C. Job information activities.—(1) Strengthen private employment agencies and improve the U.S. Employment Service so that it supplements rather than competes with private agencies; (2) establish a nationwide "early warning system" to allow preparation for technological job displacement; (3) establish a national clearinghouse of skills and job vacancies.

D. Alleviating the burden of unemployment.-(1) Support permanent State programs for temporary extension of unemployment insurance; (2) improve administration of unemployment insurance benefits; (3) consideration should be given to establishing a system of private mortgage unemployment insurance designed to prevent foreclosures resulting from high and prolonged unemployment; (4) endorse as a subject for labor-management relations a plan for employee-established funds to temporarily assist the jobless to meet installment debts; (5) recommend consideration of an "income averaging" plan for income loss due to prolonged unemployment; (6) press for rehabilitation programs and employer directed educational campaigns to employ the physically and mentally handicapped.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Our next witnesses will appear as a panel.

Mr. John Dewhurst, president of the Arrow Tool Co., Inc., of Wethersfield, Conn., and Mr. Lee Isenberg, executive director of the Associated Restaurants of Connecticut.

Gentlemen, we are happy to have you with us this morning.

Mr. Dewhurst, you and Mr. Isenberg both have statements which we have. They will be included in the record. I know that yours is extensive. If you would like to review it in your own words and summarize it, the subcommittee would be delighted to have it included in its entirety in the record.

Mr. DEWHURST. Thank you very much, Senator.

(The statements of Mr. Dewhurst and Mr. Isenberg follow :)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN DEWHURST, PRESIDENT, ARROW TOOL CO., INC., WETHERSFIELD, CONN.

My name is John Dewhurst. I am president of Arrow Tool Co. of Wethersfield, Conn., a member of the Federal Committee for Apprenticeship and a past president of National Tool, Die & Precision Machining Association. The National Tool, Die & Precision Machining Association is a national trade association representing the tool and die industry in the United States with close to 900 member companies. It is both as a representative of this organization and as one who, for most of his working life, has been engaged in industrial training that I appear here today.

As I understand it, the overriding goal of this subcommitte is increased employment through job development and the best possible utilization of the Nation's manpower. Today I would like to suggest some ways and means by which the Government can offer incentives to industry to increase its training effort and to develop more jobs for the unemployed and underemployed.

The points the association favors toward the encouragement of on-the-job training are as follows. Later in my testimony I shall go into detail on each of them.

1. Intensive and effective use of the Manpower Development and Training Act. 2. Provision for continuity of funding with sums adequate for reaching projected goals.

3. Proper and effective use of the Nation's school facilities based on a careful evaluation of past programs and their inadequacies.

4. Increased staff for agencies of the Labor Department whose present staffs are inadequate to carry out the Manpower Development and Training Act program. Some of these additional numbers should come directly from industry and be recognized training experts with records of proven performance. This would help to earn the confidence of industry.

5. Promote more training research at the level of the jobsite.

6. Lower the draft deferment qualifications for apprentices in critical occupa-tions.

7. Offer an equitable and realistic tax credit law to aid the employer with his training bill. Provide for and encourage industry to train more of its own people as instructors who can function effectively at the jobsite.

The fact that this subcommittee has met to hold this kind of hearing is tangible proof that communications among Government, industry, and education on the subject of on-the-job training need improvement and that a better understanding of the entire problem has to be effected before bona fide jobs can be opened up in greater numbers.

Perhaps I can best introduce our thoughts on the subject by describing a joint industry and Government program that has been highly successful in spite of many obstacles.

In April of 1965, the National Tool, Die & Precision Machining Association signed a contract with the Labor Department's Bureau of Apprenticeship and Trening to promote throughout the country, with Manpower Development and 1ing Act funds, apprenticeship programs for tool and die makers and machinists. This was not a spur-of-the-moment marriage between Government and industry. It was preceded by several years of research and a 1-year experimental program plus almost continuous consultation and encouragement from Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training. During the research and experiemental period many of the deterrents to this kind of training were uncovered and, in the association's program with the Government, ways and means of overcoming them were provided. The only big job that remained then was the national promotion of the project-selling a Government program to industrialists who were traditionally suspicious of Government interference.

This obstacle was hurdled by hiring an industrial training expert who has since traveled throughout most of the tool centers of the Nation and now has in operation 30 programs with prospects of 50 more to come, involving a total of 2,300 jobs.

The most skeptical employers are now convinced that this is the way to do a training job which heretofore they had refused to even consider or embark upon.

Each program inaugurated by the association has a separate Manpower Development and Training Act on-the-job training contract and had to be initiated in the city where it was to take place. This meant dealing with three divisions of Government at three levels; the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, the Employment Service, and Office of Education at local, State, and Federal levels. It also entailed approval by local manpower advisory committees which further complicated an already topheavy and unwieldly effort, making a total of at least 10 individuals or groups each having some power of veto or approval. In many cases the programs which emerged were a result of a model of teamwork and cooperation on the part of the agencies involved. In other cities considerable difficulty was encountered in the working relationships among local officials and industry personnel. In spite of these frustrations we have 30 going programs and have created hundreds of jobs which did not exist before.

There have been two results so far that we are happy about; first, we have created the structure of a better training apparatus within our own industry and second, we have proven to several hundred employers that industry and Government can work as a team in the area of training and employment without industry being taken captive and, of course, we have proven to skeptics in Government that industry has the solutions to employment problems and will supply those solutions if properly approached.

The National Tool, Die & Precision Machining Association's program has succeeded because it is pragmatic in its philosophy and has refused to allow itself to be a part of the status quo.

It has followed the path of all successful business ventures-careful planning, expending funds only on necessities and, above all, has provided for followup, the key to all successful activity.

Since the end of the fiscal year 1965, on-the-job training funds available to the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training have been cut so that the Manpower Administrator has been forced to come up with a mean average cost figure per trainee of $570. This, in turn, has forced the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training to lower the amount of money available to the very successful tool and die program so that the quality of the program is in danger of being seriously irpaired. Due to an apparent lack of understanding by Federal Government policymakers of the needs of on-the-job training, training goals have been increased without a corresponding increase in funds which are so necessary to maintain the caliber of the programs initiated thus far.

I can assure you, gentlemen, that this kind of planning will do little to inspire industry to continue to help solve the problem of unemployment.

We are convinced that the jobsite has to be properly utilized for training, after all, it is the Nation's largest single classroom, and it has to be made a more effective part of the skill-creating structure of the Nation. Industry has, collectively, the largest facility, the most modern equipment in quantity, and the actual jobs to be filled. These cannot be duplicated in any public educational institution. For the schools to even attempt to duplicate this situation would immediately present a cost that realistically would be prohibitive, even for the Federal Government.

The Government must help to provide the funds for developing training methods and tools to improve on-the-job training.

To do this will require the kind of incentives from Government that industry needs, understands, and considers truly helpful.

Some of these are contained in a plan which we have prepared for present on to Government involving certain proposals that I summarized earlier and which I would like to now discuss in some detail. I shall leave copies of the plan with each member of the committee for further study.

A PLAN FOR THE EFFECTIVE USE OF GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES TO IMPROVE THE JOB DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING CAPABILITY OF INDUSTRY

The following paper is based upon the experience, research, experimentation and analytical evaluation of the National Tool, Die & Precision Machining Association.

TRADITIONAL DETERRENTS TO ON-THE-JOB TRAINING

This subcommittee is here to find out what incentives might be helpful to increase on-the-job training. Let us consider first what factors have traditionally limited or deterred this vital training. Those deterrents easiest to identify have been:

1. Weaknesses of vocational training in public schools

While the potential of public school vocational training is great, and indeed this facility is crucial to a nationwide training program, the quality of its graduates and the selection policies employed have resulted in a lack of faith on industry's part in this form of preparation for the trades. When employers and craftsmen alike characterize the schools by the comment, "they don't speak our language," they are referring to the failure of vocational school faculties to choose textbooks, methods, and curriculums that are suited to the needs of the shop.

2. Communication between industry and public education

There is an absence of meaningful communication between industry and public education which too often results in either an ineffective use of school facilities and personnel or no use at all. In many instances the schools have not evaluated the needs of their areas, and industry has not taken the initiative to help improve the school courses or select the best training instructors.

3. Research programs

There has been a lack of proven training tools and methods resulting from continuing research programs. Not enough of this information has been made available to industry.

4. Training costs

High, sometimes prohibitive costs connected with the early phases of much of industrial training have held back on-the-job training. Some trainee wages imposed through collective bargaining are so high as to frighten the employer who feels that he cannot sustain them through a long nonproductive learning period. Of course, there is a wide divergence in starting wages, and, admittedly, in some areas of the country they are too low to attract anyone.

5. Union obstruction

Reticence of some unions to consent to realistic journeymen-apprentice ratios. 6. The draft

Unrealistic draft deferment requirements which set 1.000 hours as the minimum training time to qualify as an apprentice often take away young, carefully selected men who are just commencing their training in critical occupations.

7. State employment services

Many employers lack faith in the various State employment services. Testing and counseling services often do not succeed in meeting the standards that have been set by requesting employers. Too often employment service offices are more concerned with the number of referrals they can take credit for rather than how well the applicants meet the requirements of the job.

8. Government-industry communication

In general, an enormous lack of communication between those who are responsible for the promotion of Government programs and industry has existed. Too many businessmen have not been made aware of the training legislation and administrative policies implementing it.

9. Minority group trainees

Recently, there has been a reluctance on the part of both management and organized labor to adopt training programs because of the influx of minority group members. The problem has been the feeling that some of these persons are different than all others; slower to learn, harder to train, and also there exists an attitude of "How will my present employees react if I bring them into my plant?"

We do not believe that any of the ills mentioned above are so serious or so final that they cannot be remedied. Although we believe the Nation's unemployment ills, over the long haul, can only be cured by properly preparing the very young, we also believe that jobs can be provided by business and industry for the vast majority of those persons who are presently unemployed.

A gigantic canopy of legislation has already been passed which now provides the skeletonized structure for the building job ahead. Unfortunately, the Government strategy for training and employment presently being utilized may attract the most number of qualified trainees, but it does not keep them on a steady course to the employment contemplated. Many trainees are started on programs more than once but still fall back into the sea of unemployment. This may well be because those entrusted with the job of administering the national training effort are not observing the most effective rules of planning, selecting, and providing incentives for accomplishment.

CONTRASTING PROGRAMS

We would like to point out some examples of successful planning and execution carried out by industry while using more selective procedures.

The National Tool, Die & Precision Machining Association's Manpower Development and Training Act program for tool and diemaker apprentices in which the association provided the research for the curriculum, wrote its own texts and in its initial contract placed more boys than it contracted for in jobs of high skill. The contract has since been twice amended and the number of jobs increased almost 500 percent.

The Restaurant Association of Connecticut modeled its program for cooks and chefs after the tool and die program. This group has placed scores of minority group members in good paying jobs and has set a pattern for the industry nationwide.

The Chrysler Corp. is another whose on-the-job training contract has initially placed 1,000 auto mechanic trainees in jobs with dealers.

The Texas Instrument Co. followed the National Tool & Die Association as one of the first to use Manpower Development and Training Act wisely in on-the-job training for hundreds. This program has continued to create jobs almost without letup.

In contrast to these well organized and effective programs an unfortunate but fairly typical institutional effort should be mentioned. Quite recently in an eastern industrial city a meeting of tool, die, and mold shopowners was held to discuss the inauguration of a tool and die on-the-job training apprentice program. Present also were all of the local public officials who might be involved in this coupled program. During the course of the meeting the local vocational director asked the shopowners if they realized that he was presently conducting a program of mold makers for them. The shopowners were surprised and wanted to know why they had not been informed that such a group was being readied for them. Neither the school nor the employment people present could give a satisfactory answer. Other questions which caused the meeting to end in complete frustration were: Who is the instructor? How many boys started

in the program and how many are still in it? When the instructor's name was given it was met with unanimous derision. None of the shopowners present considered the man as having the proper experience or know-how in the trade. It also came out that out of 27 starters 17 remained, and the course was only a few weeks old.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of program that costs the most, contributes the least and, in spite of these facts, remains the easiest to have funded.

MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACT

We feel that the Manpower Development and Training Act presents the most comprehensive aid to on-the-job training presently being employed. However, it is still a relatively new law and needs considerable refinement. We would like to suggest some improvements at a later point in this paper.

At this time it seems best to reidentify and define the three principal types of training programs which have emerged under Manpower Development and Training Act. First is the institutional program which is initiated, usually, by the various State employment services with the bulk of the training being done in the public schools. So far the lion's share of Manpower Development and Training Act funds have gone into this type of program with controversial results. Statistics vary widely on the percentage of job placements through this type of program. Most employers contacted by this association felt that the institutional type program did not meet their needs although some said that these programs were better than nothing.

A second type has been the pure on-the-job training program whereby the employer uses the services of the local State employment office in recruiting trainees and then offers them a stipulated program of instruction on the job while paying them wages. Certain of his training costs are reimbursed by Manpower Development and Training Act funds.

The third type is the coupled program in which trainees receive some prejob training institutionally and then continue this training on the job. Once again recruitment is the responsibility of the State employment service with the final right of selection resting with the prospective employer. The curriculum for this kind of program is usually developed by the employer or employers, the same as in on-the-job training.

PLAN FOR MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACT We look upon the Manpower Development and Training Act as one of the most worthwhile incentives yet offered to industry but suggest the following modifications, refinements and new approaches:

1. Evaluate the three types of programs in terms of the quality of training. Out of this is bound to come the realization that each type is only effective for certain occupations, viz., female hair stylists or typists can receive virtually all of their training institutionally: certain types of production workers such as assemblers could best receive their training entirely on the job or partially as vestibule training and the balance on the job; other categories of both high skilled workers such as tool or diemakers or semiskilled production workers such a turret lathe operators could be most effectively trained in coupled programs with some prejob training done by the public schools. These categories can be absorbed into the training system of a plant with less turbulence and a shorter nonproductive period.

One of the most necessary improvements resulting from this evaluation would be the proper and more effective use of the public school facilities. Schools would not be required to do training jobs they are not staffed or equipped to carry out, while on the other hand their considerable facilities would be available for programs best suited to them. In addition, this proper division of effort would free that portion of institutional funds, now being used ineffectively, for application to on-the-job training which has never had enough to meet its needs.

2. Because the job site is the Nation's largest classroom and because on-thejob training includes 100 percent job placement with an immediate partial return of Government training dollars in the form of withholding taxes, it follows that a much greater Manpower Development and Training Act effort should be made in this area. The Governmnt has yet to open the tap to this vast jobdevelopment reservoir. Thus far the Manpower Administration has been slow