amount to inflation against which our Government has been fighting for the past 4 years. Since the matter of increasing the minimum rates is one which would affect the Nation as a whole and all industry, we assume that there would be much activity on a national scale with reference to this. We have a specific problem affecting our industry much more directly. This is brought about by the proposals to eliminate the exemptions provided for employees of the fishery industries except those working offshore. Our industry is one wherein the supply of raw material is unpredictable and cannot be controlled to a point of regulating the hours to be worked each week. Furthermore, the raw material is highly perishable and must be handled promptly in order to avoid loss of important food. A large portion of our labor cost is made up of piece time workers (shrimp pickers and oyster shuckers) where the employer has very little control over the employees' hours, method of doing his work, or efficiency. If the exemptions presently provided are eliminated it is impossible to calculate just what the extra cost would be, because in addition to higher rates there would be the lack of efficiency since the type of employees at present performing the piece time work is such that where a minimum wage would be established they would lose the incentive for efficiency and production. Furthermore, there is the most difficult task of trying to keep a record of the actual hours worked by each of these shrimp pickers or oyster shuckers. During the days of the NRA this was attempted and the industry had requested representatives from Washington to make a survey and advise the employers how it was possible to keep these records on such employees. My recollection is that after spending some time at various plants, the Government representatives agreed that it was practically impossible to keep the required records with reference to hours worked and rates per hour. We feel that it is most important for the survival of the fishery industry in this section that the seafood exemption provided in section 13 (a) 5 of the present act be retained. If any change is to be made it should be along the lines of strengthening the exemption so that it will provide complete exemption for all employees of persons engaged in the occupation enumerated as we believe was intended at the time the exemption was provided. Since that time the Wage and Hour Divisions have tried to narrow considerably the scope of the exemption. We will appreciate your having this memorandum pertaining to the affect of the proposed amendments on our industry inserted in the record of the hearing. We would further appreciate your efforts and assistance to defeat any proposed amendments which would remove or curtail exemptions presently provided for the fishery industry. We feel that the proposed amendments prove little short of disastrous to the industry in this section. Sincerely yours, C. M. CARRIERE, Chairman, National Shrimp Canners Association, Hon. ALLEN J. Ellender, SPRINGHILL, LA., January 18, 1946. United States Senator, Washington, D. C. Minimum wage of 65 cents an hour prohibitive to small independent telephone operators like myself. Louisiana is unfortunate in not having independent association to voice their needs in the independent field. Most small independent property widely scattered in Louisiana. I have at Springhill one of the largest independent properties in the State and assure you such minimum wages would curtail the service offered and no doubt eliminate me from telephone business. Please give this matter your deepest consideration for the independent operators of less than 1,000 stations. On request will gladly send you figures on my operations at Springhill during the past 8 years which can be checked with Louisiana Public Service Commission. For verification whereby you may readily see that such minimum wage would be disastrous and prohibitive from past, present, or future revenues. SPRINGHILL TELEPHONE Co., Hon. JAMES M. TUNNELL, THE NATIONAL PEACH COUNCIL, Martinsburg, W. Va., October 19, 1945. Chairman, Subcommittee on S. 1349, Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The National Peach Council, representing the fourth fruit industry of the Nation in point of size, and speaking for peach growers in 20 States, coast to coast, places before your committee the following, concerning Senate 1349, amending the Fair Labor Standards Act. Senate 1349 would work serious injury to the Nation's peach industry, principally in these three ways: (1) The job classification specified would promote "feather-bedding"; would encourage the worker to feel he should do only one job; either packing, or facing, or hauling, etc. In the rush of harvesting perishable food crops with too few workers, the help has to be shifted from job to job, quickly. Harvesting is a seasonal, temporary operation, not susceptible to much standardization. classification would make harvesting more expensive and more difficult. Job (2) Senate 1349 would continue the penalties now imposed by Fair Labor Standards Act on smaller growers; the competitive benefits given the bigger growers; and the penalties imposed on efficient, modern practices in handling and marketing farm-produced foods. Fair Labor Standards Act has, to a visible degree, driven the fruit industry backward, by forcing growers to discontinue packing for their neighbors; has penalized cooperative packing houses. Smaller growers, without volume of production large enough to justify building and maintaining a first-class packing plant, formerly put their fruit through the packing houses of neighbor growers, or cooperatives, or custom packers, located centrally and, for efficiency, mostly along railroads or highways-off the orchard. In Fair Labor Standards Act, and under Senate 1349, these efficient packing houses are held to be commercial, not agricultural, if they pack for others than the farmer-owner, or are not "on the farm"; must pay higher wages and are under other legal restrictions. Packing-house operators generally hence have refused to pack for their smaller neighbors, who have been compelled to set up inefficient packing lay-outs or, unable to pack, have been forced out of the fresh-fruit market, in which lies the greatest chance for profit. To end this penalizing of small growers and good business methods, an adequate definition of agriculture is required. Such a definition is contained in the Social Security Act. This should replace the present definition of agriculture in Fair Labor Standards Act, section 3 (f), which is unchanged by Senate 1349. American Farm Bureau is also on record favoring this, we understand. (3) By Government edict Senate 1349 will forcibly impose extreme increases in the growers' cost of production; but provides no compensating program by which he can recover these increased costs. It will not be necessary to prove to this subcommittee that growers of perishable foods have no real control over the prices they receive for their produce. Perishables must be sold when they are ready for the market, whether the market is a dime or $4. There is no shutting down of the plant and withholding for improved markets, as with staples. Hence, increased costs of production tend to be "taken out of the hide" of the grower. Cost A recent authoritative fruit study shows the slender profit margin in fruit, and the danger inherent in forcing drastic increased production costs. West Virginia College of Agriculture's 4-year study of apple orchards shows growers averaged a net profit of 3 cents per bushel, yearly, for 1938-41-normal prewar years. of production was 69 cents per bushel; net return 72 cents; profit 3 cents. ers averaged approximately 25,000 bushels per year. At 3 cents profit, their net was $750 per grower per year. Grow Wages averaged about 35 cents per hour during the 4-year period. The 65-75 cent minimum wage proposed means approximately 100 percent increase in wages, therefore. Labor was 35 percent plus of this 69-cent cost of production; or 24 cents per bushel. A 100-percent increase in the 24-cent labor costs indicates 24 cents forced into the cost of production. That points emphatically to an average net loss of 21 cents per bushel, instead of the 3-cent per bushel profit of the prewar years. This West Virginia study indicates that enforced increases in cost of production may easily wreck a nation's fruit industry. Proponents of S. 1349 may insist that agriculture is now exempted by section 13 (6) and its companion definition of agriculture in section 3 (f). This definition has proven over the years since 1938 to be entirely inadequate, because more and more preliminary processing of farm produce is necessary before the produce is saleable. This "processing" is done partly by people regularly employed on the farms. To put these preparatory steps under wage-hour requirements means putting these people for part of the year on higher wages and short hours; then returning them to the lower wages and longer hours. Real labor trouble is the result. Now, there is much difference between an urban wage dollar and a farm wage dollar. An urban wage of $6 per day may barely cover subsistence-food, rent, heat, and clothing. On the farm, rent is less, food costs less, heat and other costs are less; so the $6 farm wage may be well above the subsistence level. Farm wages, hence, need not be uniform in dollars and cents with urban wages. Farm wages follow urban wages, up or down. If shop employees get 75 cents per hour for 40 hours weekly, nearby farm wages reflect that. The national wage picture proves that-high wages, both urban and rural, in the North; lower in the South. When urban wages are raised, farm wages follow. To achieve this farm-wage increase with less shock and danger, isn't it sensible to allow farm wages to stabilize themselves under the influence of urban wages; rather than to force drastic increase in production costs upon the food producer, who must absorb them whenever supplies of farm produce are plentiful, as they promise to be in the years just ahead? F. o. b. prices of 75 cents per bushel for peaches, too common in normal times, do not allow forced increases of 20 or 25 cents a bushel in cost of production. To accomplish this gradual wage self-stabilization, to end the present discrimination against small growers, to stop forcing food producers backward in their marketing practices, and to avoid the added costs and help shortages from job classification, wage-hour control laws should specify definite exemption for the pre.i ni ary "processing" steps in agriculture which are essential before produce is marketable, as in Social Security Act (extract follows), and should specifically include_producer-owned cooperatives. Respectfully, NATIONAL PEACH COUNCIL, DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE IN SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 1939 (h) AGRICULTURAL LABOR.-The term “agricultural labor” includes all services performed (1) On a farm, in the employ of any person, in connection with cultivating the soil, or in connection with raising or harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodity, including the raising, shearing, feeding, caring for, training, and management of livestock, bees, poultry, and fur-bearing animals and wildlife. (2) In the employ of the owner or tenant or other operator of a farm, in connection with the operation, management, conservation, improvement, or maintenance of such farm and its tools and equipment, or in salvaging timber or clearing land of brush and other debris left by a hurricane, if the major part of such service is performed on a farm. (3) In connection with the production or harvesting of maple sirup or maple sugar or any commodity defined as an Agricultural commodity in section 15 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, as amended, or in connection with the raising or harvesting of mushrooms, or in connection with the hatching of poultry, or in connection with the ginning of cotton, or in connection with the operation or maintenance of ditches, canals, reservoirs, or waterways used exclusively for supplying and storing water for farming purposes. (4) In handling, planting, drying, packing, packaging, processing, freezing, grading, storing, or delivering to storage or to market or to a carrier for transportation to market, any agricultural or horticultural commodity; but only if such service is performed as an incident to ordinary farming operations or, in the case of fruits and vegetables, as an incident to the preparation of such fruits or vegetables for market. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be deemed to be applicable with respect to service performed in connection with commercial canning or commercial freezing or in connection with any agricultural or horticultural commodity after its delivery to a terminal market for distribution for consumption. As used in this subsection, the term "farm" includes stock, dairy, poultry, fruit, fur-bearing animals, and truck farms, plantations, ranches, nurseries, ranges, greenhouses or other similar structure used primarily for the raising of agricultural or horticultural commodities, and orchards (sec. 1426, I. R. C., as amended by secs. 606, 905, Social Security Act amendments of 1939). For comparison, section 3 (f), Fair Labor Standards Act's definition of agriculture, which experience has shown completely inadequate: (f) "Agriculture" includes farming in all its branches and among other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities * and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market. Re: S. 1349. Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Committee on Education and Labor, LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, Cleveland 13, Ohio, November 7, 1945. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: As a member of the subcommittee which has given consideration to the above-captioned measure, there is enclosed herewith for your perusal copy of letter addressed to Senator Tunnell. The enclosure contains a statement of this association's views in opposition to S. 1349, insofar as that measure proposes extension of the Fair Labor Standards Aet to seamen. S. 1349. STATEMENT OPPOSING EXTENSION OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO SEAMEN DEAR SIR: Lake Carriers' Association is composed of 33 companies owning and operating 324 ships which transport between ports on the Great Lakes, commodities in bulk, such as iron ore, limestone, coal and grain. Those ships constitute about 90 percent of United States ships on the Great Lakes of 1,000 gross tons register and over and employ about 90 percent of the seamen necessary to the crewing of all such Great Lakes ships. By telegram dated October 11, 1945, I informed Senator James E. Murray, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, that members of our association were opposed to S. 1349 insofar as it undertook deletion of the exclusion respecting seamen from the Fair Labor Standards Act. Opportunity for hearing was requested. By arrangements made with Charles Kramer, chief of staff to Senator Pepper, Chairman of the Special Subcommittee considering the bill, this letter is filed for the record on S. 1349. OF WATCHES, MARITIME STATUTE LAW PRESCRIBES QUALIFICATIONS, DIVISION MAXIMUM HOURS AND PAYMENT OF WAGES OF SEAMEN Maritime statute law prescribes minimum qualifications for the issuance of licenses to officers and certificates of service to unlicensed seamen, fixes minimum watch divisions, establishes a maximum work day and governs the payment of wages. Initial standards having been instituted more than three-quarters of a century ago, all requirements were made more rigorous and complete by the Seamen's Act, 1915, and the Seamen's Act, 1936. Present law now prohibits division of officers and crew into less than three equal watches and a work day of more than 8 hours. Enforcement of the 82129-46-pt. 27 laws respecting qualifications, employment hours and working conditions vests by permanent law in the Department of Commerce. However, those functions and powers have reposed during the war in the United States Coast Guard. EXTENSION OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WOULD RESULT IN CONFLICTS WITH MARITIME STATUTE LAW Removal of the exclusion with respect to seamen contained in section 13 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act would produce several serious conflicts between that act and existing maritime statutory regulations: (1) There would be dual control in the matter of hours and method of payment of wages between the agency enforcing the navigation and shipping laws and the Administrator of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The evils of dual control were recognized by the Congress in the original enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938. Reasons militating against such dual control that were recognized in 1938 are equally valid at the present time. (2) The Seamen's Act prescribes maximum hours and minimum division of watches on the basis of a single day. The Fair Labor Standards Act prescribes maximum hours on the basis of 1 week. The difference is explained by the underlying motives of the two laws. The Seamen's Act insures greater safety of life and property at sea. The Fair Labor Standards Act is designed primarily to spread employment by the shortening of hours and by the discouragement of hours in excess of 40 per week through the mandatory payment of overtime compensation. (3) Extension of the Fair Labor Standards Act to seamen would constitute a substantial amendment to the Seamen's Act. To the extent that the Seamen's Act was so amended, it would be reasonable to infer that Congress was shifting the safety requirements from a day basis to a week basis. Maximum hours for each seaman would be changed from 8 hours per day to 40 hours per week. The total number of hours per week is not equally divisible by 40; nor is 40 divisible by 7. Since ships must be operated around the clock, there could be no equal mathematical division of the officers and crew into watches and compliance with a maximum 40-hour week, unless that division were five or more. In other words, instead of three watches, a ship would have five or more watches. (4) Maritime statutes prescribe standards for the crewing of ships, in the interest of safety of life and property. In determining the number of persons required in a ship's complement, the administrative agency must not only give consideration to the number required to navigate the ship but to the physical ability of the ship to house and feed and to provide adequate safety and lifesaving devices. For that reason, a certificate of inspection fixes the maximum number of persons who may be on board a ship while she is being navigated. The mandate of the Fair Labor Standards Act respecting maximum hours is no wise tempered by safety considerations. (5) Maritime statute law and the tradition of the sea recognize that licensed officers are ships' executives. The Fair Labor Standards Act leaves to administrative determination those who are bona fide executive employees. Present regulations follow a rule of thumb in the definition of executive employees. Among other requirements, an executive employee may not perform more than 20 percent of the same kind of work as those whom he supervises. On a ship there is telescopic supervision; that is to say, a junior officer is supervised in some measure by the work of each of his superiors. By the very nature of an officer's work in the navigation of a ship or in the operation of her machinery, the highest officer of the department performs, in many instances, substantially the same kind of work as the officers whose work he directs and supervises. If present regulations of the Administrator were to apply, even masters and chief engineers might not be regarded as bona fide executive or administrative employees. 40-HOUR WEEK ABOARD SHIP WOULD RAISE SERIOUS PROBLEMS RESPECTING QUARTERS AND SAFETY Crewing and safety problems incident to the institution of a 40-hour week for merchant seamen would be fully as alarming as the legal conflicts between maritime statute law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The average Great Lakes cargo ship now employs 36 men. Institution of a 40-hour week would require, at least, an increase in the number of watches from three to four with two additional licensed officers and ten more unlicensed crew members. Even with those additional men regular overtime could not be avoided and there would be a minimum increase in pay-roll expense of about 42 percent. |