Mr. PUTNAM. No, sir; I recommended with a group of others that we must keep steel going, after I heard the reports from the Secretary of Defense. Senator DIRKSEN. Was that another way of saying that in your judgment the plants would have to be seized? Mr. PUTNAM. No; because I am not a lawyer and I do not know the best way to keep these things going. I am an economic stabilizer. Senator DIRKSEN. Have you any opinion as to anybody who advised the President to seize the plants? Would you know anybody who so advised him? Mr. PUTNAM. I do not know who did. I know he had his advisers and his Cabinet and a number of other people and I was in some of the meetings when it was discussed. The importance of keeping steel flowing to our military was the item that was uppermost in the minds, I think, of the people who made that decision. I was there to comment from the point of view of stabilization. I was and am convinced that a shut-down in steel could be very unstabilizing. Senator DIRKSEN. Was ESA or OPS ever consulted by the Department of Justice with respect to the prospective seizure? Mr. PUTNAM. No. Not that I know of, unless there were some informal discussions. There were no formal ones. Senator DIRKSEN. Now, Dr. Feinsinger, reading from your report in connection with the recommendations, you said this: The Board has recommended that the parties incorporate a union shop provision in their new contracts. The public members joined in this recommendation after they found themselves unable to secure a majority in favor of their own proposal to return the matter to the parties for collective bargaining with the Board to consider the issue further should the parties fail to agree. Would you comment briefly on that item? Mr. FEINSINGER. I was in New York trying to get a settlement to prevent seizure. We felt the parties ought to have a chance to bargain out this issue. Do not forget the steel companies have granted a union shop in many of their subsidiaries-railroads, coal mines, et cetera. We thought it was better to send it back to the parties with no instruction whatsoever and see if they could not settle it themselves. You know what happens very frequently in collective bargaining. If the employer gives it, he gets a few cents or he gets something else. If he does not get it he gives the union a few cents or something else. We felt that was the way the thing should be handled. The labor members would not vote with us because they wanted us to recommend a union shop, period, and the full union shop. The industry members would not vote with us because they wanted us to send it back, period. They wanted to make it clear that we would wash our hands of it if they could not settle it. Senator DIRKSEN. When this particular matter was considered, how many members of the Board were in attendance for its determination? Mr. FEINSINGER. I do not know how many were in attendance, Senator, but I know this, that in each case-and the steel case was no exception each side designates one or more people to present the position of that group. The question of who was in attendance at the time of the record voting does not at all demonstrate who has been consulted and who has deliberated on the question but I will be glad to furnish that information. (See p. 2347.) Senator DIRKSEN. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman: Dr. Feinsinger, would you say, then, that what I am about to say would be an accurate statement of what happened, in view of what you have written here in your report: You were gathered around the conference table to deal with the question of the union shop. The labor members refused to accede from their position and the industry members refused to accede from their position. Somebody then must have made a suggestion that in view of the fact that it could not be sent back for further bargaining that the public members then acceded to this method and gave in on the union shop issue? Mr. FEINSINGER. No. Senator DIRKSEN. Well, what does that mean? Mr. FEINSINGER. I do not think that is a correct statement, Senator. Even our recommendation merely says: We endorse the sentiment of Congress and most large industries in saying, if the choice is between no union shop and a union shop, we think the parties should negotiate a union shop- but we left the form, the type, and the condition to be settled by the parties and got labor to vote with us on that so that the parties can negotiate a full union shop, a modified union shop, providing a formula for old employees and new employees, and then you might have a case where they just support the union and do not have to join. They can do anything they think best. Senator DIRKSEN. Were the public members unanimous on this? Mr. FEINSINGER. We were, sir. What we would have done if they had not settled it and brought it back to us, I do not know. In World War II it worked out fine. The public, labor, and industry members reached a very sensible compromise position on maintenance of membership when they could have recommended or ordered a closed shop at that time. We would have worked it out all right had it been brought back. We were not given the opportunity. Senator DIRKSEN. Dr. Feinsinger, then is this a fair conclusion, that at that point with this particular issue before the Board you were more concerned about labor peace than you were about stabilization? Mr. FEINSINGER. Absolutely not. Let me say this: If we had an all-public board there could just as well as not have been the same split just as there is in NLRB, just as there is on the United States Supreme Court. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Frear. Senator FREAR. First, Mr. Chairman, I have a proposal I want to submit. I assume this is not the time to submit it. The CHAIRMAN. I do not know what the wishes of the committee are, but we have a meeting at 2:30 this afternoon, we can decide what we intend to do next. Whether we intend to go into further hearings, or go back on the bill or what to do. Not only do we have this bill and this problem here but we have Governor Arnall's problem of the decontrol plan and then we are very far behind, as we all know, on housing legislation, and so forth. If we could just have an executive meeting with nobody here but the Senators we could work out a program for the future, and I would appreciate your taking that up at that time. Senator ROBERTSON. May I make a suggestion about procedure: No member of this committee can remember everything that has been said here this morning. I suggest that the transcript should go to the witnesses for correction and nothing individually be given out by us but the whole thing be given out by the chairman. Senator SPARKMAN. I think we should have this record printed as fast as possible and give it to the press, because everybody will have a different interpretation. Senator MOODY. Is there any objection, if I may ask, for members of the press to take a look at the whole record, as Senator Robertson, pointed out this afternoon? The CHAIRMAN. We will get the transcript back at 6 o'clock this afternoon. If anybody wants to read it at 6 o'clock it will be available. Mr. FEINSINGER. When do you want it back, Senator? The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have it back by 9 o'clock in the morning. Senator BENTON. I think we should see the charts submitted by Mr. Arnall. Senator CAPEHART. I have some further questions I want to ask. The CHAIRMAN. We will do this. We will recess at 12:15. We will continue the hearing at 3 o'clock. Is that agreeable? Senator CAPEHART. With these gentlemen present? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator FREAR. My first question goes to Mr. Feinsinger, and it is addressed to the questioning of Senator Dirksen, where the Board recommended that the parties incorporate a union shop provision in their union contract. Quoting from the report: The public members join in their recommendation. Join who? Mr. FEINSINGER. We made that recommendation. All four public members joined in that recommendation. The CHAIRMAN. Let me say one thing for the benefit of the Senators, if I might. A decontrol statement was sent here by Governor Arnall. He did not want to release it until this committee had seen it. When he left his office this morning, he thought we would have a chance to read it, and release it at 1 o'clock. What we had reference to was the testimony in here on this critical steel situation that might cause trouble if we talk out of turn. Mr. ARNALL. Is there any way I can insert into the record, the full story on the pricing of steel, which is quite a document, here, together with the charts explaining the price structure? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record. (The document referred to will be found in the appendix, p. 2408.) Senator FREAR. I gather that your answer, Dr. Feinsinger, is that the public members joined in the recommendation? Mr. FEINSINGER. Yes. Senator FREAR. Then they say, "After they found themselves unable to secure a majority in favor of their own proposal." As I understand it, the proposal of the public members was to send this back to collective bargaining-that is to employees and employers? Mr. FEINSINGER. That is right, sir. Senator FREAR. But, with the statement that if they failed to agree, it should be returned to the Wage Stabilization Board? Mr. FEINSINGER. That is right, Senator. Senator FREAR. Now, how was it you did not get a majority? Who disagreed to that? Mr. FEINSINGER. Both sides. Senator FREAR. Neither labor nor industry would go along with the public members' proposal? Mr. FEINSINGER. For different reasons. Senator FREAR. Now, may I ask Governor Arnall just one question. I believe he has made the statement that the figures he has quoted are agreed to by the steel industry? Mr. ARNALL. It is my understanding that those figures are agreed to between representatives of the Office of Price Stabilization and representatives of the steel people insofar as the statisticians are concerned. Senator FREAR. That is also effective for your statement before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee of April 16. Those figures in that, you would make the same answer. Mr. ARNALL. That is my understanding. Let me say, if there is any controversy about those figures, we have not heard about it, and if there is, I will be the first to modify the figures if they are not right, but it is my understanding they are agreed figures. Senator FREAR. I do not know to whom to address this question. Does the National Labor Relations Board still handle unfair labor practices? Mr. FEINSINGER. Yes. Senator FREAR. Who handles unfair Government practices? Mr. FEINSINGER. The public Mr. PUTMAN. The courts, I think. Senator FREAR. Is the public the right answer? Mr. FEINSINGER. That is my answer. I do not know if it is right. You gentlemen represent the public. Whatever you do is O. K. with me. Senator FREAR. Now, you are answering the questions according to the way I thought they should be answered, and I will not condemn Mr. Putman for saying the courts, but that lays the ground work for me, and that answers a question. Now, this is my final question, and I want to ask that of whoever wants to answer it. What were the recommendations of Charles Wilson in the settlement of the steel strike? Mr. PUTNAM. I think I was closer to him than anybody else. I would ride into town with him every morning. I do not think he had any recommendations as to this except in the very early stages, when he wanted to go along with the idea of no wage increase and no price increase. He finally agreed that they must have a cost of living adjustment, but he hoped that the wage settlement would be limited to that objective. I do not think he ever really moved from that position. I think you feel more strongly than I do about it, Dr. Feinsinger. Senator FREAR. He made publicly, a statement that the rug was pulled out from under him. I assumed that that was because his recommendations were not agreed to by the Wage Stabilization Board. Mr. FEINSINGER. His position was all along, no wage increase, no price increase; that at most, a cost-of-living increase, period, but at no time did Charley Wilson ever accuse this Board of breaking its regulations. At no time. The CHAIRMAN. He said cost-of-living increase. Did I understand you to say that? Mr. PUTNAM. I said that. The CHAIRMAN. Did I understand Mr. Feinsinger to say that he believed in the cost-of-living increase? Mr. FEINSINGER. Never said it to me, Senator. When the cost of living was up about 9 cents, Charley Wilson was talking about 41⁄2 or 5. Mr. PUTNAM. That is true. I do not think he quite followed the cost-of-living indexes as they went up. Senator FREAR. I would like to ask the Governor to comment on that, but before he does, I would like to ask were those statements you attributed to Charles Wilson applicable to all industries? Mr. FEINSINGER. We did not have any general discussion. You see, Charley Wilson felt that we had a wage freeze, and a price freeze. He reluctantly would agree, after thorough discussion, that that is not what Congress legislated, that Congress legislated a wage and price stabilization policy, Congress did a good job, ard I would like to submit some records to show that your agency, my Board, has done a good job, too. If you will permit me, I will give you the figures on what we have done by way of keeping wage increases under control. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be printed in the record. (The exhibits referred to follow :) TABLE 1.—Adjusted average hourly earnings 1—percent increase The increase in adjusted average hourly earnings under stabilization has been less than prefreeze periods, even over comparable or shorter periods of time. Post-freeze: January 1951-February 1952 (13 months), February 1951-Feb- cent ruary 1952 (12 months) _ Per 4. 7 Pre-Korea, prefreeze: Post-Korea, prefreeze: June 1950-January 1951 (7 months). January 1950-January 1951 (12 months). 7.9 8.5 6. 5 June 1950-February 1951 (8 months). 7. 1 1 Adjusted average hourly earnings of production and related workers in manufacturing following January 1950 represent gross average hourly earnings excluding overtime and the effect of interindustry shifts in employment after January 1950. |