At the hearing in 1938 an official of the Western Union Co. testified that in addition to delivering letters and messages, the telegraph messengers engaged in the following work:

Carrying sample cases for salesmen, delivering packages and envelopes, exercising pet animals.

Shopping for patrons.

Paying bills for patrons.

Making bank deposits for patrons.

Delivering mail-order gifts services.

Watching parked automobiles.

Paging in hotel lobbies and railroad stations.

Waiting in line to purchase theater tickets.

Delivering orchids to ladies.

Taking care of office.

Sweeping offices.

Performing clerical duties in emergencies.

Soliciting business for the company.

Collecting bills for the company.

Picking up files at offices for delivery to main office.

This makes plain that messenger service is an industry, trade, or business as defined by section 3 (h) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and is not confined to delivering telegrams or other messages for the telegraph companies. There are hundreds of small businesses engaged in package delivery services and errand services of various kinds, and there are thousands of advertising delivery services. Western Union uses its messengers to engage in the same business, and it hardly seems fair to set a lower minimum wage for this company, while the other companies have to pay a higher rate.

Just

In this connection, it is important to note that RCA Communications, Inc., appared at the hearing and by its attorney there stated that this company had not asked for permission to employ messengers at rates lower than the minimum wage fixed by the act. Western Union at that time also stated that they did pot desire exemption for messengers delivering radio communications. why delivery of ordinary telegrams should pay less than delivery of radio messages is hard to understand, and Western Union's proposed amendment would authorize exemption of radio messengers from the new minimum wage to be set by S. 1349 and H. R. 3914.

According to reports submitted by the large telegraph and cable companies to the Federal Communications Commnission for the year 1941, about 70 percent of all the accidents resulting in injuries occurred among the telegraph messengers, although messengers formed only 36 percent of the total employees. If we bear in mind that the messengers deliver not only telegrams or letters, but have to carry packages and perform other services which require them to be out in the busy traffic of the streets, the importance of .the accident hazards becomes plain. Normally, hazardous occupations pay higher wages. Here your committee is asked to amend the bill so lower wages can be paid.

There is a good deal of romancing about the opportunities that telegraph messengers have for business contacts which enable them to achieve great careers in various lines of endeavor. The fact is that the hazardous work accompanied by substandard wages paid prior to the adoption of the Fair Labor Standards Act caused an abnormally high rate of labor turn-over in messenger service. Boys worked a week or two or a month or two, and then quit. The record of the 1938 hearings shows that Western Union had to hire about 40,000 messengers a year in order to maintain a force of approximately 15,000. Personnel managers regard such a high rate of turn-over as "a symptom of some underlying maladjustment." Sometimes they refer to it as "a strike by erosion." But a Western Union official testified: "We consider a large turn-over a healthy condition" for the reason "That after a messenger has served in that capacity for several months, he ought to pass on into other and more permanent work.”

Temporary, casual labor also commonly commands a higher hourly wage than more permanent employment, because the worker cannot look forward to a future career in the business where he happens to be for a short period. But here again the request is that a lower minimum wage be authorized this time because there is no future in the work. Of course, among the thousands and thousands who have worked for a short period as messengers, there were bound to be a fair proportion who became great men in later life. But it would seem from the testimony before this committee that Western Union assumes that they might not have become great men if they had received adequate

hourly rates of pay for their temporary work as messengers. There are of course, a good many opportunities for advancement for messengers in the o pany's own large organization. Perhaps if the messengers were paid standar wages, fairly competitive with other businesses that engage in messenger se ice, the abnormal turn-over would be reduced, and a larger propertion of a promising ones who are capable of achieving great careers might stay on make their careers with the company.

Western Union is clearly a business engaged in interstate commerce. N one questions that now. It is subject to the Federal Communications Act. sells messenger services in competition with other businesses, even if it does to ship goods in commerce. There seems to be no justifiable reason why the Fa Labor Standards Act should not be made applicable to all its employees gardless of age, the same as it is to other communications industries, and i dustries that ship goods in interstate commerce. But particularly because competes with other companies in the messenger business in cities throughout the country, the special privilege of paying lower wages than those provide by the Fair Labor Standards Act should not be granted to this company.

The National Consumers' League desires to impress on the committee the need for examining carefully the whole problem of the competitive status of the messenger business in order that it may not be misled into hasty action on assumption that all that is involved in the Western Union amendment is t question of permitting boys to deliver telegrams and letters.

EXHIBIT 28

STATEMENT BY NATIONAL CONSUMERS' LEAGUE IN SUPPORT OF S. 1349, SUBMITTED Y SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR BY ELIZABETH S. MAGEE, OCTORU 28, 1945

The National Consumers' League is on record in support of S. 1349, to amer the Fair Labor Standards Act. The National Consumers' League is a 40-ye old organization, with members in every State of the Union and from all walks of life. The league was founded on the idea that consumers have a stake in the conditions back of what they buy and a responsibility to use their organized power to improve these conditions. The sweat-shop flourished when we were organize child labor was common among the families of the poor. The league appealed to consumers to use their buying power to promote fair-labor standards. But label's and white lists of employers who voluntarily agreed to maintain decent standar proved inadequate. Legal standards became necessary. We turned our attenti to working for laws setting minimum wages, maximum hours, and controlling child labor.

We had a hand in the passage of most of the minimum wage laws which are pos in force in 26 States and participated in the legal defense of these laws whe their constitutionality was challenged in the courts. We worked actively for the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act. We want to see it improved now raising the minimum wage rate, widening the coverage, and strengthening the child-labor provisions.

We know that wages don't come out of a hat. They come out of increasel production. But let us remember, they do not come automatically. It takes either legislation or trade union organization and sometimes both to set a fe to wage payments. It is well to remember also that wages are a contributi z factor in increased producivity. It has frequently been the experience under State minimum wage laws that the necessity of paying a higher wage was the firs thing which compelled real efficiency in certain lines of business.

In this statement we comment on two aspects of the bill which have had les consideration in the hearings than the increase in the minimum wage: first. coverage; and second, control of child labor.

INCREASED COVERAGE

When the act was adopted in 1938, many exemptions were included. There nor seems no reason why coverage should not be substantially widened within th limits of congressional power. It is only fair that the floor for wages whic protects certain groups of workers should be extended as widely as possible. W would like to call attention particularly to the number of exemptions which the

present act includes for canning workers and those employed on first processing of food and agricultural products. There are three type of exemptions:

(1) Complete exemption from minimum wages and overtime (sec. 13 (a)). Workers in fish canneries employing about 50,000 people have no protection under the law. "Area of production" canneries are entirely exempt. This has caused great confusion in administration. The bill would remove these exemptions.

(2) The exemption from overtime rates throughout the year (sec. 7 (c)). The workers affected by this exemption are those engaged in cotton ginning in cotton compressing, in cottonseed oil mills, and first processing of sugarcane and sugar beets, and the manufacture of butter and cheese. The bill would remove these exemptions.

(3) Exemption from overtime for specific periods. There are two overtime exemptions in the law. One in section 7 (c) denies to canners and packing shed workers any overtime payment for 14 weeks in the year. The second exemption in 7 (b) (3) provides 14 more weeks during which, seasonal industries need not pay overtime until after 12 hours a day and 56 hours a week. The result is that canneries have found it possible to work for 28 weeks in the year without overtime pay. This bill would remove the 14-week exemption in 7 (c), but it would not remove the 14-week seasonal exemption.

Government studies of the canning industry all show very wide divergence in wages paid, indicating a wide divergence in degree of efficiency. The best managed canneries are able to pay high wages and overtime and still compete with low-wage units. The average hourly earnings in canneries even during the war years were 25 cents less than the average for all manufacturing. When the need for canned food was such a vital part of the war effort there was a serious manpower shortage due in large part to the low-wage policy of the industry. Many appeals went from canners to the War Labor Board asking permission to increase wages. In some communities it was necessary to use prisoners of war. An Ohio canner testified in the legislature that he had even resorted to getting people from the local jail.

We believe that both exemptions for overtime should be removed. Work during the peak season is exhausting. Many workers have periods of unemployment or slack hours when the peak is over and are entitled to extra remuneration for the long hours employed. Increasing the minimum rate and removing the exemptions, as proposed in this bill, are long overdue as a needed improvement in this business.

CHILD LABOR

The bill proposes to amend section 12 of the Fair Labor Standards Act by adding a new paragraph (b), which contains a direct prohibition against the employment of children in any establishment engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. It would also bring within the coverage of the present child-labor provisions of the act establishments engaged in commerce but which may not be producing goods or shipping them in commerce.

At the time the act was passed there was some uncertainty as to the constitutionality of Federal child-labor regulation, with the result that the control of child labor was provided in a somewhat roundabout way; namely, through the provision that no producers, manufacturers, or dealers should ship any goods in commerce from an establishment within which oppressive child labor had been employed 30 days prior to the removal of goods from the establishment (sec. 12). There are instances on record where the minimum wage standards of the act have been violated by firms, simply by the device of holding the goods for more than 30 days before shipment. In such cases the Government is powerless to enforce the child-labor provisions of the act. There are instances on record also where young people have been employed at logging and lumber operations and have had no opportunity to attend school for an entire year. In these cases the Government has been without authority to enforce the child-labor provisions of the act because the logs were not shipped for several months after they were prepared. The direct prohibition of oppressive child labor contained in this new section will strengthen the machinery of enforcement since it will be necessary only to prove that the establishment is subject to the child-labor provisions and that the children are employed contrary to the standards set by the act. The time which has elapsed between the production and shipment of goods will have no bearing on the violation.

The extension of the child-labor coverage to establishments engaged in interstate commerce will bring the child-labor provisions of the act in line with the

minimum wage and overtime provisions. The chief occupations which will be included will be telephone and telegraph companies, railroads and boats engaged in interstate commerce. Line construction and maintenance for both telephone and telegraph companies is heavy and hazardous work. Telegraph messenger work has a high accident incidence. Employment of children on track maintenance and construction and in repair and other jobs in connection with the operation of railroads is undesirable and unfitted for minors under 16 years of age. During the war employment of children as young as 14 and 15 years on boats has been reported by school authorities. These youngsters often secured their jobs and shipped on boats without going through the procedure of obtaining an employ ment certificate, as would have been the case in connection with other employment But because the employment on boats did not come within the jurisdiction of State laws these children were not protected by either Federal or State regulations.

For these reasons we strongly urge the inclusion of the additional paragraph to section 12 of the act.

EXHIBIT 29

STATEMENT OF THE SOCIAL ACTION DEPARTMENT OF THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE IN BEHALF OF S. 1349, THE AMENDMENT OF THE WAGESHOURS ACT

The social action department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference wishes to record itself in favor of the proposed amendment to the wages-hours law. The social action department is that section of the National Catholic Wel fare Conference, the Catholic bishops' organization of the United States, which especially deals with this subject.

The department is the more anxious to speak in favor of the amendment be cause a guide of its work is the famous Bishops' Program of Social Reconstruetion, which over 27 years ago asked for family living-wage laws that would begin with requiring only enough for present normal maintenance but would gradually require enough for protection during sickness, accidents, invalidity, and old age. This amendment is a step toward those standards.

That program also stated that employees have a right to a living wage before an employer has the moral right to take interest on his investment. That is how seriously we consider the living wage.

The present 40 cents an hour of the law, paid for a full 40 hours of steady work during all 52 weeks of the year with no holidays, no vacations, and no lay-oïs provides only $16 a week and $800 a year. These amounts are wholly inadequate and where so when the law was passed.

Neither, for that matter, is the 65-cent minimum proposed by the present amendment a family living wage, nor is the 75 cents, which will be mandatory is the third year after the amendment passes and which can be introduced before then, industry by industry, on recommendation of advisory industry boards. Seventy-five cents an hour for 40 hours is $30 a week. The approximately 50 weeks of a full year's work reaches only $1,500; and with taxes and socialsecurity deductions it is much less. Hardly anyone would say that the full $1,70 is enough to meet even a small family's present needs. Yet prudence dictates the gradual approach to the legal enforcement of the living wage and asks us to be content with a 65- to 75-cent legal minimum now.

The 65-cent rate works out at some $1,300, Five cents an hour more or less means another $100 a year-at full-time work-less or more.

We wish to point out that the amendment does not establish at any of its figures a minimum family living wage. They move toward it, however, and that is so much to the good. We are in favor of the amendment.

Certain further comments on the bill seem in order:

(1) The principle of governmental protection of wages is already accepted r law and in American public opinion. No argument needs to be advanced on this matter.

(2) The jump from a 40-cent minimum in the law to a 65-cent minimum is a jump in law but not in fact. Very few who are covered by the law will get any increase under the amendment. Those who will get an increase will get very little. The amendment may, however, protect many persons from oppressive wage cuts to far below a decent living.

(3) The differentials between the wages of those covered by the Federal law and those not covered will be widened by this law. This is a serious situ

ation. But the Federal Government is not empowered to protect the wage rates of all the people and apparently does not wish to protect all whom it might protect. The plain answer is to go as far as Congress will consent to go within its powers and to work for like State legislation to protect those whom the Federal Government cannot or will not protect. That the Federal and State governments, in combination, do not protect all is no argument against the Federal Government's protecting some; it is instead an argument in favor of both protecting all, in combination.

(4) The laws, Federal and State, are not supposed to give full wage justice. They should instead direct themselves toward a minimum living wage and then leave to collective agreements decisions on improvements. Therefore, it is not a valid argument against this amendment to complain that it does not establish the full standard of living which Americans should have. The Government should not try to do everything; that way is the way to totalitarianism.

(5) The system of industry boards, which the amendment retains, possesses the great qualities of bringing labor, business, the public, and Government closer together, of making the law more flexible, and of adjusting wage rates to the conditions of particular industries.

(6) If a few industries have to increase their prices to meet these wage rates, that is a small thing to pay for the promotion of wholesale justice. If certain individual firms within particular industries cannot meet such wage rates, that is simply proof that labor and the community are subsidizing their inefficiency. There is something radically wrong with an industry or a firm that cannot support its people. It should be overhauled by its employers and labor. needed, they should call on the counsel of Government. The Government should be forehanded in giving them its counsel and help. Such industries and concerns are diseased.

If

(7) Extension of the law to seamen and to canning and processing of fish, and canceling the ambiguous provision about "the area of production" seem justified. The people concerned are surely in industry, as the term is commonly used.

(8) The committee might well consider an amendment to bring migratory agricultural labor under the law because of the very terrible conditions which that kind of labor meets and because of the special character of their work and the market for the products.

(9) We take this opportunity to appeal to the States to pass like laws to protect those under the jurisdiction of the States, including ordinary farm labor.

(10) It is sometimes said that the Fair Labor Standards Act is defective since it gives the same minimum wage to both single persons and heads of families. This is, in fact, a defect, if the living wage alone is considered. Yet the wage that is set under the present amendment is barely enough for support of a single individual. Really, to correct this defect, the present amendment should be passed so as to pay the 65-75 cents minimum to everyone, and a further law should be passed to provide more money to a man with a wife and something additional for every child. Failure to introduce that new kind of system makes mandatory a law that covers everyone on the same basis. There are, however, other considerations in this respect, such as the right to equal pay for equal work.

(11) The bishops' program of social reconstruction, referred to above, adVocated only State living-wage laws. It did so because at that time the Constitution was so interpreted as to forbid Federal laws on general wages. Instead of this limitation of the bishops' program being an argument against Federal laws to cover most of the persons who are now under Federal jurisdiction, it is a further argument for State laws to cover those whom the Federal Government cannot or will not protect.

(12) Two other considerations present themselves: People getting enough to live decently can produce better. People getting enough to live decently can buy more goods and services and thus can reduce unemployment. Fuller production and fuller employment will result from this law.

(13) We look upon this amendment as a companion piece to, and an even more important proposal than, the full employment bill. However, that bill, if passed, can help this bill, if passed, by the provision in the Senate full employment bill for mandatory conferences of business, labor, and agriculture to work out the conditions of full employment.

785954562