EXHIBIT 52 STATEMENT OF PAUL R. CHRISTOPHER, NATIONAL CIO REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SOUTH, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, OCTOBER 12, 1945 The southern worker appeals to your committee to recommend the adoption of the present bill. We need the assistance of congressional legislation to correct the highly inequitable situation prevailing in the Southern States. Hundreds of thousands of workers throughout these States are not now earning a decent living wage. In fact, their income hardly permits these workers to meet even the WPA subsistence level which had been set up for relief workers during the days of 1933-34 when the cost of living was one-half to one-third what it is today. Our efforts created wide varieties of tools of war. We, the workers of the Tennessee Valley, the Cumberlands, of the Piedmont, of the Coastal Plateau, of all the nine Southern States I represent, have built and created the tools of war. We worked in the bag-loading plants; we built ships; we produced aluminum; we spun and wove textiles for the Army; we built airplanes. Yes; we produced the atomic bomb. We are the hard-working productive workers who are ready to serve America both in war and in peace. The workers of the South are no longer willing to accept economic disfranchisement. The South is rich country even though its resources have been misused. The South can pay its people a living wage. The South can and must afford its working citizens protection against those employers who are unwilling to pay even a subsistence wage. There is no eternal dictum that we shall be bound to neglect and to poverty. We have seen the reluctant employer comply with NRA laws, with the Wages and Hours Act, and with the War Labor Board rules. They have paid these increases in wages required by law and by governmental directives. They have not been ruined. Their gloomy forebodings of the future were never realized. Actually the reverse happened. Every time they increased their wages they became more prosperous. Industry began to enjoy more profits. They found newer and cheaper methods of production. They found that their workers became more productive. The employers are beginning to learn the lesson that the cheapest worker is the one who is paid the highest wage. He is the most productive worker. The secret of low costs in other sections of the country has been high wages. The southern employer is just beginning to learn this elementary lesson. We must help him learn it since he has been a most reluctant student. The elimination of substandard wages is imperative if American industry is to get the full value of the potential productive power of American workers. Low wages have hindered the South. They have not resulted in new industries. They have brought some sweat shops but no real industries. More new plants have recently been built in high-wage areas than in low-wage areas. Industry goes where there are markets. High wages make for markets. Let us have higher wages and we will build our own industries in the South. We know what our workers are worth. We built the new atomic bomb at a minimum of 65 cents. We cannot believe that our wages will be depressed. Our country has new resources and power. The factories in Oak Ridge, Tenn., employed our southern workers. They proved their worth. We must not disillusion the workers at these plants by now turning them back to low wages of 40 or 50 cents an hour. Nor must we disillusion our soldiers and our industrial workers who devoted themselves to the production of tools of war. They have worked during all the war years, hoping that at least we would banish fear of want in America. A wage below 65 cents means abject want. We cannot believe that you, as the representatives of the people, will permit this condition to continue. You cannot permit the disillusionment of the last war to develop. You cannot allow the reaction and disappointment which led to fascism and nazism to take root in this country. The workers of the South need legislation protection. We are not completely organized. We have been at the mercy of misguided employers, who thought they could only make profit by sweating workers and underpaying them. Our workers may have been inarticulate; they have only recently responded to the calls for freedom and for industrial rights. We ask that you help us avoid having to fight for our rights on the picket line. Give us the protection of legislation and our labor will enrich society and improve our own status. There can be no better way of promoting southern well-being than by the adoption of the proposed minimum. The solid block of southern workers expect the Congress of the United States to adopt this bill. They expect that their sacrifices during the war shall have not been in vain. Millions of us remained in the low-paid industries in order to turn out the tools of war. We now expect to be rewarded by a decent living wage. Millions went to other districts to produce war material. These workers would like to come back but they will not if wages in the South remain very low. Many discharged soldiers are now leaving the South because they have come to expect living wages and decent working conditions. Too many of our very best citizens will not remain in the South, be cause of low economic standards. Many persons want to establish new businesses in the South, but are discouraged because there is only a limited market. We need new industry; but new industry needs a market to which it can sell. Ade quate wages will produce this market Some industries are already paying 65 cents in the South. The largest lowpaid industries, such as textiles, can easily bring rates up to 65 cents because the higher wages are already established in other parts of the country. We can compete on an equal basis, man for man and hour for hour, with industry in other parts of the country. Pay us the same wages as other workers and, if management will do its share, we are sure that the results will be in our favor. Gentlemen, we ask you to approve the 65 cent minimum. The cost of living has risen, rents are higher, the only clothes we buy are very costly. We need the 65 cents. Remember, that out of these low wages we have deducted social security, income and local taxes. In a number of our Southern States we also pay sales taxes on most of the things we buy. We want to pay our doctor bills; we want to help support our churches; we want to enjoy decent homes. We can only do these things if you will set a wage floor which will give us the income we need to buy this kind of a livelihood. The employers need a wage floor to protect them from cut-throat competition. We need a wage floor to protect us from starvation. Let me say again that the miraculous production of the atomic bomb was accomplished by southern workers whose labors were inspired by a 65-cent minimum wage. Give us the inspiration and the means to produce all those things which we must have to lead fuller and better lives which the atomic age requires of us. EXHIBIT 53 STATEMENT OF H. W. BROWN, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN- I am H. W. Brown, president, International Association of Machinists, (A. F. of L.) with offices at Ninth and Mount Vernon Place NW., Washington, D. C. The International Association of Machinists represents some 700,000 American citizens who are employed in all types of industries. I am appearing here in behalf of Senate bill 1349, a bill to provide for the amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act many changes have occurred in the economic pattern of our Nation. The cost of living has substantially increased. Wages also have been increased. During the war period take-home pay has increased to such an extent that the return to the normal workweek at current straight-time earnings will not adequately support our peacetime ecenomy. This means that we must follow one of two courses, either raise wages or lower prices. During the reconversion period lowering prices cannot be accomplished very readily. Many manufacturers have reconverted their plants on overtime schedules. They have invested the cost of this labor and they must now sell their goods at prices which will enable them to recover the investment. Furthermore, most of the available consumer goods have been produced with labor costs that are 64 percent higher today than they were in 1939. With the return to the 40-hour week industry would be well able to raise straight time hourly wages at least 20 percent. The economies affected by the shorter workweek will more than offset this increase. Authorities generally agree that the solution to the problem is to increase wages. There is no doubt but that the present economic problem facing labor will result in a general upward revision of wage rates. These events have an important bearing on this bill. Since 1939 straight-time average earnings have increased 44.3 percent or a little over 26 cents an hour. The 1944 dollar has a purchasing value of 72 percent of our 1939 dollar when measured by the adjusted cost-of-living index. The cost of living according to the much disputed Bureau of Labor Statistics index has since 1939 increased from 100.8 to 129, using the period of 1935-39 as a base of 100. Labor has never agreed that this index reflects an accurate picture of the actual cost of living. We contend that the actual increase in the cost of living is somewhat nearer 140 using 1935-39 as a base of 100. In the latter part of 1943 a report submitted by the labor members of the President's Committee on the Cost of Living stated that a survey by the labor members indicated that the cost of living had risen 43.5 percent from January 1941 to December 1943 whereas the Bureau of Labor Statistics index showed only a 23.4 percent increase. Since that report was submitted the Bureau of Labor Statistics has admitted its index is low by a few points. The Mitchell committee, an impartial committee requested by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to study its Cost of Living Index, and the majority of the President's Committee on the Cost of Living agreed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics index was low by approximately 4 points. In any event we all know that the cost of living has risen considerably since the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed. Moreover there is little likelihood of any appreciable decrease in the cost of living during the next few years. All indications are that prices will go still higher, and a higher cost of living makes it all the more necessary to raise the statutory minimum rates of the Fair Labor Standards Act. President Truman in his last message to Congress, recognized higher wages are necessary when he advised Congress to consider for itself an increase in salaries. The House has already provided an increase for its members. Certainly if the Senators and Congressmen feel that the increased cost of living necessitates increasing salaries above $10,000 yearly, the worker ekeing out an existence on 40 cents an hour should receive favorable consideration for an increase of his hourly rate to a minimum of 65 cents with provisions for increasing this minimum to 75 cents in 2 years. I want to make myself clear, gentlemen, that I am not opposed to Congress increasing salaries for its Members as I feel there is a need for adjustments in the upper brackets as well as in the lower ones. The group of workers who will benefit by this measure suffer most by the upward rise of our cost of living. They represent a substantial portion of our economy and Congress should provide that they receive adequate pay to maintain a decent American standard of living. The need for increasing the minimums is greater today than was the need for the minimums of 1938. Today, however, we are fortunate in that the Nation is in a better financial position to pay the proposed increases advocated in this bill. Today, only 34 percent of all workers are receiving less than 65 cents an hour, the minimum proposed by this bill, whereas in 1939, 300,000 workers were receiving less than the 25 cents minimum proposed by the act at that time. In April 1939, 650,000 employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act were receiving less than 30 cents an hour. Corporate profits after taxes have increased 119 percent from 1939 to 1943, rising from over 4 billion in 1839 to 8 billion 900 million in 1943. Estimates indicate that profits after taxes for 1944 will be slightly lower than they were in 1943 which was a banner year for all industry. While there are no accurate statistics available as to the profits of the lowwage industries it appears that the minimums proposed by this bill can be put into effect without upsetting the economy of those industries. It may necessitate slight price increases but we contend price increases are justifiable when minimum living standards are endangered. I know this committee has heard reams of testimony concerning minimum budget needs. I merely want to point out that at the time the act was passed a minimum budget of $1,020 was considered sufficient to provide basic maintenance for a family of four. Congress provided a minimum of $800 to meet this standard. Today it is estimated that it will take $1,752 to provide basic minimum budget for a family of four. The Heller committee estimates that a budget for a wage earner's family of four will need a $2,964 yearly salary. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that it will take $1,673 for a maintenance budget for four people or an increase of about 64 percent over the 1939 budget. We maintain that the Federal Government has a duty to maintain adequate statutory minimum wage rates which guarantee a decent American standard of living. If Congress fails to pass this bill the purpose of the minimum wage features of the Fair Labor Standards Act will in fact be a mockery and a meaningless expression of Congress. The minimums provided by this bill will restore to the Fair Labor Standards Act wage floors comparable to the minimums essential in 1938. It will add dignity to the act, lifting it from a mere statement of policy to a piece of social legislation worthy of the Congress of the United States. Mr. Chairman, we believe the passage of this measure will go a long way to ward fulfilling the administration's full-employment program. It will bring it about without the aid of Federal spending. Moreover, it will bring about an upward revision in the low wages group on a noncompetitive basis. Generally when wage rates are revised upward by collective bargaining those firms increasing wages first do so at a decided competitive disadvantage with those employers who refuse to increase wages, and unless a substantial part of an industry is organized wages are not raised to the proper level. We feel certain that if this measure fails enactment into law industrial unrest will result in the low wage industries. Finally, I want to point out that witnesses in supporting legislation of this type and economists appearing before committees must in a large measure draw on statistics, indexes, and data, all based on averages. I want to point out, gentlemen, that these averages mean that at least a substantial number of people who are represented receive wages far less than the averages indicate. There are over 1,200,000 employees in manufacturing, mining, construction, transportation, communications, and public utilities who still receive less than 50 cents an hour. LIMITATION AMENDMENT We are in accord with the section of the bill which provides that action by employees to recover claims under the act must be filed within 5 years. During the hearings on the Gwynne bill before the House Judiciary Committee we recom mended that a 5- or 6-year period should be enacted as a limit to file for claims under the act. Your committee recalls that the Gwynne bill sought to limit the time to 2 years or less if the States had shorter periods. We believe Congress should enact a 5-year period to prevent the States from passing laws which provide for shorter periods. Many States have already adopted laws which limit the time for filing claims to shorter periods. We contend that only Congress had a right to limit the period in which claims could be filed and we advocated congressional action in the interests of uniformity instead of individual State action. We believe any shorter period than 5 years proposed by this bill will be detrimental to the employees whom the act is supposed to protect. AMENDMENT AFFECTING MOTOR CARRIERS ACT Our organization recommends that the committee give further consideration to amending section 13 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. We suggest that the proposed bill be amended so that those employees of the motor carriers who are now exempted be placed under the Fair Labor Standards Act regardless of whether the Interstate Commerce Commission has established qualifications and maximum hours of service regulations. At the present time only the drivers and the helpers are covered by the Interstate Commerce Commission regulation. However, the courts have ruled all those employees who affect the safety of operations of the carriers' equipment are covered. This includes the mechanics. It does not affect painters and bodymen, oilers, and others. This gives rise to many vexing problems in many garages owned by motor carriers. Some of the mechanics are permitted to work unlimited hours without overtime payment whereas those who do not affect the safety of operation must be paid time and one-half after 40 hours. If the bill were enacted into law as it now reads, all of the employees covered by the motor carriers except the drivers and helpers would be covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, provided the Interstate Commerce Commis sion issues no further regulations. We fear that immediately after the passage of this bill as it now reads, the Interstate Commerce Commission will be called on to issue further regulations. Our organization wants to see all mechanics covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Strictly from our point of view, the I. A. of M. would like to have your committee amend the paragraph beginning with line 9 and ending with line 14, inclusive, of page 12 of the proposed bill to prevent the Interstate Commerce Commission from issuing further regulations which would exempt employees who would not be exempted as the bill now reads. As an alternative, we suggest that the committee consider the entire conflict in jurisdiction between the Motor Carriers Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. There is really no reason why any person covered by section 204 of the Motor Carriers Act should not be covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The purpose of section 204 is to prevent the working of long hours which would cause fatigue and accidents; the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act prevents unfair competitive advantages between employers willing to observe the 40-hour week and those who are not. We see no reason why the Interstate Commerce Commission should not prescribe maximum, weekly or daily hours for employees who are at the same time covered by the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The fact that the Interstate Commerce Commission says you cannot work an employee more than 60 hours in 1 week does not prevent his employer from being compelled to pay him time and one-half after he has worked 40 of those 60 hours. We would eliminate the exemption of any person covered by section 204 of the Motor Carriers Act. In any event we desire an amendment which eliminates the present exemption for mechanics who affect the safety of the carriers equipment. EXTENDING COVERAGE OF ACT The amendments proposed by this bill which will cover employees engaged in the processing of agricultural products, fishing, fish processing and handling, and the elimination of the exemption of seamen is highly desirable. There is really no good reason why these employees should not be covered by the act; they need its protection and we urge your committee to recommend its adoption. AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH MINIMUMS FOR HIGHER CLASSIFICATIONS Our organization is not in accord with the principle of establishing minimums for higher classifications by law. We feel that the purpose that the amendments in this bill endeavors to establish can be best accomplished by collective bargaining. It is our opinion that if the amendment as proposed by this bill was adopted, that it would cause considerable complications in its administration. THE CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT Organized labor has always been in accord with the abolition of child labor. We see no useful purpose in restating here reasons for the adoption of this section of the proposed bill. This committee has reams of testimony which prove that the amendment should be adopted. We rest our position with regard to the amendment on the statement that we endorse it. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS NOT COVERED BY THE PEPPER BILL We also urge your committee to give consideration to an amendment proposed by the administrator of the act which would authorize him to bring action directly to recover wages due under the act. Such an amendment will be an inestimable aid in securing compliance to the act and will aid in speeding uniform compliance to the intent and desire Congress had in mind when the act was passed. Under the present law the majority of employees are reluctant to institute court proceedings in their own behalf. This is obviously unfair to employers who are abiding by the law. Our organization would also urge your committee to give favorable consideration to an amendment to the act which will require the payment of time and one-half after 8 hours work in one day. We have never felt that the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act which permit an employer to work his employees long hours for a few days in the week and then send them home for the rest of the week to escape the payment of premium rates were fair. We feel that the overtime provisions of the Walsh-Healy Act are more in accord with the general practice of industry and should be applied to those industries covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Such an amendment would be a progressive step toward uniform labor standards. Now would be a good time to bring this about. With these additions, we urge your committee to recommend the passage of this bill. It will be the fulfillment of the Government's pledge to maintain a deecnt and adequate American standard of living. I thank you. |