In connection with that paragraph I am talking about availability of men for work as it is pointed out in this pamphlet by organized labor, and my connection and experience with men being unavailable for work when it is there on hand.

Mr. MANASCO. I might have misinterpreted the statement. I thought it advised the people who are seeking employment that they could not refuse unless they had a valid reason, and I thought that would be pretty good advice.

Mr. DALE. Insofar as it goes, yes.

Mr. MANASCO. We do not want people going up and making applications for jobs and saying they are poets when they are not poets, knowing there are no openings for poets.

Mr. DALE. We have no openings for poets either, but in our own experience a man could come in and apply for unemployment insurance, with jobs listed with the Employment Service at the USES level and presently at the State level and filing for unemployment benefits, not being referred to jobs in the same company listed at the employment service. That is what I am driving at.

Mr. MANASCo. I do not want to be placed in the position of a Federal official. I do not know whether we are called Federal officials or not, but it is suggested that your State law needs to be changed there.

The State of Washington is supposed to be the most liberal State towards labor in the United States, and they have one of the tightest laws on that very subject of any State in the United States. If an employee comes up, they have a job opening somewhere and he refuses to take that job whether or not he is a bricklayer or not, they do not pay him any unemployment insurance benefits, and that is not the fault of the act of Congress. It is the fault of your own State legislature. I am not criticizing the State legislature.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but the trouble is that the over-all regulations come from Washington.

Mr. MANASCO. I am talking about the State of Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. I know. I am talking about the city of Washington. As the Michigan witness said, under our State law we can only pay compensation under certain conditions, and he says that according to the period of grants by the Secretary of Labor, we cannot comply, we cannot pay those benefits, and as I understand the gentleman here, the point he is trying to make that the views of organized labor and the Secretary, are running parallel. Isn't that what you are getting at?

Mr. DALE. Yes, sir. I would like to continue a little bit. Perhaps that would somewhat clear itself. This pamphlet, by the way, was printed some time ago, and the conditions about which I am speaking obtained under the days of the United States Employment Service before it was returned to the States. It continues to a certain minor degree now, but not anything to be disturbed about. It was flagrant in those years, back at the time when this was printed. I will quote further from Mr. Murray's statement:

You may find in some States attempts being made to curtail the rights of unemployed workers to receive their unemployment compensation and to whittle away on such claims. As one example, laid-off employees when registering for unemployment compensation are being referred to jobs at much lower wages than they have heretofore received and where their full skills are not being utilized. This and all other similar practices should be vigorously combatted.

Our struggle continues to obtain the passage of the Kilgore bill in the United States Congress which would raise maximum unemployment benefits to $25 a week for 26 weeks.

Mr. MANASCO. That was about 2 years ago, wasn't it?

Mr. DALE. Yes, I believe it was farther back than that, sir. That is my experience with it in cases that I fought in hearings for the company with the Unemployment Compensation Bureau. The Department of Labor also is on record with respect to the proven skill and earning capacity and referrals to work below that level, which refers back to the statement of Mr. Murray.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. May I ask the witness a question? On this referral to skills below that of the accustomed skill, may I ask him to clarify that point as to how far he would go into this? In other words, if we had a carpenter that is accustomed to making $2 an hour, would the gentleman expect him to take a job, we will say, at 50 cents an hour or take a job as a hod carrier, maybe at almost the same rate, that he was physically incapable of handling? Just how far would the gentleman go in clarifying that?

Mr. DALE. With respect to the Ohio laws, sir, I would expect that a man could be referred to work for which he was reasonably fitted. That is a part of the law in Ohio.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And that would be a determination of Ohio officials, would it not?

Mr. DALE. That is correct. That is right. I would further tell you in the statement filed by Mr. Manak, you will find some further discussion of this matter in connection with the Harvey Chambers case, which had to do with the question you just raised. I don't want to go into those details.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We do not have much time for that. The gentleman testified that he has been reading from a document which is over 2 years old and which he says in the main does not apply to present conditions in Ohio because you have cleaned up a great deal of those conditions in Ohio.

Mr. DALE. A great deal. I would not say completely because in these connections there are actions-well, one of the actions that I think of refers back to this time in the common pleas court, Mahoning County now, and there will probably be further actions which will be more recent, but they will not involve as many men.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You have cleared up those conditions in the last 2 years while the USES has been in the Department of Labor and you have had no opposition from the Department of Labor in clearing up those conditions, have you?

Mr. DALE. I would not know of that, sir.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is very important because if you have been able to clean up a condition which existed and was bad while this was in the Department of Labor's hands, and you have had no interference from them, you have very little complaint against the Department of Labor.

Mr. DALE. I will say this: That from my exeprience such improvement as there has been, it is my point that it was brought about by action of employers against men who will refuse to take work, rather than by the influence of the Employment Service, whether it is under one head or another.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think you are perfectly within your rights as employers in riding close herd on your State officials to see that they do the right thing. I commend you on cleaning up bad conditions. I do not want to be misunderstood as being against that sort of thing because anywhere where bad conditions are, I think it is the duty of employers to go in and see that things are cleaned up, and I believe that you can do that under the present type of administration. I believe you have shown that you have been able to do it without interference from the Department of Labor, which all of you gentlemen seem to fear so greatly.

Mr. DALE. Well, we have done it on our own. I am not prepared to say it is without interference or with assistance or without assistance. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I would like to see that statement placed in the record.

Mr. DALE. I can't accurately say that, sir.

Mr. RICH. I notice in your statement that you said:

Under the philosophy of the Employment Service as operated on a temporary basis under the Department of Labor, it seems to me that procedures are designed to permit claimants to draw benefits rather than to take jobs which are on file in the local employment office.

Now, this morning the Secretary of Labor said exactly the opposite. He said, speaking about the experience which the Employment Service encountered in 1939 when it was transferred to the Social Security Board and its activities consolidated with those of unemployment compensation:

The emphasis placed upon the benefit-payment practice seriously detracted from the efforts to find jobs for unemployed workers. As a result it was subordinated to unemployment compensation.

He says that happened when it was under the Federal Security Agency. You say it happens when it is under the Department of Labor. In the Department of Labor the emphasis is on unemployment compensation rather than getting jobs. Now, who is right?

Mr. DALE. I speak, sir, from my experience and over the years that condition has not varied very much regardless of jobsMr. RICH. Of where it is?

Mr. DALE. That is correct. I have cases-I don't have many. There is not as much unemployment today, as is pretty generally recognized, as there has been in times past, and I think too that employers are more active in investigating these things than they were some time back.

All of those things tend to lessen it, but I won't say that it has been completely washed up because the conditions to some extent still exist. I have it in my own experience-only last week.

Mr. RICH. Well, the point is that judging from your argument, to leave them both under the Federal Security Agency would reduce emphasis on employment as secondary to unemployment compensation. Your argument is that the situation is such to put it back under the Department of Labor would make it worse? It would not cure it; it would make it worse, if anything.

Mr. DALE. Well, my thought is this: In my printed statement I referred to certain aims of the Department of Labor and organized labor, and I have said they were parallel, and for that reason I have arrived at that conclusion.

Mr. RICH. You agree that they ought to be together, don't you? Mr. DALE. I think so, yes, sir; and they should be administered neutrally. I do not say where, but I don't think that they should be anywhere where an undue influence is exercised from either employers or employees.

Mr. HARNESS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RICH. I yield.

Mr. HARNESS. I would like to ask the gentleman's opinion as to whether in his opinion these programs could be administered more economically, if both of those services were turned back to the State. Mr. DALE. This is just an opinion, sir: I believe they could be and would be.

Mr. HARNESS. I believe I am right in making this statement. This last year we appropriated $80,000,000 to the Federal Security Agency to administer the unemployment compensation. Now, what is their function? I mean at the top level. It is to allocate funds that are collected from the States and to make rules and regulations under which the State will operate.

Mr. DALE. That is correct.

Mr. HARNESS. Well, now, can't the States perform those things and save a lot of money?

Mr. DALE. The States are performing those things in the unemployment right now.

Mr. BUSBEY. If the gentleman will yield-there are now 1,200 people employed for the purpose of allocating administration funds to the various States. I got that from the Department not long ago.

Mr. HARNESS. The funds that these people in the Federal Security Agency allocated back to the States for unemployment-compensation payments is money that was taxed from the employers in the State

Mr. DALE. That is right, and it is allocated back to the States on requisition from the States, I believe.

Mr. HARNESS. Well, isn't it kept in a separate trust fund? That is, each State, when it makes a payment of a dollar down here, it is kept for a particular State. It is only the funds that are collected from the State of Ohio that are paid back to Ohio by this agency?

Mr. DALE. I believe the record will so show.. I am not certain on that, sir.

Mr. MANASco. That is the law.

Mr. HARNESS. I think that is the law, and they have been trying to change that for several years and put all of the States' funds into one great pool so that they could allocate it any way they please. The only function of the Federal Security Agency is to allocate the funds of the State back to the State, and make certain rules and regulations. Now, I am inquiring why can't the State better perform that and do it for much less money.

Mr. DALE. I believe they could.

Mr. HARNESS. Wouldn't that also hold true for the other functions, the employment agency?

Mr. DALE. I believe it would. The employment agency, before it was loaned to the Federal Government was under State control. Those were joint agencies or joint parts of the initial set-up.

Mr. HARNESS. Do I understand you then that you believe it would be better if both of these functions were turned back to the State and

that no further appropriation would be made for either the Labor Department or the Federal Security Agency?

Mr. DALE. That is my opinion. I think so, sir. I was not quite through. I have just one more short thought to give you.

The removal of disqualification for unemployment benefits for any cause is sought by both the Department of Labor and organized labor. The success of such proposals might even lead to the payment of benefits during periods of labor disputes or strikes.

The CIO in Youngstown picketed the local office of the Bureau and passed out handbills, back in 1946, saying that they were going to petition the Governor to have an extra session of the legislature to amend the law so that benefits could be paid to strikers while on strike. Mr. MANASCO. They do that in Pennsylvania; don't they?

Mr. DALE. Not presently, sir. After 4 weeks and a waiting periodthey used to during an industrial dispute in Pennsylvania, but not any longer. A strike is a disqualification presently, under the amended law.

Mr. MANASCo. And the Secretary of Labor, in charge of the program, could not pay him without the legislature doing that? Mr. DALE. That is correct.

Mr. MANASCO. You don't think the Secretary of Labor would have much influence over your legislature, do you?

Mr. DALE. Well, I wouldn't answer that.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I would like to ask the gentleman one question, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. If it was not for the general contribution of $80,000,000 which goes for administration, is it not true that your States, in their administration, in the rental charges and your hiring of help, and so forth, would have to absorb quite a bit of that for administrative expenses out of their own funds? That is question No. 1. I would like to also ask you, question No. 2: Is it not true that there is a function in most of these State offices in addition to the employment service and the unemployment compensation, in that your State Veterans Rehabilitation Service in many of the States are included under the same office overhead?

Mr. DALE. With respect to the $80,000,000 you are referring to, I believe those are funds stated as being returned to the States for the payment of benefits. That has nothing, sir, to do with administration, if I understood that question correctly.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. No; I think the gentleman from Indiana can explain that, if you will let him. The question was about the $80,000,000. Mr. HARNESS. I was seeking some information about what it was for. I know that in the appropriations bill-I think I am quoting the figure correctly, because I inquired of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee when it was on the floor. It was $80,000,000appropriated for the Federal Security Agency to administer the unemployment compensation.

Now, I have never been able to find out just exactly what the FSA in administering, other than allocate the funds that belong to the States. Now, for example, my State of Indiana has in the Treasury trust fund, that belongs to the people of Indiana, some $186,000,000. As I understand it, the only function of the Federal Security Agency in administering this is to allocate funds for administrative expenses