TESTIMONY OF KATHARINE F. LENROOT, CHIEF, CHILDREN'S BUREAU, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Senator TUNNELL. Miss Lenroot, will you give your name and position to the stenographer?

Miss LENROOT. Katherine F. Lenroot, Chief, Children's Bureau, United States Department of Labor.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly concerning the amendment to section 12 of the Fair Labor Standards Act included in the pending bill. The amendment would provide a new paragraph (b), making the present paragraph (b) become paragraph (c), the new paragraph to read as follows:

No employer engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce shall employ any oppressive child labor in or about or in connection with any enterprise in which he is so engaged.

The existing act does not prohibit the employment of children as such, but prohibits the shipment of goods from establishments in which oppressive child labor, as defined in the act, is employed, and we believe it is essential and very important to strengthen this by providing, in addition to the prohibition of shipment of goods, a direct prohibition of employment of oppressive child labor.

Senator TUNNELL. Will you state what you think is included in oppressive child labor?

Miss LENROOT. As defined in section 3 of the present law, oppressive child labor means a condition of employment under which children. under the age of 16 years are employed, with limited exceptions for children of 14 and 15 years of age, in occupations and under conditions determined by the Children's Bureau as not interfering with their health, schooling or wellbeing, and, in addition, coverage of minors between 16 and 18 years of age in hazardous occupations.

The proposed amendment would close a gap in coverage which was pointed up early this year by the Supreme Court in a case arising under section 12 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In this case, 323 U. S., 490, Western Union Telegraph Company v. Katharine F. Lenroot, the United States Supreme Court in January 1945 held, by a 5 to 4 decision, that the Western Union Co., while clearly engaged in interstate commerce does not produce goods or ship them in commerce within the meaning of the present child-labor provisions of the act, and that, therefore, children employed in telegraph messenger service for the company do not have the protection of its child-labor provisions.

The proposed amendment also would generally strengthen the child-labor provisions of the act and would result in giving to the children of the Nation protection which I believe was intended when the original act was passed in 1928.

In discussing the definition of "oppressive child labor," I should note that children employed in agriculture, when not legally required to attend school or as actors in motion pictures or theatrical productions, or working for their parents in occupations other than manufacturing or mining, are exempted.

Now, prior to the United States Supreme Court decision, the Bureau had proceeded on the assumption that the child labor provisions applied to establishments such as Western Union.

The undesirability of the employment of young children in public messenger work was recognized when in issuing an order as to conditions under which 14- and 15-year-old children could be employed under the act, it was provided that messenger service was not recognized as a suitable occupation for the employment of 14- and 15-yearold children.

There are many reasons why messenger work is not desirable for employment of children. It involves exposure to all sorts of weather extremes, physical strain, accident and health hazards and often long hours and late night employment.

Children under 16 years of age, because they are still in the period of growth, need special protection from over-strain and fatigue and they need time for sufficient sleep. In fact, inspections made under the Fair Labor Standards Act have shown messenger boys under 16 working late at night, carrying heavy schedules of school and work, and meeting with serious work accidents.

There is also other evidence of special accident hazards in telegraphmessenger work. According to annual reports for 1941 submitted to the Federal Communications Commission by the major telegraph, cable, and radiotelegraph companies, accidents to messengers-practically all of them telegraph messengers-caused 72 perecent of all the injuries occuring to their employees, although messengers formed only 36 percent of the employees as of December 31, 1941-a season of peak employment.

Mounted messengers on bicycles or motor scooters or other vehicles often in congested city areas are exposed to serious traffic hazards during most of their working time.

Foot messengers must work in winter, in cold weather, and face the danger of falls on icy or wet pavements.

The messenger must work under pressure of a time schedule for making deliveries.

Other types of Western Union employment are also hazardous. In a recent case brought to the attention of the Children's Bureau two 15-year-old boys working as groundmen with the Telegraph Co.'s construction crew were killed.

The proposed amendment does provide much needed protection for children who are not covered under the present wording of section 12 (a).

Senator SMITH. Do I understand that you are advocating doing away with messenger service entirely?

Miss LENROOT. For children under 16 years.

Sonator SMITH. The hazards you are speaking of, any child incurs when he goes back and forth to school, doesn't he?

Miss LENROOT. That is true, Senator Smith, but those hazards are accentuated when working in downtown areas and working long hours. Sonator SMITH. I am familiar with many instances in which youngsters have been helped in getting their education by such work, and I am under the impression that the messenger service of Western Union has been pretty well protected.

Miss LENROOT. There are occupations in which children under 16 could be employed without extra hazard outside school hours under safe conditions, and their help in that way could be secured for the family's support.

Senator SMITH. Do you happen to know what percentage of Western Union messengers are under 16 years old?

Miss LENROOT. On March 31, 1943, before the case had been handed down by the Supreme Court, 11 percent of the messengers employed by Western Union were reported to be under 16 years, and the Western Union Telegraph Co. is probably the largest employer of children under 16 in the country. The fact that they work late at night, all hours and under all conditions, makes the employment more hazardous than the ordinary traffic going to and from school.

Senator TUNNELL. Don't you think bicycle riding is a little more hazardous than any method of transportation, anway? Miss LENROOT. I think it is, Mr. Chairman.

Senator TUNNELL. Regardless of age?

Senator ELLENDER. I think it is more hazardous for older people than for younger ones.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to get clear in my own mind is that the witness is advocating elimination of messenger service under 16 years of age

Miss LENROOT. I am advocating the direct prohibition of oppressive child labor under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

If this amendment were adopted it would be within the discretion of the Chief of the Children's Bureau, after careful consideration, to determine whether or not messenger service was an occupation which could be prohibited for 14- or 15-year-old children outside of school hours.

In the study we gave the question before, we were aware that messenger service was not covered by the act, and we came to the conclusion, after careful review of the evidence of accidents and testimony in hearings, that we should not authorize employment of children under 16 in messenger service.

If this amendment were adopted, however, it would still be within the discretion of an administrative agencv to make such findings as the evidence indicated, and if evidence indicated the occupation was relatively safe, 14- and 15-year-old children might be permitted—— Senator SMITH. Do you happen to know what action the Western Union Co. has taken about this?

Miss LENROOT. I don't know what action the Western Union Co. has taken.

Reports to the Children's Bureau of certificates issued to children going to work show nearly 6,000 children of 14 and 15 going into telegraph messenger work in 1943.

Senator TUNNELL. Didn't you say 11 percent?

Miss LENROOT. Eleven percent, on March 31, 1943, were under 16. In 1944, following the decisions of the district court and circuit. court of appeals holding that the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to Western Union messengers, the number of certificates issued dropped to about 1,700, but since the Supreme Court decision incomplete reports for the first 6 months of 1945 show more than 2,000 children of 14 and 15 certificated for messenger work. The recent war experience during a time of unprecedented labor shortage has demonstrated the practicability and desirability of the basic 16-year minimum age established by Congress in 1938 under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

There has been no serious attack upon this standard and the cooperation of the employers and the public has demonstrated wide public acceptance of the wisdom of the action of Congress in setting up this Nation-wide protection for the country's children, and now that we are no longer in a period of the war effort it seems we are entering upon a period in which we should provide the full protection which I believe Congress intended to provide when the provisions of the National Standard Labor Act were enacted into law.

Senator TUNNELL. Are there any questions of Miss Lenroot? (No response.)

Senator TUNNELL. Thank you, Miss Lenroot.

I have been asked to announce that next week the opposition to the bill will have their innings.

We will now adjourn until Thursday of this week at the same time and place.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a. m., an adjournment was taken until 10 a. m., Thursday, October 4, 1945.)

AMENDMENT OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1945

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

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

Mr. Walling, will you come forward, please? Will you give your name and connection, for the record?

Mr. WALLING. L. Metcalfe Walling, Administrator of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Public Contracts Act.

Senator TUNNELL. Are you accompanied by anyone?

Mr. WALLING. Yes, sir, I am accompanied by William R. McComb, Deputy Administrator, and Harry Weiss, Director of the Economics Branch, Wage and Hour Division. However, I do not anticipate that either of them will make any statement unless there are some technical matters you desire to inquire about.

Senator TUNNELL. Very well. Will you proceed?

TESTIMONY OF L. METCALFE WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR, FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AND PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM R. McCOMB, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, AND HARRY WEISS, DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC BRANCH, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION

Mr. WALLING. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, the Secretary of Labor, in his testimony the other day, made the departmental position on the policy of this bill clear; and Mr. Hinrichs, of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, covered the economic aspects of the bill. So I shall generally confine myself to the administrative angles and problems which are raised, as I think I can be most helpful to the committee in that direction and avoid duplication of what has already been said.

I come here generally in support of S. 1349 as an extension of the benefit the American people have had from the Fair Labor Standards Act since 1938, although I have some changes that I would like to suggest in the amendments, and I will present these in detail later on. It is not a question simply of benefit to the wage earners, although those who would make the greatest gains under this proposal are those who need help most, those lowest paid and weakest in economic.