Most of this, of course, is because of the fantastic developments in equipment. There was a time-I mentioned it in my statement— when you had a shovel crew, an operator and oiler, loading trucks, and you had those two men loading trucks with a shovel, oh, let us say, 30yard dumper. They had to load it; you had a truckdriver driving the truck away.

With developments in equipment now, if the material is blased properly, if it is rock or if it is broken up and ripped up properly, you can come in with a scraper and take out 32 yards just slowing down from 30 miles an hour to 15 miles an hour and you pick up and go away at 30 miles an hour again. This takes some skill.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Would you give some comment as to what the attitude of the operating engineers has been with regards to the employment of minority groups. Have you conscientiously made an effort to provide additional on-the-job training for members of minority groups?

Do you have any statistics which indicate what percent of those that are being trained are of the minority groups?

Mr. HAMMOND. Well, all of our programs up to this point have been on a nondiscriminatory basis, with finding the trainees through our hiring halls, which by definition are nondiscriminatory. We have in our Idaho program, for instance, arranged for 25 Shoshoni Bannock Indians to be involved in our retraining effort. Essentially you want to keep in mind that under the Manpower Development and Training Act funds we have concentrated on retraining, and this is for anybody in the industry, regardless of the union membership. We have all kinds of people that run the spectrum of every nationality and every color. I would not say that we have specifically looked for anybody for our training; I would assure you that anybody that has come up that needs this kind of training conducted, it is on a completely nondiscriminatory basis.

Senator PELL. Would the Senator yield at that point?

I wonder if the witness could help me with an observation I have made regarding the District of Columbia. I notice that all the building going on in the District, the men who operate the machines, are usually white and the laborers are Negro. What is the reason for that? You look at any construction here.

Mr. HAMMOND. Senator, I would be a little surprised at that, because our local here in Washington is probably one of the best in the area on minority employment. I think almost anybody familiar with it would agree. The laborers were at one time very heavily Irish, then very heavily Italian, and then Negro. Our local is in pretty good shape; nobody has indicated we were not bringing our boys along as fast as they could come.

Senator PELL. I suggest, when you drive home at night and go by some construction jobs, just note this point.

Mr. HAMMOND. I watch every construction job in Washington.
Senator PELL. I point that out.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Do you have any statistics which would indicate that?

Mr. HAMMOND. No, we have never maintained any statistics along those lines, Senator.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I want to thank you very much for appearing here. I think you have an interesting effort which is

being made by the union and I think it is highly commendable. I certainly applaud the initiative which has been taken by the union which you represent.

I appreciate your appearance here and the testimony which you gave to the subcommittee for this record. Thank you.

Mr. HAMMOND. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Our next witness is Mr. Craig White, the manager of the Barre Granite Association, Barre, Vt.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. White proceeds, I should like to point out that I am delighted to see him here. I have had an opportunity to read his statement. I think it is a very fine statement and merits the serious consideration of the subcommittee.

I have been notified that I have some other constituents from Vermont who are in my office at the present time, so I shall have to leave the hearing. However, I am delighted to see you, Mr. White, and also

your son.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Senator, I fully understand your problem. As a fellow Vermonter with Senator Prouty, I hope Senator Kennedy had a very good ski weekend in Vermont.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I will say for the record it was delightful and we have a lot of friends up there, even if there are not too many Democrats.

Mr. WHITE. Come back again, sir.

My statement, Senators, is rather brief, and if you will bear with me, I would like to review it.

STATEMENT OF CRAIG W. WHITE, MANAGER, BARRE GRANITE ASSOCIATION, BARRE, VT.

Mr. WHITE. My name is Craig W. White and I am employed as manager-member services by the Barre Granite Association of Barre, Vt., called the granite center of the world.

The Barre Granite Association is a trade association of 50 small granite quarriers and manufacturers. Our members are located in Barre, Montpelier, Williamstown, and South Ryegate, Vt.

As an association, we perform many services for our members. They include: Sales promotion of select Barre granite and Barre Guild monuments (a trademark owned jointly by all our member firms), industrial relations, credit, freight consolidation, and apprentice training. Member companies produce monuments with their own trademark as well as our own cooperatively owned trademark-Barre Guild. We issue a guarantee on Barre Guild monuments that is the strongest in the industry and is backed jointly by all member companies of our association."

In the Barre district there are over 100 small granite manufacturing firms, ranging in size from one of 600 employees to others as small as 1 or 2 employees. Total employment in the industry is 2,200 and the granite plants and quarries are today, and have been for over 90 years, the main industry and employer of the area. The craftsmen of Barre are known the world over for their skill and artistry in cutting and shaping granite.

Barre has had apprentice training for stonecutters since before 1899 and over the years individual manufacturers have been able to train enough men on the job to satisfy their requirements.

Since World War II, but particularly in the past 8 to 10 years, since the advent of our industry pension program, the industry has not been able to train enough men to replace those lost through retirement and death. Competition has increased and our plants have been adding newer and more modern machinery and mechanical equipment to meet it.

Our members are finding it a financial burden to train new men and many firms do not have the type and variety of work to properly train an apprentice except at certain times of the year. In the early stages the addition of the new equipment and machines has enabled our members to maintain their production volume.

It was found that several of our larger members were training most of the apprentices, but they were being pirated away upon becoming journeymen by the smaller firms.

Historically our member companies have found it practical to solve some of their problems by jointly working together. In 1962, after discussions with our State Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training Supervisor, our joint Labor-Management Apprentice Training Committee (established under our collective bargaining agreement) and our board of trustees, and in an effort to spread the cost of apprentice training among many manufacturers, the Barre Granite Association began an apprentice subsidy program.

Firms employing stonecutter apprentices were subsidized by the association for training costs during part of the initial 6-month breakin period and later on during the 3-year apprenticeship. Although initially successful, this program did not work out as well as hoped. The association then employed the services of a management consultant to study our industry, its employment problems and especially our apprentice training problems. Working with the joint apprentice committee, State and local educational authorities, and State and Federal Labor Department officials, the consultant recommended the establishment of a fully equipped industry training school under one roof where all apprentices could train together to learn basic stonecutting. This had long been a dream of many within the industry. The study found, among other things, that a large percentage trained in recent years seriously lacked those skills absolutely necessary to do the high quality and artistic work expected from firms in the Barre

area.

A new program was then developed within the framework of the Federal MDTA program and the industry's apprentice standards. A separation of crafts within the stonecutting trade was also recommended, but management was unable to obtain union approval even though union committee members had approved it. It was hoped that stonecutters and sandblast men could be trained in separate pro

grams.

The program was of 17 weeks' duration under MDTA with both practical shop training and related instruction followed by 35 weeks on-the-job training with one day each week at the school facility for additional training and correction of problems. Approval of this program was speedily obtained from Federal authorities, but funding held up its start for several months.

The success of the initial two group programs was tremendous, even though it was found with the first group that initial screening had been weak. This was improved with the second group. It proved

to both labor and management that our apprentice training program could be accelerated, but it could only be done with full-time instructors in a separate school; no trial and error in individual plants.

It was also found that many of the trainees, insofar as basic stonecutting was concerned, were as advanced at the end of 52 weeks as many journeymen under the old individual plant OJT program.

In view of the success of the initial two programs the joint apprentice committee recommended that sandblast training be added to the course. There was a need for such training and, in addition, it would enable us to retain trainees in the program who could not continue the stonecutting, but could qualify for this type of work. After thorough study by all concerned, including State and Federal apprentice authorities, a new and improved program was worked out and submitted for approval.

We extended the MDTA portion by 1 week to 18 weeks, cut down the stonecutting shop instruction and replaced it with beginning sandblast. Sandblast men are under the same union jurisdiction as stonecutters require some basic stonecutting training.

It was here we ran into our first of many problems. Our costs were too high and we would use up all of the State's allotment. We were able to reduce our cost, but had no control over training allowances which come from employment security.

After a reduction of about $11,000 we were told the course was too long and we should reduce the school phase to 8 weeks and the overall program to 26. An 8-week school phase would have been worthless and we would not have gone along with the program if this reduction had been insisted on.

It appeared to us that although the individual who was sending the proposal back was doing his best to keep costs down, he was not familiar with the type of training being given and what was needed to make such a program beneficial and worthwhile.

Finally, in order to salvage something and not waste good money already spent on equipment installed, we eliminated all sandblast and cut the overall program to 30 weeks-15 MDTA and 15 OJT. Then, before approval was given, I had to prove to the Labor Department, by obtaining a Wage and Hour Division ruling, that we were not in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Final approval was received January 20, 1966, and we made our original submission the middle of August 1965, with a hoped-for starting date on October 5, 1965. We finally got going February 7,1966.

There is still a pending matter of whether we will be allowed to pay the rent on the facility for the 4-month period between programs. That is being passed back and forth between Boston and Washington. I requested permission to pay the rent with left-over funds from the original program.

To sum up our experience with MDTA-OJT, I will say that once approval is received, the program works very well and we have been very enthused. The problems seem to lie in trying to obtain approval for a program that has been worked out by industry experts and kept at a bare minimum as far as cost is concerned.

We feel we know what we are doing, but also feel someone who is not familiar with our industry and working from a rulebook is telling us what type training we need and can give. Recommendations of

State and regional department of labor supervisors should have more weight on final decisions; they are the closest to the scene.

Ours is not a trade one can learn overnight and the programs we have developed are only of the preapprenticeship type. For small manufacturers, as we have in Barre, Vermont, MDTA-OJT type training programs, such as we have conducted, are like the answer to a prayer. It gets them over that initial financial burden of starting trainees and removes individual trial and error of selection. A good granitecutter is somewhat of an artist and not everyone takes to the trade.

I wish to thank the committee for its invitation to appear. We in Barre consider it an honor to have been asked. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I want to thank you, Mr. White. One of the things we have been evaluating is how realistic this program is for small, independent industries, and whether it will be successful if industries have to work through some association in order to fully utilize the potential of this program.

I wonder if you could direct your attention to that problem. From your experience would you say that this program would work for small independents or would it be more effective if these independents work through an association?

Mr. WHITE. As I mentioned, Senator, there are over a hundred small manufacturers in Barre, of which 50 belong to our association, we being the organized entity, should we say, of the whole group.

With us backing such a program, being the supervisor of the onthe-job training phase of the programs we have had, it has, as I mentioned, helped these smaller manufacturers get over or relieve them of the initial financial burden of proving whether a man is going to take to this rather complicated task or not, and we have guaranteed employment for all those who complete the program.

Now, that guarantee is not restricted to our members; it is open to everybody in the area. All of the trainees that we have put through the original two courses, all the graduates, with the exception of two or three, are still with the industry. One of the men from the course that was completed in September is now taking specialized sculpturing and carving training with an expert, something that normally would not have happened until maybe the man had been with the industry for 5 or 10 years.

I do have, if the Senator would be interested, a few pictures of just what these men have done in the course of a 52-week MDTA on-thejob training type program. If you would care, I would be glad to leave them with the committee to look over.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I think that it would be helpful if you would leave those with the subcommittee.

Mr. WHITE. As an added remark, Senator, you mentioned earlier with one of the previous witness this Human Investment Act or the proposals that have been before this committee or whether it actually has not been put in the form of a bill yet. When this was originally introduced a year ago, we were very enthused about it and thought that it would add more incentive and help not only our manufacturers, but employers throughout the country in training men.

We find that now, fortunately, in Vermont employment is quite good and maybe we are sort of the bottom of the barrel with some of the