RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr. MARSHALL. Do they have any connection with the rural development program?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes I believe they do.

Mr. MARSHALL. These areas have been selected in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, have they not?

Mr. MITCHELL. I am not sure if they have been selected in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. MARSHALL. I thought they had.

Mr. MITCHELL. I am sorry. I have here before me an Employment Service program letter which says that the Bureau of Employment Security in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture initiated the program in each of the four States. Yes, this was in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. MARSHALL. What has been the result of that?

Mr. MITCHELL. I think Mr. Goodwin could be more explicit than I. The results are still experimental and they were initiated the latter part of last year, so we have not had a long enough time to have any concrete results, although Mr. Goodwin might be able to tell us what he has experienced so far.

Mr. MARSHALL. That will be satisfactory to me. I noticed in some of the material you presented today there would be in all likelihood the necessity or the possibility that more people from farm areas would find work in industrial areas. Does the Department of Labor have any figures that would show the numbers, about how many people these might be?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, we probably, Mr. Marshall, could get for you figures showing the decrease in farm employment which, if you assume that that decrease represents numbers of people who would have to find jobs in other areas, that would be some indicative figure. And we would be very glad to furnish it to you.

NUMBER OF MEN HOLDING NONFARM JOBS AND ALSO OPERATING FARMS

Mr. MARSHALL. You wouldn't have any figures that might show us total number of farm people who are working full time in industry and also operating their farm?

Mr. MITCHELL. We will provide them.

(The information furnished follows:)

The July 1958 monthly report on the labor force showed that there were 450,000 men holding primary jobs in nonfarm industry and also operating their own farms.

MINIMUM WAGE STANDARDS

Mr. MARSHALL. That will be fine. Now there are some people that have called to my attention that some of these farm people because of their low economic condition are underbidding the existing wage rates. Is there anything in the law that would prevent that thing from happening? They are above the minimum wage as set for those localities.

Mr. MITCHELL. The only laws that we have federally that establish minimum standards in wages are the Fair Labor Standards Act, and, in construction, the Davis-Bacon Act. Those are the only laws that I know of that would have any influence on your question.

Mr. MARSHALL. It seems on the face of the things it might be a little discriminatory for industry to take advantage of areas where the economic conditions of the farmers are so low that they will accept a lower wage and also in established areas that they underbid the existing wage rate in order to gain employment. It doesn't seem on the face of it as though that is entirely fair. Has the Department of Labor made any investigation of any of those areas where that has happened?

Mr. MITCHELL. This is the first time that I have heard that allegation. By underbidding I would assume it would be very difficult at a factory where the wage rate is established, either by union agreement or by unilateral action of the employer, for a man to come into the employment office and say "I will work for $1.50 or $1.75 if I can get a job." I don't quite understand where your underbidding comes

in.

REPORTS REFERRED TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Secretary, I was wondering how far you are along in the work that you have been doing on this labor-management pension and welfare plans reporting. Have you been able to check enough of those reports to determine what the course might be? I am asking one more question. Has there been any evidence as yet for you to refer any of them to the Justice Department?

Mr. MITCHELL. I want to distinguish between the pension and welfare reports which results from a law passed 2 years ago by Congress. We have no authority even to review or analyze these reports. We merely accept them as they are and have them on file. On the recently passed Labor-Management Reports Act the final reports of the unions are not due in under law until April of this year so we have not had any reports. We cannot tell yet what those reports are going to disclose. Our efforts up to now have been in the development of report forms and the interpretation of the law as it applies to various aspects.

As to the Department of Justice, we have turned over several cases to the Department of Justice. One section of the law, as you may recall, has to do with the eligibility of Communists to hold union office. We turned over to the Department of Justice one case of a refusal to give us this information. The same section of the law also requires that no person who has been convicted of a felony in the last 5 years can hold union office, and we have turned over the names of several unions where, to the best of our belief, this section of the law may be violated.

Mr. MARSHALL. At the present time these are more or less test cases. Mr. MITCHELL. There are casees where, to the best of our knowledge and belief, the law is being violated and we asked the Justice Department to investigate.

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Laird?

OBLIGATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1959

Mr. LAIRD. First, Mr. Dodson, would you place in the record the same type of table you had each of the last 2 or 3 years, showing your obligations and employment for the first half of this fiscal year? Mr. DODSON. Yes, sir.

(The requested information follows:)

PROPOSED ACTIVITY IN AREA OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIPS

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Secretary, I commend you for your very fine statement. I think you will find that our committee will be fair with the Department of Labor. We have been in the past and will try to help as much as possible to make your Department an effective Department. I notice in the President's state of the Union message to Congress he anticipated that the Department of Labor would be more active in the areas of labor-management relationships and that efforts would be made to see that management and labor would start consideration earlier on labor-management contracts. What do you propose to do in this particular area?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, several things, Mr. Laird. Of course basically this is a matter for labor and management to act on themselves. The President as you stated said it is his intent to encourage labor and management to discuss items of mutual interest outside the bargaining table. I have already had conversations with Mr. Meany looking toward, at some point this spring, to a conference of management people and labor people in which some of these matters could be discussed. I hope to promote by discussion with labor groups and

with management groups industry consultations of this character because it seems to me it is more meaningful if employers in the construction industry and employees in the construction industry can sit down and talk about common problems of the construction industry. This would be true in the steel industry and the can industry and the aluminum industry. I would like to see a discussion of this type becoming a regular part of labor-management discussions so that labor and management do not face one another as they often do across the bargaining table when the issues are already joined, when the contract is being terminated or renewed. It seems to me, and it has always seemed to me, that there are common problems of technology and personnel, and the place of the industry in the scheme of things, and foreign competition, and that these kinds of discussions would be more meaningful than a summit conference of labor and management where they can really discuss only generalities.

SETTLEMENT OF STEEL STRIKE

Mr. LAIRD. You have been very busy the last few months in the difficulty we have had in the steel industry between labor and management. Shortly after the settlement was announced by you, I received some correspondence from people at home, particularly some involved in agricultural pursuits that this violated the guideline set up by the President to you for a noninflationary settlement of the steel dispute. What is your comment in regard to that?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, there were more people who were operating under a lot of misinformation in this area than I have ever seen before. Actually, this settlement, according to the steel industry and not the U.S. Government, represented an increase in annual employment costs of from 3% to 3.75 percent for a 3-year term. This is in contrast to an increase, an annual increase in employment costs of 8 percent the steel industry paid ever since the end of World War II. So that this settlement cut in half the employment cost trends of the past, and to that extent I think it was a good settlement. Now, the settlement according to the steel industry was lower than the can or aluminum or Kaiser settlements had those settlements been applied to the steel industry. In addition to that, the wage settlement does not take place until December 1960, and it was lower than the average wage settlement made in other industries in 1959.

Sixty-five percent of the wage settlements made during 1959 in all American industry ran between 7 and 11 cents. This wage settlement as you know was 7 cents. So there are two ways in which wage settlements can be inflationary. One, if it sets off, as seen in the past, as steel has done in the past, a new pattern of wage increases which finds its way into other industries and in this case this is not true because the steel settlement as I pointed out was less than the pattern that has been established in 1959. The other way that the steel settlement could have been inflationary would be if it were to cause a price increase. On prices, the only company that I know of that has spoken out is the United States Steel Corp. The chairman of the board said, and this is the first time they have ever said it, that there would be no immediate price increase. To my knowledge, in every other steel settlement that has taken place, the settlement has been followed immediately by a

price increase. So that I disagree violently and heartily with those people, unknowing people, who have characterized this settlement as inflationary.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Secretary, I think it is a good idea for the facts of this settlement to receive more public attention. Even the newspaper editorials in some of the local press in my congressional district were somewhat critical. I suppose it isn't industry's job to inform the public. It isn't labor's job to do it. How do you get the facts to the public?

Mr. MITCHELL. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

EFFECT OF IMPORTED LABOR FROM ABROAD

Mr. LAIRD. Now, in these discussions you are going to encourage between labor and management, which I think is a very good thing, will you give consideration to the problems that we are having as far as the import of cheap labor rates from abroad and the effect that it is having upon the American worker?

Mr. MITCHELL. I think this is one of the things, one of the items that labor and management could discuss when it affects their industry; yes.

Mr. LAIRD. It seems to me that this is going to become more of a problem-I should say more and more of a problem. We have built up the industrial capacity of many of these foreign nations. It does pose some problem to our Nation and our workers.

Mr. MITCHELL. That is right, and that is one of the reasons why the American business community begins to recognize the importance of organizations like the ILO, whose object it is to raise living standards and wage standards in some of these countries.

WELFARE AND PENSION PROGRAM

Mr. LAIRD. I noticed in going over your justification last night that the number of filings under the welfare and pension program is much lower than estimates we were given when we appropriated funds for that activity. What do you attribute this decline to?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, partly to a feeling in some areas that it is not necessary and there would be no penalties against failure to comply, failure to file. And, of course, as you know, the law provides no penalties if there is no filing. It is our impression that there are many companies or plants who are either consciously or unconsciously delinquent here. We have been attempting to see if we can get some idea of the phase of this problem but we haven't yet because we have no enforcement authority yet.

Mr. LAIRD. That is one of the weaknesses you pointed out before this law became operational.

Mr. MITCHELL. That is right.

LANDRUM-GRIFFIN ACT

Mr. LAIRD. In drawing up rules for the new Labor-Management Act (Landrum-Griffin), I know that you have had difficult problems. I think you have done well by keeping up with all the deadlines. I

51714-60- -6