ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. LEWIS, PRESIDENT, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lewis, as I suppose you know, we are considering the socalled full-employment bill and we would like your views, knowing your keen interest in the whole subject matter.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Senator. Out of my profound consideration for the time and patience of the distinguished Senators, I come without excessive documentation and I will try to be brief.

Speaking for the United Mine` Workers of America, I speak in approval of Senate bill S. 380 in principle, reserving the right to dissent from possible amendments when the bill is in final shape as a result of your deliberations. I doubt that it is necessary for me to make any detailed analysis of the bill or to burden the committee with a repetitive discourse, on grounds that have been covered by previous witnesses, with which substantially there is no dissent.

I call to the attention of the committee this fact which I think is of vital and profound importance. The problem of providing employment opportunities in the years to come is indubitably associated with the question of number of hours and number of days that we operate our production and fabricating plants in the Nation. This bill calls for the annual survey and report to the Congress through the medium of the machinery that is created here, with recommendations for action by Congress to take up the slack between the job opportunities being created by private enterprise and the amount required. Now, unquestionably the length of the day's work and the length of the workweek enter into any serious computation of that problem or any profound consideration of the equations which are involved.

It runs to the question of the functioning of the entire economic establishment of the Nation. The enormous quantity production per man employed will be greatly increased in the postwar years. We are living in a marvelous age when genius and science are performing modern miracles, in new formulas, in the realm of chemistry, physics, engineering, and mathematics. Every day we are increasing the productive capacity of our employable and available manpower in the country. In other words, we are abolishing work as such and we are utilizing power and the automatic and semiautomatic machine.

The atom is being broken down, not by human hands, but by the devices of man and his mechanical and scientific enterprise, and the great work of extracting that power from Nature's storehouse not performed by human hands but by the devices that originate in the minds of the men of genius. So we are operating now with a constant improvement in all our devices, utilizing power, and men press buttons and pull levers and perform various tasks, so that the power and machinery do the work.

In consequence, we are making each pair of human hands in industry more efficient. Take the mining industry with which I am associated. Its efficiency during the World War II as compared with World War I is probably a 40percent improvement on the average. Less men produce more coal. We are producing now 6 tons per day per man employed in and around the industry, as against the British production of 1 ton per day or less per man employed in the industry, at a cost of less than one-third, f. o. b., per ton, and with a wage structure that is three times as high as the British wage structure on the day or weekly basis. There is the record of American industry in one industry that is a vital and basic industry.

That efficiency and that progress reflects itself into our entire economy and commercial establishment. So, as a result, quantitatively in the years to come, less men are going to be able to produce more goods, and it is a conservative estimate now to believe that in the first 2 years following the war that the productivity of the American plant and equipment and American workman will exceed by more than one-third the productivity of the same number of workmen in the years preceding World War II.

I emphasize this fact in order to show you that if you once achieve full employment with this mighty productive machine, with our men of genius still sitting up at night to devise new formulas and new plans and new machines, that the productivity of that plant and that manpower will be so great that inevitably the warehouses and shelves will become full and the market will be glutted, because the buying power on the part of the population and their ability to consume the products that they buy will not keep pace with the constant increase of productivity. In consequence we will be faced with a reaction.

So inevitably I suggest that it is vitally necessary for the Congress and the Government, in any consideration or adjustment of the employment opportunity

question in the future, to have equal power to deal with the number of productive hours under which American industry will operate. Certainly the question of providing jobs and assuming the responsibility that Senate bill 380 assumes for the Government could not be lightly done unless the Congress did have the power to say how long the wheels should operate and how long human hands shall produce in a glutted market.

So, in consequence, the United Mine Workers have prepared a suggested amendment for the consideration of the committee. It is very brief, and we think broad enough to give to the Congress at least the power to consider these problems and to take such action as might be deemed wise in the circumstances. We suggest to amend S. 38) in section 2 by adding after subsection (c), right down at the bottom of page 2, below line 24, a new section, number (d) (1), as follows:

"In order to maintain a reasonable minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of the workers, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to adopt from time to time policies and programs looking to the adjustment and shortening of the hours of labor, thus stimulating and stabilizing the national economy and the even flow of workers into industry.” Senator TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Surely.

Senator TAYLOR. You don't think it is necessary for the Congress also to legislate regarding wages? Should we leave that to be settled by labor and industry?

Mr. LEWIS. Other than minimum wages that are now prescribed in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Certainly I don't think that the Congress should undertake to fix the wages of American workers if we want to maintain free enterprise in America. We cannot fix wages by law, we cannot have compulsory arbitration, and we cannot have the individual forced to work under standards fixed by the Government if we are to preserve free opportunity and free enterprise and a republican form of government for the rest of the population.

May I point out with respect to this amendment that the words in the amendment, "a reasonable minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of the workers," is lifted verbatim from the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. I merely call that to the attention of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. This amendment does fix wages to the extent of increasing the minimum; is that correct?

Mr. LEWIS. Pardon me, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. You were talking about wages. It does provide for an increase in the minimum; is that right?

Mr. LEWIS. That is right.

Now, following that amendment on page 2 it will probably be required to amend section 3 on page 5, after the word "wages" in the fifteenth line, by adding the one word "hours." It will then read, "wages, hours, and working conditions."

I know of nothing of greater importance in considering employment opportunity than the question of lessening hours. There is no other way for the population of the country to have participation in the fruits of genius and the benefits of progress.

The mine workers are now working a 54-hour week in the mines of the country to supply the country with coal. Prior to the war we had a 35-hour-week wage agreement. But the miners never got to work 35 hours a week. The average employment time was 25, 26, or 27 hours a week. Now, under the stress of the Nation's requirement, production has increased and hours have lengthened and the men are working the 54-hour week. Those that are not injured during the course of the week's employment or those whose physical stamina is sufficient to carry them through work a 54-hour week.

With the coming of peace again, the restoration of normal, and the filling up of our shelves and warehouses with consumer goods, we will find that the market will not absorb that quantity of goods and certainly it will be necessary to reduce the working hours. The entire Nation is faced with that problem. In all our past history we have never been able to find foreign markets in which to sell more than 6 to 8 percent of our production. It is not reasonable to assume that the coming years in the immediate future will permit us to sell any greater quantity than that again.

So America is again faced with the necessity of finding her own markets, creating her own consuming power, and providing for a wage and an income for the working population of this country that will permit them to become

consumers and buyers in the Nation's domestic markets. We have no other place to look. It is possible for us to organize our economy on that basis because we are constantly reducing the unit cost of production through the application of improvements and scientific achievements and new facilities. Senator TOBEY. And we want those to be a blessing instead of a curse. Mr. LEWIS. We want those to be a blessing, Senator, instead of a curse. Senator TOBEY. That is right, and it is our job to devise ways and means to do that.

Mr. LEWIS. An invention that comes from an inventor's mind that does the work of 100 men and employs only 2 to run the machine, that merely furnishes a royalty to the inventor and a margin of profit to the manufacturer and destroys the buying power of 98 men becomes a curse instead of a blessing. We must pass that down through the population. If we progressively and mathematically destroy the opportunity for employment in America, then in inverse ratio we must give participation in the remaining amount of work to all the population. I don't think there is any other answer if we want to preserve our economy and our form of government.

Now, I do trust that the committee in its wisdom and discretion will give full consideration to that very important subject. On page 8, section 4 (c), I think-section 4 (c) on page 8, we think that "may" should be changed to "shall." I see it is suggested in an amendment that has been offered by some of the Senators. The President shall consult with representatives of industry, agriculture, labor, and State and local governments.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Green suggested that, too.

Mr. LEWIS. I am glad to know it. I was sitting behind that screen and I couldn't hear him very well. Certainly it should not be optional. Certainly labor is entitled to have that consultation with these representatives of other interests, industry and labor and so on. Certainly it should not be the whim of whoever may be President 10 years from now as to whether or not he will consult labor. We do like to be cousulted, whether or not our views are accepted. I think that is a human trait that probably prevails in the minds of a lot of people as well as those who represent labor organizations.

In the amendment presented on the legislative day of July 9, a copy of which I have here, on page 4 in the twelfth line, section 10 (a) of the act, it sets forth that opportunity to engage in productive work at locally prevailing wages and working conditions for the type of job available shall be the standard by which full employment is defined. I don't think that language should be in the bill for very obvious reasons. "Locally prevailing wages." I think it is not only unfair to the workers in limiting their opportunity because the locally prevailing wages become a maximum instead of a minimum, but I think it is unfair to industry, to investors, and to capital. I think it will operate to maintain and continue indefinitely substandard wages in many of the rural sections of the South. I think that the wage minimum in the Wage-House Act is a sufficient floor. I think this either should be stricken out-either that "locally prevailing wages" should be stricken out, or it should be inserted in lieu thereof that wages fixed through collective bargaining, if you are going to deal with wages there. I think you are treading on dangerous ground by putting that in, because it will be used by the government contractors in the remote areas of the country as their defense against any attempt to increase wages or raise the standard of living or to increase the buying and consuming power of the population of that area.

I have this in mind. In 1933, 1934, and 1935, when the first National Labor Board was functioning, of which the distinguished chairman of this committee was Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. And you were a member

Mr. LEWIS. I recall that, Senator. We found wages in Lousiana in the lumber industry in those remote and mosquito-infested swamps, as low as 10 cents an hour. We found similar wages in Mississippi, in Alabama, and in Florida-10 cents an hour. Fifteen cents an hour was almost an excessive wage in some of those area. We found that the lumber manufacturers and producers of the Pacific Northwest and other areas in this country were compelled to compete in the national lumber markets with the 10-cents-an-hour wage levels of Louisiana. At the same time they were being required to pay a wage four, five, and six times that to work their plants in the Pacific Northwest. It constituted unfair economic competition from any national standpoint. I merely mention the lumber industry in passing as an outstanding example.

This amendment, if it goes into this bill, will be utilized by contractors and employers in the South, notoriously antiunion and antilabor, to continue their

unwholesome and their vicious economic exploitation of the Nego race. It will maintain the standard of living in the South which is unwholesome and vicious and should be abolished. It should not be done by the Congress or by the people of the country.

America has to look forward to a constantly increasing standard of living, with greater leisure for its people, greater opportunities for recreation, and greater opportunities for education. Otherwise we cannot keep our economy running. Our productive machine will overwhelm us in every economic and social sense. So, in consequence, the Congress should not undertake to do anything that will put a burden upon the backs of men who want to organize and bargain collectively in harmony with the public policy of the United States. Certainly labor has a right to bargain in the open market for the only thing it has got to sell, that is the labor of its hands and the time of its being. So I think this amendment here will be unwholesome and of bad effect.

I don't know that there are any other details I should discuss here. Anticipating a possible question, because I understand it has been a matter of discussion in the committee here, the matter expressed in section 2, paragraph (b), on page 2, "it is the policy of the United States to assure the existence at all times of sufficient employment opportunities." Well, that word "assure" is not binding because it is dependent on what Congress will do when Congress gets the report from the President in the manner prescribed, making suggestions as to what should be done. No one can bind a future Congress, and the American people are going to express themselves in the future through their elected representatives as in the past, and you cannot bind the American people. I personally would be perfectly satisfied if that word "assure" was "promote.” I would be just as satisfied with "promote" as with "assure" because I think neither of them is binding upon the Congress or upon the people. They are simply a declaration of policy. The desire to execute the policy depends on the circumstances and the time. So to me that is of no more importance than

the difference between "the" and "thuh." Finis.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Any questions to ask of Mr. Lewis? (There was no response.)

Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Senator and gentlemen of the committee.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES

WASHINGTON 6, D. C.

John H. Davis, Executive Secretary

STATEMENT ON FULL EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR

Full employment of labor, capital, and natural resources under our American system is the result of optimum production of needed goods and services. Our free, expanding economy normally generates its own new production to employ the gradual increase in our supply of workers and to employ those who are displaced by labor-saving improvements in production and distribution. Increased production efficiency, which is reflected in lower unit production costs, provides opportunity for a constantly increasing number of jobs, more goods and services per consumer, and hence a gradually higher standard of living for all.

It is the function of our Government to provide a favorable business climate in terms of such factors as money, taxes, and monopoly regulations, and other fair trade practices, in order that private enterprise through effective labor, thrift and investment can fully use our manpower, capital and natural resources. Under such conditions unemployment should be largely transitional, pending the reestablishment of conditions which will absorb such workers in productive private enterprise. It devolves upon Government in times of emergency to assist persons in need or distress to a subsistence income through well-planned and managed work and relief programs thus improving the business climate by providing incentives to greater development and use of individual initiative, skills and managements.

A free economy should be protected by a government which restrains its activity to that of an umpire, rather than participating in management or capitalist roles. Real wages under such circumstances will be advance by competition through adjustments in wages or prices or both as fast as increased

man-hour productivity will permit. It is important that gains in real wages benefit workers generally instead of being limited to select groups through monopoly practices. If maximum employment is to result, it is essential that increases in the general standard of living be reflected in the real earnings of self-employed persons such as those engaged in agriculture and services.

In a free economy, labor, and management, if properly responsible to the public and in their own long-time interest, will negotiate conditions of employment voluntarily and will reduce strikes and lockouts to a minimum. Production or services essential to the daily welfare of the people should be maintained with the aid of appropriate public conciliatory machinery, where voluntary efforts fail.

STATEMENT OF ELISHA M. FRIEDMAN ON FULL-EMPLOYMENT BILL-AIMS AND METHODS

The intent of the full-employment bill, S. 380, is noble. In an ideal society, its members are all employed. That is a high goal of aspiration. But the methods outlined in the bill will not realize that goal. The bill calls for "a national production and employment budget for the ensuing fiscal year or long period." It is beyond the possibility of any man or group of men to make such a forecast. Look at the fluctuations in the index of production over the past 30 years or more. What businessman or economic organization, what Government official or political administration in the past 30 years has predicted these fluctuations correctly, even up to 50 percent?

The history of prophecy by Government officials is none too brilliant, even by our Presidents. During the weary years of depressions, from 1930 to 1932, we heard a memorable, short-term prophecy from President Hoover, "Prosperity is just around the corner." In the spring of 1937, when President Roosevelt said, “We planned it that way," the country went into a depression a few months later at a speed unparalleled in American history. In 1928 President Coolidge and Secretary Mellon said that stocks were not too high and that broker's loans were not too high. In the spring of 1937 President Roosevelt said that commodity prices were too high and a few months lated the administration was frantically trying to lift commodity prices off the bottoms to which they collapsed.

Who can guess the future? Forecastig economic conditions 16 months ahead is a task for gods, not mortals. When the Interstate Commerce Commission tried to forecast earnings of railroads in reorganization, Commissioner Carroll Miller, an engineer by profession, wisely said, "We are not omniscient and cannot foresee the future" (242 I. C. C. 475).

The human mind is fallible. A hundred human minds are equally fallible, even if they be Government officials engaged in forecasting. What a strange dogma we hold, that a Government forecast is infallible. Look at Government estimates in a narrow field made by specialists in that field. Look over the Department of Agriculture forecasts in the spring of what the final crop would be for the year. Yet the size of the crop determines the market price and both determine farm purchasing power and demand for machinery and automobiles. Look at the ICC forecasts over a period of years. Read Fairman B. Dick's revealing history of the complete failure of the ICC to forecast economic conditions or earnings, cited in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on the Hobbs bill (H. R. 2857 of 1943, pp. 85-86). What Government forecasts have ever been reasonably correct over a period of years? How much Government foresight is revealed in the Pearl Harbor report? Or in our prewar policy of unpreparedness?

For the Government to forecast an employment budget 16 months ahead is obvious nonsense to any dispassionate economist, even now. It will be obvious nonsense to the man in the street after the first few guesses. The notion will be discarded, undoubtedly. In addition, the proponents of the forecasting feature of this measure will be discredited. The Government's prestige will fall both in the eyes of its citizens and in the opinion of the rest of the world. No other Government ever attempted such an impossible task as is now proposed. The whole conception is naive. It represents wishful thinking by sincere high-minded men. In 1933 we lagged 30 to 50 years behind Europe in unemployment insurance, old-age pensions and other social legislation. In 1945 we rush thoughtlessly ahead in a field where other nations have feared to tread.

For Congress now to pass a bill that all Americans have the right to regular, full-time employment, and for the Federal Government to assume the responsi

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »