In order to get a better understanding of the job, the technicians observed the installation of the machinery used in the tea-bag packing operation. This machinery, incidentally, was imported from England. In addition, the workers were observed on the job during their training period. These observations, coupled with the employer's experience with the workers, resulted in a number of revisions to the original master order specifications. Training of the new workers on this job was facilitated and simplified by the importation of some 10 to 15 experienced operators from other Lipton plants in the country.

After the tea-bag packers had completed their training and had reached their normal production levels, we started the actual development of a test by obtaining criteria data measuring their success or failure on the job. These data were processed following normal test development procedures, and a test battery developed for the selection of tea-bag packers. A technical report covering the development of this test was submitted to Washington, and following its approval the test battery was immediately placed in operation.

A followup study was made approximately 2 years later and the results were reviewed at a meeting attended by the General Manager of the Lipton Tea Co., the production manager and personnel director of the Galveston plant, and officials of the Texas Employment Commission. This review disclosed that the Galveston office had received orders from Lipton Tea covering 275 openings and had made 461 referrals which resulted in 273 full-time placements. Included in the 273 placements were 249 tea-bag packers. Other placements included maintenance mechanics, case sealers, warehousemen, clerk-typists, watchmen, and stenographers. The review further disclosed that a number of the master order specifications had been modified one or more times in an effort to attain a better understanding between the local office and hiring officials for Lipton Tea as to the type of workers needed for successful performance on the various jobs in the plant.

Company Asks Help in Other Plants

At a more recent conference with national officials of Lipton Tea, we learned that these officials were extremely pleased with the plan of operation in Galveston. As evidence of this satisfaction, they have indicated their desire to extend the plan to other plants in other sections of the United States.

While this article is concerned primarily with the development of the test for tea-bag packer and the use of tests in general to obtain a more productive work force, we would be remiss if we failed to emphasize that the testing activity was merely an integral part of the overall plan of service to this employer. This plan was broad in scope and encompassed all employment service operations; therefore no one activity can or should be segregated as the most important.

MAINE

(Continued from page 27)

not too successful due to a shortage of Canadian labor resulting from an earlier-than-usual start of woods operations and local demands for pickers within their own borders. Arrangements were then made with the Loring Air Force Base at Limestone and the Presque Isle Base to utilize servicemen who were on passes. Schools remained closed for an additional period, and extensive recruitment of all available local labor was carried on in all local offices.

From September 9 to 23, some 5,756 Canadian workers were processed into Aroostook County. On September 30, 3 to 5 days of good picking weather would have eliminated the demand for extra pickersbut it rained and rained. On October 6 and 7, 1 week prior to the normal closing of the harvest period, 142 additional Canadians were processed into the country. This brought the total to 5,884; however, about 1,000 had returned to their homes because of the rain and low net incomes. On October 7 and 8, 775 servicemen on passes from Loring Air Force Base and the Presque Isle Base bolstered the dwindling forces to beat the calendar and help get the crop under cover. October 15—crop 80 percent in. More rain-cold weather-frozen ground. At that stage, anyone, regardless of occupation, who could find the time to help harvest the crop was welcomed.

Good housing, board, and transportation play a part in the potato harvest. For example, one potato grower employed 30 Micmac Indian women as his crew. He provided good housing and good board. throughout the harvest season. Whenever anyone could possibly work in the fields, his crew was there. They got his crop in. Everyone was satisfied. His same crew will return next season.

The result of all this effort? On October 20 the crop was in, and there had been no loss due to scarcity of labor.

The manager of the Caribou local office expressed the feeling of everybody concerned on October 31 when he said:

"As I look out of the window I can see 2 inches of snow on the ground and it looks as if there is plenty more to follow. It is fortunate that the potato crop is harvested!"

A

Handbook on Veterans' Reemployment Rights

REVISED handbook on veterans' reemployment rights was published recently by the Labor Department's Bureau of Veterans' Reemploy ment Rights. It answers more than 475 questions about the job rights of veterans which are asked by ex-servicemen, potential servicemen, employers, labor organizations, and others. It also contains the text of all reemployment rights statutes now in effect and analyses of Supreme Court decisions.

Upon its release, Secretary Mitchell stated that the purpose of the handbook is to expedite the reinstatement of those leaving military service who wish to return to their preservice employers.

Copies of the Reemployment Rights Handbook may be obtained from the field offices of the Bureau of Veterans' Reemployment Rights or may be ordered from the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C., at 40 cents per copy.

VERY apple, cherry, or peach pie from the new

E plant at Morton Packing Co. in Nashville, Tenn.,

must taste particularly good to Emily Parker, placement interviewer in the Nashville office of the Department of Employment Security, for they are flavored, figuratively speaking, with the sweat of her brow.

It was Emily who referred and placed the employees who keep 50,000 pies rolling off the assembly line daily at Nashville's newest industrial plant.

Morton Packing Co., established in Louisville, Ky., in 1938, started in frozen food-packing lines in 1948. Growth of the frozen-food business as a whole has been fantastic in the past few years as the public became aware of the convenience of frozen products. Morton's own business volume expanded 10 times between 1950 and 1953, when a branch plant was established in Crozet, Va.

Then, looking around for a site for another branch plant to accommodate increased production, Morton Packing Co. picked Nashville for its central geographical location and its good labor supply.

The week before the new establishment opened, the local office referred 60 applicants who met company

requirements to the plant. The first assembly line started with 47 people, mostly women.

In addition, the DES staffed the plant's shipping and maintenance departments and found office clerical workers, as well as a quality control clerk (sort of a scientific pie-taster)..

So successful was the production of the first shift that a second shift to work from 8 p. m. to 4:30 a. m. was started within a few weeks. Now the day shift makes small pies and the night shift turns out full-size pastries.

Came the day when Morton's decided to send Southern cooking from Nashville to California via trailer trucks. Yes, the DES got the order for four truck drivers to deliver the pies!

The local Employment Service office has written job specifications; made arrangements with Morton's management to use Department of Employment Security services; helped screen applicants; placed the workers in the maintenance departments; and recruited, screened, and referred dozens of workers. since Morton's started making pies in Nashville.

-GLADYS S. DREW, Tennessee Department of Employment Security, Nashville.

UI for State and Local Government Employees

By NATHAN FINE

Unemployment Insurance Service Bureau of Employment Security

THE

HE extension of unemployment insurance to government employees has become a live legislative issue. The 83d Congress extended unemployment insurance protection to 21⁄2 million Federal civilian employees. In 1953, the legislature in Connecticut added and that in Wisconsin broadened mandatory unemployment insurance coverage of State and local government workers, and in 1954 the Massachusetts legislature authorized three State instrumentalities to elect coverage for their employees. Unemployment insurance coverage of State and local government employees undoubtedly will be given. serious consideration early this year when the legislatures of most of the States will be meeting.

The basis for legislation which would cover government employees under State unemployment insurance laws is that the risk of unemployment is as great in government employment as it is outside of government. In some States and localities, it is true, civilservice laws or merit systems give certain employees a measure of security in their jobs. However, reductions in appropriations for given activities lead to reductions in staffs, and many activities are selflimiting or temporary. There is a continuous movement back and forth between government and private employment by many workers. Since State and local government employment, for the most part, is not covered under State unemployment insurance laws,

such employees are placed at a disadvantage, because only their work and earnings in private employment form the basis of benefit rights.

According to the latest annual survey of the Bureau of the Census, there were 4,663,000 State and local government employees in October 1953: three-fourths of them, local government workers, and one-fourth, State government workers. These State and local government employees represent a wide variety of occupations: building tradesmen, laborers, elevatcr operators, truckdrivers, cooks, and seamstresses, as well as stenographers, social workers, engineers, pharmacists, teachers, janitors, attorneys, and economists. If employed in private industry, most such individuals in these occupations would be protected under State unemployment insurance laws.

The earnings of State and local government workers, on the average, were lower than those for workers in private industry covered under State unemployment insurance laws. As of October 1953, the average monthly earnings of full-time State government employees were $287, and of local government workers $298. Average monthly earnings of workers. covered under all State unemployment insurance laws for the 4th quarter of 1953 were $336.

Separations

The unemployment experience of State and local government employees reveals their need for unemployment insurance. Separation rates of State and local government workers are not unlike the pattern in the Federal Government. The average monthly separation rate of full-time Federal civilian employees in 1953 was 2.2 per 100 employees, or 26.4 per year. The annual separation rate was as high, or higher, for State government workers in 11 of the 19 States for which data are available, and in 21 of 43 cities and counties.

Analyses of separation data and special studies contained in reports of State and local government merit systems, civil service commissions, and similar bodies, throw considerable light on the workers involved in separations, their civil service status, their temporary or permanent status, their length of service, rating and occupation. As would be expected, the separation. rate was lower for employees with civil service status that for nonstatus workers, and for permanent than for temporary appointees. Separations were most numerous among those with the shortest periods of government service; for those on the lower rungs of the rating scale; and among manual and clerical workers, as compared with professional and technical employees. Separation rates not only varied widely among departments, but they also varied considerably from year to year in the same department.

Coverage Under State UI Laws

Only 3 States-Connecticut, New York, and Wisconsin-have mandatory coverage of substantially all State government workers; in Wisconsin, the law also

covers the employees of the City of Milwaukee. Massachusetts enacted legislation in May 1954 authorizing 3 State instrumentalities, with about 7,000 employees, to cover their workers under the employment security law and to become liable for reimbursement of benefits paid. The largest of those instrumentalities, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, became covered as of July 4, 1954. Connecticut, New York, Wisconsin, and a number of other States permit election of exempted government services, but the voluntary provisions have been little utilized.

In New York State

The New York law, in its definition of "employer," includes the State of New York, and permits election of coverage by any municipal corporation or other government subdivision. However, only State and local government employees in the classified service with at least one year's service are covered under the statute. In lieu of contributions, the State pays into the fund an amount equivalent to the benefits paid its employees; local governments may also elect to become liable on the same basis.

The 1953 Connecticut law covers all State government employees except elected and appointed officials, and permits election of coverage for local government employees. If a former State or local government employee also worked for other employers in the base period, the State or local government pays only the additional amount which the claimant is entitled to receive on the basis of the wages paid to him by government employers. (See box at end of this article.) In 1953 the Wisconsin legislature amended its unemployment insurance law to provide coverage for government workers who are paid on an annual salary basis, who were hitherto excluded. Coverage is compulsory for employees of the State and the city of Milwaukee and permissive for other local government workers. Both Wisconsin and Connecticut laws provide for payments into the fund by government units on a reimbursable basis as in New York.

With the increased coverage resulting from the amended Wisconsin statute and the new Connecticut law, about 119,000 State and local government workers were covered by unemployment insurance laws in 11 States as of September 1953. This number represented only 2.5 percent of all (4,633,000) State and local government workers in October 1953. Of the total covered, 107,000 were State government employees, and 12,000 were local government employees. About 110,000 were covered under mandatory and 9,000 under voluntary provisions of State unemployment insurance laws. In several of the States with elective coverage of State and local government employees, the only workers covered were those in the State employment security agency. About 92 percent of all covered employees in October 1953 were located in three States: New York, Wisconsin, and Connecticut. The distribution for these States is shown in the table which follows.

In recent years, organizations representing some State and local government employees have displayed considerable interest in the extension of unemployment insurance to their groups. For example, at its 1952 convention the largest union in the field, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, adopted a resolution calling for legislative action to extend unemployment insurance to State and local government workers, and stated that "there has been growing in very recent years the idea of a more general application of unemployment compensation to the public employee field." Extension of unemployment insurance to State and local government

employees was included in the 1953 legislative programs of the State councils of this union in Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

State CIO councils and AFL State federations have shown their interest by the passage of resolutions at their annual conventions calling for the extension of coverage to State and local government employees. Such resolutions have been adopted by the State CIO councils of Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania; and the AFL State federations of California, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and West Virginia.

T

THE 16,000 employees in the classified service in Connecticut are the first to enjoy universal mandatory coverage under a State unemployment insurance law which became effective July 1, 1953.

During the first year of operation, 246 beneficiaries with all or some of their base-period wages in State employment received some benefits. The amount chargeable to the State for their benefits was $37,956.

The average benefit rate of State employees was $24.66, compared with $26.34 for all beneficiaries during the fiscal year. The maximum weekly benefit in Connecticut is $30; additional allowances are paid for dependent children. The comparatively low rate for State employees does not reflect differences in base-period earnings between all State workers and workers employed by private firms. Rather, it reflects the nature of separations during the period. In the absence of any large-scale State employee layoffs, those who separated and filed for benefits were largely the lower-paid and marginal workers. In private industry during this period, large-scale layoffs did occur which affected some comparatively higher-paid workers.

As of August 14, 1954, 79 of the 246 claimants were filing currently; 33 had exhausted their benefits and 134 claims were inactive. As of the same date, the average duration of all

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1955

In the 6 months I have been with the Labor Department, the thing that has surprised and perplexed me most is the amount of argument about unemployment insurance and especially the amount of controversy over its expansion and perfection.

Let us look at the issues in unemployment insurance in the simplest possible terms. First of all, what are the objecttives of unemployment insurance? It seems to me that there are four.

1. To meet the personal income-loss problem of the unemployed person and his family by providing weekly cash payments in lieu of wages lost through temporary economic unemployment;

2. To maintain consumer purchasing power in the local community and in the Nation during such unemployment and thus prevent the vicious spiral of decreased purchasing causing decreased employment which in turn causes further decreases in purchasing and production;

3. To make the best utilization of the Nation's labor force, by sparing skilled workmen the necessity of abandoning their skills during unemployment and accepting menial work to avoid destitution, and to prevent the dispersal to other parts of the country of an employer's trained labor resources during temporary layoffs;

4. To stabilize employment by giving an incentive, through experience rating, to regularize employment and minimize layoffs.

One might also add a fifth, of a much more general and pervading sort, which

would be this:

at it is to start from the beginning with a few simple questions that deserve simple answers.

Do they think it would be better if unemployment insurance were completely abolished? If the answer is "yes," it will be unnecessary to answer any further questions. But my guess is that the number answering "yes" would be statistically negligible.

My second question is: Should the amount of benefits be uniform, as in Great Britain, or varied in proportion to earnings? Again, my guess is that the answer would be: in proportion to earnings. The British flat-rate approach seems to us to be out of tune with our

traditions and individualism.

Third: If benefits should not be uniform, as a matter of principle, what should be done when a fixed maximum results in more than half of the recipients in 40 States getting uniform benefits at the maximum? This question answers itself. The maximum must be raised. The fourth question is: How large should the amount of benefits be, and upon what theory?

When you look at a list of objectives like this, you wonder how anyone could be opposed to such a system. There is something here for everyone-the employee, the employer, the average taxpayer and citizen, the local community, and the Nation as a whole.

Having stated the objectives of those who are trying to further and perfect unemployment insurance, I think I am entitled to ask: What are the objectives of those who are regularly found in the position of opposing any such extension or improvement? The best way to go

of your theory that one of the chief from starving. But what then becomes values of the system is the maintenance of purchasing power? This is, after all, the feature of unemployment insurance that is of the greatest value to the business community, and I would assume that the level of benefits would be set so as to implement rather than defy that theory.

The fifth question is: How long should benefits last? The business-like way to approach this question would, of course, be to say: the job in hand is to cover the great bulk of temporary unemployment; how long, on the average, do spells of unemployment last? Our critic could soon ascertain whether duration

limits and base-period-earning limits kept the law from doing its job in respect to a large number of unemployed.

The sixth and final question is: If, due to economic conditions in a plant or industry, a man is thrown out of work and deprived of all source of support, and if industry in a particular case is not responsible for him beyond a few weeks, then who is responsible, and upon what theory? Suppose a worker is entitled to only $300 in unemployment insurance benefits, due to various restrictive provisions, and as a result he has to get another $300 in relief. On what theory is it more equitable, or more economical, or more desirable, to have the second $300 paid by property-owners and others in the form of local taxation to support relief?

One of these days, local taxpayers and taxpayer associations are going to wake up to the fact that they are bearing a considerable burden that ought rightly to be borne by consumers of the product of local industries.

Is there any really solid reason for the present omissions and flaws in unemployment insurance?

As to failure to cover small firms and

the like, the reason always given was administrative difficulty. This was quite understandable when the legislation was first passed. It is now nothing but a hollow excuse.

As to failure to raise benefits and duration limits, the only possible reason is cost. And yet, when the tax rates were first set, they were uniformly almost twice as high as the actual rates paid in recent years.

I think the real thing that is holding us back is the failure of the general public to understand the issues in respect to unemployment insurance, and to make its wishes and its interests felt.

that this is the business-like American We have got to get across the idea way

to do a job that has to be done. I know of no other mechanism that will produce the five objectives I have mentioned.

I would like to suggest that we set up for ourselves a picture of an idealized program, with everything included that should be in the best of all possible unemployment insurance systems. Then let each State bend every effort to convince the public that this kind of State unemployment insurance act will be a good thing for everyone--employer, employee, and citizen.