not. Here is what we are after in general: We have had a lot of testimony here in 4 years, you know, on the 30-hour law. We had all of the big leaders of industry in the United States and all of the big labor leaders. We had Communists; we had everything of the social strata of the labor movement in the United States. Now, speaking for myself, I feel that the employers of the United States are very short-sighted, very short-sighted. I figure that the United States is sitting on a volcano, today, and the employers of the United States are on a volcano. 66 Men who 3 or 4 years ago were what you would call "conservative workingmen of the United States, who were only interested in getting their pay envelops and bringing them home, and taking care of their families-if you said "Communist " to one of them or red" or “radical”, or anything like that, he would want to kill you. That man, with five children and not an awful lot to eat in the house, or who may be under the E. R. A. or anything else his pride is hurt if he has to go to the E. R. A., because it is charity to him, but he does not have enough money to take care of his children in illness and everything that goes with family life-that man is in a different frame of mind than he was 4 years ago. Now, the radicals may come in and say, "Here is what the concern I referred to paid, $779,000,000 in 10 years; and Andrew Mellon, $93,000,000 income; and your children are going hungry and you cannot educate your children." Multiply that by 10 or 12 million people in the United States, and you have got a very dangerous situation. What we have tried to do is to get the manufacturers and employers of the United States to see that they are sitting on this volcano. We are trying to be fair with them and be fair with labor. If our efforts do not succeed, to my mind, you are in for a lot of trouble and bloodshed and ・ industrial strife in the United States. That is the background of this committee. But your main objection, then, to this bill is on that proposition of the National Labor Relations Board-is not being specifically set out in the bill which way it will work? Mr. SIMMS. Not by specifically providing that all employees, whether in or out of the union, may have recourse to the employers and the Board. The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, you start off with the proposition Mr. SIMMS. At the outset, I must say that I believe that the position will be-after further consideration by the board of commerce, there will be opposition to this bill. The CHAIRMAN. You and I will start off with the premise that every manufacturer, unless he is different from 99 percent of them, would prefer no labor union at all; that he would prefer to deal with his employees and say, "I will pay you $8 a week, if you want to take it. Do you want it or not? That is the way the manufacturers would like to deal with their labor; and labor found out that in order to get decent wages they had to combine. We do not believe in labor's taking over industry, or anything like that, as the papers come out every once in a while and say that labor is running the United States. We do not want that. All we want is a decent wage and decent living conditions for the people. But, in general, that is your position with reference to the bill; is there anything else in it? Mr. SIMMS. Well, I do not want to say at this time, because I have just read it this morning. That concludes my statement. Mr. LESINSKI. I have a question to ask Mr. Simms. I personally believe that the board of commerce and manufacturers and employers in Detroit are working for the benefit-to better their workingmen. Besides, I believe that they attempt to employ people who have resided in the city for a long time. Why is it that employers in the city of Detroit alone, and not in the vicinity, allow approximately 1,500 commuters daily to come into Detroit and employ them, instead of employing residents of Detroit and take those people off of welfare? Mr. SIMMS. Well, I understand there is a bill in Congress now to correct that. Mr. LESINSKI. That is true, but I happen to have a list, and it happens to be the members of the Detroit Board of Commerce, of people who employ Canadian labor: Burroughs Adding Machine, about 20; Crowley, about 20; the Detroit Edison Co., about 30; some of the newspapers employ Canadian labor; J. L. Hudson Co., about 60; the Grand Trunk Railroad, about 50. You take the list of the J. L. Hudson employees and you will find practically a page of them. You will find Parke-Davis in here and the Michigan Bell Telephone Co. The Michigan Central Railroad and Parke-Davis-they all employ Canadian labor instead of employing American labor. Mr. SIMMS. Of course, all of those concerns that you have mentioned are large employers, and the percentage of their total employees is small. I hold no brief for the commuter to work. I have not any particular argument for or against this thing you bring up, because I have not given it any great consideration. I should say that this organization I represent, and the members of it, have over a period of years advocated and, I believe, done whatever possible; that they have, wherever possible, employed first the Detroit people, whenever the employment market will support the taking on of other employees who have long been residents of Detroit and do not go out of town to get employees. Now, this practice is a hold-over from the days when there was practically no immigration restriction at any part of the border between the United States and Canada. I do not think you will find these companies today hiring new men in those positions where they have vacancies. This has grown up over a long period of time. Mr. LESINSKI. You take in Detroit, with 60,000 or 70,000 families on the relief rolls, and probably months going by without them having employment; if they cannot find capable people to fill those positions, I am wrong. Mr. SIMMS. I presume in most cases they can find capable people. Mr. LESINSKI. Isn't it a fact that there are many department stores doing business between the people in Canada and the United States, by carrying goods across, because they are sold cheaper, especially silk goods in Detroit, than they are in Canada? Mr. SIMMS. Well, of course, if they take the goods from Detroit to Canada, they are subject to duty. Mr. LESINSKI. Not if they carry it on themselves, like they do, as a rule. Mr. SIMMS. I was going to mention that while I was in high school I worked on Saturdays for a dry-goods or clothing store in Port Huron, Mich., which is across from Sarnia-you know where it isand it was by no means an uncommon occurrence for a person from Sarnia to come into the store with his family on Saturday afternoon and buy some blue-denim work shirts-maybe two or three shirtsand ask if he could not have a few moments of privacy to put those shirts around the back of his coat or vest, somewhere, so as to hide them from the customs officers. And on the same basis, a man goes to Canada and can bring back within 30 days-at least once every 30 days-up to $100 worth of Canadian merchandise. This situation that you mention works both ways. There are Detroit workers employed in Canada Mr. LESINSKI. Very few. Mг. SIMMS. Perhaps a few, but there are a few Canadians coming over here to purchase our goods in comparison with the United States residents going to Canada to purchase Canadian goods. Mr. LESINSKI. As long as the border commuters continue in Detroit, you will find that trouble. There was an incident, 2 years ago, in one of the automobile plants in Canada, when some power mechanism went out of kelter one day. They sent an engineer from Detroit, and they stopped him on the border and would not allow him to go in, and told the concern that they must employ Canadian labor, and they had to shut the plant down a week to get a man from Montreal. If that happened in Detroit, they would allow the man to go through. You will find the same conditions on your railroads. You will find that the man whose territory stops at the border in Detroitthere may be a train that he has pulled through to Windsor or to Ford City, and he is stopped on the border and a Canadian crew put on for those 3 miles. Yet their man comes into Detroit and goes as far as Lansing, or as far as Chicago, if that is within the territory, but they will not allow American labor to get over on the Canadian side. The same thing applies to employment in the stores. I know that the people in Detroit have kicked on it. There are ample people in Detroit that can fill these positions, yet most of these employers insist on hiring Canadian labor, and there is one reason for it, because it is cheaper to live in Canada and they can get that labor cheaper than they can get Detroit labor; and I think the board of commerce, as the outstanding organization in Detroit, should stop that kind of commuting. Mr. SIMMS. Do you not think a fairer criticism of that could be made by the immigration authorities? Now, speaking of trade between the two countries, or right across the border, that is a matter for the President's Committee on Reciprocal Trade Agreements to consider, and they are now negotiating with Canada, and it seems that these differences that exist between the two countries, with respect to the border trade and border commuting for employees, could be handled in that way. As I said before, I hold no brief for the employment of such labor, nor do I hold any brief for commuting, but I must admit that I have not studied the bill in Congress sufficiently to form any positionto know what the position of the organization will be on it. The CHAIRMAN. The chamber of commerce in any city is supposed to represent the best interests of the entire city, is it not? Mr. SIMMS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Supposed to look out for the people in that city? Mr. SIMMS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. If you tell them, "Don't go to Lansing and trade, stay in Detroit, we will furnish you the best goods Mr. SIMMS. Yes; they could tell them that. The CHAIRMAN. Why is it up to the United States Government to stop the employers of Detroit from going over to Windsor and bringing back cheap labor? Mr. SIMMS. I do not know that they bring over cheap labor. Mr. SIMMS. I do not know that the Canadian Government would permit a Detroiter to go to Canada to work in such great numbers, as it is an immigration matter; it is not a Board of Commerce matter. The CHAIRMAN. All of these manufacturers are in your board of commerce. Why did they not sit around the table and say, "For the best interests of the city of Detroit, we will not hire Canadian labor "? Mr. SIMMS. I think the tendency is along that line. A few years ago, perhaps in 1929, we did consider this matter in the committee, and there was a statement more along that line, that they would cut down as rapidly as possible. These people who are personally employed may be, with one exception or some in the stores, skilled employees who have been with the company for 20 or 30 or 40 years, and they do not want to say, "Well, here, you live in Canada, you cannot work any more." The borders are not that big; they are not that strong. Mr. LESINSKI. You admit that salesladies are not skilled labor? Mr. SIMMS. No. Mr. LESINSKI. It happens to be mostly salesladies in the Hudson Co., and the other stores. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Mr. Simms. The next witness will be William E. Dennison, of the Society of Designing Engineers of Detroit. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. DENNISON, REPRESENTING THE SOCIETY OF DESIGNING ENGINEERS, DETROIT, MICH. Mr. DENNISON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee could you tell me, Mr. Chairman, about how much time I should take? I have a brief here and I had some notes that I would like to cover all of the subjects that are properly pertinent to this matter. The CHAIRMAN. I might suggest you do not have to do it, but it has been the custom often in the past-if you have a brief, all right, you can put it into the record and let the committee ask you questions and elaborate as you go along, because the committee will read every word of the hearings. If you prefer to read your brief, you can do it. Mr. DENNISON. Unfortunately, I was a little pressed for time and have a part of the brief, and I will give part of the items that I wish to talk about. To start with, I might mention the organization that I am here representing, who we are, what we are advocating, what we are doing. I want this committee to have a clear picture of what work the engineers and designers of Detroit perform. My name is William E. Dennison. I am a resident of Detroit, Mich., and I am appearing before your committee as a representative of the Society of Designing Engineers, a society of mechanical engineers, namely, 2,000 members distributed for the most part in Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, and Jackson, Mich., and Toledo, Ohio. The greater part of our membership are at this time employed in some branch of the automobile industry. In the city of Detroit, there are 850 members engaged in designing tools, dies, and special machinery, and 350, approximately, designing motors, bodies, and chassis of automobiles. Part of our membership is in the automobile industry, but we also branch out into refrigeration and other industries that seem to be around about Detroit. About 350 of our city of Detroit members are engaged in designing motors, bodies, and chassis of automobiles. The greater part of our membership then, are engaged in the part of the automotive industry that comes under the Automobile Code, Special Tool, Die and Machine Code, and Auto Parts Manufacturing Code. We feel that the part these men play in industry is an important one. Our members design the product, design and select the machinery for the plant, make the plant lay-out for placing the machinery, design the special machines, tools, dies, gages, and small tools. The knowledge required to engage in this occupation is great, and we are continually faced with an ever-broadening scope. We are the men who have designed these machines and tools that have been the instruments of mass production that has made the United States the leading mass production country of the world. We have played a leading part in the development of our country and in bringing to its maturity the machine age. The departments of the plants in which we work are the central planning depart 'ments. We feel that since our members design the product, that is, the automobiles or the cash registers or the Frigidaires, or whatnot, and design and manufacture the machinery for the plant-we do design the machines and the tools for producing automobiles, we make the plant lay-out or plan the machinery in the plant, design special machines, that is, those that are not standard, such as the milling machines, lathes, shapes, and so on, which are special, such as, for instance, cylinder-boring machines for Ford motors, the V-8 motor, and also the small tools-we feel that the knowledge required to engage in this occupation that continuously has entirely broadened the scope of our employment and our knowledge, and in order to keep up with that, we must continuously be engaged in studies and research work. As I say, the departments of the plants we work in are the central planning departments, and I mention that, gentlemen, so that when we speak of automobile manufacturing and |