Col. Harrington: | The only thing I have for you this afternoon in the way of news is this employment statement which is as of the twelfth of April. We take this count in the field on Wednesday of every week and this shows the result of the reduction which was made in the first week in April. The change in employment is shown in the seven days from April fifth to April twelfth, April fifth being the Wednesday that was in the middle of the week in which the reduction was being made. The total employment financed out of WPA funds on the twelfth was 2,756,000, and we anticipate that the April average will be very close to 2,800,000 for the month, which is the figure that we propose to attain, and which we get as closely as we can in a program of this size.
|
Query: | Do you have any estimates for May?
|
Col. Harrington: | I have no announcement to make about the May employment as yet. We will announce it very shortly.
|
Query: | Colonel, somebody up on the Hill is interested in your collective bargaining relations with the Workers Alliance. They seem to feel that if the Workers Alliance is a Communist dominated organization and stands for the overthrow of our Government, then the WPA should not deal with them as a bargaining agency for the WPA employees. Would you have any opinion on that?
|
Col. Harrington: | Who is that? He hasn't asked me anything about it.
|
Press: | All I know is what I saw in the New York Times.
|
Col. Harrington: | That is all I saw too. (Laughter). I don't know anything about it.
|
Query: | Well, Colonel, do you consider the Workers Alliance a subversive organization on the basis of your experience with it?
|
Col. Harrington: | No.
|
Query: | Colonel, do you consider that the Workers Alliance speaks for the people on relief? Is it the organized representative?
|
Col. Harrington: | It speaks for its membership, as far as I am concerned.
|
Query: | There are others, then, that speak as well?
|
Col. Harrington: | Well, that is my answer. The Workers Alliance speaks for its membership.
|
Query: | In your opinion, Colonel, do the WPA people need a spokesman?
|
Col. Harrington: | I think so.
|
Query: | In their relations with you?
|
Col. Harrington: | I think so—in their relations with this Administration—yes. I think it is better for them to have a spokesman. In other words, I believe in the organization of people who work. We have an organization in this office of administrative employees. The employees belong to it if they want to; they don't if they don't want to. We discuss problems with that organization. You understand, I am talking about the Washington office—administrative people. Now, if we do that, I don't see why we should deny the people that are working on projects the right to have an organization to treat with their superiors and discuss questions of working conditions and wages, and so on.
|
Query: | Is it a fair statement to say, Colonel, that you would have to permit that?
|
Col. Harrington: | Well, of course, you could refuse to meet with them.
|
Query: | Going back to the point that the President has made from time to time that no one shall starve, even when there have been strikes, WPA workers have never been discriminated against. Doesn't that put you in a position of having to treat with an organization of workers if they decide to do that?
|
Col. Harrington: | The question appears to me to be rather theoretical because I have always said that I did believe in it, so far as it concerns the people they represent.
|
Query: | Was there any disposition made, Colonel, of the case of this Sam Johnson in Texas who insisted upon coming to work on the project and they got a court order restraining him from working?
|
Col. Harrington: | I haven't had a report on that yet. —Have you?
|
Mr. Hunter: | Not about Texas.
|
Col. Harrington: | I have asked for a report on it and it has not gotten to my desk yet. It may be in the office.
|
Query: | The Workers Alliance said they were taking the case to you.
|
Col. Harrington: | Yes, they wrote me a letter about it and I referred it down our own organization channel and asked them to give me a report. I have not seen the report. ... At this point Colonel Harrington called someone for information...
|
Col. Harrington: | Well, the first report that came in—and this is off the record—made it look as though it was a trumped up case, and so we sent it back to be investigated further, but I will give you the story when we get it.
|
Query: | Colonel, are you familiar with this complicated Philadelphia Airport situation?
|
Col. Harrington: | Yes, I am very familiar with it.
|
Query: | Well, Mayor Wilson has finally said today that the city cannot put up $115,000 for this Navy munitions project which WPA is willing to finance, and suggests that the WPA do it with surplus funds from the airport project. Now, are there any such surplus funds?
|
Col. Harrington: | No sir, not at all.
|
Query: | Well, what happened to the funds that were allocated for that project but which were not spent when the CAA....
|
Col. Harrington: | That project, like all other projects, was approved under an authorization to spend a certain amount of money. Now, each month the Administrator for Pennsylvania gets a sum of money which he divides among the various projects that are in operation and he puts a certain amount in monthly on the Philadelphia Airport out of the lump sum that they put at his disposal, but there was never any actual appropriation money to the Philadelphia Airport as such.
|
Query: | Well, is the WPA inclined to finance that Navy munitions project?
|
Col. Harrington: | The proposal that was made to the Mayor was to the effect that the WPA would finance the Naval munitions project, but the City of Philadelphia would take over the financing of an equivalent one on the airport, because that was to meet the Mayor's first objection which was that he could not take city funds and use them at Fort Mifflin. Therefore, we said, "all right, we will take our funds and use them at Fort Mifflin if you will put in an equivalent amount on the airport or on other projects in Philadelphia."
|
Query: | Since they are not going to do that, what are you going to do about it?
|
Col. Harrington: | We are not going to do anything. In other words, the WPA, in that Philadelphia Airport situation, is ready to go to work whenever the Civil Aeronautics Authority and the City of Philadelphia arrive at an agreement. Of course, you understand under the terms of the Act that created the Civil Aeronautics Authority, they have the legal right to say whether or not we shall spend Federal money on an airport project.
|
Press: | After talking with the CAA I understood it was going to be never. (Laughter).
|
Query: | Colonel, what is your opinion of that Byrnes Bill up there, the consolidation of WPA and PWA and what not?
|
Col. Harrington: | I don't think I can discuss pending legislation. I am afraid I will have to duck that one. I don't mind commenting on it to the extent that I testified before the Committee, and I think that testimony is public now, which was to the effect that the initial Bill which made no provision for the non-construction program of the WPA, was very defective in that respect. That has now been remedied, and the Bill is improved to that degree, but I would prefer not to discuss it in its present form.
|
Query: | Colonel, have you heard anything about these reports that the President is contemplating setting up a series of reorganization orders very shortly?
|
Col. Harrington: | Yes.
|
Query: | What is there in it that would affect the WPA?
|
Col. Harrington: | Do you know Mr. Stephen Early?
|
Press: | Yes.
|
Col. Harrington: | He is the gentleman who can tell you that.
|
Press: | He could, but he won't. (Laughter).
|
Query: | Could I ask you a technical question, Colonel? This relates back to your experience as an Army engineer. Do you believe it is practical to conduct both the type of public works that is characteristic of the Army engineers and the Public Works Administration and the type of project which is associated with the Works Progress Administration?
|
Col. Harrington: | Yes, I do. I think you will have to separate sub-units.
|
Query: | There is no reason why a single organization could not have that flexibility?
|
Col. Harrington: | No.
|
Query: | They would have to be administered separately, wouldn't they?
|
Col. Harrington: | Well, a categorical answer to that question is rather misleading. They could be administered by the same organization. Now, just what the organization set-up within it would be is something that I am not prepared to say. Certainly the two programs could be carried on by the same governmental agency or department.
|
Query: | Do you believe that the same measure of Federal contribution of money would be substantially applicable to both types of projects?
|
Col. Harrington: | No.
|
Query: | In other words, you would have differentiation there as to the degree of Federal contribution that was made in one case and in the other?
|
Col. Harrington: | I believe there would be a differentiation, yes.
|
Query: | With a preponderance of Federal funds in which category?
|
Col. Harrington: | With the WPA. At this point the conference adjourned. Reported by: Mrs. Bonaventura
Miss Daniel
|