.

While fewer persons were seeking jobs in some categories, there was an increase in the professional and maid classes, Mr. Connolly said. The latter may indicate that some wives are seeking work when husbands are laid off.

[Washington Post, April 19, 1958]

RAIL WORKERS HERE FACING LOSS OF JOBS

By Jack Eisen, staff reporter

An estimated 275 to 325 railroad workers in Washington will lose their jobs or be laid off within the next few weeks. Abandonment of New York passenger service by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad is one of the causes.

Of the total, between 50 and 75 are train crewmen on the New York run who work out of Washington. Of the other 200 to 250, most are laborers and car cleaners.

Maurice H. Lingenfelder, manager of the Washington Terminal Co., said much of the reduction in the laborer and cleaner force is the result of a seasonal dip. Florida patronage normally drops at this time of year, he said, and the advent of daylight time results in longer layovers in New York and a shift of some maintenance work there.

When the B. & O. gives up its New York service after next Saturday's runs, the Pennsylvania will be the only passenger operator on the line.

However, the reduction is about 100 to 150 more than the seasonal layoff last year, Lingenfelder declared. This can be traced to the reduced B. & O. operations and the general downturn in railroad passenger business.

In June, about 75 car washers will be displaced by an automatic washing device being installed in the yards.

A spokesman said the Terminal Co. is studying possible reductions in the shop maintenance force. Chances are, he added, that some helpers-but none of the fully skilled workmen-will be dropped. Heavy maintenance for B. & O. is handled at its Baltimore shops.

B. & O. headquarters in Baltimore said the company plans an "equitable arrangement" for crewmen and other workers who face job losses as a result of the passenger service drop. A substantial number are eligible for retirement, the company said.

While there was no official estimate of the number involved, a source in Washington said some 50 to 75 regular and extra crewmen are assigned from here. However, many will be able to bid on a seniority basis for runs west from Baltimore and Washington and to move onto freight runs. Those with lowest seniority would be furloughed.

In Washington, the Metropolitan Society of Model Engineers, Inc., is making arrangements for an excursion on the last trip of the Royal Blue to New York next Saturday. James E. Taylor, 925 Upshur Street, Northeast, is in charge of arrangements.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. May I just say, Mr. Chairman, that the District Commissioners, in considering this situation want an adequate amount to be paid. We feel that unemployment compensation should be kept substantially in the realm of insurance and not go into the area of relief. These are the things that we had in mind.

For instance, one of these provisions could result in someone, say a housewife, who was only a fringe employee back during the basic period, coming in for very substantial unemployment insurance. We do not think such folks are going to stay back and stand back and not collect it if it is available.

We have considered everything before us and felt that this is as far as we should go in recommending amendments at this time.

Senator MORSE. This isn't the place to engage in any lengthy discussion of it, but I do think the record, in passing, ought to contain this observation of mine because it has a great deal to do with the approach I take to this problem.

În 1946 we passed the so-called full-employment bill, which is on the statute books. I was one of the cosponsors of the bill. A reading of that debate and a reading of the law will show, I think, that it was the intent of the Congress indisputably to take action whenever there

were serious signs that the economy was headed for trouble, as evidenced by growing unemployment.

I think that the Congress has failed up to this hour to take the steps that were contemplated in that law. I respectfully say I think that also goes to applications of the executive branch, too. What we are seeking to do, it seems to me, in the legislation before this committee, now, is really to carry out an obligation of the law that is on the books, the full-employment law, and our disagreements may be in regard to the procedure to follow in carrying out the mandate of that law. But as I have indicated before, there is the law, and I do not think that we can justify a wait-and-see program until the conditions get so bad that we are then going to have to pass legislation which I fear might have a drastic effect on the economy in the years immediately ahead.

I do not know how many people are actually unemployed as of this hour. No one does, because certainly such figures as we have are inadequate, and that is admitted by those who prepare the figures, because they are based on unemployment-insurance figures; and we do not know how many people are not covered, how many people have exhausted the benefits, and how many people are working part time.

But I do think there is one figure that we ought to keep in mind from the standpoint of past history of our country going back to the dark thirties. I think we ought to see to it that we never let the unemployment get much above what it presently is, because it is a fear of mine and I do not scare easily-it is a fear of mine, that if the unemployment situation of this country ever gets anywhere near the 10 million mark, we are headed for trouble, because free Americans know they do not have to go unemployed.

Free Americans know that there is no justification for any such mass unemployment as that figure, and it will be an ill day in America, I predict, if we ever approach the 10-million mark of unemployed free men and women who want to work. As one who is an ardent advocate of this economic system of ours, I am willing at this time to take some rather drastic steps, in the views of some, to prevent further unemployment.

I think further unemployment has to stop and stop immediately, and I shall continue to say that it is the obligation of both branches of Government, my branch and the executive branch, the congressional branch and the presidential branch, to proceed without further delay to get people back to work under the Full Employment Act of 1946.

In other words, I share the point of view that we ought to put them to work, and, while we are waiting to get them to work, we ought to see to it that they get unemployment-insurance benefits. That is all I am going to say by way of a speech at this hearing. It represents the philosophy with which I approach this problem. I think, now, we ought to listen to these witnesses and hold our committee executive session as quickly as possible in order to come out with the best bill the majority of us can agree upon. I stress the fact, and I want to say it to the witnesses that follow, I stress the fact that the chairman is going to sit in executive session to try to work out with his colleagues on this committee the best general compromise

that we may have to reach in order to get that 1 vote over 50 percent which will give us legislation.

Senator HOBLITZELL. I support, generally, the philosophy of Mr. McLaughlin here. I do not think we should destroy the insurance feature of unemployment compensation. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, however, that we are going to take care of these people under the Full Employment Act of 1946. You and I probably would not agree entirely on the methods of that, but we agree with the intended purpose.

Senator MORSE. When we get people agreeing on objectives, Senator, it is not so difficult to work out some agreement for the procedure to accomplish the objectives.

Do you have another witness, Mr. Commissioner?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Do you have a list including any of our people? Perhaps, if you don't have, we should have Mr. Mackall speak more on the details of these two.

Senator MORSE. On the list supplied to me, Mrs. Commissioner, I have no witness other than you.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Mackall, will you go further into the elucidation of our position on details?

STATEMENT OF LOUIS MACKALL, JR., ATTORNEY FOR THE

DISTRICT UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. MACKALL. The principal difference between the so-called Commissioners' bill and S. 3493 is that the Commissioners' bill sets $40 as the absolute maximum weekly benefit amount, whereas S. 3493 provides a flexible maximum which would change from year to year, the flexible maximum being not more than 67 percent of the wages of individuals covered under the bill, both under the bill itself and under the unemployment compensation for Federal employees.

At the present time, if S. 3493 were in effect, the maximum weekly benefit amount this year would be $61 as compared to the $40 in the Commissioners' bill. The next important difference between the two bills is that, while both provide for uniform duration, in the Commissioners' bill there are 26 weeks of benefit for all eligible claimants, whereas S. 3493 would provide 39 weeks for all eligible claimants.

It is estimated that the cost of the Commissioners' bill, based upon the unemployment load of 1957, would add approximately a million dollars to the costs, that being approximately 24 percent, whereas, if S. 3493 were passed, it is estimated that $2,065,000 would be added to the costs, which is somewhere around 55 or 60 percent of what our costs were in 1957.

There are in S. 3493, Senator, a few minor changes that should be made, and, if it were to be passed in toto, I would like to have a chance to confer with the technical staff in the use of the words "wages" and "earnings" because we have two differing definitions here, and, where earnings are used in this bill, wages are used throughout the country. Our technical amendments might require the use of the word "wages."

Senator MORSE. It will be very helpful to the chairman, who has introduced this bill in behalf of its proponents, if you would meet with Mr. Gulledge, the counsel of the committee, and work out with him for further consideration any technical changes which you think need to be made in order to perfect the bill. Mr. Gulledge, will you see to it that you arrange to see Mr. Mackall and do that.

Mr. GULLEDGE. Yes, Senator.

Senator MORSE. The next witness is Mr. Walter Mason, legislative representative of the AFL-CIO, accompanied by Mr. Raymond Munts, assistant director, department of social security, AFL-CIO, and Mr. F. H. McGuigan, secretary, Washington Central Labor Council.

I will insert in the record at this point a check report made available to this committee by Mr. A. Wharton, Director, District Unemployment Compensation Board, showing the statistics for the weeks ending April 4, 1958, April 11, 1958, April 12, 1957, and the same period in 1956, for comparative purposes. I also insert in the record a table placed in the Congressional Record by Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts on March 27, entitled "Unemployment Insurance Under State Laws, January 1, 1958," which shows the comparison of the average weekly benefit paid and the maximum weekly benefit paid, and duration of benefits, and the total number of claimants as of February 1958. It should be helpful to the committee. And table 3, inserted on March 27 by Senator Kennedy, showing the average employer tax rate 1957 of the taxable payrolls and the unemployment reserves, December 31, 1957, in the different States, including the District of Columbia will also be inserted at this point."

(The check report and the Record tables are as follows:)

Source: Submitted by Mr. A. Wharton, Director, District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board.

24607-58---3