TABLE H-W 1.-Ages of 42 couples of respondents, both spouses worked at Roanoke Viscose

TABLE H-W 2.—Seniority of 42 couples of respondents, both spouses worked at

TABLE H-W 3.-Employment status at time of answer to questionnaire, of 42 couples of respondents, both spouses worked at Roanoke Viscose

1 Working at Roanoke Viscose at time responded to questionnaire. Unemployed but in the labor force (able to work and seeking employment).

TABLE H-W 4A-Weekly, take-home pay of husband and wife at Roanoke Viscose, before furlough, of 42 couples of respondents, both spouses worked at Roanoke Viscose

TABLE H-W 4B.—Weekly take-home pay of husband and wife at time of response to questionnaire, of 42 couples of respondents, both spouses worked at Roanoke Viscose1

Includes all 42 pairs, whether working at Viscose or elsewhere, or unemployed, or out of labor force. 1 husband's take-home pay as before sick leave taken from plant.

2 Includes 3 wives in $70 to $79 bracket before layoffs, none after.

TABLE H-W 5.-Distribution of occupational or skill levels (D.O.T.)1 at Roanoke Viscose, of 42 couples of respondents, when both spouses worked there

TABLE H-W 6.-Employment at Roanoke Viscose at time of questionnaire, or month and year of furlough from plant, of 42 couples of respondents, both spouses worked there

Mr. Cook. Part of what you asked for is in the original study in table XVI. But to apply it specifically to the 738 responses we would have to check the study further.

Mr. CURTIS. Just a few quick questions:

One, on this Roanoke, Va., picture, what was Virginia's overall unemployment record in this time? Is Roanoke one of the bad spots?

Mr. Cook. It wasn't until about this time. For most of the 10-year period it was below the State average, and about the time that the American Viscose plant got into trouble there were other difficulties there. For instance, the Norfolk & Western Railroad, which has its home office there, laid off about 2,400 people, and the combination of things changed it from below the State average to substantially above. Table II in the original study shows the comparison between Roanoke and the State.

Mr. CURTIS. I will be very interested in picking that up.
Mr. Cook. It also compares it with the national average.

Mr. CURTIS. Did the textile company involved here or the textile industry have any retraining program or any way of assisting the unemployed people that they would let off?

Mr. Cook. Yes, the company did a number of things. For instance, they have other facilities in Virginia. They have two other plants in Virginia. They have two in West Virginia and three in Pennsylvania. People who were free to move could go to any one of those other facilities and apply. We gave them a list of where there were vacancies. There were not a large number of vacancies, but if they could pass the normal physical tests for employment, which are not very strict, they were given preference on employment in those places, and some 50 people did that.

In the community itself they have no other facility and there is no retaining program in the community by the company.

Mr. CURTIS. Did the community itself have any program, and rather than get into the program, I am just trying to find out if the community itself had any program for retraining or getting people back to work.

Mr. Cook. There is a possibility through the public school extension service. If there is a group of eight or more people who ask for certain training who will apply, but they have to pay for the minimum costs of that training.

Mr. CURTIS. Is that a State program?

Mr. Cook. I think it is a city program, with some State subsidy.

Mr. CURTIS. How about the union itself? Does it have any retraining program or any method of trying to hit at this unemployment problem from the angle of getting located in other jobs?

Mr. Cook. The union has no retraining program, sir. We are not equipped for that sort of thing. We do furnish in cases like this the best employment opportunity advice that it is possible for us to give. As you know, we have contracts in all kinds of places and when an employer needs people of certain skills which are available here, we apprise both the employer and the employees who are members there of this opportunity. We place quite a few people, but in total numbers as compared with 2,000, it is very low.

Mr. STETIN. I might add that while Viscose happens to be one of the better companies with whom we have a contractual relationship

for the last 22 years, and we have a good relationship with them, most of the corporations do not do as much as the Viscose Co. does. We just had the J. P. Stevens Co. take over a plant in Passaic, N.J., where they threw out about 2,500 workers. None of the production workers were offered an opportunity of going to one of their jobs down in the South where most of their mills are located. And J. P. Stevens has had to expand their operation elsewhere because they are still putting out woolens. There is very little being done along the lines that the Viscose Co. did. We are very pleased that we have that kind of a relationship with that concern.

Mr. CURTIS. Of course, this committee is concerned with the unemployment insurance aspect, but nonetheless the real way we would all hope to solve unemployment insurance is through the creation of jobs and, just as you have said, your people would much prefer to have jobs than to be on unemployment insurance, and this other aspect does enter into it, so much so I might state that I have often wondered whether possibly some funds through the unemployment insurance program might not be devoted to retraining or something of that

nature.

Mr. STETIN. I think it is an excellent suggestion. I was speaking to the commissioner of labor in New Jersey, and he was thinking in terms that something should be done by the State so that these people as they are collecting their unemployment compensation would be given the opportunity while they have nothing to do of being trained so that they can go to another job. More and more of this has to be done and that is why you need some kind of a Federal program in order to promote this kind of suggestion that you are making.

Mr. CURTIS. You may be correct on the last. That is what we are trying to examine into, and I am too. Whether we need it or not, I don't know, but I certainly want to listen to this aspect.

Mr. Cook. The redevelopment bill does provide for a certain amount of funds for that type of retraining program.

Mr. CURTIS. Yes. I might say on that, one of the difficulties I have found in the Congress is that when we divide ourselves up into committees as we do, and we have to, we get one aspect of the problem here on the Ways and Means Committee, while another committee is getting the other aspect, and I think it is important occasionally for us to try to provide a little liaison and recognize that this problem we are discussing really is another aspect of the depressed areas problem.

Mr. COOK. The last two pages of my testimony, sir, point out the fact that unemployment compensation is not a solution to a problem as severe as Roanoke's, and lists the other measures which are before Congress at the present time which we feel are helpful in this direction.

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

We thank you, gentlemen, again for coming to the committee.

Our next witness is Mr. Stanton Smith, president of the Tennessee State Labor Council, AFL-CIO.

Mr. FRAZIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to introduce to members of the committee Mr. Stanton Smith, who was for many years a resident of my hometown, Chattanooga, Tenn. He now re