« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. ARNALL. To my judgment, the national emergency required the continued production of steel. I do not pass upon how that should have been done. I merely state it as a matter of fact, and for the record, that having been acquainted with information in the Department of Defense of a confidential nature, I have no question in my mind that the greatest disservice to the country would have come about by allowing the stoppage of steel which is so badly needed.
In other words, I think it is essential that you keep steel flowing.
The CHAIRMAN. Who gave all this information in the Department of Defense, when they can't use what they have now?
Mr. ARNALL. I wish, Senator Maybank, that we could talk quite frankly about that, but that is out of my province.
I have some questions I would like to ask, too.
The CHAIRMAN. I just don't understand. We passed a Production Act. At the end of each quarter scarce metals are turned back after having been allotted to defense-connected claimants. I just got through talking to Mr. Fleischmann, and they are still being turned back. There are no uses for the materials. I don't know what is the matter with them.
Mr. ARNALL. I cannot answer that for the record. That is out of my bailiwick.
The CHAIRMAN. They claim all these fantastic requirements, and they never use the quantities allotted to them.
Senator BENTON. Mr. Chairman, could I conclude? I have two people waiting for me, and if I can just conclude, it will only take me & minute.
If the first need was to keep the steel mills operating, isn't the second imperative necessity, as you pointed out today, to keep steel prices from going up and feeding the fires of inflation that, as you put it this morning, could cost every American family $300 yearly?
Isn't that the second objective?
Mr. ARNALL. I think that is true, and the only alternative is to give the steel companies only those price increases that they are actually entitled to under the law and the regulations.
Senator BENTON. Perhaps we can quickly agree on my third question: Don't we want to get rid of Government operation of these steel companies and get them back in private hands as fast as we can?
Mr. ARNALL. My own guess is the minute the steel people will keep the steel mills running, why, that is not a minute too soon.
Senator BENTON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience and I am sorry I have to be excused. I yield to Senator Moody.
Senator Moody. Did Senator Sparkman want to ask more questions? I yield to him.
Senator SPARKMAN. I have just a couple of questions that I think could be answered pretty quickly.
Mr. Feinsinger, you read something there a while ago that I don't think I have been aware of; that statement of Mr. Fairless back in November
Would you repeat that, please; just those few lines, if you please? Mr. FEINSINGER. All right, sir.
This is the New York Times, November 16, a statement made by Mr. Fairless, November 15, and negotiations were to have commenced November 27.
Senator BENTON. That is between steel and labor?
Mr. FEINSINGER. That is right, sir. [Reading:)
Whether our workers are to get a raise and how much it will be if they do is a matter which probably cannot be determined by collective bargaining, and will apparently have to be decided finally in Washington. It is a question which involves the basic anti-inflation program of our Government and one which will clearly affect the entire economy.
Senator SPARKMAN. Had he said anything earlier in there about their probably being entitled to a raise?
Mr. FEINSINGER. Yes; he had, sir.
Undoubtedly the union is entitled under the existing Wage Stabilization formula, to ask for some increase in wages to cover increases in the cost of living since the present wage scale became effective.
But then, on March 31, according to the Wall Street Journalthis was 11 days after the Board had made its recommendationAdmiral Moreellreaffirmed the industry's position that the public interest would be better served by “no wage increases and no price increases.'
Senator SPARKMAN. I remember that in 1950, Mr. Fairless, who I think is an able industrialist, proposed in a speech in California, if I remember correctly, that his men were probably entitled to a raise. My recollection is that within 2 or 3 days' time, they negotiated a raise and immediately put a price increase on, before we had any controls.
Mr. FEINSINGER. That was the last of November 1950.
Mr. ARNALL. I wanted to mention the fact that in the fall of 1945 when steel broke through, that brought about the demise of OPA. I just wondered if you recalled that.
Senator SPARKMAN. I do remember, and I remember the one in 1947.
Mr. ARNALL. And in 1949.
Senator SPARKMAN. I remember all of them because our Joint Committee on the Economic Report studied every one of them.
This is something I would like to ask for the record: This morning, as I recall, you said that labor asked so many different things when the case was submitted to you and industry asked for so many, and that when those were broken down, it amounted to one-hundred-andsome-odd different requests.
I wonder if you would put in the record each one of the requests by each side and show the action taken on each one of them. It seems to me that would be quite helpful.
Mr. FEINSINGER. I would be very glad to. (The information requested follows:)
STEEL CASE Issues, UNION DEMANDS, AND WSB RECOMMENDATIONS
1 Except where specifically indicated in this column, the companies made no offer or rejected union demand in its entirety.
3 These costs are as stated by companies. (Company exhibit 2, p. 13.) The union objects to these estimates on many grounds, notably
1. By confining application to basic steel employees uniformly exaggerated result is obtained Further artificial inflation results because companies leave impression that these higher costs fall uniformly on basic and nonbasic steel plants alike. E.g., greater incidence of Saturday and Sundy work, shift work, overtime (used in computing cost of wage increase, vacations and shift premiums) at basic as compared with nonbasic plants. Also, fringe provisions in effect at some nonbasic plants are more liberal than those in effect at basic plants and in some instances, exceed union demands,
2. Source data used by companies not identified nor explained. 3. Because of method, inflation of costs is compounded,
4. Individual cost items are inflated (a) overtime, (b) pension (funding past service credits—inclusion of wage increases in rates), (c) inclusion of salaried workers at average hourly rate in excess of $2.60.
3 These costs are as stated by industry members of Board (industry opinion, p. 2). * 2 issues involved: general increase and job class increment,
Wage increase only.
period of next contract.
anteed annual wage.
Union should withdraw demand.
Reporting allowance 1
All money issues
to equal 52 weeks, at 30 hours per week.
years service; 7 weeks for 7-10 years' service; years' service in case of termination for any
plementary unemployment compensation
age earnings for demoted employees.
rules for application; (3) 8 hours; call-back
for lateness or absence.
Changed and liberalized
(Companies urged need for rules)
and provisions for penalty pay for company
Union should withdraw demand in this nego
tiation, but consider problem with guaran.
teed annual wage.
Application of paid holidays
Parties should negotiate eligibility rules.
uling of individuals: premium pay or report-
1 Involves more than 5 separate issues. 3 Involves more than 3 issues.
? Involves more than 3 separate issues. • Involves more than 10 issues.
STEEL CASE ISSUES, UNION DEMANDS, AND WSB RECOMMENDATIONS—Continued
Union should withdraw demand.
Returned to parties.
time; (2) no-strike clause; (3) discrimination.
Both union and companies proposed sub- No change.
Returned to parties.
Local unions should be furnished with adequate
seniority lists. All other seniority issues reof continuous service, determination of
turned to parties. seniority units, etc.
Returned to the parties in accordance with their agreement
Purpose and intent adjustment of
grievances; arbitration; suspen-
Maintenance of membership
Maximum union security permissible under
Taft-Hartley and applicable State statutes.
A form of union shop to be negotiated by
Involves more than 3 issues. Variations also exist between companies.
1 Involves more than 2 issues.
Involves more than 3 issues.