Miss DICKASON. You said the reason you were here, since you were making 65 cents an hour, is because you think if this bill were passed your wages would not be reduced, but that you cannot get along on what you are getting now. Is there any reason that makes you think that your wages might go down any lower if the bill were not passed? Do you remember any time when there was any wage reduction in your plant?

Mrs. Fizz. Yes; we did have a wage reduction.

Miss DICKASON. Do you remember when that was?

Mrs. Fizz. Yes. Early in 1938 before the minimum wage law. Miss DICKASON. So that is why you are here, because you remember the wage reduction when there was not a minimum wage law?

Mrs. Fizz. That is right.

Miss DICKASON. Is there anything else?

Mrs. Fizz. No; that is all I have.

Senator TUNNELL. All right; thank you.

We will convene again Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., a recess was taken until 10 a. m., Tuesday, October 2, 1945.)

AMENDMENT OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1945

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator James M. Tunnell presiding. Present: Senators Tunnell, Aiken, Ellender, La Follette, and Smith. Also present: Charles Kramer, consultant to the committee. Senator TUNNELL. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Hines, are you now ready to proceed?

Mr. HINES. Yes, sir.

TESTIMONY OF LEWIS G. HINES, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

Senator TUNNELL. All right, Mr. Hines, you may give your name and position.

Mr. HINES. My name is Lewis G. Hines. I am legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I am here representing President Green today due to the fact that he was unable to get here. He appeared before the committee on two previous occasions.

Senator TUNNELL. There was something of a misunderstanding about that and I might state a hearing had been fixed for some people who had been present 2 or 3 days before. I want it understood there was just a misunderstanding.

Mr. HINES. I hope that is the case because while Mr. Green did not mention the fact, some of our people felt he was being slighted and had been set aside by the committee in preference to some other people.

Senator TUNNELL. It was not even known to the committee that he was supposed to testify. I will say that to you Mr. Hines. I received a statement that he was to testify after there was a public announcement that he was to testify. There was no attempt to slight him and we all regret the misunderstanding.

Mr. HINES. I am here today to present the views of the American Federation of Labor. My statement is as follows:

For 65 years the American Federation of Labor has maintained the right of a worker to a fair wage as compensation for work done, in order that he and his family might have decent and healthful standards the foundation of national welfare.

We have constantly stood for justice and prosperity for workers as an integral element in national prosperity. It has taken a long time

to convince those in authority that national welfare and progress result from integrating efforts to raise standards of living for all groups of citizens. No one group in our economy can enjoy sustained prosperity unless other groups are proportionately prosperous. Integrated prosperity is the key to full employment toward which we hope to move. We must raise standards for the lower-paid workers as well as those who set new goals.

The normal index to wage-earning prosperity is the hourly wage rate. Wage rates should increase with increased productivity and ability of management to pay. Due to wartime policies which the administration adopted to control inflation, hourly wage rates have been frozen during the war. The result was that collective bargaining itself was frozen-the workers' agency for industrial justice. Overtime and other expedients to increase weekly earnings were introduced to compensate for declining purchasing power of dollars. Workers who sharply increased their productivity were denied earned increases in wage rates. The Executive order following the VJ-day permits collective bargaining to overcome as much of this differential as is possible within current prices. We cannot fully regain collective bargaining until we overcome production scarcities.

The United States is sorely in need of a national wage policy in keeping with the economic power which this Nation wields. Whatever policy prevails here will influence wage policies in all other countries. The American Federation of Labor intends to maintain its traditional high-wage policy. We produce goods and services in amounts that permit high wages to be paid and we seek opportunities to increase our contributions to efficient production.

The American Federation of Labor holds that our traditional highwage policy is the keystone to balance in an economy attempting to maintain maximum production with maximum employment. High wages will make available to the masses of the people higher material standards of living and comfort.

Some workers and some managements in the United States have enjoyed the highest national standards of living in the world. Our next step is to set new minimum standards and thus raise the whole economy to higher levels. A nation that leads the world in research and in technical application of scientific progress should also lead in making the benefits of technical progress available to its citizens for better living.

Our main dependence for making our high-wage policy effective for all workers is collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is accepted public policy. We have given the same status to Federal legislation fixing minimum standards which facilitate collective bargaining. Now that practically all industrial groups realize moral responsibility for providing opportunity for work for all who are willing and seeking jobs, we must realine our policies and procedure to further the objectives of full employment. The first step in that direction is reexamination of basic wage rates and minimum standards.

Why should we ask for a 65 cents minimum wage now? Because it is one of the most fundamental parts of our national effort for full employment based on full production. As Government officials and leaders of private industry have repeatedly pointed out, our national

prosperity in the years ahead can only be based on a high standard of living. Industry cannot find a market for the goods it will produce at full capacity operation unless workers can buy. Wage and smallsalaried workers buy 75 percent of all goods and services sold to consumers of the United States, and our mines and factories, farms, and transport systems, stores and service industries depend more on the buying power of wage earners than on that of any other group. To raise the lowest paid workers up to create the necessary market for American industry: Workers receiving 65 cents an hour or $26 for a 40-hour week spend all the income they receive for the products of American farms and industries. At this living level workers need their entire income for living expenses. They cannot afford to save any significant part of their income-therefore any increase in their wages is "live money"-money spent at once for food from farms, clothing and house furnishings from stores and factories. At this level practically 100 percent of the wage increase is spent, while at higher income levels a portion is saved and does not go immediately for the purchase of goods and services.

A second important reason why we must set this 65-cent minimum now is that it represents a basic floor for living standards below which we dare not permit our American economy to fall. This 65-cent mini

mum is necessary today to accomplish the purpose set forth by Congress when the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in October 1938. At today's prices a man cannot possibly support a typical family of four at even a minimum of subsistence on 65 cents. And when Congress passed the act in 1938 its purpose was to provide the minimum of subsistence so that every American might at least have the bare essentials of food, clothing, and shelter. But a minimum subsistence budget for a family of four requires a wage of 87 cents an hour for a 40-hour week at today's prices, according to the Labor Department's maintenance budget. That is, the 65-cent minimum is 22 cents below even the Labor Department's bare-subsistence budget; it provides only three-quarters of an estimate of minimum living.

What kind of a living then will the 65 cents provide? On such a wage, a worker's family of four can buy only three-fourths of the food necessary for a minimum adequate diet as calculated by the United States Department of Agriculture. This means that the father of the family, a man at active work, can have only a very small serving of meat, fish, or poultry for one meal on 6 of the 7 days in the week. He cannot buy even his full meat ration under present quotas of ration tickets; he has at least one meatless day during the week. The family cannot buy enough green vegetables and citrus fruits to give them the necessary vitamins. They cannot buy enough protective foods to maintain bodily health.

What of the house they may call a home? It may cost them only $20 a month in rent. And a house rented at so low a figure in these days will probably either be in need of repair or will provide only the most crowded quarters.

What of clothes? The father of the family can afford one overcoat in 5 years. His street suit must last 3 years and he has only one. He can buy only three cotton shirts a year. For his wife, he can afford a heavy coat once in 4 or 5 years. And she must make out on three dresses a year, including house dresses, street dresses, and all clothing

for church or other occasions. With such meager clothing she cannot take her rightful place in the life of her community. The worker's growing boy must make out on one cotton suit per year, and one pair of slacks with two blouses. His wool suit must last 4 years. When this must supply his need for school and for play, for winter and for summer, can it be called a minimum of decency for a growing boy? The above figures are from the United States Department of Labor.

This is all that a wage of 65 cents provides. Is it too much to ask in a country with the greatest productive capacity in the world? And if we fail to provide this 65-cent minimum, wages may be driven down so that hundreds of thousands of families will have much less than this to live on.

American industry is able to produce at least a 65-cent living standard for every American, and a far higher standard for the vast majority of American workers. The thing we want to accomplish with this bill is to see that American workers actually receive the bare minimum.

During the war we have made great progress in raising the minimum wage. Starting with 40 cents, the minimum was lifted to 50 cents through the War Labor Board action, then to 55 cents. Meanwhile industry itself raised its minimums so that today the vast majority of our factory workers are already receiving far more than 65 cents an hour. Labor Department figures for the summer of 1945 show that 80 percent of all factory workers are today getting 65 cents or more per hour. Those who still receive 65 cents or less form a very small percentage indeed in most plants, so that it will not create, a great burden for the plants to raise their minimum wage.

Another vital reason why we need this minimum now is to hold the standards we have gained during the war. It has been our national policy, both for war and for reconversion, to prevent wage reductions. Now we find that some chiseling employers are using the reconversion period to attempt to force wages down, whether by actual wage reductions or by reclassifications. To establish this minimum is to stop the chiselers and to lay the foundation for the high wage, high production, and high employment economy which alone can preserve our American way of life in the years ahead.

Why have American industries paid the highest wages in the world for the last century? Why will American industries be able to meet this 65-cent minimum in the months and years ahead? It is because American workers have the highest productivity of any workers in the world. Our productivity per hour of factory work in this country before the war was three times that of Britain and Russia, more than 140 percent above the efficient plants of Hitler's Germany, and four times the productivity of Japanese factory workers. During the war we have immensely increased productivity, and today we exceed other countries by an even higher figure.

Throughout the last half century the amazing increase in American workers' productivity has steadily flooded the market with more and more products and services for consumers at lower and lower prices. And steadily rising wages have created a market to buy those products. Take, for instance, the experience of the industry making electric refrigerators. In 1928 the early refrigerators sold for $400 each. In 1942, just before production was stopped, a better refrigerator sold for $150 or less, and the wages of refrigerator workers advanced stead