Fenwick Archive  |  Trotskyist Writers  |  ETOL Home Page

L.J. & James Fenwick

Readers of Labor Action Take the Floor ...

A Question About On-the-Job Training

(24 February 1947)

From Labor Action, Vol. 11 No. 8, 24 February 1947, p. 7.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the ETOL.

Dear Sir:

In the January 20 issue of Labor Action, James Fenwick, in his article, Taking Off, Mr. Bolste? refers to the wage cuts instituted by Omar Bradley in the on-the-job training program. I would like to know how the on-the-job training program caused wage cuts.


Wilmington, Ohio.


The article in question did not make the point that the on-the-job-training program caused wage cuts. It stated that General Bradley “initiated the wage cuts in the on-the-job training program.”

It was Bradley who last year, utilizing the excuse that some employers were chiseling on the program by “training” executives for their posts at fancy figures like $700 a month, proposed that subsistence grants not be given beyond a total income of $175 per month for single men and $200 per month for married men. The proposal was incorporated in Senate Bill 2477 and passed by Congress. This meant a wage cut for a considerable, number of veterans who were earning more than these figures. This is what was referred to in the article.

The program itself, however, did induce unscrupulous employers to institute wage cuts, as the following story from Newsweek reveals:

“A veteran working as a garage mechanic in a small Southern town was getting $35 a week. When the garage offered to train him as a foreman, he accepted. They promptly cut his pay to $23 a week, explaining that his subsistence allowance would more than make up the difference.”

This action by Bradley was roundly condemned as late as a few weeks ago by the UAW Veterans’ Conference which met in Washington.

OK, L.J.?


James Fenwick

Fenwick Archive   |   Trotskyist Writers Index   |   ETOL Main Page

Last updated: 25 November 2020