Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

NO INSTANT SOLUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE

We are here this morning, Mr. Chairman, to offer no quick final solutions. We cannot, in good conscience, tell your committee that we can offer to build houses at half price. We are sure you know that solution-oriented persons-whether they are from universities, or other institutions to succeed in solving this tremendous problem, must of necessity first become problem-oriented. There must be a movement from those who envision happy dreams toward those who are capable of developing a practical solution. It is toward gathering these latter groups that we would address our remarks to you this morning.

We have no instant solution, nor do we have any 50-percent-discount ideas to solve a problem which in our opinion will involve multibillions of dollars, and which must be put realistically to work quickly. We have not yet seen or heard any other group come forward with a comprehensive plan to generate real action, to get the problem out of discussion, onto the drawing boards and underway to reality. Certainly, no one person has the ultimate answer. In this Nation, there must be, however, individuals who could collectively, at least, give us a start toward solution. We have not seen any attempt at gathering such

a group.

OVERLAP AND DUPLICATION AMONG AGENCIES NOTED

We enthusiastically supported the creation of the new cabinet, Department of Housing and Urban Development. We enthusiastically supported the demonstration cities program and we failed to see them approach the problems in a "brick-and-mortar manner." We see the same old diversification and dilution among and between agencies. For example, we see Housing Assistance Administration doing housing construction in Philadelphia, while the Bureau of Indian Affairs is constructing housing in Alaska and other areas. We see an agency charged with the largest construction program in the world, with no trained construction personnel, labor or management, on its top staff with one exception, this being a labor relations director in Housing Assistance Administration.

According to a recent column by Richard L. Wilson, national columnist, there are 21 Federal departments and agencies, 150 Federal bureaus and divisions, and 92,000 units of local government all tied into 400 statutory grants-in-aid programs. It is hard to imagine that anyone could ascertain how they are overlapping or diluting each other, while our urban problems suffer as a result of attendant confusion. Mr. Chairman, we were most interested and distressed when we read of the Federal rat control program and that it was located in the Division of Wildlife Services, Department of the Interior-as far as you could determine. It is almost inconceivable that this could go so unnoticed by local authorities, let alone the Public Health Department authorities.

CRITICISM OF WOODS HOLE CONFERENCE REPORT

We recently received a pamphlet entitled "Science and the City." This was a report on the famous Woods Hole Conference conducted by Housing and Urban Development during the late summer of 1966.

The purpose of this conference was to discuss the problems and arrive at solutions for the urban development needed in the next decade. We would hesitate to comment on this brochure, except that several adverse conclusions based on erroneous findings are directed toward the construction industry, and the building and construction unions. They are equally sure that we have impeded progress in construction as they are sure that shortly we will have 10,000 cars driving around city streets without drivers. They think we have restricted research just as they are sure that shortly persons will telephone for buses rather than wait at bus stops. All of this discussion goes on while we need to be thinking of ways to rebuild our slums. We want to discuss two or three of the allegations in this report, which we also noticed were threaded through other testimony in your hearings, and have been generally used by a number of the multiagencies we mentioned

earlier.

First of all, it is amazing that the Department of Housing and Urban Development went out of its agency to borrow a writer from NASA to prepare its report.

It it unfortunate that the participants were uninformed on several basic statements which were made.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES WELCOME INNOVATION

The report stated that we resisted material changes. We have readily accepted and adapted to hundreds of changes made by material manufacturers, innovators, architects, engineers and have never hesitated to put these in place. Your best and cheapest rehabilitation work now going on contains many of these new materials. Almost every building-residential or commercial-now going up, has new materials and new applications in the specifications. We know these must be used in the job and we have ahead of us-in rehabilitation, new housing, and commercial construction-to rebuild our cities.

We have been criticized in this report, along with the industry, for failure to go along with or conduct research. This charge is fantastic. We presently have a costly study being conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute to determine where and what the present and future of prefabrication is, the use of new materials, new methods, and new techniques and tools in the building and construction industry. We were unable to get reliable figures on these aspects of the industry from Government sources. It will take 10 months to complete and it will be thorough. We contracted with Battelle not only because we felt they were the best qualified, but also because they have European laboratories, and we can learn what European techniques we might expect to be imported which would affect our industry.

TRADES ENCOURAGE RESEARCH

We have representation on the Building Research Advisory Board of the National Academy of Sciences. This body is continually looking into research to better our entire industry. We are represented

on the Urban Rehabilitation Subcommittee of this group, which is now in close contact with the entire problem we face this morning. We have also engaged outside consultants on the manpower problem to determine if we are training enough young men in the construction field. One of our general presidents is on the Douglas committee on codes, studying how we might develop better codes along with such related problems as taxes and land costs. Last September, we started a program to make our members, and through them, our contractors, more conscious of seasonality of employment-how to winterize construction to cut down loss of work due to weather. We will submit pictures, this morning, of closed-in work going on (with all trades occupied) at 18 degrees below zero. We sent a man into Alberta, Canada to see how this was done. One of our members wrote a story on this (see attached copy of the Construction Craftsman, March 1967 issue). I want to mention this further later in the testimony. I did want to point out that we are definitely not opposed to research; on the other hand, we are deep into research on our own, with no grants-inaid. Nor are we opposed to material innovations, new size of equipment, new methods of installation or new tools. We invite you to go on any construction job that we man and see for yourselves how we are doing it faster, better and cheaper than last year or 10 years ago. Since 1948, we have almost doubled the dollar volume of construction put in place, with a smaller work force.

On the matter of codes, we have not and will not resist code changes where it will expedite construction, except where it will reduce safety or where it will lower values or destroy specifications designed for the protection of the owner and members of the community.

In short, let me say we are not opposed to any changes or innovations nor are we opposed to research. We are opposed to changes which would destroy the quality of building construction. We are opposed to research which is unfounded and which has not been cleared with reputable engineers, architects and contractors-research for the fun of it, or research for publicity's sake.

WORK FORCE OF BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

I would like to mention here a few facts about our segment of the total work force. I want to do this to put in proper perspective our part in the overall economy, and the effect our employment opportunities have at any given time on the entries into the work force. Construction is the largest industry in the country in dollar volumelarger than agriculture, automobile and defense combined. We have a work force of about 31 million. We have about 70 percent of the 208,000 registered apprentice boys. On the other hand, there are about 300,000 manufacturing concerns-300 of which employ almost 10 million persons. These, along with all other industries, service and otherwise, only account for about 30 percent of the total registered apprentices. I mention these figures to point out that we are not really the best source to absorb the unemployed or the untrained. In addition, we are continually plagued by unemployment which runs about double the national average.

Between 1957 and 1964, it remained at about 12 percent-13 perce During 1965, it dropped to 10 percent and then in 1966 to 8.1 perce We have a higher hourly rate than any other industry. It is highe but not as high as popularly claimed. We have attached here the Jan ary 1967 rates for selected building trades in 100 cities, published the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The weighted average is $5.17. though these rates have increased over the years, the percentage onsite labor costs have remained relatively stable at about 22 to 27 p cent, depending on the type of construction involved. For examp on a single family residence the onsite wages would be 22 percent the total cost.

COMPARISON OF COST OF UNION AND NONUNION CONSTRUCTION

I would like to call your attention, at this point, to an attache pamphlet which contains a reprint of an article by Prof. Allan Ma delstamm of Michigan State University. This study attempts to she light on the discussion of the impact of unions on efficiency. It do so by examining in detail one segment of one industry; namely, res dential construction. The method used is to compare efficiency an costs in such construction in two Michigan cities, one (Ann Arbor heavily unionized, the other (Bay City) not. The comparison was mad by securing estimates in both locations of the price and labor cost involved in the construction of a standard small house. The finding from this show wage bills in the two cities to be virtually the same de spite substantially higher wage rates in Ann Arbor, the explanatio being that fewer man-hours of labor were required there than in Ba City. Various possible explanations for this, such as the effect of hig wage rates on quality of workers being selected, the impact of the union apprenticeship program, and entreprenurial efficiency both due to wag and competitive pressures are explored and evaluated.

In connection with this discussion, I also want to point out that our average work year is only about 1,400 hours-meaning that the aver age building tradesmen loses about 600 hours per year. This, to some extent is due to weather; but also to periodic layoffs between jobs.

LARGE NUMBERS OF MINORITY GROUPS DO NOT SEEK APPRENTICESHIPS

Contrary to the hue and cry, there have not been great numbers of minority group members attempting to enter the industry. I have attached a report from the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training which shows the number of persons going to the Apprenticeship Information Centers set up in various cities throughout the country. I believe that this document, among others, points out very clearly that great numbers are not seeking any type of apprenticeship-building trades or otherwise.

Senator RIBICOFF. Mr. Haggerty, may I say that without objection all the exhibits that you mentioned will be included in the record. Mr. HAGGERTY. Thank you.

(The documents referred to follow.)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »