the Government. I know of no reason why they should do other than what the Commonwealth Fund sets them up to do, namely, to make an impartial study of this administrative agency.

Senator HILL. None of them has ever been a beneficiary of any favors from the Board?

Mr. MADDEN. None whatever; there has never been any possible opportunity for that.

The Board would not pretend that in the thousands of cases it has handled it or some member of its staff has never done an injustice, as it would not pretend that it has never dealt with a union or a worker unfairly. However, we are confident in maintaining that any dispassionate study of the Board's operations will convince students, as it has those just mentioned, that the Board is dispensing justice with as much fairness and impartiality as are the more traditional

courts.

THE OPERATION OF THE ACT

On pages 9 to 27 of the Board's report to the committee there are summarized the facts concerning the operation and the effects of the act to date. In that part of his statement which you will find printed on pages 8 to 16 of this hearing, Senator Wagner has given you a brilliant summary of the benefits which the present act has brought to employers, workers, and the public generally. He presented to you in graphic form the figures I have already referred to in the introductory part of this statement showing that insofar as industrial strife is concerned, 1938 represented not only a tremendous improvement over 1937 but also the best record in recent years. He went on to show that "organization" strikes dropped even more sharply in 1938 than did other strikes; that thousands of workers who would previously have engaged in "organization" strikes were now coming to the Board; and that after the act was sustained by the Supreme Court, the sit-down practically disappeared as a weapon of industrial warfare. All men of good will, who base their convictions on facts, will agree with Senator Wagner's conclusions that

The National Labor Relations Act has thus played a notable, constructive role in our national life.

I should like to interpolate at this point an observation about the remark which Senator Burke made yesterday, which was somewhat to the effect that if the Board hadn't done something which it did do in May of 1937, that we would have been spared a year and a half of an epidemic of sit-down strikes. The figures gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor show that beginning in May the downward trend in sit-down strikes was precipitate.

Senator MURRAY. May of what year?

Mr. MADDEN. May of 1937. In May there were 72 such strikes; in June there were 29; in July there were 20; in August there were 23; in September there were 13; in October there were 10; in November there were 12; in December there were 4; and since December of 1937 there have been only an insignificant number of sit-down strikes at any time. So that the imputation that there was something which the Board did on or about May 1937 caused sit-down strikes is completely disproved by the statistics on the subject.

I do not care to burden you with the repetition of material which is already contained in the Board's report or which was presented by Senator Wagner. However, I think you will be interested in looking at the strike figures for 1938 from another point of view. Appendix B gives you these figures, which are illustrated by chart A. This gives you the proportion of workers involved in strikes to the total number of gainful workers, by years, since 1880. Since this table affords a means of measuring strikes in terms of total productive activity in the country, I think it lends special significance to the figures you already have. You will note that the proportion in 1938 was 1.3 percent, the lowest proportion since 1932, and substantially lower than the average of 1.8 percent for the entire period from 1880 to 1938. However, what I would like you to note particularly is that except for the year 1920, which followed the year 1919 when the proportion reached the sensational figure of 10 percent-that is, 10 percent of those gainfully employed, on strike-the year 1938 showed a more precipitate drop in the proportion from the preceding year than any year since 1880. So that Senator Burke's statement that the year 1938, although it was tremendously better than 1937, was still worse than in other years is not borne out by these figures.

The CHAIRMAN. Does this table mean that in 1919, for example, 1 person out of 10 was on strike?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Out of all of the people in the United States gainfully employed?

Mr. MADDEN. At some time during the year.

The CHAIRMAN. One person out of 10?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And that in 1938, for example, throughout 1938, there were only 1.3 persons out of all of those gainfully employed? Mr. MADDEN. Who went out on strike at some time during the year. The average for the whole 58-year period being 1.8 percent of persons, and the average for 1938 being 1.3 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, anything that the Board might do or anything that the Board would not do, could only be a contributing factor toward strikes, could it not?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And the factor might be so very small that probably it had nothing to do with it?

Mr. MADDEN. I think we must keep this in mind, that you hear these constant statements that the act and perhaps its administration have caused labor troubles. If they mean anything, of course, they mean have caused labor troubles which would not have otherwise occurred. If, in fact, there are less labor troubles than there were before there was a board and an act, of course, the charge becomes ridiculous. Whether you conclude that the facts that there are less has any relation to the Board's activities or not, certainly you cannot conclude that the Board or the act has caused more troubles if there are not more labor troubles.

The CHAIRMAN. We have all been trained

Mr. MADDEN (interposing). Are you skeptical of figures?

PROPORTION OF NUMBER OF WORKERS INVOLVED IN STRIKES

TO TOTAL NUMBER OF GAINFUL WORKERS

[National Labor Relations Board, Division of Economic Research, April 17, 1939. N. M.-M. W. Source: John I. Griffin, Strikes. See appendix B.]

We have already indicated in our report to the committee that the trend of strikes follows approximately the trend of business activity. The next table to which I refer you, appearing as appendix C to this statement, and illustrated by chart B, compares the monthly trend of

The CHAIRMAN. No. From our early training in the movies, we have always have all been trained that we should leave nothing to our imagination.

Mr. MADDEN. I have complete confidence, Mr. Chairman, in your imagination and that of your colleagues.

TREND OF MAN-DAYS OF IDLENESS DUE TO STRIKES

COMPARED WITH TREND OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY
JANUARY 1937-FEBRUARY 1939

MAN-DAYS
OF IDLENESS

INDUSTRIAL
PRODUCTION-

INDEX OF

130 INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION

UPSWING IN BUSINESS ACTIVITY

NOT ACCOMPANIED BY CUSTOM-
ARY INCREASE IN STRIKES

1938

• PRELURMARY

1939

[National Labor Relations Board, Division of Economic Research, April 17, 1939, N. M.-M. W. Reserve Board and U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. See appendix C.] 1937

man-days of idleness due to strikes to that of industrial production for 1937 and 1938 and the first 2 months of 1939. You will note that the increase in business activity in 1937 brought with it a corresponding increase in idleness due to strikes. The recession beginning in the summer of 1937 was characterized by a decrease in man-days of idleness due to strikes. We find, however, a reversal of this trend in the latter part of 1938, which shows an increase in industrial production without any corresponding increase in man-days of idleness due to

CHART B

strikes. I believe that this indicates a recourse to the peaceful procedure of the Board as opposed to strike action.

I would like to insert in my statement at this point a page of additional material which, with your permission, I will not stop to read, just for the purpose of saving time. I also ask permission of the committee to introduce appendix C-2, which is a table revealing the greater decrease of strikes in industries over which the Board has taken jurisdiction as compared with the decrease in all other industries.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be done.

(The table and statement referred to follows:)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, WASHINGTON, D. C., APRIL 17, 1939

APPENDIX C-2.-Decrease in strikes in industries in which the National Labor Relations Board has taken jurisdiction compared with decrease in other industries, 1937–381 (for disputes beginning in the year)

Compiled and computed as follows:

1937: U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, May 1938, pp. 1190-1192. 1938: U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Industrial Relations.

APPENDIX

INDUSTRIES OVER WHICH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS TAKEN JURISDICTION (ACCORDING TO BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATIONS)