[Copy] COORDINATOR FOR INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION Department of Commerce Building, Washington, D. C. ОСТОВЕВ 24, 1935. MY DEAR Mr. SECRETARY: The President has asked me, as Coordinator for Industrial Cooperation, to secure from labor, management and consumer groups indications of their attitudes toward the effort to accelerate industrial recovery, to eliminate unemployment and to maintain business and labor stability. It is going to be necessary for me to demonstrate two things-first, evidence of the desire of industry for a permanent order resting on fair competition; and, second, evidence of the need for such an order as indicated by what happened in industry after the NRA codes were abolished by the Supreme Court decision of last May. It is in connection with the second requirement that I particularly need your help and cooperation. Information as to the lengthening of the hours of work and reduction in standards of wages since the abolition of the codes can best be furnished by employees who are the unwilling victims of these changes. I, therefore, ask you to assist me by reporting promptly to me the facts concerning the departures from the labor provisions of codes of which you have factual knowledge. As far as it is humanly possible, I should like this information in such form that it will record the name of the concern which either has cut wages or lengthened hours of work constituting departures from former Code provisions; the name of the industry to which the concern belongs; and the percentage which such cut in wages or addition in hours represents as against the wages and hours under the codes. Also, I should like the number of workers affected by these changes. I am not asking you for reports on departures from code trade practices because I assume that your knowledge of these departures is necessarily limited. Facts alone are wanted. No report should be made which is unsupported by fact. The evidence must be clear and convincing. It is imperative that I have your report at the earliest possible date. The material received must be tabulated and conclusions drawn for presentation to the President and to Congress. I am counting on your fullest cooperation. Sincerely yours, (Signed) GEORGE L. BERRY, Coordinator for Industrial Cooperation. EXHIBIT 5395 [Copy-Re Meeting Industry & Labor-Washington, Dec. 9] 11 West Forty-Second Street, New York City NOVEMBER 26, 1935. The meeting of Industry and Labor called for December 9th in Washington is, of course, being widely discussed. This letter is not written to advise on policy, but to be informative as a basis for your judgment and that of your members. Much of what is going to be said you may already know, but a review of some of the facts will be valuable. Initially we are somewhat handicapped in discussing the form of the meetIng and its purpose by the fact that the Coordinator calling this meeting seems to be adjusting his position and plans as he goes along to meet the responses he is receiving. Originally one of the objectives was "whether Congress should or should not attempt legislation for continuance of the N. R. A. in some permanent form." The Coordinator is now quoted as saying "This is not necessarily the purpose of the meeting." The other purpose originally announced was to discuss the best means of accelerating industrial recovery through the establishment of a permanent Industrial Progress Council. With respect to a new N. R. A., a heavy majority of industrial opinion is opposed. Nevertheless, the meeting has been called. There is some difference of opinion upon the question of attendance or nonattendance by those opposed. An outline of some of the reasoning from both sides will be helpful. Many of those who oppose and will not attend hold that under the announced set-up, there will be no opportunity for actually ascertaining industrial viewpoint, and that to participate is liable to make them a party to an industrial arrangement with which they have no sympathy. Among those who oppose and yet advocate attendance, the argument is used that opposition must be made apparent. They say that unless you do participate and protest your opposition, even if it has to be done through publicity, industry as a whole may make itself a party to a scheme which it had no part in formulating. There may be some value at this point in outlining the possible procedure of the meeting as last announced-subject to change without notice. The Coordinator under date of November 7th released the following: "1. Industry, comprising both management and labor, together with representatives of consumer interests, will convene at 10 A. M., on that date (December 9), at the Federal auditorium on Constitution Avenue between 13th and 14th Streets, N. W. This meeting will be held exclusively for the purpose of submitting to those present a suggested procedure. There will be no speeches. The meeting will be as brief as possible and should conclude its business before noon. In no sense should this meeting be regarded as a mass meeting. "2. The representatives gathered in this meeting will be advised that whatever facilities (including stenographers and clerks) are required to expedite the proceedings will be provided, but only upon request. "3. It will be suggested that the representatives of the directly related industries meet together. Representatives of management and labor in each industry will be asked to meet separately and discuss their problems among themselves. Each separate group will be asked to reach determinations and select one of their number to act for the group and express the group point of view. "4. These group representatives then will be asked to form a council of industrial progress, which they may wish to establish as a permanent institution. This council will receive all proposals of whatever character which the groups may have instructed their representatives to present. The council of industrial progress will then, it is hoped, proceed to prepare a program and determine upon a course of action. I shall act as temporary Chairman and will be the only representative of Government in attendance. "5. It is the intention that the group meetings of representatives and the council of industrial progress shall have complete freedom of action." The procedure of the meeting as announced so far would not seem to permit of general expression of the value of a permanent industrial council, or a future N. I. R. A. The first general session from 10 to 12 will be "exclusively for the purpose of submitting to those present a suggested procedure." therefore, without apparent opportunity for comment from the floor. After instructions are received, the attending delegates will divide up in separate sessions according to their industrial groups, of which there will be 20. It is well to note that labor will be equally represented-that is organized labor only-through A. F. L. representative. These labor delegates will also assemble in groups according to their industrial type. There will be, for example, the textile management group in one meeting (presupposing attendance), the textile labor group in another. Each group is then supposed to elect one representative to the proposed permanent Industrial Progress Council. Whether the groups will have the right or opportunity to decide whether they want such a council or not is not plain. Coordinator's letter reads "will be asked to form a council of industrial progress"; no decision seems involved. The But right here it is pertinent to remind you that the set up of one manufacturing and one A. F. L. labor representative from each industrial group constitutes recognition by business of the A. F. L. as the voice of American workmen, of which it is only 10% representative. There is, of course, the unconfirmed comment that the Government, through this proposed permanent Industrial Progress Council, intends to service Industry after the fashion of its present industrial organizations. Industry's attitude toward this meeting, of course, is not strengthened by the fact that the Coordinator sent a letter to 30,000 labor unions asking them to help the Government find violations of old code conditions by Industry, as a proof of the need of a new N. I. R. A. Now as to the status of industrial organizations in the December 9th meeting: whether specifically invited or not, they have reason to feel free to attend. The Coordinator has publicly invited everyone interested to be there. They could sit in the general meeting devoted exclusively to presenting procedure, but when the general session adjourned to reassemble according to trade groups, the status of a general industrial organization would be in doubt. What industrial division meeting could a State, or Local delegate or delegation attend? In many places it is felt that even though Association officials, other than trade, should participate, they should do so as authorized representatives of individual industries, or specific industrial groups and not as association representatives. However, this is neither advice nor an attempt to convey to you a fixed recommendation. There will be, undoubtedly, numerous industrial headquarters and conference points in Washington prior to the time of the meeting. For the sake of clearing information among our members and Council associates, the N. A. M. will have conference rooms at the Hotel Mayflower, beginning with Sunday morning, December 8th. Many of those opposed to future N. R. A. legislation and to a permanent national Industrial Progress Council are indicating their position to former code authorities and their trade groups as a means of informing these officials, should they attend the Washington Conference. One who has given much study to this question suggests the efficacy of publicity. This commentator says: "Publicity, of course, is one of the best means of voicing the exact attitude of Industry to the nation, so that the manufacturer's position may not be misconstrued or misunderstood. Therefore, individuals and Associations taking a position with respect to this meeting should consider the release of this material, and those attending the meeting for the purpose of opposition should prepare a statement of their opposition and have this well in hand, considering its release for publicity purposes, at the proper time." Among those organizations who have announced their opposition to any N. I. R. A. type of legislation are the following: Automobile Manufacturers Association Automotive Parts & Equipment Manufacturers Assoociation Cotton Textile Institute Iron and Steel Institute National Lumber Manufacturers Association Manufacturing Chemists Association National Boot & Shoe Manufacturers Association Machinery & Allied Products Institute National Metal Trades Association National Hosiery Manufacturers Association Nation Founders Association Institute of Carpet Manufacturers Southern Pine Association It is important that we have such information as you have concerning other groups who are taking a definite position with respect to this meeting. In an announcement this last week, the Coordinator included the following firms as having advised of their willingness to attend. I may remind you that this does not necessarily indicate their acceptance of new N. R. A. legislation idea or the permanent Council idea. Libby Owens Ford Glass Company, Toledo, Ohio Perfect Circle Co., Hagerstown, Md. Dennison Manufacturing Co., Framingham, Mass. Bristol-Myers Co., New York Morris Plan Bank, Baltimore New Amsterdam Casualty Co., Baltimore American Gypsum Co., Port Clinton, Ohio American Smelting and Refining Co., New York Anaconda Copper Mining Co., Butte, Montana B. F. Goodrich Company, Akron, Ohio Bulova Watch Co., New York Eberhard Faber Pencil Co., Brooklyn, N. Y. General Electric Co., Schenectady, N. Y. Westinghouse Electric Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. International Business Machines, New York Remington Rand, New York American Radidator & Standard Sanitary Corp., N. Y. Timken Roller Bearing Co., Canton, Ohio We would counsel your advising industrialists in your area to give this situation most serious consideration, but we are not of the opinion that over-emphasis or alarm as to the situation is at all necessary. Coming upon the eve of this meeting in Washington, at which time the Government is apparently seeking the attitude of Industry with respect to these subjects, the N. A. M. Congress of American Industry in New York, December 4th and 5th is going to take on unusual importance. This Washington conference will be one of the many topics of our program and the exchange of information occasioned through the great gathering will be one of the instru mentalities of registering industrial attitude. I trust therefore, that you will use every means to convey to your members the importance of their attendance at our meeting. I hope we will have the pleasure of your presence as well as that of your officers. May we remind you again, that while there is nothing confidential about these "executive-to-executive" letters, they are not written for reproduction, or redistribution to your members. Yours very truly, Executive Vice President. DEAR MR. LUND: I enclose herewith information memorandum on the coal situation which might be used as a basis of a statement to the National Recovery Administration. I avoided going into details and thought it best to confine this statement to the matters of policy involved. It seems to me in order to maintain our position of leadership in the open shop field, we should take action both in this matter and in connection with the public works policy. I do not mean that such should necessarily or at first be of a flamboyant and public character, but that we should take some action and let our friends know that it has been taken. Mr. John L. Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers, in a statement made August 10 during the hearings on the bituminous coal code declared: "The United Mine Workers has been the only stabilizing force which the industry has ever had." * ** accepted labor "The operators with whom we met in conference as a co-partner in the industry. The union of the mine workers was recognized by the operators between representatives of the operators and of the United Mine Workers of America." * * Both the statements of Mr. Lewis and those of the operators to whom he referred make it clear that what is proposed is a code under which all bituminous coal will be produced in mines employing only members of the United Mine Workers. The National Association of Manufacturers represents the principal consumers of bituminous coal. (Over one half of the bituminous coal is used for industrial purposes.-Thom, “Petroleum and Coal", P. 35). We submit that the record proves that such sufficiency and steadiness of bituminous coal supply could be seriously menaced if all bituminous coal production came from mines employing and dealing exclusively with the United Mine Workers; we therefore request that the National Recovery Administration |