29 I UNIdNIZATION OF THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY A CASE STUDY OF J.P.ST'EVENS Background In recent years, the.labor union movement has suffered a p recipitous decline in its membership, While 35.5% of all workers in nonagricultural jobs were members of labor unions in 1945, only 25% are members today. That is a drop of 40 If you include agricultural workers, only 21.5% of the work force is*unionized. In 1975 and 1976, workers voted against union representation in 52% of the elections conducted by the .NLRn. This is the first time Since 1935 that organized labor lost more elections than it won.

Furthermore, during the decade of 1966-76 the number of e'lec- tions to withdraw recognition of a labor union increased from 234 in 1967 to 612 in 19

76. The total union membership has remained relatively static while the labor force has expanded rapidly. In fact, the main source of increase in union membership is government employees at local, state, and federal levels.

Because of the burgeoning economic growth in the South'and the Southwest, unions are directing their organizing efforts towards these areas. Ironically, these are the states in which organized l abor has fared worst in recruiting and in gaining bargaining rights. Chief among Southern industries singled out for unionization have been the textile plants, as much a part of Southern symbols as Baptist churches, grits and red-eye gravy J. P. Stevens C o mpany with 40,000 of its employees in Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, is one of the companies designated by the AFL-CIO for this push to unionize the textile industry. This study looks at the background of this effort. 2 Part i cig ant s A. J. P. Stevens Company, Inc.

Founded in 1813 J. P. Stevens is the second iargest textile manufacturer in the United States It has over 45,000 em ployees in 85 manufacturing plants in the U.S mostly in the Southeast (primarily Virginia, North Caroli na, South Carolina and Georgia Stevens' products include synthetic fiber fabrics cotton fabrics, woolen fabrics, and fabrics woven or knitted from combinations of natural and synthetic fibers. At the end of fiscal year 1975, apparel fabrics accounted for 4 8% of total sales; home furnishings, 34 and industrials, 18 Truly an international company, Stevens has subsidiaries and associates in Canada, 14exic0, France, Belgium, New Zealand and Australia. Its U.S. subsidiaries are: Black Hawk Corpora tion which op e rates a warehouse in South Carolina; Stevens Beechcraft which services aircraft 'at the Greenville-Spartan burg, South Carolina, airport; Southeastern Aviation, Inc Southeastern Beechcraft, an aircraft distributor; Stevens Grafics, Inc. which prints and p ublishes telephone directories in the southeastern U.S J. P. Stevens International Sales Inc Control Top, Inc and Stevens Elastromeric and Plastic Products, Inc A number of unfinished products are marketed by J. Po Stevens.

Among them are Blend-Tempo, Stev enset, Stevetex, Consort, and Wonder-Glass. Stevens' finished products include J. P. Stevens draperies; 20 Below and Lady Consort synthetics and blends Utica and Utica/Mohawk blankets; Merryweather carpets; Forst mann and Andover woolens; Fruit of the Loo m ; and Tastemaker home furnishings J. Po Stevens also manufactures glass fabric insect screening fabrics for air pollution control; synthetic fabrics for soil erosion and flood control; nonwoven backings for handbags shoes, synthetic leather upholstery and luggage; pharmaceuti cal stoppers for the health care industry; and glass fabric for marine insulation and fishing rods B. The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union In June of 1976 the Amalgamated Clothing Workers (ACW) and the Textile Workers Un ion of America (TWUA) merged to form the ACTWU. The 350,000 member ACW and the 170,000 member TWUA be gan as craft unions under the American Federation of Labor (AFL).

Later on they seceded to become part of the Congress of In dustrial Organizations (CIO) with the ACW's Sidney Hillman head ing the CIO's Textile Workers Organizing Committee in 1937. 3 Most of its membership is in the urban areas in the Northeast and Midwest, and its present leadership is untypicaliy white collar The president, Murray M. Fin l ey, obtained a doctorate from Northwestern University and worked his way 'up through the ACW hierarchy in the Midwest. Jacob Sheinkman is the secretary treasurer Armed with a law degree from Cornel1 University he rose through the ACW's legal department Un i onsthe work ethicsand labor-management ralations in the South One thing to remember about this subject is that this is not just a question of unionizing Southern textile workers. The union movement has traditionally been strong in the North and the Midwes t for a number of reasons 1) these areas are signi ficantly involved in heavy industry, i.e coal, steel, rail roads, shipbuilding, manufacturing--those ares traditionally sympathetic to union organizing 2)ethnic, religious, racial and cultural diversity am o ng workers separated them from the traditional WASP financial and industrial interests 3) the educational centers of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Cleve land, and Chicago tolerated anarchist, socialist, liberal and radical groups which provided leadersh ip for many unions.

The South is a different "atmosphere As compared to the babel of languages, religions, and traditions in the North Dixie was homogenous. Catholic and Jewish minorities in the South are sprinkled lightly only in the major cities. Vast po pulations of Eastern and Southern European ethnics are a rarity. With the exception of the blacks, the Southern work force is Protestant and white. Settled by immigrants from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland during the seventeenth, eighteent h, and the first half of the nineteenth centuries, this vast region is a stranger to cultural diversity.

Of course, this is not to say that there are not any ethnic population centers in the South. In the Floridian city of Tampa, the Ybor City community ha s been Cuban-American since the turn of the century. Miami's "Little Havana" section can only be considered post-Castro Cuban in the bayou country south of Alexandria and west of the Mis sissippi River. They are descendants of the 4,000 Acadians expelled b y the British from Nova Scotia in 1755 in Louisiana are descendants of the original French and Spanish settlers in that state. In Texas, both a Southern and Western state, the Mexican-American population is repre sented throughout most of the state except the Panhandle area and East Texas. The area east of Houston on the Texas Louisiana border is the Triangle area composed of the cities of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange. Th'is is Texas Cajun country--French and Catholic as opposed to the rest of East Te x as which is Scot-Irish or English, and Baptist Louisiana has the Cajuns The Creoles -4 Because of the social, ethnic and historical factors previously mentioned, it is not surprising that the percentage of unionized workers in the South is low relative to the rest of the country.

The national average of organized non-farm workers is 25 Below are the percentages of non-agricultural employees unionized in Dixie Texas 13.0 Virginia 13.8 North Carolina 6.9 South Carolina 8.0 Florida 12.5 Alabama 19.1 Tennessee 18.7 Arkansas 16.8 Mississippi 12.0 Georgia 14.5 Louisiana 16.3 Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Labor s New Southern Strategy, I' Business Week February 7, 1977, page 28 Furthermore, of the twenty states that have right-to-work la w s nine are Iowa, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, South Dakota Nevada, Xorth Dakota, and Wyoming I I eleven of them are the states of the old Confederacy. The remaining I The Fantus Study:An Economic Barometer of the States One of the major criticisms of t hese right-to-work laws supposed ly is that they have no relationship to the economic vitality of these states. In a 221-page report entitled "A Study of the Busi ness Climate of the States" published in August 1975 by the Fantus Company, a subsidiary of D un and Bradst.reet, Inc it was dis closed that the following states had the most favorable business climate 1. Texas 2. Alabama 3. Virginia 4. South Dakota 5. South Carolina 6. North Carolina 7. Florida 8. Arkansas 9. Indiana 10. Utah Of the above states, all have right-to-work laws except Indiana.

The ten states with the most unfavorable business climate are as follows 1 2 3 5 None of 4 F7a. shin g t on Oregon Minnesota Pennsylvania Connecticut 6. Delaware 7. Michigan 8. Massachusetts 9. California 10. Ne w York the above ten states has a right-to-work law. -5 The purpose of this study was to assemble information about the business environment in those states in which clients of the Fantus Company might invest money in new and expanding business enterprise s . The Fantus Company, Inc., is the oldest and largest plant location consulting firm in the world; and their reports on the business climates of states are based on state taxes, pro grams, and laws affecting businesses, and the legislative and regulatory e nvironment of the state I An indication of .the economic vitality in a particular state is the increase in manufacturing jobs over a given period. From figures provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, note the com parison between right-to-work and non-ri ght-to-work states.

Table I Net Increases in Manu'facturing Jobs, 1'964-74 Right-to-Work States 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13. 14. 15 16 Texas 288,000

11. Iowa 65,900 North Carolina 232,900

12. Arizona 52,600 Tennessee 157,800

13. Kansas 46,600 Florida 136,600

14. Nebraska 24,800 Georgia 105,000

15. Utah 17,600 south Carolina 97,300

16. South Dakota 7,500 Alabama 94,000 17. North Dakota 5,800 5,500 700 Virginia 92,400

18. Nevada Mississippi 79,900

19. Wyoming Arkansas 77,000 TOTAL 1,587,900 California Ohio Indiana Kentucky Minnesota I1 linois Michigan wi scons in Oklahoma Colorado Missouri Oregon Pennsylvania Louisiana Washington New Jersey Non-Right-to-Work States 15,600 Idaho New Mexico 11,600 Delaware 10,800 Connect i cut 9,800 Rhode Island 9,800 New Hampshire 3,500 Vei-mont 7,900 West Virginia 4,400 Alaska 3,900 Montana 3,000 1,100 Maine 2,400 Hawaii Maryland-D.C 6,000 Massachusetts -32,400 213', 600 New York TOTAL 1 163, bad Right-to-Work Law effective July 9, 1976 S o urce: U.S. Department of Labor -6 A few conclusions should be noted from this table. While there was a net increase of 1,587,900 persons employed in manufacturing jobs during the 1964-76 decade in the right-to-work states, there was at the same time a sma ller gain in the other states even though they comprise 70% of the total U.S. population. This is compared with the right-to-work states that pulled a 57.7% net increase in manufacturing jobs during that decade.

Of the ten top states in the creation of these new jobs, six were right-to-work while four states suffering new losses were non-right-to-work: New York, -213,600 jobs;'Massachusetts 32,400; Maryland-D.C 6,000; and Hawaii, -2,400.

Another charge leveled against right-to-work states --particularly the Southern ones is that in those states where such laws are in force, economic growth is impeded. Once again data from the U.S. Department of Labor and Commerce seem to prove otherwise.

Table I1 1964 1974 Actual Gain Gain MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT RTW stat es average 195,200 278,800 83,600 43 Non-RTW states average 424,100 460,500 36,400 9 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT RTW states average 47,900 78,200 30,300 63 Non-RTW states average 66,100 78,310 12,210 18 NON-AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT Non-RTW states aver a ge 1,368,710 1,446,980 390,770 29 RTW states average 757,700 1,170,800 413,100 55 WEEKLY EARNINGS OF MANUFACTURING WORKERS RTW states average 94.44 $156.58 $62.14 40 Non-RTW states average 105.50 181.24 75.14 42 PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME RTW states avera g e $2,136 $4,819 $2,683 126 Non-RTW states average 2,606 5,469 2,863 110 NEW HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED RTW states average 19,399 22,126 2,727 14 Non-RTW states average 29,601 20,603 -8,998 -30 CATITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MANUFACTURING PLANTS 67-'73 RTW states a verage $288,530,000 $406,600,000 118,100,000 41 Non-RTW states average 499,470,000 601,060,000 100,590,000 20 -7 Table TI cont'd 1975 WORK STOPPAGES Number RTW states average 52.0 Non-RTW states average 138.8 Man-days Lost 357,600 787,400 Sources: U.S. De partment of Labor, and U.S. Department of Commerce Notice that in almost all categories the right-to-work states.out strip their non-riqht-to-work counterparts in economic growth.

For instance, consider the category of work stoppages. Every worker knows th at when a strike is called, he loses money. The old axiom NO work, no pay" still holds true. In 1975 the man-days lost as a result of a work Stoppage were more than 100% greater in the non-right-to-work states than in those that had a right-to work law. F u rthermore, in the decade 1964-74 there was a gain of 43% in manufacturing employment in the right-to-work states as opposed to a small gain of 9% in the 31 states of that time which had no right-to-work laws. From these figures it is fairly obvious that r a ther than impairing economic growth, right-to-work laws possibly produce an economic climate that facilitates pros perity to employees, employers, and the entire community. For instance, just In Table I1 the data shows the average gain in non-agricultural jobs was greater in the right-to-work states 413,100) than in the remaining states (390,779 Salaries in the Southern States viiliie all Liiebc facts show that buiness is enj.oying a renais sance in the Sunbelt states, doubts are still expressed that the i ndividual worker is not sharing in this prosperity. Frequently critics (not all of them union) charge that the wages received by Southern workers .are low and inferior compared to their Northern brethern.

In the .May 1977 issue of First Chicago World Report (pages 3-4 there is an article by Alan Reynolds, Vice President-Economist of the First National Bank of Chicago, entitled "Is Alabama Richer than New York?" The following Table I is taken from this arti cle: -a Table 1 Disposable Per Capita Income by State. 1975 Adjusted for Costsf-Living and Taxes Unadjusted Per tnpi:.

Income Snowbelt States Connecticut Massachusetts Rhode Island Maine New Hampshire Vermont New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Ohio Illinois Indiana Michigan Wisconsin Sunbclt States Florida Georgia North Carolina South Carolina Virginia West Virginia Delaware Maryland Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas Sources Adjusfed Diipsibir InCuine Per Capital 56.973 6.1 14 5.841 4.786 5.3 15 4,960 6.564 6.722 5.943 5.810 6.789 5,653 6.173 5.669 5.638 5.086 4.952 4.6 18 5.785 4.9 18 6.748 6,474 4.87 1 4.895 4.643 4.052 4,620 4.904 5.250 5.631 64.95 1 3.980 4.180 3,755 3.8 18 3.831 4.5 18 4.787 4,506 4.507 5.1 34 4.4 1 4 4.627 4,389 4.643 4.303 4.223 3.976 4.668 4.28 1 5.483 4.872 4.189 4.155 3.98 1 3.555 4.150 4,229 4.497 4.828 State and Local Taxa Prr Capita S 697 814 645 51 1 525 699 1.025 725 636 534 730 580 68 2 719 521 508 485 446 563 533 727 728 497 45 1 415 446 4 0 5 566 482 515 Net Adjusted Disposable Income Per Capita 54.254 3.166 3.535 3,244 3.293 3.132 3.493 4.062 3.870 3.973 4.404 3.834 3.945 3,670 4.122 3.795 3.738 3.530 4.105 3.748 4.756 4.144 3.692 3.704 3.566 3.109 3.745 3.663 4.0 15 4.313 I Adjusted for di l Tercnca in cost-of-livinR (U.S. rverrgc for 197s 100) and per capita federal taxes. The curt-of-living index used was the annual budge; for an intermediate standard of living Tor a four-person family. From C. J. Juscnius L. C. Ledcbur. 7hc Northern Tier a n d the Sunbelt. Challenge. MarchlApril 1977 Column 2 minus column 3 2 Tax Foundation. Inc 3 -9 This table shows that the statistics on per capita incorne can give a misleading impression of the actual differences in econo mic conditions in the various stat e s. The second column shows that the 1975 per capita income is adjusted for cost-of-living differences and federal taxes. Those states in which the cost-of-living is above or below the national average have had their per capita income figures inflated or d e flated accordingly. Whenever com parisons between Southern and Northern wages are made, New York is used as a benchmark and therefore will be so used in this analysis. Since most of the J.P. Stevens plants are located in Georgia, North Carolina, South Car o lina, and Virginia, these states. will serve as the other side of this comparison. Unad justed per capita income was $1,946 higher in New York than in South Carolina 1,612 higher in New York than in North Carolina and $1,478 higher in New York than in Geo rgia. However, even though per capita income was $779 higher in New York than in Virginia, when you add in the cost-of-living in New York, then the Old Dominion edges out the Empire State by $1

50. Further more, the third column of Reynolds' .Table I shows the per capita state and local taxes which are subtracted 5rom adjusted dis posable income to get the "net adjusted disposable income per capita" in the last column. This is the net of state, local and federal taxes.

In this next chart, also quoted from Reynolds' article, New York slips to the sixth poorest state in this list of thirty states even behind Alabama and South Carolina, Virginia rises to the seventh most affluent state, even ahead of New Jersey, Ohio Michigan .Pennsylvania, and Indiana. The n e t adjusted dispos able 'income averaged $3,859 for the Sunbelt states as a group as opposed to $3,705 for the Snowbelt. Six of the ten most affluent states are located in Dixie yet six of the ten poorest states are in the North. Following is Reynolds' Tab l e 11 10 Table 2 State Income rnd Taxation. 1975 Taxa as a Percent of NG;i!$,t Unadjusted Per Income Capita Incomc Capita' Total Federal Delaware 54,756 Illinois 4.404 Texas 4.3 I3 Connecticut 4.253 Maryland 4.144 Florida 4,122 Virginia 4.105 New Jersey 4. 0 62 Oklahoma 4.01 5 Ohio 3.973 Michigan 3.94s Pennsylvania 3.870 Indiana 3.834 Georgia 3.795 Wat Virginia 3,748 Arkansas 3,745 North Carolina 3.738 Tennessee 3.704 Kentucky 3.692 Wisconsin 3.670 Louisiana 3.663 Alabama 3.566 Rhode Island 3.535 South Caroli n a 3.530 New York 3,493 New Hampshire 3.293 Maine 3.244 Massachusetts 3,166 Vermont 3.132 Mississippi 3.109 36.6% 25.88 35.9 251 31.6 22.4 35.8 25.0 36.2 24.9 33.7 24.4 33.2 23.4 35.1 24.3 31.7 22.5 36.0 24.9 34.7 24.0 35.2 25.0 33.9 23.9 33.0 22.2 28.4 19 .6 32.9 23.1 32.6 23.4 32.8 22.6 36.2. 23.5 33.2 21.7 31.0 22.1 36.0 24.9 32.2 22.5 42.4 263 36.2 26.3 33.1 22.5 38.4 25.1 37.6 23.5 33.4 22.4 34.0 24.8 Sowers 1 2 From column

4. Table 1.

Federal per apiu UXCI from Jwniuc Lcdebur. op cii. State and loul pi capita taxa and unadjusted per upiu income from columnr 3 and

1. Table 1. -11 Reynolds' Table I1 shows that federal, state and lacal taxes in 1975 amounted to 42.4% of per capita income (unadjusted for taxes or cost-of-living) in New York, 38.4% in Ma ssachusetts 36.0% in Michigan, and 35.9% in Illinois. By comparison taxes took only 32.2% of income in South Caroljna, 32.9% in North Carolina, 33.9% in Georgia, and 33.2% in Virginia. It is an axiom that states that have high taxes generally make it diff i cult to attract and retain producing individuals and enter prises. Furthermore, the problem of high state and local taxes is compounded by the federal tax system because federal income taxes are levied on nominal income not real income. Taxpayers in state s with a high cost-oC-living are in higher federal tax brackets than taxpayers whose lower nominal incomes will buy just as much in other states. Federal taxes amount to 25.8% of unadjusted per capita income in New York, 25.1% in Massachusetts 24.9% in Mic higan, and 25.1% in Illinois. Federal taxes amounted to only 22.5% in South Carolina, 23.1% in North Carolina, 23.9 in Georgia, and 23.4% in Virginia states with higher net ad justed disposable incomes per capita than either New York or Massachusetts.

In s ummary, the often-repeated charge that Southern states particularly those four where most J. P. Stevens employees live and work are behind the industrial North in job opportunities real wages, and a better standard of living is false. The most objective, r ecent data shows that these states are anything but economic backwaters J.P. Stevens vs. the ACTWU In 1963 'the' Union began a massive campaign to organize the South with J.P. Stevens as its chief target. After forty organizing campaigns and fifteen reque s ts for secret-ballot elections, the union won an election in August 1974 at the seven plants of the Roanoke Rapids group in North Carolina. It won by the narrow margin of 1,685 to 1,448 thereby representing 7% of the 45,000 employees of Stevens. For the l a st two-and-a-half years, both the company and the union have been meeting to secure a contract for these employees, but there has not been much success. The union charges that the Wmpany has failed to bargain fairly, yet Stevens responds with a similar ch a rge against the union We are and have been for a long period of time desirous of accelerating the contract negotiations at Roanoke Rapids to bring that matter to a conclusion repeatedly urged the union to meet with us more fre quently without success mont h s there have been only ten full days and three half days of negotiation meetings devoted to provisions to be included in a collective bargaining agreement an average of less'than one day per month We have In fact, during the past twelve In early -12 March at a meeting in New York and subsequently in a letter dated March 16, 1977, we expressed to Monsignor Higgins our position that more frequent contract negotiation sessions at Roanoke Rapids are necessary. The last contract negotiation meeting occurred on March

9. A meeting scheduled for April 1 was cancelled by the union and no date has yet bee set for the next contract negotiation meeting not withstanding the fact that Stevens has been and still is willing to meet at any time Excerpts from a letter sent to Archbishop Donellan of Atlanta, Stevens Responds to Statements by Bishops June 3, 19

77. J.P. Stevens Company, Inc It should be pointed out that disenchantment with the union has surfaced at Roanoke Rapids, and workers have organized a J.P.

Stevens Employees Educational Committee to get rid'of the union NLRB Decisions Since 1965, there have been fifteen Board decisions against the company yet three of those were overturned by the court.

NLRB has found twenty-five decisions against the union, and ironi cally sone.unions have had more NLRB decisions against them in a year than Stevens has had in its entire history.' In 1974, the Board found that the ACTW committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to meet with the bargaining agent representing its own employees. In a similar case, the Southern Staff Union, bar gaining agent for mion employees, accused its union-employer of using unfair tactics against its own employees The It stated No employee is more helpless or more vigorously opposed by an internat ional union than its own employees.

The very union which cries out for assistance from the American Catholic Bishops, against an employer such as Farah Manufacturing Company has turned to tactics against itsown employees which are analogous in every respec t to those it accuses Farah of employing Violence One of the most unfortunate aspects of labor-management history in America is the violence that often accompanies union organizing.

It is not unexpected that union violence has been part of organizing efforts in the Southern textile industry. One such example in volved the Textile Workers AFL-CIO Union in Henderson, North Carolina during a strike against another company reported, "Vio l ence in the form of beatings, stonings, shootings and bombings became the order of the day in Henderson A newspaper -13 According to eyewitness reports, cars and trucks were damaqed by repeated barrages of rocks and stones, and acid was poured on the mack i nery. ployer and employee alike, and there were convictions for con spiracy in one of the dynamiting attempts. This resulted in prison terms for the TWU's Southern Director and several members of his staff Bombs destroyed the property of both em A more se r ious t;eries of union directed violent acts occurred during at strike at the Kayser-Roth plant in Dayton, Tennessee As a result of a Federal Court decision, the Textile Workers' Union was required to pay $1.25 million to that company for deliberate e:;.cr u ction of company property and business Wages J.P. Stevens employees are paid wages as high orhigherthan in the textile industry. Their wages are much higher than the national minimum wage of $2.30 an hour. For instance, their production employees earn $4, 25 an hour with company-funded frings benefits that add another 25% to wages. As has been pointed out in this study, wages in the Southeast are effectively higher because the cost oflivingis lower there.

The fringe benefits paid by the company include a co mprehensive package covering medical and life insurance, pension plan, holi days, tuition assistance and time off for family lnerals, jury duty, etc This not only compares favorably with the rest of tne textile industry, but it is very competitive with ot h er indljlstries in the Southeast Minoti t i 8s Minority workers constitute 23% of J.P. Stevens' work force, an increase of over 200% in the last ten years as compared to a 1976 Bureau of Labor Statistics figure of 17% in the textile industry and 11% in ma n ufacturing in general. Forty-two percent of the company's work force is' female, an increase of 23% in the last ten years, as compared to 29% in general manufacturing and 47% in the textile industry. There are over 1,100 black and minority members in skil l ed, supervisory and office positions Occupational Safety Health J.P. Stevens has a Corporate Medical Director who supervises 32 occupational health clinics serving plant groups and staffed bv more than fortv trained medical personnel. Of the fortv-one ind ustries reporting to the National Safety Council, textiles -14 ranked as the fourth safest in number of lost-time accidents.

Stevens places very favorably in this category, and in fact the National Safety Council has regularly issued awards to the company for its safety records I Community Relations a Education Southern culture has always fostered a close interest by com panies in church, civic, and local activities; and J.P. Stevens is recognized throughout the region and the industry for its community an d philanthropic involvement. Within the last five years it has contributed $3.5 million to community programs with 1.3 million going to educational institutions. In the same period of time it has paid a quarter of a billion dollars in federal, state and lo cal taxes including 42 million to the four states of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georg;.a and Virginia.

Forty thousand of Stevens' forty-five thousand employees are lo cated in these states.

The Council for Financial Aid to Education shows that overal l corporate contributions to education averaged 18% of pre-tax income. The highest ratio for any industry covered in the survey was .51% of pre-tax income contributed by the combined Textile and Apparel Industry which was triple the average of all busines s.

The .55% of pre-tax income contributed by J.P. Stevens is even better than that of 'its industry group. Since 1955, J. P. Stevens has donated a quarter of a million dollars to the United Negro College Fund Environment a Energy Conservation Recognized as a leader in the field, the company has an Environ mental Services Laboratory staffed with the professionals who use the most modern scientific equipment to analyze and monitor wastewater for the company's eighty-five plants. As a result of a company-spon sored $100,000 grant to Clemson University to study advanced wastewater technology, there was invented a patented hyperfiltration system.

They have spent more than 20 million for environmental controls in the last twelve years and have plans to mend $4 million in 1977 for water and air pollution control projects.

The Federal Energy Administration has praised Stevens for their energy conservation programs. The company has achieved a 13% energy savings as compared with the. 1973 base year. Its efforts in ene rgy saving put Stevens as a leader on the Energy Policy Committee of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc 15 Summary The AFL-CIO, along with numerous civil rights, liberal, social and church groups is engaged in a nation-wide boycott of J.P. S tevens. A question to be asked is whose jobs will be lost as a result of this boycott? Will they be those of union officials, or those of the textile workers? Another textile manufacturer, the Farah Manufacturing Company, has never recovered from a nation -wide boycott.

The Farah Manufacturing Company, the Texas apparel-maker that was locked inabitter union fight for several years and suffered a widespread boycott of its products, announced yesterday that it'expected to report another, and 'significant loss in the second quarter of this year Farah Is Ex pecting a 'Signific&t' Loss The-New York Times, 20 May 1977 The court of public opinion wil' have to decide whether a union with the record of the ACTWU is the best judge of the workers of J.P.'Stevens. With only 7% of this company unionized, and an Employees Education Committee trying to oust the union, perhaps the workers of J.P. Stevens and Company have said to the union Thanks but no thanks. I Written by David A. Williams Policy Analyst Economics/Taxation