appreciated by the local sugar industry and would help to absorb some of the impact anticipated from the proposed minimum wage increase. With much aloha. Very truly yours, C. BREWER & Co., LTD., EXHIBIT 45 TESTIMONY PREPARED FOR THE HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BY LEMPI K. MATTHEWS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL COUNCIL, Y. W. C. A., AND ELSA G. GRAVES, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL, YWCA I speak for the 258,000 young women who earn their livings in business and industry who are in the educational and recreational program of the Young Women's Christian Association in 421 communities in this country. There has already been presented to this committee a great deal of statistical data on the increase in the cost of living and the numbers of people living on marginal or substandard incomes in this country. Rather than add, for example, to the testimony of Mr. Hinrichs, acting head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, presented to you Friday, my main emphasis will be to underscore the importance of some of those figures by translating them into the everyday experience of business and industrial girls in the YWCA. About a year ago the national business and professional council of the YWCA made a Nation-wide sampling of the budgets of white-collar workers to determine how they were meeting rising living costs. For my own curiosity I made a comparison of the data provided by those girls who were earning $119 a month or less (the ones who would be directly affected by the passage of this amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act) and the cost of living survey made by the New York State Department of Labor in order to determine the annual cost of adequate maintenance and protection of health for the woman worker living as a member of a family in that State in 1944. The comparison interested me and I would like to record it here: The same type of schedule was not used in both surveys, so I have only contrasted the items for which the figures were truly comparable. You will note that in every instance but one, these YWCA girls were spending less than the amount recommended for an adequate budget for a New York State girl. That one item is clothing upkeep, which is understandable when you also note that the amount our business girls were spending on clothing was less than half the amount recommended as adequate. The medical care item is thrown off, too, by the fact one girl earning $79 a month was paying out $14 of that monthly for medical care. It seemed to me as I looked at the figures as if she were paying for an operation. Eliminating her costs from the total, the average annual expenditures for this group of girls for medical care is $44.16. The question of medical care is of especial concern to us because our survey shows that too many girls spend absolutely nothing on the doctor, the dentist, and the oculist in the course of a year. Most of us are still young and healthy so we theoretically "get by" without this care, but we are obviously ignoring the injunctions to have an annual physical check-up and to see our dentist twice a year. Undoubtedly there is a connection, too, with this lack of medical care on the part of workers in this income range and the fact that the average woman worker in this country lost more than 13 days because of illness or injury in 1943. The economic waste in this is great in addition to what it means to the individual concerned. We, in the YWCA, like to think of the American standard of living as meaning more than existence, as guaranteeing an opportunity for rich, creative living. When I think of my own inability to buy the books or the symphony tickets 1 would like to buy, I am concerned about that $99 for leisure-time activities, an over-all term which has to include vacation, education, club dues, sports, theater, and so on. With the shorter workweek coming into practice again, there will be more leisure time, but can we use it profitably? Of course, hiking is free, but that wears out your shoes-and think of the clothing item. The clothing item is really a headache to the working girl. According to a bulletin of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the relative cost of clothing had risen 36 percent by April 1944 over the level of August 1939. That means a lot in dollars and cents to us, particularly to those of us earning less than 65 cents an hour. What costs us even more money is the deterioration in quality which means more frequent replacement. Take the blouse I am wearing this morning. I paid $2 for it 4 years ago, and it still looks quite respectable. I have at home two other blouses for which I had to pay $3 each, which are so sleazy after several launderings that I deliberately chose to wear this old blouse in order to make a decent appearance. I should like to point up this cost-of-living problem by sharing with you the budget of a friend of mine who earns her living as a mimeograph operator in a large Middle Western city. She earns $105 a month, or about 63 cents an hour, thus most nearly approximating the 65 cents an hour proposed in this amendment. She shares an apartment and has one dependent. This is her budget-and note the omissions: That tells the story, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it is not unique. A laundry worker, belonging to a club in the St. Louis YWCA, tells us she averages $20 a week for a 6-day week, 9 to 10 hours a day. On this she supports herself and an invalid husband. A power-machine operator who is a member of the Detroit YWCA supports three children and her mother on 67% cents an hour. I wonder if "supports" is the right word. Too often people think women are working for pin money and forget that even before the war one-fifth of the women workers in the United States were the principle wage earners in their families. As an aftermath of the war, this percentage will inevitably be increased. Another reason why the business and industrial girls in the YWCA are interested in the passage of this amendment is the effect it will inevitably have on the wages of those women who work in intrastate commerce. We are pleased to know that next week the Department of Labor and Industries in the State of Washington will begin hearings on a proposal of a minimum-pay scale of not less than 75 cents per hour for women workers. I wish other States would do likewise, particularly my own State of Illinois. I was discouraged to read the following official Illinois figures on average weekly earnings of women workers in 1944: Every one of them is under 65 cents an hour, and some of them a long ways under. We believe, too, that raising the minimum hourly pay for those workers engaged in interstate commerce will have its effect also in other fields such as school teaching. We have a goodly number of teacher in our business and professional constituency in the YWCA and we share their concern that almost 50,000 teachers left that profession for other jobs between Pearl Harbor and June 1944. It is a disgrace to America that 5 percent of the country's teachers were paid less than $600 a year for their teaching activities. It's not only a disgrace, it's a tragedy-not only those teachers, but America is poorer thereby. I would like to emphasize the fact, too, that this is not a new problem. The rising cost of living during these war years has accentuated it, but the struggle to make ends meet has long been with us. Back in 1940 the Baltimore YWCA made a study of women white-collar workers in that city which demonstrated that these workers were underpaid in relation to the cost of living. The same year the Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor made a study of office workers in 5 cities which showed that 18.6 percent of the 36,800 women office workers were earning under $75 a month. In February 1941, the Business and Professional Department of the Chicago YWCA to which I belong collected data from 241 of our club members which showed that 70 out of the 241 were not paid for sick leave, 163 did not have hospitalization, 91 were unable to save any money and 175 of the 241 earned $100 a month or less. Let us not think, therefore, that wartime conditions alone produce strained pocketbooks. We have farm women in our YWCA membership, also, and they are very well aware of the study by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which demonstrated that when city income goes up, farm income goes up even faster and further. They have a very real interest, therefore, in the adoption of this amendment. Speaking of farm income reminds me of something else. It is often claimed that wage increases of this sort are inflationary. I hardly see how a slight addition to some of the budgets I have quoted would have any inflationary effect, but may I call your attention to the study made by the Federal Trade Commission of the costs involved in making a combine. That's what the farm women reminded me of. The complete break-down of costs in producing a combine which cost the farmer $638, was as follows: In other words, actual factory labor was only 7.3 percent of the price the farmer paid. There would seem to be some margins on those figures which would allow for wage increases without increasing prices. The cost of producing other articles might well be similarly scrutinized. In conclusion I would like to go on record for myself and the National Business and Professional and Industrial Councils of the YWCA as heartily endorsing this statement made by Mr. John W. Snyder, Director, Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion, on August 14, 1945: "Wage and price increases will be allowed to correct substandard pay scales, to relieve hardships of individual workers and enterprises and where necessary to stimulate increased production. "In order to speed reconversion and to mitigate the extremes of hardship during the transition period, a number of legislative enactments are needed These include revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act to increase minimum wages." Mrs. LEMPI K. MATTHEWS. President, National Business and Professional Council of the YWCA (Cosigned) ELSA G. GRAVES, Chairman, National Industrial Council of the YWCA. EXHIBIT 46 TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS W. MCPEEK ON BEHALF OF S. 1349, THE MINIMUM WAGE BILL, PRESENTED TO A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR The church of Jesus Christ has preached the doctrine that the welfare and security of the family is the first principle of Christian social concern. The wage rate on which the family income is based has a profound influence on the security of the home. Substandard wages spell malnutrition, poor health, slum life, and the spiritual frustration that goes with such an existence. Substandard wages work special hardship on our Nation's children. When the wage rate is low the father, and often the mother as well, is forced to work long and frequently irregular hours in order to make ends meet. Children are left for extensive periods without the care and companionship of their parents. Studies show that one of the major causes of juvenile delinquency is the constant absence from home of both working parents. Child labor also comes mainly from homes struggling to maintain life on substandard wages. Our churches have worked for many years, especially through the home missions council, to help wipe out the evils of oppressive child labor. Much ground has been gained. But child labor will never be done away with until the parents of working children can count on wages suffi cient to bring security and a decent standard of living to their homes. For these reasons we consider that a minimum-wage law which will make possible a minimum decent standard of living for all American homes is a principle which Christian citizens should wholeheartedly support. The late Father John Ryan, one of the profound Christian social thinkers of our time. said: "The state has both the right and the duty to compel all employers to pay a living wage." Our own National Council of Congregational Churches of the United States as early as 1925 stated, "Translating the ideal of Jesus into industry and economic relationships means: That the first charge upon industry should be a minimum comfort wage and that all labor should give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay." The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was one of the first great steps toward this goal. The minimum wage of 40 cents, established at that time, was considered barely adequate for health and decency even then, but because extremely low wages were so widespread, it was felt that 40 cents was the highest minimum that could be achieved at first. Since that time living costs have risen precipitously, so that the 40-cent minimum is seriously inadequate. The most conservative estimate of the present cost of maintaining a family of four at minimum standards of decency and health comes to $1,621.41 (Textile Workers Union emergency budget), or an average hourly wage of 78 cents per hour. Such a budget allows nothing for savings, for recration, for emergency medical expenses, for any purchases beyond the minimal day-to-day family requirements for maintaining bodily existence. The new minimum wage of 65 cents per hour, and 75 cents per hour after 2 years, as proposed in S. 1349, is therefore the lowest wage rate possible to supply basic family needs under present conditions. The passage of S. 1349 is the next urgently needed step toward the goal of a living wage for all working citizens. The legislative committee of the Council for Social Action of the Congregational Christian Churches wholeheartedly supports this measure, and urges its early adoption. We commend especially the provisions of the bill which extend the protection of minimum-wage laws for the first time to seamen, cannery, and other processing workers. We look to the time when all wage earners will be brought under the protection of minimum-wage legislation. American industry faces the postwar period with enormously expanded plant capacity, its output per worker multiplied, and its profits and reserves higher than at any time since the depression. It is our conviction, after close study of the facts, that the 65-cent minimum wage can be instituted generally without being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Higher wage standards will bring increased purchasing power, and on the maintenance of high and steady purchasing power our productive economy depends. A decent living wage is not only a moral necessity for the welfare of the American family; it is sound business for American industry. EXHIBIT 47 STATEMENT OF AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, CIO, ON S. 1349 I appear here today on behalf of my organization to heartily support amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act raising minimum wages to 65 cents and broadening coverage of the act to give protection to millions of workers now excluded. In view of previous testimony by other CIO unions, I shall limit myself to merely mentioning the fact that 65 cents today is approximately the same, in terms of present-day purchasing power and worker productivity, as was 40 cents some years ago. Further, it is not difficult to visualize the tremendous difficulties encountered by workers who try to maintain themselves and their families on $26 a week or less. The communications industry, as I shall demonstrate later, offers eloquent proof of the need for raising the statutory floor under wages as rapidly as possible. When the act was first passed, we did not have a full-employment economy. Millions of Americans were unemployed, ill-fed, ill-clad, and ill-housed. Since that time, and particularly during the war, our productive capacity has so expanded that we come face to face with the necessity to choose either of the alternatives. Are we going to make use of our increased productivity and our increased production for a peaceful prosperous world, or are we going into a tailspin of contraction, with the perspective of another war to bail out the American economy? When fighting with guns for the survival of our American way of life, we achieved a full employment, full-production economy in our economy which reached previously undreamed of levels. Now, in peace, our American way of life is equally threatened by unemployment, low wages, and depressions. This is a decisive moment in history, and favorable action on this bill will substantially contribute to answering the question of whether we can live decently in peace, or whether the American economy requires wars and the manufacture of implements of death to make it work. To choose full production and full employments means to make possible the purchase of the goods which our industries can produce by paying wages high enough to permit ever-increasing consumption. A minimum wage of 65 cents, to be increased to 75 cents in 2 years, is a step in the direction of full employment and increased purchasing power, for the maintenance of a healthy, fullproduction economy. Failure to modernize wage policy, that is, the retention of obsolete minima and insistence upon wage cuts will so reduce the purchasing power of the American people as to result in mass unemployment, wholesale contraction of industry, and a very bitter and chaotic condition throughout the entire country. Inasmuch as the communications industry has upwards of half a million employees, the enactment of this legislation would have an immediate and salutary effect upon a substantial group of people in every community throughout the country. Approximately 30 percent of the employees in the industry receive less than 65 cents an hour, 34 percent less than 60 cents, and tens of thousands carn less than 50 cents. While some improvements in wage rates did take place during the war, this increase in no way matched the increase in living costs and worker productivity. The wages paid by the two major companies in the communications industry, telephone, and telegraph, run as follows: The average hourly wage rate throughout the Western Union system is less than 69 cents per hour. Over 55 percent of all the employees receive less |