Westbrook Pegler
Connecticut Post/March 6, 1961
The statements of the Department of Labor on unemployment always are subject to suspicion because administrations promote policies by propaganda. The Kennedy administration has not been in office long enough to have run up any substantial blame for a big factor of unemployment. Therefore, the worse the unemployment is made to seem, the worse the reproach to the Eisenhower administration. Jack turned the rascal out just in time. After a year, President Kennedy and his Labor Department either will have to put out claims that employment has picked up nicely or, as Roosevelt did, start up a rousing “war effort” to take idle people off the streets.
It is hard to define unemployment. I recently heard of a man drawing $35 a week as unemployed although he was working as a chore-boy for $10 a day, paid in cash. Given three days a week as chore-boy, he was drawing $65 a week for three days’ work. To a young man in an inexpensive neighborhood, that was a convenient deal. On one of those days as chore-boy, he said he could not get to work until 11 o’clock because he had to go downtown and get his check from “the unemployment.” He worked overtime to give eight hours. He is very honest and conscientious. Another young fellow, and this one with a wife and new baby, implored a few days’ work as a laborer with a builder. He really needed work. But the very first day he went to the builder at noon and asked for his time, explaining that he had to have his car fixed. There would seem to be a million variations of these examples which would reduce the alarming figure of five million considerably. Some of the great but uncertain army of unemployed will work for ten employers in a year or hundreds of employers in a lifetime. There are many intervals between jobs. These individuals are off the payroll for that amount of time, but are they really unemployed in the sense that calls before the public imagination pinched faces and worried eyes?
A friend of mine has made an avocation of firing cooks. He complains fiercely that humanity and the economy are ill-served by the provision which bars an applicant from “unemployment” if she quit her last job voluntarily.
He holds that this folly makes it necessary for cooks desiring unearned money from “unemployment” to get fired. How does a cook get fired? This man says the surest way is to burn a roast or smash a precious article of crockery. Obviously it would be better for the national economy in the preservation of such values to deny “unemployment” to those who purposely have got fired and grant this dole only to those who quit. But the fallacies in that were threshed out in the debates long ago. Millions and millions would quit. The only certain safeguard would be to abolish unemployment money altogether, but that would be reactionary, undemocratic, and probably Hitlerian.
Even when there is no big, dramatic strike going, there are always strikes affecting many strikers directly and affecting indirectly many others who are not strikers but have run out of raw materials to make into products or run out of finished products to transport and sell. Billing clerks, all sorts of incidental workers in the stream of commerce, are not strikers.
But they are laid off just the same. Thus they qualify for “unemployment” and are added into the Department of Labor’s alarming total.
I always doubted that Eisenhower knew anything about labor when he took office. Senator Taft’s indignation on hearing that Ike had picked the president of the plumbers’ union, a New Deal Democrat, to be Secretary of Labor, spoke volumes about Eisenhower’s unfitness. He thus confirmed the impression he had given me at his grand headquarters of the United Nations armies outside Paris a few days before he allowed that he was in the market for the nomination. That day he seemed to be reciting from a memorized survey thrust at him by some secretary who told him Pegler would ask questions about unions and labor. Then, so help me God, he got out a golf driver with a head like a flat-iron and whipped it around the room. The head weighed about a pound and Ike explained that on days when he couldn’t get out and play or ride a horse, he got in his licks in the office.
It may seem heartless to weigh such a fact, but it is a fact that in all masses of unemployed people there are many who work as little as they have to. Skill used to be one of the most important elements, but machines have changed the skill to “man-hours” in many cases. Such people are not necessarily unhappy to be unemployed provided they get “unemployment.”
The wife who holds a job while her husband is unemployed actually is his rival in the job market and the rival of the idle breadwinner of the homebody wife down the block. That fact makes many women so mad that they scream and hiss in their furious letters. They think I am trying to argue that all married women should wear aprons and murmur “yes, dear” when the master of the household plants himself down for the corned beef at eventide. I do think it would be a good idea, but I wouldn’t waste my genius arguing an axiom.