(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "National defense migration. Hearings before the Select Committee Investigating National Defense Migration, House of Representatives, Seventy-seventh Congress, first[-second] session, pursuant to H. Res. 113, a resolution to inquire further into the interstate migration of citizens, emphasizing the present and potential consequences of the migraion caused by the national defense program. pt. 11-[34]"

rb 







J 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



HEARINGS 

BEFOBB THS 

SELECT COMMITTEE INYESTIGATING 

NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 

HOUSE OF EEPBESENTATIVES 

SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIHST SESSION ' 

PURSUANT TO 

H. Res. 113 

A RESOLUTION TO INQUIRE FURTHER INTO THE INTERSTATE 
MIGRATION OF CITIZENS, EMPHASIZING THE PRESENT 
AND POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE MIGRA- 
TION CAUSED BY THE NATIONAL- 
DEFENSE PROGRAM 



PART 16 
WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

JULY 15, 16, AND 17, 1941 



Printed for the use of the Select Committee Investigating 
National Defense Migration 




NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE TflE 

SELECT COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING 

NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 

HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES 

SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO 

H. Res. 113 

A RESOLUTION TO INQUIRE FURTHER INTO THE INTERSTATE 
MIGRATION OF CITIZENS, EMPHASIZING THE PRESENT 
AND POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE MIGRA- 
TION CAUSED BY THE NATIONAL- 
DEFENSE PROGRAM 



PART 16 
WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

JULY 15, 16, AND 17, 1941 



Printed for the use of the Select Committee Investigating 
National Defense Migration 




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1941 



OCT 31 19*' 



SELECT COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING NATIONAL DEFENSE 
MIGRATION 

JOHN H. TOLAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. SPARKMAN. Alabama CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

LAURENCE F. ARNOLD, Illinois FRANK C. OSMERS, Jr., New Jersey 

Robert K. Lamb, Staff Director 

Mary Dublin, Coordinator of Hearings 

John W. Abbott, Chief Field Iniestigator 



[arold D. Cullen, Associate Editor 
Josef Berger, Associate Editor 



CONTENTS 

Jr'age 

List of witnesses v 

Tuesday, July 15, 1941, morning session 6309 

Testimony of Sidney Hillman 6309, 6393 

Statement by Sidney Hillman 6310 

Testimony of Robert L. Mehornay 6409 

Tuesday, July 15, 1941, afternoon session 6413 

Testimony of William Green 6413, 6454 

Statement by William Green 6414 

Supplementary statement by William Green 6443 

Wednesday, July 16, 1941 6481 

Testimony of Corrington Gill 6481, 6508 

Statement by Corrington Gill 6486 

Testimony of H. F. Alves 6518, 6522 

Statement bv H. F. Alves 6519 

Testimony of Robert C. Weaver 6529, 6536 

Statement by Robert C. Weaver 6530 

Testimony of M . Clifford Townsend 6545, 6563 

Statement bv M. Clifford Townsend 6545 

Thursday, July 17, 1941 . 6575 

Testimony of Donald M. Nelson 6575, 6605 

Statement by Donald M. Nelson 6576 

Testimony of Leon Henderson 6620, 6635, 6666 

Statement by Leon Henderson 6620 

Memorandum by Leon Henderson 6654 

Index 6673 

HI 



LIST OF WITNESSES 

Washington Hearings, July 15, 16, 17, 1941 

Page 

Alvep, H. F., senior specialist in State school administration, United States 

Office of Education, Federal Security Agency, Washington, D. C-- 6518, 6522 

Gill, Corrington, assistant commissioner. Work Projects Administration, 

Federal Works Agency, Washington, D. C 6481,6508 

Green, William, president, American Federation of Labor, Washington, 

D. C 6413,6454 

Henderson, Leon, administrator. Office of Price Administration and Civil- 
ian Supply, Washington, D. C 6620, 6635, 6666 

Hillman, Sidney, associate director general. Office of Production Manage- 
ment, Washington, D. C 6309, 6393 

Mehornay, chief of Defense Contract Service, Production Division, Office 

of Production Management, Washington, D. C 6409 

Nelson, Donald M., director. Division of Purchases, Office of Production 

Management, Washington, D. C 6575,6605 

Townsend, M. Clifford, director, Office of Defense Relations, Department 
of Agriculture, and member of Plant-Site Committee, Office of Produc- 
tion Management, Washington, D. C 6545, 6563 

Weaver, Dr. Robert C, chief, Negro Employment and Training Branch, 
Labor Division, Office of Production Management, Washington, 
D. C 6529,6536 

V 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1941 

House of Representatives, 
Select Committee Investigating 

National Defense Migration, 

Washington, D. C. 
The committee met at 10 a. m., pm-siiant to notice, Hon.. John H. 
Tolan (chaiiman) presiding. 

Present were: Representatives John H. Tohm (chairman), of Cali- 
fornia; John J. Sparkman, of Alabama; Laurence F. Arnold, of 
Ilhnois; Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska; and Frank C. Osmers, Jr., of 
New Jersey. 

Also present were: Robert K. Lamb, staff director; Mary Dublin, 
coordinator of hearings; and John W. Abbott, chief field investigator. 
The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. 
Mr. Reporter, the first witness will be Mr. Sidney Hillman, Asso- 
ciate Director General, Office of Production Management. 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HILLMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR GEN- 
ERAL, OFFICE OF PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, 
D. C. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hillman, I have read your paper and I think 
it is a very valuable contribution. 

May I say to you, although you probably already know, this com- 
mittee was appointed last year to investigate the general migration 
of destitute citizens between States. We held hearings throughout 
the country, and we made our report to Congress. Following that, 
Congress saw fit to continue the committee to serve during this ses- 
sion on account of the migration caused by our nationa^defense 
program. 

We have recently held hearings in San Diego, Calif. ; we have been 
to Hartford, Conn., Trenton, N. J., and Baltimore, Md. I am 
making this statement so you may know the scope of our study. 

Congressman Sparkman will interrogate you, Mr. Hillman. 

Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Hillman, I have some questions which were 
sketched out before I had access to your statement. I imagine most 
of them you have answered in the statement but some of them may 
not have been answered. 

Mr. Hillman. Mr. Sparkman, of course the statement itself is a 
summary and if agreeable to you I would like to read it and then be 
interrogated on it or I will adjust myself to your requirements. Of 
course the material is covered pretty well in summaiy form here and 
if you have no objection I would like to read it to the committee. 

Mr. Sparkman. You mav go right ahead. 

6309 



g310 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

STATEMENT BY SIDNEY HILLMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR GEN- 
ERAL, OFFICE OF PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, 
D. C. 

Mr. HiLLMAN (reading). May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I welcome 
the opportunity to appear before yom- committee. We in the O. P. M. 
have great responsibihties to plan and carry through the defense 
program as far as production is concerned, and it is our responsibility 
to carry it through in a way that will give us the utmost for national 
defense and not create too many social problems whUe we are doing 
it, and any time we have the opportunity to appear before a com- 
mittee I consider it as part of our work. 

We cannot always explain to the country in all detail what we are 
doing. I sincerely believe, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- 
mittee, that this planning for our labor supply that we have tried to 
do is a very far-reaching job and as a result of it we find conditions 
are not altogether satisfactory, but I think they are quite satisfactory 
from the point of view of national defense. 

You requested me to supply your committee with statistical data 
and reports on several topics comiected with the problem of labor 
migration in defense industries, and to summarize this material in my 
testimony. At the outset, I should like to make clear that I am not 
here seeking to deal with the orderly planned movement of labor to 
newly developed defense plants, and the like, but rather with the 
problem of the unplanned disorderly migration of men searching for 
work, from city to city. 

Of course we are putting up new plants and part of our program is 
to distribute the load as much as possible tlu'oughout the Nation, and 
of course it requires skilled labor in order that these plants can be 
properly started going. 

With your permission I shaF first make a statement on the subject 
matter under consideration, and then present each document or set of 
documents at the proper point. This will enable me at one and the 
same time to provide the committee with the requested details, and 
to explain the attitude of O. P. M. toward this basic issue of labor 
migration, as well as to outline the methods by which we are striving 
to cope with it. 

DEFENSE MIGRATION, 1940-41, CONTRASTED WITH 1916-17 

As your committee recognizes, a condition of large-scale labor 
migration is not only a tremendous question in itself, but it is also 
of vital importance to that national morale which lies at the center 
of our defense-production problem. That is why I hope sincerely 
that some of the material which I am subihittmg at your request 
will be of some value in helping you to cope effectively with this 
crucial question of labor migration. 

We may take it for granted that the worker does not ordinarily 
pull up stakes and leave home, whether with his family or alone, 
unless there are conditions which prompt or indeed compel him to 
do so. Fortunately, there has not yet been any large-scale migration 
of labor, with its resultant chaos, during this first year of the defense 
effort, comparable to that which took place in the defense production 
of the World War. And furthermore, as the months have passed, 
the information which reaches me indicates that the tendency of 



NATIONAL DEFENSP: MIGRATION 6311 

labor to migrate has not increased in any degree commensurate with 
the expansion of defense output, which as you know has multiplied 
during these months in all 18 of the major defense mdustries, in 
addition to the expansion in consumer-goods mdustries as well. In 
fact, while it is impossible to obtam exact figures of the total amount 
of labor migration, it is my impression that instead of mcreasiiig in 
these latest months, it has actually been reduced. This does not 
mean, however, that migration has been elimmated, or that it has 
ceased to be a cause for grave concern. 

EFFECTS OF UNCONTROLLED MIGRATION 

I need hardly explain why we are eager to keep labor migration to 
a minimum, and to keep under control whatever relocation of workers 
must occur. A disorderly labor situation means high turn-over in the 
plants, and this is both costly to industry and injurious to efficient 
production. Plants that have an adequate and well-established labor 
force should not have that force disrupted by the pirating practices 
of other plants. Again, an uncontrolled inflow of migratory workers 
into communities alreadj^ glutted with defense workers is bound to 
create serious housing shortages, rising rents, and in some cases 
health and social problems besides. Finally, those communities and 
areas from which labor migration proceeds are bound to suft'er serious 
loss both in their normal civilian pursuits and a further loss in case the 
communities should later be incorporated into the defense effort. For 
all these reasons, it has been the policy of the Labor Division from 
the beginning that every worker should, if possible, be employed 
locally, be trained locally, and be brought into the defense effort locally^ 
Some of the methods by which we have sought to achieve this objec- 
tive, I shall explain as I proceed. Meanwhile, let me point to some 
considerations that have contributed to the difficulty of the task. 

CONTRACT AWARDS AS FACTOR IN MIGRATION 

We may accept it as a fundamental principle that sharp contrasts 
in employment opportunities and conditions, within various regions, 
tend to create worker migration. Labor tends to migrate from those 
sections where such opportunity is less, to those points where oppor- 
tunity exists or is reported to exist. The defense effort began at a 
time when there was a great deal of unemployment, when there was 
already a considerable amount of migratioTi going on. From the first 
days of the National Defense Advisory Commission, the Labor 
Division foresaw the possibility that the award of defense contracts 
would lead to a stampede of unemployed workers toward defense 
areas. Naturally, this is an important factor in labor migration. I 
understand, however, that Mr. Donald Nelson, Director of Purchases 
for O. P. M., is to discuss this point at length before this committee. 
Suffice it to say, however, that the Labor Division from its inception 
has urged that contracts be equitably distributed and that they be 
placed in areas where idle men and idle machines were to be found. 

MAGNITUDE OF THE DEFENSE EFFORT 

Another underlying cause of labor migration is the size of the defense 
effort itself. The current increase in employment is taking place not 



6312 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

only in the defense industries, but also in various other industries 
affected by the growth of consumer purchasing power. The Bureau of 
Labor Statistics estimates that the next 12 months up to and including 
June 1942 will see a total increase in nonagri cultural employment of 
between 2}^ and 3^ million persons. For the defense contracts in force 
in the manufacture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and 
other defense items, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 
betvv^een April 1941 and April 1942 approximately 1,400,000 addi- 
tional workers will be required. Shipbuilding will require some 
323,000 additional workers, aircraft 408,000, ordnance and machine 
tools 291,000, and construction and other defense industries 384,000. 
Some of these will be drawn from nondefense industries and some will 
be newly employed. 

I herewith, therefore, submit the detailed data supplied to me by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, in response to Chairman Tolan's first 
request, for "the labor requirements of the various national-defense 
industries now estimated as necessary for the next 2 years." The 
Bureau has made a very full statement of requirements by skills, by 
industries, and by regions, up to April 1942. Estimates beyond next 
April are more general, inasmuch as it is difficult to say at this time 
how far the defense effort will extend. 

May I insert this in the record as Exhibit A? 

The Chairman. It will be received. 

(The document referred to follows:) 

Exhibit A. — Estimated Increase in Over-All Nonagricultural Employment 

Estimates made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics point to an increase in civilian 
nonagricultural employment of roughly 2J/^ million to 3 million persons in the next 
12 months. This may be viewed as the probable maximum increase now in sight 
for that period. The forecast is not projected beyond June 1942 because of the 
many imponderables in the industrial situation. But within the next year it is 
not likely that any upward revisions of the present defense program will result 
in a much greater increase in total employment than indicated, since any material 
increase in defense production over present schedules during the coming year 
will probably require offsetting reductions in nondefense production and employ- 
ment. The level of employment beyond next June depends upon the steps taken 
in the period immediately ahead to expand industrial capacity. Hence, no reliable 
estimate of the employment outlook can now be made for a period of more than a 
year ahead. 

Except for capacity limitations and other restrictive factors, the defense pro- 
gram as now scheduled, coupled with expanding consumer demand and private 
investment, might be expected to result in a gross national product of about 
$105,000,000,000 for calendar year 1941, or a net national income of about 
$92,000,000,000. Actually, on the basis of productive activity in the first half 
of 1941, it seems probable that gross national product will not total more than 
$98,000,000,000 this year, with national income at about $86,000,000,000. Limi- 
tations of basic raw material supplies, in conjunction with fiscal measures designed 
to restrict civilian consumption, are likely to restrict gross national product to an 
annual rate of about $106,000,000,000 in the second quarter of 1942. 

Under these assumptions we should expect the Federal Reserve Board index 
of industrial production to rise from an average of 149 in the second quarter of 
1941 to 171 in the second quarter of 1942. The total number of employees in 
nonagricultural establishments would rise from 32 to 34.5 million, an increase of 
2.5 million. This estimate allows for decreases in employment in the production 
of automobiles and other consumer durables. The attached table indicates the 
anticipated levels of employment for each quarter during the period covered by 
the forecast. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g313 

Expansion of basic facilities might make possible an increase somewhat larger 
than the estimate indicates, possibly by as much as another half-million workers. 
This applies primarily to the second quarter of 1942; the forecasts for the interven- 
ing periods could not be materially affected by any expansion of facilities which 
might be undertaken at the present time. Prompt action now to expand raw 
materia] supplies, manufacturing facilities, power supply, and railroad equipment 
would make possible considerable expansion during the last half of 1942 and in 
the following year. 

ESTIMATED DEFENSE-LABOR REQUIREMENTS 

While no regional break-down has yet been made of the estimated increase in 
over-all nonagricultural employment, it is possible to be more specific in stating 
the increases in the labor force which will be required to maintain delivery sched- 
ules on contracts let for a major portion of the coming year's defense production. 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated that between April 1941 and April 
1942 approximately 1,400,000 additional workers will be required in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items for 
which contracts are in force, certificates of necessity issued, or loans made, for 
the construction of new or expanded defense manufacturing facilities. The 
attached memorandum (Defense Labor Requirements) shows labor requirements 
by occupations and principal geographical regions, where production facilities are 
located. The estimates cover final assembly and subassembly of ships, aircraft, 
machine tools, ordnance, and certain other defense items. In addition, they em- 
brace the operating labor requirements of new facilities for the production of parts 
and materials such as steel, aluminum, and magnesium. 

The increase in the labor required over the year is divided among specified 
lines of defense manufacture as follows: 

Shipbuilding 323,900 

Aircraft 408,441 

Ordnance and machine tools 291, 611 

Other 384,629 

Total 1,408,581 

In each of the first 3 items are included estimates of labor required on sub- 
assemblies and parts. A large number of certificates of necessity have been 
granted to establishments producing parts for a variety of final defense uses where 
it is impossible to classify the establishment. These are carried in the category 
of "other" defense work, as is the labor required in the new steel, aluminum, and 
magnesium plants. Most of the additional 1,400,000 workers will be new em- 
ployees, though some of them will be drawn from nondefense to defense employ- 
ment in the establishments covered by the estimate. 

To date, defense production has been accomplished without substantial diver- 
sion of labor from civilian production to defense production, while at the same 
time manpower has been diverted to the armed forces. In general, employment 
in all lines has expanded. However, it is apparent that an "all-out" defense effort 
will necessitate the curtailment of output in many nondefense lines and will re- 
quire the transfer of many workers now employed in nondefense activities to 
defense production. 

The decrease in unemployment will be somewhat less than the increase in em- 
ployment, plus expansion of the armed forces. In the first place there is a normal 
net increase in the labor force of somewhat more than 600,000 a year. In the 
second place individuals will be drawn into the labor market who do not usually 
work; youngsters will leave school, wives will take jobs, and skilled workers who 
have retired will return to jobs. In any event, it is important to point out that 
by the middle of 1942, despite an increase of approximately 6,000,000 persons in 
nonagricultural employment since the beginning of the defense effort, there will 
still be substantial unemployment in the cities in addition to a substantial reser- 
voir on farms of workers who could be drawn into nonagricultural employment, 
and of women not now in the labor market, but potentially available for employ- 
ment. 



03 14 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Employment forecasts, by quarters, for fiscal year 1943 
[Annual rate in billions, 1935-39=100] 



national 
product 



Estimated 
national 
income 



Federal 
Reserve 
Board 
industrial 
production 
index 



Employees in non- 
agricultural estab- 
lishments 



Manufac- 
turing 



Third quarter. 

Fourth quarter 
1: 

First quarter.. 

Second quarter 

Third quarter.. 

Fourth quarter 
2: 

First quarter.. 

Second quarter 



Millions 
10.2 
10.8 

11.0 
11.4 
11.7 
12.2 

12.4 
12.0 



Millions 
29.8 
31.0 



32.0 
33.2 
34.1 



33.3 
34.5 



Summary of defense labor requirements by geographical regions 



Region and occupational group 


Ship- 
building 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


United States 


323, 900 


408, 441 


291,611 
12, 316 
26, 462 
11, 579 
72, 365 
2,250 


384,629 

400 

38, 500 

35, 034 

167, 426 

4,376 

1,800 

71, 595 

800 

34, 700 

29, 998 


1, 408, 581 




12, 716 




51, 600 
9,600 
65, 700 
21,200 
67, 000 
9,200 
39, 900 


10, 200 
8,300 
56, 167 
37, 500 
73, 500 
125, 074 
16, 600 
54,100 
27, 000 


126, 762 


East South Central 


64, 513 




361, 658 


West South Central 


65, 326 


South Pacific 


142, 300 




113,973 

100 

39, 093 

13, 473 


319, 842 


North Pacific 


57, 400 




127, 893 


South Atlantic 


59, 700 


130, 171 







NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6315 



Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary estimates of the numbers of 
additional workers required by April 1942 in the manufacture of aircraft, vessels, 
machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items 



Occupational group 


Ship- 
building 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


United States 


323, 900 


408, 441 


291,611 


384, 629 


1,408 681 








32, 390 


32, 675 


14, 579 


11, 539 


91, 18S 








19, 434 
12, 956 


20, 422 
12, 253 


8,748 
5,831 


7,694 
3,845 


56, 298 


Engineers, etc - 


34, 885 








155, 473 


147, 038 


113,727 


134. 620 


550, 858 












23,328 

8,748 


15, 384 


38 712 


Barrel riflers and straighteners 






8 748 




1,620 
1.620 
9,717 
4, 859 
3,239 
3,239 
11,338 
12, 956 














1,924 


3,544 
9,717 














1,924 
1,924 








5 163 


Drillers 






3 239 


Electricians - - - - 


2,044 
24, 504 
20, 422 
16, 338 


2,918 
11, 664 
8,748 
4,374 


3, 845 
15, 384 
7,694 
5,770 


20, 145 




64, 508 
36. 864 




Inspectors - - - . - . _ 




26, 482 




3,239 
1,620 

35,629 
8,098 
8,098 

13, 602 

12, 956 
972 

16, 194 
6,477 


3,239 

1,620 

156, 453 










Machinists ' ----- 


36, 759 


37, 912 


46, 153 




8 098 








1,924 
5,770 






16, 338 






Ship fitters 




12 956 




8,168 
2,043 
20, 422 


10, 205 

873 

4,957 


7,694 
1,924 
17, 306 




Welders 


21 034 




49, 162 






Semiskilled - . . 


71,257 


167, 462 


119,562 


180, 776 


539,057 






1,620 
6,477 
9,717 




8,748 
29, 159 


11,539 
38, 463 




Assemblers (erectors) 


65, 349 


139 448 




9,717 




20, 422 


11, 665 


. 15, 384 




Handy men 


21, 053 
4,859 


21,053 










Machine operators, miscellaneous - - 


8,168 


32,078 
5,831 
2,918 
1,458 


50, 003 
5,770 
3,846 
5,770 
3,846 
3,846 


90.249 






11.601 






10,211 
4,085 

28,591 
4,085 
8,168 


16, 975 


Punch and press operators 




11,313 






32, 437 
9,389 






1,458 


Skin fitters 




8,168 




4,859 
3,239 
19, 433 






4,859 
12, 627 


Welders, tack 


4,085 
14, 298 


1,457 
24,790 


3,846 
38,463 


Other — 


96,984 






Unskilled 


64,780 


61, 266 


43, 743 


57,694 


227, 483 







1 Including such skilled jobs as boring mill operators, engine lathe operators, milling machine opera- 
tors, etc. 

Prepared May 20, 1941, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, subject to revision. 



6316 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



(TOO to t^ iCO'a«"^t^t^COCDi-icOt^CCOt^OOQOOOOWCO 



)C^l-ll»-«<00»a>CO00?OC 



Kcooj 



ss 



ot^>o>o-> 



5IMO t^COO t^ 



<N TfOT CDC 
(M >0 ^ 00- 

CO rt c 






COCNfH CD W i-Tc^' 






S5s^i 



iai>-<tDt~l^Ct^-«iNt~O5COCOCCt~00— lOXM 

(T}i0STf«'^01CD'<*<»OCCa501'<*<0i-^C000OOC^ 

iTt<t^oi^«ra<ci^cot~io(NcOTp(x>oc<5r^cO" 
■-Tr-T Miocfr^" ■<)<■■ ,-<"r-<"'irfi'w CO-*" 



0> tC(M ^ 



coc a)05^^ > 

■^ ^ C^ C^ CO --t c 

r-Tco of « 



52 I 

So I 






1/300 CO 



1= 



1 00 I 

s I 

§11 

li 



II- 



3 10 rtV-i 



O t^OOINOCD 
00 .-■(MOM 00 I 
TT W CO CM CO 00 II 



jO-HO j-COCT 
3 <M 05 -^ CM Oi 00 



g3 



r 1-H (Niowr-T ■^"r-Ti-Tcccscicscc 



O O ■'J^ O ^ t^ c^ 



r r-T CO CT CD 10 CO O Tt^" CD CO C 



3 CO CO wo CDO-^C 

r CD 00 O ^ (>f t^ --h" C 



t-pCQ 



- 00 b- i-t CO o> Oi 

1? t^^ooocs 



•i i'"^ 






s .2 a a; a V 






'■*O>OT>C^00M-* lO 
rH CO O 



-H->»<e^05OO00INC<5 05 
-HOWCOCO-Ort-S"— • >« 
i-lO'ftDTPt^COCOlM M X 






>I^OI^OtDM<C<5 I ^ 
r M r-Too" jl Cf 



1,303 
2,090 
1,257 
4,134 
1,083 
1.082 


i|j| 


3,353 
4, 983 
2,895 
9,471 
2,537 
2,501 
138 
2,629 
21, 778 

48, 436 






^ uo CO t-- Oi c 



)<COJ I ■ 



■£3g 



is is. is i 

il i§ i- i 
1° 12 ;'2 ; 
:i :§ :§ : 
io. iS :|.g 






NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6317 



11 



51 

6l 



o . 



g318 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 1942 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items 

IN ALABAMA 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


All employees 


9,000 






19,824 


28, 824 




900 






594 


1,494 












540 
360 






396 
198 


936 








558 












4,320 






6,938 


11,258 


















793 


793 




45 
45 
270 
135 
90 
90 
315 
360 














99 


144 








270 








99 
99 


234 








189 








90 








198 
793 
396 
297 


513 








1,153 








396 










297 




90 
45 
990 
225 
225 
378 
360 
27 
450 
180 






90 










45 


'M'5iphini<!t<; 1 






2,380 


3,370 








225 


Pipe Fitters 






99 
297 


324 








675 








360 






_..- 


396 
99 
893 


423 








549 


Other 






1,073 




1,980 






9,317 


11,297 












45 
180 
270 






595 
1,983 


640 








2 163 








270 








793 


793 




585 
135 






585 


















2,577 
297 
198 
297 
198 
198 


2 577 


Painters 








297 


Polishers 








198 










297 


Riveters 








198 


Sheet metal machine operators 








198 




135 
90 

540 






135 








198 
1,983 


288 


Other 






2,523 












Unskilled 


1,800 






2,975 


4,775 











IN CALIFORNIA 





67, 000 


73, 50p 




1,800 


142. 300 






Professional and su bprofessional 


6,700 


5, 880 




54 


12, 634 








4,020 
2, 680 


3, 675 
2,205 




36 
18 


7,731 


Engineers etc 




4.903 








Skilled 


32. 160 


23, 520 




630 


56,310 






\ssemblers 








72 


-9 




335 

335 

2,010 

1,005 

670 

670 

2, 345 

2,680 






335 








9 


344 


Calkers and chippers 






2.010 








9 
9 


1,014 








679 


Drillers 






670 


Electrif^ians 


367 
5.880 




18 
72 
36 
27 


2 730 




8, 632 


Orindcr operators 


36 


Inspectors 




2,940 




2,967 



See footnote at end of table. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 53 JQ 

Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 1942 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 

IN CALIFORNIA— Continued 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


Skilled-Continued. 
Joiners 


670 

335 

7,370 

1,675 

1, 675 
2,814 

2. 680 
201 

3,350 
1,340 








670 














5,880 




216 








1,675 


Pipe fitter.s 


2,'205" 




9 
27 


1 684 




5,046 
2 680 


Ship fitters 




Tool and die workers 


1.103 

735 

4,410 




36 
9 

81 


1 340 


Welders 




Other 




5.831 


Semiskilled 


14, 740 


33, 075 




846 


48, 661 








335 
1,310 
2,010 






54 
ISO 


389 


Assemblers (erectors) 


11,025 




12 545 










735 




72 




Hindy men 


4. 355 
1,005 




4 355 












Machine operators, miscellaneous 


367 

735 

367 

1,103 

8. 085 

. 1,470 

2,205 




234 

27 
18 
27 
18 
18 


601 


Painters 






762 


Polishers 








Punch and press operators 






1 130 


Riveters 






8 103 


Sheet metal machine operators 






1.488 


Skin fittp'-s 






2 205 




1,005 

670 

4,020 






1,005 


Wplders, tack 


1,103 
5,880 




18 
180 


1,791 


Other 




10, 080 






Unskilled . .. 


13,400 


11,025 




270 


24 695 









IN CONNECTICUT 





4,200 


8,700 


14, 162 


29, 100 


56, 162 








420 


348 


708 


873 


2,349 






Draftsmen, etc 


252 
168 


174 
174 


425 


582 
291 


1,433 
916 






Skilled _.. 


2,016 


3, 741 


5,523 


10, 185 


21 465 












1,133 
425 


1,164 


2,297 
425 










21 
21 
126 
63 
42 
42 
147 
168 






21 


Boilermakers 






146 


167 








126 








146 
146 


209 


Cranemen 






188 


Drillers . 






42 


Electricians 


87 
435 
826 
348 


142 
566 
425 
212 


291 

1, 163 

582 

437 


667 


Foremen 


2,332 




1,833 


Inspectors 




997 




42 

21 
462 
105 
105 
176 
168 

13 
210 

84 


42 










21 


Machinists ' 


1,479 


1,841 


3,491 


7,273 




105 


Pipe fitters 






146 
437 


251 


Sheet-metal workers 






613 








168 


Tool and die makers 


261 
44 
261 


42 
241 


582 

146 

1,308 


1,352 


Welders 


442 


Other 


1,894 






Semiskilled 


924 


3,306 


5,807 


13, 677 


23, 714 








84 
126 




425 
1,416 


873 
2,910 


1,319 


Assemblers (erectors) 


1,175 


5,585 
126 


Drill-press operators 


783 


566 


i, 163 


2,512 



60396— 41— pt. 1( 



5320 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 19^2 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 

IN CONNECTICUT— Continued 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


Semiskilled— Continued. 


273 
63 








273 


H jlders-on 








63 


Machine operators miscellaneous 


348 
44 
304 


1,558 
283 
142 
71 


3,783 
437 
291 
437 
291 
291 








764 


Polishers 




737 


Punch and press operators 




508 








291 


Sheet-metal machine operators 




44 


71 


406 


Sta^e builders and riggers 


63 
42 
252 




Welders, tack .. 




71 
1,204 


291 
2,910 


404 


Other 


608 


4,974 






Unskilled . 


840 


1,305 


2,124 


4,365 


8,634 







IN ILLINOIS 



All employees 


200 


14, 000 


28, 523 


6,575 


49, 298 








20 


560 


1,426 


197 


2,203 






' Draftsmen etc 


12 

8 


280 
280 


856 
570 


131 
66 


1 279 




924 






Skilled 


96 


6,020 


11, 125 


2,302 


19, 543 






Assemblers 






2,282 
856 


263 


2 545 


Barrel rifiers and straighteners 






856 




1 
1 
6 
3 
2 

8 














33 




Calkers and chippers 






6 








33 
33 


36 


Cranemen 






35 


Drillers 






2 




140 

700 

1,330 

560 


285 

1,141 

856 

428 


66 
263 
132 

99 


498 


Foremen 


2,112 
2 318 






1.087 


Joiners 


2 

1 
22 
5 
5 
8 
8 
1 
10 
4 


2 


Loftsmen 








1 




2,380 


3, 708 


788 




Painters 


5 


Pipefitters 






33 
99 


38 








107 


Ship fitters 






8 


Tool and die makers 


420 
70 
420 


998 
86 

485 


132 
33 

295 


1 551 


Welders .- 


199 


Other 


1,204 






Semiskilled ... .- 


44 


5,320 


11, 694 


3,090 


20, 148 






Apprentices 


1 
4 
6 




856 
2,852 


197 
657 


1 054 




1,890 


5,403 






Drill-press operators 


1,260 


1,141 


263 


2 664 




13 
3 


13 










3 


Machine operators, miscellaneous 


560 
70 
490 


3,138 
570 
285 
143 


854 
99 
66 
99 
66 
66 


4,552 


Painters 




739 






841 


Punch and press operators 




242 


Riveters 






66 






70 


143 


279 




3 
2 
12 




Welders, tack 


980" 


143 
2,423 


66 
657 


211 


Other 


4,072 






UnskiUed 


40 


2,100 


4,278 


986 


7,404 





NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6321 



Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 1942 in the manu- 
factxire of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 



IN INDIANA 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 




500 


8,800 


27, 670 


29,000 


65, 970 






professional and subprofessional 


50 


352 


1,384 


870 


2,656 






Draftsmen, etc 


30 
20 


176 
176 


830 
554 


580 
290 


1,616 




1 040 






Skilled 


240 


3,784 


10, 791 


10, 150 


24, 965 












2,214 
830 


1,160 


3,374 








830 


Blacksmiths and anglesmiths 


3 
3 
15 

5 

5 

. 17 

20 






3 








145 


148 
















145 
145 


152 








150 












440 
836 
352 


277 

1,107 

830 

415 


290 

1,160 

580 

435 


672 




2,727 


Grinder operators 


2,246 






1,202 




5 
3 
55 
12 
12 
21 
20 
2 
25 
10 


5 


Loftsmen 








3 




1,496 


3,597 


3,480 


8,628 




12 


Pipe fitters 






145 
435 


157 


Sheet metal workers 






456 








20 


Tool and die workers 


264 
44 
264 


968 
83 
470 


580 

145 

1,305 


1,814 




297 


Other 


2.049 






Semiskilled - 


110 


3,344 


11, 344 


13, 630 


28,428 






Apprentices 


2 
10 
15 




830 
2,767 


870 
2,900 


1,702 




1,188 


6,865 




15 


Drill press operators 


792 


1,107 


1,160 


3,059 




32 

8 


32 










8 


Machine operators miscellaneous 


352 
44 
308 


3,044 
553 
277 
138 


3,770 
435 
290 
435 
290 

. 290 


7,166 






1,032 


Polishers 




875 






573 








290 


Sheet metal machine operators 




44 


138 


472 




8 
5 
30 


8 


Welders, tack - .- .-. 




138 
2,352 


290 
2.900 


433 


Other 


616 


5,898 






Unskilled . 


100 


1 1, 320 


1 4, 151 


4,350 


9,921 







IN KANSAS 







30,000 




500 


30,500 










Professional and subprofessional 




2,400 




15 


2,415 














1,500 
900 




10 
5 


1,510 


Engineers, etc 






905 










Skilled 




9,600 




175 


9,775 


















20 
3 
3 
3 

5 
20 
10 

8 
57 

3 

8 


20 










3 


Carpenters 








3 


Cranemen 








3 






150 
2,400 




155 


Foremen 






2,420 


Grinder operators 






10 






1,200 
2,400 




1,208 


Machinists ' 






2,457 


Pipe fitters 






3 


Sheet metal workers -. 




900 




908 



Q322 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 194^2 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 

IN KANSAS— Continued 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


Skilled— Continued. 
Tool and die workers 




450 

300 

1,800 




10 
3 
22 


460 


Welders 


























13, 500 




235 












Apprentices 








15 
50 
20 
64 
8 
5 
8 
5 
5 


15 






4,500 
300 
150 
300 
150 
450 

3,300 
600 
900 
450 

2,400 














Machine operators, miscellaneous 






214 










Polishers 






155 


Punch and press operators 






458 










Sheet metal machine operators 






605 


Skin fitters 






900 








5 
50 




Other 






2 450 










Unskilled - 




4,500 




75 













IN MAINE 



All employees 


17, 800 






500 


18, 300 




' 




Professional and subprofessional 


1,780 






15 


1 795 












1,068 
712 






10 
5 




Engineers, etc 






717 










Skilled 


8,544 






175 


8,719 
















20 




Blacksmiths and anglesmiths - 


534 

267 
178 
178 
623 
712 






89 








3 


92 










Carpenters 






3 
3 


270 


Cranemen 






181 


Drillers . - 






178 


Electricians 






5 
20 
10 

7 


628 


















Inspectors 








7 




178 
89 
1,958 
445 
445 
748 
712 
53 
890 
356 








Loftsmen 










Machinists i 






60 


2,018 








Pipe fitters 






3 

7 


448 










Ship fitters 






712 


Tool and die workers 






9 
3 
22 


62 


Welders 






893 


Other 






378 










Semiskilled 


3,916 






235 












Apprentices 


89 
356 
534 






15 
50 


104 










Bolters-up 






534 


Drill press operators 






20 


20 




1,157 
267 








Holders-on 








267 








64 

8 
5 
8 
5 
5 


64 












Polishers 








5 










8 












Sheet metal machine operators 








5 


Stage builders and riggers 


267 

178 
1,068 






267 


Welders, tack 






5 
50 




















Unskilled 


3.560 






75 













NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6323 



Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 19^2 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 



IN MARYLAND 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 




20, 500 


27, 000 


4,500 


19, 539 


71, 539 








2,050 


2,160 


225 


586 


5,021 






Draftsmen, etc 


1,230 
820 


1,350 
810 


135 
90 


391 
195 


3,106 




1,915 






Skilled 


9,840 


8,640 


1,755 


6, 839 


27, 074 






Assemblers 




_ _ 


360 
135 


782 


1,142 


Barrel riflers and straighteners 






135 




102 
102 
615 
308 
205 
205 
718 
820 






102 


Boilermakers 






98 


200 


Calkers and chippers 






615 








98 
98 


406 


Cranemen 






303 


Drillers 






205 




135 
2,160 


45 
180 
135 

585 


195 
782 
391 
293 


1,093 


Foremen 


3,942 




526 


Inspectors 




1,080 


1,441 


Joiners 


205 
102 

2,254 
513 
513 
861 
820 
62 

1,025 
410 


790 


Loftsmen 






102 




2,160 




2,343 


6,757 


Painters 




513 








98 
293 


611 


Sheet metal workers 


810 




1,964 


Ship fitters 




820 


Tool and die workers - . 


405 

270 

1,620 


157 
14 
76 


391 

98 
879 


1,015 


Welders 


1,407 


Other 


2,985 






Semiskilled 


4,510 


12, 150 


1,845 


9,183 


27 688 








102 
410 
615 




135 
450 


586 
1,954 


823 


Assemblers (erectors) 


4,050 


6,864 


Bolters-up 


615 


Drill press operators 


270 


180 


782 


1,232 


Handy men 


1,332 
308 


1,332 


Holders-on 








308 


Machine operators, miscellaneous 


135 
270 
135 
405 
2,970 
540 
810 


494 
90 
45 
23 


2,541 
293 
195 
293 
195 
195 


3,170 






653 






375 


Punch and press operators 




721 


Riveters 




3,165 






23 


758 


Skin fitters 




810 


Stage builders and riggers 


308 

205 

1,230 






308 


Welders, tack 


405 
2,160 


23 
382 


195 
1,954 


828 


Other 


5,726 






Unskilled 


4,100 


4,050 


675 


2,931 


11,756 







IN MASSACHUSETTS 





28,200 


1,500 


9,000 


6,400 


45, 100 






Professional and subprofessional 


2,820 


60 


450 


192 


3,522 


Draftsmen, etc 

Engineers, etc.. 


il'm 


30 
30 


270 
180 


128 
64 


2,120 
1,402 


Skilled 


13, 536 


645 


3,510 


2,240 


19, 931 












720 
270 


256 


976 








270 


Blacksmiths and anglesmiths 


141 
141 
846 
423 
282 
282 
987 






141 








32 


173 








846 


Carpenters 






32 
32 


455 








314 


Drillers 






282 


Electricians 


15 


90 


64 


1,156 



60396—41— pt. 16 



6324 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 1942 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 



IN MASSACHUSETTS— Continued 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


Sliilled— Continued. 
Foremen 


1,128 


75 
143 
60 


360 
270 
135 


256 
128 
96 


1,819 


Grinder operators 


541 






291 


Joiners 


282 
141 

3,102 
705 
705 

1,184 

1,128 
85 

1,410 
564 


282 










141 




254 


1,170 


7b8 


5,294 


Painters 


705 








32 
96 


737 


Sheet-metal workers 






1,280 


Ship fitters 






1,128 




45 
8 
45 


315 

27 
153 


'1 

288 


573 


Welders 

Other 


1,477 
1,050 






Semiskilled 


6.204 


570 


3,690 


3,008 


13, 472 




141 

564 
846 




270 
900 


192 
640 


602 


Assemblers (erectors) 


202 


2, .307 


Bolters-up 


846 




134 


360 


256 


750 


Handy men 


1,833 
423 


1,833 










423 




60 
8 
53 


990 
180 
90 

45 


832 
96 
64 
96 
64 
64 


1,882 


Painters 




284 






207 


Puncli and press operatOJ^s 




141 


Riveters 






64 






8 


45 


117 


Stage builders and riggers 


423 

282 

1,692 


423 


Welders tack 




45 
765 


64 
640 


391 




105 


3.202 






Unskilled 


5,640 


225 


1,350 


960 


8,175 







IN MICHIGAN 



All employees 


2,400 


54, 512 


27, 300 


7,628 


91, 840 








240 


4,361 


1,365 


229 


6,195 








144 
96 


2,726 
1, 635 


819 
546 


153 


3,842 


Engineers, etc 


2,353 






Skilled 


1,152 


19, 624 


10, 647 


2,670 


34, 093 






Assemblers 






2,184 
819 


305 


2,489 








819 


Blacksmiths and anplesmiths 

Boilermakers 


12 
12 
72 
36 
24 
24 
84 
96 






12 






38 


50 








72 


Carpenters 






38 
38 


74 


Cranemen 






62 








24 


Electricians 


273 
3,271 
2,726 
?, 180 


273 

1,092 

819 

410 


76 
305 
153 
114 


706 




4.764 


Grinder operators 




Inspectors 




2,704 


Joiners 


24 
12 

265 
60 
60 

100 
96 
7 

120 
48 


24 










12 


Machinist's!... 


4,905 


3,549 


916 


9, 635 


P.iinters 


60 








38 
114 




Sheet-metal workers 


2,180 




2,394 


Ship fitters 




96 


Tool and die workers 


1,090 

273 

2,726 


955 
82 
464 


153 
38 
344 


2,205 


Welders 


513 


Other... 


3,582 







NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6325 



Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 1942 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessesl, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 



IX MICHIOAN— Continued 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


Semiskilled -.. 


.. 


22. 350 


11, 193 


3,585 


37, 656 


Apprentices 


12 

48 
72 




819 
2,730 


229 
763 


1,060 




8,722 


12,263 


Bolters-up 


72 


Drill-press operators 


2,726 


1,092 


305 


4,123 




36 


156 


Holders-on 








36 


Machine operators, misceUaneous 


1,090 


3,002 
546 
273 
137 


114 
76 

114 
76 
76 


5, 085 
660 


Polishers 




1,363 
545 

3,816 
545 

1,090 


l,7f2 






796 






3,892 


Sheet-rcetal machine operators 




137 


758 






1,090 


Stage builders and rigpers 


36 
24 
144 






36 


Welders, tack 

Other 


545 
1,908 


137 
2. 320 


76 
763 


782 
5,135 






Unskilled 


480 


8,177 


4,095 


1,144 


13,896 







IN MISSOURI 



All employees ' 




9,100 


24, 550 


31, 000 


64, 650 












728 


1,228 


930 


2 886 












455 
273 


737 
491 


620 
310 


1.812 






1,074 








Skilled 




2,912 


9,574 


10, 850 


23, 336 






Assemblers 






1,963 
737 


1,240 


3,203 


Barrel riflers and straighteners 






737 








155 
155 
155 
310 

1,240 
620 
455 

3,720 
155 
465 
620 
155 

1,395 


155 


Carpenters 








155 










155 






46 

728 


246 
982 
737 
368 
3,191 


602 


Foremen 




2, 950 






1, 357 


Inspectors 




364 
727 


1,197 


Machinist'! ' 




7 638 






155 


Sheet-metal workers 




273 
137 
91 
546 




738 


Tool and die workers 




859 
74 
417 


1,616 


Welders 




320 


Other 




2,358 








Semiskilled... 




4,095 


10,066 


14, 570 


28, 731 








Apprentices 






737 
2,454 
982 
2,700 
491 
246 
123 


930 

3,100 

1,240 

4,030 

465 

310 

465 

310 

310 


1 667 






1,364 
91 
46 
91 
46 
137 
1,001 
182 
273 
137 
727 


6,918 


Drill-press operators 




2,313 






6,776 






1,047 


Polishers 




602 






725 






1,311 


Sheet- metal machine operators 




123 


615 


Skin fitters 




273 






123 
2,087 


310 
3,100 


570 


Other . 




5,914 








Unskilled 




1,365 


3,682 


4,650 


9,697 







6326 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 1942 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 



IN NEBRASKA 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 






15,000 


1,500 




16,500 








Professional and subprofessional 




1,200 


75 




1 275 










Draftsmen, etc 




750 
450 


45 
30 




795 








480 




" 






Skilled 




4,800 


585 




5 385 
















120 
45 
14 
60 
45 
23 

195 






Barrel riflers and straighteners 








45 






75 
1,200 












Grinder operators 






45 






600 
1,200 
450 
225 
150 
900 




623 


Machinists ' 






1 395 


Sheet-metal workers 






450 






52 
5 
26 




277 


Welders 








Other 






926 










Semiskilled 




6,750 


615 




7 365 
















45 
150 

60 
165 

30 

14 
8 






Assemblers (erectors) 




75 
150 
75 
225 
1.650 
300 
450 
225 
1,200 




2 400 








210 


Machine operators, miscellaneous 






240 


Painters 






180 










Punch and press operators 






233 


Riveters 






1 650 






8 




308 










Welders, tack 




8 
127 




233 


Other 






1,327 








Unskilled 




2,250 


225 




2,475 









IN NEW JERSEY 



All employees 


40, 000 


10, 200 


3,640 


67, 722 


121, 562 






Professional and subprofessional 


4,000 


408 


182 


2,031 


6,621 






Draftsmen, etc 

Engineers, etc 


2,400 
1,600 


204 
204 


109 
73 


1,354 
677 


4,067 
2,554 






Skilled _ 


19, 200 


4, 386 


1,420 


23, 704 














291 
109 


2,709 


3,000 


Barrel riflers and straighteners 






109 




200 

200 

1,200 

600 

400 

400 

1,400 

1,600 






200 








339 


539 


Calkers and chippers 






1 200 








339 
339 


939 










Drillers 






400 


Electricians^ 

Foremen 

Grinder operators 


102 
510 
969 
408 


36 

146 
109 
55 


677 
2,709 
1,354 
1,016 


2,215 
4,965 
2 432 


Inspectors . _ 




1,479 


Joiners 


400 

200 

4,400 

1,000 

1,000 

i;600 
120 

2,000 
800 


400 


Loftsmen 








200 




1,734 


473 


8,127 


14, 734 


Painters 


1,000 


Pipefitters 






339 
1,016 


1,339 


Sheet-metal workers 






2,696 


Ship fitters 






1 600 




306 
51 
306 


128 
62 


1,354 

339 

3,047 


1,908 


Welders 


2,401 


Other 


4 215 







NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6327 



Break-doivn by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 1942 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 



IN NEW JERSEY— Continued 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


Semiskilled 


8,800 


3,876 


1,492 


31,829 


45, 997 






Apprentices 


200 

800 

1,200 




109 
365 


2,031 
6,772 


2,340 




1,377 


9,314 




1,200 


Drill-press operators 


918 


146 


2,709 


3,773 




2,600 
600 


2,600 










600 


Machine operators miscellaneous 


408 
51 
357 


401 
72 
36 

18 


8.805 

1,016 

677 

1,016 

677 
677 


9,614 






1,139 


Polishers 




1,070 






1,034 


Riveters 






677 






51 


18 


746 




600 

400 

2,400 


600 


Welders tack 




18 
309 


677 
6,772 


1,095 


Other 


714 


10, 195 






Unskilled 


8,000 


1,530 


546 


10, 158 


20, 234 







IN NEW YORK 



All employees.. 


3,300 


29,031 


31,265 


36,200 


99, 796 


Professional and subprofessional 


330 


2,322 


1,563 


1,086 


6,301 






Draftsmen, etc 

Engineers, etc 


198 
132 


1,451 
871 


938 
625 


724 
362 


3, 301 
1,990 


Skilled.- 


1,584 


9,290 


12, 193 


12, 670 


35, 737 






Assemblers 






2,501 
938 


1,448 


3,949 








938 




16 
16 
99 
50 
33 
33 
115 
132 






16 


Boilermakers 






181 


197 








99 


Carpenters.-- 

Cranemen 






181 
181 


231 






214 


DrUlers 






33 


Electricians 


145 
2,323 


313 

1,250 

938 

469 


362 

1,448 

724 

543 


935 




5.153 


Grinder operators 


1,662 


Inspectors 




1,161 


2.173 




33 
16 
363 

83 
83 

132 
10 

165 
66 


33 










16 


Machinists' 


2,323 


4,064 


4,344 


11,094 


Painters 


83 








181 
543 


264 


Sheet-metal workers 


871 




1,563 






132 




435 

290 

1,742 


1,094 
94 
532 


724 

181 

1,629 


2,263 


Welders """""""""^ 


730 


Other. - 


3,969 






Semiskilled 


726 


13, 064 


12, 819 


17, 014 


43, 623 






Apprentices 


16 
66 




3,127 


3; 620 


2,040 




4,355 


11, 168 




99 


Drill press operators 


290 


1,251 


1,448 


2,989 


Handv men 


214 
50 


214 










50 


Machine operators, miscellaneous 


145 
290 
145 
435 
3,194 
581 
871 


3,439 
625 
313 
156 


4,706 
643 
362 
543 
362 
362 


8,290 


Painters . ... 




1,458 






820 


Punch and press operators 




1,134 


Riveters 




3,556 






156 


1,099 






871 


Stage builders and riggers 


50 
33 
198 






50 


Welders, tack 


435 
2,323 


156 

2,658 


362 
3,620 


986 


Other 


8,799 


Unskilled 


660 


4,355 


4,690 


5,430 


15, 135 







6328 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 1942 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft,; essels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


All employees 


4.600 


47, 762 


29, 780 


23, 292 


105, 434 








460 


3,821 


1,489 


699 


6 469 








276 
184 


2,388 
1,433 


893 
596 


466 
233 


4,023 




2,446 






Skilled 


2,208 


17, 194 


11,614 


8,152 


39, 168 






Assemblers 






'893 


932 


3,315 












23 
23 
138 
69 
46 
46 
161 
184 






23 








116 


139 








138 


Carpenters 






116 
116 


185 








162 








46 




239 
2,866 
2,388 
1,910 


298 

1,191 

893 

447 


233 

466 
349 


931 


Foremen 


5,173 


Grinder operators 


3,747 






2,706 




46 

23 
506 
115 
115 
193 
184 

14 
230 

92 


46 


Loftsmen 








23 




4,299 


3,871 


2,796 


11,472 




115 








116 
349 


231 




1,910 




2,452 


Ship fitters 




184 




955 
239 


1,043 
89 
506 


466 

116 

1,049 


2,478 


Welders 


674 


Other 


4,035 


Semiskilled 


1,012 


19, 584 


12, 210 


10, 947 


43, 753 








23 
92 
138 




893 
2,978 


699 
2,329 


1,615 


Assemblers (erectors) 


7,642 


13,041 




138 


Drill-press operators 


2,388 


1,191 


932 


4,511 


Handy men 


299 
69 


299 










69 


Machine operators miscellaneous 


955 


3,276 
596 
298 
149 


3,028 
349 
233 
349 
233 
233 


7,259 






945 


Polishers 




1,195 

478 

3,343 

478 
955 


1,726 


Punch and press operators 




976 






3,576 


Sheet-metal machine operators 




149 


860 


Skin fitters 




955 




69 
46 
276 






69 


Welders, tack 


478 
1,672 


149 
2,531 


233 
2,329 


906 


Other 


6,808 


Unskilled 


920 


7,163 


4,467 


3,494 


16,044 







IN OKLAHOMA 







15, 400 






15,400 
















1,232 






1,232 
















770 
462 






770 


Engineers, etc_ 








462 


Skilled 




4,928 






4,928 
















77 
1,232 
616 
1,232 
462 
231 
154 
924 






77 










1,232 










616 










1,232 


Sheet-metal workers 








462 










231 










154 


Other 








924 

















NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6329 

Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 19^2 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 

IN OKLAHOMA— Continued 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


Semiskilled 




6,930 






6,930 
















2,310 
154 
77 
154 
77 
231 

1,694 
308 
462 
231 

1,232 






2,310 
154 


Drill-press operators 
















77 


Painters 








154 


Polishers 








77 










231 


Riveters 








1,694 










308 










462 


Welders, tack 








231 


Other 








1,232 












Unskilled 




2,310 






2,310 













IN PENNSYLVANIA 



All employees 


22,400 


16, 936 


37,460 


63. 504 


140, 300 






Professional and subprofessional 


2,240 


1,355 


1,873 


1,905 


7,373 








1,344 


847 
508 


1,124 
749 


1,270 
635 


4,585 


Engineers, etc 


2,788 






Skilled .- 


10, 752 


6,097 


14,609 


22, 226 


53. 684 












2,997 
1,124 


2,540 


5,537 








1,124 


Blacksmiths and anglesmiths 


112 
112 
672 
336 
224 
224 
784 
896 






112 








318 


430 


Calkers and chippers 






672 


Carpenters 






318 
318 


654 








542 


Drillers 






224 




85 

1,016 

847 

677 


375 
1,498 
1,124 

562 


635 
2,540 
1,270 

953 


1,879 


Foremen 


5,950 


Grinder operators 


3 241 






2,192 


Joiners 


224 
112 

2,464 
560 
560 
941 
896 
67 

1,120 
448 


224 










112 


Machinists i . 


1,524 


4,870 


7,617 


16, 475 


Painters 


560 








318 
953 


878 


Sheet-metal workers 


677 




2,571 


Ship fitters 






Tool and die workers 


339 

85 
847 


1,310 
112 
637 


1,270 
318 

2,858 


2,986 


Welders 


1,635 


Other 


4,790 


Semiskilled 


4,928 


6,944 


15, 359 


29. 848 


57, 079 








112 
448 
672 




1,124 
3,746 


1.905 
6,350 


3,141 


Assemblers (erectors) 


2,710 


13 254 




672 


Drill-press operators 


847 


1,499 


2,540 


4.886 


Uandv men 


1,456 
336 


1 456 










336 


Machine operators, miscellaneous 


339 


4,121 
749 
375 

187 


8,257 
953 
635 
953 
635 
635 


12,717 


■ Painters 




1,702 






423 
169 
1,186 
170 
338 


1,433 


Punch and press operators 










1,821 


Sheet-metal machine operators 




187 


992 


Skin fitters 








336 

224 

1,344 






336 


Welders, tack. 


169 
593 


187 
3,184 


635 
6,350 


1,215 


Other 


11 471 






Unskilled 


4,480 


2,540 


5,619 


9,525 


22,164 







6330 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 1942 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 

IN TENNESSEE 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 




300 


8,300 


9,156 


6,710 


24, 466 






Professional and subprofessional 


30 


664 


458 


201 


1,353 


Draftsmen, etc 


18 
12 


415 
249 


275 
183 


134 
67 


842 


Engineers, etc 


511 


Skilled 


144 


2,656 


3,571 


2,349 


8,720 






Assemblers 






732 
■ 275 


268 


1,000 


Barrel riflers and straighteners 






275 




2 
9 
5 
3 
3 
10 
12 






2 


Boilermakers 






34 


36 


Calkers and ehippers 






9 








34 
34 


39 


Cranemen 






37 








3 


Electricians 


42 
664 


92 
366 
275 
137 


67 
268 
134 
101 


211 
1,310 




409 


Inspectors 




331 


569 




3 

31 
8 
8 
13 
12 

14 
6 


3 


Loftsmen 








2 


Machinists' 


664 


1,191 


804 


2,690 
8 


Pipe fitters 






34 
101 


42 




249 




363 




12 




125 
83 
498 


320 
27 
156 


134 
34 
302 


580 


Welders 


158 


Other 


962 






Semiskilled _ 


66 


3,735 


3,754 


3, 153 


10, 708 








2 
9 




275 
916 


201 
671 


478 


Assemblers (erectors) 


1,243 


2,836 


Bolters-up 


9 




83 


366 


268 


717 




18 
5 


18 


Holders-on 








5 




42 
83 
42 
125 
913 
166 
249 


1,006 
183 
92 
46 


872 
101 
67 
101 
67 
67 


1,920 






367 


Polishers 




201 






272 


Riveters 




980 






46 


279 






249 


Stage builders and riggers 

Welders, tack 


5 
3 

18 






5 


125 
664 


46 

778 


67 
671 


241 


Other 


2,131 






illed...._ ._ 


60 


1,245 


1,373 


1,007 


3,685 



IN TEXAS 





14,300 


22, 100 


2,250 


3,500 


42, 150 






Professional and subprofessional 


1,430 


1,768 


113 


105 


3,416 








858 
572 


1,105 
663 


68 
45 


70 
35 


2,101 


Engineers, etc 


1,315 






Skilled 


6,864 


7,072 


878 


1,225 


16, 039 












180 
68 


139 


319 


Barrel riflers and straighteners 










72 
72 
429 
215 
143 
143 
501 
572 






72 








18 


90 


Calkers and ehippers 






429 


Carpenters 






18 
18 


233 








161 


Drillers 






143 




111 

1,768 


23 
90 


35 
139 
70 


670 




2,569 


Grinder operators. 


138 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6331 



Break-doivn by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 1942 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 



IN TEXAS— Continued 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


Skilled— Continued. 




884 


34 


53 


971 




143 
72 
1.572 
358 
358 
600 
572 
43 
714 
285 


143 










72 




1,768 


292 


419 


4,051 




358 








18 
53 


376 




663 




1,316 






572 


Tool and die workers 


332 

221 

1,325 


78 


70 
18 
157 


523 


Welders - 


960 


Other 


1,805 






SemiskiUed 


3,146 


9,945 


922 


1,645 


15, 658 








72 
285 
429 




224 


105 
350 


245 




3,314 


4,173 




429 


Drill-press operators 


221 


89 


140 


450 




929 
215 


929 










215 




111 
221 
111 
332 
2,430 
442 
663 


247 
45 
23 
12 


454 
53 
35 
53 
35 
35 


812 






319 






169 






397 


Riveters 




2,465 






12 


489 






663 




215 
143 

858 






215 


Welders, tack 


332 
1,768 


12 
190 


35 
350 


522 


Other 


3,166 






Unskilled 


2,860 


3,315 


338 


525 


7,038 







IN VIRGINIA 





22. 300 




9,773 


1,934 


34, 007 










2,230 




489 


58 


2,777 








Draftsmen, etc 


1,338 
892 




293 
196 


39 
19 


1,670 






1,107 








Skilled 


10, 704 




3,811 


677 


15, 192 








Assemblers 






782 
293 


77 


859 


Barrel riflers and strai^hteners 






293 




112 
112 
668 
335 
223 
223 
781 
892 






112 








10 


122 


Calkers and chippers 






668 








10 
10 


345 








233 


Drillers 






223 


Electricians 




98 
391 
293 
147 


19 

77 
39 
29 


898 






1,360 


Grinder operators 




332 








176 




223 
112 

2,452 
557 
557 
937 
892 
67 

1,115 
446 




223 










112 






1,270 


231 


3,953 






557 


Pipe fitters 






10 
29 


567 


Sheet-metal workers 






966 








892 


Tool and die workers 




342 
29 
166 


39 
10 
87 


448 






1,154 














Semiskilled 


4,906 




4,007 


909 


9,822 










112 

446 
668 




293 
977 


194 


464 


Assemblers (erectors) 




1,617 


Bolters-up 




668 






391 


77 


468 


Handy men 


1,450 




1,450 



5332 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Break-down by States — Defense labor requirements by occupation — Preliminary 
estimates of the numbers of additional workers required by April 19^2 in the manu- 
facture of aircraft, vessels, machine tools, ordnance, and other defense items — Con. 

IN VIRGINIA— Continued 



State and occupational group 


Shipbuild- 
ing 


Aircraft 


Machine 
tools and 
ordnance 


Other 


Total 


Semiskilled— Continued. 


335 








335 






1,075 
195 
98 
49 


251 
29 
19 
29 
19 


1,326 








224 








117 








78 








19 








49 


68 




335 

223 

1,337 




335 


Welders tack 




49 
831 


19 
194 


291 






2, 362 








Unskilled 


4,460 




1,466 


290 


6,216 









IN WASHINGTON 





28, 300 


16,600 


100 


600 


45, 600 








2,830 


1,328 


5 


18 


4,181 






Draftsmen etc 


1^132 


830 
498 


3 
2 


12 
6 


2,543 




1,638 






Skilled 


13, 584 


5,312 


39 


210 


19, 145 












8 
3 


24 


32 


Barrel riflers and straighteners 






3 




141 
141 
849 
425 
283 
283 
991 
1,132 






141 








3 


144 








849 








3 
3 


428 


Cranemen 






286 


Drillers 






283 


Electricians 


1,328 


1 
4 
3 


6 
24 
12 

9 


1,081 




2,488 




15 


Inspectors 




664 


674 




283 
141 

3,112 
708 
708 

1,189 

1,132 
85 

1, 415 
566 


283 










141 


Machinists ' 


1,328 


13 


72 


4,525 




708 








9 


711 




498 




1,696 


Ship fitters 




1, 132 


Tool and die workers 


249 
166 
996 


4 


12 
27 


350 


Welders 


1,584 


Other - - 


2 


1,591 






Semiskilled 


6,226 


7,470 


41 


282 


14, 019 








141 
566 
848 




3 
10 


18 
60 


162 




2,490 


3,126 




848 


Drill-press operators 


166 


4 


24 


194 




1,840 
425 


1,840 










425 




83 
166 

83 
249 
1,826 
332 
498 


10 
2 
1 
1 


78 
9 
6 
9 
6 
6 


171 






177 






90 


Punch and press operators 




259 






1,832 






1 


339 






498 




425 

283 

1,698 






425 


Welders tack 


249 
1,328 


1 
8 


60 


539 


Other 


3,094 


Unskilled 


5,660 


2,490 


15 


90 


8,255 







' Including such skilled jobs as boring mill operators, (ngine lathe operators, milling machine operators, 
to. 
Prepared May 20, 1941, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, subject to revision. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6333 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HILLMAN— Resumed 

HOUSING ALLOTMENTS AS COMPARED WITH PERMITS FOR PRIVATE 

BUILDING 

Mr. HiLLMAN. The second topic upon which information has been 
requested is a comparison of the housing allotments made to private 
builders by the Division of Defense Housing Coordination with 
the permits wliich have been issued for private building in those same 
localities within the last j^ear. This matter is in the province of the 
Defense Housing Coordinator. We are in close touch with tliis hous- 
ing problem in two ways. First, I have set up in the Labor Division a 
liaison service to keep the Housing Coordinator constantly apprised 
of labor requirements in defense areas, and to present to him the re- 
ports received thereon from the Bureau of Employment Security and 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Second, through our committee on 
plant sites, we study housing conditions and labor supply in areas 
where the contracting agencies of Government propose to locate 
defense plants. By advising these agencies on the housing and labor 
supply conditions we are able in many cases to bring about such 
location of new plants as will avoid severe housing shortages. 

It is obvious that in order to insure swift and efficient production 
of defense materials, there must not only be an adequate supply of 
qualified labor, but also housing facilities at rent levels within the 
economic range of that labor. Now, addressing myself to the specific 
question put to me by the committee, I have here a tabulation listing 
68 localities for which the Defense Housing Coordinator has estab- 
lished a quota for private builders. For 60 of these localities, there 
are comparable figures showing the total amount of private building 
done in 1940. Hi 30 of these localities, private building in 1940 was 
greater in amount than that- recommended by the Coordinator to be 
privately constructed in 1941, and for 30 localities it was less. 

TYPE OF HOUSING IN RELATION TO DEFENSE- 

However, we cannot approach this problem solely from the stand- 
point of the amount of housuig. We must also concern ourselves 
with the type of housing which defense workers require. Much of 
the new building consists m dwellings for purchase, whereas much of 
the requirement of defense workers is for rental housing. Some of 
them expect to go back, after the emergency, to the places from 
which they origmally came. 

While our facts are not complete, it is clear, that m many localities, 
the housing that is bemg built cannot be made available for defense 
workers. In Hartford, Conn., for example, of 1,190 permits filed for 
new dwelling units, financed from private fimds, 898 had permit 
values of $4,000 or more, uidicating purchase prices of $5,600 or more. 
Housing in this price category is generally out of the reach of defense 
workers. This situation is generally true of the cities covered in the 
tables which I am submitting for the record. 

May I direct your attention to cases where the allocations of housuig 
do not seem sufficient for the approaching requirements of defense 
labor? Wichita, Kans., will require 21,000 additional defense 
workers in the next 18 months, which is a very conservative estimate, 
of which 15,000 to 17,000 must apparently come from outside. But 



5334 WASHINGTON- HEARINGS 

only 500 dwelling units are expected to be constructed by private 
interests and 1,000 units by public agencies. In the Seattle, Wash., 
area, during the next year from 50,000 to 55,000 workers will be re- 
quired, of whom 28,000 to 30,000 must be secured from outside 
the mam city area. One thousand dwellings have been allocated for 
private construction and 500 for public construction. There are other 
instances where the projected housing likewise seems insufficient. 

I herewith present Exhibit B, containing tabulations of figures 
covering the requested information, together with a statement analyz- 
ing these figures. 

The Chairman. Yom- exliibit will be received. 

(The document referred to follows:) 

Exhibit B. — Comparison of Dwelling Units Allotted for Private Con- 
struction With Permits Filed by Private Builders 

I have been asked by the committee to make a comparison of the number of 
dwellings units allocated by the Defense Housing Coordinator to the private 
building industry in dc "ense areas with the amount of private building during the 
past year in the same areas as evidenced by the filing of building permits. I wish 
to submit for the coP'^-'deration of the committee a table listing the localities where 
the allocations ' v^ate construction of defense housing have been made and 

showing the nu. i dwelling units which have been assigned to private build- 

erg. This table . shows for the same localities the number of dwelling units 
which building permits were filed by private builders during 1940 and the 
rirst quarter of 1941 as reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States 
Department of Labor. 

Since some political subdivisions included in defense areas do not require 
building permits and others which require permits do not report them to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, two columns of population data are given in the table 
to indicate the extent of coverage. The first column of population data represents 
the total population of the defense areas as defined by the Defense Housing 
Coordinator's Office. The second column of population data represents total 
population of those communities reporting building permits. 

Hasty conclusions should not be drawn from the figures presented in this table. 
This warning stems from the fact that the number of dwelling units allocated for 
private construction is the Defense Housing Coordinator's recommendation of the 
amount of housing which he considers private builders should provide for defense 
workers, whereas the information on building permits represents the total amount 
of residential construction of all types and for all persons undertaken by private 
builders. 

Moreover, the allocation for private construction represnts future requirements, 
whereas the building permit data represents past performance. Information will 
be presented later for five of these defense communities showing the extent to 
which the housing constructed by private builders is too costly for defense workers. 
The figures showing the number of dwelling units constructed by private builders 
during 1940 and the first quarter of 1941 mast be taken as a measure of the 
capacity and willingness of private builders to construct dweUings under condi- 
tions existing during that period. As conditions change, the willingness and 
capacity of builders to construct new dwellings will also change. According to 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, permits were filed for 22.4 percent more dwellings 
during the first 4 months of 1941 than during the first 4 months of 1940 for the 
entire country, including both defense and nondefense areas. • It can be pre- 
sumed that the increase averaged somewhat greater than this percentage in 
defense areas. 

".500 batting average not good enough" 

There are 68 localities listed in this table for which the Defense Housing Coordi- 
nator has established a quota for private builders. For eight of these localities 
no information on past building is available. The number of dwelling units 
recommended for private construction by the Housing Coordinator is greater 
than the total amount of private building during 1940 in 30 localities and less than 
the total amount of building in 30 localities. If it can be assumed that builders 

' Monthly Labor Review, June 1941, p. 1586. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6335 

would duplicate their 1940 performance and that all housing constructed will be 
available to defense workers or will serve to make other units available to defense 
workers, this would give a .500 batting average, which might not appear too bad. 
However, in this emergency we cannot afford a .500 batting average. If workers 
are to be available for the expansion of production when needed, there must be 
houses ready for them at costs within their ability to pay. 

Some persons will no doubt question comparing allocations with 1940 data. 
It is known that in many areas builders are bettering their 1940 performance by 
a substantial amount, but at the same time we must realize that not all the 
housing constructed by private builders is available for defense workers or will 
make housing available for defense workers. In the first place, migrating defense 
workers require rental housing for the most part. Few have the wherewithal to 
purchase new houses, and if thej- had, there is not the willingness to assume the 
obligation of home purchase immediately after securing a new job in a new com- 
munity. If migrating defense workers purchase homes, it will be because lack 
of available rental hovising at reasonable rents force them to do so. It is impossible 
to learn from the data available how much of the new housing being constructed 
is rental housing. However, the information available for five cities indicates 
that most of the new construction is single-family houses and such houses are 
usually built for sale. In the Hartford, Conn., area, for example, 1,111 of the 
1,190 dwelling units for which permits were filed were in siiigle-family buildings. 

NEW HOUSING TOO COSTLY FOR DEFENSE WORKERS 

In the second place, a large proportion of the dwellings'-' ' '" cted are too 
costly for occupancy by industrial workers. I submit for V' •' 'ration by the 
committee five tables showing the number of dwelling units '^^i- vhich permits- 
were filed classified by permit value. It is the experience of peopPe who have deai„' 
with building permit data that the value shown on building permits substantially 
understates the true cost of conscruction. Moreover, the estimated cost of con- 
struction includes no allowance for the cost of the lot on which the dwelling is 
placed. Studies made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that the actual 
cost of purcha.se, including the cost of the lot, average 40 percent more than the 
stated cost of construction as shown on the building permit. Let me quote some 
figures from these tables (tables 2 to 6). 

EXAMPLES IN HARTFORD 

In Hartford, Conn., during the period from July 1940, through January 1941, 
permits were filed for 1,190 new dwelling units. Of this number, 578, or'almost 
one-half, had permits values of $5,000 or more. If we add 40 i^ercent to $5,000 
to arrive at an estimate of the total cost of these houses to purchasers, it is ap- 
parent that one-half of this construction is available to purchasers at prices rang- 
ing upwards from $7,000. In addition, there were 320 houses with permit cost of 
$4,000 to $5,000. Actual cost of these houses would range from $5,600 to $7,000. 
Even these houses are clearly out of reach of industrial workers. There were only 
292 dwellings where the permit valuation was less than $'',000, i. e., less than a 
total actual cost of $5,600. A large number of these would also be out of the reach 
of industrial workers. To a greater or lesser extent the same situation is true 
in the other cities covered by these tables with the exception of Norfolk, Va. 

EXAMPLES IN CAMDEN, QUINCY, PORTSMOUTH, AND NORFOLK 

In the Camden, N. J., area, 431 of the 836 dwelling units covered by permits 
issued from July 1940 through March 1941 had permit values of $4,000 or more, 
or an estimated total purchase cost of $5,600 or more. In the Quincy, Mass., 
area, 473 of 811 permits filed showed valuations of $4,000 or more, or would cost 
some $5,600 or more to the purchaser. In the Portsmouth, N. H., area, 92 out 
of 286 permits from July 1940 through March 1941 had permit values of $4,000 
or more. 

In Norfolk, Va., on the other hand, there were only 264 of the 1,642 dwelling 
units covered by building permits which had valuations of $4,000 or more, and 
there were 1,144 with valuations of less than $3,000. 

NEW HOUSING, ONCE REMOVED FROM WORKERS, IS NO SOLUTION 

It is obvious from these figures that a large proportion of private building does 
not make housing directly available to industrial defense workers. No doubt 
some of the houses vacated by the purchasers of these higher priced homes aie 
60396— 41— pt. 16 3 



^336 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

suitable for and are made available to defense workers. If not themselves occu- 
pied directly by defense workers, they are occupied by others who vacate their 
previous homes' and after several shifts of this kind some dwellings may be made 
available to defense workers. In fact, during the past, we have depended almost 
entirely on this trickling-down process for the provision of homes for our lower 
income workers. That this process has not worked too well in the past is evidenced 
by the kind of housing that is occupied by large numbers of our low-income work- 
ers. We cannot depend on its working during this emergency when tens of 
thousands of new workers are being introduced into communities at a much higher 
rate than that at which purchasers can be found for high-priced homes. 

PRIVATE BUILDERS ALSO FILLING NORMAL NEEDS 

In the third place, it must not be forgotten that a large part of the construction 
being done by private builders is to meet the normal housing need of the defense 
areas. With increased employment families are undoubling and securing homes for 
themselves. Marriages which have been postponed because of lack of employ- 
ment are taking place and result in a demand for additional housing. Moreover, 
it is common knowledge that the age composition of our population is changing 
and that there are more people at those ages where families are created, and that 
even in those areas where population is more or less permanent, the number of 
families is increasing. The resulting demands for housing may not be regarded as 
direct defense needs, but they are real demands and they do help absorb whatever 
housing there is available. There is no way of determining exactly how much 
housing is made available for defense workers by a given amount of construction, 
but it is my estimate that in the average community net more than one-half of the 
construction is available for industrial workers engaged in defense work, even when 
due allowance is made for the trading-up process. 

EXAMPLES OF UNDUE RELIANCE ON PRIVATE INDUSTRY 

The following are a few outstanding cases where it seems to me that undue 
reliance has been placed on private industry. In the Buffalo-Niagara, N. Y., area 
the coordinator allocated 4,000 units to private builders, whereas during the year 
1940 there were only 1,149 new dweUings constructed in the greater part of the 
area. In Portsmouth, N. H., 600 units were allocated to private construction 
when only 124 were provided during 1940 by private builders. In Philadelphia, 
11,000 units were allocated to private construction and during the year 1940 only 
6,390 were provided. Allocations in Baltimore, Md., amounted to 9,000 dwellings, 
with a total 1940 construction of 5,835. In Vallejo, Calif., there were 1,800 units 
allocated whereas 1940 production did not exceed 281 units. Also, in Ogden, 
Utah, 850 units were assigned to private builders, while only 282 were built 
during 1940. 

It must not be assumed from this statement that housing conditions are under 
control where the amount assigned to private builders is substantially less than 
what private builders constructed during 1940. 

SHORTAGES IN WICHITA AND SEATTLE 

The comparison is favorable for some localities only because the total amount 
programmed, including publicly and privately financed construction, is sub- 
stantially under the requirements of the defense program. Wichita, Kans., is 
cited as an example; 500 units have been assigned to private construction, and 
funds for 1,000 units have been allocated for public construction. During 1940 
there were 728 dwellings provided by private builders, and during the first quarter 
of 1941, 290 units were being provided. According to a recent report, which has 
been made available to the Housing Coordinator, 21,000 additional workers will 
be employed on defense work in Wichita during the next year and a half. Of 
this number a large proportion must come from outside the Wichita area and wiU 
require housing. This number may reach a total of 15,000 to 17,000 workers. 
They cannot be recruited unless substantially more housing is provided than is 
now being planned. 

In the Seattle, Wash., area, exclusive of Tacoma and Bremerton, 1,000 dwel- 
lings have been assigned for private construction and 500 for public. Private 
builders in 1940 filed permits for 2,055 dwellings. My information is that dur- 
ing the next year 50,000 to 55,000 additional workers will be required in Seattle, 
and that 28,000 to 32,000 of these must be secured from outside the feasible com- 
muting area. There will be no housing for these workers unless both public and 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6337 



private housing is greatly expanded, and without adequate housing it is extremely 
doubtful that labor requirements can be met. ■ -■a' 

There are other areas in which inadequate provision is being made to house the 
defense workers who must be brought in if defense schedules are to be met. 
Housing of defense workers in Buffalo, Philadelphia, Detroit, Hartford, and Balti- 
more is of deep concern from the standpoint of the recruitment and maintenance 
of an adequate labor supply. 

Table 1. — Dwelling units allotted for private construction within defense areas and 
permits filed by private builders dxiring 1940 and first quarter 1941 in reporting 
places 



Locality 



1940 
popula- 
tion 



Dwelling 
units allo- 
cated for 
private 
construe 
tion 



as reporting building permits to 
Bureau of Labor Statistics 



Number 
of places 
reporting 
in addi- 
tion to 
central 
cilies 
named 



1940 
popula- 
tion 



New dwelling 

units by private 

builders- 



First 

quarter 

1941 



New England: 

Bridseport, Conn.._ 

Hartford, New Britain, Meriden, 

Bristol, Conn.. 

New London, Conn 

Bath, Maine 

Boston, Mass... 

Portsmouth, N. H 

Middle Atlantic: 

Northern New Jersey 2 

Buffalo and Niagara, N. Y 

Sidney, N. Y.. 

Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton, 



Corry, Pa 

Ellwood City and New Castle, : 
Philadelphia, Pa.« 



Pittsburgh, : 



East North Central: 

Joliet, 111 

Davenport, Iowa, and Rock Island 

and Moline, 111.- 

Connersville, Ind 

Fort Wayne, Ind 

Kingsbury, and La Porte, Ind 

Madison, Ind 

South Bend, Ind 



Detroit, Mich 

Muskegon, Mich. 

Canton, Ohio 

Cleveland, Ohio.. 



Dayton, Ohio 

Ravenna and Warren, Ohio.. 
Manitowoc, Wis. 

West North-Central: 

Burlington, Iowa 

Kansas City, Kans. and Mo. 

Wichita, Kans 

Rolla and Waynesville, Mo.. 

South Atlantic: 

Washington, D. C.6 

Jacksonville, Fla 

Key West^Fla 

Miami, Fla 



Pensacola, Fla 

Tampa and St. Petersburg, Fla_ 

Macon, Ga 

Baltimore, Md 

Fayetteville, N. C 



216, 621 

518, 309 

47, 960 

2, 650 

1,534,120 

35, 784 



866, 066 
10, 127 

330, 002 

10, 932 

80, 587 

2, 537, 306 

1, 475, 735 

100, 258 

174, 995 
16, 771 

134, 385 
23, 632 
14,832 

147, 022 



74, 458 

200, 352 

1, 214, 943 

271, 513 
76, 694 
42, 557 

32, 863 
634. 093 
127, 308 

15, 717 

6 914, 000 
195, 619 
12, 927 
250, 537 
48, 573 
209, 693 
74,830 I 
1, 009, 517 
38, 131 



Jacksonville, N. C 

See footnotes at end of table. 



1,500 

1,700 
100 
200 

1,000 
600 

5,000 
4,000 



1,000 

100 

50 

11, 000 

10, 000 

200 

1,325 
100 
50 
150 
50 
750 
10, 000 
550 
300 
1,500 

750 
150 
150 

450 

1,000 

550 

300 

7,000 
350 
100 



300 
100 
350 
9,000 
110 
366 



201, 807 

420,046 

30, 456 

(1) 

1,534,120 

14, 821 

2, 593. 220 
2, 604, 663 

78S, 480 
(') 

252, 411 

('; 

2, 357; 789 
2, .360, 431 
1, 130, 206 
1,118,794 

43, 897 

149, 555 

12.898 

120,282 

16,180 

6, 923 

129. 566 

2, 008, 729 

2, 025, 098 

47, 697 

138,033 

1,168,4.53 

1,1.55,243 

223.914 

55, 759 

34, 706 

25. 832 
539, 390 
114,966 

(') 

914, 000 
173, 065 

0) 
212, 436 
214, 409 

37, 449 
170, 327 

57, 865 
984, 237 
970, 871 

17,428 

(') 



1,202 

2,003 
61 
(') 

2, 567 
124 

8,137 

"i,"i49" 
(') 

405 
(') 
24 



1,675 
224 



6,390 




1, 610 


2,398 






547 


82 


37 


1,051 


126 


9 


9 


625 


112 


57 


4 


3 


(') 


337 


140 


14, 408 






4,432 


156 


27 


406 


117 


4,110 




975 


829 


189 


213 


33 


146 


14 


55 


27 


445 


104 


728 


290 


(') 


(') 


15, 460 


4,611 


1,386 


418 


(■) 


(') 


5,197 




678 


302 


49 


1,450 


314 


104 


13 


5,835 




1,967 


368 


111 


(') 


(') 



6338 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Table 1.- — Dwelling xmits allotted for •private construction within defense areas and 
permits filed by private builders during 1940 and first quarter 1941 in reporting 
places — Continued 



Locality 



1940 
popula- 
tion 



I Dwelling 
I units allo- 
cated for 
private 
construc- 
tion 



Areas reporting building permits to 
Bureau of Labor Statistics 



Number 
of places 
reporting 
in addi- 
tion to 
central 
cities 
named 



1940 
poptila 

tion 



New dwelling 

units by private 

builders- 



First 

quarter 

1941 



South Atlantic— Continued. 

Wilminsrton, N. C 

Charleston, S. C 

Columbia, S. C 

Norfollc and Portsmouth, Va 

Morgantown, W. Va 

Charleston, W. Va 

Charlotte, N. C 

East South Central: 

Gadsden, Ala 

Muscle Shoals, Ala 

Biloxi, Miss 

Meridian, Miss 

Jackson, Milan, and Humboldt, Tenn 
Nashville, Tenn 

West South Central: 

Leesville, La 

New Orleans, La 

Corpus Christi, Tex 

Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, 

Tex 

Dallas and Fort Worth, Tex 

San Antonio, Tex 

Victoria, Tex 

Wichita Falls, Tex 

Mountain: Ogden, Utah 

Pacific: 

San Francisco and Oakland, Calif 

Vallejo, Calif 

Bremerton, Wash 

Seattle, Wash 



46, 52fi 

89, 555 
250, 389 

57, 563 
136, 332 
112,986 

47. 205 
38, 647 
43, 498 

58, 247 
G2, 710 

241, 769 

15, 548 
540, 030 
107, 615 

166, 863 
584. 225 
338, 176 
23, 741 
53. 984 
55, 364 

,331.071 
73, 590 
29, 232 
452, 639 



50 
2,350 
150 
400 
50 

100 
250 
50 
50 

100 
445 
490 



500 
1,000 



33, 407 
72, 973 
67, 648 
64, 140 

203, 115 
16, 655 
87, 115 

100, 899 

36, 975 
13,448 
34,165 
35, 481 
27, 367 
32, 527 
167, 402 

0) 
494, 537 
64, 081 

112, 673 
498, 375 
259, 554 

45, 112 
43,688 

1, 252, 150 
35, 193 
15, 134 
370, 386 



1,092 
22 

771 
872 

326 
14 
230 
160 

84 



0) 

1,207 
1,495 

565 
4,191 
1.278 

(') 
271 
282 

11, 194 



150 
1,045 
358 
(') 
63 
92 

2,740 
85 
87 
555 



1 No reports. 

2 Includes areas of Jersey City, Newark, Caldwell, Paterson, Dover, Bound Brook, Long Branch, Sandy 
Hook, and New Brunswick. 

3 Only New Castle reporting. 

* Includes areas of Philadelphia, Bucks County, Chester, and Delaware County. 
« Only La Porte reporting. 

6 Includes, in addition to the metropolitan area as defined for 1930, districts 5, 9, 15, 3, 7, and part of 10, 
in Prince Georges County, Md., and part of district 5 in Montgomery County, Md. The total popula- 
tion of the area is an estimate because of the divided districts. 

7 Tus umbia and Sheffield reporting. Muscle Shoals not reporting. 

° Jackson and Milan reporting in 1940 and 1941, Humboldt only in 1941. 

Prepared in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, Division of Construction and 
Public Employment. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6339 

Table 2. — Family-dwelling units provided in the Hartford, Conn., area ^ as indicated 
by building permits issued in July 1940 to January 1941, inclusive, by cost class 
and place of issuance 









V 


















s 




« 


=, 




1 


t3 


1 
1 


1 


1 

w 
1 


2 

i 


a 

3 
1 


5 


2 
5 


5 

1 


1 

a 


1 


i 


■^ 


1 


Total 


1,190 


149 
35 


378 
?,92 


221 


107 


95 


63 


39 


32 


32 


27 
9 


19 


12 


9 


7 






Over 5,000 


578 


4fi 


60 


77 


27 


10 


S 






4 


4,000 to 4,999 


320 


33 


78 


94 


26 


18 


26 


14 


12 




10 




2 


1 


2 


3,000 to 3,999 


217 


76 


8 


79 


19 




10 


4 


7 




6 




1 


3 


1 


2,000 to 2,999 

1 000 to 1 999 


19 


6 






? 








5 










? 




12 














10 






1 












3 






1 








1 






1 










Not reported 


41 


















32 






9 































Population 



Bloomfleld (town) 3,247 

East Hartford (town) 17,125 

East Windsor (town) 3,815 

Glastonbury (town) -- 5,783 

Hartford (city) 164,072 

Manchester (town) 21,973 

Newinsrton (town) 4, .572 

Rockville (city) and Vernon (town),. 8, 703 TotaL 

2 Building permits not required: data obtained from town clerk. 

3 Includes data for city of Rockville and Vernon (town) . 

< Building permits not required; data obtained from building and loan association, leading builder 
building-material dealer, and confirmed by town clerk. 



PopiiJa'ion 
{,1930) 

Rocky Hill (town) 2,021 

South Windsor (town) 2,535 

West Hartford (town) 29,941 

Wethersfleld (town) 7,512 

Windsor (town) 8,290 

Windsor Locks (town) 4,073 



Table 2A. — Famtly-dwelling units provided in the Haitford, Conn., area^ as indi- 
cated by building permits issued February to April 1941, inclusive, by cost class 
and place of issuance 





i 


1 




1 




2 

1 
1 


1 
1 


>> 

M 

o 


1 
§ 

5 


1 


1 


i 

1 


« 


o 


i 
h 

1^ 


Total 


467 


81 


137 


53 


46 


48 


34 


16 


11 


6 


15 


4 


11 


5 










247 
127 

'l 

7 
13 


18 
38 
13 


98 
19 
20 


15 
26 
12 


18 
12 
14 

1 
1 


48 


23 
9 

1 


6 

6 

1 
1 
2 


10 

1 


5 
1 


4 
6 

3 


1 
1 
1 
1 


4 


1 
1 




4,000 to 4,999 

3,000 to 3,999 




2,000 to 2,999 

1 000 to 1 999 


















1 








3 




Under 1,000 


12 










1 




































Population 
(1930) 

Bloomfleld (town) - 3,247 

East Hartford (town) 17, 125 

East Windsor (town) 3, 815 

Glastonbury (town) 5.783 

Hartford (city) 164,072 

Manchester (town) 21,973 

Newington (town) 4, 572 

Rockville (city) and Vernon (town) _ . 8. 703 

Prepared in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U 
and Public employment. 



Population 
(1930) 

Rocky Hill (town) 2,021 

South Windsor (town) 2,535 

West Hartford (town) 29,941 

Wethersfleld (town) 7,512 

Windsor (town) 8,290 

Windsor Locks (town) 4,073 

Total 283,662 

Department of Labor, Division of Construction 



g340 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Table 3. — Family-dwelling units provided in the Camden, N. J., area as indicated 
by building permits issued July 1940 to March 194-1, inclusive, by location of 
construction and cost classes^ 









Permit valuation per unit 






Location of construction 


Total 


5,000 
and 
over 


4,000 

to 
4,999 


3,000 

to 
3,999 


2,000 

to 
2,999 


1,000 

to 
1,999 


Under 
1,000 




836 


169 


262 


307 


44 


26 


28 






Audubon 


18 

el 

1 


4 


12 

1 


2 


















59 


2 






Berlin Borough 




1 






Brooljlawn Borough 












118 
1 
28 
19 
16 
6 
1 
31 
7 
10 
35 
58 
100 

3 

2 
69 

23 
65 
4 
8 
4 
5 
8 
2 
3 

57 
30 
10 


9 

24" 
3 


75 
1 
2 
4 


18 


16 






Clemcnton Borough 








2 
3 
3 
3 










2 
1 
2 
1 

4 

i 


2 

4 


5 


Deptford Township 


8 








1 










Gloucester 


3 


7 


16 
6 

1 


1 

1 
8 








Greenwich Township 








Haddonfleld Borough 


30 
20 

27 


5 
31 
48 






7 
24 

1 








Haddon Township 


1 






Laurel Springs Borough 












3 






Magnolia Borough 






1 








1 
2 
2 
4 
2 
11 




2 


2 


2 












2 

9 
8 
28 


64 
10 
11 
25 


1 






Oaklyn Borough 






1 
1 




1 


Pensauken Township 




Pine Hill Borough 


1 


3 




2 


3 


3 
1 






Runnemede Borough 


3 






Tavistock Borough. . _ 


5 














2 


6 


Wenonah Borough 


1 


1 








West Deptford Township 


1 
37 
9 


........ 


2 
2 






4 
15 


11 
6 

7 




Woodbury 








1 


2 











• During the period surveyed July 1940 to March 1941, inclusive, no construction activity was reported in 
the following places: Berlin Township, Glassboro Borough, Bi-Wella Borough, Lawnside Borough 
National Park Borough, Pine Valley Borough, Somerdale Borough, Stratford Borough, Voorhees Town 
ship, and Woodlynne Borough. 

Prepared in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, Division of Construction and 
Public Employment. 



Table 4. — Family-dwelling units provided in the Quincy, Mass., area as indicated 
by building permits issued July 1940 to January 1941, inclusive, by cost class 
and place of issuance 





Total 


Quincy 


Wey- 
mouth 


Hing- 
ham 


Brain- 
tree 


Mil- 
ton 


Ded- 
ham 


Can- 
ton 


Ran- 
dolph 


Hol- 
brook 


Hun 


Total 


811 


196 


185 


142 


134 


79 


38 


13 


13 


6 


6 






Over 5,000 


244 
229 
207 
95 
34 
2 


13 

47 
42 
70 
23 
1 


33 
91 

54 
4 
3 


119 
10 
8 
3 

1 
1 


18 
27 
80 
7 
2 


41 
34 
4 


13 
5 

14 
5 

1 


5 
4 
3 

1 


10 
2 


1 




4,000 to $4,999 


1 


3,000 to 3,999 




2,000 to 2,999 


5 




1,000 to 1,999 


4 


Under 1,000 



























Prepared in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, Division of Construction and 
Public Employment . 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6341 



Table 5. — Family dwelling units provided in the Quincy, Mass., area, as indicated 
by building permits issued in February 1941 to April 1941, inclusive, by cost 
class and place of issuance 





Total 


Quin- 
cy 


Wey- 
mouth 


Hing- 
ham 


Brain- 
tree 


Mil- 
ton 


Ded- 
ham 


Can- 
ton 


Ran- 
dolph 


Hol- 
brook 


Hull 


Total 


253 


84 


60 


12 


27 


44 


8 


10 


4 


2 


2 






Over 5,000 


59 
91 
48 
45 
9 
1 


6 
18 
16 
40 

4 


14 
25 
14 

3 

3 

1 


4 
6 
1 

1 


1 
17 
8 

1 


29 
15 


3 

3 
2 


2 
4 
3 








4,000 to 4,999 


1 


2 




3,000 to 3,999 


1 


2,000 to 2,999 




1.000 to 1.999.. 






i 








Under 1,000 



































Prepared in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. P Department of Labor, Division of Construction and 
Public Employment. 

Table 6. — Family-dwelling units piovidcd in the Portsmouth, N. H., area * as 
indicated by building permits issued July 1940 to March 1941 inclusive by cost 
class and place of issuance 





















w 




§ 










■3 


w 

S3 
1 


a 

a 




.3 


a 
1 


1 


■z 

I 

w 

XI 


1 
1 


i 
1 

5 


a 
z 

a 

1 


n 

1 




H 


W 


Ph 


w 


« 


>^ 


W 


13 


Z 


m 


m 


^: 


o 


Total 


286 


90 


69 


32 


20 


17 


13 


u 


11 


10 


7 


5 


I 


Over 5,000 


29 
63 


4 

7 


22 
21 






2 
5 






1 
7 










4,000 to 4,999 




18 


1 






3 


1 


1 


3,000 to 3.999 


81 


47 


15 




2 


1 


5 


3 


3 




3 


2 




2,000 to 2,999 


57 


16 


9 


13 




5 


3 


4 




4 


1 


2 




1,000 to 1,999 


27 


8 


1 


11 




2 


1 


2 




1 




1 




Under 1,000 _.. 


29 


8 


1 


8 




2 


3 


2 




5 

















Berwick, Maine (town)--. 

Elliott, Maine (town) 

Greenland, N. H. (town)_. 
Hampton, N. H. (town).-. 

Kittery, Maine (town) 

Newcastle, N. H. (town).. 
Newingtou, N. H. (town). 



Population 

(1930) 

1,961 

1,462 

.-.. ! 577 

1,507 

4.400 

378 

381 



Population 
(WSO) 

North Hampton, N. H. (town) --- 695 

Portsmouth, N. H. (city) 14,495 

Rye, N. H. (town) 1,081 

South Berwick, Maine (town) .- 2,650 

York, Maine (town)-— 2,532 

Total -— 32, 119 

' Cost data obtained from assessor's records represent 60 percent of cost of construction. For the pur- 
poses of this table 40 percent has been added to the assessed valuations reported. 

Prepared in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, Division of Construction and 
Public Employment. 

Table 7. — Family-dwelling units provided in the Norfolk, Va., area as indicated 
by building permits issued July 1940 to February 1941 inclusive, by cost class and 
location of construction 





Total 


Location of construction 


Permit valuation 
per unit 


Ports- 
mouth, 
city 


Norfolk, 
city 


South 

Norfolk, 

city 


Tanners 
Creek 
district 


Western 
Branch 
district 


Washing- 
ton dis- 
trict 


Deep 
Creek 
district 


TotaL _.. 


1,642 


156 


761 


17 


246 


202 


63 


197 






$5,000 and up 

$4,000 to $4,999 

$3,000 to $3.999 

$2,000 to $2,999 

$1,000 to $1.999 

Under $1 000 


123 

141 
234 
924 
135 
85 


1 

15 
96 
36 
3 


97 
87 
94 
430 
42 
11 


1 
3 
5 
5 
3 


5 
16 
75 
108 
25 
17 


14 
27 
29 
120 
5 
7 


1 
1 
5 
21 
13 
22 


5 
11 
144 
11 
25 









F Prepared in'the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. 
Public Employment. 



Department of Labor, Division of Construction and 



g342 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HILLMAN— Resumed 

TRAINING FOR MAXIMUM USE OF LOCAL I^ABOR SUPPLY 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Now, as I have said, there are many considerations 
besides housing which have made the Labor Division anxious to avert 
a migratory-labor situation. I turn at this point to a brief descrip- 
tion of some methods invoked to avoid and reduce this problem. In 
a word, our major policy in supplying manpower to defense industries 
has been that the fullest possible use should be made of the labor 
supply that is locally resident in the vicinity of the defense plants. 
The condition we have striven to bring about is the exact opposite of 
a condition of migration. It involves the hiring, by defense em- 
ployers, of the highest possible amounts of local labor, plus the 
training of that labor to qualify it for the defense jobs of its locality. 

We started on this training program in the first days of the defense 
effort, last June. The Labor Division brought about the corrdina- 
tion, for this work, of the U. S. Employment Service, the U. S. Office 
of Education, the N. Y. A., and all other Federal agencies dealing 
with defense training and employment. The Employment Service, 
through its 1,500 offices throughout the country, enrolled and regis- 
tered defense workers and gathered information on how many workers 
and what kinds of skill the defense contractors would need in each 
area. 

REORGANIZATION INTO 12 REGIONS FOR PLACEMENT 

It is this system which I have recently reorganized along lines 
which extend and strengthen the accomplishments of the first year. 
Also, the Nation has been divided into 12 regions and the same 12 
Government units are combined under a single regional chairman, 
who is in all cases the district representative of the Bureau of Em- 
ployment Security. Thousands of defense contractors are being 
contacted at regular 2-week intervals, so that we can ascertain their 
future labor requirements and provide for them by finding the needed 
workers. All this is being done with direct relation to the actual 
needs of the defense employers. 

O. P. M. urges defense contractors in all cases to utilize the U. S. 
Employment Service which we have established, and the great ma- 
jority of them are doing so. 

During the first 11 months of the defense effort, the Bureau of Em- 
ployment Security registered more than 6,500,000 workers, and placed 
1,500,000 of them in jobs, for the most part defense jobs. Wherever 
stringencies in certain skills appeared, our training program went into 
operation. 

IN-PLANT AND OUT-OF-PLANT TRAINING 

There are two broad divisions of that program — training in voca- 
tional classes outside of industry, and training within industry. Let 
me briefly describe them. 

The training outside of industry includes three kinds of classes. 
There is the primary or preemployment training. There is the train- 
ing for former skilled workers whose skills may have grown rusty 
because they worked in other callings during the depression. And 
there is the specialized training or supplementary courses, largely out- 
of-hours courses for defense workers who desire to upgrade their skills. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6343 

Starting July 1, 1940, and up to May 31, 1941, 716,655 individual 
workers were trained in the preemployment, refresher and supple- 
mentary courses. Out-of-school youth, rural and nonrural, were 
trained in vocational courses to the number of 132,253 individuals. 
The W. P. A. has supported a great many of these trainees. The 
vocational courses on the N. Y. A. work projects trained 125,000, 
and the various engineering colleges trained 95,529. That is a total 
of 1,059,347 persons trained, and in addition, on June 21, 1941, the 
National Youth Administration had 354,936 young people employed 
in its out-of-school work program. The Apprenticeship Unit of the 
U. S. Department of Labor further reported 51,200 apprentices 
working in various approved plants and shops. 

I herewith submit Exhibit C, covering developments in labor 
supply and training from July 1, 1940, up to a recent date. 

The Chairman. Your exhibit will be received. 

(The document referred to follows:) 

Exhibit C— Report of Labor Supply a.nd Training 

The Labor Division of the Office of Production Management has as one of its 
major functions the provision of an adeciuate and continuous supply of trained 
manpower for the defense program. The Labor Supply Branch of the Labor 
Division brings together and guides the activities of the various governmental 
units associated with the recruitment, training, and placement of workers for the 
defense program. The execution of policies, plans, and operations are carried 
out by the governmental units concerned, in conformity with Labor Division 
policies arrived at by the Labor Supply Branch and approved by the Associate 
Director General of the Office of Production Management. 

The efficient use of the Nation's labor supply and training facilities requires 
that the movement and training of workers be directed to the needs of the defense 
program. This requires that the training programs be geared to the predictable 
demands of defense employers in order to avoid wasting needed training facilities 
on occupations in which there is no present or anticipated demand. Further- 
more, in order to minimize unnecessary migration, local labor should be recruited 
and trained as far as compatible with ])roductive efficiency, and importation of 
workers or trainees should be discouraged except when local labor supply is ex- 
hausted or when the pressure of time makes adequate local training impracticable. 
When it is necessarj- to import workers to be trained, they should be selected care- 
fully to meet the needs existing in the community. Only by careful planning and 
shared responsibility can there be assured effective utilization of our training facil- 
ities and our reserve of lalwr resources. 

Sound policy dictates that from every point of view the present labor require- 
ments of defense employers can be met best by making the most efficient use of 
all reserves of labor. Training programs, both public and within the plant, should 
be greatly intensified to supply workers in the numbers and occupations needed 
on the one hand and to use fully the skills of workers already employed on the 
other. 

As priorities on raw materials and machinery are made, there must be effective 
arrangements for the placements of those who may be displaced through the opera- 
tion of priorities. Otherwise, displacements will occur in the labor market, 
resulting in wasteful and inefficient use of manpower. 

government agencies working on labor supply 

The following governmental units are carrying out assigned responsibilities and 
functions at the regional, State, and local levels in order to secure an adequate 
supplj^ of trained manpower for the defense program: 

United States Employment Service, Bureau qf Employment Security, Social 

Security Board, Federal Security Agency. 
United States Office of Education, Federal Security Agency. 
National Youth Administration, Federal Security Agency. 
Work Projects Administration, Federal Works Agency. 
United States Civil Service Commission. 



g344 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Training- Within-Industry, Labor Division, Office of Production Management. 
Federal Committee on Apprenticeship, Division of Labor Standards. Depart- 
ment of Labor. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE TRAINING PROGRAMS 

Three constituent units of the Federal Security Agency are carrying out respon- 
sibilities and functions in connection with the training of workers for defense 
industries, which training is conducted outside of industry. These are as follows: 

UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, 
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD. FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY 

Through its 1,500 local employment-service offices, in connection with the 
training program, collects and makes available labor-market information concern- 
ing the supply of and demand for workers in both defense and nondefense occupa- 
tions; determines the occupations and luimber for defense training; and selects 
and refers persons to defense training courses. 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION, FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY 

The Vocational Training of Defense Workers Section of this Agency is respon- 
sible for the major part of the vocational-training program for defense workers 
operated by public schools. Through regional and field agents it cooperates with 
the State and local boards of vocational education in the administration and super- 
vision of the program. The present vocational training program for defense 
vorkers provides for the following types of courses: 

I. Preemploymetit courses for unemployed persons selected from the 
employment-service registers, from Work Projects Administration proj- 
ects, and National Youth Administration work projects. 
II. Supplementary courses for employed persons and apprentices for the 
purpose of expanding their skill and knowledge in essential or allied 
defense occupations. 
III. Preemployment vocational courses for out-of-school rural youth. 

The Engineering Defense Training Section of this Agency is responsible for the 
defense training courses provided by degrees-granting colleges and universities 
designed to meet the shortage of engineers, chemists, phj^sicists, and production 
superviros in fields essential to the national defense. 

NATIONAL YOUTH ADMINISTRATION, YOUTH WORK DEFENSE PROGRAM, FEDERAL 
SECURITY AGENCY 

This Federal Agency's out-of-school work program for needy unemployed young 
people between the ages of 17 and 24, inclusive, provides part-time employment in 
resident and workshop projects which furnish work experience preparatory to 
employment in defense occupations. 

The policies governing the establishment and operation of the public defense 
training program are briefly summarized as follows: 

1. Defense occupations. — The List of Occupations, approved by the Office of 
Production Management, for vocational-trraning courses for defense workers, lists 
the occupations in which training may be given under tlie defense training program. 
Instructions will be issued with reference to the emergence of a shortage of workers 
in an occupation, or occupations, not included in tliis list. The determination of 
training in occupations not included in this list will be referred through regular 
channels to the Director of Defense Training of the Federal Security Agency and 
by him to the Office of Production Management for approval or disapproval. 

2. Supplementary courses. — Supplementary and extension courses for employed 
workers are closely coordinated to the "training-within-industry" program, 
including apprentice training. In the expenditure of funds for equipment for 
vocational schools, first consideration will he given to facilities for supplementary 
courses. 

3. Preemployment courses. — In general, the number of trainees to be given 
preemployment training should be restricted to the number of jobs in defense 
industries which are now open or may be open within a reasonable period from 
the time of the completion of the course. The number of workers to be given 
training in excess of known needs and the occupations in which such training 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6345 

should be given will be authorized by the Office of Production Management 
through the Director of Defense Training. 

4. Reserve labor resources. — (a) Women workers: The training of women 
workers shall be related to existing or anticipated employment opportunities for 
women in specific defense occupations. As the general labor market tightens, 
the Office of Production Management will take steps to promote the employment 
of women and will advise the Director of Defense Training from time to time in 
what occupations, in what number, and in what places the training of women 
shall be extended in accordance with such policy. 

(6) Negro workers: There will be no discrimination because of race or color in 
the selection of trainees for the defense training courses. Negroes will be trained 
in selected occupations in communities where at the present time there may be 
no employment opportunities for them, but in which it is probable that their 
services will be used at a later date by defense contractors. 

(c) Foreign-born workers and workers of foreign-born parentage: In view of 
the prospective shortage of manpower, particular attention should be paid to the 
training and placement of foreign-born workers and workers of foreign-born parent- 
age in defense occupations in which there are employment opportunities. 

(d) Conservation of farm labor: In view of the potential shortage of farm labor, 
in certain regions in which the national policy requires an expansion of production, 
the specific training of rural youth for defense occupations should be carried on 
in relation not only to nonagricultural defense industries' labor requirements, but 
also with due consideration to the defense agricultural labor requirements. The 
Office of Production Management will determine and advise the Director of De- 
fense Training, from time to time, the rural areas specifically affected. 

I am submitting the information which is available through the United States 
Office of Education on the enrollment in vocational defense training classes. 
While these are for different periods, they are the latest available detailed figures. 

The detailed figures available on net enrollments in defense training courses are 
as follows : 

Preemplovment refresher and supplementary courses (data as of May 

31, 1941) 206, 124 

Out-of-school rural and nonrural youth, vocational training courses 

(data as of Mar. 31, 1941) 92,368 

Vocational courses for vouth on Nptional Youth Administration work 

projects (data as of Mar. 31) 87, 098 

Engineering defense training courses (data as of Apr. 30) 95, 529 

Total of all vocational defense training courses 481, 119 

The estimated total number enrolled in defense training courses since the be- 
ginning of each program is as follows: 

Preemplovment refresher and supplementary courses (period July 1, 

1940, to May 31, 1941) 706,655 

Out-of-school rural and nonrural vouth in vocational training courses 

(period Dec. 1, 1940, to Mar. 31^1941) 132,253 

Vocational courses for vouth on National Youth Administration work 

projects (period Dec.'l, 1940, through Mar. 31, 1941) 125,000 

Engineering defense training courses (period Dec. 1, 1940, through Apr. 

30, 1941) 95,529 

Estimated total enrollments of all defense training programs 1, 059, 437 

The National Youth Administration has submitted information as of June 
21, 1941. At that time there were 354,936 youth employed on the National 
Youth Administration out-of-school work program. Of these 91,882 were work- 
ing on construction projects, 127,437 were employed in local workshops, 30,377 
in resident work centers and 102,240 were doing such work as providing clerical 
assistance to local governmental agencies, public health and hospital work, 
recreational assistance to draft boards and mihtary establishments, etc. 

The National Youth Administration work project employment in the local 
workshop and work resident center is particularly identified with the defense- 
training program. These work projects are related to the requirements of 
defense industries and provide the young people part-time employment in order 
to prepare and qualify them for employment in industry. 



g346 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

National Dkfense Vocational Training Program 

The latest available statistics on enrollment in preemployment-refresher and 
supplementary courses as of May 31, 1941, appear in table 1 below. These data 
have been reported by the States by wire to Washington. The circumstances 
under which the States are able to submit enrollment figures within a short period 
after the close of the month vary. Consequently, the reliability of these figures is 
subject to some limitations. However, prior to the preparation of this table all 
figures were subjected to certain procedures of statistical verification, such as com- 
paring the figures for this month with those of previous reports and with trends. 
The plan of telegraphic reports, though new to State authorities, appears to be in- 
creasingly practicable. This, the third monthly telegraphic report, is considerably 
more dependable than earlier reports. In cases where figures from States were 
questioned as a result of statistical analysis, more dependable figures were pre- 
pared by estimate and were substituted. These are indicated by footnotes in the 
table. 

The tentative enrollments shown in table 1, as of May 31, 1941, in preemploy- 
ment-refresher and supplementary courses, were as follows: 





Preemployment- 
refresher courses 


Supplementary 
courses 


Total number in training July 1, 1940, to May 31, 1941 

Number concluding training by May 31, 1941 


335, 381 
264, 509 


371,274 
236, 022 


Net enrollment on May 31, 1941 


70, 872 


135, 252 



On May 31, 1941, the net enrollment in preemployment refresher courses as 
reported in table 1 was 70,872 and in supplementary courses, 135,252. There 
had been a total of 335,381 in preemployment refresher courses from the beginning 
of the program to May 31, 1941, andatotal of 371,274 in supplementary courses 
over the same period. Of the 335,381 enrollments in preemployment refresher 
courses recorded to May 31, 1941, 70,872 were still in training, leaving a balance 
of 264,509 enrollments for which training had been concluded. Of the latter, 
approximately one-half represent individuals known to have concluded training 
to secure employment. The report of employment from preemployment refresher 
courses, 129,901, is not statistically comparable to the total enrollment figure, 
335,381. The actual percentage of individuals who have been in training, who 
are known to have secured employment, will appreciably exceed 50 percent. 

Also contained in the present report is a detailed tabulation of individual course 
reports as received in Washington for the out-of-school youth training program. 
The figures in tables 2 and 3 were summarized at an earlier date by telegrams 
received from the States. The data for the month of March indicate that at that 
time new enrollments exceeded discontinued enrollments by more than 5,000 dur- 
ing the month. The indications are that this program has continued to expand 
rapidly. It is estimated that there will be 300,000 total enrollment in this program 
by July 1, 1941. A small percentage of persons in training in this program are 
females. However, as of March 31, 1941, 12,785 of the 92,368 active enrollments 
reported, represented Negro registrations. Over 83 percent of enrollments on 
that date were of trainees residing in rural territory. Reported also are 12,250 
registrations of enrollees of the Civilian Conservation Corps and 3,630 youths from 
the National Youth Administration. 

As may be seen in tables 4 and 5, auto-mechanics courses and woodworking 
courses are those in which there are the largest numbers of enrollments in the 
out-of-school youth program. The smallest enrollment is found in metal-work 
and electricity courses. There were, as of March 31, 1941, atotal of 8,981 enroll- 
ments in the out-of-school youth program in the various specific preemployment 
categories. It is expected that all of these will become preemployment courses 
in the VE-ND program beginning July 1, 1941. That represents a small pro- 
portion of the courses offered in the out-of-school youth program. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6347 



Table 1.^ — Report of enrollment in preemployment refresher and supplementary 
courses, for month ending May SI, 1941 





Preemployment refresher 


Supplementary 


State or Territory 


Net enroll- 
ment at 
end of 
period 


Cumula- 
tive enroll- 
ment from 

July 1940 


Total 
number 
of persons 
securing 
employ- 
ment from 
July 1940 


Net enroll- 
ment at 
end of 
period 


Cumula- 
tive enroll- 
ment from 

July 1940 




70, 872 


335. 381 


129, 901 


135, 252 


371, 274 








442 
180 
118 

6, 805 
612 
790 
52 
839 

1,171 
538 

4,259 

1, 614 
204 

1,124 
602 
913 
497 
869 

2,040 

3,527 
775 

1,067 

1,178 

421 

156 

9 

337 

1,610 

109 

10, 389 

337 

159 

4,325 
305 

2,194 

376 

111 

2,160 

1,996 

927 

117 

591 

617 

1,079 

2,440 

222 

325 

17 


1.342 

564 

612 

31, 652 

3,447 

8,879 

■750 

2,833 

3,255 

1,131 

1 19, 000 

9,511 

1,166 

5,324 

1 4, 000 

2,945 

1, 163 

1 6, 100 

8,445 

1 22, 000 

2,097 

2,511 

1 4, 700 

383 

26 

1,068 

14, 163 

291 

58, 367 

1,951 

620 

1 15, 000 

2,003 

7,278 

35, 968 

1,525 

1 2, 700 

636 

5,601 

1 6, 000 

2,989 

436 

2,433 

7,172 

4,854 

1 15, 000 

1,008 

1,739 

360 

1 1, 450 


405 

157 

76 

11,463 

792 

6,676 

236 

982 

603 

179 

16, 844 

4,196 

433 

2,093 

1,270 

639 

166 

4,347 

4,309 

6,774 

595 

863 

1, ,591 

228 

106 

13 

414 

6,699 

41 

14, 844 
977 
131 

6,454 

737 

3,441 

15, 989 
800 
645 
212 

1,318 

944 

740 

290 

999 

1,933 

1,127 

3,853 

209 

630 

113 

325 


1,951 

1,356 
16, 129 
1,257 
1,986 

250 
4,875 
2,672 
65 
8,612 
4,704 

535 

456 
2,034 
1,458 

102 
3,385 
2,101 
9,595 

776 
1,032 

922 

261 


6,214 




281 


Arkansas 


2,629 


California 


1 40, 000 




13,230 


Connecticut 

Delaware 


6,952 
' 540 


Florida 


17,000 




5,723 


Idaho 


118 




122.000 




1 12, 000 


Iowa 


I 2, 000 


Kansas 


1 1, 200 
1 7, 500 


Louisiana 


2,855 


Maine 


531 
1 11,000 


Massachusetts 


7,390 


Michigan. 


2, 341 


Mississippi 






1 3, 600 




363 


Nebraska 




Nevada 


217 

476 

3,520 

410 

20,277 


1 649 




1,201 


New Jersey. 

New Mexico 


1 13, 500 
999 


New York 


80, 982 


North Carolina 


1,729 


North Dakota 






2,128 
700 
920 
11,859 
389 
551 


9,528 


Oklahoma 


3,403 


Oregon 


3,107 




27,099 


Rhodelsland 


824 


South Carolina 


1,670 


South Dakota 






1,582 

6,754 

1,509 

289 

3,632 

3,510 

1,113 

1.829 

1,830 

870 

900 

I 3, 580 


13,000 


Texas 


9,574 


Utah 


13,000 




464 


Virginia 


11,827 




12, 558 


West Virginia... 


3,781 


Wisconsin 


4,598 


Wyoming 


2,959 




1,442 


Hawaii 


2,421 


Puerto Rico 


1 6, 211 







I Estimated in lieu of verifiable State figures. 



5348 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Table 2. — Total enrollment in courses for out-of-school rural and nonrural youth 
by States, for the month of March 1941 

(General preemployment and specific preemployment courses combined] 



State or Territory 



Number of 
courses 
operated 
during 
month 

(1) 



New en- 
rollment 
during 
month 



Concluded 
training 
during 
month 

(3) 



Net en- 
rollment 
at end of 

month 

(4) 



Total en- 
rollment 
since start 
of program 

(5) 



Total _ 



Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut- 
Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 



Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

M assachusetts - 

Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

Mississippi.. 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota. 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Khode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin... 

Wyoming 

District of Columbia. 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 



7,415 



45, 167 



3,350 
154 

1,372 
659 
852 

'""■76" 



1,936 

352 

419 

509 

458 

471 

1,598 

2,268 

362 

518 

62 

853 

620 

1,880 

1,662 

283 

45 

11 

6 

293 

72 

2,594 

134 

1,173 

1,111 

101 

2,710 

15 

1,071 

302 

3,329 

5,143 

50 

256 

697 

682 

1,167 

1,415 

337 

82 

40 



71 

3,176 

1,177 

123 

760 



1,776 
138 
76 
827 
167 
962 
780 
311 
53 
14 
278 



4,787 
251 



570 
1,222 



217 

558 

3,614 

500 

1,691 

606 

912 

1,250 

3,646 

3,245 

617 

763 

57 

2,454 

1,369 

5,687 

3,322 

563 

1,098 

147 

128 

79 

756 

608 

6,432 

407 

2,113 

2,074 

271 

5,083 

13 

2,506 

367 

5,908 

8,591 

648 

403 

3,193 

834 

2,954 

4,579 

710 

325 

91 

557 



5,465 
320 

4,491 
659 

1,505 



2,918 

704 

1,182 

1,653 

4,922 

3,824 

865 

981 

62 

3,688 

1,975 

7,167 

4,261 

1,061 

1,238 

186 

267 

381 

959 

725 

9,791 

1,079 

3,185 

5,395 

1,845 

6,211 

15 

3,576 

443 

7,641 

10, 979 

952 

486 

4,690 

1,042 

4,414 

5.622 

1,120 

3.80 

117 

1,044 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6349 



Table 3. — Net enrollment in courses for out-of-school rural and nonrural youth, 
by States, as of Mar. 31, 1941 

[General preemployment and specific preemployment courses combined] 



State or Territory 



(2) 



Negro 



Civilian 
Conserva- 
tion Corps 



National 
Youth 



tration 
(6) 



Total. 



Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut' 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Idaho. 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

District of Columbia. 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 



92, 368 



76, 976 



4,787 
251 

3,592 
570 

1,222 



4,498 
227 

2,633 
575 

1,015 



217 

558 

3,614 

500 



912 
1,250 
3,646 
3,245 

617 

763 
57 
2,454 
1,369 
5,687 
3,322 

563 
1.098 

147 

128 
79 

756 

608 
6,432 

407 
2,113 
2,074 

271 

5,083 

13 

2,506 



8,591 
648 
403 

3,193 
834 

2,954 

4,579 
710 
325 
91 
557 



110 

130 

662 



36 

11 

9 

39 

161 

1,134 



143 



44 



2,244 

79 

12 











2 

1,217 



94 

159 

5 

101 

1 

739 



778 

1,953 





824 



268 







178 
429 

3,306 
401 

1,311 
474 
700 
798 

3,439 

2,408 
571 
505 
51 

1,707 
969 

4,922 

1,951 
541 
953 
70 



377 
5,292 

1,655 
1,399 

238 

4,578 

13 

2,129 

204 
5,377 
7,422 

505 

393 
2,477 

587 
2.667 



12, 250 



1,310 
117 
508 
97 
245 



205 

62 

322 

139 

10 

92 

266 

508 



136 



740 

23 

1,142 

249 

21 

9 

101 



100 

136 



251 

10 

277 

93 

1,199 

13 

336 

3 

1,150 

696 

68 



512 

43 

229 

70 

154 

292 







12 
1 
604 
60 
4 
11 
38 
34 
327 

10 
100 

85 
120 
61 
90 
22 
19 




7 
123 
20 



Figures not yet available. 



6350 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 4. — Net enrollment in courses for youth on National Youth Administration 
work projects, by States, as of Mar. SI, 1941 



Alabama 3, 426 

Arizona 269 

Arkansas 1, 989 

California 800 

Colorado 701 

Connecticut 326 

Delaware 243 

Florida 1, 328 

Georgia 1,011 

Idaho 268 

Illinois 2, 507 

Indiana 1, 691 

Iowa 1,024 

Kansas 719 

Kentucky 2,284 

Louisiana 860 

Maine 4. 090 

Maryland 407 

Massachusetts 10 

Michigan 2, 648 

Minnesota 1, 226 

Mississippi 2, 411 

Missouri 2, 808 

Montana 131 

Nebraska 1, 408 



Nevada 46 

New Jersey 2, 984 

New Mexico 1, 279 

New York 4, 477 

North Carolina 5, 642 

North Dakota 552 

Ohio 6,927 

Oklahoma 841 

Oregon 1, 145 

Pennsylvania 7, 120 

South'Carolina 2, 278 

South Dakota 76 

Tennessee 1, 099 

Texas 7, 088 

Utah 636 

Vermont 273 

Virginia 2, 996 

Washington 861 

West Virginia 1, 303 

Wisconsin 3, 084 

District of Columbia 768 

Puerto Rico 1,038 

Total 87,098 



Table 4-A. — Number of youth terminated because they secured private employment — 
out-of-school work program, July 1940 through May 1941 



1940: 



July 14,500 

August 13,490 

September 17,093 

October 18,234 

November 16,844 

December 16, 009 



1941: 

January 22,437 

February 31,596 

March 38, 852 

April 43,058 

May 47,54a 



Total. 



279, 653 



Table 4-B. — Number of production units on workshop-production projects — 
out-of-school work program, May 1941 





Number of production units 


Type of production activity 


Total 


Resident 
projects 


Non resi- 
dent 
projects 


Total 


5,419 


998 


4,42t 








1,006 


223 


783. 






Machine shop 


407 
308 
209 

82 


76 
73 
58 
16 


331 




23& 


Welding 


151 


Foundry 


6& 






Radio and electrical (total) . - .- 


349 


92 


257 








192 
157 


56 
36 


136 


Electrical . . 


121 







NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6351 



Table 4-B. — Number of production iinits on workshop-production projects- 
oui-of-school work program, May 1941 — Continued 





Number of production units 


Type of production activity 


Total 


Resident 
projects 


Non resi- 
dent 
projects 




604 


114 


490 








506 
53 
45 


74 
21 
19 


432 




32 


Aviation services - 


26 








i;567 


148 
303 


1,155 


Sewing (total) 


1,264 




302 
1,265 


25 
278 


277 


Domestic - 


987 








590 


118 


472 








272 
318 


49 


223 




249 







Table A-C. ^Report of the number of resident centers in operation and under 
construction — out-of-school work program, May 31, 1941 





Number of resident 
centers 


State or territory 


Number of resident 
centers 


state or territory 


Total 


In ope- 
ration 


Under 
con- 
struc- 
tion 


Total 


In oper- 
ation 


Under 
con- 
struc- 
tion 




667 


622 


45 




6 

1 

16 
21 
16 

8 
46 

6 
16 

1 
85 

8 
19 
64 

1 
16 
2 
6 
18 
1 
2 
2 


5 

1 

16 
17 
16 

8 
45 

6 
12 

1 
83 

8 
19 
61 

2 

1 
16 

2 

6 
16 

2 
2 










Alabama . . .. 


38 
4 
12 
13 
11 
2 
8 
23 
4 
21 
8 
4 
32 
14 
33 
5 
2 
2 
14 
7 
18 
6 
3 

12 
7 


34 
4 
10 
12 

1 

23 

4 
21 

8 

3 
31 
12 
32 

4 

2 
9 

7 
16 

5 

3 
12 

7 


4 
2 

1 

1 
2 


New York City and 










New York (excluding 

New York City) 

North Carolina 








Colorado 


4 










Ohio 








1 










Pennsylvania 


4 




Rhode Island 






South Carolina - 


2 


Kansas 


South Dakota 




Kentucky 








3 


Maine 


Utah 




Maryland 










Michigan 






Minnesota 


West Virginia 






Wisconsin 


1 






1 








Nebraska 


Virgin Islands 




New Hampshire 











60396— 41— pt. 1( 



^352 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Table 5. — Net enrollment in preemployment refresher and supplementary courses, 
by city and Stale, as of Mar. 31, 1941 



state and city 


Preem- 
ploy- 
mont 

refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


State and city 


Preem- 
ploy- 
ment 
refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


ALABAMA 


18 
39 
160 




CAUFO RNi A— continued 
Lodi 


15 

1,021 

435 

186 

57 




■r. 


26 
208 
29 


I/Ong Beach 


429 






1,664 




Modesto 




13 
49 
123 




53 




344 
294 

30 
132 

18 




146 


Mobile 


Moorpark 


14 






Napa 


42 






National City 


125 
30 
40 

153 
69 
16 

333 

118 
33 
17 
82 
46 
15 
25 
67 
12 

127 

893 
66 
48 

224 

87 
18 
17 
198 
36 


197 






North Hollywood 




CShpffioIrl 




Norwalk 


85 




124 
16 


Oakland 


510 


University 




Ontario -- 














542 


1,081 
















154 


Porterville 










PhnpniY 


112 
25 


Redondo Beach 
















Rio Vista 




Total 


137 


154 


Riverside 








24 
20 


Sacramento 

Salinas 


234 


















San Francisco 


425 




27 
10 






Danville 




San Luis Obispo.. 




De Witt 


8 
134 


San Pedro 


108 




15 




37 


Fayetteville 


Santa Barbara 






20 
55 


Santa Maria 


69 




25 
10 




809 




South Gates 


49 




14 
10 
13 
499 




127 








23 

14 






10 
11 
12 


Taft 








30 




Vallejo 


37 


634 




14 
40 
9 
26 


Van Nuys 


35 






Venice . 


67 
43 
45 


138 


Mena 




Ventura 


15 




88 
9 








Total 




Pine Bluff 


30 
25 
91 
17 


6,192 


12 936 






COLORADO 








29 
18 
171 
11 
39 
















Total 


228 


1.049 


Colorado Springs 


75 






343 
73 




42 
89 
9 

37 
58 


103 
119 






Greelev 


45 






65 


Alhambra 


Pueblo 


113 
41 


40 


Antioch 


Trinidad 


14 






Total 




Berkeley 


276 

92 

2,870 


422 


765 


RoT-orlrr TTillo 


CONNECTICUT 




Burbank 


189 
83 
24 
19 












58 


A-usonia 


18 
14 

293 
32 
15 
20 

215 
37 
29 
19 
41 
47 
30 
36 


83 










619 






El Centre 


19 
36 


Danbury 






74 
58 














81 
136 

65 

140 


Hartford 


662 








211 




30 
260 
104 

774 
763 






Glendale _. 


Middletown 


39 


Huntington Park 


New Britain 

Now Haven . . . 


197 


Inglewood 


74 


Kentfield 






La Verne - 


ioo 


Norwich 





NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6353 

Table 5. — Net enrollment in preemployment refresher and supplementary courses, 
by city and State, as of Mar. SI, 1941 — Continued 



State and city 


Preem- 
ploy- 
ment 

refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 

40 


State and city 


Preem- 
ploy- 
ment 
refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


CONNECTICUT— continued 




ILLINOIS 

Alton 


36 


116 


Roclcvme 


13 
36 
19 
39 
39 


Athens 


1 
24 






104 
57 
16 


Aurora 








^ aterbury 


Carterville 


136 

58 

2.781 

19 




Williniantic 


Champaign 


139 






Chicago 

Colchester 


817 


Total - -- 


992 


1,855 




Crystal Lake 


36 


DELAWARE 


11 




Danville 




33 




Dundee.- 




50 


Bridgeville 


East Moline 


10 

58 


116 


Camden . 


32 

77 


East St. Louis 

Elgin 


145 


Clayniont ... 




67 




36 
79 




17 

81 






114 










77 


Total 


126 


223 








Kankakee 


24 








17 


La Salle 








36 
26 
35 




Avon Park .. 


Lockport 


124 


Bushnell 


42 
342 
23 
21 
81.'; 
14 
43 
212 
69 
66 
12 
12 
61 

65 
64 
81 




30 




319 
42 
77 
359 
100 
46 
411 
12 
129 
219 






Daytona Beach 


Moline 


66 
30 


279 








Jacksonville 


Ottawa 


40 


Key West 


Peoria 


63 

11 

16 

84 


230 


Lakeland 






Miami 






Ocala 


Rock Island 


139 


Ocoee - 


Springfield 




Orlando 


Urbana 


145 


Perry 




92 
44 
29 


313 


Pcnsacola . 


425 
38 
22 
67 


West Frankfort 




St. Petersburg . 


Wood River 


243 










Total 






Wild wood 


3,853 


5,128 






INDIANA 


Total 


1,953 


2,283 














72 
54 

351 

127 
9 

304 
11 

210 
43 

184 
26 
79 
12 
27 
73 
19 
22 
18 

928 
29 




Albany . 


Anderson 




124 


Athens 






25 
12 




Atlanta... 


321 
44 


Bedford . 




A ugusta 


Bicknell 


12 






46 
18 






20 


Carlisle . ... 








136 










12 


Dublin 




Dugger . . 


55 
41 




East Point 


44 


East Chicago 


163 


Elberton 


Elkhart City 


67 


Fort Benning 




Elwood - ... 


11 

54 
95 
15 
22 
100 
403 
10 
42 




Fort Valley 




Evansville 


397 










Macon 


156 


Frankfort . . 


15 


Marietta 


Gary 


196 








208 








631 




64 










179 






La Favette 


85 


Total 


649 

24 
26 
74 
29 
144 
101 


2,598 


La Porte 




15 






12 
18 
13 
13 
13 
11 
34 
33 
21 
16 
12 












Boise 


Martinsville 




McCall 






122 


Moscow 




M ishawaka 


33 


Nampa 


46 


Monticello 








78 


Weiser . 




New Albany 


28 










Total 


398 


46 








Pleasantville 





5354 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Table 5. — Net enrollment in f reemployment refresher and supplementary conrseSf 
by city and State, as of Mar. 31, 1941 — Continued 



State and city 


Preem- 

ploy- 

ment 

refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


State and city 


Prcem- 

ploy- 

ment 

refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


INDIANA— continued 
Princeton 


12 
13 
29 
23 
55 
21 




MARYLAND 

Annapolis 


12 
562 




Richmond 


30 
318 


Baltimore 


1 689 
















South Bend 


Cumberland 

Elkton . 


71 


26 








13 
20 
53 




31 
272 
44 




Terre Haute 




Hagerstown 


96 










Vincennes 


24 
17 




548 


Whiting 


40 






322 








70 
12 


Total 


1,339 


3,256 


Westminster 


3 










84 




995 






MASSACHUSETTS 

Boston 






121 

84 
178 
38 

10 
78 
129 


105 
36 
53 
107 
121 










Davenport 


49 
135 


396 








DubuQue 


Brookline 




Fort Madi=on 




Cambridge 


48 








53 


Sioux City 


40 


East Boston 


135 






9 

io 

14 
29 
29 
36 
117 
31 






308 


724 








Fall River 






6S 
1, 166 


16 

253 




91 








Kansas City 


Greenfield 








58 




Holyoke 


127 


Total 


1,234 


269 


Hyde Park 


62 






12 

15 
48 

27 
55 
11 
83 
39 
28 
32 
79 
26 
50 
29 


79 


KENTUCKY 


108 

118 
15 

142 
76 
97 

103 


444 
280 


Leominster 


44 




Medford 


18 




New Bedford 


201 










91 
285 
420 






Paintsville 


Northampton - . - 






Pittsfield 


184 














Total 


659 


1,906 


Southbridge 






Springfield 


309 


LOUISIANA 




635 


Taunton 




Alexandria 


Waltham _._. 

Westfleld 


60 
138 




15 
66 


306 






Total - 




Camp Beauregard 


47 
94 


1,381 


2,309 




95 
19 
77 
37 
79 
136 
107 
63 
90 


MICHIGAN 

Battle Creek 




Hammond 


70 
45 
20 
97 
2,410 
13 

115 
93 

193 
56 
38 

110 
35 

149 
30 
28 
97 
69 
48 
18 
37 






23 






133 


Opelousas 




Bay City 


127 








Shreveport 


154 
18 


Dearborn 






4, 588 


Winnfield 


Ecorse - - 












Total 


784 


971 


Grand Rapids. 


131 




144 


MAINE 


38 

18 




Highland Park 


33 


Auburn 


Houghton 

Ironwood 










Bath 


18 
123 










150 


Portland 


35 
207 
10 
19 


Lansing 


103 






33 


Waterville 




Muskegon.— 

Negaunee - - . 


103 


Wcstbrook 












47 




327 


141 








River Ilouge 


134 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6355 



Table 5. 



-Net enrollment in preemployment refresher and supplementary courses, 
by city and State, as of Mar. 31, 1941 — Continued 



state and city 


Preem- 
ploy- 
ment 
refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


State and city 


Preem- 
ploy- 
ment 
refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


MICHIGAN— continued 


15 
15 
135 
27 
31 
9 
12 


42 


MONTANA 


28 
146 
70 


34 








Saginaw 


300 

29 
213 


Miles City 






Total 




Wayne 


244 


34 




NEBRASKA 




Ypsilanti 


28 
95 








Total 


4,015 


6,370 


Omaha 






Total 




MINNESOTA 


39 
25 


38 


123 







NEVADA 

Carlin 












46 
116 

33 

10 


37 


Duluth 


78 
12 
10 
10 
52 
24 
30 


Elko 




21 






10 


99 


Faribault 


Sparks 


34 








123 




Total ._.- 








10 
14 
48 

315 
23 
24 

146 
32 

383 
14 


10 


314 




NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Berlin . 






12 
15 
29 
28 
11 






136 
16 






35 






34 










St Cloud 


40 
16 
11 
95 


Dover - - - . 


86 


St. Paul 


Franklin 


13 






41 




Laconia 


52 
11 
14 
59 






15 
12 








20 












Total 


614 


1,279 




224 






13 






28 
32 
59 




Total - - - 




A Icorn 


244 


433 






NEW JERSEY 

Atlantic City 




Clarksdale 




24 
175 
13 
126 
20 
141 
113 
78 
320 
42 
25 
26 
151 
55 
47 
50 
70 
12 






19 




Greenville 


60 
36 
112 
176 
75 
14 
16 
54 
55 
31 
52 




Gulfport 


36 
651 
34 
30 


Bayonne - 


205 


Hattiesburg 


Belleville 


24 






668 










Elizabeth 


188 








385 




121 
10 


Jersey City 


118 






1,070 








Vicksburg 


11 








p "^jp 




Total 


800 


912 


Paterson 


401 










19 
11 
13 
11 
10 










Trenton 


50 


Cape Girardeau 


West Orange 








Woodbridge 








Total 








1,488 


3,634 






NEW MEXICO 






47 


30 




Jefferson City 


46 
67 
340 




Joplin 

Kansas City 


103 


57 


Clayton 


48 


Maplewood 


18 


Clovis 




42 




16 
1.34 

32 
110 
209 

32 


Hobbs 




10 


North Kansas City 

St. Charles 




I/as Vegas 


16 


57 


86 
111 

588 




60 


St. Joseph 


State College 


86 


91 


St. Louis 


Total -- 




132 


365 






NEW YORK 

Albany 

Alfred 








49 
32 




Total 


1,116 


953 


307 




282 



6356 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 5. — Net enrollment in -preemployment refresher and supplementary cotirses, 
by city and State, as of Mar. SI, ^9^/— Continued 



state and city 


Pieem- 
Ploy- 
nient 

refresher 


Sur^ple- 
mentary 


State and city 


Preem- 

ploy- 

ment 

refreshrr 


Supple- 
mentary 


NEW YORK— continued 


42 
240 
60 
24 
25 
98 


180 
356 


NEW YORK— continued 


36 
263 








266 


Baldwin 

Barker 


Total 

NOHTH CAEOI.INA 

Canton .. 




127 
40 
114 

78 

554 

625 

2, 661 

5,146 


12,023 


22, 529 


Batavia 




19 

8 




Beacon 




Bellmore 


57 
65 
44£ 
1,345 
1, 9/4 
92 






Charlotte 









63 


Brooklyn 

Buffalo 


Oastonia 

Ooldsboro 


24 


12 
43 


College Park 


Fayette ville 

Greensboro 

High Point 


22 
51 
58 
10 
85 

n 

38 
36 


12 


Cortland 


71 
105 
141 
107 
140 
347 












97 






East Rochester 


Raleigh 


14 


Elmhurst 


94 
88 
178 
255 
IG 
217 


Salisbury 


11 


Elmira 


Wilmington . 


60 


EIrr.ira Heights 


Winston-Salem 


12 






Total 




Frankfort 


42 


362 


227 




NORTH DAKOTA 

Ellendale . - 






97 


19 
7 
12 




Olens Falls 


156 
18 
82 
19 




Hastings-on-the-Hudson 

Hempstead 


21 




Mandan 






15 

58 


Valley City.- 






Total 




Homell 


37 
80 
31 
17 
23 
41 


38 









OHIO 

Akron 




Ilion 


74 
78 
99 

495 
47 

640 


133 
25 
13 
17 




Ithaca 


53 




Ashland 














37 








9 




149 




23 
48 
151 
619 
18 
597 
42 
58 
13 
53 
30 
28 






152 
398 




"14 


Long Island City 

Lynbrook 


174 
89 




84 


Cincinnati . . 






30 
64 

72 
2,588 
602 
182 
85 
37 


Circleville 








Cleveland 




Mount V'ernon 


71 

42 

1.417 

25 


Columbus - - 




New Rochelle 






New York City 


Defiance 




Niagara Falls 


Delaware 


10 








Norwich 




Elvria 


65 


Nyack 


38 
53 
38 


Findlay . . 


49 






16 


17 


Olean "" 


105 
16 
182 




44 


Oneonta 


Iron ton 


58 
32 
37 


77 




16 
74 
48 
126 
30 
19 
50 
1,906 
83 
35 
28 






Oyster Bay 


Lancaster 




Pearl River 


79 


Lima . . . 


30 






39 

21 
126 
11 
42 
16 
36 
75 
43 
-52 
P9 
80 
11 
S9 
35 
23 
352 
14 




Port Chester 


123 


Lorain. 


123 


Potsdam 


Mansfield .. 


62 




67 
792 
276 






Rochester 


Massillon 


34 


Rome 


Middletown . . 










Saranac Lake 




Nnpoleon 




Scotia 


169 
295 


Nelsor ville... 








Newark 


239 


Spring Valley 


22 

4 

196 

569 

30 
294 

52 

30 






Staten Island 


20 

304 

1,267 

1,014 

14 


Portsmouth 








61 














Utica 


Svlvania .. 


12 




Toledo... 


179 




149 
41 
70 


Van Wert 


36 


Watervliet 


Wadsworth 


16 


White Plains 


19 


Washington O. H 


5 





NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6357 

Table 5 — Net enrollment in preemployment refresher and supplementary courses^ 
by city and State, as of Mar. 31, i 9-^1— Continued 



State and city 


Preem- 

plOV- 

ment 
refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


State and city 


Preem- 

ploy 

ment 

refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


OHIO— continued 


24 

9 

246 

54 




PENNSYLVANIA— continued 
Erie 


230 

30 
5 


238- 






Forty Pert 






84 
63 


GirardviUe 






Hanover 


98 






35 
88 
18 
40 
15 
16 
28 
19 
54 
66 




Total 


3,493 
33 


1.388 

66 
43 
19 
18 
20 
46 
20 






Her'^hev 


658- 






102 








BartlesvUle 












Broken Bow 


45 






Cache - 


Lancaster.. 


34 


Collinsville 


16 




Dnimright 




20 


Enid 








41 


Guthrie 


15 
14 




68 




Jay 


.. 




59 




46 




75 
96 
65 
29 
37 
13 
67 
14 






14 
18 
14 
44 
29 




462 


Muskogee 


76 












Oklahoma City -- . 


74 

78 
42 

77 


Monessen.. 




Ponca City -- 








18 


Shawnee 






26 


Stillwater 


149 
74 


Oakdile 


12 


Tulsa 


241 






34 






2,349 
10 
845 
18 
17 
34 
110 
11 


4,956 


Total... 


465 


866 


Phoenix ville 


OREGON 


152 
10 
15 
25 
282 
13 
23 
57 
16 
37 
154 
159 
664 
148 
23 




Pittshursfh 


397 


Astoria 




81 


Baker 
















Chemawa 






32 




133 




25 


Grants Pass 


Kan in 


191 
60 
33 
30 
16 
16 
14 
15 
64 
95 
13 


63 


JohnDay. 




Kiaam., 




La Grande 


23 






Medford 






Ontario 








Oregon City 


51 






Pendleton 




33 


Portland 


662 

48 






Salem 






The Dalles 


Trevorton .-- 




Total 


1.778 


917 


Turtle Creek 

Tvrone 


9i 

55 


PENNSYLVANIA 


120 
137 
32 
32 
31 
12 
35 
30 
92 
12 




Wilkes-Barre.. 


29 
347 
16 

35 
M 
43 

6. 651 


419 










317 


Woodlyn 


39 




York - 


96 


Andreas 




New Cnstle 


Z2 


Arnold 


16 


Total .- 





Ashland 


9, 138 


Beaver Foils 




RHODE ISLAND 

Newport 




Beavertown 






Bethlehem 

Bloomsburg 


155 


46. 


Braddock. 

Bristol . 


iT 

17 
21 
15 
51 
60 
45 
63 
61 
32 
67 


51 
209 


SOUTH CAROUNA 


22 
61 
10 
52 
71 
15 
9 




Carlisle 


28 




35 




196 










129 


Clemson 








62 
















12 






Moultrieville 


6fr 




30 
73 


Greenville 


54 
22 


46. 


East Stroudsburg 


Orangeburg 





6358 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 5. — Net enrollment in preemployment refresher and supplementary courses, 
by city and State, as of Mar. 31, 1941 — Continued 



State and city 


Preem- 
ploy- 
ment 

refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


State and city 


Preem- 
ploy- 
ment 

refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


SOUTH CAROLINA— con. 




9 


VEKMONT 

Chittenden 




10 








21 
12 




Total 


316 


409 


St. Johnsbury . . . 


36 






152 




42 

56 

^ 

112 




Total 








33 


228 


. . J 


VIRGIXIA 












Vermilion 










189 


Total 


Bristol 


111 
52 
44 
24 
21 


185 






Danville 


99 






459 
16 


Ettrick 


89 






415 




Lynchburg .- 


170 




156 
20 

196 




966 


Cookeville 


Norfolk 


67 


436 






Portsmouth . - . . _ 


672 






Radford 




175 




21 
47 
104 
38 


Richmond 


92 
136 


279 


Memphis 

Nashville 


235 
299 


84 


Schoolfield 


31 


Tullahoma 


Suffolk .._ - . 




86 


Whitehaven 


466 


Waynesboro 


41 








Total 




Total 


1,430 


685 


588 


3.876 




WASHINGTON 

Bellingham - . . 




TEXAS 

Amarillo 

Arlington 


59 
152 
80 


86 


35 


21 






1,010 


Big Sprins; 


92 
20 
115 
25 
376 
204 
127 


Kirkland .- . 




211 




20 
112 
587 

24 
256 




26 
186 
41 
74 
97 
92 








788 








El Paso 




190 






339 


Galveston 


Vancouver 


62 




211 
93 
26 


Total --- 




Kilgore 


150 
26 
24 
54 
13 
71 
56 
47 
73 

252 


551 


2,621 


Lamesa.... 

Laredo 


WEST VIRGINIA 

Belle 




25 
30 
195 
153 
54 
51 
19 
109 
156 
162 
29 




Marfa 






Marshall 




Benwood 


91 








325 


Odessa 




Huntington -- - . 


217 


Orange 




Institute 




Pampa 




Martinsburg 

Montgomery - ... 


33 


San Antonio 


112 
80 
22 
25 

1,859 




Tyler 






Waco 






74 


Wichita Falls 




Wheeling 


45 






66 


Total 


1,811 








983 






29 


12 
63 

19 
122 
212 
13 
86 
9 


WISCONSIN 

Antigo 

^ppleton 






101 

35 
22 
36 
95 
24 
68 

130 
13 

132 
41 
47 
29 
86 

100 
66 
17 
29 




Copperton 






31 


Ashland 

Beaver Dam 

Beloit 


21 


Lehi 




Logan 


174 






15 


Murray 




Cudahy 

Eau Claire 




Oi'den 


151 

51 
21 
255 
45 
10 
31 


7 






108 


Price 


Fort Atkinson 




Provo 


35 
302 
39 






Janesville 


16 


Sandy 


Kaukauna 


32 


Spani'^h Fork 








13 
139 






Tooele 












17 


Total 


805 


1,086 








Marshfield" 


U 



NATION.YL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6359 



Table 5. — Net enrollment in ^reemployment refresher and supplementary courses, 
by city and State, as of Mar. 31, 1941 — Continued 



State and city 


Preem- 
ploy- 
ment 

refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


State and city 


Preem- 
ploy- 
ment 

refresher 


Supple- 
mentary 


WISCONSIN— continued 


5 
24 
13 

301 
8 
24 
23 
93 
43 
49 
23 
27 
43 

169 
16 
14 
46 
76 

247 
22 
76 




WYOMING— continued 




38 


Menomonie 




Rock Springs 




29 


Merrill 




Sheridan 


30 


12 




681 

7 


48 


Neenah 


Yoder 


15 




Total 










236 


998 




115 
14 


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Washineton 




Rhinelander 


301 




South Milwaukee 


564 






HAWAII 

Honolulu 




Stevens Point 


115 
115 

'""28 


17 






140 






12 


Watertown 


Pearl Harbor 




712 


Waukesha 


Total 

PUERTO RICO 

Arecibo 

Caguas 

G uay ama 






17 


864 




41 
17 






22 
59 
39 
62 
43 
46 
76 










58 


Total 


2,435 


1,360 










WYOMING 


45 


686 

35 

67 
54 
14 


Ponce 


56 
45 


Cheyenne 


Santurce - . _ . 


245 




19 


Vesa Baja 


53 








3,123 




12 
81 


Total. 








347 


3,580 


T ithtIo 


United States total 




Lusk 




66, 028 


109, 097 











Statement by United States Office of Education, 
Agency, Washington, D. C. 



Federal Security 



report for month ending APRIL 30, 1941 BY ENGINEERING DEFENSE TRAINING 

The current status of the engineering defense training program is clearly indi- 
cated by the attached tables: 

Table 1: Summary of Status of program on April 30, 1941, as compared with 
March 29, 1941. This shows net increments of three institutions, 318 approved 
proposals, 17,967 students, and $1,307,634 in allotments. 

Table 2: Authorized enrollment in engineering defense training courses on 
April 30, 1941 (by classification of course and type of authorization). Mechanical 
and industrial engineering are, as might be expected, among the fields leading in 
enrollment. 

Table 3: Summary of engineering defense training program on April 30, 1941 
(by States). While engineering defense training courses are being given in nearly 
all of the States, the larger enrollments are in the States which are highly indus- 
trialized. 

Table 4: Authorized enrollment in engineering defense training courses on 
April 30, 1941 (by States, institutions, and type of authorization). In this tabu- 
lation is given the approved enrollment at each participating institution. 

Table 5: Monthly summary of disbursements to engineering schools through 
April 30, 1941 (by States). This table shows the monthly rate at which engineering 
defense training funds have flowed to the various States. 

Table 6: Allotment of funds through April 30, 1941 (by States, institutions, and 
type of allotment). Disbursements and encumbrances of engineering defense 
training funds to each of the participating institutions is shown. 

In most of these tables a distinction is made between figures derived from pre- 
liminary authorizations and those from final authorizations. A preliminary author- 
ization "must be procured before instruction in a course can be started , for this 
reason enrollment and cost figures, although held within definite limitations, are 



5360 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

subject to later revision. This revision is made in the final authorization, which 
is based upon not less than 2 weeks of class experience. Since a final authoriza- 
tion automatically cancels the preliminary authorization for the course in question, 
there is no duplication in the two categories. 

The engineering defense training program is now operating in 46 States, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

R. A. Seaton, 
Director, Engineering Defense Training. 

Table 1. — Summary of status of program on Apr. SO, 1941, as compared with Mar. 
29, 1941, of engineering defense training 



Item 


Mar. 29 


Apr. 30 


Number of institutions with approved proposals for courses 

Number of approved proposals for courses 


133 
1,093 


136 
1,411 


Allotment of funds- 


$2, 551, 461 
2, 509, 408 


$3, 378, 479 
2, 989, 754 


Encumbrances 




Total 


5, 060, 869 


6, 368, 503 






Authorized student enrollment: 
Final authorization 


35, 498 
42, 064 


50, 608 




44,921 






Total 


77, 562 


95 529 







Table 2.— Authorized enrollment in engineering defense training courses on Apr. SO 

1941 
[By classification of course and type of authorization! 



C!ourse classification 


Final au- 
thorization 


Prelimi- 
nary au- 
thorization 


Total au- 
thorized en- 
rollment 


Aeronautical engineering: 

Fundamentals 

Aircraft (complete planes) 


652 

343 

1,992 

1,598 


470 

870 

714 

1,685 


1,122 
1 213 




2,706 


Other 


3,283 






Total 


4,585 


3,739 


8,324 






Architectural engineering 


148 





148 






Basic sciences: 
Mathematics 


682 



174 
310 


856 


Other 


310 






Total - 


682 


484 


1,166 






Chemical engineering: 
Inspection and testing 


353 
519 
411 
412 


215 

1,235 

95 

712 


56S 




1,754 


Production 


506 


Other 


1,124 






Total . . 


1,695 


2,257 


3.952 






Civil engineering: 


276 

1,164 
850 
758 


248 

765 
665 
476 


524 


Structures 


1,929 




1,515 


Other 


1,234 






Total 


3,048 


2,154 


5 202 






Electrical engineering: 
Fundamentals 


504 
800 
550 


375 

461 
510 
598 


879 




1,261 




1,060 


Other 


1,458 






Total — — 


2,714 


1,944 


4,658 







NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6361 



Table 2. — Authorized enrollment in engineering defense training courses on Apr. 30, 
1941— Continued 



Course classification 


Final au- 
thorization 


Prelimi- 
nary au- 
thorization 


Total au- 
thorized en- 
rollment 


General engineering: 


400 

11, 193 

192 


4,375 

3,127 

275 


4,775 


Engineer drawing and design geometry 


14,320 


Other 


467 






Total --- 


11,785 


7,777 


19, 562 


Industrial engineering: 


911 

5,567 

3,824 

716 


570 
3,473 
3,325 

525 


1,481 




9,040 


Production supervision - 


7,149 




1,241 






Total.- .— 


11,018 


7,893 


18, 911 


Marine engineering and naval architecture: 

Hulls 


1,438 
333 
183 


320 
230 
645 


1,758 




563 


Other 


828 






Total 


1,954 


1,195 


3,149 


Mechanical engineering: 


1.016 

3,462 

249 

3,076 

1,686 

273 

501 


655 
3,231 

635 
2,483 
3,025 

352 

491 


1,671 




6,693 




884 




5.559 


Tools and dies 


4,711 




625 




992 






Total 


10, 263 


10, 872 


21, 135 


Metallurgical engineering: 

Metallurgy and metallography 


1,746 
365 
423 


3,067 

125 

2,914 


4,813 




490 


Other - - 


3,337 






Total — - - 


2,534 


6,106 


8,640 


Mining engineering - --- 


95 




95 


Unclassified 


87 


500 


587 








50,608 


44,921 


95,529 







Table 3. — Summary of engineering defense training program on Apr. SO, 1941] 

[By States] 



State 


Number of 

institu- 
tions offer- 
ing engi- 
neering de- 
fense train- 
ing 


Authorized 
student en- 
rollment 


Total 
funds al- 
lotted 


Alabama 


2 

1 

5 
4 
2 
1 
1 
1 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
4 
1 
2 


3,900 
18 
41 
5,755 
1.380 
3,881 

468 
1,509 

200 
4,863 
6,704 

1,229 
548 
295 
659 

1,755 


$169, 538 




2, 131 




1,450 


California 


254, 762 




85, 338 




147, 361 




18,533 


Florida 


152. 697 




16,816 


Illinois - 


152. 654 




224.600 




20. 741 




82, 181 




25, 044 




21,551 




18, 878 


Maryland-.- --- 


98,188 



5362 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Table 3. — Summary of engineering defense training program on Apr. 30, 1941 — 

Continued 



State 


Number of 

institu- 
tions offer- 
ing engi- 
neering de- 
fense train- 
ing 


Authorized 
student en- 
rollment 


Total 
funds al- 
lotted 




6 

7 

1 
2 

1 

4 
2 

3 
1 
9 
3 

11 
2 
4 
1 
3 
6 
2 
2 
3 
3 
1 
2 
1 
3 
1 


1,731 

'547 

12s 

988 

155 

34 

203 

1,951 

135 

5,820 

725 

131 

5,291 

1,507 

45 

30, 382 

408 

530 

702 
1, 487 

268 

80 

1.306 

916 

1,784 

84 

140 
1,789 

139 


$135, 422 


Michisan 


103 205 




79, 490 


Mississii)pi 


20, 390 




71 100 




9, 172 


Nevada 


781 




9,810 


New Jersev 


205, 493 






New York 


442, 139 


North Carolina 


103, 213 




20, 807 


Ohio - . - - - - - 


285, 829 


Olclahoma 


57, 373 




2,096 


Pennsylvania 


2, 737, 673 


Rhode Island 


16, 977 




40, 601 


South Dakota 


2:438 




29, 194 


Texas 


195, 319 


Utah 


25, 790 




5, 556 


Virginia 


69, 386 




24. 486 


West Vircinia 


72, 324 




7,419 


Wyoming 


9,280 


District of Columbia 


67, 149 










Total 


136 


95, 529 


6 368 503 







Table 4. — Authorized enrollment in engineering defense training courses on Apr. 30, 

1941 
[By States, institutions, and type of authorization] 



Authorized student enrollment (Mar. 29): 

Final authorization 35,498 

Preliminary authorization 42, 064 

Total 77,562 



Authorized student enrollment (Apr. 30): 

Final authorization 60,608 

Preliminary authorization 44, 921 

Total. 95,529 



Institution 


Final au- 
thorization 


Prelimi- 
nary au- 
thorization 


Total au- 
thorized en- 
rollment 


Alabama- 
Alabama Polytechnic In'^titute 


539 


1,140 
2,221 


1,679 




2,221 








State total 


539 


3,361 


3,900 






Arizona: University of Arizona 


18 




18 






State total . 


18 




18 






Arkansas: University of Arkansas 


41 




41 






State total 


41 




41 






California: 


56 

409 
285 


3,505 
40 


4,200 


University of Santa Clara 


96 


Stanford Universitv 


93 




3^2 
330 


751 


University of Southern California 


615 






State total 


1,538 


4,217 


5.755 







NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6363 



Table 4. — Authorized enrollment in engineering defense training courses on Apr. 30, 
1941 — Continued 



Institution 


Final au- 
thorization 


Prelimi- 
nary au- 
thorization 


Total au- 
thorized en- 
rollment 


Colorado: 


189 
43 
446 

173 


175' 
219 
105 


189 


Colorado State College of Aericulture and Mechanic Arts 

University of Colorado 


218 
695 




278 






State total 


851 


529 


1,380 






Connecticut: 

University of Connecticut 


1,197 
1,094 


510 
1,080 


1,707 




2,174 






State total 


2,291 


1,590 


3,881 








448 


20 


468 








448 


20 


468 






Florida' University of Florida 


499 


1,010 


1,509 






State total 


499 


1,010 


1,509 








116 


84 


200 






State total 


116 


84 


200 






niinois: 

Bradley Polytechnic Institute 


157 
1,357 


55 
3,149 

145 


212 




4,506 


Northwestern University 


145 










1,514 


3,349 


4,833 






Indiana: 


261 
954 
475 




261 


Purdue University 


4,994 
20 


5,948 


Rose Polytechnic Institute— 


495 


State total 


1,690 


5,014 


6,704 






Iowa: 

Iowa State College 


146 
437 


75 
30 


221 




467 






State total 


583 


105 


688 






Kansas: 

Kansas State College 


101 
198 


430 
500 


531 




698 






State total- 


299 


930 


1.229 


Kentucky: 

University of Kentucky 


143 
345 


10 
50 


153 




395 






State total 


488 


60 


548 






Louisiana: 

Louisiana Polytechnic Institute 


11 
68 
16 
170 


30 


41 




68 






16 


Tulane University 




170 








State total 


265 


30 


295 






Maine: University of Maine 


544 


15 


559 








544 


15 


559 






Maryland: 


595 
628 


82 
450 


677 


University of Maryland - 


1,078 






State total...- 


1,223 


532 


1,755 






Massachusetts: 

Harvard University 


25 
447 
339 




25 




265 
30 


712 


Northeastern University. 


369 



0364 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Table 4. — Authorized enrollment in engineering defense training courses on Apr. SO, 
1941 — Continued 



Institution 


Final au- 
thorization 


Prelimi- 
nary au- 
thorization 


Total au- 
thorized en- 
rollment 


Massachusetts— Continued. 


336 

77 
42 


170 


506 


Worcester Polytechnic Institute 


77 


Massachusetts State College 




42 








State total 


1.266 


465 


1 731 






Michigan: 

Lawrence Institute of Technology 




285 


285 


Detroit Institute of Technology 


44 


44 




2S7 
156 
139 
35 
25 


287 


Michigan State College 




156 




380 
861 
74 


519 


Wayne University 


896 


Michigan College of Mining and Technology 


99 






State total 


1.359 


927 


2,286 








272 


275 


547 






State total 


272 


275 


547 






Mississippi' Mississippi State College 


48 


80 


128 








48 


80 


128 






Missouri: 


61 
771 




61 


Washington University 


156 


927 








832 


156 


938 






Nebraska" University of Nebraska 


155 




155 






State total 


155 




155 










34 





34 






State total 


34 




34 






New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire.. 


108 


95 


203 




108 


95 








New Jersey: 


489 


480 
50 
20 

300 


969 






Rutgers University 


399 
213 


419 




513 






State total 


3,101 


850 


1,951 




New Mexico: 

New Mexico State College 


25 

47 


63" 


25 




110 






Sta*^e total 


72 


63 


135 






New York: 

Cornell University 


1,191 
313 

198 
709 


120 


1,311 
313 






345 




Union College 


709 




80 
28 
286 


80 


College of the City or New York - 


261 


289 


Columbia University 


286 




691 
169 
362 


369 


New York University 


698 


1,389 


Pratt Institute 


169 






362 








State total 


4,263 


1,557 


5 820 






North Carolina: 

Agricultural and Technical College . 


12 

27 
437 




12 




60 
189 


87 




626 






State total 


476 


249 


725 







NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6365 



Table 4 — Authorized enrollment in engineering defense training courses on Apr. SO, 
1941— Conthmed 



Institution 


Final au- 
thorization 


Prelimi- Total au- 
nary au- thorized en- 
thorization rollment 




78 


53 


131 






State total 


78 


53 


131 


Ohio: 


441 
749 
360 
322 
610 
760 
125 
315 
301 


47 
480 
24 


488 




1,229 




384 




322 


Ohio State University 


247 
165 


857 


TTnivorsitv nf Tolwio - - 


925 




125 




70 
275 


385 




576 






State total 


3,983 


1,308 


5.291 




47 
86 
169 


165 
1,040 


212 


University of Oklahoma 


1,126 


University of Tulsa 


169 








State total 


302 


1,205 


1,507 






Oregon: Oregon State Collece 




45 


45 


State total 




45 


45 


Pennsylvania: _ .„ ^ , 


2,441 
235 
273 

1,993 
618 
355 
142 

1,565 
46 

7,097 

1,975 


840 


3,281 




235 


Lehieh University 


30 

1,575 
180 


303 




3, 568 




798 


Villanova College 


355 


■Rnnlrnoll TTnivorsifv 




142 


Carnegie Institute of Technology 


25 


1,590 




46 




10, 992 


18, 089 




1,975 








State total 


16, 740 


13,642 


30, .382 


Rhode Island- 


156 
147 


105 


261 




147 








State total 


303 


105 


408 


South Carolina: 
The Citadel 


190 
43 
167 


80 


270 




43 






167 


State Acrricultural and Mechanical College 


50 


50 


State total 


400 


130 


530 




8 


30 


TI 






State total 


8 


30 


38 


Tennessee: 




35 
25 
70 


35 




397 
175 


422 




245 






State total ..- 


572 


130 


702 


Texas: 

Aericultural and Mechanical College of Texas 


101 
286 
36 
9 
48 
16 


465 
24 
70 
40 

392 


566 




310 


Texas College of Arts and Industries 


106 




49 




440 


Collcc of Mines and Metallurgy 


16 






State total 


1 «e 


991 


1. 487 



6366 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 4:.— Authorized enrollment in engineering defense training courses on Apr. 30, 
1941 — Continued 



Institution 


Final au- 
thorization 


Prelimi- 
nary au- 
thorization 


Total au- 
thorized en- 
rollment 


Utah: 

Utah State Agricultural College 


43 
225 




43 


University of Utah 




225 










268 












Vermont- 


60 
20 






University of Vermont 




20 








State total. 


80 












Virginia; 

Virginia Military Institute 


84 
607 
500 


90 

25 




Virginia Polytechnic Institute 


632 


University of Virginia. _. . 


500 








State total 


1,191 


115 


1 306 






Washington: 

Gonzaga University 


21 
25 
825 




21 


State College of Washington 




25 




45 








State total 


871 


45 


916 






West Virginia: West Virginia University 


1,750 


25 


1 784 








1,759 


25 








Wisconsin: 


59 






University of Wisconsin 


25 


25 










59 


25 










16 


130 








State total 


16 


130 


146 






District of Columbia: 

Catholic University of America 




1,020 
190 


99 




362 
118 


1,382 


Howard University 


308 






Total 


480 


1,309 


1,789 






Puerto Rico: University of Puerto Rico 


69 


70 


139 






Total . 


69 


70 








Grand total ' _. 


50, 608 


44, 921 


95,529 





Table 5. — Monthly summary of disbursements for engineering defense training to 
engineering schools through Apr. SO, 1941 

[By States] 



States 


December 


January 


February 


March 


iVpril 


Total 


Alabama . 










$29, 653 
2,131 


$29 653 


Arizona 










2 131 








$1,450 
6,200 
8,404 






California... 


$3, 800 
1,200 
1,600 




$37, 654 
38, 787 
55, 531 

12, 264 

13, 050 
3,308 


63, 837 
9,388 
46, 054 


111 491 






57, 779 




Delaware.- .. 




1,662 

8,852 

500 


13 926 


Florida 






31, 660 
2,529 


53 562 




1,800 






Idaho 






Illinois . 


2,000 
1,500 
1,700 






68, 157 
36, 393 
13, 996 
5,891 
1,704 
15, 751 




70 157 


Indiana 




15, 841 

2, 273 

130 

5,768 


16, 918 
5,947 
16, 157 

4! 010 


70, 652 




Kansas 




22 178 


Kentucky 


1,700 




18 858 


Louisiana 


19. 761 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 5367 

Table 5. — Monthly summary of disbursements for engineering defense training to 
engineering schools through Apr. 30, 1941 — Continued 



States 


December 


January 


February 


March 


April 


Total 


Maine 








$2, 524 
12, 577 
40, 488 
6,502 
14, 172 


$15, 149 
14, 862 
35, 060 
12.744 
21, 133 


$17, 673 
72, 383 
95 735 




"$i, 200 
2,000 
1,800 




$43, 744 
18, 187 
17, 303 






Michigan 




38, 349 
35 305 


Minnesota 




Missis'^ippi 






8, 5fil 


8,561 




1,900 




24, 603 


34. 352 










Nebraslia 








3,025 

781 

1.905 

36, 789 

7, 395 

259, 767 

4,227 

2,751 

131, 989 

1,070 

95 

1,111,843 


6.147 


9,172 
781 


Nevada 








New HaTTip'sbirp 








2,322 
4,318 

i6,"8li" 
30,523 

3. 459 
71,627 

3,022 


4.227 




1,500 




77, 692 


New Mexico 




7 395 


New York 


3,400 
1,800 




7,125 
35,828 
5,617 
2,064 
9,891 


287 103 






72. 378 






Ohio 


1,800 




207, 480 

13. 984 

95 






Oregon 








3,600 




74, 278 
5,275 

10, 790 
883 

14. 500 
6, 968 

23. 940 
1,911 

20, 737 


174, 804 
3.557 
7.346 


1 364 525 






8,832 
34,548 


South Carolina 






16, 412 














2,728 
31,329 

1,850 

3,645 
31, 586 
13, 456 
10, 157 

3,162 


3,939 
12, 569 




Texas 


2,100 




52 966 


Utah 






Vermont 








5 556 


Virginia 






12,851 
8,296 


65 178 




2.000 






West Virginia 




58, 817 


68 974 


















1,650 
7,276 






Pi^trict of rinlnmhia 






20,074 




27 350 


Alaska 










Hawaii 














Puerto Rico 










3,978 


3.978 


Philippines 
























Total 


38, 400 




504, 117 


2, 099, 388 


736, 844 


3. 378, 749 







Table 6. — Allotment of funds for engineering defense training throuah Apr. SO, 

1941 

[By States, institutions, and type of allotment] 



Institution 


Disburse- 
ments 


Encum- 
brances 


Total allot- 
ment 


Alabama: 

Alabama Polytechnic Institute 


$29,653 


$58, 321 
81,564 


$87 974 












State total 


29,653 


139,885 


169 538 








2,131 














1,450 












California: 


55,441 

24! 832 
4,845 
21. 404 


40, 195 








University of California 


73,840 
2,656 
26,580 


98 672 






University of Southern California 


47 984 








111,491 


143, 271 








Colorado: 

Colorado School of Mines 


14. 535 
5,000 
27, 846 
10, 398 




14 535 




14, 040 
10, 100 
3,419 




University of Colorado 


37 946 










State total 


57, 779 


27, 559 


85 338 







60396 — 41— pt. 1€ 



6368 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table d.— Allot me nt of funds for engineering defense training through Apr. 30^ 
1941 — Continued 



Institution 


Disburse- 
ments 


Encum- 
brances 


Total allot- 
ment 


Connecticut: 

University of Connecticut 


$61. 166 
42,019 


$18,893 
25, 283 


$80 05*^ 




67, 302 




State total 


103, 185 


44, 176 


147 361 








13, 926 


4,607 


18, 533 




Florida" University of Florida 


53, 562 


99,135 


152. 697 




Georgia: Georgia School of Technology 


8,137 


8,679 


16 816 






niinois: 

Bradley Polytechnic Institute 


5,004 
65, 153 


1, 425 

77, 432 
3,640 


6 429 




142, .585 
3,640 


Northwestern University 








70, 157 


82, 497 


152, 654 




Indiana: 


6. 929 
48, 786 
14, 937 




6,929 
202, 734 
14, 937 


Purdue University 


153, 948 










70, 652 


153,948 


224, 600 




Iowa: 

Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanics 


S,220 
15, 696 


1,940 
885 


10, 160 
16,581 






State total 


23, 916 


2, 825 


26.741 




Kansas: 

Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science__ 


12,963 
9, 215 


41. 363 
18,640 


54. 326 






State total 


22. 178 


60,003 


82. 181 




Kentucky. 

University of Kentucky 


3,452 
15,400 


5.000 
1,186 


8,452 








State total.-.. ..- 


1,858 


6,186 


25,044 




Louisiana: 

Louisiana Polytechnic Institute 


1,658 
4,394 

12! 013 


1,790 


3,448 






















State total 


19, 761 


1,790 


21 551 








17, 673 


1,205 


18,878 




Maryland: 


25, 221 
47,162 


y, 873 
15,932 


35,094 
63,094 


University of Maryland ' 






72, 383 


25,805 


98,188 




Massachusetts: 

Harvard University . 


3,625 
51, 443 
15, 725 
21,830 

2.462 
650 




3,625 
81 835 


Massachusetts Institute of Technology 


30, 392 
1,950 
7.345 




17, 675 


Tufts College 


Worcester Polytechnic Institute 




Massachusetts State College 












State total 


95. 735 


39, 687 


135, 422 




Michigan: 

Lawrence Institute of Technology 




6,763 


6,763. 

2,154 
17,945 
13, 523 
31 261 


Detroit Institute of Technology 


2,154 


University of Detroit 


17,945 
11, 723 
24,628 
1,395 
2,402 


Michigan State College of Agriculture and Arts 


1,800 
6,633 
22, 794 


University of Michigan 


Wayne University 




Michigan College of Mining and Technology 


7*370 






State total. 


38, 349 


64,856 


103,205. 





NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6369 



Table 6. — Allotment of funds for engineering defense training through Apr. 30, 
1941 — Continued 



Institution 


Disburse- 
ments 


Encum- 
brances 


Total allot- 
ment 




$35. 305 


$44,185 


$79, 490 






8, 561 


11, 829 


20, 390 




Missouri: 


7,887 
52, 968 




7,887 
63,213 


Washington University . . . - . 


10, 245 






60, 855 


10, 245 


71,100 






Nebraska' University of Nebraska 


9.172 




9 172 











781 














4,227 


5, 583 








New Jersey: 


58, 352 


34, 644 

4, 039 

760 

15, 750 


92, 996 
4, 039 






24,388 
37, 560 




83. 310 






120, 300 


85, 193 


205, 493 




New Mexico: 

New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanics 


2,655 
4,740 




2,655 

10, 785 


University of New Mexico 


6,045 






7,395 


6.045 


13,440 




New York: 


37, 097 
m. 119 

6,555 

38, 380 


16, 605 




Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 


30, 119 




9, 258 


Union College 


38, 380 




12,611 
1,933 
33, 772 




17,625 
1,500 

21,012 

31. 939 
8,130 

94, 746 


19, 558 
35 272 


Columbia University 






New York Universitv 


41, 964 


73, 903 




Defense Training Institute 


38, 893 


133 639 








287, 103 


155, 036 


442, 139 




North Carolina: 

Agricultural and Technical College of North Carolina 


1,805 
1,875 

68, 098 




1 805 


Duke University 


6,340 
24, 495 


8,215 
93 1Q3 


North Carolina State College 






State total 


72, 378 


30.835 


103, 213 




North Dakota: University of North Dakota 


11,827 


8,980 


20 807 






Ohio: 


3,935 
48,040 
33, 513 
22, 269 
32, 785 
42, 961 
2,410 
6,875 
14, 692 


2,068 
38, 975 
2,073 


6,003 
87, 015 
35, 580 


Case School of Applied Science 




Ohio Northern ITniversity 


Ohio State University 


14,388 
4,818 


47, 173 




Antioch College 


2,410 




1,357 
14, 670 












207. 480 


78, 349 


285,829 




Oklahoma: 


3, 587 
5, 835 
4,562 


16, 410 
26, 979 


19, 997 
:32, 814 
4 562 




University of Tulsa 








State total 


13, 984 


43, 389 


57, 373 


Oregon" Oregon State College 


95 


2,001 


2,09ft 





6370 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 6. — Allotment of funds for engineering defense training through Apr. 30, 
^947— Continued 



Institution 


Disburse- 
ments 


Encum- 
brances 


Total allot- 
ment 


Pennsylvania: 

Drexel Institute of Technology 


.$146,815 
13, 876 
21, 622 
136, 409 
;«, 914 
21. 156 
6,852 
133, 052 
3,462 
595, 648 
246, 718 


$6, 750 


$153 565 






Lehigh University 


6,650 
85, 779 
5,759 


28 272 


University of Pennsylvania 


222 188 






Villanova College 


21 156 


Bucknell University 




6.852 




5,550 




Grove City College 


3 462 




1, 262, 661 


1,8.58,309 


University of Pittsburgh 


246 718 








State total 


1, 364, 524 


1, 373, 149 








Rhode Island: 


5, 275 
3,557 


8,145 




Rhode Island State College . 


3 557 










8,832 


8,145 








South Carolina: 

The Citadel 


14, 760 
4, 380 
15, 408 


3,859 


18 619 


Clemson Agricultural College 


4 380 






15, 408 


State Agriculture and Mechanics College . 


2,194 


2 194 










34. 548 


6, 053 


40,601 






South Dakota: South Dakota State College of Agriculture 


883 


1, 555 


2.438 






Tennessee: 




1,350 

277 
6,400 


1,350 


XTniversity of Tennessee.. 


6, 667 
14,500 


6 044 


Vanderbilt University 


20, 900 


State total 


21, 167 


8,027 


29 194 






Texas: 

Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas 


17, 182 
1,5, 673 
2,550 
2,015 
12, 639 
2,907 


87, 202 
2,514 
6,825 


104 384 


Souther Methodist University 


18, 187 
9, 375 


Texas Technological College 


2 015 




45, 812 


58, 451 




2.907 








State total 


52, 966 


142, 353 


195, 319 






Utah: 

Utah State Agricultural College 


1,850 
23, 940 




1 850 






23, 940 








State total 


25, 790 




25 790 




. 




Vermont: 

Norwich University 


3.992 
1,564 




3 992 






X 564 








State total 


5,556 




5 556 








Virguiia- 

Virginia Militarv Institute 


2,107 
31, 166 
31, 905 


3,824 
384 


5 931 




31, 5.50 


University of Virginia 


31, 905 








State total 


65, 178 


4,208 


69, 386 






Washington: 


3,560 
19,812 




380 






3, .560 


University of Washington 


734 


20, 546 






State total 


23, 752 


734 


24, 486 






West Virginia: University of West Virginia 


68, 974 


3,350 


72, 324 






Wisconsin: 

Marquette University 


3.162 




3, 162 


University of Wisconsin 


4,257 


4,257 








State total 


3,162 


4,257 


7,419 







NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 637 X 

Table 6. — Allotment of funds for engineering defense training through Apr. SO, 
1941— Continued 



Institution 


Disburse- 
ments 


Encum- 
brances 


Total allot- 
ment 




$1, 650 


$7, 630 


$9. 280 






District of Columbia: 




4,010 
22, 410 
13, 379 


4,010 


George Wasliington University 


ii 314 
13, 036 


36 724 


Howard University 


26, 415 




District total 


27, 350 


39, 799 


67 149 








3,978 


2,710 










3, 378, 749 


2, 989, 754 


6, 368, 503 







Federal Security Agency — National Youth Administration 

NUMBER employed ON THE OUT-OF-SCHOOL WORK PROGRAM 

On June 21, 1941, there were 354,936 youth employed on the National Youth 
Administration out-of-school work program. Of these 91,882 were working on 
construction projects, 127,437 were employed in local workshops, 30,377 in resident 
work centers and 102,240 were doing such work as providing clerical assistance 
to local governmental agencies, public health and hospital work, recreational 
assistance to draft boards and military establishments, etc. 

During the 11-month period ending May 31, 1941, an estimated total of nearly 
280,000 youth left National Youth Administration projects for jobs in private 
industry. Beginning at a rate of approximately 14,000 in July and August 1940, 
1 he number leaving for jobs has steadily increased and has reached over 47,000 
in May 1941. 

Although there has been a considerable absorption of youth into private industry 
and the armed forces during the past year, there still remains a large number of 
\outh who have not been able to secure employment. On May 31, 1941, there 
were 377,002 youth in the awaiting-assignment files of the National Youth Admin- 
istration. These youth have been certified to the National Youth Administration 
as meeting National Youth Administration eligibihty requirements of need and 
jire available for immediate assignment. 

During the course of the present fiscal year it is estimated that nearly 900,000 
different youth will have been employed by the National Youth Administration. 
Approximately 600,000 of these will have left National Youth Administration 
projects, of whom more than half will have left because they secured jobs in private 
industry. The remaining number of youth will be terminated for a wide variety 
of reasons? — because they secure public employment, return to schools, lose their 
<'ligibilit}% reach their 25th birthday and for other and unknown reasons. 



LOCATION OF NATIONAL YOUTH ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS 

National Youth Administration projects are located in practically every county 
of the United States. The widespread character of the out-of-school work pro- 
gram eiiables it to reach youth who cannot be reached by other programs for youth. 
In December 1940, the program employed youth from 2,821 of the 3,071 counties. 
In 21 States, youth from every county in the State were employed, and in only 
1 2 States were there as many as 5 counties from which no youth were employed. 

Because of the widespread character, an enumeration of project locations is 
difficult and expensive. It is estimated that National Youth Administration 
workers are employed at over 20,000 different locations, ranging from large 
l)rojects employing 800 youth to locations in cosponsors' offices where only 2 or 3 
youth may be employed. On clerical and professional assistance projects, for 
example, youth may be working in 100 different locations in the same city or 
county. 

The National Youth Administration has developed and is operating 5,419 shops 
and production units. These shops are located in every State, Puerto Rico, 
Virgin Islands, Alaska, and the District of Columbia. The National Youth 
Administration also has in operation 622 resident work centers and has under 
construction 45 others. There are attached tables showing the geographic loca- 
tion of these production units and resident centers. 



6372 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 1. — Number of production units on ivorkshop-pi oductioti projects 
school work piogram, May 19/^1 



-oul-of- 





Number of production units 


Typo of ijro.luction activity 


Total 


Resident 
projects 


Nonresi- 
dent 
projects 


Total --- ---- - -- 


5,419 


998 


4', 421 






Machine and metalworking 


1,006 


223 


78a 








407 
308 
209 

82 


76 
73 

58 
16 


331 


Sheet metal 


235 


AVelding - 


151 




66 








349 


92 


257 






Radio 


192 

157 


56 
36 


136 




121 








604 


114 


490 






Automotive maiDtenance and repair 


506 
53 
45 


74 
21 
19 


432 




32 




26 








1,303 
1,567 


148 
303 


1.155 


Sewine 


1,264 








302 
1,265 


25 
278 


277 


Domestic 


987 








590 


118 


472 






Drafting blueprinting etc 


272 
318 


49 
69 


223 




249 







'able 2. — Number of youth terminated because they secured private employment- 
Out-of-School Work Program, July 1940 through May 19/,1 _^ 



1940: 



1941 



Julv 14, 500 

August 13,490 

September 17,093 

October 18,234 

November 16,844 

December 16,009 



Jamiary 22,437 

February 31,596 

March.: 38,852 

April 43,058 

May 47,540 



Total 279,653 



Tables. 



-Number of youth employed by type of project- — out-of-school ivork program, 
May 1941 





Number of youth employed 


Type of project 


Total 


Non- 
resident 
projects 


Resident 
projects 


Total 


377, 782 


340,264 


37, 518 






Construction 


102, 085 


91, 930 


1 10, 155 










13,580 
9,733 
47. 355 
13. 534 
6,349 
1,379 




Improvement of grounds around public buildings 


. . _ 




Building construction, repair, remodeling 












Conservation. 






AVatcr and sanitation 














151,665 


129, 304 


22,361 







Distribution by detail tyi)e not available . 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6373 



I'abIvE 3. — Niwiber of youth employed by type of project- — ottt-of-school work program, 
May 1941 — Continued 





Number of youth employed 


Type of project 


Total 


Non- 
resident 
projects 


Resident 
projects 


Machine and metal working 


20,822 


16, 636 


4,186 




10, 013 

6,836 

3,178 

795 


8,122 

5,582 

2,311 

621 


1,891 


Sheet metal 


1 254 


Weldin? . 


867 




174 






jVutomotive and mechanical 


8,934 


6,828 


2 106 








7,162 

522 

1,250 


6,120 
231 
477 




Farm implements and equipment 


291 




773 






Radio and electrical 


4,625 


3,413 


1 212 








2.903 
1,722 


2.060 
1,353 




Electrical 


369 








36, 394 
57, 004 


33, 612 
48, 010 


2,782 
8,994 








23,886 


20, 805 


3,081 






2,914 
20, 972 


2,535 
18, 270 


379 




2,702 






124,032 


119,030 


15,002 






Clerical assistance 




75, 166 
708 

15, 049 
3,269 
3,835 
3,502 

16, 102 
1,399 
















Library service 


















Nursery school and other services 



















Distribution by detail type not available. 



Table 4. — Number of counties of residence of National Youth Administration 
workers, by States and by urbanization groups, December 1940 







Number of counties by urbanization groups 




State 


Total 


Under 
2,500 


2,500 

to 
4,999 


6,000 

to 
9,999 


10,000 

to 
24,999 


25,000 

to 
49,999 


50,000 

to 
99,999 


Over 
100,000 


Total - 


2,821 


1,238 


547 


421 


333 


122 


66 


94 






Alabama 


67 
14 
75 
51 
54 
8 
3 
1 
63 

159 
44 

100 
53 
98 

103 

103 
42 
15 
24 
12 
74 


33 
5 
31 
12 
30 


14 
3 

27 
6 
8 


9 
4 
9 
10 

8 
1 


8 
-. 

10 
5 
2 


1 


2 


1 






Arkansas 


1 
3 

1 




California 








Connecticut 






1 


1 




District of Columbia -. - 












Florida 


27 
102 
25 
27 

7 
29 
54 
64 
15 

3 


14 
28 
12 
19 
6 
36 
19 

12 
4 

8 


8 
14 

5 
22 
14 
13 

11 

8 
3 
2 

1 
17 


.5 
,? 
\l 

15 
5 
3 
2 
3 
2 

13 




3" 








Idaho - . 




lUinois 




4 

1 
3 

1 
1 

5 












Kansas 












Maine 












Michigan 


20 


ii" 


3 



6374 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 4. — Number of counties of residence of National Youth Administration 
workers, by States and by urbanization groups, December 1940 — Continued 





Number of counties by urbanization groups 


State 


Total 


Under 
2,500 


2,500 

to 
4,000 


5,000 

to 

9,999 


10,000 

to 
24,999 


25,000 

to 
49,999 


50,000 

to 
99,999 


Over 
10000 


Minnesota 


86 
82 
109 
54 
76 
15 
10 
21 
21 
7 

55 
99 
53 
79 
63 
32 

'1 

46 
66 
94 

197 
29 
14 

100 
39 
52 
67 
22 


39 

46 
59 
38 
45 
11 
1 

7 


21 
20 
22 

4 
14 

2 

7 


14 
4 

16 
6 
9 

1 
5 
4 

1 

11 
13 

6 
16 
15 

9 
14 


9 
10 
7 
4 
6 

6 
5 
2 

1 

16 
14 
3 
20 
10 
4 
17 
3 
5 
5 
2 

1 
3 

9 
5 

2 






3 


Mississippi 


2 
2 








2 




Montana 




Nebraska 


1 




Nevada - 




New Hampshire 


1 
2 

1 


1 
1 






6 


New Mexico 








5 


New York (excluding New York 

City) 


2 

J? 

13 

18 
8 
6 


8 
20 

2 
11 
16 

9 

8 


8 
2 

1 
9 
2 
1 

7 

1 
2 

1 

i 

1 


4 
5 


6 


North Carolina 








Ohio 


2 
-- 


g 




2 






Pennsylvaia 


5 




1 


South Carolina 


15 
51 
53 
83 
17 
5 
68 
14 
24 
21 
15 


12 
7 

20 

47 
6 
1 

11 
9 
8 

14 
2 


10 
2 
14 
36 
3 
5 
8 
2 
10 
13 
3 




South Dakota 






-. 


4 


Texas 


5 


Utah - 


1 






Virginia 


3 
2 

8 


1 
_. 

3 


2 




3 






Wisconsin 


1 















Table -5. — Number of certified youth awaiting assigujnent- 
progratn, May 1941 



-out-of-school ivork 



State or Territory 



Grand total 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas... -. 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Florida 

Georgia 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas... 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland _ . 

Massachusetts. 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 



Number awaiting as- 
signment May 31, 1941 



Total Male Female 



176, 713 



5,471 
111 
12. 428 
1.838 
3,421 



4,142 
8,274 

320 
3,206 
2,035 
2,742 
2,811 
10, 393 
1,597 

920 
16 

325 
1,990 
2,496 
7,896 
3,495 

645 



32 



10. 690 
164 



94 

146 

5, 405 

9,164 

485 

3,365 

3,709 

2,809 

1,534 

6,510 

3,083 

617 

4,502 

1,468 

2,516 

6,254 

5,738 

679 

978 

22 



State or Territory 



New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York City and 

Long Island 

New York (excluding 
New York City and 

Long Island) 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio _. 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 



Texas. 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington... 
West Virginia.. 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

Alaska 

Puerto Rico... 
Virgin Islands. 



Number awaiting as- 
signment May 31, 1941 



Total Male Female 



2,039 
13, 705 
2,806 

lli771 

907 

23, 016 



11, 184 

1,774 

15, 052 

38, 864 

2,514 

378 

11, 438 

654 

11,350 

4,394 

274 

50 



263 
5,234 
1,817 
4,854 
6,076 



4,479 
835 

6,834 
21, 271 

1,502 
124 

4,990 
271 

l!966 

115 

23 

18, 799 



1,776 

8,471 



6,041 
5,695 



14,067 
"6,705 



8,218 

17, 593 

1.012 

254 

6.448 

383 

3,461 

2,428 

159 

27 

19,298 

111 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6375 

Table 6. — Report of the number of resident centers in operation and under construe' 
Hon — out-of-school work program, May 31, 1941 





Number of resident 
centers 


State or Territory 


Number of resident 
centers 


state or Territory 


Total 


In op- 
eration 


Under 
con- 
struc- 
tion 


Total 


In op- 
eration 


Under 
con- 
struc- 
tion 


Total 


667 


622 


45 




6 

1 

16 

16 
8 

46 
6 

16 
1 

85 
8 

19 

64 
2 
1 

16 
2 
6 

18 
1 
2 
2 


5 

1 

16 
17 
16 

8 
45 

6 
12 

1 
83 

8 
19 
61 

2 

1 
16 

2 

6 
16 

.. 

2 










Alabama 


38 
4 
12 
13 
11 
2 
8 
23 
4 
21 
8 
4 
32 
14 
33 
5 
2 
2 
14 
7 
18 
6 
3 
12 
7 


34 
4 
10 
12 
10 

J 

4 
21 
8 
3 
31 
12 
32 
4 
1 
2 
9 
7 

16 
5 
3 
12 


4 

' 2 

1 
1 

4 

. 

1 
2 

1 
1 

1 

6 

2 

1 


New York City and 








Arkansas 


New York (excluding 
New York City) 












Connecticut 


North Dakota 




Florida 


Ohio 








Idaho 


Oregon 






Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 




Indiana 






South Carolina 


2 


Knnsjis 


South Dakota 




Kentucky 


Tennessee 






Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 


3 






Maryland 










Michigan 


Washington 




Minnesota 


West Virginia 




Mississippi 




2 


Missouri 


Wyoming 


1 








Nebraska 


Virgin Islands 




New Hampshire 











Table 7.- 



■Youth employment by type of project and State 
program, week ending June 21, 1941 



-Out-of-school work 





Total 


Resident 
projects 


Local 


state 


Nonresi- 
dent pro- 
duction 
projects 


Construc- 
tion proj- 
ects 


Professional 

and 

clerical 

projects 


Grand total 


354, 936 


33, 377 


127, 437 


91.882 


102 240 








11,275 
1,569 
4,408 

10, 980 
3,289 
2,736 
789 
1,584 
5,060 
6,752 
1,131 

22, 773 
9,790 
5,926 
6,043 
6,217 
9,847 
2,752 
4,655 

10, 504 

10, 543 
7,931 
8,072 

14, 765 

1,456 

3, 945 

358 

642 

11,644 
1.254 


1,810 
99 
431 
1,174 
317 
78 


2,636 

389 
1,422 
3,411 
1,377 
1,489 

136 

261 
1,626 
1,914 

151 
10. 853 
4,962 
3,683 

830 
2,574 
4,937 

670 
2,061 
5,444 
3,799 
3,070 
1,380 
5,459 

389 

1,613 

36 

304 
4,802 

638 


3,234 

397 

2,036 

1,031 

591 

71 

148 

190 

1,352 

1,384 

308 

3.826 

2,526 

,1,212 

2,625 

1,847 

1,312 

427 

990 

638 

. 1, 759 

3,037 

2,779 

5,313 

432 

962 

87 

83 

1,555 

258 


3,595 




684 




619 


California 


5.364 




1.004 




1.098 
605 


Delaware 






1,133 


Florida 


561 
2,316 

466 
1,461 

599 

210 
1,519 

858 
1,529 

860 
13 

129 

385 

1,551 
239 
137 
475 




Georgia 


1,138 




206 


Illinois 


6,633 


Indiana 


1 703 




821 


Kansas 


1, 060 


Kentucky 


938 




2, 069 


Maine 


795 


Maryland 


1 591 




4.293 


Michigan 


4,600 


Minnesota 


1 436 




2,362 






Montana 


498 


Nebraska 


896 




235 


New Hampshire 


105 
351 
10 


150 




4,936 


New Mexico- -.- 


348 



6376 



AVASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 7.— Youth employment by type of project and State — Oat-of-school work 
program, week ending June 21, 1941 — Continued 



New York City and Long Island 

New York (Excl. N. Y. C.) 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee-.- 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia.- 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

Alaska •.. 

Puerto Rico 

Virgin Islands. 



Resident 
projects 



12 

887 

908 

335 

1,224 

1,830 

331 

994 

22 

2,117 

427 

1,081 

2, 552 

145 

91 

675 

167 

820 

432 



Nonresi- 
dent pro- 
duction 
projects 



7.570 

5,676 

4,762 

428 

8,070 

2,021 

988 

7,117 

1.050 

501 

170 

2,770 

5,267 

140 

360 

1,923 

1,954 

1,236 

1,855 

423 

20 

699 

109 



Construc- 
tion proj- 
ects 



1, 192 

884 

2,116 



10, 614 
1.525 



7,; 



620 
1,057 
4,831 
6. 537 

280 
28 
2, 306 
1.060 
3, 155 
1,056 

138 



Professional 

and 

clerical 

projects 



6, 712 
1,136 
1,439 
6,633 

387 
1,463 

400 
2,855 
3, 004 

180 

234 



606 
,262 

294 

104 
,149 

104 



Apprenticeship Training 

The training of apprentices within industry is handled by the Apprenticeship 
Unit in the Division of Labor Standards of the United States Department of 
Labor. The program of the Apprenticeship Unit and Training Within Industry 
are closely coordinated. The Director of Training Within Industry is a member 
of the Federal Committee on Apprenticeship; the Federal Chief of Apprenticeshij) 
is a member of the Washington training within industry staff; and field representa- 
tives of the Apprenticeship Unit are members of district training within industry 
panels. 

I. functions op the unit 

The Apprenticeship Unit operates under specific congressional enactment 
authorizing the ])romotion of labor standards of apprenticeship through coopera- 
tion between management and labor. It has been clearly recognized by Congress 
that this function is entirelj' distinct from that performed by the vocational 
division of the Office of Education, in that it promotes the training of skilled 
craftsmen not in the school but in the factory, the shop, and the plant. 

During the past year or so the work of the unit has been concentrated almost 
exclusively on promotion in defense industries, located principally in the major 
industrial areas of the United States. Because the primary objective of the unit 
is to persuade employers and labor to provide the actual training of apprentices, as 
a result of which the cost to the Federal Government has been negligible, Congress 
has willingly supplemented the unit's small appropriation to permit the employ- 
ment of a larger apprenticeship field staff. Two years ago the unit employed only 
15 field representatives; a year later, only 16; and today, 113. By the end of 
August 1941 the unit will have in the field 175 trained representatives to encourage, 
assist, and advise defense industries in developing their in-plant training pro- 
grams. 

The field staff attempts to secure the adoption of proper labor .standards of 
apprenticeship in one of two ways. Where adequate organization of emploj'ers 
and employees exists, a committee is formed con.sisting of three representative.s 
from the appropriate employers' association and three representatives from the 
approjjriate labor union. Where the employers are not organized in a trade asso- 
ciation, separate apprenticeship committees, representing the employer and the 
labor organization, are established for each plant. If no bargaining agent exists 
for the employees, the employer is asked to register his apprenticeship standards 
with, and .secure approval for his standards from, a State, or wliere this is lacking 
a Federal apprenticeship committee; all State and Federal apprenticeship com- 
mittees are composed equally of representatives of labor and employers. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6377 



II. GROWTH OF THE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM 

The rapid expansion of the work of the unit is reflected in the following com- 
parisons: 

(a) Two years ago the entire unit made only 800 contacts per month, educating 
representatives of management and labor in desirable apprenticeship standards, 
advising them on improved methods of in-plant training, and stimulating them 
to further effort in the preparation of skilled workers. One year later the unit 
made 900 contacts. Today the unit contacts almost 8,000— roughly, 10 times 
as many. And every contact results in some improvement in attitude. After 
10 years of apathy and neglect, the training of skilled workers in this country 
is receiving the attention it so vitally needs. 

(6) Two years ago the unit could record only 300 apprenticeship systems in 
the United States under standards approved by the Federal Committee on Ap- 
prenticeship; 1 year later it recorded 550; today the records show more than a 
threefold increase, more than 1,000 such systems under approved standards. 

(c) Two years ago only 11 private plants had adopted training standards 
recommended by the Federal Committee on Apprenticeship; 1 year later the 
total had risen to only 22; today 236 are so registered, and almost all of them are 
in defense industries. Private industry, in other words, is rapidly becoming 
converted to the belief that only the best form of training will suffice, and that 
the Apprenticeship Unit, as an impartial Government agency, can and does offer 
the soundest suggestions in this connection. 

(d) Against a present total of 125,000 apprentices employed in the United 
States, it is estimated that we should be training at least five times as many. 
During the past 6 months the total employed has increased about 25 percent. 
Only a small fraction of these, however — ^probably about 50,000 — are under 
adequate training programs. The need for continued aggressive education of 
the public is urgent. Even with its present field staff, the Apprenticeship Unit 
can adequately cover only a minor part of the total territory and bring about 
improved training conditions. 

(e) Two years ago only 15 States had apprenticeship agencies, 11 of which 
operated under State laws; 1 year later the respective figures were 21 and 12; 
today 24 States have such agencies, 15 of which are under State laws. In other 
words, the people of the various States are becoming increasingly aware of the 
need for organized programs of training for skilled workers. 

(/) Almost every labor organization in the countrj^ has endorsed the standards 
recommended by the Federal Committee on Apprenticeship, and employers are 
increasingly asking for assistance of the field stafl" in improving their training 
programs. This assistance has, of course, been carried out in close cooperation 
with the Training Within Industry Section. 

Estimated number of apprentices affected '^ by program of Federal Committee on 
Apprenticeship, by States, March 1941 

Total, United States 51.200 Nevada 100 

New Hampshire 100 

New Jersey 100 

New Mexico 100 

New York 11,000 



Alabama 400 

Arkansas 200 

California 4, 200 

Colorado 400 

Connecticut 1, 100 



Delaware. 

District of Columbia- 
Florida 



300 
100 
800 
Illinois 2, 600 



Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts. 

Michigan 

Minnesota 



100 

400 

500 

400 

700 

200 

700 

700 

3,600 

1,000 

Missouri 2, 000 



North Carolina 100 

Ohio 2,000 

Oklahoma 100 

Oregon 900 

Pennsylvania 2, 000 

Rhode" Island 300 

Tennessee 1, 100 

Texas 2,000 



Utah 

Vermont 

West Virginia. 
Virgini 



100 

100 

100 

600 

Washington 1, 200 

Wisconsin 3, 200 

Hawaii 400 

U. S. Navy 4, 000 

U. S. Army 800 

Tennessee Valley Authority 200 



Mississippi 200 

' "Affected" here means that labor standards of apprenticeship have been improved in one or more 
respects, although the apprentice is not necessarily operating under all standards of the Federal Committee 
on Apprenticeship. 



(5378 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HILLMAN— Resumed 

Mr. HiLLMAN. It is well known that tlie exact types of skill required 
in defense industries must be mainly trained within the plants and on 
the job. Last autumn I established within the Labor Division a sepa- 
rate section to visit the defense contractors — show them the need to 
inaug-urate training programs within their plants as a regular part of 
their operation. In recent months the progress of training within 
industrj^ has been very rapid. Our most recent report reveals that 
937 major deftmse contractors, with an aggregate of over 1,500,000 
employees, have put in training-within-industrj^ systems and are thus 
protecting themselves against future skill shortages. These plants 
are also in a better position than others to increase the number of 
shifts. Each shift requires a quota of trained workers and supervisory 
personnel, which the in-plant training provides. I herewith submit a 
detailed report on training within industry, called Exhibit D, showing 
its general results and also its results by districts. 

The Chairman. Your exhibit will be received. 

(The document referred to follows:) 

July 7, 1941. 
Exhibit D. — Training Within Industry 

i. functions 

The Training Within Industry Section of the Labor Division of the Office of 
Production Management was established in September 1940, to assist defense 
industries in meeting their manpower needs b>' training within industry each 
worker to make the fullest use of his best skill up to the maximum of his individual 
abilities. This is accomplished through upgrading of all classes of personnel as 
their experience and abilities warrant, through planned job progression, job 
rotation, and intensive supplementary instruction both on and off the job. 

The conclusions of various recent conferences confirm experience that this 
training includes three phases: 

(o) Development of production specialists through intensive instruction on 
the job according to basic operations. 

(b) Development of all-round skilled mechanics through trades apprentice- 

ship, in accordance with Federal standards, separate from production- 
worker training, for the purpose of developing a predetermined, 
limited number of all-round journeymen mechanics. 

(c) Development of supervisors through careful selection, assignment of 

supervisory duties of increasing responsibility, and provision for related 
organized help through discussions and conferences under both plant 
and outside auspices. Technical and other management assistants 
must be developed also. 

This organization renders specific advisory assistance to defense industries in 
inaugurating programs which they carry on within their own plants at their own 
expense. The availability of this service is widely known but is not compulsory. 
There is no authority to go into a plant on any basis other than at management's 
request. 

Four general types of assistance apply in most cases and are being adapted to 
fit the various conditions in each specific plant. 

1. Help in the analysis of the training needs. 

2. Aid in setting up a program within the plant to meet its needs. 

3. Experience of other employers who have met similar problems is made 

available through headquarters and field clearance. 

4. Availability of the services of tax-supported Government agencies, sucli 

as the State and Federal employment services, vocational and trade 
schools, engineering colleges, National Youth Administration, Civilian 
Conservation Corps, Work Projects Administration, made known to 
plant managements so that the fullest use may l)e made of them. Only 
through interpreting the needs of industry to these agencies, and their 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6379 

closest coordination, can they furnish the most effective preemplnyment 
education and preemployment experience as well as related instruction 
for employed workers. 

II. ORGANIZATIDX 

Field service is most effectively rendered by representatives of training 
within industry, working continuously in local areas of the district in which de- 
fense industries are located. This field service is carried on under the general 
direction of a small staff at Washington headquarters. 

The headquarters staff consists of the Director, Associate Director, and 
specialists experienced in dealing with training problems of industry. The 
staff is guided by an advisory committee composed of six representatives of 
labor and six of management. In addition, outstanding persons now actively 
engaged in successful Training Within Industry programs serve as consultants 
on a headquarters panel to assist in training methods dealing specifically with 
certain major industries vital to the defense program. The members of the 
National Advisory Committee, and the consultants on the headquarters panel 
are available to the field service as speakers or as advisers regarding special 
problems when the situations warrant such action and if requested through the 
Director. 

The field organization is set up in 22 districts as follows, according to the most 
importaTit industrial centers: 

1. Northern New England. 12. Northern Ohio. 

2. South New England (Connecticut 13. Michigan. 

and Rhode Island). 14. Indiana. 

3. Up-State New York. 1.5. Greater Chicago and Illinois. 

4. Greater New York City. 16. North Central States. 

5. New Jersey. 17. Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and 

6. Eastern Pennsylvania and Dela- Kansas. 

ware. 18. Texas and Louisiana. 

7. Maryland. 19. Colorado and Wyoming. 

8. Virginia, North and South Carolina. 20. Southern California, Arizona, New 

9. South Eastern States. Mexico. 

10. Ohio Valley. 21. Northern California, Nevada, and 

1 1 . Western Pennsylvania and Northern Utah. 

West Virginia. 22. Pacific Northwest. 

In each district the organization is as follows: 

1. One district representative borrowed from industry because of his ex- 

perience and standing in this field of work and, if needed, one field 
assistant and one office assistant. 

2. Four advisers, two from labor and two from management, selected on 

account of their background and working experience in dealing with 
such problems within manufacturing industries. They assist the dis- 
trict representative in establishing helpful relationships in their areas, 
and also assist in creating and maintaining public interest in training 
problems. More than 80 labor leaders and management leaders are 
now acting in this capacity. 

3. A panel of 10 or more personnel and training consultants borrowed from 

industry on account of their knowledge and experience, ^who are avail- 
able on call as needed. Some 400 men are now members of these panels. 

111. ACCEPTANCE OP TRAINING-WITHIN-INDUSTRY PROGRAM TO DATE 

Acceptance of Training Within Industry programs has been excellent by 
those companies where there is immediate need for training. 

In a few areas of the country, however, there has been excellent acceptance of 
the program in principle but little use made of it because of the lack of defense 
contracts. This is particularly true in the Midwest; that is, the St. Louis, Daven- 
port, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, and St. Paul areas; and in the Southeast; 
namely, the Atlanta, Knoxville, Birmingham, Richmond, and Chattanooga areas. 

There has been a decided increase in demand for Training Within Industry 
service, based on a growing realization by management and labor of future manu- 
facturing requirements. Practically every district reports increased demand for 
Training Within Industry counsel. 



6380 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



IV. SPECIFIC RESULTS TO DATE 

Patterns for iu-plant training, including specialized workers, all-round me- 
chanics (apprenticeship) and supervision, which are satisfactory to industry, have 
been developed largely through conferences with personnel and production manag- 
ers. These patterns have been briefly described in 12 bulletins and 3 case studies, 
all of which are being distributed throughout defense industries. Several additional 
bulletins and case studies are in progress. 

Some 17,000 sets of bulletins have been requested and distributed. 

Several hundred articles in trade and professional papers have been published 
based upon the bulletins. 

Several hundred meetings and conferences have been called in all sections of 
the country on training, most of which have grown out of the stimulus afforded 
by the bulletins plus personal visits, addresses, and meetings. 
; Training programs have been stimulated or effected through adviser, panel, 
and other contacts with some 937 companies aggregating over 1,500,000 employees.' 
(Figures from 17 out of the 22 Training Within Industry districts.) 
V Field men have explained to employers how to make full use of Government 
services, such as Employment Service, vocational schools. National Youth Ad- 
ministration, Work Projects Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps. 

They have also aided in subcontracting- and in locating unused manufacturing 
facilities, in endeavoring to get employers to make greater use of Negroes, newly; 
jiaturalized citizens, and physically handicapped, and in promoting jmore exten- 
sive employment of women in defense industries. 



V. PROGRESS OF TRAINING AVITHIN INDUSTRY AS OF JUNE 15, 1941 

Summary by districts ' 



District and location 



1. Upper New England 

. Lower New England 

3. Upper New York State 

4. Greater New York City 

■5. New Jersey 

0. Eastern Pennsylvania and 
Delaware. 

7. Maryland -. 

8. Virginia, North and South 

Carolina. 

9. Georgia, Alabama, Florida, 

Mississippi, and eastern 



10. Southern Ohio, Kentucky, and 
southern West Virginia. 



Number 
of firms 
benefited 
by train- 
ing with- 
in indus- 
try 



42 



Number of 
employees 
affected '' 



70,000 



22,500 

(5) 



74, 435 



232,000 



General action and comments ' .^ 



Distributed about 500 bulletins to interested 
executives in 4 States. Only few requests for 
service, but need increasing. Many Con- 
tractors approve training-withinindustry 
program. Personal contacts rapidly getting 
under way. 

Action primarily in Connecticut; 50 other 
firms now interested. Expect to complete 
Connecticut and Rhode Island surveys by 
Aug. 31. General acceptance of need for 
training within industry. 

Reaction from industry to program very favor- 
able. Demand for service growing as addi- 
tional contracts are placed. 

Excellent cooperation from industry. Expect 
to contact 572 defense firms within next 3 
months. 

Keener realization of necessity for training after 
6 weeks of contacts. 

District office just being established. 

Distributed 404 bulletins to firms requesting 
personal contacts. Contractors now asking 



E.xcellent cooperation from industry and Gov- 
ernment agencies. Splendid training pro- 
grrams. Need for training-within^irdustry 
service growing. 

Increased demand for training-within-industry 
service already in evidence, with contractors 
represented on panel, plus advisers and firms 
contacted, represent 45 to 50 jiercent of Cin- 
cinnati defense manufacturers. 

Industry just beginning to appreciate training- 
within-industry program. 



11. Western Pennsylvania and 
northern West Virginia. 

1 The following figures are based on telegraphic reports dated .June 15, 16, 17, and 18, from 17 of the 22 
training-within-industry districts. Many companies have had complete training-within-industry service, 
while others have been counselled and aided generally. 

2 Approximate only. "Affected" here means affected by any training activities undertaken as a result 
of the training-within-industry program. 

3 The following comments are based on telegraphic reports dated June 15, 16, 17, and 18, from 18 of the 22 
district representatives of training within industry. 

* District office not established yet. 
' No figures yet. 



NATIONAL DEP^EN«E xMlGRATION 

Stanmary by districts — Continued 



6381 



District and location 


Number 
of firms 
benefited 
by train- 
ing with- 
in indus- 
try 


Number of 
employees 
affected 


General action and comments 


12. Northern Ohio except Lucas 

County. 

13. Michigan, and Lucas County, 

Ohio. 

14. Indiana 

15. Illinois; Lake Porter, La Porte 

Counties. Ind. 

16. Northern Central States, Min- 

nesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, 
Nebraska, North and South 
Dakota. 

17. Missouri, Arkansas, Okla- 

homa, and Kansas. 
18 Texas and Louisiana 


48 
159 
86 

(■) 

16 
124 

42 
150 

35 


75, 000 

400,416 

(°) 
64.000 

(•) 

68,200 

C) 
21,800 

110,000 
20,000 

30, 300 


Companies served seem uniformly apprecia- 
tive, as most aid has been on acute problems. 
No limit to service possibUities. 

Management and labor enthusiastic about 
training-wit hin-industry program. 

Apathy of business still present. Additional 
contracts will create greater demand for 
training-within-industry services. Industry 
cooperative, but little voluntary request for 
service. Much interest in training bulletins. 

Lack of defense contracts. Training-within- 
industry program formerly met with apathy 
in Duluth and Minneapolis. Interest in 
training-within-industry growing. 

Demand for in-plant and supervisory training 
on Increase. 


19. Colorado and Wyoming 

20. Southern California, Arizona, 

and New Mexico. 

21. Northern California, Nevada, 

and Utah. 

22. Washington, Oregon, Mon- 

tana, and Idaho. 


Working closely with all industrial associa- 
tions, causing broad coverage and effect of 
training-within-industry program. Good 
cooperation. 

Reaction to training-within-industry by in- 
industry highly receptive. 

General reaction of industry negative, except 
in shipbuilding industry, which accounts for 
nearly 90 percent of this area's primary de- 
fense manufacturing. 

Reaction on part of industry very favorable to 
training-within-industry program. 


Total - 


939 


1.566,000 









' No report submitted. 

' No figures; three-fourths of area's defense contractors addressed June 12. 

VI. ANTICIPATED LABOR REQUIREMENTS 

(Based on figures covering 16 out of the 22 districts) 

In general, defense contractors are not especially concerned about potential 
labor shortages. 

Training-within-industry programs are being rapidly developed in many dis- 
tricts where, but a few weeks ago, contractors were expressing little if any interest 
in training. 

Several districts, however, are still doing only a small amount of training, due 
to lack of defense contracts and insistence that labor shortages are not and will 
not be acute. This is particularly true in upper New England, the Chicago dis- 
trict, and the Minneapolis district. 

The majority of district representatives maintain that in-plant training will 
adequately take care of future labor requirements, providing continued cooperation 
is obtained from labor and the various Government training agencies. 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HILIMAN— Resumed 

Mr. HiLLMAN. The Detroit-Toledo area leads, with more than 
400,000 workers under this type of training. I only wish that time 
permitted me to dwell upon this remarkable accompHshment in some 
detail. I must refer you, however, to the report itself. 



EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROE.S 

All such training heli^s to reduce the migration of workers by en- 
couraging the employment of locally resident labor. But one thing 
more is necessary if local labor is to be utilized to the full, and that is 



5382 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

that there shall be no prejudices operating against the local worker.. 
I refer to prejudices because of race, color, creed, sex, and national 
origin of parents, all of which have played some part in restricting thfr 
employment of local labor and hence in creating migrations. The 
Labor Division has a section working to overcome the consequences 
of prejudice which operate against Negro workers, and another section 
dealing with the prejudices against other minority groups. Both are 
making progress. You are undoubtedly acquainted with the public 
statements in this connection issued by the President, as well as his 
Executive order which prohibits discrimination. Obviously, discrim- 
ination of this type is calculated to limit defense production and further 
imdermine national morale and the true interests of democracy in this 
emergency. As long as a man or woman can do the required work, 
he or she should be employed on equal terms. 

I herewith submit a report, called Exhibit E, on the work of the 
Negro Employment and Training Branch, indicating what is being 
accomplished in this regard. 

The Chairman. Your exhibit will be received. 

(The document referred to follows:) 

Exhibit E. — Nkgro Employment and Training 

report by dr. robert c. weaver, chief, negro employment and training 
branch, labor division, office of production management 

Field investigations by members of the staff in the Negro Employment and 
Training Branch of the Office of Production Management indicate that arbitrary 
employment barriers erected against Negroes and other minority groups in certain 
defense industries have increased the unnecessary migration of workers into some 
defense areas. This widespread exclusion of minority groups from participation 
in defense production has multiplied civic and social problems in various com- 
munities by placing additional burdens on the housing, school, police, and fire- 
prevention facilities of these municipalities. At the same time, these practices 
have tended to retard the progress of our defense effort by making impossible 
the total utilization of our human resources. 

A few typical incidents will illustrate this situation. In Hartford, Conn., for 
instance, where an increasing shortage of skilled workers was evident this year, 
holders of defense contracts not only refused to employ competent and available 
Negro workers but also barred Negro youths from defense-training programs after 
the available supply of white youths had been exhausted. While maintaining 
this ban against Negro workers — thereby increasing the percentage of Negroes 
on the relief rolls — these employers advertised throughout the country for white 
workers to come into the Hartford area.^ 

This situation was duplicated in Los Angeles, where large-scale defense produc- 
tion is under way. Outside workers were imported into this area by the thousands 
while qualified and available Negro workers were denied the opportunity to lend 
their skills and aptitudes to the defense efi'ort. 

During the construction of a camp near Petersburg, Va., hundreds of available 
Virginia Negro carpenters were barred from employment on this project while 
thousands of white carpenters from all parts of the country were imported to the 
site for employment. 

Similar practices may result in a heavy influx of outside labor to the Baltimore 
area this year. A recent surve}' conducted in that city revealed that approxi- 
mately 40 percent of the male-labor reserve of Baltimore is composed of Negroes. 
Assuming that only one-third to one-half of the Negro labor reserve under 45 
years of age could qualify for training courses, from 3,000 to 4,500 additional 
trainees would be made available for defense industries in that area. Conversely,, 
the failure of defense contractors to utilize this potential labor reserve will raise 
the number of in-migrants to Baltimore from 3,000 to 4,500, with a resultant in- 
crease of the housing, school, police, and fire-prevention needs of the community. 

Many factors contribute to this widespread practice. One important factor is 
the attitude of management — both top and supervisor}' — toward the situation. 
Some presidents and directors of vital defense industries have refused to take 

' See testimony of T. R. Downs, Hartford hearings, p. 53n-5319, especially pp. 5316 and 5318; and of 
Martin F. Burke, Trenton hearings, p. 5603 ff. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g333 

any cognizance of the problem. Others, in isolated instances, apparently have 
permitted their own emotional bias to influence the employment practices of their 
companies. Practices of this nature, however, are more prevalent among the 
superintendents and foremen in defense plants. These men usually establish the 
practices and draw up the specifications through which workers are hired, and 
their lack of provision for the integration of qualified Negro workers has been 
accepted without question by management and labor alike. 

unions' attitude toward negroes 

Another important factor in this picture is the attitude of organized labor toward 
the integration of organized Negro labor into our defense efforts. Although only 
a limited number of international unions bar Negroes by ritual or constitutional 
bans, scores of small local unions establish barriers against the employment of 
quahfied Negro workers. 

A typical instance where such a practice affects the problem under considera- 
tion occurred recently in Illinois. Hundreds of skilled Negro workers, many of 
them holding union membership, were barred from construction work on a large 
powder-plant project near Chicago seemingly because the business agent of 
certain local unions in the nearby town refused to give clearance to these qualified 
Negro workers. While we have been able to correct the situation in many trades, 
these bans have been maintained in several crafts despite the crying need for 
skilled workers in these categories. At the same time, the local unions involved 
are calling skilled white workers from other jobs, some of them defense projects, 
no doubt, in various parts of the country in an attempt to fill the labor needs on 
this particular project. 

ATTITUDE OF WHITE EMPLOYEES IN GENERAL 

A third factor which may influence the picture is the general attitude of white 
employees toward the introduction of Negro workers into industry. While this 
factor undoubtedly does play a part in the formulation of exclusionist policies, it 
is often exaggerated by employers in their refusal to hire Negro workers. One 
large construction engineering firm, for instance, refused to use skilled Negro 
building trades workers in the erection of a powder plant in the Middle West. 
The construction manager for this firm defended this practice by saying that 
"white and Negro artisans would not work together in this section of the country." 
He refused to alter his position even when it was pointed out to him that subcon- 
tractors on this very construction job were using hundreds of Negro and white 
skilled workers and working them side by side. As a result of his arbitrary posi- 
tion on this question, hundreds of additional Negro skilled workers in the area 
were denied employment opportunities at the very time that the construction 
manager frantically sought white workers from other sections of the country, 

I do not believe that I can stress too much the economic waste, and the dangers 
to our national unity, which result from such practices. There is no general form- 
ula by which thousands of local situations may be solved. There is, however, in 
almost every community and in most industries objective evidence that available 
local labor resources are being ignored while frantic efforts are being made to lure 
outside workers into defense communities. This is a problem which both manage- 
ment and organized labor must face, and one for which both must seek a solirtion. 
In view of the current emergency, it is a problem which deeply affects the entire^ 
American economy. 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HILLMAN— Resumed 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Resident workers may be locally trained, however, 
and employed, without removing one basic cause for the migration of 
workers. This lies in inequalities of wages, hours, and working con- 
ditions that exist in different localities and between dift'erent plants 
in the same industry. 

Dift'erent wage scales in shipyards within the same area, for example, 
might be expected to create excessive labor turnover m that area. A 
worker can hardly be blamed for quittmg his job in a substandard 
plant and gomg to work in a plant in the same industry some distance 
away, where, he understands, conditions are better. During the 

60396 — 41— pt. 16 6 



5384 WASHINGTON HEAIilNGS 

World War it was notorious that certain shipyards indulged in com- 
petitive bidding for one another's workers, with a resulting rise in 
costs and disruption of employment conditions within the industry. 

It w^as because of this that the Labor Division last November 27 
launched its program of stabilization for the shipbuilding industry, 
which today is virtually complete. The plan was to bring the 
employing shipbuilding concerns into conference with the organiza- 
tions of shipyard labor and with the Navy and Maritime Commission, 
under the auspices of O. P. M.; and to w^ork out a general agreement 
on basic zone standards, one agreement for each shipbuilding sector. 
The Pacific-coast agreement was the first; it w^as reached on April 11. 
The Atlantic-coast agreement has been consummated and also has 
been signed by all parties; the Gulf agreement is scheduled to go into 
effect August 1 ; and the Great Lakes agreement was concluded July 
11 and its terms are now in process of final approval. 

We are now in the first states of extending this stabilization system 
to the aircraft industry. O. P. M. has similarly initiated a stabiliza- 
tion program for the construction industry. A tentative agreement 
has already been arrived at between the Federal agencies in charge 
of construction and the building trades. By stabilizing conditions on 
an industry-wide basis, migration is discouraged. 

(The following memorandum giving the outlines of the agreement 
mentioned above was later received from the witness and accepted 
for the record as Exhibit E-1:) 

Exhibit E-I. — Memorandum of Agreement Between the Represent.\tives 
OF Government Agencies Engaged in Defense Construction and the 
Building and Construction Trades Department of the American- 
Federation of Labor 

1. uniform overti.me rates 

Where a single shift is worked, 8 hours of continuous employment, except for 
lunch periods, shall constitute a day's work beginning on Monday and through 
Friday each week. Where work is required in excess of 8 hours on any one day 
or during the interval from 5 p. m. Friday to 7 a. m. Monday, or on holidays 
such work shall be paid for at one and one-half times the basic rate of wages. 

2. UNIFORM shifts 

Where two or more shifts are worked, 5 days of 7,i'2-hour shifts from Sunday mid- 
night to Friday midnight shall constitute a regular week's work. The pay for a 
full shift period shall be a sum equivalent to eight times the basic hourly rate, and 
for a period less than the full shift shall be the corresponding proportional amount 
wliich the time worked bears to the time allocated to the full shift period. Any 
time worked from Friday midnight to Sunday midnight, or in excess of regular 
shift hours, shall be paid for at one and one-half times the basic rate of wages. 
Wherever found to be practicable, shifts should be rotated. 

3. NO stoppage of WORK 

The Building and Construction Trades Department of the American Federation 
of Labor agrees that there shall be no stoppage of work on account of jurisdictional 
disputes, or for any other cau.se. All grievances and disputes shall be settled by 
conciliation and arbitration. 

4. SUBCONTRACTORS 

It shall be the poHcy of all Federal contracting agencies to require the utiliza- 
tion of specialty subcontractors on those parts of the work which, under normal 
contracting practices, are performed by specialty subcontractors subject, however, 
to the following: 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 5385 

(a) When a general contractor can demonstrate that specialty work has 
been customarily performed by his own organization and that his existing 
organization is competent to perform the work, he may be permitted to do so. 

(6) Where the performance of specialty work by specialty subcontractors 
will result in materially increased costs or inordinate delays, the requirement 
hereinbefore mentioned may be waived. 

On negotiated contracts the decision as to which parts of the work will be per- 
formed by subcontract will, insofar as may be practicable, be made at the time 
the contract is negotiated. 

.5. PREDETERMINATION OF WAGES 

In predetermining the minimum wage which is to be paid to contractor's em- 
ployees on the specific construction job, consideration shall be given to the rates 
preVailing in the area from which labor must be drawn to man the job and to new 
wage rates which have been negotiated and concluded through bona fide collective- 
Ijargaining processes which will take effect at a future date. 

Wage rates paid at the start of work on a project shall continue until the com- 
pletion of the project, or not more than 1 year, and new agreements or new deter- 
minations of wages for work in the same area will become effective only on new 
jobs started or new contracts signed after the employer-employee agreement has 
been negotiated. 

6. APPLICATION OF AGREEMENT 

Any contract work done for, or through, any Federal agenc.v for defense pur- 
l>oses within the continental limits of the United States and the Panama Canal 
Zone shall be governed by this labor policy. 

It is understood that the provisions of this agreement shall apply onh- to 
national defense projects. 

7. APPRENTICES 

It is agreed that the number of apprentices used shall be limited to the number 
agreed upon between the respective unions and contractors and ajjjjroved by the 
Department of Labor in the case of those unions and employers' associations that 
have established apprenticeship standards in conjunction with the Department 
of Labor and the number of apprentices in other cases shall conform to the usual 
j:)ractice prevailing between the unions and the employers' associations of the 
respective trades. 

8. BOARD OF REVIEW 

There shall be constituted a board consisting of a representative of the Gov- 
ernment agencies, a representative of the building and construction trades depart- 
ment of the American Federation of Labor, and a representative of the Office of 
Production Management. It shall be the function of this board to interpret the 
provisions of this agreement, to adjust disputes arising hereunder, and the findings 
of the board shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. In case of a dispute 
involving a specific governmental agency, that agency may designate a repre- 
sentative as a temporary member of the board for the mediation of that dispute. 
The board shall have no authority to encroach upon or to relieve any governmental 
agency of its legal authorities and/or responsibilities. 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HILIMAN— Resumed 

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS CHECK ON MIGRATION 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Collective bargaining itself has a stabilizing in- 
fluence, and there is less migration in industries where collective 
bargaining prevails than in those which are not organized or organized 
only m part. 

I herewith submit a report, marked "Exhibit F," on the work of 
the Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee of the Labor Division, 
showing its progress to date. 

The Chairman. The document will be received. 



5386 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

(The document referred to follows:) 

Exhibit F. — History of the Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee — Its 
Origin and Purposes 

In the single year since the start of the present defense program in June 1940, 
Congress has appropriated approximately $8,000,000,000 for the building of naval 
and merchant ships. In only 1 month during the 4 years 1935-38 had aggregate 
employment in the construction and repair of vessels reached 100,000 men. As 
late as December 1939 it was only 132,000. Under the stimulus of the greatest 
shipbuilding program ever undertaken in this countrj", the number of shipyard 
employees was rapidly to increase, however, so that by February 1941 it was 
251,000, while estimates of the Bureau of Labor Statistics forecast an employment 
bv September 1942 of 725,000 — which would mean an increase in 3 years of 
600,000, or more than 500 percent. 

In the great Emergency Fleet program of the first World War the maximum 
number of employees in steel shipyards — not attained until May 1919 — was 
268,000. The earlier peak in wood and composite shipyards had been 80,000. 
Construction and repair in navy j'ards and in private shipyards doing work not for 
the Emergency Fleet Corporation would, of course, add somewhat to the total — 
but still give a figure considerably smaller than that now in prospect. Experience 
during the earlier emergency showed, however, how exceedingly grave were the 
problems created even by this lesser expansion in shipyard activities. In the 
summer and fall of 1917, with the United States already at war, a succession of 
strikes occurred in shipyards surrounding New York, in yards at Wilmington, 
Del., and Philadelphia, and at the ports of Seattle, Portland, and San Fran- 
cisco. With 40,000 shipyard workers and 10,000 other metal trade workers out, 
practically the entire shipbuilding program on the Pacific coast was tied up. 
Lying back of these visible signs of disruption and unrest was a confused policy, or 
early lack of policy, with regard to wage rates — competitive bidding, which led on 
the one hand to a spiraling of wages and pyramiding of costs to the Government, 
and on the other to futile movement of men from yard to yard and city to city. 

purpose of the shipbuilding stabilization committee 

It was to counteract, during the present emergency, tendencies in this direction 
that on November 27, 1940, the Labor Division of what was then the National 
Defense Advisory Commission, announced the appointment of a Shipbuilding 
Stabilization Committee. By this time labor shortages were already occurring 
in certain occupations. This was especially true of ship carpenters, loftsmen, 
and shipfitters. There was also an inadequate supply of marine architects, shop 
electricians, marine gas-engine machinists and template makers. The danger of 
competitive wage bidding was increased by the extreme lack of uniformity in rates 
and earnings as between shipyards. For example, the average yard hourly earn- 
ings of skilled burners and welders varied along the Atlantic coast from $1,267 
for the yard with the highest average to $0,621 for the yard with the lowest aver- 
age. The ultimate purpose of setting up a committee was, of course, not so much 
to establish uniform standards for their own sake as to remove causes of controversy 
and friction, so that all efforts might eventually be directed to increasing produc- 
tion. It was desired, moreover, not to have the job of recruiting and training 
labor vastly complicated by unnecessary migration or the movement of men from 
one yard to another and then back again, and to reduce to a minimum the'harmful 
effects of migration on living conditions, 

representation on stabilization committee 

The Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee is composed of four representatives 
of labor (two from the American Federation of Labor and two from the Congress 
of Industrial Organizations), four representatives of the shipbuilding industry, 
representatives of the United States Navy and United States Maritime Commis- 
sion, and a chairman and executive secretary from the Labor Division of what is 
now the Office of Production Management. The labor representatives on the 
committee are John P. Frey. president of the metal trades department of the 
American Federation of Labor, and Harvey Brown, president of the International 
Association of Machinists, representing the American Federation of Labor; and 
John Green and Philip Van Gelder, president and secretary, respectively, of the 
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, representing 
the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The industrial members on the Com- 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6387 

mittee are H. Gerrish Smith, president of the National Council of American Ship- 
builders, representing the Great Lakes shipyards; Gregory Harrison, representing 
the Pacific shipyards; F. A. Lidell, representing the Gulf shipyards; and Prof. 
H. L. Seward, representing the Atlantic yards. Rear Admiral Emory S. Land, 
Chairman of the United States Maritime Commission (with Capt. J. O. Gawne, 
U. S. Nav3', as his alternate) is the member for the Maritime Commission; while 
Joseph W. Powell, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy (with Capt. 
C. W. Fisher, U. S. Navy, as his alternate), represents the Navy. Morris L. 
Cooke, industrial engineering consultant to the Labor Division of the Office of 
Production Management, is chairman of the Committee, and Thomas L. Norton 
is executive secretary. 

POLICY OF STABILIZA.TION COMMITTEE 

At its initial meeting on December 5, 1940, the Committee adopted the following 
statement of policy: 

"The Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee at its first meeting adopts a policy 
urging that there should be no interruption of production on the part of shipyard 
employers and of shipyard employees before all facilities at the disposal of the 
National Defense Advisorj'^ Commission for adjusting differences have been 
exhausted." 

As a result of deliberations extending over several meetings the Committee 
concluded that labor conditions could best be stabilized through voluntary co- 
operation on the part of all parties concerned, and that the basis for agreement 
could best be worked out in a series of zone conferences at which the employers 
and vmion representatives in each region, together with Government officials, 
would arrive at zone standards. The zone standards, however, would cover only 
the most basic matters, those points respecting which the Government, as the 
final purchaser of the product and trustee for the whole defense program, had a 
vital interest. Broad zone standards having been arrived at, it would then be 
left to the employers and employees in each local area to themselves come to an 
agreement covering many matters in greater detail— or with variations to fit the, 
customs or ideas of the parties. 

It was decided that zone standards should cover only the following points: 

(a) Basic wage rate for standard skilled mechanics. The definition as to 

who were to receive the standard rate and what differentials were to 
be paid for other occupations was left for determination by the parties. 
This would permit a maximum of conformity to local custom. 

(b) Overtime. 

(c) Premiums for working on second and third shifts. 

(d) Bar against limitations on production. 

(e) A no-strike and no-lockout clause. 
(/) Provision for grievance machinery. 

Ig) A 2-year duration clause, with provision, however, for wage adjustments 
at the end of 1 year. 

Though not a "must" item, the Committee sought to have the question of 
training programs included in the standards for the industry. 

COAST FIRST AREA. COVERED BY ZONE STANDARDS 

The Pacific coast was chosen as the first area to be covered by zone standards. 
The technique used at the conference was as follows: 

Since the American Federation of Labor unions were in the majority in the 
shipyards in that region, representatives of these unions developed the zone 
standards with those employers with whom they had agreements. The Indus- 
trial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America (Congress of Indus- 
trial Organizations) merely had observers at the conference, but this union agreed 
in advance to conform to the standards as established. The United States 
Navy, the United States Maritime Commission, the Office of Production Man- 
agement, and the Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee were also represented 
by official observers. Following the determination of zone standards for the 
Pacific coast, it happened that the employers and union representatives for that 
zone as a whole ertered into a "master agreement" which, while within the 
limits set by the zone standards, went into greater detail, setting up for the 
whole coast certain further standards within which local agreements were to 
be worked out for the individual yards. The Government was not a party to 
this "master agreement." 



(J388 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

At the Atlantic coast conference, on the other hand, the Congress for Indus- 
trial Organization union represented all labor. No master agreement has been 
introduced on the Atlantic coast or in any of the other zones. 

On both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts complete agreement has now been 
reached oii zone standards — the only serious incident having been the refusal 
of two machinists' locals in San Francisco to subscribe to the standards accepted 
by their representatives, and a strike at San Francisco which followed. This 
ended, however, in the signing of the agreement by all parties. 

On the Gulf the work of the conference has been completed, and the standards 
will doubtless have been approved l)y all concerned by August 1. On the Great 
Lakes negotiations were concluded on July 11, and the conference adopted the 
standards on tliat date. 

It is the hope of the Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee that, a check having 
been put on tlie development of competitive differentials, the gigantic task of 
adding some 600,000 men to the shipbuilding industry can be carried through 
with a minimum of migration, either geographically or in the way of drawing men 
from other defense industries — particularly shipbuilding — and with a maximum 
of opportunity left open for the locally unemployed or ineffectively employed. 

At the request of the Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee, the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics made a survey of the sources from which skilled men were drawn 
for 5 Atlantic coast shipyards during the last 6 months of 1940. Of 1,580 
skilled workers hired it was found that 1,015, or 64 pi-ecent, came from the State 
in which the shipyard was located (or in the case of Camden, from New Jersey 
or Pennsylvania). Their occupations, as of the date hired, has been as follows: 

Percent 

Shipbuilding 6.7 

Machine tool and aircraft industries 3. 7 

Other manufacturing industries 14. 6 

Nonmanufacturing industries and Government employment 26. 9 

Self-employed 9. 8 

Works Projects Administration and unemployed (including persons just 

out of school) 34. 1 

Not reported 4. 2 

Total 100.0 

There were important variations between yards in some of the figures. Thus 
the percentages of skilled employees recruited from Works Projects Administra- 
tion or from among the unemploj-ed, taken yard by yard, ran 71.9, 27.4, 18.1, 
16.5, and 6.9 percent, respectively. 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HIILM AN— Resumed 

Mr. HiLLMAX. The temptation to the worker to leave home and 
migrate is felt with special strength in those communities which have 
no share in the work of defense production. 

Last autumn the Labor Division became interested in the so-called 
ghost towns and had a studj' made of them. 

(The following study was received later from the office of Mr. 
Hillman and accepted for the record as Exhibit F-1:) 

Exhibit F-1. — History op the Efforts of the Labor Division to Revital- 
ize Ghost Towns and to Stimulate Subcontracting 

As soon as the national-defense program reached a stage where a substantial 
volume of defense work had been contracted for it began to be evident that the 
shift from normal peacetime activities to munitions production would raise 
serious problems of industrial and population migration. In the accompanying 
table the value of defense contracts awarded to concerns in the several States 
through March 1941 is compared with the population of each State to obtain a 
per capita value. Between the high of $305 per capita going to Connecticut and 
no contracts at all going to North Dakota there is almost every degree of variation 
in the volume of defense orders distributed. 

Something of this sort was, of course, inevitable. The first airplane orders 
had to go to a State with an airplane industry, orders for ships to localities having 
shipyards, whih; few if any defense contracts could be expected to go to purely 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6389 



agricultural areas. Also the impact of defense production has been spread much 
more widel}- than these figures suggest because goods finished in one State gen- 
erally require much material produced elsewhere. 

When all allowance is made for these conditions the geographical distribution 
of defense orders nevertheless raised and is continuing to raise serious problems. 
On the one hand communities receiving large volumes of orders were confronted 
with a problem of expansion. It became necessary to enlarge plants, to import 
worliers, to build houses, to extend community facilities of all kinds. All this 
meant a double burden and danger. The first effect was to cause congestion and 
expense, and raise all the problems connected with boom towns. The second 
menacing aspect of the situation was the overexpanded condition which vi,as 
likely to reveal itself as soon as the peak of emergency production had been 
passed. The timing and character of post-war adjustments is of course as yet 
unknown. Certainly, however, we should not go any further than is necessary 
in shifting our industries and population to centers where the need for them 
may cease when the emergency passes. 

Value of defense contracts in dollars per capita 



Alabama 57. 



Arizona 

Arkansas 

California- _ 

Colorado 

C<jnnecticut. 



3.2 

2.5 

186.0 

109. 

305.4 

Delaware 81.6 

District of Columbia 8. 3 

Florida 24. 7 

Georgia 25. 3 

Idaho 2. 2 

Illinois 32. 5 

Indiana 97. 3 

Iowa 26. 9 

Kansas 28. 7 

Kentucky 10. 5 

Louisiana 14. 5 

Maine 163. 8 

Maryland 167. 

Massachusetts 158. 9 

Michigan 125. 9 

Minnesota 14. 9 

Mississippi 31. 1 

Missouri 90. 2 

Montana (') 

' Less than .5 cents- per capitn. 



Nebraska 4. 9 

Nevada 25. 4 

New Hampshire 23. 3 

New Jersey 258. 9 

New Mexico 17. 6 

New York 72. 6 

North Carolina 19. 1 

North Dakota None 

Ohio _--_ 58. 7 

Oklalioma 2. 8 

Oregon 34. 9 

Peniisvlvania 71. 3 

Rhode Island 70.1 

South Carolina, - -_ 19. 5 

South Dakota .2 

Tennessee 25. 3 



Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington. _ 
West Virginia^ 
Wisconsin. . 
Wyoming 



31. 7 

18.0 

7.8 

201.5 

249.7 

57.4 

34. 8 

17. 1 



PROBLEM OF AREAS WITH FEW DEFENSE ORDERS 

The other and more serious half of the problem introduced by the uneven 
distribution of defense work lay in the communities where defense orders were few 
or nonexistent. At the start, this merely showed itself as a failure to share in the 
quickening of industrial activity occurring in communities getting defense orders. 
As soon, however, as shortage of labor de\'eloped in defense centers, this meant 
that communities lacking orders began to lose their normal labor supply. Next 
there has been a tendency to lift key equi])ment bodily from shops having no 
defense business and transport it to other places, thus removing the very possi- 
bility of carrying on productive work in the localities whose equipment has been 
depleted. Finally, now that we are reaching a point where priorities are beginning 
to cut off materials from some producers, and restrictions on consumption also 
promise to curtail production in various peacetime industries, the predicament of 
many companies and communities which have not shared much in the defense 
program promises to be greatly aggravated. 

The decline in industrial activity in some areas and its overstimulation in others 
is of high concern to workers threatened with unemployment, to the shops in 
which they normally work, and to the communities in which they live. The 
immediate reason for desiring a better distribution of defense work is, however, 
the expediting of defense production. The largest possible volume of defense 
production is needed this year. The output from new equipment introduced into 



5390 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

enlarged plants cannot be available in any appreciable volume until next year, if 
then. Where it is possible to utilize existing but idle equipment precious time is 
saved — in addition to avoiding the cost, additional drafts on labor and materials 
and confusion inherent in building new capacity. Furthermore, even if we were 
100 percent equii)ped to meet the needs of today, changes in the type of goods 
wanted would soon throw some capacity into idleness, at the same time that there 
would be serious delays in the bringing out of new products, unless ways could 
be found to quickly convert much of the capacity already on hand but not in 
use, so that it could again become active in the meeting of new needs. 

TWO METHODS OF IMPROVEMENT 

Though the difficulties which have here been mentioned cannot be overcome 
entirely, there are two main methods by which we might hope to bring about an 
improvement. The first method is to introduce such changes in the way in which 
Government contracts are let, or effect such organizations and preparations in the 
areas where activity is slack, that prime contracts themselves can be placed where 
none are now held. The second method is to work out arrangements by which 
firms having large Government orders can place many of the actual operations 
with other concerns which could not undertake to produce all of the given product, 
but could do some part — a procedure which is known as subcontracting or farming 
out. Obviously there are real difficulties involved in the application of either of 
these methods. Yet the records of munitions production in England, Germany, 
France, and Spain indicate extensive farming-out programs in most of these 
countries, and it has long been known that even before the American defense 
program got well under way subcontracting had been carried on with marked 
success by certain companies in this countrj'. Because of the great importance 
of this issue both to labor and to national defense, it seemed to the Labor Division 
that much more should be known on the one hand of the difficulties, and also the 
possibilities, of placing work in the communities which have so far had little, and 
on the other hand of the technique, and also the problems, involved in successful 
farming out. 

SURVEYS IN SLACK AREAS 

Active exploration along the first of these lines was started in October 1940. 
A group of engineers and economists was sent out to selected areas where the 
decline of some industry had created a serious slack, and quick surveys were 
made of the conditions found to exist and of the possibilities of putting unem- 
ployed labor and equipment to work on defense production. In these early trips 
som.e 8 or 10 cities, a number of which could well be termed "ghost towns," were 
visited. These included Paducah, Ky.; coal-mining centers in southern Illinois, 
Bloomington and Bedford, Ind., where the limestone industry had been depressed; 
Cambridge, Ohio, and Harrisonburg, W. Va. ; and in Pennsylvania, New Castle, 
Chambersburg, Franklin, Sharon and Farrel, and Beaver County. Later, con- 
tacts were made with communities in almost all parts of the United States. 

Exploration into the technique, the problems and possibilities of subcontract- 
ing was started in November 1940. 

The work of the Labor Division on "ghost towns" and "farming out" has been 
primarily educational and promotional. The actual administration of subcon- 
tracting aids, especially since the organization of the Defense Contract Service, 
has been in the Production Division. The Labor Division has, however, consulted 
with persons in many communities who were seeking light on how they might take 
a part in the defense program; it has endeavored to stimulate interest among manu- 
facturers, technical men, and in the Government departments: and it has issued the 
following farming-out bulletins: 

No. 1. Farming Out Practices at Home and Abroad. 

No. 2. Available Capacity in Special Areas. 

No. 3. List of Selected Defense Prime Contractors. 

No. 4. The Problems and Organizations of Farming Out. 

No. 5. Farming Out Methods. 

SUBCONTRACTING HAS INCREASED 

During the months which have passed since the Labor Division started work in 
this field there has been a material increase in the volume of subcontracted work. 
In many of the depressed areas visited there has been some improvement in condi- 
tions, mainly because with the general quickening of national industrial activity, 
including the growing volume of rail transportation, electric power generation, 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6391 

etc., there has been a pick-up in many servicing and supplying industries. In 
New Castle, Pa., the pressure on steefproductipn has compelled the reopening of 
closed mills, and in other places there is at least an early prospect of some defense 
business. 

In general, however, it cannot be said that the problem of depressed areas or of 
farming out has been solved. As a matter of fact, farming out cannot get very 
far if pushed merely as an end in itself. At the root of the whole problem is the 
need for an intensified planning of defense production. Only as procurement au- 
thorities determine precisely what is needed, and break these needs down into the 
component parts of machines as well as the whole product, and then bend every 
effort to find where the necessary work can be done and done quickly can there 
flow any real volume of work to those who are not in the direct line for prime con- 
tracts. 

Unfortunately this type of analysis, and the effort to mobilize for full use all 
out capacity and labor power wherever it is, has been very slow in getting under 
way. 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HILLMAN— Resumed 

Mr. HiLLMAN. A general policy of subcontracting has been strongly- 
advocated, but this, I understand, is to be the subject matter of testi- 
mony by Mr. Mehornay of O. P. Al.'s Defense Contract Service.^ 

One further point remains. The effect of mandatory priority orders 
in creating unemployment in plants which cannot get materials is at 
present causing concern, and a special section of the Labor Division 
has been established to deal with the whole problem of priorities in 
their effect on labor displacement. As my final exhibit I submit a 
report on this work. 

I herewith submit Exhibit G for the record. 

The Chaieman. It will be received. 

(The document referred to follows:) 

Exhibit G. — Work of Priorities Branch, Labor Division, Office of 
Production Management 

The imposition of priorities on scarce metals and materials is almost certain to 
cause some displacement of business and labor. Priority action involves some 
curtailment in the use of a metal or material in the manufacture of certain products 
for civilian use. 

For example, although the production of virgin aluminum has been increasing, 
the use of such aluminum for the manufacture of articles like ice trays, automobile 
parts, cooking utensils, foil, costume jewelry, and building materials has been 
curtailed as the military requirements for virgin aluminum have expanded. 

The consequence of directing more and more aluminum into airplane production 
has been that employers with productive facilities formerly used to produce noi - 
defense articles must either substitute some other material for aluminum if they 
remain in nondefense production, or arrange to use their productive equipment on 
defense orders for which aluminum is available, or find their operations curtailed 
by the lack of available metal for nondefense production. 

" In contrast to domestically produced metals and materials, whose output has 
been increasing, is the situation in certain imported articles such as rubber, cork, 
and tin, in which stock piles are being accumulated against the day when this coun- 
try may be cut off from the overseas sources of supply for these materials used in 
defense production. The accumulation of such a stock pile may involve a priority 
program for reducing the amount of the commodity available to manufacturers. 
In the case of rubber, for example, the manufacturers are receiving 15 to 20 percent 
less crude rubber this month than they used in their operations in June, and they 
will receive a progressively smaller amount each month of this year. 

The Labor Division of Office of Production Management, is, of course, vitally 
concerned about the problem of labor displacement resulting from priorities, not 
only because of the unfortunate personal effects upon those workers who may 
be rendered temporarily idle, but also because we are trying to make the most 
effective possible use of the available labor supply in order to facilitate the 
defense program. 

1 Se€ p. 6409. 



5392 washinctTon hearings 

It has been the policy of the Labor Division of Office of Production Manager 
ment to strive, insofar as possible, to keep existing working forces intact in the 
plant and the community where they have been located in order to avoid the 
waste involved in disrupting present staffs, building up and training new staffs 
under different supervision, and shifting workers and their families from one 
locality to another. 

PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE EFFECTS OF PRIORITIES ON LABOR 

In order to minimize the effects of priorities on labor and to aid in the transfer 
of productive facilities from nondefense to defense work, the Labor Division has 
pursued the following program: 

1. We recommend that commodities be placed under mandatory priority before 
shortages become acute so that sudden curtailments may be avoided and pro- 
ducers can anticipate and prepare for future curtailments. 

2. In priority orders and in the administration of priorities, we try to make 
certain that some material is reserved for allocation to firms that are definitely 
shifting from nondefense to defense work so that thej' can maintain their working 
forces intact during a short transition i^eriod. 

3. We ha\e an arrangement with the Defense Contract Service whereby we 
call to their attention cases and areas of present and prospective labor displace- 
ment so that the Defense Contract Service may survey the equipment of the em- 
ployer or branch of the industry in order to ascertain what defense orders could 
be produced by that equipment. 

4. The possible use of substitute materials as a means of maintaining existing 
working forces is a matter that is taken up with the Conservation Service of the 
Office of Production Management, whose special job is the use of substitutes to 
conserve on strategic materials. 

5. When, for various reasons, an employer is unable to shift to defense work 
or to a substitute material and is forced to reduce his employment, arrangements 
are made for the United States Employment Service to register his workers for 
employment in the expanding defense program. 

LIAISON, UNIONS-O. P. M. 

In order that the representatives of the labor that may be affected Ijy priorities 
or other Office of Production Management action may be fully advised and may 
in turn offer advice and proposals to the commodity chiefs in the Office of Pro- 
duction Management who are administering the priority, production, and pur- 
chasing program in each commodity, there are in the Labor Division two repre- 
sentatives, one approved by the American Federation of Labor and the other by 
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, who serve as liaison with their respective 
organizations. In addition, because of the growing impact of priorities ui)on 
labor, a number of special advisers are being appointed from national labor 
organizations, so that there will be an adviser to the Labor Division from the na- 
tional union directly involved in a particular commodity or industry, especially 
in those industries most affected by priority orders. 

Furthermore, defense labor advisory committees, corresponding to the defense 
industry advisory committees, are being established. The labor advisory com- 
mittees will consult with the staff of Government experts in the various com- 
modity sections and advise them on those aspects of defense production and 
priorities that are of primary concern to labor, as the industry advisory committees 
will consult and advise on matters of primary concern to industrial management. 
Section 2 of Office of Production Management Regulation No. 8 explains the 
selection of these labor advisory committees as follows: 

"Whenever in the judgment of the Director of the Labor Division of the Office 
of Production Management the interests of national defense will be served thereby, 
he shall invite the representatives of labor in an industry in which there is a com- 
modity section in the Office of Production Management to nominate delegates 
to comprise the membership of a Defense Labor Advisory Committee. The 
Director of the Labor Division shall appoint the members of each Defense Labor 
Advisory Committee. He, or such officer of the Division as may be approved 
by him, will act as a point of clearance for the committees and keep records of their 
membership." 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6393 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HILLMAN— Eesumed 

Mr. HiLLMAN. We want to ostublisli the practice b}' which, when a 
defense industry needs workers, it will promptly use the facilities of 
the nearest public employment office for both present and pending: 
needs. That office will arrange for the necessary workers to be found 
locally if they exist locally, and otherwise will arrange to locate them 
in the speediest manner possible. The greatest single need in coping 
with this problem is that all defense employers make use of the public 
employment system; and this they are doing increasingly. By this 
means, together with other steps in the program, vocational training, 
in-plant training, and a generally systematic handling of defense labor 
supply, now under integrated supervision, we are confident that the 
labor needs of defense can be met without the evils of an undirected 
flow^ of labor. [Reading ends.] 

Mr. Sparkman. Thank you, Mr. Hillman. I think that is a very 
fine and clear statement. 

A good many of the questions that I had outlined are answered in 
the statement. But there are some others which 1 would like to ask 
you and have your comments on. 

PLANS FOR 3-SHirT, 7-DAYS-A-WEEK OPERATION 

Has your Office any estimate as to the time when the \arious 
defense industries may be expected to go on a full-time bjisis — that is 
a three-shift day and a 7-day-a-week basis? 

Mr. Hillman. We have no estimates about all mdustries. We 
are following each industry to find out whether they are utilizing at 
least two shifts a day and, if not, why not. 

We are doing it in the aircraft industiy right now and in the ship- 
building industry and, of course, in the Ordnance Division, but we 
haven't got as yet an estimate of all of them because, gentlemen, 
they must first have the ordei-s before thej^ can do that. 

Unless our defense program is planned so far ahead that there is 
sufficient backlog of work we can't possibly ask the employer to put 
on two or three shifts because he may not have orders to carry him 
that far. 

Mr. Sparkman. As I get it yom- idea is that if it becomes necessary 
it can be done? 

Mr. Hillman. We are doing it right now. We are following it 
up in the aircraft industries because there are sufficient orders placed 
to utilize all the facilities and all of their labor. The same is true in 
the shipbuilding industry. 

estimated total labor requirement 

Mr. Sparkman. What are the present estimates of the total labor 
requirements for the defense industries? I notice in your statement 
you gave increases that we might expect? 

Mr. Hillman. We expect about, for next year, conservatively, 
3,000,000 additional workers will be required for the defense effort, 
and that goes for the increase in the next vear. You mav be mter- 



5394 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

ested to know that our estimates of today show that there are 2,700,000 
people workmg directly on defense contracts as against 400,000 people 
in equivalent employment exactly 1 year ago. 

Mr. Sparkman, Let me get that clear. There are 2,700,000 em- 
ployed in defense industries today? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Spaekman. As against 400,000 people a year ago? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Yes. This is an employment gain of 2,300,000 — 
that is, additional people. And then we have the people who are 
working short time and people who are working a great deal of over- 
time. 

Mr. Sparkman. Now, your additional 3,000,000 will be in addition 
to the 2,700,000? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. That is right. 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, you estimate that a year from now 
the total number employed will be 5,700,000? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Of course it depends on the needs of the program. 
As we go along we find that we are increasing the defense program. 
Of course it is our task to see to it that if the program calls for a 
greater expansion that we go ahead and secure that expansion. 

Of these 2,700,000 people working on defense contract_s 1,000,000 
are directly engaged in defense-construction projects relating to ship- 
building, aircraft, and ordnance and similar undertakings. 

NUMBER OF MIGRATORY WORKERS TO BE STUDIED 

Mr. Sparkman. How many of these additional workers, these 
3,000,000 additional workers, will have to be brought in from other 
centers? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Congressman, I can supply that information, but 
it will take a little more study. It depends on how much we utilize 
the existing facilities. 

Now, we are making every effort to bring about more subcontracting. 
Mr. Mahorney will give you all we are doing along those lines. A 
great deal is being done now to get the load spread by breaking up the 
prime contracts into subdivisions so that we can place it where existing 
facilities exist. The more we do that, the less we will need new people. 

The same thing is happening in replacing some of the consumer 
goods, especially the durable consumer goods, with defense projects. 
Of course, as to how successful we will be in that effort wilt depend 
entirely on how many more people we will need. 

NEW SET-UP OF LABOR DIVISION 

Mr. Sparkman. The committee is very much interested, Mr. 
Hillman, in the recent reorganization of the Labor Division. I wonder 
if you will give us the new set-up. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. We have been using what we had before, when I 
came here a year ago. We have tried to coordinate the existing Gov- 
ernment agencies in connection with the requirements or the possible 
requirements for the labor needs. We have called in the existing 
agencies and we have ourselves acted as a coordinating agency in 
Washington, and the agencies themselves have carried through the 
policy in the field. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6395 

Now, it may be interesting to you to show you the number of 
agencies that do the planning and pohcy makmg for our requirements. 
It takes in the apprenticeship committee representatives from the 
Department of Labor; the W. P. A.; the Bureau of Labor Statistics; 
Bureau of Employment Security; Bureau of Research and Statistics 
of the United States Employment Service; the Defense Training, a 
branch which represents the United States Office of Education ; Negro 
Employment Training ; Mmority Groups to see that they are utilized 
in our labor supply; Training Within Industry Branch, which is one 
of the major branches of training today, with 22 branches throughout 
the Nation. In each branch, the top men from each industry, who 
have the experience in training within mdustry and who are associated 
with labor and industry, comprise an advisory panel of almost 600 
people from different industries. These men are on call to try to show 
any p^articular firm how to do the best training within industry. The 
Priority Branch, knowing ahead what are gohig to be the priorities, 
can estimate where work opportunities will be decreased because of 
the lack of raw materials. We then try to direct orders to those plants 
so they can utilize the facilities in their plants; the Labor Relations 
Branch; and the United States Civil Service Commission. 

All these groups meet to determine a policy. These directions go to 
Washington and directly to the various regions. 

In each of the regions there are 12 sections — the country is divided 
into 12 sections. In each one all these branches of Government are 
coordinated so that if a contract is referred to us and we find we need so 
many more thousands of people, through the Employment Service 
here we have the survey of available labor. Directions are given how 
many to train, what to train them for and where to get them from — 
within the vicinity where the contract is let. 

We now have coordination and direction from the Labor Supply 
Division, of finding the people, transferring them if necessary, from 
nondefense industries to defense industries, giving them either pre- 
employment training, or giving them refresher courses, utilizing aU our 
agencies, including labor organizations, chambers of commerce, na- 
tional manufactm^ers associations. All the effort is directed to finding 
the proper labor for the task assigned. 

METHOD OF CHOOSING LABOR REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. Sparkman. How are the labor representatives in each industry 
chosen? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Associated with me in the Labor Division of the 
O. P. M. is a committee representing all of the major labor groups — the 
American Federation of Labor, the C. I. O., and the Railroad Brother- 
hoods. There are 16 of them and I will leave their names for the 
record. They are the top men from all these organizations. First 
we met once a week and now we meet every 2 weeks or subject to call, 
because most of the policies have been agreed to. That is the policy- 
making organization for labor. The same kind of thing goes right 
down into the field in every region. 

(The list was later submitted by the Office of Production Manage- 
ment, and accepted for the record as Exhibit H. The committee, 



6396 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

known as the Labor Policy Advisory Committee, of the Labor Division 
of the Office of Production Management, consists of the following:) 

Exhibit H. — Membership of Labor Policy Advisory Committee 

Harry C. Bates, president, Bricklayers, Masons, and Plasters International 
Union of America. 

Van A. Bittner, United Mine Workers of America. 

H. W. Brown, international jjresident, International Association of Machinists. 

John P. Coyne, president, Building and Construction, Trades Department, 
American Federation of Labor. 

S. H. Dalyrmple, president, United Rubber Workers, Akron. 

Clinton Golden, regional director, Northeastern Region, Steel Workers Organ- 
izing Committee, Pittsburgh. 

Allen S. Ha3'wc,od, director of organization, Congress of Industrial Organiza- 
tions, New York. 

Samuel J. Hogan, president, National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association 
Washington. 

A. Johnston, grand chief engineer. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. 

George Q. Lynch, general president. Pattern Makers League of North America. 

A. E. Lyon, grand president. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America, 
Chicago. 

Charles J. MacGowan, vice-president. International Brotherhood of Boiler 
Makers, Iron Shipbuilders, Welders and Helpers of America, Chicago. 

George Masterton, general president, United Association of Journeymen 
Plumbers and Steamfitters. 

Eimil Rieve, president. Textile Workers Union of America, New York. 

R. J. Thomas, president. United Automobile Workers of America, Detroit. 

D. W. Tracy, formerly president International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers, now Second Assistant Secretary of Labor. 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HIILMAN— Resumed 

Mr. HiLLMAN. There are advisers in each region from the Ameri- 
can Federation of Labor, the C. I. O., and the railroad brotherhoods. 
They work in an advisory capacity if they have a particular situation 
in a city like Philadelphia or Chicago or New York. 

We have a central group representing the A. F. of L., the C. L O., 
and the brotherhoods that functions so far as labor supply in defense. 
I can tell you there is a united labor movement, cooperating with our 
defense effort. 

Mr. Sparkman. But the fiujil choice is yours — they act only in an 
advisory capacity? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. They act in an advisory capacity. We ask the local 
people to submit names. Of course we hold all the time that it is om- 
responsibility, but of comse we always designate the people who are 
recommended because the}' are in a better position to know who can 
give us the best advice. 

PLANS FOR HANDLING LABOR PRIORITIES 

Mr. Sparkman. What plans have been made for handling labor 
priorities? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. These are the plans. 

Mr. Sparkman. It is for that purpose? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. For that purpossc; yes. The President advised 
O. P. M. 6 or 8 weeks ago that he wants the responsibility for that 
whole placement put directlj^ on the O. P. M. — in the Labor Divi- 
sion — and therefore we have the machineiy which reaches out into 
every community; reaches out into every Government agency; into 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION (J397 

labor and management. Therefore we can easily face that situation 
and make the best arrangements. 

We feel that we have that organization stepped up to all the needs 
and requirements. Of course priorities need much more than that. 
They are going to have more of them. 

ALUMINUM SHORTAGE AS ILLUSTRATION 

Let me state two situations that I am handling just now, to give 
you the problem we have because of the shortage of aluminum. 
Of course the manufacture of cooking equipment has been definitely 
curtailed because of the lack of raw materials. 

Well, we had a conference in our place between management and 
labor and usually we had also the mayors of the communities. Of 
course they have an interest. Then there was someone from the 
O. P. M., not merely the Labor Division, but someone from the 
production end who met in conference with them. 

In this case industry and labor have agreed they will give us two 
ot their top engineei-s. They will work out something next Thursday 
or Wednesday — they are commg into Washington again — and we will 
try to find out what contracts that particular industry can adujst 
itself to for defense. 

When we are given that recommendation we will work with the 
services — the Army or Navy or Maritime Commission — and try to 
get contracts for them, so we can place more work for defense and re- 
place the work that they are losing because of priorities. 

Mr. Sparkman. Now, let me ask you with reference to the one you 
just mentioned, priorities in aluminum. How many nondefense 
workers have been thrown out of emplojanent as a result of that? 

Mr. Hillman. Well, I could not give you the exact number, but 
I will say, Congressman, unless we make proper provisions for it 
there will be entirely too many to feel comfortable about it. 

Mr. Sparkman. That is true of aluminum and will be true of other 
industries? 

Mr. Hillman. Yes. I received a letter which I cannot read — it 
is marked "confidential" by the President, addressed to me July 9, 
to ask me to give special attention to it. 

I am now organizing a committee under Douglas Brown, who 
comes from Princeton University, and eveiy Government agency 
will be represented. We are tiyuig to work out some way to antici- 
pate these problems and get a distribution of the defense Toad so that 
we can bring in contracts before they run out of raw materials — if that 
is at all possible — on their orders for consumer goods. 

numbers shifting from nondefense to defense 

Mr. Sparkman. How many workers does your office expect to 
shift within the next year from nondefense to defense work? 

Mr. Hillman. It depends completelj' on how successful we will be 
in it, and I hope we will be very successful. I hope so because I laiow 
we have the cooperation of the services — I mean the Army and 
Navy and Maritime Commission. 

The more we can direct Government contracts to the places that 
lose employment because of priorities, the less we will need shifting 
from nondefense industries into defense industries. 



5398 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Where we are not successful, of course, we will have to transfer 
them and retain them for additional use. Of course there will be 
considerable grief going on with that, because we just can't do it 
overnight. 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you believe that this shifting can remain on a 
voluntary basis? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I believe so. So far, Mr. Congressman, we have 
done it on a voluntary basis and it has been working very successfully, 
and I propose to go about it on a voluntary basis. We will ask the 
employers to think of guaranteeing the worker his place back when 
the emergency is over, with whatever seniority rights attach to it, 
and ask the workers to go and take employment in a defense industry 
or in a defense job. We are quite sure that we will get the coopera- 
tion both from the employers and labor. 

Now, of course, if we fail to have that, of course we will have to 
lay out new policies, but so far we depend completely on cooperation. 

WAGE LEVELS IN FOUR SHIPBUILDING ZONES 

Mr. Sparkman. You gave us a very interesting statement about 
your Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee. Are the wage levels the 
same in all four zones? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. No; but they are the same in the individual zones. 

Mr. Sparkman. Within each individual zone? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. In each individual zone. In other words, we are 
trying to equalize it so their pay is the same in the same zone — for 
instance, Seattle as well as San Francisco, where we have got sunijar 
wages so that people will not move just because they can get 2 cents 
more; and of course, the equalization, as you gentlemen realize, was 
upward and not downward. 

We are dealing in a tight market, but we feel now we have got the 
whole shipbuilding industry covered and have got to the place where 
workers know they work on a basis of equality. 

Mr. Sparkman. And you feel that will cut down migration? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Yes. It has cut it down already. It has given us 
stability. So much so that we want to spread it to other industries 
where it is applicable. The shipbuilding mdustry, in a sense, was 
our guinea pig. We had two organizations, as you laiow, the A. F. 
of L. and the C. I. O. fairly evenly divided — I am not quoting per- 
centages — but we put them together and they have worked co- 
operatively all the way through. 

They were all represented. There was no friction between the 
representatives. We had the representatives of the industry — five 
of them, elected by their groups in a conference held for that purpose — 
and the representatives of the Navy and the Army and the Maritime 
Commission, under the auspices of the O. P. M. After they had 
gone through with considerable discussion we found that we have 
a splendid pattern. It should assure us continuity of production 
and, because of that — the greater ejfficiency and no strikes and no 
lock-outs and proper provisions for adjudication of any complaints 
that may arise — the services are so well satisfied that they are anxious 
to see us spread it to other industries, if that is at all feasible. 

Mr. Sparkman. You doubtless are familiar with the Shipbuilding 
Labor Adjustment Board of the first World^War? 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6399 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Sparkman. After which, I take it, the Shipbuilding Stabiliza- 
tion Committee is probably patterned. At that tune, though, even 
after the rates were made uniform throughout the country, migration 
from area to area still took place as a result of the differences in rents 
and other causes that may have come up, 

Mr. Hillman. Of course we are trying to avoid the mistakes of the 
last war. 

Mr. Sparkman, I am speaking of the housmg program, 

PROVISION FOR HOUSING INSUFFICIENT 

Mr. Hillman. The housing situation, of course, is one of the things 
that are more and more pressing. Of course, gentlemen, we depend 
completely upon what provisions Congress will make for us in provid- 
ing housing for defense. 

Now, this is in the spirit of social reform, if that is desirable, but 
we can't get efficiency unless people get proper housing; we can't hold 
the wage scales if rents shoot up way out of reach and therefore ample 
provision for housing for national defense is absolutely essential. It 
is no saving if we are sparing money in providing housing for defense. 

Mr. Sparkman. Are you satisfied with the provision made for 
houses? 

Mr. Hillman. It is not sufficient. I don't think we have done 
enough. I think it is more and more apparent right now that our 
housing situation is one of the things we are short of, 

Mr. Sparkman. Has it created any difficulties for your Division in 
obtaining the necessary labor supply? 

Mr. Hillman. A great deal. 

Mr. Sparkman. For industries? 

Mr. Hillman. A great deal. We can't expect people to live in 
places where four or five people have to get in two rooms or live in 
something like barracks — and haven't even got the barracks. We 
can't expect them to do that. It isn't fair to do it. It is socially 
undcshable and it interferes with the defense program. We can't 
get good work out unless we give them proper environment. 

Mr, Sparkman, Some manufacturers have testified before the 
committee concerning the housing difficulties of their workers. Some 
of them have told us that private builders cannot buOd the houses 
profitably within the rent range that defense workers can afford to 
pay, I wonder what yom- idea is about that, 

Mr, HiLLAiAN, I think there is a great deal to that. This Govern- 
ment is going to spend a great deal of monej^, must spend it for the 
defense effort. Now, housing should be charged as a proper cost of 
the defense effort. If we are going to raise rents we will have to 
provide the additional wage scales to take care of it. 

I prefer what we have just done — we have stabilized labor costs 
through collective bargaining, through agreements. Now the thing 
that is disturbing us, of course, is the unjustified rise in the cost of 
living, and you gentlemen know that rent is one of the major items 
and therefore we are being penny-wise and pound-foolish when we do 
not make proper provision for housing. 



60396 — 41— pt. 16 7 



6400 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

EFFECT OF FROZEN WAGE STRUCTURE 

Mr. Sparkman. Let me ask you another question about your ship- 
building stabihzation work. It has been charged, I beUevc, that the 
effect of that is to freeze wages at a time when rents and food prices 
are rapidly rising. Those critics argue that such freezing is against 
the interests of labor. What is the answer of your office to that? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Gentlemen, of course, all we have done in the ship- 
building industry is what we are trying to do through every collective- 
bargaining agreement — what was done in the steel industry and in 
the automobile industry. Fortunately for the country we have stabi- 
lized wages, although only for a term of a year or so. In any labor 
contract these things are agreed to for a term of a year or two and in 
that sense you are freezing wages. 

Of course you gentlemen can "unfreeze" it, if we don't do som.ething 
about not permitting the general cost of living to get out of reach. 

Now, that, gentlemen, is again your problem and I believe we all 
ought to keep away from inflation if we possibly can. 

I am going out of my field, but, gentlemen, if we get into inflation, 
of course, all that we are doing will have to be kept on being revised. 
But if we can get stability we will get the utmost for our defense effort. 

STABILIZATION COMMITTEE FOR AIRCRAFT 

Mr. Sparkman. You mentioned in your paper the creation of a 
stabilization committee for the aircraft industry also. 

Mr. Hillman. We are just exploring it now. We are starting it, 
not in a full way, on the Pacific coast. 

Mr. Sparkman. For what other industries or to what extent does 
your office contemplate stabilizing industries? 

Mr. Hillman. I think we have reached an agreement on construc- 
tion, which is one of the major things. Practically all the Govern- 
ment agencies — five agencies — and the labor groups affected by that 
have met and, surprisingly, in less than 3 weeks' work, have come to 
a tentative agi'eement which I expect will be ratified in the next 10 
days. So we have these major things — construction, shipbuilding, 
and if we can get aircraft — and that is where we would like to make 
sure we have a Nation-wide sense of stability. 

Of course the coflective bargaining through the steel industry, 
through their organizations have, in their own way, brought that 
stabilization. 

Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Chairman, that is all that I care to ask. 

The Chairman. Mr. Curtis? 

prevention of price rises 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Hillman, you suggested that it was the problem 
of Congress to prevent a general rise in prices. How do you propose 
that we could do that? 

Mr. Hillman. I suppose Mr. Henderson, and others who are 
working on it, will in the proper time bring it to you. Far be it from 
me to 

Mr. Curtis. I am glad you have confidence in him. 

Mr. Hillman. You gentlemen will have the opportunity to discuss 
it. Certainh^ I am not authorized to speak for the administration on 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 640] 

that, but I am simply pointing to stabilization on the general propo- 
sitions as necessary if we are not going to get the migration and chaos 
that comes from inflation. As to how to do it, I am sure people 
who have that responsibility will speak before your congressional 
committees. 

Mr. Curtis. We visited one section of New Jersey that annually 
produces about 22,000,000 cans of tomatoes for ordinary sales. The 
Government came in and bought, for the Army and the Navy, 
17,000,000 cans of those tomatoes. Now, when these 22,000,000 
customers start to bid on the 5,000,000 cans of tomatoes the price is 
going up, isn't it? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Not that I am shirking in answering you, but 
Mr. Donald Nelson will appear before this committee^ — or his repre- 
sentatives will — and it is right in his alley — he is responsible for 
purchasing. But I will say this to you, in general, I think the answer 
to it is to get more tomatoes, and I think we can get them. 

Mr. Curtis. I am in favor of that. I have always been against 
the doctrine of scarcity. 

DECENTRALIZATION OF DEFENSE INDUSTRY 

Do you favor if at all possible, decentralization of defense activities? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. The Labor Division as far back as July or August 
last year submitted to the Defense Commission that, from the point 
of view of labor supply, we wanted to utilize facilities everywhere — 
labor everywhere. Let me read to you the general principles covering 
the letting of defense contracts. 

Mr. Curtis. Is that a long statement? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. No; just a short piece: 

Orders should be placed in such a manner as to insure the most efficient use of 
each particular facility from the point of view of the problem as a whole; that 
proper consideration should be given to contributory industries, such as the 
machine-tool industry, to avoid creating underlying bottlenecks, and undue 
geographic concentration of orders should be avoided, both as to procurement 
districts and as to industrial sections within any such procurement district. 
Reasons for such decentralization relate to factors of military strategy, as well as 
avoiding congestion that will slow down production. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you favor placing of defense activities where 
possible in agricultural areas to use the surplus labor supply there? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. We do. We put in Wichita, Kans., big plants for 
bombers, and, of course, will have to draw a great deal on agricultural 
labor and we are drawing on it. 

Mr. Curtis. They had an existing plant there? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. No; they were new plants. 

Mr. Curtis. But Wichita has been one of our important airplane 
manufacturing cities; has it not? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Just latety; they were small before that. 

SHOULD condition OF WORKERS BE SUBORDINATED TO DEFENSE RUSH? 

Mr. Curtis. Now, I have one more question: If an attempt in a 
defense plant to improve the condition of the workers as to wages, 
hours, or closed shop means an immediate slow-up of defense pro- 
duction, do you believe that an attempt for improvement should be 
made or should it be deferred until after we are adequately prepared? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Gentlemen, these matters, if they are basically right, 



^402 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

will not slow up production. My judgment is, if you defer it you 
slow up production. You need a labor force to feel that whatever is 
fair — I say "fair" — will be given proper consideration. In that field 
we have increased the conciliation staff of the Labor Department. 
We have put in O. P. M. machinery as well lately with the Aviation 
Board, but anyone who suggests deferring things that are fair and 
feasible is not working for speeding up defense. 

Mr. Curtis. Your answer would be then that even though it means 
a slow-up of defense production that it should be done? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I am saying, Congressman, from my experience of 
30 years in labor relations that you get greater productivity when we 
have increasing wages. 

I am satisfied the next 6 months wall show very little additional 
cost to the Government, if any, because satisfied labor will give greater 
production. 

Mr. Curtis. But suppose this attempt means a closing of the 
plants and there is no production, you still think it is advisable? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Pardon me ; we are trying all we can to stop these 
interruptions, but if you go into the totalitarian system of prohibiting 
strikes and prohibiting interruptions, you have to prepare to take 
the consequences which, in my judgment, taking out the ethics of it, 
is contrary to the system of government we want. That would also 
■slow up production. You must accept a few tlimgs as a natural 
.situation. 

Of course we try to minimize it. We try to bring it down to the 
minimum and we have been fairly successful in bringing it to a very, 
very minimum — this interruption of work. 

Gentlemen, this thing has been given a much greater importance 
from the point of view of national-defense program than it calls for, 
but we are doing all we can to minimize it — to bring it to a minimum — 
to bring it, if possible, to zero, but we do not propose to cure it by the 
kind of a cure that is worse than the disease. 

My judgment, gentlemen, is that we today are doing better in 
production than, in similar situation, the totalitarian governments 
have done. My judgment is that we can attain and we are attaining 
and we are going to attam greater production, much more than even 
the optimists had hoped for. 

It took time for tooling. It has to. You can't start in production 
before you tool up for it, but it is my firm conviction that you can 
get greater production through a cooperative labor group and a coop- 
erative management group, than through the totalitarian system. 
Where that system breaks down, it is because it has lost that spirit 
of cooperation. 

STRIKES ON THE CLOSED-SHOP ISSUE 

Mr. Curtis. Would your answer be the same in reference to a strike 
that did not involve wages and hours but involved a closed shop? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I would saj^ to you, Congressman, every time there 
is a difference there ought to be a place for them to straighten out the 
differences and they are doing it in 99 percent of the cases. The 
record of that stoppage is that it is of very short duration. I don't 
know. Congressman, of any system where you can keep the 
democratic method and at the same time apply complete coercion, 
;and even though we may have a few incidents, I would say that we 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 640S 

should still hold to the democratic way of doing it, because it is the 
best way for production as well as for a way of iivmg. I see that 
from past experience and especially from my experience of this year 
in the national-defense program, definitely charged with responsibility 
in the labor field. 

Mr. Curtis. Would you then oppose the drafting of men into the 
Army? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. How is that? 

Mr. Curtis. Would vou then oppose drafting of men into the 
Army? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Oh, no, no; not at all. We all have to carry that 
responsibility, to defend the Nation and it ought to be done on a basis 
where everyone is doing it, of course. 

Mr. Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Mr. Osmers? 

NUMBERS INVOLVED IN WORK STOPPAGES 

Mr. OsMERS. Mr. Hillman, at the present time how many, approxi- 
mately, are involved in work stoppages throughout the country — in 
round numbers? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. 1 haven't got the figures. It changes from day to 
day. I would say, as far as the national-defense program is concerned, 
I don't believe the number is 10,000— probably 8,000. 

Mr. OsMERS. The question I was leading up to there was this: 
Do you think that there is indicated in the labor situation any further 
need for legislation by Congress? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Gentlemen, I have testified time and again, even 
during heated times, that there is no such need at this time — that it 
would be unfortunate if a time comes when there would be need for it. 

The labor situation now, I am happy to say, proves my contention — 
we do not have today a smgle strike, that I know of, that is 
troubling us. 

Mr. OsMERS. Don't you feel, Mr. Hillman, that it would be a 
tragedy for us to take away from labor its legitimate right to strike? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I think it would be wrong from all our traditions 
and I think further than that, that it would slow up defense instead 
of increasing its speed. 

STABILITY OF WAGES AND PRICES 

Mr. OsMERS. Now, changing the thought for a minute. I was 
tremendously interested in what you said about stability, because if 
we have a problem ahead of us. particularly during the next year as 
everything expands, we have the problem of stability — stability of 
labor — and this committee is concerned with that stability with 
respect to wages and, of course, prices. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. That is right. 

Mr. OsMERS. Now, I realize that you are not here to testify on 
price fixing, if and how, but you did make some remarks which to 
me seem contradictory and I would like to clarify that point in my 
own mind. 

You expressed the view that because of higher wages we were going 
to increase production over the next 6 months to quite a marked degree^ 



^404 WAvSHINGTON HEARINGS 

in your opinion. You realize, of course, that those increased wages 
are a part, probably a very basic part, of the beginnino:' of the spiral. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Well, Congressman, of course, I have given that 
consideration and thought and study for years — for at least a couple 
of decades and there is no final answer to that. 

Mr. OsMERS. I appreciate the theory 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Just a minute. I may say that you can get every- 
thing to an absurd proposition. Of course you can raise wages where 
it must be reflected in costs — and I am not going to give an expert 
point of view on what has happened until now — but I would say it 
is reasonable to expect that the increase of production that is taking 
place, that in most cases industry can absorb the increases right now, 
because of the reduction in overhead. 

You remember that labor cost is only a part of the cost that goes 
into final production and if an industry, whether it is steel or auto- 
mobiles or textiles, can increase its 50 percent production to 75 or 
80 percent the reduction in the general costs more than make up 
for the increase in w^ages. We are now going into figures of 100 per- 
cent and more — maybe to 150 percent. 

I do not accept the position that the increases that have taken 
place up to date should disturb, in any appreciable degree, living 
costs to those working in major industries. 

WAGE IMPROVEMENT IX CALIFORNIA 

Mr. OsMERS. Now you see you run into some subsidiary things 
there. You go into a State like California — and you create a large 
aircraft industry right out of the air, you bring thousands of men into 
that State, you pay attractive wages. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Yes, sir; although we haven't paid them attractive 
wages as yet. 

Mr. OsMERS. Not particularly, but they are attractive compared 
to what the vegetable pickers are getting in the Imperial Valley. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. That is right. 

Mr. OsMERS. Now, carrying on through, you take the men out of 
the fields in California. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. That is right. 

Mr. OsMERS. And even if they are only paying $20 a week in the 
aircraft industry that looks pretty good to a man who has been work- 
ing only 2 or 3 months a year. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Very well. 

Mr. OsMERS. And what happens to 3^our agricultural economy 
and yom- food costs? 

Mr, HiLLMAN. Well, I hate to be one of these experts, because I 
always think of the experts before the twenties, in the early twenties 
and then in the thirties. 

Mr, OsMERS. We have been "experted" to death, 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I am not testifying as an expert. I will say to you, 
Congressman, that in the over-all situation w^e will be better off if 
those sectors of labor, whether in agricultural situations or otherwise, 
are raised up to a decent standard of living, and that if something 
has to be paid in that regard it is more than worth it because you 
wouldn't have to pay it in relief and W. P, A. That is purely cold- 
blooded economics, financial economics, but after all there is more 



NATIONAL DEFENSE IIIGIIATION (3405 

than that. We want a situation where all Americans will be able to 
enjoy a decent standard of living. 

Fortunately for us the country can afford it and I don't like to see 
a skilled laborer taking advantage in buying the food because of under- 
paid people in that area — but that is completely out of my field. 

Mr. OsMERS. I am sure that this committee, after its experience in 
California and elsewhere, particularly in depressed agricultural areas, 
agrees with the contention that one of the great tasks before this 
country as a whole is to raise the level of the living of our agricultural 
workers. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Now, gentlemen, we can do that. Right now we 
are doing it through the defense program and we are at the same time 
helping national defense. That is the reassuring thing that we are 
doing right now, it is all helping the defense program — all speeding 
up production. 

APPARENT ECONOMIC STABILITY IN GERMANY 

Mr. OsMERS. There is something that has occurred to my mind, 
Mr. Hillman, and I have asked several witnesses about it. Possibly 
you may know nothing at all about it, but how does Hitler produce 
the apparent economic stability that he does in Germany? 

Mr. Hillman. Well, I would say that, while I don't know the 
inside lately, I do not think there is anything about Hitler which 
should raise any question that he is doing more than we could do if 
given the time. 

Mr. OsMERS. I am not raising that question. 

Mr. Hillman. He wanted stability by using slave labor. Now, 
we don't want that — and it won't last there for very long, because 
slave labor has not lasted any place. History records that. The 
people under Hitler are temporarily in slaverj^ but they will not stay 
in slavery forever. Of course you can do that as long as you have 
the physical power to do it and as long as a countr}^ is willing to stand 
for it, but there is nothing that I have seen that would call for us to 
imitate it. They have done everything by coercion. What we are 
doing is through the process of cooperation. 

I do not agree with those who believe that Mr. Hitler has invented 
some new ideas. He has just gone back to the dark ages and is 
using all the implements of torture with the new refinements — bombing 
and with all these other things. Germany and the subjugated coun- 
tries have to accept it, but it won't last much longer. 

Mr. OsMERS. It is your understanding then — and I gather this 
from your statement — that inside Germany and of course inside the 
territories under Germany's control, they follow an absolutely fixed 
economy — an economy that is fixed as to wages and fixed as to loca- 
tion of work, hours, pay, and everything else, and there is absolutely 
no leeway, no liberty whatsoever; that the price of butter is fixed 
at so many marks a pound, and when the butter is gone that is the 
end of it, and if you don't get it, then you don't get any butter. 

Mr. Hillman. That is all fixed, the way they can think or walk or 
travel or anything else. 

Mr. OsMERS. In other words a worker cannot move from one place 
to another? 

Mr. Hillman. Not unless specially permitted. 



g408 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

SHIPYAED STABILIZATION AGREEMENTS 

Mr. OsMERs. Now, I want to ask a question about the shipyard 
stabilization agreements. Is it true that those agreements have 
been signed? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Most of them. 

Mr. OsMERS. Have those agreements raised wages in certain plants? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. All the increases have been agreed to m conferences 
that took place with the representatives of labor and industry. 
Government was just sitting there to see what was done. 

Mr. OsMERS. Was that done without coercion or otherwise? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. It was done tlirough the process of collective bar- 
gaming. , . 

Mr. OsMERS. Did these agreements raise wages m certain ship- 
yards? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Oh, yes; obviously. 

Mr. OsMERS. They were not gained by strikes or anytliing else — 
they were negotiated? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. In my opinion it was the finest demonstration of 
collective bargainmg, nationally, that I ever saw, where the needs 
of labor were straightened out around the conference table. 

Mr. OsMERS. I agree with you. 

Mr. HiLMAN. And that is what has been done. 

Mr. OsMERS. And I hope that you are successful in extending that 
same principle to the aircraft industry, and I think you will be. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I hope we will be. 

PREPARATIONS FOR POST-EMERGENCY LET-DOWN 

Mr. OsMERS. Now, is your office or is any office of the Government 
making plans at this time for the let-down that is bound to come when 
this emergency and this war is over? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Well, I would say that is not the responsibihty of 
our office. I am quite sure others are giving attention to it. As a 
matter of fact, I am quite sure they are and all that I hope for is that 
what we are doing right now — the better cooperation that is going 
on in the country — may help in building a mechanism to carry it 
through. It would be most disastrous to the Nation and to civili- 
zation if it doesn't do it, and I think we will. 

Mr. OsMERS. I would like, if you will, to be just a little more 
specific about your statement that you are quite sure others are 
studying the problem. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I think the President has charged other people with 
the responsibility of doing that. 

Mr. OsMERS. You don't know what people or organization? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I wouldn't say. 

Mr. OsMERS. Because every witness, and particularly witnesses of 
a capacity such as yours, has seen immediately the need for such 
planning and the desirability of working out some possible emergency 
plans; but when I get down to the specifics of the situation, they are 
always quite sure something is being done but nobody is quite sure 
just what and where. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I would say we are doing the major job right now 
in industry. Labor and [Government are cooperating during this 
emergency and doing it successfully. I think the future will show how 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6407 

successful we are and that we will be able to cope with all our prob- 
lems, if the "timetable" abroad will permit us to do so. I believe the 
same mechanism we are using now, w^ith the same support back of us, 
will take care of our situation then. 

I see no reason why we cannot keep all the people employed on the 
kind of things that the country needs after this emergency. 

Mr. OsMERS. You mean on consumer goods? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. On consumer goods, of raising the standards of life, 
of giving everybody security. I have always believed that it can be 
done and that the only way you can do it is through the democratic 
process. And I believe you know that a great deal will^depend on 
Congress^ — what you gentlemen want us to do. 

Mr. OsMERs. You believe that it will be possible to convert the 
war economy, if we want to call it that, that we are now engaged in, 
that we will be able to convert that into a peacetime economy? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Gentlemen, I have testified here and, of course, I 
couldn't make our plans clear in the allotted time. We are trying, 
first of all — and I hope we will be successful in some degree— not to 
disturb our economy right now too much. We are putting defense 
orders into the same plants where we make automobiles, so that this 
same plant, with its management and its labor, can just proceed on 
a backlog of orders for automobiles and refrigerators and other things 
after this present emergency ends. 

Now, gentlemen, 1 know that we have never supplied even half of 
the demands of great numbers of people, of what they would like to 
have and, frankly, what they are entitled to have. With the resources 
that we have we can do it, if we just have the will to do it and the 
country is back of it. Nothing can be done unless the country is 
back of it. I am not disturbed about that. It can be done, and I 
hope it will be done. 

Mr. OsMERS. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Congressman Arnold? 

EFFECT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON STRIKES 

Mr. Arnold. Mr. Hillman, just a few short questions on a subject 
that I consider you an expert in. 

You spoke of the rather satisfactory condition of the strike condi- 
tions in defense plants at the present time. 

Mr. Hillman. That is right. 

Mr. Arnold. Could the legislation that has been pending in Con- 
gress for the past month or so have had any effect on that situation? 

Mr. Hillman. That is a matter of one's guess. One person's guess 
is as good as another. Congressman. I have advocated consistently 
that we do not go in for coercive measures. I have a great faith in 
the great mass of people, labor as well as others, and I believe that we 
ought to approach this problem on the basis of saying: "Gentlemen, 
we are preparing to defend the things that are of the utmost import- 
ance to every American, to every worker and we want your 
cooperation." 

I think we can get more that way and therefore I have consistently 
opposed some of the measures you have mentioned, because I think it 
would interfere with national defense. I do not believe that the fear 
of legislation has done it, gentlemen. You are dealing with millions 



5408 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

and millions of individuals. What is giving us that better situation is 
the greater appreciation all the time by American labor of what is at 
stake. They know that when they work on defense work they are 
working for the country and defending themselves and the larger 
values that we are all working for. 

DOES NOT EXPECT MORE STRIKES 

Mr. Arnold. A member of the Military Affaii's Committee, who is 
very much interested in some of the provisions that were eliminated 
from the bill last week, expressed to me yesterday his opinion that 
labor would break loose now and we would see more strikes than we 
have seen in the past. 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I differ with him completely. I believe labor is 
wholeheartedly back of the defense program and I believe that the 
policies that this administration followed of helping labor achieve its 
proper objectives — proper, not improper objectives — without inter- 
ruption of work is giving greater confidence to the great masses of 
people that this defense program is not in the interest of a few — that 
it is in the interest of the entire Nation and that we have a right to 
ask of them their utmost cooperation. 

Mr. Arnold. Well, I want to say that I Imow some great work has 
been done by your organization and by the President in settling defense 
strikes. 

declares COMMUNIST INFLUENCE INSIGNIFICANT 

Would the fact that Russia is now engaged in war with German}^ 
help the labor situation? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. Congressman, although I have heard so much of 
that, I really believe it is insignificant, one way or the other. You 
must always have faith in the American laboring man. I have seen 
them for 30 years from the inside and 99 percent and the majority of 
the other 1 percent are just good Americans, not interested in any 
alienisms and never were. 

Mr. Arnold. But a good many people and some Members of Con- 
gress, have thought that the communistic element was more in sym- 
pathy with the ideals of Russia and its teachings than those of America, 

Mr. HiLLMAN. But their numbers are so few and their influence is 
so insignificant, and in any individual places where they had signifi- 
cance we were completely able to cope with it and we have coped 
with it in one or two situations. There has never been a major dis- 
turbance because of them. Personally, I am more disturbed about 
following the policy of not doing what is fair with the people of the 
country, whether it is labor or management or the average man. 
They have a right to expect us to follow a policy of fairness in our 
defense program and not work for one group or another group or 
give any group any advantage. 

Mr. Arnold. You look forward with confidence to the full coopera- 
tion of labor? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. If we keep on with a proper policy and if, all the 
blame is not charged to labor. There are, unfortunately, a few — but 
entirely too many — who are trying in different ways to discourage 
the defense program. Of course, they influence part of labor and 
they must accept the responsibility more than the small groups we 
we are talking about. People are telling the country at large that the 
defense effort is uncalled for, unjustified. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGKATION 6409 

Well, of course, that must have some effect on some Americans, 
who happen to be part of labor, but even that, I am satisfied, is 
nothing really to be disturbed about. 

Mr. Arnold. You would think some of those elements that are 
speaking over the radio today were in the employ of Hitler, wouldn't 
you? 

Mr. HiLLMAN. I am not saying that but I say they have to accept 
full responsibility for what follows from it. 

Mr. Arnold. That is all. 

COERCION doesn't WORK 

The Chairman. As I get your idea about strike legislation, Mr. 
Hillman, we are liable to think in terms of the perfect picture. That 
is, if we pass strike legislation everytlhng will be 100 percent perfect, 
France tried that with her edicts and found it didn't work. Isn't 
that true? 

Mr. Hillman. Anyone who has tried that found it didn't work. 
I do not know the number of people in concentration camps in Ger- 
many, but probably there are more people in those concentration 
camps than have participated in strikes. They have their way of 
doing it. Assume there is a strike there, in a couple of days the 
strikers are in a concentration camp and not back at work. 

The Chairman. But Mr. Hillman, England never tried it and 
Canada did try it and they had illegal strikes, isn't that true? 

Mr. Hillman. I would prefer not to discuss that at this time. It is 
my considered judgment that we, here in this country, with the labor 
that we have and the general feelmg in the country, and the policies 
that we have been guided by in the past, are going to get and we are 
getting most of our efficiency in production by labor through follow- 
ing a policy of cooperation that will enlist its support. It is not a 
question of — "Well, we better do it or something will happen to us" — 
not happen to us merely as workers, but happen to all of us. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hillman. 

Our next witness is Mr. Robert L. Mehornay. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. MEHORNAY, CHIEF OF THE DEFENSE 
CONTRACT SERVICE, PRODUCTION DIVISION, OFFICE OF PRO- 
DUCTION MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mehornay, Congressman Arnold will inteiTo- 
gate you. 

Mr. Arnold. Mr. Mehornay, will you please state yom- name and 
official position? 

Mr. Mehornay. Robert L. Mehornay, Chief of the Defense 
Contract Service, Production Division, Office of Production Manage- 
ment. 

volume of subcontracting 

Mr, Arnold, Mr, Mehornay, how much subcontracting is being 
done at the present time? 

Mr. Mehornay. Our best records at this time apply to subcon- 
tracts under primary contracts in excess of $10,000. We do not go 
below that figure in our records. 



^410 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

At the present time there are approximately 18,000 prime contracts 
over that amount and by the priority extension records, which are 
kept, there are 366,000 subcontracts and sub-subcontracts applying to 
those 18,000. 

Mr. Arnold. What method is the O. P. M. using to check up on 
the quantity of subcontracts? 

Mr. Mehornay. We are using four methods now. The figures 
which I have just given you come from the Army and Navy Munitions 
Board where application for extensions of priorities are reported. In 
addition to that we follow very closely the spot checking of the 
Ordnance Department because of the very complete records which 
they keep, and that sample checking of their orders shows 22,000 
subcontracts applying to 1,450 prime contracts. 

We also through our own research and statistics department have 
a continuing check by direct inquiry to the prime contractors. I have 
only a percentage report on that and not the figures, but it shows as of 
this time that 25 percent, by dollar volume, is being subcontracted. 
The other figures were all applicable to number of contracts. 

Mr. Arnold. Subcontractors file with the O. P. M. for priority 
rating. Do you make any studies from these records of the extent of 
subcontracting? 

Mr. Mehornay. Mr. Congressman, they do not file with O. P. M. ; 
they file with the Army and Navy Munitions Board where the granting 
■of priorities based on the prime contractor's priority is authorized 
and is recorded, and that was the figure which I used in the first 
instance. 

We do not keep priority records for subcontractors — we do for prime 
"Contractors. 

COMPULSORY SUBCONTRACTING IN ENGLAND 

Mr. Arnold. What do you think of compulsory subcontracting 
such as is required in England? 

Mr. Mehornay. I do not think it is necessary for us to go to all- 
out compulsory subcontracting. I have the theory that we should 
take all of our bids on a modified executive basis, holding them open 
for negotiation, then the apparently successful bidder or the group of 
acceptable bidders, as to the price and their ability to produce, should 
be brought in and through negotiation the amount of subcontracting, 
the purpose of the subcontracting, the speed and the spreading possi- 
bly through that subcontracting, should be determined and be given 
heavy weight in influencing the letting of that contract. Then that 
agreed amount by items to be used, to be contracted, or the option 
to be performed, should be written into the contract. 

In other words it should be a negotiated portion of the contract 
and not predetermined in the bid called. 

Mr. Arnold. Are you satisfied with the amount of subcontracting 
that is being done today? 

Mr. Mehornay. No, sir. 

Mr. Arnold. It has been suggested that the big prime contractors 
are waiting for priorities to squeeze the small producer into taking 
subcontracts on a cost-of-production basis. Does this coincide with 
your knowledge of the present situation? 

Mr. Mehornay. No, sir; I have no knowledge that would indicate 
that that is true. Rather to the contrary. Our continuous checks 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6411 

with the prime contractors disclose none who flatly refuse to do sub- 
contracting. There are many who can explain to you why it is not 
possible or practical for them to do it, but none who flatly refuse. 

Mr. Arnold. Are most of the present subcontracts in the hands of 
present prime contractors? 

Mr. Mehornay. I am not clear, Mr. Congressman, as to the intent 
of that question. 

Mr. Arnold. Are prime contractors subcontracting to other prime 
contractors — is most of it in that direction? 

Mr. Mehornay. It would be only an observation on my part. It 
is so mixed that it would be merely an observation. No records are 
kept. Many of our most important prime contractors are at the 
same time subcontractors to other prime contractors. The condition 
is readily admitted and is very voluminous but we do not have the 
percentage or the ratio. 

DISTANCE PENALIZES SUBCONTRACTING 

Mr. Arnold. Will subcontracting really spread the defense work 
throughout the Nation or will it intensify the present concentration 
of contracts, in your opinion? It has been hoped that it would 
spread it out, but will it really do that or will it intensify the present 
concentration? 

Mr. Mehornay. It will not spread it out and will leave the con- 
centration normal until the load becomes sufficient to necessitate its 
moving out further and further from the prime contractor. Naturally 
a man is going to do business with point closest to him, all other 
things being equal. If we could eliminate that distance penalty 
that the far-oft" subcontractor must pay in his freight differential 
from him to the prime contractor, we would have removed one of 
the big obstacles to spreading the subcontracts further away from the 
prime contracting base. 

Mr. Arnold. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Mehornay. You have 
given us some very valuable information to include in our report to 
Congress. 

The committee will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the committee adjourned until 2 
p. m., the same day.) 



AFTERNOON SESSION 

The committee met at 2 p. m. 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. 
Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. William Green, president of 
the American Federation of Labor. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM GREEN, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN 
FEDERATION OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The Chairman. Mr. Green, we appreciate your coming here to 
testify before us. 

As you know we have been all over the United States, last year 
investigating the migration of destitute citizens from one State to 
another and, during this session, the migration of workers on account 
of our national-defense program. 

We are very much interested in this defense migration. I have read 
your statement very carefully and I think it is going to be a very valu- 
able contribution to this committee. 

Congressman Curtis, of Nebraska will ask you a number of questions. 
I think in that way we will accomplish more than by a reading of your 
statement at this time. Your entire paper will be made a part of the 
record. 

Mr. Green. That will be quite agreeable. 

The Chairman. And following the hearing this week if there is 
anything further you would like to add to your statement, the record 
will be kept open for a few days. 

Mr. Green. In view of your explanation, Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
report that I have a supplemental statement that I will be glad to 
include in the record. 

The Chairman. I wish to say this to you, Mr. Green, that this is 
the first committee in the history of Congress dealing with human 
interstate commerce. We have had plenty of investigations about 
iron and coal and steel but never before have we investigated our 
interstate traffic in human beings. 

This is a very important hearing and we are going to report back to 
Congress on what we find out, so anything you have to add we will be 
glad to make a part of the record. 

Mr. Green. Well, I will submit this statement along with my 
other statement. This statement includes replies from our local or- 
ganizations scattered throughout the entire United States to a ques- 
tionnaire we mailed to them asking that they tell us what the situation 
is in their respective localities. I think you will find it very valuable 
and very interesting. 

6413 



g414 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

(The statement and supplemental material referred to above are 
as follows:) 

STATEMENT BY WILLIAM GREEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 
FEDERATION OF LABOR 

The Part of Organized Labor in Defense Migration 

Very early in the development of the defense program it became apparent 
that, in spite of a stupendous volume of unemployment, local demands for par- 
ticular types of skills could not ahvaj^s l^e filled locally. Labor leaders knew that 
there would be great migrations of workers to new areas, both those directed to 
particular jobs and those just hoping to find some job. Sometimes the mere 
announcement that defense funds would be used in some city was enough to start 
a trek toward that place, long before the work was ready. Sometimes employers 
have started the migration by indiscriminate advertising for workers. What- 
ever the cause, labor knew we must face and solve the problem of unnecessary 
migration as well as the temporary and local shortages for certain skills. The 
American Federation of Labor is concerned with both these wastes in the defense 
program. We want them eliminated while our liberty of individual action and 
our rights as union workers are preserved. 

union cooperation in supplying men to jobs 

In the summer of 1940, as soon as we learned that large numbers of skilled 
workers would be needed for defense construction, international unions affiliated 
with the building- trades department of the American Federal of Labor made a 
survey of their affiliated locals to find out the number of unemployed members 
seeking work and those who would be willing to go to other towns. 

To set up within our building-trades department a great defense-employment 
exchange was not difficult, for our international unions already serve their mem- 
bership as Nation-wide employment offices. Business agents in local unions 
normally act as placement agents, referring men to jobs. Therefore we had 
only to bring information together in central headquarters to establish a clearing 
house covering the entire Nation. 

With this information in hand we were ready to act at once. Calls for skilled 
craftsmen came urgently for cantonments, for powder plants, for airplane fac- 
tories, and all the varied types of defense building. Calls to our building-trades 
department from contractors or from the United States Government were 
quickly transferred to the international unions and men sent to the job. In 
Charlestown, Ind., to build the huge du Pont smokeless-powder plant, 23,000' 
workers were required. Charlestown was a tiny place of 900 inhabitants; there 
was no nearby source of labor supply sufficient to meet the need. Labor for this 
job was recruited literally all over the United States by our unions, and sent 
promptly to the spot. Men came from thousands of miles away. And this 
entire job of labor recruiting was done by union offices without a cent of e.xpense 
to the Government or to contractors for the huge task of contacting the men and 
transporting them to the work.] 

L/VBOR recruitment ELSEWHERE 

Similarly, in Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., where 29,000 men were needed to build 
the cantonments, labor was recruited within a radius of 200 miles and sent 
promptly to work. Men came in their cars, bringing a carload of workers with 
them. The cars then served to transport workers between their lodgings and 
their work, for often it has been impossible for our members to find lodging within 
even 25 miles of the jobs, and drives of 40 or 50 miles morning and evening have 
been the daily lot of very many. 

In Jacksonville, Fla., it was necessary' for our organizations to send plumbers all 
the way from New York. In Corpus Christi, Tex., our organizations have 
supplied over 23,000 construction workers, who transformed a wilderness into the 
most modern airplane training station in the world, and completed this job 6 
weeks ahead of schedule. In Camp Shelby, Miss., we supplied the work force to 
build what amounts to a small city to house 67,000 soldiers. The following 
structures were put up: 13,000 tent frames, 414 mess halls, 80 warehouses, 56 
administration centers, a laundry, a hospital, 34 post exchanges, 85 miles of water 
mains, 60 miles of sewer, 65 miles of paved roads. This work was completed 
ahead of schedule, costing the Government only $20,000,000 compared to the 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6415 

estimates of $22,000,000 for the job. In Fort Belvoir we completed a camp to 
house 20,0C0 soldiers in less than 3 months. In Ravenna, Ohio, we are supplying 
over 12,000 men for the construction of the $14,000,000 Atlas Powder Co. loading 
and ammunition plant. We drew labor for this job from all over the country, and 
work is proceeding up to schedule. 

In building the cantonments for the United States Army, we have in effect con- 
structed 46 small cities in 6 months' time. These cities house anywhere from 
20,000 to more than 60,000 men, and involve the building of living quarters, 
powerhouses, roadways, stores, hospitals, laundries, mess halls, sewage systems, 
water-supply lines. 

The labor supply for this colossal task has been furnished by the international 
unions aflRliated with our building-trades department, as noted above, without 
any cost to the Government or to contractors. When an international could not 
furnish all the men needed, the requirements were filled by cooperation with other 
internationals. The International Association of Heat aiid Frost Insulators and 
Asbestos Workers, for instance, having more calls than they had men to supply, 
agreed to accept members of the Operative Plasterers' International Association 
of the United States and Canada unions able for the work, without charging either 
initiation fees or dues. 

METAL TRADES UNIONS H.WE ASSISTED 

Unions in the metal trades have also contributed. The International Associa- 
tion of Machinists has recruited men for work in navy yards, arsenals, airplane 
plants, and other metal work from the entire country. Registration of unem- 
ployed machinists began on May 23, 1940, at international headquarters and has 
continued to date. Local lodges have been alert to notify the International office 
immediately when they foresaw that new work would require additions to work 
force. 

In Bremerton, Wash., for instance, the navy yard lodge advised headquarters 
that a large number of machinists would soon be needed. The international 
immediately sent job specifications with rates of pay and requirements to all 
lodges west of the Mississippi. Men were advised that medical examinations 
would be required, urged to take these examinations before leaving for the job; 
they were instructed to send their qualifications to the Bremerton office and be 
ready for immediate summons. In this way Bremerton was able to mobilize its 
work force with a minimum of waste motion. The Bremerton lodge met the men 
on arrival and assisted them in getting quickly registered and on the job. 

Similarly, the machinists recruited 3,000 machinists and 1,650 tool makers for 
the arsenals, airplane mechanics for Vultee and Lockheed, and men for many 
other defense jobs. 

LINK WITH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 

The supplying of skilled union men to jobs was further improved and speeded 
by linking our union employment activities with the United States Employment 
Service. This was necessary because we found that in spite of the great demand 
for skilled workers and our activities in referring them to jobs, literally thousands 
of workers were traveling around looking for work, not knowing where to go. 
Clearly we needed centers of call, and it was obvious that these could best be 
furnished by the 1,500 local offices of the United States Employment Service. 
LTnion placement is not in competition but cooperating with the United States 
Einployment Service. 

On June 20, 1940, following a pledge of the executive council of the International 
Association of Machinists to support the preparedness program, officials of that 
union met with the Director of the Employment Division of the Bureau of Em- 
ployment Security to work out an understanding of the operating methods of the 
public employment offices and methods of cooperation between them and the 
grand-lodge representatives, business representatives, railway general chairmen, 
and local lodge officers. Following the agreement reached at this meeting the 
International Association of Machinists advised its lodge officers and business 
representatives to make immediate contact with local emj^loyment offices and 
arrange for a suitable plan of getting all unemployed members registered and also 
for registering machinists temporarily employed in occupations not requiring their 
highest skills. 

In July 1940 I wrote all the central labor unions affiliated with the American 
Federation of Labor, urging their cooperation with local employment offices to 
work out plans which would get every unemployed union member registered at 
the public employment offices, and would also preserve the established union 

60396— 41— pt. 16 8 



g416 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

placement channels of those unions prepared to supply employers directly with 
union workmen. At that time, also, I requested our central labor unions to 
cooperate in working out needed training programs in local communities in order 
that an effective labor supply would be available when and where reeded. 

With help from our union members, the National Employment Service prepared 
a statement of procedure to be followed by local offices in plachig workers both 
when union contracts are in existence and when an employer calls for workers 
without designating union affiliation. The purpose of this procedure was to 
assure the most effective use of all channels of labor placement to get men onto 
defense jobs promptly, and to preserve the functions of union placement and 
protect the rights of union members under contracts. 

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers made a notable contri- 
bution to working out detailed procedures for a better control of the labor supply 
on defense projects. It held a series of regional conferences throughout the 
United States in the early months of 1941, bringing together clearance officers of 
the United States Employment Service on State and regional levels, business 
managers, international representatives, and vice presidents of the union and 
representatives of the Labor Supply Division of the National Defense Commission. 
These meetings were designed to help organize the labor supply, to avoid local 
shortages of skilled workers, and to prevent wasteful and aimless flocking of 
workers to areas where jobs are not ready for them. The problem is similar to a 
traffic jam — the aim of the conferences was to find ways to route work crews most 
efficiently and with the least friction, to use the union members nearest to the job 
rather than to send men unnecessarily long distances, perhaps to find the jobs 
filled when they arrived. 

Out of these conferences detailed procedures for cooperation between the 
United States Employment Service and the unions on all levels were developed. 
Local business representatives work with the local employment offices, interna- 
tional representatives with State offices, and so on until national clearance is 
reached when our international oflfices cooperate with the national Employment 
Service clearance office. This cooperative plan opens up a quick job-clearance 
system throughout the entire country, making thousands of highly skilled union 
rrien immediately available for defense work and enlisting the cooperation cf our 
unions. It has had great success throughout the country and has speeded the 
defense program. 

THE WILL TO MIGRATE 

As long as free enterprise is operating, men will seek work where they get the 
best bargain. A number of factors enter into the choice of jobs. If a man is 
unemployed he will, of course, take a job under conditions which would not tempt 
him to leave a job he has. Among the things he considers are wage rates, general 
working conditions, distance from his home, chance to use his highest skill and to 
advance, and what he has to give up in the way of seniority and retirement rights 
if he leaves his former job, and the relative permanence of the two jobs. Defense 
jobs have to offer equal or better opportunities than are open to workers in other 
lines or they won't attract enough men. 

Congress recognized the need to make Government contracts attractive to 
business men when it passed the special tax and amortization laws. Additional 
incentive to take defense contracts is created by priority rulings on materials 
which make it possible for a manufacturer to continue operations on defense 
when he would have to close his plant if he stuck to his former line. Material 
and machine priorities similarly act as a powerful lever to move workers into 
defense jobs. But there must also be some inducement in the conditions of the 
job to attract and hold enough men. 

One such inducement would be the use of a revamped social-security program 
which would not discriminate against many defense workers as the present one 
does. 

In spite of the fact that the first selective service call took men from private 
jobs into the Army more than 6 months ago, no legislation has been passed to 
protect the rights they had been building up to old age and survivors' insurance. 
A little over half the States have frozen rights of draftees under their unem- 
ployment compensation laws, but the meager benefits and limited coverage of 
most laws plus the fact that many persons exhausted their benefit rights before 
they went into service and have iiotliing left to "freeze" make these provisions 
less effective than apparent in many cases. 

Not even that much has been done for workers called from private jobs into 
civilian Government service. The navy yards and arsenals have expanded their 
working forces materially. From July 1940 to April 1941 the average number of 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6417 

workers on Federal civilian pay rolls as defense production workers and in other 
■defense employment increased by nearly 200,000 exclusive of the Work Projects 
Administration defense work and of additions to nonmilitary regular Government 
agencies which also have increased their staffs to handle new problems created 
by defense. Many of these workers have been drawn from private employment 
where they had been building up both unemployment compensation and old-age 
and survivors insurance rights. Government service provides no protection 
against later unemployment, and the Civil Service Retirement Act, which still 
does not cover all P^ederal workers, provides no benefits for survivors and no 
continuing protection if a worker leaves the service, as most of these defense 
workers will, before retirement age. 

Take the case of a worker with a wife and two small children, who has had 3 
years of employment covered by old-age and survivors insurance, at an average 
wage of $100 a month. If he should die his family would receive a little over 
$45 a month until the children reached 16 years of age, or 18 if they were still in 
school. That means he has built up for his family protection equal to the income 
from more than $13,000 at 4 percent. If he leaves his job to work in a navy yard 
or on a Government force-account job and dies after he is no longer in insured 
status under old-age and survivors insurance, his family would have no income. 
Can the worker throw away that equity lightly? He should not have to take a 
•less favorable situation in Government defense work than he had previously. 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION SYSTEM AS IT AFFECTS MIGRANTS 

Of course defense work for private companies is not subject to this disadvan- 
tage. Our system of unemployment compensation, however, may operate to the 
disadvantage of migrants whether they go into Federal service which gives them 
no rights or into private defense employment in which the amount of protection 
-depends on the diverse State laws. For construction workers, moved from one 
defense site to another as needed, the State unemployment compensation laws 
may prove of little use. Since earnings in several States cannot be pooled to give 
■eligibility in any one State, a migratory worker may easily find himself unem- 
ployed with no rights to compensation in spite of a considerable amount of pre- 
vious employment. State experience rating laws impose unnecessary hardships 
on contractors, since the very nature of defense work demands large working 
forces who will complete the job quickly and who will have to be laid off at the 
end of the work in that area to seek employment elsewhere. 

The records of employment offices showing the huge number of workers sent 
across State lines for jobs or traveling voluntarily in search of work testifies 
eloquently to the fact that employment and unemployment are phenomena na- 
tional in scope. We ask for a national system of unemi)Ioyment compensation 
with Nation-wide adequate standards of benefits and the end of the discrimina- 
tory system of experience rating which has no part in such a period of employ- 
ment as lies ahead and which can only make more difficult the building of a sound 
system to meet postdefense unemployment. 

DISMISSAL WAGE SYSTEM 

We ask also for a study of a supplementary system of contributory dismissal 
wages in defense employments to overcome the disadvantage of the temporary 
nature of such employment. When workers leave or are forced out of their 
customary work by priority orders which cut off the supply of materials on which 
they formerly worked, they may lose real equities in seniority agreements, in 
plant retirement systems, and in the normal expectation of continued employment. 
Defense work is expected to be temporary. If justice is done to those forced into 
it by priorities and if it is to be made attractive enough to induce many other 
workers to accept defense jobs voluntarily, these equities should be compensated 
for. Unemployment compensation alone, limited as it would necessarily be 
even under reasonable standards, is not adequate for that purpose. 

Furthermore, some such system, which would hold back part of the higher 
wage workers will be getting in the defense plants and add to it something from 
the defense profits until the end of the current crisis or until a personal emergency 
in the worker's family made the use of such savings necessary, would serve to 
check inflation now and to offset decreased employment income later. 

Housing 

The machinery for routing workers to defense areas worked out by our unions 
and the United States Employment Service is intended to get men on the job 



g418 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

where they are needed. Providing for them in the new area is another problem. 
Frequently, other considerations dictated the location of defense plants, and 
particularly of military camps, away from larger communities. The small cities 
and rural areas which have received the influx of new workers have frequently 
been overwhelmed by the problems of housing and otherwise providing for their 
new residents. 

The defense emergency has pointed up the lack of adequate housing for the 
working people of this country. The accumulation of large numbers of workers 
around defense plants has made the situation more urgent, but it is a problem that 
has existed for many years. We are suffering now from this housing shortage in 
part because we did not build more homes at an earlier date. 

We have underbuilt for more than a decade. During the 10 years from 1920 
to 1930 there was an average of over 650,000 nonfarm homes built each year, but 
for the 4 depression years, 1932 through 1935, the average dropped to 82,000; 
that is, only 12 percent of the number constructed during the preceding period. 
Although the number has increased since that time, it has not yet reached 550,000 
homes a year. This backlog must be caught up with. 

The National Resources Planning Board estimates that we need over 2,500,000 
nonfarm homes to relieve the accumulated shortage now existing in this country. 
This does not include special defense needs. The United States Housing Au- 
thority estimates that by 1950 we will need 10,000,000 more nonfarm homes than 
we have at present. This means building at the rate of 1,000,000 a year, or more 
than double the rate of the first quarter of 1941. 

The defense program, of course, forces an upward revision of these estimates 
because, in some instances, the labor force will migrate from towns and cities with 
high vacancy rates to others already crowded, and from farms to towns. As a 
result, houses in some locahties remain vacant, while in other sections of the 
country many more will have to be built. 

And these figures do not tell the whole story, for this housing shortage hits 
almost exclusively people in the low-income groups. Therefore, these homes must 
be built to rent or sell for a price the average wage earner can afford to pay. 

An effort is being made at this time to meet this situation through both public 
and private enterprise. However, this effort is still a long way from being ade- 
quate. The American Federation of Labor, through its central labor unions and 
State federations, has just completed a survey of conditions existing in towns and 
cities in which there is a sizable amount of defense work. The results of this sur- 
vey indicate overwhelmingly that the need for more and better housing is still 
very serious. 

The areas for which information was gathered can be divided roughly into three 
groups: (1) Those in which the situation demands further immediate attention, 
where overcrowding has already reached a serious stage and where measures 
already taken or planned are hopelessly inadequate; (2) those in which it is ob- 
vious that the situation will very shortly become serious unless further steps are 
taken at once before the new defense plants get into full production; and (3) a very 
few localities where, for various reasons, the community is apparently still able to 
handle the situation as it has developed so far, 

BAD SPOTS IN DEFENSE HOUSING 

Here are some of the conditions our unions report: 

In Corpus Christi, Tex., 20,000 additional workers have been added to the 
96,000 permanent residents of the city since the start of the defense program, an 
increase of more than 20 percent in about a year. In addition, about 7,000 
workers had to be housed temporarily while construction work was in progress. 
These new workers are now living in any available accomodation, including 
tourist camps, trailer camps, tents, shacks, and automobiles, while rents on per- 
manent living quarters have advanced from 75 to 200 percent. Some of the tem- 
porary workers could get no shelter of any sort and were sleeping in the open. 
Government agencies have built or are building 1,700 units, and about 500 units 
are being built privately. Obviously, this program will not fill the need. 

Brownwood, Tex., was equally swamped. Houses normally renting for $20 a 
month shot up to .$60 and higher. From Abilene and Mineral Wells we heard 
complaints that the rent for a cot in a crowded tar-paper shack with no sanitary 
facilities was $3 a day. Other workers were paying $60 per month apiece to 
sleep two in a bed. This is what our men had to return to after a full day's 
work. 

The situation in Gadsden, Ala., is critical. In this important steel and iron 
center the industrial expansion has brought in about 1,250 permanent workers, 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6419 

with 5,000 more expected there within the next few months. These men with 
their families are living in old and leaking slab huts (made from slabs taken ofif 
green lumber), in garages, barns, stables, old store buildings, and shacks with 
dirt floors, with no sanitary facilities whatsoever. Unless the situation is rem- 
edied before winter there may be acute suffering. At least 1,000 new homes are 
needed here instead of the 250 that are now being built by the Government. 
Private capital is reluctant to build homes at a price the workers can afford. 
Rents have gone up on the average worker's home about 33)^3 percent. The work 
of expanding Camp McClellan, about 23 miles from Gadsden, added some 3,500 
temporary workers to the town's permanent population and further complicated 
the housing problems. 

Reports from Wichita and Parsons, Kans., show grave problems there. With 
airplane factories operating under capacity contracts in Wichita, the city of some 
120,000 persons has already absorbed 15,000 permanent workers witli at least 
40,000 expected by the spring of 1942. In the last 6 months about 1,000 dwellings 
have been erected by private capital, but these are chiefly offered for sale. The 
Government's building project so far includes only 400 family units with another 
1,000 in prospect. The outlook is bad for that expected flood of new residents. 

Already it is impossible for workers to find houses to rent to which they can 
bring their families. Single workers can rent space in rooms in private homes. 
With from two to four sleeping in every available room, workers are paying $5 
to $6 per week apiece for space in a double bed in stuffy basement dormitories 
housing 6 to 12 men. 

A serious situation confronts the city of Parsons, Kans., a community of about 
14,000. Here there is still a chance to anticipate the housing needs because the 
main part of the defense work has not begun. There can be no delay, however. 
The Federal Government has approved a $35,000,000 shell-loading plant to be 
located in Parsons. This will mean some 4,000 construction workers for the period 
necessary to bui'd the plant, and about 6,000 production workers for its operation. 
These latter, being fairly permanent, will certainly want to bring in their families. 
It is easy to see the problem is acute and immediate. 

This city, center for the general oflRces and shops of the Missouri, Kansas & 
Texas Railway Co., has never had many vacant houses for rent. The railroad 
is increasing its personnel and this adds to the demand for decent living quarters. 

Burlington, Iowa, a town of about 27,000 in normal times, reports that upward 
of 20,000 workers of all types have come into the town as a result of the construc- 
tion of a shell-loading plant there. According to city officials, there was a short- 
age of housing even before this plant was constructed. The increases in rent 
show what is happening here. Houses normally renting for $25 to $30 a month 
now cost $54 to $65, and single rooms in private homes, for which normally from 
$3.50 to $5 a week was paid, are now bringing $10 a week, with two or three cots 
in each room. The Government has built reasonably satisfactory barracks on 
the site of the plant but these can house only a small proportion of the workers. 
Trailer camps have grown up all around the plant, with sanitary conditions at 
their worst. A few new houses are being constructed, but the rents are exorbitant. 

PROJECT NEEDED IN BUFFALO 

Our union people in Buffalo, N. Y., have been trying since last September to 
secure the housing facilities which they foresaw would be needed when the defense 
program got under way. So far, they say, "1,000 housing project units have been 
approved for this area; 200 in the city of Lackawanna and 800 in the city of 
Buffalo. The present estimate of new workers for this area is 25,000 and they 
will be employed here by January 1, 1942." It would seem that a large-scale 
housing project should be planned immediately for this section, and there should 
be no delay in its execution. Our people see that private capital cannot or will 
not provide the necessary facilities at prices within the range of the wage earner. 
Either the Government must build these homes, or higher wages must be pro- 
vided so that the worker can afford to pay the rents demanded by private industry. 

The situation in Schenectady will be acute by fall unless some 1,000 to 2,000 
dwelling units are put up. The General Electric Co. anticipates needing more 
than 5,000 men by October. The American Locomotive Co. will take on about 
800. Probably a number of these men will come in from outside the community. 
A rough estimate shows about 3,000 new people already in the city since the 
start of the defense program. There has been little private construction in 
spite of the showing of need. In May only 290 house units were vacant, more 
than half of those classed as slum dwellings. Banks have been reluctant to finance 
decent homes at workers' rent levels and realtors have opposed labor's demand 



Q420 WASHINGTON HEAEINGS 

for a State housing project. Rents for workers' homes are rising and relief is 
badlv needed. 

The situation in Tacoma, Wash., illustrates again the fact that the housing 
program has consistently dragged behind the need for more homes. The de- 
fense program has brought at least 10,000 fairly permanent residents into this 
city, besides the 45,000 soldiers stationed at the 2 nearby camps, and the 4, COO 
building tradesmen employed on the construction of these camps. Thousands 
of workers came to this area because of publicity overstating the number of 
workers that would be needed. The only Government building that has been 
carried out here to date consists of 350 units for married enlisted personnel in 
military service. A million-dollar housing program is being considered, but has 
not yet been adopted, notwithstanding the 10,000 workers that have already 
been'added to the population. 

CONDITION SURROUNDING ARMY CAMPS IN RURAL AREAS 

The most crucial situations have come about, usually, where plants or Arm}^ 
camps have been built in locations far removed from any good-sized cities. For 
instance, the construction of Camp Blanding in Florida required the employment 
of 20,000 men. The nearest town was Starke, which ordinarily had a poDulation 
of only 1,500. Jacksonville, the only sizable city within reach, was 50 miles 
away.' Of course, workers found it impossible to get suitable living accomoda- 
tions. Many lived in their cars, in trailers, covered trucks, hovels made of scraps 
of metal, building paper, and even palmetto leaves over rude frames. Houses 
in towns within a radius of 75 miles were badly overcrowded, and rents went up 
alarmingly. One of our members reports that he was able, by getting there 
early, to find a summer cottage 2 miles from the camp. This had no modern 
conveniences, and usually rented for from $20 to $25 a month. He paid $45 to 
begin with, and was paying $60 by April. The contractors built barracks for 
1,500 of the 20,000 workmen, and even this limited provision was late in being 
finished. 

Spartanburg, S. C, had a difficult time while temporary workers prepared the 
adjacent military camp (Camp Croft). With most of the temporary construc- 
tion workers gone now, the city has left some 8,000 new permanent residents, 
workers, families of officers, and others drawn to the community in the last year. 
Rents have increased from 40 to 75 percent for people trying to find homes. 
Ev3n for homes continuously occupied rents have gone up at least 10 percent. 
SoTie relief is expected from the 270 family units for low-income workers now 
be'ng completed and 120 units for the families of officers, but these will still not 
so've the problem entirely. 

These reports are illustrative of what is happening all across the country. 
I will file for your later consideration a summary of many more such statements 
from our union representatives in defense areas. 

All of the towns surveyed reported rent increases, varying from 10 to 200 per- 
cent, with many telling of increases of 35, 40, and 50 percent for homes rented 
to new workers coming into the town. In a large number of the towns substand- 
ard and condemned buildings unfit for human use were being reoccupied, and in 
others where private construction seemed to promise an adequate number of 
homes, the rents for these units were beyond the reach of the wage earner's income. 
Even where low-cost houses are providing for some workers the units do not 
release other homes for newcomers to an eqtiivalent extent, because frequently 
it only permits the undoubling of families in dangerously overcrowded dwellings^ 

OPPOSITION TO labor's EFFORTS 

Because most of these communities have insufficient funds to handle so big a 
problem, Federal aid on a large scale is necessary, but the cooperation of all local 
groups is also vital if a sensible solution is to be achieved. Organized labor 
groups in these cities and towns are capable of a fine contribution in this respect. 
The results of our survey tell us that these men and women know the situation 
in their localities, and are not only willing but eager to help find the jsroper answer. 
In some areas this help is being sought and accepted in a fine spirit of cooperation, 
and a real job is being done. In others, opposition to labor's efforts is found on 
all sides. In the answers to our questionnaires we found many complaints that 
representatives of organized labor were not given a change to cooperate; that real 
estate men opposed Government-financed housing programs; that banks were 
not interested in financing low-cost housing. This is an emergency situation, 
and no special interests should be allowed to stand in the way of dealing with it 
swiftly and efficiently. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MI(4KATI0N g421 

The housing problem is no new one, and it will still be with us when the defense 
emergency has passed. The defense program has made quick action of primary 
importance, but we must not lose sight of the future. The homes that are built 
today should become a worth-while permanent contribution to the community. 
This can only be done if local authorities study their city, and devise well-thought- 
out plans coordinating defense needs with the ordinary peace-time demands of 
the community-. When the defense industry that brought these additional people 
into a city is a thing of the past, it should be possible to use these homes in place 
of the disgraceful slum areas which mar most of our cities. 

A comprehensive housing project has long been recognized as one of the cushions 
against a slump in our economic system when we are able to shift over again to 
a peacetime economy. For this reason, too, present construction of houses should 
not sacrifice sound planning while achieving the requisite speed. Each com- 
munity should be concerned to have a program that both takes care of the present 
and looks to the future. 

What we need, then, is first of all more homes, many more, and as fast as they 
can be constructed. Secondly, they must be built to rent for a price the average 
worker can afford. And finally, they should be well built, rightly situated and 
well planned so as to be a real asset to the community in the future. This sounds 
like a compHcated and difficult job, and it is, but it can be done if there is whole- 
hearted cooperation among all interested groups. In all of these communities, 
there are able and eager members of the American Federation of Labor who are 
anxious to contribute their knowledge and experience toward finding the most 
constructive solution of their local problem. 

Health 

Many of the health problems arising from defense migration have their roots 
in and are only an accentuation of deficiencies in provisions for community 
healtli and industrial hygiene under more normal conditions. W^here a State 
or city has had a strong public health department, where sanitary facilities 
have iieen well planned, inspection of milk and water supplies efficient, public 
clinics ample, and health education progressive, the community is more able to fit 
new workers into its life without acute difficulty. On the other hand, when huge 
numbers of workers are moved into areas already poorly equipped, when tempo- 
rary trailer camDs or civilian barracks are established without proper inspection, 
the worst slum hazards are created. 

I have already told you of the reports our affiliated unions have given us of the 
crowded and undesirable living conditions. While the country has been fortu- 
nate to date in escaping any serious eiiidemics, we cannot continue to rely on 
good luck. Conditions conducive to the spread of contagious diseases exist in 
many communities and must be eliminated. 

In many defense areas thousands of workers poured in, hitch-hiking and coming 
by car, looking for jobs without definite knowledge of conditions. Many of them 
could not get work and had no money to go back home. They live in tents, tour- 
ist camps, shacks, and trailers, without proper sanitary provision, creating a 
situation which threatens the health of the entire community. This situation 
has been particularlv acute around Louisville, Ky., and Charlestown, Ind. In 
some cases our affiliated unions have financed the removal of their members caught 
in such a situation. Our members in Louisville have been concerned at the 
danger to the whole community which is created by the unsanitary shack camps 
in Charlestown. 

The construction workers at Camp Leonard Wood in Missouri had either to 
travel from 20 to 100 miles a day to and from work or live without any semblance 
of decency and privacy in pup tents, trucks, or crowded 8 to 10 ni a room. There 
were no sanitary provisions in the neighborhood of the camp. These workers, 
now being laid off as the camp project nears completion, are transferring in large 
numbers to work on the O'Reiley Hospital at Springfield, Mo. While that com- 
munity offers better facilities, there will certainly be overcrowding there too. 

A similar situation existed in Lawton, Okla., because of the expansion of Fort 
Sill. Workers were traveling 10 to 50 miles daily, living in crowded rooms and 
even sleeping in automobiles. The county health clinic has been overtaxed and 
workers cannot get proper service. 

In Mississippi there are no free clinics of any kind in most defense areas, and 
the public health department is understaffed. With the permanent residents 
already inadequately provided for, the influx of new workers creates a serious 
problem. 



g422 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

SANITATION PROBLEMS ACUTE IN SMALL CITIES AND TOWNS 

In nearly every case in which large numbers of workers are brought to new 
areas, especially to smaller cities and towns, sanitation problems are acute. 
Even when Federal money has been available for housing, the town's sewage 
system is often inadequate for the load placed on it. Often the town has no 
riioney for new sanitary facilities and in some cases legal debt limits prevent 
further public borrowing. 

The city of Parsons, Kans., of which I have already spoken, anticipates serious 
difficulties when the size of their community is nearly doubled in less than a year. 
The health department is concerned over the water supply, sewage disposal, milk 
inspection, and health work, none of which can be properly safeguarded on the 
funds now available. This is an immediate concern — Federal aid could help 
them prepare for the emergency before the new workers pour in. The safe- 
guarding of the health of our workers and their families makes this aid essential. 

In Virginia the area between Williamsburg and Fort Monroe faces a serious 
health problem because of the pollution of rivers and the bay with sewage. Make- 
shift dwellings, such as converted streetcars, tents, trailers, shacks, and con- 
demned slum houses in a number of cities, are not only uncomfortable but actually 
unsafe without careful planning for an inspection of sanitary facilities, which has 
been lacking to date. 

A report from Charleston, W. Va., stresses as a special problem the lack of a 
uniform milk ordinance and the inadequate inspection of the raw milk which 
many dealers supply. 

Even some large"^ cities have had to put a dangerous load on existing health 
facilities. Philadelphia, still far from the expected peak of defense work, is already 
suffering from overcrowding and reoccupancy of substandard vacant homes with 
a consequent increase in the tuberculosis hazard. The Philadelphia Department 
of Public Health considers tuberculosis and communicable diseases its chief 
problems now. The city finances have not permitted any expansion in facilities 
for diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis or for vaccination and immunization of 
newcomers, many of whom are from communities which had no proper health 
education or compulsory vaccination. 

In many areas hospitals are so crowded that there is a long wait for beds, and 
hospital and medical costs are too high for workers and their families. We need 
more free and low-cost clinics serving all defense areas. Charleston, S. C, con- 
siders one of its most serious problems the lack of a hospital in the navy yard area. 
Other areas report no hospital or clinic or even first-aid station near large defense 
plants. Sometimes seriously injured men have to be taken 50 or 60 miles for 
treatment. 

VENEREAL DISEASE A MAJOR PROBLEM 

Aside from sanitation, venereal diseases are the most acute health problem in 
defense areas. This is particularly true on the frmges of camps and in places 
where thousands of workers, often without their families, are being brought 
together with no proper provision for wholesome recreation. The Army protects 
its personnel with prophylaxis and treatment of infections. Every defense area 
should have free clinics giving the same service to workers. This is vital for the 
protection of the whole Nation. 

Not only is defense migration creating serious health problems connected with 
overcrowded housing, lack of proper sanitary facilities, increased risk of venereal 
infection, and conditions which make the outbreak of epidemics a constant menace, 
but also the conditions of work in defense plants are a threat to the health and 
safety of workers on the job. In 1940 industrial accidents in all manufacturing 
industries increased nearly 13 percent over 1939, with less than 11 percent increase 
in man-hours worked. In 1941 the rate of industrial accidents is probably in- 
creasing even more. 

INJURIES IN DEFENSE PLANT 

The record in defense industries is strikingly worse than that for all manufac- 
turing. In terms of exposure, the increase in frequency rate (that is, the number 
of disabling injuries per million hours worked) was 2.5 percent. But for basic 
defense industries it was nearly 10 times that much. In shipbuilding and in air- 
craft production the frequency rate of disabling accidents was 22 percent greater 
in 1940 than in 1939, in the machine-tool industry the rate increased 23 percent. 
That means a great loss in productive manpower as well as increased hardships for 
the workers in those important industries when the increases in disabling injuries 
were 22 or 23 percent higher than the increases in man-hours worked. We need 
immediate measure to reduce this loss from accidents. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6423 

• Safety programs in most plants have not been expanded proportionately to 
the number of new workers, and many plants have no safety program. Con- 
gestion in the plants, increased tempo of operations, and failure to keep floor 
space clean while work is going on are responsible for some of this increase. 
New workers and workers rusty from long unemployment or employment at 
less than their full skill are more likely to have accidents than those accustomed 
to the job. Longer hours of work, as overtime employment mounts, contribute 
to cumulative fatigue, and in some defense areas workers are forced to live so 
far from their jobs that they spend 2 or 3 hours a day traveling to and from work. 
This adds to the work fatigue. 

The American Federation of Labor was represented in 1940 in the hearings 
on Senator Murray's bill to make more adequate provisions for the control and 
prevention of industrial conditions hazardous to the health of employees. At 
that time we urged Congress to appropriate more money for this purpose and to 
place the supervision of industrial hygiene work done with such Federal funds 
under State departments of labor which are charged with the responsibility of 
administering labor laws and which have, in most cases, right of entry into 
plants for the necessary inspections. We are convinced that this expansion of 
industrial hygiene work is more than ever necessary in the present emergency. 

Only about half of the workers in our country have the use of first-aid rooms 
in their plants. Inspection of plants for dangerous concentration of dust and 
for exposure to chemical poisoning is wholly inadequate. We cannot afford the 
loss of manpower from defense work needlessly caused by accidents and pre- 
ventable ill health. Throughout the year 1940 accidents cost us four times as 
manj' man-days lost from production as strikes did. The ratio is probably similar 
today. Yet the loss in accidents has received practically no attention, while 
strikes have been blazoned abroad. 

Serious as the problem has been for years, it is now a major threat to our 
defense production. The American Federation of Labor strongly urges that 
appropriations be made for adequate safety and industrial hygiene work. 

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN DEFENSE AREAS 

It is obvious that the migration of large numbers of workers and their families 
to defense areas brings with it also the problem of providing sufficient educational 
facilities for the children of these families. 

A survey of this situation was made at the beginning of the year by the Office 
of Education. On the basis of reports sent in by State superintendents and com- 
missioners of education, estimates were drawai up indicating that by September 
1941 there would be at least 300,000 additional children to be accommodated in 
defense centers; a need for over 10,000 more teachers; and the cost of the necessary 
extra facilities would run to over $125,000,000. 

These are necessarily rough estimaties, and since they were made the picture 
has changed in many details — other liousing units have been authorized and 
defense plants have been planned for additional towns. These figures, therefore, 
must be considered only as an mdication of the minimum extent of the need. 
It is probable that if this study were to be repeated now, the estimates would 
be higher. 

The survey the American Federation of Labor has just made indicates too 
that most of these communities expect their schools to be seriously overcrowded 
when they open in the fall. In Pontiac, Mich., it is said that schools will be 
crowded into temporary shacks withm a year. The report from Pittsburgh 
states that there are no schools at all available near the new housing projects. 
In Kentucky areas schools were already overcrowded before the influx of new 
workers. It is expected that the enrollment in the elementary schools of Omaha 
and nearby towns will be increased by about 5,330 pupils. The schools there 
have facilities for only 2,725 of these children. Charleston, S. C, is seriously 
concerned that their schools will not be able to take care of the increased enroll- 
ment. 

Because the summer vacation intervened in time to avoid having to face the 
problem which was increasing with the expansion of communities, many com- 
mimities have some chance to get new school facilities ready before fall. 

Where defense plants and housing units are located at a distance from existing 
facilities, new schools will have to be built. In other cases, it will mean that 
additions must be constructed, and more teachers hired. 

Sometimes the local communities are prevented by debt limits from making 
any expansion in their school program. A member of the school board of Parsons, 
Kans., has written that th^eir- school fund levy is at its top now and no further 



^424 WASHINGTON IIEARIN(}S 

revenue is available. A new school building under Work Projects Administration 
auspices will not be ready for fall unless the program is speeded. A compara- 
tively small increase in the school enrollment would require new teachers, and 
the expected enrollment would completely disrupt the present school program. 
Other cities are in much the same difficulty. When local communities are not 
able to bear the burden of extra equipment and personnel needed because of the 
migration of defense workers with their families, it is up to the State and Federal 
Governments to lend a hand. A program for this purpose should be put into 
operation without delay, so that by September when schools reopen minimum 
requirements, at least, will be provided for. This is necessary to the maintenance 
of a good morale and to the long-time strength of our Nation. We cannot afford 
to neglect proper schooling in a democracy if it is to live. 

RECREATION 

Closely related to the housing and health lacks of defense communities is the 
problem of recreation. Our national habit in recent years has turned so strongly 
to commercial recreation that we are ill prepared to recognize and solve the 
problem created by the influx of a large number of new workers into crowded 
areas. While some attention is now being given to the importance of healthful 
and desirable recreation for men in the Army, little has been thought of the thou- 
sands of workers on construction jobs and in defense plants. 

Clearly there are two distinct problems of recreation for the workers removed 
from their home communities for defense jobs. There are the large numbers of 
workers who come for a temporary period to construct Army camps and defense 
plants. Many of these workers are single or have left their families elsewhere. 
The housing is even less adequate generally for these construction workers than 
for the permanent production workers who come later. The conditions under 
Avhich they live are such that they must seek all their recreation outside of their 
own living quarters. These men have more money to spend than many of the 
soldiers in camp, but except for that difference their problem of recreation is much 
the same. They are away from their former friends and living under conditions 
which do not give them any permanent interest in the new community. They 
have no homes to keep up and improve. They are unlikely to establish church 
ties unless the members of the churches make more of an effort than they have to 
welcome the newcomers for their temporary stay. Most communities have no 
program of helping migrant workers make friendly social contacts. It is small 
wonder that the men turn to less desirable forms of recreation. 

Then there are workers who bring their wives and children into the new com- 
munity. Over a period of time their social contacts will be broader than those 
of the single men. However, the presence of the new families imposes an obliga- 
tion on the community to provide other kinds of recreation. The children need 
playgrounds where they will be safe, and public parks with expanded recreational 
facilities to serve the larger population are needed. Adequate cultural and recre- 
ational opportunities free and at low cost are needed for workers and their families. 
In some defense areas school playgrounds and gymnasium facilities have been 
insufficient for the number of children they serve, and often these are closed during 
school vacations with no thought of providing for the children's idle time. That is 
a poor way to build the kind of community we want in this country. 

From a number of defense areas our unions report inadequate recreational 
facilities. From what we know of the type of recreation available in many cities, 
especially smaller ones, we can be certain that they have little to offer the new 
workers brought in temporarily or more permanently for defense jobs. Most of 
those smaller places have no money available for new recreational facilities, but 
even m.ore — they have no real comprehension of the social value of planning for 
sound recreation for all residents. The Federal Government should, along with 
its housing program, help local communities develop and improve recreational 
facilities both for the workers themselves and for their families. Immediate 
plans should be laid to give guidance to those areas which in the near future will 
have a large increase in their working populations. This is as important as the 
program of the United Service Organization for the armed forces. 

This program need not be expensive. The workers do not need or want high- 
priced directors getting up entertainments for their passive amusement. They 
do not want closely supervised entertainment. They need social centers in which, 
with some informal assistance in getting acquainted, they can have good compan- 
ionship, in which they can talk, read, listen to the radio, dance, have community 
sings, get up their own bands, orchestras, and games if they please — in short, they 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6425 

■need a reasonably well-equipped clubhouse for workers in defense areas, especially 
in smaller places in which there are no good alternate social opportunities. 

Exactly what each community should have depends, of course, on its character, 
Avhether it is rural or urban, or within a reasonable distance from a large city. 
It must depend, too, on the type of migrants; whether chiefly single workers, or 
.families have moved in. Those matters should be determined when plans are 
made to build or enlarge a military post or defense plant, and Government funds 
and experience should be made available to local communities to help them 
establish such needed recreation centers as well as for adequate housing, schools, 
and health facilities. 

What these workers need is a chance to relax and enjoy themselves in pleasant 
surroundings after their day's work, and an opportunity to find good recreation 
with congenial companions. As the pressure and strai!i of defense work increase 
recreation will become increasingly important in the maintenance of a high 
morale. We cannot afford to neglect it or leave it wholly in the hands of those 
who hope to profit by selling entertainment to jieople who have no chance to choose 
other forms of recreation. 

labor's stake in defense planning 

The problems which are being created now by the migration of workers for de- 
fense jobs will carry over to plague us more acutely in the post-defense period 
unless we do sound planning now. 

In the first place, we must plan to provide a continuation of jobs in the areas 
where defense production has brought in masses of workers, or establish orderly 
methods of redistributing labor to other places where they can find jobs at the eid 
of defense work. This does not mean compulsory mobilization of labor now or 
later, but a program of continued production through the readjustment period 
and an even more complete canvass of job opportunities and a more widespread 
coverage of the employment service than we have now. 

In the second place, to keep pace with the national problem of migration and 
face the fact that many of the workers now employed will be laid off for short or 
long periods before they get placed in permanent peacetime work, we must have 
a national system of unemployment compensation with benefits adequate to care 
reasonably for the unemployed workers and to give a substantial lift to community 
purchasing power. Our employment market is now Nationwide. Men are freely 
moving across State lines and concentrating in defense areas unevenly distributed 
among the States. The post-defense problem of unemployment will also be a 
national matter and cannot be satisfactorily handled b,y the separate States. 
Nor are the wide difference in benefit rights and the tax rates employers pay in 
the several States reasonable or desirable in the face of the Nationwide scope of 
the problem and the fact that we will have to undo, at least in part, the concen- 
tration of workers in certain areas built up for the defense program. 

To soften the hardships of readjustment both for men discharged at the end of 
military service and workers whose defense jobs are ended and who must either 
find new employment or retire from the labor market, we should plan now some 
form of dismissal wage which has the double advantage of reducing the inflationary 
tendency of the present period and of bolstering purchasing power later when it will 
counteract deflation. 

PROTECTION OF PENSION RIGHTS 

Furthermore, we need now to devise means of protecting the old age and sur- 
vivors' insurance rights of persons who go into either military or civilian defense 
work. Loss of such valuable rights should not be required of any person serving 
the Nation. 

In the third place, this defense period should be a means toward improving the 
Nation's health standards. It is a disgrace that this richest Nation in the world 
should have so many of its young men in their prime unfit for military service be- 
cause of nutritional deficiencies and physical defects arising from improper or 
insufficient medical care. Clearly a large part of our population cannot afford 
the preventive and remedial treatment necessary for good health. Clearly our 
State work in public health and industrial hygiene has been spotty and generally 
too limited to do the job which must be done. 

We need to plan now for an adequate public health program, for disability insur- 
ance, and for complete medical care within the reach of workers' incomes. It is 
low-income earners who are neglected. Unable to pay for adequate treatment and 
vmwilling to accept or ineligible for charity in the form of free care, they go without 



0426 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

the attention they need until they contract the most severe illnesses. The health 
problems appearing in overcrowded defense communities are showing up also 
real deficiencies which have long existed in the facilities available for the average 
worker's family. The already inadequate facilities bog down under the added 
load of migrants' needs. 

Great Britain, in the midst of active warfare and straining every resource to the 
utmost for the Nation's life, finds it desirable to give more attention to social 
legislation. The Minister of Health recently announced that the Government was 
introducing interim legislation to increase the benefits under their health insurance 
scheme and that they hoped to carry through later a thorough overhaul of the 
social insurance programs, particularly health and pensions insurance and work- 
men's compensation. He said: "The Government are of opinion that the com- 
prehensive survey of existing schemes, which must be an essential preliminary to 
such legislation, should be set on foot at once as part of post-war planning." 
Since that time. Sir William Beveridge, a brilliant economist and one familiar with 
labor problems, has been appointed head of a committee to make this comprehen- 
sive survey and to recommend necessary changes to create an improved and uni- 
fied system. 

This is the time for us, too, to work for a stronger, healthier population, both to- 
have vigorous soldiers and workers, and to build within our democratic system the 
kind of living conditions which ought to be denied no one. The basic morale of a 
healthy nation would be in itself a measure of defense against foreign doctrine. 

AVOIDANCE OF NEW SLUM AREAS 

Third, construction of homes now should be governed by a plan which does not 
create slum areas in cities and rural communities in the post-defense period, and 
which does not saddle workers with debts they cannot meet later. There must be 
inspection to prevent colonies of jerry-built houses which will be the nucleus of new 
slums. Many of the houses now being constructed sell or rent at a figure too high 
for the average worker. We need more genuinely low-cost homes, subsidized if 
need be so that persons displaced in slum clearance will not be forced into worse 
slums because they cannot afford a decent place to live. 

Where the housing problem is obviously temporary, as in providing living 
quarters for construction workers building military camps, the use of mobile 
units with proper attention to sanitary facilities is entirely proper. We do not 
want to waste money for unnecessary houses where they will not long be needed. 
The American Federation of Labor has urged the continuation and expansion 
of the migratory labor camp program of the Farm Security Administration. 
But where a community is growing on a permanent basis, new homes should be 
constructed in such a manner that they can replace old slum areas and offer 
decent living quarters at a cost workers can reasonably afford. And while new 
dwelling units are being added, the Federal Government should help the States 
and cities provide for adequate sanitary facilities which the extra housing makes 
necessary in local communities. 

Fourth, when defense migration puts undue strains on the local school and 
recreational facilities, the Federal Government should give such help as neces- 
sary to relieve the local community. Defense is a national problem and the dis- 
locations which it causes in our living must not be thrown unduly on a few areas. 
We can use the necessities of this emergency to improve the opportunities for 
all if we are far-sighted in our planning. 

The American Federation of Labor stands ready to help in this planning for 
post-defense living. Out affiliated departments and unions have many members 
skilled in the problems of housing, employment and unemployment, and migra- 
tion of workers. We will be glad to contribute our efforts toward sound plan- 
ning in a democratic manner for both the defense emergency and the economic 
and social adjustments which must follow it. 

There is no group that has more at stake than wage earners, in this struggle 
that now grips the world. Democracy means to us opportunity to have a voice 
in determining our destinies and advancing our economic and social well-being. 
Democracy, we believe, leads to a higher level of living and involves acceptance of 
responsibility for working out the problems in order to reach that objective. 
When danger threatens our democracy we stand ready to give and do. 

ORGANIZATION OF A DEFENSE ECONOMY 

Preparation for national defense today necessitates the organization of a 
defense economy with provisions for the manufacture of munitions and all the 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6427 

mechanized defense agencies. Our defense economy may supplement or displace 
our production for civilian uses and it has priority. Technicians and workers in 
large numbers must transfer from civilian to defense work. The kind of control 
or government that is developed for our defense economy is of paramount im- 
portance to all workers. In a very positive wa.y government for defense activi- 
ties is separate from government for normal living. This defense government 
concerns and affects vitally owners, management, and workers in defense produc- 
tion, and unless these groups have representation in the defense government these 
citizens pass into a dictatorial regime in which they are helpless to protect their 
interests or maintain their rights. 

In defense operations time is such an important factor that authority to act 
quickly and surely must be vested in some one person who can be held responsible 
for results. The life and future of the Nation may be at stake. If the responsible 
head provides in his organization representation for those who are affected by his 
decisions and gives their views and recommendations adequate and continuous 
opportunity for consideration, principles of democracy and a sense of freedom will 
be maintained even during such emergency as defense and war. This type of 
organization is essential to national morale — the will to see the thing through — 
and morale is essential to mass effort. In addition to maintaining morale, repre- 
sentation for the organized groups concerned brings cooperation for the work and 
releases the latent energies and abilities of the whole group because each has the 
responsibility derived from representation. To express this another way, if the 
defense administration asks a labor repre,sentative to serve in some capacity his 
cooperation is gained and that of those he can influence personally; but if the 
■defense administration asks the National Manufacturers Association and the 
American Federation of Labor to designate representatives to help with the prob- 
lems of defense production, these representatives are in a position to get coopera- 
tion from their entire organizations. 

If policies are democratically evolved, the administrator may be given authority 
to carry them out — even though that power may exceed peace limit reservations. 
This is the philosophy upon which the American Federation of Labor rests its 
claim to representation. 

CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT ACT IN BRITAIN 

This has been the procedure in Great Britain. Under the Control of Employ- 
ment Act (1939), which empowered the Minister of Labour to prohibit employers 
from advertising for or hiring new employees without ministerial consent, any 
order issued under this power first was submitted to a committee composed of 
equal representation of employers and employees. The report of the committee, 
together with the Minister's order, have to be laid before Parliament, which could 
void the order. However, the Government did not exercise mandatory power 
but continued to rely upon voluntary cooperation. 

With the Churchill cabinet came the Emergency Powers Act, May 22, 1940, 
which authorized Orders in Council requiring persons to place themselves, their 
services, and their property at the disposal of the Government. The Minister 
of Labour has power to direct any person to take any job, to require any class 
■of persons to register information about themselves, to inspect premises, and 
require necessary records. The Minister is empowered to determine wage rates 
and working conditions for persons filling jobs to which he directs them. 

The Minister immediately ordered that in key defense industries, building, 
civil engineering, contracting, and general engineering, employers should engage 
workers only through the Labor Exchange. No male worker in coal mining or 
agriculture may transfer to another industry except with the approval of the 
Labor Exchange, and on becoming unemployed, workers formerly employed in 
these industries must return to them. Dock workers were required to register 
and in most cases registration was in the hands of committees of employers and 
workers. Later all skilled workers were required to register and to give informa- 
tion on work experience. When these orders were issued the Minister of Labour 
announced he still relied upon unions and employers" organizations for their 
enforcement. 

A National Labor Supply Board was set up by the Minister consisting of two 
representatives appointed by unions and two appointed by employers, with him- 
self as chairman. This board was to put into effect regulations of labor supply. 
Voluntary methods were still relied upon and only in 1941 came steps toward 
greater control of employment, with denial to employers of the right of dismissal 
■ except for misconduct. Workers were transferred from nonessential to defense 
production, and women released men for production work. Reliance was still 



g428 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

placed on voluntary methods, but movement of labor in war industries was 
restricted. Dock workers were made Government employees to be allocated to 
various jobs. 

This brief outline of British experience shows the adaptation to emergency 
methods and machinery of the deep-rooted practice of representation and the 
instinct for freedom that prevails even in their blackest hour. As a matter of 
principle the British still adhere to voluntary methods because they are sound 
and just and hence are the surest way to production and national morale. So 
labor in the United States, should the national emergency require it, would be 
willing to delegate to responsible government agents power to make decisions in 
the interests of national safety provided the representative principle was observed 
giving each group concerned its day in court. 

Our present organization for national defense ignores the principle of repre- 
sentation and fails to delegate responsibility definitely. Hence the administra- 
tion needs the support of an understanding nation which is necessary for an all- 
out effort. When organizations of workers and employers are asked to participate 
in national defense by designating their representative to work with the Govern- 
ment, they will then be in a position to send information throughout their ranks 
that will result in understanding and they will have a responsibility for getting 
things done. Out of such a situation will come grim determination to produce the 
defense necessary to maintain our free institutions. 

Survey by American Federation of Labor Unions of Conditions in Defense 

Areas 

[Note.— Population figures in some instances apply to the city itself and the surrounding industrial area. 
Figures are for the predefense period.) 

ALABAMA 

Anniston area. 

Housing. — Defense program larger in Anniston area than in any other part of 
State. If defense program continues to expand, housing facilities must be in- 
creased greatly. 

Birmingham . 

Population. — Normal, 330,000. Defense program brought in 500 soldiers and 
1,000 construction workers. 

Housing. — Workers paying about 30 percent more rent. Very small increase 
in private construction, but have four United States Housing Authority projects. 
Situation not acute. 

Health. — Have free general clinics, and some State public health service. 
State, county, and city health services doing a good job. New workers can get 
adequate health service at present. 

Childersburg area {Talladega, Childershurg, and Sylacauga). 

Have combined population of 7,000 to 8,000, but with powder plant and bag 
loading plant getting under way these places do not have sufficient housing 
facilities, schools, or churches to take care of workmen on defense jobs. More 
houses needed in this area as quickly as they can be erected. 

Gadsden. 

Population. — About 60,000. About 23,000 soldiers now stationed at Camp 
McClellan, about 23 miles from Gadsden. Increase of about 3,500 temporary 
workers and about 1,250 permanent residents, with about 5,000 more expected 
over the next few months. 

Housing. — Housing Authority has built and is building large number of houses, 
but this expansion is not sufficient. New workers find it impossible to obtain 
decent homes, and are now living in slab huts, trailers, houses without floors, 
garages, barns, stables, and old store buildings. Rents for new workers have 
gone up about 33 J^ percent. There has been practically no private building; 
250 Government-built units are under construction. Report by Roy D. McCord, 
attorney for union and member of housing committee: Condition in Gadsden is 
appalling. Should be 1,000 new home units in area. Situation should be classed 
as emergency. Will be both suffering and disease in area if conditions are not 
corrected. 

Health. — Have free venereal clinic, but no general. Have a county health 
department. Receive same amount help now as before defense program. New 
workers cannot get adequate health service. New workers moving into town 
have taxed sewage and sanitary facilities of area. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6429 

Schools aiiA recreation facilities. — Have insufficient schools and no recreational 
facilities whatsoever. 

Price'!. — Within last 2 months all commodities, services, and rents have gone up, 
and rents are exorbitant. 

Union activity. — Unions have appointed committees to confer with city com- 
mission, county board of revenue, and county health office. These committees 
have pointed out several insanitary conditions to these boards. Have no repre- 
sentative on advisory committee of employment service. 

Mobile. 

Population of about 60,000. Has been growing rapidly in recent years. Housing 
facilities have been able to take care of the situation so far, but more housing will 
be needed very shortly. 

ARKANSAS 

Little Rock area. 

During construction at Camp Robinson, near Little Rock, no great shortage of 
facilities to care for transient workmen, but housing shortage developed and 
rentals increased markedly with advent of soldiers. Many families of soldiers 
were forced to return home as the}' were not able to secure suitable houses at 
rentals they could afford. To get two new Government defense projects: 1. Det- 
onating plant at Jacksonville, about 17 miles from Little Rock — a small town 
that cannot take care of the housing situation during construction of the plant; 2. 
Picric acid plant near Marche (also near Little Rock). This town also not able 
to care for workmen. Three flood-control projects now under construction. 
Some workmen driving 40 miles to and from their homes. Others being housed 
in tents, trailers, and shacks. Serious shortage will develop with starting of new 
projects. North Little Rock has slum-clearing project well under way. Little 
Rock has been working 2 years on its slum-clearance project, but contracts not 
yet let. Fort Smith had to take their project to the people to put it over. Not 
sure when it will start. Pine Bluff turned down a project. Appears that real- 
estate interests are either antagonistic, or at least uncooperative in trying to 
relieve housing shortage. 

CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco. 

Population.— 750,000. 

Housing. — No housing problem, nor increase in rents. Large program of home 
building in all parts of the city, including several Work Projects Administration 
projects numbering several thousand homes. 

Health.— Free general and venereal clinics. State health board campaigning 
for tuberculosis and syphilis clinics. No acute health problems; adequate service. 

Schools.— No particular problem here. 

Prices. — No unusually high prices or rents. 

CONNECTICUT 

Waterbury. 

Population. — Ninety-nine thousand three hundred and fourteen, by 1940 
census. About 4,000 permanent workers have been added since beginning of de- 
fense program. Year ago citj- employed about 34,750 people, and in May 1941, 
empllyed 45,348; increase of 10,598 over the year. 

Rents have risen $2 to $5 in some instances for workers homes. From June 
1940 to May 1941, 299 permits issued for 1-family dwellings, 6 permits for 2- 
family dwellings, and 1 permit for a 6-apartment building. Three hundred Gov- 
ernment built homes to be erected. 

Health. — Have two free general clinics, and one free venereal clinic. Had 
State public health work before defense program. Waterbury Health Council 
formed during past year to aid health program. New workers can get adequate 
health service. 

Prices. — Unusually high prices for eggs, butter, and flour. 

Lnion activity. — Asked for slum clearing; no advisory committee to employ- 
ment service set up in this city. 

FLORIDA 

Jacksonville and Starke. 

Population. — One hundred seventy-three thousand and si.xty-five (1940 census), 
Camp Blanding — about 8 miles from Starke, town of about 1,500, and about 50 
miles from Jacksonville (new road not finished when construction work at camp 
was going on). Meant IVi-hour trip each way for workers living in Jacksonville. 



^430 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Also naval air station 12 miles frona city; 8,000-10,000 workers employed on con- 
struction of air base; started building Camp Blanding when base was about 75 
percent completed. This project at one time employed 20,000. At peak of these 
projects about 25,000 new workers came in from other localities or traveled from 
50 to 100 miles to work. Including soldiers, 60,000 to 70,000 people have become 
temporary residents. About 25,000 more or less permanent residents have come 
in because of these projects. 

Housing. — Workers found it impossible to get adequate homes. Many lived 
in their cars, in trailers, covered trucks, hovels made of scraps of metal, building 
paper and even palmetto leaves over rude frames. Houses in towns within 75 
miles that took roomers were badly overcrowded. Rents increased alarmingly. 
One member, by getting there early, found summer cottage 2 miles from camp, 
without modern conveniences; ordinarily renting for $20 to $25 a month. He 
paid $45 a month, and by April was paying $60. Contractors provided fairly 
decent barracks, but were late getting them built, and would accommodate only 
about 1,500 workers of 20,000. Private construction considerably above the 
average. Building of defense homes with Federal aid, responsible for about 600 
family units, is continuing. Housing shortage very acute. 

Health. — Have free clinics operated by city, but inadequate to care for increased 
demand. City and State boards of health making strenuous efforts to control 
disease. Nearest hospitals to Camp Blanding (before Army hospital was ready) 
were in towns 40 to 50 miles away. Contractors had first-aid stations, but many 
serious accidents occurred on job and on crowded highways, many deaths un- 
doubtedly resulting from inadequate facilities. 

Prices. — No attempt by anyone to control prices. A meal in Starke doubled 
in price without any increase in quantity or quality of food. Later a few restau- 
rants opened closer to camp, but prices were higher than one would ordinarily 
pay for same food and service in Jacksonville. 

Schools and recreational facilities. — Already have acute shortage of school facili- 
ties. Trying to remedy situation by securing Federal aid in building of new 
schools. 

Lnion activity. — Taken part in program to provide better housing. Central 
labor union represented on committee to secure better school facilities. Local 
teachers union also active. Representatives of all jbuilding-trade unions work 
closely with employment service. 

Pensacola and Panama City. 

A $5,000,000 gunnery school is being erected here; housing shortage is very 
acute. 

West Palm Beach. -i 

Population. — Forty-six thousand. Defense program has brought in 3,000 sol- 
diers, 1,000 construction workers, and 500 permanent residents. 

Housing. — Possible but difficult to find reasonably priced housing facilities. No 
rise in rents. Government building 150 defense units. Situation is not over- 
crowded. 

Health. — General and venereal clinics available. No State public-health work, 
except that now State furnishes serums for use by county and city health units. 

Schools and recreation. — Schools are being enlarged, but there is great need for 
additional recreational facilities. 

GEORGIA 

Columbus. 

Population. — Normally, 45,000. Defense program has brought in about 42,000 
soldiers, 3,000 construction workers, and about 8,000 permanent workers. Fort 
Benning, with normal population of 8,000 men, is now expanded to about 50,000, 
and 50,000 more are expected within the next 6 months. p]stimated 25 percent 
of the soldiers have wives and children, Columbus being the nearest place for 
them to live. 

Housing. — It is impossible for new workers to find reasonable housing facilities. 
Rents have gone up 40 to 150 percent. About 1,000 defense housing units have 
been built, and private capital has built about 500 houses in the $3,000 class. 
These do not begin to offset the demand. Army billeting office in Columbus esti- 
mated property at higher value than working people can afford. People are 
having to move into cheap and insanitary homes. United States Housing Authority 
made a survey of Columbus and vicinity and found that rents have increased 
as much as 145 percent. A representative of Office of Price Administration and 
Civilian Supply has established a fair-rent committee in Columbus, but not 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6431 

expected to have any weight with the landlords, since it has no authority to 
impose any penalties. 

Health. — No free clinics. New workers are not able to get adequate health 
service. No expansion of hospital facilities known since start of national emer- 
gency. 

Hinesville. 

Population. — 100,000 normally. Since the beginning of the defense program 
30,000 soldiers, 1,000 construction workers and 10,000 workers on a more per- 
manent basis have come in. 

Housing. — New workers find it impossible to get decent homes reasonably. 
Some are now living in trailer camps and shacks. Rents have gone up $5 to $15 a 
month. There is considerable private construction plus 2 housing projects for 
Negroes and 2 for white residents. 

Health. — Have a free general clinic. At present there are no particular health 
problems needing special attention. 

Prices. — General increase of about 10 percent. 

Union activity. — Local Trades and Labor Assembly appointed committees, 
offering full cooperation with local health authorities and with Board of Educa- 
tion. Have no representation on advisory committee to employment service, 
and feel that they should have such representation. 

Macon. 

Population. — Seventy thousand. Sixteen thousand soldiers, 8,000 temporary 
workers, and 6,000 permanent workers have been brought into area by defense 
program. 

Housing. — Still possible to find housing facilities, but in another 3 months it 
will be impossible unless more homes are built. People are living in trailers, a 
few in tents, and some are sleeping from 2 to 6 in a room. Rents are up 20 
to 45 percent. Private capital backed by Federal Housing Authority is 
contemplating about 300 homes. Have 2 completed low-rent housing projects 
and 2 under construction. It is believed that if proposed plans materialize, hous- 
ing situation will be under control. 

Health. — Free general clinic. Service adequate, no particular problem unless 
it is the possibility of spread of venereal disease. 

Schools and recreation. — Schools crowded. Will probably need more recrea- 
tional facilities. 

Prices. — Rents and food prices rising rapidly. 

Savannah. 

Population. — Ninety-five thousand nine hundred and ninety-six, 1940 census. 
Sixteen thousand soldiers have come into +he area, about 1,000 temporary work- 
ers and 1,000 permanent workers. Workers can still find housing facilities, al- 
though with some difficulty. Rents have increased about 10 percent in general. 
The Government has built 2 colored housing projects, 1 white housing project, 
and there is one project under construction for air base men. 

Health. — Have 1 general free clinic. Have some State Public Health work, but 
no more than before defense program. City's health record is good. 

IDAHO 

Boise. 

Population. — Thirty thousand. Increase due to defense work; 2,500 soldiers, 
500 temporary, and 1,000 permanent residents. 

Housing. — Rents up about 10 percent. One hundred Government built homes 
available for Army officers and their families. Have tried to secure United 
States Housing Authority aid. 

Health. — No particular health problems, and no lack of schools and recreational 
facilities. 

Prices. — General living expenses up 15 percent. 

ILLINOIS 

Rock Island (Tri-Cities area). 

Population. — One hundred and fifty thousand, with about 1,500 temporary 
and 5,000 permanent residents added by defense program. Many workers are 
living in trailer camps and shacks; it is impossible to get decent homes at reason- 
able rents. Rent is up 15 to 20 percent. Extensive private construction going 
on and about 500 units of Government built homes, but situation is still very 
overcrowded. 

-41 — pt. 10 9 



g432 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Health. — Free venereal clinic. Has State public health work in community. 

Recreational facilities. — Insufficient. 

Prices. — General rise in prices. 

Union activity.— -Been active in asking for better health and schooling facilities. 

INDIANA 

Indianapolis. 

Population. — Three hundred and eighty-six thousand one hundred and seventy^ 
with about 20,000 workers of permanent type added by defense work. 

Housing. — Rents advanced 5 to 10 percent. Critical shortage of housing facil- 
ities, but this is being eliminated by building program carried on by private 
interests. One of the heaviest programs in the country. 

Health. — City hospital operates free general clinic. No expansion of facilities 
since start of defense work. Trailer camps without municipal supervision present 
health problem. 

Schools and recreation. — Both inadequate to care for increased population. 

Prices. — Increases apparently not greater than general for the country. 

Union activity. — Not encouraging. School board will not work with labor. 

Hammond. 

The situation which exists in Hammond is common to all localities in this area. 
The Federal census of 1940 disclosed the total of 18,652 dwelling units in the city 
of Hammond, of which only 194, or 1 percent were vacant early in 1940. Before 
these figures were dry on the printing press, there was not a vacant house to be 
rented in Hammond, which condition continues to the present time in still greater 
degree. Numerous families are doubled up and are living in trailers within the 
city and just outside the city limits, under conditions which cannot be any too 
healthful, and certainly are not a suitable place for children. Heavy influx of 
families into Hammond area, and it is impossible for incoming families to find a 
house in the city. They are finding homes by overcrowding orliving in trailers. 
or unoccupied sliacks wherever they can be found. The situation warrants con- 
struction of 1,000 new houses in Hammond and environs in addition to several 
hundred now being built. 

IOWA 

Burlington. 

Population. — Normal, 27,000. Upward of 20,000 workers of all types have 
come in since the defense program (shell-loading plant). 

Housing. — City officials state that there was shortage of housing before con- 
struction of this plant. Houses normally renting for $25 to $30 a month now 
rent for $54 to $65 a month. Rooms in private homes normally $3.50 to $5 for 
a single room now bring $10 a week, with two or three small beds or cots in each 
room. Government has built barracks on the site of projects which are reasonably 
satisfactory, but these do not accommodate any great portion of the workers. 
Farmers charging $2 a week for space to park trailers. Trailer camps grown up 
in large numbers around site, with sanitary and other living conditions at their 
worst. Few new houses being constructed, but rent exorbitant. Transportation 
facilities are bad. 

Schools. — Adeciuate school facilities next to impossible. 

Health. — Doctors and hospitals taxed to limit and working under great handicap. 

Prices. — Food and clothing prices have in most instances more than doubled. 
Prices in Burlington Atlantic & Pacific stores were advanced from 20 to 70 percent. 

Union activity. — Organized labor receiving full and satisfactory cooperation 
from employment service. Real-estate operators successfully defeated unions' 
eflforts to pass enabling act to permit Federal housing projects in State. 

KANSAS 

Fort Riley cantonment. 

During construction, workers had to drive long distances to and from work. 

Parsons. 

Population. — Fourteen thousand. Carpenters' union estimates that 4,000 men 
will be emploved in the construction work, and after plant is completed (shell- 
loading plant," $35,000,000), 6,000 men will be employed there. 

Housing. — Rents have gone up 10 percent already. There is some talk of new 
houses, but not many are started as yet. No Government housing. There have 
never been any great number of vacant houses for rent. Since railroad general 
offices and shops are located there, increase in railroad employment will add to 
the shortage. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6433 

Health. — Have free general clinic, and some State public health service. Com- 
mittee io now being formed to consider health problem. Health service is at 
present inadequate. Report from member of Kansas State Board of Health: 
"Proper inspection, sewage disposal, and water supply is necessary program for 
project." 

Schools. — School facilities will be strained. School building program has been 
approved in Washington under Work Projests Administration, but if started at 
once it will not be finished in time to meet emergency. Suggests speedier program. 
In the beginning school facilities will be able to care for 1,400 increase without 
great disruption of school program, but even this will cause many inconveniences, 
and additional 10 teachers will be needed. No additional revenue can be secured 
to meet emergency. Tax levy cannot be increased without special legislation. 
Reduces amount of available moneys to be expended for health units, sanitary 
engineer, and milli inspection in area. 

Wichita. 

Population. — One hundred and twenty ^^ thousand. Defense program has 
brought in 1,000 workers of temporary nature; 15,000 with permanent jobs; 
40,000 expected by spring (conservative estimate). 

Housing. — According to machinists, has several airplane factories operating at 
capacity under Government contracts, and housing facilities are very inadequate. 
Almost impossible for workers coming into the area to find decent, reasonably 
priced homes. Situation is bad but is being taken care of as fast as possible. 
Government is working on housing project that will care for 400 families, with 
1,000 more units being contemplated. Local capital is erecting homes as fast as 
possible, with probably about 1,000 new residences built in the past 6 months. 
At present, however, there are no houses available, so workers cannot bring their 
families with them. All available rooms and basements are rented with 2 to 4 
people in every room. Hundreds of basements in the city have from 6 to 12 men 
sleeping in them, paying $.5 and $6 for a bed. 

Health. — Do not know of any free clinics. Committee just set up to provide for 
public-health facilities. New workers can get health service if they can pay for it. 

Schools. — Inadequate, but Defense Council is looking into the problem. 

Prices. — Outside of rents, prices are still reasonable. 

KENTUCKY 

Louisville area. 

Population. — Five hundred thousand, with increase of 35,000 soldiers, 35,000 
construction workers, and about 5,500 production workers. 

Housing. — New workers have been living in rooming houses, hotels, tourist 
camps, boarding houses; in Charlestown, Ind., also in hotels, tourist camps, trailer 
camps, shacks, and boarding houses remodelled from roadhouses. Rents in area 
are up about 35 percent. About 2,000 homes are being constructed by Federal 
Housing Administration and private enterprise, ranging in price from $3,000 to 
$10,000, with an average of about $5,500. 

Health. — Has free general and venereal clinics, and apparently fairly adequate 
State public health program. Workers who have come into area and cannot get 
jobs present a health problem. Apparently no provision has been made as yet 
for expanding facilities to take care of these people. State federation requested 
improvement in sanitation conditions for Charlestown, Ind., in effort to prevent 
epidemic during the summer. 

Schools and recreation. — Recreational facilities and churches adequate. Schools 
were overcrowded before influx of new workers and their families. 

Prices. — Local press has been pointing to rising prices for commodities and 
rents. 

Union activity. — Unions cooperate with authorities at all times in trying to secure 
housing, health, and school facilities. 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Quincy area. 

Population. — Two hundred and fiftj' thousand; 10,000 construction workers and 
50,000 workers with more permanent jobs have come into this area since beginning 
of the defense program. 

Housing. — City of Quincy and surrounding communities woefully lacking in 
adequate and reasonable housing facilities to accommodate workers employed in 
Fore River shipvards on defense work. Emplovment at these yards has increased 
from 9,000 in 1940 to 17,000 by June 1, 1941", and by 1942 'it is expected that 
25,000 to 28,000 will be employed there. Rents are up 5 to 10 percent. There 



6434 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

is some Federal Housing Administration sponsored building and some private 
building, but no Government-built project as yet. Federal housing projects have 
been proposed, but the chamber of commerce, the banks, with heavy investments 
in real estate, and real-estate interests have managed to block labor efforts to 
secure a defense housing development in the city. 

Health. — Have free clinic and some State public health work, but there is no 
apparent increase since the start of the defense program. Workers are not able 
to get adequate health service. Hospitals are taxed to capacity. 

Schools and recreational facilities. — Generally inadequate. 

Union activity. — Subcommittee on housing has been working with city and 
civic leaders to secure defense housing development for Quincy. Have attempted 
to get housing authority committee established (in city council), but efforts were 
unsuccessful. 

MICHIGAN 

Battle Creek. 

Fort Custer has brought complicated problems of housing and school facilities. 
Bay City. 

Population. — Normally 75,000. Only about 200 construction workers and 50 
permanent families have come in so far. 

Housing. — Have not had any defense work to speak of. Nearest defense job 
is in Midland where there is a housing shortage. Majority of men on that job 
live in Midland, Saginaw, or Bay City. No housing shortage in Bay City, 
although a few men live in trailers. 

Health. — No free clinics. Have city and county public health program. 

Detroit. 

Population. — One million five hundred thousand; 2,000 soldiers and 2,000 con- 
struction workers plus an unestimated number of production workers. 

Housing. — Rents up $10 to $15 a month. There is quite a boom in poorly 
built and much overpriced residences. Government has built two large projects, 
both already occupied. Overcrowding chiefly in slum areas. 

Health. — Have free clinics and some State public health work, although it is 
still inadequate. In outlying areas, Warren Township, and Macomb County 
sewage-disposal-system, garbage-collection, and other sanitary services are badly 
needed. 

Schools. — Schools are very overcrowded. All classes are too large; some of 
them run in two divisions, morning and afternoon. 

Prices. — All foodstuffs and rents unusually high. 

Union activity.- — Detroit and Wayne County Federation of Labor has tried for 
years in every possible way to improve these conditions. Labor people are 
serving on all committees concerned with housing, schools, health, etc., and are 
doing a good job of representing working people generally. 

Macomb County. 

The new Chrysler tank plant in this county brought problems of providing 
adequate sanitation, housing, school, and transportation facilities. 

Muskegon. 

Defense work has led to difficulties in housing and schools. Federal housing 
project of 300 units will help situation, but employment there is at all-time peak 
and will contiuue to go up. Local community is unable to provide these 
facilities without Federal aid. 

Pontiac. 

Population. — Eighty thousand. Expect 100,000 by fall. 

Housing. — Impossible now for workers to find decent homes. Are now living 
in trailer camps, lake cottages, and are doubling up with other families. Rents 
have gone up $10 a month. About 200 housing units built over past year with 
help of Federal Housing Administration. Now have only 17,600 units. Will 
need at least 10,000 more by fall. 

Health. — No free clinics. Some State health work, but very inadequate. No 
free health service for workers. 

Schools. — Will be crowded into temporary shacks within a year. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6435 

MISSISSIPPI 

State. 

Housing. — In some case as many as 15,000 to 20,000 workers have gone to one 
defense project, a large number of them living in trailer camps and tents. Rents 
are higher than last year. 

Health. — Apparently few free clinics in any of the defense communities; probably 
inadequate services for increased population. 

Schools and recreational facilities. — Very inadequate. 

Pascagoula. 

Population. — Fifteen thousand, with 3,000 temporary and 4,000 permanent 
added by defense program. 

Housing. — -Impossible for new workers to find adequate homes. Employees of 
Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation have had to seek homes as far away as Mobile, 
Ala. (40 miles). Rents on some homes have gone up from $5 to $35 a month. 
There is some private construction and a naval housing project to provide 700 
homes. From 3 to 6 people now sleep in one room. 

Health. — Have free general clinic. Had some State public-health work before 
defense program. Public-health service available to all people of county. Have a 
health doctor and two nurses. 

Schools. — School facilities just about one-half of what they should be. Class- 
rooms are overcrowded, and there are not enough teachers. 

Prices. — Rent, groceries, and clothing have all gone up in price. 

MISSOURI 

Camp Leonard Wood. 

At peak, employed 35,000 men. Housing conditions were the worst possible 
Located 85 miles from a city of any size; workers lived in all conceivable types of 
housing, including pup tents, trucks, and a few rooms in Waynesville, 8 miles 
from the camp, where as many as 10 men were crowded into rooms designed to 
accommodate 2. Men were compelled to pay four or five times regular rates. 
Workers wanting reasonable accommodations for their families sometimes had to 
live from 50 to 60 miles from the project. There was no sanitary system in the 
vicinity of the camp. It was a miracle that no epidemic broke out. This project 
is now nearing completion, but many of the men are now transferring to the 
O'Reiley Hospital project at Springfield, where housing conditions are very bad, 
with only about 50 vacant houses in the city. 

Kansas City. 

Two major defense projects, with about 6,000 men employed, the majority of 
them living in the area. There is a shortage of residences in the city, and real- 
estate men have raised the rents on the few available houses. Have just passed a 
housing bill which will permit Kansas City to secure Federal funds for proposed 
projects. 

St. Louis. 

Has 3 major plants under construction, employing about 10,000 men, the major- 
ity of which are St. Louis residents. St. Louis and the county have built a large 
number of homes during the past year. Three large Federal housing projects 
have been started to accommodate 2,000 families. 

NEBRASKA 

Omaha. 

Population. — About 300,000. Only 50 construction workers brought in as yet. 
Not much need of outside labor so far, since the slack around there has not yet 
been taken up (bomber assembly plant at Fort Crook). 

Schools. — By fall, enrollment in elementary schools of Omaha and adjoining 
towns will be increased by about 5,330. Schools wiU have facilities for only 2,725 
of these. 

Union activity. — Have a member on regional defense committee appointed by 
the Governor and on the subcommittee of labor and employment. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

State. 

There is a terrible shortage of houses. Many workers travel 50 to 60 miles 
to work at the navy yard and on housing projects. Some of the houses have no 
modern conveniences, and rents are very high. Schools in the cities are good, 



g436 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

most of them modern. There may be some overcrowding in defense areas but not 

to any great extent. 

Manchester. 

Population. — Forty-five thousand. Additional, 1,500 soldiers, 1,000 con- 
struction workers. 

Housing. ^ThQVQ is room for improvement in the housing situation. Houses 
are old and have no modern conveniences. Homes in rural districts have no 
modern bathrooms, no electric light or gas, and no running water. For a short 
time men had to live in trailer camps, but defense work in the area is now com- 
pleted. Main problem is high rents, all out of proportion to desirability of house, 
location, and facilities provided. No Government housing and little private 
building. Overcrowding is not yet the problem so much as decided tendency 
toward profiteering. 

Health. — No free clinics or first-aid stations near defense projects, and no free 
venereal clinics available to working people. Lack of any free hospital service. 

Prices. — Rents up as much as 65 to 75 percent. Unusually high prices for 
almost all commodities. Actual living costs of production worker are much 
higher than in his former community. 

Union activity. — Union has no representation on any of the housing, health, 
or school committees. Have representation with State employment service. 

NEW JERSEY 

Elizabeth. 

Population. — Two hundred thousand, with 5,000 workers brought in by defense 
program. Millions of dollars' worth of contracts let in this area, and when work 
gets under way on these there will be need for additional housing. 

Housing. — One company will be taking on 1,500 employees, for whom there 
will be only 25 houses available. There are two low-rent housing projects in this 
area, both fully occupied. Have applied for another United States Housing 
Authority project. Rents are up about 10 percent. Private construction has 
consisted chiefly of one-family dwellings for sale. 

Health. — Have a free general clinic. State public health work has not been 
expanded since start of defense work, but new workers can get adequate health 
service with existing facilities. No particular health problems. 

Schools and recreational facilities.— luadequaie in smaller towns of Union 
County. 

Union activity. — Representation on health and school boards and on Elizabeth 
Housing Authority. 

XEW YORK 

State. 

Report of housing division of State government. — State division of housing instru- 
mental in initiating housing vacancy surveys in all of the important industrial 
areas of the State. Returns to date, with one exception, show vacancy ratio 
below danger line (3 to 5 percent). In Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and North Tona- 
wanda conditions of acute shortage indicated, particularly in low-rental range. 
Rent increases reported in several cities. Government building: 800 to 900 units 
assigned to Buffalo-, about 300 to Niagara Falls, about 200 planned for Elmira. 
Housing problem in Oswego due to colored regiment of National Guard stationed 
there. Commissioned officers desire apartments in the city for their families. 
Homes at reasonable rentals are difl^cult to find. No quarters are available for 
housing colored visitors over week ends. Pine Camp in Watertown has thrown 
tremendous load on housing accomodations, because most of the officers' families 
live in the citv. 

Buffalo. 

Population. — About 2,500 construction workers have been brought in by the 
defense program; 25,000 production workers are expected by January 1942. 

Housing. — Men are living in substandard buildings and families are doubling 
up. Rent has gone up about 10 percent. About 2,500 privately constructed 
homes have been built outside of the city. The new workers wish to live in 
the city. Also, wages of defense workers are not high enough for them to buy 
or rent homes from private contractors. To date 1,000 housing projects have 
been approved for the area — 200 in Lackawanna and 800 in Buffalo. So far, 
there are no temporary camps or barracks, but will be soon when plants are in 
full production. It is impossible at the present time for new workers to find living 
quarters in this area. 

Health. — Have free general clinics, and State public health work. Other 
health problems will arise if adequate housing facilities are not provided. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6437 

Union activity. — Took matter up with Mr. Palmer last September; telegraphed 
President Roosevelt January 8; called situation to the attention of Congressmen 
and Senators repeatedly. 

Elmira. 

Population. — Fifty thousand; about fifty construction workers and 200 perma- 
nent workers brought in by defense program. 

Housing. — Rents have been increased $6 to $10 a month. Government build- 
ing 200 houses. Influx is not yet great enough to cause serious situation, but 
defense program has only just started. 

Health. — Have free clinics, public health nurse services, preschool and school- 
child age clinic. Free city doctors; free dental service and hospitalization. 
However, sewage lines near housing projects inadequate. 

Union activity. — Took active part in securing housing project. 

Schenectady. 

Population. — One hundred twenty-five thousand. Defense program has 
brought in about 3,000 new workers. 

Housing. — About 290 housing units were available in May, half of them of slum 
character. Banks decline to finance housing, and there are as yet no Govern- 
ment-built homes. A minimum of 1,000 units will be required to take care of 
the 5,200 employees to be taken on by General Electric before October. Eight 
hundred additional men are to be employed by the American Locomotive Co. 
The housing situation will be acute by fall unless 1,000 to 2,000 new units are 
constructed by that time. Unions have agitated for State housing project but 
realtors bitterly oppose it. 

Health. — Free general clinic, but no public health provisions except municipal. 
Health conditions are excellent, with no special problems at present. 

Schools. — No lack of schools, recreational or church facilities. 

Prices. — No higher than remainder of State. 

Union activity. — Union cooperates with local authorities, and has representa- 
tion on local housing authority. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Fayetteville. 

Population. — Seventeen thousand four hundred and twenty-eight. Sixty 
thousand soldiers brought inco the area, 28,000 construction workers, and 5,000 
permanent residents. 

Housing. — Workers on construction jobs have lived in trailers, tents, and 
shacks. It was impossible for workers to find homes at the peak of construction. 
Rents have gone up 100 percent. Very little private construction. Govern- 
ment is just finishing defense housing project of 558 units to be used by non- 
commissioned officers. Practically everyone turned homes into rooming houses, 
with as many as 6 or 8 men in a room. Some could not get any rooms, and had to 
travel as much as 160 miles a day to get board and room. Rent is very high, as 
someone is always willing to pay a little more in order to get a house. 

Health. — No free general clinics. There is some State public health work. 

OHIO 

Youngstoxon. 

Homes and rooms are very scarce. There is one slum clearance project. Tried 
to get another but were not successful. Rents are very high. 

OKLAHOMA 

State. 

Two major defense projects are just getting under way in Oklahoma City and 
Tulsa. Probably, however, these will not place great strain on the facilities of 
these two cities. 

Latoton. 

Pop^/Za^^V)n.— Normally about 18,000; is now estimated to be about 24,000 and 
about 24,000 soldiers at the fort. About 6,000 soldiers have come in, 2,000 tem- 
porary workers, and 1,.500 permanent workers. 

Housing. — Many workers travel from 10 to 50 miles daily to obtain living 
quarters. Will be more acute situation in the near future because of oil boom in 
Apache. Many of the workers live in trailers located on residence lots in the 
town; also in cheaper rooms and houses on the outskirts of Lawton, but rooms 



g438 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

and apartments are hard to get and especially at a price the working man can 
afford. Rents are up 40 to 45 percent. Four hundred homes are being con- 
structed privately and 150 are being built by the Government for Army personnel. 
Anticipated that shortage will become even more acute. 

Health. — Have a county health clinic, and have had State public health work 
in the community intermittently. The county health clinic is probably overtaxed. 
There is a lack of sanitary conveniences for transients. 

Prices. — Gasoline is about 3 cents a gallon too high. Taxi fares have been 
raised from 10 cents to 15 cents for town trips, and raised about 15 percent for 
other trips. AH staple goods have gone up in price. 

Schools and recreational facilities. — Schools are about 20 percent deficient, and 
recreational facilities about 75 percent below what they ought to be. 

Union activity. — Union and employment service cooperate to fullest extent in 
matters pertaining to the welfare of the workers. 

OREGON 

Portland. 

Housing. — The situation is not yet acute, but can become serious with increase 
in population. More private building is going on than last year. 

Health. — Free clinics and State public health work. About $25,000 has been 
spent for Portland and Multnowah County. Portland spends about $270,902 for 
health work. Workers can now get adequate health service but increase in popu- 
lation may bring difficulties. Industrial hygiene activities are not provided for. 
Other standard health services may have to be expanded. 

Union activity. — Unions are very active in trying to secure better housing, 
health service, schools, etc. Have representation on advisory committee to the 
employment service. 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Chester. 

Population. — One hundred and fifty thousand (in 6-mile radius). About 600 
construction workers have come into the area; no figures available as to number 
of permanent residents added to population by defense program. 

Housing.- — About 100 families living in trailers. Rents up about 15 percent. 
Situation becoming very overcrowded. Have 1 United States Housing Authority 
project of 350 family units near completion, but slowed up by a political housing 
authority. 

Health. — Have free general clinic and public-health work in the community, 
but no additional facilities since beginning of defense program. No particular 
health problems as yet. 

Union activity. — Do not have local advisory committees to employment service, 
but secretary of the union is employed at Chester office of Pennsylvania State 
Employment Service as supervisor of interviewers. 

Harrisburg. 

Population. — One hundred and seventy-three thousand, three hundred and 
sixty-seven. Defense program has brought increase of 25,000 soldiers and 5,000 
construction workers. Some of the men have been living in substandard houses, 
and others have been doubling up. Figures compiled by Harrisburg Housing 
Authority: Expected increase in workers, 8,000 to 9,500; 435 vacant dwellings 
in the city, 40 percent of them substandard; 400 defense homes in Middletown, 
and 1,500 rooms. 

New Brighton. 

Population. — One hundred thousand. Rents up about 10 percent. More 
private building than for past 12 years. No defense work in this area. Have 
Just started on housing project. 

Health. — Apparently no defense activity in this area, and no particular prob- 
lems involved. 

Philadelphia. 

PopuZahon.— Metropolitan Philadelphia, 2,898,644; Philadelphia, 1,931,334. 
Conservative estimate of additional workers brought in by defense program, 
150,000. Twenty-five thousand families chiefly in low-income brackets will have 
to be hou.sed this year at rents between $25 and $35 a month. It is still possible, 
but difficult to find decent housing, but Philadelphia is not "in production." 
Some families are living in trailer camps. At present, workers are commuting 
long distances, and rents are rising. Substandard buildings are being reoccupied 
and decent homes are being overcrowded. Workers will soon be forced to pur- 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION • Q^39 

chase homes they cannot afford or will have to go elsewhere to work. Private 
construction is estimated at about 6,000 units, and the Government has allocated 
funds for 3,400. Estimated that total need for additional family accommoda- 
tions equals 28,500 (includes normal increase of 3,500 families). Total supply of 
family accommodations, 20,403. Leaves net deficit of 8,100. 

Health. — Has free general clinic. State public health service provides treat- 
ments for venereal disease and pneumonia; has added no new service since start of 
defense program, and naw workers cannot get adequate health service. Prob- 
lems of tuberculosis and communicable disease expected to be most serious. 
Existing facilities are inadequate even for normal population and lack of municipal 
funds makes expansion difficult if not impossible. 

Pittshurgh. 

Population. — One million, nine hundred thousand; since defense program 
started 2,000 construction workers have come into the area; and 30,000 workers 
with more or less permanent jobs. 

Housing. — Impossible for workers to find decent, reasonably priced homes. 
They are living in trailer camps, tents, barracks, shacks, box-cars, and in all 
available substandard houses. Rents are up 1 5 to 25 percent. There is no private 
construction of homes within the income limits of the workers. Five thousand 
Government defense housing units to be built starting July 5. Trailers have been 
brought in for steel mill sections. 

Health. — Have free clinics. Overcrowding in steel mill areas apt to result in 
epidemics of flu and other contagious diseases. 

Schools. — Not available near new defense housing projects. 

Union activity. — Organized a county-wide housing committee. 

RHODE ISLAND 

State. 

Population. — Seven hundred and thirteen thousand three hundred and forty-six. 
About 5,000 construction workers and about 10,000 permanent workers have come 
into State since start of defense program. 

Housing. — Not impossible to secure housing facilities, but workers on defense 
projects have been forced to live in summer cottages because of lack of all-year- 
round residences. After September, permanent winter quarters will have to be 
found for hundreds of families so located. Rents up about 10 percent for new 
residents. Boom in private construction throughout the State and Government 
housing projects are being constructed in most of new defense areas. 

Health. — Highly organized State program operated by health department. 
Workers can easily get adequate health service. 

Schools. — Government is arranging for sufficient schools and teachers in most 
crowded sections. 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Charleston. 

Housing. — Has been shortage for several years — become acute during past year. 
Thousands of workers and families have moved into vicinity. Houses and 
apartments at reasonable prices not to be found. Many families are crowding up 
in trailers, tourist cabins, and any place providing measure of shelter. Several 
hundred apartments being constructed — will help, but will not by any means 
solve problem. 

Health. — One of most pressing problems — hospital in navy yard area. 

Schools. — Need assistance for schools which are not in condition to care for 
expected enrollment increase. 

Union activity. — Have been trying to obtain Federal assistance to relieve the 
situation. Feel they should get it since condition is caused by defense program, 
and much of it will be comparatively short-lived. 

Spartanburg. 

Population. — One hundred and twenty-seven thousand seven hundred and 
thirty-three. In addition, 15,028 soldiers and about 8,000 workers with per- 
manent jobs have been brought in because of defense program. Most of the 
temporary workers have left. 

Housing. — For people moving into the area rents have gone up 40 to 75 percent, 
while people remaining settled have had rents increased about 10 percent. A large 
number of privately constructed new homes are going up. Two hundred and 
seventy units of Government-built homes for low-income groups have just been 
completed, and 125 units for Army personnel will be ready soon. Homes are 



g440 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

overcrowded, and substandard buildings are being used. In a few instances rents 
have doubled, although this is the exception. 

Health.- — Free general clinic. County health department has increased its 
personnel since the start of defense work. Does not consider that problem has 
increased since defense program. 

Schools and recreational facilities. — High school is overcrowded, recreational 
buildings are inadequate. 

Prices. — Not up more than the general trend. 

Union activity. — Unions are cooperative. They took the initiative in securing 
low-rent Federal housing projects. 

TENNESSEE 

Memphis. 

There is little defense work in or near Memphis, and adequate housing facilities 
for any increase they are likely to have. In Milan (near Wolf Creek ordnance 
plant), the situation is more serious. One enterprising gentleman bought aban- 
doned streetcars in Nashville, and brought them near Milan to rent to workers in 
the plant. Houses with proper sanitary facilities should be put up for the protec- 
tion of these workers and of the community as a whole. 
Nashville. 

Population.- — Two hundred and fifty-seven thousand. About 2,000 permanent 
workers brought in by the defense program. 

Housing. — Workers required to share living facilities with other families. Rents 
have risen $2.. 50 to $5. About 700 Federal Housing Administration financed 
homes are under construction to rent from $30 to $45, plus 300 Lanham Act 
homes and 180 defense homes. There are now trailer camps for 3.50 and dormi- 
tories for 200 persons. The present program is expected to provide adequate 
housing. 

Health. — Have free clinics and State public health service. New workers are 
able to get adequate health service. 

Schools. — Davidson County needs assistance in providing additional grammar- 
school facilities, and Nashville itself needs help in providing adequate high-school 
facilities. 

Tullahoma. 

Population.— About 30,000 soldiers have been added to the population of the 
area since the beginning of defense program; and 12,000 to 15,000 construction 
workers have come in. 

Housing. — Impossible for these workers to find decent homes. Some have 
been living in boxcars, barns, churches, tents, shacks, while others have slept in 
the streets. New workers have had to pay three or four times as much as was 
normally charged for accommodations. Little private building and no Gov- 
ernment housing project. 

Health. — No free clinics. Some State public health work in Chattanooga 
(over 50 miles away). Now have combined city-county health unit in Chat- 
tanooga. New workers cannot get adequate health service. 

Prices. — Everything has risen. 

Union activity.— Central body working closely behind authorities for action on 
housing, health services, etc. Have no representation on the advisory committee 
to the employment service. 

TEXAS 

State. 

Housing. — Housing is fairly satisfactory in some areas; El Paso and San An- 
tonio had little difficulty in securing living quarters for workers. But difficulty 
was experienced in Abilene, Mineral Wells, Palacios, Freeport, Orange, and many 
other points. Workers have been forced to accept any available accommo- 
dations; have in many instances been unable to secure anything and have slept 
in the open without any shelter or any sanitary conveniences. Some have had 
to commute as much as 60 to 70 miles to work. Outrageous rates charged in 
Brownwood and Corpus Christi for sleeping accommodations. Houses ordi- 
narily renting for $20 a month now rent for $60. Workers have paid as high as 
$60 a month to sleep two in a bed (Brownwood area). Complaints from Abilene 
and Mineral Wells that men are being charged $3 a day to sleep on a cot in a 
tar-paper shack. Considerable private construction near defense projects, par- 
ticularly near large cities. Few Government housing projects at Grand Saline, 
San Antonio, and El Paso. 

Health. — Free clinics, both general and venereal, operated in connection with 
State health service in all large communities. Very little, if any, however, in 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g441 

rural areas. State health department has been granted additional appropria- 
tions for this work. Workers can get adequate health services if they can pay 
for it. Have been informed that department of industrial hygiene, supported 
in the main by Federal Government, is to be curtailed in Texas. Would be very 
detrimental to the people of the State. Urge that program should be extended, 
or at least maintained at present standard. There have been special problems 
in connection with defense projects including adequate supply of drinking water 
and decent sanitary facilities. 

Schools. — Have had little difficulty here as yet, since during construction pro- 
gram most workers left their families at home. But it is becoming increasingly 
acute. Additional funds have been allocated to extend facilities where necessary. 

Prices. — Prices of commodities, services, and rents exorbitant where defense 
projects were placed near small communities. Larger cities have absorbed addi- 
tional population without any serious rise in price schedules. 

Union activity. — Have local housing committees cooperating with housing au- 
thorities; also have representation on most housing boards. Have been successful 
in passing legislation permitting counties in sparsely populated areas to sponsor 
housing programs. Too new to show concrete results as yet. Building trade 
unions have been most active. Do not have advisory committee to State employ- 
ment service. But State administrator and offices throughout State cooperate 
wholeheartedly with organized labor — render excellent and friendly service. 

Corpus Christi. 

Population. — Ninety-six thousand normally. Seven thousand additional tem- 
porary workers and 20,000 with permanent jobs have come in to work on defense 
projects. 

Housing. — Impossible for these men to find decent homes. Living in tourist 
camps, trailer camps, tents, shacks, and automobiles. Rents have gone up 75 to 
200 percent. There is some private construction, but not enough, and some 
Government defense housing. 

Health. — One free general clinic. State public health work insufficient. 

UTAH 

Salt Lake City. 

Population. — Two hundred thousand. Eight thousand men on temporary basis 
and 8,000 permanently. Ten thousand soldiers. Difficult to secure decent 
homes; some men live in trailers and camps. Rent up 15 percent. Free general 
clinic. Inadequate service, but general health conditions good. 

VIRGINIA 

Portsi7wuth. 

Population. — Fifty thousand. About 25,000 more brought in by defense pro- 
gram. 

Housing. — Good housing facilities difficult to obtain. Four Government hous- 
ing projects of about 1,000 units have helped the situation some, but rents in one 
of these are too high compared with private and real-estate rentals. New workers 
have to pay at least 15 percent higher rent (conservative estimate). Private 
home construction has continued at rapid pace. Defense workers have been able 
to pay small down payment and build tlieir own homes as cheaply as they could 
rent. 

Health. — -Have no free clinics nor any State public health service. Workers 
not able to get adequate health service. 

Schools. — Badly crowded. 

Prices. — Material increase in commodity prices and rents. 

Union activity. — Officers and members of central labor union frequently appear 
before the city council in effort to improve living conditions. Have no representa- 
tion on advisory committee to Employment Service. 

Radford.^ 

Population. — Has been doubled by defense program. 

Housing. — Very bad housing shortage. Workers have to live in tents, trailers, 
and shacks, or travel miles to work (3,000 to 4,000 of them live in Roanoke, 50 
miles away). Rent has doubled, and prices have gone up so high that many 
workers have quit their jobs and gone home. One worker had to pay $65 for 2 
rooms over an old storehouse. Condition is somewhat better, but there is a real 
job to do here before winter. Workers are "living like hogs." Some private 
building in area, but rents too high for workers. 

1 Information submitted by Roanoke central body. 



04:4:2 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Prices. — Have gone up so high in the area that wage increases have not bene- 
fited the workers. 

Williainsburg and Fort Monroe area. 

Population. — Fifty thousand. Brought in by defense program: At Regular 
Army posts, 25,000; construction workers, 15,000; permanent, 3,000. Has been 
an increase of 30 to 50 percent in rents. About 1,000 small homes have been 
built in this area. Rents are too high for the average worker. 

Health. — Have no free clinics and very little State health work. Health prob- 
lems arise from lack of sanitary sewage system. 

Schools. — Not prepared to care for more pupils. 

Prices. — Rents and commodities very high. 

WASHINGTON 

Bremerton. 

Population. — Thirty thousand. Ten thousand temporary and 2,000 new per- 
manent workers. Rents are up 75 percent. Although there is an enormous 
increase in building, people are compelled to live in trailers, made-over garages, 
and anything that has a roof. Government-built homes include about 1,500 
units, and single men's dormitories. 

Health. — No free clinics. No State public health work, except State health 
representatives for restaurant inspection work. 

Schools and recreational facilities.— Acute shortage of schools and recreational 
facilities. School board has made application for Federal and State funds. 

Prices. — Living expenses increased tremendously. 

Tacoma. 

Population. — One hundred and fifty-six thousand before defense program; 
now have 45,000 soldiers at Fort Lewis and McChord Field; were about 4,000 
building tradesmen employed during construction of these 2 camps. Estimated 
that defense program has brought at least 10,000 fairly permanent residents, 
many employed in new shipyards. At start of defense program in this area, 
thousands of workers came in from all parts of the country because of publicity 
overstating number of workers needed. 

Housing. — While construction work was under way it was impossible for workers 
to find decent homes, and it is still difficult. During construction program 
workers lived in trailer camps, tents, shacks, etc. It is estimated that rents 
have risen 14 percent for the average worker's home. Been steady increase in 
building permits since first of year; 106 issued for June. Housing committee 
considering million-dollar program — not yet adopted. 

Health. — City conducts a free general clinic. Have no State public health 
work, but workers are able to get adequate health service. 

Schools. — Some lack of primary and secondary schools and of recreational 
facilities. 

Union activity. — Unions have been active in demanding better health service, 
housing and school facilities. Have members working on committees con- 
nected with these matters. 

WEST VIRGINIA 

Charleston. 

Population.- — One hundred thousand normally. Defense program has attracted 
5,000 construction workers and 10,000 permanent residents. 

Housing. — Lnpossible to get homes at reasonable rent. Three and four families 
live together because of 30-percent increase in rents. Private construction — 
jerry-built real-estate developments; 450 units built by Navy Department for 
naval ordnance plant. 

Health. — Free venereal clinic. General health provisions are very inadequate. 
Hospitals are overcrowded. Overcrowding of schools presents health hazard. 
Most serious problem is lack of uniform pasteurization laws; inspection is inade- 
quate, and an epidemic may be expected. 

Schools and recreational facilities. — Almost no recreational facilities and schools 
are overcrowded. 

Prices. — Prices of food and rent rising rapidly. 

WISCONSIN 

Manitowoc. 

Population. — Forty-five thousand. Defense program has brought in 350 con- 
struction workers, and more are coming in. 

Housing. — People living in trailer camps, but new city ordinances are forbidding 
this. Rents up 20 percent. Since January 1, 1941, 60 permits issued for private 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6443 

constructiou. There is a Government project of 400 units. There is no shortage 
of houses, but a real shortage of houses at a suitable rent. 

Health. — Have free general clinics. No additional State public-health service 
since defense program started. No pressing health problems as yet. 

Schools. — May be shortage of school facilities. 

Union activity. — Unions have taken active part in securing housing facilities. 
Are working 100 percent with Federal authorities on the 400-home project. 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT BY WILLIAM GREEN PRESIDENT, 
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR 

Initiation Fees 

Sensational headlines heralding discoveries made by newspaper reporters, of 
exorbitant fees collected by unions on defense projects, have given currency to 
many outright falsehoods and deliberate misrepresentations of existing practices. 

On several projects where all dealings with unions were solely in the hands of 
the contractors the reporter assigned to cover the story would base it entirely 
on an interview with the officer in charge, whose knowledge of the situation had 
been acquired only at second or third hand. No attempt to verify the true factS' 
by checking them with the contractor or with union officers was made in many- 
such situations. 

As a result, a few isolated cases of improper practices on the part of business 
agents have been misrepresented as typical, widespread, and continuing practices. 
As a matter of fact there were a few exceptional instances of either mismanage- 
ment of the union affairs or ill-advised, or, in two or three instances, dishonest 
administration of local union policies. 

Similar misrepresentations have been spread on public records and given wide 
publicity by the testimony of men who seized upon national defense as their oppor- 
tunity to attack all unions. These charges are false and must not be allowed to 
stand. The full record of union policies on the defense program proves them to 
be the product of organized slander and falsification which is a part of a concerted 
attack upon organized labor. 

What is the record? What are the facts? Why are initiation fees charged 
by unions and dues collected by them? What are the services performed_by 
unions for their members and how are these services financed? 

Benefits 

It is the purpose of the American Federation of Labor unions to unite the wage 
earners into trade and labor unions in order to protect and advance their wage 
and working conditions and to secure for them the recognition and maintenance 
of the rights to which they are entitled. The standards established in American 
industry reflect what the organized labor movement in America has accomplished 
over a period of several generations. 

The individual workers through the local union, and individual local unions 
through their national organization can achieve what neither the individual local 
nor the individual worker can do alone. Organization of other workers in the 
same trade or occupation results in the improvement of standards in the unor- 
ganized portions of the trade and industry and adds to the collective bargaining 
strength of each worker and each group of workers. By joining the union each 
worker assumes the willingness and the responsibility for furthering the work and 
the cause of his union, his national organization, and of the entire labor move- 
ment. That contribution he must make by the payment of his initiation fee 
upon induction into his union and through the payment of monthly dues. 

A new member entering trade-union ranks becomes a beneficiary of the many 
gains already secured and established by his union over a period of years. He 
becomes a part in the continuity ol that heritage of which his union organization 
is a guardian. The pajanent of the initiation fee thus represents the new worker's 
contribution toward that sum total of struggle, endeavor, and service which makes 
it possible for him to enjoy automatically the benefits of short hours, better 
wages, and improved working conditions. 

AN INVESTMENT IN ECONOMIC SECUKITY 

In addition to all these things the initiation fee and the monthly dues paid by 
the new member represent an investment by him not only in the economic secu- 
rity which is given greater assurance by the united strength of his fellow workers, 
but also in the security which he derives from the benefits which he will receive 



g444 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

from his imiou in case of sickness, unemployment, or disability, and which his 
family will receive in case of his death. This very important aspect of the initia- 
tion fees has been completely ignored by those who have sought to focus public 
attention through the public press on their own ignorance and destructive criti- 
cisms ot organized labor. 

In the past 14 years the reported benefits paid by national and international 
unions of the American Federation of Labor amounted to $450,000,000. This 
sum does not include benefits paid out by local unions in organizations in which 
benefit funds are administered solely on a local basis. Had these benefits been 
included the total amount paid out by the American Federation of Labor unions 
during this period of economic instability would have approached a billion dollars. 

One of the l)asic purposes of self-organization of workers into unions within the 
ranks of the American Federation of Labor is to provide these workers with some 
measure of economic security. The hazards of sickness, disability, unemploy- 
ment, and old age are the hazards which the workers could better meet by pooling 
their resources in order to maintain benefit payments. In the course of the last 
depression the American Federation of Labor unions through their resources were 
able to make an enormous contribution to its members in their fight against 
economic insecurity, agamst privation, and often utter destitution. 

BACKGROUND OF SOCIAL-SBCT7RITT LEGISLATION 

The long depression such as we have had has fully demonstrated that protection 
against economic hazards cannot be sustained by the labor movement alone. 
The economic risk is one which must be shouldered by employers and by the entire 
community. Labor, therefore, sought and achieved the enactment of social- 
security legislation which has made possible a measure of protection by the com- 
munity, of the workers' welfare against insecurity. But to the extent that the 
social-security program does not fully meet the needs of workers and their families 
for protection against economic dislocation and against hazards of sickness, old 
age, and death, the labor movement has a continuing responsibiUty toward the 
wage earners which it cannot forego. 

Additional benefit payments provided by local unions are especially important. 
Their importance hes in the fact that almost without exception local unions which 
charge higher initiation fees and higher monthly dues than the average do so 
because these assessments make it possible for the local to provide larger benefits 
and render greater service to each member. 

BENEFITS TO TRANSIT WORKERS IN CHICAGO 

Let me give you an illustration. In Chicago, union streetcar men, bus drivers, 
conductors, and other members of the Amalgamated Association of Street, 
Electric Railwav, and Motor Coach Employees received during 1940 a total of 
$287,121.08. This represents the payment of disability, old age, and funeral 
benefits out of the international as well as local funds. To take a typical example: 
John Haadley, a member of Division 241, received $800 in old-age benefits in 
1940; $600 was paid by the international and $200 by the local. 

In the case of death" benefits, the international pays $800 and the local $200, so 
that the family receives $1,000 from the union. In this case local benefits are 
smaller than those paid by the international. In other instances the locals shoul- 
der the major burden of benefit payment. In the prmting trades, for example, 
the International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union of North America paid 
in 1939, $298,316 in unemployment benefits which were handled by local unions 
only. The union also paid death, sickness, disabiUty, old-age, and other benefits 
which totaled $455,591 in that year. 

The International Photo-Engravers Union of North America paid nearly a 
million dollars in unemployment benefits and its total benefits paid in one year 
amounted to $1,259,000. 

A. F. OF L. Unions' Policies on Initiation Fees in Defense Work 

With the rapid increase of defense activity the rate of reemployment of workers 
on defense production and defense construction was greatly accelerated. These 
developments have created new problems of administration within the ranks of 
the trade-union movement. 

As a general rule, national and international unions of the American Federa- 
tion of Labor make in their constitutions specific provision governing the rate of 
contribution by local unions to the international which is necessary to sustain 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6445 

the operating expenses and benefit payments of the international. Exact amounts 
of initiation fees and of monthly dues are determined by local unions themselves. 
In some instances the prevailing practices of local unions represent arrangements 
established a number of years ago which have remained unchanged during the 
recent years of depression and unemployment. 

The nature of defense work, its temporary character, and the economic status 
of the unemployed nonunion worker seeking defense employment have created a 
need for modification and revision of these policies in a number of instances. 

MISINFORMATION AND ATTACKS 

An impression has been created that all workers securing employment on projects 
•operating under union contracts have to pay initiation fees. As a matter of fact, 
if the project is operated under a union agreement that in itself necessarily means 
that those employed on the project are almost entirely workers who are already 
union members. These workers as a rule are either members in good standing, 
or inactive members who carry an "unemployed" card which is issued in evidence 
of their continued membership and eligibility for employment on work done by 
union agreements. 

Attacks upon labor alleging assessment of high initiation fees have been 
directed mostly at unions in the building and construction trades. Almost 
without exception they were directed at classes of workers who are highly skilled 
building mechanics in the trades almost completely unionized by the American 
Federation of Labor. 

Anyone even superficially familiar with labor in the building and construction 
industry knows that these skilled mechanics have to serve an extended period of 
training and apprenticeship in order to develop the skill and acquire their status 
•of eligibility for employment on defense work. The often-repeated story of 
thousands upon thousands of unemployed workers who emerge from nowhere as 
full-fledged skilled tradesmen seeking jobs on union projects is pure fantasy. 
Almost without exception the initiation fee requirements have been fulfilled by 
building tradesmen while they served the apprenticesliip in their trade, and the 
initiation fee has been paid by them over a period of several years. 

There have been cases of nonunion workers applying for work on projects 
covered by union agreements who have no union status and seek to become, or 
are required to become, union members. The number of workers in this category 
is obviously small. But the building and construction unions have appreciated 
the necessity of making special arrangements to develop a fair and equitable 
pohcy toward this class of workers. 

CIRCULAR LETTER OUTLINING POLICY 

Let me cite a few examples of what the national and international unions in 
building trades have done to achieve this end. On December 5, 1940, the Inter- 
national Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, as a 
result of the action of the executive board, addressed a circular letter to all officers 
and members of its local unions. This letter informed the locals that the general 
president had been invested with emergency powers to deal with any local situa- 
tion threatening to hamper or retard defense projects. President Joseph V. 
Moreschi stated the policj- of the international union with respect to initiation 
fees in the following terms: 

"One of the outstanding matters on which I will act in accordance with this 
resolution is the question of initiation fees. Numerous stories have appeared in 
the press charging that local unions affiliated with this international union have 
levied exorbitant initiation fees and excessive down payments against workers 
seeking membership in the union in order to qualify for jobs on defense projects. 

"I believe these reports have been greath' exaggerated, but in any case, we 
regard such action by local unions as an unwarranted abuse. We will not 
tolerate it. 

"Under the powers now vested in me by the executive board, I will issue orders 
that no prohibitive initiation fees will be permitted and that no excessive down 
payments can be exacted. 

"Because of varied local conditions and differences in pay rates, it is impossible 
and impractical to set a fixed initiation fee on a Nation-wide basis. The ceiling 
will be based on local wage rates and conditions. In all instances it is my inten- 
tion to issue orders that no man desiring-to join the union where jobs are available 
should be required to pay an initiation fee higher than $25 and then only when 
his earnings are at a rate of more than 80 cents an hour. The fee will scale down 



g446 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

to as low as $2 in some instances where pay rates are lower. In this connection, 
I wish to point out that the minimum initiation fee hitherto provided for in the 
laws of the international union was $5 and the maximum $50. 

"Furthermore, I will provide that a man joining the union will be permitted 
to pay his initiation fee out of earnings, so that no hardship will be imposed on 
workers taken off relief rolls who may not be in a position to produce the money in 
advance. 

"I have emphasized the matter of initiation fees because most of the criticism 
directed against the union in the press has harped on this theme. I wish to 
point out, however, that I am empowered to act in 'all instances of unreason- 
ableness, abuse, or restraint on the part of any member of affiliated local union' 
in the defense program and I hereby serve notice that I intend to exercise these 
powers to the fullest so that we can give the Government every help and coopera- 
tion in the defense program. 

"Your local union, its officers and members are therefore hereby officially ad- 
vised, in all their actions, to conform, comply, and be guided by the above state- 
ments in order that the individual, nptional, and mutual welfare of all may be 
best preserved, protected ard promoted." 

President Moreschi was empowered by his executive board with "full authority 
to take such action as may be necessary" in the event of noncompliance, "in order 
that the welfare and interest of the membership of this international and the people 
of the United States of America as a whole might be protected and preserved." 

RESOLtTTION OF TEAMSTERS ON REASONABLE DUES 

Another example of such action is the resolution adopted by the general execu- 
tive board, on January 30, 1941, by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America. The declaration unani- 
mously approved by the general executive board of this international was as 
follows: 

"Because of the fact that considerable adverse publicity has been given to the 
trade-union movement by certain governmental agencies, newspaper columnists, 
and magazine writers, and because of this certain contemplated legislation may be 
enacted regulating the affairs of labor unions relative to fees charged by local 
unions, which action would be seriously detrimental to the interests of the labor 
movement; and 

"Because of the fact that great stress has been placed by the above-named 
publicity agencies on these matters, which has created considerable agitation 
amongst the legislators in State and Nation; 

"It is declared opinion and expression of the general executive board of the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers 
that dues of organizations should be reasonable, and that initiation fees should 
be held down as much as possible, so that adverse, harmful charges will not be 
directed against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

"It is our opinion that wherever possible the initiation fee should be limited 
to $25 but under no circumstances should it exceed $50; that arrangements should 
be made for payment of same by installments where necessary by those coming 
into our organization; and that where local unions have sick, death, and unemploy- 
ment benefits attached, these benefits should be arranged to meet any reduction 
in revenue obtaining as a result of putting into practice the above requirements. 

"It is further stated by the general executive board that while the international 
constitution places no limit on dues if they are within reason, except that the 
constitution requires that the minimum dues shall be $2 per month, it should also 
be understood that where monthly dues are unreasonable or extortionate the 
general executive board has the power, contained in the constitution, to take over 
the affairs of such local unions if they continue to insist on charging dues or 
initiation fees which are beyond reason. 

"The above declaration is made with the hope that our local unions will avail 
themselves of the suggestions contained herein, rather than compel the interna- 
tional union, because of public agitation, to exercise its power under the consti- 
tution and regulate or discipline local unions acting directly contrary to the pur- 
pose and spirit of this declaration." 

STATEMENT BY RIVERS ON DEFENSE POLICY 

These resolutions, declarations, and actions do not represent isolated instances 
of enfightened policy by individual building-trades unions. They represent the 
purpose and considered judgment of national and international unions of the 
American Federation of Labor in the building and construction trades. The evi- 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g447 

dence of this is the resolutions adopted by the building and construction trades 
department on March 31, 1941. In making these resolutions public, Secretary- 
Treasurer Rivers issued a statement on behalf of 1,500,000 members of the 
A. F. of L. building-trades unions, assuring the Government and the American 
people that these unions will do everything within their power to build the 
strongest possible national defense and to formulate policy and practices neces- 
sary to achieve that job. I quote from the statement: 

"As evidence of their good faith and determination to cooperate in the national- 
defense program, the members of the executive council of the building and con- 
struction trades department of the American Federation of Labor, meeting in 
special session, have taken constructive action on two important problems, as 
follows : 

"1. They have solemnly pledged that there will not be any stoppage of work 
on account of jurisdictional disputes between any of the building and construction 
trades unions on any building or construction project essential to speedy comple- 
tion of the national-defense program. 

"2. They have agreed that when the unions are unable to supply a full force 
of building tradesmen to contractors on defense projects who are recognized as 
being fair to organized labor — 

"(a) The contractor may employ nonunion men until such time as the various 
unions can replace them with members of their own organizations. 

"(b) No permit or privilege moneys shall be collected from these nonunion 
men by the unions where such conditions exist. 

"(c) No initiation fees or other union obligations shall be collected from these 
nonunion men except where they can qualify for membership and have been 
requested to join the appropriate union and have been accepted into membership. 

"(d) When such applications for membership are received, initiation fees shall 
be the minimum possible in view of the benefits extended by the union organiza- 
tions and reasonable time will be granted for the paj'ment of such initiation fees." 

I have cited these resolutions and declarations as evidence of actual operating 
policies of the American Federation of Labor unions with respect to workers 
employed on defense projects. These policies are not empty gestures. They 
have been applied and put in effect. Every single situation in which improper 
practices were attempted by local officials has been investigated and corrected. 
There can be no more conclusive evidence of labor's ability to exercise self- 
discipline in a democratic way without outside intervention, control, and regi- 
mentation. 

Policies and Problems of Various Unions 

I believe it is important for your committee to gain complete understanding 
of practical application of standard union policies with regard to intiation fees. 
With this in mind I will discuss these policies and the problems underlying them 
in the case of several specific national and international unions in different trades 
and occupations. 

painters 

The Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America is a 
national union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor which functions 
under its own constitution and enjoys democratic rights of self-government 
common to A. F. of L. unions. 

The national constitution of the Brotherhood of Painters requires that new 
members who join local unions should pay an initiation fee of not less than $5 
and monthly dues of not less than $1.50. Of the $5 initiation fee, $2 is payable 
to the national, and of the monthly dues a per capita tax of 60 cents per member 
is also transmitted to the national treasury. 

The constitution establishes no restriction upon the local unions as to the 
amount to be charged in initiation fees and lays down no specific requirements 
in this respect. However, while the initiation fees charged by individual local 
unions differ substantially from one locality to another, the minimum initiation 
fee of $5 is charged by a major portion of local unions. 

The range of initiation fees charged by locals of the Brotherhood of Painters 
extends from $5 to $100 and in some few instances a fee of $150 is prescribed by 
the local union. Every one of those fees has been established over a period of 
many years and does not represent a departure from the customary practice. 

In the localities in which there are large defense projects new local unions have 
been formed and as a rule the initiation fee of $5 has been set by these new locals 
affording everyone an opportunity to become union members in these defense areas. 
60.396 — 41— pt. 16 10 



^448 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

In some instances newly established local unions, after the expiration of 30 or 
60 days of continuous employment have increased the initiation fees to $10 and 
to $25 in a few cases, to bring the initiation charges in line with the long-established 
practice of the union in the community. 

The Brotherhood of Painters is a labor organization of long-established standing. 
Today it represents a membership of some 150,000 workers whose experience, 
training, and skill establish the highest standards of the trade in America. 

The membership of this great national union has fluctuated with the wide 
fluctuations which have taken place in the building and construction industry. 
These fluctuations in employment resulting from the successive rises and falls in 
the business cycle have fundamentally affected the economic status of all workers 
in this trade. Over a period of years wage standards, safety requirements, 
and other working conditions have been gradually established to improve the 
economic security of the workers and to protect his welfare through union organ- 
ization. A new applicant for membership in a local union, by his joining the union, 
instantly becomes a beneficiary of work and wage standards and labor j^ractices 
which it had taken the Brotherhood of Painters generations to establish. Thus 
the initiation fee charged the new member represents in part his contribution 
toward the cost of the service in the interest of the trade that the Brotherhood 
has carried on for years and is continuing at the present time. Had there been 
no organization the disastrous force of unemployment such as characterized the 
industry in many periods, notably at the trough of the depression at the end of 
1932, the wage structure in the trade would have completely collapsed and the 
standards of hours of work, of wages, and safety conditions would have been 
greatly impaired. It was through the joint activity of all members of the trade 
made possible by the brotherhood that the wage structure could be preserved, 
improvement in working conditions attained, and some measure of economic 
security in the trade achieved. 

BENEFITS TO PAINTERS 

The initiation fees and monthly dues represent, in addition, a direct service to 
the membership provided by the national organization and by individual locals. 
The national union pays death and disability benefits to all members who are less 
than 50 years old at the time of their initiation. These death and disability 
benefits range from $50 to $400 to each member. The national union also pays 
benefits to each member in case of wife's death. Any member whose member- 
ship has extended from 1 and up to 2 years is paid $25 upon his wife's death, and 
those whose membership is of more than 2 years' standing, $50. 

During 1939 the Brotherhood of Painters paid out $312,814 in death and dis- 
ability benefits to its members. In 1938, $289,500 was paid in such benefits 
and, in 1937, the amount paid out was $278,000. During 1940, benefits of more 
than $325,000 are reported to have also been paid out. In the 4-year period of 
1937-40 more than $1,300,000 was paid out in death and disability benefits by 
the national alone. 

In addition, many local unions have made provision for the payment of sickness 
and other benefits which enable the members to meet the hazards of unemploy- 
ment with the backing of the economic strength of their organization. 

Because in a few instances exceptionally high initiation fees ranging from $50 
to $100 have been in effect, these fees have been misrepresented as being typical 
of the advantage taken by the entire union of the defense program. The fact, is 
of course, that the major portion of the workers employed on defense projects 
were already union members ot long standing and had to pay no initiation fees 
to secure employment on defense work under union agreements. Where high 
initiation tees were charged these fees represented an established practice and were 
not newly created as a device to take advantage of defense activity. As has 
already been pointed out, on the vast majority oi defense projects initiation fees 
of $5 have prevailed and in localities where continuous employment was assured 
in the future, such fees have ranged from $10 to $25. 

High initiation fees established by some locals have uniformly been the result 
of mass unemployment and a device resorted to by the local union with large 
unemployed rolls to prevent addition of more unemployed workers to its member- 
ship. 

Once an initiation fee is paid and a member continues in good standing in his 
local union he is entitled to receive a clearance card or a transfer card which en- 
ables him to transfer to another local union if work becomes available in another 
locality. The charge, therefore, that initiation fees have been paid more than once 
is utterly untrue. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6449 

In connection with rapid expansion of construction worli in Fort Bel voir, Va., 
in Fredericksburg, Va., in Washington, D. C, and in other localities in the same 
area, some confusion arose as to availability of union members for immediate 
employment, between the representatives of the Washington and the Alexandria 
locals. In connection with Fort Belvoir 34 new members were accepted by the 
Alexandria local and charged an initiation fee of $56 each. This was done in 
violation of instructions the business agent in Alexandria had received from the 
national and was quickly brought to the attention ot the national and ot the War 
Department. The case of these 34 men was exaggerated and elaborated, creating 
the impression that such was the common practice. The union was widely 
criticized in the press for failure to cooperate with the defense program and for 
exacting unreasonable returns from the newly initiated members. The case was 
quickly investigated, however, and the attitude of the national organization to- 
ward the whole problem is best summarized by quoting from the letter addressed 
by William J. Gallagher, national representative of the brotherhood, to the War 
Department on January 14: 

"As a representative of the national organization, representing the general 
president in Washington, I will not tolerate any men being compelled to pay for 
a job. If we cannot supply men enough for any job we will permit nonmembers 
of our organization to go to work at no cost to them. We are not going to permit 
any. men to be 'shook down' for these fees for the privilege of working." 

GLAZIERS 

Another charge given widespread publicity alleged that glaziers on defense 
projects were forced to pay initiation fees of $1,500 to enable them to become 
union members. Allegations about such fees being charged in Chicago and about 
the issuance of work permits for which a daily payment was required but not 
applied toward the initiation fee, have been made before congressional com- 
mittees, played up by the newspapers, and widely discussed by certain columnists. 

it was stated that on the Fort Riley project in Kansas, exorbitant initiation 
fees were charged and that work permits were given to new workers, the payment 
for which was not applied to initiation. Mr. L. P. Lindelof, general president of 
the brotherhood, informs me that this statement is wholly untrue and that every 
one of the workers employed on the project had been a union member before he 
was employed on the project and had carried a paid up card from a local union in 
;St. Louis, Kansas City, or the surrounding territory. 

A similar charge was made with respect to Detroit, Mich. The investigation 
made by the brotherhood shows that Glaziers' Local Union No. 357 supplied all 
union members for every one of the Government projects in that city, with the 
■exception of nine men who applied for membership and were employed on one of 
these projects. The new members were asked to pay the initiation fee within 90 
days. Some men paid as low as $1 per day, some at the rate of $2 per day, and 
some $3 per day. The arrangement maintained by the union was that if the 
employment of new members terminated before their full initiation fee was paid, 
the payments made toward it would be credited to their name so that when addi- 
tional work would become available the men when employed would pay the bal- 
ance of the initiation fee. 

Much has also been said about the $1,500 initiation fee allegedly charged by 
Local Union No. 27 in Chicago. No such fee has ever been paid by anyone in 
•Chicago or elsewhere to any local union of glaziers. In 1927 and 1928 Chicago 
was riding the crest, of a great building boom. At the beginning of the boom the 
local's initiation fee was $100 and its membership comprised 350 men. As one 
building after another was put under construction glaziers and workers claiming 
to be glaziers flocked to Chicago from all parts of the country. The union mem- 
bership was growing by leaps and bounds and a list of applicants for mem- 
bership was continuously increasing. The union then advanced the initiation 
fee to $200 and later to $300 as a means of discouraging new applicants from 
coming into the union. The unhealthy atmosphere of feverish construction 
activity made it clear that the boom would be short lived and the union did not 
wish to assume permanent obligations toward new members whose employment 
would obviously be of short duration. To make the entrance into the union 
prohibitive the local set the initiation fee at a theoretical figure of $1,500. No 
•one has ever actually paid such a fee and no one expected that such a fee would be 
paid. 

It is perfectly true that 14 years ago, at the time of the speculative boom in 
•Chicago, when real-estate values were skyrocketing, when speculative builders 
were anxious to build fast and unload new buildings at the highest possible values. 



5450 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

the high fees established by the glaziers' union did serve to restrict the entrance 
of new members into the trade. Had the initiation fees been low at the time 
several hundred more men might have been allowed to come into the Chicago 
boom market at the very peak of speculative activity and gain a few weeks of 
employment. 

The year of prosperity in Chicago in which real-estate speculators, starting 
on a shoestring and running up their business into a succession of million-dollar 
deals and, in some instances involving the sale of imaginary tracts which the buyer 
later found to be located in Lake Michigan, this brief and fantastic era in which 
even subcontractors were sometimes making $10,000 a day, collapsed quickly and 
completely. It is futile to argue today after many years of unemployment 
and distress among the workers who became the victims of the speculator and the 
profiteer, whether or not the fee which was thus established but which was never 
paid, was a mistake. It is also dishonest to resurrect the ghost of an initiation 
fee that had never ma.terialized in order to convey the impression that such a 
practice actually ever existed, that it does exist today, and that it is an example of a 
typical union practice in a defense situation. 

Glaziers' Local Union No. 27 consists of approximately 475 members. To 
date there has been very little work for these men in the Chicago area. What- 
ever work there has been had been manned by union members and no initiation 
fees have been collected. The best evidence of this is the fact that half the mem- 
bership of this union is stiU unemployed. 

While there are no requests for membership in the glaziers' union in Chicago, 
the established initiation fee in the union is $50 which anyone applying for mem- 
bership could pay in small installments over a period of time. 

Glaziers have received very little employment from the defense construction 
program. Barracks, cantonments, and temporary housing projects which are 
almost entirely of frame construction, have used glazed sash made and assembled 
in factories. Practically everywhere on these projects installation of factory-made 
windows and sash have offered no share of employment to union glaziers. Wher- 
ever glass installation has been called for the unemployed union members have 
by far exceeded the number of workers needed to do the job. As a practical 
matter, therefore, when Thurman Arnold talks about the tremendous restriction 
of the supply of skilled labor by initiation fees, he talks pure theory and probably 
does not realize that his plausible-sounding fantasia bears no relation to existing 
realities. 

The 125,000 men who comprise the membership of the Brotherhood of Painters 
of America are average Americans and patriotic citizens. In their number there 
may be, as there undoubtedly would be in any group of men of such number, 
some men whose character or behavior can be questioned. There have undoubt- 
edly been some practices which the officers of the American Federation of Labor 
and the officers of the brotherhood would agree to be improper and would endeavor 
to stop. That such is the purpose of the general executive board of the national 
union I have the assurance of the general president. I am informed that the 
general executive board of the brotherhood has disapproved agreements in which 
the initiation fee has been increased since the inception of the defense program 
and has instructed local unions to lower rather than increase their initiation fees. 
I am also informed that in order to more fully cooperate with the defense program 
the general executive board of the brotherhood has ruled that local unions are to 
accept members from other localities, when they are not in a position to supply 
an adequate number of members to man the project, without charging these new 
members any excessive fees but only the regular dues regularly paid by the 
existing membership. 

I know that the officers of the Brotherhood of Painters are doing all they can 
in order to cooperate with the defense program. Only recently the brotherhood 
signed an agreement with the Painting and Decorating Contractors of America 
which provides that no strikes will interfere with the construction of any defense 
project. Under the agreement no demands for increased wage rates by unions 
concerned, after a defense project has been started, and no excessive dues or ini- 
tiation fees will be permitted on any defense job. The agreement which became 
immediately applicable to contracts totaling $500,000,000 at a high point in our 
preparedness program was the first negotiated by the pointers' union and the 
contractors on a national basis. Both sides declared in announcing the agreement 
that it grew out of a common desire to advance the defense program and to 
implement President Roosevelt's appeal for cooperation between labor and 
management. The contract covers 6,000 contractors and 1,200 local unions of 
the brotherhood. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6451 

I think this agreement is a notable example that the no-strike policy on defense 
work, formulated by the building trades and metal trades departments of the 
American Federation of Labor, can be implemented. It is vision, leadership, and 
patriotism of men who are willing to assume responsibility for the success of our 
defense efforts that gives best evidence of the need for willing and voluntary par- 
ticipation of labor in the enforcement of industrial peace and in the promulgation 
of American defense. 

ELECTRICAL WORKERS 

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers maintains two classes of 
membership. In the case of class A members, the constitution provides that 50 
percent of the local initiation fee be paid to the international and that the share 
paid to the international be not less than $5 and not more than $60 per member. 
In the case of class B inembers, the international receives $L50 per member, 
plus 50 percent of the local fee charged in excess of $1.50 per each member initiated. 

The amount of the particular initiation fee is fixed by the local union. The 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has submitted to me a sum- 
mary of the initiation fees charged by I. B. E. W. locals, which I submit to you. 

The locals of this international are divided into six groups: (1) Primarily con- 
struction locals; (2) primarily electrical utihties locals; (3) railroad locals; (4) 
manufacturing locals; (5) radio broadcasting locals; and (6) telephone and tele- 
graph locals. 

In the construction group the initiation fees charged by locals in the localities 
reported range from the minimum $10 to the maximum of $200 for class A locals 
and from the minimum of $L50 to the maximum of $150 for class B locals. In 
the electrical utility group the initiation fees range generally from $10 to $25 
with a few locals charging the maximum fee of $50 and $75. The railroad locals 
charge fees ranging from $10 to $23, with $25 charged in some instances. Locals 
in the manufacturing group have initiation fees ranging from $2 to $10, with a 
maximum of $60 in one instance. In the radio broadcasting group the fees range 
from $10 to $100 and in the telephone and telegraph field from $10 to $50. 

It will be noted that the size of the initiation fee varies with the skill classifi- 
cation of a particular worker and that it differs with the size of the community 
and its geographical location. Lineman helpers would pay much smaller initia- 
tion fees than journeyman linemen, and in this and other classifications the size 
of the fee is prorated to the skill and earning power which the worker's standing 
in the trade commands. It is the universal rule that the higher initiation fees 
are charged only for the top classifications of skill and only in the largest cities 
in the country. 

All these are standard provisions and practices of the International Brotherhood 
of Electrical Workers. With respect to defense employment, these practices and 
policies have been modified to meet the need of emergency conditions. This is 
done by the local unions declaring periods of "open charters" during which stand- 
ard initiation fees are drastically reduced. In communities in which defense 
projects resulted in the demand for more workers than the local union could im- 
mediately provide, periods of open charters have made it possible to bring into 
the union new members without requiring them to pay standard initiation fees. 
Under open charters initiation fees ranged from $50 to $25 and that even with 
respect to the topmost skill classification, no fee larger than $25 was permitted. 

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has paid old-age and 
death benefits to its members which are very substantial. The old-age benefits 
are paid at the rate of $40 per month when the member reaches the age of 65. 
Death benefits range from $300 for those who have been members for 1 year to 
$1,000 for those who have been members for 5 j^ears or more. In 1939 the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers paid $1,002,697 in benefits. Other 
benefits are paid by local unions, and funds are maintained for many other 
services extended by local unions. 

PHOTOENGRAVERS 

Initiation fees of the various local? of the International Photoengravers' Union 
var}^ widely. In many localities this fee is as low as $25, in some instances the 
fee may be higher. The international provides that journeymen who have 
been employed at the trade for not less than 5 years may be admitted on payment 
of an initiation fee of $200 plus whatever the local initiation fee may be. Local 
monthly dues are usually quite low, ranging from 75 cents to $3.75. The usual 
rates are $1, $L50, and $2. A few locals have no local union dues in addition to 
the international per capita tax, which is $2 per month. 



Q452 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

The initiation fee may be considered as a contribution to the capital resources 
of the union otit of which the several benefits paid by the international union to- 
its members are financed. The initiation fees build up the resources of the union 
and provide a backlog against emergencies, while monthly dues paid to the 
international are calculated to preserve this fund and compensate in some measure 
for the continual demands made upon it. 

The union pays four different benefits to its members. In case of strike or 
lock-out members receive strike pay from the defense fund. During the year 
ended May 31, 1940, the union paid $41,442.75 in strike and lock-out benefits. 

The union has a fund used for the payment of hospitalization and other expenses 
of its members suffering from tuberculosis. Last year $20,046 was spent in this 
manner. Upon the death of a member of the international union it undertakes- 
to pay the expenses of his funeral. Last year $26,800 was paid out in funeral 
benefits. 

Since 1928 the international has been operating an insurance and disability 
plan which has cost large sums of money annually. Last year, for example, 
insurance and disability payments amounted to $141,816. Under this plan all 
journeymen and apprentices after their third year of apprenticeship are insured 
in the amount of $1,000. 

The servicing of the four benefits paid by the international union enumerated 
above cost the union $230,104. Total revenues of the international amounted to 
only $364,382. Put in other words, these expenses accounted for 63 percent of the 
total income of the union. 

Since its organization in 1900 the international union has paid a total of 
$3,727,832.78 in these four benefits to its members. During this time strike and 
lock-out benefits have amounted to $1,646,903.08; tuberculosis payments to- 
$629,615.47; funeral benefits to $329,481; and insurance benefits to $1,122,833.23. 
The reason for the relatively large share of strike benefits in this total is the fact 
that strike benefits were for a considerable period of years the most important 
benefit paid by the union. The tuberculosis payment was not established until 
1908 and the insurance payments until 1928. For the last few years insurance 
payments alone have accounted for approximately 60 percent of all benefit 
payments. 

It should be noted that these benefits are paid exclusively by the international 
union and are financed by initiation fees and by the income which the union de- 
rives from the monthly per capita tax of $2. These substantial forms of protec- 
tion which are afforded to its members by the international union could not 
possibly be maintained without the payment of initiation fees and monthly per 
capita taxes. 

In addition to the benefits paid by the international union a large number of 
the local unions composing the international pay benefits of their own. During 
the year ending May 31, 1940, local unions paid $938,534.63 to jobless members 
as protection against unemployment. Sick benefits of local unions amounted to 
$26,371.35 and death benefits to $60,700. From this it is apparent that total 
benefits paid by local unions were $1,025,605.88 or almost five times those paid 
by the international. 

The unemployment benefits are paid by i 2 local unions having a membership 
of 8,636 journeymen. The unemployment benefit varies as between local unions 
but is usually $10 to $15 per week and may be paid for 26 weeks or 52 weeks 
depending upon the local in question. During the depth of the depression very 
substantial sums were paid out in unemployment benefits. During the years 
1932-33 these benefits were continuously well in excess of $1,000,000 per year 
and in 1933 amounted to $1,959,617.96. 

Adding the total of local benefits in the amount of $1,025,605.88 to the total 
international benefits paid in the amount of $230,104.80 we find that total inter- 
national and local benefits of the Photoengravers' International Union amounted 
to $1,255,710.69 for the year ended May 31, 1940. This impressive total reveals 
clearly the extent of the protection afforded the membership of this union by the 
monthly dues and initiation fees which it pays. The extent of these benefits and 
the proportion which they bear to the total income of the union are compelling 
evidence that the members of this union are receiving protection to the full extent 
warranted by their financial contributions to the union. Facts of this sort must 
be set against the unconsidered arguments of those who make statements without 
any investigation of the realities of specific situations. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6453 

BRICK AND CLAY WORKERS 

The international constitution of the United Brick and Clay Workers of America 
requires the payment of a minimum initiation of $1.50. The maximum initiation 
fee is governed by district councils and by local unions. In the case of a newly 
formed local union, the initiation fee may range from $2 to $3, and in the case of a 
firmly established union the fee is generally $5. In the Los Angeles area on the 
Pacific coast the initiation fee is $3. 

The international union receives $1 from each initiation fee collected by the 
local. Dues assessed by local unions are generally $1.50 per month. In some 
locals the dues are as low as $1 per month, and in the Chicago area the highest 
dues of $1.75 per month are collected. The international union receives a per 
capita tax of $1 from monthly dues paid by each member. 

The international pays out death benefits of $200 and local unions maintain 
additional death benefits averaging around $400. While the international union 
provides full service to each local union in connection with wage negotiations, 
collective bargaining, and other union needs, which is equivalent to the business 
agent service, no general benefits other than the death benefits are paid out. 
The low initiation fees charged by this international makes it impossible to main- 
tain large systems of sickness, disability, and old-age and unemployment benefits 
of the type operated by international unions whose fees are proportionately 
larger. 

Additional information on the administration of benefits and procedures with 
respect to initiation fees and dues in these and other unions is available and will 
be furnished gladly to the committee either by the national and international 
anions themselves, or by the American Federation of Labor. 

As a rule, relatively few national and international unions control the local 
union policies with respect to initiation fees as a matter of their established and 
normal procedure. In practically all cases the American Federation of Labor 
unions have prescribed specific emergency policies with respect to initiation fees 
which govern the entire organization in connection with the defense program. 
These union policies have to fit particular situations in a great multiplicity of 
trades and occupations, and reflect a great number of special problems which are 
involved. 

As a general rule, large initiation fees have been charged in only exceptional 
cases and have been drastically reduced or altogether suspended in the operation 
of the defense program. The fact that the fees and dues charged are necessary 
is shown by the extensive benefits which the American Federation of Labor has 
made available to its membership. The fact that the practices are fair, equitable, 
and not restrictive can be attested by 5,000,000 members of the American Feder- 
ation of Labor who have come into the membership of our organization, who form 
a representative cross section of the American wage earners and who in the final 
analysis control and determine the policies of their unions. 

It must be remembered that new members who join the union and pay their 
initiation fee become beneficiaries and participants in the funds already accumu- 
lated in the local treasury and available for sickness, death, accident, and unem- 
ployment benefits. In addition, it must be realized that a newly admitted member 
of a union becomes a beneficiary of wages and working conditions which it has 
taken generations of unionists to establish, and for which the union has fought 
over many years. When the union worker gains the benefits of union conditions, 
he owes a debt to his union for the immeasurable sacrifices and suffering sustained 
by those before him, in strikes, discharges for union activity, and discrimination 
on the part of hostile employers. It can hardly be argued that nonunion members 
should be admitted into the union ranks without payment of any fee when all 
those before them have contributed their share to the economic strength of their 
organization. 

I am laying these facts before you, not as a justification for the imposition of 
excessive initiation fees in the time of national emergency. I feel that the emer- 
gency situation calls for special consideration and special action by our unions. 
Practically all of our unions have taken cognizance of the situation and have 
acted accordingly. Within the limitations of our authority, we in the American 
Federation of Labor have established reasonable and uniform standard initiation 
fees in every instance known to us and have done away with abuses. Most of 
our national and local organizations have taken the necessary action to meet the 
present conditions voluntarily and on their own initiative. They have done so 
in the interest of the common good as patriotic American citizens who know that 
every one of us in America is engaged in a job of most crucial importance, that of 
preserving liberty and democracy in America and in the world. 



g454 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM GREEN— Resumed 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Green, might I take a moment to state in that 
connection that the task of this committee, when it originally was 
created, was to investigate the interstate migration of destitute citi- 
zens. "V\e were aware of the fact that due to the depression and 
other causes there were a great many up-rooted people in the United 
States, perhaps running into several millions, who were citizens of the 
United States but belonged to no State or no community. 

We were focusing oui* attention on that problem and then we found 
that it all tied into the defense program, which was just coming on as 
we were conducting our investigation last year. So the Congress has 
asked us to continue to inquire into some of the problems that have 
come about by reason of the large groups moving to and from defense 
areas. 

Mr. Green, I could repeat or agree with what Chairman Tolan said 
about your paper. It is a very valuable one, as I know that the sup- 
plemental paper will be, although I haven't seen that. 

Now, before we start these questions if there is any preliminary 
statements that you would care to make, anything you want to treat 
in a general way in regard to this problem, we will be very happy to 
have you proceed. 

Mr. Green. I have covered the subject very completely and fully, 
I think, in the prepared statement that I submitted. Further, the 
subject is covered still further in the supplementary statement that I 
have now presented for inclusion in the record. It is quite detailed 
and for that reason I have no preliminary statement whatever to make. 

ALARMING INCREASE IN RENTS 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Green, many industrialists have testified before 
this committee that the defense workers cannot find defense housing 
at rents they can pay. Does the American Federation of Labor have 
any views on our present housing program? 

Mr. Green. Yes, sir; from practically every area in which defense 
work is going on it is bringing in new workers from practically every 
area and we have reports of alarming increases in rents. 

Much of this material has been covered in the body of my state- 
ment and in the supplementary outline of our survey through central 
labor unions and State federations of labor. 

Rents have increased from 10 to 200 percent in these areas, with 
50-percent increases common. 

Many of the new homes and apartments built are not priced 
reasonably for workers. I refer you to the supplementary statement 
where I am sure you will find some interesting information regarding 
rent increases. 

That information was sent to me in reply to the questionnaire that 
I dispatched to the offices of our subordinate local unions, located in 
different towns, cities, and communities throughout the country. 

The Chairman. Mr. Green, I wonder if I could interrupt you for 
a moment. The committee has just returned from San Diego, Calif., 
and that city has jumped up about 75,000 or 100,000 in population. 
When we went there everything was fine — there was no rent trouble 
at all, but the committee's staff got busy on the proposition and we 
put a witness on there who was a defense worker. He had six children 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6455 

and he testified tie had one room and a kitchen — that means eight of 
them were hving in those quarters, and that he was paying $18 a week 
while his mcome amounted to only $135 a month. Now, how is he 
gohig to save any money? I don't know, but that simply bears out 
what you are saying. 

Mr. Green. Well, a case of that kind is rather shocking, Mr. 
Chairman, but I am of the opinion that it is duplicated over and over 
again in different cities and towns and communities tlu-oughout the 
country. 

As I have explained, I have referred to this matter in quite an 
extensive way in the report that I submitted m my general statement, 
so that I respectfully refer you to that section in the statement I 
made under "Housing," and I am sure you will find a broader and 
more complete answer to the inquuy you just made. 

LABOR COSTS STILL BELOW 1929 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Green, the statement has been made quite a 
number of times by a number of people who have appeared before us, 
that the answer to rising rents and rising wages and all that sort of 
thing is to keep prices down all along the line. 

What comment do you have to make in regard to that? 

Mr. Green. Labor certainly does not want to see an inflationary 
spiral which would only result in a lower standard of living. There 
is certainly much truth in the statement that higher prices and 
profits will make it necessary for workers to continue to push wage 
increases. However, much of the increase in wages received today 
is only a belated recognition of the greatest labor productivity which 
has not been paid for by wage increases in past years. Even with the 
higher wages labor cost per dollar value of production are lower now 
than they were in 1929. 

Based on 1929 = 100 the indexes show: Output per worker for the 
first quarter in 1939 was 99.5 percent; for the first quarter of 1940 it 
was 105.4 percent, and for the first quarter in 1941 it was 116.5 percent. 

Now, there is a very noticeable and progressive increase in output 
per worker. 

Now, the output per man-hour in 1939 for the first quarter was 
129.9; for the first quarter of 1940 it was 136.2, and for the first quar- 
ter of 1941 it was 141, another corresponding increase. 

Now, the labor cost per $100 of output in the first quarter of 1939 
was 103.1; for the first quarter of 1940 it was 100.6 and for the first 
quarter of 1941 it was 99.7. 

Now, these are strikmg figures and I presume that much of that is 
due to the development of efficiency, perhaps caused through the 
introduction of a wider and broader basis of mechanical equipment, 
which has tended to make the worker more efficient and to increase 
individual productivity. 

A. F. OF L. WORKS FOR BETTER DEFENSE HOUSING 

Mr. Curtis. Coming back to this housing situation, what has the 
American Federation of Labor done to secure better defense housing? 

Mr. Green. The records will show that the American Federation 
of Labor was the first to focus public attention on the defense housing 
problem. 



g456 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

As early as September 1939, long before a word was said by any 
group about the enormous housing problem we were about to face, 
the housing committee of the American Federation of Labor issued a 
statement pointing to the need for immediate action. We promptly 
urged the enactment of Public, No. 671 or the Lanham Act and other 
measures calling for full utilization of the available public housing 
agencies for defense housing work. 

Our local housing committees in nearly 600 communities have 
cooperated with local housmg authorities and with Federal agencies 
in expediting defense housing in defense areas. 

Our building trades unions have given wholehearted cooperation 
to the United States Housing Authority and other agencies by enter- 
ing into voluntary agreements providing that no strikes for any 
cause would take place in the course of defense housing construction. 

According to the War Department, on the cantonment construc- 
tion, of a total man-hours of work only three-one-hundredths of 1 
percent represented delay due to labor difficulty of any kind. 

The record of the American Federation of Labor in defense housing 
has been that of not only full cooperation but also of constructive 
leadership. 

I have covered that subject pretty fully, too, in both the general 
statement and the supplementary statement which I have submitted 
for the record, and I am sure you can find a more detailed answer to 
your inquiry in these statements. 

The Chairman. The object of these public hearings is to give the 
public and the press information as to just wdiat you are doing. Your 
cold statement might be in here but the public and the press might 
not hear of it unless you stress it in your oral testimony. 

Mr. Green. Well, we welcome that opportunity. Congressman, 
and thank you for it. 

INITIATION FEES IN BUILDING TRADES 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Green, we were holding some committee hear- 
ings in December and a gentleman appeared before our committee who 
stated that he was unable to get a job out here at Fort Bel voir because 
of the high initiation fee of a building-trades union. Many of these 
new construction workers are migrants, as you know, Mr. Green, 
people far away from home. What benefits do these new workers 
receive from the unions in return for such fees? 

Mr. Green. Well, those of you who were members of the Judiciary 
Committee will remember that I covered that subject very fully. I 
faced the facts and presented them to the committee. It is pretty 
difficult for one to pass upon the merits of a complaint filed in indi- 
vidual cases, but I Imow that it has been the general policy of the 
American Federation of Labor to make it as easy as possible for build- 
ing-trades workers to become members of American Federation of 
Labor unions, and as a result of it many of the building- trade organi- 
zations changed policies these organizations had pursued for many 
years, by calling upon their local organizations in different cities and 
towns and communities to establish a maximum initiation fee and 
that maximum initiation fee was reduced to the lowest possible level 
consistent with the financial requirements and benefit obligations of 
national and international unions. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6457 



I know of no single instance where any worker capable of perform- 
ing work on buHdings and in biiOding construction was denied the 
opportimity to become a member of a miion and to engage with others 
in work, construction and building work. 

In some instances men represented themselves to be skilled mechan- 
ics and applied for work; the manager or the foreman employed them, 
believing they were skilled. They started then to pay their initiation 
fee into the union but it developed within a very short period that 
they were not mechanics and as a result of it the manager or the fore- 
man dismissed them, because they simply could not measm'e up to the 
requirements as to skill. But in those instances the unions were 
always instructed and required to return to the worker any initiation 
fee or dues paid. 

BFNEFITS PAID OUT BY UNIONS 

Now, I have a statement here covering benefits for sickness, dis- 
ability, unemployment, old-age, death, and miscellaneous, paid by 
our unions out of the initiation fees and dues collected. These figures 
are startling. 

The record shows that from 1927 to 1939 our unions paid out in 
sickness, disability, unemployment, old-age, death, and miscellaneous 
a total of $425,742,166. That means that the initiation fees and dues 
collected are redistributed in sickness, death, accident, unemployment 
benefits, and in the payment, of course, of administration costs. 

The new worker, when he becomes a member of the union, acquires 
an equity in all moneys in the local treasury. He has an equal share 
with all that are in the union and he is entitled to receive his benefits 
and I would like to submit these figures for the record and if I may, 
this statement beginning with "initiation fee" and covering the other 
subject of benefits. 

The Chairman. It will be received. 

(The document referred to follows:) 



Exhibit A.- 


-Benefits. 


paid by national and international unions of the 
Federation of Labor, 1927-39 


American 


Year 


Sickness 


Disability 


Unemploy- 
ment 


Old age 


Death 


Miscel- 
laneous 


Total 


1927 


$2, 793, 859 

2, 377, 746 
2,831.937 

3, 649, 703 
2, 220, 975 
2,308,041 
1,665,266 
1.023,314 
1,047,011 

1, 272, 818 

2, 277, 903 
1, 306, 768 
1, 519, 559 


$2, 968, 164 
3. 2S5, 578 

2. 707, 188 

3, 234, 067 

3, 671, 380 

4, 006, 891 
4, 837, 730 
3,176,014 
3, 379, 276 
2, 597, 886 
2,623.918 
1,641,091 
I, 766, 064 


$690, 206 
665, 280 
276, 718 
3,311,280 
9, 146, 724 
19, 970, 557 
13, 784, 043 
4, 467, 802 
3, 356, 276 
10, 990. 104 
1,671,139 
2. 582, 543 
1, 815, 784 


$4, 348, 936 

4, 712, 731 
4, 883, 028 

5, 910, 995 
6, 090, 743 

6, 148, 302 
4, 678, 636 

3, C12, 940 
3, 684, 954 

4, 784, 506 

4, 600, 056 

5, 334, 206 
2, 073, 327 


$15, 724, 821 
16, 623, 586 

17, 598, 287 

18, 527, 095 
17, 132, 023 
17, 674, 384 
14, 780, 206 
15,011,044 

12, 650, 303 
12, 821, 607 

13, 390, 755 
13, 125, 853 
12, 928, 510 


$1, 743, 805 
5, 149, 053 
3. 945, 288 
2, 064, 840 

1, 700. 028 
1, 340, 175 

946, 231 
1, 409, 530 
1, 990, 787 
1, 646, 750 

2, 547, 454 
1. 595, 827 
1, 591. 961 


$28, 269, 791 


1928 

1929.... 

1930 

1931 

1932 _ 

1933.. 

1934 

1935.. 

1936 


32, 813, 974 
32, 242. 444 
36. 697, 980 
39, 961. 873 
51, 448, 350 
40,692.112 
29. 000, 645 
26. 108. 607 
34.113.671 


1937 

1938 

1939 


27,111.225 
25. 586. 289 
21. 695, 205 


Total 


26, 294, 900 


39, 895, 247 


72, 728, 456 


61, 163, 360 


197, 988, 474 


27, 671, 729 


425, 742, 166 



Note. — Detailed reports on benefits paid in 1940 are not yet available. 



5458 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

COMPLAINTS OF EXCESSIVE FEES 

The Chairman. As I remember yom- testimony, Mr. Green, before- 
the Judiciary Committee, you testified that there were some com- 
plaints that came in as to excessive fees being charged by some locals. 

Mr. Green. Yes. 

The Chairman. And that the American Federation of Labor 
immediately got on top of it and helped out in every way you could, 
isn't that true? 

Mr. Green. That is right. There were complaints reached us— 
some complaints from Members of Congress referred to us, from public 
officials, from administrative representatives in Government, and from 
om' members themselves and in every instance we have gone mtO' 
every case and have insisted that any injustice imposed upon any 
individual must be corrected. 

The Chairman. I remember when we had our "Washington hearings 
about 6 months ago an electrical worker came here and complained 
of some treatment given to him at one of the camps. He testified 
that they asked him $300 initiation fee to join an electrical union. 
Well, that seemed rather startling to me as well as to other members 
of the committee, but when you break that down the way you have 
broken it down and explained about these electrical workers and where 
they pay and caiTy these apprentices on their rolls for years, and then 
the insurance and the compensation that they receive, that told a 
different story as far as I was concerned. I was amazed with your 
revelation of how it worked. 

That is why I am very much interested in your breaking that down 
the way you have. In other words, what the American public wants 
to know is that there is not some president of some local union or some 
treasurer of some local union that is getting fat on these people coming 
in and paying their initiation fees. 

That is a new angle as far as I am personally concerned. I didn't 
know that before — I didn't know how they participated in those 
benefits. 

JURISDICTION over LOCAL UNION POLICY 

Mr. Green. Well, you see, Congressman, under the laws of many 
international unions the local union is chartered by the international 
union and is clothed with authority to fix the initiation fee in their 
respective local. 

The national union delegates that power to the local organization. 

The Chairman. Then what jurisdiction do you have over them? 

Mr. Green. We have only a supervisory jurisdiction over that 
and we try to deal with that in accordance with the facts, but because 
this authority was delegated to the local union, the national unions 
then took the action I referred to a short while ago, that they must 
reduce their initiation fees to a uniform maximum basis and the locals 
then were deprived of the power to put it above that maximum basis. 

The Chairman. Well, didn't your national convention last year 
take some action on that? 

Mr. Green. I think we did, Mr. Chairman, but I just can't recall 
at the moment. 

Mr. Osmers. Wliat was the maximum amount of initiation fees^ 
Mr. Green? 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6459 

Mr. Green. Well, it was different in different organizations. Now, 
the common laborers, against whom there was very much complaint, 
ordered that their initiation fee be reduced to a maximum of $25 — 
no more than that anywhere or any place. 

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters, on the other hand — I am 
referring to the one as unskilled and the other as highly sldlled — 
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, as I recall, fixed 
the maximum fee for carpenters at $50. 

Many locals had it above that. 

HIGHEST INITIATION FEE 

Mr, OsMERS. Wliat is the highest fee that you know of now existing? 

Mr. Green. The highest initiation fee that I ever heard of in the 
American Federation of Labor was $1,500, imposed by a glazier's 
union in Chicago. But as I explained; I went into that too, Mr. Chair- 
man, in my testimony before the Judiciary Committee. The facts 
are that nobody ever paid it but it was set so liigh due to the fact that 
unemployment was so widespread and so far-reaching and with such 
-destructive results in Cliicago, that the local itself thought they woidd 
deal with the unemployment problem by putting the initiation fee 
high. 

Mr. OsMERS. In other words, to exclude people from membership 
in the union and to keep whatever work there was to themselves? 

Mr. Green. It was really an attempt to exclude membership in 
the organization so as to make it possible for those who were already 
in to secure work. 

Mr. OsMERs. Do you happen to loiow what that particular union 
lias for an initiation fee at the present time? 

Mr. Green. I don't know. That is under the Painters and Deco- 
rators International Union. 

The Chairman. Mr. Green, Congressman Curtis has been called to 
the floor of the House so I will continue with the questioning. 

Following up these questions: We understand that the American 
Federation of Labor has assisted in routing workers to construction 
jobs. Would you describe this work for the committee? In other 
words, what have you done toward routing any workers to any jobs? 

Mr. Green. The building trades, machinists, and electrical workei-s 
have done a great deal of this work and other unions have placed 
workers and helped find men for defense jobs. In the summer of 1940 
as soon as we learned that large numbers of skilled workers would be 
needed for defense construction, international unions affiliated with 
the budding-trades department of the American Federation of Labor 
made a survey of their affiliated locals to find out the number of 
unemployed members seeking work, and those wdio would be willing 
to go to other towns. We anticipated, in 1940, just such a situation 
as we have drifted into. 

employment exchange within union 

To set up within our building-trades department a great defense 
•employment exchange was not difficult, for our international unions 
already served their membership as Nation-wide employment offices. 
Business agents in local unions normally act as placement agents, 
jeferrmg men to jobs. Therefore, we had only to bring information 



5460 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

together in central headquarters to estabhsh a clearinghouse covering 
the entire Nation. "With this information at hand we were ready to 
act at once. 

Calls for skilled craftsmen came urgently for cantonments, powder 
I)lants; for airplane factories and all the varied types of defense build- 
ings. Calls to our building-trades department came from contractors 
or from the United States Government were quicldy transferred to 
the international unions and men were sent to the job in Charlestown, 
Ind., to build the huge Du Pont smokeless powder plant. Twenty- 
three thousand workers were required. 

Charlestown was a tiny place of 900 inhabitants. There was no 
nearby source of labor supply sufficient to meet the need. Labor for 
this job was recruited literally all over the United States by our unions 
and sent promptly to the spot. Men came from thousands of miles 
away and this entire job of labor recruiting was done by union offices 
without a cent of expense to the Government or to the contractors for 
the huge task of contacting the men and transporting them to the work. 

The Chairman. Did your union pay the transportation costs? 

Mr. Green. Yes, sir; paid their transportation costs. We sent 
15,000 men to Corpus Christi, Tex., and it never cost the Govern- 
ment a single penny. 

Now, the tragic feature of that is this, that after the job was over 
the men were dismissed. They themselves then were required to do 
the best they could for themselves — find work in some other town or 
some other place. Their job was done at Corpus Christi. 

RECRUITING FOR CANTONMENT CONSTRUCTION 

Now, a similar job was done in Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., where 
29,000 men were needed to build the cantonments. Labor was re- 
cruited within a radius of 200 miles and sent promptly to the job. Men 
came in their cars, bringing a carload of workers with them. The cars 
then served to transport workers between their lodgings and their 
work, because often it has been impossible for members to find lodg- 
ings within even 25 miles of the job. Drives of 40 or 50 miles morning 
and evening was the daily lot of very many. 

Now, in Jacksonville, Fla., it was necessary for our organization to 
send plumbers all the way from New York. In Corpus Christi, as 
I said, our oi^anization supplied over 23,000 construction workers. 
I said 15,000. The actual figure is 23,000 and those 23,000 trans- 
formed a wilderness into the most ro.odern airplane training station 
in the world, and completed that job 6 weeks ahead of schedule. 

In Camp Shelby, Miss., we supplied the work force to build what 
amounts to a small city, to house 67,000 soldiers. The following 
structures were put up: 13,000 tent fram.es, 414 mess halls, 80 ware- 
houses, 56 administration centers, a laundry, a hospital; 34 post ex- 
changes, 85 miles of water mains, 60 m.iles of sewer and 65 miles of 
paved roads. 

This work was completed ahead of schedule, costing the Govern- 
ment only $20,000,000 as compared to the estimates of $22,000,000 
for that job. 

In Fort Belvoir, we completed a camp to house 20,000 soldiers in 
less than 3 months. 

In Ravenna, Oliio, we are supplying over 12,000 men for the con- 
struction of a $14,000,000 Atlas Powder Co. plant. We drew labor 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6461 

for this job from all over the country and work is proceedhig up to 
schedule in building these contonments for the United States Army. 
We have in effect constructed 46 small cities m 6 months' time. 
These cities house anywhere from 20,000 to more than 60,000 men, 
and involved the building of living quarters, powerhouses, roadways, 
store buildings, hospitals, laundries, mess halls, sewage systems, and 
water-supply lines. 

COOPERATION AMONG THE INTERNATIONALS 

The labor supply for this colossal task has been furnished by the 
international unions affiliated with our building trades department 
and as noted above, without any cost to the Government or to 
contractors. 

When an international could not furnish all the men needed the 
requirements were filled by cooperation with other internationals. 
The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and 
Asbestos Workers, for instance, having more calls than they had men 
to supply — that is a small organization composed of highly skilled 
worker's and the call for service of the kind that these skilled workers 
are able to give is very limited during normal times, but the emergency 
increased the demand for them. 

Now, these workers agreed to accept members of the plasterers 
international union, an association of unions in both the United 
States and Canada, for the work, without charging either an initiation 
fee or dues. In other words, the two unions worked out a plan by 
which they could supply the contractors in this national emergency 
with the number of skilled workers required. 

Now, unions in the metal trades have also contributed. The 
International Association of Machinists has recruited men for work in 
navy yards, arsenals, airplane plants and in other metal work from 
the entire country. Registration of unemployed machinists began 
on May 23, 1940. They began to register them then. 

Local lodges have been alert to notify the international office 
immediately when they foresaw that new work would require addi- 
tional men for work in the Bremerton, Wash., Navy Yard. The 
lodge there advised headquarters that a large number of machinists 
would be needed. 

The international immediately sent job specifications with rates of 
pay and requirements to all lodges west of the Mississippi River. 
Men were advised that medical examinations would be required and 
they were urged to take these examinations before leaving for the job. 
They were instructed to send their qualifications to the Bremerton 
office and be ready for immediate summons. In this way Bremerton 
was able to mobilize its work force with a minimum of waste motion. 

The Bremerton lodge met the men on arrival and assisted them in 
getting quickly registered and on the job. 

Similarly, the machinists recruited 3,000 machinists and 1,650 
toolmakers for the arsenals, the airplane mechanics for Vultee and 
Lockheed and men for many other defense jobs. 

COOPERATION WITH UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 

The supplying of skilled union men to jobs was further improved 
and speeded by linking our union employment activities with the 



g462 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

United States Employment Service. We worked with them. That 
was necessary because we found that in spite of the great demand 
for skilled workers our activities in referring them to jobs and so 
forth, yet literally there were thousands of workers traveling around 
looking for work and not knowing where to go. 

Clearly we needed centers of call and it was obvious that these 
could be best furnished by the 1,500 local offices of the United States 
Employment Service. Union placement is not competing but is 
cooperating with the United States Employment Service. 

Now, I have gone into that as I have, because I think it constitutes 
a more detailed answer to the inquiry you made, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I receive many letters, as other Congressman 
undoubtedly do, regarding how they can get employment in the na- 
tional-defense program. After hearing your statement I shall refer 
them to the State employment offices. I would like to know now, 
and I know the committee would too, what is the A. F. of L.'s reaction 
to the service you are getting from the State employment offices? 

Mr. Green. Well, our reaction to the service given by the employ- 
ment offices is favorable. They have done excellent work, we think. 
There are 1,500 employment offices in the United States 

The Chairman. I am talking about the Federal service. 

Mr. Green. The Federal service and these 1,500 Federal offices 
have rendered a very excellent service, we think, but I think our 
unions have been in closer touch with the defense industrial program 
than have the employment offices. That is because of this instru- 
mentality, this agency which was already set up, for you know that 
in practically every community, small and large, local organizations 
of the American Federation of Labor international unions are estab- 
lished. The employment offices are not in every locality. 

The Chairman. That is true. 

Mr. Green. Consequently, these agencies already set up serve 
quickly and as a result of it we have been able to do the things that 
I have just related in answer to your question. 

CHECK OF labor SUPPLY BY STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 

The Chairman. Mr. Green, you heard part of Mr. Hilhnan's 
testimony this morning, didn't you? 

Mr. Green. I came in quite late. 

The Chairman. I wanted to ask him but time would not permit 
so I am going to ask you this question: 

I wonder if there is any check being made at the State employment 
offices or at the United States employment offices as to the load and 
as to whether certain men are available and whether certain men are 
not available. For instance, I received a letter about 2 months ago 
from a painter in Oakland, Calif. I know him to be a qualified 
painter. Well, prior to that he had been writing me for months. I 
know him to be a capable, competent man. He couldn't get a job. 
But the first thing when we got down to San Diego recently, to hold 
a hearing, I found that there is a dearth of painters there. 

So I have taken the matter up with him again. What I am trying 
to get at is this: Does the Federal Government check the list to see 
if the load is moving or what do they do about it? Do they just 
register them and let it go at that? 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6463 

Mr. Green. I couldn't answer that. 

The Chairman. There was this one instance wliere this capable 
painter, Mitchell, couldn't get work in Oakland and the employment 
agencies did not seem to know of any elsewhere. 

You say there are 1,500 United States employment agencies in the 
United States? 

Mr. Green. Yes. 

The Chairman. What do these men who are looking for positions 
in the national defense do when there is no United States employment 
agency near them? 

Mr. Green. The States have established State employment offices, 
which are a definite part of the Federal Employment Service. The 
1,500 local offices I mentioned represent, jointly, the State and Federal 
services. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Green. Of course private employment agencies still operate 
to some extent. I don't know just to what extent they do operate, 
but I thinlv they operate and they place men in these defense produc- 
tion enterprises. 

The Chairman. What I was trying to get at is, I don't think there 
is any particular magic in a man who is a painter, for instance, wallc- 
ing up there and registering to the United States Employment Office, 
if they let it go at that. Is there anything done about it to keep him 
moving? That is what I am trying to get at. 

Mr. Green. I think that is a subject you might well go into, in 
order to determine whether the State and Federal Governments are 
giving adequate employment service — whether it can be improved 
upon, whether it can be enlarged and whether it can meet the general 
requirements. 

SAYS SHIPBUILDING STABILIZATION HAS NOT FROZEN WAGES 

The Chairman. The Shipbuildmg Stabilization Committee is 
freezing the pay of shipyard workers at a time when rent and food 
prices are rising. It is charged that this is unfah to labor. What is 
your opinion of the work of the Stabilization Committee? 

Mr. Green. The work of the Stabilizing Committee has not frozen 
wages. On the contrary the ship-zone agreements which were nego- 
tiated for the Great Lakes, Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and 
Pacific coast all carry specific provisions for automatic increases in 
wages as based on the Federal index. 

Now, I will quote the section in the master agreement which covers 
that particular question. It is in section 22 of the master agreement 
and provides: [reading] 

''Provided, however, That on demand of labor at the end of the first 
year's operations under this agreement, and on demand of either party, 
every six months thereafter, the wage scales herein agreed to shall be 
reviewed by the parties. If the cost of living, as shown in the index 
numbers of cost of goods purchased by wage earners and salaried 
workers in large cities, published by the United States Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, shall have 
changed, at the time of the review, from the cost of living at the time 
of the maldng of this agreement by 5 per centum or more, the wage 
scales shall be correspondingly adjusted." 

60396 — 11 — pt. 16 11 



5464 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

I Lave a copy of that agreement here. 

The Chairman. Perhaps you had better leave it for the record. 
(The agreement referred to was received and is held in committee 
files). 

POSITION ON COMPULSORY CONTRACTS AND LABOR PRIORITIES 

The Chairman. Mr. Green, what is the position of the American 
Federation of Labor on compulsory labor contract plans and on plans 
for labor priorities? 

Mr. Green. We are opposed to compulsory tying of workers to 
jobs. We have jobs. We have faith in the American principle of 
free labor, and we do not believe it is necessary to unport Hitler's 
methods in order to defend our Nation. We are convinced that the 
necessary shift of workers to defense jobs will come about as the result 
of voluntary action and as a byproduct of priorities in materials and 
machinery. 

I have already spoken of amendments to our social-insurance sys- 
tem, which I think should be made to encourage voluntary shifts and 
to protect defense workers from material loss. 

When it becomes necessary to work as a united group in war pro- 
duction, we recognize that authorit}^ to make decision must be lodged 
in some single head. We are read}^ to accept such decisions as a 
responsible head may make for the emergency, provided labor has 
opportunity to freely present its case through representatives of its 
own choosing. Now that, I feel, sets forth our attitude on that par- 
ticular matter. 

EFFECT OF CONCENTRATION OF CONTRACTS 

The Chairman. Mr. Green, it is frequently claimed that the excess 
concentration of contracts is pulling skilled labor from all sections of 
the interior of the Nation to a relatively few defense centers. Does 
this coincide with your view of the situation? 

Mr. Green. Well, I know that defense jobs are pulling workers 
from long distances, but not necessarily always away from the Middle 
West. For example the electrical workers on a call from Charlestown, 
Ind., sent some of their members there from New York. That is, of 
course, a long distance. The TNT plant near Joliet, 111., has workers 
from almost every State in the Union. The airplane plants at Wichita, 
Kans., have brought many workers there. The concentration is wher- 
ever defense plants are located and, of course, to the degree that these 
are most frequently located away from the interior, skilled workers 
will be pulled away from there. 

I have no figures on the number of such migrants. The Employment 
Service would undoubtedly be best able to give such information. I 
believe the W. P. A. studies in a few communities have shown a smaller 
percentage of migrants than was expected, although construction 
workers were higher than the average percentage of migrants. 

The Chairman. Of course, Mr. Green, anyone can see, I think, 
quite clearly that this is an emergency program and the Government 
had to go into those centers where tlie,y had some present facilities to 
do the work, but what the committee would like to know is. Do you 
favor the decentralization of industry as we go along or are you in 
favor of keeping on where they are now going? 



NATIONAL DKKENSE MIGRATION 6465 

Mr, Green. Well, I think that the ftu'ilities of comni unities should 
be taken into account — transportation, power, geographical Ic; dion, 
local conditions. 

F. S. A. LOANS AS CHECK ON MIGRATION 

It appears to me that the Government is pursuing a pretty practical 
wise policy in the establishment of defense mdustries. It would 
pro])ably create much dissatisfaction and disturb our national tran- 
(}uillity, if I may put it that way, if they would center these plants in 
some central point. I thmk the general policy that is being pursued 
is a sound and practical one. Subcontracthig should fm-ther take 
defense production to the workers. 

The Chairman. I was very much interested m that because the 
Farm Security Administration's appropriation for rehabilitation loans 
for farmers — that is the Government loans, enough money to buy 
seed or a horse or a cow to keep them home — which is one of the 
solutions for this mterstate migration, was turned down by the 
Bureau of the Budget, on the theory that this defense program was 
going to take up the slack. As a matter of fact there are 24 States in 
the Union getting those loans to keep those poor people at home on 
the farms, so they won't take to the road, and out of those 24 States 
there are only 5 States that had a semblance of the national-defense 
contracts. 

Mr. Green. Yes; 1 understand. That is a very important con- 
sideration. Of course I judge that the policy pursued by the Depart- 
ment of Agricuitui'e in trying to help the farmers of the country is 
sound and 1 don't tiiink they should change that because of our defense 
program. I don't tliink it should be changed. 

LABOR STANDARDS NOT LOWERED BY TRAINING PROGRAMS 

The Chairman, Now, Air. Green, there is one more question as far 
as I am concerned. 

What do you consider the effect on labor standards has been upon 
the entrance into the labor market through the training program of a 
million or more semiskilled workers. 

Mr. Green. Well, in spite of the difficulty in getting workers 
qualified for defense production, which has been serious, there has 
been little or no lowering of standards down the line. 

In order to prevent a situation that would residt in training of too 
many, or competition that would result from dilution of skilled crafts, 
the American Federation of Labor has proposed that training of 
unskilled workers to operate a single macliine or to a single process 
should be under a Federal agency and the local committees charged 
with apprenticeship training. Oiily such an agency would know how 
best to break down a craft into operations and to maintain continuous 
training of workers, so that they would become sufficiently sldlled to 
do satisfactory production, and sufficiently equipped from the point of 
skill to continue to take care of themselves as independent Americans 
able to earn their livings themselves. 

You see, Mr. Chairman, we are all thmking about the future, when 
we thmk about the needs of the present, and m doing so we must 
endeavor to balance our policy with what we believe to be the needs 
of the future. 



6466 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

I know you share my feeling of apprehension over what will take 
place when the post-war period arrives. Now, we cannot overtrain 
men for one particular calling. What will we do with them when the 
post-war period arrives? But we ought to be able to train them in 
sufficient numbers so as to meet the requirements of the national 
emergency but not overtrain them. That will require the exercise of 
judgment and it can only be exercised by men of understanding. 

Now, we thmk about those things when we thhik about the applica- 
tion of an apprenticeship-training program. 

The Chairman. You see, Mr. Green, you are hitting the nail right 
on the head as far as I am concerned, speaking for myself. This 
investigation that we are conducting now is twofold. That is, this 
defense program has caused a great migration from State to State and 
that is the only jurisdiction that we have. We are concerned with 
how are they getting along — we are not concerned only with guns and 
bullets, but how they are living and what are the health conditions. 

Mr. Green. Yes. 

The Chairman. Because that is morale and you cannot separate 
civilian morale from Army and Navy morale, can you? 

Mr. Green. No; it is inseparably associated. 

The Chairman. Then what you said just now is quite impressive 
to me. You have taken pretty good care of the present and you are 
laying a pretty good foundation for the future. 

SAFEGUARDS AGAINST FUTURE UNEMPLOYMENT 

Now, the cushion to take up the shock after this war is over is what 
this committee is deeply interested in. I think the only light that 
I can see is that all America, practically, is thinking of it. Again 
speaking for myself, I think that is just as dangerous as any attack 
from without. 

Now, speaking for myself again, I think if out of this investigation 
we can arrive at some method or means by which these men, who 
were unemployed and have been called back mto employment in 
defense projects, can save a little something it will help to cushion 
the shock. 

The question was asked this morning, I think by Congressman 
Osmers, "What is being done about it?" 

He wants to be specific about that, and he is correct. The only 
thing, ISlr. Green, that I know that has been done about it is that the 
President issued an Executive order for a survey of public-works 
projects for construction after the war is over. 

I am not disagreeing with the President. I think that is a fine idea, 
but I felt there are other things that should be done to cushion the 
after-emergency shock. 

Mr. Green. That is right. 

The Chairman. Mr. Green, if we can arrive at some plan whereby 
the workers may have saved a few hundred dollars by the time the 
w*ar is over, so that they might have that cushion, w^e might have that 
much of a solution of the problem, temporarily at least. We might as 
well talk frankly about it. We don't like to use the words "com- 
pulsory savings," and I am not advocating that, but if some system 
of savings could be worked out, on a voluntary basis, I feel it would 
go a long way toward relieving the problem of our workers after this 
defense effort is over. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6467 

VOLUNTARY SAVINGS PLAN 

The testiniouy in other cities has indicated that m some plants 
there is a voluntary savings plan whereby a certain amount of money 
is being put aside each week; but if you have any ideas about that we 
would like to hear from you. We are groping for an answer. We 
like to talk this over with witnesses. I think a solution of this problem 
is highly important. Unsolved, it will be just as dangerous to the 
Nation as attack from without. If you haven't an answer for it now, 
we would like for you to address yourself to this thought and supple- 
ment your testimony with any suggestions that may occur to you later. 

Mr. Green. Well, I am of the opinion, Mr. Chairman, that your 
committee can probably render a more valuable service through a 
study of that question than, perhaps, you can through a study of the 
movement of men from one place to another during these days of 
national emergency. 

Out of your investigations ought to come some very valuable 
conclusions and recommendations. I know of no Government agency 
at the present moment that is going into that subject. 

Please remember that the number of unemployed in the United 
States increased from something like- 8 or 9 million in 1930 to 
more than 14 million in 1933. That was the peak. Then there began 
some small decline in unemployment, comparatively speaking, for 
some period of time. 

Now, we have taken up the slack of unemployment, not because 
conditions are normal but because an unlimited national emergency 
exists. Well, it isn't going to exist forever and we still have several 
milhon unemployed. Unemployment has been reduced to something 
like 4 or 5 or 6 million — somewhere along there. But when the 
last act has been put on and the curtain is down and the stage is empty 
and these munitions plants are disassembled, when our defense pro- 
gram has been completed, can we depend upon private industry 
reabsorbing these millions of workers? And if it can't absorb them, 
what kind of social conditions are we going to face after these days of 
unusual economic conditions? Can our social order adjust itself to 
the change in time to save us from the impact? 

Now, at the moment, I can't see clearly how we are going to be 
able to absorb these men, even gradually, back into productive em- 
ployment after we have passed through this unlimited national emer- 
gency; but I can't conceive of any subject of greater importance and 
1 think now, without a moment's unnecessary delay, we ought to 
apply ourselves to the consideration of this problem and see if we can 
develop a plan that we can put into effect in order to save democracy 
and save America. 

FEDERAL FINANCES 

Mr. OsMERS. I was very much interested in your last remark, Mr. 
Green, in which you emphasized the importance of the post-war period. 

There is a subject that must be considered hand-m-hand with it and 
I wondered whether youi organization had given it any consideration, 
and that is the financial soundness of the Federal Government. 

Now, for approximately 10 years we have lived beyond our income 
in America, roughly spendmg about $2 for every $1 that we receive. 
As a result of the defense program we are speeding up the pace and 



^468 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

spending $3 or $4 for every $1 that we receive in spite or our new tax 
bill that we hope to pass. 

Now, do you see in that situation a threat to American labor — the 
continued unbalance of the Federal Government? We now have a 
$100,000,000,000 debt as an immediate prospect and some people 
today are discussing a $150,000,000,000 debt. 

Mr. Green. Well, naturally we are moved by feelings of appre- 
hension over that situation. How could any thinl^ing person be 
otherwnse? That goes hand in hand with what we believe will be 
our post-war problems because, if we have an army of unemployed, 
they must be fed and clothed and cared for. The call will be on the 
Fedferal Government and that means expenditure of additional Fed- 
eral funds with an increase in the national debt. 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you believe, Mr. Green, that the national debt of 
the United States has a limit beyond which it cannot retain the faith 
in its credit? 

Mr. Green. There is a limit to the national debt, a safety limit 
at least, because if the national debt increases out of all bounds of 
reason then we must have repudiation and a lot of other things; and 
is there anybody who believes w^e can go through that without having 
our governmental and social conditions very seriously affected? 

Mr. Osmers. Well, the pomt I had in mind there was that we are 
rapidly approaching a time when the carrying charges on the national 
debt will equal the highest tax revenue that this Nation has ever had. 
If the situation should arrive which you anticipate, and which I 
think this committee anticipates, a period of serious unemployment 
at the conclusion of the emergency, there will be nothing left to do 
but to inflate the currency in one form or another, and that will bear 
most heavily on your group, naturally. 

Mr. Green. We realize it ahvays bears more heavily upon labor, 
because w^e can still remember the stories from abroad when it took a 
basketful of German marks and French francs to buy a meal. 

no post-war planning organized 

Mr. Osmers. Yes; that certainly is fresh in our minds. 

Now, I believe you w^ere here w^hen I questioned ^Ir. Hillman this 
morning. He made a fine witness on the subjects for which he came 
prepared to discuss, but on the subject of the plans that are being 
made with respect to this post-war period he was very unsatisfactory, 
jind, of course, admitted that he was being unsatisfactory. 

Now, I put the same question to you: Do you know of any body or 
group in the Government today that is trying to plan our post-war 
■economy? 

Mr. Green. I loiow of none except that it was announced a com- 
mittee had been created some 6 months ago, as I recall 

Mr. Osmers. That was at the period, if I may interrupt you, that 
was at the period when a large portion of the Government and the 
]:)eople of the country thought w^e w^ould be able to have both cannons 
«nd butter, but much of that thinking has gone out the window. 

Mr. Green. The reason I refer to the appointment of that com- 
mittee was because I was asked to assign a representative of the 
American Federation of Labor to serve on the committee. I recom- 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6469 

mended the appointment of one of our representatives and so far as 
I know he is serving on the committee. But it is my understanding 
that that committee is engaged in other work and is giving very Httle 
time to the consideration of our post-war problem. 

Mr. OsMERs. That wasn't the National Resources Planning Com- 
mittee, was it? 

Mr. Green. Perhaps it was the National Resources Planning 
Committee. 

Mr. OsMERS. Apparently they are not actively engaged in planning 
for that period, because if they were Mr. Hillman certainly would 
have been aware of it. 

Mr. Green. I judge so; yes. 

The Chairman. I think, Mr. Osmers, I can answer that question. 
The President issued an Executive order for a survey of the entire 
United States, looking toward the solution of this post-war problem, 
the survey to be particularly directed to public works resettlement and 
such matters. That is all I know about it. 

Mr. Green. I think that is it, Mr. Chairman. You have refreshed 
my memory. I think that is it. 

Mr. Osmers. In other words that committee will get the facts 

The Chairman. Yes; and turn them over to the National Resources 
Planning Board. 

Mr. Osmers. That committee will act as a sort of receiving group? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

unemployment in a. f. of l. 

Mr. Osmers. How much unemployment do you still have within 
the ranks of the American Federation of Labor? 

jVIr. Green. Well, unemployment in the ranlcs of the American 
Federation of Labor is not very great. I cannot give you the figures 
now, but I will get them for you and the record. But general unem- 
ployment will run about 6,000,000, I would judge. 

Mr. Osmers. For the entire Nation? 

Mr. Green. Yes; that takes in, if you understand, employables 
and perhaps unemployables. We have never assembled figures — we 
have never given out figm-es as to the nimiber of unemployables and 
real employables and handicapped and so on. 

Mr. Osmers. Don't you feel that there is room for such a survey 
at the present time? The reason I suggest that is because of the 
mail I am receiving here in my office in Washington from people who 
have been arbitrarily discharged from the W, P. A. following the 
curtailment of W. P. A. funds. I can tell from the letters that many 
of these people wTite that they will never be gainfully employed again 
as long as they live, due to their background or lack of background — • 
their personality, their temperament. 

In other words, there will always be, in this human society, some 
small margin of it, that is not suitable for institutionalizing, they are 
not old enough to get a pension, and we are going to have them with 
us at all times probably, as a Federal problem. In the days gone by 
the families of these people would generally take care of them one 
wav or another. 



g470 WASHINGTON HEABINGS 

CURTAILMENT IN OUTPUT OF CIVILIAN GOODS 

Now, do you feel that a cmtailment in the production of civilian 
goods, which is bound to come when priorities become even more 
general than they are now, will lead to more unemployment? 

Mr. Green. I think there will be curtailment in the production of 
civilian goods. I think we will face that situation sometime, but 
there is no need for an increase in the army of unemployed even 
though we do that. We ought to develop a system tlu'ough which 
industries affected by priority orders can be immediately transferred 
into war -production, iudvistries — that is, farm out the production 
materials that are being manufactured and produced in the larger 
defense-production industries, utilize the facilities of these plants that 
are affected by priority orders for defense production. 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you know of any specific examples where the 
Government has been able to influence that change from peacetime 
to wartime manufacture or where they failed to achieve that? 

Mr. Green. We are seeking to do that now in alummum, for 
instance. 

Mr. OsMERS. That would be a good example. 

Mr. Green. In plants that manufacture aluminum utensils for 
domestic use they are being affected very seriously by priority orders. 
Now, they have in every one of those plants a very fine machine set 
up and for that reason the owners of the plants are quite ready to 
make such adjustments and uses of their machine tools and other 
machines as are necessary in order to convert those plants quickly 
from a consumer-goods manufacturing plant into a defense-produc- 
tion industry. 

Now rubber will be affected, copper — probably kitchen utensil 
manufacturing plants, magnesium plants, and other plants of that 
kind. All of them possess many qualities that would make it possible 
to transform them from consumer-goods industries into defense- 
production industries pretty quickly. 

You understand that in some instances a single industry in a com- 
munity means the life of that community. 

Mr. Osmers. That is very true. 

Mr. Green. And if you destroy that, by a priority order, you not 
only have an unemployment problem on your hands but you have a 
community problem. Now, you can't afford to do that. 

Mr. Osmers. The Government is bound to do a certain amount of 
it. It will be unavoidable. Even if we make a change over in a 
given plant it will take some time to tool and prepare and equip that 
plant for its new operation and, of course, there will be a gap between 
full employment on peacetime goods and full employment on war- 
time goods — there must be, but are there any other factors that you 
know of that have slowed down reemployment? 

Mr. Green. Well, I can't at the moment, but I think we have 
probably some figures and some facts that show how some of our 
consumer-goods industries are being affected or are about to be affected 
by priority orders. I wUl be glad to assemble it and send it over to 
you. 



NATIONAL DEB^ENSE MIGRATION Q471 

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES AS A FACTOR 

The Chairman. Mr. Green, I think I can probably give you a 
suggestion. Unquestionably technological advancement — mechani- 
zation — has increased unemployment, hasn't it? 

Mr. Green. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And they are perfecting these machines all the 
time and that has something to do with unemployment? 

Mr. Green. That has had something to do with it and it will 
continue to have much to do with it in the days to come. We will 
face that in the post-war period too. 

Mr. OsMERS. Mr. Green, you used a term in replying to Chairman 
Tolan's questioning that I want you to define a little bit better; that 
was the term "overtrained." I believe you said we should not 
overtrain these yomig men. 

Mr. Green. What I mean by "overtrammg" is not individual 
overtraining, but overtraming in numbers. It seems reasonably cer- 
tain that if we are able to meet the demand of stimulated defense- 
production industries with an adequate supply of skilled labor now — 
and I know of no shortage of skilled labor of any consequence anywhere 
at the present time — what are we going to do with this army of skilled 
men that will be unemployed during the post-war period? 

"over-training" in aircraft 

Mr. OsMERS. I suppose you hit that problem harder in the aircraft 
industry than you do in any other industry. I suppose before we 
through we will have 1,000,000 skilled aircraft workers in the United 
States — I am just making a guess — and the chances are, when the 
war is over, we will need only half a million or a quarter of a million. 

Mr. Green. That is an industrial situation which naturally at- 
tracts our attention. Of course building is going to be heavy — the 
demand now for building-trades people is very very great and with 
steady employment men are being attracted to the building trades, 

Mr. OsMERS. Now, you made a statement before, that I let pass 
for the moment, but which is highly controversial. You said you 
knew of no shortage of skilled labor of any consequence at the present 
time. Was that your statement? 

Mr. Green. That is right. 

Mr. OsMERs. Wliy is it that we constantly read in the public press 
about these shortages of skilled labor? 

Mr. Green. Well, I thmk they are probably based upon some story 
that originates somewhere rather than because of the facts. Our 
survey among our skilled people tends to show that there is no sub- 
stantial shortage of skilled labor. 

Mr. OsMEBS. Well, Glenn Martin, when testifying before the com- 
mittee in Baltimore, said that his plant was at the present time 
employing 20,000 people and that by the spring of 1942 they expected 
to employ 42,000 people. 

Mr. Green. Yes. 

Mr. OsMERS. And in questioning him the committee found that 
nearlv all of the skilled workers that he would use in the 42,000 next 



g472 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

year were not competent today as skilled workers; that they would 
hav^e to be trained by a great number of makeshift prog-rams in the 
plant and out of the plant, and that they would have to gi-ade up 
workers to meet the demand. 

It seemed to me that there was an acute shortage of skilled labor in 
that particular industry. 

Mr. Green. Where? 

Mr. OsMERS. In Baltimore, in aircraft production. 

Mr. Green. Baltimore? 

Mr. OsMERS. Yes; at the Glenn Martin factory. 

Mr. Green. Well, my information is that every airplane factory in 
Baltimore is supplied with an adequate supply of skilled labor. Now, 
I may be wrong on that; but if there is a shortage, it is not acute, and, 
of course, I explained m my statement here where there had been some 
demand for skilled workers, a small number of skilled workers in 
international unions like these frost and insulators. Now, the demand 
came on so quickly it was probably difficult to supply all they required 
of that character of skilled workers, but they met that situation by 
joining up with another organization and supplying the number of 
people that were needed. 

A. F. OF L. RESTRICTIONS ON APPRENTICESHIPS 

Mr. OsMERs. By and large, Mr. Green, do you feel the policy — it 
may not even be a policy of the American Federation of Labor, but 
the understood policy of the American Federation of Labor for the 
last 10 years, whereby they have restricted apprenticeships over these 
depressed years — do you feel that policy was a wise one? 

Mr. Green. Do you mean during the normal conditions? 

Mr. OsMERS. During the last 10 years — the so-called depression 
years. 

Mr. Green. The trouble was that during those depressed years 
there wasn't enough apprentices — enough yovmg men made applica- 
tion to take advantage of apprenticeship opportunities to meet the 
requirements, because there was no work for them and as a result of 
that the number that was specified by our international unions to serve 
as apprentices was never equalled because they were all out on the 
streets. 

Mr. Osmers. In other words it was not a restrictive policy of the 
American Federation of Labor? 

Mr. Green. No; it was because the young men did not enter mto 
the building and construction industry and metal trades as apprentices. 

Mr. Osmers. Now, one problem that has confronted this committee 
at almost every turn of the road has been the problem of the Negro. 
We have found in studying migration that literally hundreds of thou- 
sands of Negroes have moved about the country over the past years — 
they have come principally from the South ; those on the easterly slope 
of the Appalachians having gone up to New York and Philadelphia 
and Baltimore and those on the western side of the Appalachians have 
gone up to Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, and so on. 

We have heard charges many times that the unions of the American 
Federation of Labor, in many instances, prohibit Negroes from mem- 
bership. 



>'ATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 5473 

Now, you have heard, of course, the recent statement, that we all 
endorse, by the President, that Negroes should take their full part in 
the defense program. 

I would like to ask whether the American Federation of Labor has 
tftken any action in opening the doors of their unions to Negroes? 

A. F. OF L. POLICY TOW^ARD NEGROES 

Mr. G REEN. Well, the American Federation of Labor has repeatedly 
declared its official policy to be equal opportunity to Negro workers 
in securing employment and in learning trades. As a result of that 
policy the American Federation of Labor has organized and helped 
millions of Negro workers. We endeavor to organize the Negro 
workers into our unions just the same as we do the white workers. 
Perhaps you know that the American Federation of Labor organized 
the Pullman porters. 

Mr. OsMERs. Yes. 

Mr. Green. And gave it a charter of afliliation with the Amei'ican 
Federation of Labor and has cooperated with that organization in all 
the efforts it has put forth to secure better wages, improved conditions 
of employment and so forth for the Pullman porters. 

Now, as to unskilled workers, the one unskilled organization in 
the building and construction trade, which is the Hodcarriers Building 
and Common Laborers' Union, admits Negroes into membership on 
equal terms with the white members and they get the same rate of 
pay and are put on the seniority lists — thus enjoymg seniority privi- 
leges, just the same as the white members of that union. 

Then in many of the building trade organizations the Negro is 
admitted as a mechanic- — carpenters, bricklayers. Those are two 
organizations that I know of and I know there are many Negro 
menibei*s of both organizations in different sections of the coim.try. 

Mr. Osmers. How^ever, Mr. Green, we might say that in general 
there is no restriction against the Negro but m particular there is a 
gi-eat deal of restriction against it. Now, I come from the State of 
New Jersey and I am sure that you are aware of the fact that — I 
wouldn't say all, but nearly every building trade-union in the State 
of New Jersey proliibits Negroes from membei*ship. I don't know 
whether they have it in their constitution or not but as a practical 
matter no Negroes are members. 

Mr. Green. I can't answer that. I am answering what I do know 
and I do know that the bricklayers and the carpenters have Negro 
members and I know the building and hodcarriers and common 
laborers' unions have Negi"0 members. I know they have them in 
New Jersey and New York, thousands of them. 

FRAMEWORK FOR OPERATION OP ALL UNIONS 

Mr. OsMERs. May I ask this question, because it concerns union 
organization and is beyond my knowledge: 

In the event that one of your locals should exclude a Negro because 
of his color does your governing body have any control in such a case 
or any jurisdiction? 

Mr. Green. The federation hasn't, because the federation is not 
an organization — it is a federation of organizations. Each national 



^74 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

union is clothed with authority when it is chartered by the Americfin 
Federation of Labor, to form its own laws, draw up its o\vti constitu- 
tion and administer its own affairs without interference from any other 
organization or from the American Federation of Labor itself. 

Mr. OsMERS, Shall I put it this way: There is no bill of rights or 
there is no framework 

Mr. Green. There is no set-up here. Our relationship to our inter- 
national unions is just about the same as the relationship of the 
Federal Government to the State governments. 

Mr. OsMERs. That brings up a point that I have in mind. I just 
started to ask whether there is a framework within which all of these 
unions must operate? Now, for example, we have the Federal Gov- 
ernment and the Federal Constitution provides a framework within 
which the States are permitted to operate, but no State in the Union 
can go beyond that Federal Constitution. 

Mr. Green. Yes; but the President of the United States cannot go 
into a State and tell that State what to do either. 

Mr. Osmers. No, but if that State should pass a law restricting free 
speech or free press or something else that was protected by our 
Constitution then the Supreme Court and the power of the Federal 
Government would prevent the State from doing it. 

Mr. Green. That is because that would affect the Federal statutes 
or the Constitution and the same is true with us. Now, in our con- 
ventions, to show how we handle that, in our conventions the American 
Federation of Labor itself, as I have said, has gone on record repeatedly 
in favor of extending to the colored worker equal economic oppor- 
tunity with the white workers. 

Mr. Osmers. I have read that. 

Mr. Green. Now, we have done that. Now, then where a union 
affiliated with us adopts a clause in its constitution that is discrimina- 
tory against the colored worker and probably provides that only white 
members are eligible to membership, then we urge and insist that that 
imion eliminate that bar from its constitution. And, secondly, we 
say: 

"If you refuse to take Negroes, that are covered in your trade, that 
are working along with your people in some line of work, into your 
organization, the American Federation of Labor will charter them 
directly and take them into the American Federation of Labor as a 
direct chartered union." 

That is the way we meet thati situation. 

Mr. Osmers. I was going to ask you another question but you 
answered it when you used the word "insist." What retaliatory 
measures can you adopt? 

race problem remains unsolved 

Mr. Green. Of course, you understand, Mr. Congressman, that 
we are living in a very realistic world and we are dealing with the reali- 
ties of life. We have many problems that are real and we still have 
the race problem. 

Now, some of us believe there should be no race problem as far as 
economics are concerned while there are others that look at things 
differently. Now, we can't help that point of view. It is real. But 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGEATION 6475 

we are dealing with it as best we can and fortunately here in America 
we have been breaking down that prejudice that has existed for some 
40 or 50 or 60 years. 

Now, I think if we will all be reasonable eventually we will be able 
to overcome these problems, but we can't do it by waving oiu" hands. 

Mr. OsMERS. That is true and I appreciate the difficulties that you 
meet. 

Mr. Green. You imderstand that? 

Mr. OsMERS. Yes, sir; because you have something that has come 
before this committee on many occasions. Kepresentatives of Negro 
groups have come before this committee and said why this company 
or this corporation refused to employ Negroes, but upon investigation 
we found that the company or corporation involved had absolutely 
no feelings on the subject whatsoever, but they reported to the com- 
mittee that if they had brought in colored workers into their plants^ 
that they would have had serious trouble with the white workers who 
were then employed. 

Of course we get right back to what you said before, we still have a 
race problem in tliis country. 

Mr. Green. Just that; and some employers unload those things on 
then- workers. 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND BUILDING TRADE UNIONS 

Mr. OsMERS. Is it true that there is in prospect now the possibility 
of a master agreement between the Govermnent and the building 
trade-unions similar to the shipbuilding agreement? 

Mr. Green. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OsMERS. That will cover all of our building trades connected 
with national defense? 

Mr. Green. Yes, sir; that has been negotiated and as I understand 
it is waiting merely this determination, as to whether the situation 
requires the issuance of an Executive order in order to make it legal 
and effective or whether it automatically goes into effect. 

Mr. OsMERS. That would be an extremely desirable tiling, would it 
not, Mr. Green? 

Mr. Green. It would have a wonderful stabilizing effect. 

Mr. OsMERS. I certainly agree that it would, and I express my 
personal wish that it is successful. 

I concluded because about the only way we are going to be able to 
prevent this spiral, that is well started now, from getting out of hand 
is through these stabilizing agreements. Of course I read with a 
great deal of interest this survey of conditions in defense areas which 
you submitted to the committee and as a document it is a valuable 
thing to us when it gets down to cases. 

There is one thing that impresses me: 

All over the United States workers are paying about 30 percent more rent — 

just to quote from one place; another: 

Within the last 2 months all commodities, services, and rents have gone up. 
Rents are exorbitant — 

and other quotations. 



g476 WASHINGTON HEAlilNUS 

ACTION TO MAKE STABILIZING AGREEMENTS EFFECTIVE 

Now, is it your opinion that if wc arc to stop migration in the United 
States, that the Federal Government is going to have to take action 
that will make these stabilizing agreements effective by putting the 
damper on the increase of some of these living costs? It is a lot 
easier said than done, I realize. 

Mr. Green, You know you are dealuig with a very diiRcult eco- 
nomic problem when you attempt to deal with price control? 

Mr. OsMERS. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Green. And the laws which govern economics are very 
stubborn. They don't yield to artificial means, and artificial remedies, 
very well; so when we go into that field we are trying to accomplish 
a very difficult task. 

The one thing that in my opinion will tend to keep rents down, 
particularly at a reasonable level, would be the development of an 
adequate housing program, one that would run parallel with our 
mdustrial development and that would, month by month and year 
b}' year, meet our housmg requirements. 

As long as there is a scarcity of houses, rents are gomg to be high 
in that community and nobody can change that. 

Mr. OsMERS. They probably would enter mto secret agreements, 
over and beyond whatever the Government established, in order to 
get living quarters? 

Mr. Green. They would, of course. You couldn't control that. 

Mr. OsMERS. Sort of a bootleg situation? 

Mr. Green. Yes, sir; it is just like there being one apple and every- 
body wants that apple. The price of that apple v/iil be affected and 
that is the way it is with housing. 

I referred to that in my statement and I would request you go into 
that. I think I have some valuable information here as to the housing 
problem and the need for the development of our housmg program. 
That, Mr. Chairman, is one of the economic features that can be 
considered as a partial remedy for our post-war difficulties — -the 
preparation for the launching of an adequate housing program, when 
we see we are approaching the end. It will create work opportunities 
not only in the manufacture of material for liousing but in housing 
construction. 

NO PRIORITIES ON BUILDING MATERIALS 

Mr. OsMERs. Do you expect the use of priorities with respect to 
building materials? 

Mr. Green. No ; I don't think it will ever prevent essential building. 

Mr. Osmers. You don't think it will do that? 

Mr. Green. I don't think it can afford to do that. 

Mr. Osmers. That is ah I have, Mr. Chan-man. 

The Chairman. Congressman Arnold? 

Mr. Arnold. No questions. 

The Chairman. Mr. Green, you have been very patient and very 
clear and very able, but there is just one question that I want to ask 
you because I am still deeply concerned about what is going to happen 
afterward. Now, on page 11 of your statement 1 think is a most 
striking statement. Let me read it to you: 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 5477 

Defense work i.s expected to be temporary. If justice is done to those forced 
into it by priorities and if it is to be made attractive enough to induce many other 
workers to accept defense jobs voluntarily, these equities should be compensated 
for. Unemployment compensation alone, limited as it would necessarily be under 
reasonable standards, is not adequate for that purpose. 

And you go on to state how inflation can be avoided. 

Now, you see, if you as president of the American Federation of 
Labor and speaking for that great organization, and if management 
could outhne some plan along the lines that you have made in your 
statement, there is yoiu' real cushion. 

Now, at the San Diego hearings we had a witness who testified that 
in Comiecticut the shipbuilding plants would add to the cost of pro- 
duction or add to their contracts a reasonable amount to take care 
of the unemployed afterward. We went mto Connecticut but we 
couldn't find a thing about that. But as I say again, it is the word 
"compulsory" that stands in the way. We can't tell them they have 
got to save but just as sure as we are here today the cushion is going 
to be the savings of the workers themselves. 

For that reason they cannot be charged exorbitant rents. They 
have to receive a wage out of which they can save somethmg, isn't 
that right? 

Mr. Green. That is right. 

SPECIAL CATEGORY OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

i\lr. OsMERS. I want to recall some suggestions that were made to 
the committee some time ago and I would like to get Mr. Green's 
reaction, now that you have brought that very important point up. 

The suggestion was made, and I joined in that suggestion and still 
feel the same way about it, that a special category of social security 
should be established for people employed in pm-ely defense indus- 
tries and that from those workers and from the Government and 
from the employer should be exacted a higher percentage from their 
salaries than at the present time in civilian life, for the reason that 
when this emergency is over these people will not go back to work in 
the normal coin-se of things. It will take a longer period of time and 
they are entitled to longer social-security payments before relief is 
considered, than the normal worker is entitled to. What do you 
think of that suggestion? 

Mr. Green. There is much merit in that suggestion, I think, 
iilthough it would be difficult to differentiate purely defense employ- 
ment in many cases, and unemployment will affect all workers in a 
post-defense period. All of us, of course, have thought about that 
phase of the problem and I was thinking about that when I appointed 
a defense committee here about a week ago for the purpose of special- 
izing ui national-defense problems, and I am looking for suggestions 
myself because I have a clear understanding and a deep appreciation 
of the seriousness of the problem, and that ought to be, perhaps, con- 
sidered in connection with other remedies to be used in meeting our 
post-war problems. 

Air. OsMERs. It is very much before this committee because at 
the conclusion of the emergency we may see migration in the United 
States such as we have never seen before, looking for employment 
opportunities. 



5478 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

The slightest whisper or rumor will send thousands of people out 
across the country somewhere to 50 jobs and we don't want that to 
happen. It would be cruel and bitter to these people that have helped 
to defend their country, in the plants. 

Mr. Green. That is right. 

The Chairman. You see, Mr. Green, as we traveled over this 
country the one bright spot was that we are not waiting like we did 
in the World War No. 1. We are getting on top of it now, by listen- 
ing to men like you and others, and if we get the facts first, probably 
we will get some solution, but we can't let it go as we did after the 
last war. 

Mr. Green. No; we can't afford to do that now because economic 
conditions have changed, you know, since 25 years ago, and I don't 
know whether the country could meet the social strain. 

Mr. Osmers. We are in a little bit different financial position than 
we were at that time, too. 

Mr. Gre£n. That is right. 

The Chairman. Well, Mr. Green, I express my own appreciation 
and the appreciation of the members of the committee for your 
appearing here today. It has been a very valuable contribution and 
I hope we have the privilege of hearing you again some time. 

Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say if we 
can be helpful to you further call upon us and we will respond whole- 
heartedly. 

(The following letter, dealing with subject of post-emergency social 
security, was received subsequentlj^ from Mr. Green and accepted 
for the record:) 

Exhibit B 

American Federation of Labor, 

Washingto7i, D. C, July 28, 1941. 
Hon. John H. Tolan, 

Chairman, House Committee Investigating National Defense Migration, 

Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Congressman: Taking advantage of j^our invitation to extend my 
remarks before the House Committee Investigating National Defense Migration, 
I would like to develop further the kind of social-security system which we believe 
should be created now in order to prepare the Nation to meet the post-defense 
crisis. 

The problem of employment is clearly shown by the migration of workers to 
be a national one, not confined to a single State or section. Post-defense unem- 
ployment will be Nation-wide and can be solved only by national measures. With 
that in mind we urge the consolidation of the loosely knit and inadequate Federal- 
State unemployment compensation sj'stem into a comprehensive Federal program 
of social insurance. This comprehensive program should have a single pooled 
fund for the multiple insurance benefits, designed to compensate in part for loss 
of wage income involuntarily imposed on workers and their families by events 
beyond their control, unemployment, old age, premature death, temporary and 
permanent disability, and for supplementary payments to cover in part at least 
the costs of medical care and hospitalization which would permit workers and their 
families to get the attention they need and which is not now within their financial 
reach. This fund should be created by the joint contributions of employers and 
employees, and a payment from general tax revenues. 

The American Federation of Labor has upheld employer contributions alone 
for unemployment compensation, believing that workers bear a sufficient burden 
in their loss of income uncompensated by insurance and that the expense of unem- 
ployment compensation is a legitnnate business expense. We have always sup- 
ported the contributory plan for old-age and survivors' insurance. In a compre- 
hensive plan, providing for general social insurance which will protect wage earn- 
ers and their families against the financial burdens of ill health and disability as 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6479 

well as uuemployment compensation we believe workers' contributions are entirely 
justified. 

The coverage of this comprehensive system must be broadly extended to those 
groups of workers now excluded from protection. Special provisions should be 
included to protect existing rights or create rights for persons who serve the Nation 
in military or civilian defense. The diverse and inadequate provisions of State 
unemployment compensation offer little protection against the mass of unemploy- 
ment we must prepare to combat at the end of the defense program. Wide exten- 
sion of coverage is essential to create an equitable system. 

In the midst of waging war, Britain has found it desirable to enlarge and im- 
prove its program of social insurance. The morale of the Nation was improved 
by the consideration thus given to caring for social needs of its people. We urge 
this comprehensive social insurance system for the purpose of creating a better 
living for our working people and their families and to give the Nation as a whole 
a more adequate defense against the economic and social problems which will 
beset it. We need now to get ready to hold up the Nation's purchasing power 
when unemployment is general. We need now to protect American families from 
the disrupting effect of loss of income when the wage earner is disabled tempo- 
rarily or permanently. We need in both peace or war to make it possible for all 
our people to save in advance through an insurance program for necessary medical 
care. Our road to a healthier, stronger Nation with unshakable morale lies, 
through building greater securit}- for our people. 

Enlarging our contributory insurance program now would have the further 
effect of reducing consumers' expenditures by collecting social-security taxes on 
a broader base and creating reserves which will be used when needed later to 
sustain consumption and encourage production. With a single pooled fund there 
will be greater economy of operations and the wider spreading of risks will make 
possible more liberal benefits in relation to the necessai'y reserve. Consequently 
benefit payments will have a greater influence on the post-defense period than 
would otherwise be possible. 

The American Federation of Labor urges Congress to plan for such a compre- 
hensive national program, providing for old age and survivors' insurance, with 
extra income for medical and hospital care for all workers and] their families, 
financed from a single fund built up on a contributory basis by employers, em- 
ployees, and the Government. I cannot stress too strongly how important I feel 
this program to be to our Nation. Both now and when we again face serious 
depression and unemployment we need a national system, soundly financed, and 
able to pay benefits which will be adequate to prevent much distress and to keep 
our purchasing power from collapsing while we are adjusting our economy again 
to a peacetime production. Now while we still have time we should build our 
social insurance system into a comprehensive program which will protect us from 
economic chaos later. The limited coverage of the present social security law, 
its failure to provide disabilit}' insurance and aid for medical care, and especially 
the complete inadequacy and confusion of our 51 unemployment compensation 
laws make the existing system incapable of doing the job that will need to be 
done. 

Sincerely j'ours, 

William Green, 
President, American Federation of Labor. 

The Chairman. The committee will recess until 9:30 o'clock 
tommoiTow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4 p. m., the committee adjourned until 9:30 a, m.^ 
Wednesday, July 16, 1941.) 



60396— 41— pt. 1( 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1941 

House of Representatives, 
Select Committee Investigating 

National Defense ISIigration, 

Washington^ D. C. 
The committee met at 9: 30 a. m., Hon. John H. Tolan (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present were: Representatives John H. Tolan (chairman), of Cali- 
fornia: Laurence F. Arnold, of Illinois; Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska; 
and Frank C. Osmers, Jr., of New Jersey. 

Also present were: Robert K. Lamb, staff director; Mary Dublin, 
coordinator of hearings: F, Palmer Weber, economist; and John W. 
Abbott, chief field investigator. 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. 
Our first witness is Mr. Gill, Assistant Commissioner, "Work Proj- 
ects Administration. 

TESTIMONY OF CORRINGTON GILL, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEE, 
WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Tlie Chairman. Mr. Gill, I have read your statement with a great 
deal of interest, particularly along the line of prevalent opinion in 
the LTnited States, that this national-defense program is not going 
to take care of all unemployment. 

Our committee has found out that is quite accurate and I think 
your paper presents some very startling facts and figures along that 
line. 

Mr. Gill. I wonder if it would meet with your approval if I read 
the statement. It is comparatively short. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Gill, you may proceed, 

Mr. Gill (reading). In many respects the unemployed in this coun- 
try face a very precarious situation. In the year ahead they will get 
reiatiA^ely less help than at any time since the Federal Government ac- 
cepted the responsibility of providing jobs for destitute workers. 

In still another v\-ay. the unemployed face a bleak outlook. Many 
people think the armament program will provide jobs to all who want 
to work. 

However, the defense program will by no means provide all of the 
unemployed with jobs. The remaining unemployed workers will be- 
come the object of increasing resentment. The ancient prejudice 

6481 



5482 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

which held that anyone who wanted a job could get one may again 
ride high and become the typical general attitude toward the unem- 
ployed. 

The great strides taken in the handling of the unemployment prob- 
lem in recent years were possible only because this prejudice was 
largely broken down. The unemployed, therefore, stand to lose in 
two ways: In loss of public employment and in loss of public sym- 
pathy and understanding. 

"statistically liquidating" the unemployed 

There has been a lot of loose talk about reemployment and unem- 
ployment since the war started. Judging from some of the statements 
made a year ago, there should be no unemployment now. We still hear 
such statements about unemployment in the coming year. There has 
been too much of a tendency to liquidate unemployment by statistical 
calculations rather than bj^ the development of job opportunities. 

The statistical calculations started from such facts as these : Indus- 
trial production is at a record-breaking level. Feverish activity is evi- 
dent in centers of defense production. Employment has increased 
sharply. Between May 1940 and May 1941, nonagricultural employ- 
ment increased 3.1 millions. In the same period the armed forces 
were augmented by 1.2 million. Total industrial production in May 
1941 was 32 percent above the 1929 high. 

These are the statements one sees in the newspapers. They are true, 
but they do not tell the whole story. A full defense effort, as well as 
humane considerations, requires the review of all of the facts. 

A full defense effort means that we can no longer afford the luxury 
of idle men any more than we can afford idle steel or aluminum capac- 
ity. The Nation needs the output of every worker. The country can- 
not afford the corroding of morale which results from the denial to 
large groups of the right to participate in our productive effort and 
the right to earn a living. It is a curious paradox that while Hitler is 
importing labor we are deliberately denying ourselves the use of a 
significant proportion of our labor supply. 

After a year of intense defense activiity, total employment in May 
was still below the peak of 1929. Agricultural employment was 1.5 
million less than in May 1929, and markedly below the seasonal high 
of 1929. Nonagricultural employment last May was only 800,000 above 
the 1929 peak. Total employment, therefore, is less now than 12 years 
ago, but total production is much higher. The rapidly increasing me- 
chanical productivity of our industrial plant explains in part the fail- 
ure of employment to keep pace with production. Outi:)ut per man- 
hour in all manufacturing increased 34 percent from 1929 to 1939. 

LABOR FORCE UP 6 0,000 NET EACH YEAR 

Every year there is a normal net increase of 600,000 in the labor 
force. This is a net increase over and above those that leave the labor 
market because of old age or for other reasons. Since 1929 the nor- 
mal growth of labor supply has amounted to at least 7,000,000 
persons. To provide full employment, industry must expand con- 
tinuously to offset the disemployment created by technical improve- 
ments and to absorb the ever-rising crop of new workers. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6483 

Additional allowance must be made for an abnormal growth of labor 
supply during this emergency period. It has been estimated by Mr. 
Chester Davis that there were 5,000,000 workers in rural areas in 1940 
who were either unemployed or who were too unproductive to main- 
tain decent income levels. Some of these workers have already been 
attracted into the industrial labor market. Better employment oppor- 
tunities and higher wages are also attracting into the labor market 
youth who otherwise would have remained in school, housewives who 
normally would not work, and older persons who had retired. 

None of the published estimates of unemployment makes allow- 
ances for this abnormal influx. This deficiency in the figures on 
unemployment will become much more serious as the defense program 
expands. During World War I, more than 3,000,000 extra workers 
were drawn into employment in this way. An abnormal increase in 
the labor supply of 1,000,000 during the fiscal year 1942 is a con- 
servative estimate. 

AVER.\.GE HOURS OF WORK 

Average hours of work are also an important consideration. Aver- 
age hours declined from about 48 in 1929 to 40 now, a reduction of 17 
percent. The reduction helped to maintain employment when pro- 
duction was declining. 

However, hours are now being increased and this restricts the rate 
of employment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that average 
hours in manufacturing advanced 7 percent from July 1940 to May 
1941. In 17 key defense industries the number of workers in April 
1941 was 45 percent greater than April 1940, but the number of man- 
hours worked was 62 percent greater. If these industries had not 
exceeded the standard 40-hour week, they would have required 204,000, 
or 9 percent more workers. There is still ample room for expansion 
of output by increasing hours. More than 8,000,000 workers are still 
employed less than 40 hours — many of them less than 30 hours. 

CONCENTRATION OF CONTRACTS IN 2 AREAS 

The defense stimulus has been very highly concentrated. Twenty 
industrial areas received 65 percent of all prime defense contracts 
awarded through June. A very highly concentrated awarding of 
contracts was necessary because industrial plants in this country 
have been concentrated in a relatively few areas. 

These 20 areas contain only 27 percent of the population of the 
country and only 23 percent of W. P. A. employment. Eight of these 
20 industrial areas with only 18 percent of the population and 16 
percent of W. P. A. employment have received 45 percent of all prime 
defense contracts. There are 2,300 counties with no direct defense 
contracts at the present time. 

Even in defense areas, unemployment has not been eliminated. Op- 
portunities for jobs have attracted large numbers of workers from 
other areas and from farms. Because of age, color, lack of citizen- 
ship, or required skills, many persons now counted as unemployed are 
unable to compete with these new entrants into the labor market. 

The period of very rapid production increase is now nearly over. 
From June 1940 to May 1941, the index of industrial production ad- 
vanced 24 percent. In the latter month the index was at 150 percent 



5484 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

of its 1935-39 average. Standard and Poor's Business Advisory 
Service stated on June 27, 1941 : 

Whatever the figaire the index eventually reaches, the fact of the matter is 
that our production facilities are being taxed at the present time and further 
gains in composite production from current levels will be limited by growing 
shortages of manpower, materials, and machinery. 

Indeed, because of the prospective curtailment in the output of many nondefense 
materials, there is some question whether the present index will exceed 360 to 
165 percent of the 1935-39 level at any time during the duration of the defense 
program. 

MATERIAL SHORTAGES, ACTUAL AND THREATENED 

Shortages are evident in industry after industry — machine tools, 
shipbuilding, shipping facilities, railroad equipment, aircraft, alumi- 
num, magnesium, steel, nickel, copper, zinc, neoprene, and others. 
Serious shortages are threatened in electric power, gasoline and oil (in 
the East), rubber, textiles, and practically all imports. The situation 
is rapidly becoming worse. The recent Dun report estimated there 
will be a shortage of 6.4 million tons of steel in 1942. Automobile pro- 
duction is already scheduled for a 20 percent cut, and most trade au- 
thorities doubt that materials will be available for even 50 percent 
production. 

It takes time to build new plants, to develop new sources of material, 
or to train highly skilled labor. Shortages have given rise to official 
priorities on many of the above products. The purpose of priorities 
is to ration materials when demand exceeds supply. The most urgent 
defense needs get first call. What is left is divided among other de- 
fense uses and civilian consumjition. The effect of priorities is to .shift 
shortages from defense to nondefense j^roduction. 

BEARING OF SHORTAGES ON EMPLOYMENT TOEND 

The bearing of these developments on the rate of reemployment and 
the volume of unemployment is direct and immediate. Insofar as pri- 
orities are substituted for new plant capacity, total production and 
employment fail to expand. Unemployment is created in nondefense 
industries that are unable to obtain equipment and materials. The 
prospective cut in automobile production will result in large losses of 
employment not only in Detroit but also in garages, service stations, 
and retail sales organizations throughout the country. 

The Wall Street Journal on June 28, reported that — 

One conservative official estimates a 50 percent reduction in automotive operations 
this fall would add more than 100,000 workers to relief rolls in Michigan alone. 

On June 26, in reporting the results of a survey on the effect of defense 
needs on civilian production, the National Industrial Conference 
Board said : 

Nearly 80 percent of the executives reporting say that they expect to have to 
curtail production of civilian goods in the near future. A number of them do 
not see how they can continue their present production rates beyond another 
45 or 60 days. Executives say they do not see how they can continue to supply 
durable goods to civilians in anywhere near adequate volume, in view of the 
fact that the 1941 defense program, according to the Offlce of Production Man- 
agement is expected to absorb about 64 percent of last year's durable goods capacity 
and that the 1942 defense program calls for 6 percent more durable goods than 
were turned out for all purposes in 1940. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6485 

In a recent address, Mr. Peter Nehemkis, of the Office of Produc- 
tion Management, stated that — 

Priority orders have had drastic effect not upon a few concerns but ujion entire 
industries. Already not less than 10 entire industries whose supplies have been 
either drastically curtailed or completely shut off must either close down or enter 
a new line of production. 

Indeed, before the end of this summer, we may expect to find one-third of 
American industry faced with the grim reality of "guns versus butter." 

As the tempo of the wartime economy gains increased momentum, you may 
exi>ect to find for a time not less but more unemployment : not less hut more idle 
machines. 

SHAKE-UPS CAUSED BY CHANGING PRODUCTION SCHEDULES 

Employment shake-ups resulting from the forced changes in pro- 
duction schedules, transfers, and shut-downs have been numerous. 
Workers are transferring to defense jobs, in some cases en masse, as 
entire plants shift from nondefense to defense production. The point 
here is that defense jobs are being filled by persons who transfer from 
one industry to another, and that vacated jobs in nondefense indus- 
tries will not be filled. The net effect is that defense labor require- 
ments are being met without corresponding increases in total employ- 
ment. 

Workers being forced out of nondefense industries by priorities and 
shortages are not always able to find new jobs. Many such workers 
are handicapped because they lack certain required skills or live 
in sections of the country where no defense jobs are available. 

It should also be emphasized that mere passage of appropriation 
bills does not in itself provide jobs. The funds must be spent. Short- 
ages of plant capacity, skilled labor, and materials, as well as the tre- 
mendous management problem that is involved, mean that there is a 
large gap between appropriations and expenditures. 

DEFENSE EXPENDITURES AND THE NATIONAL INCOME 

Moreover, defense expenditures do not constitute a net addition to 
national income because of reductions in income in nondefense lines. 
If we assume that cash defense expenditurse for fiscal 1942 will 
approximate the 15.5 billion predicted recently by the Director of 
the Budget, national income should increase by about 10 billion. 

On the basis of past relationships between national income and 
employment, a $10,000,000,000 increase in.national income should result 
in an increase in employment of about 2.5 millions. On an average 
monthly basis, this would be a somewhat smaller rate of increase than 
the average of 265,000 a month for the period June 1940 to May 1941. 

In translating these employment increases into probable changes in 
unemployment, it must be remembered that there will be the nor- 
mal net increase in the labor force of 600,000. There will also be a 
substantial abnormal increase. Many of the new jobs will go to these 
induced entrants who are not now counted as unemployed. 

ESTIMATE or DECLINE IN UNEMPLOYMENT 

We are of the opinion that the average decline in unemployment 
during the fiscal year 1942 will not be more than 1.5 million, and that 



5486 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

total unemployment will probably average about 5 to 5.5 million. The 
Work Projects Administration will be able to provide jobs for only 
1,000,000 of these unemployed persons. 

Of this number, some 250,000 will be employed on projects certi- 
fied as necessary for national defense. In addition, the W. P. A. 
will further the defense program through an expanded training 
program. It is a well-known fact that in many defense centers short- 
ages of trained labor have developed. In the past fiscal year the 
W. P. A. training program has offered training to 115,000 j^ersons; 
of the 80,000 who have completed training, about 65 percent have 
obtained jobs. 

At the present time we are developing an additional program 
of in-plant training, under which workers will go into plants 
and receive training on the job. They will be paid by the W. P. A. 
At the end of the short training period — usually limited to 4 weeks — 
they will be terminated by the W. P. A. and placed on the employer's 
pay roll. A short statement on the W. P. A. training progi'am will 
be inserted in the record. 

Since roughly 5,000,000 will be unemployed during fiscal 1942 and 
since W. P. A. will be employing only 1,000,000 of these, there is 
no possibility of a general labor shortage. Such shortages as occur 
will involve highly skilled occupations and will be confined to cer- 
tain localities. In the farm labor field, we are cooperating with 
the Department of Agriculture in an effort to insure that the con- 
tinuing surplus of farm labor will be available at the right times 
and places. More detailed statements on labor shortages and on 
the effect of the defense program on unemployment will be inserted 
in the record. [Reading ends.] 

(The following supplementally statements were introduced by the 
witness for the record:) 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENTS BY CORRINGTON GILL, ASSISTANT 
COMMISSIONER, WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON. 
D. C. 

The Effextt of the Defense Pbogram on Unemployment 

There is a widespread impression tliat the problem of unemployment and 
need is rapidly disappearing under the impact of defense expenditures. The 
effect of the defense program on unemployment will depend upon (1) the 
extent to which production increases; (2) the amount of employment that is 
provided by this increase in production; and (3) changes in the labor supply 
The level of output will deteiynine the volume of employment. There are 
various obstacles to increases in output that operate as drags on the rate of 
reemployment. It is the purpose of this analysis to outline these various 
obstacles in order to suggest why the transition to full employment cannot be 
achieved within a few months, in spite of the billions that have been appro- 
priated for armaments. 

FACTORS affecting EXPANSION OF OUTPUT 

Bottlenecks. 

The level of industrial production during fiscal 1942 will be seriously affected 
by bottlenecks. The placing of approximately $20,000,000,000 of orders for 
armaments on top of existing demand has resulted in capacity shortages in 
certain crucial fields of production. Bottlenecks already exist in the following 
fields; machine tools, shipbuilding capacity, shipping facilities, skilled labor, 
plane engines, steel, aluminum, magnesium, nickel, neoprene, zinc, and copper. 
Bottlenecks are likely to appear in certain other fields, including railroad equip- 
ment, electric power, and imports from the Far East. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6487 

Since production has reached capacity in the important fields enumerated 
above, further substantial increases in industrial output must wait upon addi- 
tions to plant and upon measures to increase the supply of certain essential 
raw materials (especially minerals, such as copper, nickel, and zinc). The 
interdependence of industrial activity diffuses the effects of delays due to bottle- 
necks and the result is a general drag upon expansion of output. 

Sieel has been called "the needle s eye through which the country's whole 
economy has to pass." The first Dunn report holding steel capacity to be ade- 
quate has already been supplanted by a second report predicting a deficit of 
1.4 million tons in 1941 and 6.4 million tons in 1942. Dunn's estimate of the short- 
age is probably still too low. All indications are that civilian consumption of 
steel will be severely restricted. 

On March 1, 1941, the Federal Power Commission said that the electric 
power industry should increase its proposed expansion of generating capacity 
by more than 26 percent during 1942. The Commission implied that thus far 
the industry has far underestimated the demands which will be put upon it 
and warned that continuation of this underestimation might bring serious 
trouble. Since the Commission's study was completed, both the defense pro- 
gram and aid to Britain have bseu expanded. Moreover, it takes from 18 months 
to 3 years to install generating facilities and the current backlog of unfilled 
orders for electrical equipment may prevent installation at the normal rate. 

Capacity operations have been reached in a growing number of raw-material 
industries. Supplies of critical materials are being expanded but indications 
are that there will not be enough of these materials to meet both civilian and 
defense needs. Production of consumer goods will probably be affected to an 
increasing extent with a resultant drag on the rate of reemployment. 

There have been no significant additions to the supply of skilled metal- 
workers, machinists, and tool-and-die makers. Many of the thousands of skilled 
workers who will be sought during the next few months will not be available 
unless there are radical new developments in training, upgrading, and simplifica- 
tion of production processes. 

The problem of obtaining expansion of capaeity. 

Delay in obtaining the required plant expansion arises basically from the fear 
of excess capacity during the postdefense period. To the extent that the ex- 
panded facilities are not required for peacetime production during the post- 
defense period, private capital invested in defense plants will be subject to 
losses. The problem, therefore, is to persuade businessmen to act in terms of 
an expanding economy. 

The difficulty of expanding capacity is also related to the monopoly question. 
Concentration and monopoly play important roles in determining the volume of 
investment, and such conditions are especially pronounced in certain fields where 
plant expansion is required by the defense program. In industries dominated 
by one or a few coriwrate giants with high fixed costs, investment decisions 
are made with more than ordinary hesitation and deliberation. Sentiment is 
apt to be strongly on the conservative rather than the expansionist side. Plant 
expansion that threatens at some future date to disturb the value of existing 
properties because of excess capacity is likely to be retarded if not entirely 
avoided, even though such investment promises favorable returns over the next 
few years. Concentration is especially pronounced in certain fields where expan- 
sion of capacity is urgently required if schedvdes of defense production are to 
be met. 

Last summer, defense production was postponed until Government and industry 
coidd agree on means to bring capital into the defense program. Irretrievable 
months of time were lost while an amortization policy was formulated that would 
be satisfactory to business interests. In spite of the arrangements adopted, the 
required amount of plant expansion has not been obtained. Much larger expan- 
sion is both necessary and possible. The question is whether more time will be 
wasted by another protracted period of bargaining with private investors over 
terms. 

Piioiities. 

Skyrocketing defense demands for such materials as aluminum, chromium, zinc, 
and steel has begun to create an acute shortage of these cnicial materials. Such 
slaortages have given rise to official priorities. The Priorities Division of the 
Office of Production Management has imposed industry-wide mandatory control 
over 14 materials and classes of materials. Inventory control is exercised over 
15 metals and classes of metals. The priorities critical list contains approxi- 



^488 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

mately 300 items aud classes of items on which Army and Navy orders can auto- 
matically be giveu priority. 

Priorities are the alternative to expansion of capacity; their purpose is to 
ration materials when demand exceeds supply. The most urgent defense needs 
(planes and ships) get first call; other defense uses then receive allocations. 
Civilian demand is met as far as possible out of the remaining supply. 

Civilian production is already being seriously affected. More and more busi- 
nessmen are waking up to the fact that while business is good, supplies are short. 
Rationing is incrensing all along the line. To a greater and greater extent, 
materials and supplies that would normally be used in the production of durable 
consumers' goods are being diverted to the production of armaments. 

On May 28, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Side by side with booming 
defense plants are others which are slowing production, operating in fits and 
starts, laying off workers. Especially hard hit have been small enterprises." 

On June 17, an OflSce of Production Management official reported that as much 
as one-third of American industry may be faced with the necessity of closing down 
before the end of summer if means are not found to utilize their facilities for 
defense production. Not less than 10 industries have had their supplies either 
drastically curtailed or completely shut off. This oflBcial said that we may 
expect to find for a time not less but more unemployment ; not less but more idle 
machines. 

Efforts are being made to find substitute materials in order to meet civilian 
demand. In cases where satisfactory substitutes are not available, plants are 
seeking to obtain subcontracts for defense work. Such shifts mean simply a 
diversion from civilian production ; they obviously limit the amount of 
reemployment. 

Important industries faced with slowdowns or shutdowns include automobiles, 
washing machines, refrigerators, radios, vacuum cleaners, and air conditioners. 
The reason is that durable consumers' goods are made of the same materials a? 
ships, tanks, giuis. and airplanes, and there is not enough of such materials to fill 
both needs. 

STEEL AND THE AUTO CUKTAILMENT 

Steel is the most widely used of metals. It enters into the manufacture of 
thousands of products. On June 13, the Ofii^e of Production Management advised 
13 companies that they should curtail production of sheet and strip steel for 
nondefense purposes and use strip-mill capacity thus released to turn out more 
plates for shipbuilding, railroad cars, and other urgent defense needs. Such di- 
version will be at the expense of automobiles, refrigerators, and other products 
that use flat-rolled steel. 

Of the 20 percent forced reduction in automobile production scheduled for 
August, the Wall Street Journal says that "Thousands of auto workers will have 
about 5 months of standing idly on street corners. Defense lobs won't be ready 
for them until the end of the year." While the Ofiice of Production Management 
has thus far requested only a 20-percent curtailment. Business Week reports that 
manufacturers do not expect to finish the 1942-model year with more than 50 
percent of the in41-m()del output. Further cuts will be imposed by the Office of 
Production Management in order to assure the availability of scarce materials 
that are necessary for defense purposes. 

Diversion of metal from nondefense uses is expected to check the increasing con- 
sumption of steel in private building. Priority ratings are expected to hit pri- 
vate dwellings, apartments, theaters, and shops. 

Early this month Iron Age stated in an editorial that "curtailment in civilian 
steel shipments far beyond anything imagined a short time ago is being forecast. 
* * * S'ime mills estimate that as h'gh as 60 percent of new orders are linked 
directly or indirectly to defense needs." 

Aluminumware companies that have been unable to shift to defense production 
(or to products made from other metals) have reduced employment to as low as 
25 percent of normal. Manufacturers of radios expect curtailment of output com- 
parable with that faced by automobile companies. The Army ficures that a four- 
encine bomber uses as much aluminum as goes into the manufacture of 60,000 
coffee percolators or more than 30,000 kitchen utensils. Defense needs for alumi- 
num in June were expected to take from 05 lo 100 iiercent of all the metal avail- 
able, including scrap. 

Present predictions are that there will be insufficient gasoline fm the east 
coast to supply civilian demand because of the transfer of 50 tankers for aid to 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGKATION 6489 

Britain. Any curtailment of the use of automobiles will be reflected iu the em- 
ployment provided by the network of related service and supply industries. 

Because of shipping uncertainties and in order to assure the completion of 
adequate stock piles, the Office of Production Management has ordered a cut in 
the use of rubber. Rubber is to be rationed to processors iu amounts almost 25 
percent less than they are presently consuming. Sharp curtailment of the manu- 
facture of tires and thousands of other civilian items made from rubber is 
inevitable. 

It is becoming increasingly clear that such results are involved in the rapid 
shift from civilian to defense production. Use of priorities veill continue to 
broaden ; more and more industries must obtain a defense rating or gradually 
be shut off from supplies of materials. The consequent curtailment of civilian 
production is one of tlie primary reasons why the vast expansion of employment 
that has been predicted for this next year will not materialize. 

Curtailment of civilian-goods output could have been largely avoided by earlier 
expansion of capacity in bottleneck areas. But industry has been reluctant to 
expand. As defense output increases during the coming fiscal year, additional 
civilian-goods industries will be forced to curtail output and employment because 
they cannot obtain materials. To the extent that the li.st of priorities is expanded, 
mcreases in armaments production will be at the expense of civilian production 
so that increases in arms output and employment will not be net gains. For 
tills reason, total employment will increase more slowly. 

Now that priorities have been resorted to, there is the further danger that 
emphasis will swing from addition of new plant capacity to shifts in the use 
made of existing plants. If. instead of building new plants to meet the increased 
demand, plants now engaged in producing civilian goods shift to the manufacture 
of armaments, the effect will be to freeze output and employment at a point far 
sliort of potential capacity, and a large volume of unemployment will persist 
even at the height of the defense program. 

Frictional maladjustm ents. 

Certain optimistic estimates of reemployment for fiscal 1942 have failed to 
make adequate allowance for certain inevitable frictional maladjustments: (1) 
The Nation's industries that have been geared for satisfying only peacetime 
needs must quickly be redirected to produce a maximum of armaments, and 
such adjustments are time consuming; (2) the difficulties of bringing all 
available capacity into defense productiou involve a tremendous management 
problem; (3) and the accumulation of excessive inventories (to guard against 
price rises and shortages) means maldistribution of scarce materials and delays 
in the expansion of total outptit. 

Structural adjustments ore time con-sunihtfj. — To a large extent, the demand 
for armaments means that American industry is called upon to produce new 
products. In many cases, the handling of defense contracts involves only rela- 
tively simply conversions — swords can be made in plow factories. Any shift in 
the direction of production, however, inevitably involves maladjustments that 
are time consuming. Because tanks and locomotives are both heavy vehicles 
made of steel, it is far too easy to assume that a shop experienced in making the 
one can turn to the other. 

Eventually, machine guns will be produced by companies formerly manufac- 
turing such products as refrigerators, gears, electric lights, and spark plugs. 
But numitions are infinitely more complex than peacetime machines, and very 
few of them lend themselves readily to the methods of the assembly line. 

Unaccustomed materials and parts must flow in vast quantities along new 
routes. Innumerable frictions and delays naturally develop iu this flow. Delays 
in the arrival of new equipment and shortages of materials have the effect of 
postponing hirings. Even after the initial toollng-up is accomplished, and large- 
scale production of armaments has begun, 'bugs" creep in. New plants are com- 
ing into production month by month, and production in these individual plants 
cannot be expected to move smoothly at the outset. 

The concentration of defense production in comparatively few areas has raised 
serious problems concerning the geographical availability of labor. Enormously 
expanded production and employment in these few areas means the hurried 
transplanting into congested centers of thousands of people. Great housing 
projects must be undertaken, and the necessary community services must be pro- 
vided for these new populations. Labor turn-over becomes excessive because 
workers are unable to find satisfactory living quarters for their families, and 



g490 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

this reduces output. At the same time, in other communities many productive 
facilities are only partly used and labor is unemployed. 

It is problems of this sort that are involved in the statement that structural 
adjustments are time consuming. 

Difficulties in hringing all available capacity into operation. — The bulk of de- 
fense contracts has been awarded to a comparatively small number of industrial 
concerns. Orders have been piled on the larger concerns for at least two reasons : 
(1) They have the facilities and established managerial ability to handle large 
orders; (2) it is easier to deal with a limited number of large concerns than with 
thousands of smaller ones. It would probably have taken month.-! longer to break 
contracts down into parts and negotiate with numerous smaller concerns. The 
Army and Navy turned to the manufacturers whom they had previously done 
business with. That was the quickest way to get started. 

Thus, while 511 concerns received prime contracts of $100,000 or more during 
the last half of 1940, 114 of these accounted for 95 percent of the total ($6,700,- 
000,000 out of $7,000,000,000). Sixty-eight companies had received about two- 
thirds of the $14,200,000,000 of defense contracts let by March 14. 

Estimates made for the Ofpce of Production Management indicate that more 
than 200,000 primary contractors are available for defense work. By last March 
scarcely more than 13,000 had received orders. By the end of May more than 76 
percent of defense contracts had gone to 12 States, while 4 Stf^tes (California, 
New York, New Jersey and Michigan) had received $4,500,000,000, or 40 percent 

Tlic farming-out prol)letn. — Further substantial increases in the output of 
armaments depends not only upon expansion of capacity in bottleneck areas, but 
also upon enlistment of a much larger proportion of available productive facilities 
in the defense effort. The Nation has scores of giant companies, but it also has 
many thousands of small metalworking companies. The companies that have 
I'eceived defense contracts represent only a small proportion of the country's 
productive equipment and labor supply that could be adapted for defense pro- 
duction. If we are to produce the volume of armaments of which we are poten- 
tially capable, it is essential for defense work to be more widely dispersed. 

The obstacles to bringing idle facilities into defense production are numerous. 
The work may be unfamiliar, even to the prime contractor. The bottleneck 
parts are sometimes the most difficult to make. As in the case of airplane engines 
and machine tools, standards may be exceedingly precise. Many primary con- 
tractors do not know where to find concerns to which to subcontract parts. And 
many small concerns do not know how to get subcontracts or what kinds of 
parts are required that are within their capacity to make. Innumerable time- 
consuming subcontractual arrangements are necessary. Problems of equipment 
and financing must be solved. New management relations must be established. 
Farming out is often more expensive than producing in the home plant. Large 
concerns that have received defense contracts are naturally reluctant to share 
their profits. 

The utilization of smaller plants to fill defense orders has been slow to be 
achieved. This is a considerable part of the explanation why expansion will 
proceed at a slower and slower rate. 

Accumulation of excessive inventories. — Another type of frictional maladjust- 
ment is the accumulation of excessive inventories. Stocks have been accumu- 
lated against possible price increases and against possible future shortages and 
priorities. 

By last February, forward buying had begun to intei'fere with the flow of 
materials for defense needs. The retarding elTect of genuine shortages has been 
exaggerated by the creation of artificial shortages. The introduction of priori- 
ties in certain industries was hastened by this situation. 

THE VOLUME OF EMPLOYMENT 

The effect of itvereasing productivity. 

For many years, technological improvement has been fairly continuous. In 
industry after industry, the manpower required per unit of product has been 
constantly reduced. This means that a thousand tanks, a hundred ships, or a 
million uniforms require fewer workers to produce than was I'equired 10 years 
ago and many fewer than was required 25 years ago. 

Man-hour productivity in all manufacturing was 40 percent higher in 1940 
than in 1929. In the railroad industry, the increase from 1929 to 1939 was 40 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6491 



percent ; in electric light and power, 76 percent. In the iron and steel industry, 
output per man-hour increased 166 percent between 1919 and 1939. Productivity 
has also increased in agriculture. Recently, the Department of Agriculture 
stated that "normal requirements in farm production * * * can now be met 
by approximately 1,600,000 fewer workers on farms than in 1929 * * *." 

Manufacturing production increased 32 percent between January 1929 and Jan- 
uary 1941 while manufacturing employment increased only 14 percent. Employ- 
ment lagged behind production to this extent in spite of a decline in average 
hours worked per week from about 48 to about 40. If hours had not declined 
during this period, employment would have lagged still further behind 
production. 

Although there are more persons in the labor supply in 1941 than in 1929, we 
need fewer workers to produce a given quantity of real income. During the 
course of the defense program, the production of goods will reach higher and 
higher record levels. But because of increased productivity, employment will not 
keep pace with this increased output. 

The factor of part-time employment. 

There is an additional reason why employment may be expected to lag behind 
production. Increased production is being achieved by lengthening the hours 
worked by those already employed. In April there were 4,200,000 workers em- 
ployed less than 30 hours per week ; 8,100,000 were employed less than 40 hours. 
Plants now on part time will employ their workers for a full workweek before 
they add new workers to pay rolls. If hours of labor were to increase to the 1929 
level, production could increase at least one-fifth above the 1940 average without 
the employment of any additional workers. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has attempted to calculate the total number of 
man-years of labor that defense appropriations will require. Such a total, how- 
ever, will not mean a corresponding increase in the number of workers employed. 
For example, defense contracts totaling $1,000,000,000 may mean .")00,(X)0 man-years 
of employment, but this does not mean that 500,000 new workers will be added 
to pay rolls. Instead, a substantial part of these 500,000 man-year? of employ- 
ment will be allotted to workers already on pay rolls by lengthening the workweek. 

Employment in defense industries. 

Employment in the 15 key defense industries in April 1^1 and the percentage 
of total nonagricultural employment represented by each were as follows : 



Industry 


EmplojTnent 
in key defense 

industries,! 

April 1941 


Percentage 
of total nonl 
agricultura - 
employment 




44,800 
166, 100 
157, 800 
89 600 
50, 600 
29, 900 
13,400 
29,900 
18, 100 
34, 300 
118, 200 
506,000 
326, 900 
560, 000 
34, 300 




Aircraft and parts (exclusive of engines) 


44 










Machine-tool accessories 


13 




.08 






Instruments (professional, scientific) 


08 




.05 






Brass, bronze, and copper products 


31 






Electrical machinery ^apparatus and supplies) 


87 


Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills 


1 49 




.09 






Total 


2, 179, 900 


5 79 







• Excludes employment in explosives, ammunition, and firearms industries, as these figures are not being 
ma''e public. Employment in Government shipyards is also excluded. In April, Government yards 
employed 144.030. or 0.38 percent of total nonagricultural employment. 



It is apparent that defense industries employ only a small proportion of all 
workers. Very large gains in these industries will not greatly affect the 
volume of unemployment. 

Future labor requirements for aircraft, machine tools, and shipbuilding have 
been estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the aircraft industry, 



6492 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

employmeiit iu plants ot tinal assembly totaled 217,000 ou March 31. (This 
includes manufacture of all parts — frames, engines, propellers, etc.) Peak 
employment of 405.300 is estimated for November 30, 1941. 

In the machine-tool industry, it is expected tliat 22,600 additional wage- 
earners will be employed between January and December 1941, bringing the 
total number of wage earners to approximately 102,800. In shipbuilding, 
the present schedule will require a continuous increase in the number of 
workers until peak employment of approximately 560,000 is reached in Sep- 
tember 1942. Ship construction constitutes the largest single category of 
defense activity— 36 percent of total contracts awarded through March. Em- 
ployment in this large segment of the defense program has expanded very 
slowly thus far. Yards have been working at capacity level for some time. 
New construction facilities require considerable time to build. 

Small as these prospective employment increases are in terms of total 
employment, it is qitestionable whether such schedules can be met because 
an exceptionally high proportion of skilled workers is required in defense 
industries. During last November and December, 12,000 defense employers 
were canvassed by the Bureau of Employment Security regarding the types of 
workers they expected to hire. Forty-four percent were to be in skilled 
occupations, 33 percent in semiskilled occupations, and only 23 percent in 
unskilled occupations. The proportion of skilled workers employed in ship- 
building and machine tools is 48 percent and 46 percent, respectively. 

Indirect employi)ien t. 

From the above figures on direct employment in defense industries, it is 
apparent that it is in nondefeuse industries that the bulk of reemployment 
must come during the next 12 months if certain widely quoted estimates are to 
be realized. Throughout this report the position has been taken that these 
estimates are too optimistic, and emphasis has been given to the impeding effect of 
such factors as bottlenecks, priorities, and frictional maladjustments. There are 
additional factors of a more technical sort that will restrict the amount of indirect 
employment. 

Indirect employment will arise through the spending and respending (by 
the recipients) of the funds originally disbursed by the Government. The 
volume of this respending will be reduced at each successive round by various 
"leakages" (notably savings). 

It is at this point that the question of prices and pi'oflts is relevant. If 
prices rise, there will be a disproportionate expansion of profits. This always 
happens. Even with stable prices, however, profits will increase as output 
rises because overhead costs per unit decline with increasing volume of output.^ 
Higher profits will increase savings. Savings are "leakages" — funds received 
from the spending stream and not returned. They reduce each successive 
wave of respending of defense funds and hence they reduce the total volume 
of employment created by defense expenditures. Savings will thus be a serious 
drag on the rate at which indirect employment is created iu uondefense 
industries. 

Rising prices will also restrict the rate of reemployment by retarding con- 
sumption, since wages as a whole inevitably move upward more slowly than 
prices. A i-ising price level therefore, will slow up expansion of output and 
employment in consumer-goods fields where the greatest excess capacity exists. 

Other factors that threaten to keep down the volume of indirect employment 
lie in the field of fiscal policy. For instance, if consumption taxes are resorted 
to extensively in the near future, a considerable part of the rise in consumers' 
incomes would be diverted to the Treasury and the current rate of expansion 
in nondefense fields would slow down. Furthermore, the Treasury has an- 
nounced that efforts will be made to borrow several billion dollars from con 
sumers during fiscal 1942. Borrowing from this source in any stich volume 
must be taken into account in estimating the leverage elTect of defense expendi- 
tures in creating indirect employment. 



1 That profits have already increased .substantially is evident from data for 1940. Ac- 
cording, to the Department of Commerce, corporate profits reached the highest level since 
li)29. Net incomo of mantifacturhig corporations exceeded 1039 by about .SO jiercent with 
the metal and metal-products group up more than 50 percent. In the steel industry, 1939 
profits were doubled despite the fact that the average rate of production was only 78 
percent. Durable-goods industries as a whole registered an increase of 66 percent. 
Profits are expected to be considerably higher in 1941 in spite of rising costs and taxes and 
the fact that special reserves are being sot aside in expect.'ition of additional taxes. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 5493 

Emploiiinent per million of added income. 

The past relationship between increases in national income and incieaseK 
in nonagricultiiral employment throws light upon the volume of reemploy- 
ment that may be expected during the next 12 months. From 1934 through 
1940, between 190,OCO and 304,000 workers were reemployed for each billion- 
dollar increase in national income. Therefore, if past experience is any indi- 
cation, we can expect employment to increase between 200,000 and 300,000 
lor each billion-dollar increase in national income that occurs during 1041. 

This type of calculation is useful in providing a general limit to the volume 
of reemployment that can be expected. For example, if national income increases 
to S2 billion for calendar li)41, this 8 billion increase may mean that reem- 
ployment will be as much as 2.4 million (i. e., at the rate of 300,000 per billion 
of added income) or as little as 1.6 million (at the rate of 200,000 iDer billion). 
If national income increases as much as 10 billion this year the employment 
increase may be expected to range between two and three million. 

These are the limits suggested by the experience of the last 6 or 7 years. 
But since experience indicates that reemployment per billion of added Income 
falls off as total national income increa.ses, and since the national income 
is already at an all-time high (when adjusted for price changes), it seems 
reasonable to assume that the rate of reemrloyment this year per billion of 
added income will be closer to 200,000 than to 300,000. 

A reasonable estimate of the possible increase in national income during 
1941 (eight to ten billion) indicates a maximum reemployment of approximately 
2.5 million. 

THE VOLUME OF UNEMPLOYMENT 

Whatever increases occur during fiscal 1942 in the volume of employment 
will not be refl >cted in corresponding reductions in the volume of unemployment. 
The major reason for this lies in certain dynamic aspects of the labor .supply. 
In the first place, the normal increase in the labor supply amounts lo about 
(500.000 woi'kers annually. For this reason alone, an increase of 2 million in 
total employment during fiscal lt)42 would mean a reduction in unemployment 
of only 1.4 million. 

Additional allowance must be made for abnormal growth of the labor supply — 
for so-called induced entrants. It is practically certain that employment increases 
resulting from th? defense program will be accompanied by a considerable net 
increase in the active labor supply. From 2 to 3 million surplus farm workers, 
counted as employed in agriculture, are ready to seek employment in urban 
industries wlien jobs are available. Better employment opportunities and higher 
money wages should bring into the market a large number of youths who have 
continued in school because they could not get a job. Similarly, many women 
not normally seeking jobs will be attracted into the labor market. None of these 
types of workers is included in current unemployment estimates and yet they very 
clearly constitute immediately available labor. Large numbers of new workers 
from such sources will secure jobs, thus diminishing the effect of gains in em- 
ployment upon the supply of workers now counted among the unemployed. 

In short, there is a huge reserve of potential workers (not now counted as 
members of the labor supply) who will seek jobs as employment opportunities 
increase. If the same proportion of the population aged 14 and over enter the 
labor market as in 1929, a potential labor supply of at least 60,(X)0,0OO is indicated. 
This is approximately 7,000,000 more workers than the labor-supply figure shown 
by the preliminary census reports for April 1940, and approximately 12,000,000 
more workers than were employed in April 1941. 

It follows that caution should be exercised in translating estimates of probable 
increases in employment into estimates of probable future decreases in unemploy- 
ment. The marked employment gains that are in prospect may well be offset 
in considerable part by sharp gains in the total supply of labor offered in the 
market. Such evidence as is available indicates that there was an abnormal 
increase in the labor supply during the World War of at least 3,(100,000. 

THE RATE OP EXPANSION WILL SLOW DOWN 

There are a number of reasons for expecting that the rate of expansion of 
output and income under the defense program will tend to slow dovsm. Pro- 
duction gains were most rapid during the first few months when idle capacity 
was being absorbed. Capacity operations have now become a limiting factor in 



g494 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

certain crucial areas. Aside from whatever progress is made in farming out 
defense orders, the pace of future advance will be geared to the completion of new 
facilities, especially in the metals, machine-tool, and finished-armament industries. 
Additions to capacity take time to complete and will slow down the pace of the 
upswing. Additions to basif' capacity in the steel industry, for instance, require 
over a year to complete and a decision to increase steel capacity by a significant 
amount was not made until June 194L 

The levels reached by production and employment will also depend upon the 
ability of industry to become organized at a higlier and higher pitch. With 
production already at the highest rate in history, and with bottlenecks evident 
in several key industries, the problems of organizntioii (of the labor supply, of 
materials, and of plant expansion) to achieve higher levels become increasingly 
difficult, 

CONCLUSION 

The defense program might be expected to release the Nation's full potential 
capacity to produce. According to policy pronouncements, we are determined to 
get production at any cost. Presumably, the measures taken to further the 
defense program will look toward maximum production rather than the protection 
of vested interests. The quantity of output has become the dominant considera- 
tion rather than the cost to individuals. 

Tbe rate at which output rises does not depend upon the volume of appropria- 
tions but upon the organization and control of Anifrican industry. Certain out- 
standing obstacles to rapid expansion have been discussed in this report. Insist- 
ence upon maximum production has been slow in being translated into action. 
The required measures for proper coordination and control have been slow in 
formulation and slow in becoming accepted as essential to an adequate defense 
program. 

The achievement of full employment and maximum utilization of resources 
is not an immediate prospect. After reasonable allowance for all stimulative and 
restrictive factors in light of present knowledge, it appears that unemnloyment 
cannot be expected to decline more than 1 or 1..5 m'lUon during fiscal 1942. In this 
case unemployment in the year ahead will probably average between 5 and 5.5 
million. 



THE TRAINING PEOGRAM OF THE WO"K PBO.TECTS ADMINISTRATION 

During the last fiscal year the Work Projects Administration has participated 
in an extensive vocational school training program to prepare workers for manual 
occupations in industries engaged in national-defense operations. Over 115,000 
certified Work Projects Administration workers have or are receiving training in 
these courses. Of the SO.OOO who have completpd trnining, over 65 percent nre in 
private jobs and the others represent a reservoir of labor ready for employment 
as opportunities develop in the areas w^^ere tlie trained workers res'de About 
35,000 persons are in training in over 6.".0 different communities in all 48 States. 

This training program has been conducted in cooperation with the vocational 
schools wh'ch have b-^en responsible for the technical instruction given. The 
OflBce of Production Mnnagement has been the sponsor of this project and the 
United St^ates Office of Education has been cosponsor. 

In addition to the vocational school program, there has been developed by the 
Work Projects Administrntion, on an e^'perimental basis, an in-plant training 
program for giving preemployment instruction to certified persons prior to their 
transfer to the employers' pay rolls. For a short period, usually limited to a 
maximum of 4 weeks, certified persons are trained on equipment and under 
conditions as comnarable as possible to those existing under shop operations. 
Factories provide the facilitips and supervision. Tliere is a brief period of pre- 
employment instruction and observation by the plant's officials, and at the end 
of the training period the trainees are terminated by the Work Projects Adminis- 
tration and are taken onto the pay rolls of employers and placed in productive 
employment. 

On both of these programs the trainees continue to receive the security wage 
from the Work Projects Administration until they have completed the course 
of training. It is anticipntod that both of these training programs will be 
substantially exiianded during the coming year. 

There are operated, in addition, special training programs designed to serve 
the same purpose ; namely, the return of certified persons to private or other 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6495 

public employment. These include the training of men for airport service jobs 
and the training of household workers. It is anticipated that they will be 
developed and expanded as opportunities for placements develop. 

In addition to the training programs, the Work Projects Administration utilizes 
all facilities in the community, such as employer organizations, growers' associa- 
tions, public employment services and individual employers for placing certified 
persons directly in private employment. This program will be undertaken on an 
extensive scale during the current fiscal year. 



The Distribution of Dffense Contract Awards 

The allocation of defense contracts continues to be highly concentrated, 
despite attempts to distribute them more widely. A few industrial areas have 
received very large contract totals, while many other areas have received 
little or no direct stimulation. 

Twenty industrial areas, with only 27 percent of the population and 23 
percent of the Work Projects Administration workers, received about 65 
percent of the prime defense contracts through June 30, 1941. Eight industrial 
areas which have received 4.5 percent of the defense awards contain only 18 
percent of the population and 16 percent of the Work Projects Administration 
workers. 

Warship construction and aircraft manufacture, contracts for which totaled 
over .$8,000,000,000 through June 30, 1941, are mainly responsible for this high 
concentration. A large proportion of the total prime contracts are for warships 
or aircraft in 16 of the above 20 industrial areas. The innnediate effects of 
these large orders upon employment can be easily exaggerated. In many 
instances the construction of numerous shipways and airplane plants must be 
completed before the full magnitude of defense orders can be translated into 
employment gains. Moreover, in some areas (typically Detroit), defense orders 
will not represent a net increase in total business because material priorities 
will cut deeply into certain important types of nondefense production. 

The attached table .shows the concentration of prime defense contracts hy 
industrial areas in relation to population and Work Projects Administration 
employment. 

Prime defense contracts, 1940 population, and Woj-k Projects Administration 
employment, hy industrial areas 



Industrial area ' 



Continental 
States 



New York City-New- 
ark-Jersey City 

Philadelphia-Camden... 

Boston 

Norfolk-Newport News_ 

Los Angeles 

Detroit 

Seattle-Tocoma 

San Francisco-Oakland. 



Prime defense contracts 
cumulated from June 
1, 1940, through June 
30, 1941 2 



Amount 
(000) 



$15, 025, 358 



1, 669, 052 
1, 480, 920 
881, 283 
713, 605 
651, 359 
584, 614 
422, 639 
348, 720 



Per- 
cent 



Cumu- 
lative 
percent 



31.6 
35.9 
39.8 
42.6 
44.9 



Population 1910 3 



Number 

of 
persons 



3,275 



10, 782, 353 
3, 199, 637 
2, 656, 131 

285, 246 
2, 785, 643 
2, 209, 691 

687, 061 
1, 412, 686 



Per- 
cent 



Cumu- 
lative 
percent 



8.2 
10.6 
12.6 
12.8 
14.9 
16.6 
17.1 
18.2 



Employment on proj- 
ects financed with 
W. P. A. funds as of 
June 25, 19414 



Number 

of 
persons 



1, 333, 364 



99, 712 
22, 547 
35, 885 

1,971 
16, 233 
17,710 

6,018 



Per- 
cent 



Cumu- 
lative 
percent 



7.5 
9.2 
11.9 
12.0 
13.2 
14.5 
15.0 
16. „ 



1 Industrial areas as defined by the United States Bureau of the Census in the Biennial Census of Manu- 
factures, 1937, Part I, pp. 40-4) . Where no definition is given by the Census, industrial areas are as defined 
by the Bureau of Research and Statistics, Office of Production Management, in release of April 29, 1941. 

» Source: Office of Production Management, Bureau of Research and Statistics: "Summary of Defense 
Contract Awards by Industrial Area, June 1, 1940, to June 30, 1941" release of July 14, 1941. Includes prime 
defense contracts awarded by the War and Navy Departments and project orders to Army and Navy 
establishments of $10,000 and over. This tabulation reflects not only the awarding of new contracts but also 
the reassignment of contracts to other plants or companies and the modification or cancelation of previous 
awards. 

> Source: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 

« Subject to revision. 



60396— 41— pt. 16- 



-13 



6496 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Prime defense contracts, 19/fO population, and Work Projects Administration 
employment, hy industrial areas — Continuetl 



Industrial area 



Washington (D. C.)- 

Alexandria (Va.) 

Chicago 

Baltimore 

Hartford 

St. Louis 

San Diego 

Vallejo 

Albany -Schenectady ■ 

Troy 

Bremerton 

New London 

Bridgeport-New Haven 

Waterbury 

Cleveland 

Total, 20 industrial 
areas 

Remainder of country.. 



Prime defense contracts 
cumulated from June 
1, 1040, through June 
30, 1941 



Amount 
(000) 



$316,668 
312, 731 
299, 166 
264, 480 
260, 794 
260. 586 
237, 057 

209, 017 
205, 949 
203, 111 

200, 549 
197, 330 



9, 720, 230 
5, 305, 128 



Per- 
cent 



Cumu 
lative 
percent 



47.0 
49.1 
51.1 
52.9 
54.6 
56.3 
57.9 

m.i 

62.1 



64.7 
100.0 



Population 1940 



Number 

of 
persons 



753, 654 
4, 825, 527 
1, 014, 925 

450, 189 
1, 406, 526 

289, 348 
49, 118 

465, 643 

44. 387 
125, 224 

902, 700 
1, 329, 640 



35, 735, 329 
95, 963, 946 



Per- 
cent 



27.1 
72.9 



Cumu- 
lative 
pcerent 



22.5 
23.3 
23.6 
24.7 
24.9 
24.9 

25.3 
2.5.3 
25.4 



27.1 
100.0 



Employment on proj- 
ects financed with 
W. P. A. funds as of 
June 25, 1941 



311, 250 
1, 022, 114 



Per- 
cent 



23.4 
76.6 



Cumu- 
lative 
percent 



20.1 
21.5 
21.6 
21.7 

21.9 
21.9 
22.0 

22.3 
23.4 



23.4 
100.0 



than 0.05 percent. 



Reports on Fabm-Laeob Shortages and the Work Peojeots Administeation, 

1941 

Farm-labor shortages have been reported this year from several sections of 
the country. The chief explanation for these alleged shortages has been the 
attraction of better paying iobs in defense centers. Another widely mentioned 
factor is the operation of the Selective Service Act which has taken some workers 
from the farms. 

Wherever these factors actually threaten to create local stringencies in the 
supply of farm labor, and wherever there are Work Projects Administration 
employees with agricultural experience, it is the policy of the Work Projects 
Administration to make these workers available for farm work. The admin- 
istrative officers of the Work Projects Administration cooperate with interested 
local groups in facilitating the referral of qualified workers. This course of 
action is in line with the general policy of the Work Projects Administration to 
encourage the i-oturn of project workers to private employment. To this end 
Work Projects Administration seeks to play an active and not a passive role. 

The policy of the Work Projects Administration in this respect was established 
at the inception of the program, and has been repeatedly made known to the 
public by every means at its disposal. On July 10. the Work Projects Adminis- 
tration initiated a series of broadcasts designed to reach every part of the Nation, 
again restating the determination of the Work Projects Administration to facili- 
tate the transfer of Work Projects Administration workers to private employment, 
especially to farm jobs. 

The market for farm labor is essentially a disorganized one, in spite of the 
efforts of the State employment services under the guidance of the United States 
Employment Service. What the Work Projects Administration is endeavoring 
to do at this time is to encourage farmers to go directly to the employment service 
where all certified persons are registered, or, where it is more convenient, to go 
directly to the Work Projects Administration office and notify that office of the 
number and qualifications of persons needed, the rate of pay, the hours, the 
duration, and the location of the job. If labor is available, the employment 
service or the Work Projects Administration will have the workers on the job at 
the agreed time. If there is no labor available from the Work Projects Admin- 
istration, it is appropriate that the farmer should be so informed. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6497 

W. p. A. COOPERATING IN LABOR RECRUITMENT 

The Woik Projects Admiuistration has been working with the Department of 
Agricultiire and with State committees on farm labor toward a realistic nse ot 
the AVork Projects Administration as a source of labor recruiting. The Work 
Projects Administration is as anxious to provide workers for farm jobs as it is 
to provide labor for industrial employment. 

The policy just described is written into the statute governing Work Projects 
Administration operations. And the policy is further implemented by adminis- 
trative regulations issued to the regional and State Work Projects Administra- 
tion offices. While the Work Projects Administration is active in carrying out 
this policy, it is equally obligated not to close down projects indiscriminately 
and in wholesale fashion at the first unsupported assertion that acute "farm 
labor shortages" threaten. 

A brief examination of the farm labor situation in the United States demon- 
strates, first, that no general farm labor shortage can conceivably exist at the 
present time in this country ; and second, that such localized "shortages" as do 
develop are almost invariably anticipatory rather than actual and can be 
guarded against by tested remedial measures. 

GENERAL SHORTAGE OF FARM LABOR IMPOSSIBLE 

The impossibility of a general shortage of farm labor in the United States 
is at onco apparent from a review of the relevant over-all statistics. In the 
recently issued report of the Tolan Committee on the Interstate Migration of 
Destitute Citizens, after a careful examination of Nation-wide data, the state- 
ment is made: "It is evident that there was in 1940 a reserve of unused or in- 
effectively used manpower pressing upon the agricultural labor market of at 
least 5,000,000." ^ This large surplus has been the result of the displacement 
of labor caused by mechanization of agriculture and, particularly in the thirties, 
the damming up of population on the farms because employment opportunities 
in the cities became virtually nonexistent. Each city, in fact, had its own large 
surplus of unemployed. 

This vast labor surplus on the farms cannot suddenly have disappeared. 
Rural-to-urban migration, in i-ecent months has been increasing but this develop- 
ment has been confined to those urban areas which have become important centers 
of defense activity. A liberal estimate of the withdrawals to date from the 
reservoir of 5,000.000 surplus agricultural manpower does not exceed 1,000,000, 
an estimate which includes those inducted into the armed forces. INIoreover, 
some of the losses will be temporary. Large numbers of farm woi-kers who 
have been attracted by military construction jobs will be available at the period 
of peak seasonal demand for labor this summer and autumn. Such constructiort 
has been tapering off rapidly, thus releasing workers when demand will be 
strongest. 

With continued expansion of the defease program and further enlargement 
of the armed forces, we may expect a further reduction in the total farm labor 
sui*plus. Such a reduction has long been desired and should be welcomed. 
It is symptomatic of an improvement in conditions which have spelled depression 
and low living standards for both farmers and their employees. But there 
appears to be no immediate likelihood that this surplus will soon disappear. 
The net increase in employment during the coming year will probably not 
exceed 2 or at the most 2.5 million, so that even if the total increase were to 
come from rural areas there would still be a surplus of farm labor. Moreover, 
the substitution of agricultural machinery for farm labor is occurring this year 
at a greatly accelerated rate. 

LOCAL AND TEMPORARY FARM LABOR SHORTAGE 

Any general shortage of farm labor, therefore, appears quite impossible. 
There remains the possibility that local and temporary shortages may occur 
because of the disorganized and haphazard character of the farm labor market.. 
A review of such alleged shortages as have already been repoi"ted this year makes 
it clear that the danger of shortage is commonly exaggerated. The claim that 
there will not be enough farm labor at the time and place required is not one 
which originated this year. The practice of predicting shortages is long-estab- 

iP. 403. 



^498 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

lished and springs from several sources. One of these is often the very real fear 
that labor will not be on hand in sufficient numbers, at the exact time of greatest 
demand. In certain cases there is also the desire to attract a surplus of labor 
to the area, thus assuring such intense competition for jobs that wages will remain 
low. The statement has been made that in the opinion of some farmers a 
shortage of labor exists when there are not as many workers seeking jobs this 
year as last and at the wages prevailing last year. 

In certain instances the existence of a surplus permits an arrangement of the 
work process which results in lower labor cost to the farmer, but in much reduced 
earnings to the workers. An example is the assignment in some sections of one 
row of cotton to a picker. Such a procedure is not essential for proper picking 
of cotton, and it may mean as little as a half day's work for the picker. But in 
the view of some farmers it has the advantage of bringing about low labor costs. 

With the general surplus so large, all that has been necessary in many localities 
has been to put out stories of "shortage" through the newspapers or by word of 
mouth. Thereupon labor would promptly apply for jobs in more than the numbers 
required. Under these circumstances the most haphazard methods of recruiting 
labor have flourished without need for organized community action to economize 
the labor supply. Now, with the counterattraction of defense employment in 
some localities, the old hit-or-miss methods may no longer suffice. 

OPPORTUNITY FOR STATE EMPLOYMENT OFFICES 

The present situation, characterized by some decline in the available surplus 
and by fear that the declines will become much more serious than is at all likely, 
provides an unusual opportunity for the State employment service oflSces and other 
Government agencies. A good example of what can be done occurred this year on 
the Pacific coast. There was a threatened shortage in Oregon of several thousand 
fruit pickers. But there was a surplus of experienced labor in California. The 
employment services of Oregon and California and the Farm Security Administra- 
tion together worked out arrangements for the transportation and housing of 
the needed workers, and for their return to California when their services were 
no longer required. 

Frequently migration may not be necessary at all. Where a careful check-up 
is made of real (not rumored) labor requirements and at the same time of the 
number of workers locally available, it is often found that anticipated "shortages" 
fail to materialize. Particularly is this the case where adequate wages and 
conditions, including housing, are provided. Pooling labor supplies of different 
farmers and shifting workers from farm to farm with a minimum delay and 
loss of time, may also serve to prevent thi-eatened shortages. Here again a well 
coordinated and efficiently operating employment service is of great value. In 
fact, only through the work of the employment offices can the eflScient shifting 
of labor and the dovetailing of operations be achieved. 

If the procedures outlined above do not fully circumvent threatened shortages 
within particular areas and localities, other important sources of labor supply 
are usually available. Many youth can be employed during the period of vacation 
from school. In some areas for certain crops, women also constitute an important 
potential labor reserve. Moreover, to meet peak seasonal demands, urban 
workers may move out into farming areas. Workers from Philadelphia, for 
example, are used in considerable numbers on the farms of southern New Jersey. 

"shortages" are failubes to hire at low wages 

Most important, however, in any consideration of farm labor is the factor 
of relatively low wage scales. Most "shortages" of farm labor represent diffi- 
culty in obtaining all the workers wanted at the relatively low wage prevailing.^ 
Consequently, most "shortages" can be remedied by wage increases. Many 
farmers have already increased wages this year. While it is true that farmers 
cannot ordinarily pay wages comparable to those in the defense industries, 
experience indicates that an advance of wages even to a level considerably 
below that in defense work typically succeeds in holding farm labor. For 
example, in connection with the recent strawberry picking on the eastern shore 
of Maryland, an increase from 2 cents per quart, paid last year, to 3 cents this 
year assured an ample supply of pickers, many of whom migrated from Virginia. 

There are, of course, great variations in the economic situation of employing 
farmers. A consideration this year which bears in a very practical way on the 



See testimony of P. C. Turner, Baltimore hearings, p. 6145. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6499 

ability of many farmers to afford higher wages is the greatly improved income 
they will receive from 1941 crops. The higher income is due in large measure 
to higher benefit payments provided by the Government, as in the case of 
wheat, or to increased Government purchases, as in the case of tomatoes. 
Relevant also is the fact that a major proportion of the hired farm labor is 
employed by large-scale commercialized farms. For example, according to the 
census in 1935, 5 percent of all farmers in the State of New Jersey employed 
nearly half of the farm workers, while 70 percent of the farmers employed no 
labor. These large employers, whether incorporated or not, are often able to 
pay relatively higher wages. 

HOUSING FOR FAEM WORKERS 

Housing facilities for farm workers is this year a matter to which increasing 
attention is being directed. Evidently the reduction in farm labor surplus in 
certain areas is leading to real improvements in this important feature of the 
agricultural worker's standard of living. In many areas, however, no im- 
provements have taken place in housing, while wages in some sections of the 
North are not infrequently below $2 per day and in some areas of the South 
are below $1 per day. 

A few examples will serve to reveal the character of current farm labor 
shortages. Typically, they are much more serious in anticipation than when the 
need for labor actually develops. Newspaper reports from Arkansas about the 
middle of May expressed fear over insufficiency of pickers for the large straw- 
berry crop.^ Yet, early in June it was reported that 1,479 freight cars of 
strawberries had been shipped, or more than twice the number for 1940. To 
accomplish this, the Arkansas Employment Service in cooperation with the 
employment services of Oklahoma and Missouri, had recruited 25,000 pickers, 
10,000 more than in 1940 and 40 pei'cent more than in any preceding year. 
The newspaper account presenting these facts makes no mention after the 
event of "farm labor shortage." - 

"statistical, shortage" in maryi^nd 

The situation in Maryland provides further illustration of the difference 
between anticipation and realization, but is particularly significant as an example 
of what might be called a "statistical shortage" — one produced exclusively by 
statistical procedures. The subcommittee on farm labor of the Maryland State 
land-use planning committee has released estimates of farm-labor shortage 
which are open to serious question.' In the subcommittee's Report on the Farm 
Labor Situation in Maryland, issued in April 1941, it was estimated that a 
farm labor shortage of 4,000 existed on January 1, 1941, that this had increased 
to 10,000 on April 1 and would reach 16,000 by July 1. 

These figures were arrived at by applying incautiously the estimating pro- 
cedure utilized by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the Department of 
Agriculture. This procedure consists of sampling the opinion of farmers on 
the supply and demand for labor, expressing their opinions in percentages of 
"normal." "Normal" supply with "normal" demand=100; a decline in supply 
relative to demand results in an index of less than 100. Farmers' opinions on 
what constitutes "normal" are, of course, highly subjective. The subcom- 
mittee's analysis makes the estimated 23,000 hired workers normally employed 
on January 1 the point of departure for "shortage" estimates cited above, 
predicted as amounting to 16,000 by July 1. Whether 23,000 is regarded as 
identical with "supply" or with "demand," it is clearly in error to describe the 
estimated reduction of 16,000 in supply as a "shortage" as the report does. 
The estimate properly represents simply an estimated reduction, by the amount 
stated, in the number of unemployed farm workers and of others available 
for farm work. 

That these predictions of shortage were considerably wide of the mark is 
indicated by the fact that to date large seasonal demands for farm labor have 
been met in Maryland.* Furthermore, oflicials of the Maryland employment 
Service are reported to have revised downward, virtually to the vanishing 
point, the estimates of "shortage" set forth in the subcommittee's report. 

1 See the Little Rock Gazette, May 17, 1941. 

2 Arkansas Democrat (Little Rock) , June 8, 1941. 

s See testimany of Dr. S. H. De Vault, Baltimore hearings, p. 6134. 

* See testimony of S. Lee Englar and F. B. Gambrill, Baltimore hearings, pp. 6146 and 
6147. 



ggOO WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

SURVEYS OF EASTERN SHORE A:;D JERSEY "SHORTAGES" 

In response to claims that the farm labor "shortage" in three Eastern Shore 
counties of Maryland was so acute as to call for the general closing down of 
Work Projects Administration projects, the Work Projects Administration made 
a survey of the situation early in June. In this area of intensive truck farm- 
ing the farmers stated that they had "read in the newspapers" that shortages 
were expected. But they did not appear unduly alarmed over the prospect. 
Seasonal farm operations had been carried on without experiencing shortages; 
increases in wage rates evidently insured adequate supplies of labor. While 
peak demand for labor had not yet arrived, it was expected that migration 
chiefly from Virginia, together with a greatly enlarged program on the part of 
the Maryland State employment offices, would provide the additional workers 
needed. 

A similar survey in several southern New Jersey counties, where requests 
were also made for the general closing down of Work Projects Administration 
t)rojects, disclosed essentially the same picture. Crops had been taken care 
of up to the end of May when our survey was made. In Cumberland County, 
vrhere asparagus and strawberries are the main crops, peak demand had al- 
ready occurred. Indicative of the nature of much of the farm labor "shortage" 
was the situation of one strawberry grower who was interviewed. He had 
been named as a farmer who had expressed fear that he would not have enough 
labor. Upon inquiry, he informed the Work Projects Administration inves- 
tigator that he had employed 35 pickers and turned 5 away.^ 

These surveys as well as much other material that has come to our attention 
support the view that most farm labor "shortages," on close scrutiny, turn out 
to be anticipatory rather than actual. One recalls the statement made in 
1918 by Assistant Secretary of Labor Louis Post. In that World War period, 
when unemployment was much less than it is now, Mr. Post declared : "The 
farm labor shortage is two-thirds imaginary and one-third remedial." " 

WICKAED PLAN FOR LAND-USE SUBCOMMITTEES 

Without hazarding a guess at what the proportions are today, it may be 
stated with assurance that the remedial measures, described above, are at 
hand for meeting such localized shortages of farm labor as may threaten. 
In effectuating these measures the Work Projects Administration in conform- 
ity with the policy previously set forth, stands ready to do its part. One way 
to attain closer cooperation was suggested in March of this year by Secretary 
of Agriculture Wickard. He proposed that in the various States subcommittees 
en farm labor of the State land-use planning committees be organized, and 
that ex officio members of the subcommittee consist of the State heads of the 
following agencies : Farm Security Administration, Bureau of Agricultural 
Economics, Extension Service, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States 
Employment Service, and Work Projects Administration. More than 30 of 
these State subcommittees have been organized, and the State administrator 
of the Work Projects Administration is an ex officio member of a large pro- 
portion of them. The importance which the Work Projects Administration 
attaches to the work of these subcommittees, is indicated by a letter sent to 
all State administrators under date of April 3, outlining the work of the sub- 
committees and urging the administrators to cooperate in every way. A copy 
of the letter accompanies this statement. 

The response of the Work Projects Administration in the various States has 
been very satisfactory to the Department of Agriculture. This is indicated 
by a letter under date of June 27 from Paul H. Appleby, Under Secretary of 
the Department, to Commissioner Hunter : 

"Reports from State representatives of this Department indicate that co- 
operation extended by State Work Projects Administrators, who are working 
closely with Department officials on State farm labor subcommittees, has been 
very excellent. Work Projects Administration is represented on 31 of the 39 
subcommittees now formally organized." 



* Copies of the reports on reported shortages of farm labor in Maryland and New Jersey 
are attached. 

' Quoted in the Tolan committee report, p. 371. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6501 

CALLS FOB W. P. A. SHUT-DOWNS 

In certain instances subcommittee reports have appeared which call for the 
general closing down of Work Projects Administration projects in rural areas 
throughout the State. It is significant that this questionable course, which 
fails to take account of local differences in the labor supply situation or of 
the characteristics and training of Work Projects Administration project work- 
ers, is advocated by subcommittees upon which Work Projects Administration 
is not represented. 

Among the principal agencies directly concerned in safeguarding against 
threatened farm labor shortages are the State employment services. Where 
local employment offices exist. Work Projects Administration workers ai'e regis- 
tered with them and placements in farm jobs, as with other kinds of work, 
are made through these offices. The Work Projects Administration local offices 
also increasingly serve as agencies in supplying labor when there are project em- 
ployees with the requisite experience and when wages and working conditions 
are suitable. 

It must not be overlooked that a large proportion of the project workers 
even in rural areas, because of age or lack of exiDerience, do not possess the 
qualifications needed for agricultural work. Many project workers, therefore, 
are not desired by the farmers. This is esiiecially true in cases where the re- 
ported scarcity relates to "regular" farm workers — such as experienced tractor 
operators, dairymen, and poultrymen. These types are very little represented 
on Work Projects Administration projects. 

However, all qualified workers are obligated to leave their project jobs when- 
ever suitable employment is offered, and the Work Projects Administration 
fully recognizes its obligation to terminate them if they refuse such employ- 
ment. On the other hand, the Work Projects Administration is obligated to 
maintain the standards of employment which are contained in the law. To 
permit these standards to be broken down in particular situations, especially 
where there occurs a specious plea that shortages of farm labor exist, would 
involve maladministration of the law. 



Reported Farm Labor Shortage, Eastern Shore, Md. 

Newspaper accounts have expressed considerable alarm about the possibility of 
a serious agricultural labor shortage in Maryland this year, particularly during 
the harvest season. A reduction in the available labor supply has been predicted 
as a result of migration of workers to industrial centers and military construction 
projects and induction into the armed forces. At the same time, it has been 
reported, demand for workers may become greater than normal because of 
increases in acreage. 

The newspaper accounts were based in some measure on a report prepared by 
the Maryland subcommittee on farm labor of the State land use planning com- 
mittee, which forecast a shortage of 16,CH10 farm workers in Maryland by July 1. 
Much of this shortage was expected to apply to the Eastern Shore. However, 
officials of the Maryland State Employment Service are now reported as believing 
that this estimate is very much too high. 

A field investigation made during the first week in June by the Work Projects 
Administration Division of Research of the situation in the three southernmost 
counties of Maryland's Eastern Shore — Wicomico, Somerset, and Worcester — 
showed that no shortage had yet developed. The concentration of truck farming 
and canning in this area makes the supply of sufficient workers to meet the 
extremely seasonal and irregular character of its labor demand a matter of con- 
cern every year. It is not likely that the problem will reach more serious pro- 
portions this year than usual. Farmers who were questioned stated that they had 
"read in the newspapers" that there was going to be a shortage this season, but 
they did not appear to be alarmed over the prospects. 

The larger farms and the canneries in the three counties depend chiefly on hired 
workers. Though there is some variation in types of workers needed, in general 
the same persons move from farm to farm and harvest one crop after another. 



5502 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Principal crops, in the order of their harvesting, are asparagus, strawberries, 
string beans, Irish potatoes, tomatoes, shell beans, and sweetpotatoes. Whole 
families, about three-quarters of them Negroes, are employed in the fields. In the 
canneries Negro and white adults are employed ; women are in the majority. 

FACTORS AFFECTING HARVEST EMPLOYMENT 

The extent of the demand for harvest workers depends largely on the size of 
the crops, weather conditions during the picking season, and market prices. High 
market prices cause farmers to speed up the harvesting ; on the other hand, when 
market prices drop so low as to make the harvesting unprofitable, some farmers 
plow their crops under. The farmers who have contracted with canneries are less 
influenced by price fluctuations than those who sell in the open market. The 
irregularity of the demand for workers and lack of coordination of labor supply 
and demand occasionally brings about a situation in which farmers in some locali- 
ties cannot secure enough workers, while in other localities workers cannot find 
enough employment. The "shortage of labor" aspect of this situation rather than 
that of "labor surplus" is usually publicized. 

The size of the crops to be harvested, and thus the extent of the demand for 
workers during the coming picking season is still uncertain. A severe drought 
during May caused the strawberry crop to be small. Other crops, already in the 
ground in May, were undoubtedly damaged, although more recently heavy rains 
have improved the prospect for good yields. String beans, which were expected 
to be ready for picking during the week of June 10, should provide a test of the 
adequacy of the supply of both field and cannery workers.^ 

PROPORTION OF MIGRANTS IN HAR\t:ST AND CANNING 

Estimates of the number of migrants usually employed vary somewhat, but 
it is generally agreed that they make up about half of all cannery and harvest 
workers hired during the peak season. Most of the migrants are Negro families 
from Virginia and farther South ; others, both Negro and white, customarily 
come from Baltimore and nearby areas. This year an increase in the piece-wage 
rates for strawberry picking from 2 cents a box to 3 cents is believed to have 
provided the inducement for migrants to come in sufficient numbers from other 
States, chiefly from Virginia. At the time of this survey the piece rates for 
picking beans had not been set, partly because of uncertainty about the price 
of beans. 

Although there has been some decrease in the available supply of local work- 
ers, losses have occurred mainly in the towns and among groups of workers not 
experienced in agriculture. The small defense contracts awarded in the three 
counties have not resulted in absorption of farm workers in defense industries, 
and State selective service officials have recommended deferment of agricultural 
workers needed for the harvest. 

Concern has been expressed over the possibility of a decrease in the number 
of workers coming from Baltimore, where defense activity has resulted in ex- 
panded industrial employment. Although it is still too early in the season to 
make any definite predictions, one stawberry grower reported that the same 12 
white men who, with few exceptions, have picked his berries for the past 18 
years came from Baltimore this year as usual. Furthermore, it should be noted 
that agricultural and unskilled workers have not been absorbed in large num- 
bers even in those industries in which defense production is causing shortages 
of certain types of skilled and semiskilled workers. Negroes, who probably con- 
stitute about 75 percent of all harvest and cannery workers, have been excluded 
from many types of defense employment, and until recently were not accepted 
for defense training in Baltimore. 

Stricter enforcement of State laws governing labor contractors' activities in 
moving migrants from one State to another has also been a matter of concern 
to farmers in the southern counties of Maryland's Eastern Shore. Some con- 
tractors continue to operate, paying fines every time they are caught. In 
other cases, farmers who have a regular supply of workers whom they have 
employed year after year, send their own trucks to pick up groups of workers. 
This season the regular workers have come to the area in about the same number 
as previously. 



^ Subsequent information indicates that on June 15, when bean-picking was at its height, 
farmers were obtaining an adequate number of worliers. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE AIIGRATION 6503 

W. p. A. ROLLS AS SOURCE OF EASTERN SHORE LABOB 

Work Projects Administration rolls have been one source of labor supply for 
local farmers. Total employment on Work Projects Administration projects in 
the 3 southern counties of the Eastern Shore fell from 627 at the end of Feb- 
ruary to 3SS at the end of May 1941. The awaiting-assignment file had fallen 
to 55 by the end of April 1941. Much of the seasonal decrease in the Work 
Projects Administration load has been due to separations to private employ- 
ment, mainly agricultural, though reductions necessitated by inadequate funds 
have also made for decreases in the Work Projects Administration rolls. The 
remaining Work Projects Administration load consists largely of older men and 
vromen and those who have never done farm work. Although farmers some- 
times hire inexperienced workers for some types of labor they are reluctant to 
employ such workers to pick crops lest they damage the plants and fail to pick 
clean. 

Some cases of refusals of Work Projects Administration workers to accept 
farm employment have been reported, but in practically all such cases the work- 
ers had already left Work Projects Administration for private jobs or had been 
called to jobs expected to open within a few days. The district Work Projects 
Administration policy is to dismiss those who cannot satisfy the Employment 
Service as to their reasons for not answering calls for private employment. So 
far this year there have been very few terminations for this reason. Since direct 
relief is not granted to employables in these counties, harvest workers cannot 
be drawn from local direct relief rolls. 

STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE CHECKING STATION 

The Maryland State Employment Service, in an elfort to provide channels 
for the more efficient placement and transfer of harvest hands, this year has 
set up a checking station for the registration of migrants on one of the main 
roads leading into the State near the Virginia line. By suggesting that the 
migrants go to the farms which are hiring pickers that day, the employment 
service prevents loss of time in looking for work. To facilitate transfer of 
migrant workers from farm to farm, the employment service has secured from 
farmers estimates of their labor requirements as well as information on the 
supply of workers. 

Thus far the employment service has not sent out clearance orders for 
farm hands. The district office which serves the three counties had more 
than 1,800 persons registered in the active file during the last week of May ; 
more than 700 workers were receiving unemployment benefits. As a safeguard 
against labor stringency during the tomato picking and canning season, the 
Maryland Employment Service has arranged with the Norfolk office of the 
Virginia Employment Service to provide clearance if this becomes advisable. 

Any significant decrease in the number of farm workers available this year 
as compared with other years seems unlikely. Furthermore, there is little 
possibility of any substantial increase in the size of the crops to be harvested 
and canned. With the development of a more elastic placement procedure 
and improved coordination of supply of workers with the demand for workers, 
the employment service will probably be better able than before to meet 
the needs of both the farmers and the harvest workers. 



Reported Farm Labor Shortage, Southern New Jersey, May 1941 

In May 1941, newspaper reports implied that farmers in 6 southern counties 
of New Jersey ' needed immediately 5,519 additional farm workers, 2,994 of 
them in Cumberland County. On May 15, the Cumberland County Agricultural 
Committee, fearing a serious farm labor shortage, passed a resolution asking 
that all Work Projects Administration projects in the State be shut down so 
that Work Projects Administration workers might be available for farm em- 
ployment. Later, it was explained that the resolution was intended to apply 
only to the Work Projects Administration projects in the agricultural counties 
of southern New Jersey, where shortages had been reported. 



^ Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties. 



6504 WASHINGTON HEL^RINGS 

An investigation conducted by the Work Projects Administration Division 
of Researcli during the last week of May indicated that no actual shortages 
existed in the area and that the shortages which were feared locally were not 
likely to arise. In Cumberland County, where the gi'eatest shortages were 
anticipated, the period of usual peak demand had already been reached and no 
serious difiiculties in securing enough workers had been encountered. By mid- 
June the area of anticipated shortages had moved north to Burlington and 
Monmouth Counties where peas, beans, potatoes, and tomatoes will be har- 
vested in July, August, and September. The figues reported in the newspapers 
reflected the number of additional jobs expected to open during the season and 
not the number of additional workers needed at that time. Many workers 
follow the crops and fill three or more jobs during one season. 

Southern New Jersey, one of the most intensely developed areas of truck and 
fruit farming in the country, is characterized chiefly by large farms. * * * 
Important crops of the area are asparagus, strawberries, peas, beans, tomatoes, 
and potatoes. Havesting of asparagus continues from about mid-April to mid- 
June. Strawberries are picked during a 3- to 5-week season beginning during 
the last week in May. Picking of peas and beans lasts from the end of June 
to the middle of August, when the tomato and potato crops are ready to be 
harvested. Onions are topped, peppers picked, and fruit harvested during the 
time of the tomato and potato harvesting. The season ends with the berry- 
picking in the eastern part of the area. 

ASPAEAGUS, STRAWBEKRY HARVESTS MARK PEAK 

Peak employment on farms in Cumberland County occurs during the asparagus 
and strawberry harvests in late May and early Jime. From this peak the 
number of workers needed declines about 25 percent by the middle of June. 
The demand remains near the mid-June level until about the first of September, 
when it drops precipitously. In other counties in the area peak employment is 
reached somewhat later than in Cumberland County. 

The anticipation of a labor shortage this season was based largely on the fear 
that workers from other areas would not come to New Jersey in as large numbers 
this year as in previous years. In 1940 approximately 6,500, or about 25 percent, 
of the estimated 26,000 employed during the harvest season in southern New 
Jersey came from outside the locality. About half of these workers were em- 
ployed in Cumberland County. 

It is probable that the total demand for farm workers in New Jersey will be no 
greater this season than it was last year. In fact, two circumstances have 
tended to reduce the demand for farm laborers. First, use of farm machinery 
has been on the increase. According to the local Farm Security Administration, 
many more agricultural machines have been sold in the area during the past 3 
months than during any other similar period. Secondly, Cumberland County's 
strawberry crop this season was seriously curtailed by drought, though the first 
crop of the year, asparagus, was as large as last year's. At the Vineland 
Produce Market auction up to June 1, only one-third of the usual volume of 
strawberries had been brought in for sale. It is still too early to predict the 
size of other crops, but since the period when employment is usually at a peak 
has already passed, it appears almost certain that a shortage of workers will 
not develop in Cumberland County this season. 

FACTORS CREATING FEAR OF L.\BOR SHORTAGE 

Several factors combined to create the fear that farm-labor shortages would 
occur in southern New Jersey during May. Most important was the 1940 ex- 
tension of the New Jersey child-labor law to cover agricultural employment. 
This law provides that no child under 12 may be employed for wages, and no 
child under 16 may work without a special permit from the school authorities. 
It was feared that the migrant fai-m workers ordinarily I'ecruited from among 
the Italian families in the Philadelphia-Camden area would not come to southern 
New Jersey this spring. However, Italian adults did come from Pennsylvania, 
as in previous years, for the harvesting of asparagus and strawberries. 

Another factor which led to reports of labor shortages was this year's early 
harvest season, brought on by imusually warm weather. Thus the harvest of the 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6505 

first crops in southern New Jersey coincided with the harvest season in Virginia 
and the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and workers from these areas were not 
available in the usual numbers. However, since the strawberry crop was small, 
enough pickers were secured without canvassing all possible sources of labor 
supply. 

A third circumstance leading to fears of labor shortages, a circumstance basic 
to the whole problem of agricultural labor supply, was the continued low level 
of farm prices and wages. Although farm wages are higher this year than last, 
they remain below the rates of pay in expanding industrial establishments. 
Hourly rates for regular farm workers in southern New Jersey range from 20 to 
35 cents an hour. The piece rate for picking strawberries was 3 cents a quart, 
compared with 2% cents last year. However, since strawberries were sparser 
than usual and it took longer to fill the box, increases in daily wages were not 
comparable with the rise in the piece rate. The price situation for the important 
tomato crop, under the stimulus of heavy Government buying, promises to be 
somewhat more favorable, thus providing the basis for wage advances in harvest- 
ing this crop. 

Another factor adding to the general feeling of a threatened shortage was the 
more rigid enforcement of a law forbidding farm labor contractors to transport 
workers from other States. Methods of recruiting labor in southern New Jersey 
in the past have been mainly through personal efforts and through padrones, or 
agents. The State employment service has been used but sparingly in securing 
labor. Of 15,527 placements made by the employment service throughout the 
State during April 1941, only 342 (2.2 percent) were in agricultural pursuits. 
During the last week in May the first attempt at interstate clearance of workers 
was made. In a memorandum sent to the local offices in Bridgeton and Millville, 
Cumberland County, it was stated that 1,500 workers from Pennsylvania might be 
available for agricultural work. 

EMPLOYMENT SE31VICE 8T1XL DISREGABDED 

Some success has been achieved so far this year in the efforts of the New Jersey 
State Employment Service to encourage farmers to make use of the public- 
employment offices. However, it is of interest that the manager and secretary of 
the southern New Jersey Vineland Produce Auction Market Association (an 
organization representing about 800 Cumberland County farmers), who had com- 
plained of the inability of farmers to secure workers, had never heard of either of 
the employment-service offices in the county. At the end of April 1941, 3,747 
persons were registered in the Millville and Bridgeton State Employment Service 
oflSces. About one-third of the 1,348 active registrants in Bridgeton were women. 
The manager expected to place many of these persons when the need materialized 
in the canning factories. 

Work Projects Administration workers have made up only a small part of the 
seasonal agricultural labor supply. At the end of April 1941, 693 workers were 
employe<l on Work Projects Administration projects in Cumberland County as 
compared with 1,2&5 in February 1941. This drop was caused in part by increased 
opportunities for private employment and in part by quota reductions. In May, 
less than one-fifth of the workers remaining on Work Projects Administration in 
Cumberland County had farm backgrounds and most of them were older workers. 

In summary, it may be said that the predicted shortage of workers has not 
existed to date and there is strong reason for believing that anticipated shortages 
will not occur during the remainder of the season, especially since the period of 
peak employment in Cumberland County has passed. In spite of the various 
deterrents to the normal influx of farm labor, the asparagus and strawberry crops 
were picked without serious difficulty. It is doubtless natural for some farmers to 
fear shortages when they observe that the usual surpluses of labor have become 
smaller. However, as pointed out by Kenneth S. Roberts, a leading farmer of 
Cumberland County, and a member of subcommittee on farm labor of the State 
land-use planning committee, real shortages of farm labor will almost certainly 
be prevented by the pooling of labor resources and increased use of the State 
employment service. 



6506 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Federal Works Agenoy 

Work Projects Administration 

1734 New York AvEinJE NW. 

Washington, D. C. 

Howard O. Hunter, 

Acting Commissioner of Work Projects. 



April 3, 1941. 



Employment Letter No. 6. 

To : All State Work Projects administrators. 

Subject : Cooperation with State subcommittees on farm labor. 

The Department of Agriculture has indicated that in 1941 there may exist, 
along with large surpluses of agricultural labor, serious dislocations of such 
labor of a local or seasonal nature. The Work Projects Administration has 
always been committed to a program of facilitating the return of certified persons 
to private employment. The Honorable Claude R. Wickard, Secretary of Agri- 
culture, has requested the Administration to participate on a State basis with 
State subcommittees on farm labor in meeting such dislocation problems as they 
may arise. 

The Department of Agriculture has suggested that State land-use planning 
committees establish State subcommittees on farm labor to meet these problems. 
The Department of Agriculture desires to obtain for the State subcommittees on 
farm labor the cooperation of the State representatives of the Farm Security Ad- 
ministration. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, State statistician of the Agri- 
cultural Marketing Service, State extension service. State employment service, 
and also the State work projects administration. 

For detailed information on this program, the following releases of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture are attached hereto : ^ 

1. Reorganization of Department's Agricultural Labor Committee and Proce- 
dure for Dealing with Problems of Farm Labor Supply, Memorandum No. 820, 
Supplement 2, released by the Honorable Claude R. Wickard, Secretary of Agri- 
culture, March 10, 1941. 

2. Suggestions for Facilitating the Work of State Subcommittees on Farm 
Labor, No. FL-1-41, released by the United States Department of Agriculture, 
March 10, 1941. 

3. A list of secretaries of the State land-use committees. 

In keeping with the same principles set forth in Mr. Howard O. Hunter's 
memorandum of November 30, 1940. on "Private and Public Employment of Cer- 
tified Persons," and also Mr. Fred R. Ranch's Memorandum of September 25, 
1940, on the Work Projects Administration-Social Security Board Understanding, 
the State work projects administrator is requested to designate a representative 
of the Division of Employment to cooperate with the State subcommittee on 
farm labor. 

Malcolm J. Miller, AssiMant Commissioner. 



1 Three copies of each attachment sent to each regional director and one copy to each 
State administrator. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6507 

P. A. Projects, June 1941 and 



Average Number of Persons Employed on W 

June 1940 



[Subject to revision] 







Increase 


June 1941 


June 1940 


(+) or de- 
crease (-) 


1, 410, 943 


1, 755, 526 


-344, 583 


1, 375, 804 


1, 734. 497 


-358, 693 


32, 037 


34, 523 


-2, 485 


5,607 


5, 740 


-133 


29, 757 


26, 941 


+2. 816 


56,813 


75, 571 


-18, 758 


30, 789 


42, 827 


-12,038 


26, 024 


32,744 


-6,720 


16, 961 


17. 234 


-273 


6,921 


16, 724 


-9, 803 


1,959 


2 736 


-777 


7,909 


10, 799 


-2.890 


25, 372 


25, 379 


-7 


30, 061 


35, 388 


-5,327 


6,444 


7,237 


-793 


95. 547 


135, 737 


-40, 190 


34,067 


47, 345 


-13,278 


18, 830 


19,093 


-263 


20,280 


20,374 


-94 


29, 148 


34, 463 


-5,315 


28,736 


24, 783 


+3, 953 


4,602 


6,246 


-1,644 


8,172 


1.5,220 


-7,048 


57, 142 


65, 910 


-8, 768 


48, 838 


67, 1.55 


-18,317 


36, 941 


35, 674 


+ 1,267 


28,447 


25, 758 


+2,689 


51.871 


64,411 


-12,540 


8, 415 


8,736 


-321 


20,183 


20,196 


-13 


1,231 


1, 470 


-239 


4,820 


6,234 


-1,414 


42, 471 


58, 511 


-16,040 


10,066 


9,024 


+1,042 


76, 619 


103,054 


-26, 435 


25,311 


42,092 


-16.781 


30, 302 


37,460 


-7, 158 


9,918 


9, 598 


+320 


80,670 


118,994 


-38, 324 


32, 109 


37, 843 


-5,734 


9,096 


12, 658 


-3, 562 


93,018 


158,605 


-65, 587 


6,037 


10, 952 


-4.915 


25, 801 


28, 668 


-2, 867 


9,764 


9,463 


+301 


29,449 


33, 600 


-4, 151 


73, 845 


73, 246 


+59» 


8.425 


8,702 


-277 


2.662 


3, 833 


-1,171 


17, 378 


26, 259 


-8,881 


16, 366 


23, 557 


-7, 191 


26,850 


30,011 


-3, 161 


30,295 


38, 713 


-8, 418 


2,2'U 


2,5/7 


-336 


19 


241 


-222 


1,031 


1,672 


-641 


32, 584 


17, 356 


+15, 228 


1,505 


1,760 


-255 



Continental United States. 



Anzona.— . 
Arkansas.. 
California. 



Northern - 
Southern. 



Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District of Columbia. 

Florida 

Georgia 

Idaho 

Illinois 



Iowa- 



Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts- 

Michisan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 



Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York City 

New York (excluding New York City). 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina. 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont-- 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

Alaska 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

Virgin Islands 



g508 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

TESTIMONY OF CORRINGTON GILL— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Gill, have you any figures or have you made 
any investigation as to the number of workers that will be absorbed 
by industry in the next fiscal year? 

Mr. Gill. Yes; we believe that between 2 and 2i/^ million new 
w^orkers will be employed during the coming fiscal year. 

The Chairmax. And what are the main factors to your mind 
which will hinder a more rapid rate of reemployment — not in detail 
but sort of a summary of it? 

Mr. Gill, Well, the bottlenecks that have appeared and are ap- 
pearing and will appear in industry, will prevent a more rapid rate 
of reemployment. 

The Chairman. What do you call a "bottleneck of industry" ? 

Mr. Gill. The inability, let us say, of the manufacturer to get 
certain parts that are needed for the manufacture of the airplanes 
that he is building. 

Another reason keeping manufacturers from increasing plant ca- 
pacity is their fear that when this emergency is over they are going to 
have a heavy inventory and a heavy plant investment on which they 
will not have any opportunity of making money. 

The Chairman. In other words it is gambling on the future con- 
cerning which nobody knows? 

Mr. Gill. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And what else? 

NECESSITY OF BUNCHING DEFENSE CONTRACTS 

Mr. Gill. Other factors slowing up reemployment are the decline 
in the civilian production due to shortages and priorities. Another 
is the time that it takes to change over from a nondefense industry 
to a defense industry. Another is the concentration of defense pro- 
duction in a few industrial areas. 

The Chairman. Is any attempt being made to spread that now? 

Mr. Gill. Yes; they are making very strong attempts to do it, 
but industry in this country, as you well know, is highly concen- 
trated and to get production going quickly they were forced to let 
contracts to comparatively few firms. 

The Chairman. In other words to take advantage of the present 
existing facilities they let contracts to a few manufacturers? 

Mr. Gill. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And they were forced to do that? 

Mr. Gill. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. But there is an attempt being made now to spread 
it, isn't there? 

Mr. Gill. Definitely. 

The Chairman. And what else? 

EXCESSIVE inventories 

Mr. Gill. Another factor that hinders this more rapid rate of 
employment is the existence of excessive inventories. Many firms 
have built up excessive inventories of raw materials and consequently 
there are shortages in these certain raw materials among other firms 
at the present time. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6509 

The Chaikman. Do you find, Mr. Gill, that as the rate of produc- 
tion increases the rate of employment increase fails to keep pace? 

Mr. Gill. Yes. There are certain figures, Mr. Chairman, which I 
think will show that very clearly. 

For example, from 1920 to 1940 there Avas no increase in the number 
of persons employed in manufacturing plants, and yet you had an 
increase of 66 percent in the volume of physical production during that 
period ; during the past year, from ]SIay 1940 to May 1941, you had an 
increase of 35 percent in production, and in those plants an increase of 
only 22 percent in employment. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gill, if, as you estimate, approximately 2^/2 
million workers may be reemployed in 1941, is it likely that unem- 
ployment will decrease correspondingly ? 

Mr. Gill. No, sir. In the first place, it must be remembered that 
each year we have a net increase of about 600,000 persons in the labor 
market. 

Furthermore, you will have during this coming year a very heavy 
abnormal increase in the labor supply — people who are not normally 
counted as unemploved. 

The Chairman. Where do the 600,000 come from? 

Mr. Gill. Well, it is the 3'oung people — it is the net working popu- 
lation increase. 

The Chairman. And that averages about 600,000 every year ? 

Mr. Gill. Net, yes. 

UNCERTIFIED ELIGIBLES FOR W, P. A. 

The Chairman. How many workers are eligible for W. P. A. but 
not being certified for lack of funds ? 

Mr. Gill. At the present time we are employing less than half of 
the persons who are unemployed and said to be in need by local relief 
agencies. That figure varies from time to time, from month to month, 
and from year to year. 

At the present time we are employing a smaller percentage of the 
needy unemployed than any time since 1935. 

The Chairiman. How many W. P. A. employees have been cut off 
on account of the reduced appropriation passed by Congress? 

Mr. Gill. In May we had 1,450,000. At the present time we have 
1,000.000— slightly over 1,000,000 persons. Some 400,000 have been 
cut off in the last 60 days. 

The Chairman. What becomes of those 400,000 — what do they do — 
are they employables ? 

Mr. Gill. Oh, yes; definitely, very definitely, sir. Some of them 
get jobs in private industry — by no means all, however. Many of them 
reapply at relief offices. 

We made a study of how^ many of the persons who had been cut 
off reapplied, and we found that the percentage varies from city to 
city, but from between a third and a half requalified for direct relief 
in the local welfare offices after they had been cut off from W. P. A. 

migration as result of w. p. a. cuts 

The Chairman. Do you think, Mr, Gill, considerable migration to 
defense centers will result because of these people being cut off the 
W. P. A. rolls? 



6510 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Mr. Gill. I don't know that I can make a statement, Mr. Chairman, 
that would answer that question specifically. 

There certainly is migration, and I have no doubt that a lot of 
people who were' cut off from W. P. A. have moved or have gone into 
defense areas, into industrial cities, to try to get jobs. I don't know 
how many. We haven't measured that. 

The Chairman. I was interested in your statement in which you 
said that a lot of people were going to defense centers. That doesn't 
mean they will all secure employment ? 

Mr. Gill. On the contrary. 

The Chaieman. You haven't any figures, have you, Mr. Gill, to 
indicate the portion of people who actually get employment in a plant 
in defense centers and those that do not? The reason I am asking 
that question is, in one of our hearings it was brought out that but 
1 in 5 who applied were hired. 

Mr. Gill. I believe that that figure is correct. 

employers' preference as between w. p. a. and migrants 

The Chairman. Do defense contractors prefer to employ outside 
labor rather than local W. P. A. workers? 

Mr. Gill. We probably do not get as high a proportion of reemploy- 
ment in private industry as the proportion of W. P. A. workers is to 
the number of unemployed. 

The average age of the W. P. A. worker is 43 years. The people 
who are being employed in defense industries, generally speaking, are 
young men. Some of these plants will not hire anybody over 25 
years old. 

The Chairman. Now, as we understand it, approximately a half 
million W. P. A. workers are on projects certified by the Army or Navy 
as national-defense work, but the workers are not getting the pre- 
vailing wage rates, although the workers are doing essential work, 
are they not ? 

Mr. Gill. That is correct. 

The Chairman. What do you think about that situation ? 

Mr. Gill. Your statement is not quite correct as to the numbers, 
Mr. Chairman. We have at the present time about 400,000 persons on 
defense projects. Of that number, about 225,000 are working on 
projects that have been certified by the Secretary of War or the Sec- 
retary of the Navy as being of prime importance for national defense. 
On those projects, certain exemptions can be made in accordance with 
the Relief Act. 

We can make exemptions concerning the number of hours that 
they work, and make certain other slight exemptions, but they are 
paid in all cases in accordance with the schedule of security wages. 
They make more money if they work longer hours, but it still is 
probably below the prevailing rate. 

comparison or w. p. a. and prevailing wages 

The Chairman. How do prevailing wage rates compare with the 
W. P. A. rates? 

Mr. Gill. That is a difficult question, if not impossible question, to 
answer, for this reason : 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g511 

We have, as you know, a schedule of monthly earnings that W. P. A. 
workers receive twice a month. We do not have an hourly rate. 
Actually, of course, if you divide the schedule of earnings by the num- 
ber of hours they work, you get an average hourly earning figure, and 
that is an absolute figure. It happens to average 45 cents an hour for 
all workers on W. P. A., but where you try to make a comparison of 
the prevailing rate, you have the problem of ascertaining the pre- 
vailing rate. 

That is a very difficult thing to determine, of course. I would esti- 
mate that if such a comparison could be made, this 45-cent rate would 
run probably about two-thirds of the prevailing rate. 

The Chairman. Have you any figures to indicate whether the re- 
ported farm labor shortage is anticipatory or is actual ? 

Mr. Gill. Almost entirely anticipatory, Mr. Chairman. 

We receive complaints — and this is not something new that just hap- 
pened when the defense activities built up last year, but periodically 
for the last 6 years — of shortages of labor in some particular place, and 
we have always investigated immediately. In practically every 
instance we found that there was no actual shortage, but that somebody 
was worried for fear there was going to be a shortage. Upon investi- 
gation we found that no shortage did develop. 

The W. P. A. has cooperated throughout its history with the local 
employment offices, with the United States Employment Service and 
Department of Agriculture, and local employers to make sure 
W. P. A. employment does not interfere in any way with local 
employers getting help when they need help. 

The Chairman. Well, these 400,000 W. P. A. workers who have been 
dropped from the rolls should help to take up this slack of farm-labor 
shortage. 

Mr. Gill. Yes ; plus all the people that are on W. P. A. — because we 
release them immediately if there is any actual shortage developing — 
plus the large number of unemployed persons who are not on W. P. A. 
We only employ about 25 percent of the unemployed. 

The other 75 percent are available, just as the W. P. A. workers are 
available, at all times for private jobs. 

The Chairman. I know in our hearing, especially at Baltimore, the 
fear was expressed there that there would be a farm-labor shortage, 
and some of the witnesses indicated that the blame, lots of times, was 
with the farmers, because they would not give them sufficient notice 
as to how many men they would need to do the work, but rather would 
expect to get them the same day. They testified that it took a few days 
to get them together. 

But you are not very fearful about a farm-labor shortage ? 

Mr. Gill. No, sir ; not a bit. In certain areas, in the cotton sections 
of the South, for example, during the cotton season we close the 
projects in a county if there is any actual shortage of workers. 

w. p. a. training for defense work 

The Chairman. Will you, Mr. Gill, briefly describe the W. P. A. 
and vocational-bchool training program and indicate the numbers 
trained, if you have those numbers ? 

Mr. Gill. Yes ; I will be very glad to. We have trained over 115,000 
persons for defense work. 

60396— 41— pt. 16 14 



0512 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

The Chairman. Right there, do they get paid while being trained ? 

Mr. Gill. Yes, sir. They receive their usual W. P. A. wage. 

The Chairman. And how many have you trained? 

Mr, Gill, One hundred and fifteen thousand had or are receiving 
training. Of the 80,000 who have completed, about 65 percent have 
obtained jobs. The others, of course, are ready to take jobs when 
they open ujd in their locality. 

We have at the present time about 35,000 in training, and this num- 
ber is constantly turning over because I think the period of training 
is only from 8 to 12 weeks. 

The training is being done in about 650 different communities in the 
country. In addition to or as a part of that training, we also have a 
program of in-plant training. There we take persons on W. P. A. 
who show an aptitude for training, who can absorb the training, put 
them right in a manufacturing plant, and during the period of 2 to 4 
weeks, under the supervision of the plant foreman, they are trained. 

Most of them go right into the shop as private employees and are 
cut off of the W. P. A. at the end of that training period. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gill, will this reduced W. P. A. appropriation 
have any effect on the training program of the W. P. A. ? 

Mr. Gill. I think if we had a larger appropriation we probably 
could do more training. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to get at is — you say you have 
trained 115,000. The appropriation has been reduced, and hundreds 
of thousands have been taken off of the W. P. A. pay roll. As a result 
of that, has there been any reduction in your training program? 

Mr. Gill. No, sir; there has not. The 115.000 are those who have 
or are going through the training period. At any given tune there 
are only thirty or forty thousand who are in training. 

status of migrant in training program 

The Chairman. How does the migrant fit into this training pro- 
gram ? Does he have au}^ status at all ? 

Mr. Gill. He doesn't have any preferred status. He stands on his 
own feet along with others who are certified as in need and who show 
a particular aptitude for training. We have in that training program, 
1 am sure, a large number of migratory workers. Statistically, I can- 
not give you an answer as to how many or what proportion they are. 
In any event, they are not discriminated against. 

JV'Ir. Curtis. Do you have a break-down as to where those people are 
located who receive training through the W. P. A. ? 

Mr. Gill. I don't think I have with me. 

Mr. Curtis. Has it reached all of the States? 

Mr. Gill. It is in 48 States and in, as I said, about 650 communities. 
I am sure it is heavier in some States than others. 

Mr. Curtis. In what specific lines are you training them ? 

Mr. Gill. Any line that the vocational-education people in the com- 
munity believe would be suitable and might lead to private employ- 
ment. It is a project that is jointly sponsored by the Office of Produc- 
tion Management and the Office of Education. 

Mr. Curtis. I wish you would enumerate some of the courses, Mr. 
Gill. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE EMIGRATION g513 

Mr. Gill. In the Bell Aircraft plant, as an example of one of onr 
in-plant training programs, we have men being trained for machine 
operation. That is one example. 

Mr. Curtis. Are most of the men being trained under your program 
receiving in-plant training? 

Mr. Gill. No, sir; I would say most of them are not receiving in- 
plant training. 

Mr. Curtis. Those who are not receiving in-plant training — what 
are joii training them to do? 

Mr. Gill. A large number of these persons, for example, have been 
trained in welding, and large numbers of them have received private 
employment as welders in the shipbuilding program near New Orleans. 
I happen to know that particular case. 

Mr. Curtis. And what else besides welders ? 

JNIr. Gill. I would like to put a list of the various occupations in 
the record. 

Mr. Curtis. I would be very glad to liave that.^ 

W. p. A. WORKERS ENGAGED IN DEFENSE 

Now, you state that quite a number of W. P. A. people are engaged 
in defense projects? 

Mr. Gill. Yes, sir. The list of major occupations referred to above, 
in which training is being given, would include auto service, aviation 
services, machine shop, welding, drafting, pattern making, woodwork- 
ing, riveting, sheet metal, radio services, electrical services, foundry, 
forge, ship- and boat-building and repair, and construction. 

Mr. Curtis. You don't mean that they are building airplanes or 
ships or motors or guns, do you ? 

Islr. Gill. No, sir; most of them that are working on certified de- 
fense projects are building airports that are important to the Army 
or the Navy. 

Mr. Curtis. In other words, they are engaged in what we usually 
term as public works, but public Avorks that have shown they have a 
military value? 

Mr. Gill. That is correct ; yes, sir ; exactly. 

Mr. Curtis. And a great deal of that is nonskilled labor ? 

Mr. Gill. Yes, sir; particularly on airport construction and on the 
access-road program. Both of those use a very high percentage of 
unskilled labor. 

Mr. Curtis. Don't you think it is better for the individual, for his 
own good, if there is always maintained a wage inducement for him 
to seek private employment ? 

Mr. Gill. He has the wage inducement, Mr. Congressman, because 
what he receives on W. P. A. is not what he could receive if he were in 
private employment in that area. 

Mr. Curtis. Is it your opinion that that should be the case, or are 
you here contending that these W, P. A. wage schedules should be as 
high as private schedules? 

Mr. Gill. No, sir. I believe at the present time, and for the past 
couple of years, the W. P. A. wage has been about right. I don't say 

1 A copy of this list of occupations was included in Mr. Hillman's paper. See p. 6360, 
table 2. 



5514 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

it is what people ought to receive, but in our economy I think it is 
about right. 

PURPOSE OF w. p. A. 

The purpose of the W. P. A. is not primarily defense. The purpose 
is to give employment to needy unemployed persons at a wage that will 
be adequate to support them in decency, but will not be so high as to 
prevent their wanting to take private jobs. 

Mr. Curtis. You don't think that employment in the W. P. A. 
should become a career? 

Mr. Gill. I do not. 

Mr. Curtis. Now, you discussed something about the relationship of 
the W. P. A. workers to farm help. What is the situation in regard 
to domestic help — women and girls when they leave the W. P. A. 
or N. Y. A. to accept work as domestics? 

Mr. Gill. I think that probably there is more back of complaints 
that W. P. A. interferes with people hiring domestics than any other 
particular type of complaint, I think the reason is that the average 
wage domestics in this country receive is absurdly low. I believei 
that if domestics received better or adequate wages there would be 
no complaint. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you think it is entirely a question of wage ? 

Mr. Gill. I think it is to a considerable extent, I think most of 
the problem is the low wages paid to domestics in this country. 

Mr, Curtis. Are your complaints uniform throughout the various 
areas of the country? 

Mr, Gill. No. We get very few complaints such as that in metro- 
politan northern cities, where domestics receive more of an adequate 
wage than they do in some other sections of the country. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you contend that if people have an opportunity to 
secure employment, that they are physically and mentally able to do, 
that they should take it, even though it is not quite as' desirable as 
the W. P. A,? 

Mr. Gill. Our regulation on accepting private employment specifies 
that the wage be a decent wage and the condition of employment be 
decent. I know that is a matter of opinion, however. 

Mr. Curtis. It is a rather relative term, isn't it? 

Mr. Gill. Yes; but we did put that safeguard in to prevent the 
abuse that we have had, instances where employers would offer 
W. P. A. workers substandard wages or jobs that required hours far in 
excess of the hours that should be required, particularly in farm la- 
bor — not general farm labor, but in certain specified farm areas the 
wage was absurdly low, 

W, p. A. SAFEGUARD AS BUOY TO FARM WAGES 

Mr. Curtis. Well, does that tend to force the price of farm labor up ? 

Mr. Gill. I don't believe so, in general. I think it may have some 
effect in a few spots. I think that one might say that in certain areas — 
in the cranberry fields of New Jersey, for instance, as I remember, and 
in the onion fields in certain sections of Ohio, and in the beet fields in 
certain sections of Colorado, I think that it may have had some tend- 
ency to increase wages in those particular spots. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION Q515 

Mr. Curtis. And do you favor that? 

Mr. Gill. I certainly do. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you favor it under a system whereby the farmer 
cannot pass on any of these increased labor costs in the price of his 
product? Now, I notice that we took some testimony a couple of weeks 
ago in reference to strawberry picking. Strawberries sold for $2 a 
crate. They were paying about 60 or 70 cents to get a crate picked, but 
the wages were raised to $1.20. The crates cost the farmer 51 cents and 
the farmer was paying that increase out of his own pocket. He got 29 
cents for himself and his family, for all of that season's work and in- 
vestment and the hazard involved, but there is no way of adding that 
increased cost in labor onto the price of the berries. It just doesn't 
happen. And, while I would like to see the farm laborers of the coun- 
try get high wages, I just can't understand the officials of this Govern- 
ment forcing those wages up at a time when it means taking pennies 
and nickels away from the farmer's family. 

Now, if he could pass it on, that would be all right ; but I certainly 
disagi'ee with any such policy. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Arnold? 

WATS TO REDUCE W. P. A. 

Mr. Arnold. You will probably agree with me that the only way the 
W. P. A. rolls can ever be cut down is by forced action — that is, it will 
be necessary that the Congress reduce the appropriation in order to 
reduce the W. P. A. rolls. 

In other words, as long as you have an appropriation of one and a 
half billion dollars, you will find people who will make application to 
get on your rolls. 

Mr. Gill. There is a difference of opinion there, Mr. Congressman. 
I personally do not believe that that is correct I do not believe that 
the only way to reduce the W. P. A. is to cut the appropriation. 

The fact that we have as large a turn-over as we have and as many 
people going into private employment, indicates that there is no neces- 
sity of cutting the appropriation to reduce the rolls. 

Mr. Arnpld. Of course, I am speaking to you as one who has sup 
ported the W. P. A. appropriations and one who feels that W. P. A 
has performed a great service in the past, but I represent a rurai 
community in southern Illinois where tenant farmers who live on small 
farms are attracted to the W. P. A. because that work brings more 
cash income to them. They are farmers who have had, misfortunes, 
and the W. P. A. appeals to them because it gives them more cash 
income than they can make on their farms. 

Then, in small towns out in that area, it is almost impossible to 
secure workers for home work. I was out there last week and stopped 
along the Wabash River at Grayville, and Palestine, where in former 
years you could always buy fish, but there was no one fishing any more. 
I don't know whether they were on W. P. A. or not, but probably 
W. P. A. would furnish them more cash income than fishing. 

As I see it, it is an endless chain. 



6516 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

TURN-OVER IN SEWING PROJECT 

And just recently, because of tliis reduced appropriation, a certain 
sewing project in my district was scheduled to discontinue employing 
20 women, 15 of whom were widows, 5 of whom had husbands unable 
to work. This is all in an area that has brought in 7,000 producing oil 
wells in the last 4 years. 

Now, I am wondering, in view of those conditions before W. P. A., 
what would those men and women have done? They protested to me, 
and I managed to get the project reopened, but what would those 
Avomen have done before the days of W. P. A. ? 

Mr. Gill. Some of them would have been on local relief, and some 
of them would have been probably living with relatives, and some, I 
suppose, would probably be working as domestics. 

Mr. Arnold. That is where I think the bulk would be working. But 
the point I am trying to make is that it is just human nature, with 
the American people, to try to better themselves and secure steady em- 
ployment. For that reason it is very difficult for W. P. A. to reduce its 
rolls, because there always will be more waiting than you can take 
care of. 

Mr. Gill. I might say that the turn-over in the sewing project was 
far lower than the rate of turn-over in other types of projects. There 
were fewer private-job opportunities for those people than there were 
for construction people or even common-labor jobs, and, consequently, 
that part of the program had a tendency to remain more static than 
the rest of the program. 

Mr. Arnold. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Congressman Osmers ? 

TYPE or PERSON DISCHARGED BY W. P. A. 

Mr. Osmers. Mr. Chairman, I was interested in one thing Mr, Gill 
said in reply to a question that you directed to him, regarding a type of 
people that were involved in the 400,000 that had been discharged. 

The chairman asked you whether you considered these people were 
employables or not, and you said : "Very definitely." 

Well, that seems to be at variance with what personal observations I 
have been able to make among the people that have been discharged. 

I expressed yesterday to the committee my opinion that a great many 
of the people now on W. P. A. are not strictly in the employable class, 
either temperamentally or physically, or because of their age or of 
some other factor. 

Now, in my own State we have a rather serious problem, which I 
wrote to Mr. Hunter about the other day, in the State of New Jersey. 
We have had our numbers cut to a greater proportion than some other 
States in the Union. 

Mr. Gill. That is right. 

Mr. Osmers. And, of course, the answer that ^Ir. Hunter gave me 
makes a plausible answer on paper — that we had received a great 
many defense contracts in New Jersey and therefore the need was 
considered to be less than it was in other areas. But when it was 
translated into human terms, to the individuals that were discharged, 
it didn't work out because we found, and I have found, that the 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6517 

people that have been discharged are not necesarily employable under 
the defense program. 

For that reason I would like to have you go into your definition of 
an "employable." 

DEFINITION or "EMPLOYABLE" 

Mr. Gill. An "employable person," in my opinion, is one who can 
get a job at any given time ; consequently any definition of "employ- 
able" depends upon the status of the labor market at that particular 
time. 

At the bottom of the depression the standard set-up for employ- 
ment was probably higher than it ever was. As employment picks up 
and as labor becomes more scarce, workers have a much better chance 
of getting a job. For example at the present time with five or six 
million still unemployed, a person of 55 years of age might be consid- 
ered unemployable. If because of defense or increased nondefense 
business in the next 5 years we get the unemployment figure down to 
a half million, let us sa}', the person of 50 or 55 years of age will be 
considered employable and will have a job and will be doing good work. 
But on any forced lay-off such as we made in the last 30 days it wasn't 
to be expected that those persons would step right out and get jobs in 
private industry. 

They are competing with 3 times that number, at least, who were 
unemployed — not 3 times that number, but 10 times that number — 
who were unemployed in that community at the same time, men who 
possibly lost their jobs more recently than the W. P. A. worker did — 
men who are younger than they are. 

Mr. OsMERS. Well, now it seems to be working out in this country 
as we go into the war economy, that while more and more people 
are being employed in defense industries, fewer and fewer are being 
employed in nondefense industries. 

Mr. Gill. That is correct. 

Mr. OsMERS. Because of priorities in materials and for numerous 
other reasons? 

Mr. Gill. That is right, so their chances may not increase in direct 
pyroportion to the number of defense jobs that are opened up. 

Mr. OsMERS. Would you say that a majority of the people remaining 
on W. P. A. today would, in normal times, be family responsibilities? 
You implied, in response to Congressman Arnold's question, that a 
great many of those from 50 to 65 years of age would be family re- 
sponsibilities — would be living with relatives, children, and so on. 

Mr. Gill. Yes ; and on direct relief in the community. 

Mr. OsMERS. Charities? 

Mr. Gill. Yes; may I make one statement here? When I said 
these people were "employable people," I said it in terms of W. P. A. 
employment. 

These 400,000 men are typically those who have been working 
on the W. P. A., possibly for a year, building airports, building 
various kinds of road work, and doing a good job. The physical 
accomplishments of the W. P. A. during that period would be evidence 
that they have been doing good work. 

That was what I meant in connection with their being employable 
or not. 



g518 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

CHOICE BETWEEN CUTTING W. P, A. ROLLS OR RATES 

Mr. OsMEES. Do yoii think it was wise to cut the number on W. P. 
A. rather than the amounts paid to each individual ? 

Mr. Gill. I don't think the amounts paid to each recipient would 
stand any cut. 

Mr. OsMERS. I was wondering what a man who was completely 
cut off the pay roll would think about that. 

Mr. Gill. Well, it is always a question if you are going to employ 
X number of people at a decent wage or whether you are going to 
take that money and distribute it, however, thinly it might work 
out, so as to give everybody something. 

We had the same problem during the F. E. R. A. days, whether to 
give out available funds generally without any standard of relief, or 
whether to set a standard below which we would not go. We set a 
minimum and it gave the money to fewer people but it did maintain 
a level of decency for those that got the money. 

Mr. OsMERS. William Green of the American Federation of Labor 
testified yesterday that in the master agreements that are being 
made in certain industries in the United States, there is a clause 
which permits both the union and the employer to reexamine the 
rates of pay every 6 months, because of the rising costs of living. 

Has the W. P. A. taken into consideration the rising costs of 
living ? 

Mr. Gill. We haven't had to so far because the rise has not been 
sufficient up to now to create any difficulty. I suspect that in the 
next 12 months we are going to have to reexamine that very care- 
fully. 

Mr. OsMEES. Do you feel that if Congress fails to make additional 
appropriations and if you decide to raise the individual amounts 
paid, that you will then drop off more people? 

Mr. Gill. It is just a matter of arithmetic; yes; we would have to. 

Mr. OsMERS. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Gill. We appreciate 
your statement and comments to the committee. 

Our next witness is Mr. Alves. 

TESTIMONY OF H. F. ALVES, SENIOR SPECIALIST IN STATE SCHOOL 
ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION, FED- 
ERAL SECURITY AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The Chairman. Mr. Alves, Congressman Curtis will interrogate 
you. 

Mr. Curtis. Will you give your full name to the reporter, please? 

Mr. Alves. H. F. Alves. 

Mr. Curtis. And what is your official position? 

Mr. Alves. Senior specialist in State School Administration, 
United States Office of Education. 

Mr. Curtis. How long have you been with the Office of Education ? 

Mr. Alves. Six years this coming October. 

Mr. Curtis. And what work were you engaged in prior to that 
time? 

Mr. Alves. For 10 years I served in the State department of edu- 
cation in Texas, first as State high-school supervisor, and then as 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6519 

State college examiner; then as director of research and finance and 
executive secretary of the State board of education. 

Mr. Curtis. "Wliat degree or degrees do you holdl 

Mr. Alves. Bachelor's, master's, and practically completed doctor's. 

Mr. Curtis. Have you received some special training in school- 
plant management and facilities, and that sort of thing ? 

Mr. Alves. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. The Office of Education has made a study of school 
facilities in connection with national defense, I believe? 

Mr. Alves. Correct, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. At whose request was that made? 

Mr. Alves. At the request of the Secretary of the Navy and the 
Secretary of the War, in resjDonse to Senate Resolution 324. 

Mr. Curtis. How large a committee was designated to make this 
survey ? 

Mr. Al\tes. There was no committee designated. The responsi- 
bility was placed in the Office of Education — that is, on the United 
States Commissioner of Education. 

]\Ir. Curtis. Were you in charge of that work ? 

Mr. Al\t:s. By assignment I was placed in charge of the study, 
which was carried on in cooperation with the chief State school 
officers of the 48 States, who in turn called on the local school au- 
thorities. 

(The following statement was introduced for the record :) 

STATEMENT BY H. F. ALVES, SENIOR SPECIALIST IN STATE SCHOOL 
ADMINISTRATION, THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION, 
FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D. C 

School Needs in Defense Areas 

Activities essential to the national defense program call for concentrations of 
population at designated points, which in turn call for the rendition of services 
necessary to community living. The enlargement of existing as well as the 
location and construction of new military and naval reservations and industrial 
establishments have necessitated and will necessitate a rapid shifting of popu- 
lation. Today, after nearly a year of the emergency, hundreds of thousands of 
families are living under roofs not known to them or anyone else several months 
ago. But moving large numbers of families from one community to another and 
from one State to another is, as we might expect, forcing us to recognize many 
problems relating to and involving the education, health, and general welfare 
of youth and adults. 

Senate Resolution 324, dated October 9, 1940, called upon the Secretary of 
War "to make a full and complete study and investigation of all school facilities 
at or near naval yards. Army and naval reservations, and bases at which housing 
programs for defense workers are being carried out or are contemplated." 

Following requests from the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War 
for the United States Office of Education to make the study called for by 
Senate Resolution 324, plans for the study were formulated with the assistance 
of interested Federal agencies and State departments of education. The study 
as planned and carried out, however, included all local areas affected by 
activities of the defense program— not only those "at which housing programs 
for defense workers are being carried out or are contemplated," and centered 
attention on the three specific questions in Senate Resolution 324, viz: 

(1) Whether such housing programs would necessitate additional school 

facilities ; 

(2) Whether the communities adjacent to or near such yards, reservations, 

and bases are financially able to provide such additional facilities as 
needed ; and 



g520 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

(3) Whether the Federal Government should provide such additional facili- 
ties of the community. 

SURVEY OF EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES 

In December 1940 the Office of Education sent to State superintendents and 
commissioners of education a form and instructions for collecting information 
for evaluating the adequacy of existing school facilities and for preparing esti- 
mates of facilities needed to accommodate children of school age of personnel 
connected with projects essential to the defense program. Representatives of 
the chief State school officers cooperated with local school authorities in obtain- 
ing the information. 

In brief, the inquiry form sought the following information : 

(1) The number of additional pupils that coidd be accommodated (as of 

December 1, 1940) by existing school facilities. 

(2) The number of additional families and of children of school age esti- 

mated in terms of available information on proposed housing units. 

(3) The number of additional teachers required. 

(4) Needed school plant facilities for increased school population. 

(5) Estimated amounts of funds needed for school plant facilities (includ- 

ing school sites) ; for operation and maintenance of these facilities; 
for transportation facilities (including equipment and cost of opera- 
ation and maintenance) ; and for salaries of teachers required. 

REPORTS OF ESTIMATED NEEDS 

Reports of estimated needs, submitted to the United States Office of Educa- 
tion, pointedly show that there is an imperative need in many localities for 
school facilities to accommodate children of personnel connected with activities 
essential to the national-defense program, and that, in defense areas many local 
school administrative units faced with the problem of providing immediately 
school plant facilities and teachers for a large number of additional children 
of school age, are without authority to obtain through regular channels addi- 
tional funds for these needs. Many of these units cannot, at least for the next 
school year and in some instances for following years, provide funds for re- 
auired capital outlay and current expense purposes. 

Local school administrative units, in common with other local governmental 
entities, must conform to legal limitations regarding maximum bonded indebt- 
ness for school purposes and the maximum local tax on property that may 
be levied — 

(a) For interest on and reduction of bonded debt (for school purposes), and 
(ft) For current or operating expense. 

A reduction in tlve tax base of a local school administrative unit reduces 
the tax income (for scliool purposes). This results when property is acquired 
by the Federal Government. In some instances, public-school authorities have 
no recourse in the matter of obtaining increased local funds, because tlie 
additional children live on property of the Federal Government or on property 
of industrial concerns not a part of, but adjoining, the local school adminis- 
trative unit or units involved. 

In local areas affected to an appreciable extent by defense activities the 
need for housing (family dwelling) units, public and/or private, has been 
recognized. The influx of personnel connected, and to be connected, with these 
activities is, according to estimates submitted to tlie United States Office of 
Education, generally expected to bring into these areas more children of 
school age than can be accommodated by existing school facilities. These 
estimates in effect indicate that we may expect from 300,000 to 850,000 such 
children without adequate physical plant facilities and/or instructional services 
wlien schools open this fall. 

The findings of the study of school needs in defense areas pointedly show — 

(a) That school plant facilities should be planned and constructed at the 
time that family housing facilities, public and private, are pro- 
grammed and built ; and 

( h ) That the Federal Government, as the responsible agency for the removal 
of school children into localities, few of which can provide adequate 
school facilities for them, has a definite responsibility in assisting 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6521 

States and their respective local school administrative units (at and 
near defense areas) in providing for educational facilities for these 
children. 

PLAN FOR FINANCING NEEDED EXPANSION 

In his official report filed January 21, 1941, the United States Commissioner 
of Education recommended the following plan for paying the cost of school 
needs in defense areas. 

1. For children residing on public property the Federal Government should 

bear the cost of required capital outlay and current expense except 
that when such property is liquidated, a pro rata part of the cost should 
be assumed by the local school administrative unit or units involved. 

2. For children residing on private property not subject to immediate tax- 

ation the Federal Government should lend to the local school adminis- 
trative unit tlie required funds for capital outlay and current expense 
that cannot be derived locally until the property in question appears 
on the tax rolls, except that during the non-tax-produciug period the 
Federal Government should pay, in lieu of taxes, its pro rata part of 
the current expenses. 

Hearings on H. R. 3570, calling for "community facilities," including schools, 
were held in March by the House Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 
On April 2, the chairman of this committee reported out H. R. 4-545 "to provide 
for the acquisition and equipment of public works made necessary by the 
defense program." This bill "public work" to mean "any facility useful or 
necessary for carrying on community life," and states "but the activities 
authorized under this (title II) shall be devoted primarily to schools, water- 
works, works for the treatment and purification of water, sewers, sewage, 
garbage, and refuse disposal facilities, public sanitary facilities, hospitals, and 
other places for the care of the sick, recreational facilities, and streets and 
access roads." 

H. R. 4545 was passed by the House of Representatives May 9, 1941. and 
was referred to the Senate Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. Hear- 
ings were held by the Senate committee on May 19 and 20, and on June 9 the 
committee reported the bill with amendments, passed by the Senate on June 
12, but rejected by the House on June 19. After sjibmissiou to conference, the 
House finally adopted H. R. 4545 with Sepate amendments and the Senate 
accepted it on June 27, 1941. The bill as signed authorizes the appropriation 
of $150,000,000 for public works, as previously defined, and is in effect an 
amendment to Public Act 849, which provides Federal funds for family housing 
for defense workers. 

Earlier I stated that estimates in file in our Office pointed out that from 300,000 
to 350,0(X) children of school age would find themselves in September in localities 
without adequate school facilities, i. e., without school buildings and teaching 
personnel. I wish to emphasize that I am referring to the status as of May 15, 
when the official statements were filed at the hearings on H. R. 4545 of the 
Senate Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. Estimates as of that date 
were based, in the main, on the number of additional family-dwelling units 
(defense housing) with funds then available. As additional funds are made 
available from public and private sources, the number of additional families and 
the consequent number of additional children of school age that may be expected 
in concentrations of population because of activities essential to the national- 
defense program will be correspondingly increased. We must recognize that the 
situation with reference to shifting of population because of defense activities 
is changing from day to day. Findings of today are having to be adjusted to- 
morrow. Our estimates of need represent, therefore, those situations with de- 
fense activities in such advanced stages of development that we can definitely 
determine actual conditions of need for additional school facilities, say as of 
September and October. We recognize that in numerous other situations with 
defense projects in early stages of development actual conditions of need cannot 
be definitely determined for 3, 6, or 9 months with the exception that we are 
fully aware of possible and even likely urgent needs occasioned during the con- 
struction periods by families living in trailer units and in summer-resort cottages 
(generally located with no reference to schools) and in other instances by a sec- 
ond family sharing living normally occupied by only one family. 

On the basis of estimates referred to, there is needed approximately 
$1.30,000,000. Of this amount from $110,000,000 to $150,000,000 will be required 



g522 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

for capital outlay, including school buildings and equipment, school sites when 
not already available, and transportation equipment; and $15,000,000 to 
$20,000,000 for operation and maintenance of school buildings and transporta- 
tion provided by Federal funds and salaries of teachers and other instructional 
costs. 

As indicated earlier, estimates of needed school facilities that have been sub- 
mitted by State and local school authorities are on file in the United States Office 
of Education. These authorities are now carefully reviewing and critically evalu- 
ating these estimates so as to be ready to certify actual conditions of need with- 
out delay. Time is an important factor because school facilities for the children 
involved are urgently needed in many localities when school opens in September. 
Field representatives of the Office of Education are rendering every possible assist- 
ance to States and localities in their respective efforts to project actual conditions 
of need. It is hoped that rules and regulations required for the administration of 
the program will now be formulated without delay. 

TESTIMONY OF H. F. ALVES— Resumed 

Mr. Curtis. Now, in your paper you cite the figure of 300,000 to 
350,000 children for whom added facilities will be required. Now I 
take it that that figure refers to that many new pupils in defense 
areas. Do you feel that is a conservative or liberal estimate? 

Mr. Al\tes. I should say that it is a fairly conservative estimate 
for this reason : The number of additional children in a defense 
area — in the respective school administrative units in that area — is 
based on the influx of additional families which, to a great part, is 
determined by the additional number of family dwelling units built 
or being built in those areas. 

As of May 15 there was available Federal money from Public 
Act 671, Public Act 781, and Public Act 819, totaling approximately 
$435,000,000, on an average of $3,000 per family dwelling unit, which 
I believe is about the average figure set in 849. That would repre- 
sent somewhere around 130,000 to 140,000 Federal houses built and to 
be built for additional families coming into a community. 

On the basis of figures submitted to our office from 196 areas, as 
I recall, we find that the ratio of private houses built to Federal 
houses at that time was about 2 to 1. If we figure that for 130,000 
Federal houses, there were roughly twice as many private houses 
built — I mean houses paid for by private capital — that would run 
close to 

Mr. Curtis. That is private housing or is that for housing de- 
fense people ? 

Mr. Alves. That is right, as a part of the defense housing pro- 
gram. That will run somewhere around 350,000 to 400,000 addi- 
tional family dwelling units that either were in process of construc- 
tion, had been constructed, or were ready for construction on the basis 
of funds available as of May 15. 

And on that basis again, we figured only one child of school age 
per family, although the average on them is slightly under, but 
200 defense areas reporting showed 1.3 to 1.4 average number of 
children of school age per family. But we figured only one and 
that is the reason I make the statement I think it is a conservative 
figure, with roughly 350,000 to 400,000 houses under the defense 
housing program. An average of one child of school age, it would 
make appear that figure of 300,000 to 350,000 is conservative. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6523 

DISTRIBUTION OF NEW DEFENSE HOUSING 

Mr. Curtis. Now, for the most part, are those defense houses put 
off in new neighborhoods by themselves or scattered throughout the 
cities near where the plant was located? 

Mr. Alves. I wouldn't attempt to answer that question, because 
for the most part I don't know_j^ but I do know that they are sup- 
posedly being located in accordance with available existing com- 
munity facilities, if it is possible. 

That would mean by implication that the houses are located near 
concentrations of populations, rather than in areas where there is 
no concentration, because in the last case you would find fewer, if 
any, community facilities such as sewers, hospitals, schools, and 
the like. 

Mr. Curtis. I have in mind one midwestern city that is having a 
bomber plant built in it. 

Mr. Alves. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. People are coming in there and occupying new houses 
that are scattered throughout the city on vacant lots. That being so, 
the school system can absorb the entire increase because there will be 
a few of those pieople in each of the various wards of the city and a 
small number in each room of the various ward schools ; could they 
not? 

Mr. Al-\t:s. I would say that it certainly the essence of got»d plan- 
ning to do that. 

Mr. Curtis. But if the housing authorities planned a project away 
from the city, that would put all these defense workers together and 
in that case there would be many new pupils, all in one place, and 
consequently complete facilities would have to be provided. 

Has the Office of Education taken any position in regard to which 
of the two types of housing they prefer ? 

Mr. Al'S'es. Of course, our position has been very definitely that if 
it is at all possible, existing school facilities should be utilized. 

But, of course, our office has taken no responsibility or assumed any 
authority in the placement of defense housing projects. 

COST OF SCHOOL CONSTRUTION 

Mr. Curtis. Now, the figures that you refer to school children, that 
is both grade and high-school pupils? 

Mr. Alves. Yes, sir. Of that number, roughly, 30 to 35 percent 
under a normal distribution may be expected to be in high-school 
work. 

Mr. Curtis. If the Federal Government paid the whole bill for 
350,000 children, what is your estimate of the cost? 

Mr. ALi-ES. You would have to qualify whether you want a figure on 
the basis of permanent school building construction. 

Mr. Curtis. You quoted a figure of $130,000,000. Wliat does that 
include ? 

Mr. Alves. That includes, as I indicated in my statement, a dis- 
tribution of about $110,000,000 to $115,000,000 required for capital 
outlay. That includes school buildings and necessary building equip- 



0524 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

ment; school sites when not ah-eady available and transportation 
equipment. Capital outlay would run from 110 to 115 million dollars. 

The remainder, from 15 to 20 million dollars, according to the esti- 
mates submitted, will be required for the operation and maintenance 
of the school buildings and the transportation provided by Federal 
fimds, and for salaries of teachers and other instructional costs foi 
these additional children if those amounts cannot be included in the 
current budgets. 

Mr. Curtis. Now, under your capital outlay, does that constitute 
permanent structures or temporary structures'? 

Mr. Alves. It includes both. 

Mr, Curtis. If permanent structures are built, does the Federal 
Government pay the entire bill? 

PLAN FOR PAYING FROM FEDERAL, FUNDS 

Mr. Alves. That involves a plan for paying the cost which, as far 
as I know, has not been definitely established or accepted in the Com- 
missioner's official report submitted and found in Senate Document 
No. 20. It is also found in the report of the House Committee on 
Public Buildings and Grounds in its hearings on 3570, and in the 
Senate hearings on H. K. 4545. 

In that you will find a plan for paying the cost of needs. 

Mr. Curtis. Needs of what — elaborate on that — what do you 
mean by that ? 

Mr. Alves. The Commissioner's official report states this : 

For children residing on public projaerty — 

and we are talking always about children connected directly with 
defense, whether they are children, of Army officers, of noncom- 
missioned officers or of naval officers, or children of airplane-factory 
workers or munition-factory workers — 

exempt from local and State taxation, the Federal Government should bear 
the cost of required capital outlay and current expense, except that when such 
property is liquidated a pro rata part of the cost should be assumed by the local 
school administrative unit or units involved. 

I will state the second part of that plan and then go back and 
qualify both, if I may. For children residing on private property 
such as private defense housing projects, not subject to immediate 
taxation, the Federal Government should lend to the local school 
administrative unit the required funds for capital outlay and current 
expense that cannot be derived locally until the property in question 
appears on the tax rolls, except that during the nontax-producing 
period the Federal Government should pay in lieu of taxes its pro 
rata part of the current expense. 

THREE SAMPLE SCHOOL-FINANCING PROBLEaiS 

Now, if I may go back I will take 3 example communities — A, 
B, and C. In each of the communities may we assume that we have 
identical situations to start with. Each has an influx of 1,000 chil- 
dren of defense workers of one type or another. May we assume 
further that each of the communities has bonded itself for school 
purposes to the maximum and, incidentally, about three-fourths of 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6525 

all the school districts in defense areas find themselves just exactly 
in that position. 

Here are the 3 communities — A, B, and C, each with an influx 
of 1,000 defense children and each unable to ^ond itself any further 
and each unable to levy any increase in local taxes for current or 
operating costs. 

In community A the thousand children live in Federal houses, 
houses built by the Federal Government and placed on permanent 
Federal reservations. There are a thousand houses built as a result 
of defense activities, and these houses are paid for by the Federal Gov- 
ernment and are located on permanent Federal reservations — ^they 
are permanently exempt from local and State taxation. 

In community B, because there was no room available on the 
permanent Federal reservation, the thousand houses built by the 
Federal Government were placed, let us say, on a 150-acre tract 
bought by the Federal Government adjoining the reservation. They 
are now exempt from taxation. How long they will be I don't 
think any of us know. I think we are all agreed, however, that the 
Federal Government will probably not stay in the real-estate business. 

Mr. Curtis. I hope not. 

Mr. Alves. So eventually these houses will be liquidated. Now, 
when they are liquidated, whether it be 18 months from now or 
5 years from now, then we will increase the tax base of that local 
school governmental entity so that it may assume an added obliga- 
tion for capital outlay purposes. 

Now, in community C the Federal Government didn't have to build 
an3' Federal houses because private capital was willing to assume 
the risk, so there we find the 1,000 chiklren living under 1,000 roofs 
paid for by private capital, subject to taxation, but in the average 
State it requires from 18 month to 21 months for such new properties 
to get on the tax roll and produce a tax income. 

My assumption was that neither of the three districts could bond 
itself today. 

A TRANSFER OF BFILDIXG TITLE FROM GOVERNMENT TO SCHOOL DISTRICT 

In each of the three districts we have in September or in October 
1,000 children waiting to go into a school building, with none avail- 
able. We are all agreed there must be some provision by the time 
school opens. The communities cannot vote any additional bonds, 
so we will build the buildings, for the time being, out of Federal 
funds. 

Now, here are your questions involved: Community A never gets 
any increased taxation base locally — ^bear in mind that school-building 
projects in all States are the responsibilities and obligations of local 
governmental units and not of States; States do not build school 
buildings; that is a local responsibility, at least to date, under our 
form of government. But community A will not get any increase 
of its tax base, consequently it can't increase its bonded obligation. 

There is a possibility of— not a likelihood — that that will have to 
be a building built by Federal funds and put at the disposal of the 
local district with, preferably I would say, the title transferred to the 
school district. 



g526 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

B — TRANSFER OF FEDERAL HOUSING TO LOCAL TAX ROLL 

In community B we build the same buildings. Now when can com- 
munity B absorb part of that cost? Only when those 1,000 addi- 
tional houses get on the tax roll locall3^ I don't know when they will 
get there. If those 1,000 houses, representing a total expendi- 
ture of at least $3,000,000, should be liquidated — that is transferred 
to private ownership — 12 months from now, it is quite obvious that 
the increased tax base from those 1,000 houses 12 months from now 
would be considerably greater than it would be 5 years from now. 

Mr. Curtis. May 1 interrupt you at that point? It is entirely 
possible in some cases they won't need a school; isn't that true? 

Mr. Alves. My assumption is you have no existing school facilities 
and you had to jDrovide the same thing in each of the three com- 
munities. The point is. community B cannot obligate itself any more 
because it is already obligated to the limit the law allows. It can do 
so only when it gets an increased tax base, and it will get that in- 
creased tax base only when those 1,000 houses become private prop- 
erty. 

If they become private property 12 months from now the $3,000,000 
outlay may result in a $2,000,000 increased tax base. If they don't 
go on the tax roll for 5 years maybe the increased tax base will be 
only six or seven hundred thousand dollars. But certainly the dis- 
trict could be held responsible to help, to the extent that it gets an 
increased tax base from the property. 

— FEDERAL LOANS TO LOCAL DISTRICT 

Now, in community C the children live in private houses which will 
go on the tax base as soon as the existing procedure permits — it 
might be 18 months, but in the meantime you do need schools, so they 
are built. 

Our contention is that in that case — our proposal rather is that in 
that case the Federal Government should lend to the local district, just 
as it does in effect to the community B, but that under no condition 
should a school district, simply because it has kept its financial house 
in order during the past 10 years, be asked to accept an obligation, 
which after the emergency may be a white elephant on its neck. 

We have some examples from the World War as a result of that type 
of procedure. 

Our whole idea is that there ought to be, in spite of the fact that 
this is an emergency program, as much equity as we can possibly get 
into such a program. 

As you can quickly see, there are factors and conditions which will 
help determine whether this school need now should be declared to 
be a permanent or temporary one. All I can say is that that thing is 
full of headaches. 

Mr. Curtis. It is true the community involved, whether it is A, B, 
or C, receives the additional business and pay rolls and the ordinary 
money turn-over by reason of the location of that defense industry 
there"; isn't that true? 

Mr. Alves. Correct. 

Mr. Curtis. And it is also true that for the most ])art the community 
sought out the Federal Government and asked them to locate that at 
that place ; isn't that true ? 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6527 

Mr. Alves. I am sorry I can't answer that, but I expect you are right. 

Mr. Curtis. I think most of the Congressmen have calls at their 
offices quite frequently in that regard. 

Now, on the basis of the amount of money that you discussed, what- 
ever portion you get of this $150,000,000, wouldn't take care of the 
situation, would it? 

Mr. Alves. No, sir ; it will not. 

Mr. Curtis. You can't build any permanent buildings between now 
and the 1st of September, either ? 

Mr. Alves. We cannot. 

Mr. Curtis. Then what will they do? 

Mr. Alves. Well, until we have set forth the rules and regulations 
under which, or by which, all agencies involved will be guided, that 
question cannot be definitely answered. 

SCHOOL SITUATION IN FIRST WORLD WAR 

Mr, Cltitis. What was the experience in the last war in regard to 
this tiling? 

Mr. ALy-ES. Relatively negligible, compared to the situation at this 
time There were some few buildings built — not a great many. 

Mr. Curtis. In those places where buildings were not built, have you 
checked the attendance records and the promotion records and so on, 
to see to what extent the pupils suffered ? 

Mr. Alves. Yes; and I can speak from personal experience because 
I happened to grow up around an Army post — Fort Sam Houston in 
San Antonio, Tex. The situations, so iar as I can compare them in 
the first place, was not nearly as aggravated. There was not nearly 
the concentration of population we have today, especially so far as 
industry goes. 

The general procedure followed was a doubling up, which is already 
going on in many school systems in defense areas today — half-day ses- 
sions or what we call "a staggering of the daily schedule," with the 
result that you can increase the load from 25 to 50 percent without any 
real harm to the pupils, unless it is continued for many years. 

To give you an indication that that is already being recognized, 

I recall a high school that was built for about 1,200 pupils. Last March 
that high school with a capacity of 1,200 had 1,700 actually going to 
school in it. This fall, by October, they expect an additional 800. 
Now, you do reach a saturation point, so far as doubling up or running 
parallel programs are concerned. 

When you get to the lower-age levels — children 6, 7, 8, 10, and up to 

II years old — it isn't very practical for a number of reasons to have 
one session from 8 to 2 and another one from 2 to 7 at night. 

All those factors are being recognized. 

WATS OF handling TEMPORARY SCHOOL SHORTAGE 

Now, in answering your question how, since we can't build a per- 
manent building by October, Avill we take care of the situation. There 
isn't any way to do it, except to double sessions for one thing, and, if 
necessary, to use some Sunday school rooms and maybe rent some 
rooms to put in the additional teachers. 

The significant thing really is here though — it is a matter of finances. 
Local school budgets in most States are prepared by this time of the 

H— pt. 16 15 



5528 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

year, under existing laAvs. The funds that a locality may derive for 
school purposes are funds received as a result of a levy for this fiscal 
year and no change in that levy can be made for one fiscal year. Simi- 
larly State school moneys come from legislative action in most States, 
and practically all States are on a biannual basis, so in those cases there 
are difficulties encountered in financing additional teachers in those 
localities. 

Mr. Curtis. But in most cases a district is not bound firmly bv the 
budget estimates submitted when the levy was made ; are they? They 
can go ahead and create obligations and issue warrants; can't they? 

Mr. Al\t:s. I would say, by and large, that doesn't work like it did 
10 or 12 years ago. We had a terrible experience, as you may recall, 
during the depression when school districts as other governmental 
agencies issued warrants — anticipation warrants — with the result that 
the first thing we knew they had pledged alread3^ this year, all the 
money they might expect next year, so we had a write-off campaign ; 
which you probably recall. 

Mr. Curtis. I will admit it is bad practice, but what I meant to say 
was to get around the emergency for a matter of a few months. That 
could be done, couldn't it? 

Mr. Al\tes. Well, what is the use of doing it if you have no increased 
tax income locally ? 

Mr. Curtis. I am not advocating it as a remedy for this ; don't mis- 
understand me. I am thinking about the date when school starts and 
the kids are at the door and we haven't done anything. 

Mr. Alves. Your point is with the assurance on the part of the 
locality that even though it does not have the money on hand on the 
opening day but may expect it, it can proceed; that is correct. 

Mr. Curtis. Now, Mr. Alves, you have given us a long paper which 
will go into the record in its entirety. This is one of the matters thnt 
I have thought about a great deal. Without a doubt, the Federal 
Government does have an obligation in these places. 

Mr. Alves. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. And the local community has some and we may never 
agree on just where to draw the line as between the two? 

Mr. Alves. Yes; it ought to be as nearly equitable as humanly 
possible. 

Mr. Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Alves. I was going to make two statements, if I may. resulting 
from your questions and statements. 

Mr. Curtis. Go ahead. 

Mr. Alves. The Congressman referred to the fact that these locali- 
ties would enjoy an increased business because of an influx of popu- 
lation. That is true, but that increased business is not the basis for 
voting bonds for capital outlay purposes. That is a matter of a tax 
base and I don't think we want to confuse the two. As a matter of 
fact the tax income from the increased business activities goes to the 
State as the agent of Government rather than the locality. I just 
wanted to be sure that that got into the picture. 

funds available under lanham act 

Now, with reference to existing Federal funds under the so-called 
Lanham Act, for community facilities. I am sure that the committee 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6529 

knows that at the time of the hearmgs we added to the estimates in 
other fields around $300,000,000. We have had $150,000,000. If the 
$300,000,000 is anywhere near accurate you can quickly determine a 
ratio. 

The fact is that there is a request before Congress for an addi- 
tional $300,000,000 for defense housing and that title VI of F. H. A. 
has been made considerably more lenient.^ Recently I saw a state- 
ment to the effect that there was then anticipated need over and 
above all housing already planned of an additional 600,000 houses. 
If that $300,000,000 for additional Federal housing is appropriated 
and, correspondingly, private capital under the insurance clause of 
the Federal Housing Act builds the ratio anticipated, it means by 
the time you have completed 600,000 additional family dwelling units 
over and" above those now planned or under construction, you can 
expect another child of school age, for each family occupying one 
of those units, to come into the picture. 

The Chairman. Our record will be kept open for a week or 10 
days and if you could submit to the committee a statement showing 
what figures you have obtained from various defense centers with 
reference to the increase in teacher load and facilities, we will be 
glad to incorporate it with your statement. 

Mr. Alve-?. Does the chairman mean a list of defense centers^ 

The Chairman, I think that is what we have in mind. It doesn't 
liave to be done today. 

Mr. Alves. I don't think we can do that now for this reason, and 
I want to be sure that it isn't understood we don't want to. We 
would like to but right now we have in the field eight representa- 
tives of the office who are going into the localities with representa- 
tives of State departments of education, and with the assistance of 
every possible agency we can persuade to help. We are squeezing 
tlie water out of these estimates and some of them liave a little water 
in them. 

Now, whatever list we could prepare today or tomorrow wouldn't 
be any good anyway because, although these men are going at it 
rapidly, they are not yet near finishing. And furthermore, in get- 
ting the administration of H. R. 4545 going, as you probably are 
aware, the W. P. A. has men in the field, regional directors and field 
men, and they are going into the localities and, wherein a given 
locality you have a given situation today, it might be quite differ- 
ent tomorrow, because everybody is actively at work trying to de- 
termine the actual conditions of need. I am afraid it is almost an 
impossibility. 

The Chairman. We realize the situation. We thank you very 
much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Robert C. Weaver. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT C. WEAVER, CHIEF. NEGRO EMPLOYMENT 
AND TRAINING BRANCH, LABOR DIVISION, OFFICE OF PRODUC- 
TION MANAGEMENT, 'WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The Chairman. Mr. Weaver, Congressman Osmers will interro- 
gate you. 



1 Text of "Title VI, Defense Housing nisurance," appears in Washington, pt. 17, July 18. 
19. and 21, p. 6960. 



^530 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Mr. OsMERS. Mr. Weaver, would you give your name and posi- 
tion to the reporter for the record ? 

Mr. Weaver. Kobert C. Weaver, Chief of Negro Employment and 
Training Branch, Labor Division, Office of Production Management. 

STATEMENT BY ROBERT C. WEAVER, CHIEF, NEGRO EMPLOYMENT 
AND TRAINING BRANCH, LABOR DIVISION, OFFICE OF PRODUCTION 
MANAGEMENT 

Racial Discrimination in Employment in National-Defense Industries 

Field investigations by members of my staff in the Negro Employment and 
Training Branch of the Office of Prodnction Management indicate that arbitrary 
employment barriers erected against Negroes and other minority groups in 
certain defense industries have increased the unnecessary migration of workers 
into some defense areas. This widespread exclusion of minority groups from 
participation in defense production has multiplied civic and social problems 
in various communities by placing additional burdens on the housing, school, 
police, and fire-prevention facilities of these municipalities. At the same time, 
these practices have tended to retard the progress of our defense effort by 
making impossible the total utilization of our human resources. 

A few typical incidents will illustrate this situation. In Hartford, Conn., 
for instance, where an increasing shortage of skilled workers was evident this 
year, holders of defense contracts not only refused to employ competent and 
available Negro workers but also barred Negro youths from defense training 
programs after the available supply of white youths had been exhausted. While 
maintaining this ban against Negro workers — thereby increasing the percentage 
of Negroes on the relief rolls — these employers advertised throughout the 
country for white workers to come into the Hartford area. 

This situation was duplicated in Los Angeles, where large-scale defense pro- 
duction is under way. Outside workers were imported into this area by the 
thousands while qualified and available Negro workers were denied the oppor- 
tunity to lend their skills and aptitudes to the defense effort. 

During the construction of a camp near Petersburg, Va., hundreds of avail- 
able Virginia Negro carpenters were barred from employment on this project 
while thousands of white carpenters from all parts of the country were im- 
ported to the site for employment. 

Similar practices may result in a heavy influx of outside labor to the Baltimore 
area this year. A recent survey conducted in that city revealed that approx- 
imately 40 percent of the male labor reserve of Baltimore is composed of 
Negroes. Assuming that only one-third to one-half of the Negro labor reserve 
under 45 years of age could qualify for training courses, from 3,000 to 4,500 
additionnl trainees would be made available for defense industries in that area. 
Conversely, the failure of defense contractors to utilize this potential labor re- 
serve will raise the number of in-migrants to Baltimore from 3.000 to 4.500 
with a resultant increase of the housing, school, police, and fire-prevention needs 
of the community. 

ATTITUDE OF MANAGEMENT 

Many factors contribute to this widespread practice. One important factor is 
the attitude of management — both top and supervisory — toward ttie situation. 
Some presidents and directors of vital defense industries have refused to take 
any cognizance of the problem. Others, in isolated instances, apparently have 
permitted their own emotional bias to influence the employment practices of 
their companies. Practices of this nature, however, are more prevalent among 
the superintendents and foremen in defense plants. These men usually establish 
the practices and draw up the specifications through which workers are hired, 
and their lack of provision for the integration of quidified Negro workers has 
been accepted without question by management and labor alike. 

ATTITlT^y. OF ORGANIZFD LAROR 

Another important factor in this picture is the attitude of organized labor 
toward the integration of organized Neg^-o labor into our defense efforts. Al- 
though only a limited number of international unions bar Negroes by ritual or 
constitutional bans, scores of small local unions establish barriers against the 
employment of qualified Negro workers. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g53X 

A typical instance where such a practice affects the problem under considera- 
tion occurred recently in Illinois. Hundreds of skilled Negro workers, many 
of them holding union membership, were barred from construction work on a 
large powder plant project near Chicago seemingly because the business agent 
of certain local unions in the nearby town refused to give clearance to these 
qualified Negro workers. While we have been able to correct the situation in 
many trades, these bans have been maintained in several crafts despite the 
crying need for skilled workers in these categories. At the same time, the 
local unions involved are calling skilled white workers from other jobs, some of 
them defense projects, no doubt, in various parts of the country in an attempt 
to fill the labor needs on this particular project. 

GENERAL ATTITUDE OF WHITE EMPLOYEES 

A third factor which may influence the picture is the general attitude of 
white employees toward the introduction of Negro workers into industry. 
While this factor undoubtedly does play a part in the formulation of ex- 
clusionist policies, it is often exaggerated by employei's in their refusal to hire 
Negro workers. One large construction engineering firm, for instance, refused to 
use skilled Negro building trades workers in the erection of a powder plant 
in the Middle West. The construction manager for this firm defended this 
practice by saying that "white and Negro artisans would not work together in 
this section of the country." He refused to alter his position even when it was 
pointed out to him that subcontractors on this very construction job were using 
hundreds of Negro and white skilled workers and working them side by side. 
As a result of his arbitrary position on this question, hundreds of additional 
Negro skilled workers in the area were denied employment opportunities at 
the very time that the construction manager frantically sought white workers 
from other sections of the country. 

I do not believe that I can stress too much the economic waste, and the 
dangers to our national unity, which result from such practices. There is no 
general formula by which thousands of local situations may be solved. There 
Is, however, in almost every community and in most industries objective evi- 
dence that available local labor resources are being ignored while frantic efforts 
are being made to lure outside workers into defense communities. This Is a 
problem which both management and organized labor must face, and one for 
which both must seek a solution. In view of the current emergency, it is a 
problem which deeply affects the entire American economy. 

(The following exchange of correspondence, which took place sub- 
sequent to the hearing, has been made a part of the record in accord- 
ance with instructions of the chairman.) 



[Copy] 

July 23, 1941. 
Dr. Robert C. Weaver, 

Chief, Negro Employment and Training Branch, 

Labor Division, Offiee of Production Management, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Weaver : You may already have seen a statement released to the 
press by Mr. Noel Sargent, secretary of the National Association of Manu- 
facturers, on July 18, 1941, in connection with his appearance before this 
House committee. In this release he referred to your testimony and said, "I 
respectfully submit that the committee, entitled to and obligated as it is to 
consider all available facts, should ask Dr. Weaver to submit the following 
additional data simultaneously with the names of the manufacturers of whom 
he complains." I am attaching on a separate memorandum the list of these 
data and am forwarding this to you with the request that you will add this 
to the list of names of those manufacturers whom you mentioned in the course 
of your testimony before us. 

At the time of Mr. Sargent's appearance before the committee it was agreed 
by the committee that we should ask you to supplement your testimony with 
this additional material in order that we might keep the record straight. We 
will hold the committee record on this hearing open for a period of 10 days 
or until August 1 for the receipt of this material from your office. If you 
have any further questions with respect to this request, will you communicate 
with the office of the staff director. Dr. E. K. Lamb. 



0532 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

May I take this opportunity to thank you and Mr. Hillman for the arrange- 
ment to have you appear before this committee to present the comprehensive 
testimony that you gave us on July 17. 
With all good wishes, I am, 
Sincerely, 

John H. Tolan, Chairman. 



[Enclosure] 
DATA to be asked OF DR. ROBERT C. WEAVER 

I respectfully submit that the committee, entitled to and obligated as it is 
to consider all available facts, should ask Dr. Weaver to submit the following 
additional data simultaneously with the names of the manufacturers of whom 
he complains : 

1. A list of all unions, international, national, and local, of which he has 
or secures knowledge, which refuse membership in their organizations to 
Negroes ; 

2. An analysis showing the proportion, in unions which do admit Negroes to 
membership, and such Negro membership to that of white workers ; 

3. A statement, in his ufRcial capacity as chief of the branch of Negro Em- 
ployment and Training of the Office of Production Management, showing what 
studies have been made of the actual or probable effect on Negro employment of 
"closed shop" contracts recommended or ordered by the Defense Mediation 
Board, or the National Labor Relations Board, and negotiated by unions barring 
Negro members. 

JtTLY 29, 1941. 
Chairman of Housing Committee 

Investigating National Defense Migration. 

Washington, D. C. 

Dkar Sib: During my appearance before your committee on July 16, 1941, 
you asked me to furnish you certain information about American trade-unions 
which bar Negroes from membership.In this connection I would like to call 
your attention to the Handbook of American Trade-Unions, Bulletin No. 618, 
issued in 1936 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Depart- 
ment of Labor. 

Concerning this problem this official publication of the United States Depart- 
ment of Labor cites the following constitutional qualifications for membership 
in the following international unions : 

Airline Pilots Association (American Federation of Labor), Page 241: "Any 
moral person of the white race of lawful age and good moral character * * *." 

Brotherhood of Railway Clerks (American Federation of Labor), page 251: 
"Any white person, male or female, of good moral character * * *." 

Brotherhood of Railway Carmen (American Federation of Labor), page 180: 
"Any white person between the ages of 16-65 years." 

Brotherhood of Dining Car Conductors (Railway Brotherhood), page 252: 
"An applicant for membership must be of the Caucasian race." 

Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (Railway Broth- 
erhood), page 259: "No person shall become a member of the Brotherhood of 
Locomotive Engineers unless he is a white man 21 years of age * * *." 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (Railway Brotherhood), 
page 262 : "Any worker within the jurisdiction who has served for at least 30 
days, white, of good moral character, sober and industrious * * *." 

Railway Mail Association (American Federation of Labor), page 311: "Any 
regular mail railway moral postal clerk or certified substitute railway postal 
clerk of the United States Railway Mail Service, who is of the Caucasian race, 
is eligible for membership." 

International Organization of Master Mates and Pilots of America (American 
Federation of Labor), page 239: "Any white person of good moral charac- 
ter * * *." 

Switchmen's Union of North Amex'ica (American Federation of Labor), page 
270 : "Any white moral person of good moral chai-acter * * *." 

Order of Railroad Telegraphers (American Federation of Labor), page 281: 
"Any white person of good moral character * * *." 

Train Dispatchers A.ssociation of America (Railway Brotherhood), page 271: 
"Any train dispatcher, white, of good moral character ♦ * *." 

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (Railway Brotherhood), page 274: "Any 
white moral person between ages of 18-65 * * *." 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g533 

Railroad Yardmasters of America (Railway Brotherhood), page 277: "Any 
moral white person of good moral character * * *." 

Wire Weavers Protective Association of America (American Federation of 
Labor), page 202: "Applicants for membership must be Christian, white, moral, 
of full age of 21 * * *." 

Order of Railway Conductors (Railway Brotherhood), page 25: "Any white 
man shall be eligible to membership * * *." 

Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Conductors (American Federation of Labor), 
page 253 : "Applications for membership must be white, moral, sober, and in- 
dustrious and must join of his own free will * * *." 

Commercial Telegraphers Union of North America (American Federation of 
Labor), page 282 : "Any wliite person of good moral character who is of 16 years 
of age * * *." 

International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers (Ameri- 
can Federation of Labor), page 175: "Colored: Where there are a sufficient 
number of colored helpers they may be organized as an auxiliary local and be 
under the jurisdiction of the white local having jurisdiction of their territory ; 
colored helpers shall not transfer except to another auxiliary local composed of 
colored members and colored members shall not be promoted to blacksmiths or 
helping apprentices and will not be admitted to jobs where white helpers are 
now employed." 

The Handbook of American Trade-Unions states further on this question : 

"Constitutional requirements, however, do not in all cases cover the whole 
situation and in extreme cases they may, as a matter of fact, actually control. 
Rituals sometime contain phrases which by interpretation may exclude whole 
classes and groups of workers, such as Negroes." 

In your letter of July 23, you requested more detailed information relative to 
Negro participation in labor unions. Among other things, you ask for a list of all 
unions, international, national, and local, which refuse membership in their 
organizations to Negroes. I have dealt with the international organizations 
above. Since we are constantly in the process of dealing with the problem of 
discrimination against Negroes on the local level, it is impossible to supply a list 
which has any validity. As soon as instances of discrimination are called to 
our attention, we communicate directly with the iinion involved, and in most 
instances we have been successful in securing some adjustments. The basis 
of our approach to this problem is an agreement of cooperation from the Amer- 
ican Federation of Labor and Congi-ess of Indu.strial Organizations, which was 
t^ecu^ed by the National Defense Advisory Council some months ago. I am 
attaching for your information a copy of an announcement of this agreement. 

It is impossible at this time to give any statistical break-down as to the 
proportion of Negroes in unions. There are many organizations which have a 
large number of Negro members and in which there is no racial break-down 
either locally or nationally. In order to secure this information it would be 
necessary to send questionnaires to each local of every union in the Nation. 
The data so assembled would be incomplete and outmoded by the time it was 
compiled. 

The only information which I can supply relative to the effect on Negro em- 
ployment of "closed shop" contracts recommended by various Government boards 
would be general. As charges of discrimination in such cases are brought to our 
attention we immediately investigate them and, through the facilities of the 
Labor Division, attempt to secure an adjustment. Our approach to this problem 
is similar to instances where we have charges of discrimination by industry. 
I might say, however, that in light of the nature of the skilled supply of Negro 
labor, most "closed shop" contracts with which we deal are in the building 
trades occupations. Here we have made notable progress, as was indicated in 
the placement figure cited in my prepared testimony. I can add, however, that 
this matter of "closed shop" contracts and Negro exclusion is a real pi'oblem 
facing us. Its intensity is modified, however, by the fact that, with the exception 
of the building industry, in the majority of the defense contracts where Negro 
employment is an issue, either industrial unions wh'ch are open to Negroes are 
involved or there are not at the present time "closed shop" agreements. 

I regret that it is impossible for me to answer definitely the questions which 
were set for«:h by Mr. Sargent but the problem is of such nature as to preclude 
detailed statements on these matters. 



g534 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

In my testimony before your committee I stated that several industrial firms 
had refused to en'iploy Negro production workers after they had been urged to 
do so by representatives of our office. The North American Aviation, Inc., the 
Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, the Fairchild Aviation Corporation, and the 
Colt Firearms Co., at Hartford, Conn., are among this group. 
I trust this information will be of assistance to your committee. 
Sincerely yours, 

[Signed] Robert C. Wea\'er, 
Chief, Negro Employment and Training Branch, 

Labor Division. 



(The following correspondence also has been made a part of the 
record:) 

Exhibit B — On Companies Refusing To Employ Negko Production Workers 

Office of Production Management, 

Social Security Building, 
Washington, D. C, August 5, 1941. 
Hon. John H. Tolan, 

Congress of the United States, 

Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Tolan : I have your letter of July 30 requesting a complete list 
of industrial firms which have refused to employ Negro production workers after 
they have been urged to do so by a representative of my office. 

It so happens that in the majority of cases where we have been able to make 
no progress in placement, management has not definitely refused to hire Negro 
workers but has made promises of cooperation which have in many instances 
not been followed. It was for this reason that the list which I gave in my 
letter of July 29 was short. There are many plants which hire a few Negroes 
and refuse to add any more, or which have promised to hire Negro production 
workers but have refused to be definite as to the time of action. In light of 
these facts I do not believe that a more detailed list would be accurate. 
Sincerely yours, 

[Signed] Robert C. Welwer, 
Chief, Negro Employment and Training Branch, 

Labor Division. 



[Copy] 

July 30, 1941. 
Dr. Robert C. Weaver, 

Chief, Negro Employment and Training Branch, 

Labor Division, Office of Production Management, Washimgton, D. C. 
Dear Dr. Weaver: Thank you for your letter of July 29* and for the mate- 
rials it contains. Your letter will be placed in the records of the committee 
as part of your testimony. 

If I remember the request of the committee correctly in regard to the list 
of industrial firms that had refused to employ Negro production workers, after 
they had been urged to do so by a representative of your office, I believe that 
we asked for a complete list of such firms. If it is possible for your office 
to furnish such a complete list within the next 10 days, we can make it part 
of our record. 

We do not wish to emphasize the firms in the particular localities which 
we investigated to date in contrast with other firms throughout the country wha 
have refused to employ Negroes. 
With all good wishes, I am. 
Sincerely, 

John H. Tolan, Chairman^ 



This reference is to letter appearing on p. 6.531. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6535 

[Copy] 

August 8, 1941. 
Dr. Robert C. Weaver, 

Chief, Negro EmMoyment mid Trn'ming Branch, 

Labor Division, Office of Production Management, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Dr. Weaver : Thank you for your letter of August 5. In it you men- 
tion that a number of firms have made promises of cooiieration which have 
not been followed; would you submit for the record as complete a list as 
possible of such firms? 

In addition, you make a statement that several employers have promised 
to hire Negro production workers but have refused to be definite as to the 
time of action. The committee assumes that those firms who have promised 
cooperation are sincere in their promises and that the inclusion in the record 
of as complete a list of such firms as possible would in no way hinder the 
important work of the Labor Division. 
With all good wishes, I am. 



Sincerely, 



John H. Tolan, Chairman. 



Office of Production Management, 
Washington, D. C, August 18, 194L 
Hon. John H. Tolan, 

Congress of the United States, 

Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Tot.an : In response to your letter of August 8, I am attaching a 
list of companies from which commitments have been received for the employ- 
ment of Negroes. Those companies with the asterisk have already employed 
Negroes in accordance with their promises. Other companies listed have made 
commitments for the employment of Negroes in production capacities and we are 
now in the process of following up these promises. This list is accurate as of 
.August 15. 

Sincerely yours, 

[Signed] Robert C. Weaver, 
Chief, Negro Employment and Training Branch, Labor Division. 

LIST OF COMPANIES FROM WHICH COMMITMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FOR THE 
EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES 

Ordnance: 

Goodyear Engineering Corporation (Hoosier River Ordnance Works). 

Houde Engineering Co. 

Indiana Ordnance Works* (Du Pont). 

Iowa Ordnance Plant (Day & Zimmerman). Plant now under construc- 
tion. 

Kingsbury Ordnance Works (Tood & Brown). 

Lake City Ordnance Works (Remington Arms). Plant now under con- 
struction. 

Ohio River Ordnance Works (Atmospheric nitrogen). 

Radford Ordnance Plant* (Hercules Powder Co.). 

Ravenna Ordnance Works (Atlas Powder Co.). 

St. Louis Ordnance Works (Western Cartridge Co.). Plant now under 
construction. 

United States Cartridge Co. (division, Western Cartridge Co.). Plant now 
under construction. 

Wolf Creek Ordnance Works (Procter & Gamble). 
Aircraft industry: 

Allison Division of General Motors.* 

Bell Aircraft Corporation.* 

Bendix Company.* 

Brewster Aeronautical Corporation.* 

Briggs Manufacturing Co.* 

Curtiss-Wright Aircraft Corporation.* 



g536 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Aircraft indnstry. — Continued. 

Douglass Aviation Corporation.* 

Graliam Paige Motor Corporation. 

Grumman Aeronautical Corporation.* 

Hudson Motors.* 

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. 

Packard Motor Car Co.* 

Pratt & Whitney.* 

Republic Aviation Corporation.* 

Spartan Aircraft Co. 

Sperry Gyroscope Co.* 
Shipbuilding industry: 

Consolidated Steel Corporation, Ltd.* 

Cramp Shipbuilding Co.* 

Federal Shipbuilding Co.* 

New York Shiiibuilding Co.* (unskilled only). 

Sun Shipbuilding Co.* 
Garment trades: 

Baniberger-Rointhal Co.* 

Freuhanl' Southwest Uniform Co.* 
Motor manufarturinff: 

Autocar Co. 

Continental Motors. 
Miscellaneous: 

American Telephone & Telegraph Co.* 

Bauer & Black. 

Bridgeport Brass Co.* 

Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Co. 

Eberhardt Manufacturing Co.* 

Edward G. Budd Co.* 

Emerson Electric Co.* 

Fruehauf Trailer Co. 

Goodrich Rubber Co.* 

Goodyear Aviation Co. 

Lacakawanna-Bethlehem Steel Corporation.* 

Murray Body.* 

Pressed Steel Co. 

Radio Corporation of America. 

Thompson Products Co.* 

York Safe & Lock Co. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBEET C. WEAVER— Resumed 

Mr. OsMERS. I wonder, Mr. Weaver, if you would give to the com- 
mittee a few typical community examples of discrimination against 
Negroes ? 

Mr. Weaver. Perhaps the most striking example is in the aircraft 
industry. Take the west coast, in the southern California area, 
where there has been a terrific labor requirement for the aircraft 
industry in the last few months, with tens of thousands of workers 
being recruited — many of them being recruited from out of the State 
of California. 

Mr. OsMERs. Where are they coming from principally, Mr. Weaver? 

Mr. WexWer. Texas, I should say, from my information as to that 
situation. 

There were exactly four Negro production workers in the aircraft 
industry in southern California a month ago when I was out there. 
In the Los Angeles area there is a fairly large population, a popula- 
tion from which, conservatively, several thousand trainees could have 
been recruited and that population has been completely untapped 
to date with the exception of the four that I mentioned. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g537 

We have another situation in the same industry in Baltimore, Md., 
with the hirgest single labor demand tliere coming from an aircraft 
manufacturing plant. 

That plant is now increasing its employment rolls at a very rapid 
rate. There is a dearth of training material in Baltimore at the 
present time. The only reserve for trainees for production workers 
is a Negro reserve. 

TWO UNIONS REFUSING TO ADMIT NEGROES 

Mr. OsMERS. What unions refuse to permit qualified Negro workers 
to membership ? 

Mr. Wea\'er. Well, that is a very difficult question to answer be- 
cause the union policies are usually not national policies. I mean 
you will find a given situation in one city and another situation in 
another city. There are two A. F. of L. unons that I know of which 
have constitutional provisions which would prevent Negroes being 
members. 

One restricts Negroes to helpers and only helpers in a shop, and 
they cannot get any further than helpers. The other union, the 
Carmen of America, say that for membership a person shall be white 
and between the ages of 16 and 65 years. 

Now, in other unions, in other internationals, there are instances 
where there are rituals Avhich limit membership to white persons, 
while the constitution says nothing about race restriction. The main 
difficulty is not so much in the international or national requirements 
as in local practices. 

]\Ir. Osmers. Now, right on that subject. We had evidence given 
to the committee that some white workers, particularly skilled work- 
ers, refused to work with Negro workers. What do you think of 
that argument? 

Mr. Weaver. Well, I think that it is about 25 percent true. But 
I will say this in explanation. As we track down these cases we have 
employers say they will not hire Negroes because of union situations. 
We go back and very often find that they have an open shop, so it is 
absurd to say that it is a union requirement. 

We go into cities where it is said they cannot hire Negro workers 
as production workers because the white production workers will 
walk out. Well, right down the street, in the same industry and 
on the same processes, we find Negroes and white workers working in 
tlie same occupation. 

Now, there is no question that where you have created a new 
industry and where that industry starts out discriminating and keep- 
ing out any element of the population — they don't have to be Negro, 
they can be au}^ other minority group — that that builds up in the 
minds of the workers a vested interest which makes it more difficult 
to introduce them at a later time. Although there are instances, as 
in any time of a tight labor market, where those same people, who 
claim they can't work together, find they will work together. We 
have them working together in other places. 

In other words a lot of it depends upon management's point of 
view. If management were willing to plan for the thing and go about 
it intelligently and with some degree of an over-all plan and point of 



^538 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

view there would be no difficulty. In 25 percent of the cases it has 
been done and is being done today without any difficult^;. 

Now, there are certain situations in which if you inject a new 
group suddenly without any preparation, you are apt to have diffi- 
culty, but it depends there upon the way in which it is done. The 
best proof of the pudding is in the eating of it and the test is that 
there are companies in the same areas which are now doing the thing 
successfully. 

EFFORTS TO COMBAT DISCRIMINATION 

Mr. OsMERS. Now, what efforts has your branch of the Labor 
Division made to overcome this Negro discrimination and what 
progress are you making ? 

Mr. Wea\t:r. Well, we are doing two things. The first thing is 
the thing we have been doing since the inception of the branch. We 
have been there for about a year, first with the Defense Commission 
and then, of course, transferred over to O. P. M. I have a relatively 
small field staff and that staff goes into these industrial areas, works 
directly with defense contractors and through its contacts has been 
able to secure a modification of certain of these employment policies as 
far as racial discrimination in employment is concerned. 

The first thing we worked on was the construction of Army can- 
tonments because that was, of course, the first big employment. We 
were, I should say, relatively successful in that particular situation, 
because we had had a great deal of experience. I had worked before 
with the United States Housing Authority and I was able to borrow 
some of the people who knew the construction game pretty well, 
and we were able to go in there and work with the unions and in 
many instances were able to secure Negro participation in unions 
where they had never been before. 

Mr. OsMF.RS. Which industry, Mr. Weaver, forms the biggest 
stumbling block to your efforts — which single industry? 

Mr. Weaver. That is very difficult to say because, on the surface, 
from a statistical standpoint, you would say it is the machine-tool 
industry, but that wouldn't be an accurate statement because in he 
machine-tool industries you have so many highly trained workers, 
and we do not have a large number of Negroes highly trained in that 
industry. 

Mr. OsiMERs. You mean the experience factor is not with your 
Negro worker ? 

Mr. Weaver. Yes ; that is true too. 

Mr. OsMERS. I know if they are not allowed to start in industry 
they can't get the experience. It is like the egg and the chicken. 
Have training facilities been provided for Negroes in proportion 
to their population ? 

Mr. Weaver. No, sir. 

EFFECT of defense PROGRAM ON MIGRATION FROM THE SOUTH 

Mr. OsMERS. Has the migration of Negroes out of the South, 
which has been so marked in the last few years, been accelerated 
because of the defense program ? 

Mr. Weaver. On the whole, I would say no. In one or two cen< 
ters, you see, during the depression, migration declined quite a bit, 



NATIONAL DEFENSP: MIGRATION 6539 

but there are centers to which there has been a continued migration 
of both Negroes and whites. Some localities attract them, just as 
you have migration to California, which is sometimes entirely dis- 
associated with any economic factor. For the same reason you have 
migration of Negroes into certain areas in the North which have 
glamour, I might say, to the populations back South. 

But as far as industrial movement is cioncerned, that declined 
during the depression and there is no evidence now of any appre- 
ciable increase, with the exception of one or two centers which have 
always had the glamour factor involved. 

In that connection I should like to point out that our whole ap- 
proach to this problem has been one of the employment of all avail- 
able, qualified local labor. Our whole policy and procedure is based 
upon the use of these people, not because they are Negroes but be- 
cause they are a part of the local population; because they are al- 
ready here, because schooling is already here for them, because 
housing is already here for them, and ail of the other things that 
go into that picture, both social and economic. Our whole pro- 
gram has been one of using these people because they are local 
labor and we are not interested and have not been interested in 
any way in encouraging the movement of people from one section 
of the country to the other. 

Mr. OsMERs. What does the average Negro citizen feel about this 
discrimination ? 

Mr. Weaver. I think the average Negro citizen feels this discrimi- 
nation more keenly than he probably feels anything else of a public 
nature. 

At least, since I have been conscious enough to know what they 
are thinking and how they are feeling, I think that every Negro 
organization and every Negro newspaper has agreed on the seriousness 
of that situation and they have become almost united on what should 
be done to solve it. That is a very significant thing and, of course, 
it is all tied up with this morale problem. 

EFFECT OF THE PRESmENT's ORDER 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you think that the President's recent Executive 
order will have any effect upon the situation? 

Mr. Weaver. Yes; I think, obviously, that the future contracts 
which will include a nondiscrimination clause will give us a great 
deal more to work with, when we go to discuss this thing. At least 
we will have some basis on which to base our negotiations and 
approaches to the problem. 

I don't think it will solve the whole problem, because obviously we 
have got all these contracts which have gone before, which will not 
be influenced by the nondiscrimination clause, and also the fact that 
a clause in a contract is only the first step. It has got to be imple- 
mented. 

Mr. Osmers. Is that clause being written into all new contracts? 

Mr. Weaver. I have checked with the Army and they have sent 
out a directive that it should be included in all new contracts. I 
am now checking \^ith the Navy, and the Coast Guard. 



g540 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Mr. OsMERS. I questioned a witness at our Baltimore hearings. 
He was the representative of the BaUimore Urban League,^ and I 
put that question to him, whether he thought it would be helpful in 
his efforts, which are somewhat similar to your own, to nail it down 
in a contract so that they had something to point to, something 
definitely written in black and white that they could talk about, and 
he thought that it would be helpful if they had that clause to work 
on. 

RECALCITRANT UNIONS 

Now, just going back for a moment in your testimony, would you 
care to name some of the unions that do exclude and bar Negroes? 

Mr. WKtiLVER. Well, I would prefer to name the unions with which 
we have the greatest difficulty because, with the exception of the 
two which have these constitutional provisions, there are always 
some exceptions. 

It could be pointed out that in some one city this local admitted 
our people whereas in maybe 95 percent of the other cities they do 
not admit them. 

The machinist union has been one with which we have had a 
great deal of difficulty. The electrical union in the building trades^ 
those two would be outstanding. 

Mr. OsMERS. Are they A. F. of L. or C. I. O. ? 

Mr. Weaver. They are A. F. of L. 

Mr. Osmers. Do you ever have any difficulty with other building 
trade-unions ? 

Mr. Weaver. Yes; locals, but it is very difficult to generalize. I 
mean in one city we may have perfect accord with the trowel trade, 
where we have the most favorable situation, yet we will go to 
another city and maybe in the bricklayers' local union we will havu 
the greatest amount of difficulty. 

Mr. Osmers. I know in my State of New Jersey — and while this 
committee was in Trenton we had evidence presented there — that 
various building trade-unions in that State forbid memborship for 
Negroes effectively, whether they do it constitutionally or not, I don't 
know. They effectively prevented Negroes from becoming members. 

Mr. Weaver. The difficulty with that, sir, is the fact that in New- 
ark, when we were building the housing project there, we were able 
to get Negroes in most of the unions, so any blanket statement of 
that sort is very dangerous because you will get the exceptions which 
will disprove your blanket statement. 

Mr. Osmers. In a broad sense, would you say that the situation 
is improving? 

Mr. Weaver. I believe that, as far as the union relationship is con- 
cerned, we are making progress with that. 

discrimination against other groups 

Mr. Osmers. Now, while I realize you haven't come here for the 
purpose of discussing all discrimination, I wonder if you would 
cite to the committee and for our record any other evidences of 

1 See testimony of Edward S. Lewis, executive secretary, Baltimore Urban League, 
Baltimore hearings, p. 009.". 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6541 

discrimination against other races or groups or minorities in the 
population? 

Mr. Wea%t:r. Well, obviously our work is very closely tied up 
with that of the other minority groups, because the problem, geneti- 
cally, is the same problem. It is just a different expression of it. I 
think perhaps the best way I can indicate that is to differentiate 
between the Negro discrimination and the other groups by first 
enumerating the other principal groups. 

There has been discrimination against persons who are Jewish; 
there has been discrimination against persons who are of Italian 
parentage, though they may be citizens of two generations, but the 
fact that their grandparents were Italian has been used against 
them. 

There was some discrimination, though not as much as one might 
expect in the light of circumstances, in the cases of people of Ger- 
man parentage. On the west coast there is quite a bit of discrimina- 
tion against so-called Latin Americans or Mexicans,, depending upon 
how they may use the terminology there. 

Those have been the principal groups which have been discrimi- 
nated against. 

The Chairman. All of those groups, of course, were included in 
the President's Executive order, were they not ? 

Mr. Weaver. Yes, sir. 

Mr, OsMERS. And you feel that progress is being made along those 
lines ? 

]\Ir. Wea\^er. There is this difference in those groups : There is 
nothing like a national problem with them as there is in the case 
of the Negro worker. You have one section of the country, let us 
say in New England, where you get your anti-Semitism — where you 
get a certain amount of discrimination against persons of Italian 
parentage. 

If you go into the Middle West you will have the same industries 
in which you find none of that or no evidence of that particular 
type of discrimination, so it is more difficult to get your fingers on 
that problem from a national point of view. 

We are, however, through Dr. Alexander's office, establishing con- 
tacts in the field with these problems and are beginning to make 
some progress, I believe, with them. 

firms flatly refusing to hire negroes 

Mr. Osmers. Have any firms refused to employ Negroes after a 
direct request from your office? 

Mr. Wea\t:r. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Osmers. Would you be specific about them ? 

Mr. WEA^T2^. I would prefer to get that and submit that later 
rather than try to give it from memory. 

Mr. Osmers. I wish you would do that for the purpose of the 
record.^ 

Now, what is being done about providing additional training facil- 
ities for Negroes? 

Mr. Weaver. We have just put into effect a new, definite policy 
in the training division of O. P. M. x^s you know, the idea has 



See letters from Mr. Weaver, pp, 6533-6535. 



g542 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

been to train in relation to the demands of industry. It has ahnost 
gotten to the poi]it in many areas where persons are trained only if 
it is sure industry will use them. 

Well, you oet a vicious circle there, obviously. Negroes have not 
been trained because the training people feel they couldn't be em- 
ployed and the employment people said they couldn't get jobs for- 
theln. We have now adopted a new policy, stating that in certain 
communities where O. P. M. will go in and see there is going to be- 
a growing demand for workers in certain occupations, we will decide 
that in those communities there should be some training of Negroes,, 
decide in what occupations and to what degree, so that now we will 
begin training Negroes in more centers, for occupations in which 
they may not now be employed. 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you feel that the situation is improving? 

Mr. Weaver. Yes. We have the machinery set up and we are 
actually doing it in one or two areas. 

Mr. OsMERS. Tell me how big a staff you have in the Negro em- 
ployment and training branch? 

Mr. Weaver. About six field men with one or two others. 

Mr. OsMERS. How many other Negroes are employed in O. P. M. ?' 

Mr. Weaver. Outside of my office I suppose there may be three or- 
four stenographic workers, one or two clerks, and four or five mes- 
sengers. 

Mr. OsMERS. About a dozen you would say? 

Mr. Weaver. I think that would be about accurate. 

DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN SOME STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 

Mr. OsMERS, Now, you have had, I presume, considerable experience 
with the United States Employment Service. Have you found any 
evidence, on their part, of discrimination against Negroes or against 
any group? 

Mr. Weaver. Well, it all depends on what you mean by the United 
States Employment Service, sir. Of course, as you know, they op- 
erate through the State offices. 

Mr. OsMERS. That is what I am referring to. 

Mr. Weaver. I have found the Employment Service very coopera- 
tive. Obviously, in their various local and State offices you get all 
degrees of cooperation ; it depends upon the locality of the office 
and the person who is in charge of the office. 

Mr. OsMERS. Would you care to cite for the record any specific 
instances where they were discriminating or apparently discrimi- 
anting against Negroes? 

Mr. Wea\-er. The Employment Service is in a very peculiar posi- 
tion. Overt and outward discrimination is difficult to put upon it 
because it is a referring agency and the situation that perhaps is 
the most unfortunate thing would be when an employer calls in and 
says : "I want 25 workers." 

The interviewer says : "Wliat do you want, colored or white 
w^orkers?" 

And immediately the man says : "White workers"' without thinking. 
It is almost an instinctive thing. Just as I would say if I were on 
the other side : "Colored workers." 

You just do it. On the other hand there have been offices like in 
New York City where it has received calls for white workers and 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6543 

they have explained to the employer that it had qualified Negro 
workers and has sold them on the service of those qualified workers, 
but that is a rare thing. 

Mr. OsMERS. Would you say that as a general thing the employ- 
ment services could help a great deal if they wanted to? 

Mr. Weaver. Yes; and 1 think in tliis new set-u]i that we have, 
this new labor supply branch of O. P. M. in which the Employment 
Service is represtened and in which our office is represented in these 
new labor supply committees in the various areas, we are going to be 
able to get the Employment Service to do more of this than they 
have done in the past. 

NUMBER or NEGROES PLACED IN CONSTRUCTION 

Mr; OsMERS. Would you be able to estimate for the committee the 
number of workers that have received positions in defense industries 
as a result of the efforts of your branch? 

Mr. Weaver. I could only do that in construction, sir. I think 
that in construction by April, conservatively, we had placed over 
2,500 Negro skilled workers and tens of thousands of common labor- 
ers, many of whom would have been placed anyhow, but the skilled 
workers, I think, we had a great deal to do with placing. 

Other than that it is impossible to estimate, because after we get 
an employer to accept Negro workers and after we get the machinery 
in operation to refer them to him, there is no way that we can 
check back on the number he employs. 

Mr. Osmers. William Green testified before the committee yester- 
day and he told us with considerable ])ride and I think he should 
liave considerable pride in the fact that his union had cooperated 
with the defense program in the instances which he had cited to 
the committee, and they had sent as many, in one instance, as 23,000 
skilled workers to a certain defense area. I would like to inc|uire if 
you know the nimiber of Negroes that were involved in those huge 
innnbers of men that were supplied to these defense programs. 

Mr. Weaver. I don't know the answer but I am willing to say 
that it was a very small number, if any. I don't know the facts 
except as they are reflected in the employment on those particular 
projects that we run into. 

Mv. Osmers. Well, this committee as you know, is interested in 
stopping needless migration wherever possible and the point that 
we have made, in many of these communities, has been that they 
should use the resources of their own area first before transferring 
thousands of people from all over the country. I think the Balti- 
more area is a crystal-clear example. 

BARRING OF negro CARPENTERS AT PETERSBURG, VA. 

Mr. Wea\'er. I can give you a specific one, in the construction 
of the camp at Petersburg. I have forgotten the name of the camp 
now, but there is this big camp down there at Petersburg. There 
Mere hundreds of Negro carpenters in the area contiguous to Peters- 
burg and in Petersburg. On the other hand as far north as New 
York City, through the same mechanism which you speak of, white 
carpenters were recruited and brought into the Petersburg area and 
not a single Negro carpenter was permitted to work in the construc- 
tion of that camp. 

e039t>— 41— pt. 16 16 



5544 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Mr. OsMERS. Would you agree with me in this statement, that it is 
rather ridiculous to spend these millions of dollars and go to the 
extent that we are to defend the four freedoms throughout the world, 
if we are not going to give those four freedoms to the people in our 
own country. 

Mr. Weaver. Yes, sir; very definitely. And I think it also is a 
very dangerous procedure. 

Mr. OsMERS. I told an aircraft executive, who came before the 
committee and expressed the great fear that the production of air- 
craft in his plant would stop if they employed Negi'oes, that I 
thought it would be just as well if the production of aircraft did 
stop if we were going to bar this one group of Americans from par- 
ticipating in the program. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Congressman Arnold ? 

Mr. Arnold. No questions. 

The Chairman. Congressman Curtis? 

RACIAL variations IN APTITUDE 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Weaver, do you think that the various aptitudes, 
such as mechanical aptitude vary within races or nationalities? 

Mr. Weaver. I think they vary with individuals. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you think that Mexicans make just as good police- 
men as Irishmen? 

Mr. Weaver. It all depends on the Irishman and the Mexican. 

Mr. Curtis. In other words it is your opinion that it is a matter of 
training and individual adaptability? 

Mr. Weaver. Yes, sir; and selection. 

Mr. Curtis. Are there any figures on that? 

Mr. Weaver. We had a lot of figures some time ago on intelligence 
tests and then the testers of the intelligence tests got together and 
disagreed on what they were testing. That is about the closest we 
ever had anything, objectively, on that. We get aptitude tests which 
are admittedly unsatisfactory but they are indicative of, perhaps, a 
capacity. 

I don't think that you have any objective data. You do have this 
fact: 

You can prove just about what you want to prove on those things, 
I believe. I think I could prove that Negroes could do any job as 
well as anybody else with the same data that somebody else would 
use to disprove it. The nearest we have to objective data on effi- 
ciency are those figures which come out of groups working at piece 
rates on a productive basis and most of those figures seem to indicate 
that these racial factors don't count, provided the same type of selec- 
tion was used in the first place. 

Mr. Curtis. You don't think that they could prove that, say for 
instance, Swedish people were better mechanics than Greeks? 

Mr. Weaver. I don't quite comprehend that concept, sir, because it 
all depends upon what group of Swedish people you start with. 
Now, obviously, if you go into a rural area, say into a plantation 
area where cotton is being producfxl with a single process that has 
been there for years and you take the worker who is doing that, be 
he white or black, and you put him up to a machine, and then you go 
into another area where there is diversified farming and where the 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 5545 

farmer has to be a good all-around mechanic and put that farmer next 
to that southern plantation worker, be he white or black, and the 
man from the diversified farming section is going to run circles all 
around the other man, but I don't think that is a racial characteristic. 

Mr. Curtis. You do not think that the Greeks' ability to excell in 
running a restaurant is a racial characteristic ? 

Mr. Wea\^r. No ; I think that is an environmental factor, the same 
as the Chinese in the laundry business. 

Mr. Curtis. And the Japanese as vegetable growers? 

Mr. Weaver. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Weaver. We appre- 
ciate your coming here. 

Our next witness is Governor Townsend. 

STATEMENT OF M. CLIFFORD TOWNSEND, DIEECTOR, OFFICE OF 
DEFENSE RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND 
MEMBER OF PLANT-SITE COMMITTEE, OFFICE OF PRODUCTION 
MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The Chairman. Governor Townsend, Congressman Arnold will 
interrogate you. 

Mr. Arnold. Governor, you have given your name to the reporter. 
In what capacity do you appear here? 

Mr. Townsend. Dn-ector, Office of Defense Relations, Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. 

Mr. Arnold. And you are also a member of the Plant-Site Com- 
mittee of the O. P. M.? 

Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arnold. And your home is in Indiana ? 

Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir; living here temporarily. 

Mr. Arnold. Would you briefly outline the present work of the 
Plant-Site Committee of the O. P. M. ? 

Mr. Townsend. Do you mean just the character of the work that 
is being engaged in at the present time? 

Mr. Arnold. Yes. You have submitted a very fine statement to- 
gether with charts that are very valuable and they will be included 
in the record. They will constitute a very valuable contribution. 

statement of M. CLIFFORD TOWNSEND, MEMBER OF PLANT-SITE 
COMMITTEE, OFFICE OF PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, 
D. C. 

The Location of Defense Plant Sites 

A great many people have been concerned for some time with the effect of 
the defense program upon the migration and future welfare of American 
workers. At present we cannot estimate accurately how many hundreds of 
thousands of workers will shift from one line of work to another or move 
their homes from one comnumity to another as a result of the defense program, 
because it is still impossible to predict the magnitude of the emergency that 
will face the Nation this winter or next year. Recently, however, when I 
visited my home State, Indiana, I was impressed by the extent of the effects 
of the defense program on the American worker. Already many managers of 
defense plants and many farmers in my State have found 'it difficult to recruit 
qualified workers. This is true despite the fact that only a year ago our Gov- 
ernment had to provide for from seven to ten million unemployed workers 
"willing and able to work," while thousands migrated from State to State In 



g546 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

search of jobs. In short, although the Nation has just begun its defense pro- 
gram, it is already necessary for workers to move to new communities and 
to acquire the skills of what may be temporary jobs. 

As the sweeping implications of our defense program become evident it is 
clear that comprehensive planning of the very highest order is necessary If our 
defense production is to be carried on successfully without creating serious 
problems for large groups of workers after the emergency is over. I would 
like to devote my testimony before this committee primarily to the problem of 
coordinating the planning of industrial an<l agricultural production under the 
defense program so that the migration of workers and their dislocation from 
peacetime jobs is reduced to a minimum. As a member of the Plant Site Board 
of the Office of Production Management, and as Director of the Office of Agri- 
cultural Defense Relations, I have an opportunity of participating in the plan- 
ning of each of these two major aspects of the defense program. 

Prom the very beginning of the defense program many individuals have 
claimed that a proper geographical distribution of defense production would 
do more to prevent wasteful human migration than any other single measure. 
Now we are faced by the significant fact that only through a carefully planned 
distribution of contracts and new plant facilities can we hope to maintain a 
balanced production program. From the time I first participated in the de- 
fense program it has been my opinion that unless the geographical distribution 
of industrial production is carefully planned in relation to the problem of 
increasing the production of est-eiitial food commodities, all kinds of serious 
difficulties will be encountered. Without such planning one phase of the de- 
fense program will compete with another for labor and materials in some 
areas, while in other sections of the country large labor and raw material 
reserves will remain unused. There is always the danger, in short, that we 
will fail to secure the maximum increase in the production of the tools of 
war or the desired increase in the production of food commodities. We would 
run the risk of break-downs in our industrial production or a curtailment in 
the supply of certain food commodities. 

FOUR PRINCIPLKS IX DISTRIBUTING PT.ANTS 

In planning the geographical distribution of new defense plants, defense 
officials have been guided by four major principles: 

First. New defense plants should be located so as to enable us to make the 
greatest and most expeditious use of the manpower, machinery, and materials 
of the Nation. In short, the defense program must be so distributed that we 
can draw promptly and to the fullest extent on the available manpower and 
facilities of the country. To accomplish that, plants must not be located at 
sites where shortages of labor, housing, essential materials, and transporta- 
tion facilities, or other "bottlenecks" will be encountered. Furthermore, plants 
should not be located at sites where such an additional factory will create 
new "bottlenecks" for operators already established in the area. 

Second. It has been the policy to distribute operations so that when we are 
through building armaments our Nation will have as soundly organized an 
industrial system as possible. If this objective is to be achieved it is neces- 
sary to avoid drawing into a few temporary boom areas thousands of work- 
men who will be left stranded after the emergency is over. A more difficult 
task is to work toward a better balance between industry and agriculture in 
many States. 

Third. The manufacture of defense requirements should be distributed so as^ 
to make the maximum possible contribution to the welfare of American work- 
ers — both urban and rural. Such an objective calls for locating defense plants 
in areas where large bodies of unemployed and underemployed workers have 
been dammed up in temporarily depressed communities or on poor land. 
World War No. 1 demonstrated that to use effectively such labor and to lay the 
basis for a permanent improvement in the standard of living of such people, 
insofar as possible, industry must be brought to the workers rather than the 
workers to a distant factory. 

Fourth. The fourth objective of the Plant Site Board of the Office of Pro- 
diiction Management has been to avoid as far as possible the location of any 
plants in areas producing essential defense food commodities where there was 
a prospect of a serious rural labor shortage. A study was made of the areas 
in which the production of dairy and poultry products and vegetables and 
fruits was concentrated and on the advice of Vice President Wallace, Secretary- 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6547 



Wickard, and Surplus Marketing Administrator Milo Perkins, tliese areas were 
avoided by the committee, insofar as it was possible. Again, however, I think 
it should be pointed out that frequently this rule had to be overlooked when- 
ever technological or strategic considerations restricted the choice of sites for a 
defense plant. 

It has not been, easy to carry these principles into effect. Some of you, no 
doubt, are of the opinion that we have been better in principle than in prac- 
tice. The opinions of many of you have been formed on the basis of data 
regarding the distribution of all defense contract awards. Table I shows the 
distribution by States and by industrial areas of all types of major defense 
contracts between June 1, 1940, and May 31, 1941, except some of the contracts 
awarded by the Defense Plant Corporation and the Maritime Commission. 



Table I. — DistriJ)ution of major defense prime contracts awarded hy the War 
and Navy Departments, by State and major object, June 1, 1940, to May 31, 

1941 

[Thousands of dollars] 





Total 


Percent of 
United 
States 
total 


Airplanes, 

engines, 

parts, and 

equipment 


Ship con- 
struction 
and equip- 
ment 


AU other 


Grand total 


$11,955,995 


100.00 


$2, 523, 247 


$3, 687, 281 


$5, 745, 467 




11, 243, 128 


94.04 


2,489,263 


3, 639, 186 


5,114,679 








168, 704 

3.107 

4,940 

1,334,502 

123, 707 

558, 146 

6,365 

5,623 

96,202 

85, 420 

1,251 

333.078 

376, 240 

68, 761 

63,612 

48,477 

34,387 

185.476 

358,651 

690. 686 

723,908 

43,449 

71, 579 

359, 823 

12 

14, 265 

4,249 

12, 748 

1,388,764 

9.362 

1, 100, 529 

85,636 


1.41 
.03 
.04 
11.16 
1.03 
4.67 
.05 
.05 
.80 
.71 
.01 
2.79 
3.15 
.58 
.53 
.41 
.29 
1.55 
3.00 
5.78 
6.05 
.36 
.60 
3.01 




40, 172 


128, 532 
3,107 










16 

461,455 

39 

128,095 

4,295 

197 

46, 309 

5,276 


4 924 


California - - 


664, 126 


208, 921 


Colorado 


123, 668 




215, 233 


214,818 




2,070 


Di'5trir>t of Cnldmhia 




5 426 


Florida 




49. 893 


Georgia 


19 


80, 125 


Idaho 


1 251 


Illinois . -- 


40,003 

120,695 

41 

43,441 

117 


24,414 


268, 661 


Indiana 


251 642 




68, 682 


Kansas 


20, 171 


Kentucky 


278 

4,011 

174.624 

6,847 

528,488 

26, 150 

439 

60,014 

1,301 


48. 082 
30. 376 


Maine 




10, 852 




234. 587 

4,654 

220, 727 

705 


117,217 


Massachusetts 


157, 544 


Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 


477, 031 
42. 305 
21, 565 




67,452 


291, 070 


Montana 


12 


Nebraska .. 


.12 
.04 
.11 
11.61 
.OH 
9.20 
.72 




13 


14, 252 


Nevada 




4,249 




153 
313,063 


18 
820, 149 


12, 577 




255, 552 


New Mexico 


9.362 


New York 


344, 250 


149, 704 
793 


606. 575 




84, 843 


North Dakota 






Ohio 


475, 504 
22, 626 
51.014 

654, 251 
61, 938 

75, 760 

266, 580 

9.924 

3,. '540 

545. 749 

424, 409 

95, 017 

14, , 891 

4,293 


3.98 
.19 
.43 

5.47 
.52 
.41 


18, 133 

1,860 

11 

19,. 172 
76 
47 


125, 576 

362 

36,244 

191,510 

8', 342 


331, 795 


Oklahoma - 


20, 404 


Oregon 


14, 759 


Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 


443, 569 
56, 494 


South Carolina 


40, 456 




128 


Tennessee 


.63 
2.23 

.08 

.03 
4.56 
3. .55 

.79 
1.19 

.04 


57 
37, 742 


1.424 

101,871 

65 


74, 279 


Texas 


126, 967 


Utah 


9,859 




::::::::: 


3,540 


Virginia 




389, 801 

239,412 

1,649 

60,524 


155, 948 




135, 810 

74 

7,015 


49, 187 


West Virginia 


93, 294 


Wisconsin 


74, 352 


Wyoming 


4,293 










Off continent 


623', 593 


.75 
5.21 




1,034 
47, 061 


88,240 


Unassignable 


33, 984 


542, 548 







6548 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



These are aggregate figures for all types of defense operations. They in- 
clude new plants built by the Federal Government as well as contracts placed 
with private manufacturers in existing plants. It is true that there appears 
to be considerable concentration of defense production but it must be recalled 
that before the emergency began, manufacturing was already highly concen- 
trated in these same States. In 1939 the census showed that 10 States, New 
York, Penn.sylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Cali- 
fornia, Indiana, and Connecticut, accounted for about 71 percent of all the 
value added by manufacturers in the counti'y as a whole (see table II). It is 
interesting to note that the 10 States with the highest percentage of defense 
contracts had very nearly the same percentage of the total (72 percent). Fur- 
thermore, 8 of the 10 States having the largest share of defense contracts 
were in the list of rhe 10 States having the largest share of the Nation's 
industry. In other words, defense contracts had to be given to plants where 
they were located. 

Before proceeding further, however, I think that it is wise to break down 
this data further and examine table III and map I (prepared by the Indus- 
trial Location Section, National Resources Planning Board), showing the dis- 
tribution of all new plant facilities financed in one way or another under the 
defense program. Naturally, one would expect a wider range of choice in 
selecting locations for brand new facilities than in placing orders with existing 
firms. New plants can be placed wherever raw materials, labor supply, terrain, 
])Ower and transportation facilities, and points of use are satisfactorily related 
to one another. The data regarding the distribution of all new defense plants 
between June 1, 1940, and May 15, 1941, show that there has been a con- 
siderably wider distribution of new facilities than of contracts to existing 
plants. No State has been assigned more than 8.9 percent of the total capital 
invested in these new facilities, which is considerably less than the share of all 
manufacturing activity (13.5 percent) possessed by New York State. Further- 
more many States not included in the 10 most industralized States, such as 
Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia, 
have been given a large number of new defense plants. 

Table II. — Percentage distribution of total value added hij manufacture and 
major defense contracts among the States 





Value added by 

manufacture 

1939 


Percent of 

United States 

total 


Percent distri- 
bution major 
defense con- 
tracts June 

1940-May 1941 


Continental United States 


$24, 710, 565, 000 


100. 00 


100.00 






Alabama 


247, 384, 000 

32,041,000 

67, 390. 000 

1,13.5,158,000 

91,256.000 

692, 187, 000 

55, 183, 000 

44,317,000 

118,016,000 

283, 616, 000 

31,770,000 

2,201,595,000 

970, 212, 000 

244, 795, 000 

118,952,000 

187, 400. 000 

200, 086, 000 

152, 423, 000 

422, 849, 000 

1, 188, 319, 000 

1, 798, 404, 000 

310, 628, 000 

73, 462, 000 

587, 962, 000 

39, 790, 000 

69, 087, 000 

11,758,000 

105, 188, 000 

1,524,114,000 

8, 712, 000 

3,341,895,000 

545, 952, 000 

11,102,000 


1.00 

!27 
4.59 
.37 
2.80 
.22 
.18 
.48 
1.15 
.13 
8.91 
3.93 
.99 
.48 
.76 
.81 
.62 
1.71 
4.81 

1126 
.30 

;i6 

.28 
.05 
.43 

6.17 

.04 

13.52 

2.21 
.04 


1.50 


Arizona 


03 




.04 


California 


11.87 


Colorado 


1. 10 




4.96 


Delaware 


.05 


District of Columbia 


.05 


Florida . 


.85 


Georgia 


.75 


Idaho ' 


.01 


Illinois .. 


2.97 




3.35 


Iowa... 


.62 


Kansas .... . 


.56 


Kentucky. . 


.44 


Louisiana 


.31 


Maine . . 


1.65 


Maryland . 


3.19 


Massachusetts 


6.15 


Michigan .... .. 


6.43 




.38 


Mississippi. 


.64 


Missouri .. 


3.20 


Montana . 




Nebraska 


.13 


Nevada..-. ' 


.04 


New Hampshire- 


.12 


New Jersey.... . 


12.34 


New Mexico. . 


.09 


New York 


9.78 


North Carolina 


.77 


North Dakota. . 





NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6549 



Table II. — Percentage distribution of total value added by manufacture and 
major defense contracts among the States — Continued 





Value added by 

manufacture 

1939 


Percent of 

United States 

total 


Percent distri- 
bution major 
defense con- 
tracts June 
1940-May 1941 


Continental United States— Continued. 

Ohio -- 


$2,125,474,000 
103,118,000 
172, 175, 000 
2, 489, 129, 000 
238, 289, 000 
169, 847, 000 

19, 955, 000 
320, 342, 000 
453, 105, 000 

43, 720, 000 

51,941,000 
379, 488, 000 
286, 647, 000 
214, 779. 000 
686. 605, 000 

15, 629, 000 


8.60 
.42 
.70 

10.07 
.96 

!08 
1.30 
1.83 

.18 

.21 
1.54 
1.16 

.87 
2.78 

.06 


4.23 


Oklahoma 


.20 




.46 




5.82 


Rhode Island 


.55 




.44 






Tennessee 


.67 




2.37 


Utah 


.09 


Vermont 


.03 




4.85 




3.77 


West Virginia 


.84 




1.27 


Wyoming 


.04 







Table III. — Geographic distribution of expansion of manufacturing facilities for 
defense, as of May 15, 19Jfl 



State 



Arkansas 

California. 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware- 

District of Columbia 

Florida 

Gforgia 

Illinois 

Indiana.- 

Iowa -. 

Kansas-- - 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine.. .-. --. 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota ..- 

New York - 

North Carolina 

Ohio 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska- 

Nevada 

New Hamp.shire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

Oklahoma 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah--- 

Vermont- 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Break -down by location not 
available ._- 



United States- 



Percent 

of United 

States 

total 



$124, 

163, 

28, 
122 
3 
8, 
2 

4: 

177, 
224 



8.";.: 
218, S 



, 134, 223 



4.2 

.004 
5.5 
1.0 
4.1 

.1 



3.2 
.2 
.1 
3.9 
2.2 
3.0 
.7 



Privately 
operated 



ment 
operated 



Privately 
financed 



British 
financed 



OMITTED AS CONFIDENTIAL 



g550 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Even these figures, however, are somewhat misleading. Prior to April 1941, 
plant site proposals made by the Army were approved by the National Defense 
Advisory Commission. During this period speed was the essential consideration, 
and plants were located at those sites where production could be gotten under 
way the most rapidly. Map II and graph I show the State and regional distri- 
bution of the projects approved by the Defense Commission. In April, at which 
time I first became involved in this work, a special Plant Site Board was 
organized within the Office of Production Management for the specific purpose 
of encouraging a wider distribution of new defense facilities. As a result of its 
efforts and the fact that the Army had turned its attention to locating plants 
in the West and Southwest, the Plant Site Board has been able to secure the 
location of a larger share of new plants in the Great Plains States and the 
Southwest than did the National Defense Advisory Commission. Map III and 
graph II shows that during the first few months that the Plant Site Board has 
functioned there has been marked relative increase in the number of plants 
located in the West North Central, West South Central, and the East South 
Central regions, and a decline in the number of plants awarded to the East 
North Central, Middle Atlantic, and New England regions. 

Although the record of the Plant Site Board is good, I am not entirely pleased 
with its work. It is regrettable that more defense facilities have not been 
located in areas in the Old South that have suffered so heavily from the loss 
of tobacco and cotton export markets. I do feel, however, that a conscientious 
effort has been made to examine the possibilities of locating industry in areas 
where labor is immediately available. In this way we have taken a very 
constructive step toward reducing to a minimum the amount of migration of 
labor resulting from the defense program. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6551 




6552 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 




NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6553 




6554 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL 
FACILITIES APPROVED BY NATIONAL DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMISSION 

AUGUST, 1940 - APRIL, 1941 
et CENSUS DISTRICTS 




EACH COIN REPRESENTS $5,000,000. 

FIGURES INDICATE VALUE OF CONTRACTS IN MILLIONS. 

TOTAL VALUE OF CONTRACTS- <l,06e.9 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6555 



REGIONAL ALLOCATION OF PLANT SITE BOARD APPROVALS 

APRIL 30, 1941 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1941 
BY CENSUS DISTRICTS 




FIGURES INDICATE VALUE OF APPROVALS IN MILLIONS 

TOTAL VALUE OF APPROVALS - $ 1,047.5 

AMOUNT DISTRIBUTED BY REGIONS -$ 1,030.5 

NOT ALLOCABLE- $ 17.0 



6556 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



3 

o 


1 

< 


1 








? 
i 




i 
1 

2 




•* 

i 






:i 

,■»" 


-* 




i 

£ 










Si 

■-H-U- 














1 










in 








<M 


c^ 


■ 




i" 


" 


" 






TOOO-H 












<N 


00 




■So 

■2=5 

II 

S 
<1 


1 

i 


1 

s 








i 














1 




JO 

5 


1 




i 


i 

i 




III 


^ 


M 




" 


" 




- .""'" 








" 


-*< 




M 


" 




■"»• 


m 




1. 
if 


1 
< 


i 
i 






















In 








i 


i 








§ 

2 








i 


n 




sol 


. 






















'," 








■^ 


■"* 








'"' 








CO 


CI 






1 
5 


1 


































































•2 2 
1 


ill 


c. 




































































§ 


1 

i 
i 


1 


























1 


i" 

of 






















B! 


t~ 




















|(N-l 




" 




" 


" 




" 












" 




3 
1 


ill 


i 








ii 


is! i ^ 






.___ ,_..„.._...o.. 


M — 


Tt<"^ 




2 


J 




<■ 




1 


■r 


1 
! 


1 

1 
1 


1 


.s 

O 
•5 

1 


1 


5 


11 

5S 


1 

c 




U 


> 

I 


1 


§ 

■s 


•r 


S 

1 


1 


5 
§ 
c 


1 
1 


i 


§ 


i 


1 
1 


1 

£ 
1 


>■ 


1 

1 


1 
>< 


1 
1 


1 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6557 



Sg 






> QOtO OCO C — . 



° 5c 



c'c 






^2 



' -a c 

»q O 



85 



6558 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



C.5 



-1 

11 


•5 


1 
i 












o 

55 










1 




























i 


o 




05 












(N 










r 




























^ 


o 


3 

II 

1 


^ 

-< 


i 

5 
























ii 










1 


1 i 












1 






III 


00 
























.« 










^ 


1 












c^ 






1 

1 
1 


a 
< 


i 












i 










i 














^1 i 

ii ; 


i 








1 


t^ 


lit 


5 












M 










" 














tOM j 


. 








05 


o 


a 


<i 


i 

i 






00 














o 






s 




o 


s 1 




o 






! 


i 


a°^ 
111 


§ 


^ 




c^ 














" 






" 




"■ 


M 1 




" 






" 


1 


i! 

Ill 


i 
a 


05 

i 
























gl 














g ; 
to" ; 
S ; 




















ill 


o 
























.. 














1 






















! 


1 


1 

--d 




s 


P 


P 










■OOO "O 


i 








Kg 


Si 


1^1 


S 






2 


._ 


rt ,-1 ■ 










^C^rt<N 


i'^ 








-HM 


co^ 


^1 


1 

a 


00 








i 


3 










Si 


i 








w" 


1 

of 


go 

00- 


" i 


111 


2 








o 


t^ 










■»<■«< 


"* 






Tt-OOO 1 


CO 


" 


rt!0 


>ra 1 


s 





1 


5 


< 




j 


o 

1 


1 

r 
O 


1 


2 

£ 

O 
o 

a 
t 




o 


S 


11 






> 

1 

H 


J 






1 

3 

1 

1 


c: 
1 
1 






1 


2 


1 




1 
:2 


1 

1 


1 


C9 

a 

1 

o 
2 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6559 



Si 



60396 — 41 — pt. 16 17 



g560 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

INFLEXIBI.E DISTRIBUTION IN a-:R'rAIN INDUSTRIES 

Our success in encouraging the wide distribution of new defense facilities 
has been restricted in a large measure to those plants producing ammunition 
and ammunition components. Table IV shows, however, that in expanding many 
other highly important defense industries there has been very little decentrali- 
zation. The expansion of iron and steel facilities or of plants producing arma- 
ment requiring considerable iron and steel, or even factories turning out air- 
craft or new naval units, must be located in the few highly restricted areas. 
It would be possible to take any one industry and discuss with you the tech- 
nical limitations which have made it impossible to locate plants outside a few 
restricted areas, but I shall impose on your time only long enough to cite a 
few examples. Increased facilities for ship construction can be erected so 
much more rapidly at existing shipyards that new ways are being built almost 
entirely adjacent to them. In the case of the aircraft industry, quite a dif- 
ferent situation exists. Experienced managers and technicians, in this case, are 
so scarce that in a great many instances expansion was feasible only at parent 
plants. 

The fact remains that a great deal of the industrial expansion under the 
national-defense program will have to take place within the great industrial 
areas of the East and Middle West, whether we like to see that happen or 
not. It is the only way we can secure the increase in production we need so 
urgently. 

It is clear, therefore, that a great many people will be drawn into rela- 
tively few defense boom areas located primarily in the Northeastern section 
of the country. In addition, many workers in these defense areas will find 
it profitable and necessary to shift occupations. This will be true of many 
skilled year-around farm workers who will find jobs in local factories. This 
drift of farm hands into industry in the Northeast presents the Nation with 
many serious problems. Our national-defense program requires that those 
workers be replaced. In concluding my remarks, therefore, I would like to 
discuss the extent of present farm-labor shortages and describe the measures 
that can be taken to recruit additional workers. 

DRAIN OF WORKERS FROM THE FARM 

Thus far there has been no shortage of farm labor for the Nation as a 
whole. According to the July 1 report of the Agricultural Marketing Service, 
however, the supply of farm workers was only 67 percent of normal and 71 
percent of demand. This report states that "this was the smallest supply re- 
ported during the 19 years covered by the July record and lower than previ- 
ously reported for any month since 1918, when this series was first inaugu- 
rated." On July 1, 1940, the supply was 88 percent of normal and 102 percent 
of demand. According to this report, the major reasoris given by farmers for 
this decrease are rapid increases in defense activity, wide differentials between 
industrial wage rates and the rates which the agricultural price level will 
permit farmers to pay, and the drafting of able-bodied men for our armed forces. 

July 1 employment figures for the Nation show 268,000 fewer workers on 
farms than a year ago. To meet the impact of the drain of workers from 
the farm, however, farmers are obliged to employ older men, schoolboys, and 
women. The decline in employment, then, reflects only a part of the total loss 
of efficient workers on farms. 

Nonagricultural employment and men in military service, according to the 
latest information, increased by 4.3 millions between May 1940 and May 1941. 
Agriculture has not only sacrificed thousands of its more skilled workers, but in 
addition, there were 182,000 fewer persons employed on farms for the same 
period. 

Since May, agriculture has reached its peak in this year's seasonal demand 
for labor, and 1,010,000 additional workers have been employed. Approximately 
one-third of these came from the farmers' family and two-< birds were hired. 
The increase in agricultural employment was met in part by the payment of 
the highest wage rates paid on farms since 1930. The index of farm wage rates 
now stands at 160 percent of the 1910-14 average, as compared with 129 percent 
a year ago. 

The severity of the problem appears less important when figures for the 
Nation are studied, than when the problem is observed within geographic 
divisions and particular farming areas. It will be observed (table V) that 
in May 1941, only one geographic division, the Mountain States, showed an 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6561 



increase in employment. This occurred in the area least affected by increases 
in nonagricultural employment. Decreases in agricultural employment in the 
New England, Middle Atlantic, and the East North Central States are par- 
ticularly associated with increases in nonagricultural employment. In the 
Southern States this factor was of lesser importance, with the possible excep- 
tion of parts of the South Atlantic States. 

Between July 1940, and July 1941, three geographic divisions showed increased 
agricultural employment. Farming activities now are at their peak in the 
New England, Middle Atlantic, and East North Central States. In New Eng- 
land, an increase of 14,000 farm workers was reported over the previous year. 
Eight thousand of these were added from the farmers' own families and 
6,000 represented hired labor increases. Contributing to this increase was the 
employment of school boys and men above the draft age, and the payment 
of wages between $63 and $79 per month and between $2.85 and $3.55 per day 
(without board in each case). 

Table V. — Changes in number of persons employed in agricultural and non^ 
agricultural pursuits, 1940-41 





Nonagricul- 
tural— 
May 1940 
to May 
1941 1 


Agricultural 


Geographic division 


May 1940 

to May 

1941 


July 1940 

to July 

1941 


New England 


1,000 
-f422 
-1-689 
-1-933 
-1-175 
-i-486 
-fl36 
-flSO 
-1-42 
-f256 


1,000 

-14 
-25 
-12 
-66 
-56 
-35 
-f36 
-5 


1,000 
+14 


Middle Atlantic 


— 17 




-fi 


West North Central 


+53 


South Atlantic 


—187 




-100 


West South Central 


-26 


Mountain 


—6 




+7 






Total 


4-3, 115 


-182 


—268 







• Excludes an increase of 1,198,000 in the military and naval forces. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, and Agricultural Marketing Service, 
U. S. Department of Agriculture. 

In West North Central States nonagricultural employment is not so important, 
and an increase of 53,0'30 workers occurred over last year. The Pacific Coast 
States has been able to call upon their reserve labor force, and an increase of 
7,000 occurred over last year. 

Decreases in employment are particularly noticeable in the Southern, Middle 
Atlantic, and East North Central States. In the South, the decrease in acres 
devoted to cotton, the drought and layiug-by of the crops are more important 
factors. In the Middle Atlantic States and the East North Central States, 
however, the situation is now in its more critical stages. Labor requirements 
are now at their peak in these areas of intense industrial activities. Moreover, 
these two areas are imiwrtant producers of vital agricultural defense com- 
modities in which production increases are absolutely necessary. 



FAKM AREAS AFFECTED BY L-UJOR WITHDRAWALS 

The Bureau of Agricultural Economics reports that large numbers of the 
more skilled and reliable regular farm workers have been lost to industry and 
the military forces. Every major agricultural area has been so affected. As 
a result, farmers have been forced to employ less efficient men and usually at 
higher wage rates. The areas most adversely affected in this respect are areas 
surrounding industrial centers and Army cantonments and the dairy, poultry, 
vegetable and canning sections of the East North Central, Middle Atlantic, and 
New England States. 

Shortages of workers expected earlier this year have been met in part by an 
increase in the number of family workers and in part by a decline in production 
of certain crops due to weather conditions. It had been anticipated that critical 
shortages of workers would occur in some areas. One of these areas was the 



6562 WASHINGTON HEAKINGS 

Atlantic seaboard truck farming area. This expectation was based upon the 
heavy drain of workers to defense employment and to employment indirectly 
stimulated by the defense program, plus the unknown effect of these factors upon 
the usual flow of migrant workers. The flow of migrant workers was reduced 
and it is now believed that the anticipated shortage would have occurred 
except for the drought conditions which affected most of this area. Another 
area in which shortages were expected was the dairy and poultry areas of the 
North Central, New England, and Middle Atlantic States. In the North Central 
States production was maintained in spite of a reduction of 52,000 farm workers 
in June 1941, compared with June 1U40, and a 6,000 reduction between July 
1940, and July 1941. Employment in the New England,' Middle Atlantic," and 
South Atlantic' States totaled 58,000 less on June 1, 1941, than a year earlier, 
and 9,000 less between the July 1940, and July 1941 period. 

Adequate supplies of farm labor appear to exist in the Southern Appalachians 
of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tenneseee, and in the 
cotton and tobacco areas of the Southeastern States. A surplus appears to exist 
in Montana and Wyoming and in the upper Great Lakes States. No immediate 
shortages are apparent in the Great Plains States except in parts of Kansas 
and certain localized areas and for farm help with mechanical ability. 

During the coming months, and in particular during 1942, agriculture will ex- 
perience increasing difficulties in securing adequate labor unless proper measures 
are taken because non-agricultural employment will continue to increase. First 
of all, farmers will find it necessary to rely upon le.ss experienced and less quali- 
fied workers. Higher wage rates are now being paid in all localities than in re- 
cent years. Farmers may find it necessary fo pay increasingly higher rates of 
pay to more nearly compete with industry. Family workers will contribute a 
larger proportion of the total working force to ofl'set, in part, the total wage 
expense and, in part, because less qualified help is now available. The flow of 
habitual migratory farm works will undoubtedly decline. This factor, alone, 
will be sufficient to make the problem acute at seasonal operations. The exist- 
ing shortage of dependable regular hired men will become so acute that farmers 
may be prone to curtail or eliminate certain operations to avoid losses due to 
labor shortages or inefficiencies. The short-cutting of farm practices at high 
wage rates may become profitable to individual farmers, but it should be dis- 
couraged if it will affect production of vital commodities. If a farmer should 
be faced with this problem, he should give preference to those crops designated 
as vital to the defense program. Curtailing of operations should be limited to 
less essential crops. 

IMPENDING SHORTAGES OF FARM LABOR 

In spite of increased wages, serious shortages of farm labor will develop in 
many sections of the country during the next 2 years. These shortages will 
develop in areas where we cannot tolerate decreases in production because of 
the necessity of maintaining the Nation's output of certain vital food commo- 
dities. Constructive steps must be taken soon, therefore, to meet these shortages. 
Thus far we have limited our effort to securing temporary deferment for young 
selectees who are needed on the farm, and to increasing the effectiveness of the 
farm placement .service in recruiting workers. These efforts have by no means 
solved the problem, and additional steps must be taken soon. 

We have all been aware of the growing farm labor problem and its probable 
effect upon agriculture's part in the defense program. Considerable efforts are 
continually being made by the various agencies concerned to assist with the 
problem. Unfortunately we cannot look to increased use of machinery for solu- 
tion of much of the problem. Particularly is this true in the production of 
such vital commodities as fruits, vegetables, poultry, and eggs. Moreover, it now 
appears that production of farm machinery will be curtailed. The problem 
tends now to become one of securing an adeauate supply of manpower of suffi- 
cient experience. 

Many feel that workers should be required to leave the Work Projects Admin- 
istration and accept jobs on farms. This is practicable to a very small percent. I 



^ Includes Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connec- 
ticut. 

2 Includes New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 

• Includes Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Georgia, and Florida. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION ^563 

am iucliued personally to believe that alleviation of the problem from this source 
has been greatly overemphasized. Nevertheless, no stones should be left un- 
turned and efforts should be continued to transfer systematically as many of 
these people as possible to private employment. It seems to me that farmers must 
look forvrard to finding workers in the more youthful and the older age groups. 
Many such individuals, however, are untrained for agricultural work and prove 
to be a liability to the farmer in many cases. It is becoming clear, therefore, 
that the Federal Government must shortly undertake some program aimed at 
training workers for specialized farm jobs. In addition, farmers can solve 
many of their own problems through exchanges in the use of the available 
labor force within their communities. Almost constant contact can be main- 
tained between farmers within communities. Community committee represent- 
atives in hundreds of counties included in the land use planning program will 
render valuable service by maintaining ties between communities. 

The loss of excellent farm workers and the recruiting and training of new 
workers for farm work will cause serious postemergency employment prob- 
lems. It is quite likely that after the present emergency is over we will once 
again be faced with a back-to-land movement, and large surpluses of migrant 
farm workers. Nevertheless our course is clear. We must not hesitate to 
mobilize the resources of the Nation in meeting the present emergency. At 
the same time, however, a new effort should be made to plan systematically to 
meet complex and difficult postemergency problems. 

TESTIMONY OF M. CLIFFORD TOWNSEND— Eesumed 

Mr. Arnold. In addition to your statement, I would like to ask 
some questions and one of them is what the present work of the 
Plant Site Committee of the Office of Production Manajijement is. 

Mr. TowNSEND. Well, it is the duty of the Plant Site Committee 
to accept or reject the sites that are presented to them by the various 
defense bodies — the Army, the Navy, the Air Corps. Its work seems 
to be pretty well completed at the present time. 

There is pending now what is known as one unit of a powder 
plant — bag-loading and shell-loading plant. Then week by week 
there comes before that Board additions and expansions to both 
privately owned and Government owned plants. All plant sites 
come before the Board whether they are for Government or private 
plants, in which the Government is investing money or loaning 
money. 

Mr. Arnold. Then the Plant Site Committee exercises absolute 
veto powers over plant sites? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Yes, sir ; that is their power. They do not initiate 
sites. I want to make that plain. They do not initiate sites. They 
are simply an approving board. The Plant Site Committee, of 
course, has to have some standard or program to which they turn 
when they review these sites. 

They are interested, as I understand you are interested, in workers 
and the welfare of the workers — not only the welfare of the workers 
at this time but the welfare of the workers after this defense effort 
has been concluded. 

Mr. Arnold. And you are connected with it to the extent of exer- 
cising the veto power? 

Mr. TowNSEN. Ye^. 

Mr. Arnold. Who makes the actual choice of sites — the Army and 
the Navy and Air Corps ? 

Mr. TowNSEND. That is right. And in the case of an individual 
who is establishing a defense industry, he selects it. 



g564 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Mr. Arnold. But the Plant Site Committee approves his selec- 
tion? 

Mr. TowNSEND. That is right. Private manufacturers make their 
requests and furnish our board with the reasons why their choices 
should be approved. 

DECENTRALIZATION OF NEW PLANT FOR DEFENSE 

Mr. Arnold. Has the Plant Site Committee accelerated the rate 
of decentralization of new plant expansion since its appointment? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Yes; I think we have very, very materially. I 
am submitting here for your study some charts showing the location 
of plants in the point of dollars approved by the Defense Commis- 
sion prior to the organization of the Plant Site Committtee.' The 
majority of these plants are in Northeastern States. 

The Plant Site Committee came into being in April. Before that 
they went to the Defense Commission for approval. Since the 
Plant Site Committee has come into being, you will see by the second 
chart that defense activity is much better distributed, geographically, 
and has moved to the West and the Southwest and Northwest a 
great deal more than it had before. I think it is well for you to see 
the picture. 

The first contracts let for this effort were let to those industries 
already established, and 71 percent of all the industries in the United 
States, from the point of view of value, were located in 10 States 
and those 10 States received 72 percent of the contracts, which was 
practically in proportion to the money invested in the industries. 

The Defense Council and the Army and Navy were confronted 
with the element of time, and it has since been proven that time was 
the crucial consideration. It appears that most of the new industries 
that were established then were established close to larger centers of 
unemployed, managerial ability, and tools. 

The Plant Site Committee has been fortunate in being allowed to 
deliberate a little more carefully — time may not have been quite 
such an element — and they have deliberated carefully and have had 
the cooperation of the Army and Navy, I must admit, in giving more 
thought to the economics of the country after the present defense 
effort. So, it has been a little easier for the Plant Site Committee to 
distribute these plans in, I believe, a better way. 

Mr. Curtis. Would you yield to me for one question ? 

Mr. Arnold. Go ahead. 

PROCEDURE FOR COMMUNITY SEEKING PLANT 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Townsend, assuming that there is a certain type 
of community that is needed for the location of some sort of defense 
effort, and one of these communities is able to offer evidence that 
they can take care of the situation — that they can provide decent 
housing facilities, say for 4,000 people, and that those houses are so 
located in their area that the children of those homes can be taken 
care of in existing school facilities — to whom should that data go? 
To your Plant Site Committee or to the Army and Navy officials? 
Do they pay any attention to such matters, or are they just charged 
with the pure militaiy technicalities of it? 



See pp. 6554 and 6555. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g565 

Mr. TowNSEND. Well, of course, their first obligation would natu- 
rally be to consider the physical features — the proximity to the place 
where the product is needed, the availability of materials, transporta- 
tion, and labor. I wouldn't want to say that they don't think about 
the other, but they are probably not quite so obligated to think about 
the welfare end of it. The Plant Site Board does go into the other 
side very thoroughly and I think if data were to be submitted by 
such a connnittee it should be submitted both to the Army and Navy 
and to the Plant Site Board. 

^Ir. CuRiis. Thank you. 

Mr. Arnold. Could jou tell the committee how many requests for 
approval of sites b}' the Army and Navy and Air Corps have been 
rejected by the Plant Site Committee after their deliberations? 
Could you give us an approximate number of requests that have been 
rejected? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Ver}^ few. I couldn't give you the number; no, 
sir; but very few. 

CXX)PERATI0N \VITH ARMY AND NAVY 

Mr. Arnold. Well, is there satisfactory cooperation between those 
branches ? 

Mr. Townsend. There is pretty good cooperation. That is prob- 
ably the reason that there are so few rejections. They come in with 
their preliminary studies and let the Plant Site Board study them 
somewhat, and li some reason why that site ought not be approved 
is presented, they begin to think of some other place. That is why 
there haven't been many rejections. 

Mr. Arnold. Your paper indicates that decentralization has been 
achieved in new ammunition plants. Why is it that decentraliza- 
tion could be achieved in that industry and not in other new plants ? 

Mr. Townsend. Well, I believe to give you an exam])le would be 
easier. 

RAW MATERIAL FACTOR IN PLANT LOCATION 

The location of a bomber engine plant at Ypsilanti, Mich., w^as not 
a good location from the standpoint of distributing its products to 
the aircraft industry, but the engines of the United States are gen- 
erally made at the meeting point of steel and coal, and that was a 
natural meeting point. 

This company appeared to be the only one that was in a position 
to take this large contract — this unusually big obligation — and they 
>^aid, and I think rightly, that they were limited in their mechanically 
trained supervisors and executives to the point that they couldn't 
take this obligation unless the new plant were located near their pres- 
ent plants. Of course, too, I think the Army thought that by slowing 
up the business of making automobiles there would probably be a suf- 
ficient number of laborers available there to be transferred into the 
new plant, so it was doubtful whether it would have been wise to have 
located that plant at any other place. 

The Boarcl would liked to have put that into some other part of 
the country where probabl.y there was more available labor, but it 
didn't seeiii practical to do it. There are limiting factors. Your 
powder plans just must go — especially smokeless-powder plants — 



g566 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

where there is great volume of water. It takes almost an unbeliev- 
able amount of water to make smokeless powder. 

One of the engineers told us that if all the smokeless-powder 
plants being constructed in the United States were put at one spot 
on the Mississippi Kiver there would not be enough water to operate 
rhem. 

Mr. Arnold. Of course, it is evident why shipyards and steel 
plants, and so forth 

TRANSPORTATION, LABOR SUPPLY AS FACTORS 

Mr. TowNSEND. Shipyards must be where there is water and most 
shipyards are expanding their present facilities. 

Mr. Arnold. Because it is easier and quicker and cheaper to con- 
struct new ways within a yard than it is to start a new yard? 

Mr. TowNSEND. That is right. Of course, personally, I have been 
interested in the relation of rural and urban labor. My obligation is 
largely agricultural and I have had fine cooperation in trying to 
keep from putting these plants into that portion of the United 
States where specially trained farm labor is needed at a time when 
we are asking for an increase in agricultural production. 

That is especially true in dairy and pork- and egg-producing re- 
gions. We have not been able to do the job as well as we would 
like, but that has been considered. 

We find now that shortages in farm labor are beginning to de- 
velop, especially in those areas. 

Mr. Arnold. Was the Plant Site Committee consulted in the lo- 
cation of the new steel plants or the new aluminum plants to be 
built? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arnold. In both cases? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Yes, sir; the deciding factor in both cases — and 
the whole reason in aluminum plants — is electric power. 

Mr. Arnold. And you are consulted with respect to all plants 
where the Government contributes toward the building of them ? 

Mr. TowNSEND, Yes, 

Mr, Arnold, This morning Mr, Gill stated that unemployment 
during the fiscal year 1942 will probably average 5i/^ millions. He 
said the W. P. A, would be able to take care of only 1,000,000. 
What is the Plant Site Committee doing to facilitate the reemploy- 
ment of the remaining 4I/2 million — I mean by the distribution of 
plants ? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Well, a lot of this unemployment is in some of 
the Southern and Southwestern States and some plants are being 
put in there. The Plant Site Board is trying to encourage that 
and I think the Army is trying to place as many in those areas as 
it can. 

They have had housing problems when they get into those areas, 
especially with a plant that employs 6,000 or 8.000 people. Under 
those conditions youi have to develop schools and housing and sanita- 
tion and water and all the other utilities. 

They are of the opinion that, even with good roads^ about 20 
miles is as far as workers should commute, and that is especially 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g567 

true when you oet into lar^e plants. Road congestion occurs and 
it takes the employees away from their homes for a good long 
time, so they figure 20 miles is the limit. Some plants, however, are 
being located in those areas. 

Mr. Arnold. Of course, in mined-out areas you have the labor 
and the housing already there for a good number of people? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Yes; more so in a mining region than you would 
find in a marginal farming region. 

MALDISTRIBUTIOX OF FARM LABOR 

Mr. Arnold. This next question has to do with the agricultural 
situation. Your figures don't agree with those of Mr. Gill and 
Chester Davis. Chester Davis, testifying before this committee last 
December, stated there were 5,000,000 workers in rural areas in 1940 
who were imemployed or underemployed in August, and who thus 
constituted a farm-labor surplus. That was last December. You 
state in your paper that there may be a serious farm-labor shortage in 
some sections of the country. In view of Mr. Davis' estimate how 
do you account for tliis ? 

Mr. TowNSEND. I would readily agree with Mr. Davis that there 
is no shortage in farm labor if you had the labor where the work is. 
The shortage is developing in the dairy sections and in the Corn Belt 
largely, and the surplus of farm labor is in the Southern and South- 
western States. Then, of course, Mr. Davis included poorly employed 
or, as he called them, underemployed, in his figures, with which I agree. 
That is all right; they are employed but very poorly employed. It 
should be noted, furthermore, that the great majority of the 5,000,000 
are underemployed, rather than unemployed. Now it is quite dif- 
ficult to pull certain groups of underemployed rural families into 
industry. 

There has been an increase in defense employment by more than 
3,000,000 but agricultural employment is down now to about 265,000 
less people employed in agriculture than there were a year ago. 

Mr. OsMERS. Is that due to govermnental restrictions on agri- 
culture? 

Mr. TowNSEND. No. 

Mr. OsMERS. Curtailment of crops and because of mechanization? 

Mr. TowNSEND. No. That is due to the boys going to the Army 
and going into defense industries where the wage differential at- 
tracts them. 

Mr. OsMERS. You use the figure "265,000." Wliat is the total figure 
in agriculture? 

Mr. TowNSEND. It is something in excess of 11,500,000, according 
to the July estimate. 

APPRAISAL OF WORK OF PLANT SITE COMMITTEE 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you consider that the work of the Plant Site Com- 
mittee, Governor, has been a success? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Yes; I think it has been beneficial. 

Mr, OsMERS. We have had so much evidence submitted to the 
committee that the location of a great many of these defense indus- 



g568 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

tries has upset the entire economy of communities — counties and 
large parts of States — because there weren't facilities at the sites 
that have been selected. 

Now, I want to make clear first, before we get into the questions 
on the subject, that I realize that certain plants, we will say an 
aluminum plant that must have power, must be built where the 
power is and not some place else, and we know that you can't put 
a powder plant in the middle of a large city. We wouldn't want it 
there. But I Avould like to make this comparison : Before the United 
States Army moves men into a cantonment that cantonment must 
have sanitary facilities, housing, pure water, sleeping quarters, rec- 
reation quarters, and so on. Do you feel that the Government is as 
careful of the health and welfare of its civilians as it is of its armed 
forces ? 

Mr. TowNSEND. No; I am afraid not. 

Mr. OsMERS. Don't you feel that we should devote as much attention 
to that as we devote to the military side of it ? 

Mr. TowNSEND. I think we should be just as much concerned, yes, 
sir ; but you can realize that the problems are greater because in the 
latter case you are dealing with free citizens — they are allowed to live 
wherever they care to. 

Mr. OsMERS. They are allowed to live where they care to but they 
have got to live wherever they are. They can do as they please but 
if they are going to work on a certain project, any hypothetical one 
you might mention, they have got to live there. 

Now, I don't think, just as a citizen, that it is fair to make these 
thousands of American citizens move into these areas where there is 
is no place for them to live and no place for their children to be 
educated: where their health is endangered. Frankly, it is my per- 
sonal opinion that we have done a very poor job throughout. 

Mr. TowNSEND. Well, beyond initial consideration in selecting sites, 
that has not been particularly an obligation of our Board. 

FACTORS CONSIDERED BY PLANT-SITE COMMITTEE 

Mr. OsMERS. What are the factors — we will put it this way to get 
to the work of your Board — what are the factors that your Board 
considers when a proposal comes from anywhere — from a manufac- 
turer or from a branch of Government, to locate a plant in any part 
of the country? 

Mr. TowNSEND. One of the first things our Board wants to know 
is. Is there labor available in that area ? and we consider that within 
a 20-mile radius. That is first. Secondly, If labor is available, is 
there housing available for them? That is also considered by our 
Board. 

You have other limiting factors, like I said about a powder plant, 
it must have a great volume of water ; it must have certain elevation ; 
it must be above flood areas; they like to have two railroads running 
through them — one each way so that they can have a choice in case 
something happens to a railroad; they must get their materials out 
by the other road; so occasionally it is' just almost necessary to locate 
an industry where there isn't sufficient housing. 

There may be in that part of the country a large surplus of unem- 
ployed, and you would like to employ them and you must locate there, 
but there may be an inadequate housing situation. Thus, a plant is 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6569 

sometimes located in an area that lacks adequate liousine;. _ Then 
that becomes somebody else's problem. We figure it is the obligation 
of some other unit of the Government to see that they are taken 
care of. 

Mr. OsMERS. If those factors have been considered in the location of 
our plant sites, why is it that we have this apparent dislocation of 
workers and lack of housing and other public facilities in places where 
they have gone ? I mean we have had so many examples of it before 
this committee that it would be just repetitious to go into all of the 
places where conditions are very bad. 

Mr. Tow^NSEND. Well, it is clear that it would be impossible to locate 
all of these industries, taking into consideration their peculiar require- 
ments, where there is sufficient housing and unemployed. 

Mr. OsMERS. AVell, of course, my answer to that would be that before 
the site was selectecl, and they built the plant, that the United States 
Housing Authority should come in and make provision for it. That 
would be my answer to that quickly. 

Mr. TowNSEND. I will agree with you. 

Mr. OsMERs. And if there was a school shortage, you would have 
the Office of Education in there to make some provision for that; 
and if it were determined that they weren't going to have proper 
facilities, you just wouldn't locate the plant there. 

Mr. TowNSEND. That is right. 

YARDSTICK FOR LABOR SUPPLY 

]Mr. OsMERS. Now, Congressman Arnold touched briefly on the 
question of agricultural employment. How do you determine when 
there is a shortage of labor? 

Mr. Town SEND. Well, a bureau of the Department of Agriculture 
keeps a statistical record — they have certain farmers in localities who 
furnish them with that information. 

Mr. OsMERS. How accurate is that service ? 

Mr. TowNSEND. It is only comparatively accurate. It is not abso- 
lutely accurate. It only secures the opinion of those farmers. It 
would be impossible to make a detailed survey. My Office, the Office 
of Defense Relationship, has a State and Federal service made up of 
workers already in the Department of Agriculture and not new 
employees, headed by the chairman of the Agricultm-al Conservation 
Program Committee in each county and each State, and we are begin- 
ning now to get from them reports on the farm-labor situation. We 
will get it continuously from now on. 

I am of the opinion, from what information I have now, that it will 
be acute this year only for seasonal workers — like picking tomatoes 
and picking fruit. There is also going to be a shortage that will 
be severe in the dairy industry, because that requires highly skilled 
labor. A dairy manager is a highly skilled individual. We have 
reason to believe that in 1942 that shortage is going to be even more 
serious. 

Mr. OsMERS. Well, these reports whicli have emanated from the 
Agricultural Marketing Service have, as I presume you know, caused 
some needless and injurious migration. 

In other words there has been given publicity to the fact that there 
is a shortage of labor in a certain area and naturally, if you or I were 



g570 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

out of a job, the first thing we would do would be to get in our car 
and run to that area and if we got to the area found out that the 
reported shortage did not exist, we would become an economic and 
social problem and a bother to ourselves. 

There are several criticisms of that Marketing Service that has come 
to my attention and to the attention of the committee. I would like 
you to pass j^our judgment on it. I am going to read some of them. 
Their sample is very small. Only 22,000 of the reporters queried, and 
of these about only 5,000 answered the question. 

Do you think any reliable estimates can be made on the basis of 
such a small sample ? 

Mr, TowNSEND. Well, I think it is better than no report at all. Of 
course it really couldn't be accurate but sometimes a straw vote is 
indicative. The Agricultural Marketing Service reports refer to the 
supply of labor as a percentage of normal and in comparison with 
earlier periods. I feel sure that their employment reports are secured 
from less than half of all of the reporters since only about 25 percent 
of our farmers hire laborers during certain seasons, while approxi- 
mately half of the farmers never hire labor. 

UNPREDICTABLES IN FARM LABOR NEED 

Mr, OsMERS. It is very hard, is it not. Governor, to estimate an 
agricultural labor shortage, particularly in the harvesting of crops, 
and that is when it is always acute, until after the shortage has de- 
veloped and you have tried to hire men? In other words, the har- 
vesting may start tomorrow and you may not have a man on the place 
today, but in the morning they will arrive in truckloads and you 
wouldn't know until tomoiTow noon whether there is going to be a 
shortage ? 

Mr, TowNSEND. That is right. 

Mr. OsMERS. Now, the Marketing Service has no base year by which 
to compare its reports from year to year, and there is no way of 
knowing what the reports of one month or one year mean, when 
compared with previous years. Now, in view of that what signifi- 
cance can we place on these, figures ? 

Mr, TowNSEND. Well, they compare this year with last year. That 
helps some. 

Mr. OsMERS. They do compare one year with the previous year? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Yes, They gave me the fact that the supply was 
71 percent of the demand this year, and 102 percent of the demand 
last year. That was a comparative figure. 

I am not at all acquainted with the Marketing Service's methods. 
I have had nothing to do with it. I got a little information from 
them for this study and that is about all I know about them. They 
gave me the comparison of the 2 years and I thought that was 
helpful, but I will admit it looked like a big variation. I am not so 
sure, however, that a base period would be helpful. Other factors 
might easily outweigh the apparent desirability of a base period. 
Some such factors would be mechanization, the changing relationship 
of acres and yields of particular crops to total acres and total produc- 
tion, differences in labor requirements, shifts of crop acres from areas 
of high labor requirement areas to low labor requirement areas, and 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6571 

SO on. In the end, it is conceivable that a base period might be less 
desirable than the farmer's opinion, which is compared with his needs 
over a period of years. 

Mr. OsMERS. Well, from an economic standpoint, it is to the inter- 
est of the farm employer to create a labor surplus, isn't it? And 
isn't it likely therefore, that some of them would color their reports, 
in order to produce that surplus and thereby lower the cost of their 
labor? 

Mr. TowNSEND. That is possible ; yes, sir. 

Mr. OsMERS. Would you say that we need, particularly with ref- 
erence to farm labor, some new and wider method of reports? 

Mr. TowNSEND. It could be very helpful, and especially in a time 
like this or in a time of depression — in any abnormal time — both to the 
worker and to the employer. 

Mr. OsMERS. There are so many of these workers who migrate. I 
am thinking of the situation in the State of New Jersey. The com- 
mittee examined it last year. Technically, at the moment we are 
probably 3,000 short on potato diggers, but they are not going to 
aig potatoes for probably another month. 

Now, these people have normally come up from the South every 
summer and have done the potato harvesting and have gone back. 
Now, we won't know and haven't any way of knowing whether they 
are all going to arrive this year or not. 

Mr. TowNSEND. And probably no system could be devised that 
would give you that information. 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you think that an extension of the United States 
Employment Service and its component State services w^ould help? 

DIVISION OF LABOR UNIT STUDYING MIGRATION 

Mr. TowNSEND. State employment services plus Federal direction 
within and between States would be helpful. 

Now, I have a labor unit in my Office of Agricultural Defense Kela- 
tions — of course, I have only one or two men in it — but I am going to 
use that. I have been with them, and they have given me quite a little 
information as to how they operate, and I think they are going to be 
quite helpful in getting special migratory labor. 

They are not going to lielp much with the single farm hand ; they 
are going to work on migratory labor, and I think they are going 
to be very helpful. We are going to depend on the committees, of 
Avhich the chairmen of the A. C. P. connuittees are the chairmen of the 
county committees, to get us information as to where the labor is 
needed, and then we will transmit that request to the farm placement 
division of the employment service, and they will try to get the labor 
brought in there. 

The laboi- will have to come, of course, from these areas where there 
is still some surplus farm labor. 

Mr. OsMERS. Farm labor is so important in computing the cost of 
living that we should try to regulate it and adjust it in some way so 
there will be even employment and steady income, because we are 
starting in that fatal spiral now, and any sharp upset in the farm- 
labor situation will only accentuate it. 



g572 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Mr. TowNSEND. Well, it is going to be a great problem, the great- 
est we have ever experienced. 

Mr. OsMERS. It has been suggested that agricultural employers' 
views on farm labor reflect directly what they hear about industrial 
employment and not what the actual situation is. If this is true, 
the reports of the Agricultural Marketing Service would bear no 
relationship to the actual labor situation. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Arnold. I have one more question. 

FEDERAL. PLANT PLACEMENT WIDER THAN PRIVATE 

How does the centralization of Government-financed plants com- 
pare with the centralization of privately financed expansion of facil- 
ities? Is there any more decentralization of those plants that you 
finance for private industry than there is of those they build them- 
selves ? 

Mr. TowNSEND. The decentralization has been much better with 
Government-financed plants than with private plants. 

Mr. Arnold. I mean those built for private industry? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Yes; I think so. The Government naturally 
would have a little more freedom. 

Mr. Arnold. But you consult private industry as to where they 
think the best location is for the plant you are building for them ? 

Mr. Townsend. Oh, they come to us for approval of the plant 
site. They have already decided where they want to locate their plants, 
but so many of their projects have been expansions of present plants. 
You see, private industry has built very few entirely new plants. It 
lias been largely expansion of their existing plants. 

Mr. Arnold. And those financed by the Government are practically 
all new enterprises, and consequently the Government has a better 
opportunity to select their site? 

Mr. Townsend. That is correct. 

Mr. Arnold. That is all. 

post-defense outlook as factor 

The Chairman. Governor, I just have one question to ask you: 
In arriving at a determination for the location of one of these 
defense plants, does your commission take under consideration the 
fact, for example, we had 5,000,000 agricultural workers unemployed 
last year? Do you take into consideration the fact that after this 
emergency is over, with millions of people going from their old 
States to States where they get better positions in these defense 
projects, any plant that is decentralized and set out where there is 
an excessive labor supply is going to have a very decided effect on 
the migration between States after this emergency is over? 

Mr. Townsend. Oh, yes. Probably one of the first things we 
think about is in that connection, but here is your problem. 

You take a powder plant and you put it out in Arkansas or West 
Virginia in the coal region, or in southern Illinois, where there are 
a great many unemployed people. You put the plant there. The 
workers are there, and they need the work, and they are glad to 



NATIONAL dp:fensp: migration ()573 

work, but when the effort is over and the powder plant is closed, 
we may be faced by a serious situation. But we believe it is better to 
do that than to have those workers go into some great center and make 
their money and spend it there and after it is over go back to that 
community. 

If they live there even for 3 or 4 years and work and earn the 
money, a part of that money will still remain in the community if 
they don't keep it themselves, and the economic situation will be 
better than if they went away and then came back. 

Our policy is to try, so far as possible, to take the work to the 
worker rather than to take the w-orker to the work. 

The Chairman. I was wondering if you considered that a factor. 

Mr. TowNSEND. I would say that is our first consideration. 

The Chairman. I think the figure is now that about 2,000,000 have 
left their home States and migrated to other States. 

JNIr. TowNSEND. Yes. 

The Chairman. And it will probably run up to three or four mil- 
lion before this is through — nobody know^s — and when this emerg- 
ency is over and the defense projects close down, there is going to 
be a whirlpool of migration unless we can keep as many as possible 
at home. 

]Mr. TowNSEND. There is bound to be a back-to-the-land movement 
for them. It is going to be, undoubtedly, a serious economic problem. 

Mr. Arnold. Is it your opinion. Governor, that if a powder plant, 
employing, say, from three to six thousand people, were placed in a 
community that has no surplus labor to speak of, would that com- 
munity be worse off after this emergency is over than if it had not 
been located there in the first place? 

Mr. TowNSEND. Such a plant might be definitely a liability; yes, 
sir; definitely a liability. They located a shell-loading plant in my 
State. I knew nothing about it. I was Governor at the time. If I 
liad known about it I would have certainly done everything I could 
to have kept it from being located there. There was not a great deal of 
unemployed labor there, and it is going to be a definite headache for 
rhe State of Indiana after it is over. The hope of such communities, 
however, is to develop peacetime industries after the emergency. 

The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. Governor. You have 
been very helpfid to us and very kind to us, and we appreciate your 
being here. 

We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 1 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m,, 
Thursday, July 17, 1941.) 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1941 

House of Representatives, 
Select Committee Investigating 

National Defense Migration, 

Washington^ D. G. 
The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to notice, Hon. John H. 
Tolan (chairman) presiding. 

Present were Representatives John H. Tolan (chairman), of Cali- 
fornia; Laurence F. Arnold, of Illinois; Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska; 
and Frank C. Osmers, Jr., of New Jersey. 

Also present were Robert K. Lamb, staff director; Mary Dublin, 
coordinator of hearings; Creekmore Fath, acting counsel; F. Palmer 
Weber, economist; and John W. Abbott, chief field investigator. 
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
Our first witness is Mr. Donald M. Nelson. Director of the Divi- 
sion of Purchases, O. P. M. 

TESTIMONY OF DONALD M. NELSON, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION 
OF PURCHASES, OFFICE OF PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, WASH- 
INGTON, D. C. 

The Chairman. Mr. Nelson, I have read your statement and have 
an outline of it and I believe it will be a very, very valuable con- 
tribution to our record. 

I am very pleased to know that you are intensely interested in this 
subject of migration. 

Mr. Nelson. I am, sir. I think it is the most important single thing 
before us. 

The Chairman. This committee found last year in traveling north 
and south and east and west, holding hearings in many places, that 
there are about 4,000,000 migrants going from State to State, and that 
number has been increasing year by year. We made a report to Con- 
gress on the general subject of migration, which contained some 
recommendations. 

Following that the committee was continued for this year by Con- 
gress W'ith the idea that migration would increase on account of our 
national-defense program, which we have found to be true. 

6575 



60396 — 41— pt. 16- 



g576 WASHUSGTON HEARINGS 

(The following stfitement was submitted by the witness:) 

STATEMENT BY DONALD M. NELSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 
PURCHASES, OFFICE OF PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, 
D. C. 

Distribution of Ordeks and of Facilities Contkacts, War and Navy Depart- 
ments, Thkough June 30, 1941 

The major purpose of the Division of Purchases in the Office of Production 
Management is to serve as an aid to the armed forces in getting wliat they 
want, in the quanlities desired, and at the times specified, with the fewest 
possible disturbing effects upon the domestic economy. One disturbing effect, 
both immediate and for the long run, would be a large and disorderly migration 
of laborers. Consequently, the Division of Purchases has consistently sought 
to advise the placing of defense orders in such places and in such manner 
as to cause a minimum of labor migration. 

Probably it is unnecessary to point out that in the placing of defense orders 
by the War and Navy Departments, many factors other than local labor sup- 
ply must play a large part, and sometimes a predominating part. For instance, 
aircraft and aircraft motors, especially during the early months of the defense 
program, had not enough potential laborers in their immediate vicinities to 
supply the necessary work forces to handle the growing needs of our armed 
forces and of other democracies. Nevertheless, the dictates of speedy delivery 
and high quality practically compelled the placing of large orders with existing, 
though undermanned, plants. Such plants had to draw laborers from varying 
distances, probably in many cases from long distances. 

More generally, the problem of the placing of orders, whether for supplies 
or for new facilities to produce supplies in the future, is one which almost 
invariably involves compromise in the final decision. Whether to give orders 
to industrial districts already equipped and manned, or to seek new industries 
and locations, is a question which very often cannot be settled to the full 
satisfaction of all points of view. What must be done, and what we have tried 
to do, in ct)operation with the War and Navy Departments is to make recom- 
mendations which will reflect the best possible compromise between conflicting 
factors. I can say that one of our basic policies has been to avoid insofar as pos- 
sible both undue concentration of orders and undue centralization of industry. 
Clearly, it would be undesirable to allot so many orders to overworked com- 
munities as to exaggerate inward migration of laborers and thus lead to 
unhealthy congestion. Likewise, it would be unwise to erect so many new 
facilities in outlying areas as to cause mushrooming of temporary towns. 

In this connection, a further factor must always be recognized — that is, as the 
defense program grows, with its demands on both labor and materials, produc- 
tion for civilian use is bound to be curtailed in many lines of business. One 
result is the progressive unemployment of former civilian-goods workers, and 
to meet this progressive change, we need to allot defense orders, so far as 
feasible, to tlie areas where transfer of workers to defense projects can best 
and most speedily be carried out. 

DISTRIBUTION PATTERN OF ORDERS 

Broadly, the distribution of Army and Navy orders has tended to follow rather 
than to deviate from the previously existing pattern of industrial activity. This 
broad tendency is reflected by the data in table 4. Specifically, concerning labor, 
those figures show that up through June 30, 1941, War and Navy orders have 
followed labor, with few exceptions. Thus New England, with 12.1 percent of 
the total manufacturing workers in the United States, has received 12.9 percent 
by dollar value, of military contracts; the Middle Atlantic States, with 28.6 
percent of workers, have 27.3 percent of orders ; the East North Central States, 
with 27.8 percent of workers, have 18.4 percent of all military orders (but 27.2 
percent of War Department orders alone) ; the West North Central States, 
with 4.8 percent of total workers, have 5 percent of total orders; the South 
Atlantic States, with 12.6 percent of workers, have 11.3 percent of orders; the 
East South Central States have 4.6 percent of workers and 3.5 percent of orders: 
West South Central States have 3.4 percent of workers and 5.4 percent of orders ; 
Mountain States have 0.7 percent of workers and 1.2 percent of orders; and 
Pacific States have 5.4 percent of workers and 15 percent of orders. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION g577 

When we consider the distribution of War and Navy contracts for new facili- 
ties, liowever, there are sharper contrasts. In part, new facility locations are 
determined by strategic factors, which are purely for military authorities to 
decide upon, and in part, by economic considerations. But the figures (table 4) 
show that new facilities contracts have been placed much more detinitely away 
from highly industrialized areas. Thus, New England, with 12.1 percent of 
manufacturing workers, has received 6.7 percent of new facilities; the Middle 
Atlantic States, with 28.6 percent of workers, have 19.1 percent of new facilities. 
A reversal is found in the Bast North Central States, which, with 27.8 percent 
of workers, have 32.8 percent of new facilities. The general tendency toward 
decentralization appears, however, in the West North Central, with 4.8 percent 
of workers and 8.2 percent of facilities. In the South Atlantic States the 
percentages are the same, 12.6 percent of workers and of facilities. In the East 
South Central States there are 4.6 percent of total workers but 8.5 percent of 
facilities. In the West South Central workers and facilities are about the 
same, 3.4 percent and 3.9 percent ; in the Mountain States there are 0.7 percent 
of workers, but 3.5 percent of facilities; and in the Pacific States there are 5.4 
percent of workers and 6.4 percent of new facilities. 

In summary, I would say that supplies contracts have followed the location 
of industry and its workers ; but that new facilities have been planned to follow 
a policy of at least partial decentralization. 

PROCEDURE IN DECIDING NEW PLANT LOCATIONS 

The decisions on new plant locations are made only after most thorough 
analyses by military boards and by the civilian advisory boards, including re- 
cently the Plant Site Board. I should like to offer the following description 
of the work of this Board, established several mouths ago by the Office of Pro- 
duction Management (as referred to in the exhibits submitted separately). 

First as to procedure — the initial negotiations for tlie selection of sites 
for new industrial facilities in connection with the defense program are in 
the hands of the technical agencies responsible for assuring an adequate supply 
of the articles to be produced. Thus, the Ordnance Department of the War 
Department has first responsibility for securing locations for new powder 
plants; the Air Corps of the War Department works with the operating com- 
panies in the selection of sites for new aircraft facilities; the Bureau of Ships 
of the Navy Department is responsible for initiating proposals for new facilities 
to build war vessels; the Maritime Commission develops proposals for the con- 
struction of new ways to build additional ships for our merchant marine; and 
the Office of Production Management, Raw Materials Division, takes the first 
steps in finding suitable locations for new plants in the raw materials field, 
such as steel, aluminum, and magnesium. 

However, it would be wrong to give the impression that these are airtight 
compartments. Depending upon the extent of expert assistance their personnel 
is able to provide, the staff of the Production Division of the Office of Pro- 
duction Management works closely with the War and Navy Departments in 
the selection of both operating companies and the sites at which new operations 
will be carried on. The Shipbuilding Section of the Office of Production Man- 
agement works actively with the Maritime Commission and the Navy Depart- 
ment in developing the new facilities necessary to supply equipment for the 
over-all shipbuilding program. The Air Corps of the Army and the Bureau of 
Aeronautics of the Navy Department work together closely, blocking out the 
particular fields in aircraft expansion for which each will be responsible. Thus, 
for example, the Navy Department has assumed first responsibility for expanding 
facilities for the manufacture of Pratt & Whitney engines, while the Army 
provides the funds and makes the plans for expanding capacity for the pro- 
duction of Wright engines. In each case there is close coordination between 
tiie two agencies through both the Office of Production Management and the 
staff of the Army-Navy Munitions Board. 

It will be convenient to illu.strate the procedure from this point on with a 
sample project initiated by the Ordnance Department of the War Department. 
The officer in charge of the program prepares a statement describing the 
site proposed. Indicating its requirements in terms of labor, power, trans- 
portation, water, raw materials, etc., and how it is proposed that they be met 
at this location. This proposal is submitted to the War Department Facilities 
Board, established in the office of the Under Secretary of War. Tliis Board is 
headed by Gen. H. K. Rutherford. The War Department Facilities Board trans- 
mits the proposal with all available information about it to the Plant Site Board 



6578 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



of the Office of Production Management. The Plant Site Board is composed of 
five members appointed by the Director General, acting in association with the 
Associate Director General of the Office of Production Management. At the 
present time. Donald M. Nelson. Director of the Division of Purchases of the 
Office of Production Management, is chairman. The other members are E. F. 
Johnson, Chief of the Ordnance Macliine Tools and Aircraft Section of the Pro- 
duction Division of the Office of Production Management ; Eli Oliver, labor rela- 
tions adviser to Sidney Hillman, Associate Director of the Office of Production 
Management ; and Gov. Clifford Townsend, Director of the Office of Agricultural 
Defense Relations in the United States Department of Agriculture. There is one 
vacancy due to the resignation from the Office of Production Management of S. R. 
Fuller, who, in addition to being a member, was Chief of the Raw Materials 
Section of the Production Division of the Office of Production Management. 

DATA OBTAINED BY PLANT-SITE BOAKD 

On the basis of the requirements submitted with the proposal the staff of 
the Plant Site Board secures all available data with respect to the resources 
of the community in which the plant is to be located which will throw light 
on its ability to meet these requirements. Particular emphasis is put on the 
availability of labor at the time the plant can get in operation, the availability 
of power at that time, the supply of vacant houses in case workers must be 
imported, the character and quantity of training equipment and facilities in 
case workers must be trained, where large acreage is involved the nature of 
the land to be purchased, the number of persons who must be dispossessed, 
and the relation between the location and the sources of raw materials and the 
destination of finished products. 

In addition the Plant Site Board is Instructed in the regulation establishing 
it to "seek insofar as it can do so consistently with due expedition of the 
program of defense production and appropriate factors of military strategy to 
facilitate the geographic decentralization of defense industry and the full em- 
ployment of all labor and facilities." 

In securing the data for the use of the Plant Site Board reliance is placed 
primarily on existing Government agencies and no considerable staff has been 
built up for the Board itself. For example, in checking on the availability of 
power, comments are secured from the Defense Power Unit of the Federal 
Power Commission and from the power consultant to the Office of Production 
Management. The availability of housing is checked with the Coordinator of 
Defense Housing and other public facilities, such as schools, hospitals, sewage 
and water facilities, with the Office of the Coordinator of Health, Welfare, and 
Related Defense Activities. For labor supply principal reliance is placed on 
the Labor Division of the Office of Production Management which bases its 
conclusions on the reports received from the field offices of the Bureau of 
Employment Security with its 1,500 public employment offices, the estimates of 
labor requirements received from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and on data 
on agricultural employment provided by the Office of Agricultural Defense 
Relations. General comments and data are secured from the National Re- 
sources Planning Board and from the Plant Location Section of the Bureau 
of Research and Statistics of the Office of Production Management. In this 
way prompt and expert advice is secured without duplicating existing agencies 
or personnel. 

Whenever it seems likely that the data assembled will raise questions about 
the locations proposed, those persons in the War or Navy Department responsi- 
ble for the original selection are invited to attend the Board meeting and 
work out with the Board the most satisfactory solution of the problem. 

BILLION DOLLARS IN APPROVED PROJECTS 

From April 30, when it cleared its first project, through June 30, the Board 
formally approved 169 projects involving a total investment of .$1,047,593,999. 

Notice of Board action is returned to the War Department Facilities Boards 
which, on the basis of the recommendation of the Office of Production Manage- 
ment Plant Site Board and of its own infoi'mation on similar subjects, but 
more particularly on its views with respect to military strategy and related 
problems, makes a recommendation to the Under Seci-etary of War. Action by 
him is followed by clearance with the President. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGKATION 6579 

An almost identical procedure is followed with projects initiated in the Navy 
Department. Their Facilities Board is headed by Capt. A. B. Anderson. 

There are certain types of projects which involve increased facilities for 
producing basic raw materials, such as steel, aluminum, and magnesium, and 
are hence primarily the responsibility of neither the War nor Navy Department. 
In these cases the commodity experts of the Production Division of the Office 
of Production Management usually take the lead although working in close 
cooperation with representatives of the War and Navy Departments. For ex- 
ample, in the case of the recent new plants for the production of aluminum the 
Office of Production Management made recommendations to the Under Secretary 
of War after clearance with the Plant Site Board. The Under Secretary of 
War in turn may be expected to make a recommendation to the Reconstruction 
Finance Corporation or more likely to its subsidiary, the Defense Plant Cor- 
poration, expressing the opinion of the War Department as to the most desira- 
ble location, the name of the operating company, and the nature of the plant 
On the basis of these data the Defense Plant Corporation proceeds to negoti- 
ate a contract for the construction and/or lease of the new facility. 

There have also been a large number of cases, particularly Air Corps proj- 
ects, in which the cost has been shared by the War Department and by the 
Defense Plant Corporation. In all such cases the same procedure is followed 
as in the case of projects financed wholly by the War Department, except that 
after a final decision has been reached with respect to the location and cost 
of the project and the ojjerating company, this is transmitted to the Defense 
Plant Corporation which negotiates the contract. However, the 1942 fiscal 
year appropriaion act prohibits the War Department from financing the ex- 
pansions required for its procurement program through the use of Defense Plant 
Corporation funds. 

CHECK-UPS ON PLANT- SITE SELECTION 

This is formal procedure. As a matter of fact, however, the Plant Site Board 
of the Office of Production Management is instructed in the regulation estab- 
lishing it to ''seek to work in close cooperation with representatives of each 
such departxnent, corporation, or agency from the outset of the process of selec- 
tion of the location of any plant or facility." The Plant Site Board feels 
strongly that it can be most useful not by vetoing proposals submitted to it 
for formal action, but by seeing to it that at the very start of negotiations 
careful consideration is given to the factors which are most important in pick- 
ing good sites. And again, may I remind you, by good sites the Plant Site 
Board is interested in good communities and not, by and large, in particular 
pieces of land. 

Although there are far too many negotiations going on at any one time for 
the Board to keep in close touch with all of them it has adopted several means 
which have proved useful in seeing to it that in most cases by the time a proj- 
ect gets to it for formal action the site selected is the best possible under the 
circumstances. In the first place the Board has made it clear to both the 
War and Navy Departments that it is very happy to receive preliminary pro- 
posals of sites that are under consideration and to express an informal opinion 
with respect to them. At the very outset of its work it requested and received 
from the departments a general picture of the program of new facilities as it 
shaped up at the time and gave preliminary comments on this program. Since 
that time the staff has kept in close touch with both the War and Navy Depart- 
ments and with those in the Office of Production Management working on n6w 
facilities programs, and they have referred to the Board for preliminary com- 
ment nearly all important projects at an early stage of negotiations before a 
substantial delay would be caused to the Defense program by the necessity of 
seeking a different location than that originally proposed by the operating com- 
pany and the service department. 

In the case of certain types of plants, such as ammunition plants, a repre- 
sentative of the Plant Site Board has gone with representatives of the Ordnance 
Department to inspect locations proposed for new plants. Tlie staff of the 
Board has also kept in close touch with representatives of the railroads who 
are most familiar with possible sites. They have helped greatly in finding 
locations in areas which are desirable from the point of view of the Plant Site 
Board. 

The Board has also expressed general views to the War and Navy Depart- 
ments with respect to the types of plants which it felt woiikl most efficiently 



g580 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

utilize the resources of various regions of the country, has provided them with 
data on communities where housing and labor shortages have occurred and 
has recommended lists of communities which seem to deserve prior con- 
sideration for various types and sizes of plants. 

In a number of cases the service departments have referred to the Board 
companies which have been asked to expand and wanted help in picking a de- 
sirable location. The Board has been able to be of some assistance in those 
cases, not only by reason of the data provided by Government agencies but also 
the vast quantities of material submitted to it by local chambers of commerce, 
by Members of Congress, by representatives of the railroads, by unions and 
by other groups and individuals interested in participating in the defense 
effort. 

PEACETIME VALtne AS FACTOR 

One other point with respect to the way sites or new facilities are selected 
may be of interest to you. In the case of new facilities for the production 
of aircraft and ships there is frequently some likelihood that the plants will 
have a peacetime value. Although the Government is financing their construc- 
tion at the moment, it would, of course, like to sell as many of these plants 
as possible at the end of the emergency. The best potential purchaser is 
usually the operating company. Its interest in purchasing the plant after the 
end of the emergency will depend largely on whether the location is considered 
to be suitable for peace-time operation in connection with its other manufac- 
turing activities. The net result of all this is that in the case of expansions 
in these fields the principal initiative in selecting new locations rests with the 
operating companies rather than with the Government, although the influence 
of the Government is not negligible. However, those of you who are interested 
in sites that are suitable for this kind of activity would probably do better 
by going to companies with large contracts or subcontracts than by submitting 
data about these sites to Government agencies. 

In the course of my work I have had to read many dozens of prospecti set- 
ting forth the advantages of particular sites for defense plants. I should like 
to make one or two comments about the material contained in these prospecti 
as it relates to the criteria in which the Plant Site Board is most interested. 

Although for many years there has been a large backlog of unemployed 
throughout the country this is no longer the case. We now have in many loca- 
tions acute labor shortages. In the course of the next year when the greater 
part of the new facilities under construction will get into operation these 
shortages will be far more widespread. As a result labor supply has become a 
key problem in selecting suitable sites for new plants. 

TWO LABOR ANGLES IN PLANT-SITE SELECTION 

The Board looks at the labor problem from two angles. In the first place, it 
is considered undesirable to locate plants where they can only be staffed by the 
migration of workers from beyond a reasonable commuting distance. The low 
level of activity in the housing industry during the past 10 years has left few 
of our cities with a cushion of vacant houses which can absorb migrant workers. 
To build new houses for them is not only expensive to the Government but 
involves a substantial diversion of resources which could better be devoted to 
defense production — resources of men, materials, and transportation facilities. 
This situation has become sufficiently acute in the materials fields that it has 
been necessary to establish special priority provisions to insure the delivery of 
materials for the construction of defense housing. 

The definition of reasonable commuting distance will vary from one part 
of the country to another as commuting customs differ. Certainly, however, 
data on the labor available in an entire State are always irrelevant. As an 
average we are using 30 miles. In some parts of the country it is reasonable to 
draw a circle with a 30-mile radius. In others where the highway network 
is less satisfactory it is necessary to examine the highway facilities carefully. 
Attention must be paid to mountain ranges which require a roundabout ap- 
proach and to toll bridges which make commuting from certain directions 
expensive. 

The second principal problem is determining how many unemployed persons 
are available within the commuting area. This involves finding out not only 
how many persons are without jobs but also how many of them would be 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6581 

interested in tlie particular type of work ofcered by the new plant and could 
be expected to meet its requirements, both in terms of sex, age, race, citizen- 
ship, physical fitness, and occupational skill. Once a satisfactory inventory is 
made of the unemployed, including those only partially employed on low- 
income farms, it is necessary to anticipate the number of new jobs which will 
be created by contracts already signed either within that commuting area 
or in nearby cities to which workers will migrate from the area under con- 
sideration. Some allowance must also be made for the secondary efforts of 
defense employment in creating jobs in service and trade establishments. I 
cannot emphasize too greatly the importance of considering not only present 
unemployment but anticipated unemployment at the time the proposed plant 
will be hiring new workers. 

PRIOKITIIuS AN IMPONDERABLE FACTOR 

A new complicating factor has been introduced into this picture during 
recent months by the curtailment of certain types of manufacturing due either 
to priorities as in the case of aluminum or to general agreement as in the case 
of autos. At the present time these introduce an imponderable factor which 
cannot be resolved until more specific information is secured about where 
these cuts will be made and what their effects upon employment will be. 

The same situation applies to power supply. It is not enough to describe 
the generating capacity or the interconnecting lines which can supply power 
to the proposed plant. In general the power supply of the country is short. 
It is necessary to know in any specific location not only what the capacity is 
but what estimated requirements will be as of the time the proposed plant 
gets into operation. The pertinent question is what surplus will be left after 
meeting existing or already contracted for requirements. It is unwise to 
count on interconnection until specific information is secured about the antici- 
pated surplus as of a year or more from now of the interconnected systems. 

What I have said with respect to labor and power applies to a greater or 
lesser extent throughout the whole picture. We are entering a period of 
scarcity and shortage. We are building new facilities so rapidly that today's 
situation will be wholly changed a year from now. These developments involve 
a complete revision in the outlook toward many aspects of plant location which 
has quite properly characterized the past 10 years. Prospectuses which take 
account of the rapidly changing demand or supply situation for such items as 
labor and power will receive more favorable consideration than those which 
fail to take account of future developments. 

(Eight, tables, six charts, and two additional exhibits, described as 
follows, were submitted for the record and appear in order follow- 
ing:) 

Table 1. — County distribution of War and Navy Department prime contracts 
and project orders, June 1, 1940, to June 30, 1941. 

Table 2. — Distribtuion of major defense prime contracts awarded by the War 
and Navy Departments, by States, June 1, 1940, to June 30, 1941. 

Table 3. — Distribution of major defense contracts awarded by the War and 
Navy Departments, by Federal Reserve district and industrial area, June 1, 
1940, to June 30, 1941. 

Table 4. — Percentage distribution of prime contracts and Government-financed 
facilities, by regions, as of June 30, 1941. 

Table 5. — Regional distribution of value of manufactured products, value of 
War and Navy Department prime contracts, and estimated cost of Govern- 
ment-financed facilities. 

Table 6. — Regional distribution of manufacturing employment, value of War 
and Navy Department prime contracts, and estimated cost of Government- 
financed facilities. 

Table 7. — War Department regional distribution of value of prime contracts and 
estimated cost of Government-financed facilities. 

Table 8. — Cumulative percentage distribution of prime contracts and Govern- 
ment-financed facilities, by regions. 

Chart 1. — Regional distribution of the estimated cost of new industrial facilities 
financed by War Department funds and total value of manufactured product. 

Chart 2. — Navy Department regional distribution of the estimated cost of new 
industrial facilities and total value of ninnufactured product. 



6582 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Chart 3. — Navy Department regional distribution of prime contract awards 

and total value of manufactured products. 
Chart 4. — Navy Department regi(mal distribution of prime contract awards and 

total value of manufactured product, excluding aircraft contracts. 
Chart 5. — War Department regional distribution of prime contract awards 

and total value of manufactured products, including aircraft contracts. 
Chart 6. — War Department regional distribution of prime contract awards and 

total value of manufactured products, excluding aircraft contracts. 
Exhibit 1. — Regulation No. 6. establishing a Plant Site Board in the Office of 

Production Management and defining procedure for clearance of the proposed 

location of new or additional plants and facilities required for the national 

defense. 
Exhibit 2. — Regulation No. 6-A, amending Regulation No. 6, dated May 6, 1941, 

establishing a Plant Site Board in the Office of Production Management and 

defining procedure for clearance of the proposed location of new or additional 

plants and facilities required for the national defense. 



Table 1. — County distribution of War and Navy Department prime contracts 
and project orders,^ June 1, 19.'f0, to June SO, 19'il — All aicards having value of 
$10,000 or more excluding construction, construction materials, fuels, food- 
stuffs, and services * 

[Thousands of dollars] 



Alabama. 



120, 432 



Calhoun 

Chambers 

Covington 

Dallas 

Elmore 

Etowah 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Lauderdale- 
Madison 

Mobile 

Montgomery. 

Talladega 

Tallapoosa 



2,481 

2, 348 

564 

188 

320 

17, 284 

332 

12, 631 

2,861 

457 

39, 755 
419 

40, 725 

67 



28 



Cochise- 
Pima___ 



Arkansas- 



93 



Greene 

Pulaski 

Unassignable- 



California 1, 383, 994 



Alameda 

Contra Costa- 
Humboldt 

Imperial 

Los AngeleS-- 

Napa 

Orange 



57, 229 

1,299 

42 

10 

610, 148 

264 

2,222 



California — Continued. 



Sacramento 


110 


San Bernardino 


237, 104 


San Diego 


49 


San Francisco 


__. 244, 576 


San Joaquin 


1, 992 


San Mateo __ 


46 


Santa Clara __ 


9,096 


Santa Cruz 


10 


Solano 


222, 531 


Sonoma 


17 


Tulare 


164 


Unassignable 


116 



Colorado- 



Denver- 
Pueblo-. 



Connecticut- 



Fairfield 

Hartford 

Litchfield- 
Middlesex 

New Haven_- 
New London. 

Tolland 

Windham 



New Castle- 
Sussex 



District of Columbia. 



95, 771 



91, 168 
4,603 



611, 737 

127, 035 

219, 120 

1,695 

1,306 

66, 716 

194, 061 

286 

1,518 

6,694 

6,248 
446 

88, 330 



^ Project orders are orders for work issued to Government-owned arsenals, shipyards, 
manufacturing depots, and the like. 

2 The tabulation includes supplies contracts only and does not include contracts for 
facilities except for a relatively small amount of manufacturing equipment included in a few 
supplies contracts. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6583 



T4BLE 1— County distribution of War and Navy Department prtme contracts 
and project oi'ders, June U W.'iO, to June 30. l!)J,t—All awards having value of 
$10M0 or more excluding construction, construction materials, fuels, food- 
stuffs, and sei-vices — Continued 



[Thousands of dollars] 



Florida - 



Bradford 

Dade 

Duval 

Escambia 

Franklin 

Hillsborough. 

Lee 

Manatee 

Monroe 

Okaloosa 

Pinellas 

Sarasota 

Unassignable- 



Georgia. 



Barrow 

Bibb 

Carroll 

Chatham 

Clarke 

Cobb 

Colquitt 

Coweta 

De Kalb 

Floyd 

Fulton ^- 

Grady — 

Habersham — 

Jenkins 

Meriwether 

Muscogee — 

Polk 

Pulaski 

Richmond 

Rockdale 

Spalding 

Stephens 

Troup 

Upson 

Walker 

Walton 

Washington- 



Illinois. 



Adams 

Alexander- 
Boone 

Champaign- 
Cook 

De Kalb—. 

De Witt 

Du Page 

Effingham- 
Henry 

Jo Daviess-. 



74, 334 



3,054 

' &44 

5,392 

302 

31 

58, 778 

113 

529 

5,083 

19 

19 

24 

46 



42, 712 



373 

38 

235 

5,128 

302 

197 

50 

31 

600 

334 

16, 894 

SI 

275 

112 

24 

803 

295 

29 

166 

56 

276 

5, 893 

1, 178 

61 

9, 052 

90 

139 



280, 190 



1,179 

15 

16 

525 

216, 711 

498 

15 

339 

126 

2,096 

135 



Illinois — Continued. 

Kane 

Kankakee 

Lake 

La Salle 

McDouough 

McLean 

Macon 

Madison . 

Marshall 

Massac 

Montgomery 

Morgan 

Ogle 

Peoria 

Rock Island 

St. Clair 

Sangamon 

Stephenson 

Vermilion 

Wayne 

White 

Whiteside 

Will 

Winnebago 

Unassignable 



2,604 

63 

219 

623 

77 

30 

1,258 

7,864 

67 

91 

57 

19 

241 

615 

17, 052 

1,001 

385 

124 

78 

343 

725 

234 

19, 150 

5,574 

41 



Indiana 231, 211 



Adams 

Allen 

Bartholomew- 
Blackford 

Boone 

Cass 

Clark 

Decatur 

Delaware 

Elkhart 

Floyd 

Fulton 

Grant 

Hamilton 

Henry 

Howard 

Huntington- 
Jackson 

Jay 

Jefferson 

Kosciusko 

Lake 

La Porte 

Lawrence 

Madison 

Marion 

Noble 

Perry 

Ripley 

St. Joseph 



55 

3,257 

676 

407 

565 

323 

41, 929 

26 

1,073 

192 

24 

29 

1,247 

693 

10 

1,072 

25 

422 

589 

539 

64 

2,861 

28, 440 

62 

6,415 

76, 455 

497 

132 

38 

59,404 



6584 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 1. — County distribution of War and Navy Department prime contracts 
and project orders, June J, 191,0, to June 30, 19i1 — AH awards having value of 
$10,000 or more excluding construction, construction materials, fuels, food- 
stuffs, and services — Continued 

[Thousands of dollars] 



Indiana — Continued. 

Vanderburg 

Vigo 

Wabash 

Wayne 

Unassignable 



Iowa. 



Black Hawk- 
Ceiro-Gordo- 

Clinton 

Dubuque 

Floyd 

Iowa 

Jefferson 

Linn 

Polk 

Scott 

Webster 

Woodbury 



Kansas- 



Atchison 

Bourbon 

Cherokee 

Montgomery- 
Sedgwick 

Wyandotte 



Kentucky- 



Bell 

Boyd 

Caldwell 

Campbell 

Christian 

Daviess 

Estill 

Fayette 

Franklin 

GraA'es 

Jefferson 

Kenton 

Warren 



Liouisiana. 



Caddo 

Jefferson 

Orleans 

Rapides 

Unassignable- 



1,759 
101 
654 

1,127 
49 



6,789 



143 

24 

426 

381 

22 

53 

10 

3,268 

551 

1. 699 

24 

188 

79, 917 



167 

68 
40 



75, 319 

4, 287 



3,984 



42 
61 
31 

143 
38 
17 
69 
17 

355 

35 

2,839 

300 
37 



11, 723 



233 

245 

11. 025 

205 
35 



Maine 384, 874 



Androscoggin- 
Cumberland— 

Franklin 

Hancock 

Kennebec 



3,827 

1,866 

862 



922 



ine— Continued. 




Knox _ 


1,666 


Lincoln 


4, 007 


Oxford 


38 


Penobscot 


433 


Piscataquis 


382 



Sagadahoc 169,907 

Somerset 748 

York 96 

Unassignable 84 



Maryland 307, 344 



Anne Arundel 1.185 

Baltimore 1, 080 

Baltimore City 296, 501 

Cecil 2, 975 

Charles 18, 047 

Dorchester 997 

Frederick 35 

Howard 42 

Montgomery 12 

Prince Georges 177 

Somerset 182 

Washington 13, 122 

Wicomico 89 

Unassignable 60 



Ma ssachusetts- 



Barnstable 

Berkshire 

Bristol 

Essex 

Franklin 

Hampden 

Hampshire 

Middlesex 

Norfolk 

Plymouth 

Suffolk 

Worchester— 
Unassignable. 



934, 794 

28 

3,552 

5,088 

19, 973 

777 

40, 122 

744 

17, 419 

520. 490 

9,795 

288. 208 

27, 459 

1,139 



Michigan 677, 489 



Alpena 

Bay 

Berrien 

Branch 

Calhoun 

Chippewa 

Eaton 

Genesee 

Grand Traverse- 
Hillsdale 

Houghton 

Ingham 

Ionia 

Jackson 

Kalamazoo 

Kent 



208 

18, 998 

2,771 

1,047 

7,566 

11 

1,100 

24, 717 

20 

436 

249 

1,227 

15 

4,579 

62 

1,291 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6585 



Table 1. — County distribution of War and Navy Department prime contracts 
and project orders, June J, J9iO. to June 30. 191(1 — AU awards having value of 
$10,000 or more excluding construction, construction materials, fuels, food- 
stuffs, and services — Continued 

[Thousands of dollars] 



Michigan — Continued. 

Lapeer 

Lenawee 

Macomb 

Manistee 

Marquette 

Menominee 

Midland 

Muslvegon 

Oakland 

Ottowa 

Saginaw 

St. Clair 

St. Joseph 

Washtenaw 

Wayne 

Unassignable 



Minnesota. 



Blue Earth.. 

Brown 

Cass 

Dakota 

Freeborn 

Hennepin 

Ramsey 

Rice 

St. Louis 

Steele 

Winona 



Mississippi- 



Alcorn 

Forrest 

Hinds 

Jackson 

Jones 

Lauderdale 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Lowndes 

Marion 

Newton 

Pearl River 

Union 



Missouri. 



Audrain- 
Boone 

Buchanan- 
Cass 

Clay 

Cole 

Dent 

Dunklin- 
Franklin 

Greene 

Jackson__. 
Jasper 



396 

14, 055 

444 



487 

47, 392 

155, 180 

114 

15, 462 

2,558 

24 

3,786 

371, 647 

839 



37, 981 



28 
16 
50 
93 

154 

34, 672 

1,910 

97 

536 
25 

400 



52, 038 



84 

24 
50, 000 

12 
209 

15 
2.54 
530 

64 
284 
304 
178 



276, 805 



200 

46 

26 

13 

3,294 

245 

168 
24 
23 

448 
8,434 

629 



Missouri — Continued. 
Johnson 


27 




297 


New Madrid.. 


203 


Pettis 


178 




751 


St. Charles 


26. 255 


St. Francois 


173 


St. Louis 


66, 828 


St. Louis City 

Saline 

Scott 

Unassignable 


126, 971 

211 

83 

61, 143 



Montana : Cascade- 
Nebraska 



45 
4,266 



Adams 

Douglas—- 

Gage 

Lancaster- 
Otoe 



229 

3,227 

180 

607 

23 



Nevada: Mineral- 
New Hampshire- 



Belknap 

Chesire 

Coos 

Hillsborough. 

Merrimack 

Rockingham- 
Strafford 

Sullivan 

Unassignable. 



285 
107, 984 

444 

371 

195 

4,791 

957 

98, 892 

2,170 

51 

113 



New Jersey 1, 450, 



Atlantic 

Bergen 

Burlington 

Camden 

Cape May 

Cumberland 

Essex 

Gloucester 

Hudson 

Mercer 

Middlesex 

Monmouth 

Morris 

Passaic 

Salem 

Somerset 

Union 

Warren 

Unas.signable 



57, 



28, 

2, 

356, 

9, 

18, 

6, 

154, 

298, 
5, 

22. 

2. 



152 

126 
594 
113 
753 

088 
009 



872 
597 
4C16 
603 
558 
101 
247 
817 
869 
577 



New York 1. 486, 255 



Albany- 
Allegany. 



20, 998 
199 



6586 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 1. — County distribution of War and Navy Department prime contracts 
and project orders, June 1, 19ji0, to June SO. 19U — All awards having value of 
$10,000 or more excluding construction, construction materials, fuels, food- 
stuffs, and services — Continued 

[Thousands of dollars] 



New York — Continued. 




North Carolina— Continued. 




Broome 


7,597 


Edgecombe 


168 


Cattaraugus 


9© 


Forsytli 

Gaston 


l>13 


Cayuga 


7, 247 


2,743 


Chatauqua 


8, 560 


Guilford 


3,935 


Chemung 


8,127 


Halifax 


19 


Chenango 


1,444 


Iredell 


198 


Columbia 


98 


Lenoir 


105 


Delaware 


991") 




1,621 


Dutchess 


9, 593 

185, 486 


New Hanover 


29 


Erie 


Pasquotank 


528 


Fulton 


1, 509 


Randolph 


167 


Genesee 


221 


Richmond 


424 


Herkimer 


625 


Rockingham 


1,430 


Jefferson 


471 


Rowan 


142 


Livingston 


3, 168 


Rutherford 


213 


Madison 


1,246 


Surry 


7,741 


Monroe 


65, 655 


Vance 


2,190 


Montgomery 


431 


Wake 


31 


Nassau 


121, 868 


Yadkin 


89 


New York 


774, 160 


Unassignable 


29 


Niagara 


1,836 








Oneida 


37, 781 


Ohio 


415,443 


Onondaga 


13, 510 


- 








25 
687 


Allen 

Auglaize 


114 


Orange 


265 


Orleans . 


108 


Belmont 


135 


Oswego 


280 


Butler 


16,076 


Rensselaer 


3,222 


Carroll 


13 


Rockland 


3, 532 


Champaign 


208 




206 


Clark 


4,544 
37 


Saratoga 


841 


Clinton 


Schenectady 


170, 616 


Columbiana 


5.953 


Schuyler 


63 


Crawford 


1,071 


Seneca 


206 


Cuyahoga 


193. 074 


Steuben 


338 


Darke 


244 


Suffolk 


6,072 


Erie 


3,244 


Tompkins 


J84 


Fairfield 


51 


Ulster 


1,848 


Franklin 


20, 147 


Warren 


158 


Guernsey 


20 


Washington __ 


1,113 


Hamilton 


22, 721 


Wayne 


49 


Hancock 


240 


Westchester 


14, 375 


Hardin 


19 


Wyoming 


331 


Harrison 


494 


Unassignable 


109 


Highland 


906 


North Carolina 


28,580 


Jefferson 


15 
2,177 






Lake 

Licking 


Ij 


Alamance 


190 


131 


Alexander 


26 


Logan 


201 


Buncombe 


319 


Lorain 


1,406 


Burke 


150 


Lucas 


27, 829 


Cabarrus 


1, 275 


Mahoning 


11,088 


Caldwell 


34 


Marion 


1,091 


Carteret 


26 


Medina 


134 


Catawba 


494 


Miami 


4,921 


Columbus 


30 


Montgomery 


31,853 


Craven 


660 


Morrow 


113 


Dare 


225 


Mushingum 


136 


Davidson 


849 


Ottawa 


174 


Davie 


464 




28,000 


Durham 


1,114 


Richland 


513 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6587 



Table 1. — Uounty distribution of War and Nav^y Department prime contracts 
and project orders, June J, t9W, to June 30, 194t — AH auxirds har>ino value of 
$10,000 or more excluding construction, construction materials, fuels, food- 
stuffs, and services — Continued 

[Thousands of dollars] 



Ohio — Continued. 



Sandusky 

Scioto 

Seneca 

Shelby 

Stark 

Summit 

Trumbull 

Tuscarawas — 

Van Wert . 

Warren 

Washington- 
Wayne 

Williams 

Unassignable- 



13 

86 

210 

522 

2,729 

9,710 

32,168 

459 

168 

147 

500 

385 

31 
259 

64 



Oklahoma. 



2,474 



Grady 

Muskogee 

Oklahoma 

Ottawa 

Tulsa 

Washington 



56 
343 
141 

41 
160, 729 

14 



Oregon. 



^,360 



Clackamas- 

Clatsop 

Coos 

Douglas 

Jackson 

Lane 

Marion 

Multnomah- 



22 

1,328 

1,328 

280 

61 

129 

509 

34, 703 



Pennsylvania 1, 149, 008 



Adams 

Allegheny 

Armstrong- 
Beaver 

Berks 

Blair 

Bradford 

Bucks 

Butler 

Cambria 

Carbon 

Centre 

Chester 

Clarion 

Clearfield- 
Clinton 

Columbia 

Crawford 

Cumberland- 
Dauphin 

Delaware 

Elk 



512 

75, 834 

445 

6,866 

9, 547 

43 

1,040 

7,230 

6,220 

134 

130 

726 

5,273 

13 

17 

16 

61, 275 

2,911 

63 

7,122 

14,090 

93 



Pennsvlvania — Continued. 




Erie 


5,474 


Fayette 


10 


Franklin _ _ _ 


1,886 


Indiana 


85 


Jefferson ■. 


85 


Lackawanna 


1,387 


Lancaster 


2,549 


Lawrence 


4,294 


Lebanon 


243 


Lehigh 


7,093 


Luzerne 


5,765 


Lycoming 


14, 450 


McKean 


49 


Mercer 


7,325 


Mifflin 


255 


Montgomery 


37,929 


Montour 


1,583 


Northampton 


29, 263 


Northumberland 


1,759 


Perry 


45 


Philadelphia 


792, 446 


Schuylkill 


2,708 


Snyder 


12 


Union 


87 


Venango 


315 


Warren 


2. .174 


Washington 


918 


Wayne 


160 


Westmoreland 


10,196 


York 


18, 065 


Unassignable 


398 


Rhode Island 


96, 569 






Bristol 


5,445 


Kent 


702 


Newport 


64,423 


Providence . 


24, 919 


Washington 


228 




852 






South Carolina 


144, 651 


Aiken 


2,081 




1,406 


Beaufort 


513 




14 


Calhoun 


99 


Charleston 


135, 347 


Greenville 


1,414 


Greenwood 


1,640 


Lancaster 


42 


Laurens 


32 


Orangeburg 


61 


Richland 


264 


Saluda 


670 


Spartanburg 


813 


Union 


214 


Unassignable 


41 



gggg WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Tablk \.— County dixtributiun of War and Nav^y Department prime contracts 
and project orders, June 1. fBiO, to June 30. lO'fl — AU awards having value of 
$10,000 or more excluding construction, construction materials, fuels, food- 
stuffs, and services — Continued 

[Thousands of dollars] 



Tennessee. 



45, 272 



Bedford 

Blount 

Bradley 

Campbell 

Coffee 

Davidson 

Gibson 

Hamilton 

Humphries — 

Knox 

Lawrence 

Marion 

Marshall 

Rhea 

Robertson 

Shelby 

Sullivan 

Unicoi 

Williamson 

Wilson 

Unassignable- 



125 

19 
219 

73 

254 

4,312 

24, 720 

7,368 

52 
5, 461 

96 

11 
100 

49 
748 
770 
106 
166 

40 
489 

94 



Texas 156, 072 



Arkansas — 

Bexar 

Brazoria — 

Dallam 

Dallas 

De Witt- 
Ellis 

El Paso 

Grayson 

Harris 

Hunt 

Jeffer.son 

McLennan— 

Nueces 

Orange 

Potter 

Smith 

Tarrant 

Taylor 

Wharton 

Wichita 

Williamson. 



482 

365 

43 

65 

40, 771 

164 

104 

149 

264 

3,990 

168 

7,200 

5, 862 

20 

91, 240 

28 

11 

165, 615 

16 

25 

18 



Utah. 



Salt Lake 

Utah 

Weber 

Unassignable. 



Vermont. 





3,112 


158 




10 
35 
93 
20 




2 4''1 







Bennington. 
Chittenden- 



90 
899 



Vermont — Continued. 

Orleans , 

Washington 

Windham— 

Windsor . 



17 

107 

205 

1,103 



Virginia 931, 526 



Albemarle 

Arlington 

Bedford 

Campbell 

Dinwiddle 

Frederick 

Henrico 

Henry 

King George 

Montgomery 

Norfolk 

Northumberland- 
Pittsylvania 

Prince Edward- 
Prince George 

Prince William.. 

Roanoke 

Smyth 

Southampton 

Spotsylvania 

Warwick- 

Washington 

Wythe 

York 



457 

217, 665 

205 

771 

781 

977 

2,289 

29 

6,374 

17, 192 

292, 477 

12 

728 

414 

494 

25 

462 

114 

13 

49 

389, 194 



46 
565 



Washington 584, 834 



Clark 

Grays Harbor. 

King -_ 

Kitsap 

Louis 

Pierce 

Spokane 

Whitman 



West Virginia-^ 

Berkeley 

Brooke 

Cabell 

Hancock 

Harrison 

Kanawha__. 

Marion 

Marshall—^ 

Mason 

Mercer 

Mineral 

MoHdngalia. 

Ohio 

TayN.r 



101 

727 

377, 738 

201.338 

20 

3,550 

32 

1,328 

25, 167 



582 

81 

4,595 

18 

496 

3,454 

100 

53 

8.240 

74 

271 

1,850 

4.781 

70 



NATIONAL DEPENSE MIGRATION 



6589 



Table 1.^ — Coiiniy distribution of War and Navy Department prime contracts 
and project orders, June /, W'tO, to June 30, 1941 — AU awards having value of 
$10,000 or more excluding construction, construction materials, fuels, food- 
stuffs, and serivccs — Continued 

[Thousands of dollars] 



West Virginia — Continued. 

Upshur 

Wood 



Wisconsin - 



Bayfield 

Brown 

Calumet 

Chippewa 

Columbia 

Dane 

Door 

Douglas 

Eau Claire 

Fond Du Lac- 

Jefferson 

Kenosha 

La Crosse 

Manitowoc 

Marathon 

Marinette 



30 
472 



145, 923 



1.448 

2:-)9 

4G 

481 

100 

1,1(39 

2,789 

2,184 

32 

8.167 

23 

1. 639 

327 

33. 352 

1, 552 

2,691 



Wiscon sin — Continued. 

Milwaukee 

Outgamie 

Ozaukee 

Pierce 

Portage 

Racine 

Rock 

Sauk 

Sheboygan 

Walworth 

Washington 

Waukesha 

Waupaca 

Winnebago 

Wood 

Unassignable 



Wyoming: Natrona. 

Off continent 

Unassignable 



60, 887 

386 

26 

130 

12 

6,653 



331 

738 

739 

608 

24 

572 

,462 

39 

13 



27 

42. 952 

620, 860 



Table 2. — Distributioi of major defense prime contracts awarded by the War 
and Navy Departments by States, June 1, 1940, to June 30, 1941 



[Thousands of dollars] 



Grand total. 



13, 083, 483 



Continental United States. 12, 180, 450 



Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District of Columbia- 
Florida 

Georgia 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 



215, 110 

3,460 

5,485 

1, 335, 186 

126, 213 

595, 896 

8, 085 

5,972 

118, 085 

91, 090 

1,251 

363, 746 

389, 894 

68, 857 

95, 203 

48, 683 

34, 602 

187, 876 

366, 018 

715, 636 

791, 090 

45, 584 

72, 910 

372, 670 



Continental United States — Continued. 

Montana 45 

Nebraska 14, 489 

Nevada 4, 349 

New Hampshire 15, 564 

New Jersey 1, 424. 915 

New Mexico 9, 362 

New York 1, 159, 670 

North Carolina 90, 597 

North Dakota 



Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania—. 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina- 
South Dakota- 
Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia- 
Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

Off Continent-. 
Una ssignable 



536, 949 

176, 169 

51, 053 

744, 081 

66, 564 

56, 284 

141 

81, 135 

433, 577 

9,788 

5, 879 

552, 119 

433, 376 

98, 661 

152, 278 

4, 883 

72. 298 

830, 73.- 



6590 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 3. — Distribution of major defense contracts awarded by the War and 

Navy Departments, by Federal Reserve District and Industrial Area, June 
1, 1940, to June 30, 1941 

[Thousands of dollars] 

Grand total 13^ 083, 483 

Continental United States 12. 109, 470 

1. Boston district, total 1, 454, 809 

Boston 625,231 

Hartford 264,332 

Mancliester 6, 238 

New Haven-Waterbury 67, 605 

New London 126, 210 

Newport 7, 196 

Pittsfield 11,734 

Portland-Bath 172,223 

Portsmouth 5,025 

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River 32, 379 

Springfield-Holyoke 23, 822 

Worcester 27, 682 

Remainder of district 85, 132 

2. New York district, total 2, 131, 596 

Albany-Schenectady-Troy 191.817 

Binghamton 7,920 

Bridgeport 132,944 

Buffalo 192.517 

Dover 12. 718 

Nassau 130,423 

Newark-Jersey City . 811, 916 

New York City 424, 166 

Rochester 66, 755 

Syracuse 24,596 

Utica 55,498 

Remainder of district 80. 326 

3. Philadelphia district, total 1, 199, 897 

Allentown-Bethlehem 61,159 

Bloomsburg 61.275 

Camden 565,418 

Johnstown 134 

Philadelphia 395,837 

Reading 9. 580 

Seranton-Wilkes-Barre 7. 1">2 

Trenton 10.288 

Wilmington 7. 318 

Williamsport 16.047 

York-Harrisburg-Lancaster 42. 303 

Remainder of district 23, 391 

4. Cleveland district, total 680, 786 

Akron 32, 168 

Canton 29, 413 

Cincinnati 44, 299 

Cleveland 197.330 

Columbus 23,433 

Dayton 40,143 

Erie 9, 588 

Mansfield 513 

Pittsburgh 101,273 

Ravenna 75,845 

Springfield 4,544 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6591 

Table 3.— Distribution of major defense contracts awarded hy the War and 
Navy Departments, by Federal Reserve District and hidustrial Area, June 
1, W-'/O, to June 30, 1941— Continued 

[Thousands of dollars] 

Continental United States — Continued. 

4. Cleveland district — Continued. 

Toledo 28,257 

Wheeling 10,983 

Youngstown 23, fi42 

Remainder of district 59, 355 

5. Richmond district, total 1, 164, 718 

Alexandria 10,374 

Baltimore 299,166 

Charleston, S. C IS, 563 

Charleston, W. Va 53, 981 

Indianhcad 6, 210 

Norfolli-Newport News 421, 929 

Radford-Pulaski 89,638 

Richmond 5, 758 

Remainder of district 259, 099 

6. Atlanta district, total 558, 553 

Atlanta 37,518 

Birmingham 12, 710 

Chattanooga 16,839 

Childersburg 99, 6i3 

Knoxville 5,461 

Mobile-Pascagoula 101,053 

Muscle Slioals-Sheffield 6, 500 

Nashville 4,312 

New Orleans 11,511 

Remainder of district 263, 006 

7. Chicago district, total 1, 583, 073 

Anderson-lNIuncie 7, 488 

Battle Creek 16, 950 

Cedar Rapids 3, 268 

Chicago 312,731 

Detroit 584,614 

Des Moines 575 

Flint 30, 797 

Fort Wayne 3, 540 

Grand Rapids 1, 291 

Indianapolis 79, 128 

Manitowac 34,642 

Milwaukee 73,052 

Muskegon 47,646 

Peoria 1, 231 

Rockford 24,684 

Rock Island 4, 643 

Saginaw-Bay City 41, 893 

South Bend-La Porte 127, 837 

Waterloo 143 

Remainder of district 186. 920 

8. St. Louis district, total 572, .507 

Evansville 1, 829 

Louisville 169, 885 

Memphis 4, 739 

Milan 47,675 

St. Louis 260, 794 

Remainder of district 87, 585 

60396— 41— pt. 16—19 



6592 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 3. — Distribution of major defense contracts aioarded hy the War and 
Navy Departments, by Federal Reserve District and Industrial Area, June 
1, 19.'i0, to June 30, 1 9. il— Continued 

[Thousands of dollars] 

Continental United States — Continued. 

9. Minneapolis district, total 51, 391 

Minneapolis-St. Paul 44, 278 

Remainder of district 7,113 

10. Kansas City district, total 439, 152 

Denver 121, 591 

Kansas City 46, 205 

Omalia 13, 308 

Wichita 81, 081 

Remainder of district 176. 967 

11. Dallas district, total 436,455 

Dallas-Fort Worth 218, 617 

Houston 18, 449 

Orange-Port Arthur-Beaumont 105, 533 

Remainder of district 93, 856 

12. San Francisco district, total 1,836,533 

Bellingham 1, 408 

Bremerton 4, 671 

Los Angeles 6.51, 244 

Portland 38, 044 

Salt Lake City 1,075 

San Diego 259,542 

San Francisco-Oakland 348, 720 

San Jose 10, 273 

Seattle-Takoma 422, 567 

Vallejo 16,680 

Remainder of district - 82, 309 

Off continent 72, 352 

Unassignable 901, 631 



Table 4. — Percentage distribution of prime contracts and Government financed 
facilities by regions as of June SO, lOJfl 



Region 


Percent- 
age of 
manufac- 
turing 

workers 


Percent- 
age of 
value of 
manufac- 
tured 
products 


Percentage of value 
of prime contracts 


Percentage of esti- 
mated cost of 
Government- 
financed facilities 
(May 31, 1941) 




War De- 
partment 
only 


War and 
Navy De- 
partments 


W^ar De- 
partment 
only 


W^ar and 
Navy De- 
partments 


United States _ 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 






New England 


12.1 
28.6 
27.8 

4.8 
12.6 

4.6 

3.4 
.7 

5.4 


8.6 
28.2 
30.8 

as 

9.5 
3.5 
4.6 

i.."; 

6.6 


6.0 
22.5 
27.2 
8.2 
8.9 
4.7 
7.8 
2 4 
12.3 


12.9 
27.3 
18.4 
5.0 
11.3 
3.5 
5.4 
1.2 
15.0 


2.5 
7.3 
40.5 
15.3 
12.9 

n.o 

4.8 
3.1 
2.4 


6.7 


Middle Atlantic 


19.1 




32.8 




8.2 


South Atlantic 


12.6 


East South Central 


8.5 




3.9 




1.5 


Pacific 


6.4 







NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6593 



Table 5. — Regional distribution of value of manufactured products, value of 
War and Navy Department prime contracts, and estimated cost of Govervr 

ment-financed facilities 





Value of 
manu- 
factured 
products 1 


Value of 

War and 

Navy 

prime 

contracts ' 


Estimated 
cost of 
Govern- 
ment- 
financed 
facilities » 




Percent 
100.0 


Percent 
100.0 


Percent 
100.0 






New T'rglftnd 


8.6 


12.9 


6 7 








2.2 
.6 

4.3 
.4 
.9 
.2 


4.9 
1.5 
S.9 
.1 
.5 
(<) 


3 


Maine 


1 




2.6 


New Hampshire ... -. . 


.5 


Rhode Island 


4 










Middle Atlantic 


28.2 


27.3 


19 1 






New Jersey .. . 


6.0 
12.6 
9.6 


11.7 
9.5 
6.1 


2 9 


New York 


7 9 




8.3 






East North Central 


30.8 


18.4 


32 8 






Illinois. ... . 


8.4 
3.9 
7.6 
8.1 
2.8 


3.0 
3.2 
6.5 
4.4 
1.3 


6.8 


Indiana 


9 




7.3 


Ohio . .... 


9.2 


Wisconsin 


5 






West North Central 


6.8 


5.0 


8.2 








1.3 

1.5 
2.5 
.5 
.1 
.1 


.6 
.8 
.4 
3.1 
.1 




Kansas 


.6 


Minnesota 


2 




5.5 


Nebraska 


.5 


North Dakota 






{*) 








South Atlantic 


9.5 


11.3 


12.6 








.2 
.1 
.4 

\.i 

2.5 
.7 

1.8 
.8 


.1 

1.0 
.7 
3.0 

.7 
.5 
4.5 

.8 


(•) 


District of Columbia 


.4 


Florida 


.1 




.2 


Maryland 


2.6 








.6 


Virginia 


5.3 


W'est Virginia 


3.4 






East South Central 


3.5 


3.5 


8.5 








1.0 
.9 
.3 

1.3 


1.8 
.4 
.6 

.7 


4.5 


Kentucky 


1.3 


MississiDpi 


.1 




2.6 






West South Central 


4.5 


5.4 


3 9 






-Arkansas . 


.3 
1.0 

.5 
2.7 


<".3 
1.5 
3.6 




Louisiana 


(4) 


Oklahoma 


.7 




3.2 






Mountain 


1.5 


1.2 


1 5 






Arizona . 


■\ 


0) 
1.0 




Colorado 


1.3 



1 Census of Manufactures, 1939. 

' Contracts awarded from June 1, 1940, through June 30, 1941. 

3 Commitments of War and Navy Departments, defense prime contracts and Reconstruction Finance 
Corporation, through May 31, 1941. 

4 Less than 0.05 percent. 



g594 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Table 5. — Regimxal distriMtion of value of mamifactured products, value of 
War and Navy Department prime contracts, and estimated cost of Govern- 
financial facilities — Continued 





Value of 
manu- 
factured 
products 


Value of 

War and 

Navy 

prime 

contracts 


Estimated 
cost of 
Govern- 
ment- 
financed 
facilities 


Continental United States— Continued. 
Mountain— Continued. 
Idaho 


Percent 
0.2 
.3 
(') 
(<) 
.3 


Percent 

(') 
(') 
W 
0.1 

.1 

(*) 


Percent 






Nevada 




New Mexico 




Utah 




Wyoming 










6.6 


15.0 








California 


4.9 
.6 
1.1 


11.0 
.4 
3.6 


4 6 






Washington - . . . 


1.7 






■ Undistributed 






.3 











* Less than 0.05 percent. 

Table 6. — Regional distribution of manufacturing employment, value of War 
and Navy Department prime contracts, and estimated cost of Government- 
financed facilities 





Manufac- 
turine em- 
ployment 1 


Value of 

War and 

Navy 

prime 

contracts " 


Estimated 
cost of 
Govern- 
ment- 
financed 
facilities 8 




Percent 
100.0 


Percent 
100.0 


Percent 








12.1 


12.9 


6.7 








3.0 
LO 
5.8 

.7 
L3 

.3 


4.9 
1.5 
5.9 
.1 
.5 


3 


Maine 


.1 


Massachusetts -- .-....._ . 


2.6 




5 








.1 






Middle Atlantic 


28.6 


27.3 


19.1 








^.5 
12.2 
10.9 


11.7 
9.5 
6.1 


2 9 




7.9 


Pennsylvania - -.- 


8.3 








27.8 


18.4 


32.8 






Illinois 


7.6 
3.5 
6.6 
7.6 
2.5 


3.0 
3.2 
6.5 
4.4 
1.3 


6 8 




9.0 




7.3 


Ohio 


9.2 




.5 






West North Central - - 


4.8 


5.0 


8.2 








.8 
.4 
1.0 
2.3 
.2 

.1 


.6 
.8 
.4 
3.1 
.1 


1.4 


Kansas - . 


.6 




2 




5.5 


Nebraska 


.5 


North Dakota 






0) 










' Census of Manufactures, 1939. 

* Contracts awarded from June 1, 1940, through June 30, 1941. 

3 Commitments of War and Navy Departments, Defense Plant Corporation and Reconstruction Finance 
Corporation through May 31, 1941. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6595 



Table 6. — Regional distribution of manufacturing employment, value of War 
and Navu Department prime contracts, and estimated cost of Qovernment- 
financed facilities — Continued 





Manufac- 
turins; em- 
ployment 


Value of 

War and 

Navy 

prime 

contracts 


Estimated 
cost of 
Govern- 
ment- 
financed 
facilities 


South Atlantic - - - 


Percent 
12.6 


Percent 
11.3 


Percent 
12.6 




.3 
.1 
.7 
2.0 
1.8 
3.4 
1.6 
1.7 
1.0 


.1 

1.0 
.7 

3.0 
.7 
.5 

4.5 
.8 


(*) 


District of Columbia - 


.4 




.1 




.2 




2.6 








.6 


Vireinii - 


5.3 


West Virginia-.- - — - 


3.4 


East South Central - 


4.6 


3.5 


8.5 








1.5 

.8 
.6 
1.7 


1.8 
.4 
.6 
.7 


4.5 




1.3 


Mississippi - - 


.1 


Tennessee 


2.6 




3.4 


5.4 


3.9 






A k 


.5 
.9 
.4 
1.6 


'".3 
1.5 
3.6 






{*) 


Oklahoma 


.7 


Texas 


3.2 


Mountain - 


^ 


1.2 


1.5 




-•3 
!l 

.1 

0) 


1.0 

(*) 

.1 






1.3 








.1 










Utah 


.1 


Wyoming 




Pacific 


5.4 


15.0 


6.4 


California -- - 


3.5 
.8 
1.1 


11.0 
.4 
3.6 


4.6 




.1 


Washington 


1.7 


Undistributed 







.3 











* Less than 0.05 percent. 

Table 7. — War Department regional distribution of value of prime contracts 
and estimated cost of Government-oicned facilities 



Regions by States 


Value of 

prime 
contracts' 


Estimated 

cost of 
facilities ' 


Regions by States 


Value of 

prime 
contracts 


Estimated 
cost of 
facilities 




Percent 
100.0 


Percent 
100.0 




Percent 
22.5 


Percent 
7.3 










6.0 


2.5 


7.0 
9.8 
5.7 


.8 




New York 


4.2 


Connecticut.- 


3.1 
.1 

2.1 
.2 
.4 
.1 


L3 


Pennsylvania 


2.3 


Maine 


East North Central 


27.2 


— 


Mai^sachusetts 


1.0 


40.5 




Illinois 






'".2 


4.5 
5.9 
10.6 


9.2 




Indiana 


14.8 




Michigan 


7.2 



' Prime contracts are those of $10,000 and over awarded since June 1, 1940. Estimated cost of Govern- 
ment-financed facilities includes War and Navy Departments, Reconstruction Finance and Defense Plant 
Corporations, as well as project orders of $25,000 and over. 

' Through May 31, 1941. 

3 Less than 0.05 percent. 



6596 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



Table 7. — War Department regional distribution of value of prime contracts 
and estimated cost of Government-owned facilities — Continued 



Regions by States 


Value of 

prime 
contracts 


Estimated 
cost of 
facilities 


Regions by States 


Value of 

prime 

contracts 


Estimated 

cost of 
facilities 


East North Central— Con. 
Ohio 


Percent 

5.2 
1.0 


Percent 

9.2 
.1 


East South Central— Con. 
Mississippi 


Percent 

.3 
1.2 


Percent 






2.5 




West South Central. 




XVost 'Mfirfh Cpntral 


8.2 


15.3 


7.8 


4.8 




Arkansas .- 

Louisiana 




Iowa 


1.0 
1.4 

.2 
5.4 

.2 


2.8 
1.0 


2.7 
4.5 




T7-„ „o_ 






Oklahoma 


1.6 




10.6 
.9 




3.2 




Mountain . . - 




North Dakota 


2.4 


3.1 




(') 












.1 
1.9 

(») 




Rnnth Atlantip 


8.9 


12.9 


Colorado . . . 


2.8 








T> la ware 


'".3 
1.2 
3.3 
1.1 

.5 
1.9 

.5 




Montana.- 




District of Columbia 




Nevada 


.1 
.2 
.1 

I2T 














Utah 


.3 




4.5 


Wyoming 






Pacific 








South Carolina 




2.4 




6.2 
2.2 


California 






9.5 
.2 
2.6 






1.6 




Oregon 




TToof Rnnth Cpntral 


4.7 


11.0 


Washington 


.8 










2.5 
.6 


7.0 
5.1 




Kentucky 









• Less than 0.05 percent. 

Table 8. — Cumulative percentage distribution of prime contracts and Govern^ 
ment-financed facilities, by regions * 



Region 


Through 

Oct. 31, 

1940 


Through 

Mar. 31, 

1941 


Through 

June 30, 

1941 




Percent 
100.0 


Percent 
100.0 


Percent 
100.0 






New England: 


16.9 
5.5 

25.8 
24.1 

14.7 
33.6 

2.9 
4.0 

15.1 
19.9 

L6 
L7 

2.9 
L7 

.1 


13.8 
6.9 

27.2 
20.6 

17.4 
34.0 

5.1 
6.8 

12.1 
10.2 

3.3 

9.3 

2.4 
4.1 

1.4 
1.6 

17.3 
6.5 


12 9 


Fpcilities 


«6.7 


Middle Atlantic: 


27.3 




»19. 1 


East North Central: 


18.4 


Facilities - 


»32.8 


West North Central: 


5.0 


Facilitips . - 


'8.2 


South Atlantic: 


n.3 


Facilities . .- 


'12.6 


East South Central: 


3.6 


Facilities 


'8.6 


West South Central: 


5.4 


Facilities - - 


»3.9 


Mountain: 


L2 


Facilities 


U.6 


Pacific: 


20.1 
9.5 


15.0 


Facilities 


>6.4 







» Prime contracts are those of $10,000 and over awarded since June 1, 1940. Estimated cost of Govern- 
ment-financed facilities includes War and Navy Departments, Reconstruction Finance and Defense Plant 
Corporations as well as project orders of $25,000 and over. 

« Through May 31, 1941. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6597 



REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED COST OF NEW 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES FINANCED BY WAR DEPARTMENT FUNDS 

AND TOTAL VALUE OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCT 



NEW ENGLAND 



MIDDLE ATLANTIC 



EAST NORTH CENTRAL 



WEST NORTH CENTRAL 



SOUTH ATLANTIC 



EAST SOUTH CENTRAL 



WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 





iEstcmolei Cost of Wor Oeportmeni rocllil 
Comm.lmenis of Wor OeporlirenI FuniJs U 
through Mo, 31, 1941 . Includes Wor Oepor 
OefonM PlonI Corporolioa 

Chaet I 



6598 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



NAVY DEPARTMENT 

REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED COST 

OF NEW INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND TOTAL VALUE 

OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCT 



NEW ENGLAND 



MIDDLE ATLANTIC 



EAST NORTH CENTRAL 



WEST NORTH CENTRAL 



SOUTH ATLANTIC 



EAST SOUTH CENTRAL 



WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 




m 



Eslimoted Cos) of Novy Department Facilities 
Commitments of t^ovy Deportment Funds from June I, I940, 
throuqti fWloy 31, 1941. Includes Navy Deportment shore of 
Defense Plont Corporation 



Chaet II 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6599 



NAVY DEPARTMENT 

REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 

AND TOTAL VALUE OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS 



NEW ENGLAND 



MDOLE ATLANTIC 



EAST NORTH CENTRAL 



WEST NORTH CENTRAL 



SOUTH ATLANTIC 



EAST SOUTH CENTRAL 



WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 




PER CENT 
40 



June I, 1940 IKrough Jun« 10, 



Chart III 



6600 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



NAVY DEPARTMENT 

REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 

AND TOTAL VALUE OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCT 

EXCLUDING AIRCRAFT CONTRACTS 



NEW ENGLAND 



MIDDLE ATLANTIC 



CAST NORTH CENTRAL 



WEST NORTH CENTRAL 



SOOTH ATLANTIC 



CAST SOUTH CENTRAL 



WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 




Tolol Volu* of Mai>uloclur»4 Product 
Coniut of MomifoOurat lor 1939 



Novy Prim* Conlrocit 
Prima CootrocU 0» $I0,( 



(rom June 1, 1940 Ihroujh Juna 50,1 



Chart IV 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 



6601 



WAR DEPARTMENT 

REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 

AND TOTAL VALUE OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS 

INCLUDING filRCRAFT CONTRaCTS 



NEW ENGLAND 



ilODLE ATLANTIC 



EAST NORTH CENTRAL 



WEST NORTH CENTRAL - 



SOUTH ATLANTIC 



EAST SOUTH CENTRAL 



WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 



PER CENT 
30 40 




□ Army Prime Contfocts 
Prim« Conlroctg of S lOOOO or More 4«ocde(i Iron Jun 

Chaet V 



through June 30, 



6602 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



WAR DEPARTMENT 

REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 

AND TOTAL VALUE OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS 

EXCLUDING aiRCRflFT CONTRACTS 



NEW ENGLAND 



MIDDLE ATLANTIC 



EAST NORTH CENTR/ 



WEST NORTH CENTRi 



SOUTH ATLANTIC 



EAST SOUTH CENTRAL 



WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 




iem 



r~n &,„, P„me CoMrocts 

I I Pome Conirocis of 1 10,000 0' More i 

Chart VI 



1940 Ihrough Junt 30. 1941 



NATTOAAL DEFENSE MIGKATION 6603 

Exhibit 1 

Regulation No. 6, Establishing a Plant Site Board in the Office of Produc- 
tion Management and Defining Procedure for Clearance of the Proposed 
Location of New or Additionae Plants and Facilities Required for the 
National Defense 

Whereas Executive Order No. 8629, dated January 7, 1941, created the Office 
of Production Management and charged it with certain duties, among others, 
pertaining to the formulation and execution of all measures needful or appro- 
priate in order to increase, accelerate or regulate the provision of emergency 
plant or facilities requii'ed for the national defense, and the stimulation and 
planning of the creation of additional facilities and sources of production and 
supply ; and 

Whereas said Executive order charged the Office of Production Management 
with the duty of insuring effective coordination of those activities of the several 
departments, corporations, and other agencies of the Government which are 
directly concerned with the provision of emergency plant facilities required for 
the national defense ; and 

Whereas the Office of Production Management has heretofore, by its Regula- 
tion No. 2, promulgated March 7, 1941, vested in the Director of Purchases 
respons bility for the clearance, prior to award, of all major proposals for the 
purchase or construction by the War Department or the Navy Department of 
materials, articles or equipment needed for defense ; 

Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in the Office of Production 
Management by said Executive order, it is hereby ordered that : 

(1) There is hereby established in the Division of Purchases a Plant Site 
Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, consisting of five members, one 
of whom shall be Chairman. Three members of such Board shall constitute a 
quorum. The Director General, acting in association with the Associate Director 
General, shall appoint the members and designate the Chairman. 

(2) Whenever the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Re- 
construction Finance Corporation or any subsidiary thereof ijroposes to undertake 
or to contract for the construction or installation of any substantial plant or 
facility or the expasion in a substantial measure of any plant or facility re- 
quired for the national defense, or to make any loan or to iiurchase securities 
in order to finance such construction, expansion or installation, the Board shall 
review the proposed location of such plant or facility for clearance as hereinafter 
provided. 

(3) The Board is authorized to enter into arrangements with any other depart- 
ment, corporation, or agency of the Government for the submission to it for clear- 
ance of the proposed location of any plant or facility required for the national 
defense, the construction, expansion, or installation of which such department, 
corporation, or agency proposes to undertake, contract for, or finance by making 
loans or purchasing securities. Any such arrangement shall relate only to the 
construction or installation of substantial plants or facilities, or the expansion in 
a substantial measure of a plant or facility. 

(4) If any division, bureau, office, or officer of the Office of Production Man- 
agement shall make any recommendation to the War Department, the Navy De- 
partment, or any other department, corporation, or agency of the Government 
with respect to the proposed location of any plant or facility required for the 
national defense, written notice of such recommendation shall immediately be 
given to the Board by such division, bureau, office, or officer. 

(5) In reviewing for clearance the proposed location of any such plant or 
facility, the Board shall seek, insofar as it can do so consistently with due expedi- 
tion of the program of defense production and appropriate factors of military 
strategy, to facilitate the geographic decentralization of defense industry and the 
full employment of all available labor and facilities. 

(6) The Board .shall seek to work in close cooperation with representatives 
of each such department, corporation, or agency from the outset of the process 



QgQ4 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

of selection of the location of any such plant or facility. Any proposal which 
the Board disapproves shall, if such department, corporation, or agency so re- 
quests, be referred to the Council for final decision. 

(7) Nothing herein shall be deemed to apply to (A) any proposal of the Sec- 
retary of War, or of any other department, corporation, or agency of the Govern- 
ment, to undertake or contract for the construction, expansion, or installation of 
any plant or facility required for defense with funds appropriated under any 
act which conditions the expenditure of such funds upon the recommendation of 
the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense (but the Director 
of Purchases shall serve as the liaison and channel of communication between 
the War Department or such other department, corporation, or agency and the 
Advisory Commission to the Couoncil of National Defense with respect to any 
such proposal), nor to (B) any construction within or addition to any existing 
navy yard or naval reservation. 

(8)' The term "substantial," as used herein, shall be defined from time to time 
by the Council of the Office of Production Management upon the recommendation 
of the Board. The Board, after consultation with representatives of the de- 
partment, corporation, or agency affected, shall from time to time recommend 
such definition as it deems appropriate. 

(9) The Board, through its chairman, shall make such regular or special reports 
as may from time to time be required by the Council. 

(10) The Board shall supersede the Plant Site Committee authorized by the 
Council of March 17, 1941. Subject to the provisions of this regulation, the Board 
shall assume the duties and functions and continue the work of said committee. 

Wm. KNxn)SEN, 

Director General. 
Sidney Hillman, 
Associate Director General. 
Henry L. Stimson, 

Secretary of War. 
Frank Knox, 
Secretary of the Navy. 



Approved : 
Attest : 
May 6, 1941. 



John Lord O'Bbian, 

General Counsel. 



Hebbert Emmerich, 

Secretary. 



Exhibit 2 



July 2, 1941. 



Regulation No. 6-A, Amending Regulation No. 6, Dated May 6, 1941, "Estab- 
lishing A Plant Site Board in the Office of Production Management and 
Defining Procedure for Clf-arance of the Proposed Location of New or 
Additional Plants and Facilities Required for the National Defense" 

The following paragraph should be inserted after paragraph (4) of Regulation 
No. 6: 

(4A) If any division, bureau, office, or officer of the Office of Production Man- 
agement proposes to make any recommendation to the War Department, the Navy 
Department, or any other department, corporation, or agency of the Government 
with respect to the construction or installation of any substantial plant or facility 
or the expansion in a substantial measure of any plant or facility required for 
the national defense, written notice of such proposed recommendation shall be 
given by such division, bureau, office, or officer to the Plant Site Board, and also 
to the Director of Purchases if such construction, installation or expansion in- 
volves a roconimended estimated expenditure of $500,000 or more ; and original 
evidence of the approval and clearance of such project by the Board, together 
with the data submitted to and considered by the Board, and original evidence 
of the approval and clearance of the proposal by the Director of Purchases in 
appropriate cases, shall accompany the recommendation to the War Department, 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6605 

Navy Department, or any other department, corporation, or agency of the 
Government. 

William S. Knudsen, 

Director General. 
Sidney Hillman, 
Associate Director General. 
Henry L. Stimson, 

Secretary of War. 
Frank Knox, 

Secretary of the Navy. 
Approved : 

John Lobd O'Beian, 

General Counsel. 
Attest : 

Hebbeet Emmerich, 

Secretary. 

TESTIMONY OF DONALD M. NELSON— Resumed 

The Chairman. Now, I would like to quote from your statement the 
following : 

One disturbing effect, both immediately and for the long run, would be a large 
and disorderly migration of labor. Consequently the Division of Purchases has 
consistently sought to advise the placing of defense orders in such places and in 
such manner as to cause a minimum of labor migration. 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is right down our alley. That is what we are 
very much interested in. I just want to let you know that we desire 
to get all the information we possibly can on migration to defense 
centers, and we welcome you here, Mr. Nelson. Congressman Curtis 
will ask you a few general questions. 

Mr. Nelson. All right, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Nelson, your home, I believe, is in Kansas City? 

Mr. Nelson. No, sir; my home is in Chicago. I was born in 
Hannibal, Mo. I went to school at the University of Missouri, at 
Columbia, Mo. 

The Chairman. "V^liat year was that? 

Mr. Nelson. I went to school there in 1907 to 1911. I graduated 
in 1911. 

Mr. Curtis. When did you join the Office of Production Manage- 
ment ? 

Mr. Nelson. Just a year ago. 

Mr. Curtis. Prior to that time what was your business? 

Mr. Nelson. I was with Sears, Roebuck & Co., executive vice presi- 
dent of Sears, Roebuck & Co., in Chicago. 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Nelson, will you discuss the ways in which the 
Division of Purchases of the Office of Production Management seeks 
to keep labor migration at a minimum? 

Mr. Nel'^on. Yes, sir ; although that will be a long story, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. I realize your whole paper is on that subject, but just 
touch on some of the highlights as they appear to you. 

Mr. Nelson. Let me touch on a few of the highlights because to me 
that is one of the most important single things before us. 

I have felt, of course, in our defense program, that our primary 
responsibility is to get goods as quickly as possible — as quickly as the 



QQQQ WASHINGTON HEAiUNUS 

Army needs them and consistent with all of that the background of 
our purchasing should be that of trying to prevent undue migi-ation of 
workers. I feel that it would be perfectly possible to win a war or 
lose it through economic dislocation in the United States. It might 
shatter our whole economy after this tremendous defense program 
is over, and in every way conceivable, by every knowledge of pur- 
chasing, which I have, I have tried to help advise the Army to do 
those things which would prevent undue migration. 

CHANGED "f. O. B. DEPOt" TO 't. O. B. PLANT" 

I will only give you a very few small things at first and then we 
will move up to the bigger ones. When I came down here I found 
that in the purchase of clothing and, as a matter of fact, most quarter- 
master supplies, they were being quoted f. o. b. depot. We got the 
Army to agree to change that to f. o. b. plant, with the thought that 
by doing that we would get a wider diseribution of business over the 
United States, and that immediately resulted. 

In clothing, pants, overcoats — not so much overcoats because they 
are primarily made in New York City, but in pants, shirts, and many 
things of that kind they are being produced now all over the United 
States, instead of just in a small area around the depot. 

In other words if these orders had all been placed with the con- 
cerns immediately adjacent to the depot, who had a freight advantage 
and by that reason would have been able to expand their businesses, 
they would have drawn in workers from all over the United States 
and you would have gotten a much greater migration than you have 
at present, 

I merely give that as an example of one thing. 

Mr. Curtis. But in caring for these groups you feel you would have 
spent much greater sums than the Government might have had to pay 
because of additional freight charges? 

Mr. Nelson. No, sir; I believe it has been possible to do this without 
the payment of extra money, because these goods are used at various 
places around the United States. 

It included establishing new depots and new distribution points so 
the Government didn't lose money. As a matter of fact it actually 
saved money. 

What has happened is that a large number of new facilities have 
been trained to make Government mei-chandise, so that in case there 
is much greater haste necessary we would be able to procure larger 
quantities much quicker than if only a few concerns got this business. 

Now, I merely cite that as example of one little thing, perhaps, 
which I think has had a big effect. 

SCOPE or O. p. M. PURCHASING DIVISION 

Mr. Curtis. May I interrupt and ask in the particular branch that 
you have charge of. do you purchase everything there? 

Mr. Nei.son. Well, sir, we do no purchasing ourselves. Ours is an 
advisory function. 

Mr. Curtis. I mean, do you supervise the purchasing of all articles? 

Mr. Nelson. Our executive order covers everything, but in actual 
practice the Division of Production covers many items where produc- 
tion is much more important than purchasing. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE xMIGRATION 6607 

For example, if you are buying 155-incli gun mounts there 
are only a very few concerns that coukl make them. The arrangement 
for production of that kind is much more important than the actual 
purchasing. 

Our Office, however, clears all contracts over $500,000. All of them 
come through our office — are seen by us — and anything in connection 
with them may be taken up with any division of the O. P. M., as well 
as any division of the Army or the Navy, with the idea of trying 
to get, so far as we can, greater distribution of these orders, greater 
distribution of plant facilities throughout the United States, both 
Government -owned and those financed by industry. 

Now, I would like to point out, sir, that every purchase is a com- 
promise. We have to get these things quickly. We want to get them 
when we want them. Therefore, in many cases you must do the ex- 
pedient thing, rather than the wise thing, and in each case there is 
that compromise and it requires fine shades of judgment as to whether 
it is better to place business with concerns that are now equipped to 
make it or to build a new concern to do it. 

Take for example, the aircraft industry. Now. certainly, from 
the standpoint of migration of workers, from the standpoint of 
strategic location, it is wrong to manufacture airplanes on the 
two coasts. But still the primary object is to get airplanes and get 
them rapidly. 

Therefore, we had to place business and had to spend millions of 
dollars expanding plants in locations that we knew would cause migra- 
tion, as the Congressmen are aware — San Diego, Los Angeles, Balti- 
more, and other places. 

We just had to get airplanes quickly and, therefore, each decision is 
a compromise which requires fine shades of judgment. 

DISLOCATION OF MEN AND SKILLS 

But I can say to you, sir, that from the standpoint of the Division 
of Purchases, and, I believe, from the rest of O. P. M., we have con- 
stantly had our minds on this subject which you are now investigating, 
realizing that there would be a relief problem after this is all over 
that might destroy our whole economy, if too great dislocation of 
workers occurred. If you had migrations from centers of the United 
States to the present industrial areas, you would in a sense create 
an economic desert in certain parts of the United States, if you 
didn't do everything you could to trj- to take business to the workers 
rather than taking the workers to the business. 

Mr. Curtis. And it is entirely possible to drain certain areas of cer- 
tain needed skills, too, is it not? 

]\Ir. Nelson. Yes, sir ; and the thing that worries me more than any- 
thing else about it is that when the skilled worker moves out the 
machine that he formerly operated is no longer of any value because 
there are no skilled workers. Then you move the machinery out and 
when that is done permanent dislocation has occurred, which probably 
never will be remedied or probably will be remedied only after a 
long period of time. 

Mr. CrRTis. Is it also your opinion that when this defense etfort is 
over and millions are out of jobs, defense jobs, that those people are 
better off if they are at home or near home, where they know the ins 

60396— 41— pt. 16 20 



gg08 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

and outs of business better and where they are among their friends 
and families? 

Mr. Nelson. Unquestionably, sir, if only from the standpoint of 
dollars and cents. I know from experience. Take a State like Mis- 
souri. The workers in those small towns own their own small homes. 
They have a garden or their neighbors have a garden ; they have a cow 
or the neighbors have a cow and they are able, in periods of stress, to 
take care of themselves without the expenditure of large amounts of 
money on the part of the Government. 

Move those people into a large city and then you have to provide 
them, in addition to all of their sustenance, their rent as well. The 
relief burden after this thing is all over would be perfectly tremen- 
dous if we didn't pay attention to this subject of preventing, insofar 
as possible, these migrations — these large migrations of workers from 
their homes to present industrial centers. 

Mr. Curtis. I have in mind a letter that I received from a school 
superintendent in one of my cities, pointing out that very thing. The 
angle that he mentioned was that that whole territory — and he lives 
in a town of about 18,000 people — is being drained of all its young 
people, and that it has already been shown that the average age of 
the people living in that area, according to the letter, is much greater 
than it was 2 or 3 years ago. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CtJRTis. Wliich. of course, is going to lead to complications where 
in certain States or certain localities in a few years from now everyone 
living there will be old people and children and the productive people 
have gone to other places. 

REQUIREMENTS OF AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURE 

Mr. Nelson. It certainly will, sir: but that is the thing that has 
been very difficult to prevent, because the aircraft industry requires 
very large concentrations of young people who can become prohcient 
in a short space of time. As you go through the aircraft factories on 
the coast, which I did last w^eek, you are impressed with the large 
numbers of young people who have moved into those areas. 

Now, it isn't possible to make aircraft except in large plants. It just 
isn't possible to create aircraft factories in many parts of the country. 
I think if you will notice the pattern of the placing of these aircraft 
plants you will find that rhey have attempted to put plants in places 
like Omaha, Kansas City, Tulsa, Fort Worth, Dallas, with 
the thought that eventually, as those plants begin to grow, they will 
begin to take care of at least part of the migration. 

Sir. Curtis. I understand that the Glenn L. Martin Co. subcontracts 
about 60 percent of the material that goes into some of their products. 

Mr. Nelson. It is not quite that much, as far as I know. It may 
be somewhere close to that. 

Mr. Curtis. That is what Mr. Martin testified at the Baltimore 
hearing. 

Mr. Nelson. It was? I am glad to hear it is as much as 60 percent 
because certainly by subcontracting you can prevent a part of this 
]nigration. Instead of putting up all the machinery to make every- 
thing, if you can place orders for that in spots where the machinery 
is now located and help train and teach those small manufacturing 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6609 

plants to do part of the job, you will go a long way toward prevent- 
ing, in my opinion, the extreme and disastrous result that might come 
through the fact that we just had to build larger plants in both coast 
areas. 

SMALLER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

Mr. CuKTis. It has been my observation that there are a number of 
very small towns and cities that have some fairly well equipped shops. 
It would take some time to make the adjustment, but I believe in 
due time they can very efficiently produce certain parts of airplanes 
and parts for other products. 

Mr. Nelson. It is my belief that we haven't done nearly enough to 
bring that type of manufacture into the picture. 

While I was with the National Defense Commission I created an 
organization which we called smaller business activities with the 
thought of working toward that very thing. That has been enlarged 
and amplified now in the Contract Service Division, which is under the 
Production Division of O. P. M. I know that the organization is 
being set up to do that and more of it is being done, but I still feel 
that it is slower than it need be. 

Mr. Curtis. How is the work of the Division of Purchases tied in 
with the work of the Plant Site Board? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, sir, in this way : I as Director of the Division of 
Purchases am also the chairman of the Plant Site Board. That is how 
it is tied in now, because we clear all of the contracts. 

Mr. Curtis. By "plant site" are you referring just to industrial 
sites or does it include Army camps and cantonments ? 

Mr. Nelson. No, sir; it does not include Army cantonments, camps, 
depots, or supply bases, which are located strictly from a strategic 
point of view. 

It includes those plants for manufacturing things which the Gov- 
ernment wants made. 

procedure of plant-site board 

Mr. Curtis. Tell us a little bit about the procedure of the Plant 
Site Board — how do .you operate? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, sir, all expenditures by the Government for more 
than $500,000 for the expansion or the building of new facilities, is 
cleared by the Plant Site Board. Now, the Plant Site Board consists 
of five people. There is Governor Townsend — ex-Governor of In- 
diana, Mr. Oliver from the Labor Division of O. P. M., Mr. Johnson 
of the Production Division, and Mr. Fuller, who has just resigned 
from O. P. M. 

Now, this group of five have attempted — not to exercise primarily a 
veto power over these plant sites, because that creates delay — in 
every instance to work very closely with the different branches of 
the Army and Navy who are considering the location of plant sites 
so that we may get in on it as early as possible — to give them the 
benefits of such advice as we could with respect to one of the very 
things you are talking about, the availability of labor. 

We have attempted to point out to them certain areas of the United 
States where there were large reservoirs of labor, of various kinds of 
skills. We have pulled into that all of the statistical branches of the 
Government which could get us that information. 



QQIQ WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

We have attempted to work with them to show them the necessity 
for the pushing of tliese plants into the interior of the United States, 
particidarly into the West and into the South where this migration 
problem is already particularly acute. 

A great deal has been done, I believe. Governor Townsend sub- 
mitted a map to you showing you, since the Site Board was estab- 
lished, the value of these facilities that had been put into the West 
and into the Southwest. 

In each instance we have gotten good cooperation from all of the 
procurement agencies of the Army and the Navy who were dealing 
with this problem. 

They were not required to submit them to us until after all of the 
planning work had been done, but through cooperation we get into it 
in the very early stages, when they are planning it, so we can suggest 
certain areas where we believe that plants ought to be located in order 
that this problem may be handled as well as possible. 

I could go into great detail on it, but I don't believe you want any 
more detail than that. But that is the w^ay our Plant Site Board 
operated. 

READJUSTMENT OF ARMY AND NAVY PROPOSALS 

The Army and Navy, in other words, submit their more or less 
technical decisions from the standpoint of military necessity, and then 
we supplement it with all the various material which we can get on 
the availability of workers, the housing — Avhich is another very 
important thing to me — for the Government to have to go out and 
create tremendous new^ housing facilities when, if you go into certain 
areas where there are idle workers the housing is there for them 
already, seems like a waste of money. 

If you can put a plant where houses exist already you save a 
lot of money for the Government, and it has been possible in many 
instances to point out to the Army and the Navy all of those factors. 

Then again if you take out of production very rich farm land — 20 
or 30 thousand acres — to make a j^lant site for an ammunition plant 
you have created a little desert out of land formerly productive and 
would continue to be productive. It would be taken out of its present 
productive status, and a lot of people would lose their present work 
and would have to move into new locations. 

Now, it has been possible by woi'king with the Army and Navy to 
get a readjustment of their ideas about where a plant should be located 
sc it would not do that very thing to rich farm land. 

Mr. Curtis. I think I mentioned to Governor Townsend yesterday 
that I had in mind a city of a little less than 100,000 people and they 
made a survey and found that they could house approximately 4,000 
additional people and that that available housing was so located that 
their school system could absorb the increase without any added plant 
facilities. Are surveys of that type valuable to you? 

Mr. Nelson. They are very valuable. Any that you get like that if 
you will give them to us we like to have them because it will enable us 
to make a study of it, and in case expansions are required we point out 
those locations. 

Now, oftentimes it is not possible to use them even, though you 
know they should be located there, because if you are going to set 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6611 

lip an aircraft-engine plant you need the very highest degree of 
mechanical skill to make aircraft engines. 

Well, unless that particular skill is available in the community in 
large enough numbers, you will have to bring new people into the 
community to suppl}^ the skill, so that that is where this fine question 
of judgment that I told you about applies in connection with locations. 
But we are anxious to have them, and if you would just give us that 
information we would be very glad to have it. 

Mr. Curtis. I will be very glad to see that you get it. 

Mr. Nelson. We will be glad to have it, to see that that location is 
pointed out and considered, 

GUIDANCE FOR PRIVATE INDUSTRY 

Mr. Curtis. Does the Plant Site Board ever veto a site selected by 
the Army ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, as I said we don't like the job of vetoing things. 
We have been able to cooperatively work out with them these things 
to such an extent that if they know we are against a site, they have 
tried to pick another one. 

Mr. Curtis. In other words, you have changed their minds some- 
times ? 

Mr. Nelson. We have, sir. And I have been very happy to see 
the degree of cooperation that we have gotten from both the Army 
and the Navy in connection with locations which to them appeared, 
from the technical side of it, ideal, but which, when all of the factors 
are considered, including this subject of migration, the building of 
houses and schools, and new facilities, churches, and sewers, has 
disadvantages, they have worked with us to help pick the new site. 

Mr. Curtis. Does that appl}' to private industry also? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir ; to a more or less limited extent. 

Now, in the case of Government fimds it is comparatively easy to 
do the job, because the Government pays for this plant. In the case 
of private industry you have another problem that enters into it, 
and that is the question of division of supervision, which is very diffi- 
cult to get around. 

For example, a plant may be located at Hartford, Conn. They 
now have their supervisory force there — management is there. Well, 
it might be perfectly logical that that plant ought to be located, we 
will say, at Lincoln, Nebr. From all points of view that might be 
the ideal town, from the standpoint of skills and other things. Well, 
that management would have to travel so far and dilute itself so 
much that a great delay would occur in getting started, and if it is 
important that that particular thing be made very quickh^ we haven't 
been able '^o move those to the distances that we would like to on 
account of that division of supervision. 

That has been one of the most important single things that we have 
had to consider in connection with these individual plant sites. 

]\Ir. Curtis. The earlier that you undertake to work with the Army 
or the Navy on any particular problem the greater good you can do? 

Mr. Nelson. Without any question ; there is no doubt about that 
and that is why we have attempted, as I say, instead of exercising a 
veto right, to go to them at their earliest indication, before they even 



5512 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

have the funds or are only thinking of getting the funds. We can 
point out at a very early stage the advantages or disadvantages as 
we see them, of that particular site, from the standpoint of the very 
problems you are studying. 

PROSPECTIVE UNEMPLOYMENT IN NONDEFENSE INDUSTRIES 

Mr. Curtis. Is it possible to estimate, approximately, the volume 
of unemployment which may be expected to materialize in the non- 
defense production due to priorities, shortages, and agreements such 
as in the automobile industry? 

Mr. Nelson. No, sir. You can make some approximations but they 
have to be founded on conclusions which take a lot of theory. 

Now, we would have to, before locating a new plant site in Detroit 
at the present time, try to estimate as best we could what the disloca- 
tion was going to be to the automobile industry. 

Now, we would assume, for example, that it was going to be as much 
as 50 percent — not because we wanted it to be 50 percent, but because 
that seemed probable, from the standpoint of the availability of 
materials and such things in the Detroit area. We actually used a 
figure of somewhere around 50 percent reduction in the automobile 
industry in Detroit, to calculate what the unemployment would be 
as a result of that, to take up the slack in the new industryy to go in 
there. 

Now, we have done that in various spots, but we haven't done it for 
the United States as a whole because it involves some assumptions 
that we feel are premature. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you believe that this factor is a persuasive reason 
for placing contracts in the already concentrated industrial areas? 

Mr. Nelson. I think it may be, sir, if, for instance, you know that 
that industrial area is making products that are going to be curtailed. 
I feel that you should take that into account insofar as you possibly 
can. 

Mr. Curtis. But the chances are that already that same community 
has some other firms that are on the program of expansion. 

Mr. Nelson. That also has to be taken into consideration. In 
other words, that is again where this fine line of judgment occurs. 
You have that very fact existing — tremendous expansions, we will 
say, in defense areas. 

Now, if that expansion alone will take up the probable decrease in 
employment as a result of priorities and restrictions, it would be 
illogical to locate other plants there. 

POWER AS A FACTOR IN PLANT LOCATION 

Another factor that has to be carefully considered is the power 
factor in a location. We don't want to keep adding facilities and 
overtaxing the present power facilities of an area. 

Mr. Curtis. You are referring to electrical power ? 

Mr. Nelson. Electrical power; yes, sir. 
^ Mr. Curtis. The other day Mr. Hillman said there were 2.7 mil- 
lion workers engaged in defense manufacturing today. Do you 
believe that the addition of this number within the last year or so 
has already caused a general labor shortage or is the labor shortage 
localized ? 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6Q1S 

Mr. Nelson. It is localized, sir. It is not general. There are labor 
shortages of particular kinds of skills in places, but I think that the 
training program that has gone right along hand in hand from the 
start has been a very smart thing, in helping prevent those labor 
shortages of certain skills. 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Nelson, I, as one member of the committee, am 
very glad you could be here. I am very pleased with the approach 
your division has made to this matter. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Congressman Arnold. 

MANUFACTURE OF CLOTHING FOR THE ARMY 

Mr. Arnold. I was interested in your statement, Mr. Nelson, that 
the manufacture of clothing for the Army has been spread over the 
country. Has that spread been pretty general ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. I would like to show you those figures. I 
would be glad to show you a map of how that spread has occurred, 
sir, even into a State like Texas that formerly had made very little 
clothing for the Army — probably never had made any before — ^but 
is now making things like pants and shirts for the Army. 

That is also true of mattresses and it is true of many things that 
the quartermaster buys. 

Mr. Arnold. I am sure the committee will be very interested in 
having those figures. 

Mr. Nelson. I shall be very glad to give them to you. 

Mr. Arnold. Are those manufactured articles that were formerly 
manufactured in the East for the most part? 

Mr. Nelson. For the most part that has been done right around 
Philadelphia. If you will look at the peacetime buying, which, of 
course, was relatively small, you will find that most of it occurred 
right around the Philadelphia depots. 

These concerns in the Middle West and in the South and Southwest 
had done very little Government business before. 

Mr. Arnold. Do they have as efficient plants as they have in the 
East? 

Mr. Nelson. In my opinion, sir, just as efficient and in many 
cases more efficient. 

Mr. Arnold. Is anything being done to increase the efficiency of 
those plants throughout the country — any coordinated effort being 
made to bring up their efficiency ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, of course, the very fact of giving business to 
them and giving them the benefit of Government inspection helps 
to increase their efficiency. In other words, efficiency usually comes 
in the clothing industry from a repetition of the operation. 

TIME and quality ARE MAIN SPECIFICATIONS 

Now, the two things that force efficiency are, first, the require- 
ment that they produce whatever they take by a certain time or 
pay a penalty and, secondly, that they produce it of the quality 
demanded by the Army. Now, those two things, to my mind, bring 



QQ14: WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

about an increase in efficiency in any company that takes a large 
amount of Government business. 

Mr. Arnold. The reason I asked that question was because in 
May of 1938 I was traveling by train back to Illinois, and going up to 
the diner I passed through three pullman loads of German indus- 
trialists. One of them had a son who lived in Texas, who was 
acting as interpreter. They had been here to Washington and, 
naturally, I was anxious to know what they were in this country 
for and what they were doing. Of course, at that time I didn't 
think of a war, and I don't know whether they did or not. 

Mr. Nelson. Very few of us did. 

Mr. Arnold. But they were manufacturers employing up to 2,000 
people. They were here inspecting our knitting mill and other ma- 
chinery. They acknowledged it was more efficient than the German 
machinery, and they were here to bring up the efficiency of their own 
plants. 

All of their inspections had been in the East. They were on their 
way out to the Ford plant, I think, just as a side trip. 

Mr. Nelson. Well, you will find today, sir, that throughout the 
Middle West and the South those plants, particularly making things 
like pants and shirts, tents, tarpaulins, and a wide variety of things 
where those skills can be developed, have greatly improved their 
efficiency in the last year. 

Mr. Arnold. And their machinery is just as efficient? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes; their machinery is just as efficient. 

Mr. Arnold. Ancl you believe that they will be adequate for all 
our requirements? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir; more than adequate. I think that by getting 
Government orders they have thereby learned how to do business with 
the Government, and it isn't easy to do business with the Government 
because it is a different method of doing business, but the very fact 
that they get acquainted and know how to do it, in my opinion, makes 
them valuable potential suppliers. 

rejections by plant-site board 

Mr. Arnold. The committee seems to be interested in the work of 
the Plant Site Board. Have there been any instances in which the 
Plant Site Board has rejected a plant site proposal because it be- 
lieved housing and other community facilities in the area were 
inadequate ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir; and there was one that it almost broke my 
heart to reject — it was on beautiful land, but it would have required the 
building, in our opinion, of a new city at that site — churches, schools, 
fire department, police department. There just wasn't, on the basis 
of the facts and figures, the available labor at that particular site, 
although it was ideal, technically, for the manufacture of smokeless 
powder, TNT, and DNT. It was possible to relocate that plant where 
there are already housing facilities. I know that particular territory 
well. I lived in it as a boy and I certainly would like to have seen 
the plants there but to me it seemed illogical to locate a plant where 
you would have to build an entirely new community and cause migra- 
tion into that area. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6615 

Mr. Arnold. And did you not want to see that good land used 
for that purpose? 

]\Ir. Nelson. The best farm land in the United States. 

Mr. Arnold. But the prime consideration was the lack of 
facilities ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Arnold. Has the Plant Site Board made any efforts to se- 
cure the extension of community facilities when, for other reasons, 
it seemed desirable to locate or expand a plant in a given area ? 

Mr. Nelson. Oh, yes. We are working very closely with the 
Housing Coordinator. Facilities have to be put up at some plants 
AA'here the only thing to do was to locate it in that particular area. 

Mr. Arnold. They had to be located there and so the facilities had 
to go in? 

Mr. Nelson. Had to go in ; yes. 

LABOR SHORTAGE, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND MIGRATION 

Mr. Aknold. You indicate in your paper that you fear an acute 
general labor shortage next year when the greater part of the new 
facilities under construction will get into operation. Another 
point you indicate is that considerable unemployment may material- 
ize in nondefense industries due to shortage of materials, priorities, 
and agreements in the automobile industry. Will you discuss the 
seemins: contradiction in those two statements? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, sir, it all has to do with this matter of migration. 
My two statements are from this point of view : You may have in 
places where these defense plants are now located, a shortage of 
skilled labor but you will have a general and diverse unemployment 
clue, let us say, to the cutting down of the automobile production by 
as much as 20 percent, which would create collateral unemployment 
in many many areas of the United States other than Detroit. 

Here is a company making glass for the automobile industry, 
making carbureters, making spare parts of one kind or another — it 
may be the textile fabrics that go into the automobile — but the minute 
you make a curtailment you have unemployment, relatively small, 
that is true, but in many areas of the United States. 

Industries like the automobile industry or the refrigerator industry 
or other luxury industries may have to be cut down as a result 
of the necessity for using those facilities for defense purposes. You 
see what my point is? 

STATE EFFORTS AT POOLING FACILITIES 

Mr. Arnold. That answers the question. We understand that, in 
several States, State industrial committees have been set up to work 
out pooling arrangements within the State and thus assist in the 
decentralization of contracts. 

Will you indicate in how many States such committees have been 
set up and how effective they are ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I think, sir, in a large number of States com- 
mittees of one kind or another have been set up. They really haven't 
been effective except in a few areas. I can point out, for instance, 



QQIQ AVASHINGTON HEARINGS 

an area like York, Pa., where they have done a magnificent job of 
pooling the available facilities in a location to take a defense contract. 

In York there are several very good industries like the York Ice 
Machine Co., and York Safe & Lock. Now, they have pooled the re- 
sources of that particular area to take very large Government con- 
tracts and they have done a grand job. 

That is also occurring in States like Wisconsin, which, I believe, is 
beginning to do a good job. Connecticut has had a very good indus- 
trial organization, with the idea of calling to the attention of all the 
procurement facilities resources which might be pooled to take prime 
contracts, and I believe that the pattern is developing so that from 
now on it can become much more effective. 

In a State like California, for instance, they are beginning to do 
a very good job. I spent some time with the chamber of 
commerce in Los Angeles last week and I think they are doing some 
very effective work in finding what the facilities are in their locality 
and what they might be able to make and in helping direct them to 
things that they might do, particularly in the subcontracting field. 

Mr. Arjs^old. And also in the prime contracting field? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, the prime contracting, of course, is different. 
I mean a prime contract usually involves large financial resources, 
management, engineering skill, organization, and it isn't easy to 
put prime contracts into the hands of a pooled group of manufac- 
turers. 

When the Army buys a machine gun, fox example, they want and 
must have somebody to be responsible, so that the thing they buy is an 
efficient piece of mechanism and that it wiU do the job for which it was 
intended. 

If you pool a group of people who may all be able to contribute 
parts to that machine gun, some one outstanding person must be 
responsible for seeing that they all function and that they all pro- 
duce exactly the quality needed at the time needed and thus produce 
for the Army an efficient machine gun. 

PROGKESS OF SUBCONTRACTING 

Mr. Arnold. Are yoai satisfied with the progress made in subcon- 
tracting ? 

Mr. Nelson. No ; I am not. 

Mr. Arnold. Do you believe that it will increase and become satis- 
factory ? 

Mr. Nelson. I think it has to increase, sir. I feel that subcontract- 
ing is a necessary thing, but I am not satisfied at all with the progress 
of it. I think, however, that today there are more people who believe 
in it than did 6 months ago and I feel certain that the War Depart- 
ment and the Navy Department are interested in it and see the ad- 
visability of it and I believe we will find the way to do it in the near 
future. 

Mr. Arnold. And that has a definite connection with preventing 
migration ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir ; a very definite connection. 

Mr. Arnold. That is, the wide spreading of subcontracting would 
have more to do with the preventing of migration more than any one 
thing? 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6617 

Mr. Nelson. Certainly. It seems logical to me that if you try to 
find work for the machine where it is now located, if it can possibly be 
done, it is better than to pull the worker and the machine out of the 
location where they now are and move them somewhere else. 

UNGHOSTING THE GHOST TOWNS 

Mr. Arnold. Will you indicate to what extent ghost towns have been 
brought back into production through the efforts of the O. P. M. ? 

Mr. Nelson. A great deal of study has been put on that. I can't 
indicate to you whether we have actually yet brought ghost towns 
back. There will be some when some of these new plants are built 
and start working — you will find locations; for instance, here is a 
town like Carbondale, 111. Carbondale formerly had a very big 
coal-mining industry which disappeared. 

Now, it is perfectly possible through the location of a plant site in 
that location to do, say, shell loading or bag loading or whatever 
it may be, to bring that locality back during the period of time 
wliile it is in operation. But I do fear, sir, and I think it is a thing 
that has to be very carefully thought out, what is to become of that 
town after this defense program is over. 

In other words, I sometimes fear that they may be worse off after 
the spree than they were before, unless a lot of careful planning is 
done. 

Mr. Arnold. Of course, you are picking up an area there with which 
I am very familiar. At one time 51 percent of their population was 
on relief i 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arnold. Or on W. P. A. ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Arnold. I understand there are about 15,000 unemployed in the 
area. Now, that you cannot give us an estimate of the number of 
workers in that area who have been reemployed or who will be reem- 
ployed as a result of these efforts ? 

Mr. Nelson. No, sir; I could not do it, but I am sure that Mr. 
Hillman's division could — if you want me to ask him to do it I will 
be very glad to do so. 

Mr. Arnold. I wish you would do so. 

The Chairman. We will make that request, Mr. Nelson. 

Mr. Arnold. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

pressure of time element 

The Chairman. Mr. Nelson, while we are aiming at 100-percent 
efiiciency, we are still human beings and we are dealing with the law 
of averages ; isn't that true ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir ; that certainly is true. 

The Chairman. This emergency came on us all at once and speak- 
ing for myself personally, I am very proud of the way the American 
l^eople are holding up and refusing to get excited. In all your 
activities in your Office and in the other departments, you are up 
against the pressure of the time element at aU times ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir ; all the time. 



gglg WASHINGTON HK.\RINGS 

The Chairman. And that in part explains why you allocated so 
much work to places where they had existing facilities to do the work ? 

Mr. Nelsox. I am convinced, sir, that tliat is the main reason it 
was done. If we had had 10 years to build, I am certain you would 
have seen an entirely different pattern. 

The Chairman. You would have spread it out more ? 

Mr. Nelson. Very much more. 

The Chairman. I am pleased to see you are directing your efforts 
toward spreading it out. 

You see the only purpose of this committee really is in regard to 
interstate commerce of human beings. Therefore, we are concerned 
with how these people who go to San Diego, for instance, are getting 
along — in how they are being housed, their environment so far as 
health is concerned, fire protection, police protection, and then our 
next interest is how they are going to get along after this is over. 

Mr. Nelson. That is the important thing to me, sir. 

The Chairman. And I am glad you mentioned about the load that 
comes on these communities. 

I think that San Diego is an outstanding example of what our 
cities and communities are up against. The committee just returned 
from San Diego a few weeks ago. The population of San Diego has 
jumped up about 100,000 people. A project known as the Kearney 
Mesa project is located just 6 miles from the city of San Diego and 
will have a population of 10,000 people. 

Mr. Nelson. Even the sewers won't take care of them. 

The Chairman. Now, San Diego simply cannot carry that addi- 
tional burden. They have to have sewage disposal, schools, and fire 
and police protection and we have so far $150,000,000 and San Diego 
is asking $21,000,000 for their needs alone. They bonded themselves 
to pay for part of the sewage-disposal system, but other problems 
come in these, in which they need help. 

We found in Coimecticut and New Jersey and Maryland the same 
situation. I am very pleased that you agree with the findings that we 
have made and the evidence that we have obtained. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And are they being charged too high rents? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

problem after the emergency 

The Chairman. We are wondering and interested m how they are 
getting along, and we shall do our best to solve that problem, but the 
great problem, of course, is going to face this country after the emer- 
gency is over. 

The testimony shows that millions of people have gone from their 
own States to other States on account of our national-defense program. 
There is a peculiar thing in this country. We have about 30 States, 
Mr. Nelson, that make it a crime to transport an indigent or poor per- 
son across a State line. 

And at the same time we have the Federal Government encourag- 
ing this migration between States, and the result is that we have some 
three or four million people who are in the different States with 
no State of their own ; and if we don't address ourselves to that propo- 
siticMi at this time, a dangerous whirlpool may be caused after this 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6619 

emergency is over. It may be just as dangerous as any attack from 
Avithout. 

Mr. Nelson. I feel, sir, that the free-enterprise system can be 
just as much in danger of being destroyed through the after effects 
of the defense program as from an attack from without, unless we use 
every bit of brains we have while we are building the defense pro- 
gram. 

The Chairman. Now, so far what has been done about it, outside of 
what this committee is doing? The President issued an Executive 
order for a survey of the United States to be made regarding the 
feasibility of public works projects after the war is over. I think the 
Planning Board is interesting itself in the problem. 

Therefore, what we are greatly interested in is what these mil- 
lions of people, who have gone from one State to another and who are 
now getting good wages, are going to do after this emergency is 
over. The only cushion for the shock at the end of the war will be 
what money they have saved or whatever unemployment compen- 
sation insurance they may receive, their benefits from the Social 
Security Act, but if they had five or six or seven or eight hundred or 
a thousand dollars in their pockets it will cushion the shock. Most 
of these people will want to go home. That is a sure thing, and it 
seems to me, Mr. Nelson, that the money they may have saved will be 
the solution of the problem. 

TRIPPED UP BY WORD "cOMPULSORY" 

We would like to recommend something to the Congress along that 
line, but, of course, we are always up against the word "compulsory." 
We did have some evidence in Hartford whereby, under a voluntary 
plan, one company was withholding a certain amount of each week's 
pay, but, of course, that was voluntarily done. 

We are greatly concerned with that, and I think it is a vital 
problem. 

Mr. Nelson. I think it is a very vital problem. I think that we 
must do some national thinking anct some individual community think- 
ing and planning along those lines, so this thing doesn't come on them 
sucldenly. 

Take an area like the one in Los Angeles that I visited last week. 
There is a tremendous increase in activities which have come about 
due to an increasing expenditure of Federal funds. Locally they 
have got to be thinking of that particular problem just as well as the 
National Government. I think it is essential that all the brains of 
this country be put on that problem now, instead of waiting until it is 
over and on top of us. 

Tlie Chairman. In our investigation throughout the United States 
we have had over 100 migrant witnesses who have come from one Stat-e 
to another just to find out what they actually went through, and I 
asked one migrant witness in San Diego if he was saving any money 
and he said : "No; not a cent." 

I said : "Well, how much are you receiving a month?", and he said : 
"$135." I said : "How much are you paying for rent?" 

He ansM^ered that he was paying $18 a week, which is practically 
$80 a month, and he said : "Will you tell me how I can save?" 



gg20 WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

I said : "How many children have you?", and he said : "I have six." 

So that is one thing we have got to address ourselves to — high 
rentals; but we will take that up with Mr. Henderson. 

Mr. Nelson. He will be able to cover that with you. 

The Chairman. Mr. Lamb. 

Mr. Lamb. Mr. Nelson, you spoke about the moving out of machines 
and ways and means of preventing that. Do you have any estimate of 
the proportion of machines bought up and moved and the plants 
closed ? 

Mr. Nelson. No, sir ; I haven't. Perhaps Mr. Mason Britton, who 
handles that in O. P. M., could give you some figures on that. I haven't 
any at present. It has been largely those that have been bought by 
various industries themselves. There hasn't been any pressure yet 
put on by the Government on any industry to release machine tools. 

Mr. Lamb. I was only thinking of the voluntaiy closing down of 
plants which were not getting orders because they were unsuccessful 
bidders or something of that kind. 

Mr. Nelson. I would suggest you contact Mr. Mason Britton, who 
may have some of the figures. At least he can get you some approxi- 
mation on it. 

Mr. Lamb. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Mr. Nelson, I just want to say that we deeply ap- 
preciate your coming here and I thing yours is one of the most valu- 
able and intelligent contributions we have had. 

Mr. Nelson. Thank you, sir. I am intensely interested in this 
problem. 

The Chairman. Our next witness is Mr. Leon Henderson, Ad- 
ministrator, Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply. 

TESTIMONY OF LEON HENDEESON, ADMINISTEATOR, OFFICE OF 
PEICE ADMINISTRATION AND CIVILIAN SUPPLY, WASHING- 
TON, D. C. 

The Chairman. Mr. Henderson, on behalf of the committee I want 
to thank you for coming here this morning. During the last session 
of Congress this committee was appointed to investigate the migration 
of destitute citizens between States. 

We traveled throughout the United States and made our report and 
recommendations to Congress. This session we were continued on the 
theory that migration instead of decreasing had increased because of 
this national-defense program. 

STATEMENT BY LEON HENDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 
PRICE ADMINISTRATION AND CIVILIAN SUPPLY, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

I am happy to come before this committee today to participate in your discussion 
and investigation of the relationship of the defense program to the problem of the 
migration of workers. 

Defense production has caused, and will continue to cause, tremendous and 
rapid shifts in employment — mostly increases, but with some decreases in certain 
lines or areas. These shifts raise a host of problems : Where additional workers 
are needed in areas having defense contracts, recruitment must be speedy and 
must provide proper skills. Where workers congregate in rapidly growing ai'eas, 
they face difficult problems of housing, sanitation, community welfare, and con- 
sumer protection. Where employment is reduced as a result of priorities or other 
factors arising out of the defense program, problems are raised concerning relief 
and labor training and there is the important problem of bringing new work to 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION Qg21 

unemployed labor or supervising the shift of unemployed labor to available 
employment. 

My special responsibilities as Administrator of the Office of Price Administra- 
tion and Civilian Supply are to prevent rapid price increases and spiraling of 
prices, visages, and the cost of living; to allocate materials which are put under 
priority control in such a way as to cause a minimum disturbance to the civilian 
economy; and, finally, it is the responsibility of this office, under the direction of 
Miss Harriet Elliott, to protect the consumer. 

Most defense agencies are concerned with one or another aspect of the problem 
of defense migration. Other Federal officials have appeared and will appear 
before you to describe the special features of this problem which come under 
their jurisdictions. I want to do two things today : First, I will present the fac- 
tual background of the rent situation and will summarize the activities of Office 
of Price Administration and Civilian Supply which have a direct bearing on the 
rent situation ; and, secondly, I will discuss the problem of unemployment caused 
by the imposition of priorities and civilian allocation. 

PRICE OF HOUSING 

One of the prices we are most immediately interested in is tlie price of housing — 
rents. We are interested in rents because the price of housing can, under certain 
circumstances, spiral upwards to the great and immediate detriment of consumers, 
and usually those consumers who can afford it least. We know that rents have 
been rising where hundreds or thousands of new defense workers have swarmed 
into areas with inadequate housing facilities. 

Rents charged for housing acconmiodations in defense areas have a direct bear- 
ing on many aspects of labor migration. If defense production is to proceed 
smoothly we must be assured (1) that workers will be willing to migrate to 
those areas where they are needed, when they are needed ; (2) that once they 
have accepted defense jobs in new localities their living costs and general living 
facilities are reasonable enough to keep them there; (3) that if they choose to 
stay, their health and morale will be maintained. 

Because of the sudden impact of defense activity in many centers, it was to be 
exix^cted that problems would arise involving housing and community facilities 
and the cost of living. And in fact, we are finding — on the basis of vacancy 
and rental surveys now in progress in more than 100 defense localities — that 
where the housing shortage is most acute rents are skyrocketing. 

It will be difficult to continue to attract workers with the necessary skills to 
aircraft, shipbuilding, and ordnance centers unless they are provided with decent 
housing facilities at reasonable rents. Private residential construction and 
Government allocations for defense housing are alleviating congestion, but in 
m'any areas they are not able to keep pace with the growing demand for rental 
housing, and as a result of the shortage, rents are reacting sharply. In some 
shipbuilding, ordnance, and Army cantonment centers as many as 1 out of every 2 
rented homes have had rent increases ranging from 20 to 100 percent since October 
1939. The specific examples I shall quote illustrate similar conditions in other 
defense 'areas ; they are not used with any intent to single out these communities. 
In the great aircraft center of San Diego there has been an average increase of 
14 percent on about 50 out of every 100 rented homes ; in the new aircraft center 
now being developed in Wichita, Kans., there has been an average increase of 
12 percent on 25 out of every 100 rented homes. In Pascagoula, Miss., a fast 
growing shipbuilding center, there has been an average increase of 24 percent on 
60 out (if every 100 rentals for white occupancy; in Bremerton, Wash. — the site 
of the Puget Sound Navy Yard — there has been an average increase of 16 percent 
on about 50 out of every 100 rented homes. The expansion of an ordnance depot 
in Burlington, lowti, brought with it an average increa.se of 33 percent on 58 out 
of 100 rented homes: a new ordnance plant in the Milan-Humboldt area, Ten- 
nessee, brought with it an average increase of 95 percent on 40 out of 100 homes. 
Key centers of varied industrial production have been likewise affected. There 
has been an average 13 percent increase on 66 out of 100 homes in N'ew Britain 
Conn. ; an 'average 16 percent increase on 50 out of 100 homes in Pontiac, Mich. 
Communities adjacent to Army cantonments have reported some of the most 
extreme cases of upheavals in the local rental market : In Brownwood, Tex., there 
has been an average increase of 69 percent on 78 out of 100 homes ; in Alexandria, 
La., an aver'age increase of 36 percent on 55 out of 100 homes. 

When situations of this character develop, increasing the supply of available 
housing facilities is the obvious .solution. But where this cannot be done fast 
enough and in sufficient quantity some control of the rental situation becomes 



gg22 AVASHINGTON HEARINGS 

imperative. Otherwise, workers will avoid those very defense centers where their 
skills are required. Or if they do come, they will soon discover that high wages 
are illusory when exorbitant rentals eat away a third and more of their earnings. 
Workers will move out again. They will turn to other defense areas — in itself a 
waste of manpower during the process of migration — or back to nondefense 
centers. When acute rental conditions cause excessive labor turn-over and result 
in a futile migration of labor, they are detrimental to the defense effort and 
demand regulatory action. 

KENT CONTROL 

Rents must be controlled, moreover, in order to maintain the health and morale 
of the general civilian population. Our oflice has received letters from scores of 
families of defense workers and of Army men, of service workers and of people on 
relief, protesting against rent profiteering in defense localities. All express 
resentment when landlords take advantage of a market with practically no 
vacancies to increase rents. It should be noted that in general these sharp upward 
movements in rent are particularly unjustifiable because they are not accompanied 
by substantial increases in the cost of operation. 

Rent increases are an especially heavy burden on people with low incomes or 
moderate fixed incomes. Since there are no vacancies in many defense communi- 
ties, the tenant has no choice. He either pays or he is evicted. If he is unable to 
pay and is evicted, he sometimes has to leave town. We have had reports from a 
number of centers adjacent to Army cantonments and ordnance plants that 
natives of these communities have been forced to move far out into the country 
because they could not pay higher rents. Such incidents have a disturbing effect 
on the morale of our people. 

When workers are forced to pay increased rents it means cutting other items 
in the budget, because rents are relatively inelastic. Since we know from our 
surveys that on the whole rentals under $30 a month are increasing by a higher 
percentage than those over $30 a month, the group which can least afford it is 
hardest hit. 

Finally, higher rents in industrial defense areas involve us in the general 
problem of wages. Exorbitant rent increases almost invariably produce de- 
mands for wage readjustments. Some union contracts have specific clauses 
stipulating a reopening of wage negotiations when the cost of living rises. 
Since rent normally consumes from 20 to 25 percent of a worker's earnings — and 
in some areas this ratio today is even higher — rental change is an important 
factor in rising living costs. We can avoid a great deal of industrial unrest 
by eliminating some of the grievances behind demands for reconsideration of 
wage scales. If we fail to curb rent increases we are contributing to the spiral 
of rising living costs, rising wages, and still higher living costs, from which 
nobody stands to gain in the end. 

The details of the rental situation in some 75 defense localities will be made 
available for the record. 

RENT UNIT OF O. P. A. C. S. 

I wish now to describe what we are doing about the problem at the present 
time: In the Price Division of our Oflice there is a rent unit which sends 
members of its field staff into those areas most seriously affected by rent 
increases. Frequently they go at the direct request of local officials. After 
reviewing the situation, members of our staff aid municipal authorities and local 
defense councils in establishing what we call fair rent committees. Our staff 
outlines fundamental principles of procedure on a voluntary basis. After the fair 
rent committee has been appointed by the mayor, it publicly points out the 
dangers of exorbitant rentals and sets up an office to receive tenant complaints. 
These complaints are examined, and cases are selected for mediation. The land- 
lord is summoned to a hearing to explain the increase, and the committee, after 
considering a variety of factors, makes a specific recommendation. The actual 
power of the fair rent committee is dependent upon the degree of public support 
which it enjoys in a community. Some ten such committees are now functioning ; 
others are being set up. 

This method of procedure on a voluntary basis has certain patent limitations. 
Voluntary control may succeed temporarily in restraining upward trends ; It 
lacks the authority to reverse such trends. There is no question in my mind 
that ultimately the authority of law will have to be invoked to curb rent increases 
in those areas where voluntary methods are only partially successful. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6623 

HOUSING PROBLEM EiXATED TO DISTRIBUTION OF ORDERS 

The problems concerning housing and rents arise chiefly because of the con- 
centration of defense production in certain localities. You know, of course, that 
one of the early goals of the National Defense Advisory Commission was to 
avoid undue concentration of contracts and to utilize for defense production the 
labor of every sector of our working population, wherever located, and the 
capital equipment of every part of our industrial establishment, small and 
medium-sized concerns as well as our huge corporations. This is still a goal of 
the Federal defense agencies. 

The statistics relating to the geographical concentration of contracts and the 
geographical distribution of new-plant expansion have been presented to you this 
week, and there has been considerable discussion of this whole problem. I wish to 
make only two comments on this subject. In the first place, the accessible data 
tend to exaggerate the actual extent of concentration of defense production in 
certain areas. Much of the production called for by prime defense contracts is 
subcontracted and therefore actually produced in other areas. Statistics on 
subcontracting are as yet incomplete. We do know, of course, that the pattern 
of American industrial production is highly complex. It is difficult to tabulate 
the percentage of the value of a prime contract let, say, to a New England small- 
arms manufacturer, which is subcontracted to a nut-and-bolt manufacturer in 
Maryland, a walnut-stock manufacturer in northern Michigan, and a special 
high-grade steel producer in the Cleveland area. Moreover, it is obviously im- 
possible for us to indicate or trace statistically the spreading out across the 
country of the increased productive activity which results from the increased 
incomes and expanded purchases made by the workers and their families in 
that New England town — on automobiles, movies, clothes, toys, furniture, 
food, etc. 

SOME GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION INEVITABLE 

The second point I want to make Is that there must always be some geographic 
concentration of industrial production. That is the result of the character of 
our economy and of our geography. It is on the basis of a complex pattern of 
geographical specialization over an area as large as the United States that 
much of the wealth and prosi>erity of this Nation has been built. It would be 
absurd to expect, for example, that the woolen mills producing overcoats and 
uniforr^s for our greatly expanded Army .should be distributed equally through- 
out each State in the Union, including the Rocky Mountain section. It would 
be just as absurd to expect that the raising of the sheep from which these imi- 
forms are made should be distributed equally thi-onghout all the States, includ- 
ing the industrial areas of New England and the Atlantic coast. 

Because of these factors it is obvious that the initial impact of defense con- 
tracts will not be uniformly spread throughout the Nation. When we began our 
tremendous defense program, we let ourselves in — deliberately and inevitably — 
for a great deal of migration of labor. That is one of the costs which we ac- 
cepted cheerfully when we decided that our Nation coidd only be secure after a 
tremendous defense effort. We were able to do several things, however, to ease 
the ijroblem of concentration of defen.se production. We attempted to see to it 
that defense production did not cause any greater geographic concentration than 
had already been brought about by regional specialization of production in the 
United States, or than became necessary because of the character of special 
types of defense work, as, for example, the building of ships. 

Great efforts are being made to insure through subcontracting that defense 
production is widespread and makes full use of our available industrial plant 
and labor force. Much can be done to avoid concentration of defense produc- 
tion when locating new plants. With this aim in mind, many ammunition plants, 
smokeless-powder plants, bag-loading plants, etc., have been located in non- 
industrial regions ; for example, the smokeless-powder plants in Radford, Va., 
and Charlestown, Ind., and the .shell-loading plant in Burlington, Iowa. 

Of course, we should realize that the attempt to avoid concentration of 
defense production and to locate these tremendous new plants in regions not 
already highly industrialized or densely populated has led to some of the most 
difficult problems which confront this committee. This is true not only with 
respect to housing, but it is especially true with respect to essential community 
services and amusements. It may be that a new arsenal located in Philadelphia 
would have brought as serious a problem of housing in that already congested 
60.396— 41— pt. 16 21 



6624 



WASHINGTON HEARINGS 



industrial region as it has brought to relatively sparsely settled Ravenna, Ohio. 
But certainly the community facilities for essential services, education, amuse- 
ments, etc., would have been an easier problem to meet in Philadelphia than in 
Ravenna. 

UNEMPLOYMENT DUE TO PRIORITIES 

Now I come to another kind of problem arising out of the defense program 
which directly concerns this committee and which has a most important bearing 
on the work of the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply. It is the 
opposite of the problem caused by the concentration of defense production. It Is 
the problem of unemployment resulting from the imposition of priorities. It is 
what happens when we shift all our aluminum ingots to the the making of air- 
planes and leave none over for making pots and pans. It results from our 
decision to build up our stock of rubber for future eventualities at the expense 
of some drivers of passenger cars — and of some of the workers in the rubber 
plants. 

When defense requirements force a curtailment of normal civilian produc- 
tion, then it is necessary to allocate whatever supplies remain for civilian use. 
This civilian allocation is one of the heavy responsibilities of the Office of Price 
Administration and Civilian Supply. This Office has to decide which civilian 
demand will be satisfied and which will not, which manufacturer shall produce 
and how much. When machine tools are allocated to one or another form of 
defense production or allocated among the Army, Navy, and our Allies, this does 
not result in unemployment in any immediate sense. But the application of priori- 
ties to copper, cork, aluminum, magnesium, and a whole range of basic metals is 
going to cause some unemployment. If it is decided, as it was last month, that 
95 to 100 percent of aluminum, including scrap, must go to defense production, 
then the civilian industries normally using aluminum will obviously be in a very 
serious situation. 

Of course one of the steps that can be taken in a situation such as this is 
to expand the supply of the article in question so that enough will be available, 
after some steps have been taken, to meet botli defense and normal civilian 
demands. This has been one of tiie lines of policy which' I and my Office 
have followed most energetically during the entire period of the defense pro- 
gram. But if, for various reasons, the supply is not expanded sufficiently, then 
some normal civilian consumers of the scarce commodities will find empty 
store shelves. If the normal producers of these civilian commodities do not 
receive defense contracts or if they cannot find substitute raw materials, this 
means unemployment of workers. 

EXAMPLES OF "PRIORITY UNEMPLOYMENT" 

You members of the committee and we officials of defense agences — to say 
nothing of businessmen, trade-union leaders, and workers — have already known 
of examples of unemployment directly caused by the operation of priorities 
and civilian allocation. Even though the priority program is as yet in its 
early stages, we know that workers are already unemployed in New Kensing- 
ton, Pa. ; in Manitowoc, Two Rivers. Chilton, Kewaskum, West Bend, ano 
Eau Claire, Wis. ; and in New Washington, Ohio, and Lamount, 111., because 
the factories in which they normally work producing aluminum pots and pans 
and other miscellaneous stamped aluminum products can get no more alum- 
inum. We know that plants producing aluminum die castings in Marshall- 
town, Iowa, Cleveland, Ohio, and other cities have curtailed production and 
laid off men. We know that priorities on nickel and nickel steel are begin- 
ning to affect employment in silverware, plated ware, and flatware establish- 
ments. The rubber allocation program has already re.sulted in the first of 
a series of lay-offs in the rubber industry. As production of 1942 automobiles 
is curtailed, there will be some uneniployuHMit nnt only in the automobile plants 
but in the widespread automol)il(' equiiinient ('stal)lishments as well. 

Thus far, however, the number of persons actually laid off and the num- 
ber of plants whose operations are curtailed or actually closed down because 
of priorities on basic materials is not large. It is only because we stand today 
just at the threshold of the operation of the priorities system that this 
problem is not already npon us as a problem affecting tens of thousands of 
workers and hundreds of plants. In the first place, priorities have only been 
in existence for a few months and most priority orders have been issued since 
April 1. The first industrywide priority order came on February 24, 1941. 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6625 

At the preseut time, only 14 coiumodities are subject to complete priority 
control. Civilian allocation is even more recent. The tirst civilian allocation 
program, covering copper, was issued by Office of Price Administration and Civil- 
ian Supply on May 31, 1941. To date we have issued five civilian-allocation pro- 
grams. In the second place, the full effect of priorities has not been felt 
thus far because manufacturers accumulated inventories last year and early 
this year with which they are able to continue production for some period 
of time, even after mandatory priorities controls are imposed. 

But I know that this problem is going to be greatly intensified before this 
summer has passed. You know that I have long been an advocate of every 
sort of measure which would bring about a legitimate increase of employment 
and end the terrible suffering and waste caused by unemployment. I now 
have as one of my heaviest responsibilities as Administrator of Office of Price 
Administration and Civilian Supply the necessity of taking definite actions 
which will have as one result a reduction of employment. I can assure you 
that we in Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply are giving this 
problem the most thorough and detailed consideration. 

THREIE WAYS TO COUNTEK PRIORITIES 

In general, of course, there are only three things which can be done. One 
is to bring new work to the manufacturer of civilian products so that he can 
use his existing plant and labor force in a different kind of output ; a second 
is to expand supply so that priorities can be relaxed or not applied so strin- 
gently as otherwise; and a third is to shift the labor let off from civilian 
production to new .jobs. 

The various agencies of the Federal defense organization have already set to 
work to meet this problem of curtailed production and employment resulting 
from priorities and civilian allocation. For example, the Defense Contract 
Service of the Office of Production Management, with its regional offices, is hard 
at work to get defense production out into all the small plants of the country 
by the subcontracting of prime defense contracts. This means that manufac- 
turers wha'^e supply of raw materials is cut off because they have been producing 
for civilian use will be able to employ their plants and their men for an enlarged 
defense output. 

The Conservation and Substitutes Committee of Office of Production Manage- 
ment is working on substitute materials and tries to help manufacturers whose 
supply of a certain raw material is curtailed by indicating the substitute raw 
materials which can be used so that normal production is not curtailed. 

Through the Labor Division of the Office of Production Management, in co- 
operation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Committee on Ap- 
prenticeship, the United States Employment Service, the Work Projects Admin- 
istration, National Youth Administration, the Office of Education, and other 
Federal agencies, a tremendous labor-training program is under way. and it is 
estimated that over a million jjersons have already received the benefit of this 
special training for defense jobs. About one and a half million more are receiv- 
ing training within industry. Thus it is possible for employees whose jobs are 
threatened by priorities and civilian allocaton to be retrained for defense work 
either in the same plant after subcontracting brings it some share of defense 
work, or in other plants. 

In its civilian allocation programs, the Office of Price Administration and 
Civilian Supply is making every effort to see to it that any necessary curtailment 
of production for civilian use is carried out on the fairest possible grounds. In 
that connection we have issued a list of factors which we will take into consid- 
eration in formulating policies and programs for our civilian allocation programs. 
That list is as follows: 

(a) The need to provide adequately for civilian uses essential to the public 
welfare. 

(6) The degree of hardship upon labor or business resulting from the fail- 
ure to obtain deliveries when scheduled or from the rejection of orders. 

(c) The past rates of consumption of the products by users thereof. 

(d) The objective of achieving an equitable division of supplies of the prod- 

ucts among all users. 

(e) The availability of substitutes for the particular uses for which the 

products are sought. 

(f) The policy of the Administrator to refuse allocation to any person who, 

in the conduct of his business, discriminates against defense orders. 



QQ2Q WASHINGTON HEARINGS 

Many of the efforts of those interested in increasing supplies, those interested 
in subcontracting, and those interested in labor training are being presented to 
this committee direcly by officials of the agencies involved. 

What we are doing at Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply, and 
what these other defense agencies are doing to insure that every portion of the 
Nation's industrial plant and labor force is utilized for defense production, with- 
out undue disruption or hardship, is significant. But I believe these efforts can 
be improved. I believe they must be improved at once if we are to fulfill our 
responsibility to assure the American people that the operation of the priority 
system in the interests of maximum defense production will not result in 
unnecessary hardship. 

Exhibit A. — Rent iNCRiiASEs in Defense Areas, Octobek 1939 Through June 

1941 

statement by office of price administration and civilian bupply, office of 

production management, WASHINGTON, D. C. 
rents and the COSTS OP LIVING 

It has been estimated in cost-of-living studies that rents normally absorb 
from 20 to 25 percent of the average wage earner's income ; the exact propor- 
tions differ in various parts of the country, depending upon a variety of local 
factors. Rents are usually paid on a monthly basis, and any substantial in- 
crea.se becomes a noticeable burden because it must be expended in a lump 
sum. Wage earners are for this reason often more sensitive to rent increases 
than to other price rises. Since rents are the second largest single item in the 
budget, following food, a marked increase in rents may mean the curtailment 
of other basic needs and lead to a proportionate lowering of the general 
standard of living. Furthermore, rent is a relatively inelastic item in the 
budget. If clothing prices increase, purchasing may be adjusted with com- 
parative ease. The physical need for shelter, however, is a requirement which 
cannot readily be scaled down without involving extreme liardship. 

defense housing and the inadequacy of sutply 

The Division of Defense Housing Coordination has given consideration to 
the need for housing in some 300 defense localities throughout the country. 
The Congress has thus far appropriated $442,.531,000 to alleviate acute housing 
shortages by direct Government con.^truction. As of July 5, 1941, 107,383 family 
dwelling units have been allocated by the Defense Housing Coordinator to 170 
localities for the housing of civilian industrial workers in private defense in- 
dustry, civilian industrial workers in Government plants, other civilians em- 
ployed by the Army and Navy, and married enlisted personnel ; 70,146 of these 
units are now under construction contract. Private industry, aided by the 
Federal Housing Administration, the Home Owners' Loan Bank Board, and the 
Defense Homes Corporation, is building thousands of additional units in and 
about defense areas. 

However, the influx of workers into defense industries and the concentration 
of the families of enlisted personnel near military establishments have been so 
rapid that neither private construction nor Government awards have been able to 
meet the need in time. Of 18,947 defense housirg units which were listed as 
completed on July 5, 1941, only 3,245 units were occupied by industrial workers 
in private defense industry, 3,918 by civilian industrial workers in Government 
plants, and 2,656 by other civilians employed by the Army and Navy ; the remain- 
ing 9,128 units were occupied by married enlisted personnel. Housing shortages 
in many defense localities have been seriously aggravated by the arrival of thou- 
sands of construction workers and service workers for whom no defense housing 
will be provided, as well as casual migrants attracted by the hope of employment- 
According to the best estimates, funds for defense housing thus far granted by 
the Congress will be able to care adequately for only about a third of all the 
inmigrant workers. Even if 70,000 units of defense housing now allocated are 
completed by October of this year, as scheduled, there will still be shortages in 
many areas. 

At the request of the Division of Defense Housing Coordination, the Work 
Projects Administration has conducted vacancy surveys in 141 defense areas. 
These surveys, most of which were completed during the first 6 months of this 



NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 6627 

year, reveal that in 103 of the areas there was habitable rental vacancy of under 
2 percent ; in 61 of the areas there was a habitable rental vacancy of unled 1 per- 
cent. Housing authorities consider a 4 percent vacancy to be the absolute mini- 
mum for the maintenance of a normal housing market. 

Under these circumstances it was to be expected that rents should react sharply 
to the acute shortage. In many localities landlords and property owners have 
already taken advantage of the situation to demand exorbitant rents, and no 
adequate supply to restore a normal competitive market is in sight. Indeed there 
is a high probability that shortages in some building materials and labor shortage 
in the construction industry will in the future materially decrease the rate of new 
construction. The experience of the last war amply fortifies this presumption. 

RESULTS OF 0FFICL\L STJRVEYS 

Rent increases have been far more widespread in areas where defense industry 
and military establishments are concentrated than in areas whi