Senator TUNNELL. Yes; during the period when production was going down per employee.

Miss DICKASON. Of that particular firm?
Senator TUNNELL. Yes.

Miss DICKASON. Those are not available; no.
Senator TUNNELL. I see.

Miss DICKASON. Low wages do not necessarily bring about high production. In fact, in the garment industry, the highest productivity per operator is frequently associated with the highest wage level. It is a fact, however, that some firms which pay the lowest wages in the industry, also, by means of speed-up systems, found ways of getting high production with low-wage levels, and those are the firms who would be fully able to pay the increase required under this bill with no increase in prices, because they simply have the tremendous advantage of this lower labor cost and have had the experience of a low standard of living for their workers.

As a final remark, I do want to say that I think in the testimony which I quoted from Mr. Haspel to the effect that people down South just do not know how to work and cannot work, I think in that statement made by Mr. Haspel's production manager, as he testified, there is a great injustice done to the southern worker because experience shows very definitely that the productivity of the southern worker on the same garment for the same firm can be the same as in a northern factory.

In other words, taking a firm which operates a number of factories, some of them possibly in New York, some in Pennsylvania, and some in Georgia, the production per worker of that firm can be shown to be higher in the southern plant than in the northern plant. It is a general condition that the production will be at least just as high.

Where the production is lower, it is my experience that the low production is related to one of two factors: Either to inefficiency of management or to such very low-wage rates that there is no incentive to the workers to produce. It has not been my experience in any case where a fair level of wages was paid and where there was efficient management, that you did not get a relatively high level of production in southern plants.

Senator TUNNELL. Well, the natural tendency is for substandard wages to attract substandard people, is it not?

Miss DICKASON. That is generally true where there is a choice of jobs.

Senator TUNNELL. That is what I mean.

Miss DICKASON. But where there is no choice of jobs, as there frequently is not in the garment industry where it is located in rural areas there will be only one factory and perhaps no industry for 30 miles around-then you can get a very productive type of worker, a very able type of worker in that factory.

But unless you enlist the interest and the cooperation of those workers in producing the garment, you do not get production. And, ordinarily, you do not enlist their cooperation at substandard wages. Senator TUNNELL. Yes.

All right, thank you, Miss Dickason.

Your testimony is very clear.

(Statements submitted by Miss Dickason appear in the appendix.) Senator TUNNELL. Mr. Steele.

TESTIMONY OF R. E. STEELE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE

Mr. STEELE. Mr. Chairman, my name is R. E. Steele. I am the assistant director of the National Fisheries Institute, which is a trade association.

Our address in Washington is 1835 K Street NW.

Our association has a membership in 28 States, the Territory of Hawaii, and Alaska.

Our members consist of producers, processors, wholesalers, and canners of fish and sea food. We are only interested in the commercial aspect of the industry.

Our reason for being here is primarily to maintain what we already have in the way of exemption for the commercial fisheries.

Under the new proposal, the proponents have left out a provision which now applies to our membership, which is—

and including employment in the loading, unloading, or packing of such products for shipment or in propagating, processing, marketing, freezing, canning, curing, storing, or distributing the above products or byproducts thereof.

In close terminology, what the new amendment does is divide the onshore and offshore operations insofar as commercial fisheries are concerned.

Senator TUNNELL. Those who catch the fish are still exempted; is that right?

Mr. STEELE. That is right, except that there is some question about where processing begins or leaves off.

I would like to make some mention of that before I get through. But in general terminology you can say this amendment would cut off the exemption for the onshore workers. That represents, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, about 95,000 persons.

Of course, you understand that there are many stages of processing in the fish industry. The Congress has not been too kind to us when defining "processing." That is, there are so many different terms used in different laws affecting the commercial fisheries that we do not know where we stand.

Senator TUNNELL. Are you referring to the edible fish or to both? Mr. STEELE. Well, to edible, and to fish that go into meal and into oil.

For instance, there is one case now that holds that "headed and gutted" fish are processed fish. That was stated in the opinion in a case before the Interstate Commerce Commission known as the Monarch egg case. The Commission stated fish are processed unless you transport them in the form they come from the water, dead or alive. Now, under the proposal here, if a fisherman processes fish on board, presumably he is exempt.

If it is done on shore, the same operation would be classed as processing the fish.

Yet I suppose in any retail market that you could not tell where that so-called processing was done, whether on shore or at sea.

Senator TUNNELL. Those oil processors on ship have not been very successful, have they?

Mr. STEELE. I am not qualified to say just how successful they are. There are a number of new operations now that are proposed that would not be exempt under this new amendment

On the west coast there is a factory ship being constructed.
Senator TUNNELL. That is what I had reference to.

Mr. STEELE. Well, on that factory ship they will catch fish, can them, freeze them, and store them, or package them right on the boat. Senator TUNNELL. They have the same thing for the whales, haven't they?

Mr. STEELE. I am not familiar with the whaling industry.

I have here in the room, I believe, some expert who could answer those questions for you. Dr. Radcliffe, director of the Oyster Institute, is here.

I believe at one time he was head of the Commercial Fisheries for the Government, here in Washington.

We also have Dr. Kahn, of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Interior Department here.

They might be able to answer some of your questions.

Going back to the factory ship, that new method is one hope, I believe, of building up the industry on the west coast.

During the war, in 1942, this country built either 13 or 19 factory ships for the Russians on our west coast, at a time when the Navy was taking our own fishing boats from our own commercial fishermen and converting them to war use.

So during the war we built up competition to our own domestic industry.

We have an awful time at the present time getting that one factory ship built on the west coast, and here the Russians already have 13 or 19 we cannot find how many-to compete in the Bering Sea with this proposed American ship that is being built. It is a venturesome business. Just like the salmon industry is a big gamble, this new method is a big gamble, but it is one way we feel we can build up the industry.

But if we are going to get competition from Russia and other countries, we think that there should be no "speculative legislative action" at this time that would interfere with this new industry which we hope to build up.

Senator TUNNELL. I know that there was a factory ship for oil and fertilizer 20 years ago along our coast.

Mr. STEELE. Of course, the Japs have operated floating canneries, too.

I heard Dr. Walling, of the Wage and Hour Division, testify something about his proposal, and I think floating canneries were not to come within the exemption.

Furthermore, we feel that the salmon industry would be in jeopardy if this legislation were passed. These men are signed on the boats under contract. They are paid when they get on and until they get off. Room, board, and keep play quite a part in these contracts.

Of course, the greater number of employees in the fisheries are already members of unions and their contracts apparently have worked out all right, because those industries are operating at the present time. We have had some strikes, but we have gotten along fairly well, and have been able to contract on a basis suitable to management and employees.

Now, Dr. Walling gave testimony here that you people should consider throwing out. He gave statistics for the year 1943, showing

what was paid in the South. I have the statement right here. He says:

The necessity for minimum wage protection for employees engaged in fish processing is indicated by a survey of selected key occupations in fish and sea food canning plants in 10 designated areas during the 1943 season by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average hourly earnings in these categories were in Alabama 32.4 cents an hour, 35.7 cents in New Orleans, La., and 38.2 in Norfolk, Va.

The latest figures we have been able to get from the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior indicate that there have been no Southern areas where the minimum for women is lower than 50 cents, and 60 cents for men. So those figures in 1943 compared with the current figures indicate what the industry has done for itself, or within the space of 2 years, in raising wages.

The law of supply and demand has pretty well taken care of the fish industry. The per capita consumption in the United States is only about 13 pounds. During the war the fish industry has been very successful, during the shortage of meat and poultry.

I think one thing that the committee should weigh very heavily in deciding exemptions for the fish industry is these high prices for fish. Within the past 2 weeks the market has broken sharply. Fish were too high in price. I have the figures here, and they will be in the record in my prepared statement, taken from the Fish and Wild Life Service, and they show what has happened in different parts of the country. The price of fish dropping so sharply is due to meat becoming more plentiful, and that also applies to poultry, and the lowering of ration points.

Senator TUNNELL. The price of poultry has dropped very suddenly too?

Mr. STEELE. It is true of poultry, but it has been sharper in fish. We maintain the prices of fish have been artificially high. If you have a 50- and 60-cent hourly labor cost in producing fish and the bottom drops out of the market with these costs when meat becomes plentiful, then we say most anything can happen, and generally will happen.

If you put an artificial floor into the cost, then you drive the fish commodity too high in price so that you cannot sell it in competition with meat. As a result you have ruined that industry.

The recent break in the market proves our point. I am not talking about something that happened in 1943, I am talking about something that happened in the last 2 weeks.

If we could get Congress to make people eat more fish, then we would be all right, but it just does not happen that Congress proposes this. As I say, the per capita consumption of fish is very low. We will have to admit that the industry has been very backward.

You are talking about a lot of small people when you talk about people in the fish industry, compared to what you gentlemen have been listening to, such as the people in the textile industry.

It will be our job, of course, to try and build up that per capitat consumption, but for an industry that has been pretty backward, we think Congress ought to tread rather easily and give it a chance.

We will have to admit, furthermore, right now, we have the biggest black-market operators in the Ssh industry of an industry we know

of.

Senator TUNNELL. Why should there be a black market when there is an oversupply?

Mr. STEELE. We have some few commodities that are still scarce and in demand.

However, I think that there is a tapering off of the black market. In the shrimp and scallops business we have a tremendous black market.

We furthermore think in dealing with a group of small businessmen that if the Congress makes the same mistake on wage and hour legislation, that it did on price legislation, you would not have enough investigators or snoopers to enforce the law.

Just like I heard a man who was supposed to be an expert say the other day if you have someone paying an income tax on the basis of $10 a year, it may cost more to collect the $10 than it would cost not to tax the person at all.

By the same token, we think the benefit you would get by splitting the exemption in two for the fisheries would be negligible and out of line with the cost of enforcement.

First of all, you are dealing with a commodity that is unseen until you catch it. It is perishable until it is entirely processed or finds its way into the retail market.

It is not a question of the industry trying to chisel, or not being able to pay wages. That is demonstrated in the figures that you had in 1943, that went up in 1945 15 or 20 cents higher than Mr. Walling's figures showed.

I believe that the man here with me who will speak next will be able to substantiate the figures that I gave for the South, showing a minimum hourly rate of 50 cents for women and 60 cents for men. It all demonstrates where you are dealing with an unknown quantity you better tread carefully. As Congressman Bland, of Virginia, said, you can legislate all you please but the fish will not pay any attention to you in regard to wages and hours.

I introduce here Mr. Triggs, who represents the largest distributing wholesale organization in the country. He is from New York and Chicago. He can tell you very well how the exemption should follow through the wholesale channels as well as at the shore where the fish are caught and handled.

To break this exemption in two right where you have it under this proposal puts me in mind of a story when I was practicing law. A fellow wanted a code of ethics established, but when it came right down to it he did not want it to apply to him.

We feel this way-that the fisherman should be granted his exemption. We are in his corner, because we have to have production before it can be handled on the shore. But we want the thing to be handled in a straightforward manner, so we can bargain with one another as we are doing now. It is only fair that the exemption apply equally to the off-shore and on-shore worker.

We think that exemption as is should remain.

We have already learned to live under the present law. And, Senator, it is not an outright exemption like you would suspect. We have employees already in plants who are not exempt.