View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Frances Perkins, Secretary

Isador Lubin, Commissioner (on leave)
A . F. H inrichs, A cting Commissioner


Labor Laws
and Their Administration

Proceedings o f the T w enty^eighth C onvention o f the
International Association o f G overnm ental

Labor Officials, Chicago
October 1943

B ulletin

T^o. 795

For sale by the
Superintendent o f Documents .
United States Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D . C.
Price 25 cents

Letter of Transmittal

U nited States D epartment of L abor ,
B ureau of L abor Statistics ,
Washington, D . C

., September 11,


The S ecretary of L abor :
I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on Labor Laws and
Their Administration, 1943, embodying the proceedings of the Twentyeighth Convention of the International Association of Governmental
Labor Officials, which convened in Chicago, 111., October 8-10, 1943.
Because of war conditions, no convention was held by this association
in 1942.
A. F. H inrichs ,
A ctin g Com m issioner

Hon. F rances P erkins,
Secretary o f Labor




International Association of Governmental Labor Officials:
R6sum6 of proceedings, twenty-eighth annual convention___________
Labor standards and problems in relation to wartime objectives and
post-war adjustments— President's address, by Voyta Wrabetz
(Wisconsin Industrial Commission) _______________________________
Labor relations:
The future of labor relations—
By John It. Steelman (Director, United States Conciliation
Service)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------By William H. Davis (Chairman, National War Labor Board) _ _
Caring for war workers:
Care and welfare of war workers in Great Britain, by the Hon. James
Griffiths, M. P. (Great Britain, South Wales District)____________
Labor in post-war era:
Labor in the post-war era— Round-table discussion________________
Apprenticeship training:
Present and post-war adaptation of apprenticeship training, by.
Walter Simon (Wisconsin Industrial Commission)________________
Discussion--------------------Child labor:
Wartime child labor— Report of the committee on child labor, by
Beatrice McConnell (United States Children's Bureau), chairman._
Minimum wage:
Minimum-wage legislation in the United States, September 1941 to
September 1943, by Louise Stitt (United StatesWomen's Bureau) __
Discussion------------------------------------------------------------------------------Women in industry:
Report on women in industry— United States and Canada, by Mary
Anderson (Chief, United States Women's Bureau)_____________
Industrial homework:
Industrial homework— Report of committee on industrial homework,
by Kate Papert (New York Department of Labor), chairman_____
Social security:
Report on social security, by Ewan Clague (United States Social
Security Board)_________________________________________________
Factory inspection and safety:
Committee report on factory inspection, by John J. Toohey, Jr.
(New Jersey Department of Labor), chairman_____________________















Factory inspection and safety— Continued.
Built-in machinery safeguards— Report of committee on machinery
safety requirements, by Forrest H. Shuford (North Carolina De­
partment of Labor), chairman___________________________________
Minutes of regional meeting, by John Roach (New Jersey De­
partment of Labor), chairman_______________________________
Federal aid and State labor administration:
Federal aid to State labor departments— Round-table discussion____
Business meetings:
Committees appointed______________________________
Report of the secretary-treasurer___________________________________
Report of the auditing committee__________________________________
Resolutions adopted by the convention_____________________________
Report of the nominating committee_______________________________
A. — Organization o f the International Association of Governmental
Labor Officials:
Officers of the I. A. G. L. O., 1943-44-------------------------------------174
Honorary life members----- ------------------------------------------------------174
Development of the I. A. G. L. O ______________________________
B. — Persons attending the 28th convention of the I. A. G. L. O__

Bulletin 7v[o. 795 o f the
United States Bureau o f Labor Statistics

Labor Laws and Their Administration, 1943
Resume o f Proceedings
The twenty-eighth annual convention of the International Associa­
tion of Governmental Labor Officials convened at Chicago, 111., on
Friday, October 8, 1943, and adjourned on Sunday, October 10, 1943.
Because of war conditions, no meeting of the Association was held in
Francis B. Murphy of the Illinois Department of Labor made the
welcoming address. Governor Green, because of heavy official duties,
was unable to attend the convention. Mr. Murphy discussed the im­
portant task before the convention of planning future action for the
maintenance of labor standards not only as regards wartime objec­
tives but also during the period of post-war adjustments.
A message of greeting from Adam Bell, past president of the I. A.
G. L. O., was read.
The president of the Association, Yoyta Wrabetz, called attention
to the important problem of recruiting and maintaining an adequate
labor supply to assure speedy and sufficient production of all war
supplies, and the difficulties involved in manning production lines,
‘consistent with labor standards applicable to workers, especially to
minors and w om en” He also stressed the urgent need for continu­
ous training and supervision of workers operating new machines and
for the building up and active functioning of safety organizational
work in individual plants to reduce the accident toll which was the
greatest single cause for serious interference in maintaining adequate
manpower. T o meet this need, labor departments should be strength­
ened to permit these agencies to adopt safety rules and regulations
and to enforce them. Closer cooperation between the Federal and
State agencies concerned, Mr. Wrabetz declared, would result in more
effective accident-prevention services.
Federal aid to State labor administration was the subject of a
round-table discussion at one of the sessions under the leadership of
Yoyta Wrabetz and Forrest H. Shuford. Problems dealing with
labor in the post-war era, the future of labor relations, and the caring
for war workers, were the subjects of discussion in three sessions of the
convention. Various phases of post-war adjustments were also in-





eluded in the committee reports on child labor, apprenticeship train­
ing, and women in industry.
A t the opening and closing sessions, consideration was given to the
business of the Association. The president presided at each of these
sessions. Chairmen of the other sessions were—
Forrest H. Shuford, North Carolina Department of Labor, evening
session, October 8.
John Hopkins Hall, Virginia Department of Labor and Industry,
morning session, October 9.
John M . Pohlhaus, Maryland Commissioner of Labor and Sta­
tistics, afternoon session, October 9.
Francis B. Murphy, Illinois Department of Labor, evening session,
October 9.
In view of the uncertain conditions prevailing, the Executive Board
was authorized to decide, after consultation with the membership,
whether a meeting should be held in 1944, and, if held, the place of
meeting. [It was decided not to hold a meeting in 1944.]
In the following presentation of the proceedings o f the 1943 con­
vention, the arrangement is by topics rather than chronological.

International Association of Governmental
Labor Officials
Labor Standards and Problems in Relation to Wartime
Objectives and Post-War Adjustments
President's Address, by V oyta W rabetz

A t the time of our last meeting, the Dominion of Canada and its
Provinces were already engaged in a war which was gradually en­
gulfing all the nations of the world. The United States of America
was then engaged in strenuous efforts to build an adequate defense,
with a growing fear that sooner or later our democratic way of life
would be endangered.
As a result of a planned and treacherous attack on December 7,
1941, we, and practically all of the other American republics, became
active participants in that war— a war which we must win in order
that free people and free institutions may survive. For the accom­
plishment of that purpose, there can be no doubt that the people of
our nations are united as one in their willingness to contribute, with­
out reservation, everything of property and of life itself that may be
necessary. All our efforts of mind and of body must be molded into
one to assure victory, and consideration of all problems must be
given only in their relation to that one outcome. Certainly no
thought or act should be in such terms or in such direction as to in­
terfere with undivided attention and all-out efforts in our most
pressing need. The President of the United States, our Commanderin-Chief, has called upon industry and workers for an “ all-out” effort
in production so that the Army, Navy, and Air Forces may be so well
equipped and maintained as to remove all doubt as to final victory.
Labor departments cannot do, and have not done, less than respond
to the call.
The tremendous struggle in which we are engaged has given rise to
many problems pertainmg to war production and to labor engaged
in such production. Our armed forces are doing a splendid job on
the fighting fronts, but their continuing success and ultimate victory
cannot be assured unless all of us on the home front do an equally
good job in the production of the instruments of war and of the
materiel necessary to maintain our fighting forces.
The most important of these problems involves the recruitment
and maintenance of an adequate labor supply to assure speedy and
sufficient production of all war supplies.
The necessity to operate machinery 24 horn's a day, 7 days a week,
the real scarcity of skilled workers, and the induction of several
million young men into the Army, the Navy, and the Air Forces, has
affected and will continue materially to affect the available labor
supply needed for the completion of the most stupendous program
of armament production in the history of the world. M ore and more





it becomes apparent that all citizens, young and old, men and women,
will have to make sacrifices to accomplish the huge task ahead. Our
President has repeatedly called for such sacrifices, both as to money
and service. The Army, the Navy, and the Air Forces are urgently
calling for increased production and speedy delivery of equipment
and supplies of all kinds.
The manning of our production lines, consistent with labor stand­
ards applicable to workers, especially to minors and women, presents
a most difficult problem. Unquestionably some labor standards
established during peacetime in our States must be relaxed if we are
to meet the vital demands of the national crisis. Unquestionably
also, men and women and even children are wholeheartedly willing
to give all of their possessions and of their energies that may be
necessary for the welfare of their country in this hour of need. The
principles upon which our Nation is founded are too sacred to do
Nevertheless, modification of and exceptions to standards must
only be made in instances of absolute necessity and then only in
terms that will facilitate necessary production. In other words,
such modification and exception must be evaluated in terms of
production. Relaxation must not be permitted when, over a period
of time, it will result in less production.
Reports indicate that the problem of the modification of labor
standards necessary under the circumstances has been met satis­
factorily by the State labor departments. Some State departments
already had the power to issue orders to meet emergency conditions.
In other States such power has since been granted by legislative acts
to labor officials or to State ex ecu tiv es to grant modification during
the emergency.
W ith this approach to the problem of the modification or relaxation
o f labor standards, labor departments have been able to grant relief
when necessary for all-out war production and at the same time pro­
vide such protection to all workers as will assure such production.
Undoubtedly most States have been able to adhere to rather rigid
compliance with the l-day-of-rest-in-7 law, relaxing these provisions
for relatively short periods of time and when compensating rest periods
are provided. Likewise, the employment of women has been limited
to 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week, with adequate rest periods.
M odifications have, consequently, been granted only to individual
establishments where need exists and only for limited times and not
beyond the duration of the emergency. B y this procedure, I believe
that the situation is completely under control, that the war-emergency
needs are met, and that basic labor standards will be automatically
reinstated when our present necessities are ended.
Boys and girls 16 and 17 years of age are materially meeting the
demand for sufficient manpower in factories engaged in war effort.
These minors are alive to the necessities of the times and are anxious
to do their part. They are being inducted into these services in everincreasing numbers. Their lives, health, and safety can best be pro­
tected by the issuance of permits for employment which is not too
hazardous, considering their ages and physical capacities.
The employment of these minors has been especially valuable in
those States in which the canning of vegetables and fruits is a large
industry. The canneries, during the season now ending, have been



manned largely by women and children. Because of the size of the
pack in some areas and because of weather conditions, long days were
sometimes necessary. T o avoid possible harm from excessive hours,
employment of young persons during such hours should be limited
only to those who are found by physicians to be capable of withstand­
ing such employment.
The employment of minors under 18 years of age interferes with the
opportunity for full school attendance, which in normal times we have
tried to assure them. The curtailment of these opportunities creates
a serious condition and requires careful attention. While full-time
school attendance cannot and, under the circumstances, should not,
be required, certainly some school contact should be provided. Labor
departments should encourage and urge school attendance to provide
courses to meet the convenience and needs of these young workers
so that their educational program, while curtailed, may still go on
currently without the break which it is so difficult to mend. The
timing of work in plants and of school attendance can be worked out
by the parties involved, being careful, of course, that the combined
load in factory and in school shall not be so heavy as to be hazardous
to the health and well-being of the children so employed.
T o bring about the ultimate of production it is apparent that man­
power is of primary importance—manpower working efficiently and at
capacity and without loss in its ranks. In normal times an increase
in accident frequency gives rise to concern, but when manpower, kept
at a high degree of productive efficiency, is absolutely essential to the
success of our war program, it gives serious cause for alarm.
The greatest single cause for serious interference with the main­
tenance of adequate manpower is industrial accidents, which, during
the year 1942, resulted in a national loss in excess of 263 million mandays of labor. This situation calls for the redoubling of efforts of
State labor departments.
Because of the fact that from 85 to 90 percent of all accidents are
caused by some form of human failure, more attention must be given
to the continuous training and supervision of workers, particularly
new workers, minors, and women, who have been inducted into
industry, and also to older employees who are operating new machines
with which they are not entirely familiar. Supervisory personnel
must be increased to keep pace with the increase in employment in
particular plants. Special attention must be devoted to the building
up and active functioning of safety organizational work in individual
plants and to the conduct of foremen’s safety schools in all industrial
centers. To permit State labor departments to do the kind of job
that the times require, the support of labor and industry must be
enlisted to convince State legislatures that more adequate funds
should be made available to State labor departments. Increased
personnel should be employed so that, in addition to the educational
work which is necessary, complete inspections can be made in industrial
plants at least once each year with sufficient re-inspections to assure
compliance with safety codes.
The aid which special agents of the Committee for the Conservation
of Manpower in War Industries and representatives of the safety
branch of the service commands can give, based upon the inspectional
work performed by the States, can result in improved conditions; and
such cooperative effort should continue.




In this connection, I wish to report that, following a direction in a
resolution adopted at our convention in St. Louis, I conferred with the
National Committee for the Conservation of Manpower in War
Industries. It was agreed that there should be closer cooperation
between the various agencies engaged in accident-prevention activities.
I believe that the resulting agreements of cooperation between the
U. S. Department of Labor and other Federal agencies with State
labor departments have made our services in this field more effective.
Otherwise, our uncoordinated efforts would result not only in unneces­
sary duplication but, more disastrously, in confusion, lack of confidence
in the value of public service, and a consequent lack of necessary
action. The agreements properly provide that inspections shall be
made by State departments and that their reports shall be made avail­
able to those in charge of the work of the Committee for the Conserva­
tion of Manpower or to those in charge of safety in the Army Service
Commands, and that the activity of these Federal services shall be
predicated upon such reports and after consultation with State per­
sonnel. Such coordinated efforts have already had some success and,
at the same time, available public funds have been used more
W ith the urgency of conditions apparent, the power and control of
State labor departments should be strengthened as much as possible.
In States in which authority is not given to adopt safety codes, every
effort should be made to enact laws that will establish a legislative
rule of safety, with power in the labor department to adopt rules and
regulations within such legislative rule. In that process, representa­
tives of labor and of industry and other experts should be utilized as
much as possible to assure codes which would receive ready acceptance
and, therefore, be accorded general compliance.
The present emergency has increased the administrative volume of
work in all functions entrusted to State labor departments. The
burden has been heavy, but I am sure it has been handled expedi­
tiously. Even with this heavy administrative load, it can be observed
that States have not neglected to improve their labor laws. Progress
has been made consistent with the development in the States and
undoubtedly consistent with the readiness with which the citizens of
a State are willing to accept certain standards and resulting responsi­
bilities. That is the essence of our democratic way of life and of
government and, in the long run, gives assurance to the establishment
of reasonably high standards with further assurance that the standards
will be observed.
Except in two or three fields, during the past 2 years little change
has occurred in labor legislation. As already related, most States
have provided for “ greater flexibility in existing laws to meet the
Workmen’s compensation laws, in several States, have been amended
to extend coverage, provide larger benefits, increase medical care,
grant expanded occupational-disease coverage, and simplify procedure
to assure prompt payment of benefits. Other States are giving consid­
eration to like amendments, particularly as to occupational diseases.
I attended meetings and conferred with groups in several States in
relation to these problems.
M any States have increased benefits and duration periods within
which unemployed workers may receive unemployment benefits.



They have also made very substantial provision for larger reserves to
take care of all unemployment benefits which will inevitably become
due during the post-war period.
There is added interest and action in the problems of apprenticeship
and several States have undertaken definite programs of promotion
and of supervision.
The important observation to be made is that substantial progress
has been made in various States in response to the social and economic
needs of those States, and that such progress represents a high degree
o f stability that augurs successful administration.
In conclusion, let me express my appreciation for the opportunity
to be president of the International Association o f Governmental
Labor Officials since our last meeting in 1941. I consider this privilege
a distinct honor. I have endeavored to respond to such calls for
service as have come to me and trust that my efforts have been worth

Labor Relations
The Future of Labor Relations
By John R. Steelman , Director, United States Conciliation Service

The future outlook of labor in the English-speaking world is tied
inseparably to the victory of our arms in this war. W ithout victory
we have no future worth the name. Yet military achievement alone
will not yield the high goals toward which we have been moving the
last quarter of a century. A renewed consciousness of unity between
management and labor, new methods of industrial relations, and
practical usages of cooperation are needed now and in the days to
come. Unquestionably there are elements of weakness and strength
in the present situation which may make or mar the economic patterns
of free men and free institutions. In my judgment, we should not
leave these matters to chance improvement in some far-off time. W e
should study the inventory of our industrial strength and weakness
There was mention, recently, in the press of a small Pennsylvania
community which has organized all of its work facilities looking to
the day when its youth now in the armed forces will return. Each
youth is being contacted now with a view of ascertaining how his
skills may be employed most effectively within the economic frame­
work of the community to which he belongs. If every village and
city in the country would adopt comparable progress of peaceemployment preparedness it would help mightily to avoid the scourge
of widespread unemployment.
The rich heritage of our American institutions is drawn largely
from local men and places. The basic meaning of America is the
right and opportunity of every community, large or small, to exert
its own efforts and to assert its own dignity. This is the foundation
of a vast pyramiding power. The foundation must be maintained
or the superstructure will topple. The only plan of industrial rela­
tions I would commend to you is the maintenance of our essential
American liberties where the free play of intelligence, education,
efficiency, humanity, and justice lead on to higher standards of work
and production. It is necessary that in the general scope of this
precious liberty we observe the safeguards of orderly procedure which
have been dictated over long periods of time in the experience of the
race. Essentially liberty and justice go hand in hand. Industrial
relations have been improved in this country as these basic considera­
tions have been maintained. Americans do not work well in a strait
Now we are thinking of war problems and post-war problems at
the same time. The present difficulties that beset the Nation have
shown the need for the spirit and exercise of planning. The consciouness of this need is found everywhere among all of our citizens.
I am confident we shall continue to face national problems in a more
alert way than every before. W e do not intend to be surprised again




or caught off our guard. There are to be no more Pearl Harbors
either in the military, naval, governmental, or economic phases of
our lives. The spirit of planning comes from the increased conscious­
ness that human relations demand even more ingenuity and resource­
fulness in the handling than the most complex problems of bridge
building or construction achievements. Social and economic engi­
neering are being bom out of the chaos and confusion of world-wide
destruction. From the ashes of selfishness and greed will come a new
hope for the world and for our own people, a science of cooperation,
and a “ know-how” of peaceful achievement.
Long ago we learned in the work of the Conciliation Service that
there is a direct connection between work stoppages and the general
conditions which play upon the lives of those who work and those
who direct work. M ore definitely, let me say this war has created
an entirely new series of labor-management problems in this country.
W e are not going to think of pre-Pearl Harbor approaches to the
present and future industrial-relations problems of the Nation.
What I say of wartime relates just as surely to the post-war days.
Problems of contract termination, Government-owned war plants,
and the disposition of wartime commodity surpluses will inevitably
create direct problems of unemployment, vocational adjustment, ana
wage schedules. Congress will enact innumerable laws, and adminis­
trative authorities will issue various regulations. There will be no
end of people upset, overturned, dazed, and confused. If there are
strikes and work stoppages, we shall not be surprised. Wartime
pledges of cooperation and the no-strike policy of the Government
will require strengthening and modification, also rethinking. Social
and economic problems are never completely solved. W e must con­
tinue on the job if we are not to be overwhelmed by the tides of ad­
versity, for the gigantic problems of the war may be dwarfed by even
greater problems after the war. Certainly this is no time for the
Polly anna or rosy-eyed vision of things to come. We must not be
asleep at the switch when the great trains of this on-rushing century
go flashing by.
While we must face our problems in a realistic way, we must not
despair or give way before them. W e are learning in the schoolroom
of present emergencies some lessons which hold a measure of value
for the future. I refer specifically to job evaluation, foremen train­
ing, grievance procedure, employee educational plans, on-the-job
training, and the increased use of industrial resourcefulness of the
workers themselves. These do not begin to exhaust the considera­
tions deserving attention. I mention them by way of illustration.
When we get down to the production needs of tomorrow, we will
require an even larger degree of industrial ingenuity and work-hour
cooperation than we have ever known before. New problems arising
out of new advances in transportation, communication, and produc­
tion will demand that we must be on our toes if we are to stand in
the competitive markets of the world. The time to get down to
earth on these matters is now.
An interesting and worthwhile development in this war period is
the increased use of job evaluation and job classification. These
methods have been known for a long time, but the need for increased
production and the manpower shortage has brought them to the
attention of many representatives of both labor and management.




When these methods have been tried in a practical way, they have
been accepted because they helped to increase production and elim­
inate many grievances. In many instances workers for the first
time have been placed on jobs for which they were best qualified.
Job evaluation and job classification can and should play an
important part in establishing successful labor-management relations
in the days to come. It should be remembered, however, that
evaluation and classification are not one and the same thing. Evalu­
ation is the yardstick for establishing the proper relationship of one
job to another without taking into consideration any individual or
group of individuals. In other words, it is the job. Classification is
the process of classifying or placing individuals into jobs. Because
, there is some confusion about the meaning of these terms, labor and
management are sometimes led into needless effort.
The Conciliation Service has a staff of technical men with engineer­
ing experience who assist or advise the parties in making job evalu­
ations and job classifications upon the joint request o f labor and
management. These men, through their experience in many fields,
believe that such work should be done only when labor, as well as
management, is thoroughly conscious of the program, for it is a
project which requires the cooperation of both labor and management
if it is to be the basis for future successful labor relations.
The training of foremen and supervisors to attain our production
goals, increased efficiency, and labor-management peace was one of
the most urgent problems facing industry at the beginning of the war.
The leadership of foremen in a shop is one of the least understood
and most important basic essentials of mass production. It is the fore­
man who brings together the strength of managerial efficiency and
the manpower and labor resources of the plant. The lifeline of a
plant is frequently shown by the aptitudes and attitudes of its fore­
man. I f he is educated in collective bargaining, wage standards, and
democratic principles as well as in the technical essentials of machine
production, his opportunity for leadership in the shop knows no limit.
A good foreman is a better work producer than any incentive-bonus
plan I have ever known.
In all work situations, problems of one kind or another arise from
time to time. In small plants the worker may discuss these with
his employer as the employer stops at the work bench to exchange a
few remarks with the worker. In large organizations it is necessary
to handle such matters in a more orderly fashion. An ever increasing
number of plants have established specific steps which are to be taken
when grievances arise. In most instances these steps fall into three
main groups: (1) negotiations between the employees and certain
representatives of management; (2) negotiations between the parties
with an impartial party present; and (3) arbitration if negotiations
fail. The work of the Conciliation Service is concerned with all three
of these steps. It is, however, most closely related to the second step
in which negotiations are aided by an impartial party.
When my telephone rings or a wire reaches my office informing
the Service of trouble spots, it is often a sign that the parties have
tried to negotiate and have not found a satisfactory solution to their
problems. ^ Whatever the facts may be, irrespective of time or place,
it is our job to bring the organized intelligence and procedures o f
conciliation to the points of difference in the shortest possible time.



W e have no questionnaires to submit, no red tape to untangle. When
trouble comes, we believe in the direct application of conciliation
without publicity or formality. The Conciliation Service has been
operating in this way for 30 years— in peace as well as in war—without
compulsion or force—without orders or recommendations. Our
settlements have come, because we have encouraged the parties to
find a common ground of mutual interest and respect; and when a
more friendly atmosphere has been built, we have attempted to help
the parties find their own solution to their problems.
The Conciliation Service now has 275 Commissioners of Conciliation
stationed in the important industrial and commercial centers of the
Nation. Each day these men are meeting different problems. There
are no blueprints they can use to settle their cases. Each case is
different because different circumstances and personalities have
contributed to the situation. Some cases are big, some little, some
important, others not so important. Each case, however, must be
settled individually and on the basis of fair play and American prin­
ciples. In the last 12 months these men have settled over 12,000
labor disputes. In other words, on an average, in the last 12 months
the Service has settled 33 labor disputes a day.
M ost of these 12,000 cases you have not heard about. Conciliators
have been assigned as peacemakers and have gathered representatives
of labor and management around the conference table. They have
guarded the facts given them in confidence, as carefully as do doctors
or lawyers. When the settlement is reached after long hours of
negotiations, the conciliators, without giving out any publicity, catch
a train or plane to the scene oi other disputes.
Settlements through conciliation do not mean merely buttoning
up the situation, helping the parties to find a solution to their problems,
or even preventing a strike. We strive to help the parties find a
common ground of mutual interest which will carry over to the future
days and years and to encourage the parties to establish workable
grievance machinery so that they will be able to solve more and more
of their own problems without calling on the Service.
O f course, in some instances, after a Commissioner of Conciliation
has used all the resourcefulness at his command, he is still unable to
get a total settlement. There may have been eight issues involved,
and the Commissioner may have aided the parties to come to an
agreement on six of those issues, but two issues of the case have re­
mained unsolved. In such instances, in all probability those two
issues of the case would then be certified, or officially referred, to the
National War Labor Board. In the last 12 months, 2,500 cases have
been certified to the Board.
In addition to certifying cases to the National War Labor Board
when settlements are not possible through conciliation, another method
which is frequently used is voluntary arbitration, or in other words, the
final step in most grievance procedures. If the parties voluntarily
agree to arbitrate and to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, the
Commissioner of Conciliation may then suggest the appointment of an
arbitrator by the Service, the War Labor Board, or, if the parties
desire, some citizen of the community. A recent survey of unionagreement clauses showed that an increasing number provide for
arbitration as the final step of their grievance procedure.




The important thing for both labor and management to remember
is that differences should be brought to light at an early stage in order
that a solution may be found. If disputes are brought to our atten­
tion before they reach a point which will hinder production, it is
possible to do a work of healing that may be difficult to achieve after
an open break has occurred. That plant which has suffered an actual
work stoppage because of bad feeling between men and management
often carries the scars of battle for a long time. Since Pearl Harbor
more than 95 of every 100 disputes brought to the attention of the
Conciliation Service prior to a work stoppage have been settled without
any loss of production.
In addition to evaluating jobs, classifying personnel, training fore­
men, and establishing successful grievance procedure, many plants are
making increased use of the industrial resourcefulness of the workers
themselves, on-the-job training, and employee educational plans.
In the plants I have visited lately, I have found all varieties of
employee educational plans. In many smaller plants the employer
made a practice of calling the force together from time to time. In
many large plants there was a weekly or monthly magazine for the
workers. In either instance these plans were most beneficial to good
labor-management relations when the employer used this means of
explaining company policy and programs. For instance, in one plant
the rate of absenteeism was cut almost 50 percent when the manage­
ment explained to the workers that the cloth which they found difficult
to weave was for a special army contract. The workers then felt
that they were contributing directly to the war effort. In another
plant production was materially increased when the employees were
told of the urgent need for a certain order of steel.
All of these are practical matters very close to the actual problems
which we face in the factory every day. To most of you they are not
new. However, I am hoping that a new understanding of the need
for industrial statesmanship is growing among us. Leadership is the
most prized and the least prepared of our national needs. This is true
of all avenues of vocations and citizenship. We need more men at the
top as lawyers, teachers, social workers, industrialists, leaders of labor,
production engineers, and social engineers who believe in and practice
the principles of democracy and cooperation in their daily contacts.
The old whip hand of unwarranted authority or the caprice of emotion
will not meet the requirements of tomorrow. M ore of patience,
humility, gracious living, and human understanding will be required
of all of us. W e must lift ourselves above the elements of conflict to
the higher levels of good will, good deeds, and the good days for which
we hope.
Mr. P ohlhatjs (M aryland). In looking at this subject— Future of
Labor Relations— it seemed to me that the relationship between
employers and employees or duly elected representatives should be
the first, and permanent, labor relation. The employers of this coun­
try, and labor, should by all means, if possible, settle their differences
without ever having to call on either the State or the Government.
O f course, I know that that would be a Utopia. I also know that
the States in the past have been very neglectful in conciliation work.
When I became commissioner of labor I felt that one of the first



duties of my office was to learn how to conciliate. Then, I learned
that a conciliator is useless in helping the parties to settle an issue,
unless he is acceptable to both parties— no peaceful settlement can
be made when one of the parties is not satisfied with the person acting
as conciliator.
From personal observation, I have reached the conclusion that in
most States the labor departments are usually the stepchildren o f the
States. T o my way of thinking, the labor department can be made
one of the most essential parts of State government, if it is conducted
along the lines of decency and honesty. I feel that each State should
allot a sufficient amount of money, not for waste, but for honest
and efficient administration of its labor department. Unless our
States do set up machinery to do the job— when this war is over and
the cry goes out for State's rights— let us not complain when it is
necessary for Washington to come in and do the job.

The Future of Labor Relations
By W illiam H. D avis , Chairman, National War Labor Board

I question the wisdom in asking me to talk about problems of the
future of labor relations for two reasons: In the first place, the
National War Labor Board is more or less at the center of things;
and in the second place, my time is very well occupied with the
present. The fact of the matter is that when you try to look into
future events, you find that the future begins at the grass roots.
You people are at the grass roots and really have a much better
opportunity than I to observe those things which are going to deter­
mine the course of future events; so I feel very modest about ventur­
ing my opinion. I am more inclined to express such thoughts
as I have, and, like the prophet Isaiah, say, “ Come now, and let us
reason together."
I think there are certain elements that can be observed in the present
picture that are bound to have their effect in the future of labor
relations. One of them is a tremendous enlargement in the number
and in the experience and self-confidence of the labor unions and of
the labor-union leaders. When I look back—when John Steelman
looks back, and he knows much more about these things than I do—
just a few years and think of the difference in the status of the labor
unions and the old craft unions, which have increased their member­
ship so largely, and then think of the great mass-production industries
and the present position of the steel workers, the automobile and
aircraft workers, the metal-trade machinists, electrical workers—
we see a revolutionary change from what the situation was before
the war began, which must not be discounted. It is a momentum
of events that cannot be and, I am sure, will not be interrupted.
I think the other great factor in the present, or in what we can
see after the war period, is this: that during the war the competitive
pressure on industry has been very largely lifted. I was talking with
a leading industrialist the other day who had resigned from ms job
and then, because the new president went into the Federal service,
he had to resume his duties as president of the company. He said:
“ We are making about twice as much as we ever made before, but

----- 2

611560]— 15




I can run this company with my hands tied behind my back. I
don’t have to think any more when I buy a thousand tons of copper
whether I can turn it into electrical machinery that I can sell at a
profit; I don’t worry about that any more. M y problem is to get
the material at any price and to turn it into machinery which I have
already sold.” But, after the war, that is going to end, and the
competitive pressures are going to be resumed.
There will be a period, certainly, of great uncertainty, but also of
enormous possibilities in production—vast unsatisfied markets in all
fields of production. W ith the uncertainties and with the return of
competitive pressure, we are going to have a very unstable situation
with countless possibilities for good as well as for evil.
I think those two factors are going to be present. One can, I
suppose, only think about the future from the experience of the past,
and I have tried to analyze to some extent what has happened during
the war and what we will need in order to meet this new situation.
I feel sure that one thing we greatly need is an increase in the
democratic conduct and the responsibility of unions. Ever since
the Wagner Act the labor union has really had, as the Secretary of
Labor has so often said, an established status in society, and the
unions must assume the responsibility of that status. If I had to
pass or recommend a labor law, it would be one requiring all certified
labor unions to have elections by secret ballot at stated intervals of
not more than 2 years. I think that would do more to improve the
responsibility and the democracy of labor unions than any other
one thing.
There is a great deal of talk about making the financial position of
the unions open to the public. I say to that, “ Of course.” Whatever
the labor leaders may say, my own opinion is that practically all of the
responsible labor leaders in the country would be quite willing to do
that. M ost of the important union books are open to the public now,
if the public is interested to see them, but opening books to the public
unfortunately does not arrest criminals. After all, our national bank
books are open to the public, but we still have defaulting bank clerks.
I do not think that this would have as good results as some people think
it would, but I see no objection to it.
Then, I think the second great need in our somewhat childlike in­
dustrial relations in America, is what Dr. Steelman indicated, an in­
crease of the standardization of the basic provisions of union agree­
ments. For instance, seniority provisions, to be any good, have
to be worked out in the plant, because they are peculiar to the partic­
ular situation in the plant; but there ought to be a seniority clause, and
there ought to be an understanding of the differences between the re­
sponsibilities of management and mere seniority. Yacations have come
to be a standard item in labor agreements; health and safety provisions
and, above all, grievance machinery in good form are also standard
items. One thing that is very important, in my mind, to good indus­
trial relations is good grievance machinery in good form, because, as
Dr. Steelman says, one grievance if it is not settled can cause at least
two grievances. These should, in the opinion of the War Labor Board,
be terminated through arbitration procedure under the agreement. Of
course, I do not mean that you should make agreements by arbitration
— I think that is a very bad thing to do. But, having made and signed
an agreement, you should have the means for finally determining any



dispute that arises under that agreement. That can only be achieved
by making arbitration the terminus of the grievance machinery. That
will do more toward increasing production than any other thing except
one, I think, and it lies in the field that Dr. Steelman also spoke of—
job evaluation and job classification.
Nothing, I think, so depresses the morale of a working force as the
payment of different wages to men working side by side on the same
type of work. N ot only does the man, the individual, who is getting
the lesser wage want the money—he has a hard time explaining to his
wife why he does not get it—but it goes much deeper than that. When
a man is discriminated against to that extent, it depresses his self­
esteem and he begins to wonder, “ What is the matter with me? W hy
am I not as good as the fellow next to me?” So we, on the War Labor
Board, are very much in favor o f job evaluation and classification
systems. They take a lot of time and require a great deal of intelligent
work, but they are very useful and never cost any money. It can be
stated as a general fact, I think, that to substitute an orderly job evalu­
ation system for a haphazard wage structure, in any plant, will—even
though it may raise some wages—never cost the employer money be­
cause his production will be increased enough to pay for it.
Another element, along that same line, that has developed and is
going to grow in importance after the war by the return of competitive
pressure, I think, is the competitive relation of wages; that is, the con­
sideration of wages from the employer’s view. Does your competitor
have to pay the same wages? Can you be sure when you make a con­
tract of sale or manufacture that you know what your wage cost is
going to be on that job? Have you got a firm agreement on wages so
that you know what they are?
Under the wage-stabilization program, there has been, I think, a very
strong tendency to approach wages from the viewpoint of competitive
We had a very good agreement during the first World War with re­
spect to the right to organize and bargain collectively. Samuel Gompers made the agreement with industry—it was sort of forced on in­
dustry. We are now told that they agreed to maintain their status quo.
That is incorrect. The status quo was marked very largely by yellowdog contracts which were outlawed by this agreement. It was one of
the best bargains that any labor leader ever made, and during the war
it did result in great improvement in industrial relations. Unfortu­
nately, after the war, our leading industrialists in their wisdom decided
to toss collective bargaining overboard and turned in the direction
opposed to it when every civilized country in the world—that is, every
industrialized country—turned in the opposite direction toward en­
couragement of collective bargaining. The result was that we went
into the present war with a crippled child to do the work of a man.
But for John Steelman, I do not know how we would get out.
I felt that to be true in 1940. Because I felt that way, I went to
Washington and consulted Mr. Lubin and other people and encouraged
as far as I could, the idea of doing something about it. The Govern­
ment created the National Defense Mediation Board. When I first
saw the directive order creating the Mediation Board, I found, to m y
astonishment and consternation, that it was a tripartite tribunal.
Well, I was a mediator, as an avocation not a vocation, and the idea of
a tripartite mediation board was a new one to me. I hesitated to ac­




cept the suggestion that I take part in it. However, I accepted and
learned many things; among them, something that I think is worth
noting in the State labor departments. It is something that I think
M r. Gilbert would call a “ most amazing paradox” : a tripartite media­
tion board being turned into a tripartite board of arbitration is cer­
tainly a novelty. I have been interested in trying to reason out why it
worked, and I think I know. The answer has a good deal of bearing on
the possibilities of the future.
I remember when we started the National Defense Mediation Board
in March 1941— we came bravely to Washington. In spite of all that
John Steelman could do, the country was full of strikes. The M edia­
tion Board met in Washington and organized itself, had its picture
taken, and adjourned. The country set up a howl of derision, very
properly. I thought I had an agreement with Dr. Dykstra, who
was the chairman— I had been elected vice chairman— that either he
or I would remain in Washington. He thought I was going to remain
and I thought he was going to remain, so we both went home. About
a week later the Secretary of Labor certified four of these eases.
D r. Dykstra was busy at the University of Wisconsin. I was
closer so they called me on the telephone. As I went to Washington
I did a good deal of thinking that night on the train. I felt we must
do something about these four strikes, because the country certainly
was laughing at the Mediation Board. The first thing I did was to
consult John Steelman. A t that time the idea of ordering strikers
back to work before their grievances were settled was a wholly novel
idea— it was something that just was not done. Nevertheless, John
Steelman and I decided, after studying the situation together, to send
a telegram in which we said: “ This case has been certified by the Secre­
tary of Labor as vitally affecting the defense effort; the Board requests
you to resume production forthwith and, in any event, be in Wash­
ington tomorrow.” W e put in the words “ in any event” to give us a
chance to climb back to the trunk of the tree if anyone started sawing
off the limb. We felt if they did not go back to work and they did
come down—we were not sure they would even do that—we would
save our face. As a matter of fact, in three of the cases the strikers
went back to work within 48 hours, and in the fourth over the week
end. I think Dr. Steelman was just as surprised as I was.
During the month of April we had other cases certified to us. The
employees involved in those cases were 100 percent on the sidewalk,
and none of them at their benches. In October 1941, we had many
more cases before us, but 100 percent of the workers were at their
benches, and none of them on the sidewalk. That was a revolutionary
thing in American labor relations and it could not have been brought
about in time of war, in my judgment, except by a tripartite board.
The reason is this: In the first place, we were set up as mediators. T o
emphasize, I want to read to you the powerful authority that we had.
An Executive Order stated that we should make every reasonable
effort to bring the parties to a voluntary agreement on their contro­
versy; or, if we did not do this, to afford the means for voluntary
arbitration; to assist, when requested, in establishing a system or
providing the means for the settlement of subsequent controversies;
and, finally, in this powerful clause— “ to investigate issues between
employers and employees, and practices and activities thereof, with
respect to such controversy or dispute; conduct hearings, take testi­



mony, and make findings o f fact, and formulate recommendations for
the settlement of any such controversy or dispute; and make public
such findings and recommendations whenever in the judgment of the
Board the mterests of industrial peace so require.”
This provision contemplated the possibility that if these findings
were made public— and assuming that the public thought them just—
possible public opinion would be created which would induce the
parties to accept them. Well, that was all good in the mediation
world; but we soon found out it was not very good in times of emer­
gency, because when the Mediation Board got going and tried to act
as mediator, it found itself in a situation like this: A mediator goes as
far as he can, he keeps the parties at the conference table as long as he
can, but finally the time comes when he says, “ That’s all there is, there
isn’t any more,” and withdraws, saying, “ Go ahead, fight it out.”
In the meantime, however, we had succeeded in getting these workers
back on their jobs. The result was that in the face of the national
emergency we were confronted with the necessity of settling the cases
in some way or else putting the workers back on the street. Under
that pressure, we gathered courage to tell them what to do in the form
of recommendations.
I did not know—none of us knew—what would happen if either
party were to say,“ Oh, you go chase yourself.” W e knew that that
was a possibility. W e did not put it to a test until the Southern
Appalachian coal controversy was referred to us by the President. He
had recommended that the parties go ahead with their negotiations,
call off the strike, and agree that whatever wage adjustment was
finally made would be retroactive to April 1. The union agreed to
that and called off the strike, but the companies would not agree. W e
tried for 3 days to find a better formula than the President’s; and I put
it flatly up to every individual present whether we had, in their opinion,
exhausted all the avenues of research in that direction. They all
agreed we had, and that we did not have any better formula; so we
recommended that they follow the President’s. The employers said
they would not do it.
I went to the White House, and my face was red— I had failed in m y
job. I found, however, that the President was determined to take
over the mines, if necessary. Within exactly 28 hours after that, the
southern operators agreed to accept the suggestion.
From that time on we knew that the Administration was going to
back up our recommendations, and we realized that we were a board
o f compulsory arbitration whether we liked it or not. Now I would
not sit on a board of compulsory arbitration on labor disputes in
peacetime, but I continued to sit on this one.
After the coal-mine controversy, and then the attack on Pearl Har­
bor, there was a meeting of labor and industry, which made the “ no
strike-no lockout” pledge. The National War Labor Board was estab­
lished by Executive Order 9017 of January 12,1942, and all duties with
respect to cases certified to the National Defense M ediation Board
were assumed by the War Labor Board. It was given quite different
authority in the new Executive order, which provided that the parties
should first resort to direct negotiations or to procedures under a col­
lective-bargaining agreement; if the dispute could not be settled in this
manner, the Conciliation Service was to be notified if they had not
already intervened; and, if conciliation failed, the Secretary of Labor




was to certify the case to the Board, provided, however, that the
Board in its discretion could take jurisdiction of the dispute on its own
motion. The order said: “ After it takes jurisdiction, the Board shall
finally determine the dispute, and for this purpose may use mediation,
voluntary arbitration, or arbitration under rules established by the
Board” — an entirely different tone.
Now we have the War Labor Disputes Act in which the Congress says
that, after Conciliation Service certifies a dispute or we find that a labor
dispute exists which may lead to substantial interference with the war
effort and cannot be settled, it becomes the duty of the National War
Labor Board to decide the dispute and provide by order the wages and
hours and all other terms and conditions customarily included in col­
lective-bargaining agreements, governing the relations between the
parties, which shall be in effect until further order of the Board. This
is a most complete grant of authority to decide a dispute and to estab­
lish the conditions of employment— if we find that the dispute affects
the war effort.
I do not think that this could have come about except for two things.
First, the agreement not to strike; I think any frank labor leader will
admit that it was an inescapable agreement. What happened was this:
In normal times, and quite lawfully, employees reserve the right to
strike— that is, they reserve the right to put pressure upon the em­
ployer *by interfering with his production in a competitive world. But
when the war started, interference with production no longer put
pressure on the employer, it put pressure on the public conscience and
interfered with the war effort. The result was that instead of being a
convenient means of bringing the recalcitrant employer to reason, it
could conceivably endanger our national survival.
The other controlling element was that the industry and labor mem­
bers who participated in the discussions, however they might disagree
during the discussion or in the final vote, from the very beginning were
unanimous in supporting the conclusions of the Board. From the start
there was never any question about that on either side of the table.
The losing party would back up the m ajority decision. The result was
that into the ranks of labor and into the ranks of industry there was a
constant flow of pressure to go along with the Board’s decisions. In this
fashion, it really became a national policy.
If those people had not been on the Board, that would not have hap­
pened. In my judgment, the responsible leaders of American labor
could not have handled the situation if they had not been able to say to
their people, “ Well, we had a chance to talk about it; we were given an
opportunity on the Board to express our views and to vote, and we
may win next time. We lost that tim e; let’s go ahead.” Industry, I
think, would not have accepted the final decisions o f the Board but for
the fact that the industrialists also sat on the Board. A number of
them constantly carried out to their fellow industrialists the idea that,
because of the war, “ We must go along with this bunch, however cock­
eyed they are.”
If that is a sound analysis of the powerful forces that enabled the
War Labor Board to exist, the question, when we look ahead, in my
judgement, would be: In the post-war period, with the increased
momentum of the labor movement and the very interesting, uncertain
but promising status of industry, will we conclude that there is a need,
o f equivalent degree to the war need, to have the disputes settled not



on the picket line but around the conference table? I do not know
whether the country will be wise enough to foresee and realize that
there is an equivalent need. I am sure there will be that need.
We talk about the end of the war. I think we all realize that the war
is going to end gradually, from the viewpoint of industrial production.
Great change-overs are going on now, and they will increase as the war
goes on and as it slowly terminates. However, I have no doubt that, in
any event, the War Labor Board will continue to function until the
war is actually terminated. During that period there may develop the
sense of the absolute necessity of not returning to the picket line.
After the war the Nation cannot afford to try to settle its labor prob­
lems on the picket line. It may be that we will think we can until we
are confronted with some really serious outbreak of strikes which will
bring home to us the fact that we cannot afford it. In that event, I
think some machinery equivalent to the War Labor Board will be set
up again. I do hope, as Dr. Steelman does, that there will be a rapid
development of mediation machinery in all the States, which would
make such a step unnecessary. I even go so far as to recommend
this tripartite scheme, provided the States have strong enough
pressures to make it useful.
Another very important thing that Dr. Steelman touched on, is the
gain in knowledge among industry and labor leaders of one another.
W e have the 12 regional boards which bring into the Board machinery
large numbers, either on the Board or on panels of the Board, of
industry leaders and labor leaders who get to know one another. In
m y opinion the chief thing that holds them apart is fear. We are told:
“ It's only the unknown that terrifies.” I think that when people sit
around the conference table three or four times, they lose that feeling
of fear and gain in knowledge—if not in mutual confidence, at least in
self-confidence. There has been a great deal of that and it should be
useful. I will take Chicago to illustrate what I am saying. The
decisions of the regional board here in Chicago— as in the work of the
Conciliation Service— in the great m ajority of cases are accepted.
They dislike very much whenever we in Washington interfere. After
the war, when a bad situation comes up in the region, I can visualize
the people who have been on this Board saying, “ Well, let’s go down to
222 Adams Street and sit around the table again and see if we can’t
straighten it out.” Probably they may add: “ A t least we know that
we won’t be interfered with from Washington, and our experience was
that most of the decisions we made ourselves were satisfactory, and
only those that Washington made were unsatisfactory.” I think
there is a real chance that they may do this.
I never like to boast about the strike record of the War Labor Board
and the Conciliation Service, because whenever I do, everybody says
that the Chairman of the War Labor Board is in favor o f strikes. On
the contrary, I am not satisfied with anything more than “ zero” on
strikes. However, the level o f interruption of production in this
country by strikes is the lowest— and has been for a year—of any
country in the world at any time in history.
In spite of the highly developed systems in England and Sweden,
I think anyone who has observed them will recognize, even though
they may approve the principles upon which the systems are erected,
that there is still a great impediment in them— class distinction. We
do not have those distinctions, and when our industrial relations grow




up in this country, and we get them on an adult basis, our labor and
industry will have a more constructive relationship than has been
achieved in any other country.
That* probably sounds like a very American thing to say, but
I think there are real reasons for anticipating it. From what we
already know, I think that the degree of real mutual study o f the
problem that is being effected in this country is far ahead of anything
that is possible in England or in Sweden.
Now, we have the wage-stabilization program, which, of course, is
a war program and presumably will come to an end with the war.
When we accepted our jobs on the War Labor Board, set up to settle
disputes, including wage disputes, we realized that there was such a
thing as inflation and tried to put some sort of brake on it. Then in
April 1942, came the President's message, announcing the stabilization
program. In effect, it said that there should not be any further gen­
eral wage increases. The War Labor Board was given the power to
adjust any inequality in wages.
I always regretted the use of the word “ inequality,” because the idea
of equality in wage rates is not a good one. We talk about the level
of wages in America. They are about as level as the Himalayan
Mountains, and we certainly did not have time to level them. We
decided we had to wind our way through the passes as best we could.
So, in July 1942 we came out with the well-known “ Little Steel”
formula which, much to our surprise, came to be regarded as sort of an
eidolon. It was a practical effort to meet a real situation— that is,
you cannot freeze wages and you cannot freeze prices in a dynamic
world. Freezing is the same as death and it was out of the question.
There had been a tremendous disturbance of the normal relationship
o f wages from January 1941 on. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
assured us that about two-thirds of the industrial workers in the
manufacturing industries had already received a greater increase in
wage rates than the increase in the cost of living, but that the other
third and the workers in the service trades were not so fortunate. We
decided, as a practical matter, that before we attempted to say there
would be no further wage increases, we would have to assure those
who had, up to that time, not had a wage increase equal to the
cost-of-living increase, that they could get as much as the 15 percent.
Now, we did not deceive ourselves and suppose that thereby we were
equalizing all inequalities which had occurred since the war started.
M any had much greater increases than 15 percent. We did not try
to rectify that, nor did we think that prices were frozen at that level.
We decided that we had to cut wages away from prices and pray that
prices would be stabilized. That is what we tried to do with the
“ Little Steel” formula. Its chief benefit, from my point of view, was
that it put an end to the arguing on the Board about the cost of living,
because every time after that when anybody said cost of living, the
public members would say, “ 15 percent,” and that ended the argu­
ment, or we thought it did. Unfortunately, we never met a labor man
who had any confidence in the Bureau of Labor Statistics index, so we
got the Secretary of Labor to agree to have a reexamination of the
index made by experts representing both labor and industry any time
they asked for it. I have no doubt myself that the index is the best
there is; but we always heard the argument, and there is a lot of truth



in it for the individual, that the index is based on averages, and the
average man has not yet shown up at the War Labor Board. Average
prices and average wages do not have any direct application to any
individuals, because they always say that the averages do not represent
what their wives encounter when they go out with the market basket.
On the industry side of the Board, they would start talking about the
weekly “ take-home” . As we had based our rule on the straight-time
hourly earnings, I said to the Board one day: “ I am making a bargain
with you fellows. We must stop talking about the cost of living and so
on, and if the labor side will agree not to argue with the Bureau of
Labor Statistics index, and the industry side will agree not to say any­
thing about the weekly “ take-home” , we will make a lot more progress
with the other problems that are confronting the Board.” They
finally agreed to that plan and we did not talk about the cost of living
any more. That took care of general wage increases.
W e still had this job of equalizing inequalities or rectifying injus­
tices, and we went ahead with a good deal of pressure making decisions
— criticized on every hand. Until the act of October 2, 1942, we had
no power over voluntary wage increases. In fact, it never occurred to
anyone that an employer would voluntarily increase wages—we had
been confronted only with disputes about wages. W e began to find
that our stabilizing efforts were going up in smoke because of the vol­
untary wage increases made by employers who had trouble getting
employees, but no trouble in getting money for their product. So the
act of October 2 and Executive Order 9250 took care of that.
We kept on— we had been having, I think, about 70 to 80 dispute
cases a month. After October 3, we set up our regional boards as
quickly as we could. They have about 1,700 cases pending in the vol­
untary applications here in Chicago, and are getting an average of
about 1,000 a week in our 12 regions. That is quite an administrative
burden. The Director of Economic Stabilization, M r. Byrnes, was
under enormous pressure on the price side for price increases.
Executive Order 9328 was issued, which we understood to mean that
the Board had gone too far—had been too generous. It provided,
in substance, that the Board could not make any wage adjustments
beyond the “ Little Steel” formula except for substandards of living.
There was an exception hidden in the order— that we could make
adjustments for reclassifications— which the Director understood to
mean something real. He was impressed, I am sure, with our repre­
sentation— that one of the greatest sources of dissension was an irreg­
ular and unscientific job structure and that it would not raise prices to
correct such classifications; so that was left to us.
We told the Director that we could not handle wage stabilization
under that order as it stood, for this reason: in times of low produc­
tion and ample labor supply there is a tendency for the range of wage
rates for given occupations in a given community to spread. You have
employers who deliberately adopt the policy of a maximum wage, sur­
passing the highest wages in the community, because they think that is
the best way to run the business. Other employers— usually a large
group— pay the going rate of wages— often they agree to do this in their
contracts. Then, in times of large labor supply, you have another class
of eriiployers who deliberately pay a low wage— they can get the
workers. I say “ deliberately” because often they are in the red, but




often not. In using that method of doing business, they rely on their
managerial ability. There was a quite a large group of such employers
in the country in 1942.
Now, if an employer is making potato mashers and begins to lose his
employees, we lose potato mashers and get along without them. We
are trying to draw labor into the war industries. But what actually
happens? The manufacturer of potato mashers is given a contract to
make parts for airplanes, and his work becomes a vital part of the war
effort. As we pointed out to M r. Byrnes, that man with his wage struc­
ture, when the labor market tightens, does not have any wage structure
at all. He cannot do business. We said: “ You will have to choose
between putting him out of business and doing without his production
or giving us the right to raise his wage structure.” Then the question
came back, as it always does in these matters: “ How are you going
to do that and maintain stability?”
W e worked that out with him on the so-called bracket system. It is
a little technical, but the idea is this: we were all conscious that, in
making comparisons between one plant and another, if you once started
to put your attention where labor would direct it— on the highest wage
in the community or area— the result would be unstabilizing, because
it would mean raising everybody’s wages to the highest wage. W e dis­
cussed the average wage, but agreed that it would be unstabilizing be­
cause if everybody’s wage was raised to the average, the average would
go up until finally it would reach the highest wage. Therefore, we
adopted the bracket system, which has worked very well.
The theory is that the regional boards would undertake in the sev­
eral labor-market areas to make surveys of the going rates of wages
on particularly important classifications of labor and plot them on a
chart, which would show alhthe existing wage rates for those occupa­
tions, including the rates at inadequate levels. Then they were to
determine which of those rates were, as we called it, “ sound and
tested rates” — that is, rates that are useful in getting employees in the
present labor market to do the work. In other words, the brackets
would exclude the inadequate rates, but would include all adequate
rates, and would be something very different from either the average
or the top rate. Once the bracket was established, stabilization was
achieved by providing that an employer would be permitted to raise his
wages to the lowest sound and tested rate in the area, but not above
that. That has worked very well, but not with the exactitude that I
have pictured. For instance, we found, with the help of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics and the Army who have done a lot of studying on the
subject, that if you took the average and 10 or 12 percent below the
average wage you generally covered the sound and tested rates in the
community. Although we have not yet had full study of the rates,
we take the weighted average rate less 10 percent as the bottom of the
bracket. In many industries and regions we have stabilized as much
as 90 percent of the industry on that basis.
Again, in the face of reality, the directive provided that we should
not go above the minimum bracket except in “ rare and unusual” cases
where it was necessary to the successful prosecution of the war. W ell,
I get many surprises on the War Labor Board. Shortly after October
3 ,1 was surprised to learn that we were getting 12,000 applications for
wage increases a week, and 90 percent of them were filed by the employ­



ers of their own volition. This passion of American employers to
increase wages was something novel to me.
Again I was surprised at the extraordinary number of cases that
were claimed to be the “ rare and unusual” cases that had to be cor­
rected to win the war. W ithout criticising my brothers in the Govern­
ment, it is truly remarkable how many agencies of the Government
concerned with production or manpower problems are quite ready to
put pressure on the War Labor Board to treat a case as “ rare and
unusual,” justifying an unstabilizing wage increase. That is to be
expected, because these people have responsibility for production or
manpower, but they have no responsibility for stabilization. We on
the War Labor Board have the responsibility for stabilization.
W e are under pressures all the time on these “ rare and unusual”
cases. The fact of the matter is that, in this game, you must have a
safety valve. When the President said there are not going to be any
more wage increases, we all knew— M r. Lubin and I think the Presi­
dent knew— that we had to have a safety valve. So, in the original
statement of the President, the War Labor Board was given some dis­
cretion. That safety valve will wreck the machine if you do not con­
trol it so that its effect will not be unstabilizing. What we really did
was to control the safety valve through the “ Little Steel” formula—
that is, to limit in a stabilizing way on the cost of living. The
bracket system was the next step we took to control the safety valve
which was still wasting steam. Now, the thing we have left is the ‘ ‘rare
and unusual” case; and our problem is to work out a method of han­
dling such cases so that they will be safety valves— not explosives,
not waste steam. This is a very difficult problem. What it means,
concretely, is that whatever action we take on the “ rare and unusual”
cases must be sufficiently surrounded by safeguards to prevent
them from becoming contagious. T o use a medical term—they
must be sterilised as we handle them.
I suspect that, as we move on, we will get a further limitation of
the “ rare and unusual” case. The one thing that we must avoid is
making the rare and unusual case a usual one. As M r. Gilbert says
in The Gondoliers, the king promoted everyone to the highest stations,
saying, “ When everybody is somebody, why no one’s anybody.”
That is what we are up against—what we must avoid— in the rare
and unusual case.
That is about the way the stabilization picture looks in this country.
Probably I should not say it, but I think that it has been a splendid
achievement. We have control of the increases in wages in this
country. The increases in hourly wage rates that resulted from the
decisions of the War Labor Board in 8 months were substantially, I
think, about eight-tenths of a cent an hour. I can, for that matter,
say the same of price control. I do not know how long this substan­
tial level that has been attained in the last 2 or 3 months is going to
last. I think there is probably a little increase this month, but that,
too, has been a great achievement.
When you think of an economy that has considerably more than
doubled its total income at the same time that it has very substantially
reduced its supply of consumer goods— and still we have held on to
wages and prices to the extent we have— I think it is an extraordinary
job. It gives us every reason, in spite of the fact that we are now




running into another storm, to believe that we can control the in­
flationary situation if we stick to it—if we do not get discouraged
and do not let little things divert our attention from bigger things.
After all, the essence of stabilization is confidence. As long as the
country is convinced that the Government is in control of special
groups, that no one special group is running the country to its sole
advantage, and that the Government agencies, however much they
may be damned from day to day by individuals, are on the job, I
think we will have enough confidence in this country to effect sub­
stantial stabilization— to prevent runaway inflation.

Caring For War Workers
Care and Welfare of War Workers in Great Britain
By the Hon. James G riffiths, M. P., Great Britain, South Wales District

It is indeed a privilege to have the opportunity of discussing this
all-important problem of caring for war workers with a gathering of
men and women who are engaged in this vital social service.
First of all, as a background of what I have to say about the
attempts that Great Britain has made in this field, I should, perhaps,
give you some salient facts about the man- and woman-power situa­
tion, indicating to what extent we have had to call— by voluntary
methods and also by compulsory power—upon the men and women
of the country.
Manpower Situation

In the early days of the war a complete survey was made to ascertain
the available manpower and womanpower in the whole country.
Out of a population of 46 million, it was estimated that there were
33 million persons between 14 and 65 years of age. In June 1943—
close to the end of the fourth year of war— of the 33 million persons
between the ages indicated, 26% million had been registered and allo­
cated to the armed services or to either the war industries or essential
civilian work. All the man- and woman-power in the country is
recruited and allocated through one central administrative agency.
In the last war we had a great deal of administrative difficulty,
owing to what I suppose is inevitable in wartime in any country;
that is, competition between the rival industries and the armed
forces for the available man- and woman-power.
This time it was decided that the task of registering, of mobilizing,
and of allocating the services of men and women, should all be done
through one central agency and there should be one central committee
on the cabinet level (which is the executive level of our Government)
which could make all the decisions. The Ministry of Labor was
chosen as the instrument through which all labor would be registered
and allocated.
W e have had a very complete survey of our man- and woman-power.
As I said, out of the 33 million, 26% million have been registered by
the Ministry of Labor and have been allocated. All the services
make their claims for man- and woman-power, and the final allocation
is determined by the Cabinet.
In addition to absorbing all the men that are available, we have
had to call— as every country engaged in this war has had to do— ex­
tensively upon the women in the country available for work. Perhaps
I can give you some figures to indicate the degree to which that has
been done. Of all the single women between 18 and 41 years of age,
91 percent are in full-time essential employment— full-time employ­
ment that is accepted by the Ministry of Labor as being the most
effective service they can render to the nation in time of war. In





addition, 2K million married women have been recruited, by entirely
voluntary methods, for both the war industries and the essential
civilian industries. Of our boys and girls between the ages of 14 and
18 years, 79 percent are also in full-time employment. It is assumed,
therefore, in our country, that we are getting very near the bottom
of the barrel of available man- and woman-power.
W e have reached the stage where actually it has become not only
a question of deciding which industry must be expanded and which
industry can, within reasonable security, reduce its manpower, but
also a question of transferring labor from the less-essential to the
more-essential industries. This year [1943] we have the tremendous
problem of increasing substantially our most vital war indus­
try— which appears everywhere to be the aircraft industry. This
we did by reducing some civilian industries below the very low
level at which they stood, and also by transferring men and women
from other war industries.
Problems of Caring fo r W ar Workers

W e have attempted to deal with four of the major problems that
are related to the care and welfare of war workers. First, housing;
second, food, with particular reference to the development of com­
munal feeding in our country, which is of great importance not only
now but for the future; third, health— the arrangements and pro­
visions that have been made to care for the health of war workers;
and, last but not least, under the peculiar conditions which the war
has inflicted upon our country, to provide recreation for war workers.

Before the war began, most of our industrial cities were overcrowded,
and housing accommodations were inadequate and often on a standard
below what was desirable. The war has accentuated our housing
problem in two ways. A t one time, it was actually within our power
to avoid one of these, but we did not. The other is one of the ill
fortunes of war.
First of all, our basic armament industries were far too over­
concentrated. M ost of the basic armament industries in our country
were concentrated in that part of the British Island which is known
as the Midlands— centered around the great industrial towns and
cities of Sheffield, Coventry, Birmingham, Manchester, and Liver­
pool—the*middle stretch of the island. Many of us urged, long before
the war came, that it would be to the interests of the nation, even
in peacetime, to disperse industries over a wider area of the country.
When war became inevitable— and with war we knew there would be
bombing— we urged upon the Government and upon industry, that it
would be desirable to disperse industry as much as possible, drawing
attention to the fact that we had a dangerous degree of overcentrali­
zation. In 1940— at the end of Dunkerque— when we had to make a
sudden expansion of our war industries, it was too late to disperse in­
dustries, because dispersion interferes with production— it creates time
gaps and time lags— and in 1940 we could not afford to hold up pro­
duction. The result was that when it became necessary to produce
more planes and more guns we had to bring new workers into the



already overcentralized area, which added enormously to our housing
The second cause, adding to the difficulties of our housing problem,
has been the bombing. A quarter of a million of our houses have been
completely destroyed. In the main, these were working-class houses.
A million houses were damaged— half of them to such an extent that
their complete repair during the war was found to be impossible.
The result was that, owing to these two factors and to the enormous
transfers of labor from one area to another, housing has become a
very difficult problem.
Now let me indicate, if I may, the provisions that have been made.
First of all, the local authority (which is the general term used in our
country for the town council, etc.) was, in the early days of the war,
given power t9 billet people among the families living in the area.
This power to billet is an over-all power because it is not only the
housing of war workers that has been our problem, we also had to
handle the evacuation of 2 % million children from the bombed areas
to other areas in the country. In addition, we had to make prepara­
tions for something which fortunately has so far not come upon us—
invasion. We had, therefore, to maintain a margin of housing ac­
commodations which could be used for this possible eventuality. To
cover all these eventualities the local authorities were therefore given
billeting powers.
The first thing they were asked to do, before the war began, was to
make a complete survey of the housing accommodations in their areas.
Every house with all its accommodations— the number of rooms, the
space in the rooms, and the number of people living there— was sur­
veyed. The real aim of the survey was to find out how many persons
could be housed in the emergency, by putting the maximum number
of persons in each house with a fairly elastic margin of safety. People
were told that they had accommodations for two persons, or three or
four persons, as the case might be, and each householder was
given a certificate by the Ministry officials or by the local authorities,
indicating that on our scale and on our standards, should the need
arise, accommodations were available for a certain number of people.
The local authorities had the power compulsorily to billet persons
with householders. The compulsory powers have at times had to be
used. But it is pleasing that in the main the people have accepted it
as being a service which they must render to the nation; consequently,
compulsory powers have only been used in a very small percentage of
the cases.
Since 1940, and the bombing of the cities, we had to do in a very
great hurry what we had failed to do before. We had to disperse and
we had to expand industry as much as we could in the circumstances.
M any of the new plants built since 1940 have been built away from the
towns, a substantial distance out in the country, where they could be
more easily camouflaged and where there was plenty of land so that
they could be dispersed. Instead of having one factory building to
house 2 or 3 thousand workers, what generally happened was that the
factory was built in small units, widely spaced, very heavily banked
in between the buildings, so that if the factory was bombed the damage
would be minimized.
This created a new housing problem, because we had to bring work­
ing men and women, particularly women, in very large numbers to




new factories in areas where there was little housing accommodation.
From the beginning it was realized that when we built factories in these
areas, housing accommodations would have to be part of the plan. We
have provided hostel^—Government-built and Government-operated—
for men and for women, in the factory areas where housing accommo­
dations were not available and where transportation was too difficult.
These hostels are built in units with accommodations for about a
thousand workers each. We have a number of them, and sometimes
people like myself dream of the marvelous things we can do with them
when the war is over.
On the whole, the hostels are very well designed. The best design­
ers in the country were called and readily gave their services to this
job. The hostels have served an extraordinarily fine purpose for the
country. We realize that these are places where the men and women,
particularly the women, who are called to work there, have to live;
so we made provisions for the hostels to be self-contained communi­
ties, with every possible kind of facility for life outside factory hours.
I can only say that we should be very glad to have some of you come
across and see our hostels.
Now, a few more words about the transferred workers. There are
compulsory powers to transfer workers, which had to be very widely
used indeed. The compulsory powers were to compel men and women
to leave their jobs, whatever they were, and to go to other jobs in other
places, if that was deemed by the Ministry of Labor to be essential in
the interests of the nation. W e realized, therefore, that if we compul­
sorily transferred men and women from their homes to other areas,
that we created for them an economic problem which it must be our
obligation to accept. The obligation of maintaining two homes is ac­
cepted as one which the State must meet. Therefore, when men or
women with that obligation are transferred they are paid an allowance
— an allowance which in English money is 24 shillings and 6 pence per
week (in American money, 5 % dollars per week) is paid to each one.
This sum was fixed because it is the same as that charged b y the
Government for accommodations at its hostels. Sometimes the work­
ers have to pay more. However, if more is charged the worker, the
Government has the power to summon the person who charges more
than the recognized rate for the accommodations arranged through
the billeting officers.
In addition to paying this 5 % dollars per week, there is another pro­
vision which we make for transferred workers. We give them three
travel Vouchers per year, by which they are enabled to travel to their
homes, on railway tickets, for which they pay a dollar and a half.
Travelling to and from home by transferred workers is subsidized—
all travelling fare over 78 cents is paid by the Government.
In those ways we have, on the whole, managed the housing problem
reasonably well. I must make this reservation, however. Unless
bombing is resumed on a heavy scale, and the problem of our housing,
therefore, becomes very much more severe, I think that we have made
a passable job of it in the ways I have described.

From the beginning of the war, food has been rationed in Britain.
We have had one advantage in this war: Practically every problem
(except the problem of bombing and all that it involves) that has



arisen during this war we had to deal with in the last war. We made
many mistakes last time. We have tried this time not to commit
the crime of making the same mistakes twice.
We discovered that the important thing was to give the people a
sense of security about food— to destroy and to dispel the fear of an
acute food shortage. The thing that created the most uncertainty,
we found, was to play about with the rations. We have not changed
our rations, in any substantial degree, for 3 years. The Food Min­
istry had determined from the beginning, with the full support of
Parliament, that although the rations were meager there must be
equity in distribution. People now have a reasonable security that,
if the war lasts another 2 or 3 years, rations on the whole will not get
worse, although they are disappointed that they will not get better.
Believe me, it is indeed a sound point of psychology to fix the rations
in such a way that nobody plays about with the points. We have
succeeded in doing this, and I think it was a very wise thing to do.
In the beginning we realized that the rationed foods would have to
be supplemented to at least three sections of the community. First,
to the children at school, in what we call elementary and secondary
schools (secondary schools in our country correspond to your high
schools); second, to expectant and nursing mothers; and third, to war
workers, particularly women war workers.
Then the problem arose, how to do this. Before the war there
were long negotiations between the Government and industry. When
I say, “ between the Government and industry,” I might add, to make
it clear, that industry does not mean merely the employer— it means
the trade-union congress on an equal footing in all the discussions and in
all the negotiations. I say this, because I am a trade-unionist my­
self—we have the right, we claim it, and in speaking or negotiating
for the workers, the right is not disputed by anyone. We sought to
find out whether it would be possible to supplement the rations of
children, mothers, and war workers, by increasing the individual
rations. Eventually that was found to be too difficult.
The strongest argument, I think, for developing communal feeding
was that there would be a saving in food which experts of the Ministry
of Food estimated at 30 percent, and their estimate was found to be
a conservative one. As a matter of fact, the saving in food by cooking
and supplying it at the communal canteens is more than 30 percent.
The result was that we approached the problem from that angle, and
we have taken care of the children, the mothers, and the war workers
in this way.
I will describe what we do for the war workers. First, the Ministry
of Labor secured power from Parliament to make it an obligation upon
every employer who owned and operated a factory, employing more
than 250 persons, to provide facilities for communal feeding. In
other words, the employer has to build a canteen—provide the build­
ing and the essential equipment for the canteen at his own cost, as
part of the cost of production. Having done that, the canteen is run
by a joint canteen committee, composed of representatives of the
employer (management), the workmen, the Ministry of Labor, and the
Ministry of Food. All the arrangements for operating the canteen,
as regards catering, come under the Ministry of Food and its officers.
611560°— 45

----- 3




There are, of course, large numbers of factories which employ less
than 250 persons, and the obligation of looking after these is placed
upon the local authority which must provide in the neighborhood, at
reasonable distances from these factories, facilities for communal meals
in what are now known as British restaurants. There are well over
2,000 communally owned British restaurants, established by the civic
authorities in our country. The post-war fate of these is a matter
of very great interest.

Meals at the canteens are provided at mid-shift. In the hostels,
of course, there is full provision for communal feeding of all the girls
and all the men who are housed there. The canteen meals provided
at mid-shift are for all workers, whether or not they live in hostels,
whether they live at home or elsewhere. Generally they consist of
soup, a portion of meat or fish, two vegetables, and— something with­
out which life in Britain would be impossible in peace or war— a nice
hot, strong cup of tea. The cost at which such a meal is supplied to
the worker is a shilling in British money, which I think is 25 cents in
American currency.
Those arrangements, on the whole, have worked very well. I think
it is accepted that we have been able to maintain the health of children,
of expectant mothers, and of war workers, by the development of these
provisions for communal feeding.

There were, of course, in Great Britain, the pre-war factory acts
which laid down prescribed standards for the safety and health of the
workers, There was a large and competent inspectorate employed
by the Government for the purpose of enforcement. A ll factory acts
are administered centrally by the central government, all the inspec­
tors are in its employ, and the powers of enforcement are in its hands.

The Ministry of Labor, as I have already said, was found at the
beginning of the war to be the best instrument for the mobilization and
direction of all man- and woman-power to all the services and indus­
tries. By one of those political accidents, the Home Office had been
responsible for the administration of the factory acts. When the
powers over the mobilization of labor were transferred to the Ministry
of Labor, so also was the administration of the factory acts in their
entirety. I would like to say that I do not think anyone should sug­
gest that these duties be transferred back at the end of the war. One
of the things we are determined to do is to make the Ministry of
Labor a ministry as high in its prestige as, say, the Foreign Office.
The whole of the administration, therefore, is in the hands of the
Ministry of Labor.
In 1940, Parliament passed an act called the Emergency Powers
Act, which gave power to the Government over all the property and
over every person in the land. Power was also given to make legisla­
tion by what we call an “ order in council” which dispenses with the
long procedure of getting a bill passed in a normal peacetime way.
In 1940, the Ministry of Labor, acting as the one responsible for fac­
tory administration and for health and safety, issued an order on in­
dustrial health. The order applied to all factory owners that came
under the act and required the provision of a health service at the
factory. This service must include, first of all, suitable premises,



equal to the required standards at the factory, at which a health
and medical service can be operated. The Ministry of Labor decides
whether any factory is big enough or important enough to require the
employment of a full-time medical officer to have supervision of the
health service in the factory, or whether a part-time doctor should
be employed. Very often, a number of factories are combined in order
to obtain the services of a full-time doctor. All factories must have
an adequate nursing staff. Where factory owners were not directed
to employ either a full-time or a part-time medical officer, they were
compelled to make arrangements with a doctor in private practice
to have supervision over the health arrangements in the factory.
So far as I have been able to gather the figures, the number of doc­
tors engaged in full-time service increased from 35 in 1940 to 164 in
1942. The number of doctors employed part time has increased from
70 to 673. The number has been severely limited by what has become
an acute problem for all the services, a shortage of doctors in our
country. In addition, there is the problem of the transferred workers
who live in hostels and those who are billeted. For these, the Minis­
try of Labor was able to take advantage of a medical service which
we were compelled to build up before the war— a large Emergency
Medical Service. Existing hospitals had been registered and accom­
modations reserved. Other hospitals of a temporary structure were
built. A large number of doctors was recruited and a very compre­
hensive medical service was established, based upon estimates of
possible future needs. Fortunately, the deaths and the injuries in
bombing, serious and tragic as they were, were below the estimates
made. We all thought, feared very much indeed, that bombing
would bring large numbers of cases of neurasthenia. Fortunately,
the number of cases has been less than anticipated. The result was
that the service, which had been built upon expectations that did not
materialize, has been made available to all the war workers, particu­
larly to the men and women living in the hostels.
In addition there is, of course, education for health—by talks and
by pamphlets or leaflets. The teaching of personal hygiene and of
industrial hygiene has been recognized as a very important service
and a great deal of good work has been done.
More recently we have had to build up a rehabilitation service,
which is coming to be recognized as a very important and essential
part of the medical service. It, too, was made available to the war
Perhaps you will allow me to mention one special service that has
been developed in which I have a particular interest because I am
a coal miner. I began my education as a coal miner, and there is a
saying which, to my delight, I find is equally true in Pennsylvania
and Illinois as it is in South Wales-—“ Once a coal miner, always a
coal miner.” In the coal-mining industry, which in our country
has been taken under the control of the Government for the duration
of the war, we have established a central medical service in the
Ministry of Fuel and Power. All of the coalfields in Britain have
been divided into eight regions, and a medical service has been estab­
lished in each of the regions. There are now 30 specialists employed
in this medical service, men and women, chosen because they have,
in the course of their medical training, specialized not only in indus­




trial medicine, but also made particularly study of the industrial
diseases (such as lung and eye diseases) to which miners are subject.
This service has been developed separately for the miners.

Recreation in our country has been a problem with which we have
had to deal and which we have not been able to leave entirely to
the normal entertainment industry— first of all, because of the black­
out; and second, because of the large number of men and women
removed to hostels away from towns.
Furthermore, we tax the leisure time of people very severely. Every
man between 18 and 51 (the ages at which men are recruited to the
armed forces), if he is deferred on industrial grounds, has an obligation
to give 48 hours’ service each month to one of these services— the
Home Guard (which is the army trained for anti-invasion purposes),
the civilian defense service, or the national fire service. The result
is that the men, even when they do have some leisure, find it so
heavily taxed by the leisure-time service they are called upon to do,
that recreation has become a problem.
Another problem we have, which oftentimes has been one of the
most serious, is in the field of youth. The black-out creates problems
among the youths. What are we to do with boys and girls who nor­
mally find release for their energy in the street? It has become a
matter of absolute necessity, and a matter of safety, to try and at­
tract them off the streets, which have become places of complete
darkness and are very dangerous. Therefore, we have sought to deal
separately with the youth recreational problem. There is a National
Youth Committee, upon which I have the privilege of serving, that
brings together, in each town, the voluntary organizations working
in the field of youth. Religious and voluntary organizations of all
kinds, engaged in youth work, and the local education committees or
boards together are charged with the responsibility of making pro­
visions for the entertainment and recreation of the youth in their
areas. The Government provides subsidies and funds by which this
work is assisted and developed.
In addition to that, we have entertainments at the factories, at the
hostels in the villages, and in the towns, provided as a war service
completely outside commercial entertainment. The artists of the
country— musicians, actors and actresses, film producers and writ­
ers— all joined together to form an organization called the Council
for the Encouragement of Music and Art, now known as C. E. M . A.
They recruit the services of all the great artists and entertainers in
the country at substantially reduced fees; oftentimes they give their
services free. Some of the great figures in the world of entertain­
ment in Britain—Sybil Thorndyke, Robert Donat, Sir Henry Wood
of the Symphony Orchestra— and others have collaborated in build­
ing up this council, through which opportunities are given at both
the factories and the hostels and in the villages for music and enter­
M y own town is one of 50,000 people, and last winter we had two
things for the workers living in our town. First, we had a London
theatrical company headed by our most distinguished actress, Sybil
Thorndyke, in 2 weeks of performances of plays by Euripides and



George Bernard Shaw. Then we had a fortnight of music provided
by the London Symphony Orchestra. Workers under 18 years of
age pay 6 pence (10 cents) for admission, and workers over 18 pay a
shilling (25 cents) for admission to these performances. At the fac­
tories and at the hostels, no charge of any kind is made.
In speaking of recreation I should mention that the war has brought,
in our country, as it does everywhere— indeed it would be a very sad
thing if it did not— a great revival of interest in serious social prob­
lems. We have had to increase substantially the arrangements made
for adult education. This was done through an organization, known
in our country as the Workers Educational Association, which now
has a record of 50 years of very good work in providing opportunities
for working men and women to get together in order to discuss all
kinds of problems— through classes, by talks or discussions, and
through study circles. The work is closely linked up with the uni­
versity. From the very beginning, the universities have done their
utmost to make it a success and have given it their fullest support.
Educational opportunities for workers are increasing in number.
Classes are very often established in factories and certainly in the
hostels— classes of all kinds, sometimes commercial, sometimes de­
signed to give training for the post-war period. The most popular
are those classes that deal with social problems. We provide discus­
sions about such things as the Beveridge report, and music; and I
should say, if we had a Gallup poll, that Beveridge was more popular
than Beethoven.
The administration of all these services, as I have already said,
is entirely in the hands of the M inistry of Labor. However, when we
come to health, the M inistry of Health is brought into association,
and when we come to education, music, and recreation, the Board of
Education is brought in.

In conclusion, may I say this: W e have done these things under
the stress of war. W e have been compelled to do them, because they
were essential. The workers in industry are as much in the battle­
field as the workers in uniform. The worker in uniform can only do
his job to the degree that the worker in industry does his or her job.
Therefore, it is essential to care for their health, their welfare, and
their recreation, and that has been very important and urgent in the
conditions of bombing, black-out, diet, and so on that' exist in our
country. I do not think that we are going to scrap this work when the
war is over. In any event, I shall do my best to see that we do not
scrap it in our country when the war is over; and the Government has
accepted that.
Let me tell you one thing, if I m ay. The Government in our
country has just issued its proposals for the post-war reconstruction
of our education system. It is interesting to find that with the Gov­
ernment— a coalition government, which includes all parties in Bri­
tain— adult education is not a matter of controversy between parties
and is not likely to be scrapped in its new education proposals. It
has been accepted that in the future every child in school in Britain—
from every home, irrespective of income— will have as part of his
educational service, a complete mid-day meal. That is supported




by every doctor in the land, because they say that the health of the
child is a matter in which the nation must be extremely concerned,
and the good effect of this communal feeding upon the health of chil­
dren in wartime makes it essential to continue it after the war.
I believe that the same thing is going to be true about the factory
as well. I am certain that most of these provisions will be woven into
our post-war Britain. Men like myself, and others who are interested
in this problem, have already given some of our time and some of our
thought to ways and means by which we can incorporate these fea­
tures into our permanent social-service system at the end of the war.
That is an outline of some of the things that we have done. I think
that the essentials of statesmanship in our country will be to retain,
and to adapt and to apply, some of the things that Hitler has com­
pelled us to do— things we should have done before. Now that we
have established these services, I hope we shall have the wisdom to
weave most of them into the permanent social-service structure of our

Labor in the Post-War Era
Labor in the Post-War Era—Round-Table Discussion
M r. H i n r i c h s (Washington, D . C .). When we are talking about
the post-war situation I think it is probably wise to distinguish three
entirely different kinds of periods.
First, we are going to be faced with an immediate problem of de­
mobilization and a period of reconversion from war to peacetime

Second, we are almost certain to be confronted at a somewhat later
stage with what may very well be a boom period. The way in which
we handle the problems of that boom period will have much to do
with the situation of labor 4, 5, or even 10 years after the war closes.
Finally, we have the longer-run outlook, after we have emerged into
a fairly well-stabilized situation. The question there is what the
level of economic activity in the United States and the world is going
to be; whether we are going to move forward to a rising standard of
living or whether we are going to be faced with a long period of
depression and of falling rather than rising standards.
It is convenient, I think, in analyzing the post-war period, to dis­
tinguish these different phases of our problem because if we do so,
we can then to some extent distinguish between those things which
must be done today and those things which can be done tomorrow
or next year. It does not follow, merely because the period is dis­
tant, that we can entirely disregard at this time the problems of that
more distant period. Merely by way of illustration, the way in
which we handle the problems of the boom period may very well be
determined by the mechanisms that we establish for a demobilization
of wartime controls.
If wartime controls were to be as suddenly relaxed after this war
as they were after the last, particularly in the field of prices and
perhaps of wages, and if there were no regard whatsoever for an
allocation of materials during a period when materials and facilities
for peacetime production were still short relative to demand, it seems
very improbable that we could control the boom which would sub­
sequently develop and the collapse which would inevitably follow
that boom.
In the same way, it seems to me, that, if we look at the more distant
future, it is extremely important during this present period to create
that form of international machinery which is going to determine
the political environment in which we are to live. If we intend to
live saddled with huge military expenditures, if all of the nations of
the world are going to live in fear of one another and each is going
to try to be completely, militarily sufficient, we might just as well
forget the idea of a rising standard of* living.
There are then these three different periods, each of which requires
action at the present time with respect to at least certain of the broad
problems that we are going to be called upon to face.
Today, however, I want to confine m y attention almost entirely
to the problems of the demobilization and reconversion period because





it is that period which is certain to present us with real political
problems first. It is that period, in my opinion, in which an early
transition is indispensable to wise political and economic action. If
that period becomes one of terrific confusion and widespread fear,
there is very little reason to count on sane political action. If, on
the other hand, we meet the problems of demobilization and recon­
version wisely and, as far as may be, smoothly, I believe that the
prospects of handling the entire post-war problem satisfactorily
become very much brighter.

The first step in evaluating the problems that we are going to face
in this demobilization and reconversion period involves getting a
clear picture of where we are, where we have come from, and where
we are going during the course of the war itself. In 1940 there were
about 56 million people in the labor market, including the people
engaged in agriculture. Each year our working population grows
more unbalanced; more people enter the labor force than die or retire.
The normal increase each year is about 600 thousand. Thus, at the
present time [October 1943] we would expect some 58 million people
to be in the labor market. Actually, at the present time, there are
4 % million more than that number, in either the labor force or the
armed forces. The total number expected at the height of the war
effort will be about 64 or 65 million people, or probably at least 5
million more people than would normally be expected to be in the
labor force.
These people, as you know, have thus far come from three groups:
(1) School children have supplied the largest numbers; about 1.8
million children and young persons under 20 years of age who would
normally be in school have been d ra w n into the labor force within the
last 2 or 3 years. (2)^The next largest group is represented by
women who have come into the labor market. So far they number
not more than about 1.2 million, very largely in the age groups from
35 to 55 years of age. There has been no abnormal increase in the
number of working women between 20 and 35 years of age, for several
reasons. In the first place, it has already become customary in the
United States for single women in those age groups to work. Married
women of those ages are likely to have young children, and not many
have been in a position to take a full-time job. Finally, I think it is
highly probable that the operation of the Selective Service system
has discouraged the taking of paid employment by women less than
35 years of age, as they fear that this might change their husbands’
draft status. At all events, the additional women that we have
in the labor market at the present time are primarily drawn from the
age groups 35 to 55. (3) The rest of the additional labor supply—
and it is a comparatively small one— has been drawn from the male
population over 20 years of age. The largest single contribution has
come not so much from men who have returned to work from retire­
ment as from those who have postponed their retirements during the
last 3 years. There has thus been an unusually large accumulation
of older men in the labor market.
W e are, therefore, going to conclude the war with at least 5 million
more people in the labor market or in the armed forces than would
normally be in the labor market, over and above the natural increase
in population.



Within the last 3 years there have been.very serious distortions in
the distribution of employment. The largest increase has, of course,
been in the armed forces which in 1940 numbered only about half a
million people but by the middle of next year (1944) will number in
the neighborhood of 11 million. So far as economic commercial em­
ployment is concerned, the largest increase has been in the fields of
manufacture. Before the outbreak of the war, the largest number of
people ever employed within that very broad category that we label
manufacturing was about 11 million. By the middle of next year the
number will approximate 17 million. The expansion, of course, has
been particularly large in the heavy industries, in the munitions in­
dustries, and the metalworking industries; by next year they will be
employing almost as many people as were employed in all manufac­
turing at the highest levels ever attained in peacetime.
Another large category of employment in which there has been a
substantial growth has been in Government which has expanded its
force from about 4 to 6 million workers. Government employment
at the present time is rather frequently misrepresented, as far as its
character is concerned. The major expansion that has occurred to
date has been in the civilian personnel of the War and Navy Depart­
ments; this includes not only what might perhaps more properly be
called “ manufacturing activities,” as represented by the arsenals and
navy yards, but also the very large civilian establishment necessary
for the operation of Army and Navy depots, of the air fields, and the
whole of the purchasing mechanism of two business enterprises which
together are purchasing more each year than all the people of our
Nation used to purchase in any single year of which we have record.
Up to 1941 there had been a general increase in almost every line
of» employment. Although our capacity to manufacture munitions
was limited, the needs and demands of the civilian population with
increased employment were expanding. To man our larger civilian
and military establishments we were still able to draw heavily on the
relatively large number of people who had been unemployed at the
outbreak of the war in Europe. But, since 1941, and more particu­
larly since 1942, employment has been cut back in most lines of em­
ployment other than those I have mentioned (manufacturing and
especially munitions and Government employment). Construction
employment, which reached a peak of somewhat over 2 million workers,
is almost certain to decline by the middle of next year to not much
more than half a million people.

Employment in trade expanded about 6% to 7 million people, but
is now slowly decreasing. There has been a very serious decline in the
number of persons engaged in various forms of self-employment,
casual labor, and domestic service, a reduction from a level of about
8 million to a figure which we anticipate will drop as low as 5 million.
By the middle of 1944, therefore, we are going to be left with an
enormously expanded armed force, a vastly increased manufacturing
activity heavily concentrated in the metalworking trades, an expan­
sion of Government operations to levels which will certainly not be
maintained in peacetime, and a shrunken volume of activity in the
fields of construction, trade, and a host of service industries and other
That picture, of course, will vary sharply from one area to another.
One of the first of the necessary jobs, as I see it, is to break that picture




down into pictures of the effect upon each of the several States and
upon each of the major industrial areas within those States. That is
a job which you people in the States can do very much more effectively
than we can in Washington. We, in the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
have made a large number of studies and have under way a still larger
number of studies of the major industrial areas of the United States.
We are assembling the basic statistical materials, tracing the develop­
ments of employment as they have occurred to date, and projecting
those developments as well as we can through the peak of the war
effort. A job of that sort, for example, has been done with reference
to the Pittsburgh area. I would suggest that those of you who are
interested in the studies which we are making, obtain the reports for
the areas within your State. These are designed to give not so much
the final answer as a beginning point for your own thinking and a
foundation on which you can build, because the picture of the problems
of each one of your communities can be seen far more clearly from
your vantage point than it can possibly be seen from Washington.
The basic problem of this period of demobilization and reconversion
will present itself, of course, in terms of an enormous shifting from
wartime jobs to other types of activity. I think it is highly probable
that, taking into account the men who will be demobilized from the
armed forces and those certain to be demobilized from manufacturing
activities which exist only during a period of war, at least a third
of the population will be on the move during the period of transition
from war to peace. That represents a tremendously large basic
turnover. In this estimate of a third of the population, I am not
taking into account the girl who is moving from the drug store on
one corner to the drug store across the street; that kind of turnover,
I suppose, will continue, but it is not the kind of shift I am talking
about. I am talking about shifts necessitated by the fact that what
people are now doing will no longer be necessary for anybody to do
and that we must engage in activities which we now are unable to
During that period of shifting it will, therefore, be even more
necessary than during the period of the war itself, to have strong
employment services; and to have employment services which are
able not only to help people move within the community but, perhaps
even more important, able to move people from areas which have
had an enormous expansion that cannot be permanently sustained
in peacetime to areas from which they may have come or to other
areas which have greater long-run promise.
There has been, of course, a vast shifting of population during the
war period. Some States have had an increase in population from
1940 to 1943 of at least 100,000 people more than the mere natural
increase and trends of 1930 and 1940 would indicate. The growth
of population from 1940 to 1943 has been concentrated along the
Eastern Seaboard from Virginia to Massachusetts, across the country
from New Jersey to Illinois, in the large developments which have
been going on in Texas, and finally the enormous development on
the West Coast. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has made a dis­
tribution of the cost of publicly financed war facilities, by States,
from 1940 to the present time [fall of 1943], and here, too, we find
concentrations of the development and expansion of industrial



facilities. These occur in the M iddle Atlantic and East North
Central States, from New York to Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri,
again with a relatively large development in the State of Texas, and
a heavy concentration of facilities in the State of California.
The problem of movement is going to be the outstanding char­
acteristic in that period of demobilization and reconversion and
every instrument that can be devised to facilitate that movement
needs to be strengthened. There is going to be one very marked
difference between the situation in the demobilization and recon­
version period and that which faced us in the period from 1929 to
1932. From 1929 to 1932 the whole economy was contracting; steel
was going down, textiles were going down, retail trade was going
down, everything was shrinking all along the line, with the result
that the outstanding characteristic of that period was a growing
amount of very long-term unemployment. The reconversion period
that we must face will be one of shrinkages which, in gross terms,
will be larger than those which occurred from 1929 to 1932; but, on
the other hand, there will be an almost simultaneous expansion of
employment in large numbers of industries that will be getting back
as rapidly as they can to a peacetime basis. The problems of the
prospective reconversion period are therefore going to be the problems
of getting men and women from areas of shrinking opportunity into
areas of expanding opportunity. It appears, therefore, that the
instrument of unemployment compensation which has been developed
in the last few years in the United States gives us a tool which can
be used far more appropriately in this reconversion period than it
could have been used during the period of the 1930's. However, I
want to call your attention to the fact that the burdens of this
particular period we are talking about are going to fall very unevenly
indeed on the different States of the Nation. I am not sufficiently
expert with respect to the problems of unemployment compensation
to interpret these differing strains in terms of their effect upon the
adequacy of our unemployment compensation systems as they stand
today. I suggest, however, that those of us who have responsibility
for labor administration, anywhere within the Federal or State
governments, have also a primary responsibility to discover how
adequate our unemployment compensation schemes are to stand
the strains of this reconversion period and, more particularly, the
strains of a very uneven rate of demobilization.
Contrast, for example, the situation that M r. Dean is going to face
in Michigan and the situation that M r. Shuford is going to face in
North Carolina. B y and large, Michigan and North Carolina have
furnished men to the armed forces more or less in proportion to their
populations and more or less in proportion to the number of employed
workers. There will be minor differences from one State to another
but we can assume that, as far as military demobilization is concerned,
the demobilization load is going to be spread more or less evenly across
our economies. Industrial demobilization, however, will depend upon
the extent to which the munitions industries were developed in the
various States. Michigan, for example, is probably going to have
to deal with twice as many demobilized industrial workers as with
demobilized soldiers. North Carolina, on the other hand, will probably
have to deal with ten times as many demobilized soldiers as with
demobilized industrial workers— or let us say, with only a tenth as




many demobilized industrial workers from munitions industries as
with demobilized men from the armed services.
In some States—Arizona and New Mexico, for example— the ratio
is going to be even lower than that in North Carolina. Not unlike the
situation in Michigan is that in Connecticut where industrial demobi­
lization is probably going to involve twice as many people as the demo­
bilization of the armed forces. Indiana will have at least half again as
many demobilized industrial workers as demobilized soldiers. Mary­
land will have about 30 to 35 percent more demobilized industrial
workers than demobilized servicemen. So you can go down the list,
finding what is perfectly obvious, that having had an uneven develop­
ment in the distribution of the munitions load, we are going to have a
very uneven burden of demobilization from munitions production— a
situation in which I suspect it will be necessary for the Federal Govern­
ment to play a very substantial role, as the burdens rest rather unfairly
on some of the areas which have had the highest level of industrial
munitions development during the period of the war.
In the period of demobilization there are going to be four variables—
four things which to some extent lend themselves to control and to
manipulation— four things which, if well done, will minimize the prob­
lems of an area, but if left to an entirely haphazard development, may
produce intense confusion and great suffering. One is the rate at which
men are demobilized from the armed services. If we were to maintain
permanently an Army of the size that we now have, there would be no
problem in the reconversion to peacetime employment of all of the
people that we could hold in the labor market. Thank God, that is
not going to be the situation in the United States. Men are coming
out of the armed services when the war is won against Germany and
Japan. The rate at which they do come out, then, is going to have a
great deal to do with determining the extent of the problem in the
individual communities of the United States; and to the extent that
that demobilization can be carried on in a smooth, continuous flow,
rather than as the dumping of a great gob of men in any single month,
to just that extent the problem of the communities of the United States
is going to be eased.
Where the compromise is going to be made between the desire to get
men out of the armed services just as quickly as is humanly possible
and the desire to see them re-introduced to the civilian life of the com­
munity as an orderly flow rather than as a flood, still remains to be
worked out. I think it can probably be assumed that the rate of
demobilization will correspond rather closely to the maximum rate
which is possible in light of the transport difficulties and the need for
the maintenance of a police force in various parts of the world. The
rate of demobilization is, however, one of the variables which can be
manipulated within some limits to bring order or chaos into this period
of demobilization and reconversion.
The second thing which lends itself to some measure of control is
the rate of contract termination. If all of the wartime contracts are
terminated instantaneously on the conclusion of hostilities, the shrink­
age of our economic activity is going to be very much more rapid than
anything that we can possibly hope to build up simultaneously in the
way of peacetime production. Now, it will not be possible to maintain
the production of munitions of war for any extended period after the
cessation of hostilities. First of all, it is an economically wasteful



kind of activity. Secondly, there is no place, except the middle of the
ocean, where the products can be stored. Characteristic of wartime
production is that you destroy the output almost as rapidly as you make
it or that you move it into areas where large amounts of it can be stored
out in the open. For very large amounts of the war production which
is going on we can find no peacetime use. On the other hand, sub­
stantial volumes of goods under contract have peacetime uses, and
these in particular can be adapted to meet the relief needs of the
world, part of which must be met by the United States as well as by
other countries. It will require something in the way of legislative
implementation and a great deal of planning by the State governments
and the Federal Government, the Army, and the Navy, as well as by
business and labor, to determine how contracts should be terminated,
where they should be terminated, how payment may be made, how
machinery may be removed from the building, and what to do with
partly finished goods so that business enterprises can move quickly
back into the development of their peacetime lines of production.
However, if we can introduce any degree of sustaining force through
the maintenance of those contracts which do have a potential peace­
time use, to just that extent we will reduce the problems of dislocation.
The third thing that will determine the seriousness of the problem
of unemployment in this immediate demobilization period is the rate
of withdrawal from the labor force.
I said that by the end of the war there would be in the labor market
at least 5 million people who would not normally be there. How many
of them will get out and how rapidly will they do so? If they were all
to leave instantly at the close of the war, the problem of economic
readjustment would be comparatively slight. Actually, if that were
to happen, employers would find themselves momentarily facing acute
labor shortages in many areas. As regards withdrawals from the
labor force, there are certain things that we can do. In the first
place, if there is ever going to be, over the period of the next 20 years,
any increase in old-age benefits, any encouragement for older people
to retire from the labor market, the period during the termination of
the hostilities is going to be the choice period of the next two decades
in which to encourage that sort of withdrawal from the labor force.
Even more important, I think, will be the steps we may take to en­
courage the withdrawal of children from the labor market. I want
particularly to emphasize that the most important single thing, when
the war is terminated and the need for children’s services is no longer
acute, is to see that the faucet is turned off at the schools and turned
off hard.
Each year there is a very large influx from the schools. These
million eight hundred thousand youngsters that have been drawn out
of school, either by industry or by the draft, are for the most part
children who would normally have entered the labor force within a
year or two, or at the most 3 years. The abnormal increase in the
number of children in the labor market can be very rapidly reduced
after the termination of hostilities if we can at that time make the
children see, and see quickly, the advantages of remaining in school.
The whole line, at present, of encouraging children to withdraw from
school is something which must be completely reversed and reversed
very quickly. It will, I think, require a large measure of cooperation
with educational authorities in the development of a program which




will, first of all, hold the children in school and more especially will
induce those who have left school at too early an age to return and
complete their education. N o matter how I visualize the volume of
employment in the post-war period in the United States, I cannot
visualize a situation in which our standard requirements for higher
education should go downward. One of the standard requirements
that we have come to rely upon here is the completion of far more in
the way of schooling than is customary in other parts of the world; but
the school generation which is coming out during this period of the war
is going to be at a great economic disadvantage throughout m ost of
their working lives unless a very high proportion of these young people
can be encouraged to return to school.
Finally, we can to some extent determine how rapid reconversion
to peacetime production should be. M ost of that job must be done
by private business, but some assistance can be given. First of all,
there should be an insistent public demand that the program of the
individual businessman be thought through with reference to his
reconversion period. That is the kind of job that the Committee
for Economic Development is trying to stimulate at the present time,
the kind of job which can be encouraged by labor and other groups
in the community through the organization of local committees to
survey the problem of demobilization and reconversion in the com­
m unity, fastening the attention of the community on problems
sufficiently narrow so that they can be grasped and dealt with.
W e need to visualize in connection with this period three different
kinds of situations: (1) There is the possibility that the wars against
Germany and Japan may be terminated almost simultaneously.
Although that does not seem to be the m ost probable outlook, it is a
contingency which we should consider. (2) There is the possibility
that the war against Germany will be terminated first, but that the
war against Japan will be fought with as large a mobilization of
economic and military force as can be brought to bear and continue,
which would not change the picture substantially from that of the
simultaneous cessation of hostilities against both powers. That is, if
we would still have an Arm y of something like its present size we would
maintain something like the present volume of industrial production.
(3) There is the possibility that the war against Germany will be
terminated first, but (and this seems highly probable) with a decrease
both in the size of the armed forces which can be effectively used
against Japan and in the volume of industrial and munitions produc­
tion necessary to wage that war with a peak of intensity.
If this third situation occurs we are going to take this reconversion
and demobilization in two bites. There will be a period of demobiliza­
tion and reconversion while the war against Japan is still going on,
and then another following the end of the war against Japan, a
completion of that process.
If we are fortunate enough to face a situation allowing us an
opportunity for partial conversion, the job can be done very much
more smoothly than would otherwise be possible. However, I want
to call your attention to the fact that, in such case, you people are
going to face making the most difficult political decisions which any
people has ever been called upon to make, and make sensibly. There
are going to be two ways of cutting back munitions production— one,
on the basis of a more or less flat percentage decrease applying equal­



ly to every plant in all States, in all areas; and the other a process of
amputation in which you say that, in this plant, in this area, or
whatever it m ay be, we will close down 100 percent, whereas in that
plant we can go just as rapidly as possible to a peacetime basis.

From the long-range point of view the latter process is likely to
be much more helpful and much more healthy, and those individuals
who are allowed to reconvert at that time may in the long run find
themselves very much better off than would otherwise be the case.
It is going to be a very difficult political decision to make, however,
because neither you nor any of the people in your community will
like facing the prospect of having to go without business that might
otherwise be available even though it were only about 50 percent
as much as you had formerly.
T think that the problem is going to be most acute in some of the
areas which have been developed for munitions production—an
activity which has absolutely no prospect whatsoever of a continuance
at anything like wartime levels. The danger to those Communities
in case of the simultaneous collapse of Germany and Japan is that
they will be left with stranded populations whose support will be
saddled on the community and the States unless they can be moved
to some other areas where there are employment opportunities.
I think that one of the fundamental situations we will have to
face in the event of the collapse of Germany, first, is an opportunity
to diminish the volume of our munitions activities with respect to
Japan. Our problem then will be whether we are going to avail
ourselves, during our breathing spell, of the chance to get rid of what
otherwise will be ghost areas in the United States for years to come.
Mr. H all (Virginia). I am sure we have all been inspired and
stimulated by the splendid address just delivered.. There is much
food for thought there and all of us should take it to heart and see
if we can profit thereby.
In some of the conclusions, we may or may not agree with Mr.
Hinrichs. However, I want to give this thought to the conference;
that as the wartime effort is a national problem, so the demobilization
is also going to be a national problem. The States can have their
part in it, and should have their part, but where the munitions fac­
tories are located (as in Virginia, Michigan, and other States), the
Federal Government stimulated and brought in the workers from other
States. Now, if it were as simple as getting the people from New
York to go back across the border and go back on the farm, why that
would be an easy solution; but, some of you may remember the old
song after the last war, “ How Are You Going to Keep Them Back on
the Farm After They Have Seen Paree.” That is going to be the
problem for the National Government in cooperation with the State
The State of Virginia is fortunate in having a State planning board.
I think that every State and community should have something of
the kind. The defect in our Planning Board, which I hope to try to
correct shortly, is that we have no labor representative on it. We
have an educational member and Chambers of Commerce and various
other business organization representatives, but for some unknown rea­
son the State Planning Board, which I helped to inaugurate some
years ago, is now without a labor representative. That is very im­
portant, to my mind, in any planning for post-war rehabilitation.




I want to substantiate the speaker's statement about Virginia.
The peak of our employment was in September 1942, and it has been
gradually going down since then, notwithstanding that wartime ac­
tivities have continued. In January 1939, our State employment in
factories was 122,000; in September 1942, it was 193,000; and by June
1943, it had fallen to 173,000. Some of this is probably due to the
fact that industry hired everybody it could at the start and now, that
operation is on a rhore efficient basis, employers are probably getting
along with fewer people. Another factor is the discontinuance of
certain small businesses.
M r . H e d g e s 1 (Washington, D. C.). I am very glad that Mr. Hinrichs preceded me and laid such a solid foundation of fact and figure for
our discussion. That leaves me free to do the thing that I think can
well be done, deepening some of the shadows and lightening the sun­
light, so to speak, in our picture.
If you let me jog along here as I will, perhaps I may be able to make
a point or two before I am through, that will be helpful.
I want to pay tribute to the work of the United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics in the field that Mr. Hinrichs discussed. All of us,
who are interested in post-war problems and in planning, owe a big
debt to this particular Bureau, because they have provided us with
the figures that point the way.
I regret to say that Mr. Henry, who is on the program, is not here.
In a sense Mr. Henry is a colleague of mine because he belongs to the
electrical industry and is serving with me on a planning committee.
I would have been very glad to have him present the employers' side
of the picture.
I would like to rephrase the title given to my remarks to “ Building
a Nation." Somebody has said that democracy is unfinished business.
We never are finished with this job of building the nation. Before
I am through I hope to show that the thing we need now more than
anything else, and probably more than at any other time in the his­
tory of the United States, is a kind of new unity, a unity of feeling and
of approach to our problems. If we can acquire that somehow, we can
have an era of unprecedented prosperity and an unprecedented devel­
opment. I think the patriot is right who says it is the greatest
country in the world.
On a trip to Tennessee from Washington not so long ago, while
waiting for a New York train— it was late because of a wreck on the
Pennsylvania—I talked with a captain who was waiting for the same
train. I was delighted with this soldier. He was a World War
veteran and just about to leave the United States for a foreign assign­
ment. He was going to be a military governor and expected to be
away 10 years. We talked about one thing or another, chiefly
about our country, when a bomber flew overhead. He looked up
and said: “ Look, there is the future." Feeling as he did, he meant,
of course, the world, and not the country—he meant that the world has
swung into a little space. It is the littleness of the world and not
its bigness that is giving us our trouble and our problems today;
and it seems to me to point out that we must build a nation to live
in a new kind of world.
Now, if that is an emotionalism, call it that— I find it everywhere.
I talked to taxicab drivers in every part of the United States, in the

1Marion H. Hedges, of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.



last year, and I have talked to soldiers.
There is a “ ferment” going
on in our country underneath this possible mere emotion, that is
going to bear some kind of material satisfaction— some kind of action
before we are through. I only hope it is going to develop into the right
kind of material satisfaction and the right kind of action.

That, I think, is pretty much what planning is for at the present.
I want to talk about planning quite frankly, because I think that is
the most hopeful thing, and I want to tell you why. Someone has
defined planning colloquially as “ foresight constantly revised in
terms of hindsight” — a fairly good working definition in that kind of
vernacular. I think it means that we are to operate our governments
and our Nation with more accurate information and more intelli­
“ Planning” is not just a word. It does not mean making a blue­
print of the future, as some people believe, nor is it a product of the
long-haired professors. Planning has developed its own ideology,
ana its main goal— economic planning on a national basis— is to
provide full employment. At present, the goal of our. national life is
to make profits. That is not the goal of planning—it is to provide
full employment.
Now, if that sounds idealistic and theoretical, remember that the
Declaration of Independence was an ideal and a theory in 1760;
and the American Constitution was an ideal and a theory in 1776,
but now it is the strong foundation of 130 million people living on a
continent. The goal of the planners is to provide full employment.
Under the National Planning Association we have committees of
farm people, business people, and labor, and we are working on these
problems together. We call it collective bargaining in ideas. In
other words, labor sits across the table from employers, and we talk
about what the problems are that we may expect to face, just as
Mr. Hinrichs outlined them today, and what we are going to do to
solve them.
I am going to mention a few names that are on these committees
simply because I think we are getting important people. The chair­
man of our planning association last year was Charles Wilson, a vice
chairman now of the War Production Board. Our present chairman
is William Batt, a vice chairman of the War Production Board, and we
have representatives of the Aluminum Co. of America, the I. C. Rail­
road, the Monsanto Chemical Co., Johns-Manville Co.— all com­
panies which are considered huge and basic to our national life.
Mr. Queeny, of the Monsanto Chemical Co., wrote a book recently
called the “ Spirit of Enterprise.” I have read it. In it he takes crack
after crack at central planning—he thinks it is a terrible thing—but
Mr. Queeny sends his man to our committee meetings. He cooper­
ates with us on this planning, so maybe Mr. Queeny is going to play
both sides— maybe he is going to be for free enterprise and for plan­
ning at the same time. Anyhow, Mr. Curtis, his representative, is
a very valuable member of our group.
I am telling you these things to try to make you realize that this
“ ferment” exists and what things are taking place.
As a matter of fact, yesterday [October 8, 1942] in Washington,
the Committee on Economic Development brought to Congress a bill
to establish a Commission on Reconversion and Termination of Con-

----- 4

611560°— 45



tracts, and at a meeting Thursday night our planning association
appointed a committee to call on the President to ask for the same
kind of thing.
Now, you know what happened after the first World War. The
dollar-a-year men slammed the tops of their desks down, got out of
Washington just as fast as they could. The President of the United
States had neglected to appoint a commission on reconstruction, and
we had a terribly chaotic period. I think that error on the part of
the Administration in 1918 was really the cause of the crash of 1929
and the subsequent depression of 10 years.
We were not ready to wage war this year or last year in 1941.
Are we going to be ready to wage the peace? This is what the planners
are asking.
In Chicago today I am to attend a planning committee of an in­
dustry, because thinking at the top is beginning to seep down into all
industries. We have a labor-management committee in the electricalconstruction industry. That committee already made a report in
June, and we are going to make another report today or tomorrow.
These people are businessmen, but they are very much worried about
the problems of their industries, and they are asking: “ Can we do
something about it?”
Let me show you, by recapitulating a few of the figures that Mr.
Hinrichs indicated, some of the post-war problems. In 1942, at the
height of construction, we did in this country about 13 billion dollars
worth of construction. That figure has fallen now to about 6 % billion,
and at that rate by spring there will be 3 % billion dollars of construc­
tion to be performed. That means that, in the midst of this period
o f wartime production when we read nothing in the newspaper head­
lines but labor shortages, the construction industry is facing a post­
war problem—labor surpluses.
Today, in Chicago, we are meeting to face the problem of unem­
ployment, to try to determine what we can do now to find jobs and
work for our people, and it is not a pleasant problem. It is not easy
to solve, but we are trying to do it this time on a forecast basis and
not on a wait-until-spring basis. It means work and more work on
our part, but we are making some progress.
It is apparent that there are going to be issues in this planning field.
Last Thursday night in Washington the executive committee of the
National Planning Association met and we had as our guest the presi­
dent of the Chamber of Commerce from a city of 60 thousand people.
He is also the head of the public utilities in that city as well as of the
planning group. Quite frankly and quite ably this man laid the
problems of his region before us, and I want to recapitulate them a
little because it dramatizes, I think, what the American communities
are facing. Here is a city of 60 thousand in the corner of one State.
It was built upon zinc mining. Those mines are running out, and the
ore is being depleted very rapidly. In that city, the problem is
looked upon not as a city, not even as a State problem, but as a quadState problem. They call their planning association the Quad-State
Planning Association because this mining region serves four States.
They asked us: “ Can you do anything to help us solve this problem?”
W hat I am trying to point out is this: we are inclined to think in terms
of territories, of artificial counties, of State lines, but if we develop our
country as we must, we must develop it, in the terms of economic



resources which run across county and State lines, on a regional basis.
This chamber of commerce president was absolutely obdurate in that
point of view. He said, “ It is no use to offer any solution that is
just going to be for this one State.” “ Well,” I asked, “ will you rim
into the question of State’s rights?” He replied, “ Oh, no, every­
thing there is zinc mining. We are trying to develop our four-State
community on the basis of the resources we have.” “ Well,” I said,
“ we hear today so much about State’s rights. Why haven’t you
ot that problem?” “ Well,” he said, “ we haven’t got that problem,
think, because we don’t have public ownership.” I said, “ Do you
think that that is the real issue in the country, public ownership?
Labor doesn’t really care whether it is private ownership or public
ownership. The problem is the same. The problem is democracy.
Are you going to build the framework in which all elements of the
community can live and work? If private enterprise is going to
become the community, then you have to let labor into that com­
munity, and from the labor point of view, this whole period of the
last 10 or 12 years can be described as a period in which labor has
become legally, at least, a part of the community. Make no mistake
about it, we are not going back as labor people; we are going to insist,
if you people carry on the business of this country on a private enter­
prise basis, that we be part of that enterprise, and every enterprise.”
Now, if you will think back and be honest, you know that every
community and every State of this great Nation, in the period of
the 1920’s, were cut down in the middle, a great chasm stood between
our classes, if you call them that. Mr. Hall served a good purpose for
my main point when he said that Virginia has a planning com­
mission, but labor does not sit on it. That dramatizes the whole
issue. If we can go ahead in this country and do the business of this
great country on a private-enterprise basis, okay; but we are not going
to do business on a private-enterprise basis if private enterprise is not
the community, meaning that it takes in all elements of the community,
including labor. Well, he did not answer me on that argument; but
I think that dramatizes the whole thing insofar as planning goes, and
insofar as the effect of post-war problems go, on the mainspring of the
labor movement.


I think labor officials have got an extremely important role in this
coming era. Up to this moment, I have tried to speak as an American
citizen, but now I am speaking for labor. Labor commissioners
ought, at least, to see that the framework in their States gives labor
representation, and that we really do have the kind of life that our
Declaration of Independence and our Constitution meant for us to
have, a unified life, a constant meeting of a forum where all elements
in the community take part and where policies are thrashed out by
debate of every element in that community. If that is done, labor
does not have any fear of whether it is public or private ownership,
whether it is private or public enterprise, but personally, I think,
we are going to have both, because there is plenty for all of us in this
country. We can go forward with that assurance.
M r . H all . We would like to hear from some of the people present

as to their agreement or disagreement on these important matters at
this time. Dr. Lubin, I wonder if you might criticize the statistical
part of this program.



M r . L u b i n . I don’t know that I have any criticism to make, but
I do feel that the various States and particularly the State labor
departments have not given sufficient attention to the particular
types of problems that they are going to have to face. Irrespective of
the fact that we feel that this problem is national in character and that
the Federal Government has to play an important part in solving it,
the fact still remains that it is you people who are going to have to
live with these unemployed. It is you who are going to have to live
with the businessmen who say, “ we cannot do anything about this” ;
and, if you are going to be able to deal with the problem intelligently,
you must know in advance what the problem is going to be like.
M r. Hinrichs pointed out the nature of the problem by contrasting
the State of Michigan with the State of North Carolina. W ithin the
State of Pennsylvania you are going to have particular areas where the
problem is going to be extremely acute and other areas where the
problem will be relatively simple.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has approached the problem from
that point of view. They have made studies of the Pittsburgh area.
They have attempted to find out what the normal working population
has been in the past and how many new people have come into the
area. They have attempted to find out how many persons now em­
ployed in that area are working on things that are peculiarly war
materials and whose services will not be needed. They have attempted
to find out what plants in those areas will continue to operate as they
are now— making the things they are now making— and how many of
those plants will have to stop operations entirely.
They have done a similar job in the Springfield, V t., area, where there
has been a tremendous growth in the machine-tool industry. B ut,
as M r. Hinrichs said, the problem can be much more easily and effec­
tively assessed in the States and in the areas in which the problem is
going to be arising, than in Washington. A ll Washington can do is
help you get the information or give you such information as is avail­
able to it.
The thing that worries me is that, with the tremendous
pressures upon us, each one of us having more work than he ought to
be asked to do— all of which is geared to one primary factor, getting
this war over with— under such circumstances, we are either too busy
or just do not have the energy ourselves to be giving enough attention
to these other problems.
I think that the future of labor departments in the various States
is going to be determined by what they do now to handle their prob­
lems later. There is nothing sacred about labor departments.
They are all established agencies; they have been in existence in
many States for many years. I think the people whom they are
supposed to serve are going to expect the State labor departments
to be able to help them, not only in avoiding accidents, not only in
fixing employment standards, but in guiding them and industry as
to the future. I can think of no better function that State labor de­
partments can assume, even unofficially, without appropriations, than
to plan now so that they will at least know what they are going to
have to deal with when this show is over.
M r. R o y l e (U tah). W hat approach are you going to use with the
huge mining and smelting concerns that have a national interest or
international control? These interests extend all over the Nation,
probably international. I am thinking, for instance, of the Kennecott





Copper Corporation that now has interests in South America, inter­
ests in Alaska, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada. How are you going
to meet those people and plan with them for the future of their present
employees? They are almost beyond reach. You cannot reach them
by collective bargainings even the Nation has been unable so far to
apply the National Labor Relations Act to them. They are almost
beyond reach.
Mr. H all . D o either of you gentlemen care to answer that?
Mr. H edges. That condition, it seems to me, shows conclusively
that you must meet the problem on a national and international basis.
You cannot look out across the boundaries, as you indicate, without
seeing cartels. Cartels are international syndicates of business that
are powerful enough to affect international policy, and, as you indi­
cate, some American businesses have been parts of cartels. That is
the reason I am so interested in this whole movement toward decen­
tralization, because it means democracy. I do not think democracy
is a territorial thing at all. Democracy is something far different
from the territorial thing.
You cannot keep national business apart from international busi­
ness on a mere State or county level. You must meet it on a national
level, and I think when the history of this period is written, historians
are going to find out that the chief incentive toward the strengthening
of federalism has been the load that national businesses have placed
upon the Nation. We may have to pass through another period of
chaos, but eventually you have got to have a government strong
enough to stand up strongly to great national syndicates.
Mr. H inrichs . I would like to try my hand, not in contrast to
what Mr. Hedges has said or certainly not in conflict with it, but from
the local approach. We in the Bureau of Labor Statistics have
talked with hundreds of businessmen, large and small. I cannot
speak from memory as to Kennecott Copper or what the attitude of the
people in Kennecott Copper may be; but I can say, generally speak­
ing, that we have found the business community keenly aware of the
difficulty of the problems that they were facing, very willing to sit
down and talk and talk very frankly, and quite as anxious as the
labor groups, for any help or light or guidance that they can get.
Coming back to your question with reference to Kennecott Copper,
may I ask: Have you in Utah tried to get together with the leaders
of business, with the leaders of organized labor and with the leaders
of the political and community life, to try to find out what the prob­
lem is, what things can be done in Utah, and where you run over
into international dealings and questions of the plans for the regula­
tion of national or international monopolies? I venture to say that an
analysis by the people in Utah who know the different phases of this
problem would not by any manner of means give you a clear pattern
of all of those things that need to be done in order to insure that
everyone now employed in Utah will be able to find a job after the
war. However, the very least that it would do would be to clarify the
minds of your local leadership— labor, political, and business— on a
great many fundamental political issues. You would, at least, then
be in a position to know what questions you wanted answered by the
United States Government and at what points you needed outside
controls or outside aid.



I think you would find that that kind of an exploration of your
problem would be extremely helpful and enlightening. I should be
surprised if any substantial number of important business interests
were unwilling to sit down for a full and rather frank exploration of the
problem that you people face. It seems to me that part of the answer
to your problem is: Have you tried and have you failed? If so, is
there any other way by which you can try to bring these groups in
Utah together for an exploration of your local problems?
Mr. H oyle . It is not my disposition to argue this morning with
anyone, but the problem does loom up rather formidable and extensive
before us when you recognize that Kennecott is a corporation of some
quarter of a billion dollars, and that the mining industry as a whole is
operating on a subsidy from Washington. That is a known fact.
A t the same time Utah's business and industry— the whole society
there— is dependent to the extent of 47 percent on the mining industry
for its economic life. That has been figured out very minutely, and
it is true. Metal mining and processing is 47 percent of Utah's
economic life. This comes to my mind: How in the world are you going
to reach those people, through the State or through the Nation?
Strictly speaking, they have given the State the brush-off pretty much
and also the Federal Government. The thought, when you refer to
cartels, runs back in my mind to 1929 when the British and American
copper interests got together and set the price of copper at 18 cents.
A little mining company in Rhodesia struck copper that was not in the
international cartel, and broke the copper price of 18 cents and dropped
it down to 9. That was an extraordinary thing, but it broke the inter­
national copper cartel.
Now, how in the world are you going to deal with the British
interests and American interests when the dollar and profit is the
primary thing and when the industrialists give the Governments of
both Nations the run-around? It just looms up as large.
Mr. H all . I recall that prior to the war the English system of
employment services had a system of vocational training in areas
that were mined out, so to speak, by the miners and trained those
people for other occupations and transferred them to other districts.
That might be a function of the employment service. It is more than
a State problem, as the speakers indicate. Are there any other
questions or comments at this time?
M r. D ean . I was quite disturbed by the remarks of M r. Lubin,
who indicated that those on the Federal level were busy and had more
work than they should be asked to do. I was wondering if he realizes
that probably the labor commissioners are very much in the same
boat. This matter of post-war planning has been ably brought out
by M r. Hedges of the Electrical Workers. He brings* out the fact
that labor can make a contribution on the State and Federal levels.
I know of no labor commissioner that does not welcome the contribu­
tion that labor can make. M any labor commissioners do not have
the benefit of this help; as M r. Hall from Virginia states, there is no
labor on his post-war planning committee. I might say the same
condition obtains in Michigan, principally due to the fact that labor
is and has been concerned with war problems and now is beginning
to awaken to the importance of the post-war era.



Labor must prepare to take its place in this picture. It must
insist on its place. We should have local post-war planning com­
mittees in organized labor. I think every central body should have
such a committee, and it should be headed up through the State
federations of labor so that they may make their best contribution.
I am sure that the labor departments would welcome that kind of
Mr. H edges. I think that is an excellent suggestion. I want to
bring you up to date, though, a little. The post-war planning com­
mittee of the A. F. of L. has just recommended to each of its 100
constituent unions that they engage to get all of their industries to
set up labor management planning committees. If that happens,
you are going to have a great body of people at work on these common
M r. P ohlhaus (M aryland). I would just like to ask M r. Hedges
one question, not for point of argument. I would like to know if I
understood him correctly when he said that labor does not care
whether it is private or public ownership.
Mr. H edges . I said that; but I did not mean to imply that those

are not issues. What I meant is that for labor in this hour of our
development, the main issue is representation. Now, if this country
decides, as I believe it may decide, that the private-enterprise system
should be the basis of our development, then the private-enterprise
system from the labor point of view will have to be a vastly different
kind of private-enterprise system than it was in the 1920’s, because
private enterprise is asking that it become the community.
If it is
going to become the community— think of any company-dominated
town that you know in Maryland where there is one company— that
company absolutely controls that community, and that company
says, “ We don’t want labor representation; we don’t want the Amer­
ican system in here.” If they are going to elect to take over, then they
must build the kind of private-enterprise system that is based on col­
lective bargaining and on representation ~where all of us can live
together and have a kind of unified community. That is what I mean.
Mr. P ohlhaus . That is for clarification. As the statement was
made, it could have been used to detriment by a speaker who would
seek to use it that way, and I felt sure that you did not mean that
labor has no interest whether it would be private or public ownership.
Mr. H edges . That is right; and I am glad you helped me to clarify
it. Personally, you know that I have been identified with the TVA
for 10 years, and I certainly am going to defend the TYA regional
development to the last drop of my blood.
Mrs. B eye r . I would like to get the views of this group as to
whether the time has come to invite employers to sit in on the next
National Conference on Labor Legislation along with labor groups.
The conferences have been held annually for 9 years, and the tenth
conference will be held probably this fall or early winter. Heretofore
the Secretary has asked the Governors of the States to send the labor
commissioner and representatives of organized labor. Very frequently
industry has asked why employer representatives were not included
in that invitation, since they were equally interested in labor law and
the administration of labor law. We have felt in the past that employ­



ers would inject another element— probably of discord— and that it
was better to continue with the labor organizations and the labor
commissioners. Labor and industry are working together so much
more closely now on many of these problems. It seems to me it would
be well, while all of you are here, to get a consensus of opinion as to
whether we should continue on the same basis of representation as we
have in the past or whether the time has come to have the governors
appoint management representatives to that conference in addition
to labor. If we could have some discussion of it, perhaps, and a show
of hands, it would be helpful in guiding the Secretary in making the
plans for the next conference.
M r. W rabetz . In Wisconsin we have for many years used the
device of advisory committees on practically all of our functions.
These committees have been made up of representatives of industry
and of labor; both have had representation of their own choosing, and
it has led, I believe, to a better understanding and a better meeting
of problems. For one, I believe it would be well to have employer
representatives at the conference.
M r. D e a n . In Michigan, we now have a management and labor
advisory committee dealing with labor problems. I think the mem­
bers of that committee are very helpful in arriving at solutions.
M r. H a ll . Does anyone else desire to express an opinion on this?
M r. W rabetz . M rs. Beyer, would you like a collective expression
of opinion?
M rs. B e y e r . I would like a show of hands of the number who
think it would be a good idea to have employer representatives there,
if possible.
M r. H a ll . I s it in the form of a motion?
Mrs. B e ye r . N o ; just informally.
M r. D e a n . I would prefer, if possible, that this be taken up at the
next session to give the commissioners a little more time to think of
this departure. I would like to make that suggestion. I think it is
rather quick and abrupt, and probably the commissioners would
rather give it a little thought.
M r. W rabetz . It is merely advisory anyway.
M rs. B eye r . Yes.
[A show of hands indicated approval of M rs. Beyer’s suggestion.]

Apprenticeship Training
Present and Post-War Adaptation of Apprenticeship

By W


Simon, W isconsin Industrial Commission

In this discussion we shall confine ourselves largely to the metal
trades, in which principal trade group the need for skilled mechanics
is greatest.
This war could not have caught us at a worse time as far as our
already diminished supply of skilled workers is concerned. All
through the depression years apprentice training was practically at a
standstill, and dining the same period- of time more than an average
number of mechanics dropped out of their crafts— probably per­
manently. While the N YA offered instruction of one kind or another
to tens of thousands of young people, the program must not be con­
fused with formal apprentice training. Since Pearl Harbor, industry
has lost a considerable proportion of its younger skilled workers
through voluntary enlistment in the armed services and through the
operation of Selective Service. However, it appears at this moment
that Selective Service intends to give this classification of employees
more favorable consideration than has been the case in the past.
Among the circumstances tending to operate against bona fide
apprenticeship was, and still is, the unprecedented high wage paid
inexperienced young people.
By upgrading its employees and by rearranging its methods of
production, it is possible for a manufacturing plant to get along with
a minimum number of skilled workers. Nevertheless, a certain per­
centage of employees in almost every plant must possess a high order
of skill and supervisory ability— qualifications that can best be
acquired by serving a regular apprenticeship. Even in normal
times employers constantly are on the lookout for such workers. It
is this type of employee in whose selection and training we are now
There seems to be a popular opinion that there is not time enough
to train skilled mechanics. How can we wait 4 years to produce,
let us say, a toolmaker? The war might be over by that time. That
question contains two very common erroneous assumptions. One is
that 4 calendar years* time is involved. This is not at all true. A
4-year apprenticeship represents about 8,000 homs of employment.
That figure is based on our former practice of working 40 hours a
week and 50 weeks a year. Most shops work more than 40 horns and
thus the term of apprenticeship is reduced proportionately. There is
nothing unusual about completing a “ 4-year” apprenticeship in 3
calendar years, and even in 2 % years* time. The second fallacious
assumption is that an apprentice produces nothing until the expira­
tion of his apprenticeship. If that were so there would never be any
apprentices in any trade. The truth is he begins to produce almost
at once and as he progresses he more than pays his own way.




The question then is, can we wait 3 years to produce a craftsman?
Let us cite an analogous situation: Two years ago we had occasion to
observe the first steps in the construction of a powder-making plant.
We were told the first powder would come off the line 18 months
later. To us 18 months looked like a very long time to wait. The
war might be over by that time. We might be invaded. Anything
could happen. But engineers and workmen went about their tasks
as if there were no war, and they finished the job. Here we are 2
years later just beginning to make a dent in the enemies* defenses.
This plant, which to us appeared to be such a futile undertaking, has
been producing powder for quite some time, and no doubt some of
that same powder is now being used on many of our far-flung battle
Therefore, if we are going to need toolmakers and other skilled
mechanics 1 year, 2 years, or 4 years hence, it is nothing but common
sense and good planning to begin now to train them. At the beginning
of the war Germany was reported to have had some 800,000 indentured
apprentices. If we can believe newspaper accounts of what has been
going on inside Germany during the last couple of years, the scarcity
of skilled workers constituted such a major problem that she had to
import countless thousands from occupied countries. In our country
we are only beginning to feel a lack of skilled help; and it is hard to
imagine from what source we might import them.
Skilled mechanics are off the market just as surely as are electric
refrigerators and the many other manufactured articles needed by
civilians. There remains only one recourse for the employer who wants
such men and that is to train them in his own shop.

Whom shall we apprentice? Able-bodied young men can expect to
enter the armed services upon reaching military age. The apprentic­
ing of men past military age obviously is not entirely practicable either.
We can apprentice those who have a 4-F draft classification, although
the available supply is rather limited and there is rarely any dead
certainty that they will not be reclassified. The two main sources of
prospective apprentices are, in our opinion at least, 16-year-olds and
young men discharged from the armed services. However, to open the
field of apprenticeship to these two new groups requires a certain
amount of coordination between industry and local, State, and Federal
agencies. For example, mention of 16-year-olds immediately suggests
interference with high-school education and probable conflict with
child-labor laws. As for the returning veteran, there are so many
agencies concerned with him that endless confusion and duplication of
effort is likely to result if there is improper administrative handling of
the matter.
Regarding the apprenticing of 16-year-olds, the following should be
the objective:
1. To supply them with the kind of all-round training and experience
that will materially assist them to make a decent living after the war,
when jobs m ay be scarce.
2. So to arrange the work program as to enable completion of highschool attendance during the apprenticeship.

3. To complete as much of the apprenticeship as possible by the
time they are 18, or shortly thereafter. The skill acquired will be
useful in the armed forces, and a minimum amount of additional tech­
nical training will be necessary.



This may appear to be a rather ambitious program but it is entirely
feasible. The idea of giving boys all possible school and work experi­
ence before the age of 18 might well be cultivated anyway at this time,
because we are likely to have universal compulsory military service for
many years following this war.
Are not boys of 16 too young to decide what occupation to follow?
Is it right to decide the question for them by apprenticing them?
Any skilled trade is better than common labor, or no practical training
at all. It does not follow that one must remain for life in an occupa­
tion for which one has been trained. As a matter of fact, early prac­
tical training and experience is one of the surest foundations for a useful
life no matter into what vocation a person finally gravitates. It would
be silly to argue that practical training ever hurt anyone, especially
if, as in this case, there is to be no harmful interruption of high-school
Let us assume that very shortly after reaching his sixteenth birth­
day a high-school junior enters an apprenticeship under an arrange­
ment whereby he attends school at least 1 whole day each week in
high-school accredited subjects. Such attendance could be either in
his regular high school or in a vocational school under qualified
high-school teachers. Within the 2 remaining years he could com­
plete his studies, provided he was permitted to take only required
subjects such as English, science, mathematics, history, and social
science. There is no reason why the mathematics could not be of a
practical application and related to the trade being learned. Nor is
there any reason why a high school should not allow some credit for
the experience and training the apprentice receives in the shop. In
our State, educational standards permit a high-school student to
spend up to 25 percent of his 4 years in the industrial arts departments
of the school. If that much credit, actually amounting to 1 year
out of the 4, can be allowed for time spent in industrial arts, then
why cannot the same percentage of credit be allowed for the kind of
supervised and diversified work an apprentice receives in the shop?
It can.
Our practice is to require payment of wages for time spent in the
part-time school. Almost invariably this is 1 full day each week.
This school attandance is counted as hours of labor. For apprentices
under 18 the combined maximum work and school hours can be 5.5
per week and for those over 18 the work hours are the same as those
governing adults in the same place of employment. From this it is
obvious that by the time an apprentice reaches his eighteenth birth­
day he will be well along toward completion of his apprenticeship.
Now, of course, a program such as is contemplated here is not
possible unless somebody makes it his business to bring local school
people and representatives of industry together for the purpose of
arriving at some mutual understanding of the matter. More than
that, the State department of public instruction, the agency adminis­
tering apprenticeship, and the State board of vocational education
likewise must be in agreement on policies affecting employment and
school attendance of minors under 18. We accomplished this uni­
formity of purpose by issuing a joint statement signed by Voyta
Wrabetz, chairman of the industrial commission, and John Callahan,
State superintendent of public instruction. The statement, which



was widely distributed to schools and industries, contained the recom­
mendations of both State departments.
Regarding the application of child-labor laws, the industrial com­
mission holds that apprentices indentured in compliance with the
terms of the apprenticeship law are not subject to that part of the
child-labor law concerning prohibited employments. This might
appear as a rather liberal and possibly dangerous interpretation of
the statutes, but we feel that we have much greater control over the
working conditions of the apprentice than we have over other em­
ployed minors. The work schedule of the apprentice can be so laid
out that he performs the least hazardous parts of the trade while he
is a beginner, and he is then advanced to the more dangerous opera­
tions as his skill permits. Furthermore, the apprentice always works
under the direct supervision of journeymen mechanics.
W e come now to the apprenticing of young men discharged from
the armed forces. This group bids fair eventually to be one of
the best sources of apprentice applicants, and therefore it is important
that plans be made now, before the servicemen return in ever growing
numbers. The situation existing in this war is somewhat different
from that in W orld W ar I in that many men will be returning to
civilian life long before the war actually ends. Industry needs all
the manpower that it can get. The problem then becomes one of
placement and training.
A s previously pointed out, there is likely to be some confusion on
this score because of the many agencies interested in ex-servicemen.
In this connection it m ay be of interest to mention the recent action
of our State legislature. A veterans’ recognition board was created to
coordinate the activities of all State agencies whose functions in any
way relate to the care, placement, and training of veterans. M en­
tioned in the law are the industrial commission, State Selective Service
administration, State vocational board, State superintendent of public
instruction, the Red Cross, the veterans’ organizations, and the State
university. It specifically provides that the board “ in cooperation
with the industrial commission and State Selective Service or any other
Federal, State, and local agency shall carry out plans for the training
and placement of returning veterans in peacetime work.” In general
the new law recognizes that within the State are all the necessary
facilities needed to do an excellent job for the benefit of the veteran.
It is the kind of State legislation which should be encouraged.
In the largest manufacturing plant in the State, the Allis-Chalmers
Manufacturing C o., there was recently indentured the first serviceconnected disabled veteran in cooperation with the Veterans Admin­
istration. N o doubt you are familiar with the program sponsored by
that organization. The employer signs a standard contract in which
he agrees to take into his employ disabled veterans as trainees or
apprentices. The Government pays married men a monthly allow­
ance up to $120 and single men up to $80, the exact amount being
determined in each case by the Veterans Administration. The toolmaker apprentice referred to here was indentured under the regular
State indenture form and the wages he will receive are the same as
any other toolmaker apprentice earns in the plant. The amount of
the monthly allowance has not at this moment been decided upon.
The indenture contains the signature of the employer, the apprentice,
and the manager of the Veterans Administration in this State.



Of passing interest might be the fact that following the name of the
apprentice, wherever it occurs in the indenture, are the words “ World
War II veteran.” The same recognition of his war service will be
contained in the State certificate of apprenticeship he will receive upon
completion of his 4-year term of training. A fitting gesture would be
to add the signature of the Veterans Administration to his diploma.
This case serves as a good illustration of results obtained through
the collaboration of industry, the apprenticeship division of the State
industrial commission, representatives of the Federal Committee on
Apprentice Training (Apprentice-Training Service, W M C), and the
Veterans Administration, both within the State and in Washington.
Other such apprenticeships are in the process of making in a number
of plants around the State.
A variety of effective combinations of placement and training of
returning veterans can be conceived, more especially in the field of
apprenticeship. There are, for example, few trade-training oppor­
tunities in small nonindustrial communities. A young man living in
such a place can hardly expect to move into a manufacturing center
and support himself on apprentice wages, but as a veteran entitled to a
monthly allowance such an arrangement could easily be made.
Since industry needs every available man, the tendency will be to
place returning veterans in employment as early as possible. This
demand for manpower in turn may lead to the temptation of offering
veterans a short course of training designed to fit them for war jobs
only. We sincerely hope that officials of veterans’ organizations will
thoroughly familiarize themselves with the difference between genuine
trade training of lifelong usefulness and training for temporary jobs.
Inasmuch as men are badly needed in industry, let the veterans go to
work as soon as they can, either on straight production or in an
apprenticeship, but let there be some plan whereby monthly allowances
can be put into a trust fund or simply held in abeyance until after
the war. Veterans serving an apprenticeship may want to enter
college later, while some of the others may want to learn trades now
considered nonessential. If present regulations do not permit such
an arrangement, then they should be changed.
Speaking of regulations governing the handling of veterans, Federal
requirements especially should be sufficiently flexible to enable adjust­
ments locally, because laws, employment conditions, and training
facilities vary greatly among the States. A reasonable amount of leeway
must be permitted if good results are expected. Above all, every
effort should be made by both Federal and State authorities to use the
services of existing organizations, offices, and institutions rather than
to set up new ones. The machinery is there and ready for use. The
governmental agencies you represent are peculiarly well situated to do
the coordinative work necessary to create harmonious relationship
among administrators whose duties in any way impinge on the employ­
ment and training of young men for the skilled crafts.
M r. V oorhies (Louisiana). I would like to ask M r. Simon a
question concerning the veterans. I am speaking of a closed shop
that is loaded right now with apprentice material, and they carry the
cards of their respective locals. How is room going to be made for



the returning soldier in these various crafts so as not to disturb the
We will take any craft— steamfitters, for instance— in my locality.
There are possibly several hundred apprentices available. If they
should be indentured— they are not all indentured, but are qualified
to be—how are you going to put them aside and take in a veteran who
has returned from the war?
Mr. S imon (Wisconsin). I do not believe we should attempt to
put them aside to make room for the veterans, because I think there
is plenty of room in other industries that now have an insufficient
number of apprentices to take care of the veterans.
Mr. V oorhies . I mean those that are returning to Louisiana, for
instance; I am speaking of the State of Louisiana, not of the States
at large.
Mr. Simon . I cannot answer for Louisiana.
Mr. V oorhies . I am trying to get a solution, because I am very
anxious to help them. In fact, I have attended several meetings in
New Orleans for that very purpose, but I cannot conceive of a plan
to solve the problem of placing a man carrying a card—whether he is
a steamfitter or a boilermaker— as an apprentice or a helper, and the
man returning from the war who also wants to be a boilermaker.
All these men are in line. The men returning from the war will want
to be apprentices, too.
Mr. S im on . If you have a sufficient number of apprentices now in
a given trade, I am sure that no one would attempt to place any addi­
tional apprentices in that trade, whether or not they are veterans.
If there is a full quota of apprentices, I would arrange to have these
veterans attend college or the university or, as I said before, get into
some occupation now considered nonessential. You cannot have
many apprentices left in so-called nonessential occupations.
Mr. V oorhies . That is exactly what the war veterans have in
mind in New Orleans— that they can be brought in and put into any
trade and be indentured. That is one thing for which I would like a
solution, because they will soon be returning to Louisiana, and I do
not have the solution, Mr. Simon.
Mr. T one (Washington, D . C.). Is it not true that they have had
the quota in the building trades, but not in the metal trades— that
they have had no apprenticeship system in either industry for 10 or
12 to 15 years?
Mr. S im on . Even in the building trades, I do not know of a single
city or a single trade in our State which had its full quota as permitted
by union agreements when this war started, believe it or not.
Mr. D ean (Michigan). I would like to press home a thought here
that I have on this: “ There remains only one recourse for the em­
ployer,” who needs qualified mechanics of journeyman grade, “ and
that is to train them in his own shop.” In connection with the source
of supply of apprentices, mention is made of the 16-year-olds and those
in the 4-F military classification. I think we can all agree that the
occupational skills of the people of a nation are its greatest asset.
We have long thought, in Michigan, that since occupational deferments
at the present time are being considered on the basis of occupational
skill— there should be a quota of apprentices trained, not necessarily



for the war effort alone, but for building up the resources of the skills
of this country.
We feel that a certain number of apprentices— of 1-year, of 2-year,
of 4-year apprentices— are necessary; in other words, have a supply
coming up the stairs of preparation, and thus maintain the supply of
skills in this country. Germany, pressed as it is, has not seen fit to
dispense with its apprenticeship program to any degree. We can ill
afford to do anything but encourage the War Manpower Commission
to think about developing apprenticeship, training throughout the
country, even in this time of war. The post-war period will bring to
us problems which we would be better prepared to handle if we have
developed an apprenticeship-training program to take care of it.
M r. Simon . There is no question that, following the war, we prob­
ably will see a greatly expanded building program— probably carrying
on for 10 years— and there will, of course, be a shortage of skilled
workers in that trade group, especially in view of the fact that so few
have been in training all through the depression years. I think the
gentleman is correct when he says that we should now be making
preparation for apprentice training in those trades.
Mr. D e a n . I think that apprentices should be selected through

vocational schools— that their contribution to the war effort is in
being trained to become journeymen in a certain field. I am not
trying to minimize the value of the training of those 16-year-olds on
the specific job. We have them in the State of Michigan with the
Chrysler Corporation. They complete a training unit in the school,
for instance, on the lathe. The department of labor and industry
will permit them to be employed on the lathe, because they have been
trained to operate it and through that training the normal hazard has
been removed. That is valuable, after they have completed that unit
and succeed in the plant. Then they may be given another step, but
that is not apprenticeship training; they do not receive the technical
information nor is it correlated with their work experience. I think
this group could lend its voice to the encouragement to the War
Manpower Commission to consider a minimum training program for
this country.
M r. O lander (Illinois). I am unable to visualize even the possi­
bility of a surplus of apprentices in the United States. There has
never been a moment in the history of this country that we have had
anything but a shortage of native skilled labor. W e have never
developed sufficient skins among our own people. Our practice has
been to import skilled workers from Europe. That has continued, in
some degree, even after the immigration bars were put up.
B y apprenticeship, of course, I mean what M r. Dean means, and
what the term itself means, the learning of a trade— not merely some
single operation in the trade. W e are failing in that right now, even
under the needs of war. If, at the time the present war started in
Europe, we had then begun the training of apprentices on the same
basis that Germany had been doing for many years prior to the war,
and if we
accelerated that training system a bit, we would today
be graduating hundreds of thousands of skilled journeymen. As it
is, we are playing with the situation by training workers in single
operations intended only for the duration of the war.




Mr. P atterson (Washington, D. C.). The forward-looking state­
ments just made are concrete evidence of the increasing recognition
of the importance of apprenticeship to the country. They bear out
a very definite trend throughout the country to the effect that we have
sold ourselves short on the matter of training skilled mechanics.
Recently I visited several emergency shipyards which at the
beginning of the war indicated there was no place for apprentices in
their yards. Now they say that overlooking apprenticeship was the
saddest mistake they ever made, because they cannot get the trained
men to meet the drains on manpower.
At the A. F. of L. convention last week [October 4-14, 1943], I was
pleasantly surprised to find that in the last year the international
unions and the State federations of labor are increasingly realizing how
much apprenticeship means to the labor movement and are asking
for vigorous leadership on the part of National and State apprentice­
ship agencies in the promotion and strengthening of apprenticeship.
Mr. Simon has just provided us with a realistic description of what
is being accomplished on the placement of veterans in Wisconsin. In
our dealings with the rehabilitation training people in the United
States Veterans Bureau, they have stated that they want these return­
ing veterans with service-connected disabilities to have the all-round
training which apprenticeship gives rather than minute specialization.
They must get all-thorough grounding that will stand them in stead
all their lives.
We get the same reaction from many sources. People who are
working intensively on post-war planning and reemployment and
reconversion are saying that they see strong apprenticeship as a major
factor in post-war reconversion.
Mr. Voorhies of Louisiana raised a timely and pertinent point
about holding places for apprentices who are now in service. The
A. F. of L. convention has numerous resolutions before it, urging that
every constituent body give priority to the returning veteran in choos­
ing new apprentices. One after another of the State federations of
labor have resolved in favor of giving priority to returning veterans.
Most new sets of standards of apprenticeship that are coming into
effect specify that priority shall be given to the returning veteran.
So, although progress in apprenticeship is a tough uphill fight, and it
has been especially hard the last year, it is reassuring to notice that
more new firms are establishing apprenticeship programs each month
than ever before in the last 9 years.
Another thing that is of interest is a trend that our reports show:
There are now twice as many first-year apprentices in training as
there are second-year. Our records show that in spite of the drain
by the draft, which is large, there is a constant increase in apprentices
in the country and in the number of companies training them. This
optimistic picture of the status of apprenticeship is proof of the strong
and growing belief in the worthwhileness of the institution to indus­
try, labor, the youth, and the country. The Federal Committee on
Apprenticeship has carefully studied the whole problem, and it
recommends, for the country, machinery on the national level to
recommend basic minimum standards, to serve as a clearing house on
information, to give leadership, and to smooth the way with national
groups and agencies. However, the real operating will be done on
the State and local level.



Therefore, it will interest this particular group to know that the
Apprentice-Training Service aims to provide all possible assistance to
State councils on apprenticeship attached to State labor departments.
We believe sincerely, in view of experience, that that is the answer to
getting the job done. Those States that have enacted good State
laws, that have set up good State councils, and that have an appro­
priation aijd a State director of apprenticeship, are really going ahead
on this— they are making genuine headway. Instead of having 16
States with apprenticeship laws, we hope that ultimately every State
will have an apprenticeship law. It is encouraging to know that the
Territory of Hawaii has set up a strong and successful apprenticeship
council with a full-time paid director. Therefore, we hope that State
labor departments, if they do not have a State council, will try to get
one; if they do not have a State law, that they will try to get one enacted;
if they have both of these, that they will try to get adequate State
appropriations to carry on the job. The volume of work to be done is
too big for our small staff ever to be able to do it. We will give every
possible assistance in servicing the State councils and in helping them
to succeed, but the final direction and control must rest in the State
councils. In the localities, local joint apprenticeship committees on
which labor and management are equally represented should give the
We have arrived at a pattern of machinery for this country to put
our apprenticeship out in front of that of any other country in the
world and still do it through democratic means.
In 1936 I studied the German apprenticeship program. It was
superior then to ours in most respects, except that ft was not demo­
cratic. Let no one say apprenticeship is out for the duration. It is
moving ahead soundly, and it is showing progress in all areas— show­
ing particular progress right in this area of Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Indiana. The picture is optimistic, and it is largely true because the
State labor departments are taking their responsibility.
Mrs. B eyer (Washington, D. C.). Listening to this discussion, I
believe Mr. Dean made a very good suggestion. In the Department
of Labor we have always thought of apprenticeship as the equivalent
of technical college training. The Army has found it advisable to
give college-level technical training to about 500,000 young men
every year. Why should we not do the same for civilian boys who are
learning the skilled trades? Why would it not be possible to have
that same type of program applied to those who must carry on in the
skilled trades? I think it could be done. The recognition that would
be given to apprenticeship training, the push that would be given to
it in the after-the-war period would more than justify the cost. I
think a resolution coming from this group, endorsing such a program,
would be extremely effective. In speaking to a group of State labor
commissioners, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not say that
while apprenticeship has left the United States Department of Labor
temporarily, we believe that at the end of this war it will be back in
the Department. We expect to work with you State labor comissioners
again in making it one of the big programs for service to the youth
of the country.
Mr. Shuford (North Carolina). All of us join you in that hope.

----- 5

611560°— 45

Child Labor
Wartime Child Labor
Report of the Committee on Child Labor, by B eatrice M cC onnell (United States
Children’s Bureau), Chairman

Much, history has been made since the last report of the child-labor
committee to this Association in September 1941. At that time we
were speaking of the safeguarding of the Nation’s youth as one of the
vital aspects of national defense. The attack on Pearl Harbor,
barely 2 months later, plunged the country from a defense program
into a war crisis. In the fall of 1941 the increase in the employment
of young persons under 18 years of age, though noticeable, was not
much more than sufficient to take up the slack of their depression un­
employment, but it gave warning of future trends. Now, in 1943, the
9 y2 million youths 14 through 17 years of age in this country have risen
from a place of relative inconsequence in the total labor-market pic­
ture to an important source of labor supply.
Youth in the Labor Force

The number of boys and girls under 18 years of age at work has
doubled and trebled since 1940 under the pressure of wartime demands
for labor. In April 1943, it was estimated that 2 y2 million youths 14
through 17 years of age were in full-time or part-time employment— a
half million of them under 16. Of the 2 million 16- and 17-year-olds,
probably around half were in full-time employment and half were
working part time and going to school. By July, with vacation work
opportunities mounting, the estimated number of youths 14 through
17. years of age at work had risen to roughly 5 million, with about 2
million 14 and 15 years of age and 3 million 16 and 17. This means
that two out of every five 14- and 15-year-old and two out of every
three 16- and 17-year-old children were engaged in full-time or parttime work. Other thousands under 14 were working, chiefly on farms,
but also in jobs such as delivery boys, newspaper carriers, and helpers
in stores. In April 1940, the total number 14 through 17 at work was
less than 1 million.
During 1943 the labor inroads into the high-school age group have
been greater than into any other age group,1 according to estimates on
increase in the labor force made by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics. In April, the number of boys and girls 14 through 17 years of age
in the labor force was 71 percent in excess of the number that would
have been anticipated on the basis of normal peacetime expectations.
For the 14- and 15-year-olds the excess over the normal was even
greater, 128 percent, showing the disproportionate use of children in
this young age group. This excess of 14- through 17-year-old youth in
the labor force over peacetime probabilities amounted to a million*
Age groups: 18-19, 20-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 years and over.




workers, comprising over a fourth of the 4 million or more persons
added to the labor force (including the armed forces) over and above the
normal expectations.
This trend is borne out by the spectacular increase in the number of
employment certificates issued for children going to work, as reported
to the Children’s Bureau, and by the mounting numbers of Social
Security account numbers issued to boys and girls. In June 1943, the
number of employment or age certificates issued for youths 14 through
17 years of age was more than double the number issued in June 1942.
These figures also indicate that children 14 and 15 years old, for whom
school attendance has been generally assumed as the norm in recent
years, are entering both full-time and part-time employment propor­
tionately faster than those of 16 and 17. Social Security account
numbers applied for by boys and girls of these ages in the first 3 months
of 1943 increased 84 percent over the first 3 months of 1942.
National Wartime Policies

Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor the need for national plan­
ning in the whole field of labor standards was evident to both Federal
and State labor-law administrators. It was recognized that the Na­
tion’s existence depended on speed in production and that a tremendous
job faced labor and industry, alike, to meet staggering goals in creating
war materiel. In December 1941, a conference made up of representa­
tives of the Federal Departments of Labor, War, and Navy, of the
Office of Production Management, and of State labor departments of
the States most important in war production, was called by the Secre­
tary of Labor to consider policies for relaxation of labor standards
where this was essential during a period of transition to war produc­
tion. The recommendations of the group were embodied in a state­
ment on policy for hours of work issued by the Secretary of Labor,
January 27,1942. While emphasizing the necessity for all-out produc­
tion, the statement urged as proper hours of work essential to maximum
production an 8-hour day, 48-hour and 6-day week, and adequate meal
and rest periods. It also recommended adaptation of hours of labor
and working conditions to the age and sex of the worker and the nature
of the occupation and pointed out that, although relaxation of stand­
ards might be necessary during a period of adjustment, there should
be no relaxation of standards governing employment of minors under
the age of 16. These policies were reiterated in December 1942 in a
letter to State labor commissioners from the War, Navy, and Labor
Departments, and certain other Government agencies.2
It soon became apparent, however, that if production crises were
to be met without disaster to State and Federal child-labor standards
and to the resultant protection which they afford to youth under 18,
it was imperative that statements of essential principles for employ­
ment of young people be worked out in the light of total anticipated
Selective Service and production demands and of the needs of youth
themselves. It was realized, moreover, that such statements could
be widely influential only to the extent that they were sanctioned as
official national policy, and cooperative action of Government agen­
2War Production Board, War Manpower Commission, Maritime Commission, and Office of Defense



cies has resulted in the formulation of three such statements of war­
time standards on employment of youth.
The first statement of policy, relating to children and youth in
agriculture, preceded the establishment of the War Manpower Com­
mission. In March 1942 the Department of Agriculture, the United
States Employment Service, the Office of Education, and the Chil­
dren’s Bureau formulated policies on recruitment of young workers
for wartime agriculture that have definitely influenced all subsequent
programs. Such a policy was particularly necessary because war­
time labor shortages had intensified the problems that have histori­
cally resulted from the deplorable living and working conditions and
loss of education for large numbers of child agricultural workers—
many of them very young.
Shortly after the War Manpower Commission was established, the
need for special consideration for youth in the total manpower picture
was brought before the Commission, and in January 1943 a general
statement, “ Policy on Employment of Youth Under 18 Years of Age”
was issued by the Commission. It is based on the premise that the
first job of youth under 18 is school, that these young people should
take full advantage of educational opportunities in order to prepare
for war and post-war services, and that they should have the fullest
opportunity, consistent with the war effort, to complete their educa­
tion. The Commission recognized, however, that the demands of the
war period would increase the number of youths entering the labor
market and set forth 10 basic standards which should govern such
employment. These 10 safeguards have been called the War Man­
power Commission’s “ decalogue for the employment of youth.”
As is true of any document embodying views of many groups, it
represents compromises and adjustments. By necessity it is brief
and general in character, requiring implementation and continuous
interpretation in the light of changing situations. Nevertheless, its
adaptability to particular situations has already demonstrated its im­
portance as a balance wheel to prevent unwise extremes in wartime
employment of youth.
Early in September 1943, the War Manpower Commission, joined
by the Office of Education and the Children’s Bureau, issued the
third policy statement,3 dealing with the part-time employment of
school youth. This last statement implements and supplements the
earlier general policy and suggests a framework for community
planning to guide the part-time employment of these children in
places where it has been determined that such use of school youth
is necessary to meet essential labor needs. If the education and the
future contribution to the Nation of these young people are to be
safeguarded, an intelligent and planned approach to their part in
the labor force is necessary. Many of them are already carrying a
far too heavy burden of combined school and work, sometimes
working for a full 8-hour shift after school. The result in many
cases is that the pupil’s health is impaired, and he either fails in
his school work, or, discouraged with lack of school progress and
lured by the pay envelope, he drops out of school.
These three statements considered together present a forwardlooking view as to employment of youth and, with State and local
3Statement of Policies and Standards Governing the Nonagricultural Employment of In-School Urban
Youth Under 18 Years of Age.



community participation, should do much to safeguard this young
generation. Briefly, these standards include the following:
1. Observance of legal standards, both State and Federal.
2. Recruitment of workers under 18, particularly those in school
or under 16, only after it has been officially determined that other
sources of labor cannot meet essential labor needs.
3. A minimum age of 14 for either full-time or part-time employ­
ment and a minimum age of 16 for manufacturing occupations.
4. A minimum age of 18 for employment in occupations hazardous
or detrimental to health or welfare, employment of youth under 18
to be limited to work suited to their age and strength.
5. A minimum 8-hour day, 48-hour week, and 6-day week, for
minors under 18 with certain safeguarded variations, and limitation
of work to hours of day not detrimental to health or welfare.
6. Provision for adequate meal and rest periods, adequate sanitary
facilities, and safeguards for health and safety.
7. Employment at wages paid adult workers for similar job
8. As an enforcement measure, requirement of employment or
age certificates or, in case these are not provided, other reliable
evidence of age.
9. For employment outside school hours of school youth between
14 and 18 years of age, special maximum hours and night-work
restrictions adapted to the health needs of the child and to his school
work, recognizing the fact that in general these students cannot suc­
cessfully carry a combined school and work program of more than 8
hours a day.
10. For agricultural work, special safeguards for safe and suitable
transportation where needed, supervision while at work, and, for
those living away from home to be near their work, provision of fully
adequate housing accommodations, supervision, medical care, and
leisure-time activities.
Relaxation of Standards
State laws and ru lin gs .— The great increases in demand for the
labor of children and youth have resulted in disturbing efforts to
lower, by legislative action, existing standards of State child-labor
laws. In addition, both State and Federal administrators, partic­
ularly those having some discretionary authority under child-labor
laws, have been confronted with increasing requests to relax standards.
These pressures began in 1941 with the growing defense production
program, but did not become really alarming until the present year
[1943]. In 1941, as your child-labor committee reported, a few
regressive steps in the child-labor field occurred, but the line against
these pressures was in general maintained and even a few important
advances made.
In 1942, a minor legislative year, this 1941 trend continued, in that
a few major advances occurred, along with limited relaxations. Out­
standing among the advances were the revisions of the child-labor
laws of Louisiana and Puerto Rico which placed these laws among
the most progressive in the United States. No relaxations occurred
in minimum standards for general employment. There was a defi­
nite trend not to lower child-labor standards for minors below 16



years of age, although school-attendance requirements were lowered
for such children to permit them to meet farm needs. Hours and
night-work restrictions were for the most part maintained for youth
up to 18 years of age. In fact, a number of States, in passing legis­
lation providing for relaxation of women’s hours and other labor laws
during the war emergency, provided specifically that such modifica­
tions should not apply to minors under 18 years of age. In three
States with flexible laws, hours or night-work relaxations were made
affecting minors under 18, but it is significant that these occurred in
States with standards higher than the general average. The other
backward steps taken in 1942 related chiefly to specialized fields of
employment in which opposition to regulation has been traditional,
such as farm work and street trades, and to the commercialized amuse­
ment field, such as bowling alleys. In addition, a few States relaxed
measures protecting minors under 18 from employment in hazardous
In 1943, however, child-labor standards have felt the impact both
of the withdrawal of millions of workers for military service and of
unprecedented opportunities in employment for even the least ex­
perienced youth. The general legislative pattern of not permitting
relaxations under the age of 18, evident earlier in the war period,
has been broken. Many of the relaxations affect not only minors
between 16 and 18 but even those under 16. They are no longer
restricted to specific areas of employment, such as commercialized
amusements, or to hours standards alone. For instance, six States
(California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina,
and Pennsylvania) have adopted general acts under which modifica­
tion of labor standards for minors under 18 is possible: only one— that
of New York— being limited to minors 16 and over. The California
act authorizes issuance of emergency permits for war production
affecting minors of any age. New York reduced from 18 to 16 years
the age at which dispensations from labor-law provisions are permitted.
Acts passed in Connecticut, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania are sufficiently broad to permit relaxations affecting
minors of any age. Legal standards affecting minimum age for
general employment were lowered by law in two States. The pro­
tection afforded minors from employment in hazardous or unsuitable
occupations was affected in a number of States, by either legislative
or administrative modifications. These modifications covered work
in bowling alleys, as messengers, in hotels, or in railroad-track repair­
ing. A considerable number of new laws have also permitted hours
or night-work standards for minors under 18 to be relaxed. Com­
pulsory school-attendance requirements, which complement childlabor laws, have been affected to a greater degree than in 1941 and
1942, particularly insofar as they interfere with the employment of
children on farms. In all, administrative or legislative relaxations
have been allowed in 1943 in 19 States for minors under 16 years
of age, and in 23 States for minors of 16 and 17 years.
In spite of this general trend toward relaxation, it is encouraging
to note that even in 1943 there were a few improvements in standards.
For instance, the two States that did weaken basic minimum-age
provisions at the same time improved the law in certain other respects.
Moreover, m some of the other modifications that were made, safe­



guarding provisions have been included. For example, in connection
with an act under which maximum-hours and night-work standards
for minors 16 and 17 years of age may be lowered, one State (New
Jersey) created a special emergency committee on child labor to
advise on applications for such relaxations. Encouraging also is
the fact that the majority of the relaxations that have occurred have
been limited to the war emergency, and a number have included
provisions aimed to insure that the standards will be relaxed only
in case of actual labor need.
A cumulative picture of the progressive break-downs in child-labor
standards since the beginning of 1941, when the present trend had
its inception, shows that some lowering of labor standards for boys
and girls under 18 has occurred in almost two-thirds of the States.
Standards o f Federal Legislation

The child-labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
have been a bulwark of strength in preventing wholesale break-downs
in standards for young workers, just as in World War I State labor
officials found the Federal law of 1916 of great aid in the maintenance
of State standards. The 16-year minimum age fixed by the Fair Labor
Standards Act undoubtedly has helped to support the basic 16-year
minimum in the 15 States in which it exists under State law, and in
other States undoubtedly it has prevented an influx of 14- and 15-yearold children into factory work.
As you know, the Federal act permits employment in nonmanu­
facturing and nonmining occupations of children 14 and 15, under
conditions determined by the Chief of the Children’s Bureau-not to
interfere with schooling, health, or well-being. The regulations
originally issued by the Bureau excluded from the areas in which such
children might be employed all processing occupations and set up a
number of other standards as to conditions of employment, among
them a prohibition of work after 7 p. m. Two wartime modifications,
limited to the duration, have been made in the past 2 years, one per­
mitting employment of 14- and 15-year-old children in the cutting
of pears, peaches, and apricots, in fruit dry yards outside school
hours, and the other allowing, for not more than 8 workweeks in any
calendar year, the employment of these children until 10 p. m. on
nonschool days in the packing of fresh fruits and vegetables. In both
cases certain safeguards, including a 6-day week and provisions for
meal periods were established in the rulings, in addition to those
applying to all work of 14- and 15-year-old children under the act.
The 18-year minimum age applicable to certain types of hazardous
employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act has also been
modified for the duration to permit minors 16 and 17 to be employed
in a few of the least hazardous occupations in logging and sawmilling.
With the great increase in Government contracts for war purchases,
the provisions of the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act, particularly
its minimum-age standard and the prohibition of industrial homework,
are becoming more and more important safeguards for young workers.
At the request of the Secretary of War, the Secretary of Labor, under
authority specified in the act, granted an exemption from the 18-year
minimum age for girls, established for the employment of girls, and a



16-year minimum age— the same as that established for boys—was
permitted on condition that certain safeguards are put into effect for
girls of 16 and 17.
Youth Employment in Canada

In Canada as well as in the United States the shortage of workers
has emphasized the same problem of social wastage that often fol­
lows when children leave school for work at too early an age. Re­
ports, however, are not available as to numbers of young persons em­
ployed. A significant advance has been made in school-attendance
standards. The one Canadian Province without a compulsory
school-attendance law, Quebec, enacted such a law, effective Septem­
ber 1, 1943. Under this law, attendance is required to 14 years of
age, with provisions for a 6-weeks exemption period in case of a child
whose services are needed by his parent in husbandry or home duties.
In New Brunswick, a 14-year minimum age for employment in facto­
ries has been established. Last September the Canada and New­
foundland Education Association appointed a committee to ascertain
the chief educational needs in the Dominion of Canada, the first such
survey, I understand, that has been made for the whole Dominion.
Among the needs listed as most important by the Provincial depart­
ments of education, according to the report of this committee, are
three that are of particular interest to officials dealing with child
workers— a program of counseling and guidance, health examinations
and follow-up treatment for all school children, and part-time educa­
tion for boys and girls 16 and 17 years of age.
Problems Facing Labor-Law Administrators

T o this group, as officials enforcing labor laws, this large and sudden
increase in employment of children offers complex and difficult prob­
lems. It means exploitation of youth, particularly in the fields of
employment where controls of legislation and of public opinion are
weakest. It means the use of youth labor by employers not accus­
tomed to it, and thus not conversant with the special needs of young
workers and of the legal restrictions applicable to them. It means
a heavy increase of responsibilities for labor officials whose duties
include supervision of age-certificate systems.
With the absorption of the pool of unemployed and the increasing
expansion of war industries, it must be recognized that there has
been and will be an important part that older boys and girls might
and should play in the labor force. But for their ultimate value to
the Nation as well as to themselves, this part must be so planned and
guided as to avoid undue sacrifice of educational opportunity and
harm to health. Instead it has been to a large extent haphazard
and undirected, and the price in health, safety, and school opportunity
has frequently been far too high.

The care which a Nation devotes to its youth is a barometer of its
civilization and a test of its survival. The unplanned and largely
unregulated exodus of boys and girls from school to work, the health



and accident hazards, the stress of speed-up and long hours to which
many of them are exposed, and the heavy part-time work programs
many of them are carrying, are not justified by war needs as long as
it is possible in any other way to keep up war production and satisfy
minimum essential civilian needs. Some employment of youth
under 18 in wartime is necessary, some of course is desirable at any
time. But when that employment reaches the present magnitude
and bids fair to become even greater, when it includes increasing
numbers of children under 16, when it means loss of high-school
training for many youth who should have had further education,
when it is accompanied by extensive removal of minimum protective
labor standards, it becomes not a war necessity but a preventable
war catastrophe.
Labor officials have done much in whatever has been accomplished
to regulate and hold those trends in check. But greater efforts must
be made to prevent their extension and to remedy as far as possible
the disastrous results of what has already taken place.
Much thinking and planning has been going on throughout the
country about measures that can be taken to safeguard the education
and wartime employment of youth in such a way as to satisfy the
needs of the emergency and at the same time insure a generation of
young men and women capable of meeting the needs of the future.
There is a growing consciousness of the national hazard in allowing
continuance of the present trend. Large numbers of the young people
who leave school now will not return to school or carry forward their
education. Instead of reaching the post-war period with a wellprepared group of young men and women, can we afford to attempt to
solve post-war problems with an undereducated citizenry? It must
be remembered that even for the requirements of the present and the
immediate future, for both industry and the armed forces, the country
needs the highest skill its young people can attain.
With these facts in mind, State labor officials have an important
function in stimulating programs to keep children in school and to see
that part-time school and work programs, in places where the services
of these children are found necessary to meet essential labor needs,
are developed and carried out with due regard to the needs of youth
as well as of production. To supplement such programs there must
be developed a community and employer responsibility for finding and
using all other possible sources of labor supply, full-time or part-time,
to relieve the pressures on school youth. Most of this planning will
be on a local basis and must be adapted to local needs throughout the
country, but standards and framework for that planning can best be
provided through the cooperative action of State agencies—labor,
education, and welfare departments, defense council children’s
committees, employer and employee groups, and private organizations.
Labor officials also have a unique responsibility in maintaining legis­
lative protection for young workers so that the labor standards that
have been found essential for the welfare of children and youth in the
past may carry over as far as possible into the post-war period and be
extended to areas where further protection is needed. To do this it is
essential that existing standards be defended; that serious breaks
already made be repaired; and that such relaxations as must be made
be kept on a purely emergency basis and be watched carefully, so



that they may result in as little harm as possible to the growing
generation and to the contribution that generation must make to the
Nation’s future.
Miss M cC onnell (Washington, D. C.). This report on child labor
comes to you at a time when probably more children and youth are
in the various areas of employment in this country than at any other
one time in its history. When we last met in the fall of 1941 we were
beginning to see the results of defense production—to see the slight
increase in the use of young people as a part of the growing number of
workers called for to meet the demands of defense production.
Great changes have taken place since then. This country has been
plunged into war and with it into war production. The number of
young persons 14 and under 18 years of age who have been drawn
into the labor market has grown from around a million in April 1940
to roughly 5 million in the summer of 1943.
It is particularly significant, I think, to know that in April, of the
4 million in excess of the normal estimated number in the labor force in
the United States, 1 million were 14 and under 18 years of age. In
other words, the proportional drain on boys and girls of this country has
been greater than on any other age group. I think it poses to us, as
labor administrators and as persons interested in the welfare not only
of the children but of the coming generation, some very serious
problems in relation to this unprecedented use of young people.
Just before I came to Chicago I picked up a clipping, quoting a
statement by Colonel Adamson of thb Army, in which he was deplor­
ing the great exodus of high-school boys and girls into industry. He
says: “ I can describe it only as a retreat as detrimental to our quest of
victory as any single collapse in any single combat theater.” He
warned that “ youth might be transformed into a mere mass quantity
of manpower minus the ‘ quality of brain power’ ; unless drastic steps
are taken to stop this retreat, an army of more than a million highschool boys and girls will call an abrupt halt to their education. This
loss would be equal to about 40 Army divisions.”
As we review this situation in relation to child labor and youth
employment in the war period, it seems to me that we have a responsi­
bility which carries far beyond the present year or even the coming
year. We have a responsibility to place even greater stress than we
have—and I know that you have all placed a great deal of stress on
it—in making certain that, insofar as possible, we do not withdraw
further from our schools these boys and girls to swell the labor market
and that we maintain the labor standards which have been built up to
protect these young people, In this, you and I, as persons interested
not only in labor-law administration and the maintenance of labor
standards but in the welfare of the youth of this country, can do a
great deal, in helping to serve as “ balance wheels” in our States and
in our communities, to make sure that schools are not being used as
recruiting ground (only because they are the easiest places in which
to do mass recruiting) and to make certain that every other available
source of labor has been used before these young people are called upon
to cut short their education or to assume the double burden of at­
tempting to keep up their education and at the same time carry on a
part-time or, unfortunately in many cases, a full-time job.



I am not sure whether such a suggestion is in order at this time or
not, but I am wondering whether this Association will not want to
set up a committee to give special consideration to planning for the
post-war period, particularly, it seems to me, to planning for the period
of adjustment, and reorganization and reorientation which will be
necessary for these boys and girls who are having their education
stopped, interrupted, or changed around.
When the war is over, and we face a period of lessening production
and a need for fewer workers than we have at the present time, that
problem of reorganization and reorientation is going to be particularly
serious for these young people, and I would like to see this organization
give particular attention to future planning.
Mr. W rabetz (Wisconsin). Miss McConnell, you mentioned in
your report a statement of policy formulated, I believe, in September.
Is that statement available to State labor departments?
Miss M cC onnell . Yes; it has been sent to all the State com­
missioners; if you have not received one, there should be, before the
conference closes, copies available to anyone who wishes to take
Mr. L tjbin (Washington, D. C.). Miss McConnell, have any of the
States actually, by legislative act, lowered any child-labor standards as
a result of the war?
Miss M cC onnell . Yes; there have been a considerable number of
legislative modifications of child-labor standards, some in the field of
maximum daily and weekly hours, some in night-work regulations,
and some in the lowering of minimum age for specific occupations.
There have also been many administrative modifications, and in
general, I think there has been, during this war period, a rather dis­
turbing tendency to lower standards for employment of young persons.
Mrs. B eyer (Washington D. C.) I would like to ask if the statement
Miss McConnell read from the Army representative was typical of the
attitude of the armed forces on the child-labor problem.
Miss M cC onnell . I don’t know. I think that sometimes what
the leaders of the Army and the Navy say is somewhat different
from the practice actually carried out in some of their establishments
in the States; but in general, I think the Army does stand back of the
spirit of what Colonel Adamson said, which is that the Army and
Navy do need trained and educated youth for military service—that
is really the content, or the intent, of the quotation that I read.
Mr. W rabetz . I suppose we have all had the experience (in not too
critical a sense) with some Army— or Navy—lieutenants who have
urged modification of standards to meet particular situations, much
below the standards that are recommended by the Army itself. I
think that was largely the result of the enthusiastic or too enthusiastic
support of a particular local situation.
Miss P apert (New York). I think that the employment of children
is greatest in the nonwar industries. We found some resort hotels
that were manned practically entirely by youngsters of 14, 15, and 16
years of age, and that is also true of retail stores. It has been our
experience that it is the nonwar industries that have been drawing
on the children even more heavily than the war industries, and I



think that becomes particularly significant in view of the limited scope
of our present labor legislation.
Mr. W rabetz . Have any of those legislative changes that you refer
to been for beyond the duration or have they all been limited to the
emergency, Miss McConnell?
Miss M cC onnell . In a few cases they have not been limited to the
duration; in some cases they have. It is interesting to note, I think,
the fact that one of the greatest and heaviest pressures for modifica­
tions of standards for children in nonessential fields has been in the
field of amusements— of bowling alleys, for example. There has
been a demand for the lowering of standards for night-work control,
lowering of ages from 16 to 14, for example, and at the same time
often extending the hours of work for the younger children, which is
a good illustration that the pressure which develops first with respect
to necessary war production is often quickly picked up and carried
on into the nonessential fields.
Mrs. C oleman (Illinois). M ay I ask Miss McConnell if there has
been any legislation passed which would reduce the age of 16 to 14
for the bowling alleys in any of the States?
Miss M cC onnell . There have been one or two States where that
has been done. In some cases an administrative regulation was
changed, and in some places the age was lowered from 16 to 14 in the
law itself.
Mrs. C oleman . The reason for my question is the bill, which passed
our senate but was killed in the house, for the ages to be reduced from
16 to 14 in the bowling alleys.
Mr. W rabetz . That problem, I think, has been met in some
States by administrative order. In Wisconsin we permitted shorttime employment for 15-year-old boys in bowling alleys on alternating
nights and not beyond 10 o'clock or 10:30—whatever it was. Then
if the work of the boy drops below normal, upon recommendation of
the school principal, the permit is vacated. Of course some of these
industries, while they are not absolutely essential, they really are
necessary for the maintenance of civilian morale. I suppose that a
certain amount of recreation is absolutely necessary to war workers.
“ All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" applies to a worker in
a factory as it does to a boy in school; therefore some of these facilities
for recreation should be made available, but not, of course, at the
expense of jeopardizing the health of young people. I think that is

Minimum Wage
Minimum-Wage Legislation in the United States,
September 1941 to September 1943
By L ouise Stitt , United States Women's Bureau

Three months after this Association held its meeting in September
1941 the country was at war. During the past 2 years our entire econ­
omy has been dominated by our war program. To consider the course
of labor legislation during this period without relation to the war is as
impossible as to discuss the food supply, gasoline, or manpower prob­
lem separately from the war demand. The substance, administration,
or practical application of most of our labor laws has been affected in
some way by the war. Changes in policy or administration that are
taking place today are not only of present significance, but may indi­
cate future trends that will project into the post-war period.
Minimum-wage legislation is a field in which the effects of the war
have been both positive and negative. Negative, inasmuch as during
1942 and 1943 no new legislation was adopted. At the 1941 meeting
of this Association, State minimum-wage administrators expressed the
fear that the Nation-wide publicity then being given to the high wages
paid to defense workers would blind the public to the fact that thou­
sands of workers in other industries were being paid appallingly low
wages. Low wages are still common in spite of the public’s growing
conviction that all workers are earning fabulously high amounts. The
Women’s Bureau and State labor departments continue to receive
letters, usually from women, complaining that the writers cannot
possibly live on the wages they make in laundries, stores, and other
service industries. As would be expected, the majority of these letters
come from States that do not have minimum-wage laws. State legis­
lators apparently shared the general impression that low wages are not
an immediate problem and concluded that legislative action is not
required at this time. Fewer minimum-wage bills were introduced
in the legislatures this past year than usual, and none became law.
Any impression that low wages are strictly a depression phenomenon
and that minimum-wage legislation benefits workers only when “ times
are bad” is certainly not borne out by the facts, as can be shown by the
enforcement experience of any State minimum-wage agency. The
experience of New York and California will suffice to illustrate that
even in times as prosperous as the present, women are paid substand­
ard wages and doubtessly would continue to be so paid if it were not
for minimum-wage laws. During 1942 and the first 6 months of 1943
the Division of Women in Industry and Minimum Wage of the New
York State Department of Labor collected $224,477 from 7,464 estab­
lishments which had paid 21,000 women less than the legal minimum
wage. These figures are especially shocking when one realizes that
none of the six orders under which this underpayment was collected
provides for a minimum wage of more than 36.7 cents an hour. For




the same 18-month period the Division of Industrial Welfare of Califor­
nia collected unpaid wages amounting to $419,455.
We all know that enormous sums have been collected for the workers
under the Fair Labor Standards and Public Contracts Acts during this
war period. Under these two laws, during the fiscal year 1943 em­
ployers paid or agreed to pay to underpaid employees almost $17,000,000 while in 1942 the amount of restored wages was more than $21,000,000. Wage restitutions effected under the Federal laws furnish less
significant evidence of low wage rates, however, than do the State
minimum-wage collections, inasmuch as a large proportion of the
underpayments under the Fair Labor Standards and Public Contracts
Acts are due to failure to pay overtime rates at time and one-half the
employees’ regular rates of pay rather than failure to pay the basic
minimum hourly rates.
The war has had one positive effect on minimum-wage adminis­
tration which one might wish were more general among the States.
Most State minimum-wage laws provide that minimum wages shall
be sufficient to meet the necessary cost of living of women workers.
In spite of the Government’s efforts to control the cost of living dur­
ing the war period, average prices in the United States have increased
by 25 percent since war broke out in Europe in the summer of 1939.
Minimum-wage rates established before the outbreak of the war
may have been adequate to meet living costs at the time the orders
were issued, though all minimum-wage administrators know that
seldom does a wage board recommend a wage equal to the budget
prepared by the State labor department as representative of what it
costs a woman worker to live. Whether wage rates set several years
ago were or were not adequate when adopted, certainly they are
inadequate today to meet living costs, which have risen by 25 percent.
Some States have taken steps to correct the discrepancy between
living costs and legal minimum wages. California has done the most
complete job in this respect of any of the States. In the past year
and a half, the Industrial Welfare Commission of California has revised
all previously adopted orders and issued new orders for three indus­
tries not formerly covered. All the revised orders provide for a
minimum wage of $18 for a 40-hour week. The three new orders
for transportation, amusement and recreation, and industries han­
dling farm products after harvest— the last three to be adopted—
provide for a $20 wage for a 40-hour week. Twenty dollars repre­
sents an increase of exactly 25 percent over the earlier California
minimum wage of $16.
Seven States, since September 1941, have raised the minimum
wages for thousands of women workers by revising upward the rates
established by 22 wage orders. South Dakota, by legislative action,
increased the statutory minimum for cities of 2,500 or more in that
State from $12 a week to $15. In addition, 6 States issued 9 wage
orders for occupations not previously covered by such orders. Al­
together, in 11 States, at least part of the employed women have had
their minimum-wage standards raised since the United States entered
the war. However, more than half the States have neither issued
new orders nor revised old ones during this period of drastically
rising prices. Few wage orders issued before 1939 provide for basic
minimum hourly rates of more than 35 cents. Today, ‘because of
the rise in living costs, 44 cents would be required to buy what could



have been bought with 35 cents before the war. Moreover, workers
even at the minimum-wage level must now pay income taxes. Unless
some adjustment is'made in the legal wage, the purchasing power of
many is reduced far below that which is necessary to maintain any­
thing approaching an adequate standard of living.
The National War Labor Board, which is charged with the obliga­
tion of stabilizing wages in order to prevent inflation, has declared
any wage below 50 cents an hour substandard in certain areas of the
country. Moreover, the Board has given blanket approval of all
wage increases made in compliance with State minimum-wage orders
that do not bring wage rates above 50 cents an hour. The establish­
ment of minimum-wage rates as high as 50 cents an hour therefore
would not be out of harmony with the anti-inflation program.
In 1941 we reported that Puerto Rico had passed a new minimumwage law covering both men and women. On the recommendation
of minimum-wage committees, composed of representatives of
employers, employees, and the public, the administrative agency
may establish minimum-wage rates, maximum working hours, and
standard labor conditions. During 1943 wage orders were issued for
three industries—leaf tobacco, sugar, and hospitals, clinics, and
sanatoriums. The provisions of these orders are extremely interest­
ing. Two orders provide that double time shall be paid for hours in
excess of 8 a day. Employers in the leaf-tobacco industry are
required to provide suitable rooms in which workers may eat; cold,
filtered water must be furnished; and rooms with mild temperature
must be provided, where workers may change their clothes before
going outside. Ditch diggers working in water in the sugar fields
must be provided with boots, and gloves must be furnished portabletrack handlers. The weight of bags of sugar that may be lifted by
workers is limited. Deductions may not be made for meals; and
rents charged for company houses are regulated in the order for the
sugar industry. A unique provision of the order for this industry is
coverage of workers in the agricultural branch as well as in the indus­
trial branch of the industry. These orders represent remarkable prog­
ress, and Puerto Rico is to be congratulated on the standards that
have been established.
The Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of
Labor has made rapid progress since this Association last met in
September 1941, in establishing the 40-cent minimum wage permitted
under the Fair Labor Standards Act for workers covered by that law.
Since our 1941 meeting, 16 orders have become effective for industries
not before covered by such orders, while 14 orders have revised pre­
viously established minima to 40 cents. All wage orders now in
effect provide for a 40-cent minimum except for two industries (lumber
and clay products) and parts of two other industries (straw hats and
cigar types of leaf tobacco). For all of these, recent industry com­
mittees have recommended a 40-cent minimum.
B y August 31, 1943, a total of 66 industry committees had met
after the Fair Labor Standards Act became effective in October 1938,
and had recommended minimum wages for industries with almost
18 million employees. With one exception, each of the 33 industry
committees which have convened after our last meeting has recommend­
ed a 40-cent minimum for the entire industry under consideration.



The present program of the Wage and Hour Division indicates that,
far in advance of October 1943 when a 40-cent minimum would be
required under any circumstances, the Division will have established
a 40-cent minimum for all employees in continental United States
who are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. In September
1943, four additional orders, all providing for 40-cent minimum wages,
will become effective. For eight additional industries, committees
have recommended a 40-cent minimum, on which administrative de­
cision is pending. Five additional industry committees will meet in
September and October to recommend minimum wages for all remain­
ing employees in continental United States who are subject to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Minimum-wage standards for workers covered by the Public Con­
tracts Act also have been raised during the war period. Wage orders
for 24 industries either have been issued for the first time since Sep­
tember 1, 1941, or have been revised to provide higher wage rates or
more extensive coverage. The rates established by these orders range
from 32% cents for processors of evaporated milk in certain States to
67K cents for manufacturers of men’s hats and caps.
The policy of the National War Labor Board in respect to wage
increases made in compliance with State minimum-wage laws and
orders has gone through several stages. The negotiations which have
continued for almost a year between the Women’s Bureau of the
United States Department of Labor and the War Labor Board to
secure a policy satisfactory to the States would have been unnecessary
if title VI of Executive Order No. 9250, the President’s order to stabi­
lize the cost of living, had been more inclusive. Order No. 9250 pro­
vides that no wage increases or decreases shall be made without War
Labor Board approval. The first paragraph of title VI stipulates,
however, that “ Nothing in this order shall be construed as affecting
the present operation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the National
Labor Relations Act, the Walsh-Healey Act, the Davis-Bacon Act,
or the adjustment procedure of the Railway Labor Act.” Unfortu­
nately, no reference was* made in this section to State minimum-wage
After the Women’s Bureau called the War Labor Board’s attention
to this omission and to the fact that the purpose of State minimumwage laws is the same as that of the Fair Labor Standards Act, namely,
to eliminate substandards of living, the Board on October 31, 1942,
issued General Order No. 7 giving blanket approval to all wage
increases made in compliance with State minimum-wage laws and
orders. This seemed a happy solution to the problem, and State labor
departments continued as usual to issue wage orders without reference
to the National Board. On April 19, 1943, the Board announced that
General Order No. 7 had been amended, and that henceforth no wage
increases made in compliance with State wage orders issued after
April 8, 1943, could be made without Board approval. This sudden
change in policy was difficult to understand until it was discovered
that a State in which a serious manpower shortage existed contem­
plated issuing an order establishing a minimum wage of 70 cents an
hour for women in the canning industry. The War Labor Board
feared the inflationary effects of minimum wages as high as 70 cents.
T o prevent similar rates being established by other States, Order No. 7
was amended. Considerable anxiety was felt lest the requirement that
all wage increases made by order of State minimum-wage authorities




must be approved by the War Labor Board discourage the issuing of
new State orders or the upward revision of outmoded rates. The
Women's Bureau therefore requested the Board to rescind the amend­
ment of April 19 or, if that procedure was unacceptable, to substitute
for the amendment one of several proposals made by the Bureau.
The result was Amended General Order No. 7 as adopted by the
Board August 2, 1943. The order as revised gives blanket approval
to all wage increases made in compliance with State minimum-wage
laws and orders when such increases do not result in rates abo^e
50 cents an hour. Part-time and overtime rates higher than 50 cents
also are approved. This policy leaves State minimum-wage admin­
istrators free to establish such minimum-wage rates as conditions in
their respective States demand, without referral to the Board except
in those cases where the basic minimum rate would be in excess of
50 cents an hour. The Board probably would approve even the higher
rates if the evidence supported the need for the establishment of such
minimum wages.
Other Federal legislation has created administrative problems for
State minimum-wage authorities. The Revenue Act of 1942 provided
that a 5-percent victory tax be withheld from the wages of workers,
and the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 requires that 20 percent
be deducted from wages for income-tax payments. The current law
applies, as did the 1942 act, even to workers paid at the minimumwage level, providing wages are in excess of $12 a week. The term
“ wages” means all remuneration, whether in cash or goods, for services
performed by an employee for his employer. It can readily be seen
that deductions such as these greatly complicate the task of inspecting
for compliance with minimum-wage orders. If meals are wages, who
is to determine the value of meals as a basis for computing and deduct­
ing the tax? Must the tax be deducted from wages earned j^efore the
revenue acts were passed but paid to the workers after the laws became
effective, because violations of the minimum-wage law were dis­
covered and restitution of wages ordered? These and similar ques­
tions have arisen and been referred by the Women's Bureau to the
Bureau of Internal Revenue for reply. On these specific questions the
Bureau has ruled that the value established for meals by State minimum-wage orders is acceptable as a basis for computing income taxes,
and that wages earned before the tax laws became effective, but paid
afterwards, are not subject to tax deductions. The requirements of
the Federal Revenue Acts certainly have slowed up inspection and
increased the work of State minimum-wage investigators.
State courts in two recent decisions have shown gratifying under­
standing of the purpose of State minimum-wage legislation and the
importance of administrative regulations to safeguard wages and to
assure the welfare of workers. The first of these decisions was
rendered on December 3, 1942, by the highest court of the State
of New York. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the principle
of the guaranteed weekly wage, which has been incorporated in
many wage orders in recent years and has benefited thousands of
women. The New York wage order for the confectionery industry
requires employers to pay $10 to employees working 3 days or less
in any week during the busy season and $7 to employees working
2 days or less in any week during the slack season. The order provides,

----- 6

011560°— 45



in other words, for a guaranteed weekly wage for part-time workers.
The court recognized that the State labor department in adopting
this order was attempting to cope with the problem of low wages
that result from underemployment. In its decision the court said:
The very concept of minimum-wage legislation necessarily involves the
determination of the cost of living and the fixing of a wage that will reasonably
cover, or approach, that cost: The idea of a “ living wage” is the heart and core
of all such legislation. * * *
* * * It is fairly to be assumed that the legislature, bent on seeing to it that
women and minors should, so far as possible, receive subsistence wages for their
Work, appreciated that no hourly rate of wages could achieve that result unless
it were multiplied by some appropriate number of hours.
* * * The legislature, driving toward its plainly marked goal, would have
stopped far short of that goal if it had provided for minimum hourly wages only.
The accomplishment of its high social purpose required a grant of authority to
the labor department to make such orders as would in fact be directed toward
providing a living wage, not merely an hourly rate which, in most industries,
would not produce a living income, unless ordered paid for a sufficient minimum
number of hours.

This is one of the most liberal decisions relating to minimum-wage
legislation that has been rendered by any court. The constitution­
ality of minimum-wage legislation per se has been established by
the United States Supreme Court. State courts gradually are coming
to recognize the necessity and importance of administrative regulations
in carrying out the true purpose of basic wage laws.
The other important minimum-wage decision to which we have
referred was handed down June 16, 1943, by the Supreme Court of
California. It relates to a problem which has troubled minimum-wage
administrators for years, that is, the relation between tips and wages.
When this Association last met, the United States Supreme Court
had not yet ruled on the status of tips under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. On March 2, 1942, however, in the case of W illia m s v.
Jacksonville Term inal C o ., the Supreme Court held that, under the
“ accounting and guarantee” plan present in that case, tips paid to
redcaps at railroad terminals may be treated as wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. State administrators were greatly con­
cerned about the possible effect of this decision on the administration
of State minimum-wage orders that contain a provision that “ in no
event shall gratuities from patrons or others be counted as part of
the minimum wage.” The Solicitor of Labor, when consulted about
this matter, stated that the Supreme Court in the redcap case had
dealt with a specific situation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and had not passed on the legality of State regulations holding that
tips are not wages.
It remained, therefore, for the Supreme Court of California to
render the first decisive opinion concerning the validity of State
regulations prohibiting the inclusion of tips in minimum wages.
Section 3 of the California Industrial Welfare Order No. 12A for
hotels and restaurants provided that—
No employer may include tips or gratuities received by employees designated
in section 1 hereof as part of the legal minimum wage fixed by said section of
this order.

The California Supreme Court declared that the restriction placed
by section 3 on employers’ and employees’ freedom to contract in
relation to the disposition of tips is a legitimate exercise of the police
power of the State. If employers were permitted to include tips in



the minimum wage, employees might report tips in greater amounts
than actually were received for fear of being dismissed. “ The effec­
tiveness of the minimum-wage law thus would be impaired.”
To insure receipt of the minimum wage and to prevent evasion and
subterfuge, the power to provide safeguards is necessarily implied in
the power to fix a minimum wage, the court declared.
This decision is binding, of course, only in the State of California.
As this is the first decision rendered by any State supreme court
concerning the relation of tips to wages under State minimum-wage
laws, it is indeed encouraging that it should have been in favor of
accepted social practice in such situations. A constructive precedent
has been established which will, without doubt, influence decisions
in other States.
Your committee believes that the most urgent need at the present
time in the field of State minimum-wage legislation is extension of
coverage. Every effort in States without minimum-wage laws should
be exerted to secure the passage of such legislation before this war is
over. State laws with limited coverage should be amended to provide
protection for all workers. The benefits of existing laws in many
States could be greatly extended without legislative action if wage
orders were issued for all occupations now covered by the laws. The
committee urges the adoption of new orders and the revision of un­
reasonably low rates at this time, first, because of the immediate pro­
tection such orders would give thousands of women workers, and
second, because of the stabilizing effect that wage orders, if widely
adopted, would have on our post-war economy. If States wait until
wages begin to fall to establish minimum-wage rates, employers’
resistance to the setting of minimum wages will be very much stiffened.
The experience of the Wage and Hour Division is striking. Every
industry committee convening in 1942 and 1943 has recommended a
40-cent minimum.
Moreover, the security that a legal minimum wage would afford
might be of real assistance in the present drive to recruit women for
employment in the service industries. The traditionally low wages
that still prevail in these industries is one of the important reasons
why women are deserting them for other employment and are not
responding to the many urgent appeals to take jobs in laundries,
restaurants, stores, and cleaning establishments. The National War
Labor Board has given its sanction to minimum wages up to 50 cents.
If States could immediately set rates for those service industries not
yet covered, a real contribution to the war effort would be made.
It would also appear that this is a proper time for States that have
minimum-wage laws covering domestic service and labor on the farm
to pioneer in the field of setting rates for these occupations. Eight
State laws do not exclude domestic service; the same number cover
agricultural labor.1 Domestic labor is at present so scarce that it is
conceivable that housewives might be glad to cooperate with the
State in establishing wage and working standards that would attract
more women to this employment. Legal minimum wages for the
women who now work in considerable numbers on farms would be
an important first step in establishing standards for this occupation,i
i The laws of California, Colorado, Kansas, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin do not exclude
domestic service in the home or agricultural labor. In addition to these, Oklahoma does not exclude domes­
tic service in the home and Nevada does not exclude agricultural labor.




which hitherto has been entirely unregulated. States that have
had the longest and most successful experience with the administra­
tion of minimum-wage laws are among those whose laws cover domes­
tic and farm workers. They would be in an exceptionally good posi­
tion to experiment in this new field. So far only Wisconsin has issued
a wage order for domestic workers in the home. No State orders
covering agricultural workers have been adopted.2
Those States that have postponed issuing wage orders, because of
lack of staff or funds necessary to assemble the wage data required
for a wage board’s consideration, may find of assistance the wage
data currently collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S.
Department of Labor. For the use of the National War Labor
Board, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is making surveys of wages in
both service and manufacturing industries in all communities of 25,000
or more population in the United States. Ultimately every State in
the Union will be included in this survey, and in certain special cases
towns of less than 25,000 will be covered. Average hourly rates
are reported by occupation, sex, and community. These studies do
not include all the wage data usually furnished wage boards nor all
that usually are required. They are sufficient, however, to indicate
whether women are being paid substandard wages and the need for
wage-board action.
It is suggested, therefore, that minimum-wage administrators con­
templating the appointment of minimum-wage boards consult the
wage analysts of the appropriate regional offices of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics to discover what data can be secured from this source
that would be helpful in establishing minimum wages. Though the
Federal Bureau may be unable to collect additional material to assist
the State authorities, it is possible that special tabulations of existing
data might be prepared to meet the needs of the State.
All evidence indicates that now is the time for States to increase
minimum-wage activities. It is easier now than it will be later to
establish desirable wage standards. The establishment of a bottom
to wages at this time is a sound contribution to the efforts which
must be made now to avoid economic disaster in the post-war period.
Miss S titt (Washington, D. C.). In view of the fact that many
members of the original Committee on Minimum Wage are no longer
affiliated with their respective State departments of labor, this report
has been submitted for discussion and not as the official report of the
Committee on Minimum Wage.
Miss McConnell suggested that this Association appoint a committee
to discuss and make special recommendations concerning post-war
child-labor problems. I would like to suggest that the minimum-wage
committee which now exists discuss and make recommendations not
only about the post-war period, but also about the minimum-wage
problems that exist in the present war period.
Miss S w Istt (Wisconsin). I want to make one correction to Miss
Stitt’s report. We have not had a separate order in Wisconsin for

2Maud Swett, field director, Woman and Child Labor Department, Wisconsin, corrected this statement.
She explained that the Wisconsin general minimum-wage order covering all occupations, except canning,
applies to women and minors employed on farms.




agriculture. We do, however, have separate provisions for domestic
service. Because it was so difficult to determine the hours worked by
household employees, we established a regular weekly rate for full-time
employment and applied the hourly minimum wage if the hours worked
were less than a certain number. In agriculture we enforce the mini­
mum that comes within our general order.
I want to call attention to one point, which I think anyone might
easily miss, because we have special provisions for domestic service.
It is natural to assume that the general order does not cover agricul­
ture, because in almost every labor law that you know about, agricul­
ture and domestic service are excluded. Our minimum-wage law pro­
vides that no employer shall pay less than a living wage. We inter­
preted that to mean that domestic service and agriculture are covered
the same as any other kind of employment. In agriculture we tested
the rates in the cherry orchards to see that they paid the minimum to
the youngsters and women employed there. In other employment,
of course, the work is usually on an hourly basis, and it is easy to apply
the minimum. Now that women are going into different types of
agricultural work, we may find the matter somewhat more puzzling;
we may find the same difficulty as we did in domestic service, and we
might have to set a weekly or a monthly rate. But, agriculture is
Miss S titt . I am glad to be corrected on that point, because I did
not know about it. Onoe more Wisconsin is the pioneer.
Mr. L u b in . What is the lowest minimum wage now in existence in
those States that have issued orders?
Miss Stitt . In some States the rate is as low as 20 cents plus meals,
and other States have orders as low as 22 cents without meals.
Miss P apert (New York). $6.
Mr. L u b in . Does anybody work for those wages?
Miss P apert . The answer is Yes. In New York we find a lot of
workers that do. I can speak only for New York on workers who get
the minimum wage and those who receive above and below the mini­
mum. We find from the data that we collect from employers, and
from our inspection reports, that there are plenty of workers who
receive only the minimum rates. Of course there are more workers
today than there were in 1939 and 1940 and 1941 who are getting
above the minimum rates; but, the thing that amazes us is that there
are workers who are willing to work for even less than the minimum
rates established under our State laws. Even in war areas, we find
that there are workers who, because they are used to the place or are
afraid to take another job in a war industry for a variety of reasons,
are still willing to work for less than the minimum wage. The anomaly
of low wages in a high-wage area (of subminimum wages in a high-wage
area) is found in boom areas—war critical shortage areas—in our
State as well as in areas that have not had their employment slacken
through war production.
Miss Stitt spoke of wage collections in connection with the State and
Federal minimum-wage laws. I should add that under our State laws,
four of our six orders are directory, and the only penalty on the em­
ployer is publication; so our wage collection is representative of only
part of the underpayments that we find on enforcement.



Mr. O lander (Illinois). A question that puzzles me very greatly
has to do with certain problems that confront me in my capacity as a
representative of labor. In order to ask the question I must describe
the situation in a particular case. A waitress who had worked in a
restaurant on Wells Street, became dissatisfied and quit, then went to
work in another restaurant about two blocks away. Her second
employer received a notice from the War Manpower Commission to
the effect that because of her lack of a “ certificate of availability” her
employment was contrary to law and he was subject to heavy penalties
if it continued. The girl had heard nothing about this until her em­
ployer discharged her, showing her the letter from the War Manpower
The case was brought to my attention. I called up the Commission
and told them the story of the waitress. The W M C official said,
“ Of course we’ll investigate.”
The following day I received from another W M C official a copy of a
very long letter that had been written to the girl after my telephone
call, telling her what the law was and pointing out that she could ap­
peal— that she had several appeals as a matter of fact; a rather ap­
palling arrangement to present to a waitress out of a job. I immedi­
ately wrote back and asked certain questions that must be answered
in the case of even the meanest criminal, namely: Who made the com­
plaint? What are the facts alleged? And why was not the girl told
about it? I have never received a reply to that.
However, I told the young lady to go to the State unemployment
compensation division of the State department of labor and make
a claim for compensation. She went and, of course, was denied com­
pensation. The official there drew from her the statement that there
was a bar in each of the places, whereupon he told her that the rule
did not cover such places of employment, and she could work where
she pleased. The union telephoned me, and I called up the War Man­
power Commission again and said, “ I understand that bartenders are
nonessential from the viewpoint of the war effort.” The reply was
“ Yes, that’s true.” “ Well,” I said, “ I need an interpretation. Will
you tell me the difference between serving drinks from behind the bar
and serving drinks in front of the bar?” They could not answer that,
and again agreed to investigate.
For a girl— a low-paid waitress— out of a job, this is a tragic sort of
matter. I said, “ Well, while you’re investigating, why not allow her
to have bail?” “ Bail?” “ Yes,” I said. “ You know when a criminal
is arrested, the court, the laws— the Constitution— all provide that he
must be accorded bail to permit him to go free while the investigation
is pending; that is to say, until the trial is over. Why not give this girl
that privilege?” The Commissioner seemed stumped at my question,
and asked, “ What can I do?” “ Oh,” I replied, “ tell her to go to
work any place she pleases while you’re making the investigation.
That’s what I mean by bail.” He agreed.
The first restaurant might very well be described as a restaurant
having a bar connected with it, and the second as a bar having a lunch
counter connected with it. I never did get a ruling as to just what
the coverage is, but I waited to see what would happen. Nothing
happened. Then I had an interview with the official who had handled
the case.
He claimed she had accepted a higher wage. That amounted to
changing the charge in the midst of the trial! Now, all this brings



in the question of the wage, the general status of the woman in em­
ployment, the treatment accorded to her, the relation of the State
unemployment compensation division to cases of that kind, and the
general state of the Federal law as relating to the matter. Apparently
the only reason that she has not been bothered any more is because I
got in the way. And I am concerned about this: How many women
are there, how many girls are there, that do not know where to go for
help? What is happening to them? What can organizations such
as yours do for them? What can the State governments do? What
can anybody do? Not knowing the answers myself, I ask the questions
of you. Can you help me out?
Mr. W rabetz . One answer is that the woman should have gone
directly to the State labor department.
Mr. B ernstein (Illinois). I am commissioner of placement and
unemployment compensation for the State of Illinois. The question
proposed by Mr. Olander is one which is plaguing most State unem­
ployment-compensation administrators directly— especially at the
present time. All of you know how closely unemployment-compen­
sation administrators must work with the War Manpower Commission.
The problems of coordination of policy have been considered in Illinois
for the last several months and have led to almost daily meetings with
the Commission. We have had requests from the agencies in Wash­
ington to cooperate with the War Manpower Commission, wherever
possible, so that full and effective mobilization of labor toward a
successful prosecution of the war effort might result.
If we pay benefits when the War Manpower Commission refuses to
issue a person a statement of availability, we, in reality, vitiate the
effectiveness of the Commission’s directive. The refusal to issue a
certificate has, as its objective, the imposition of a penalty upon that
worker. State unemployment-compensation administrators feel that
since the War Manpower Commission has been directed by the
Federal Government to mobilize labor for an effective prosecution of
the war, they should cooperate with the Commission.
To what extent should State agencies, in the administration of all
State labor laws, change their interpretations and policies in order to
assist the National agencies in giving effect to the war program? In
examining our principles, we find that in many situations we would
allow benefits where the War Manpower Commission has felt that a
certificate of availability should be denied, as, for example, a person
who voluntarily leaves an establishment. Shall we say that those
principles should be changed so that they conform to the policies of
the War Manpower Commission? Those are the questions facing the
State agencies today. In Illinois, we have definitely come to the
conclusion that under many circumstances the State agencies cannot
follow the principles established by the War Manpower Commission.
This is especially true with respect to the question of wages. Under
Regulation 7 issued by the War Manpower Commission, and made
effective in Illinois on October 1, the attitude of the Commission on
the question of wages seems to be this: If the War Labor Board has
not acted to establish wage brackets for a particular job, the only
criteria which will govern the War Manpower Commission in the
determination of whether a certificate of availability shall be issued is



the question of whether the salary exceeds that prescribed by the
Fair Labor Standards Act— 40 cents an hour.
A worker may be entitled to 75 or 80 cents for a particular job, or
even 90 cents— that may be the prevailing rate of wage. If the War
Labor Board has not acted to establish the prevailing rate, W M C will
not grant a statement of availability to that worker merely because he
happens to be getting a great deal less than the prevailing rate for that
particular job.
In administering our program in Illinois, we refuse to deny unem­
ployment compensation to a worker who leaves a job because he is
being paid below the prevailing rate for that job; and we„ intend to
pay that worker benefits, regardless of the fact that he has no state­
ment of availability. This is an example of the problems all .of your
administrators are going to face in the administration of unemploy­
ment compensation.
I expect that there will be charges, in some cases, of noncooperation
in the war effort, because we are paying benefits in cases where state­
ments of availability have been denied. We are accepting that situa­
tion in Illinois; if the gauntlet is thrown down, we are willing to pick
it up. We feel that wherever we can, consistent with our principles,
we should cooperate with the War Manpower Commission; but where
any principle that we have established is definitely violated we do not
intend to follow the policies of the War Manpower Commission.
Mr. W rabetz . Does that answer your question fairly well, Mr.
Mr. O lander . That simply gives emphasis to a fact that I have
known right along— Illinois has a very fine administrator of unem­
ployment compensation.
Mr. W rabetz . And I might add that you will find them in most
Mr. L tjbin. I might suggest to Mr. Olander that a further way of
eliminating such difficulties as he mentioned is a closer relationship—
that is, making use of the State labor departments by the War Man­
power Commission. After all, the people who live in those areas
know their local problems. I refer, of course, to the State labor
department officials. I think some of the difficulties that have arisen
are the result of failure of the War Manpower Commission to make use
of existing State labor departments.
Mr. O lander . May I ask another question? The War Manpower
Commission is charged with the duty of allocating labor and meeting ~
all of these difficulties that we have just discussed. Is the Commis­
sion represented in this conference?
Mr. L tjbin. I don’t know that there is any one here in the room
from the Commission. Invitations were issued to various people on
the Commission to be present.
Mr. W rabetz . The invitation was definitely sent to the Employ­
ment Service which is a part of the Manpower Commission.
Mr. H all (Virginia). Do you think this conference should adopt a
resolution calling for that method of operation? I suggest that you
refer it to the resolutions committee.
Mr. W rabet 2. Y ou might prepare a resolution and submit it to
the resolutions committee.




Mr. D ean (Michigan). I would like to ask a question as to whether
or not there is a local War Manpower Committee on which manage­
ment and labor are represented?
Mr. O lander . Yes; there is such a committee, and that committee
has refused to agree to the methods being used here. Nevertheless,
the rules are in effect.
Miss M cC onnell . I would like to raise one question. In the
development of part-time programs for use of school children, I
would like to know if any situation has arisen in any State that has a
guaranteed wage under its minimum-wage law in which the hours for
children are less than the over-all provided under the guaranteed wage
rate and, if so, how you have met that situation. For example, it is
recommended that children be employed not more than 3 hours, or
at the most 4 hours, if they are to carry a part-time school program.
If the guaranteed minimum wage is on the basis of 4 hours a day,
and children are being employed only 2 or 3 hours a day, how do you
meet that situation?
Miss S titt . A memorandum on that question was sent to Miss
McConnell, by the Women’s Bureau, probably just before she left
Washington. There are not many wage orders that would really
interfere directly with the employment of children for less than 4
hours. The orders for the mercantile industry, where children prob­
ably would be employed in large numbers after school, usually provide
that the payment for 4 hours is not required if the worker is not willing
nor available for employment for 4 hours.
Some of the States have made adjustments of the 4-hour provision
for the war period. In Massachusetts, many of the orders have the
4-hour provision. For the duration they are issuing permits waiving
the 4-hour requirements, but ordering the payment of the higher parttime rate for each hour of employment under 4. However, the permits
being requested and issued in Massachusetts were not for children
but for women who are not available for a full 4-hour period. The
schools have made arrangements by which the children are available
for 4 hours of work.

Women in Industry
Report on Women in Industry— United States
and Canada
By M ary A nderson , United States Women's Bureau

With the rapid movement of recent events, it seems incredible that
at our last meeting, 2 years ago, we still spoke in terms of “ defense.”
One of the most striking occurrences during this time has been the
ready response of women to their country’s call to work—in factory,
mill, transportation system, restaurant, store, laundry, office, mine,
lumber camp, and on the farm.
Women's N ew Employment

Latest available labor force figures show ovef 17 million women
employed. This adds at least a third to the greatest number of women
ever before in the labor force in the history of this country. With
shortage of manpower becoming acute in an increasing number of areas,
the Chairman of the War Manpower Commission decreed a year ago
that “ every effort is to be made to recruit and refer women, including
older women, for employment or training on the basis of their qualifi­
cations.” Since the spring of 1942, women have constituted more than
four-fifths of the increase in factory workers. By June of 1943, in the
production of the basic war materials alone, nearly 2 million women
were at work.
The matter of informing employers as to the work women could do
and the conditions effective for their employment has become continu­
ally more pressing. In order to determine where and how women could
work best, the Women’s Bureau made intensive surveys of the jobs
suited for their performance in various war industries— in the making
of aircraft, guns, ammunition, instruments, ships, machine tools. The
need for such surveys and their value has been increasingly evident as
employers newly faced with the problem of adding more and more
women to their forces repeatedly have called for advice of all types.
In the spring of 1941, for example, scarcely 150 women factory
workers were employed in seven major aircraft assembly plants visited
by Women’s Bureau agents. Employers were not greatly interested.
Six months later, when it had become evident— even before Pearl
Harbor— that the male labor force would be depleted, and when plants
were being pressed to employ women, these same aircraft employers
were eager to seek the advice of Women’s Bureau agents, not only as
to the kinds of jobs women could do and the hazards on certain work,
but as to policies on a long series of knotty problems.
The solution
of these problems was well known to the Bureau but unfamiliar to
those who formerly had not supervised many women— for example,
as to pay rates on various jobs, effective training plans, provision
of dressing rooms, approved standards for protective work clothing,




night work and suitable arrangement of work shifts, policies regarding
employment of married women, personnel policies best suited to
adapting women to the factory routine, etc. In June 1943 more than
313.000 women helped to make airframes, gliders, engines, and
The commercial shipyards, which began later to take on women
and had only 2,400 women wage earners in June 1942, within a year
were employing more than 88,000.
Other industry groups employing women also have shifted in the
adjustment to war needs, showing enormous increases in the numbers
and proportions of women in machine industries, and in all types of
war manufacturing. For example, in the spring of 1941, iron and steel
industries employed 93,000 women; in June 1943, they employed over
317,000. In the same period of approximately 2 years, employment
of women had increased in electrical-machinery plants from 43,000 to
240,000; in chemicals, from 59,000 to 231,000; and in rubber, from
42.000 to 71,000.
Women advanced from 8.5 percent of the wage earners producing
durable goods in the spring of 1941 to 22 percent in June 1943, from
3 to 27 percent of those making firearms, from 1 to 13 percent of those
in machine-tool plants, from 47 to 57 percent of the wage earners
making boots and shoes, from 14 to 42 percent of those making
professional and scientific instruments.
In the Detroit area a large group of war plants employing 35,800
women a year ago [fall of 1942], had 120,000 women last spring [1943].
In Illinois, over the 3-year period since 1940, there was an increase
of 81 percent in numbers of women wage earners employed in all
manufacturing establishments reported— 170 percent in metals and
machinery; men’s employment also had increased considerably.
In California, during the past year’s time the proportion of women
rose from 6 to 23 percent of the wage earners in plants making durable
goods, from 4 to 18 percent in iron and steel plants, and from 27 to
45 percent in rubber plants.
In New York, women in machinery and electrical plants com­
prised 14 percent of the wage-earner force in 1942 and 28 percent in
Recruitment o f Women

Naturally with the addition of some 5 million women to the labor
force since 1940, their recruitment has engaged much of the attention
of the War Manpower Commission, where the duty to supply workers
centers. This agency created a Women’s Advisory Committee, which
recommended that employers analyze occupations and promote the
use of women, and that management and labor remove all barriers
to their employment.
The whole-hearted response of women to the demand for their
work, and the fact that already many have been laid off, both point
to tl^e wise decision that, at least up to the present, no compulsory
registration of women has been either necessary or desirable. In
taking this position, the War Manpower Commission has defined
the areas of acute labor shortage. In such areas, if efforts toward
individual recruitment of women have been tried and found insufficient
voluntary enrollments of women are. permitted, provided that em­
ployers have agreed that they can at once employ many women, it



is shown that workers are being effectively used and that the shortage
therefore is a real one, there is evidence of a local supply of woman
labor with control of outside migration, and the work standards
that are later referred to are observed.
A large number of communities with bona fide labor shortages
have taken advantage of these voluntary enrollments. Although
lay-offs in a number of communities were experienced in recent
months [late summer, 1943], the need for an enrollment of women on
a national scale is not evident at present. Nor will it be necessary,
so long as we still have some unemployed women, or until we have
the assurance—now often lacking— that women workers are being
effectively used on the job.
Keeping Up Work Standards

Many of the labor commissioners present recall only too vividly
that first sudden impact of the demand for a break-down of State
laws affecting women, and the beginnings of their own valiant labors
to uphold, so far as they were able, the work standards known as
best to assure human welfare and efficiency on the job. These
efforts of State commissioners were vigorously supported by Federal
agencies, sever! of which joined in recommendations restating the
outlines of such standards, which are so important that they again
should be summarized here for our record:
A maximum work period of not more than 8 hours a day and 48 hours a week
with 1 day’s rest in seven; adequate meal and rest periods; proper safeguards
for health and safety; and the same wage rates for women as for men.

Agencies recommending these principles were the War, Navy, and
Labor Departments, Maritime Commission, War Manpower Com­
mission, War Production Board, and Office of Defense Transpor­
tation; the Public Health Service and the Commerce Department
also concurred in the recommendations on hours of work.
In general terms it may be stated that in most of the States legis­
lation regulating hours and providing adequate conditions of work
for women enables exceptions to be made for emergency conditions;
in some other States, such exceptions have been allowed by respon­
sible authorities. Since the outbreak of war a considerable number
of States have passed emergency acts specifically authorizing the
Governor or director of labor to permit relaxation of labor laws.
In many of these cases, strong efforts have been made to assure
that the exceptions will be temporary, by providing rigid permit re­
quirements and prior investigations of each case, issuing permits for
limited periods, and applying the exemptions to bona fide war workers
only, or to extreme emergencies due to shortages of personnel, or to
special need for particular skills requiring considerable training
periods and the like. In many cases, too, discussions with employers
have convinced them that their demands were inconsistent with their
own longer-time requirements for efficient production, and their re­
quests were withdrawn. Nevertheless, a recent New York report
showed that such dispensations, over an 18- month period, applied to
over 229,000 women in nearly 2,200 war plants, usually permitting
night work or hours beyond 48 a week. Similarly, in California, laws
have been relaxed for 1,100 firms, roughly two-tnirds of them during




Even more serious are the relaxations effected during 1943 by
legislation setting aside or raising the maximum on hours of work in
some 16 States, most of them major industrial States, and practically
all having important war plants. In seven of these States the 1943
wartime acts (in one case a proclamation) provide no maximum limit
to daily or weekly hours.
Some of these legal changes nullify gains hard-won through long
years. In short, rigid adherence to the best work standards has been
relaxed in many instances, and there must be a speedy return to them
immediately after the war. The post-war economy will require a
rapid shortening of hours, which will restore the more normal leisure
time necessary for workers’ health and well-being. For many months
past, there has been considerable evidence that the burden of overlong hours is taking a heavy toll of the energy and health of women
workers. Frequent reports by agents of the Women’s Bureau from
various sections of the country indicate that in many war plants
women workers are becoming fatigued much beyond the efficiency
point; some are so exhausted they are quitting the job entirely.
Over-long hours also cause an increased absence rate. A recent
New York report showed the rate of absence definitely higher with a
6-day rather than a 5- or 5%-day week; the rate was also higher when
lunch and rest periods were inadequate. Similar situations are found
wherever absence causes are investigated.
It is especially important in wartime, when peak production is
required, that conditions of work forestall excessive fatigue, and that
the workers are given sufficient time for the necessary business con­
nected with living. Women workers particularly require this, because
they usually have very definite household responsibilities in addition to
those of their paid employment—responsibilities that wartime condi­
tions make unusually difficult and time-consuming.
Equal P a y

Maintenance of wage standards is a major problem in a labor force
that is being rapidly expanded with women workers. Important at
all times, equal pay on the job without regard to the worker’s sex
becomes all the more pressing in such a period as this. It little furthers
our cause if men return from the armed forces to find the standards
of their wage broken down, or if women find themselves unable to
obtain a living wage even though they are exerting their fullest effort
to serve their country on the production line.
This is no new problem. Unions have recognized the equal-pay
principle as a safeguard to wage standards, and many of their agree­
ments now include clauses providing for it. Government policy for
equal pay has been expressed repeatedly by various agencies over a
long period of years. The War Labor Board of World War I applied
this principle in more than 50 cases. The present War Labor Board
went much farther in the General Motors case, defining equal pay to
exclude the reduction of women’s pay standards by slight alterations
that make job organization more efficient.
The level of women’s wages this year is above that of last year,
but still less than 60 percent of that for men; women’s wages are not
as near to those for men as they were after the old N BA had raised
the wage levels of women.



Owing to many technicalities, aiid to peculiar circumstances in many
cases, the ideal thus is not yet attained, but real progress has been
made, both in definition o f the problem and in attitude toward it. The
War Labor Board’s directives seeking to hold wages against an infla­
tionary spiral, still make allowance for adjustments where women’s
wages are below the rate for the job.
The progress in public understanding of the importance of equal
pay is attested to by the fact that Illinois and Washington added their
names to that of Michigan as States with laws providing for equal pay.
A notable decision of the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the law in
that State, and afforded the required back pay to women.
[See Minimum-Wage Legislation in the United States, page 78, for
a more detailed discussion of pay questions.]
The Future

Our great primary purpose in America at the present time is to win
the war. Every bit as important as the flying of a Fortress, the taking
of an enemy entrenchment, or the sinking of a battleship is the work
of those women, as well as the men, who measure the accurate instru­
ments or carefully grind or inspect the small metal parts for that
Fortress, who heat-treat the metal or test the guns for our soldiers, or
who pack the cartridges for their belts. To win the objectives of this
war we must bring the Four Freedoms to these workers. We must
enable the needy woman worker as well as the man worker and the
soldier, first to tide over the period of transition, and second to obtain
work in the rebuilt peace economy.
As previously stated, 5 million women are now employed besides
those formerly in the labor market. Many of these will be glad to
return to their homes after the war. Others cannot do so, but must
remain permanently in the labor market. They have helped enor­
mously in the vast war production program, carrying along month
after month the tedious factory routine and essential civilian services.
Even before this time, large proportions of employed women supported
dependents. The war casualties already have increased these burdens
on women workers. Their needs, like those of other workers, must
be met in the post-war transition period.
Where cut-downs in force of workers become necessary, equitable
plans must be worked out so that the effects do not fall more heavily
on women than on other workers.
Technicalities in unemployment compensation, in no way related
to the performance or needs of the worker, must not be permitted to
cut women off from just benefits.
Seniority provisions must not be allowed to militate unduly against
These are but a few of the policies that must be prepared for by
present action. Workers— women as well as men— must be tided over
the transition period and helped to find future jobs. Thus only can
we establish the victory within our own economic system.
Women in Canadian Industries

The Wartime Information Board in Ottawa reports that women
have played an important part in making Canada the fourth largest




producer of war supplies among the United Nations. Women con­
stitute more than 80 percent of the workers in Canadian instrument
factories, more than 60 percent of those in 8 major small-arms plants,
more than 27 percent of those in aircraft plants. Women are budd­
ing ships on both the East and West Coasts, and a number of steel
mills have employed them for the first time.
The Women’s Bureau in the United States Department of Labor
visited Canadian gun plants and found that in January 1942 women
constituted 65 percent of all factory employees in rifle manufacture,
over 40 percent of those on machine guns, and 25 percent of those on
anti-aircraft guns.
Permits for the employment of women in and about a mine have
been granted in special cases by the Governments of Ontario and
The National War Labor Board, which administers the wartime
wage policy has in effect recognized the principle of equal pay, since
it has required payment of the established rates for the job to employ­
ees hired after November 1941. Nevertheless, many women who
have not yet acquired certain skills are affected by the various grades
established for the payment of inexperienced employees. Under the
fair wage policy of the Dominion Government, minimum rates to be
paid employees of contractors or subcontractors furnishing Govern­
ment supplies or equipment are set for persons 18 and over at 35
cents for men and at 25 cents for women.
Provincial requirements may be higher, and the report of the
Ontario Department of Labor shows three-fourths of the women
workers in three major war industries receiving weekly earnings of
$16 or more and 14 percent of $25 or more. Hourly earnings of 42
cents or over were received by 26 percent of the women clothing
workers in Ontario and by 13 percent of those in food plants. In
1942, the department had collected back wages due for 345 employees.
In British Columbia, more than two-thirds of the women 18 years
old and over reported in manufacturing industries and laundries had
received $16 or more a week, nearly a fifth of them $25 or more. In
this Province, women’s average weekly wages in 1942 had increased
more than 11 percent from 1938, though hours showed a slight
The report of the British Columbia Labor Department shows a
situation typical as to women’s work in war-industry centers. It
Practically every line of industrial work sees women and girls engaged in
occupations that a few years ago were considered to be men's work. Machines
of all sizes turning out minute or large parts, assembling intricate equipment,
and mechanical operations of all kinds will no longer hold mysteries for these
nimble-fingered workers.
They drive taxis and delivery trucks, and as the gasoline and rubber shortage
becomes more apparent, horses are coming back to draw vehicles of various
types, girls are handling reins as well as steering wheels.

The report indicates the particular war needs for women’s work in
laundries and dry-cleaning establishments, especially where His
Majesty’s forces are located in large numbers; in hotels and restaurants
the mercantile industry, and as office help in His Majesty’s services,
and in vital war industries. The report also notes the attention being
paid by the Board of Industrial Relations to the needs of married



women workers who are entering industry in increased numbers.
further states:


Each year the benefits of the labor laws administered by the Board come to be
regarded in a more beneficial light by those who are directly affected by the orders
and regulations made under the acts. The inspection staff have acted as inter­
mediaries between employers and employees, educating both groups to the ad­
vantages of voluntary compliance with the regulations, upon which much time
and careful planning have been spent by the Board in adapting them to rapidly
changing conditions.

The factory inspector in British Columbia stresses the need for
women to wear safe clothing, comfortable low-heeled shoes, and pro­
tective head covering. Investigation of a firm, starting to give out
clothing to be made in homes, revealed that insufficient wages were
received, and that there was danger from communicable disease.
The company was instructed to discontinue this practice, and ma­
chinery was installed for factory performance of the work.
Orders and regulations issued in this Province during the year, or
reported to be in effect in 1943, fix minimum rates for women on the
same scale as for men in the shingle industry, in specified occupations
in the preparation of fish, and as bus drivers and janitresses. Other
regulations applying to women are as follows:
F ru it and vegetable canning .— Overtime fixed at one and one-half
times the regular rate, instead of a fixed sum as formerly.
M a n u fa ctu rin g.— Period for paying learners’ rates shortened.
M ercantile establishm ents.— Rates fixed for temporary employees at
H otels and catering.— Work permitted for 9 to 54 hours, but timeand-a-half pay required for work over 48 hours a week.
Mr. L u b in (Washington, D. C.). I would like to ask Miss Anderson
whether she thinks we are going to get enough women to meet our
labor requirements.
Miss A nderson (Washington, D. C.). I think we can get them, if
we really put our mind to it. I feel that there are plenty of women
that the labor force has not even tapped. I will say— and I am saying
this advisedly, and in criticism also— that the War Manpower Com­
mission in calling for women, always “ plays down” the women; then,
when they go and look for the job, they are told, “ We haven’t any­
thing for you.” Until that stops we are not going to get as many
women as possible out to work.
Mr. O lander (Illinois). It has just been brought to my attention
within the last 24 hours that a very important industry here, engaged
in vital war production, employing from 60 to 70 percent of women, is
finding itself unable to hire women fast enough to fill the places of those
who leave. Whatever the cause may be, in specific terms this is
true in general: something *
'* “ 1
1 the women. We
because we are
should trouble ourselves
going to need more women and we cannot afford to have them going
out faster than they come in.
Mr. D e a n (Michigan). I was interested in what Miss Anderson had
to say about the War Manpower Commission. You know Michigan
is quite a tight State respecting labor supply, and the department of




labor, in the employment of women, has utilized to the full the serv­
ices of the War Manpower Commission. Miss Anderson seemed to
imply that employers were not using War Manpower Commission
services for the employment of women as much as they could be used.
I want to say again that Michigan has a rather tight labor situation, and
women are being inducted into industry in large numbers. The co­
operation mentioned supplements our limited staff; we recognize that
we have poor labor laws with respect to the controlling of the condi­
tions under which women may work, particularly as to hours. Wom­
en, in Michigan, may be worked 54 hours per week and not to
exceed 10 hours in any 1 day. I think you will agree those hours are
too long for a woman who maintains household duties in addition to
industrial work. We utilize the War Manpower Commission, for
instance, as we did in the past few weeks, when an employer put in a
demand for 800 women. We requested that the War Manpower
Commission go into that plant, make a survey to see whether the plant
was fully utilizing its present labor force; if it was found to be so doing,
then the inspection staff of the department of labor and the War
Manpower Commission would make a job study to discover those
jobs on which women might be employed without detriment to their
health and so on. Out of that came a recommendation— a joint rec­
ommendation from the inspection staff of the department of labor and
the War Manpower Commission— to the labor commissioner to ap­
prove the employment of women on the jobs found suitable for women.
So we have a rather definite plan to prevent women from being em­
ployed on jobs which are detrimental to their health and so forth. I
regret to say that we do not have the short hours that I think are
necessary for the employment of women on a long-term program. I
think we are short-sighted when we exceed the 48-hour week— when
we forego the 1 day’s rest in 7. In fact, I would prefer to see a 5-hour
day for women who have househould responsibilities. I think only
those women who have no family duties should be employed full time.
Mr. M cC ain (Arkansas). I would like to drop this information to
the gentleman from Michigan in regard to long hours. The son of
my safety engineer just returned from Detroit where he had been
working in the Briggs plant for about 2 years. A fine young fellow,
physically fit when ne went up there; eager to serve his country. He
had a wife and three children, and wanted to take care of them. He
thought that it was a patriotic thing to work all the hours they asked,
and when they called upon him to work on Sundays he worked Sun­
days. Before he realized what he was doing, he cracked up com­
pletely— came back home a physical wreck. He came back to report
to the Draft Board. He probably will be deferred; and then he will
not be able to go back and hold his job with the Briggs Co. So, it
seems to me while you are shortening your hours for women that you
ought also to say that 48 hours is enough for a man on year-round
M r. D ean . I agree with you on that.
M r. S huford (North Carolina). Too many men have worked too
long hours during the past year and a half and usually it does not
increase production if it is for a long period of time. It is not good
for anyone.

----- 7

611560°— 45

Industrial Homework
Industrial Homework


Report o f Committee on Industrial Homework by K ate P apert (N ew York Department
o f Labor), Chairman

This wartime meeting of the I. A. G. L. O. gives us an oppor­
tunity to take stock of progress in the control of an age-old problem—
industrial homework. On the whole the picture is good— both
State and Federal Governments have demonstrated that prohibition
is practicable. Great strides have been made under prohibitory
orders in cutting down the number of homeworkers; both industry
and workers have benefited. On the other hand, the war has
brought an insistent demand for workers, and some employers are
turning to homework as the answer to the labor-supply problem. We
as administrators of industrial homework laws, cannot sit back and
think our job is done. We must make further progress, and we
must be prepared to deal with the new problems that are arising to
hold the gains we have made.
Since the last report to the I. A. G. L. O. conference, in September
1941, four States have made progress in the control and abolition of
industrial homework. New Jersey, which had long been a center of
homework, passed a comprehensive industrial homework law, em­
bodying the main provisions of the suggested draft for State legislation
prepared by the Committee on Industrial Homework appointed by
the Secretary of Labor. This represents the outstanding achievement
of recent years in State control of homework. Rules and regulations,
issued under the law, outline procedure and strengthen enforcement.
New York passed two laws to prevent an employer’s distribution
of industrial homework through a contractor. Also, in New York,
under its administrative authority, the department of labor issued
the amended homework order No. 4, prohibiting industrial homework
in the glove industry, except to workers who cannot adjust to factory
employment. This order covers an industry which is largely concen­
trated in New York State, and it has furnished an excellent demon­
stration in adjustment of both employers and homeworkers to factory
In Pennsylvania, under its administrative authority, the industrial
board issued a ruling which prohibits the processing of and exposure
to the sorting of animal hair or bristles by homeworkers.
A Massachusetts law raises the license fee for the employer suffi­
ciently at least to discourage the employment of large numbers of

More extensive than State progress has been the progress under
Federal laws. The first Federal control of industrial homework came
under the NRA. Out of a total of 556 codes, 118 contained homework
provisions, either prohibiting homework or subjecting it to regulations
for factory work. With no teeth in enforcement, compliance varied.
It was good in highly unionized groups and among enlightened
employers, and poor in other groups. The N RA experiment was



short-lived; but it was important, because it demonstrated that both
worker and employer can adjust to the elimination of industrial
Other Federal controls have developed since the demise of the
NRA. Under the Public Contracts (Walsh-Healey) Act of 1936,
homework is prohibited in all Government contracts of more than
$10,000. With the increasing proportion of war production, this
provision has become more and more effective in the abolition of
homework; but with the return to the production of more civilian
goods its effect will decrease.
The most effective Federal control of homework has been brought
about under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The first interpretative
bulletin issued under this act held that homeworkers as well as factory
workers were entitled to its benefits. Under authority granted to
him by the act, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour and Public
Contracts Divisions has issued orders prohibiting homework in seven
industries: Jewelry, gloves, knitted outerwear, women’s apparel,
buttons and buckles, handkerchiefs, and embroidery. All of these
industries had long been recognized as concentration points of the
inefficient, wasteful, and inhuman system of homework production.
All of the prohibitive orders provide for the granting of special
homework certificates, authorizing industrial homework by the
worker who is—
(1) Unable to adjust to factory work because of age or physical or
mental disability; or is unable to leave home because his presence is
required to care for an invalid in the home; and
(2) Was engaged in industrial homework in the specified industry
prior to a fixed date (except that this requirement shall not be ap­
plied in cases of unusual hardship to the individual); or is under the
supervision of a State vocational rehabilitation agency or sheltered
The effect of the prohibitory orders can be measured by a comparison
of the numbers of homeworkers in each industry before and after the
orders. The estimate of the number of homeworkers in each industry
at peak season during a period of approximately 2 years prior to the
order is based on the distribution of the Wage and Hour “ hand­
books” 1required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This estimate
is not too good as it almost certainly errs on the conservative side,
but it is the best available. The estimate of the number of home­
workers since the orders became effective is based on the number of
outstanding certificates in the industries on July 1, 1943. In the
case of the glove industry the number of certificates includes those
issued by the State of New York, as well as those issued by the Wage
and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions in other areas, inasmuch as
New York State certificates in this industry are accepted as Federal
certificates. All the orders except those for handkerchiefs and
embroidery have been in effect 10 months or more, and the number of
certificates includes those issued during at least one peak period.
When the order for the jewelry industry became effective in De­
cember 1941, there were 3,400 homeworkers; in July 1943 certificates
had been issued to 534 homeworkers in this industry— 15 percent of
the number formerly employed. War production is taking metals that
1Each homeworker is required to have one of these “handbooks” in which is kept a detailed record of
all work performed.



formerly went into costume jewelry, but this is not the whole story,
because we know that various substitute materials are being used.
The women’s apparel industry now employs only 809 homeworkers,
13 percent of the 6,400 employed before the prohibitory order.
The knitted outerwear industry presents an even more striking drop,
with 298 certificated homeworkers, or 3 percent of the group formerly
In the glove industry, fewer than one-third of the 5,400 home­
workers of 2 years ago are doing this work in homes today. About
a fourth of the manufacturers in this industry have opened community
workshops, and day nurseries have been established for the care of
young children. One small glove manufacturer reported recently
that 10 factory workers are now putting out more work than was
formerly done by 6 factory workers and 7 homeworkers.
The handkerchief homework order became effective only in M ay
1943. Certificates had been issued to 10 homeworkers as of July 1,
as compared with the former 1,570 homeworkers. Part of the explana­
tion lies in the enactment of the homework law in New Jersey— the
center of the handkerchief industry—which restricts the number of
homeworkers to one-third the number of factory workers.
explanation lies in the substitution of the machine hem in place of
the hand-rolled hem that came as a result of the order.
A t the time the wage order for the button and buckle industry went
into effect, no separate estimate was made of the number of home­
workers; but only 14 certificates have been issued in this industry.
Administrators in the homework field say that carding of buttons in
homes has been greatly reduced under the order.
The embroidery order is the most recent and goes into effect next
month. This order is important because of the large number of
workers affected (an estimated 11,900) and because administrators
think homework in embroidery is increasing— ornamentation of
clothing is coming in with scantier cutting and limited dyes. The
effectiveness of the embroidery order remains to be seen.
All the Federal prohibitory orders have come within the last 2 years,
a period of almost unbelievable progress in eliminating industrial
This is the heartening side of the story. Industrial homework can
be controlled. Administration of State and Federal laws clearly
demonstrates that homework can be taken into the factory, and that
homeworkers and employers can make the necessary adjustment.

In industries where there are no homework prohibitions, homework
tells a different story. Administrators in State and Federal labor
offices express the opinion that great increases in industrial home­
work have come in the last few months, as labor shortages have
They see flagrant violations of homework regulations.
Advertisements in newspapers and over the radio give a patriotic
front to homework, as one answer to the manpower shortage. Certain
new industries that lend themselves to homework (such as zipper
reconditioning) have developed. Factory wages are relatively high
and there are always employers who seek cheap labor.
New York State reports that homeworkers’ certificates in all
industries are being issued this year at the rate of about 70 percent
more than last year. In Massachusetts almost exactly as many
homeworkers’ certificates were granted in the first half of 1943 as



were granted in the entire year 1942. Rhode Island issued approx­
imately the same number of certificates in the first half of 1943 as in
the entire calendar j^ear 1942.
The hosiery industry is turning to homework as an easy way to
meet the labor shortage. “ Handbooks” for homeworkers have been
issued to nine hosiery firms by the Philadelphia Regional Office of the
Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions this year; only one
such firm was known to be distributing homework last year. One
hundred and thirty-five hosiery firms from North Carolina alone,
and 20 firms from Tennessee, have acknowledged receipt of Wage
and Hour “ handbooks” this year. Half of these firms expected to
employ more homeworkers than in previous years.
More adequate State legislation, strict enforcement by State and
Federal agencies, and close cooperation between State and Federal
offices in the administration of existing laws are needed to meet the
threat of the return of homework. Homework legislation correcting
an evil in one State makes a neighboring State more vulnerable to
the same evil. Employers of homeworkers move in where possibilities
of exploitation are greatest. No State wants to invite exploitation
of its women and children, the traditional homeworkers. The pattern
for effective control of homework has been set by the Federal Govern­
ment and several States. The time is right for further vigorous
action in the field of legislation and enforcement.
In States where there is State as well as Federal regulation of
homework, effective enforcement will be greatly aided by FederalState cooperation. Without this, employers with every intention of
compliance may be confused as to the regulations, and the “ chiselers”
may play one set of regulations against the other.
Exchange of information, as needed, regarding issuance of certifi­
cates and permits is one basis of cooperation. Inspection material of
each office should be made available to the other. This is an essential
part of preparation of cases for legal action; and prosecution in good
cases of flagrant violation is necessary to a healthy respect of the law.
Inspectors of State and Federal offices should inform employers and
homeworkers of the requirements under both laws. Specific plans
should be worked out in each region for an effective Federal-State
enforcement program.
We cannot afford to understimate the size or- the difficulty of
enforcement. Employers and homeworkers are scattered over wide
areas. The turnover among employers and workers is considerable.
Continuous policing of factories and homes, combined with periodic
inspections of pay-roll and production records, is necessary to achieve
strict control and regulation of homework. It is significant that the
number of violations found is usually in direct proportion to the size
of the enforcement staff. Federal-State cooperation in enforcement
is therefore extremely important. As administrators know, after the
laws and orders are issued it is enforcement that makes the controls
against homework a reality for workers and employers.
War agencies have strengthened the stand of labor departments
against homework. The War Manpower Commission in a memoran­
dum to its regional directors has given the best answer to proposals
that homeworkers be used to meet labor shortages. It condemns
recruitment of workers in violation of Federal and State laws. It
states there is no evidence that utilization of manpower would be




assisted by the encouragement of homework, and recommends the
development of community workshops, day nurseries, shopping
services, and part-time work schemes as better methods of drawing
labor reserves into the work force. This statement was followed up
by a press release declaring that the War Manpower Commission is
not looking for industrial homeworkers, even in labor-shortage areas.
It recognizes that minimum labor standards cannot be maintained
in homework.
The war relocation centers suggested a fertile field for exploitation
to a few employers who sought certificates for Japanese women for
homework on handkerchiefs and other fine sewing. This was a
short-lived threat to break down standards. The War Relocation
Authority issued an order prohibiting evacuees from engaging in
private employment while residing within relocation centers.
With the enlightened and emphatic statement of the War Man­
power Commission and with the Federal and State prohibitions, it is
unlikely that homework, either legal or illegal, is adding to the pro­
duction of war goods. Homework is going into the kind of production
that is in no way essential in the present emergency— embroidery
and other kinds of ornamentation, hand finishing on clothing, ribbons
and bows, etc., most of which we could do without entirely, especially
in wartime. Other countries have given up production of this kind
of civilian goods. Not only is it nonessential, but the sale of such
goods adds to the inflation we are all trying to avoid. The inefficient
use of labor and materials in homework is an old story.
The war does not make a case for modification or relaxation of the
fight against homework. Rather, it demands the most efficient
production of essential goods and thereby furnishes another effective
argument for the abolition of industrial homework.
Miss P a p e r t (New York). The progress that has been made
since the last meeting of the Association, I think, is pretty encourag­
ing, both as to the States and the Federal Department of Labor.
As a State enforcement officer, I am a very strong believer in the
need for the enforcement of homework regulations. Of course, the
first big step is to. get the regulations and the laws enacted, but it is
the enforcement of those laws and regulations that makes them real,
that brings the benefits to the workers and to the employers in these
As the chief of our Homework Bureau says: “ Homework is a prob­
lem that is here today and not gone tomorrow, but back tomorrow
unless it is enforced and vigorously enforced.” In the enforcement
of these laws, too, there is need for activity on the realization of the
problem, not only by the State but also by the Federal agencies.
Unfortunately, certain old problems that existed before the war,
still confront us in this war period. Someone this afternoon ques­
tioned whether anybody was getting subminimum Wages in this day
of relatively high wages. I had a report the day before yesterday of a
woman who was earning at the rate of 5 cents an hour, closing the ends
of knitted gloves. An inspector had timed her. We have any
number of reports of homeworkers getting 10 and 15 cents an hour.
A woman wrote a letter which appeared in one of our New York



papers, asking what could be done for her mother who was earning
15 cents an hour, sewing women's dresses; she was referred to the
Federal Wage and Hour Division.
To illustrate further the fact that the old problems are still with us,
let me tell you about a flower manufacturer. We have, in New York,
an order restricting homework in the flower industry, and we try to
enforce it. We learned, through various sources, of a flower manu­
facturer whose factory workers were not working a full workweek,
and who had only a few homeworkers. Our inspector examined the
pay-roll books which showed that one woman was earning an unusual
amount of money. He tracked it down and found that she was earn­
ing the unusual amount, but not by making flowers herself. She was
distributing the work to another woman, who, having more than she
could do, was in turn distributing it to still another group. One
homeworker was earning only 12% cents an hour, and when she com­
plained she was raised to 16 cents an hour. We found that this
same manufacturer, by redistribution of homework, had a large group
of 12- and 13-year old children working during the summer months,
who were being paid at the rate of 10 cents an hour. We are finding
more child-labor violations. Child labor, especially among the younger
children (the older ones can go out and get better jobs), and low
wages— these are the old problems of homework.
There are, it seems to me, certain new problems that those of us
who have been administering homework laws have found. One is
that the manufacturers are now urging relaxation of homework regu­
lations or are employing additional homeworkers because they claim
labor shortage.
Actually, so far as we can find out, and so far as the experience of
other States shows, most of the work done at home— in fact, practi­
cally all of the work done at home— is in our normal consumer-goods
industries— flowers, gloves, all the things that we as civilians enjoy
and want to have.

I suspect we shall see further pressure to relax homework regula­
tions, but I think we can all take great comfort in the stand that the
Federal agencies— and the war agencies—have taken in supporting
the labor departments and the restriction of homework. Real
progress, I think, is represented in the recognition that homework is
not an efficient method of manufacture and that it does mean sub­
standard working conditions.
M r. Shuford (North Carolina). Homework is an insidious thing,
as M iss Papert has pointed out. You decrease it at one point and
it comes up somewhere else.
M r. G amble (South Carolina). Has there been any attempt to set
basic minimum rates of pay on work going out to the homeworkers by
the time-study method made on work done in the plants? It seems to
me that through such a method there would be an opportunity to
eliminate the unethical practices; for instance, in cases in which the
work put out to a worker is accomplished by the assistance of young
children. That seems to me to be an appropriate method of control for
this type of homework, and without such a control I cannot conceive
of proper safeguards for the homeworker.
M iss P apert . Y ou are quite right. W ithout some strong and
clear-cut method of control, you certainly cannot safeguard homework.



There have been a number of attempts made to set piece rates. I will
illustrate, if I may, from gloves, because it is a relatively standardized
article. The glove unions in Fulton County, which is the big glove
center in New York State and one of the big glove centers in the
country, have a schedule that goes on for pages and pages, detailing
each one of the piece rates; and they revise that schedule every year.
Because of slight changes in style, a glove will be three buttons instead
of four, that is just a little bit longer, and the leather may be a little
stiff, harder to work, therefore it takes longer. The problem in home­
work and in setting the minimum standards by means of piece rates is
that you must have a terrific force of inspectors to keep up with the
styles that each manufacturer has and, therefore, that the whole
industry has, because the styles change from one season to another,
and the styles that one manufacturer has are different from the styles
that another has.
On flowers, there is one manufacturer in New York who regularly
puts out a thousand styles each spring. It is almost impossible to set
basic piece rates, because of the factors of styles and materials.
M r. G am ble . I am working on a law for South Carolina that I hope
to have passed next year, in this connection. One of the phases I
hope to have incorporated in this law is a requirement that before
homework can be sent out to the homeworkers the rates of pay and
the amount of work must be approved by the State department of
labor. I just wondered if there were any other States represented that
had such a provision.
Miss S wbtt (Wisconsin). Before 1920, we had the old type of

homework law which related only to the place where the work was
done. The original homework law did not give any attention to the
rates that were paid or the hours that were worked, but was concerned
chiefly with the harm to the public of using goods produced under
unsanitary conditions. We knew that this did not attack the big evils
of homework, as Miss Papert has said, child labor, long hours, and low
pay. Our law was amended in 1920 to provide that there should be,
first, a permit granted to the employer to give out homework, not just
a permit or a license granting that the work be done in the particular
place, or given to a particular person to do the homework. This
permit was conditional upon the wages being paid, sufficient to yield
to the workers the rates that were required under our minimum-wage
law, and also conditional upon compliance with the women’s hours law
and child-labor law in the plant wishing to send out homework.
It is difficult, of course, to set rates in the making of things like
artificial flowers, but when the artificial-flower industry attempted to
come in our State, and we told them that rates would have to be set for
the different styles of flowers and so forth, they decided they did not
want to make artificial flowers in Wisconsin. It was the same with
hooked rugs. Our homework situation in Wisconsin is the kind it is
now, I think, because we have done this over all these years. W e do
not have many establishments engaged in homework in the State—
very few in fact— and few workers in those establishments. In
Milwaukee, there are only one or two that employ as many as a dozen
women, largely because of the fact that they have to secure a permit
to engage in homework which is conditional upon the rates to be paid.
It seems to me that that is one of the necessary things, if you are going



to have a homework law at all, if you are going to permit homework
at all; you must see that, if it does exist, you do not grant a permit
unless the wage rate is such that it will yield to the workers the
minimum rate set for other employees.
Miss P apert . I want to say in answer to the gentleman from South
Carolina, that we do have the problem of equal rates. In our New
York homework order we have a provision that the homeworkers
shall be paid the same rate as the factory worker for comparable
work, but that is possible to enforce only because we have restricted
so greatly the number of homeworkers. Miss Swett pointed out that
that is the way homework is restricted in Wisconsin—but on a wide
Mr. L ubin (Washington, D. C.). Miss Papert, are any parts for
war materials being made in the United States in any quantity in
Miss P apert . That is a very hard question for me to answer, be­
cause that involves an understanding of the operations of the Federal
law. If the contract is under $10,000, it is not governed by the pro­
visions of the Walsh-Healey Act. However, we know of manufac­
turers who will take several small contracts of $9,000 and do home­
work on them. Then there is some slight loophole or provision in
the Walsh-Healey Act, with which I am not thoroughly familiar,
which under certain conditions may permit homework; but it is a
minor problem, if I understand it correctly.
Mrs. B eyer (Washington, D. C.). I would like to ask Mr. Lubin
a question on that. There is a definite concerted drive to get home­
work back. The hosiery industry for one, now has a small test case
to get relaxation of the Federal law to permit homework on hosiery;
that is, to allow the looping to go back into the homes. They make
the beautiful plea, of course, that loopers are highly skilled, that they
are hard to get, and that wages are frozen so that they cannot pay
more to induce them to work in the plants; therefore, it is necessary
to recruit the women in their homes and keep them there at these
lower wages that are permitted. In other words, they say they will
need a relaxation of the provision of the Walsh-Healey Act. Their
representation has been made to the United States Department
of Labor, requesting such relaxation, and the Department is now
investigating the case. If relaxation is granted in that one instance,
then the hosiery industry is ready to say: “ You have permitted home­
work in one locality. The entire hosiery industry needs loopers, why
not relax the whole industry?” We have been fooled many times by
these homework employers. This reasoning should not fool us again.
Miss P apert . There is one thing we should keep in mind when
we hear about the shortage of labor and the argument that homework
is used to supply that shortage— that is, the articles that are manufac­
tured by these homeworkers are those of the traditional homework
industries, and they are not the things that are absolutely essential
for civilian needs. Furthermore, many homeworkers who have to
make the choice between working in the home or working in the
factory naturally will prefer the home because, at first glance, it seems
easier. The way in which homework drains off available labor supply
from where it can be used more effectively is the thing that we all
need to keep in mind, as well as the evils of homework, even today.

Social Security
Report on Social Security
By E w an C lague , United Stcaes Social Security Board
[Read by Isador Lubin]

I. Social Security and the War, 1941-43
Modern war, which involves every aspect of civilian life, has
affected our social-security programs in several ways. The more
immediate effects are visible to all; the long-term impact is not easy
to identify.

In the foreground are the substantial gains in employment and
wages, which have reduced unemployment-benefit payments to the
lowest point since the inauguration of such payments on a national
scale in 1938, have induced large numbers of eligible aged persons to
defer their retirement under old-age and survivors insurance, have
made it possible to liquidate the Work Projects Administration, and
have raised the assets of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and
Unemployment Trust Funds to record levels. Despite the continued
growth in the number of old-age and survivors-insurance benefici­
aries, the aggregate number of persons in receipt of benefits under
social security and related programs has probably declined in the
past 2 years at the same time that the accumulation of reserves for
payments to future beneficiaries has been markedly accelerated.
With production and national income at their highest point in history,
social-insurance and relief payments, as a percentage of all income
payments to individuals, dropped from 6.4 percent in 1939 to 3.0
percent in 1942.
The changes brought about by the war have emphasized both the
strengths and the weaknesses of the present social-security program.
The transition to wartime production was made easier by the avail­
ability of unemployment benefits for temporarily displaced workers.
A growing number of aged persons too old or for other reasons unable
to work are receiving a minimum retirement income. A t the same
time, many of the older workers who are remaining on the job during
the war are accumulating rights which will qualify them for old-age
benefits when the war is over. A large proportion of the persons in
civilian employment will come to the period of transition from war
to a peacetime economy with some rights to unemployment benefits
while they are seeking work.
On the other hand, the unemployment benefits payable vary
greatly from State to State both in the size of the weekly benefit
amount and the maximum duration of benefit payments. M any
States have begun to question the adequacy of their present benefit
provisions to meet post-war needs. There are also great differences
among the States in the position of their reserve funds and their
ability to finance the probable post-war unemployment load.
While employment covered by old-age and survivors insurance,
workmen’s compensation, and State and railroad unemployment-




compensation programs is now at a peak, many of these workers have
come from noncovered employment— primarily agriculture or selfemployment— and may be expected to return to such employment at
the close of the war. For these workers, present coverage under
social insurance may prove of limited value unless the systems are
extended to cover their usual occupations.
The several million workers who have shifted from private industry
to shipyards, arsenals, and other Government establishments, have
lost or are fast losing all unemployment-compensation rights and face
a permanent impairment of rights under the old-age and survivors
insurance program. They are compensated only to a limited degree
by the building up of credits under the Federal civil-service retire­
ment system. For the great majority of such workers— those with
less than 5 years in Government service—potential rights under the
civil-service program will lapse with the termination of the war.
During this period an increasing number of workers have crossed
State lines to take war jobs away from home. Such migration has no
effect upon old-age and survivors insurance rights if the worker re­
mains in covered employment, but may impair unemploymentbenefit rights because of the existence of 51 State unemploymentcompensation systems.
Nearly all State legislatures have acted to preserve the unemploy­
ment-benefit rights of persons leaving covered industry for the
armed forces. Perhaps half or more of the individuals in the armed
forces, however, will have had no previous employment covered by a
State unemployment-compensation system or will have insufficient cov­
ered employment to have established rights to benefits at the time of
induction. The weekly amounts payable and the number of weeks
payable will differ substantially among individuals in the same State
and in different States. In the absence of congressional action,
current insurance protection under old-age and survivors insurance
has lapsed for many servicemen and will lapse for still others in the
coming year. Veterans’ benefits are available for those who die or
are disabled in service and for their dependents; but no compensating
protection is provided for those who will return to civilian life with
unimpaired working capacity. The amendment of the Railroad
Retirement Act granting credit for war service to certain classes of
railroad employees has benefited a relatively small proportion of
those under arms today.
In occupations covered and risks insured, the Federal and State
insurance programs have remained substantially unaltered during the
2 years under review. New programs have been confined to special
risks growing directly out of our participation in the war. These are
principally (1) the civilian war-benefits program, administered by
the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance of the Social Security
Board and the paying of benefits to civilians in the United States in­
jured as a result of enemy action or of action to meet such attack or
the danger of attack, and to the survivors of such persons; and (2)
the program transferred in December 1942 from the Social Security
Board to the U. S. Employees Compensation Commission, paying
benefits to employees of the Federal Government or of contractors
with the Government who are killed, injured, or interned as a result
of enemy action beyond the continental limits of the United States,
and to their survivors.




II. Employment Security Developments
A . Labor Market Changes

In July 1941, 50.9 million workers were engaged in civilian employ­
ment; in July 1943, the number had climbed to 54.3 million despite the
withdrawal of more than 7 million men for service in the armed forces.
Part of the increase came from the unemployed, who numbered 5.7
million in July 1941 but only 1.2 million 2 years later. Older workers
who .might ordinarily have retired remained on the job while others
who had retired returned to work. The usual number of young
people finishing school and entering the labor market was augmented
by those who, attracted by high wages, did not wait to finish their
education. A very substantial number of new workers were women,
many of whom had not previously held jobs.
The over-all employment figures fan to disclose the shifts into
different industries and into different geographic areas. While em­
ployment was expanding in manufacturing, government, and agri­
culture, it was declining in trade and service. W ithin manufacturing,
workers shifted from the production of nonessential civilian goods to
the production of essential war materials; many moved to other
States, attracted by expanding employment opportunities in centers
of war production, particularly aircraft and shipbuilding. N otably
large gains were made by the Pacific Coast States.

To a large extent these adjustments in the labor market were made
possible by the existence of unemployed workers and unutilized labor
reserves and by the mobility of American labor. At the beginning of
the period, the United States Employment Service acted primarily to
aid in the recruiting of workers. As labor shortages developed and the
need for centralized controls became greater, it moved into new fields
of service, acting as a clearing house for information and, in coopera­
tion with labor-management committees, working out plans for the
recruitment, training, and effective utilization of labor. The number
of nonagricultural placements made by the Employment Service is
some indication of the increasing activity in the labor market. In
the calendar year 1939, before the defense program was under way,
nonagricultural placements numbered 4.2 million; in 1940 they num­
bered 3.7 million; in 1941, 5.4 million; and in 1942, 6.9 million.
Administration of the Employment Service was transferred from the
States to the Federal Government in January 1942 “ in order that there
may be complete responsiveness to the demands of national defense
and speedy, uniform, effective action to meet rapidly changing needs.”
It operated under the Social Security Board until December 1942
when it became part of the War Manpower Commission.
Information collected regularly through its 1,500 full-time local
offices has proved of great value to the United States Employment
Service. A t the inception of the defense program, plans were made
for reports to cover not only the amount and kind of labor available in
a given community but also the amount and kind needed currently
and some months in advance. Labor requirements by occupation,
industry, and locality were thus determined and shortages and surpluses
readily located. These reports have also been available as guides in
the allocation of war contracts, the location of housing projects, the



establishment of training programs, and the development of transpor­
tation and other community facilities.
Before the declaration of war, the allocation of materials to defense
requirements had compelled the curtailment of production in some
industries and the conversion of other industries, but the situation was
accentuated when the war was declared. In the main, adjustments
were made smoothly, but in particular industries and localities short
periods of unemployment accompanied the conversion to war pro­
duction. Displaced workers moved to jobs in war industries, and by
means of its occupational analyses the United States Employment
Service was able to advise the employer and the workers concerning
the type of war production which could best use their skills. In
many instances, however, training was needed, and special courses
were established in the plants or in vocational schools and other private
institutions. Shortages of skilled workers were met not only by
training programs but also by the upgrading of workers of lower skills
and by job dilution, which involves the breaking down of an intricate
process into several less complicated parts that can be performed by
inexperienced workers under the supervision of a skilled person.
As the unemployed workers were drawn back into employment,
women, older workers, youths, and handicapped persons became the
main source of labor supply. In some instances Negroes and aliens
also constituted a labor reserve which had not been fully utilized.
High wages and the opportunity to assist directly in the war effort
served as incentives for large numbers of new workers. Many
employers were slow to adapt their production to the types of labor
available, but their inertia gave way before persistent shortages.
Local employment offices were instructed to use their facilities first,
and when necessary exclusively, to serve employers whose activities
were essential to the war effort.
Movement of workers to industries and localities where they were
most needed and recruitment of new workers alone failed to solve
the manpower problem, however, and attention was directed to more
effective utilization of the workers already employed.
The problem of occupational deferments has become increasingly
serious. To retain skilled workers in industrial jobs, lists of essential
occupations were released to local draft boards to guide them in
granting or refusing requests for occupational deferment. In Novem­
ber 1942, the Selective Service Director forbade enlistments of essen­
tial aircraft and shipbuilding workers in the armed forces, and in
December all such enlistments in the armed forces were discontinued.
Shortages of skilled workers in particular areas or industries re­
ceived special attention. To prevent the pirating of labor, the War
Manpower Commission in September 1942 pronounced the area
comprising the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Mon­
tana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming a “ critical labor area” and declared all nonferrous-metal
mining, milling, smelting, and refining, and all logging and lumbering
industries and activities within the area to be “ essential war pro­
duction activities.” Plans were developed for a worker in an essential
activity to obtain a certificate of separation from his employer or a
designated representative of the United States Employment Service
before seeking other employment. In October the War Production
Board ordered closing of gold mines to free miners for the production



of copper, zinc, and other war materials. The situation in the copper
mines was so acute that miners in the Army were furloughed for work
in that industry.
The Farm Placement Service of the United States Employment
Service was reorganized in December 1941 to meet the needs of
agriculture and to mobilize manpower for work on farms. Placement
offices were established in migratory farm labor camps set up by the
Farm Security Administration. The shortage of workers on dairy,
livestock, and poultry farms led to a stabilization order by the War
Manpower Commission, effective in November 1942, requesting
local selective service boards to grant occupational deferment to all
necessary men on such farms for whom replacements were not avail­
able. Older persons were urged to work at agricultural labor; and
Congress provided that during the emergency a State shall not be
penalized under the Social Security Act because in determining the
need of an old-age assistance recipient it disregards income or resources
arising from agricultural work, provided the assistance payment is
not higher than that for July 1943. In April 1943, responsibility for
placement of agricultural workers was given to the Administration
of Food Production and Distribution.
For the guidance of the War Production Board and Government
procurement agencies in allocating contracts, the War Manpower
Commission has periodically classified important labor-market areas
into four groups. Group I includes areas of acute shortage in which
current labor demands can be met only by release of workers em­
ployed in production for which facilities exist elsewhere, substantial
in-migration, or large-scale recruitment programs to draw upon
reserves of women and other individuals not customarily in the labor
market. Group II includes areas of labor stringency in which known
requirements for the next 6 months will necessitate substantial
in-migration or large-scale recruitment programs. Group III in­
cludes areas in which a general labor shortage may be anticipated
after 6 months; Group IV includes areas of labor adequacy or abun­
dance. In June 1943, there were 46 labor-market areas in group I,
101 in group II, 70 in group III, and 74 in group IV.
To assist in determining policies for the recruitment and training of
women, a Women’s Policy Committee was created by the War Man­
power Commission in September 1942. A Nation-wide day-care
program was authorized for children of mothers engaged in war in­
dustries, but in general women with young children were not
encouraged to take jobs. The age limit for girls in war industries
was lowered from 18 to 16 years by the Department of Labor at
the request of the War and Navy Departments and the Maritime
Commission. The response of women to the call for their services is
indicated by the increase in the number employed: 12.0 million had
jobs in July 1941, and 17.1 million were employed in July 1943.
Some new workers were also obtained through immigration. In
September 1942, the Attorney General authorized the Immigration
and Naturalization Service to permit Mexican agricultural workers to
enter the country temporarily whenever the United States Employ­
ment Service certified a need for them; the Farm Security Adminis­
tration was responsible for their transportation to the place of em­
ployment and back to the area of recruitment. Harvest workers



soon began to sign contracts for service in California. In the spring
of 1943, the shortage of railroad track workers in the Southwest again
turned attention to Mexico, and an agreement was made with the
Mexican Government whereby workers could be made available for
industrial needs in the United States for the duration. Only wellqualified workers may be brought in, and all transportation expenses
are paid.
Channeling of Work Projects Administration workers to essential
war production jobs was facilitated by placing W PA representatives
in employment service offices. Project operations under W PA were
ordered closed by February 1, 1943, or as soon thereafter as possible
and they ceased altogether June 30.
As one means of increasing the effectiveness of employed workers,
employment stabilization plans, developed under the leadership of
the local labor-management committees and the area manpower direc­
tors, were set up in areas of critical labor shortage. Efforts were made
to get workers into jobs where they were most needed and to keep
them there. Workers not employed at their highest skill or at their
fullest capacity were to be permitted to change employment, but in
general an effort was made to keep the worker on the job in order to
prevent wastes involved in excessive turnover and labor piracy.
Extension of the workweek was another means of increasing the
production of employed workers. In February 1943, a 48-hour week
was established for areas of acute labor shortage and also for the entire
lumber and nonferrous-metals industries; the order was later extended
to the steel industry. Some exceptions were, of course, necessary.
Plant studies made by the United States Employment Service with
the cooperation of the employer have revealed areas in which man­
power was not being fully utilized and in many cases enabled employers
to correct the situation. Manning tables, which indicate for each
kind of job in the plant the number of workers required and the sex,
age, dependents, and selective service status of the workers employed,
have been widely used! Occupational analysis has helped to disclose
workers employed below their highest skills and to indicate the jobs
which might be filled by women and handicapped workers. Labor
hoarding and failure to make full use of minority groups have con­
stituted problems in some instances. Increasing attention has been
given to the extent and causes of labor turnover, absenteeism, and
industrial accidents and methods of their reduction.
B. Unemployment-Compensation Trends

1. Legislation
Most of the 51 State un employment-compensation laws were
amended in some respect in the last 2 years. Experience rating and
benefit rights of workers in military service received considerable
attention. Several States liberalized their benefit provisions. Massa­
chusetts extended coverage to employers of one or more workers.
By June 30, 1943, all States except three (Alaska, Louisiana, and
New Mexico) had incorporated into their laws some method of pre­
serving the benefit rights of covered workers who entered military
service. Experience rating had been adopted in 43 States. Provi­
sion for the study of experience rating has been written into the laws of




the remaining 8 States.1 Increased contributions from employers
whose pay rolls expanded during the war have been provided for in 10
Kentucky’s repeal of employee contributions leaves only 4 States—
Alabama, California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—which require
contributions from workers. Although Rhode Island reduced the
rate from 1.5 to 0.5 percent, employees pay a total tax of 1.5 percent,
since they are subject to the 1-percent tax under the cash sicknesscompensation law.
Thirteen States 3 have increased the maximum duration of benefits,
while three (New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont) have provided
for uniform potential duration for all eligible claimants.
The waiting period has been reduced to 1 week within the benefit
year in 11 States4 and to 2 weeks in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania,
making a total of 30 States with provisions for a 1-week waiting period,
18 with a 2-week period, and 3 with more rigid provisions.
Legislation raising the minimum weekly benefit amount was enacted
in 12 States.5 Today 4 States make provision for a $10 minimum, 2
for $8, 8 for $7, 1 for $6.75, 7 for $6, 19 for $5, 3 for $4, 5 for $3, and 1
for $2. Iowa has retained a minimum of $5, or the full-time weekly
wage, whichever is less.
Maximum weekly benefit amounts have been increased in 19 States6
making the provisions for the maximum $22 in 1 State, $20 in 10, $18
in 14, $16 in 4, and $15 in 22.
Disqualification provisions were amended in 24 States.7 Although
2 States (Wisconsin and District of Columbia) liberalized these pro­
visions somewhat, a restrictive trend was evident in the other 20
States 8 which modified their provisions in 1943. New disqualifica­
tions were added, the length of the disqualification period was in­
creased, or provisions for the reduction of benefit rights were included.
Changes adopted by Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Vir­
ginia in 1942 tended on the whole to mitigate the severity of dis­
Cash benefits under the first State system for the compensation of
unemployment resulting from illness became payable in Rhode
Island, April 1, 1943. In New York, a day-base plan was adopted,
with unemployment measured in days rather than weeks.


Benefits and Beneficiaries

The trend in unemployment benefits in 1941-43 reflected in large
measure the labor-market changes described earlier.
Although material shortages caused some lay-offs in July-November 1941, they were mostly of short duration and many unemployed
1Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington.
2Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.
2 Delaware, District of Columbia, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.
4 Connecticut, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, and Washington.
6Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
6 California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
West Virginia. Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
7 Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
8Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Washington, and West Virginia.



workers were absorbed in defense plants. Unemployment benefits
declined in the latter part of the year, falling to the lowest levels
since the program went into full operation. In December, however,
priorities unemployment in a few highly industrialized States com­
bined with seasonal reductions of employment in others caused a
sharp rise in payments which continued through the first quarter of
1942. In Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, unem­
ployment was particularly heavy, and the benefits under unemploy­
ment-compensation programs served in no small measure to maintain
workers and their dependents while existing plants were converted to
produce goods for military use. Benefit payments in Michigan
during the first quarter of 19.42 (19.1 million dollars) were higher
than they had been in the 5 quarters preceding (18.3 million dollars).
Beginning in April 1942, unemployment-compensation payments
declined almost steadily through June 1943, when they reached a level
of 5.9 million dollars, only 19.5 percent of the 30.6 million dollars paid
in June 1941. Beneficiaries averaged about 100,000 a week compared
to 684,000 in June 1941. Benefit payments during 1939-40 were 483
million dollars; during 1940-41, 432 million; during 1941-42, 370
m illion; and during 1942-43, 176 million dollars. Beneficiaries in
those years numbered, respectively, about 5.2 million, 4.0 million, 3.3
million, and 1.3 million.
The general trend obscures highly varying situations among the
States. The ratio of benefit payments in June 1943 to those in June
1941 ranged from 1.0 percent in W yom ing to 72.4 percent in Indiana.
In 15 States, of which 13 (including Alaska) were west of the M issis­
sippi River, payments in June 1943 were less than 10 percent of
their total in June 1941; in but 3 States— Indiana, Delaware, and
Kansas— was the percentage above 50. M ost State unemploymentcompensation agencies were able to reduce staff and to lend workers
to the United States Employment Service.

Persons drawing unemployment compensation in a period of labor
stringency are not likely to be representative of the labor force as a
whole. Womto, older men, and physically handicapped persons
comprised relatively large proportions of the claimants in the early
part of 1943. Only a few were in critical occupations.
The average weekly payment for total unemployment increased
gradually as a result both of liberalization of some State laws and of
higher base-period earnings. For the four successive semiannual
periods in 1941 and 1942, the averages were $10.94, $11.22, $12.56,
and $12.85. In 1940, 43.7 percent of all weekly payments for total
unemployment were in amounts under $10; in 1942, only 26.5 percent
were in this class.

Although the number of beneficiaries under the program was at a
record low by June 1943, the number of potential beneficiaries was
higher than ever before. In 1939, 1940, and 1941, workers with wage
credits numbered 30.1 million, 31.9 million, and 37.2 million, respec­
tively. In 1942, 40.6 million persons had wages in employments cov­
ered by the system, and in addition several million men in the armed
forces had benefit rights which had been preserved from previous
years. In a period of full employment and high wage rates, the
proportion of these workers who would be eligible for benefits on
becoming unemployed is higher than in normal times.

----- 8

611560°— 45




Although tax collections under old-age and survivors insurance were
64 percent higher in the fiscal year 1942-43 than in 1940-41, the
1.2 billion dollars collected under State unemployment-compensation
laws in 1942-43 was only 37 percent above collections in 1940-41.
Experience-rating provisions modified the employer tax rates in many
States with the result that the yield was below the standard 2.7
percent rate. Covered pay rolls rose sharply over the 2-year period,
however, so that despite the effects of experience rating, collections
increased from 888 million dollars in the fiscal year 194041 to 1,094
million dollars in 1941-42 and 1,215 million dollars in 1942-43.
W ith the increase in collections and the decline in benefits, the
ratio of benefits to collections decreased from 48.7 percent in 1940-41
to 33.8 percent in 1941-42 and to 14.5 percent in 1942-43. Ratios
in the States in 1942-43 ranged from 1.6 percent in Washington to

32.1 in Missouri. Eleven States (all, including Alaska and Hawaii,
west of the Mississippi River) paid in benefits less than 5 percent of
collections, and 29 States paid less than 10 percent.
Funds available for benefits amounted to 4 billion dollars on June
30, 1943— an average of about $99 for each worker who had taxable
wages in 1942. The amount available per covered worker varied from
$32 in Mississippi to $151 in New Jersey; 5 States (Arkansas, Florida,
Mississippi, New Mexico, and Virginia) had less than $50 per worker
while 10 (Alaska, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia,
Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin)
had more than $100.I.

III. Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Developments
Old-age and survivors insurance payments went to well over a million
persons in the 2 years ended in June 1943 to compensate them for
wage loss suffered through the death of a wage earner or through
retirement from covered employment because of age. Millions of
additional persons were protected by this insurance through wage
credits established by themselves or by persons on whom they were
dependent as the continued expansion in war industries increased
opportunities for covered employment. Several hundred thousand
older workers, who were eligible for primary benefits, chose to postpone
retirement and to remain in covered employment with the result that
the number of beneficiaries and the amount of benefits were smaller
than they would have been had labor shortages not developed.
The number of workers in covered employment has, with the
exception of 1938, increased each year since the inception of the
program. In 1937, 32.7 million persons received taxable wages of 29.4
billion dollars; in 1942, it is estimated that 45 million workers received
53.2 billion dollars. In the first quarter of 1941, pay rolls covered by
old-age and survivors insurance were 74 percent of all wages and
salaries in the United States; but increases in the Federal Government
pay roll, including military pay, were greater than those in covered
employment so that in the first quarter of 1943 covered pay rolls
represented only 69 percent of total wages and salaries. *
Applications for account numbers, which identify in the Federal
records the wages earned by each person in covered employment, have
increased as young persons, women, and others without previously



covered employment have sought jobs. By the end of March 1943,
a cumulative total of 69.8 million accounts had been established.
Of this group, 65 million, it is estimated, were held by living persons
comprising 79 percent of the male and 45 percent of the female
population aged 14 years and over.
Some of the account-number holders have earned no taxable wages
whatever while others have not earned enough to acquire insured
status. Each year, from 1937 through 1941, between 21 and 25 percent
of the workers with taxable wages during the year had less than $200
of such wages credited to their accounts. These persons were mainly
workers employed only part time in covered industry; more than
50 percent of them had wages in only one quarter of the year, and more
than 80 percent in not more than two quarters. Many probably
worked during the remainder of the year in noncovered employment.
Work histories for the years 1937-40, studied on a sample basis,
reveal that 53.4 percent of all workers with taxable wages credited to
their accounts were fully insured, 1.4 percent were currently insured
only, and 45.2 percent had no insured status as of January 1941. Over
three-quarters of the workers without insured status had failed not
only to earn the required $50 in taxable wages but also to have any
covered employment in a sufficient number of quarters to become
insured. Some of the uninsured were married women who had
protection on the basis of their husband’s wage records; others were
young adults who had not been in the labor market long enough to
acquire insured status but under ordinary circumstances would
eventually do so; but another group, whose earnings during the period
were mainly in noncovered employment, will probably derive no
benefits from the program unless its coverage is extended.
Most of the 372,000 persons on the monthly benefit rolls June 30,
1941, received benefits in the 2 years following. During this period
524,000 persons were added to those rolls, more than 100,000 were
dropped, and 278,000 received lump-sum death payments. Monthly
benefits during this period totaled 241 million dollars and lump-sum
death payments 31 million dollars. On June 30, 1943, 796,000
persons were entitled to monthly benefits amounting to 14.5 million
dollars per month.
In June 1941, 63.4 percent of the benefits certified were for retired
workers, their wives, and children, and 36.6 percent were for survivors
of deceased workers. Increasing industrial activity in the next 2
years not only cfrew many of the retired workers back into covered
employment, but it also kept on the job aged persons who were
eligible for retirement benefits. On June 30, 1943, 349,000 older
workers had filed claims for and were entitled to receive primary
benefits, but more than 60,000 of them had returned to covered
employment; another 600,000 aged workers, it is estimated, were
eligible for benefits but continued to work. The number of benefits
to retired workers and their families was, consequently, a smaller
proportion of those certified in June 1943 (55.9 percent) than in
June 1941 (64.1 percent).
Of the 796,000 monthly benefits in force June 30, 1943, only 676,000
were in current-payment status. Most of the other 120,000 were
suspended because the beneficiary himself or the primary beneficiary
was employed; in some cases, a child’s benefits were suspended because



of failure to attend school regularly, and in some a widow’s current
benefits were suspended because she did not have an entitled child in
her care. Proportion's of all benefits in force which were in currentpayment status varied with work opportunities available to the
different groups. The percentage was lowest for young widows
receiving widow’s current benefits (76.4 percent). Nearly 99 percent
of widow’s and parent’s benefits, both payable to persons over 65
years of age, were in current-payment status. For each type of
benefit, the proportion in current-payment status was lower on June
30, 1943, than on June 30, 1941; 90.5 percent of the widow’s current
benefits and 86.9 percent of primary benefits were in current-payment
status at the earlier date.
The number of benefits of different types increased unevenly over
the 2-year period. Benefits to aged widows were nearly four times
as numerous on June 30, 1943, as on June 30, 1941, while primary
benefits had not quite doubled. Wife’s, child’s, and widow’s current
benefits were about twice the number in force 2 years earlier, and
parent’s benefits were about 2 % times as numerous.
Average payments for all types of benefits except widow’s in­
creased slightly. Since the 1939 amendments to the Social Security
Act shifted the emphasis of the program from the protection of the
individual to family protection, total payments to a family give a
more realistic measure of the protection afforded. The average
monthly payment for a retired worker and his wife in the benefits
awarded, in 1942 was $37.39; for a widow and one child, $34.38; for
a widow and two children, $46.38; and for a widow and three or
more children $50.52.IV
Old-age and survivors insurance: M onthly benefits in force and in current-payment
status,1 by type o f benefit, June 30, 1941, and June 30 , 1943

Monthly benefits, June 30, 1943—

Monthly benefits, June 30,1941—

In current-payment status
Type of benefit

In force
ber) Number Amount

In current-payment status

In force
Aver­ (num­
ber) Number Amount

All types.......... ............... 795,712 676,302 $12,198,617


336,244 $6,095,638

Primary___ ___________ 349,240 284,063
Wife’s_________ _______ 99,516 84,398
Child’s................ ............. 220,547 201,954
Widow’s_______________ 38,191 37,680
Widow’s current________ 84,669 64,711
Parent’s..... ....... ............. .


160,403 3,635,777
88,093 1,076,159

6,598,535 $23.23
1,045,686 12.39
2,478,715 12.27
758,205 20.12
1,271,749 19.65
45,727 13.08



1Benefit in current-payment status is subject to no deduction from current month's benefit, or only to
deduction of fixed amount which is less than current month’s benefit.

IV. Social-Security Prospects
Public discussion of the war aims of the United Nations has directed
attention anew to the shortcomings as well as to the potentialities of
our social-security programs. Awareness of some of the inadequa­
cies— principally limitations in occupations and risks covered and
lack of coordination among systems— has been strengthened by the
demonstrably undesirable effect upon benefit rights of large-scale



shifts in and out of covered employment. The need for a broader,
more flexible social-security program is underscored every ,day in the
continuing debate on what to do for servicemen in the critical transi­
tion period between demobilization and reemployment. There is
growing concern about the ability of our State unemployment-com­
pensation systems to meet the full impact of post-war unemployment.
Provision for disability benefits and medical-care needs are increas­
ingly recognized as essential parts of a comprehensive and adequate
social-insurance program.
Addressing Congress in January 1942, the President called for
extension of coverage to approximately 15 to 20 million workers now
outside the old-age and survivors insurance system, provision for
disability payments and hospitalization, and expansion of unemploy­
ment compensation in a uniform national system. Similar recom­
mendations are contained in the report of the National Resources
Planning Board on security, work, and relief policies transmitted by
the President to Congress in March 1943, and in the Seventh Annual
Report of the Social Security Board, submitted to Congress in the
same month. In June, Senators Wagner and Murray and Repre­
sentative Dingell, with the support of the two major labor groups in
the country, introduced companion bills in the Senate and House
embodying these recommendations and other proposals for changes
in the present act. Specific steps to ease the demobilization problem
for veterans at the end of the war were offered by the President in a
broadcast Jhly 28.
Public debate over the merits of these suggestions is likely to cen­
ter around the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill. The bill would estab­
lish a unified national social-insurance system affording protection
against income loss due to permanent and temporary disability as
well as to old age, unemployment, and the death of the breadwinner.
The social-insurance system would also provide medical and hospital
service benefits for the worker and his family, with freedom of choice
of physicians and hospital guaranteed the worker. Coverage for all
the benefits would be extended to agricultural and domestic workers
and to employees of nonprofit agencies as well as to employments
now covered by old-age and survivors insurance. Coverage for oldage, survivors, permanent-disability, and medical-care benefits would
be extended to the self-employed and to employees of State and local
governments, the latter on a voluntary contract basis. The earn­
ings of persons in military service would be credited in the same
manner as other wages for old-age, permanent and temporary dis­
ability, survivors, and medical-care benefits; and demobilized service­
men would be eligible, under special provisions, for unemployment
allowances ranging from $12 to $30 a week. The old-age and survi­
vors benefits payable would be somewhat more liberal than under
the present Social Security Act. Unemployment benefits would be
larger for workers with families than for single persons, with a maxi­
mum family benefit of $30 a week; the potential duration of unem­
ployment benefits for all eligible workers would be 26 weeks, or 52
weeks if funds are available, in a particular year. A worker who was
receiving benefits after 26 weeks might be required to attend a train­
ing course. Administration of benefits and maintenance of wage
records would be unified under the Social Security Board, which
would also be responsible for the operation of a permanent Federal




employment service. T o finance the enlarged system the pay-roll
tax would be raised to 12 percent, divided equally between employer
and employee, and a Government contribution is authorized.
Present comment on the bill reveals some difference of opinion on
the desirability of amending the act while the war is on. Many
observers believe, however, that the time to plan for post-war adjust­
ment is now and that deferment of necessary changes until victory
is won would unnecessarily aggravate the serious character of the
problems which peace will bring in its wake.
Mr: L ubin (Washington, D. C .). I suggest that you give considerable
attention to this report. It is very carefully done and presents the
problem that is facing us in the field of unemployment compensation
and old-age pensions in a very comprehensive way. I should like to
summarize one or two facts which have been presented in the report.
First, there are approximately 41 million people who are now under
the unemployment-compensation systems in the various States. Sec-r
ondly, the average payment per week in unemployment compensation
is around $13. The funds that are now available for unemploymentcompensation purposes amount to a little more than 4 billions of
dollars. Off-hand that seems like a lot of money; but, when you bear
in mind that the amount available for workers covered under the
unemployment-compensation systems varies from $32 in Mississippi to
$151 in New Jersey, you realize that very little money is available to
take care of the needs of unemployed workers in the event that there
should be a sudden cessation of the war and the unemployment prob­
lem became acute. Indeed, 5 of the States have less than $50 per
insured worker in their fund, while 10 States have more than $100
per worker.
I think these facts bring to fight the necessity of something being
done, and done quickly, to reinforce our unemployment-compensa­
tion laws so that we can make decent provision for those people who
may find themselves unemployed should the war end suddenly. As
Mr. Clague pointed out in his report: “ The need for a.broader, more
flexible social-security program is underscored every day in the con­
tinuing debate on what to do for servicemen in the critical transition
period between demobilization and reemployment. There is growing
concern about the ability of our State unemployment-compensation
systems to meet the full impact of post-war unemployment. Pro­
vision for disability benefits and medical-care needs are increasingly
recognized as essential parts of a comprehensive and adequate socialinsurance program.”
In view of the fact that the discussion tomorrow is on the question
of State versus Federal legislation and administration of labor laws, I
think it worth while to call attention to the latter part of the report
which gives some picture of the recommendations the President has
made to the Congress and which we hope will be brought up for dis­
cussion in the not distant future. As you know, the President rec­
ommended to Congress that every man in the service be given full
credit in the unemployment-compensation fund for the period he
%served in the armed forces—in other words, to be treated just as if
'h e had been working at his regular job, and to be credited with con­



tributions equal to those he would have made had he remained in his
old employment.
Mr. W r a b e t z (Wisconsin). I suppose one might question very
seriously the advisability of using unemployment-compensation re­
serves for the payment of aid to soldiers upon discharge. I do not
think anyone in this Nation questions that soldiers upon completion
of the war should be treated generously—we expect that soldiers
should be so treated. But how is the cost to be met? I believe it
should be a part of the war expense. It ought to be provided for by
Federal appropriations and treated as dismissal pay from the service;
it should not be complicated with the administration of unemploy­
ment-compensation funds, because it has no place there. Of course,
State unemployment-compensation organizations could and should
be used to disburse whatever benefits are provided.
M r. L u b i n . M r. W rabetz, I think there are two problems as far as
the soldier is concerned.

There are soldiers who were in industry and built up reserves against
unemployment and who would have been entitled to payment for
unemployment had they remained in industry. For those soldiers,
I think the most easily adjustable and administerable method of tak­
ing care of dismissal from the Army is to use the existing system of
unemployment compensation, and let the Federal Government pay
into the various funds the premiums that otherwise would have been
paid into those funds had the soldier remained at work. On the other
hand, there will be millions of other service men, particularly those in
the 18- and 19-year-old group, who have never worked. For them, I
think it might be advisable to have a different system of compensation.
The thing that we ought to provide for, I think, is protection against
the future. By that I mean protection against the development of
certain vested interests which would most easily grow out of treating
the soldier as a separate individual from everybody else in the commu­
nity. If his relationship to the community— as far as compensation
when dismissed from the Army is concerned— is handled like that of
everybody else who happens to be unemployed, then I think he would
be better off if his compensation is handled through the existing State
unemployment-compensation machinery.
M r. W r a b e t z . Practically every State, M r. Lubin, has already
frozen the benefits of servicemen who have been drafted from industry
or who have enlisted, and I am sure those benefits are practically the
maximum that one would receive. The serviceman returning will
receive the unemployment-compensation benefits from the reserve
that lias been built up for him, so that is taken care of. But the bonus
or whatever we call it— that servicemen should always receive at the
conclusion of a war, because of what they have sacrificed for us, should
be a recognition of a distinct service, and should not be mixed up with
anything else. The soldiers will be well taken care of, I am sure.

Mr. B e r n s t e i n (Illinois). The returning war veteran has occupied
the attention of the States for some time. This problem received
additional impetus at the time that the President made his speech over
the radio in which he proposed a 3-month furlough, pay for the first
3 months after demobilization, and then payment of unemployment
compensation for a specified period of weeks following the 3-month
furlough. He also added the requirement that those individuals,




during that period for which unemployment compensation would be
payable, register at an “ employment service’” office. The President
said, “ United States Employment Service.” We of the States feel
that the term there was merely descriptive of the offices, rather than
indicative of the agency, which will be administering the employment
services after the war is over. We feel, and Congress has so expressed
itself, that the employment service will be returned to the States after
the war.
In the President’s program nothing was said about the mechanics of
payment nor of the agency which would finance the program. The
Executive Committee of the Interstate Conference of the Security
Agencies meeting in Washington last month [September 1943] spent a
good deal of its time on this question, and it was pretty well agreed (1)
that the program should be completely *financed by the Federal
Government; and (2) that if the States were called upon for recom­
mendations, they would recommend (a) that the State agencies
administer the program with Federal funds, (b) that it would be
administratively expensive— and unnecessarily so— to create a new
administrative agency to dispense these funds, and (c) that the State
agencies having the employment services at the time would be the
agencies best able to administer an unemployment-compensation
program, since the employment service facilities would be made
available co-extensive with and coordinate with the unemploymentcompensation programs.
Mr. Lubin touched on the method of Federal financing—whether on
a premium basis or in a lump-sum amount to cover the actual costs of
the insurance program for veterans— and on the method of payment to
veterans— whether the payment is to be a Nation-wide uniform flat
allowance or whether, in terms of weekly benefit, the amount of pay­
ment will have the same variations that now exist among the various
unemployment-compensation laws. This subject has received con­
siderable attention of State administrators. It has been suggested
that the best type of program would be one which would get the dis­
charged veterans group into the civilian program as quickly as possible.
That, of course, would mean that the veterans would be put into the
State program without any distinction offered to them because they
had been in the service. In other words, in the State of Illinois they
would get $18 a week; in Wisconsin, I think, it would be about the
same; but in most other States it would probably be $15 or $16 a week,
depending on what that State law provides. Despite the fact that we
felt that this might be a desirable thing to do from the viewpoint of the
over-all welfare of the Nation, the State administrators felt, pretty
generally, that politically the liklihood is that Congressmen would feel
that a serviceman from Mississippi is exactly like one from Illinois and
so could not see why, out of Federal funds, a different amount should
be paid a serviceman from Illinois than to one from Mississippi;
therefore, the likelihood is— and our guess is— that a flat, uniform
weekly benefit will be paid to the men mustered out of service, an
amount that will be payable during a period of some 26 weeks while
they are unemployed.
Mention was made of the fact that State laws now provide for freez­
ing of wage credits of men who have gone into the armed services.
Of course, those wage credits will not mean much if we do have a
Federal program of the type that I have just described. The reason



for this is that those wage credits become available as of the date of
mustering out and will die by lapse of time before they can be put to
much use. If those wage credits are to be made available to these
soldiers, it will have to be done by amendment or revision of the
State laws to provide that these credits become available after the
funds from the Federal Government have been exhausted, and that
the period of time during which they shall become available shall be
from the last date Federal funds are available. Some suggestions
have been made that State freezing provisions may not be necessary
at all. However, I think it would be unwise for any of us to go back
to our home States and suggest that we repeal those provisions until
we see what the Federal Government makes available.

Factory Inspection and Safety
Committee Report on Factory Inspection

By J


J. T

oohey ,

Jr., N ew Jersey Department o f Labor

[Read by Isador Lubin]

The last 2 years of war have brought many demands upon the
factory-inspection services of the States. New industries, expanded
industries, round-the-clock operation, increased construction activi­
ties, pressure to complete orders for the armed forces, requests for
relaxation of hours laws— all of these circumstances of war have
brought problems and responsibilities to factory inspectors charged
with maintaining safe and healthful workplaces and with securing
compliance with regulations concerning hours, wages, and child labor.
Unfortunately, comparable statistical data on inspection activities
in the States are not available. This report will of necessity be
limited to general information on some of the significant developments
in the inspection field since the last I. A. G. L. O. conference in 1941.
W ar Demands on Inspection Services

The impact of the war upon the work of State labor departments
was immediate. The defense program had already increased the
need for inspection of safety conditions in workplaces and for organiz­
ing accident-prevention programs. These problems were intensified
by war, as all available production facilities were pressed into use,
large numbers of inexperienced workers were added to the labor
force, and delivery of war supplies was speeded up. In all States war
plants have had primary demand on the time of safety inspectors.
Many States have had to meet the situation as best they could,
without the addition of personnel to take care of the increased work
load. In other States, appropriations have been increased. In
California, the bureau of accident prevention reported that, by the end
of August 1943, 107 safety inspectors would be at work in the State,
19 giving full time to shipyards. This is three times the number of
safety inspectors employed in October 1940, when there were about
35 on the Bureau’s staff. There has also been a marked increase in
the volume of work to be done in California. Manufacturing em­
ployment in California is 39 percent more than a year ago and 230
percent above June 1939.
Indiana, Rhode Island, and Michigan have also enlarged their
safety staffs in the last 2 years—from 9 to 14 inspectors in Indiana,
from 4 to 10 in Rhode Island, and from 10 to 15 in Michigan. In
Massachusetts, emergency appropriations were made available this
year to add 3 factory inspectors, making a total of 36 in that State.
Other States may also have increased the number of safety inspectors
on their staffs; information on this point has not been secured from
all States. Even with these increases the safety-inspection staffs
of most States are inadequate. For instance, the Commissioner of



Labor of West Virginia estimates that 42 inspectors are needed in his
State— he has 16.
In New Jersey a research and testing laboratory is being equipped
in the northern section of the State to assist the department of labor
in its work in providing safe workiftg conditions for industrial workers.
Such things as dust counts; chemical analysis of substances; inflam­
mability indexes; testing of soils; testing of electrical, fire-alarm, and
fire-extinguishing equipment; and similar work, will be functions of
this branch of the bureau of structural inspection.
Employment o f Women and M inors

War production has brought many problems connected with the
greatly increased employment of women and minors. Where women
had not been employed previously it has been necessary to provide
sanitary facilities and rest rooms, to give consideration to their
safety, clothing, and equipment, and in some instances to make certain
changes in machines, such as lowering the height or providing lifting
devices. Factory inspectors have assisted management in working
out ways of changing plant facilities to meet the needs of women
workers. Additional problems have arisen in adapting hours of
work and shift schedules to women workers, who usually have home
responsibilities. Inspectors in the bureaus of women and children in
State labor departments have been of great assistance in helping to
solve many of these problems.
M ultiple-Shift Operation

Multiple-shift operation has been introduced for the first time in
many plants during the war period. Factory inspectors must see
that workers on all shifts have protection with respect to safety—
including lighting, first-aid facilities, protective equipment, etc.—
and that employees under certain ages are not employed during the
prohibited hours. Every State that prohibited the employment of
women at night has made emergency provision for such employment
during the war.
Modification of Hours Laws fo r War Production

In addition to modifying night-work laws for war production,
State labor departments have authorized variations from the laws
regulating daily and weekly hours of work, 1-day of rest in 7, and
prohibited occupations.
The inspections staffs have been used to investigate requests for
modification. In many cases they have been able to work out, with
the management, safety provisions or a schedule of hours within the
legal limits. In other cases arrangements were made which involved
less strain upon the workers or less accident hazard than those for
which authorization was requested. The regular inspection personnel
have handled this work along with their other activities in most
States. In New York, where investigations are handled through the
division of •inspection, the staff has been increased to take care, in
part, of the additional work. In some cases requirements of safety
codes have had to be adapted to the materials obtainable, and heavy




demands have been made upon the time of labor commissioners in
securing rulings and interpretations from the War Production Board
on the availability of critical materials for safety devices.
Selection and Training df Inspection Personnel

The report on factory inspection submitted to the 1941 conference
of the I. A. G. L. O. emphasized the progress made in training factory
inspectors. In the period since 1941, interest in securing qualified
personnel and in training factory inspectors has continued. There
have been difficulties in securing qualified persons— particularly
safety engineers— due in part to the demand for their services and in
part to the low salaries paid to State inspectors. There has also
been loss of trained personnel to the armed forces, private industry,
and other government agencies. In spite of these handicaps, most
labor departments have employed inspection staffs to the limit of their
appropriations. Training courses have been conducted for safety
inspectors, in cooperation with the Division of Labor Standards of the
U. S. Department of Labor, in seven States during the last 2 years.
In New Jersey an innovation has been a 30-day training course for
the new inspectors, providing an intensive schedule in the work which
they are called upon to perform.
Coordination of Federal and State Inspection Services

Progress has been made in coordinating the inspection services of
the United States Department of Labor and State labor departments,
particularly in the safety field. Under cooperative agreements be­
tween the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions, the Com­
mittee on Conservation of Manpower in War Industries, and State
labor departments, State safety and health inspectors in 20 States and
the District of Columbia now inspect for compliance with the safety
provisions of the Walsh-Healey Act at the time they inspect for State
safety and health requirements. Under the Federal act, compliance
with State safety and health regulations is prima facie evidence of com­
pliance with the Federal requirement. The agreements also provide for
cooperation between the State labor departments and the Committee
on Conservation of Manpower in War Industries in the promotion of
safety programs. While a certain measure of progress has been made
in coordinating Federal and State activities in the enforcement of
minimum-wage, homework, and child-labor regulations, the Committee
recommends that consideration be given in developing further coopera­
tive relationships and programs in these fields. This is important for
the continuing peacetime administration of labor laws as well as for
service during the war.
Need fo r an Adequate Post-W ar Inspection Service

The need for an adequate staff of well-trained factory inspectors will
be as great after the war as at present. Plants will be reconverting to
peacetime production; Federal war agencies that now have certain
controls over production will be liquidating; State labor departments
will continue to have responsibility for maintaining go#d working
conditions in places of employment. Now is the time to plan for the
work that will be required in that period.



Need fo r Comparable Data on Inspection Services
There is an inspection service of some kind in every State. In some
States only a few persons are engaged in this work (in Mississippi only
one); in other States the inspection services are well organized and
relatively well staffed. M ost State labor departments issue annual or
biennial reports describing the work of the department and contain­
ing certain statistical information on inspection activities, such as the
number of inspections made, violations found, orders issued, orders
complied with, and prosecutions. Generally speaking, however, the
information from one State cannot be compared with that from another.
This is due, in part, to differences in the organization of the inspection
services, the laws under which inspections are made, the amounts ap­
propriated for enforcement of labor laws, and the nature and concen­
tration of industry. For instance, in some States safety inspectors
are also responsible for compliance with maximun-hour, night-work,
and child-labor laws. In other States inspection for hours regula­
tions are made by inspectors who inspect for compliance with all
laws regulating the employment of women and minors. Even where
organization oi the work is similar the responsibilities of the inspec­
tors may differ considerably. Safety inspectors in some States are
responsible for the enforcement of detailed safety codes; in other
States the safety regulations are far less exacting. Another difficulty
in securing comparable data from annual reports comes from differ­
ences in definitions of terms, such as “ inspection” and “ reinspection.”
Although some of these difficulties are inherent in our system of
government, certain comparable material could be supplied in annual
and biennial reports, which the committee believes would be of great
assistance in improving inspection work in the States. For example,
data on the amount appropriated per covered worker for inspection
activities of various types and the estimated work load per inspector
in terms of covered workers and covered establishments would aid in
measuring the adequacy of appropriations and staff and in securing
proper financing of these activities. Terms commonly used might be
defined and certain standard items might be incorporated in reports
of all State labor departments. This could be done without in any
way curtailing the freedom of a State to set up the particular type of
inspection organization suited to its needs. Such information would be
of aid to the other labor commissioners in evaluating the adequacy and
performance of the staff. It would also provide the United States
Department of Labor with information on the facilities and the work
of State labor departments, information frequently needed to answer
inquiries and give service to those departments and to other Federal
Dependence should not be placed on these published reports alone as
a source of information. There is delay in issuing such reports, and
many State reports cover a 2-year period. A plan might be developed
for sending data on appropriations, staff, and special inspection
problems to the Division of Labor Standards periodically. This
Division now secures information on the operation of State labor
departments as staff members visit the various States. However,
it is unable to answer fully some of the inquiries on this subject.
During the last year this was true with respect to requests from labor



commissioners concerning increases in safety inspection staffs, salaries
paid to various types of inspection personnel, and a summary of
wartime activities of State inspectors. Congress asked the United
States Department of Labor for comparable data on inspection in the
various States— data which could not be supplied— and similar
requests were received from the War Production Board and the War
Manpower Commission.
The Committee on Factory Inspection therefore recommends that
the I. A. G. L. O. appoint a committee of labor commissioners to
consider the problem of securing comparable data on the inspection
work of State labor departments. It further recommends that the
United States Department of Labor be asked to assign a staff member
to work with this committee.
Mr. L ubin (Washington, D. C.). I might say that some of the
problems that have come to my attention in recent months in the field
of war production are closely related to the problem of inspection, or
at least to the enforcement of certain requirements in many plants.
I am very much interested in what has been happening to aircraft
production and what might be done to step it up. I had lunch one day
with a couple of Army officers, and they referred to a plant in a given
State, which had fallen down on the* job of furnishing parts for a
certain type of plane. In the course of the conversation they said,
“ Well, you can’t expect much out of that plant because people won’t
stay there.” Then one of them told me that he would not permit his
wife or daughter to work in that plant because, as he said, “ the rest­
rooms and washrooms weren’t fit for any decent woman to go into.”
He said, “ We can’t do anything about it because the State doesn’t have
the inspection staff to do the job.” He told of other instances where,
despite the existence of an inspection staff, the standards were not
being met.
I think it all gets back to some of the other questions that have
been raised, relative to the employment of women, and manpower in
general. Mr. Olander raised the question as to why women were
leaving a certain plant in this city [Chicago]. Well, there are all
sorts of problems involved— marketing, shopping, taking care of
families— but I personally have a feeling that if we had proper in­
spection staffs, and these inspectors saw that the requirements and
standards were being met, many more women would stay on the*job
than at the present time. I do not think it is a secret to tell you
folks that in southern California, during the first 6 months of this
year, 114,000 new people were employed and in the process of em­
ploying the 114,000, actually employment was increased by about
22,000. In other words, they had to hire 92,000 people to replace
quits and turnover and 22,000 on top of that to increase their staff.
I cannot help but believe that the methods of inspection and the
insistence upon maintaining certain standards have a lot to do with
people not staying on the job today.



Built-In Machinery Safeguards

Report of the Committee on Machinery Safety Requirements, by F
(North Carolina Department o f Labor), Chairman


H . Shuford

You have assigned to this committee the duty of “ promoting to
the maximum practicable degree the safeguarding of machinery and
mechanical equipment by its manufacturers.” In our report to the
last annual meeting (1941), we pointed out that this problem should
be attacked through three lines of effort:
(a) Contacting machinery manufacturers and aiding them to develop and
incorporate detailed provisions for user safety in the specific products of each;
(b) The stimulation of consumer demand for the maximum in built-in machinery
safety actively and systematically by their inspectional and promotional personnel;
(c) Strengthening (where necessary) of requirements for the safeguarding of
new or newly installed machinery and equipment.

It was further pointed out that this could best be done through
regional subcommittees tentatively set up as follows:
(d )

New England.
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware.
Virginia, W est Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina.

Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida.
Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois.
Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota.
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas.

Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast States.
Letters were sent to the respective officials asking their cooperation.
The responses evidenced a general appreciation of the need and will­
ingness to cooperate, but the increasing pressure of work imposed by
the war effort has limited the accomplishment. Formal meetings
have been held in regions (6) and (e ). A copy of the report from
Chairman Roach of region (6) is given below.
It is hardly possible to prosecute this work actively at present but
it is of vital importance and should be pushed vigorously at the earliest
opportunity. If the military situation continues to brighten, that
time should not be too far away. It is my purpose to do so at the
earliest moment that appears favorable. However, I ask specifically
that this meeting take definite action on the report of Mr. Roach’s
committee, particularly items 3, 6, and 8, as each of these involves
matters of policy that should receive the careful consideration of the
members of this body.
B uilt-In Machinery Safeguarding
Minutes of the meeting held at the Department of Labor Office, Room 760, T060
Broad Street, Newark, N. J., Thursday, September 17, 1942.
States represented.— New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Division of
Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor.
Present.— John Roach (New Jersey Department of Labor), chairman; Clement
D. Conole (deputy industrial commissioner, New York Department of Labor);
Mark E. Starr (engineer, Bureau of Industrial Standards, Department of Labor
and Industry, Pennsylvania); and R. P. Blake (senior safety engineer, Division of
Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor).



This meeting was held at the request of Forrest H. Shuford, commissioner of
the State of North Carolina Department of Labor and chairman of the Committee
on Machinery Safety Requirements of the International Association of Govern­
mental Labor Officials, and in conformity with a resolution that was passed Sep­
tember 3, 1941, at the meeting of the Association at St. Louis, Mo., on the desira­
bility of our several States adopting uniform requirements on machinery safe­
guarding, so that machine builders could safeguard machines adequately when
they were being constructed.
1. It was decided by the committee that there was need for uniformity in the
requirements and in their application by the several States, in order to accomplish
the purpose intended by the International Association of Governmental Labor
2. We were informed that the Division of Labor Standards, United States De­
partment of Labor, would compare State requirements (statutory and administra­
tive) for differences in machine guarding procedure, in order that the full extent of
the problem might be revealed.
3. It was decided that this committee and other committees interested in this
project, should start campaigning to stimulate consumer demand for machines
adequately safeguarded at the time of their construction.
4. It was decided that we should prepare a list of machines that experience
would seem to show could be guarded at the time of construction.
5. The following machines were discussed and given consideration: All types of
woodworking machinery; metalworking machinery, especially presses; abrasive
wheels; laundry machinery; food machinery; textile machinery; elevators and
conveyors; exhaust systems (fundamentals involved in the design and construction
of exhaust systems).
6. It was tentatively agreed that the development of adequate specifications
for safeguarding machinery by designers of machines should be accomplished
through the American Standards Association procedure.
7. It was also agreed that suitable methods should be developed through
regional committee procedure to continue this project and accomplish its purpose.
8. There should be a formal agreement between the several States to proceed
with the proposal to work out conflicts in administrative procedure, in order
that uniform standards might be made possible.
9. It was agreed that this conference should close to reassemble again at the
call of the chairman.
J ohn R oach , Chairman of the Reaional Committee.

Mr. B l a k e (Washington, D. C.) I want to make some comments
on this report to try to bring out what Mr. Shuford’s committee
feels are the important points.
First of all, as to the need of better guards and better attention
to the safety of machinery in the process of its manufacture. Much
has been done in this direction, but much more needs to be done.
There should be a much greater degree of built-in safety in the form
of safer design, safer construction, and better guarding. Each guard
should be an in-built part of the machine, as carefully designed, as
well made, and as beautifully finished as the most valuable part of
the machine; in fact, that is what it really is or should be. Anything,
on the proper functioning of which a worker’s safety depends, should
be regarded as the most precious part of the machine, and its appear­
ance should so indicate. The importance of this lies in the fact that,
in spite of all you hear about machinery-caused accidents being
relatively few (10 or 15 percent or so) and that 85 or 90 percent of
accidents are due to men’s carelessness, that sort of ratio simply
is not true; and I will be glad to give the facts to anybody in sufficient
detail to prove it. The point is that careful analysis of compensated
injuries from the manufacturing industries shows that from 25 to 30
percent are due to machinery. The trend of machinery injuries is



upward in many industries as a result of the increased use of mechani­
cal equipment. This applies particularly in construction work and
farming. We are using more and more machinery and having more
of the serious injuries characteristic of machine operation. Much
of the machinery is miserably designed from the standpoint of safety
and few machines are adequately guarded for safety. Most of these
injuries can be prevented by proper design and proper guarding.
Of course, proper use is important, but it is not a substitute for safe
design and safeguards. If you ask a machinery manufacturer to
produce safe, fully guarded machines, he comes back at you with
three very important points, which, in my opinion, are fully justified.
First, consumer demand. Manufacturers will give consumers
what they ask for, but mighty few consumers ask for or are willing
to pay for safety. They ask for price and performance in turning
out the particular thing that the specific machine turns out, but few
specify safety. Presumably, they figure on guarding afterwards if
guarding is needed. Too often, this is only when the State inspector
catches up with them. The big problem here is for the State inspection
services and the State labor departments to promote consumer
demands for fully safeguarded and properly designed machinery
when it comes to them from the manufacturer. They must be induced
to order more safety in their machinery when they buy it.
The second point is that when we asked some of the machinery
manufacturers to include guards in standard models of their products,
they cited the conflicts among State requirements whereby they can
never be sure that a fully guarded standard model will be as salable
in one State as another, and so they do not include guards.
The third point is that if you ask the average manufacturer to
install a complete guard on a specific machine, such as a circular saw
or punch press, he will ask: “ But just how shall I do it? Give me
the specifications.” Adequate specifications for such guards do not
exist; they are yet to be developed.
The agencies that can push those three things more than all the
rest put together, it seems to me, are the State labor departments
with their inspectors. That is back of the program that Mr. Shuford’s
committee has adopted: division of the country into the regions listed;
and, through regional meetings and comparing codes, to work out
the conflicts, develop programs for promoting consumer demands, and
aid in the development of the specifications necessary.
Now, the plea I want to make— the plea the committee makes—is
to take advantage of our opportunities. The committee has not
been able to do much through these meetings during this emer­
gency—it has not been able to get the necessary meetings. If we
wait until the war is over, there will be so many things to do, we
will not get the work done in time to take advantage of the oppor­
tunity reconversion will present. If we have the specifications ready,
if we have the tools prepared, reconversion will present a glorious
opportunity. We will be able to insist that that machinery, that
reconverted machinery, and that new machinery needed for recon­
version include the maximum in safety. That is our big opportunity.
We hope that the labor departments will all realize that and be
able to get under way with the program.

----- 9

611560°— 45



If we may assume that Germany goes down first and Japan perhaps
a year or so later, we should at the very latest push this work hard
wnen we see Germany fall, because reconversion will start immedi­
ately, you may be sure of that. Some of the plans are already being
made for reconversion and we must get our plans ready soon if we
want to take advantage of this opportunity.
Mr. P atton (New York). Legislative committees on interstate
cooperation exist in all of the States and are affiliated with the Council
of State Governments. The New York State Legislative Committee
has considered the problem of a greater degree of cooperation between
the States in the drafting, and enacting, of requirements as to safety,
particularly as to the safeguarding of machinery and mechanical
equipment bv manufacturers. I have no authority to speak for that
committee, although I was placed on their program recently and dis­
cussed the problem. I said to them, as I repeat here, that, with all
the good will in the world, no manufacturer, say in Akron, Ohio, who
builds a lathe or anything you please, can possibly build that machine
so that it will comply with the safety requirements of the labor laws
in the United States. It cannot be done, because the differences
in State requirements are such as to render it impossible. That is
why some boilers that are condemned in New York State cause no
particular loss to the manufacturer. He takes that condemned
boiler from New York State and sells it in another State. Now, the
explosive power of steam, as far as I know, is not regulated by State
boundaries. I do not know, as another illustration, what is the best
requirement for guard rails on swinging scaffolds. So far as I know,
every State law requires that there be provided at least one hand
rail, so the worker will not, if he happens to lose his balance, topple
over. I do not know why that hand rail in one State should be
33 inches, and in another 34 inches, unless you can point to a State
where all the men are 4 feet tall and to another State where all men
are 7 feet tall. However, this is a problem to which this Associ­
ation can well give its attention. I can assure you that the respective
legislative committees on State cooperation are sufficiently interested
in this matter to the point of being willing to put it on their pro­
gram. They are at the point of taking it up, in order to find out
whether it would be possible to get sufficient harmony in the State
labor laws to lay down some specific requirements as to building and
safeguarding of machinery. That is certainly a real goal.
Mr. S htjford. Mr. Patton, if you are not on this committee, I
think that you should be by all means. I take it that you think the
committee should be more active, and I agree with you. I appreciate
the assistance which you have given in connection with this group to
which you refer.
Mr. O lander (Illinois). We started out in this war just as we did
during the first months of the war in 1917, utterly reckless of conse­
quences. We had the notion that the way to get good production
was to drive everybody to the limit, hard and long, without any thought
of the effect on the worker. Of course, we would not use a horse that
way, with any idea of really getting anywhere over a long distance.
Inspectors, to my knowledge, were actually advised to keep out of
some of the plants.



As an illustration of what took place—what experience showed to
us in this war, as it did in the previous war—I direct your attention
to the subject of working hours. We worked long and hard, for 8
months, and then we discovered that it was not bringing maximum
production. Then came the corrective recommendation of July 1942,
by the Federal Departments dealing with working hours— 8 months
after we entered the war. Those recommendations were almost iden­
tical with General Order No. 13 of the Division of Ordnance of the
United States Army, issued 7 months after war began in 1917, and
after a helter-skelter rush in its early period. During the first 8
months in 1942 we repeated the error of the first 7 months of 1917.
We have been doing the same thing in the matter of safety. It is
being disregarded today in a considerable degree. But there are in­
dications of improvement in this area. In past months the Army
has shown a very lively interest in the question of industrial safety.
We are beginning to learn that the frightened scream of even a single
girl may throw the production of an entire department out of gear.
Within the past few weeks the Chicago Federation of Labor, which
is the city branch of the A. F. of L:, has named a committee on safety.
I brought that committee into contact with a similar committee from
the National Safety Council, and got those two into conference with
the representatives of the Safety Division of the Army. That was
followed by a call from the commanding general's office on the ques­
tion of plant production. The idea was to make some experiments to
see how we could all cooperate on the subject of safety.
I agree with Mr. Blake on about everything that he does, and I have
long been searching for a point of disagreement with him; now I find
one in his suggestion that we might wait until we whip Germany and
then start out with some of these safety campaigns while we are en­
gaged in the job of licking Japan. Experience is beginning to show
that if we want to do a quick job of licking anybody, we had better
get to that task of developing greater safety in our plants everywhere,
without delay, as a means of attaining a higher degree of production.
We preach glibly during times of peace about the proven fact that
the shorter workday is the more productive day. The shortest regular
workday we have known thus far has proven to be a more productive
day than any of the longer days that we have had in the past. Yet,
in the excitement of war, we forget our previous experiences. We
deal with the question of industrial safety in much the same way and
thus make the mistake of agreeing to the continuance of a condition
that very seriously retards production.
Let me say that we have a good record on the avoidance of strikes
in this area, about the best record in the country; that is also true of
labor turnover and of absenteeism. The reason we have been so suc­
cessful is because we have faced the issues. We have not forgotten
the past; we have taken advantage of our experience and have told
about it. Immediately after the President declared the emergency,
long before Pearl Harbor, we began directing attention to General
Oreler No. 13 of the first World War. To our utter astonishment, we
found that nobody in Washington seemed to know anything about
it. In the course of our repeated urging, they discovered it. On the
question of the relaxation of our laws regarding women, in Illinois we
have been saying we must cut the hours of women if we want to get



maximum production from therm W e have to think of them as they
are— not quite the same as men in many respects. W e m ust adjust
work to suit their needs in order to get the full use of their powers.
Now, it seems to m e, in an organization of this kind— I will have to
apologize if I am a little too blunt, but this is m y first attendance at a
meeting of this Association and I am not sure of m y status— you are
directors of the labor laws of your several States, and your duties have
changed very materially in recent years. Time was when your main
functions were to give consideration to matters of routine factory
inspection, involving the enforcement of very limited safety regula­
tions, and to the laws relating to the labor of women and children, and
to the workmen's compensation acts. Only in an incidental way were
you connected directly with the live labor problems of your States.
B ut what is the situation now? Under the unemployment-com­
pensation acts, you have to sit in judgment as to whether a worker
has quit his job properly or not and if he ought to be helped because
he had done a reasonable thing, or whether he ought to be punished
by refusal of compensation because he had done something that was
unreasonable. Your functions of conciliation, mediation, and arbi­
tration are expanding. There now are so-called work-or-fight laws
in several of the States. In a news clipping from the State of Texas—
Thomas, of the C .I.O . automobile workers, is threatened with jail for
advising workers to join the union. He forgot to get a Texas license
before talking to them.
A ll this comes close to you, as administrators of State labor laws.
I t seems to me that it might be well in meetings of this kind, at least
in the future, to get down to some of those fundamentals. State
labor departments were brought into existence for the same reason
that the United States Department of Labor was created. You all
have read the organic law, I suppose. The purpose is to promote
and protect the welfare of the wage earners. That is almost the
exact language of the Federal law— it is the language of the Illinois
law. It is the purpose of every State labor department.
Right now the whole status of the American worker is under
challenge. The question is whether or not he is going to continue as
a free man to the degree that he has in the past, and that is a question
to which I think our State labor departments ought to be giving
mighty serious attention. Y et very little is being said about it.
1 am quite free to admit that our labor movement is hesitant about
that, too. W e do not really know this great America in which we live.
The United States is the only nation in all history that has placed
in a written constitution a declaration of full and complete freedom
for the individual in the field of labor, which cannot be legally dim­
inished in any degree, either by legislative power or by executive
power. W e now ignore that great fundamental law of America to
the extent that in one State a man is thrown in jail for telling another
man to join a union, and in another State a man is brought up for
trial because he objected to work for a given employer who withheld
his wages for something his father owed the employer.
W e m ay say: “ Oh, that is only for the duration of the war. It is all
going to end when the war ceases." W ell, that may be. W ho knows?
None of us will say that the Constitution can be set aside. W e



simply interpret it to suit our fancied needs at the moment, blissfully
unaware that while the practice we speak of may stop with the dura­
tion, the interpretation we made will remain to trouble us in the future.
Mr. H a l l (Virginia). I agree with a great deal that the speaker
has said. Mr. Olander stated, however, that this was his first meeting
with this Association. This is the first meeting I have attended in
4 years; but I want to correct an impression which he apparently
has— that this Association has not been fighting labor battles for 20
years. To my knowledge, members of this Association—labor
commissioners and officials of State and Federal departments of
labor—have been responsible for more labor legislation on the statute
books of the various States than any other one agency or combination
of agencies throughout the country.

Federal Aid to State Labor Departments
Federal Aid to State Labor Departments— Round-Table
M r. L u b i n (Washington, D . C .). The executive board of the
Association at its last meeting suggested that the question of Federal
Aid to State Labor Departments be made part of the agenda of this
convention. Several requests from member States have been received
by the president and the secretary to the same effect. Consequently,
it was decided to devote this session to an informal round-table dis­
cussion of the problem so that the pros and cons, the advantages and
disadvantages, of Federal aid to State labor departments might be
fully thrashed out.
W e have asked M rs. Beyer to present the bill to you, as it was
presented to Congress, so that you will all know the details of the bill.
M r. Shuford will follow M rs. Beyer, and then the whole matter will be
thrown open for full discussion.

Mrs. B e y e r (Washington, D. C.). You are all probably familiar
with this bill (H. R. 2800) that was introduced by Mrs. Norton at the
request of the American Federation of Labor. Martin Durkin,
whom you knew as Commissioner of Labor of Illinois, was the sponsor
of this bill within the American Federation of Labor. The purpose of
the legislation is to provide for cooperation with State agencies
administering labor laws in establishing safe and healthful working
conditions. It would enable the United States Department of Labor
to give to the States the sum of 5 million dollars, annually, to help
administer their labor laws.
The basis of determining how much each State should get would
depend, according to this bill, on the population, the number of wage
earners, the specific safety and health problems in industry, the number
of workers afforded protection by the State law, the cost of proper and
efficient administration of such laws, and the financial needs of the
respective States. The regular provisions that you find in any of the
State-aid laws are included in this bill; and the Secretary of Labor is to
tell the United States Treasurer how much money shall be allotted in
each period. However, this bill varies in that the rules and regula­
tions under which this money is to be appropriated will be determined
in advance by the Secretary in cooperation with the International
Association of Governmental Labor Officials.
There is another provision that is common to these bills. The
money so paid to any State shall be expended solely in carrying out
the purposes of the legislation. In addition, this bill provides for
the setting up of an Advisory Industrial Safety Commission of three
members— one representative each of the public (to act as chairman),
of labor, and of management. This Commission will recommend to
the Secretary reasonable standards, methods, and procedures for
establishing safe working conditions in industry, with a view to en­
couraging more effective control of hazardous conditions by the several



States. This Commission would not hare any power to set up or
to put such standards into effect, but merely to try to stimulate the
States to more effective control of their hazards.

Then there are the usual provisions for appointment of staff and
for appropriations, the latter including the 5 million dollars to be
allotted to the cooperating States, and $250,000 for the Industrial
Safety Commission and for other administrative expenses connected
with carrying on the program.
While the Department of Labor was asked for its view on this bill,
and said that it saw no objection to it, I wish to say that this is not a
Department of Labor bill. It is not an Administration measure, and
I think that any discussion here should be on the merits of the bill, not
on the fact that it would, through its terms, be administered by the
Department of Labor.
Mr. W rabetz (Wisconsin). There is no doubt in anyone's mind
that this bill was proposed under the sponsorship of Mr. Durkin and
the American Federation of Labor, with perfectly good intent. The
idea of helping anybody is always a worthy purpose. The word
“ help” alone is suggestive of kindliness and goodwill; nevertheless, I
think the whole situation is one that should be weighed in the light of
the trends of the time and the likelihood of what is to happen in
the future.
If this bill should pass with the present Administration in charge
of the Department of Labor, the situation might not be so bad. I think
that we have all had contact and experience with the United States
Department of Labor personnel—we have found them cordial and
helpful—we have gained from their experience and their study, and
many of us have followed their advice. To that extent, I think, the
Department of Labor has done a splendid job; but there it ought to
stop. This kind of controversy goes back a long way, and I think we
ought to study and think about some of the fundamentals involved.
Hamilton and Jefferson debated this question. Jefferson maintained
that to have effective administration— a democratic disposition of
matters— we must have localities and we must have the States selfgoverning. Hamilton, of course, definitely advocated the centraliza­
tion of all power in the National Government. Our fathers who
drafted the Constitution and who organized our Government rather
followed the advice of Jefferson. Our Government was organized on
the basis of very limited powers in the National Government, leaving
to the States every possible opportunity for self-government and
particularly for the participation of citizens in government.
Since that time there has been a rather steady grant of power to
the National Government by Congress and probably some relinquish­
ment of some governmental functions by the States. It was very slow,
however, until the depression following the economic crash in 1929.
When the depression came, the States, because of their limited power
to borrow money, found themselves in a position where they could not
give their citizens the aid which they needed; and, as you recall, the need
for aid was tremendous at the time. The only source of aid was from
the Federal Government which had unlimited powers of borrowing;
and so, from borrowed money, we received all sorts of aid— money to
the States to grant direct relief, AAA, Reconstruction Finance, W jPA,
and CWA. You recall all those various agencies.




Following this, the system of old-age and survivors insurance, and
the cooperative system of unemployment compensation between the
Federal and State governments were developed. Because of these aids
that the Federal Government has given, it has, of course, acquired
a tremendous prestige and we have been taught to look to the Federal
Government for aid and for comfort, even to the extent of letting them
tell us what kind of aid we need.
Then you recall that a few years ago the Supreme Court, in its
interpretation of the right of taxation and of the control of interstate
commerce, practically threw open for Congressional action every field
in which a State might formerly have been. Congress can now legislate
with respect to any of the functions that originally were thought should
be administered by the States. When Congress enters into a field you
all know the principle: Congress preempts the field and the States lose
any power within it.
We can conceive that by congressional action practically all fields
might be entered into and our States reduced to insignificance. Then
the question arises as to whether or not we have reached the time when
State and local governments might practically be abolished because
they have no more important work to do.
You might say: “ Wbat's that got to do with this bill?” This bill is
but an entering wedge toward the centralization, the nationalization,
of legislation and administration in the field of safety and ultimately in
the entire field of labor laws. True, the preamble speaks of cooperation
with aid to the States, but the fourth criteria says the money is going to
the States upon the basis of “ proper and efficient” administration.
I ask you, who in the States, or in Washington, or anywhere else, can
definitely prescribe “ proper and efficient” administration. It cannot
be done, because proper and efficient administration depends upon so
many elements that are peculiar to a particular State. Its size, its
industries, its historical development, its economic status, its educa­
tional development— everything enters into the picture; and so a form
of administration that might be deemed proper and efficient for New
York is absolutely out when you think of Nevada.
The same thing is true in comparing the two States: you will find
geographical differences and all kinds of other differences which make
for different administration. So there is no one wise enough to tell
you what is proper and efficient administration.
I think some of you have had experience in this field. The Social
Security Board tried to tell us what was proper and efficient adminis­
tration, held up our administrative funds three times for 3 months
at a time. Fortunately, we had funds of our own so we could operate,
and the Board finally made the grant of money without a change in
our set-up. Then strangely enough, some years later, when another
situation arose, it was discovered by the same people who advocated a
change in our set-up that after all it was a very good one and compli­
mented us for the one we had, so that we could meet the emergency
when our employment service was taken over by the Federal Govern­
ment. This position was taken largely by the regional office, but of
course, had to be sustained by the Social Security Board, at least
I believe that States have a definite place in this picture. You
have administration, you have legislation, on the level of the people.
I think legislation and administration are at their best when they are



responsive to the will of the people. You cannot develop standards of
safety and of administration until your people have been brought
up by educational processes to accept those standards and more
particularly to accept the responsibilities that go with the establish­
ment of standards, and that means compliance. Standards must be
developed by the educational process of employer and employee
meeting together, around the conference table, and developing the
standards that they are ready to accept. It is only then that you
are going to have ready compliance. If your people are not yet
ready to meet certain standards, all the power, all the money of the
Pharaohs and the kings of ancient Egypt would not establish and
maintain good standards.
It is the attitude of people that counts. I think our experience
with prohibition is definite proof of what I am trying to say. Our
people were not ready for prohibition, and therefore, prohibition could
not be enforced. As a result, we are many decades behind where we
might have been if we had not had prohibition.
States should be let alone. They will make progress. Sure,
some of us sometimes become impatient. W e feel that progress is
too slow, that States are not acting fast enough, that their standards
are too low. How do we know? How do I in Wisconsin know what
Louisiana should do? I am in no position to tell them. . They know
their conditions better than I do, and they should be left alone to
solve their own problems, and develop their own standards on a basis
that is going to be stable and of a kind that will be met. Let us not
become impatient if progress is slow.
There will be some States that will forge ahead rapidly and well
beyond anything that might be done by centralized control in W ash­
ington. States have not been afraid to experiment and to pioneer in
the field of labor legislation, or in the field of social legislation, for
that matter. I am not given to boasting, as I think you all know, and
yet I am proud to say that Wisconsin passed an unemploymentcompensation law long before Congress or anyone in Federal authority
thought about the subject. I venture to say that, but for the law
passed in Wisconsin, the Federal-State cooperative system would not
have been adopted quite so soon.
Yes, States should be permitted to experiment and to pioneer— lead
the way— because it is upon the basis of experience in our various
States that we learn how to meet our problems. If we centralize
control in Washington we would simply overload Congress, overload
the President and all the administrative agencies. They are not
superhuman— they cannot meet all the problems that face our people
— they recognize it themselves.
The W ar Manpower Commission took over the Employment Serv­
ice in order to centralize authority with the idea of coordinating the
effort. W hat happened? They found the job too large, so they de­
centralized and appointed State directors with almost complete au­
thority to act in all matters relating to their States— a definite de­
centralization, which had to come in order to provide efficient
administration. M en are just not big enough to understand all these
problems and to solve them properly and efficiently. If they under­
take them, what is the step that they must take? They must have a
general law passed and then delegate authority to a bureau— and from
the very nature of the situation the bureau becomes bureaucratic.




It cannot be helped— the thing is so big that people cannot reach it;
it is not responsive to the people.
In order to be effective they must enact rules and regulations be­
hind closed doors, not as it is done by a representative legislative body.
O f necessity there must be red tape, rule of thumb— it cannot be any
other way when it is so big; therefore, I do not blame the bureaucrats.
It is the result of the job that is given them, but it is bureaucratic
just the same— the people have no opportunity to participate in that
form of legislation or administration. It is too far away and it is
influenced only by expensive and intensive organization, by powerful
full blocs of one kind or another. As a result we do not have the
legislation and administration that comes to us by the democratic

There have been quite a number of real authorities on government
who have expressed themselves on this subject. I think it was in
1912 that Woodrow Wilson said: “ The history of liberty is a history
of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. When
we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the
processes of death, because concentration of power is what always
precedes the destruction of human liberty.” I agree with that state­
ment. Our tendency today ought not to be to give additional powers
to the Federal Government, but rather the reverse. Every time a
question of legislation and of administration comes up, any doubt
should be resolved in favor of sending that function right back to the
States, or even farther back, if possible, so that the people will govern
themselves. If people, and if localities and States, do not govern
themselves, they will die from the very nature of it because we know
that nonuse results in atrophy. Use develops strength; therefore,
active participation in governmental processes and in governmental
administration is essential, even in the very smallest of our localities
if we are to have a democratic government.
I feel very strongly on this question, and believe it is one of vital
importance. I think that further concentration of power (and I am
not critical of the Department of Labor either), is not conducive to
good government, and we should stay away from it as much as
possible because in this case, even though we might have the utmost
faith in the good officers of the Department of Labor, M rs. Beyer is not
going to be there always. W e might have a real bureaucrat there
in her place, and then things would not be so good. Our relationships
have been good; but if you give them the power to disburse money on
the basis of their judgment with respect to proper and efficient ad­
ministration, the friendships which we have built up over these years
will be shed— we will be at swordspoints, we will not be friends. It
would be just too bad if that eventually should result.
In conclusion, I want to read a few paragraphs of an article which
appeared in Header's Digest. The author is H atton W . Sumners,
Congressman from Texas. H e, I believe, is chairman of the judiciary
committee and a man who is listened to with a good deal of respect
when he speaks. He speaks of bureaucrats and centralization of
authority in Washington:
This is precisely the bureaucratic control we will have if we persist in making
Washington the guide, philosopher, big brother, supervisor and master of every
activity within our borders. The remedy— and the only remedy— is to send all
these non-Federal functions back where they belong: to the States #nd the local



communities, where they can be handled upon a scale within the comprehension
of the limited mind of man.
Strangely, those in Washington who fight for this new beuraucratic central
control call themselves progressives and those who oppose them are branded as
reactionaries. Such is the power of labels. We are grasping at ancient evils, and
call them progress.
This disease has been most devastating in Germany. In Imperial Germany
men already talked of the “ tyranny of bureaucracy.” The republican govern­
ment which succeeded the Kaiser greatly expanded it. It reached its full flower
under Hitler. Indeed, National Socialism may be described as government by
bureaucracy. I f we think Hitler’s system is better than ours we should have the
honesty to say so instead of copying while we denounce it.
The States must resume the status of responsible sovereign agencies of general
government or democracy cannot live in America.

M r. S hufo &d (North Carolina). W hen I saw the program for
today, it appeared a little bit as if I was being placed in the position
of an adversary to M r. W rabetz, m y very good friend from Wisconsin.
I would not have it appear so. After hearing him talk for a little
while, I assure you that I agree with the philosophy which he has
outlined. I think he is entirely right; but I cannot concur in his
I have a great admiration for the State of Wisconsin, for the work
which it has done, and for M r. Wrabetz personally. When we tried to
establish the Department of Labor in North Carolina about 10 or 11
years ago we drew very freely upon the experience and the work
which had been done by the great State of Wisconsin, particularly
with respect to establishing an inspection division. Wisconsin’s
experiences in the matter of procedures and in a great many other
respects were extremely helpful to us. O f course we could not do
what they did because we were not equipped to do it, but we were
able to adapt a great many things to the facilities which we had
available at that time, and the facilities were, I assure you, very, very
Tins bill, H . R . 2800, and the principle upon which it is based
seem to have raised a rather strong feeling about the matter of
States’ rights. W ell, that is another point on which I am in thorough
accord with M r. W rabetz, or with any of you who feel that
States’ rights have frequently been infringed upon, that some of the
powers probably should be rolled backward, and that States should,
in some instances at least, be given back some of the rights and priv­
ileges that have been taken away from them. Certainly any further
encroachment upon States’ rights should not be permitted, if at all
I know we feel pretty strongly where I come from about States’
rights. W e had a little fight about it one time, and we still feel pretty
much the same way. W e still think we have a lot of States’ rights,
even though we were forced to alter our opinions on some things a
good many years ago; and I do not always agree with the bureaucrats.
I think that they, as M r. Wrabetz said, have these things thrust
upon them, and we, the people back in the States, do it. W e have
demanded it— demanded that centralization.
I think the desire of Federal officials, or the persons sometimes re­
ferred to as bureaucrats, to do a good job is just as sincere in most
instances as the desire which you or I have. But, as M r. Wrabetz
so well explained, the thing gets so big and covers such a wide area
that I don’t think they always do the job that should be done. Some­




times the things which they do amaze me and stir me very deeply
with a feeling of resentment.
I received, by chance this summer, a publication of an outline of an
industrial-hygiene program. I read it over carefully and was amazed
at what one Federal agency proposed. I had no idea that an industrial
hygiene program embodied the things that were contained in this
outline— this program envisages the keeping of tools in their assigned
place, keeping work benches orderly, keeping floors free of trash and
waste, all stairways free of obstructions, lights cleaned and bulbs
renewed promptly, safety equipment in the proper place and repaired,
guards on machines, and machines properly guarded. I thought,
“ W ell, they’re talking about the Department of Labor. That is a
splendid program. I ’m in thorough accord with it.” I read on to the
last paragraph which says, “ Use the services of your State Industrial
Hygiene Bureau, the Division of Industrial Hygiene. The National
Bureau has already asked your State Industrial Hygiene Director
to advise and visit you. For further information and consultation,
do not hesitate to call upon him or upon the Public Health Service.”
Industrial hygiene units, as. you know, are maintained largely by
Federal funds. In North Carolina, the State contributes very little
financially to the maintenance of the Division of Industrial Hygiene.
The only way a program of this kind could be put into effect— and I
assume that there is in the mind of someone an idea to try to put it
into effect or this would never have been written— is through the use
of Federal funds. If it is put into effect in those States which do not
have strong departments of labor— and I believe that in this respect
the majority of States are unfortunately in the same position that
North Carolina is (we do not have sufficient funds for a strong de­
partment of labor)— we will never be able to get our legislatures to
provide additional funds for us to duplicate this work. A t least, we
cannot do this in North Carolina.

After giving much study to this entire matter I came to the con­
clusion that if H. R . 2800 were enacted into law, State departments of
labor would be given sufficient financial assistance to develop within
their own departments splendid safety and health inspection divisions,
and would thus forestall the need for the development of such programs
in the division of industrial hygiene under the auspices of the United
States Public Health Service. This was not an entirely new idea with
me, as I had been of the opinion for several years that Federal aid was
essential if we were to develop an acceptable safety and health in­
spection service within our own departments. I had observed the
development of such State-Federal programs within the confines of
the respective State agencies in the fields of public health, agriculture,
highway construction, and vocational education.
Forty years ago, each local unit of government in North Carolina
built and maintained its own roads. I was reared in a section of the
State where the terrain is rugged and the soil is mostly red clay, and
many of the roads were almost impassable during the winter months,
but when the automobile came along, it brought about such a change
in transportation that improved highways became a necessity. Local
governmental units in many instances were not able to build and
maintain the type of highway which the changing times had made
necessary. As a result, the State had to render assistance to these
local units of government in order for us to have good highways in all



sections of North Carolina. In the third decade of this century, our
State spent more than 100 million dollars in the construction of high­
ways. The rights and prerogatives of the local governmental units
were not taken away, but by receiving State aid, each local community
was provided with much better roads than they could ever have
built by relying upon their own resources. In later years the resources
of many oi the individual States were inadequate to construct the
type of highway that modern times demanded, so the Federal Gov­
ernment began to give aid to the individual States. With the use of
Federal funds our highway systems have been further improved and,
insofar as I can see, the sovereignty of the State highway commissions
has not been seriously affected.
The Department of Agriculture of North Carolina likewise receives
and spends much Federal money, which is allotted to it by the United
States Department of Agriculture, in the administration of its duties.
Without this assistance the State department of agriculture would not
be able to serve the farmers effectively, as the financial resources of
the State are inadequate to provide sufficient funds for all of the
needs of that department.
In recent years there has been a great demand for vocational edu­
cation in North Carolina, and the division of vocational education
of the State department of public instruction received appropriations
at the last one or two sessions of the General Assembly more freely, I
believe, than any other department. But, most of the money which
is used by that division of our State department of public instruction
is obtained through Federal grants and is Federal money.
In the program of rehabilitating handicapped people, persons who
have suffered injuries, had their arms cut off, lost a leg, lost an eye,
and maybe are handicapped physically for one reason or another,
through accident or otherwise— a great portion of that money comes
from Federal funds. Yet, upon inquiring into the administration of
that, I have not found that the right of the States to administer their
laws and to use that money in the administration of those laws has
been seriously affected or impaired.
Now, I think that where States’ rights are infringed upon more
seriously is where a Federal act is passed, which provides that there
shall be Federal administration of a Federal law, which could be done
much better on a local than on a national basis. The thing I want to
see is every State labor department developed to such a high degree
of efficiency that there will be no reason for Federal action or Federal
laws to supplant or supplement State laws. I want a State depart­
ment of labor strong enough in North Carolina so that there will be
no need for anyone to say, “ Well, your safety conditions are so bad
* *
I do not want labor to be able to say that the hazards
existing in industry are so serious that someone should do something
about it and— “ if you can’t do anything about it, then we’re going
to use our influence to try to see that someone else does something.”
You will recall that about 2 or 3 years ago a bill was introduced
into Congress to authorize the Bureau of Mines to make inspections
of all coal mines. There was a great fight; a fight of States’ rights
against Federal encroachment upon those rights. What was the
principal argument used for the enactment of that Federal statute?
That some of the States—not all of them, but some of the States in
which coal mines are located—were not doing a proper job of safety




inspection; the miners were losing their lives unnecessarily and the
Federal Government should intercede. As a result, there was some­
thing of a compromise, as is true in most legislation. The Bureau
of Mines was given the right of entry and the right to make recommen­
dations; the power of enforcement was withheld at that time, I think,
perhaps to give the States a chance to improve their own programs.
Now, it is hard to build a State department of labor— I believe
most of you would agree with me— because of the fact that we are
not considered as essential as some of the other departments. That
is particularly true in the States which are still predominantly agricul­
tural and where most of the representatives in the State legislatures
are representing agricultural interests. It is very difficult for the
department that is not so highly regarded— is not deemed so highly
essential— to get money in sufficient amounts to serve the worker
as he is supposed to be served.

This past year the Department of Labor of North Carolina was
rather fortunate in getting a goodly increase in its appropriation.
Next to the vocational education division we got a much larger per­
centage of increase than any other department. I think there were two
or three reasons for that. One reason was that the department had
grown in stature, largely through our associations and cooperative
agreements with Federal agencies. The appropriation for our
statistical division was greatly increased. Much credit for this
increase is due to our cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The limited amount of aid received from this Federal
agency has enabled us to do a job well enough to bring about recog­
nition of its value. Both labor and industry demanded increased
appropriations for the further expansion of this valuable program.
We have had an agreement with the Wage and Hour and Public
Contracts Divisions in North Carolina for 3 years, under which we
administer the Wage and Hour Law. People came to think of the
State Department of Labor as being the agency in the State where all
activities with respect to industrial labor were centralized; and think­
ing along that line had trained the spotlight upon us to the extent
that the legislature was willing to give us a considerable increase in
appropriation for our inspectional activities. We now have a fairly
good force of inspectors. We do not have some of the technical
experts that we need, but we are better equipped than ever before.
This is largely due to the fact that we have come to be thought of
throughout the State as the agency which deals with labor problems
more or less exclusively. And it was through Federal assistance that
we came to be regarded in that light.
As we all know, Federal agencies have not been kept out of the
field of industrial safety and health. It was invaded by the Division
of Industrial Hygiene through the Social Security Board’s activities
under a provision of the Social Security Act. The Public Contracts
Act provides that the Federal Government shall make safety and
health inspections in those places that have Government contracts,
unless they accept State inspections. Through agreement with some
25 or 30 States, the Administrator of the Public Contracts Act has
agreed to accept the inspections of the State departments of labor,
but that leaves some 20 or 25 States where no such agreements have
been reached. So we cannot shut our eyes and say that we are going



to keep the Federal Government out of this or that field, because it
cannot be done.
It would not have been possible for any local unit of government
in North Carolina to resist the State in rendering financial assistance
to localities in the building and maintenance of improved highways.
The revolutionary change in modes of transportation made such
State action inevitable. Likewise, we cannot* keep the Federal
Government out of State activities. W e should coordinate our
activities in these rapidly changing times and work on a cooperative
basis. In North Carolina we have a fine working arrangement with
D r. Steelman, Director of the United States Conciliation Service.
The Federal conciliators work with our men as they do in other
States that have conciliation services, but we cannot keep them out,
and would not want to, even if we could. W e cannot keep Federal
agencies out of the field of safety and health inspections unless we do
the job, and I believe that many of you will agree with me that most
of the States are not doing the job on safety and health inspection
work that is required of them. Furthermore, I do not believe that
many State departments will be able to secure sufficient State funds
to do an adequate job for a long, long time to come. I think it will
be harder after this war to get that money than it is now, and for
this reason: Federal taxes are going to be high for many years.
Congress does not react to the plea for the reduction of taxes as
quickly as our legislatures, because our State legislatures are closer
to the people. So there is going to be great pressure placed on our
legislatures to reduce taxes as the national income begins to decline.
A s that income begins to decline, the revenues that are going to
shrink most appreciably are going to be State revenues. The pres­
sure to reduce taxes most strongly will be on State legislatures and
nob on Congress. State legislatures will react to that pressure and
appropriations will be cut rather than increased.

That is the reason why I am interested in some bill of this char­
acter. H. R. 2800 may have some objections, but I think the prin­
ciple is sound, and I do not think it means giving up States' rights.
The acceptance of Federal aid has not meant giving up States' rights
by our highway commission, our health department, our department
of agriculture, or our vocational education and rehabilitation agencies.
The one place where I know the most difficulty has been experi­
enced in the way of Federal aids and grants is with the Social Security
Board. W hy, t do not know. But in the case of these other depart­
ments, the United States Bureau of Roads seems not to have a great
deal of trouble with State highway departments; the United States
Department of Agriculture does not seem to have a great deal of
conflict with the State departments of agriculture; nor does the Office
of Education seem to have much difficulty in dealing with our State
education department. M y experience is that when the United
States Department of Labor is dealing with a State department of
labor, very little trouble is experienced. Our difficulties begin when
agencies outside the Labor Department— agencies who do not know
us, do not know us individually and personally, who do not know our
problems— invade our field of activities and try to push us out and
take over our work. That has been my observation and experience.
Yours may have been different.




In conclusion, is it the collective opinion of this body that it is all
right for other State departments to accept Federal funds for the
building of roads, for public health, education, and agriculture, but
that so far as labor is concerned we want none of it? That I believe,
is really the thing we should think about very seriously.
M r. L u b in . Y ou have heard two members of the organization
present the pros and cons of this problem. The discussion will now
be open from the floor.
M r. D ean (Michigan). Labor is very much interested in minimum
standards with respect to sanitation and health in industry. W e
are, however, concerned with how that is brought about. W e are
somewhat inclined to believe with M r. W rabetz of Wisconsin that
the standards attained will be attained through education.
Coming back to this question of Federal aid, the labor movement
in Michigan has been quite concerned with how it affected our educa­
tional program, particularly our vocational education program. M r.
Shuford has mentioned how well the program functions in North
Carolina. W e have given this a great deal of thought in Michigan,
and we were quite fortunate in having the aid and advice of that
sturdy fellow from Wisconsin, Henry Ohl, who was on the Federal
Board for Vocational Education. The Smith-Hughes Law, as you
all probably recall, and the George-Deen A ct was intended to aid
the establishment of local vocational education programs, particularly
in the trade industrial field, in agriculture, and in home economics.
W hen the bill was written, the Smith-Hughes Law provided for a
Federal board with policy-making power. This was subsequently
changed to an advisory board or advisory committee which now
obtains. The State plans for vocational education originally were
submitted to this Board which had policy-making authority and, if
accepted, Federal funds were expended on the basis of compliance
with the State plans for vocational education. The Smith-Hughes
Law provided that the State must establish a board for vocational
education, a separate board to expend these funds.
Now, we have that board in M ichigan; we have a State board of
control for vocational education, and do not forget the control, but it
has not resulted in the type of vocational program that is beneficial to
the industrial workers of Michigan. W e of the labor movement
have attempted to correct that but have been unable to do so.
The bill under discussion this morning which provides for a Federal
advisory committee through the Secretary of Labor, makes no men­
tion of any such advice on a State level, and the questions I am raising
are: Just how would this function? Just what authority would be
left to the State to determine the type of program that best meets the
needs of the State? W ho would make that determination? It is not
a question of States’ rights to me. It is a question of determining
the State’s responsibility and how best to develop in that State the
necessary facilities and personnel to carry out those responsibilities.
I am definitely of the opinion that minimum national standards
should obtain. Certainly there are too many valleys in this matter of
factory inspection and working conditions in the factories of this coun­
try. The few peaks that obtain— such as Wisconsin, California,
New York, and probably Pennsylvania— are the exceptions rather
than the rule. The valleys of the depressions are all too prevalent.



W e in Michigan have a long way to go before we will get anything
like the condition that should obtain in industry, but we are not sure
that this is the way to do it. If it is going to work out like our voca­
tional education program, I do not think Federal aid will be very bene­
ficial to Michigan. In other words, we are quite concerned with how
this thing would function, to what extent we would be permitted to
determine what we need and to develop the facilities and the personnel
to deal with the needs.
Mr. P olhaus (Maryland). It may suprise some people— being

an ardent States’-righter and coming from a State that never voted for
prohibition because we did not believe in forcing our will upon the will
of other people— that I cannot see where this bill enters into any parti­
san thought at all. Whether Mr. Roosevelt, as President, or whether
the Labor Department administers it, in my judgment, has no part in
the bill. The democratic form of government is to permit the States
to decide for themselves whether they will accept this measure of aid.
I see nothing in the bill that makes it compulsory for any State to ac­
cept the aid offered by the bill. However, those States who desire
that aid, I feel that, in a democratic Government, they should not be
denied the privileges of accepting it if they see fit to do so.
I want to say that, if the bill should become law— and I know that
what I say has very little to do with whether it does or not— and if
there is one iota of interference with the right of my department to be
administered by me and me alone while I am the commissioner, I
would oppose with all the power that I could bring to bear the accept­
ance by the State of Maryland of aid given by the Government. On
the other hand, I would vote for the bill, because I feel that it is a demo­
cratic way to give the 48 States the right to decide whether or not they
want to swap their marbles for candy, facetiously speaking, and I
have no right to say to Mr. Shuford of North Carolina, “ If your State
believes it's a good thing, you shall not have that opportunity.” No
more would Mr. Shuford have the right to say to my State, “ I think
it's good, and you have to take it.” I think that the whole thing is
based upon the right of the State to accept or reject. If there is
anything in. the bill that makes it compulsory for the State to accept it,
then I would be bitterly opposed to it. But as I understand the bill,
it provides a more or less free-will offering, and it is up to the State
whether or not to accept it. I hope that before Maryland accepts any
free-will offer from the Government, it makes sure that nothing in that
act interferes with the right of the State to operate and function under
its own sovereign rights.
Mr. R oyle (Utah). There are several phases of this question that
the State of Utah feels very keenly about. I will try to bring them to
your attention quickly.
In 1924 the Honorable James M. Beck, solicitor in the Attorney
General’s office under the Harding Administration, and later represen­
tative from the great State of Pennsylvania, wrote a book discussing
the Constitution of the United States, our republican form of Govern­
ment, and the future of the United States under it. He discussed the
proposition of whether or not our Federal machinery was at that time
unwieldy and unrepresentative of the citizenry of the Nation, and
whether or not the republican type of Government which is guaranteed
the States of the Nation under our Constitution was in fact republican
611560°— 45------10




in nature and in practice. He even was so bold as to segregate the
United States into three separate divisions, by grouping the States into
the three divisions, thereby avoiding the concentration in Washington
which at that time was very evident. B y subdividing the Nation, the
control of Government would be brought nearer the people. Since
that time, as we all know, the concentration in Washington of new
powers, of new responsibilities for the Nation as a whole, has been

In 1862 the Department of Agriculture was created. That is a long
way back. Since that time, and even before that time, the Federal
Government has been mushrooming with increased tempo. We are
currently aware of what happened between the years 1924 and 1932.
Several new bureaus were added to the Washington set-up. Since 1932
they have increased in number considerably. Now, while we take
exception to and are startled by the suggestions and the direction that
this bill contemplates, we look at it probably from a personal stand­
point and from a State standpoint. There is a far deeper significance
attached to it than just a petty quarrel. Every time the Federal
Government or a Federal agency in Washington takes on a new duty
that should rest upon State administration it removes from the State
certain direct responsibilities to its citizens and removes from its
citizens the direct control of local government. What we are doing is
continually stepping on the treadmill and handing down our authority
and our responsibility for the management of our own local govern­
ment to some bureau or person in Washington to assume and discharge
vicariously for us.
If there is anything in the democratic theory of government it is
“ in dividual respon s i b i l i t y t h e right to think and to say and to act on
one’s own behalf, and at the same time to shoulder the burden of
administering and controlling civil affairs. If one needs help it is
highly proper to petition for assistance to those who are in a position to
help, providing, one does not pay too heavy a price or irrevocable
premium for it. The individual, the local government unit, may be
somewhat limited in mind and in financial or economic capacity.
During a period of emergency the Federal Government, acting as a
reservoir might be called upon for temporary sustenance. It should
be temporary, however; we should estimate the costs and the gains
to be had before we repose upon other shoulders those things we might
be able to do for ourselves though under distressful and burdensome
conditions. W e would think several times about it in the State of Utah
before we petitioned Washington and gave them the rim of our State
for such help. Federal hand-outs have a tendency to sterilize local
vigor and dignity.
Reference has been made to the United States Department of Agri­
culture and its operations throughout the Nation by previous speakers.
Agriculture as an industry and vocation is of such a nature that it
transcends and crosses State lines. It is a national problem. It is
interstate in its marketing, purchasing, processing, etc. To meet its
demands a central administration headquarters in Washington might
be necessary. The agricultural question is beside the point. The
problem of road building has also been brought before us, This is
another interstate question. The roads in North Carolina and the
roads in Nevada are of interest to me and of concern to me because



of the interstate nature of communication, travel, and business over
the roads. Roads are almost “ natural” things.
Now, the interstate character might be applied to several other
Federal bureaus such as the Interstate Commerce Commission. They
operate in an interstate field. We don't need to stop here and
enumerate all these interstate works. Let us get into the field of
education for a minute, inasmuch as it has been previously referred to.
Education comes directly between the child and the parent— your
local school board and the child. There is nothing interstate about it,
it is localized. But when you come into other fields, especially that one
to which House Bill 2800 refers, relating to industry-safety standards
and inspection, you have entered the State. You have come down to
the individual employer and the conditions under which he works his
employees within the State. The industrial operation is definitely
located and so is the employee who works therein. They are fixed,
they are intrastate. The inspection of such establishments for safety
factors and standards is directly under State supervision and should be.
It is a problem as close to the individual as anything could be. It has
no relationship to what New York; or Florida or Oregon, is doing by
way of safety inspection and under widely dissimilar conditions in all
probability. It is a problem that lies and rests entirely within the
State and we need no Federal assistance, control, direction, or funds to
monopolize the field. There is still some responsibility, initiative,
sense of propriety, and brain power left in the 48 States and legislatures
and the 3,000 counties that comprise the Nation.
There is another angle I would like to bring to your attention.
In 1935 the State of Utah adopted what is known as the “ Little
Wagner Act.” This is a sidelight, but it shows how Federal Depart­
ments can keep their noses out of State business. Utah is one of the
four or five States in the Nation with a “ Little Wagner Act.” As you
know it is similar to the National Labor Relations Act. We have
had some help at times from the National Labor Relations Board and
from the United States Department of Labor Conciliation Service.
We liked them. We got along well with them— very fine people.
There is no criticism to be levied upon them at this time; but, en­
couraging local government to throw responsibility for the settlement
and handling of local problems is wrong. The Federal Departments
should avoid rather than encourage this tendency . We have had this
situation arise in Utah. The Utah Labor Relations Board went out
to settle a dispute which involved 10,000 employees and their em­
ployers. This was strictly interstate business in the construction
field. The parties adversely affected by the Utah Board's decision
appealed to the National War Labor Board. It set aside the State
action and took over complete jurisdiction of the dispute. This is
wartime. We took no particular exception to the War Labor Board's
action though we felt it was unnecessary. It is a trend to be noted
before the war, and of course completely in the ascendancy at the mo­
ment. Federal conciliators from the Department of Labor come in
and check up on problems and go about their business without too
much ado.
I want to bring another item or two to your attention; one is a car­
dinal thing in regard to this bill before us. It seems M r. Durkin of
the American Federation of Labor has some organized labor support.




Let us look at the labor picture a moment; We have the greatest
number of organized labor the Nation has ever seen. About 10
million in the A. F. of L. and C. I. O., and adding the railroad brother­
hood to it you have in the neighborhood of 12 or 13 million.
These people are organized in the cities, counties, and States to
exert tremendous pressure on legislators at home. They may well
get through the State legislature the objective sought in House Bill
2800, if they would busy themselves in government at home instead
of relaying it by remote control through the Congressmen in Wash­
ington. Federal Congressmen are not so susceptible to the direct
pressure at home in appropriations and finance matters as are the
legislators. The Federal treasury appears like a Santa Claus sav­
ings bank open to the public. The legislators are at home, and they
are under close personal observation. Raising taxes at home out of
the individual’s pocketbook while he is watching is a risky business.
Your Congressmen are farther removed from the electorate in such
matters. Appropriating funds out of the nebulous Federal source of
supply is one thing, appropriating funds out of the rank and file
citizen’s pockets at home while he is watching, is another. Even so,
we ought not to do the unmoral thing, and supply the citizen with a
service out of other people’s money or supply him with a service he
would not directly provide for himself.
Labor organizations are solvent and well financed. They are in a
position to deliver effective argument to legislatures. In our State
their position is made prominent, and adequate appropriations are
generally made for the needs of the working people. W e have little
trouble getting adequate funds in the State of Utah. Organized labor
is strong enough, n they apply themselves intelligently, to defeat
every legislator in the State who would deprive them of adequate
protection in the industrial field.

Why iii the world organized labor wants to concentrate so much
power and authority in Washington and federalize things is unknown
to me. Of course it is clear that the A. F. of L. and C. I. O. are organ­
ized for lobbying purposes in Washington. These organizations are
powerful and many Congressmen respect them. Getting one ap­
propriation would do away with appealing to 48 separate legislatures
and funds. However, democracy and local determination is broken
down. This is a trend organized labor should resist rather than
encourage. Organized labor may not have considered the full im­
plication of the direction in which they are traveling, as they might
have done.
Just before I came to Chicago I talked to the heads of the A . F . of
L . and C. I. O. in my State, with respect to State and Federal relations.
They both favored State jurisdiction in these matters because we are
closer to them than the Federal people are or could be. Washington is
too far removed.
Today organized labor is in a position to petition, and they pretty
much take care of themselves. They are no longer dependent, weak,
and inarticulate. I repeat it is a shame, and folly, to deliver any
more grants of authority to Washington and remove from the in­
dividual citizen the care and responsibility for his own local govern­
ment. It is undignified and debilitating to plead with Washington
for these services and appropriations that should rest upon the
individual legislatures, local industry, local labor, and local society.



Conducting one’s own affairs makes for individualism in character.
Integrity in the citizen and in local government is fundamental to a
democracy. Paupers’ pleas to Washington promote dictatorship.
Mr. G amble (South Carolina). I would not feel that I had properly
upheld the grand old State of South Carolina in this matter of State and
Federal rights arising here, did I not have a word to say regarding the
subject. You know that we were the first to leave the Union, and
my stand on the matter will probably surprise you, in view of the
words spoken here by the representatives of other States.
I think the words, “ Federal aid,” used here this morning, is a misno­
mer. To me, it is the spending of money in the State by the Federal
Government that it properly should spend in conjunction with the State
departments to do a service that they both have in the States. It is
not a matter of the Federal Department’s coming in and encroaching
upon the States and taking over the State departments. The Federal
Government has a job to do in the States because the Constitution
many years ago contemplated the passage of goods and flow of ma­
terials across State lines.
Some years ago we had the same fight among the counties of South
Carolina that is coming up here now among the States of the Nation.
It was a question of whether or not a central road-building program
should be put on, and whether or not Anderson County in the
Piedmont should go 1
by or whether Charleston
County on the coast

Spartanburg County in

the northern part of
e, for some time, almost
drawn apart in two camps; yet we worked it out and Spartanburg
and Charleston and Anderson and Lee Counties cooperated and built
the finest system of roads in the United States. We did that, work­
ing together. Now the speed at which the world is traveling has
brought the States in the Union in almost as close proximity as
the counties in South Carolina were 25 or 30 years ago. To me,
this is just another step not only in the program of my State
and the United States, but in the progress of the world. Twenty-five
or thirty years from now you are going to have the same fight—it is
already beginning— as to whether the United States and England and
the other countries will get together on a world program.
Now, the question is whether or not we are going to be as some of the
counties in South Carolina were—whether or not we are going to be
obstructionists to progress. We cannot keep the Federal Govern­
ment out of the States because it has a right, and it must exercise that
right; it has a duty to perform, and it must perform that duty. The
only question to me is whether you will have two agencies, a Federal and
a State agency, performing a service within your State, or whether
you will have the Federal Government and the State government
working together in cooperation to perform that service. The State
is doing the Federal job with Federal money that the Federal Govern­
ment properly should give to the States, not as an aid, but to perform
a proper Federal function that the Federal Government is required to
perform by our Constitution. Whether you want the Federal Govern­
ment to come into your State to inspect interstate commerce and the
flow of goods does not matter because it is constitutional. Therefore,
I would much rather perform my State duties and perform the Federal
duties in cooperation with the Federal Government than to have the




Federal Government come in and make a duplicate investigation or
perform a duplicate set of duties.
As a firm and fundamental States’-rights man, representing the
State that I do, I am bitterly opposed to and I shall fight with every
ounce of energy at my command any Federal Government agency
that attempts to come mto my State and set itself up independently o f
my department or of any State department. I don’t care whether it
directly affects the department of labor or not. It is with me, a
matter of whether it affects any part of South Carolina. Federal
agencies have come into my State and have not cooperated with me,
and I shall continue to, w ell say, disagree with these Federal agencies
until such time as they recognize that I belong in South Carolina and
that they only belong there by reason of the fact that our goods flow
across State lines. That, to me, is fundamental and sound States’
I realize that the Federal Government is in a better position, and it
should be in a better position, to plan for the United States, to plan
how to fit South Carolina into the conglomeration of States that make
up this great Nation, and I hope that we can overcome this difficulty
that we are facing now as we overcame our county situation. We had
some poor counties; we had some rich counties. The rich counties
said: “ You poor county boys get elected every time. We boys from
the rich counties get beat every time. Why? Because you poor
county boys get together and take the taxes that we pay and spend it
for roads in your poor counties. You spend our tax dollars in your
counties.” There was some merit in the argument of the boys from
the rich counties, and such was the case, but, in the course of years,
the wisdom of that procedure has shown us something, and South
Carolina, instead of being divided up into one, two, or three sections—
Piedmont fighting Charleston, the tobacco farms against the cotton
farms, textile men aginst the farmers—we are beginning to come
together in harmonious relationship by reason of our backlog of
I want to go on record here, this morning, for the same type of
cooperation. I know that the assistance and aid from the Federal
Government in cooperation with my department is assistance that
the Federal Government owes to South Carolina. It is a service that
the Federal Government owes to all the States; it is work and research
that the Federal Government properly should have done and that
it should be ready to grant the States. Therefore, I am not only in
favor of this bill, but I am going to work with my Congressman to
obtain, not particularly this bill, but some bill of this type.
M r. M orrison (Kansas). I might say that I feel that our people
in Kansas would want me to oppose this bill. On the basis of co­
operation, we are always willing to cooperate and we appreciate the
cooperation of the United States Department of Labor; so far it
has been on the basis of cooperation. In our experience with other
agencies— other State agencies, who have received grants despite
oral and written assurances that it would be cooperative— we are
sorry to find that cooperation is on a basis of 90 with the Federal
Government and 10 with the State, or the reverse if you want to
put it that way.
Our experience with unemployment compensation, with the State
board of health, with vocational training, has been the same. Those



powers have been usurped by the Federal Government, and I feel
quite positive that labor in Kansas would not wish that to be true
with their labor department and will oppose the bill.
Mr. P atton (New York). I hesitate to speak because I am not
the commissioner of our State. The commissioner had planned to
come, but when he found he was unable to do so, he asked me as
representative of the Industrial Commissioner of New York State
to speak in opposition to this bill.
This morning’s discussion reminds me of the Webster-Calhoun
debate just prior to the Civil War. I had not heard this kind of
talk for so long that I had almost forgotten it; and it is interesting
to see what changes time brings, to see and hear the men from
Maryland and South Carolina, and the men from Utah and Kansas,
argue as they have. I suppose it is a good thing. It shows a shaking
up of our complacence by beginning not to accept everything, but
beginning to think for ourselves.
I was very much impressed with a statement which Mr. Griffiths
made at the luncheon yesterday— one with which we are all familiar,
but it comes to mind in this connection. He pointed out how there
is one legislature in England— one Parliament for the whole country.
There is no question of States’ rights in England. Fortunately, or
unfortunately, we are not in that position, and this whole system
of grants-in-aid, as we call it, started in England long before it did
here; it covered all sorts of matters and did not interfere with their
system of government. It was in accord with it. Now, ever since
we have in many fields begun this system of Federal grants-in-aid, it
has altered the form of our Government. It has gradually made
inroads upon our traditional system of having 48 State “ parliaments”
or legislatures, and we are increasingly coming to lean upon and
rely upon the one central “ parliament” for our legislation. That
may be a good thing. We could debate about that endlessly, but
it seems to me that this grant-in-aid is a fundamental change,
although indirect, in our form of government, and if we are going
to go over to that, I think we should do it openly. As to the terms
of this bill, there are a great many specific things that can be
criticized. But I do not want to talk long, because we all want to
catch trains. I do feel it is my obligation, in accordance with the
instructions of our industrial commissioner, to say that New York is
opposed to the bill, and I am personally in accord with that view.
Mr. W rabetz . I would like to make myself definitely clear on one
or two points that I possibly did not touch on. We, of course, ought
to be centering all our attention and energies on the one big job that
we have— the winning of the war in order to preserve our liberties. It
is unfortunate, I think, that this issue has come up at this time, but
it is before us and we have to discuss it. This is an issue of a long-run
policy, as to whether or not the Federal Government is going to con­
trol— not necessarily come into the State and compete on a duplicating
basis, but control State administration. This bill gives power to pass
on administration and therefore to control. This fundamental issue
should be determined by the United States, by us. After all, we are
the United States. The Federal Government is our government. At
this time, when our attention must, of course, be focused on all-out
war efforts, it is unfortunate this bill was introduced; it should not



i9 4 3

have been. It should have been introduced at a time when our minds
and our thinking could be free from the situation that we are now in.
I want to make that clear.
There are certain functions, of course, of which the Federal Govern­
ment should definitely have complete charge. One is the conduct of
war. There are certain other functions usually in peacetime, such
as police functions, which are definitely of State and local concern.
True it is, that main trunk highways leading from California to New
York, must have some Federal supervision and control. Likewise,
highways that are principally for the State should be controlled by
the State, and the counties and towns should have control o f those
which have nothing to do with the Federal or State systems.
Another thing is that we probably have not objected much to the
aid that we received in highway construction and in vocational educa­
tion, even though they are pretty well controlled b y W ashington,
because the Federal Government does set up rather rigid standards
and, therefore, it does control. This leads to two things: One, a
very wasteful administration— lack of funds and granting of aid—
when you spend somebody else’s money you are apt to be more free
with it than if it is your own; and second, we have not objected
very much because at the time most of these various aids developed,
we still did not have the Supreme Court decision which said that the
Federal Government could enter into these fields. Now, we have
had experience with one of such activities which has developed since
those Supreme Court decisions, and it has not been good. These
other agencies will develop in power and in control and we are going to
wake up one of these mornings to find that we have sold our birthright
for a mess of pottage.
Mr. R eed (Texas). I don’t believe that there is any question as to

how the people in my State feel about Federal control and some of the
decrees and other things that have recently been issued from Wash­
ington. With respect to H. R. 2800,1 did not intend to say anything
— I want to study the bill quite a bit more. I will say from the study
I have made of it, it was very cleverly written. I am glad the caption
says “ Mrs. Norton introduced the following bill.” I am sure that
Mrs. Norton did not have anything to do with the writing of this
bill. If you will, when you get the time, all of you, study it very
carefully, you will find that in the beginning the bill states that it is
for the purpose of enabling the United States Government, through
the Department of Labor, to cooperate with State agencies admin­
istering labor laws, safe and healthful working conditions in industry,
and that it shall be done, if this bill passes, in accordance with rules
and regulations previously prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
That is in section 2; and in section 3 the money shall be expended
solely in carrying out the purposes specified in accordance with rules
and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. No one knows what
these rules and regulations will be. They are subject to change at the
whim of the Secretary, whoever it might be, and the people in iny
State feel that if we have departmental administration of laws of any
kind, they should be clearly written in black and white so that every­
one can understand what the terms of that law or the terms of any
rule and regulation are. Therefore, I want to go on record as being
opposed to this, and like the gentleman from South Carolina, I will



appear before my Representatives in the next Congress and ask them
to do everything they can to kill this bill.
M r. M urphy (Illinois). I am the representative of the State that
probably gets more criticism— that is, not the State, but our com­
munity here of States— of being isolationists, that's the term at
which they point their finger from Washington. We have no quar­
rels, however, with any Department at Washington. We disagree
with them many times. We do it openly and above board. They
have a right to disagree with us; we extend them that right. How­
ever, I wonder if we are using our good senses here this morning in
either condemning or okaying a bill. We have all had experiences
with legislation. You would not recognize the bill that is introduced,
after it gets through the category of committees and amendments
and everything else. Here, we are asked the question: Are you in
favor of this bill or are you against it? We are probably expected to
present an opinion. Well, definitely our opinion in Illinois is against
any Federal violation of State powers. However, I can appreciate
that to some of these men, it would be of great benefit to have some
type of a bill that might grant them some assistance where their
State funds are inadequate to do a good job. Our State is anxious to
see the Southern States, the Northern States, or any other States pro­
tect the lives of* the workers. Our unions are very much concerned
about it. We want to see them progress. We have good laws— they
have been built up over a great number of years. Our department is a
very strong one, and we can take care of our own problems. But in
getting back to the fundamentals and the idea of expressing views, I
cannot see any intelligent reason why we should, as I have said, con­
demn or okay this. You don't know and I don't know, and there is not
one person in this room who knows in what form this bill will finally
come up for a vote. It might pass one House, as most of the bills do,
in one shape— it might be round and beautiful— but by the time it got
over to the other House it would be as slim as any bill you have ever
seen. We have no criticism about the Department of Labor's author­
ity, but there are agencies in Washington regarding which we have
considerable criticism.
The Manpower Commission steps into Illinois and tells us that we
are freezing jobs and so forth. We opposed it. We found no good
reason for it. We cannot find one yet. We believed in Illinois labor
and industry— that people should be allowed to move back and forth.
An industry that never paid any attention to its workers—never
gave them any rights, pay, or conditions—it should be the one that
does not have the employees today. An industry that has taken
good care of its employees has very little trouble losing them to the
war plants, even though they might receive more pay. Unfortunately,
I do not know the real reason for this being brought up. I think it
is marvelous to have discussion regarding this bill, but I doubt the
wisdom of this group— it is very small— to speak for 48 States and the
international group. We go on record probably, today, for or against
this bill. I think it is a mistake. I do not think that any State;—my
State, your State, or any other State— should speak as an association
for the States that are not here and in a position to make their own




Mr. L u b in . In order that there may be no misunderstanding, it was
not intended that any resolution or any vote be taken on the issue.
The purpose of the round table was to get the points of view of the
various State representatives, so that the issues might be clearly
Mr. W rabetz . Not only the general issue, but H. R. 2800 is specifi­
cally mentioned, isn't it? And we are, of course, discussing it as it is
written. We are not discussing it as it might be amended in the
Mr. L u b in . A s I listened to the discussion, it seemed that the most
significant aspect of the problem, at least as far as I am concerned, is a
question of understanding one another. It is quite evident that the
relationship between the Federal and the State governments, the
relationship between the United States Department of Labor and the
State labor departments, the question of the use of Federal funds for
specific purposes— all of these matters are looked at from different points
of view, dependent upon the background and the experiences that indi­
viduals have had with one agency or another. I think there is a need
for clarification of words, ideas. I was very much interested to learn
what this bill could do to this country. On the other hand, I was
much interested to learn what this bill could not do to this country.
It all gets back, I think, to what I originally said: It is a question of
education, of sitting down and discussing the problem. I honestly
believe that if we could have 2 or 3 hours, the lines of demarkation
between the two groups would get very, very thin. I think we could
agree on how far the State should go and how far the Federal Govern­
ment should go. It all gets back, I think, to the effect of words upon
people's minds.

Business Meetings—Reports and
The following convention committees were appointed:
Auditing committee.— George W. Dean, of Michigan, chairman; Harry J.
Burczyk, of Wisconsin; and J. O’ Connell Maher, of Quebec.
Resolutions committee.— E. B. Patton, of New York, chairman; Wm. H. Chesnut,
of Pennsylvania; E. M. Hoyle, of Utah; John Hopkins Hall, of Virginia; and John
Morrison, of Kansas.
Nominating committee.— Walter E. Rountree, o f Florida, chairman; J. R.
Rockwell, of Indiana; Charles W. Harness, of Iowa; 0 . S. Traylor, of Missouri;
and John D. Reed, of Texas.

Report o f the Secretary-Treasurer
Since the St. Louis convention four new members have joined the Association,
viz, the Louisiana Department of Labor, the Michigan Department of Labor and
Industry, the Texas Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Quebec Department of
Labor; two States have discontinued their membership in the Association since
that time, namely, the Oklahoma Department of Labor and the Connecticut
Department of Labor and Factory Inspection. The membership is now as
A ctive M em bers

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
United States Bureau of Mines.
United States Children’s Bureau.
United States Employment Service.
United States Women’s Bureau.
United States Division of Labor Standards.
United States Social Security Board.
National Labor Relations Board.
Alabama Department of Industrial Relations.
Alaska Department of Labor.
Arkansas Department of Labor.
California Department of Industrial Relations.
Florida Industrial Commission.
Illinois Department of Labor.
Indiana Division of Labor.
Iowa Bureau of Labor.
Kansas Department of Labor.
Louisiana Department of Labor.
Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries.
Michigan Department of Labor and Industry.
Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Inspection.
Montana Department of Agriculture, Labor and Industry.
New Jersey Department of Labor.
New York Department of Labor.
North Carolina Department of Labor.
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry.
Philippine Islands Department of Labor.
Puerto Rico Department $f Labor.
Rhode Island Department of Labor.
South Carolina Department of Labor.
Texas Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Utah Industrial Commission.
Virginia Department of Labor and Industry.
West Virginia Department of Labor.





Wisconsin Industrial Commission.
Department of Labor of Canada.
British Columbia Department of Labor.
Manitoba Department of Labor.
No via Scotia Department of Labor.
Quebec Department of Labor.
Associate M em bers

Colorado Industrial Commission.
Delaware Labor Commission.
Maryland Commission of Labor and Statistics.
Nevada Department of Labor.
New Hampshire Bureau of Labor.
North Dakota Department o f Agriculture and Labor.
Oregon Bureau of Labor.
Alberta Department of Trade and Industry.
The proceedings of the St. Louis convention have been printed as Bulletin
No. 721 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of
Due to the fact that many individuals who were members of the various com­
mittees of this Association are no longer connected with the labor departments
of their respective States, I am listing below the names of the people who have
prepared the reports which have been submitted to this convention:
Apprenticeship.— Walter Simon, Wisconsin Industrial Commission.
Child Labor.— Beatrice McConnell, U. S. Children’s Bureau.
Factory Inspection.— John J. Toohey, Jr., New Jersey Department of Labor.
Industrial Homework.— Kate Papert, New York Department of Labor.
Machinery Safety Requirements.— Forrest H. Shuford, North Carolina De­
partment of Labor.
Minimum Wage.— Louise Stitt, U. S. Women’s Bureau.
Social Security.— Ewan Clague, U. S. Social Security Board.
Women in Industry.— Mary Anderson, U. S. Women’s Bureau.
Financial Statement Covering Period Since St. Louis Convention

Sept. 1
Oct. 1

Mar. 19
June 25
July 1




Balance in bank_________________________________________ $3, 186. 43
Wisconsin Industrial Commission, 1942 dues______ $25. 00
Connecticut Department of Labor, 1942 dues_____ 25. 00
Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, 1942
dues___________________________________________ 25. 00
Puerto Rico Department of Labor, 1942 dues_____ 25* 00
Philippine Islands Department of Labor, 1942 dues. 25. 00
West Virginia, Department of Labor, 1942 dues___ 25. 00
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry,
1942 dues (first half)_________________________
12. 50
Utah Industrial Commission, 1942 dues___________ 25. 00
New Jersey Department of Labor, 1942 dues_____
25. 00
Alaska Department of Labor, 1942 dues__________
25. 00
Pennsylvania Department o f Labor and Industry,
1942-43 dues_______________________________
Manitoba Department of Labor, 1943 dues_______
25. 00
Virginia Department of Labor, 1943 dues_________ 25. 00
North Carolina Department of Labor, 1943 d u e s.- 25. 00
Nova Scotia Department of Labor, 1943 dues_____ 25. 00
Florida Industrial Commission, 1943 dues________
25. 00
Arkansas Department of Labor, 1943 dues________ 25. 00
South Carolina Department of Labor, 1943 dues. _ 25. 00
Alberta Department of Trade and Industry, 1943
dues___________________________________________ 10. 00
Colorado Industrial Commission, 1943 dues_______ 10. 00
Wisconsin Industrial Commission, 1943 dues______ 25. 00
North Dakota Department of Agriculture and
Labor, 1943 dues______________________________
10. 00
Delaware Labor Commission, 1943 dues__________
10. 00



Receipts— Continued
July 18
Aug. 11
Nov. 30
Dec. 2
Apr. 12
May 15
June 1
July 3
Aug. 3
Sept. 6


Massachusetts Department of Labor and Indus­
tries, 1943 dues_________________________________ $25. 00
British Columbia Department of Labor, 1943 dues. 25. 00
New Hampshire Bureau of Labor, 1943 dues______ 10. 00
Kansas Department of Labor, 1943 dues__________ 25. 00
California Industrial Accident Commission, 1943
Alaska Department of Labor, 1943 dues___________
25. 00
Rhode Island Department of Labor, 1943 dues____ 25. 00
New York Department of Labor, 1943 dues_______ 25. 00
Illinois Department of Labor, 1943 dues___________
25. 00
i Missouri Department of Labor, 1943 dues_________ 25.00
West Virginia Department of Labor, 1943 dues___ 25. 00
Iowa Bureau of Labor, 1943 dues__________________ 25.00
Utah Bureau of Labor, 1943 dues__________________ 25.00
Puerto Rico Department of Labor, 1943 dues_____ 25. 00
Indiana Bureau of Labor, 1943 dues_____ :________ 25. 00
Washington Department of Labor and Industries,
1943 dues___________________________



Maryland Department of Labor and Statistics,
1943 dues_______________________________________
Florida Industrial Commission, 1944 dues__________ 25.00
North Carolina Department of Labor, 1944 dues-. 25. 00
Arkansas Department of Labor, 1944 dues_________ 25.00
Delaware Labor Commission, 1944 dues____________ 10.00
Oregon Bureau of Labor, 1944 dues________________ 10.00
North Dakota Department of Agriculture and
Labor, 1944 dues________________________________ 10.00
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry,
1944-45 dues___________________________________
Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial
Inspection, 1944 dues___________________________
Colorado Industrial Commission, 1944 dues________ 10.00
West Virginia Department of Labor, 1944 dues___ 25. 00
Nova Scotia Department of Labor, 1944 dues_____ 25. 00
Alberta Department of Trade and Industry, 1944
Massachusetts Department of Labor and Indus­
tries, 1944 dues______________________
Washington Department of Labor and Industries,
1944 dues_______________________________________ 25.00
Iowa Bureau of Labor, 1944 dues__________________ 25.00
Illinois Department of Labor, 1944 dues___________
Rhode Island Department of Labor, 1944 dues____ 25. 00
Virginia Department of Labor and Industry, 1944
dues____________________________________________ 25.00
Indiana Division of Labor, 1944 dues_____________
Manitoba Department of Labor, 1944 dues________
New Hampshire Bureau of Labor, 1944 d u e s ...__ 10. 00
California Department of Industrial Relations,
1944 dues_____w__________________________ 25.00
Kansas Department of Labor, 1944 dues___________ 25.00
Nevada Department of Labor, 1944 dues__________
British Columbia Department of Labor, 1944 dues. 25. 00
South Carolina Department of Labor, 1944 d u e s... 25. 00
Quebec Department of Labor, 1944 dues___r______ 25. 00
Utah Industrial Commission, 1944 dues____________ 25.00
Michigan Department of Labor and Industry,
1944 dues_______________________________________ 25.00
Texas Department of Labor, 1944 dues____________ 25.00
Montana Department of Agriculture and Labor,
1944 dues_______________________________________ 25.00
----------- $1, 567. 50

Total receipts----------------- ------------- --------------

4,753. 93



Sept. 5
Oct. 6
Nov. 10
Feb. 10
Mar. 4
Apr. 9
May 2



Feb. 2
May 15
July 7
Aug. 4
Sept. 24


Hotel Chase (tips)_____________________________
$12. 00
Marjorie Reipma (registration)________________
10. 00
Mary Lou Magin (registration)_______________
25. 00
Phyllis Bramlet (reporting convention)________
100. 00
John B. Clark (secretary-treasurer bond)_______
5. 00
Caslon Press (programs and envelopes)________ _
70. 40
Caslon Press (letterheads)_____________________
9. 75
Exchange on Alaska check_____________________
. 35
Treasurer of U. S. ($3,000 in bonds)____________ 2, 220. 00
Western Union________________________________
19. 95
Postal Telegraph______________________________
1. 01
Exchange on Manitoba check---------------------------2. 48
Cash, postage (secretary’s office)---------------------Voyta Wrabetz (postage for president)_________
Forrest H. Shuford (postage)___________________
Voyta Wrabetz (travel to Lansing, M ich.)_____
Cash (postage for secretary)___________________
Forrest H. Shuford (travel to Executive Board
Voyta Wrabetz (travel)_______________________
Western Union_______________
Western U n ion ..-------------------Cash (postage)_________________________________
Caslon Press (envelopes)---------------------------------Exchange on Alaska check_____________________
Western Union________________________________
John Clark (Secretary-treasurer bond)_________
Exchange on Puerto Rico check_______ •________
Voyta Wrabetz (travel)------------------------------------





Cash (postage)------------------------------------------------5. 00
Caslon Press (letterheads and billheads)________
16. 00
Forest H. Shuford (travel to Executive Board
28. 17
Mrs. Nellie Kennedy (travel to Executive Board
meeting)______ ______________________________
110. 97
Voyta Wrabetz (travel to Executive Board meet­
Cash— Postage for secretary’s office____________
10. 00
Cash— Postage for secretary’s office____________
6. 00
Total disbursements_______________________________ $2, 981. 25
Balance in bank________________________________ _____ —
U. S. War Bonds (present value)----------------------- ----------—
Total assets-----------------------------------------------------------

1, 772. 68
2, 235. 00
4, 007. 68

Report of the Auditing Committee
By George W. D ean, Chairman

The auditing committee has examined the accounts of the secretarytreasurer. The committee has found the books in good order. The
committee understands that the Executive Board has authorized the
purchase of additional United States W ar Bonds. The committee
recommends that all surplus cash beyond that required to meet
the operating expenses of the Association be invested in the future in
United States Government Bonds.
[The report of the auditing committee was adopted as read.]



Resolutions Adopted by the Convention
1.— General
W hereas , the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials
at its annual conventions always has had many able speakers dealing with those
subjects that are of interest to us in our work, and the further fact that the
subject matter of the speakers is of interest at the moment, and, in many cases,
contains valuable and timely suggestions as to administrative procedure, which*
we should have in hand during the meeting or as soon as possible after adjournment
in order to benefit by the many suggestions and recommendations offered by
these able speakers, it is hereby
Resolved^ That the Association make arrangements at the next meeting to
have the speeches mimeographed immediately after delivery for distribution
among the membership.
2 .— Apprenticeship
W hereas, the skills of the people of any nation are its greatest asset and
should be transmitted from generation to generation in a planned way, so that
they may be implemented and improved, believing that the withdrawal of
apprentices for military service will tend to dilute the skills of this Nation, be it
Resolvedly That this convention expresses favor of a plan which would permit
a minimum number of young men taken into the armed services of the United
States under the Selective Service System to complete bona fide apprenticeships
in occupations essential to the war effort, and, further, a committee be appointed
by this convention to further explore this possibility and confer with the agencies
concerned with the supply of manpower.
3 .— Cooperation Between W ar M anpow er Com m ission and State Labor

W hereas, there appears to be a lack of cooperation on the part of Regional
War Manpower directors of the War Manpower Commission with the State
Labor Departments, now, therefore be it
Resolvedly That it is the consensus of the International Association of Govern­
mental Labor Officials that the problem of manpower could be more effectively
solved by greater cooperation on the part of the regional directors of the War
Manpower Commission with the State labor commissioners in their respective
regions on matters ordinarily coming within the jurisdiction of the individual
State labor departments; and be it further
Resolvedly That it is the consensus of the International Association of Govern­
mental Labor Officials that regional directors should be instructed to consult
with said labor commissioners on such matters.
4 .— Factory Inspection
W hereas , the Committee on Factory Inspection recommended that the In­
ternational Association of Governmental Labor Officials appoint a committee of
labor commissioners to consider the problem of securing comparable data on the
inspection work of State labor departments, be it
Resolvedly That in the event of the appointment of such a committee, one of
its members be from the staff of the Division of Labor Standards and that the
Secretary of Labor be requested to render such aid to the committee as it may
need in performance of its function.
5 .— Industrial Homework
W hereas, attempts are being made to revive the ancient evil of industrial
homework under the guise of patriotism as an answer to war manpower shortages,
Whereas, it is being urged not only in industries traditionally engaged in home
production but also in newer war industries, and
Whereas, homework is not an answer to manpower shortages, but is just as
inefficient, unproductive, and inhumane for women and children as it was during
he last war and as it was during peacetime, now, therefore, be it




Resolved, That the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials
meeting in Chicago, 111., on October 10, 1943, re-affirm its opposition to industrial
homework as an unfair trade practice, as wasteful of manpower, as an inefficient
method of production and as deleterious to the health and welfare of the workers;
and that it commend the War Manpower Commission and other war agencies for
the position they have taken in opposing industrial homework; and that it com­
mend the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division for prohibiting industrial
homework in seven industries under wage orders and urge that every effort now be
bent toward effective enforcement; and that it urge those States having industrialhomework laws to strengthen their enforcement and those States facing the
introduction and growth of homework within their borders as a result of its
prohibition in neighboring States, to enact prohibitory statutes.
6 .— M inim um Wages
W hereas, great numbers of women in certain industries, especially the service
industries, are even today receiving substandard wages, and
Whereas, there is the danger that the number of women receiving substandard
wages may be greatly increased as the demand for workers by war production
plants declines, and
Whereas, the elimination of substandard wages has been declared to be essential
to the successful prosecution of the war, and
Whereas, the establishment of minimum wages would have a stabilizing effect
on the war and post-war economy, be it
Resolved, That this Association, at its meeting on October 10, 1943, urges,
(1) that those States and Provinces now without minimum-wage laws enact such
legislation as soon as possible; (2) that where existing rates are too low to meet
the rising cost of living such rates be increased; and (3) that the social and
economic gains of these laws be extended by the fixing of minimum-wage rates for
those industries and occupations for which minimum standards have not yet
been established.
7 .— H ours o f W ork fo r W om en
W hereas, experience in this country since Pearl Harbor has amply demon­
strated that maximum production cannot be attained when women workers are
required to work unreasonably long hours without sufficient time to recuperate
from the effects of fatigue, and
Whereas, Great Britain, where the available labor supply is practically
exhausted, has found it necessary at the end of 4 years of war, to return to their
peacetime hours standards for women workers in order to maintain production,
Great Britain seldom emoloying women for more than 47 hours per week, and
Whereas, it is becoming increasingly difficult in this country to retain the
womanpower now in war production and essential civilian industries, and to
recruit the additional womanpower that our war economy requires, because
women have found the combination of home responsibilities, long hours, and
poor working conditions a severe drain on their health and energies, be it
Resolved, That this Association at its meeting on October 10, 1943, recommend
that in the interests of maximum war production and the health and welfare of
our women workers, the following standards for women be adhered to in public
and private employment: namely, a maximum work period of not more than
8 hours a day and 48 hours a week, with 1 day’s rest in 7 (except for short periods
in emergencies), adequate meal and rest periods, and proper safeguards for health
and safety.
8 .— Child Labor
W hereas, the employment of children and youth in the United States has
been increasing at an unprecedented rate during this war period, and wholesale
employment of youth means the curtailment of schooling and education at a
time when the country’s need for trained minds and sound bodies is greater than
ever before— for the military services, for war production, and for the coming
days of post-war reconstruction— the International Association of Governmental
Labor Officials, recognizing the vital importance of safeguarding the health,
welfare, and educational opportunity of the youth of this country, be it
Resolved, That the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials
commends the statement of policy on employment of youth under 18 and the
statement of policy and standards governing the nonagricultural employment
of in-school urban youth under 18 years of age issued by . the War Manpower



Commission, and urges that every effort be made by labor commissioners and
labor law administrators, be it further
Resolved, (1) That school-aged youth should not be drawn upon until all
other sources of labor supply are exhausted; (2) that leadership and support be
given to the development of sound intelligent part-time school and work programs
for school-aged youth where their services are found to be necessary for war
production or essential civilian services, and to the formulation of plans for
completion of education, after the war, for these youths who have left school
for war employment; (3) that, insofar as possible, existing protective legislation
be maintained and, if war needs make temporary modification necessary, that
such modifications be limited to establishments engaged in war production or
to those supplying essential civilian goods or services and only after careful
investigation; and (4) that plans be made for the extension of the labor standards
that have been found essential for the protection and full development of children
and youth to those areas where further protection is needed.
9 .— Federal A id to State Labor Departments
. Resolved, That this convention go on record as unreservedly opposed to further
consideration during the present war emergency of House Bill 2800, now before
the Congress of the United States; and, further, that this convention is also
equally opposed to any encroachment by the Federal Government in the field of
workmen’s compensation and to any and all extensions of Federal control in the
field of labor legislation and administration.
10 .— General
Resolved, That this convention extend its most sincere thanks to Mr. Francis
B. Murphy and Mr. Frank Welch of the Illinois Department of Labor for the
excellent hospitality accorded to the delegates during their stay in Chicago and
the provisions they made to make the convention a success; and
Resolved, That we extend our thanks to Mr. M. P. Mathewson and other
members of the staff of the Hotel LaSalle who have contributed to our pleasure
and convenience while guests in this city.

D isc ussio n — R esolutions
[Resolution No. 1 as originally presented and the discussion thereon
W hereas the International Association of Govenment Labor Officials at its
annual conventions always has had many able speakers dealing with those sub­
jects that are of interest to us in our work, and the further fact that the subject
matter of the speakers is of interest at the moment, and, in many cases, contains
valuable and timely suggestions as to administrative procedure, which we should
have in hand during the meeting or immediately upon adjournment, in order to
benefit by the many suggestions and recommendations offered by these abie
speakers, it is hereby
Resolved, that the Association make arrangements at the next meeting to have
the speeches mimeographed immediately after delivery for distribution among the

Mr. W rabetz . H ow do the finances stand? Could it be done?
Mr. L ubin . I think it probably can be arranged.
Mr. W rabetz . Would it be very expensive?
Mr. L ubin . I do not think it would necessarily be.
Mr. R ountree . I think “ Within a reasonable period of time after
adjournment” would-----M r. P atton. W e will omit “ during the meeting,” but say “ im­
mediately or upon a reasonable time after adjournment.”
Mr. H arness . What we had in mind was that we might have the
minutes of the day’s meeting transcribed during the evening and
611560°— 45----- 11




have copies of them on the desks of the delegates the next morning—
provided it was logical. I do not know whether it can be done or not.
It is done in the State federation of labor and they transact much
more business— at least as much as we do.
Mr. W r a b e t z . Sometimes the State federations of labor have more
money than we do.
Mr. . P a t t o n . We will change “ during the meeting or immediately
upon adjournment” to read “ during the meeting or as soon as possible
after adjournment.”
[The convention voted to adopt the resolution, as amended by Mr.
Patton. For text of resolution 1, see page 155.]
[Resolution No. 2 as originally presented and the discussion thereon
W hereas the skills of the people of any nation are its greatest asset and
should be transmitted from generation to generation in a planned way, so that
they may be implemented and improved, and believing that the withdrawal of
apprentices for military service will tend to dilute the. skills of this Nation, be it
Resolved, That this convention express favor of a plan which would defer a
minimum number of young men in occupations essential to the war effort to
complete bona fide apprenticeships, and, further, a committee be appointed by
this convention to further explore this possibility and confer with the agencies
concerned with the supply of manpower.

Mr. L u b i n . I wonder whether this Association should go on record
as recommending to the armed forces of the United States how they
should use their manpower. Frankly, what I should like to see done
is that, once these young men are in the armed services, they be
sent back to plants perhaps to finish their apprenticeship just as they
are sent to universities to learn particular trades. Although the
trade may be one of radio telegraphy or coding or something of that
sort, it is very little different from other types of trades of a manual
type. I should suggest either that the Association do not adopt this
resolution, or that if it does, it be amended to present the idea that
apprentices who are taken in through the Selective Service be given
an opportunity, wherever possible, to continue that apprenticeship
while in the armed services. In other words, I do not think that we
should distinguish between the armed and the non-armed services
when it comes to these young folks.
Mrs. B e y e r . I believe that is what Mr. Dean had in mind as I
discussed it with him.
Mr. W r a b e t z . We would have to amend the resolution to include
the idea expressed by Mr. Lubin.
[Mr. Lubin made a motion that the resolution be not adopted.]
M r. M cC ain . I believe it would be unwise for us to take the attitude
of picking out one particular group and asking that they be especially
deferred from serving the country in time of great danger. If it were
possible for the Selective Service to give our wishes any consideration
at all, then some other group, that thought that they were equally as
important as the apprentices of skilled workers, would want defer­
ment or they would feel they were discriminated against. Of course
I believe very sincerely that no matter what action we would take,
Selective Service would disregard it anyway. I think it would be
foolish to pass a resolution of this kind.



Mr. W rabetz . I think not. They have given consideration to
suggestions before— from this very group, too.
Mr. M cC a in . I think we would be clannish and selfish to pick out
any of our groups for special deferment, and I would oppose the
[Mr. Morrison made a motion to amend the resolution to include
the suggestion made by Mr. Lubin.]
Mr. L u b in . The wording that I would suggest therefor would be:
“ R esolved , That this convention expresses favor of a plan which would
permit a minimum number of young men taken into the armed serv­
ices under the Selective Service System to complete bona fide ap­
prenticeship in occupations essential to the war effort.” In other
words, we are not asking for deferment. All we are saying is that
once they are in the Army a minimum number be given an oppor­
tunity to continue to learn their trade. That does not necessarily
mean that they have to go back to the same plant where they were
serving their apprenticeship.
Mr. R e e d . Y ou mean along with other training programs being
conducted by the armed services?
Mr. L u b in . Yes.
[Mr. Pohlhaus seconded the amendment.]
Mr. W rabetz . Would it not be well to make the suggestion in the
alternative so that they would defer—they would defer if they wanted
to anyway.
Mr. H arness . The only objection I see to that is, it says “ appren­
tices.” Personally I am not in favor of deferring an apprentice if he
served 2 weeks. I served as apprentice myself, and believe in it, but
1 think there should be a limit on the apprenticeship. If he served
2 years, I think he should continue as an apprentice, but if he served
only 2 weeks, I do not think that he should be deferred.
Mr. P o h l h a u s . I did not second the amendment with any
understanding that the word “ deferment” be used. I am opposed
to deferment of any type other than that deemed wisest by the
armed forces.
Mr. W rabetz . The first sentence in the resolution says “ would
defer.” That would, of course, be changed now to “ would permit a
minimum number of persons” — that leaves it quite general, doesn’t
Mr. P ohlhaus . I withdraw my second if the word “ deferment”
is used. I would second the amendment as suggested by Mr. Lubin,
that the armed forces have absolute control and give consideration
to sending back young men to finish their apprenticeship.
Mr. W rabetz . Mr. Lubin’s suggestion then would read something
like this: “ R esolved , That this convention expresses favor of a plan
that would transfer------ ”
Mr. L u b in . “ Which would permit.”
Mr. W rabetz . “ Which would permit a minimum number of
young men------ ”
Mr. P ohlhaus . I would second that amendment.
M r. M aher (Quebec). I believe that the resolution should be
modified in such a way as to apply only to the Government of the




United States. Of course, this is an international association; but
I do not think that Canadian members would like to vote for a
resolution of that sort. Our real feeling up there is that more members
should attend this convention— more Canadian members, I mean,
and I vrould like to feel more at home. I would feel mol*e at home
if this motion or this resolution was modified according to my
Mr. W rabetz . So that the suggestion would carry on to the
Canadian Government as well as ours, is that the idea?
Mr. M ah er . N o ; just apply to the United States, not to Canada.
Mr. P atton . The armed services of the United States.
[Mr. Pohlhaus seconded the amendment and the convention voted
to adopt the resolution as amended. For text of resolution No. 2,
see page 155.]
[Resolution No. 3 as originally presented and the discussion thereon
W hereas the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials,
assembled at Chicago, 111., October 8-10, 1943, directs the attention of the War
Manpower Commission to what appears to be a lack of cooperation by the
Regional War Manpower directors with the State Labor Departments, within
their regions, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the consensus of the International Association of Govern­
mental Labor Officials that a general directive should be issued by the War
Manpower Commission to all regional directors, instructing them to consult
and cooperate with State labor commissioners within their respective regions on
matters ordinarily coming within the State’s jurisdiction.

Mr. L u b in . I think the idea expressed in that resolution is a good
one. As I understand it, the idea is to get the War Manpower
Commission to realize that to get their job done effectively they
ought to make use of State labor departments, wherever possible.
I do not know whether the way to do so is to tell them to instruct
their regional officials to do it. I would suggest that the resolution
be worded in a way to bring to the attention of the War Manpower
Commission the fact that it should cooperate with the State labor
departments in carrying out the work of the Commission.
M y objection is not to the intent of the resolution, but to the way
it is worded. I think it is in a sense a directive that we are issuing
rather than a statement of fact.
May I suggest that the resolution read like this: “ Resolved, That
it is the consensus of the International Association of Governmental
Labor Officials that the manpower problems of the United States
could be more effectively solved if the Manpower Commission co­
operated with and availed themselves of the services of the State
labor departments in matters ordinarily coming within the juris­
diction of the States.”
[The convention, after some discussion, voted to adopt the amend­
ment. For text of resolution No. 3, see page 155.]
[Resolution No. 4 as originally presented and the discussion thereon
W hereas , the Committee on Factory Inspection recommended that the
International Association of Governmental Labor Officials appoint a committee
of labor commissioners to consider the problem of securing comparable data on
the inspection work of State labor departments, be it
Resolved, That the Secretary of Labor be requested to appoint a staff member
of the Division of Labor Standards to work with this committee.



Mr. P atton . It was evidently assumed that that committee
recommendation was going to be carried out, so this resolution was
introduced, resolving that the Secretary of Labor be requested to
appoint a staff member of the Division of Labor Standards to work
for this committee. A little bit odd, if you will allow me to say so.
Mr. L u b in . I think it would be better if the resolution instructed
the president of this Association to appoint a member of the Division
of Labor Standards to serve on that committee. In that way the
purpose is accomplished.
Mr. P atton . Y ou see, there is no committee yet appointed.
Mr. W rabetz . It is not only a matter of being a member of the
committee but also of working with the committee, which means
that that person would have to do some research and so forth as
directed or as requested by the committee which might involve more
time than the member has at his disposal.
Mr. P atton . But you must bear in mind, Mr. Wrabetz, that there
is no committee of any sort existing. The committee on factory
inspection presented a report to this body in which they recom­
mended that a committee be appointed. Now, it has not been
done— it has not been authorized— but this resolution requests the
appointment of a staff member of Labor Standards to work with an
as-yet-unappointed and an as-yet-uncreated committee.
Mr. L u b in . I move that the following amendment be made:
The whereases to remain unchanged; “ R esolved , That in the event
of the appointment by the president of the I. A. G. L. O. of a com­
mittee such as suggested by the committee on factory inspection, one
member of the staff of the Division of Labor Standards be appointed
to such committee and that the Secretary of Labor be requested to
render such aid to the committee as it may need in performance of
its function.”
Mr. P o h l h a u s . Mr. Lubin, is there any resolution for authorizing
the president to appoint this committee?
M r . L u b in . N o .

Mr. P o h l h a u s . Don’t you think we ought to put in a resolution
first appointing this committee and then authorize them'to do this
M r. P atton . I am not saying you ought to, but I am trying to
point out that there is no committee as yet created.

[On motion of Mr. Pohlhaus it was voted that the president be
instructed to appoint a committee on factory inspection, after which
the convention voted on the amendment to the resolution. Re­
solution No. 4 was adopted as amended; for text, see page 155.]
[Resolution No. 6 (see page 156) was adopted as originally presented,
except that the words “ and Provinces” were added following the
word “ States.” The amendment was suggested by Mr. Maher, of
Quebec, and required no formal motion.]
[Resolution No. 7 as originally presented and the discussion thereon
W hereas, experience in this country since Pearl Harbor has amply demon­
strated that maximum production cannot be attained when workers, men or




women, are required to work unreasonably long hours without sufficient time to
recuperate from the effects of fatigue, and
Whereas, Great Britain and Germany, where the available labor supply is
practically exhausted, have found it necessary at the end of 4 years of war, to
return to their peacetime hours standards in order to maintain production, Great
Britain seldom employing women for more than 47 hours per week, and
Whereas, it is becoming increasingly difficult in this country to retain the
womanpower now in war production and essential civilian industries, and to re­
cruit the Additional womanpower that our war economy requires, because women
have found the combination of home responsibilities, long hours, and poor working
conditions a severe drain on their health and energies, be it
Resolved, that this Association at its meeting on October 10, 1943, recommend
that in the interests of maximum war production and the health and welfare of
our workers, the following standards be adhered to in public and private employ­
ment, a maximum work period of not more than 8 hours a day and 48 hours a
week, with 1 day's rest in 7, except for short periods in emergencies, adequate
meal and rest periods, proper safeguards for health and safety.

Mr. L u b in . I am surprised to learn that Great Britain and Ger­
many have gone back to their peacetime standards for all employment.
I imagine the resolution refers principally to women employees. I
think that should be specified.
Mr. W rabetz . Suppose instead of saying “ their peacetime hours/'
we say “ return to 40-hour standards."
Mr. L u b in . For women workers.
Mr. W rabetz . It is suggested that the words “ for women workers"
be inserted after the words “ to their peacetime hour standards in
order to maintain production." Are there any objections to that
Mr. L u b in . I wonder if the same thing should not be inserted in
the resolution itself, which reads that “ this Association * * * recom­
mend that in the interests of maximum war production, and the
health and welfare of our workers, the following standards be adhered
to in public and private employment."
Mr. W rabetz . “ For women workers."
Mr. L u b in . Yes.
Mr. W rabetz . I think that we will all agree that is correct. Are
there any remarks with respect to the resolution.
V oice . The recommendations that have gone out by the seven
Federal agencies have not been confined to women workers, I believe.
Mr. W rabetz . Of course; this resolution applies only to women

Mr. L u b in . Does the Association want to go on record as saying
that we should cut the hours of employment of men to 48? In this
emergency that is just out of the question.
M r R eed . We talked to the armed forces, the Army and the
Navy and the Maritime Commission, and brother, they don't care
what kind of hours you work as long as you turn out the stuff. That
is the only thing. The people that seem to know about this 7-point
recommendation are the representatives of the Department of Labor.
Mrs. B eyer . That may be true in Texas; but in their manuals
that the Army has sent to everyone of their agents over the United
States, there is a recommendation on hours of work. It does not
say that the maximum shall be 48 hours— that has proved over a
period of time to be the best for most industries—but leaves it open



for adjustment. Seventy-two hundred thousand copies were sent
out by the Arm y alone. They may not have reached Texas, but
they certainly were distributed. The Maritime Commission has
also sent them out, and is urging over and over again that these
10,000 plants go back to 8 hours, because they get more production
at 8. M any times I have heard the Maritime Commission say that
when certain plants operating on a 10-hour basis changed to 8 they
produced more in the 8 hours than in 10.

M r. M cC ain (Arkansas). I think, when you make this resolution
apply to women only, that you are going to destroy the intent of the
person who originally introduced the resolution. The reason for
women being employed now in greater numbers than ever before is
to replace manpower. If your plant is operating on a certain num­
ber of hours a week, and the men are taken out of that plant and
women brought in, they must merge in and take the place of the men
who were working; if the men are working on a 10-hour day, the
women will have to work the same number of hours; and if they can­
not work the same number of hours as the men who operated effi­
ciently on a 10-hour basis, then you would shorten your production
by just that many man-hours. Now, you don’t think that we want
to go on record as trying to set up dual standards compelling indus­
tries to carry dual schedules—shorter hours for women. It seems to
me, what was in the mind of the man, or the woman, who introduced
the resolution was that a 48-hour workweek was the most productive
workweek, whether for men or for women, and I believe that that
has been proven— that that is approximately true.
Mr. Griffith stated that he had gotten to a 57-hour and a 54-hour
week, and found that it was all that they could humanely attempt
to do, even though they were just 20 miles from the battlefront. I
think that, if we let this resolution make one standard for women
and another standard for men, we are defeating the purpose that we
are trying to accomplish, because it will not fit women workers into
the war picture. We really need a shorter workweek for both men
and women if we are to reach the maximum production that we
should expect to have.
Mr. W r a b e t z . I think, Mr. McCain, that whoever drafted or
sponsored this resolution had women in mind entirely. Since it has
become increasingly difficult in this country to retain the womaiipower, it speaks mostly of womanpower.
Are there many States in which women are working more than 48
hours a week, except in unusual circumstances?
Miss A nderson . I have no special objection to including the
minors under 18, but it seems to me that that takes away the force
of the argument. Women cannot work more than 8 hours a day and
48 hours a week because of home responsibilities, because of all the
things that the women are responsible for in their lives; and they
should not work that long because they certainly cannot do the
two jobs efficiently, in the home and in the factory both.
I feel very much with Mr. McCain of Arkansas, who spoke of the
fact that men too cannot sustain production because of the long
hours. I think that we would have much more production throughout
the whole country if we stayed with the 8-hour day and the 48-hour
week. There are emergencies that have to be taken care of; they
have been taken care of, and they will be taken care of. But we




have these young fellows from the War Department who go through
the States where the laws provide for the 48-hour week and the 8hour day, asking for 60 and 70 hours a week for men and women in
the factories. I have to take that question up with the Army and the
Navy practically every day. The States write to me and ask if we
will take it up here, because the young fellows that are going around
and trying to get production have no experience in industry and no
social vision. They do not know what it means to work long hours.
They know that a 10-hour day is 2 hours longer than an 8-hour day,
and so they think they are going to get that much more production.
They do not realize that they cut down production capacity when
they introduce overlong hours. We might add to the resolution
and include the men. But I very much want it to go through for
women. The resolution makes allowances for emergencies.
Mrs. B e y e r . I do not see how you can make this apply to men
without rewriting the whole resolution.
There is something to Mr. McCain’s argument that the plant
hours for men determine the hours the women will have to work
in many industries. If the plant is operating 54 hours for men, and
some women are taken on, the women would be expected to work
the 54 hours. I do not see how we could amend this particular
resolution. I think it should go through on its merits as applying
to women.
Mr. W r a b e t z . This is a general recommendation for general
standards, I suppose. That would not preclude action by any person
here in an emergency to approve other hours, within the 48-hour
week, or something like that.
M r . M c C a i n . To clarify my position, remember that I am very
much interested in holding the hours of women to not to exceed
48 hours in the week, but I did want to call your attention to the
fact that the problems that I face where permits are requested for
longer hours for women in order to dovetail with men into industries
that have, say a 9- or a 10-hour day. I have investigated a number
of those plants which are requesting the longer hours. We will take
the sawmill industry, for instance. They have been working from
time immemorial on a 10- or 12-hour day in Arkansas. In investi­
gating those plants, I find out that the labor— chiefly semiskilled
labor— is drawn from the farms and the villages and starts out at
a 10-hour day gait. They drag along for an hour or two, the whistle
blows, and they stop and fool around. I cannot find out what they
are trying to do. After a while they start up again and run a little
while; there is another delay and they drag along. The day’s pro­
duction is not nearly so much as I find on some other lines of
production where there is a race on and they work at top speed for
about 2 y2 hours, then have a 15-minute interval, then work until the
30-minute lunch period, start back and work until the middle of the
afternoon, and after an interval for a coke continue work. I find
that those people on power-line production or assembly lines are
producing in 8 hours about twice the amount of work that those
in the sawmills on a 10-hour day are doing. I do think that this
organization ought definitely to go on record as saying that 8 hours
is the maximum amount of work for a man to do, over the period
of 365 days— 8 hours a day and 48 hours a week—if we are going to



maintain the health of the men and women of this country. Fortyeight hours is enough. I am not opposing this resolution, in fact,
I am in favor of the resolution; but I do think that we ought to
endorse a 48-hour week for both men and women.
Mrs. B e y e r . I brought along a few copies of Wartime Working
Conditions— Minimum Standards for Maximum Production. This
pamphlet was prepared by the Department of Labor, in cooperation
with the War and Navy Departments, Maritime Commission, and
the War Production Board. This pamphlet is just off the press.
Some agencies are again reiterating their earlier recommendations on
hours of work. The recommendations are embodied in this pamphlet
that was the result of a meeting about a month ago, so they still feel
that the 8-hour day for men as well as for women approximates the
best working day in most cases.
Would it not be better to pass the proposed resolution on women,
and somehow or other endorse this pamphlet which includes the
recommendation on hours of work, that you people have already
seen? In places where a State law sets a higher standard, of course,
the State law prevails. The pamphlet contains the m im nrnm stand­
ards that will bring efficient production in wartime. I think you will
find it a great aid in maintaining standards.
Mr. R e e d . The higher-ups in Washington know it, but put it out
to the people that do the work!
Mrs. B e y e r . The labor officials can do a good job calling attention
to accepted standards as agreed at the top level.
[Resolution No. 7, amended so as to apply to women only, was
adopted by the convention. For text of resolution, see page 156.]
[Resolution No. 9 as originally presented and the discussion thereon
W hereas, during the past several years the National Congress and the incum­
bent Administration has fostered a policy of concentrating control of business,

industry, labor, and the individual citizen under Federal bureaus and agencies
Whereas, such centralization and control removes from the citizen and the
State the democratic direction and local self-government so essential to the life
of a democracy, and,
Whereas, the appropriation of Federal funds and assistance under the innocent
guise of beneficence, ostensibly to render service to local State agencies, is a
deceptive sedative, administered gracefully prior to absorption by bureaucratic
extension from Washington, and which aim is ultimately to remove State juris­
diction and effectively emasculate State sovereignty, leaving the State the status
of a glorified county, and,
Whereas, such programs, tactics and policy is now an imminent threat of total
destruction, time only delaying, to local self-government and State rights, which
leads directly to the creation of a highly powered hydra-headed dictatorship of
totalitarianism within the Nation, not dissimilar to the autocracy we are fighting
internationally, Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that this convention go on record as unreservedly opposed to House
Bill 2800 now before Congress with an appropriation of $5,000,000 to assist the
various States in labor-law administration, and, further, that this convention is
also equally opposed to any encroachment by the Federal Government in the
field of workmen’s compensation and to any and all other extensions of Federal
bureaucratic penetration within the States in the labor-industry field, and that
copies of this resolution be despatched to the Chairman of the Senate and House
Committees on Labor.

Mr. L u b i n . I do not know whether the originator of this resolution
did it facetiously or was serious about it. I hope that he was face­




tious. In the first place, I think that some of the so-called facts
stated are not facts but opinions of an individual, which have never
been proven. Secondly, I think the wording is “ political.” I think
one reason why this organization has been able to survive some 30
years has been due to the fact that it has never attempted to be
“ political.”
Mrs. B eye r . Of all the delicate relationships today, there is none
that requires more careful handling than that of the Federal-State
relationship. You have heard various speakers before the conven­
tion ask for unity. If there ever was a time that unity was needed
in the United States, it is now. It is not only needed in the United
States, it is needed between nations. We cannot divide ourselves
into little pockets and say, “ This is what I do and this is what you
do; you just keep out,” because we must work together. You know
from working with me over the past years that I have a very strong
leaning toward States’ rights. But I feel that I must urge you not
to make the mistake of putting this resolution on record as adopted.
Mr. R e e d . Mrs. Beyer, what you said is perfectly true. While
this resolution is a little flowery in its language^—I don’t know who
wrote it— the objection that we have (the resolution, I think, pertains
to House Bill 2800), and the people in my State have, is to the
method of the assistance given to injured workers— not the assistance,
but the method.
Mr. R oyle (Utah). Maybe someone wants to know who wrote
that resolution. Well, I did; and I will tell you the reason why it
was written. It was written to engender debate in this body. It is
based on what is perfectly obvious. I have no objection to its being
amended to please people here, if the central theme is not cut from it.
I will not permit its emasculation or being rendered abortive. Now I
can well sympathize with the Federal people’s position that a good
many States are not discharging what we might call an acceptable
performance in the inspection field covering mines, smelters, factories,
and the like. I do not think that, even under the Federal Govern­
ment, we would get perfection. We would not contend that the
States are operating near perfection in that field today. However,
many States are about as near perfection as is practicable, irrespective.
We will admit that the Federal Government does help a lot by
educating us and bringing to our attention statistical standards of
practice that give us a guide and a light. They frequently suggest
a practical program prepared from their investigations that is a real
contribution to the State. The States, on the other hand, generally
accept such suggestions, it seems. At least our State does. We do
not object to having our attention invited to high ideals and high
standards. If it ends here, that is fine and dandy. The State legis­
latures could well be invited by Congressional resolution to take
advantage of certain Federal assistance. The legislatures would be
in a position to equip the States with facilities to meet the standards
and advancements suggested by the Federal people. I do not recall
of this being done in this field. This approach, however, to the prob­
lem made by House Bill 2800 is not an appeal to the legislature or
the State by the Federal departments, but a backdoor, roundabout
subsidy program with control strings vested in the Federal Govern­
ment to dictate largely the State’s management of funds allocated by


the Department of Labor.
about it.


This is Federal control, make no mistake

Now, here is a good example of just how this Federal encroachment
works. You have a National Labor Relations agency and a State
labor relations agency. Any time there is a fuss in the State of Utah,
it seems to be the fact that we have someone from Denver to come
over to take jurisdiction before daylight. They hurry and almost break
their necks to get there. Now, you have Idaho, Nevada, Arkansas, New
Mexico, California— States around Utah— that have no Wagner Act
at all, and yet you have the Federal boys sitting there like carrier
ready to run out at a moment’s notice and keep the State from
andling what would normally be its business. You have that contest
all the time— not only in that field, but in others too numerous for me
to go into detail.

While the language in this particular resolution might be a little
strong, might be a bit flowery, it might even be caustic in pronouncing
what many of us think. Nevertheless, there is that trend and that
movement in this Nation, which we must resist and defeat, or every
time we want something we will have to go 3,000 miles to Washington
and lobby with the Congress to get it. All Congresses and Adminis­
trations may not be so generous and responsive as the current one.
I can remember what happened following the last war, how in West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the coal country, coal strikes occurred and
employees were thrown out of company-owned houses when they went
on strike. They lived like Indians in tents in the winter time. You
remember the militia was sent in. Injunctions were granted. Trou­
ble was widespread. Later on other things happened in this Nation
that shocked us and that caused the political revolution of 1932.
You will not always have liberal-minded people who are fundamentally
sympathetic and solicitous for the man down under and looking to
improve his general welfare. When you have this philosophy re­
versed you have a terribly difficult situation for the individual to face.
I know how that goes. Anyone here would gamble that when we
have a change of “ sympathies” in Washington that it will not be any
more liberal or considerate of the underprivileged. We will be really
surprised if it approximates what we have at the present. That res­
olution was brought here to generate debate and express our feelings.
I do not care a hoot whether you endorse any one of those excoriating
statements or not. You may strike them all out, except those state­
ments that are vital to the intent of the resolution. Just endorse
that part of the resolution that states we are against further Federal
encroachment in the fields referred to, and that we do not want any
further penetration, and it is all right with me.
M r. M cC a in (Arkansas). I would like to offer an amendment to
that resolution, by striking out all the language down to the last para­
graph, then say, “ Resolved,” and follow with the language of the
last paragraph.
M r. W rabetz . “ Therefore be it Resolved” would have to be
changed, and the resolution would simply say: “ Resolved, that this
convention go on record as unreservedly opposed to House Bill 2800
now before Congress, with an appropriation of $5,000,000 to assist
the various States in labor-law administration, and, further, that this
convention is also equally opposed to any encroachment by the




Federal Government in the field of workmen’s compensation and to
any and all other extensions of Federal bureaucratic penetration
within the States in the labor-industry field, and that copies of this
resolution be despatched to the Chairmen of the Senate and House
Committees on Labor.”
M r. L u b in . I s an amendment to that amendment in order? Since
the sponsor states that he submitted the resolution in order to stir
up a discussion, I would suggest that we delete everything in the
resolution except these words: “ Resolved, that this convention is
opposed to any enroachment by the Federal Government in the
field of workmen’s compensation * * *
M r. P ohlhaus (Maryland). I think it would be ridiculous for
15 States, and I presume there are not more than 15 States represented
here at this moment, to go on record as opposing a bill before the
House. I think the resolution is out of order and I move that the
whole resolution be tabled, and that a new resolution be introduced
covering the statements set forth by M r. Lubin and the other gentleman.
M r. L u bin . I second the motion.
Mr. W rabetz . I think this must be said: I agree quite fully with

Mrs. Beyer, that we ought not to be thinking about anything that
divides our attention and our efforts, but I want it to be absolutely
clear, as far as I am concerned, that the States did not bring up this
issue. It was brought up by the introduction of H. R. 2800, which
should not have been introduced until after the war. Now, if those
issues come up then, they must be faced, because otherwise we are
told to keep our hands off, not to oppose, and under the guise of
the war effort they pass.
Mr. P ohlhaus . Never let us get away from the fact that there
are 48 States, and don’t let 15 of us try to force something on the
other States. The thought in my mind was that another resolution
incorporating the words suggested by Mr. Lubin and Mr. McCain,
could be introduced. That, however, is not part of my motion.
M y motion is to table.
[A roll-call vote was taken and the motion to table resolution No. 9
was lost.]
[During the roll call, M r. Murphy of Illinois explained that, in
view of previous action taken and the sponsor’s willingness to sub­
stitute any changes agreed upon, he was voting against the motion
to table with the right of the sponsor to make such changes, and
then vote on the substitute resolution.]
Mr. P olhaus . I still would like to say that if the States were

asked their opinion, then the States have a right to write to Washington
or to express their opinion in any way, shape, or form that they see
fit. They have a right to express their opinion in this body, but
they do not— that is a minority of States do not—have a right to say
that the I. A. G. L. O. is going on record opposing the bill when you
have only 15 out of 48 States represented here today! I say that
each State has a right to oppose. Probably my State may oppose
it, but we do not have a right in this body to say that we are speaking
for all the States. Let each State notify Washington whether they
are for or against it. If you do put it to a vote, let me ask that it be



a roll-call vote, and that the vote of the States be registered, and
that the results of the vote be sent to Washington showing how many
States present opposed it and how many were for it.
Mr. M cC a in . We are floundering in the dark now. We are talking,
when we do not have anything before the body.
Mr. W rabetz . We still have the resolution before it.
M r. M cC a in . The gentleman from Utah should make his resolu­
tion in the modified form. It is immaterial to me whether or not
this body goes on record for or against H. R. 2800. I am not especially
interested one way or another, as yet. I have not been able to see
where it would be beneficial or detrimental to our State.
Mr. R eed . I would like to say that while the language used in the
original resolution, as the author said, might have been caustic, for
your information, Mr. Lubin, that is exactly the way a great many
people feel.
Mr. R oyle . I think I agreed to strike from the resolution the
grandiloquent language to which some people object. I agree we
are in a hurry, but I do not surrender to any man in this room on the
principle involved in this thing. This strikes deep into the heart of
State rights and State government. Maybe this body here is too
wise in its mature years to consider things of this sort. On that -1
can only speculate. I do know this, that Governors in these United
States have been meeting from California to the East. They have
been discussing this very thing, and it has attracted the attention of
Governors of many of the larger States. Now if we can discuss this
as a principle of government, I do not see why that is beneath the
dignity of this body. I therefore move that the resolution be amended
where it says, “ Therefore be it resolved this convention go on record
as unreservedly opposed to House Bill 2800,” and so on down to the
words “ Federal bureaucratic penetrations.” Strike the word
“ bureaucratic penetration,” if you want to and just say, “ Federal
penetration within the State in the labor-industry field.”
Now I just want to point out to you, while we are all friendly and
still love each other, that Mr. Lubin here and the others with him
from the Department of Labor feel keenly about our endorsing Bill
2800. They are working with the Federal Administration for the
adoption of this bill. They are for it and want to shove it down the
throats of the respective State governments. There is nothing being
pulled over my eyes in this thing. I know what is up, and I am
telling you I know it. I have had experience in this field for a num­
ber of years— since 1933. I have been in the State legislature and in
the administrative departments. I think I have been abreast of
matters in general. I have been meeting at these conventions and I
know what is underneath and behind the move on Bill 2800 by the
Department of Labor. In view of this I now move the adoption of
that resolution as amended.
Mr. R ountree . I second the motion.
[After further discussion on the amended resolution, Mr. Pohlhaus
of Maryland requested that the vote be taken by a roll call of States
and that the authorities in Washington be notified of the result of
the vote.]



Mr. L ubin . Before the vote is taken, may I ask that the actual
resolution be read.
Mr. W rabetz . “ R esolved , That this convention go on record as
unreservedly opposed to further consideration during the present war
emergency of House Bill No. 2800, now before the Congress of the
United States, and, further, that this convention is also equally
opposed to any encroachment by the Federal Government in the field
of workmen’s compensation and to any and all extensions of Federal
control in the field of labor legislation and administration.” That is
[A roll-call vote by States was taken, with the following explana­
tory remarks from some of the members voting:]
Mr. S huford (North Carolina). I am in favor of the latter part of
the resolution, but not in favor of the first part; that puts me in a
very difficult position about voting.
Mr. W rabetz . M r: Shuford, the first part simply eliminates dis­
cussion of this Federal bill until after the war.
Mr. Shuford . Until after the war. But I am very much opposed
to encroachment upon States’ rights by the Federal Government now
or after the war. I take the position, however, that that is not an
encroachment, so I will pass.
Mr. C arpenter . I know if Mr. Connelly were here, he would not
vote against House Bill 2800, but I do think that he would vote
against the latter part of that resolution as it stands; so if that is the
attitude that I must take on it, then I would like to pass also.
Mr. P ohlhaus . If you don’t mind, and for the record, I would
like to explain a little. There is no one in this room more opposed
to the encroachment of the Federal Government on States’ rights
than I, and I think everybody in the Federal Government knows
it— that I am ready at all times to oppose it. I am opposed to the
resolution because I do not consider it in order or in form. It was
understood this morning that House Bill 2800 was not to be con­
sidered in the form of a resolution, that it was merely for discussion,
and therefore I am forced to oppose even the whole resolution; yet I
am opposed to Federal encroachment. I vote “ N o.”
Mr. L u b in . I want to note for the purpose of the record that I
have not asked, and perhaps in violation of all good procedure, for
votes from those members of the Association that are affiliated with
the Federal Government. I have done that purposely. I feel that
their votes would have been misunderstood.
Miss P apert (New York). I wonder, when listening to this
controversy, why this Association has not recommended that a com­
mittee study inspection statistics. This Association has recommended
a great many things regarding labor standards and labor administra­
tion. Whether we like it or not, we do have what has been termed
here, “ Federal encroachment.” It is already here to a certain extent .
The vote just taken is in opposition to further Federal encroachment.
I wonder if it would not serve a constructive purpose, if the suggestion
is in order, for this Association to have some kind of a committee to
work out the problems of Federal-State relationships in the field of
labor legislation, Mr. Lubin said that a lot of it is a matter of words.



A lot of it is undoubtedly a matter of relative degrees of experience
in the field of labor-law administration. I have had some experience
with that, and therefore I think it might serve a truly constructive
purpose if a committee were appointed to examine the sources of the
difficulties and to recommend to the next convention possible solutions
to the difficulties in the areas where we already have Federal-State
legislation and/or cooperation.
[The final roll-call vote was 13 to 1 to adopt the amendment to
Resolution No. 9, as read by Mr. Wrabetz. Two State delegates
did not vote.]
Mr. L u b in . I offer a motion, that the Chairman be instructed to
appoint a committee of three members, who shall represent the
individual States, to confer with the Federal Government to discuss
the possibility of securing maximum cooperation between the Federal
Government and the States in matters of State labor legislation and
labor administration, and that such committee refer its recommenda­
tions to the next convention of this body.
Mr. R eed . I second that motion. I think that it is a very con­
structive suggestion because I know of several instances in my State
in which the misunderstanding between the Federal agencies and our
State agencies was brought about by the great distance between
Washington and our State. I am sure that as far as labor matters are
concerned, if a committee can be appointed to take these matters up
and openly discuss them with the Federal agencies involved, it will
bring to all of us a clearer understanding of the problem..
Mr. H inrichs . I am using this motion as an opportunity to tie
back for a moment into yesterday morning’s discussion of labor and
the post-war period. The thing I want to point out is that, in this
matter of Federal-State relationships, we are dealing obviously with a
very fundamental political issue. In dealing with our post-war
problems, I am sure that there are several ways in which an approach
can be made to those problems.
It is not a single pattern that needs to be laid down. However, I
am quite sure that we cannot work out our problems in an atmosphere
of great political controversy. I would like to suggest that the labor
commissioners have an obligation to labor in their States— and to the
governors of their States— to see that an examination of the kind of
problems that the people of their States are going to be up against be
quickly made so that the States themselves can decide as to the type
of aids and assistance that they are going to want from the Federal
Government. I am sure that the problems of the post-war period
cannot be dealt with in terms of a dogmatic all-State or all-Federal
Government approach. It is rather a case of discovering what the
areas of the problems are that can be dealt with on a community
level (strictly local), on a State level, or on a National level, and
arriving at a program that will be authorized to meet the needs and
desires of the people in the United States and to effect a comprehensive
If we are going to deal with post-war problems in terms of the
political heat that is involved in a mere slogan approach, we are going
to embroil ourselves in an amount of political controversy which I
think is going to jeopardize the position of labor, and the opportunity




for reconstruction in the post-war period. The thing that we have
been urging in our own work in connection with the study of the post­
war problems is just exactly what the States and the communities
should look at: the character of their problems; to find out to what
extent they are going to be able to cope with those problems; and to
what extent and at what point they are going to require very large
amounts of assistance from the Federal Government. That rep­
resents the pooling of the efforts of the people of the United States as a
whole. I hope we will recognize that, if we go on trying to deal with
that problem in the political heat that surrounds things of basic
political concern, we are not likely to make half the progress that we
can if we will sit down and study the specific problem and find the
specific approach needed in order to reach a common objective.
Mr. P atton . I have thought a great deal about this problem as it
strikes us in New York and in the Division of Women in Industry.
Various factors enter into the situation. I have found in New York
that very often the local people who are new to the game do not have
a very good understanding of the problem, whereas the people at the
upper levels do. Therefore, it is necessary to get that understanding
down to the people who are actually in the field. I think that is one
problem that is involved in working out principles and procedures for
Federal-State cooperation; how cap. both the Federal and the State
governments get their policies down to their working members?
That, I think, is the real problem in administration, in management.
The other items in this situation that we ought to face is the fact
that within a general framework we might have certain minimum
national standards that are the very minimum; but we should have, it
seems to me, sufficient flexibility, as Mr. Wrabetz has pointed out, so
that the States can experiment and go ahead. We also have the whole
problem of large units and small units, which is one that we will have
to face increasingly in our post-war relations. It seems to me that
the sooner that we can do it, and the more realistically we can do it,
the better.
[The motion, to appoint a committee of three to consult with the
Department of Labor and explore the situation, was carried.]
[In view of the uncertain conditions prevailing—whether the war
would be over and whether or not travel facilities would be available—
the convention voted, on motion of Mr. Lubin, that the Executive
Board be authorized to decide, after consultation with the member­
ship, whether a meeting should be held in 1944, and, if held, the
place of meeting.]
[N o te .— At the time this publication went to press, it had been decided not to
hold a meeting in 1944.]



Report o f the Nominating Committee
M r. R ountree . Members of the nominating committee were
presented with a situation this year that does not ordinarily confront
nominating committees in this organization. In considering the
problem, we found that two former members of the organization
were no longer affiliated, and that the first vice president was not
here and in all probability would not be here next year. W e were,
therefore, unable to follow the precedent of moving up the officers
as we ordinarily do. After thorough consideration of the matter,
the nominating committee recommends that the following persons
be elected to serve as officers for the ensuing year:
P resid en t — Voyta W rabetz, of Wisconsin (to be reelected for
another term).
F irst vice p resid en t — Forrest H . Shuford, of North Carolina.
Second vice p resid en t — M rs. Nellie Keifnedy, of Kansas.
T hird vice p resid en t — L . D . Currie, of N ova Scotia.
F ourth vice p resid en t — Francis B M urphy, of Illinois.
F ifth vice presid en t .— Boyce A . W illiam s, of Florida.
Secretary-treasurer .— Isador Lubin, Washington, D . C .
[On motion of M r. Pohlhaus it was voted to close the nominations
and to have the secretary cast the unanimous ballot.]

6 1 1 5 6 0 °— 45-


Appendix A.—Organization of International Association of
Governmental Labor Officials
Officers, 1943-44
President.— Voyta Wrabetz, of Wisconsin.
First vice president.— Forrest H. Shuford, of North Carolina.
Second vice president.— Nellie Kennedy, of Kansas.
Third vice president.— L. D. Currie, of Nova Scotia.
Fourth vice president.— Francis B. Murphy, of Illinois.
Fifth vice president.— Boyce A. Williams, of Florida.
Secretary-treasurer.— Isador Lubin, of Washington, D. C.
Honorary Life Members
George P. Hambrecht, Wisconsin.
Frank E. Wood, Louisiana.
Linna Bresette, Illinois.
Dr. C. B. Connelley, Pennsylvania.
John H. Hall, Jr., Virginia.
Herman Witter, Ohio.
John S. B. Davie, New Hampshire.
R. H. Lansburgh, Pennsylvania.
Alice McFarland, Kansas.

H. M. Stanley, Georgia.
A. L. Ulrick, Iowa.
Dr. Andrew F. McBride, Minnesota.
Louise E. Schutz, Minnesota.
Maj. A. L. Fletcher, North Carolina.
Adam Bell, British Columbia.
P. Rivera Martinez, Puerto Rico.
Frieda S. Miller, New York.

Adopted at Chicago, 111., May 20,1924; amended August 15, 1925, June 3, 1927, May 24,1928, May 23,1930,
September 15. 1933, September 29,1934, September 16,1937

A rticle I
Section 1. Name.—This organization shall be known as the International
Association of Governmental Labor Officials.
A rticle II
Section 1. Objects.— To encourage the cooperation of all branches of Federal,
State, and Provincial Governments who are charged with the administration of
laws and regulations for the protection of women and children, and the safety
and welfare of all workers in industry; to maintain and promote the best pos­
sible standards of law enforcement and administrative method; to act as a
medium for the interchange of information for and by the members of the
association in all matters pertaining to the general welfare of men, women,
and young workers in industry; to aid in securing the best possible education for
minors which will enable them to adequately meet the constantly changing
industrial and social changes; to promQte the enactment of legislation that
conforms to and deals with the ever-recurring changes that take place in
industry, and in rendering more harmonious relations in industry between
employers and employees; to assist in providing greater and better safeguards
to life and limb of industrial workers, and to cooperate with other agencies
in making the best and safest use of property devoted to industrial purposes;
to secure by means of educational methods a greater degree of interstate and
interprovincial uniformity in the enforcement of labor laws and regulations;
to assist in the establishment of standards of industrial safety that will give
adequate protection to workers; to encourage Federal, State, and Provincial
labor departments to cooperate in compiling and disseminating statistics dealing
with employment, unemployment, earnings, hours of labor, and other matters
of interest to industrial workers and of importance to the welfare of women
and children; to collaborate and cooperate with associations of employers and
associations of employees in order that all of these matters may be given



the most adequate consideration; and to promote national prosperity and inter­
national good will by correlating as far as possible the activities of the
members of this association.
A rticle III
Section 1. Membership.— The active membership of this association shall
consist of—
(а) The United States Department of Labor and subdivisions thereof. United
States Bureau of Mines, and the Department of Labor of the Dominion of
(б) State and Provincial departments of labor and other State and Provincial
organizations administering laws pertaining to labor.
(c) Federal, State, or Provincial employment services.
Sec. 2. Honorary members.— Any person who has rendered service while
connected with any Federal, State, and Provincial department of labor, and the
American representative of the International Labor Office, may be elected to
honorary membership by a unanimous vote of the executive board.
Sec . 3. Associate memberships.— Any individual, organization, or corporation
interested in and working along the lines of the object of this association may
become an associate member of this association by the unanimous vote of the
executive board.
A rticle IV


Officers.— The officers of this association shall be a president, a
first, second, third, fourth, and fifth vice president, and a secretary-treasurer.
The executive board shall consist of these officers, together with the outgoing
president, who shall serve as an ex officio member of the board for 1 year.
Sec. 2. Election o f officers.— Such officers shall be elected from the members
at the regular annual business meeting of the association by a majority ballot
and shall hold office for 1 year, or until their successors are elected and
Sec . 3. The officers shall be elected from representatives of the active mem­
bership of the association.
A rticle V
Section 1. Duties o f the officers.— The president shall preside at all meetings
of the association and the executive board, preserve order during its delibera­
tions, appoint all committees, and sign all records, vouchers, or other documents
in connection with the work of the association. He shall fill all vacancies
caused by death, resignation, or otherwise.
Sec. 2. The vice presidents, in order named, shall perform the duties of the
president in his absence.
Sec . 3. The secretary-treasurer shall have charge of all books, papers, rec­
ords and other documents of the association; shall receive and have charge of all
dues and other moneys; shall keep a full and complete record of all receipts and
disbursements; shall keep the minutes of all meetings of the association and
the executive board; shall conduct all correspondence pertaining to the office;
shall compile statistics and other data as may be required for the use of the
members of the association; and shall perform such other duties as may be
directed by the convention or the executive board. The secretary-treasurer shall
present a detailed written report of receipts and expenditures to the convention.
The secretary-treasurer shall be bonded for the sum of $500, the fee for such
bond to be paid by the association. The secretary-treasurer shall publish the
proceedings of the convention as promptly as possible, the issue to consist of
such numbers of copies as the executive board may direct. The secretarytreasurer shall receive such salary as the executive board may decide, but not
less than $300 per year.
Sec. 4. The business of the association between conventions shall be conducted
by the executive board, and all questions coming before the board shall be de­
cided by a majority vote, except that of the election of honorary members, which
shall be by unanimous vote.
A rticle VI
Section 1. Finances.— With the exception of those organizations included
under (a) of section 1 of article III each active member shall pay for the year
ending June 30, 1936, and thereafter annual dues of $25, except that where the




organization has no funds for the purpose, and an individual officer or member
of the staff wishes to pay dues for the organization, the fee shall be $10 per
annum for active membership of the organization in such cases.
The executive board may order an assessment levied upon affiliated depart­
ments not to exceed 1 year’s dues.
Sec. 2. The annual dues of associate members shall be $10.
A rticle VII
Section 1. Who entitled to vote.— All active members shall be entitled to vote
on all questions coming before the meeting of the association as hereinafter
Sec. 2. In electing officers of the association, State departments of labor
represented by several delegates shall only be entitled to one vote. The dele­
gates from such departments must select one person from their representatives
to cast the vote of the group.
The various bureaus of the United States Department of Labor and the Depart­
ment of Labor of Canada may each be entitled to one vote.
The rule for electing officers shall apply to the vote for selecting the convention
A rticle V III
Section 1. Meetings.— The association shall meet at least once annually at
such time and place as the executive board may decide unless otherwise ordered
by the convention.
A rticle IX


Section . Program.— The program committee shall consist of the president,
the secretary-treasurer, and the head of the department of the State or Province
within which the convention is to be held, and they shall prepare and publish the
convention programs of the association as far in advance of the meeting as
Sec. 2. The committee on program shall set aside at least one session of the
convention as a business session, at which session the regular order of business,
and election of officers, shall be taken up, and no other business shall be con­
sidered at that session until the “ regular order” has been completed.
A rticle X
Section 1. Rules of order.— The deliberations of the convention shall be gov­
erned by “ Cushing’s Manual.”
A rticle X I
S ectio n 1. Amendments.— Amendments to the constitution must be filed with
the secretary-treasurer in triplicate and referred to the committee on constitution
and bylaws. A two-thirds vote of all delegates shall be required to adopt any
A rticle X II
S ectio n 1. Order of business.—

1. Roll call of members by States and Provinces.
2. Appointment of committees:
(а) Committee of five on officers’ reports.
(б) Committee of five on resolutions.
(c) Committee of three on constitution and bylaws.
(d) Special committees.
3. Reports of officers.
4. Reports of States and Provinces.
5. Reports of committees.
6. Unfinished business.
7. New business.
8. Election of officers.
9. Adjournment.



Development o f the International Association of Governmental Labor
Association o f Chiefs and Officials o f Bureaus o f Labor



Convention held at—



September 1883.........
June 1884
June 1885....................
June 1886
.Tiinp. 1887
May 1888
Jimp 1889
1890 2
May 1891........_ .. _
May 1892....................
1893 2..........................
May 1894....................
September 1895______
Jimp 1896
May 1897....................
June 1898......... ..........
July 1899
July 1900......._.......... .
May 1901....................
April 1902
April 1903...................
July 1904.....................
September 1905______
July 1906........ ............
July 1907........ ............
August 1908................
June 1909....................

Columbus, Ohio______
St. Louis, Mo..... ..........
Boston, Mass............. .
Trenton, N. J_________
Madison, Wis._.............
Indianapolis, Ind______
Hartford, Conn_______
Des Moines, Iowa_____
Philadelphia, P a ..........
Denver, Colo.................
Albany, N. Y . ..........
Washington, D. C....... .
Minneapolis, Minn____
Albany, N. Y............. __
Nashville, Tenn_______
Detroit, M ich..............
Augusta, Maine_______
Milwaukee, Wis______
St. Louis, M o...............
New Orleans, La__ __
Washington, D. C_____
Concord, N. H__...........
San Francisco, Calif.__
Boston, Mass................
Norfolk, Va...................
Detroit, Mich...............
Rochester, N. Y ______

H. A. Newman........... .
Carroll D. Wright_____
___ do..... ....................... ....... ..............
___ d o ............ .............— ........ .............— .......................
___ do_______________
Charles F. Peck............
___ do...........................
Carroll D. Wright—.......
___ do............................ ........... .— ......................
___ do..... ......................— .......................
___ do............................
___ do..... .......................
....d o ............................ ............... .......— .......................
___ do___ ___________
Charles P. Neill.............
___ do................... .......
....d o ............., .............


Henry Luskey.
John S. Lord.
E. R. Hutchins.
Frank H. Betton.
L. G. Powers.
Samuel B. Home.
James M. Clark.
W. L. A. Johnson.

Known as Association of Governmental Labor Officials, 1914-27; Association of Government Officials
in Industry, 1928-33.
* No meeting.
International Association o f Factory Inspectors



Convention held at—



June 1887.....................
August 1888
August 1889— ............
August 1890
August 1891-...............
September 1892______
September 1893......... .
September 1894______
September 1895______
September 1896______
August and Septem­
ber 1897.
September 1898______
August 1899................
October 1900.......... ....
September 1901...........
December 1902............
August 1903................
September 1904______
August 1905..........
June 1906_____ _____
June 1907....................
June 1908.__________
Jimp 1909

Philadelphia, Pa...........
Boston, Mass_________
Trenton, N J.................
New York, N. Y...........
Cleveland, Ohio— ........
Hartford, Conn. ............
Chicago, 111________
Philadelphia, Pa_— ___
Providence, R. I..........
Toronto, Canada...........
Detroit, Mich................

Rufus Wade__________
___ do_______ ________ .......................— ____________
William Z. McDonald—
John Franey_________
___ do..................... .
___ do............................
C. H. Morse. ................
Rufus R. Wade_______

Henry Dom.
L. R. Campbell.
Isaac S. Mullen.
Mary O’Reilly.
Evan H. Davis.
Alzina P. Stevens.

Boston, Mass.......... ......
Quebec, Canada_______
Indianapolis, Ind._ „ _
Niagara Falls, N. Y___
Charleston, S. C______
Montreal, Canada_____
St. Louis, Mo_________
Detroit, Mich...............
Columbus, Ohio______
Hartford, Conn.............
Toronto, Canada______
Rochester, N. Y ______
___ do............................
James Campbell______
John Williams...............
James Mitchell—...........
Daniel H. McAbee____
Edgar T. Davies...........
Malcolm J. McLead___
John H. Morgan........
George L. McLean____
James T. Burke

Joseph L. Cox.
R. M. Hull.
Davis F. Spees.
C. V. Hartsell.
Thomas Keity.






Joint Meeting of the Association of Chiefs and Officials of Bureaus of Labor and International Association of Factory Inspectors


Convention held at—


24 August 1910..... ..........

J. Ellerly Hudson.......... E. J. Watson.


Louis Guyon................. W. W. Williams.
Edgar T. Davies...........
A. L. Garrett.... ............ W. L. Mitchell.



Hendersonville, N. C.,
and Columbia, S. C
September 1911........... L incoln, Nebr
September 1912. ......... Washington, D. C.........
May 1913.................... Chicago, 111.... ...............


International Association of Governmental Labor Officials 1
[Resulting from amalgamation of the Association of Chiefs and Officials of Bureaus of Labor and the Inter­
national. Association of Factory Inspectors]


Convention held at—


June 1914.................. .
June-July 1915.......... .
July 1916... ................
September 1917____ _
June 1918—..................
June 1919— ................
July 1920....................
May 1921...................
May 1922....... ............
May 1923....................
May 1924..................
August 1925................
June 1926....................
May-June 1927...........
May 1928....... ............

Nashville, Tenn— ........
Detroit, Mich________
Buffalo, N. Y ............
Asheville, N. C....... ......
Des Moines, Iowa_____
Madison, Wis________
Seattle, Wash________
New Orleans, La______
Harrisburg, Pa.............
Richmond, Va________
Chicago, 111______ ______
Salt Lake City, Utah...
Columbus, Ohio............
Paterson, N .J________
New Orleans, La..........

16 June 1929.................... Toronto, Canada...........
17 May 1930.................... Louisville, Ky...............
Boston, Mass_________
18 May 1931____ _____

September 19338------September 1934______
October 1935..............
September 1936—........
September 1937—........
September 1938...........
September 1939______
September 1940--------September 1941______
October 1943».............

Chicago, 111.....................
Boston, Mass................
Asheville, N. C__..........
Topeka, Kans...............
Toronto, Canada______
Charleston, S. C______
Tulsa, Okla___ ______
New York, N. Y______
St. Louis, Mo..... ..........
Chicago, 111...... ................



Barney Cohen............... W. L. Mitchell.
...... do............................ John T. Fitzpatrick.
James V. Cunningham._
Oscar Nelson____ _____
Edwin Mulready.......... Linna E. Bresette.
C. H. Younger..... .........
Geo. P. Hambrecht____
Frank E. Hoffman____
Frank E. Wood.........
C. B. Connelley............ Louise E. Schutz.
John Hopkins Hall, Jr..
George B. Arnold..........
H. R. Witter.................
John S. B. Davie...........
[H. M. Stanley 2 ........... }
[Andrew F. McBride___
Andrew F. McBride 3... }
Maud Swett..................
Maud Swett_________
[John H. H. Ballantyne1
[W. A. Rooksbery_____ }
[E. Leroy Sweetser8....... jMaud Swett.
[E. B. Patton____ _____
T. E. Whitaker............. Isador Lubin.
Joseph M. Tone...........
A. W. Crawford______
A. L. Fletcher...... .........
W. A. Pat Murphy____
Martin P. Durkin_____
Adam B ell...................
Frieda S. Miller............
Voyta Wrabetz.............

1 Known as Association of Governmental Labor Officials, 1914-27; Association of Government Officials
in Industry, 1928-33.
2 Mr. Stanley resigned in March 1928.
3 Dr. McBride resigned in March 1929.
4 Mr. Ballantyne resigned in January 1931.
«No convention was held in 1932, but a meeting of the executive committee and other members was held
in Buffalo in June 1932 to discuss matters of interest to the Association.
6 Mr. Sweetser served as president from May 1931 to December 1931; Mr. Patton served from December
1931 to September 1933.
7No convention was held in 1942 because of war conditions.

A p p e n d ix

B.—Persons Attending the Twenty-eighth Conven­
tion of the International Association of Governmental Labor
Officials, Chicago, October 8-10, 1943
United States

W. Emmet Brooks, director, department of labor, Montgomery.
W. J. McCain, commissioner, department of Labor, Little Rock.
W. I. Reilly, chairman, industrial commission, Denver.
A. A. Klinge, chairman, Commission for Conservation of Manpower for Wyoming
and Colorado, Denver.
James M. Reese, labor commission, Wilmington.
D istrict o f Colum bia

Mary Anderson, Director, Women’s Bureau, United States Department of Labor.
Mrs. Clara M. Beyer, Assistant Director, Division of Labor Standards, United
States Department of Labor.
Roland P. Blake, Division of Labor Standards, United States Department of
Lucille Buchanan, Division of Labor Standards, United States Department of
William H. Davis, Chairman, National War Labor Board.
Marion H. Hedges, of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
A. F. Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States
Department of Labor.
Isador Lubin, Commissioner (on leave), Bureau of Labor Statistics, United
States Department of Labor.
Beatrice McConnell, Children’s Bureau, United States Department of Labor.
Kate O’Connor, United States Department of Labor, Chicago.
Mrs. Barbara Page.
Wm. F. Patterson, Director, Apprentice Training Service, War Manpower
Mrs. Irene B. Reedy, Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of
Murray Rimsay, United States Department of Labor regional office, Chicago.
Mary Skinner, Children’s Bureau, United States Department of Labor.
John R. Steelman, Director, Conciliation Service, united States Department of
Louise Stitt, Women’s Bureau, United States Department o f Labor.
Joseph M. Tone, Division of Labor Standards, United States Department of
Walter E. Rountree, director, industrial commission, Tallahassee.
Wm. A. Bechill, labor relations director, Chrysler plant, Chicago.
Samuel Bernstein, division of placement and unemployment compensation,
department of labor, Chicago.
Jewell O. Coleman, superintendent o f women and children employment, depart­
ment of labor, Chicago.





Dean Curry, division of placement and unemployment compensation, depart­
ment of labor, Chicago.
Noel E. Durand, Cuneo Press, Chicago.
Molly Jackson, department of labor, Chicago.
Leo Kaner, division of placement and unemployment compensation, department
of labor, Chicago.
Neely W. Keith, division of placement and unemployment compensation, de­
partment of labor, Chicago.
C. A. Livingston, public relations director, Illinois Manufacturers Association,
Francis B. Murphy, director, Illinois Department of Labor, Chicago.
Victor Olander, secretary, Illinois State Federation of Labor, Chicago.
Ferdinand Petraitis, division of placement and unemployment compensation,
department of labor, Chicago.
Milton Radice, division of placement and unemployment compensation, depart­
ment of labor, Chicago.
John Reuter, Jr., division of placement and unemployment compensation, depart­
ment of labor, Chicago.
Lue Schutte, department of labor, Chicago.
John W. Ward, division of placement and unemployment compensation, depart­
ment of labor, Chicago.
Frank Welch, department of labor, Chicago.
J. R. Rockwell, director, bureau of boiler and factory inspection, division of
labor, Indianapolis.
Harold B. Priest, counsel to commissioner, division of labor, Indianapolis.
Chas. W. Harness, commissioner, bureau of labor, Des Moines.
Trena Meinders, bureau of labor, Des Moines.
Mrs. Nellie Kennedy, director, women’ s and children’s division, labor department,
John Morrison, commissioner, labor department, Topeka.

S. Voorhies, director of apprenticeship, commissioner of labor, Baton Rouge.

John M. Pohlhaus, commissioner, department of labor, Baltimore.
Geo. W. Dean, commissioner, department of labor and industry, Lansing.
Mrs. Geo. W. Dean.
Geo. Detchmendy, chief clerk, labor and industrial inspection, Jefferson City.
O. S. Traylor, commissioner, labor and industrial inspection, Jefferson City.
New York
Kate Papert, director, women in industry and minimum wage, department of
labor, New York.
E. B. Patton, director of statistics, department of labor, New York.
North Carolina
W. G. Watson, department of labor, Raleigh.
Lewis P. Sorrell, department of labor, Raleigh.
Forrest H. Shuford, commissioner, department of labor, Raleigh.





W. E. Kimsey, commissioner, bureau of labor, Salem.
Wm. H. Chesnut, secretary of labor and industry, Harrisburg.
Mary R. Morrow, director, women and children’s hours and wages, department
of labor and industry, Harrisburg.
Rhode Island
E. S. Carpenter, chief, division of industrial inspection, department of labor,
South Carolina
R. L. Gamble, commissioner, department of labor, Columbia.
John D. Reed, commissioner, bureau of labor statistics, AuSjtin.
E. M. Royle, chairman, industrial commission, Salt Lake City.
John Hopkins Hall, Jr., commissioner, department of labor, Richmond.
John Shaughnessy, supervisor, industrial insurance, department of labor and
industry, Olympia.
Harry J. Burczyk, commissioner, industrial commission, Madison.
Walter Simon, supervisor of apprenticeship, industrial commission, Madison.
Maud Swett, field director, women and child labor, industrial commission,
Margaret Thommen, deputy, women and child labor, industrial commission,
Voyta Wrabetz, chairman, industrial commission, Madison.
Gertrude Ziebarth, secretary to Mr. Wrabetz.

Chas. Daley, Minister of Labor, Toronto.
J. O’ Connell Maher, Associate Deputy Minister, department of labor.
Mrs. J. O’ Connell Maher.