Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

EXHIBIT 4. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD POLICY ON OVERTIME PAY IN INDUSTRIES EXEMPT FROM OR PARTIALLY COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

Dispute cases

NATIONAL BOARD POLICY

The National War Labor Board has issued no overtime policy statement covering these cases. The National Board, however, has shown a disposition to approve the introduction or liberalization of overtime provisions that are in conformity with industry and/or area practice, or for the correction of certain intraplant inequities. For those industries which are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Board has approved the payment of overtime after 40 hours and after 48 hours, as well as after 8 hours a day.

Case examples

111-2123-D-Land O'Lakes Creamery (Rush City, Minn.) Agricultural and Allied Workers.

United Cannery,

National Board affirmed regional board's decision granting a reduction in the basic work week from 54 to 48 hours and ordered introduction of overtime pay after 48 hours a week. Basis: General industrial practice. April 24, 1944-unanimous.1

111-241-R-Food Industries Employers Labor Relations Council, Inc. (Los Angeles, Calif.). Retail Clerks International Protective Association, Retail Food Clerks Union, AFL.

National Board granted time and one-half after 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. On appeal upheld prior decision. Basis: Area practice. April 13, 1944.2

111-5572-D-Denver, Colorado Markets and Food Stores (Denver, Colo.). 111-5826-D-Retail Clerks International Protective Association, Local 7, AFL and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 634, AFL.

National Board sustained region IX decision ordering 9-hour day and 48-hour week (industry dissenting in regional decision: Industry and one public member dissenting in national vote-five to four.) Basis of decisionintra-plant inequity. October 31, 1944.3

3131-CS-A-Crescent Brick Co., (New Cumberland, W. Va.). United Brick and Clay Workers of America, Local 476, AFL.

Board approved introduction of time and one-half after 8 hours a day. Basis: General industry practice.. The referee stated that the 8-hour day is widely accepted and should apply except in most unusual circumstances. 111-2289-D, et al-Six Wisconsin condensery cases: International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL, Locals 442, 507, 579-16 Wisconsin towns.

Board affirmed the regional board action of November 14, 1944 (industry dissenting) which granted overtime after 40 hours in a week and after 8 hours in a day, provided that there shall be no pyramiding of overtime. The basis of regional board action is given in the majority opinion in cases 1117310 and 111-8035-D:

"(1) The prevailing practice in the area;

"(2) The prevailing practice in a substantial portion of the industry; and "(3) The inequity which would result from a denial in view of the fact that almost all workers in American industry are either receiving overtime payment for all work after 40 hours or have received increases in their basic wage rates in lieu of such overtime payments." 111-6500-D-Santa Maria Valley growers and shippers (California). Federal Labor Union, Local 18211, AFL.

Board denied the company's petition for review and affirmed region X decision which liberalized overtime provisions, ordering time and one-half after 8 hours a day and for all work performed between 6 p. m. and 7 a. m. Formerly, employees had received time and one-half for hours worked after 10 p. m. and also for hours worked after 8 p. m., if an employee had already worked 8 hours that day. Basis: Industry practice. March 6, 1945, industry dissenting; majority and minority opinion.

Majority opinion: "Reasonable hours and overtime provisions have been approved or directed by the board in various cases involving industries wholly or partially exempt from the FISA. In dispute cases, the board has first inquired whether the proposed adjustment was fair and equitable under the

1 Fair Labor Standards Act, sec. 7 (c).

2 Fair Labor Standards Act, secs. 13 (a) (1): 13 (a) (2).

3 Fair Labor Standards Act, secs. 13 (a) (1): 13 (a) (2).

4 Fair Labor Standards Act, sec. 13 (a) (5).

[ocr errors]

circumstances of the particular case and, next, whether the adjustment would be unstabilizing in the industry or the area involved. The scope of the industry to be considered and the relative emphasis to be placed on industry and area practice have varied, depending on the circumstances. In such case the National Board has given considerable weight to the judgment of the regional boards, and has accepted these findings of fact, if reasonably supported by the evidence as conclusive."

Minority opinion of industry members maintained that the fact that time and one-half for hours after 6 p. m. is the practice in other areas, as the result of collective bargaining, furnishes no precedent for the Santa Maria Valley

area.

Voluntary cases

The Board has issued no overtime policy statement covering these industries. The Board, however, shows a disposition to approve the introduction or liberalization of overtime provisions that are in conformity with industry and/or area practice.

Voluntary cases

REGIONAL BOARD POLICY

The regional war labor boards have, in general, followed the lead of the National Board in approving the payment of overtime after 40, 44, or 48 hours a week, as well as after 8 hours a day, unless such approval would be considered unstabilizing to industry or area practice. Region III has also approved overtime pay after 8 hours regardless of industry/area practice.

Dispute cases

The regional war labor boards have, generally, ordered overtime pay after 40, 44, or 48 hours a week, or after 8 hours a day on the basis of practice in the industry or area, or for the correction of intraplant inequities.

Regions VII, IX, and XII do not have a separate policy for dispute cases, but follow substantially the same policy outlined for voluntary cases.

Source: National War Labor Board Research and Policy Appraisal Division.

[blocks in formation]

EXHIBIT 6. EFFECT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT ON THE CANNING

INDUSTRY

There appear to be no adverse effects on either production or consumption of canned and preserved fruits and vegetables as a result of the 25-cent minimum which was established in October 1938, or of the 30-cent minimum established in October 1939. Production in almost every branch of the industry has increased since the Fair Labor Standards Act became effective.

The establishment of the 25-cent minimum, which first affected the 1939 canning season, decreased the percentage of employees earning less than 25 cents per hour from 18.6 percent of the total to 5.4 percent in the plants studied by the Women's Bureau in its survey of identical fresh vegetable canneries in 1938 and 1939. Tomato cannery workers carning less than 25 cents decreased from 20.9 percent of the total to 7.8 percent. No data are available to show the proportion

affected by the 30-cent minimum which applied to vegetable cannerics for the 1940 season, but certainly the effect was at least as large as that of the 25-cent minimum. Despite the increases in minimum rates, the production of tomatoes increased from 23.1 million cases in 1938, before the 25-cent minimum became effective, to 24.5 million cases in 1939. In 1940, when the 30-cent minimum was established, 29.5 million cases were produced, and in 1941 the pack was 317 million cases.

Individual tomato canning States show the same relationship of production to minimum rates. While the percentage of employees earning less than 25 cents per hour in Maryland decreased from 51 percent in 1938 to 29 percent in 1939, production increased from 5.1 million cases in 1938 to 5.8 millions in 1939. In 1940, when the 30-cent minimum became effective, production remained at 5.8 million cases, and in 1941 the output rose to 6.7 millions.

In the case of Virginia, the establishment of the 25-cent minimum had co effect on wages, according to the Women's Burcau survey, as the plants covered by the survey were all exempt from the act by virtue of the then existent ares of production definition. Production of tomatoes dropped from 1.8 million cases in 1938 to 1.6 million cases in 1939, but in 1940, when the canneries were required to pay the 30-cent minimum because the definition of the area of production was changed so as to include most canneries, production rose to 2.1 million cases. The Arkansas-Missouri region shows no relationship between the minimum rates and production. In 1938, there were 2.8 million cases of tomatoes canned in the area, and only 1 million cases in 1939. In 1940, the year the 30-cent minimum became mandatory for most canneries, production jumped to 3.7 million cases, and in 1941 dropped to 1.7 millions. The same lack of relationship occurred in the case of the Ozark spinach pack, production varying greatly, with 1949 being the peak year. The green bean pack for the region, Fowever, shows an almost steady growth from 1938 onward despite changes in wage-Four minimum

rates.

Source: Canned Fruits and Vegetables and Related Products Industry, Wage and Hour Division, March 1943.

EXHIBIT 7.-Citrus industry average hourly earnings and relation of wages to production cost

[blocks in formation]

Source: Report on the citrus fruit packing industry under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Wage æd Hour Division, April 1940.

EXHIBIT 8. COOPERATIVE CITRUS PACKING HOUSES IN RELATION TO INCIDENCE OF COSTS

The importance of grower cooperatives in the handling and packing of citrus fruits requires special consideration of the effect of the act on these cooperatives Consideration here is limited to the effect of the act on the operating costs of citrus-packing cooperatives, and more particularly to a consideration of the net effect of any actual increase in costs upon the farmer-members of these cooperstives.

The distinctive character of an agricultural cooperative in comparison with a private establishment is that a cooperative is a nonprofit organization owned by and operated for the benefit of the member-growers. The nonprofit element does not mean that a cooperative is not interested in making a net gain on its

Nearly 58 percent of the United States citrus production in the 1934-35 season was handled by coopera tives. More recent figures are not yet available. Data on cooperatives from Statistics of Farmers' Coop erative Business Organizations, 1929-35, Farm Credit Administration, Bulletin No. 6, 1936, table 19. Dais on citrus production of Agriculture, 1939, table 252.

operations, but rather that any income over and above costs is returned to each member on the basis of patronage supplied by him rather than on the basis of the member's capital investment in the cooperative, or stock held by him. In all other respects the operation of an agricultural cooperative does not differ from a business organization rendering the same type of service.

* * *

"An agricultural cooperative association is a business organization-just as much so es any of the more familiar private enterprises. Physical facilities, operating capital, and financial reserves are as essential for a cooperative association as they are for a commercial concern." 2

The three leading cooperatives which handle and market citrus fruits are the California Fruit Growers Exchange, Florida Cirtus Exchange, and the Mutual Orange Distributors. The last-named cooperative is the smallest of the three, marketing, as it does, about 10 percent of the citrus fruit grown in California and Arizona. California Fruit Growers Exchange handled 75 percent of the total packed citrus fruit in California and Arizona in 1935-36.4 The Florida Citrus Exchange handled 24 percent of all the citrus shipments from that State during the 1936-37 marketing season.5

It is sometimes stated that an increase in the costs of a cooperative automatically means a corresponding decrease in the price received by farmers for the commodity in question. Sometimes the effect is referred to as a reduction in the farmers' "proceeds" or, perhaps, "net returns" from the crop. Since cooperatives, in their business functions, do not differ from similar private establishments, and since both the cooperatives and the private establishments operate in the same competitive market, there is no reason to assume that an increase in wage payments and operating costs automatically means a decrease in the farmermember's proceeds from the sale of his crop.

Whether the receipts of the grower from the sale of his cooperatively packed citrus-fruit crop will be affected by any increase in packing costs obviously depends upon what happens to this increase in costs. If the private or commercial establishments are able to pass this increase in costs on to the consumers in higher prices, the cooperatives will be able to do so also, since prevailing prices are competitively determined by the existing conditions of supply and demand. If the commercial establishments are not able to pass the said costs on to consumers, but do absorb the increase in costs through greater productivity and reduced overhead costs, cooperatives will be able to do so also, since the operating costs per unit of output is generally as high or as low for cooperatives as for commercial establishments. Such absorption (or offsetting) of the increased costs by private or cooperative establishments will not widen the spread between farm prices and consumer prices, and therefore cannot affect the growers' receipts. On the other hand, if some private establishments actually pass the increased costs back to growers, it does not necessarily follow that proceeds of growermembers of cooperatives will be reduced, since growers can exert much greater pressures on their cooperatives to reduce costs than they can on private establish

ments.

It is only under conditions when the increase in costs has not been passed on to consumer, and has not been offset by the cooperatives through greater labor productivity and efficiency, that the increase in costs can be said to have been passed back so as to reduce the grower's proceeds from his cooperatively handled crop. In other words, the incidence of any increase in costs with respect to cooperative and private establishments are similarly determined by the same economic conditions.

Source: Report on the Citrus Fruit Packing Industry Urder the Fair Labor Standards Act, Wage and Hour Division, April 1940.

A Statistical Handbook of Farmers' Cooperatives. Farm Credit Administration, Bulletin No. 26, November 1938, pp. 1 and 9.

3 Agricultural Income Inquiry, pt. II, Federal Trade Commission, 1937, p. 64. Ibid, p. 61.

Figure given by the Farm Credit Administration and credited to the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 339, November 1939, table 9.

[blocks in formation]

EXHIBIT 9.-Margin between farm prices of cottonseed and estimated average value of products of cottonseed crushers-1938-45

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

2 July to June crop year for annual figures.

3 Includes mill margin, transportation to mill, and ginners' charges for selling seed. Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

EXHIBIT 80

TRENDS IN SOUTHERN WAGE DIFFERENTIALS SINCE 18901

RICHARD A. LESTER, Duke University

Sufficient statistical data exist from which to draw conclusions concerning trends in wage differentials between the North and the South, and within th South, during the period since 1890. Some of the trends and movements į South-North wage differentials appear to conform to a priori notions; other do not.

This paper presents part of the statistical background of a study of wages in southern industry. Explanations and conclusions here developed should te considered as tentative, subject to later modification in the light of further and more detailed analysis. Subsequent papers will explore more fully the econor. implications of these and other data that the author is collecting and analyzing A few words of caution about the statistics used in this paper seem appropriate at the outset. The ratios have been calculated from averages of hourly earning or wage rates. The South-North ratios may, therefore, be affected by change in the South, in the North, or in both regions.

In general the ratios only reflect over-all trends and do not exactly measure absolute wage differentials at any one time. They are not strictly comparab from one period to another because the establishments included are not identic over any length of time and because the statistical samples, either in terms of establishments or occupations included, may not be truly representative of the industry for an area in particular years. No allowance is made for region differences in quality or character of product, in equipment, in nature of the job, in gratuities or payments in kind, in the proportion of female, child, hardcapped, or colored workers, etc. The text and the statistical appendix indica: more specific limitations to the data for individual industries.

Absolute differences between regions, insofar as they continue throughout the whole period, would not affect the trend of the calculated ratios. The job of edgerman may be different in sawmills in the far West from the job so classifie in most southern sawmills; yet if those nonwage differences between region continue, or change at the same time and to the same degree in both regions, the calculated ratios would remain unaffected and their comparability would be r impaired. In order to make the ratios as nearly comparable as possible from yest to year, they are in most instances based on specific occupations and specifi geographic areas (cities or States).

1 This paper has benefited from criticisms by my colleagues, Calvin B. Hoover, Joseph J. Spengler, Frank T. deVyver, and B. U. Ratchford.

2 The writer is indebted to the General Education Board for financial support for th study.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »