We have remarked on how jobs were fewer among the older workers, proportionately. Jobs were fewer among hourly rated Viscose workers than among salaried Viscose people, at the time of response to the questionnaire. Table XV tells the story. Sixty percent of the managerial and administrative people among our respondents, and 65.8 percent of the clerical people, were employed. But 48.9 percent of the skilled workers (mechanics, foremen, etc.), 30.3 percent of the semiskilled (production workers), and 34.8 percent of the unskilled (labor gangs, etc.) were employed. And it is among these latter three categories, especially the semiskilled, that the bulk of the people on the plant payroll are to be found. Marital status While 92.3 percent of the male respondents and only 58 percent of the females were married, a number of the women including the single women had dependents to worry about in unemployment. Table XVI reflects this aspect. (So does also table XIX, which shows among other things that 201 workers while unemployed depended on working spouses for support, in part-138 men and 63 women were such dependents, and 149 men and 82 women will be such dependents in future unemployment. And tables H-W 1-6 also give information on the reciprocal support relationship between Viscose men and women-they are based on responses from 42 married couples of whom spouses worked at the Viscose plant.) Among respondents who gave both employment and marital status, employed married workers were 32.2 percent of the total, and unemployed married workers were 50.6 percent; the married male respondents showed a similar division with 36.2 percent employed and 56.1 percent unemployed, of total males giving responses to both questions. Among female respondents, 21.8 percent were employed and married; 36.2 percent were unemployed and married. Marital status does not appear to be a factor in employment status; table XVI, part 1, shows that the employed and the unemployed divide quite similarly to each other as between the married, the single, the divorced or separated, and the widowed 92.3 percent of the employed and also of the unemployed men were married; 2.9 percent of the employed and 3.3 percent of the unemployed men were single; 2.7 percent of the employed and 2.4 percent of the unemployed men were divorced or separated; 55.1 percent of the employed and 59.9 percent of the unemployed women were married; 23.4 percent of the employed and 19.4 percent of the unemployed women were single; and 9.6 percent of the employed and 6.8 percent of the unemployed women were divorced or separated. The presence of 21⁄2 times as many widowed workers among the unemployed as among the employed probably is a factor of age-the older workers were more likely to be unemployed and widowed. While 3.2 percent of all respondents were widowed, only 0.9 percent were widowers who had jobs while 2.3 percent were widowers who were jobless. Men claimed more dependents than women; all but 9.5 percent of all male respondents had at least one dependent, while 27.3 percent of the women claimed dependents and 48.5 percent of the women gave no answer. Length of unemployment We have already touched on the matter of how long furloughed respondents went without work after being furloughed. Table XVIII shows that older workers were unemployed longer than younger ones, and that semiskilled (production) workers, who constitute the biggest group, were unemployed longer than unskilled workers on the average, and that unskilled workers were unemployed longer than skilled workers. Of those furloughed in 1957, 26.1 was the average number of idle weeks, but 24.6 was the average for those under age 40, 26 for those 40-49, 31.7 for those 50-59, and 60 for those over 60. But younger workers tended to be furloughed first, since they tended to have less seniority. Therefore, younger workers had more opportunity to pile up idle time than older ones and, since they didn't do so, must have found new work more readily. This is not solely a result of their being younger-those fur loughed early enough in 1957 were not faced with the tight job market that developed subsequently. Of those furloughed in 1957, 26.1 was the average number of idle weeks; but 27.4 was the average for semiskilled workers, 22 for unskilled workers, and 17.8 for skilled workers. Table IX, part 2, listing furloughs in 1957, shows that the first "engineering" workers (skilled maintenance men) to be laid off that year were in September, and others in that category followed in October and December. But furloughs occurred all year long in the various production departments. Most of the people in these departments are categorized in the "Dictionary of Occupational Titles" of the U.S. Labor Department as semiskilled. Furloughs in the "labor" gangs did not occur until October and November. So, skilled and unskilled workers were on furlough for shorter periods than were semiskilled workers, and the difference in average idle time is in large part accounted for this way. It has already been pointed out that women were unemployed longer than men. Men furloughed in 1957 averaged 22.1 idle weeks, while women furloughed that year averaged 46.9 idle weeks. Men furloughed in 1958 averaged 4.2 idle weeks, women, 12.4. Here, again, table IX, part 2, shows that in 1957, when the big layoffs of men began in August, there were 234 women and 108 men furloughed prior to July 31. Thus, more than twice as many women as men were laid off since various dates in the first 7 months of 1957, and more women than men could experience long unemployment and bitter memories. A similar development occurred in 1958 (see table IX, pt. 3), when 128 women and 42 men were furloughed before August 4, the day of the plant closing announcement. Both tables IX and XVIII reflect the fact that when a plant of this sort closes down, production workers are apt to be let go first and then skilled maintenance workers. For example, as table XVIII shows, 54.2 percent of the furloughs reported by respondents who were semiskilled occurred in 1957 and 45.8 percent in 1958. But 14.3 percent of the furloughs reported by respondents who were skilled occurred in 1957, and 85.7 percent in 1958. It should be noted here that a very few furloughs classed here with the 1957 group actually occurred in 1956; there were so few that it seemed not worthwhile to set up a year category for them, and they occurred late in 1956. Table XVII shows the distribution of unemployment idle weeks' duration by occupational level and sex among respondents, and again indicates that production workers are laid off first. How the jobless survived As may be expected, unemployment for these Viscose workers, as for most workers, has been a time of struggle, of living on slender dwindling resources, and of giving up or losing what has been built up in the years of labor. As table XIX indicates, 778 workers-55.7 percent of the respondents, and 65.9 percent of those respondents not still at Roanoke Viscose at the time of response have used unemployment compensation. This 778 included 561 men and 217 women. The Roanoke office of the Virginia State Employment Service was of the opinion, in late October 1958, that many, perhaps some hundreds, of the Viscose workers had not yet applied for unemployment compensation benefits, and that could well be true. Some were applying for such protection for the first time in their lives and it came hard to have to do so. But 75 respondents seemingly exhausted unemployment compensation benefit credits. The table shows also that 360 used savings to live on; 275 said in future unemployment they would use savings, which suggests that 85 had exhausted savings. 134 borrowed. 201 depended on a spouse working to bring home the bacon. 56 lived with relatives. And so forth. Let us turn now to the question of those who do not find other jobs, or whose earnings on the jobs they will find is markedly lower than at Viscose. What effects will this have? One effect of loss of income is that they will have to buy less. Some will lose some of the possessions, and the savings that means security, that they have worked so long and saved so long to build up. The announcement August 4 of the plant closing down, and the layoffs since then, are too recent to have had their full impact in this respect. Even in the case of some of those laid off before the announcement the full impact is yet to come. Many of the people have not yet begun to draw unemployment compensation, and probably most have not yet exhausted their unemployment benefit rights. Unfortunately, the VSES Roanoke office does not have data organized in a way which would permit determination of the number of benefit claimants and exhaustees formerly employed by any given company. However, the Roanoke VSES claims deputy had the strong impression that several hundred Viscose people had not yet been in to file claims. Our return questionnaires indicates that the claims deputy's impression may well be correct although hundreds have filed claims. The full impact is yet to come for other reasons. Many of the people still have savings. They have separation pay and pension money coming. But, as some of the businessmen and governmental officials with whom we talked have pointed out, when the unemployment compensation checks stop coming, the savings and the separation money are used up, "then it will be rough." We urge this subcommittee to try to arrange for a survey in Roanoke sometime in the later part of 1959 to see what the situation is then. Perhaps a Census Bureau team working with Labor Department and Social Security Administration support could run this survey. Many workers already have lost goods or services or real property they owned. What they gave up During unemployment, these Viscose workers gave up or lost goods and services they formerly had. The following were reported by 220 respondents to the questionnaire as things they had already given up: House by 16 respondents. Apartment by three respondents. Auto by 60 respondents. Telephone by 114 respondents. Television by 37 respondents. Newspapers by nine respondents. Life, hospital, and surgical insurances, six respondents, each, plus those Medical, collision, and mortgage insurances, two respondents, each. Milk, three respondents. Farm tractor, one respondent. Child's college education, one respondent. Furnace, one respondent. Stove, one respondent. Motorcycle, one respondent. Truck and motorboat, one respondent. Furniture, one respondent. Vacuum cleaner, one respondent. In addition, seven reported being behind in payments on cars, two on furniture, two on their houses, three on debts; and one had to reduce the amount of the payments (and hence increased payout period and interest cost) on the notes on his house. Twenty-four respondents specifically said, in answer to the question on what they had had to give up, that they had not yet been forced to give up anything. But many-so many that in our limited time it did not seem worthwhile counting-expressed their fears that they would have to give up all or many of their hard-earned possessions, and it seems clear that they will unless they find work. One 27-year-old married lady with two dependents has been jobless since June 1957 and has used up her savings, has borrowed and is living with relatives, and has exhausted her unemployment compensation rights. She writes that "so far up until now I have been able to keep house and things but if I don't get a job in the next few months I am afraid I will lose everything I have." Discussions with Roanoke businessmen-in the retail credit bureau, in a finance company dealing largely in second-hand car financing, in the loan department of a major bank-and with a VA housing official in Roanoke, strengthen the impression that to date most Viscose people have been able to keep most of their possessions and to meet their financial obligations, for the most part. The future is another story. One 46-year-old lady, with 30 years of service at Viscose, writes that "I am going to lose my apartment and everything I have worked for 30 long years." Some form of protection should be set up for homeowners and renters who through no fault of their own lose long-term jobs and are unable to meet housing payments. The housing laws should be amended to provide that a small amount be set aside from monthly payments into a fund out of which payments would be paid under such conditions, for example. This is a problem not yet critical for most of the Viscose people in Roanoke though it could get critical. We have been told that lenders will be disposed to be reasonable with them in many cases, postponing payments or accepting a reduction in the monthly payment amounts, for example, as at least one of the questionnaires we have noticed indicated at this point. One man said he cut his house payments in half. Of course, as time goes on lenders may become less inclined to be patient. Furthermore, smaller monthly payments or delayed payments will mean more in total payments as interest mounts. The plant shutdown announcement on August 4 hit these people in yet another way. They had, many of them, set up and invested in a Viscose Employees Federal Credit Union. This credit union became their instrument for financing purchases in many cases, and so they helped each other that way. But when the plant shutdown announcement was made, this jeopardized their ability to repay their loans from the credit union, and this in turn jeopardized the savings involved. We are informed that there were 712 share members in the credit union as of August 4, and shares totaled $178,571.65. There had been 199 loans, totaling $80,432.85, made between January 1 and August 4, 1958. On August 4 there were 296 loans outstanding, totaling $100,440.12. There was a freeze imposed promptly on outgoing funds to protect the rights of all. On October 15, 1958, the credit union was able to pay out 50 cents on the dollar as a partial payment to share members, and $89,224.34 was so distributed. We hope that those owing money to the credit union will be in position to repay the loans so that the remaining shares may be paid off. Of course, this means in large part that those owing money will have to find jobs paying enough to permit them to live and also make repayments. Now, when many of these people know that they are in for a rough time, when local businessmen and governmental officials regretfully predict that many of them will use up their 18 weeks of unemployment compensation and still have no jobs, what prospects lie ahead for these dependable, reliable, hard-working people whose only crime is that they were too dependable-worked so long for one employer that many of them are inexperienced at other jobs? (Incidentally, some of them have acquired other skills during furlough periods, a fact some employers tend to overlook. And most of them can learn new job skills if given a chance). What lies ahead! What lies ahead for these people? Those who get new jobs will have lost their seniority rights. They now will be the first to be laid off in any curtailments in their new companies. Even those who are employed at American Viscose Corp. plants in other cities will have lost their seniority, because seniority is plantwide, not companywide. Those who get jobs in other communities, as some have done, will have their problems also. Will they give up their homes in Roanoke or in the nearby communities where they now live? Many do not wish to do so. They have their friendships in their present communities, built over the decades. They are active in their churches and have responsibilities to them. Some have chil dren whose schooling they don't want to interrupt. Many own their own homes, for these have been thrifty people. Some have elderly dependents living with them, parents in some cases, and cannot leave them. Some will have to leave their present communities and relocate. Seven of the respondents to the questionnaire moved residences 100 or more miles away (table XXIII), and we speak here of those who gave up homes in the Roanoke area and moved, not of those who took jobs elsewhere and are trying to work away from home while maintaining the home where it was. There are those who are working elsewhere, or will work elsewhere, and send part of their earnings home to their dependents. One such person, for example, now works in the Washington, D. C., area and sends back remittances so that his daughter may complete her schooling. Had to leave area Fourteen of the respondents were working at American Viscose plants in other cities-nine at Front Royal, Va., 200 miles away; four at Marcus Hook, Pa., 325 miles away; and one at Nitro, W. Va., 175 miles away. Two of those who made the move reported making higher take-home pay at the new jobs, one reported the same pay, one did not give sufficient data for comparison, and the rest, 10, reported receiving lower pay than at Roanoke. The pay differences ranged up to $5 a week. For many of these transferees-and for some of the others who have found jobs well out of the Roanoke area most of them call home and where many of them still have families including dependents-there are such problems as maintaining two places to live, travel to see families, making limited funds finance these extra costs. Not counting transferees to other Viscose plants, we find that respondents to the questionnaire working well out of the Roanoke area include One at West Palm Beach, Fla. One at Cordele, Ga., 450 miles away. Three in the Washington, D. C., area (Rockville, Md., District Heights, Md., and the District of Columbia), 235-250 miles. One at Hopewell, Va., 220 miles away. One at Richmond, Va., 170 miles away. One at Charlottesville, N.C., 115 miles away. One at Bridgewater, Pa., 115 miles away. Fifteen at several cities just outside of the Roanoke metropolitan area, ranging out to 60 miles away (this does not necessarily mean up to 60 miles of commuting each way, as many of the Roanoke Viscose workers did not actually live in Roanoke metropolitan area, but commuted from nearby towns). When these cities above are listed, we do not include cities from which we received our replies but in which the respondents were seeking work rather than working (as one in Miami, Fla.), or where respondents were caring for ill relatives (as one in Katy, Tex.), or where respondents happened to be when they mailed the replies, as evidenced by the postmarks on the envelopes. We listed only the cities where they had jobs and so stated. A number of respondents indicated they would go anywhere for a good job, but preferred to remain in Roanoke. (When Roanoke is used in this context, it means the Roanoke area, especially Roanoke City, Vinton, and Salem, but loosely their accustomed commuting area.) As table XXIV shows, of the 1.244 respondents who answered the questions pertaining to preference for remaining in or leaving Roanoke 96.3 percent of respondents to this question-1,198 expressed a preference for remaining in Roanoke if they could find suitable jobs there (or indicated they would have to remain), while 46 preferred elsewhere. In terms of the entire 1.397 respondents, not all of whom answered this question, 85.8 percent preferred to remain, 3.3 percent preferred to go elsewhere, and 10.9 percent either were silent on this point or chose to mark preference for both. The latter in at least some cases seemed clearly to be meant as indicating that they would prefer to remain in Roanoke but also preferred to be employed and to earn a living and would go where suitable employment could be found. Senators may be interested to note that preference to remain in Roanoke was expressed by at least 85 percent of every residential group we could clearly identify-homeowners (with or without a mortgage), renters, or others (such as boarders and those living with relatives). Too old to leave cherished surroundings Asked to give reasons for their preference, 571 gave answers that may be summed up as including that their spouse lives there, they are settled there, they own their home there, their children or other relatives are at schools there, or living costs would be higher elsewhere (this latter especially would be true of those with homes whose mortgages are paid off, as 606 said was true). Twenty-two mentioned as reasons for remaining in their present home such factors as caring for an aged mother, or for parents, or sick brother or sister. and eight mentioned illness in the family without being specific. Two preferred to stay because they were studying new work skills in Roanoke. Six centered their unwillingness to move on their attachment to their churches, |