Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. How many cows? Mr. SMITH. I have 35 milk cows and 30 heifers, 150 chickens. Mr. SMITH. By machine. Senator ELLENDER. You are a modern farmer. Mr. SMITH. I can remember when we farmed the other way, though. And with machinery we have to pay better wages in order to distribute the products of our farms and our factories, and a 65-cent minimum is very low if we are going to do that. Senator ELLENDER. In the cane fields of Louisiana a mechanic, the same as you have on your farm, doesn't get anything under $30 a week; I am talking about the farm laborer who does all hand work like hoeing beans and hoeing onions and the like that we have to do down there. Mr. SMITH. That is hard work too. Senator ELLENDER. And it is costly if the wage is too high, as you know. Senator TUNNELL. They have to eat though, don't they? Mr. SMITH. We have plenty of vegetable growers in Bucks County but they use machinery also. Senator ELLENDER. I don't suppose they have as much rainfall as we do and so much luxurious grass. Mr. SMITH. We suffered with the drought last year and the rain this year. Much of our crop spoiled this year because of lack of labor to take care of it. Senator ELLENDER. As a result of the war and also high wages we have many sugar planters who are able to buy a machine to cut sugarcane and the machine will save the work of 57 men. It can be operated by three workers. That means a saving. The average cane cutter gets $2.50 or $2.75 a day at the moment. So if you multiply $2.75 by 57 it will give you the saving that one machine can afford to a farmer who has sufficient acreage to operate one successfully. To operate that machine the three operators get about, I suppose, $4 to $5 per day for 8 hours, or maybe $6. Now, when it comes to gathering the cane after it is cut there is a machine operated by one man that saves the work of 23 men at $3 a day. You can readily see that with machine work as in your case a farmer can afford to pay as much as $10 a day for an operator and save $3 times 23, as was the case before this new machinery came into effect. Mr. SMITH. But he has to have more experienced help. Senator ELLENDER. And that is why he is able to pay more just as in your case. Senator TUNNELL. Is it your idea that you have to use machinery to compete? Mr. SMITH. We do; yes. Senator ELLENDER. You would have to. Senator TUNNELL. Why do you use machinery? Mr. SMITH. Because we can operate the farm so much easier by machinery. Senator TUNNEL. It is the only way you can operate it, isn't it, in competition with your neighbors? Mr. SMITH. That is right. But it also should make it possible to pay the labor that operates these machines better wages so that we can distribute the products of the farm and the factory. Senator ELLENDER. Have you any small farms in your section? Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes. Senator ELLENDER. How many acres are in a farm yoù classify as a small farm? Mr. SMITH. Twenty-five or forty acres. Senator ELLENDER. Are farmers operating farms of that size able to afford machines? Mr. SMITH. They have machinery to operate. There is machinery to operate that kind of farm and there are also custom workers that take care of any crops that are seasonal. Senator ELLENDER. What has been the tendency in your section as to the size of farms? Have they grown in size much? Mr. SMITH. Yes, indeed. One farmer will operate his own farm and two or three other farms. Sénator ELLENDER. And this machine age has made it possible for a man to operate many more acres with fewer employees and, of course, lesser costs per unit. Mr. SMITH. We could never have carried on this war if we had not. Senator ELLENDER. I am not arguing that. It is a fortunate thing we had, because the record shows that with 6,000,000 less workers we produced one-third more food than before the war, and that is to a large extent attributable to the machinery used on the farm. Mr. SMITH. Yes. Senator ELLENDER. And the soil-conservation program. Mr. SMITH. But I think that now we can take a lot of workers back on our farms and use them profitably. Senator ELLENDER. Could you use more than you are using now? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. At a profit? Mr. SMITH. I could use one or two. Senator ELLENDER. You would work more land? Mr. SMITH. Not only work more land but we would do the job better. Senator TUNNELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. We will now recess until Tuesday at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until Tuesday, October 23, 1945.) AMENDMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1945 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, Senator James M. Tunnell presiding. Present: Senators Tunnell, Ellender, and Smith. Also present: Charles Kramer, consultant to the committee. Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, before General Johnson starts his testimony, I would like to state for the record my personal gratification that he has seen fit to come here and testify. He is an old friend of mine, and I welcome him here, and especially his giving us the benefit of the long experience he has had with this important subject. General JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Senator TUNNELL. I have every reason to believe General Johnson is capable of discussing this subject. I have heard him before. General JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator TUNNELL. All right, General Johnson. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON, BRIGADIER GENERAL, ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, RETIRED; CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON, NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. General JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I have not many notes. I might say first of all I am particularly gratified that you have changed the room. I do not feel as much like a bug under à light as I did in the other room. With your permission, I have a statement which will take only about 5 minutes to read, and then I should be delighted, of course, to discuss any phase of it. Senator TUNNELL. Just proceed in your own way, General. General JOHNSON. My name is Robert Wood Johnson. I live at Princeton, N. J. As I understand the purpose of this hearing, it is to discuss the plight of the underpaid. We are not here to consider questions of collective bargaining or those who are earning a fair and adequate wage. The proposals embodied in the amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act are not aimed to raise the general wage level of the United States, but rather they are aimed to correct certain social and economic distress growing out of substandard wages. There have always been more underpaid employed than unemployed. I suppose it would be fair to estimate that given 6 to 8 million unemployed, we would in the past expect 15 to 20 million underpaid. I suggest that this committee should take the position that the average American workman cannot keep body and soul together on less than $30 per week anywhere in the United States. On the basis of a 40-hour week, I, therefore, am compelled to recommend a 75cent-per-hour minimum wage throughout the Nation. On the score of exceptions and there will be many who dwell exclusively on that feature of the problem-we might assume the exemptions of apprentices, perhaps those under 21 years of age. It can be said that a large portion of our underpaid are unmarried and that single individuals can exist on less than $30 a week. It is well to add, however, that the great majority of single men and women have responsibilities to parents, brothers, sisters, and relatives that are frequently comparable to those of the head of a family. I suppose it is impossible to discuss any question of wages, even the establishment of fair minimums, without some consideration of the broader economic aspects of the relation of wages to costs. It is a great surprise to me to learn that this outstanding feature of American economy is so little understood. Some will say that industry moves to low-wage areas. This is a fallacy. Factories move to markets, not to low-wage areas. We are surrounded every day from morning to night with thousands of examples that go to prove beyond discussion that the most outstanding characteristic of our country, in terms of economics, has been its accomplishment in the field of production and distribution. On every side we see the proof of the ability of this country to pay higher wages and sell at lower costs. This equation needs no proof beyond the record of the past 50 years. At times we hear of the loss of export markets through our efforts to correct the substandard wage. Apparently those who oppose reasonable minimums for such reasons have failed to realize that the products able to pay transoceanic freight, overcome tariff walls, pay the high price of export selling, and compete with cheap native labor are almost exclusively the products of our high-wage industries. Of course there are exceptions, and we must acknowledge the fact that the components of industry and commerce differ one from the other. In some industries the wage factor is very low, and in others it is quite high. But here again I should like to remind the committee that we are dealing with minimum wages and the plight of the underpaid, the substandard wage earner not reached through union organization, and that his problem cannot be adequately corrected through State legislation. Only a courageous and realistic Federal law can do the job. It will be better if we come to realize that in discussing this question of a minimum wage we are covering the field of commerce, industry, services, and agriculture. For many years the question of wages has been attached in the public mind to factories, and factories alone. I am told that factories have never employed as many as 25,000,000 wage earners, and that in the future the percentage of factory employed in relation to the total employed will probably decline. |