(The information referred to follows:)

REPORT OF ROBERT L. HOGG, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL of THE AMERICAN LIFE CONVENTION, TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN LIFE CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE 1952 INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE

REPORT RELATIVE TO 1952 MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION

A brief description of the International Labor Organization, will facilitate this report of my attendance upon its 1952 conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The organization referred to as the ILO, and originally organized in 1919 as an adjunct to the League of Nations, has current participation by 66 countries. Coincident with the virtual dissolution of the League of Nations, it became an instrumentality of the United Nations and consequently has attained great prestige. The United States became a member in 1934 by a joint resolution of Congress. Each country has a tripartite representation-2 delegates representing government, 1 representing employers, and 1 representing employees. To each class of representatives, there are accredited advisers. The United States group, including delegates and advisers attending the 1952 conference numbered about 50. Administrative operation is conducted through what is called the International Labor Office. The staff is currently headed by Hon. David A. Morse, an American, with the title of Director General. Parenthetically, the late Hon, John G. Winant at one time held this same position. The staff is representative of all the 66 participating countries and of course is a cross section of all forms of governments and ideologies. Consequently, in ILO matters we cannot assume, as we are apt to assume, that the basic day-to-day operations of the ILO are sympathetic, either to our form of government or our economy. Of course, there are to be found some who do subscribe to them. These are probably in the minority.

Member countries meet annually in Geneva in the International Labor Conference which functions much the same as any legislative body and there is great similarity with some of the procedures of our Congress. There are committees on all important subjects. As practically all these committees meet simultaneously, obviously the delegates themselves must be represented at these meetings by advisers.

Tripartite committees are made up of an employer, an employee and a government representative from each country. For each tripartite committee, each of the above participating groups has its own special committee. Tripartite committees traditionally function under chairmanship of a government representative.

Since the conference is held only once a year, interim direction is entrusted to the governing body which corresponds to an executive committee of commercial organizations. The governing body meets three or four times ecah year. Its jurisdiction is limited to such things as the agenda of the International Labor Conference and the operations of the International Labor Office.

Since the basic purpose of the International Labor Organization is to procure international cooperative action, this can be accomplished only at the annual conferences. Action can take the form of a resolution, a recommendation, or a convention. A resolution is merely a declaration of policy. A recommendation is substantially the same coupled with a strong advisory flavor. A convention on the other hand is very positive action, in that it is a draft of a treaty which each of the participating countries, under the constitution of the ILO is expected to ratify. It is of such importance in the ILO setup that a country not ratifying one of these conventions after its adoption by the conference, is called upon at periodic intervals to explain the failure of ratification. The conference has adopted 99 conventions of which the United States has ratified only a few dealing primarily with maritime matters.

Since its inception, the International Labor Organization has concerned itself with social security in a comprehensive way. At various times during its history, the annual conferences have approved treaties and made recommendations on the various phases of social security. Flowing from this consideration of social security on an item by item basis, was a 1951 proposal whereby all phases of social security which he consolidated into one instrument. This approach was was we may call a package deal, covering nine branches of social security. The objective was to establish minimum standards for social security throughout the world. This proposal for minmium standards was not, of itself, of momentous importance to our country. The method of measuring compliance with the

standards however, was of great concern. In determining whether the people of a particular country enjoyed these minimum standards of social security under this proposal, no account could be taken of voluntary insurance unless such insurance was subsidized by government at least to the extent of 25 percent. This, in effect, meant that the United States, where the combined voluntary insurance and government social-security coverage places our people in the forefront of all countries, so far as social security is concerned, would nonetheless be a retarded country because, in determining whether our people had this world minimum of social security, no account could be taken of the insurance coverage with private companies. The effect of such a convention would be an international condemnation of private voluntary insurance coverage.

Mr. William McGrath, president of the Williamson Heater Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, was an adviser to the employer delegate, Mr. Charles McCormick, of Baltimore, at the 1951 conference. In the report which he made on his return to this country, he drew attention to this new ILO objective for minimum standards for social security. Excerpts from his report were printed in an issue of our newsletter. The reaction of member companies was quick. All of them wanted to know what could be done to slow down such an international movement. Mr. A. D. Marshall, an officer of the General Electric Co., was also an employer adviser. He, too, on various occasions, directed the public's attention to ILO trends in this field of social security. When the proposed minimumstandards convention was under discussion in a plenary session of the conference, he emphasized what such a proposed convention would do to private insurance. Nonetheless, the United States Government and the labor representatives were among the majority who voted approval of the proposal, not in the form of a recommendation, but in the form of a convention to come up for a second and final action at the 1952 conference. Prior to the McGrath and Marshall reports apparently little attention had been paid to the ILO by life-insurance people.

The reaction to the 1951 conference approval of the minimum-standards convention was such that the International Labor Office recanvassed member countries, with the result that the Government-subsidy provision was taken from the proposal. Incidentally, this action was taken only a few days before the United States delegates were to depart for the 1952 conference.

Although I had no official status-I did not desire it-I enjoyed excellent facilities for an observer. I lived at the Beau Rivage Hotel, where most of the United States employer representatives, as well as representatives of many of the other countries, were quartered. This made possible many informal conversations with people attending the conference from all over the world. I followed most of the proceedings of the plenary sessions of the conference on the conference floor, where I listened to many interesting discussions. In addition to attending practically all of the meetings of the employer social-security committee, I also attend several meetings of the conference tripartite social-security committee.

The delegates and advisers from all the countries face a heavy program through the entire conference. There is not one single moment of idleness. From the very moment that the president of the conference delivers his customary address, until the closing moment, there is not a gap in activity.

At 9 o'clock each morning, in a special committee room, there is a general meeting of the delegates of each of the three groups. For example, all of the employer delegates from the various countries will meet together, as will also the delegates of the other two groups. Generally, questions of policy are discussed at these meetings. For example, directions may be given at this meeting as to the position which the employer delegates shall take at a meeting of the conference tripartite social-security committee.

Although the day is completely taken up from 9 o'clock until adjournment about 5 in the evening, with routine meetings and conferences, time must also be found outside these hours for further conferences by each of the 3 groups from each of the participating countries. For example: The employee delegate from each country, along with his advisers, must have an opportunity to confer on broad matters of policy. The same situation prevails as to Government and employer delegates.

Since this proposed convention for minimum social-security standards was almost the sole object of my interest, I followed only casually other items on the conference agenda. The final form of the minimum-standard instrument was first discussed. The initial question was, "Should it be a recommendation or a convention?" The 1951 conference of course approved the instrument as a convention and notwithstanding vigorous efforts on behalf of most employer representatives, the 1952 conference reaffirmed the action of the 1951 conference, and again,

this time finally, determined that the instrument should be a convention. It might be noted that the United States Government delegates preferred the instrument to be in the form of a recommendation. They were not aggressive on this point at all, and while some of their committee actions reflected their preference for a recommendation, they nonetheless voted in the plenary session for the adop tion of the instrument in convention form.

With the exception of the last-minute deletion (prior to the convening of the conference) of the Government-subsidy provision, the instrument was considered at the 1952 conference substantially in the same form as it had been approved by the 1951 conference. I shall not detail the provisions of the instrument, further than to say that it covers nine specific branches of social security, including socialized medicine, and about everything else that might be contemplated by an ingenious social-minded planner. This 1952 action is final, and the instrument may be expected to be submitted to the United States Senate in due course for ratification.

As a part of this report, a few general observations are pertinent.

(1) The ILO in several areas is engaged in extremely worthwhile activities. I mention this lest the comments contained in this memorandum be construed as an overall condemnation of the organization.

As just one example of what the ILO can do in a constructive sort of way, I refer to the last report of the secretary-general, wherein is analyzed the international aspects of inflation. Similar examples of constructive work may be cited. With a realization of the potential of the ILO in worthwhile fields, my critical comments are offered for a constructive purpose.

(2) Before I went to Geneva I had a different concept of the attitude of the nations of the world toward us as a country, and our unique economy. At a distance, one senses lack of sympathy and understanding of our country. The day-to-day foreign news irks us very frequently. We develop a feeling that we are envied and distrusted. After meeting personally several of the foreign representatives and advisers, and listening to the discussions of various ILO conference committees and the conference debates, I came to the conclusion that the envy and distrust were not as great as I had thought and that they were the result of a lack of knowledge of our economy and our Government.

In casual discussions with people from other countries, I found few who had even a fair concept of life insurance and the part it plays in our economy. One asks, "What are we going to do about it?" I have no suggestions. It would be a wonderful thing if this lack of information could give way to some light.

(3) As I have previously pointed ont. I had no official status at the conference. Delegations from each participating country are composed of 2 gov. ernment delegates, 1 employer delegate, and 1 employee delegate. This is not a homogenous group, although there is considerable solidarity between employee representatives and representatives of government. This is true, not only in the case of the United States, but of all participating countries.

The life-insurance business, with 80 million policyholders spread throughout all segments of the population, does not aline itself with any one of the 3 classes of participation. If somebody connected with the life-insurance business were to become so alined, it would be very difficult for us to maintain a position of objectivity. Anyone connected with the life-insurance business should be in the position of viewing the ILO from the viewpoint of the insurance business,

(4) The ILO staff advises participating countries in many areas. Most, if not all of them are basically social. There is a great solicitude for what are referred to as "undeveloped" countries. The permanent staff, in furtherance of ILO policy, sends technical advisers to these countries in connection with its social problems. While the ILO occupies itself in giving its social guidance to these undeveloped countries, the United States also, on a very practical basis, is aiding many, if not all of these same countries. Our country comes in contact with Bo-called undeveloped countries through membership in the ILO, and incidentaliv we contribute about 25 percent of the budget. We also come in contact with many of the same countries through our direct relief to them. There is reason to believe that many representatives of the ILO who go to these countries advocate principles and policies that do not reflect the policies of this country. This is a rather anomalous situation. The United States, on one hand, is directly selling its economy in undeveloped areas, and at the same time this salesmanship may be neutralized by an international instrumentality which our country supports.

(5) Too much emotion is bound up in the consideration of social security Our Federal social security was inaugurated under the catchy slogan “Get Rid of the Poorhouse." We built up statistics on the basis of need, and assumed that

only government could fulfill it. We proceeded on the theory that only government will respond to individual need so we now ignore the feeling of responsibility from one individual toward another.

About the same sort of atmosphere prevails at the international level. I was told that on the occasion of a visit by an ILO representative to Calcutta, India, he witnessed a rather unusual scene of a womanworker stepping from work on a ladder, giving birth to a child in the street unattended, and then resuming her work. This gave great impetus to dealing with maternity on an international basis. Great concern is expressed over the plight of the agricultural workers in oriental countries, and so, by international fiat, we'll adjust his compensation. Emotion and practically are not generally characteristics of the same person. One familiar with the ILO says that too many objectives stem from emotions, and then the technician gets the almost impossible task of applying the practical to the ideal.

(6) It is desirable to establish greater liaison between the participating groups of each country. I make this observation solely from the standpoint of observing the operations of the delegates from the three groups from the United States. As soon as I learned I was going to be in Geneva, I wanted to know who the government delegates and advisers were to be. After several futile phone calls over several days, I did get a list of the government delegates and advisers a day or two before I left for Geneva. It was marked "restricted." I raise the question why this should be restricted. It should be public information long in advance of the meeting. Isn't the public also entitled to know what position its government delegates are going to take on various items on the agenda? Information on this point also was lacking.

Government delegates, employee delegates, and employer delegates apparently left for the International Labor Conference as separate entities with no collaboration. Isn't it desirable, a reasonable length of time in advance of the annual conference, for the participating groups of this country to have their representative sat least go through the motions of some collaboration, rather than leave this country on a foreign mission as complete strangers? Isn't is possible to allocate the responsibilities for determining what position will be taken by government representatives? If these people at an international conference are to formulate an international treaty which this country is supposed to ratify, isn't it desirable to formalize their authority so that the policy to guide these delegates will be fixed at the highest possible level and then publicized before they attend such a conference?

(7) Although the ILO is a tripartite setup, practically, it has taken on the characteristic of a government-employee front versus employer front. The government delegates and employee delegates, on all important questions, vote with the greatest of solidarity. In reality, the employer groups are consistently in the minority. This does not mean that they are completely ineffective. No doubt that do tone down many things which might otherwise be extreme.

From the standpoint of the United States, however, it is difficult to develop complete international solidarity, even at the employer level. The employer delegates from the various countries will meet in conference and discuss the obvious things dealing with employer-employee relations. There is complete agreement among all employer delegates on such subjects as hours of labor, safety devices, women in industry, and the like, but when this area is left, and the discussion gets into economic fields, divisions within the employer ranks are immediate. Differences are basic.

For example, in a discussion between Sir John Forbes-Watson, the British employer's delegate since 1919 (incidentally he died a few days ago) and one of our United States employer group, there was the greatest cordiality in the discussion of ILO problems, until the question of competition arose. Our British friend asked that the subject not be discussed because his view was fixed and irrevocable. He said that in the British viewpoint, it is unconscionable for a man in business to seek to destroy a competitor in the same business. He described the competitive processes as unethical, immoral, and "law of the jungle." Here, therefore, we have a situation in the employer area where our employers, believers in a competitive economy, must meet on an international level employers whose business ideals and operations are completely at variance with our own. Query: Are we, in the furtherance of international collaboration, to surrender our competitive economy? The answer is obvious. Yet, how can we entertain one ideal at a domestic level and not follow through with the same ideal on the international level?

The magnitude of the ILO operations is not generally recognized in the United States. It is appreciated by other countries, notably the British. The British accredit competent employer, employee, and government representatives to the ILO with the greatest of regularity. The delegates and their advisers are well informed. As previously indicated, the former British employer delegate, Sir John Forbes-Watson has never missed an ILO conference. There is continuity. The same continuity does not prevail in this country's participation.

I feel that future employer participation by the United States demands more adequate participation and greater continuity in representation. Probably the Government and employee delegates are adequately prepared. I understand that the Government, through the Department of Labor, and probably the State Department does have adequate ILO staffing. I understand this also applies to employee representation to a lesser degree. On the employer side, what representation this country has had, has been outstanding, but it has been limited. The ILO disseminates volumes of material. It is an impossibility for any one man to keep informed as to all of it. The ILO can't be a one-man show.

The generosity of some few employers has made employer participation possible. These men have given a stupendous amount of their time to the United States employer side of the picture. They cannot be expected to continue at such great personal sacrifice. As an unofficial observer, I cannot overemphasize this situation. There should be some permanent staffing in order to follow ILO 12 months out of the year on behalf of employers. This staff should be equipped so as to do on the spot work for the employer delegate and advisers. To be specific, it would seem that the National Association of Manufacturers or the United States Chamber of Commerce, or both jointly, should take over this staffing responsibility.

Briefly, participation by this country's employers should be adequate and effective or none at all. No longer is it fair to expect a few people with an ap preciation of what the ILO should and should not do, to be called upon to share all of this responsibility.

(9) It appears the overall social security movement in this country reflects social-security thinking at the international level. An examination of ILO material on minimum standards is almost silent as to the views of our own Government. Many other participating countries, all of the large ones with the exception of the United States, forwarded to the ILO various comments and suggestions. Comments and suggestions from our own Government are almost entirely lacking. We may properly infer that those interested in the promotion of social security in our own Government may be entirely satisfied with this international program as an overall goal for this country. We cannot ignore the fact that if this is the case, then we may anticipate pressure for social-security expansion along the ILO pattern. It is also significant that, whereas social security, at its inception in this country, was directed to the employer-employee relationship, now social security is directed to the entire population of the country.

This is an ILO philosophy on the international level, and it is not contemplated that there shall be any minimum standards for contributions to finance the plan. For example, in Switzerland and probably most other countries, the social-security program is financed by payroll taxes without any ceiling. It is this same philosophy that prompts an increase in the basis of social-security taxes in this country. From $3,000 it has already gone to $3,600. Consistent pressure is for a tax base of $6,000. If this international concept prevails, there will be no limit for the basis of contributions. It would seem that the HLO is to continue, more and more, as the fountainhead for universal social-security planning.

Conceding the importance of the ILO program of social security, just what is to be done about it? It seems obvious that international pressure is for a socialsecurity program which would not be acceptable to most of the people in this country. It is true that the conference itself recognized that all parts of these minimum standards might not be adaptable to the economy of every country. While this concession might appear generous on its face. I still feel that pressure for expansion of social security would, nonetheless, include parts of the international program to which we could not subscribe.

It may be suggested that since a minimum standards convention has already been approved in final form and awaits ratification by the United States Senate, social security, so far as the ILO is concerned, is a closed book, and whatever is to be done must be in the way of opposition to ratification. Our business will seasonably register its opposition to ratification of this proposed convention,