——

HERE'S HOW
ITS DONE

The following article was published
in the UAW’s magazine “Ammunition”
when the Eisenhower administration
took office in the United States andisa
classic example of how big business
dictates to government.

Whether it likes it or not, the Eisenhower
administration is looked on as business-
men’s setup.

Top management officials have been
appointed to key government administra-
tive and advisory jobs.

Supplies essential to production of mil-
itary goods have been decontrolled despite a
tense and dangerous world situation.

Both lawmakers and policymakers are
enthusiastically advocating proposals
favored for years by only business and
industry.

PRESIDENT’S CABINET

The new President’s cabinet is referred to
wryly as “eight millionaires and a
plumber.”

The new President’s appointments to top
posts in the Defense Department threw the
business emphasis of his administration
into sharp focus.

Most attention was given to the naming of
Charles E. Wilson, then president of Gen-
eral Motors Corp., as Defense Secretary.
Wilson’s appointment had been challenged
because federal law forbids any government
official transacting business with a firm in
which he holds a financial interest. General
Motors is the largest Defense Department
contractor.

While not receiving the same amount of
public attention, two other Defense Depart-
ment appointees had backgrounds which a
few senators scrutinized carefully.

Later confirmed by the Senate, they are
Robert T. B. Stevens, now Secretary of the
Army, and Harold E. Talbot, appointed
Secretary of the Air Force.

Stevens headed a company which had
refused to sell textiles to the Army unless it
was exempted from price controls, while
Talbott was questioned intensively concern-
ing production and pricing policies of
companies with which he had been
associated.

J. P. STEVENS COMPANY

Stevens headed the vast J. P. Stevens Co.,
manufacturer of wool and cotton textiles. He
owned approximately 42,500 shares of stock
in the company. The textile firm holds more
than $113,000,000 in Army contracts.

But two years ago, the J. P. Stevens Co.
was threatening a strike against selling to
the Army unless all controls on wool were
removed.

Price controls had been slapped on in
January, 1951. At that time, wool textiles
were 49 per cent over their pre-Korean price
levels and cotton textiles were up 39 per cent.

The wool industry had an average profit
of 15 per cent. It didn’t like it.

On February 6, 1951, a committee of wool
manufacturers went to Michael DiSalle, the
government’s price stabilizer, to notify him
that military orders “would continue to go

ging unless they were exempted from
controls.”

A representative of the J. P. Stevens Co.
was in the group.

As a result of this threat, the Army and
Navy departments urged DiSalle to act
favorably for the companies. On February
16, the wool industry won exemption from
price controls.

J. P. Stevens Co. then took a government
contract. But only for wool.

It was still on strike against price ceilings
on cotton.

The American Cotton Manufacturers’
Association held its annual convention in
April, 1951.

An unusual highlight was the appearance
of the United States Quartermaster Gen-
eral. He pleaded with the group to accept
Army orders. The Army, he said, was able to
get bids on only half the contracts it
advertised.

The plea went unheeded until price ceil-
ings were taken off cotton fabrics sold to
defense agencies. Only then did Stevens
agree to contract for cotton for the Army.

Of the 25,000 Stevens employees, less
than 750 are union members — CIO or AFL.

PLANT CLOSURES

Since 1949, the company has closed four of
its plants. Each had a contract with the
United Textile Workers, CIO. Of the five
plants kept open, four have an open shop.
Most of the company’s current workers are
non-union.

In addition, the 1952 report of the Senate
Labor Committee sharply criticized the
labor practices of the Stevens Co. plant at
Anderson, S.C.

The committee said plant officials used
both city policemen and company em-
ployees to spy on union organizers.

The movement of Stevens plants to the
southern states from New England,
moveover, left about 5,000 workers unem-
ployed. The move to the South, of course,
was to enable the company to use cheap,
non-union labor.

Only a few days after Stevens had been
questioned by the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Talbott’s nomination came up.

With almost no support from other com-
mittee members, Senator Estes Kefauver
went over details of two phases of Talbott’s
record. One dated back to World War I; the
other was comparatively recent.

1916 REPORT

Kevauver brought to light again a 1918
report of Charles Evans Hughes, later chief
justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. That
report, based on an aircraft industry
inquiry, told how Talbott, then 30 years of
age, had been the $30,000-a-year president
of the Dayton Wright Airplane Co.

Despite his postion, Talbott claimed to
have not known the company was getting
tips on government aircraft buying plans
from a former official who had gone on to
head the federal Aircraft Production Board
in Washington.

And he added that he believed telegrams
containing the tips had been “unfortunate
in their implication, but perfectly proper.”

Talbott also was questioned closely on a
more recent business activity. This involves
his position as a director of both the Electric
Auto-Lite Co. and Chrysler Motors, Inc.

Quoting a 1952 report of the Hardy Com-
mittee of the House of Representatives,
Kefauver said Electric Auto-Lite had sold
the government generators at $87 each
when it previously had sold the same type of
appliance to Chrysler for $52.

In addition, Kefauver quoted, Chrysler
submitted a bid to sell the generators to the
government for $77 each, $25 more than it
had paid Electric Auto-Lite.

PRACTICE WIDESPREAD

This practice was widespread in the auto
industry, the Hardy committee declared.
The House group estimated the government
had paid out $305,000,000 in a five-year
period as a result.

“Were you aware of the practices de-
scribed in the Hardy report?” Kefauver
asked Talbott.

“No,” the appointee declared.

Isn’t it your duty as a director and head of
the company finance committee to keep
apprised of these things?” the Senator
asked.

| “I don’t know that lever heard ofit untilit

was brought up during the questioning of
Mr. Wilson,” Talbott answered.

“Do you approve of these practices, Mr.
Talbott?”

“J don’t understand the practices, Sena-
tor. If there is some way the government is
being treated unfairly, of course I don’t
approve of it.”

Stevens and Talbott, as well as Wilson,
told Senators of the sacrifice they were
forced to make in selling their stock in
companies doing business with the Defense
Department.

That resulted from their having to pay a
capital gains tax on the profit made from
these sales.

However, one senator recalled an earlier
episode involving the same sort of
“sacrifice.”

Nominated as Secretary of State by
President Hoover in 1929, Henry L. Stimson
marketed all the stocks he had purchased
over the years.

When he sold them, the stock market was
at a high peak.

A few short months later, the market
crashed. Stimson, however, had no stocks.
Just cash and bonds.

e)
LIFE
MAGAZINE

There is amass circulation magazine with
a readership that numbers almost as many
as the top newsstand magazines.

This publication doesn’t feature famous
Hollywood stars or politicians on its cover.
It doesn’t print gossip about celebrities nor
does it tell readers how to interpret
horoscopes or how to dress fashionably.

The magazine is a constructive, informa-
tive publication telling its readers how to
protect children from the hazards of fire and
poisons, how to prevent falls in the home,
how to avoid traffic accidents and how to
purchase and use consumer products.

It is “Family Safety” magazine, a
National Safety Council publication printed
quarterly for the prevention of home, traffic
and recreational accidents.

It is the flagship of the off-the-job safety
movement, communicating corporate
concern for employees. Beginning with a
circulation of about 90,000 in 1961, “Family
Safety” magazine celebrates its 20th year
anniversary with a readership of more than
2% million families in the United States,
Canada and throughout the world.

“TI read your article on how to survive a
hotel fire,” said Jim Wujkowski of
Cheboygan, Michigan, “and two days later,
while sleeping in a Toronto hotel, was
awakened by the fire alarm. A fire had
broken out and all the hotel guests were
asked to evacuate. I was able to remain calm
and knew where the fire exits were on my
floor and how to protect myself against the
fire. It was your article that gave me that
confidence and secured my safety.”

Andrea Moran, R.N., PPG Industries, Inc.
said of “Family Safety”, “I was extremely
impressed with your article entitled ‘The
Help that Can Hurt’ (regarding emergency
medical assistance). It is this type of sound
and informative article the general public
needs to see more frequently.”

“Family Safety’ is not available at
newsstands. It is a subscription magazine,
provided to the employees and business
associates of thousands of companies-whose
management care about their employees off-
the-job safety and health.

Some of the largest companies in the
country provide “Family Safety” magazine
as an employee benefit because they know
the importance of protecting their employ-
ees and their families from the heartbreak
and financial loss accidents cost.

“Family Safety” magazine subscriptions
can be obtained by calling the National
Safety Council’s toll-free number, (800) 621-
8051 or writing the Council at 444 North
Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60610.

Lumber Worker/February/March, 1981/9