Mr. BENDER. Mr. Holifield?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Webb, there has been some discussion today in regard to the expenditures of this Department. There seems to be a lack of understanding as to the field which the United States Employment Service covers. In addition to allocating money, the money which comes in, the three-tenths of 1 percent, it has other functions, all of which take up administrative expense and administrative personnel.

Could you very briefly give us a resume of the services rendered?

Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir. It is in the statement which I have filed, but I will name four items. The first item is the auditing of the operations in the States to see that they conform to the minimum standards established in the law, and under the regulations.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I am asking this question particularly so we will know what the 654 people on the Washington level do.

Mr. WEBB. Also, they are responsible for working with the State organizations to establish uniform personal procedures that have to do with the administration of the people who do the work in the States. They establish and examine from time to time the administration of the merit system under which those employees in the States work. They review the budgets of the various State agencies handling this program. That is the type of thing that they do. In addition, they collect figures from all of the State agencies, compile them, and that gives information about the labor market, and what is happening in various areas. They disseminate those figures so that the State agencies have both the regional and the national picture of what is happening in the employment market.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. At certain intervals every State gets a composite picture of the figures for the Nation, from all of the areas and States in the Nation, as to what is excess and overage, so far as labor is concerned?

Mr. WEBB. That is my understanding.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Also, where the job opportunities are?
Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. They are compiled and cleared through the one central office where they do know at a glance what is going on all over the United States?

Mr. WEBB. That is my understanding. It is really a part of the system for the clearance of labor between the States.

There is one other feature there, Mr. Congressman, that I think you would want to know about. That is the occupational dictionary. Anyone who has been in personnel work for very long knows that descriptions such as "tool maker” mean entirely different things in New York as compared to some other State. That description for a heavy machine worker in New York would not correspond to the description for the light machine worker in Philadelphia. You have to have something more than just those two words "tool maker" to be able to transfer a man from New York to Philadelphia if there is a job vacancy which may exist. You have to know what kind of work

. he is qualified to do.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. If you do not have a clarification of those terms you cannot refer en unemployed man. Therefore, you have to pay him unemployment ins rance?

Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. If you cannot refer him to a comparable job you cannot place him?

Mr. WEBB. That is right, and, furthermore, the employers of labor are very anxious to know that if they have a particular kind of job that we get the right kind of man for that job. They want to be able to fill that job from the Employment Service, if possible. They will be much more anxious to deal with the Employment Service, and to take these men who are unemployed and otherwise drawing compensation, if they know that when they give certain job specifications the men referred to them will be good men and will meet the specifications.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Those are in the occupational dictionary? I think the committee should know that that is not a static thing. That is a growing dictionary and there are new industries that are constantly seeking the new skills developed, and which calls for constant revision.

Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. They should also know that the industries use the dictionary, and also the Army and the Navy, and the Veterans' Bureau also uses it.

Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. They also have information on migration and methods of migration? Also, they assist in the transfer of migratory farm labor from State to State?

Mr. WEBB. Yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Also information as to veteran placement programs to which the veterans are entitled under the GI bill?

Mr. WEBB. That is correct.

Mr. HARNESS. That is a separate organization and you have separate employees for it?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Those functions are carried forward in the unemployment offices, the joint offices throughout the States.

Mr. WEBB. That has been handled a little differently. In the States the State organizations carry out both functions. At the Washington level the Veterans' Administration, furnishes funds to these State agencies for the administration of the Veterans' allowance program.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is all coordinated and there is a saving in handling it in the same office.

Mr. HARNESS. That is on the Federal level? Mr. WEBB. I thought he said at the State level. Mr. HOLIFIELD. In the State level they are all on the same level? Mr. WEBB. That is right. Mr. HOLIFIELD. The people on the Washington level do no job placement, as such?

Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is all done by State officials on the State level?

Mr. WEBB. That is correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The people on the Federal level, do they do auditing and preparing of programs and compile and distribute information? Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. They perform all of the other functions which go together as a clearing house for the uniform solution as to what to do about the national problem of unemployment?

Mr. WEBB. That is correct.

[ocr errors]


Mr. HOLIFIELD. Therefore, to say that the expenditure of their allocation of expense moneys depends on the allocation of moneys alone is not to cover the subject thoroughly?

Mr. WEBB. That is correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I wonder what percentage of their duties the allocation of money covers.

Mr. WEBB. I would hesitate to give a figure, but I would say that it would be much less than half. I think the Secretary of Labor could give you that information. I could furnish a statement for the record, if you wish?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Your over-all estimate is more accurate than many of the statements that have been made, possibly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Webb.
Mr. BENDER. Mr. Manasco?
Mr. MANASCO. I have two or three questions.

Mr. Webb, there has been some discussion here about the reasons for changing this plan from the plan of last year.

It would be very unwise for the President to send up a proposal that has been defeated overwhelmingly, 8 or 10 months ago, so in your opinion did not the President try to follow out the necessary procedure and get the next best thing?

Mr. WEBB. I think that he has taken cognizance of those things since the plan was presented last year, and evidence presented to Congress in opposition to last year's plan, and he tried to meet those objections as best as he could. He did not want to lose sight of the fundamental objectives, though.

Mr. MANASCO. I notice from the list of witnesses and the statements made before the committee this time, that there seems to be a little change in the position of some of them. Last year I recall in looking over this list of witnesses that there was not a representative of a single business organization opposed to that plan. The only opponents of the plan came from State representatives. Did you observe that?

Mr. WEBB. No, I did not study the list of the witnesses.

Mr. MANASCO. Evidently last year the businessmen did not think it would be too bad to use that service, and leave the unemployment insurance section in the Federal Security Agency. Now, since it has been bowled over, it seems that the States and their representatives have changed their minds.

Mr. WEBB. The 17 States administer the combined program through State departments of labor—43 percent of all workers at the State level are in those 17 States.

Mr. MANASCO. That is, that are already being administered by a unified organization?

Mr. WEBB. Yes, which is the State department of labor.

Mr. MANASCO. That is right, and under the law I just notice that section 303 (a) of the Social Security Act, as amended, points out what can be done by the Federal Government, and what cannot be done. The Secretary of Labor certainly cannot revise the provisions of section 303 (a) and change the substance of the law governing the payment of unemployment compensation.

Mr. WEBB. No, sir.

Mr. Manasco. Regulations written contrary to that would be null and void.

Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Mr. MANASCO. The same thing is true. of section 1603 of the Internal Revenue Code. He would be governed by the law as laid down by the Congress.

Mr. WEBB. That is correct.

Mr. Manasco. He could not make any changes and change the relationship between the State level and the Federal level?

Mr. WEBB. No, sir.

Mr. MANASCO. In your opinion there is a proper grouping, because I believe you said that in your prepared statement the primary objective was to find jobs.

Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANASCO. To secure jobs for people who are unemployed, as I remember your statement.

Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANASCO. That is now being done at the State level and not at the Federal level?

Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Mr. MANASCO. The secondary objective is the payment of unemployment compensation where jobs cannot be found for those entitled to unemployment compensation; is that not correct?

Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Mr. MANASCO. That should be kept secondary at all times. We talked about the cost. Is it not natural and proper for a department that is interested in labor to want employment, and not unemployment compensation?

Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Mr. MANASCO. They would be a protagonist for the public interest if they emphasized the employment of people rather than the payment of unemployment compensation?

Mr. WEBB. That is my belief. .
Mr. MANASCO. That is my belief, also.
That is all I care to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. The only thing I want to ask is this: People generally, and particularly the administration, are all in favor of giving every minority group something; are they not? That is, if it is possible? Is that not true as a general proposition?

Mr. Webb. I do not think I can speak for the administration on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen anything in Washington where the administration was opposed to the request of any minority group for special legislation, or for appropriations?

Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir. I have seen many such cases that have passed through the Bureau of the Budget.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the one in which you are interested. That is to say they did not give the Bureau enough? Mr. WEBB. No, sir. That is not what I said.

That is not what I said. What I said is that I have seen many cases where in the Bureau of the Budget we have had to take action on recommendations that did not fit in with the over-all program. I might say in that connection that the total departmental requests for programs and money were reduced on the order of seven billion dollars before the budget came to the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Notwithstanding the fact that every year has seen an increase in appropriations, has it not?

Mr. WEBB. No, sir. The appropriations were very high during the war and have been coming down through the intervening period.

The CHAIRMAN. If you take out the appropriations for the war, have not they been larger for every department in the Government?

I will waive the answer to that question.

There is a gentleman from the CIO who must get away, and one other man who would like to get away as soon as possible. If there are any further questions we would like to get the answers from them.

Mr. WEBB. I have a rather busy program, Mr. Chairman. Could you give me some idea of the time?

The CHAIRMAN. We are very anxious to complete action on the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Webb.
Mr. Johnson, will you come forward?


COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT, DETROIT, MICH, Mr. JOHNSON. My name is Clayton E. Johnson. I am director of compensation for the UAW-CIO, 5701 Second Boulevard, Detroit 2.

Unemployment compensation is an inadequate substitute for a job. An unemployed worker and his family are helped to some extent by unemployment-compensation checks. A guaranteed wage would be better, but better yet would be a steady job and full employment. In the meantime, however, we must attempt to obtain the best possible standards under unemployment compensation to tide the worker over periods of unemployment by having a weekly benefit rate that is adequate to support his family, help maintain the purchasing power in the community, and a duration of benefits long enough to relieve the community of the consequences of public relief, especially during periods of extended unemployment.

To accomplish this we support the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1948. A program which so vitally affects the lives of so many workers rightfully belongs in the Department of Labor. The Department is established to take care of the problems of labor and what problem can be more important to an unemployed worker than that of being out of a job. The charge made by some employer representatives that the Department of Labor would be biased in favor of labor is without foundation and nothing has been pointed out to give rise to such an accusation.

If such a charge is being made seriously I have only to point out the make-up of certain State commissions, Michigan in particular, where the law calls for proper representation of employer and employee interests. The CIO in Michigan has some 700,000 members, at least 3 times that of the AFL, but the CIO has no representation. The only member of the Michigan commission who may be designated as representing employee interests is a business agent for a small motionpicture operator's local, AFL, in Port Huron, Mich. Further the Michigan law calls for an advisory council of equal representation between employers and employee interests but after 7 months we have no council.

As to the Secretary of Labor administering the joint program according to certain rules and regulations this is no more than is done

« ForrigeFortsett »