PERMAMENT FARM LABOR PROGRAM TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1947 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Clifford R. Hope, chairman, presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We will proceed with the proponents of the legislation. I will call first on Mr. Gardner. STATEMENT OF MAURICE B. GARDNER, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL FARM LABOR CONFERENCE Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Maurice B. Gardner, representing the National Farm Labor Conference. I am employed by the Shade Tobacco Growers Agricultural Association, Inc., which operates farms in Connecticut and Massachusetts. It is true that our chief crop is shade-grown tobacco, but many other crops are grown on our farms. Our peak labor need is well over 20,000 workers and it is necessary to obtain about 6,000 of these workers from out of the State. We expect to pay our own way in acquiring this labor. All we are asking is for the necessary clearance of interstate workers, which can only be accomplished through the provisions of this bill. Prior to the time the Department of Agriculture assumed the responsibility of farm labor in 1943, little attention had been given to the agricultural labor problem. It is chiefly on the strength of the good job which has been done and is still being done by the Department of Agriculture that the bill before us today has been developed by agricultural interests. It is true that the farmer has benefited materially from the program as operated by the Department of Agriculture, over and above the program as conducted by the employment services prior to 1943. Also, the worker's social and economic position has been greatly enhanced through effective direction of the flow of agricultural workers from the area of supply to the area of need. This has been accomplished chiefly by the people responsible for doing the job who knew and appreciated the many problems facing both the farmer and worker. There is no question but that these problems are entirely different from those of the industrialist. Certainly a farmer is not qualified to pass judgment on industrial problems, and it does not seem logical for an industrial-minded individual to know and recognize the vicissitudes of agriculture. You will note from the bill that the role played by the agricultural county agent is very important to the success of this or any effective farm-labor program. The local county agent is one individual closest to the farmer and understands the farmer's needs. He is in touch with those in his area on other matters, so that the labor needs tie in very well with the service they render to agriculture. Surely, labor needs have and will be one of the permanent problems of agriculture. It would seem a grave mistake to take away from the county agent the authority and responsibility of this job. One point I wish to make very clear to you gentlemen is that we do not feel that the county agent can be left out of any successful farm-labor program. It is true that this will be an added activity within the Extension Service, but a rightful service to farmers. In talking with many county agents in the Northeastern States, the general opinion seems to be that they would rather have a well-planned and coordinated program than to have to work independently on the problem, as required of them before the passage of Public Law 45 in 1943. There has been and will be considerable said about this program being unnecessary when unemployment reaches the estimates made for the future. As we visualize the situation which will exist at that time, there will be need of a better coordinated program than has been necessary in the past. It is true that the approach will have to be somewhat different in that more consideration will have to be given to finding employment for agricultural workers rather than finding workers for agricultural jobs. If and when this time arrives, we believe that the bill we are discussing today carries the necessary provisions to find the largest number of jobs for agricultural workers as well as idle factory workers and others interested in farm work. Certainly you gentlemen are not interested in having a recurrence of the situation in farm employment which occurred during the thirties. The soundest policy would seem to be to spend a reasonable amount of money to carry on a sound and workable agricultural labor program to help the farmer help himself. It is quite apparent, I am sure, that from testimony given by farm members of this group and others that we are very anxious to have the farm-labor program continued within the Department of Agriculture in preference to its being placed in the State Employment Services. It is not a question of personalities or dislike for any individuals, but merely, as we have tried to point out, a question of knowhow, as has been proven during the past several years by the Department of Agriculture. There is no question but that a better arrangement must be developed for cooperation between the Extension Service and State employment services. This arrangement should expedite the sending of any individual, who has had agricultural experience, to the closest farm-placement office for referral to agricultural placement. It also must insure that any individual who has an agricultural background not remain on unemployment insurance rolls when there are agricultural openings which he should accept. In case of nonacceptance of such suitable work, it is obvious that such an individual should not be permitted to continue drawing unemployment compensation. We feel sure that your committee can outline a plan for cooperation that will plug the gap now allowing flagrant abuse of the primary intent of unemployment insurance. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Poage. gap, Mr. POAGE. In the last paragraph the gentleman gets to the meat of the coconut of this whole problem that nobody wants to discuss here except simply admit that the problem exists. If we can bridge the I would like to know just what we should do to bridge that gap, because I, for one, do not want to leave that gap standing there. I want to know how you are going to take care of this proposition of preventing this dual set-up from resulting in a lot of people being on unemployment rolls who ought not to be there. Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Poage, I do not feel qualified to go into a discussion on just how this should be done. About as far as I feel qualified to go is possibly to point out some of the weaknesses that there might be in the way it seems to be operating in the field at the present time. Just what the arrangement would be I think involves a study of the Federal Security Act, and it ties in, of course, with all State unemployment laws, so it is rather involved to know just how to do it. We have found in our particular State that many people are on the unemployment rolls when there are agricultural jobs available for them. We had an instance of that last winter when in some of our warehouses we were running about 1,200 people short. It is the type of work that most anyone can do, after a reasonable training period. We feel that most any of the people on the unemployment rolls can qualify for that type of work. We placed our order with the Extension Service for the labor and they in turn sent that order in to the employment services. Very few people were referred. I think there was a total of 80 referred out of the 1,200, and about 43 of them ever appeared for work. That is one of the problems, and others that exist in other States, that we are faced with. Mr. POAGE. I know the problem exists and I know we do not have the cooperation that you would like, and I would like, and we would all like. I don't mean it applies simply to the Extension Service or the State employment services, but it is the same whether it is two Federal Government agencies or two State agencies. Whether it is educational, public health, labor or agriculture, or whether it is the Army or the Navy, it is all the same. These agencies simply do not have the close coordination that we all would like to talk about. You can appoint all the liaison officers and all the good-will officers you like to patch up the differences between them and you still will not have coordination. You have got to have somebody with authority, you have got to have somebody who is the head of the whle thing. I have yet to listen to some plan that is going to show me you can set up two separate agencies and they are going to be able to work as one. There is a great group of people in the United States, unfortunately, who would rather draw compensation than work. Mr. GARDNER. That is right. Mr. POAGE. When you let them go from one agency to another, those people are going to outsmart most of the agencies. Mr. PACE. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. Yes. Mr. PACE. Isn't the trouble, though, the law itself? When the law uses the term "suitable employment" and leaves it up to the 1 applicant to determine whether or not it is suitable employment, it does not make any difference what agencies handle it. It is a question purely of one of two things: it is a better administrative job across the board, or else it is the striking of the word "suitable" out of the law and substituting better language. There are 140,000,000 people in this country and I think about 130,000,000 of them have resolved that they are not going to work on a farm. They want somebody else to do the hot work in the sun, but they want to be sure that they have plenty to eat at the grocery store at a very cheap price. I think the only hope on the question that the gentleman from Texas raises here is either changing the law by striking out the word "suitable" or putting it in charge of Government officials who will give a reasonable interpretation to it. Now a man can work on the farm all of his life and go to one of the agencies and register for employment, and they offer him a farm job and he says, "No, that is not suitable for me. It makes my back ache," and he is placed on the unemployment roll and kept in idleness. I think it is not a question of cooperation between agencies, I think the act is being administered by men who give the improper construction to the word "suitable," and it is hopeless as long as they are in charge of the administration of it, or as long as that word remains in the act. . Mr. POAGE. I cannot find fault with the gentleman from Georgia suggesting that the law should be changed. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about changing the law. What I am asking for is a suggestion as to how the law should be changed. Mr. PACE. This committee cannot change it. Mr. POAGE. This committee can change it to the extent that it relates to the farm-labor proposition. We cannot pass it, of course, but we can bring the bill before the House. What I am asking the witness to do is to suggest what there ought to be in the bill to remedy the situation. I know there are defects in the present law. We know there are a lot of deadbeats at the present time living off of the Government and who ought to be at work. What I want to do is get rid of those people from the unemployment rolls and put them to work. Mr. GARDNER. I appreciate Mr. Pace's statement, because I was going to be bold enough to suggest that the difficulty was within the law and that is where the change would have to come about. Just what the change should be I am not in a position to say. If I may, I would like to read a statement here from the report put out by the Extension Service of what happened in New York State, which I think is quite typical. This is a quotation from the New York State report: Under contract with the Extension Service, USES has made the following placements for farm workers in 1946: During the week of August 27 to September 1, 1946, the following results were obtained: In 17 USES offices where industrial workers who applied for jobs were asked to accept agricultural work there were 10,555 agricultural jobs on file; there were 12,393 job applicants of whom 60 or 70 percent had filed for unemployment insurance; 107 accepted farm work. That is, I think, an example of where the difficulty lies. If agriculture isn't given the consideration of a reasonable farm-labor program, as outlined in this bill, I think it is going to seriously handicap agricultural operations in the future, because out of over 12,000 applicants only 107 would accept farm jobs. |