provided outside the FHA system, and plenty of houses were built outside of the FHA. So that we have a clear evidence that interest and amortization charges constitute an extremely large part of home ownership.

We on the side of the American Federation of Labor, have made a very careful study as to what the wage earners need in the way of housing and what they want in the way of housing.

Year after year we have conducted questionnaire surveys among our members, among the actual wage earners working in the plants, the shops, the mills, and the mines, and the vast majority of them want to be home owners.

Many of them recognize that they cannot be home owners because the financial burden of home ownership is too great for them, and we feel that it is important to correct the ills of the housing enterprise in the thirties, when people generally having gone through the depression and having burnt their fingers on foreclosures and evictions and some million families were subjected to that in the early 1930's-refused to become home owners, knowing that they had lost their savings and lost. their equalities as a result of foreclosure and so they preferred to rent. In the meantime, there were more houses for sale than could be bought despite the housing shortage, and rental housing was very much inadequate and rental levels therefore were disproportionately high.

The present bill provides a long-term remedy for that. It recognizes the immediate need at this time for rental housing. Surely we know that the average veteran, and that the average wage earner who has been shifted, taken away, and uprooted from his own community, in order to go to a war job, that he may be best served by being provided with rental housing at this time.

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCarthy.

Senator MCCARTHY. I think you may be able to be of considerable value to me on a point which concerns me very much and I assume concerns you equally as much.

You are with the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. SHISHKIN. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCARTHY. And I assume we are both concerned with housing for labor. This bill is designed to create housing for the ordinary workingman; is that right?

Mr. SHISHKIN. It is to provide housing for all types of people. Senator MCCARTHY. Primarily, for the man who is what we call a laboring man.

Mr. SHISHKIN. Some of the parts will yield fairly high priced housing. Senator MCCARTHY. We are primarily concerned with housing for people who cannot otherwise afford to build a house for themselves. Mr. SHISHKIN. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCARTHY. So that if we can create additional housing by this bill or any other bill, the man who will benefit primarily will be the average workingman, the man who is the backbone of the country; is that right?

There is no question about that, is there?
Mr. SHISHKIN. That is right.

Senator MCCARTHY. Now, if we find that any particular segment of labor or management is indulging in any practice which causes an increase in the cost of the home-do you follow me?

Mr. SHISHKIN. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCARTHY. If we find that any particular segment of management or labor is indulging in a prayer which will cause an increase in the cost of homes, you, of course, would not approve of that, would you?

Mr. SHISHKIN. Senator, I have heard you this morning..

Senator MCCARTHY. Answer my question, will you. Then you can elaborate.

Mr. SHISHKIN. I am afraid I find a difficulty in answering a question without knowing what the question is about, because as I just started to say, if I may finish the sentence, that you have referred repeatedly to restrictive practices on the part of labor.

Now, I would be very grateful for guidance from you as to what you are referring to, because the term in itself, as a general one, does not describe any conditions.

If you will do that I will be glad to comment.

Senator MCCARTHY. Both of us are searching for a way to cut down the cost of building. However, if you get on the stand and take an antagonistic attitude and will not be helpful, it will not do us much good.

Mr. SHISHKIN. Not at all.

Senator MCCARTHY. We are both concerned with creating more housing. Let me ask you: Do you know of any practices in the building-trades unions that do cause an increase in the cost of housing? Do you?

Mr. SHISHKIN. I would like to say this: that in the depression there have been a number of practices by workers and by builders under the conditions during the depression of cutthroat competition, that relatively would have reflected themselves in the increased cost of housing.

I would like to point out to you, Senator, that in 1933, following that period, the Government of the United States, operating under the mandate of the National Industrial Recovery Act, has required and recommended to the builders and the unions to join together in area agreements all the way around the United States, to maintain minimum agreed costs on housing in order to provide against cutthroat competition.

Senator MCCARTHY. Now, will you answer my question?

Mr. SHISHKIN. And those area agreements were put into effect at the request of the Government in order to eliminate the loss and bankruptcy on the part of the builders and to eliminate substandard wages that were prevailing in the industry during the depression. Senator MCCARTHY. Now, will you answer my question?

My question is: Do you, in your position, know of any restrictive practices being indulged in by the building-trades unions?

Mr. SHISHKIN. No. I have been the recipient of many charges emanating to a large extent, daily, and weekly, from the National Association of Home Builders and other lobby organizations, that have been publicizing certain alleged conditions in general terms.

There have been some charges that were made specific and our organizations have cooperated very closely in running those down. We have found some situations in which individual workers or groups of workers were engaged in restrictive practices, but the policy of the unions was to eliminate those practices that might result in increased costs.

Senator MCCARTHY. We find, Mr. Shishkin, that when we attempt to eliminate those practices we are promptly dubbed as antilabor. Let us see if you and I agree on this: That any restrictive practice indulged in by the building-trades union, any restrictive practice they indulge in is more viciously antilabor than any legislation that can be indulged in because it is all directed against the workingman who is building a home. You and I agree on that, do we not?

Mr. SHISHKIN. Any restrictive practice that I may describe in my category of the restrictive practice as undesirable should be eliminated. Senator MCCARTHY. Would you call this restrictive? If a union has a rule forbidding the use of paint brushes beyond a certain width, because the building could be painted more rapidly, do you call that restrictive?

Mr. SHISHKIN. I am awfully glad you brought that up because that is the first case you have mentioned. The question is whether that charge, which has been made day in and day out, and night in and night out in the magazines and on the radio, is correct.

Senator, I know that your concern is a very real one and our purpose is the same, but the restriction on the use of the paint brush is not a union restrictive practice.

The International Brotherhood of Painters that has jurisdiction over the painting work and is the union in that field, last September at the convention has appointed-did appoint and put out a studyby a special committee that not only dealt with that question but provided for specific standards for the use and general use of the spray gun in the entire painting industry as long as the safety and health are protected, and setting up a set of rules under which no painter or group of painters under the union contract could refuse to handle the spray gun as long as those conditions were met.

Senator MCCARTHY. In other words, you say that you did do away with that particular restrictive practice?

Mr. SHISHKIN. No. On the contrary. What I am saying is that if there are practices creeping in of this kind, that the union is assuming its responsibility and leadership and eliminating them rather than those being the union practices. Now, that is the record.

Senator MCCARTHY. I do not follow you at all.

You would say this: If I can give you the name, the name of the local, which provides that the painters could only use a certain width paint brush you would say that they are indulging in what you or I would term a restrictive practice. Am I right?

Mr. SHISHKIN. That is right. I would like to say just one more word on the paint brush. During the war this charge was made very frequently.

Senator McCARTHY. Let us finish this. You wanted the number of the local?

Mr. SHISHKIN. I certainly would like very much to have it. Senator MCCARTHY. Local, Painters District Council No. 14 and the Chicago contractors have a contract which prohibits the use of

brushes more than 4%1⁄2 inches wide. The Cleveland plumbers are currently prohibiting the preparing of joints by means of sandpaper because it is too rapidly done. The plasterers have forbidden the practice of having one journeyman do all the gaging. They insist that two men do that.

Mr. SHISHKIN. That was not very clear. May I have that again? Senator MCCARTHY. The plasterers in Cleveland have forbidden the practice of having one journeyman do all the gaging.

Mr. SHISHKIN. Do all the gauging?

Senator MCCARTHY. Do all the gaging in the plastering work. The Boston cement asphalt finishers union charge an extra 12% cents an hour if they use anything that sets quickly so as to speed up the job.

Here in Washington-this is rather an old case, and I assume the same practice is being indulged in. In October 1940, in the construction of the Social Security Building, the Washington painters local refused to apply a resinol paint base which required only two coats. They insisted on using a paint which required four coats, refused to work unless they used a paint that required four coats. You would call that restrictive, would you not?

Mr. SHISHKIN. I don't know if that statement is correct. I would like to have an opportunity to cover each one of those instances. Would you give me the date for those?

Senator MCCARTHY. 1940.

Mr. SHISHKIN. The last one. But about the others.

Senator MCCARTHY. I gave you the name of the building.

Mr. SHISHKIn. Yes.

Senator MCCARTHY. I do not know the date of the Chicago contract. Let us both mutually search for the same thing now.

In view of the tremendous number of complaints which we received, complaints about restrictive practices, where men belonging to the union refused to put in certain units that are already assembled, where instead of spending 200 hours in the construction there, the setting up of prefabricated homes, in effect, that they have a slow-down, that they spend 2,000 hours, where they spend 200, if all of those claims are true, then that is definitely antilabor, is it not, and anything we can do to go into those particular unions and do away with that practice will be of tremendous advantage to all labor, will it not?

Mr. SHISHKIN. It would certainly help us a great deal if you would refer those complaints to us when they come and I am sure the A. F. of L. will do the utmost if any of them are found to be true, to eliminate them instantly.

Senator MCCARTHY. What is your connection with the A. F. of L? Mr. SHISHKIN. I am secretary of the housing committee of A. F. of L.

Senator MCCARTHY. What connection do you have with the building-trades unions?

Mr. SHISHKIN. The building-trades department is a department comprising all of the building-trades unions.

Senator MCCARTHY. Do you mean to tell us that we must check and bring those matters to your attention?

Mr. SHISHKIN. You said you have had a number of complaints. If you receive those complaints and bring them to our attention we

certainly will be glad to be helpful in eliminating the causes that are being complained of.

Senator MCCARTHY. You do not mean to say that you are not aware of all these restrictive practices that are being indulged in by the building-trades unions; do you mean to tell us that?

Mr. SHISHKIN. All we can do is follow up on any complaint or charge that is brought to our attention and I am stating to you that whenever a specific charge of a current condition that is not right is brought to the attention of the building-trades department that complaint is investigated and is very promptly acted upon. During the war the building-trades department and its affiliated unions have maintained a large number of men who were cooperating with the Government agencies in order to make sure that abuses under the costplus system-and the contractors were very largely responsible for those practices-will be looked into and brought out to the full.

Senator McCARTHY. Both Mr. LaGuardia and Mr. Roosevelt admitted-and Mr. LaGuardia has had a great deal of experience in building in New York-they both freely admitted that the price which the workingman pays today for a home is being partly paid because of the restrictive practices indulged in by the building-trades unions. Do you disagree with that?

Mr. SHISHKIN. Yes, I do.

The CHAIRMAN. May I interject this: to be fair should we not recognize the fact that building unions may have instituted restrictive practices but as sort of a defense mechanism to guard them against builder combinations; is that correct?

Mr. SHISHKIN. Well, I think that any restrictions of that kind have been true only in the periods of large-scale unemployment. I do not think that in a period of full employment it is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. There was not any continuity of operations-the seasonal gain. There was not a year's work to it?

Mr. SHISHKIN. That is right.

Senator MCCARTHY. May I point out that I am not criticizing particularly the building-trades unions. All of the evidence would indicate that you have a peculiar situation in this industry, that is that the interests of the builders of the conventional homes are almost identical to the building-trades unions in that they oppose any advance. They oppose, for example, any type of assembly, any prefabrication, which will speed up the building of homes and that is such common knowledge I cannot conceive of Mr. Shishkin getting on the stand and telling us that he who is a representative of that union knows nothing about it.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask you a favor. We have with us a gentleman who is one of our committee who wants to take about 5 minutes to ask a few questions. The Senator from Vermont, Senator Flanders. So you may continue with your reply after he is through.

Mr. SHISHKIN. I just wanted to make this one statement. Here is a charge made by the Senator from Wisconsin that labor is opposed to prefabrication. It has been made frequently and repeatedly.

Senator MCCARTHY. Let us get away from any charge made against labor. It seems to be common knowledge that both your building trades unions and your builders of the conventional homes have cooperated to avoid and prevent any advances that will cut down the cost of the homes, that will allow us to build more homes, and I do