150 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
Miss Cooxr. Why, it is the employer’s private business. 
Mr. LaGuarpia, Well would not the State and Federal agencies 
naturally have the same kind of information? 
Miss Cooxg. Absolutely. 
Mr. LaGuarpia. What would be the objection—the fear that any 
information which the agency may have concerning the employers 
would be turned over by reason of regulation? 
Miss Cooke. Well, you have asked me a question, sir, if I would 
answer 1t—I will answer it. If you would like to know why the 
public offices have not been a success, I will tell you. It is just for 
the reason the employer dare not give them his confidential business, 
because the average public office, the superintendent of the public 
office, in a large majority of cases, has carried a union card. Now, 
gentlemen, I am getting in deeper than I wanted to; I am in a difficult 
position. I want to say this, that our organization recognizes the 
right of men and women to organize and we realize if there had not 
been some such organization as the American Federation of Labor 
we would probably have a system of servitude in this country, of 
which we might well be ashamed. I stand for the principle, but 
I can not always accept the policies and practices. 
Mr. LaGuarpia. Then from your answer—and if I am not correct 
I wish you would correct me—most of this confidential information 
concerning the employer refers to the affiliation of prospective em- 
ployees with labor organizations, or is there any other information? 
Miss Cooke. No. You should state—If I call up a fee-charging 
agency or a public office—if I am an employer and call a public agency 
or a private agency and ask them to send me an executive or a hod 
carrier, they are entitled to know all that I expect from that executive 
or hod carrier. 
Mr. LaGuarpia. Well what is the feature; what is it that the em- 
ployer would feel free to communicate to the private fee-charging 
agency that he hesitates to communicate to the State or Federal 
agency? Can you tell us that? 
Miss Cooke. Well I know of no private agency owned or operated 
by a member of organized labor. 
Mr. LaGuagrpia. That is the real reason; it is the labor affiliations 
which is the greater part of this confidential information? 
Miss Cooke. Of course, you are putting questions to me—— 
Mr. MonNTAGUE. I can not hear what you say. 
Miss Cooke. You are asking me to answer questions that I believe 
only the employers should be asked; but I have made a broad state- 
ment here and [ am able to substantiate it. 
Mr. LaGuarpia. Miss Cooke, Mr. Emery, who represents the 
manufacturers, based his opposition primarily on constitutional 
grounds, 
Miss Cooke. Yes. 
Mr. LaGuarpia. You, representing the national board of private 
employment agencies, state there are many reasons that would 
necessitate the private employment agencies, saying that there was 
an good deal of private, confidential, privileged information. 
Miss Cooke. There is. 
Mr. LaGuarpia. You even compare it to the relation between ¢ 
counsel and his client. 
Miss Cookg. Absolutely.