Page images
PDF
EPUB

Assistance Board have representatives of workers, employers and consumers and all others concerned with the problems and potential benefits of conversion to the metric system. It is equally essential that individuals and organizations already committed to the use of the metric system be represented only in fair proportion to the rest of society.

SUMMARY

Today our country is staggering under an atmosphere of general distrust, persistent inflation and an economy-strangling energy crisis. It is very possible that metric conversion could aggrevate these difficulties. Since the unrestricted use of the metric system by anyone or any organization has been legal since 1866 there is no urgent need for additional legislation. The most practical approach to this issue is to establish a Metric Monitoring and Assistance Board. This would permit

maximum flexibility in an extremely unclear area yet permit immediate response to a growing problem.

[graphic]
[graphic]
[merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
to promote understanding

and discussion on a critical national issue

Excerpts from Hearings before the Committee on Commerce U.S. Senate Second Session on Metric Conversion

Feb. 29 & Mar. 1, 1972

Statement-Roy Trowbridge, Director, Engineering Standards, Gen. Motors for the Automobile Manufacturing Association.

Also, it is our general opinion that legislation ". . . to provide for converting to the general use of such system within 10 years . . ." would be premature at this time. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

In fact our AMA companies could find no benefits to offset the cost of conversion. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

The AMA is not convinced that the need for a legislated, nationally directed metrication program has been shown. We have not seen evidence that the United States would benefit from such a program, with a timetable and arbitrarily fixed end point. (Senate Hearings 1972.)

One of the points I have made on other occasions in this regard is that such a position tends to undermine our bargaining power in international standards activities. Now maybe this point is no longer valid, but the enunciation of such a policy immediately tells the rest of the world these people-the U.S.A.—are paper tigers with their standards. It suggests that we are going to wash our standards down the drain and that we will come up with new metric standards even though such standards do not exist in metal, or in fact, and that world trade will be able to eliminate all inch-based standards. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

As stated on March 1, 1972, at S. 2483 hearings: the AMA has some reservations concerning formal statement of metric conversion as a national policy. Despite an earnest attempt to embody the "rule of reason" (make no unnecessary change), such a policy surely would artificially stimulate activity to "go metric." The result could be an accelerated pace of metric unit increase that would not be desirable or economically justified. (Automobile Manufacturing Assn. Attachment.) (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Statement-Kenneth Peterson, Legislative Department, AFL-CIO.

The National Bureau of Standards, which handled the inquiry for the Commerce Department, failed to study the economic ramifications of the proposed conversion to workers, industry, consumers, and the American economy in general. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Statement-Frank Masterson, President, Industrial Fasteners Institute.

This morning a point was made that we had the opportunity in the United States for 180 years to go metric, but we refused to do so. During that 180-year period the greatest system of production, assembly, distribution, and consumption the world has ever seen was developed. There was no engineering nor economic advantage in "going metric." If there had been our highly competitive economy would have long ago "gone metric." (Senate Hearings-1972.) We oppose S. 2483 because it is premature, does not fully and

« PreviousContinue »