local areas, who labored and toiled without minimum wages or overtime pay to produce the products to feed this Nation and a large part of the rest of the world. In our judgment and estimation, the enactment of Senate bill 1349, removing the area-of-production exemption, would increase the wage costs of the approximately 250 local farmers exchanges and elevators in Missouri about $1,250,000 per year. This represents an increase in cost of more than the entire net savings of these exchanges and elevators for the year 1944. Furthermore, it would appear that passage of the bill would increase the cost of marketing farm products in Missouri, alone, by about $15,000,000. As before pointed out, this increased cost must be borne by the farmer. It will mean, therefore, an average cost to each farmer in Missouri.of approximately $60 per year. We are further opposed to the enactment of S. 1349 for the reason that it removes from section 7 of the present act, subparagraph (c) thereof, which is the so-called first-processing, exemption from the hours or overtime provision. The present section 7 (c) exempts from the hours or overtime provisions of the act employees engaged in the first processing of milk and cream, in the ginning and compressing of cotton and in the processing of cotton seed, and in the processing of sugar beets and sugarcane, and further exempts for a period of 14 workweeks in any calendar year, employees engaged in the first processing, canning and packing of perishable or seasonable fruits and vegetables and the first processing, within the area of production, of any agricultural commodity during seasonal operations, or in the handling or slaughtering or dressing of poultry or livestock. The removal of this exemption is another blow to the farmers of America because, again, it means that the additional wage cost of the first processor of these agricultural products will have to be borne by the farmer. We urge, therefore, the amendment of S. 1349 to include the first-processing exemption from the hours provision, as well as the so-called agricultural area-of-production exemption from all provisions of the act. The bill, in our opinion, is further detrimental to the best interests of all of the people of the United States in that it goes much further than the present Fair Labor Standards Act and permits the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division to arbitrarily set up job classifications within any one industry and fix different minimum wages for each such job classification. That provision is a great and fundamental departure from the intent and scheme of the present Fair Labor Standards Act. Setting up an over-all minimum wage may have been justified in order to rid our country of sweat-shop conditions. However, the determination by the Federal Government, through a sole administrator, of the wages which must be paid by an employer to each employee, according to that employee's skill, training, and qualifications, represents a socialistic interference by the Federal Government in our American way of life. Instead of leaving the determination of wage differentials to management and labor, the Federal Government would then be in the position of setting the minimum wage which every employee must be paid. Such a provision of the act far exceeds its purpose as expressed in section 2, of correcting "labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standards of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general wellbeing of workers * * We enlist your active support in correcting the provisions of the present bill so as to avoid the serious and drastic consequences which we have herein pointed out. We further urge that the area-of-production exemption should not only be retained in the wage-and-hour law, but should be defined by Congress to the effect that any establishment is in the area of production if it receives its farm products from the general vicinity of the location of the establishment. This definition of area-of-production should be made by Congress because the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division is apparently formulating a new definition of area of production, required by the Supreme Court in Addison v. Hollyhill Fruit Products, Inc., in a manner which will destroy to a large degree the obviously intended scope of the exemption. Furthermore, the Wage and Hour Division has taken the position that under that exemption all employees of an establishment so located are exempt from the act, except clerical employees and those engaged in keeping books and records. Their position has been that these employees are not actually engaged in physically handling the commodity. We do not believe that such a result was ever the intention of Congress, but it was obviously intended that all employees in a local establishment, handling products for market produced in the area of production, should be exempt. Therefore, it seems that it would be well to amend the area-of-production exemption to provide 82129-46-pt. 2 that employees engaged in keeping records of the handling, etc., of agricultural products in the area of production are exempt. We will appreciate very much your efforts with reference to this matter. Very truly yours, F. V. HEINKEL, President. Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I have two letters, one from the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, who are concerned about eliminating exemptions which certain types of industry have had in the past; and the other letter is from the Consumers' League of Rhode Island, in favor of the bill, and they ask to have this last one made a part of the record. I don't think it is necessary to have the letter from the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives incorporated in the record as they don't ask that. I would, however, like to have the other letter incorporated in the record. The CHAIRMAN. That may go in the record. (The letter was not received in time to be included in this printing:) The CHAIRMAN. We will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in this same room, at which time the Secretary of Labor, with some of his staff, will be here. Also there are some questions we would like to ask Mr. Walling. So will you be here tomorrow, Mr. Walling? Mr. WALLING. If you want me to be here, I will.'" (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the hearing was recessed until 10 o'clock, Saturday morning, January 19, 1946.) AMENDMENT OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 1946 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 11:00 a. m., in the committee room, Capitol, Senator James E. Murray (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Murray (chairman), Pepper, Ellender, Chavez, Fulbright, La Follette, Aiken, Ball, Smith, Morse, and Donnell. Also present: Lewis B. Schwellenbach, Secretary of Labor; William S. Tyson, Acting Solicitor, Department of Labor; L. Metcalfe Walling, Administrator, Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Division, Department of Labor; and Charles S. Murphy, legislative counsel, United States Senate. The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. We have with us here this morning the distinguished Secretary of Labor, a former member of this committee, whom we are glad to have with us, and we are hopeful, Mr. Secretary, that you will have a good effect on this committee with the testimony which you will give on the matter that is before us. STATEMENT OF LEWIS B. SCHWELLENBACH, SECRETARY OF LABOR; L. METCALFE WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND HOUR AND PUBLIC CONTRACTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; WILLIAM S. TYSON, ACTING SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I did testify heretofore Senator ELLENDER (interposing). Mr. Chairman, the Secretary heretofore testified at length and subjected himself to cross-examination. The CHAIRMAN. You have nothing further to submit? Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. I understood that you wanted to ask me some questions. The CHAIRMAN. I didn't, but I believe some of the members of the committee desired to do so. Senator PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, if there is nothing special that you might desire to take up first, there are two or three cases that have been brought to our attention-I think other Senators have been acquainted with them, I know they have brought them to my attention, and I was just talking to Mr. Walling a few minutes ago about themand I wonder if we could present them to the Secretary and to Mr. Walling, the Administrator, and see what comment they might have to make. These are from groups or industries that are opposing certain provisions of the bill. One of them is from Western Union. They raise the point that they cannot pay the boys who work for Western Union the minimum wage that is provided by this law. Now I understand that there was a United States Supreme Court decision on the 1938 law which held that due to the restricted language of the law, the law was not applicable to what we might call children or minors, and Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. Was not applicable to Western Union. Senator PEPPER. Now first I would like to get a statement from the Secretary, or Mr. Walling, or the legislative counsel, as to just what the present law is respecting minors employed by Western Union; and second, whether or not it is feasible for the law, as it would be written in S. 1349, to be applied to minors, and if it is not feasible, then what adjustment or amendment might properly be made, or whether no amendment should be made. Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. Well, Miss Lenroot testified at the previous hearings on this question. The present act prohibits the shipment of goods within 30 days after the employment of oppressive child labor. The Supreme Court has held that the sending cf telegrams was not the "shipment of goods." I have some interesting figures here. Senator PEPPER. What was the effect, Mr. Secretary, of that decision, just that the law did not apply to minors employed by the Western Union? Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. Yes. Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. The total number of injuries in the telegraph industry in 1941 was 3,403, of which 2,447 were injuries to messengers. Messengers constituted 36 percent of the employees of the company, and they suffered 72 percent of the injuries. Senator PEPPER. Now Mr. Secretary, under the present language of S. 1349, would the minor employees of Western Union be covered? Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. My understanding is that that was the purpose of the amendment Senator PEPPER (interposing). And they would be required to be paid the minimum wages provided by S. 1349? Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. Section 12 (b) of the bill provides: No employer engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce shall employ any oppressive child labor in or about or in connection with any enterprise in which he is so engaged. Senator PEPPER. In other words, the provisions of the 1938 law have been expanded by this section so that the child-labor provisions of it apply not only to those engaged in the production of goods, or the shipment of goods for commerce, but to those engaged in commerce, so that the Supreme Court decision to which you referred in your opinion would not restrict the applicability of this law? Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. The purpose of this amendment is to correct that. Senator PEPPER. Now when we are talking about minors what age group are we talking about, those under eighteen? Those are the ones to which that is applicable under the Children's Bureau, is that correct? Mr. WALLING. Yes, the Children's Bureau has the power to prohibit employment in occupations determined by the Bureau to be hazardous, between the ages of 16 and 18, and the prohibition is complete under 16. Senator CHAVEZ. Do they consider a messenger's job as hazardous? Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. I just put into the record some figures on that, showing that 36 percent of the employees of the Western Union, messengers, suffered 72 percent of the injuries. The CHAIRMAN. Accidents? Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. Yes. Senator ELLENDER. The record shows, however, that there were very few fatalities in that entire number, just minor injuries. The CHAIRMAN. And of course young people suffer injuries of that kind whether in the messenger service or out. I know when I was a kid I fell off the top of a freight car once; so I know that you don't have to be employed in the Western Union in order to get hurt when you are young. A couple of kids went out here the other day and fell down a quarry and were very seriously injured. So I don't see what importance that point has in connection with this matter. Senator PEPPER. I am not quite clear Secretary SCHWELLENBACH (interposing). I agree with your general statement that the young people are more likely to have injuries, but I think there is something significant when 36 percent of the employees, messengers, have 72 percent of the injuries. Senator ELLENDER. That is because of their more hazardous employment; they are on the outside most of the time. Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. Yes, and that is the question that is involved here. The hazardous nature of the employment has to be passed upon by the Chief of the Children's Bureau for children from 16 to 18 years. Senator CHAVEZ. With respect to messenger boys, this has been my observation of course we all know that a youngster of 16, 17, or 18 is adventurous I have seen messengers, even here in town, riding a bicycle, going this, that, and the other way, and they will take a chance that a mature man will not. Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. In any other industry they are covered by the act. Senator PEPPER. What I would like to get clear from the Secretary, or Mr. Walling, or any of you gentlemen who are here, is this: Section 12 (b) says: No employer engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce shall employ any oppressive child labor in or about or in connection with any enterprise in which he is so engaged. Now what is the definition of "oppressive child labor"? What age groups would be prohibited from employment? Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. Under 16 they are prohibited; this is between 16 and 18. Senator PEPPER. Between 16 and 18 it is in the discretion of the Children's Bureau to determine whether or not it is hazardous? Secretary SCHWELLENBACH. Yes. |