The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1935-02-09
A. F. L. Unions
Back Workers
Bill, II. r. 1927
W einstOck Shows Wage
Slashing Plans in
Roosevelt Scheme

Wagner-Lewis bill, Louis Weinstock
national secretary of the A. F. of l.
Rank and File Committee for IN
employment Insurance and Relief
pointed out that fully 5000 locals OF
the A. F. Of L. were in the fight for
real unemployment insurance. He
attacked the starvation, Roosevelt
relief program and demanded enact
ment of the Workers Bill, H. R.
1927, which provides for full benefit
payments to all workers who are
unemployed through no fault of
their own.
Weinstock's. statement follows;
Mr.. Weinstock. My name is Louis
Weinstock; I am the national Sec
rotary Of the American Federation
of Labor committee for unemploy-
ment insurance, l Union Square,
New York City.
am a member of the Brother
hood Of Painters and Decorators,
Local Union 849, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor. This
committee am representing Is a
bona f1de organization within the
American Federation Of Labor, APP
pointed in 1882, with the objective
Of gaining the support of the entire
American Federation of Labor for
a genuine unemployment insurance
bill.
Today, as a result of this COM
nittee's work, there are on record
the official votes of nearly 5000
local unions affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor,
scores Of central labor bodies, and
several State declarations. of labor,
and the following international
unions:
The United Textile Workers
Union, United Mill, Mine, and
Shelter Workers of America, the
Analgamated Association of Iron,
Steel, and Tin Workers Union, and,
in addition, the American Fedora
ton of Silk Workers and the Amer
lean Federation of Hosiery Work
ers, and the International Union
of Molders.
Furthermore, the sentiment pre-
walls in spite of the fact that OBJ
stacles have been placed in the way
Of the rank and file members of
the American Federation of Labor
for free expression Of opinion on
the question of unemployment in
surance. For example, the position
of the executive council of the
American Federation of Labor has
been in opposition to any form Of
unemployment insurance until re-
Gently, when this position was re-
versed.
Mr. chairman, my committee sent
me here to oppose the Wagner
Lewis bill. I am going to oppose
this bill and not on the basis that
1t has been opposed by Mr.. Epstein
on certain phases; for example, Mr..
Epstein was afraid that if we de-
mand too much we might choke.
I am afraid that if we have this bill
passed, we will chocke because we
will ge so little that we will get
only the bones, and nothing else.
If we examine the bill, We find, for
example, from the report of the
Committee on Economic Security
| [quotingl:
Unemployment compensation
as we conceive it is front line
of defense, especially valuable for
those who are ordinarily steadily
employed, but very beneficial also
in maintaining purchasing power.
While it would not directly bene-
fit those now unemployed until
they are reabsorbed in industry,
it should be instituted at the ear
lest possible date to increase the
security of all who are employed"
Over 17,OOO,OOO JobIess
Mr.. Chairman and gentlemen, we
are interested in unemployment in
surance. We are interested that
those unemployed people-and I be-
lieve that the figures are between
IA and 15,000000-I have here a
statement of the Labor Research
Association, and they say the fol-
lowing on the problem of unem-
ploynent at the present time:
"Over 100000 men, women,
and young workers were still I'M
employed in the United States in
November, 1884, according to the
latest preliminary estimate just
completed by the Labor Research
Association. This number repre-
sents over 80 per cent of all gain
fully occupied persons in the
country. The estimated totals
include as unemployed those
workers having relief jobs on Fed
eral emergency projects"
No Provision for voorhees,
If we exclude these people, we will
still have 14,3O0,OOo people still un-
employed at the present time. This
Wagner-Lewis bill does not cover
a single one of these unemployed
workers.
Our committee last year, as well
as this year, opposed the Wagner
Lewis bill for the simple reason
that it is not an unemployment
insurance bill. We believe that these
14,500,000 people cannot be alb
sorbed today In industry. Even if
we consider the large appropriation
of $4,800,000,000 even this amount
will not take care of the unem-
ployed at the present time, espe-
cially if your administration, with
the $4,000, 100000 appropriated for
public construction, aims to cut the
wages of the working people in this
country, because, if 1 understand
correctly, the $4,O0O00O,OOO appro-
priated for public construction has
a proposal which limits the pay roll
to $50 month. If you pay that
$50 a month, we would get $12
weekly wages. Right now the build
ing-trades workers have a prevail
/