The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of cases in the Northwest. Take, for instance, people who make it a practice to farm certain periods of the year and then work for 2 or 3 months for railroads. Should they come under the general provisions of the law? Mr. LATIMER. I think they should if they claim to become unemployed for several months after working for the railroad; the man who is normally a farmer in the wintertime, or a logger-some of them areordinarily cannot show that he is available to work. If you have a job and you offer it to him and he wants to farm, he turns it down and, generally speaking, that is the end. He does not try to come in and get his unemployment compensation. That would seem to me to be the rule rather than the exception. The CHAIRMAN. Section 4, on page 11, says that There shall not be considered as a day of unemployment, with respect to any employee * * * (iii) any of the 30 days beginning with the day with respect to which the Board finds that he failed, without good cause, to accept suitable work available on such day and offered to him, Mr. LATIMER. I think you have two different categories there. Let us take first the regular man who has been furloughed and who is called in when his turn appears on the seniority roster. If he turns that job down without good cause, he not only loses all seniority rights but also his right to receive benefits for a period of 30 days. The CHAIRMAN. But suppose he does turn it down or resigns; should not he then be considered out of the railroad industry? Mr. LATIMER. He is, perhaps, out of the railroad industry. The CHAIRMAN. If that provision which I have just read is in the bill, there would have to be a showing that somebody offered it to him? Mr. LATIMER. There is pretty well-established practice already developed by the Employment Service. A postcard is sent out to a man who has registered, saying that employment for him has been found, or he may get a card to report at such and such an office at such and such a time. The office gets the notification as to whether he appeared and whether or not he was accepted for the job. In that kind of machinery it has got to be followed through. A man has got to know that there has been a job offered to him. Sometimes a man may come in today and see if there is any opening. Occasionally some may pick up a job for a day or two because they happened to be on the spot. When a man appears on the seniority roster the railroad will notify him that he must report at such and such a time. There are perhaps 5 or 10 days given in which to report. In that connection I must say that even on the railroads there are allowances made for good cause for rejecting the offer. We had a case of a man who was on the seniority telegrapher list down in Ohio. He was offered a job in Michigan as an extra man, and he had a right to the job, but he turned it down. That did not deprive him of his seniority rights, because if he took that job he would have had to be put at a considerable expense in moving. There would be some other disadvantages, which are enumerated, and the company did not mark him off the seniority roster. I do not think they could, because if they had, the telegraphers' union would have wanted to know why. That is a valid excuse, I think. But the proposal to deprive the man of any further eligibility for unemployment compensation, if he resigns, seems to me to be open to very serious objection. In the first place, again there would be an incentive for employers to attempt to induce men to resign, so that the expenses of paying the benefits would be avoided. It happens, I know, a great many times now when an employer does not want to get in trouble by discharging a man, but does something indirectly and the fellow finally quits because he cannot stand the pressure any longer. A great many men resign because they are offered what seems to be good jobs elsewhere, but prove temporary and fold up a day or two afterward. I do not think it is socially desirable that there should be any such water-tight compartments. A man who is offered a job elsewhere and who is not quite sure that it is going to pan out may not want to resign. If he did resign that would mean that someone else already furloughed will be recalled. Frequently, if he does not resign someone else will be furloughed. At the present time in the railroad industry, and for some time, there has been an oversupply of men who want jobs in the railroads. If a man resigns, another man is going to be called back. That kind of process is very desirable. If you say the man who resigns is not going to get compensation, you put a wall around the industry, and the socially desirable process of transfers between industries will be impeded. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any suggestions with reference to where the bill could or should be bettered, or have you any suggestions for any amendments at all? If you have, we will be glad to have them. Mr. LATIMER. I have not viewed it from exactly that angle. On the whole, it seems to me that the draft of the bill takes advantage of all the experience under the State laws, and I believe that experience was fitted into what seemed to be their own necessities, and I think they have done a good job of it. The CHAIRMAN. You think it is a good bill? Mr. LATIMER. It is my judgment that, as a bill to accomplish the purpose for which it is intended, an excellent job has been done. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you sir. We will meet at 10:30 tomorrow morning. (Thereupon, at 12:30 p. m., adjournment was had until Thursday, June 9, 1938, at 10:30 a. m.) (Tables No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, submitted by Mr. Latimer, are as follows:) TABLE NO. 1.—Railroad A-Service month by wage groups distribution of employees in 1937 by service months and total earnings for year TABLE NO. 1.-Railroad A-Service months by wage groups distribution of employees in 1937 by service months and total earnings for year-Continued TABLE NO. 2.-Railroad B-Service months by wage groups, distribution of employees in 1937 by service months, and total earnings for year |