in managerial practices, makes for a complete lack of standardization of tasks, and even of job titles. With such a bewildering variety of conditions the establishment of a sound wage structure is beyond the capacity of individuals even with a detailed and intimate knowledge of the industry. It is possible, of course, through scientific job evaluation to work out for an individual plant a sound and well-balanced wage structure, but not for an entire industry as large and as heterogeneous as the cottontextile industry. The attempt to establish occupational minima would not be substantially simplified if the minima were restricted to broad classifications of unskilled, semiskilled and skilled workers in the industry. It would still be necessary to determine what degree of skill would justify particular tasks to be classed in one of the three divisions, and then to examine each task to determine how much skill it requires. Background of industry committees: The intimate knowledge of the industry that would be required for such an evaluation is, in our judgment, beyond the capacity of the tripartite industry committee. Differences of opinion between management and labor representatives would be resolved by the public members, who, if former industry committees can serve as a criterion, would have neither the knowledge of the industry or of job evaluation, to reach judgments fair to both industry and labor and in accordance with the criteria laid down by Congress. Table III following shows the occupational background of public members of all industry committees appointed under the I submit that the background of the majority of the public members is not such as would warrant the hope that they would possess the knowledge to determine such fine details as appropriate occupational minima for the complicated structure of American industry. act. 1 Includes engineers, chemists, and representatives of farm organizations. Source: Minimum Wage Fixing under the U. S. Fair Labor Standards Act, International Labour Office. Montreal, 1945. Mr. MURCHISON. The result of the industry committee procedure would be the establishment of uniform wage rates in this industry and the establishment of a wage structure divorced from the realities of the industry, and inequitable both for particular mills and to the individual worker. The difficulties indicated above would not end with the establishment of occupational minima. Changes are constantly taking place. in the industry and they will probably occur with increasing rapidity in the future-machinery changes, product changes, task-lay-out changes, increasing or decreasing the content of a particular job. With the hierarchy of minimum wages fixed by law it will be impossible in practice to make adjustments in the rates for particular jobs. The result would be a frozen wage structure unresponsive to the changing technology of the industry. Power is unnecessary: We are opposed to this grant of power to the industry committee because we believe it is as unncessary as it is undesirable and unworkable. It is a well known fact to all who have had any experience in industry that an increase in the basic minimum automatically forces some readjustment of the remainder of the wage structure. Such action is necessary to plant efficiency, and the maintenance of employee morale. Mr. William Davis former Chairman of the War Labor Board and Director of Economic Stabilization, testifying before a subcommittee of this committee said: I would like to say something about what happens when you do raise the wage, to 60 cents as a minimum wage in a plant. If you have got, as you are likely to have, and as we have found in these low level wage plants, very little difference between the minimum skilled worker and the next one above him, the semiskilled, you may have a plant where the minimum wage has been 30 cents * * * and then there is another group which gets 321⁄2 cents, and another group 371⁄2, and so forth. * Now, when you put a 40-cent minimum in there, they have to lift some groups above 40 cents * * You have to make adjustments * * * in the closely interrelated job classifications so as to maintain some part of the wage differential between different occupations. So when you say you lift your minimum wage to 60 cents or 65 cents, it means, expecially if you go as high as 65 cents, that you have to do a lot of wage raising above 65 cents to maintain some sort of differentials. It would mean a very considerable lifting of the general level of wages in America. Mr. A. F. Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who followed Mr. Davis before the committee testified to the same effect. I am sure that the experience we had under minimum wage legislation, in which some people interpreted the law literally and came up to 321⁄2 cents and 35 cents and 371⁄2 cents or 40 cents, but did not change anybody's rates above the minimum established at the moment, that the situation which was brought about under legal compulsion would not be brought about by any man's choice, if he was in his right mind. No man is going to change the rates of an individual getting 55 cents an hour and bring those to 65, and to have employees that were getting 65 cents or 68 at the 65-cent or 68-cent rate. That just doesn't make sense. According, Mr. Chairman, it appears to us that the grant of power to the industry committee to recommend multiple minima is as unnecesas it is undesirable, and that the difficult and extremely technical task of making such adjustments can be worked out more efficiently between mangagement and labor, and with greater equity and justice to both. 78595-45- -26 Statute of limitations: We are also opposed to section 18 (b) which permits an employee to institute legal proceedings for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, at any time within 5 years from the accrual of such liability. In view of the growing complexity of regulations in the administration of the act and the importance of administrative interpretations, an employer may unwittingly violate a regulation and become liable for large sums of back pay. This will become increasingly true if the act is expanded to cover wages and workers above the basic minimum for unskilled workers. As I have previously indicated, a particular job in this industry may be classified as semiskilled in one plant and skilled in another, or the same job may have different titles in different plants. If, as a result of such varying practices, an employer places a worker in a category which may be different from a later interpretation of the Administrator, he might become liable for an amount of back pay which could easily threaten his financial solvency. Now under the Fair Labor Standards Act as now written we have industry committees which determine the minimum wage for each industry, and we would still have that pattern under the proposed bill, and their tripartite committees consisting of equal members of labor, management, and public, so-called. Now, the business of setting up occupational differentials for an entire industry, involving hundreds of classifications and very expert technical knowledge, would probably run into a difference of opinion between management and labor, so the public members will decide these technical points. Table III shows how the public membership of the committees was made up. Eightyone professors of economics, with an average of about three committees for each one, and those 81 having 204 assignments, professors of sociology, professors of political science, professors of law, and other educators, social workers, lawyers, a few business executives, editors, publishers, clergymen, representatives of consumer organizations, industrial organizations, labor mediators, industrial counselors, all perfectly wonderful people. But the point is they do not have the technical knowledge which would enable them to make these decisions, they could not possibly do it, and that is the reason we put those classifications in there. Senator ELLENDER. Are there any amendments proposed to the pending bill, other than the wage rates and this other matter you mentioned, that would adversely affect the industry? Mr. MURCHISON.. Yes; there is one there. Senator ELLENDER. In relation to the present law, of course. Mr. MURCHISON. There is one there that is the extension of the statute of limitations from 1 year to 5 years, which is an extension of the most gigantic racket, Senator, that this country ever saw. That would mean the grievances built up in the 5-year period, and you have got shyster lawyers by the hundreds that would not do anything but spend their lives in that sort of business. Senator ELLENDER. The limitation is now 1 year and this seeks to increase it to 5 years? Mr. MURCHISON. Yes. Senator ELLENDER. What else is there by way of amendment? Mr. MURCHISON. Those are the things the industry is particularly interested in. Senator TUNNELL. There isn't any reason for any 5-year limitation? Mr. MURCHISON. We do not think so. Senator TUNNELL. I do not think so. If there is nothing further, thank you, gentlemen. We will meet again at 1:30 this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p. m., a recess was taken until 1:30 p. m. of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Senator TUNNELL. We will come to order. Is Mr. Haley here? Mr. HALEY. Yes, sir. Senator TUNNELL. All right, Mr. Haley, will you give your name and position to the stenographer? TESTIMONY OF JAMES W. HALEY, ATTORNEY, NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION, SOUTHERN BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, my name is James W. Haley. I appear here as the representative and regular attorney of the National Coal Association. The National Coal Association is the trade association of bituminous coal producers, with membership comprising about 80 percent of the commercial production of bituminous coal in the United States and with members in each of the major coal-producing States in the Nation. The bituminous coal-mining industry is opposed to amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as proposed in S. 1349. We believe it is fundamentally unsound for the Government to attempt to fix wages by general statute applicable to all industries and to all individuals in all industries. We also feel that such a program is impracticable, as well as fundamentally unsound. The bituminous coal-mining industry is one of the highest-paying industries in America. Senator TUNNELL. Highest paying to whom? Mr. HALEY. To the workers, the wage earners in the industry. Mr. HALEY. According to the Department of Labor, average hourly earnings for the month of June in the bituminous coal-mining industry were $1.281 per hour, and the weekly earnings figure was $59.04. That was the average for all workers in the industry, $1.281 per hour and $59.04 per week. From these figures, it is immediately apparent that the average wage in the bituminous coal-mining industry is considerably higher than even the ultimate minimum provided in S. 1349. But, unfortunately, in an industry employing hundreds of thousands of workers, as does the bituminous coal-mining industry, there are instances where the higher minimum wage would make a hardship and I might say a hardship more on the worker and the coal consumer than on the employer. I refer, for instance, to miners paid on the tonnage basis. This wage per ton is set, through collective-bargaining processes, at a rate which is high enough to yield incomes of $6,000 and $7,000, or even more, per year. There are hundreds of such workers in the industry who are now earning $500 or $600 per month. But, on the other hand, there are some workers who are very old or for other reasons do not produce enough coal to earn more than $4 or $5 per day. These subproductive employees realize their limitations and are happy to be able to earn even this nominal sum and at the same time make a patriotic contribution to supplying coal sorely needed. The fact that these employees do not produce enough coal to earn more is often due to the fact that they are unable or unwilling to work constantly at the job while they are in the mine. In the same mine and under identical working conditions, one man may earn $5 per day and another $10 or $15 per day; the matter is entirely up to the individual worker. However, it must be realized that the subproductive workers, as well as the superproductive workers, must go into the mine at the same time and must remain in the mine until the so-called man-trip brings them out. But many workers, as I have pointed out, due to physical limitations or for other reasons, do not engage in productive work for the entire time they are in the mine at the usual working place. With the 40-cent minimum now provided by statute, there is obvious compliance with the statute if these subproductive employees receive $24.40 for the full 54-hour week. I might say that we are still operating on this 54-hour-week basis in the bituminous-coal industry. This is assuming the entire 54 hours as work time, and, due to the working conditions to which I have just referred, we can make no other assumption. However, if S. 1349 is enacted into law, there would not be compliance unless such subproductive employees received a minimum of $45.75, assuming the same workweek, after the 2-year period. If the Congress feels impelled to raise the minimum wage, it should not be more than 50 cents per hour, for the reason that any figure higher than 50 cents will constitute a serious problem in connection with these subproductive employees. Certainly, if S. 1349 becomes law and the minimum is placed at 75 cents per hour or any rate in excess of 50 cents per hour, it will mean that a number of subproductive workers in the bituminous coal-mining industry will lose their jobs and the Nation will lose the coal production. Senator ELLENDER. Do you know how many of those there are? Mr. HALEY. No, I do not, but I would like to say at this point that Mr. Kramer and his associates have worked out with me to have a practical coal man who will supplement my statement by a 2-minute statement of his own. I have abbreviated my own statement, with that in mind. Senator ELLENDER. Why 2 minutes? Mr. HALEY. That is all we had arranged for. Senator ELLENDER. I don't like that method of fixing a man's time, at 2 minutes. Senator TUNNELL. I don't know whether anybody has said so, but I think it is a good idea. I don't think we want to protract these hearings deliberately. Senator ELLENDER. No, but so far as I am concerned, I want to stay here until we get to the bottom of all this and get all the facts possible. I do not propose to rush through it in a week or two weeks. Mr. HALEY. I would like to say, Senator, that there was no disposition on the part of Mr. Kramer or his associates to limit us. But, since we are bringing this up, Mr. Ross, a call operator, has a brief statement which will take a couple of minutes to present |