We believe the interest of labor, as well as the national interest, would be better served through placing much greater emphasis upon the justice and importance of maintaining an adequate annual income for labor earned through increased production rather than keeping chief emphasis upon an hourly wage. We believe also that industry should recognize that its interest as well as the national interest, requires placing greater emphasis upon volume production and total profits rather than depending upon the profit on the unit of production.

These are crucial days for the future of our Nation. All economic groups face tremendous responsibilities to contribute and likewise share the reconversion of our wartime economy to a peacetime basis so as to provide good jobs in private employment for all who are willing and able to work. To achieve this task requires a spirit of unselfishness, sacrifice, and patriotic cooperation.

Congress has provided a parity yardstick as a goal to guide governmental policies in safeguarding farm prices. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which contains the parity yardstick prohibits the utilization of the powers of that act to increase or maintain farm prices above parity. We are opposed to the proposed increase in minimum wages unless some equitable formula is established whereby such increases will be based upon a relationship to parity.

The increases in the statutory minimum wage rates as proposed in S. 1349 would throw farm prices and labor costs out of balance. While labor employed on the farm is exempted from the Fair Labor Standards Act, farmers have to compete with industry in obtaining farm labor. If minimum wage rates, particularly in industries which are closely related to agriculture, or in the areas of agricultural production, are greatly increased, as proposed in this bill, many farmers will inevitably be forced to pay correspondingly high wages for farm labor. Farm prices as well as industrial prices would have to be proportionately increased but farmers who sell in a free market have no assurance that they would reecive these higher prices.

S. 1349 would also amend the Fair Labor Standards Act so as to eliminate the exemption of agricultural labor employed in the "area of production." This would affect labor engaged in the packing, handling, preparation for market, and processing of agricultural commodities in the area of production. We are opposed to this amendment in its present form. Most of the national farm organizations unitedly supported the agricultural exemptions provided by Congress in the Fair Labor Standards Act. There were very good reasons for such exemptions. It is difficult to apply wage and hour provisions to these agricultural operations which are so closely related to agriculture in the rural areas without penalizing farmers. It is well known that increased cost in packing, processing, or otherwise preparing agricultural commodities for market, particularly in these rural areas, generally resulted in reducing the price returns to farmers. That was one of the principal reasons that Congress provided these exemptions for this class of labor. Another important reason is the difficulty of applying hourly limitations to the processing and handling of agricultural commodities, many of which are highly seasonal and perishable in character.

We recognize the difficulty of defining the term "area of production." However, if the term "area of production" is to be eliminated, then we insist that agricultural operations be fully exempted from the maximum hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

We believe the best solution to the problem is to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act so as to substitute for the present definition of agriculaural labor in that act the definition of agricultural labor which is contained in the Social Security Act. The definition in the Social Security Act has been in effect for several years and is generally satisfactory to agriculture.

Under the present law, actions may be maintained by employees for claims of unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation at any time no matter how far removed from the time the action accrued. It is a well accepted principle of law that there should be a settlement of claims within a reasonable period after their origin. Statutes of limitations have been created, founded upon the general experience of mankind that claims which are valid are not usually allowed to remain neglected if the right to sue thereon exists. We do not think that the 5-year statute of limitation provided for in S. 1349 is a reasonable time. We recommend that a statute of limitation of not more than one year be esablished wihin which to maintain such actions. We would appreciate it very much if you would bring this statement to the attention of your committee, and incorporate it in the record of its hearings on this bill.

Sincerely yours,

EDW. A. O'NEAL, President.

EXHIBIT 10

STATEMENT OF CHESTER C. THOMPSON, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC., WASHINGTON 4, D. C., SUBMITTED TO SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EDUCATION ON S. 1349

This statement is made by Chester C. Thompson, president, the American Waterways Operators, Inc., a national association of domestic water carriers operating on the inland rivers, intracoastal canals and waterways, the bays, sounds, and harbors of the United States. The association maintains its principal office at 1319 F Street NW., Washington, D. C.

The carrier members of this association are engaged in the transportation of every commodity which is susceptible to movement by water, including a very large volume of petroleum and petroleum products, coal, sulfur, steel, and grain, and general cargo. The carriers in the association are divided into three general classes: (1) private carriers, who perform as a division or department of a corporation or business whose principal business is other than the transportation of cargo by barge; (2) contract carrier, or those who transport commodities, generally bulk commodities, at established rates under contract with a few shippers; and (3) common carriers, or those who transport for the public generally at rates filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and subject to its control.

Territorially, members of this association operate almost everywhere in the United States where water transportation is feasible, particularly throughout the Gulf Intracoastal Canal from western Texas points to Louisiana and Florida destinations or from the same origin points over the entire Mississippi River system, including the Ohio River and its tributaries and the Illinois Waterway. They also operate on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from Miami, Fla., to Wilmington, Del., on the Columbia River, and in various ports, harbors, and adjacent navigable waterways.

The domestic water carriers are intensely interested and concerned about the provisions of sections 6, 7, 8, and 13 of S. 1349, as the provisions thereof will have a most adverse effect upon the successful conduct of their businesses. Section 13 of the bill contemplate the repeal of the seamen's exemption contained in the present Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

It is the considered opinion of the industry that the removal of the present exemption and the placing of seamen (deckhands, firemen, oilers, wipers, cooks, messboys, etc.), including licensed boatmen (masters, pilots, mates, and engi neers) under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act will destroy the industry because it cannot operate successfully and profitably under the act. The legislative history of the Fair Labor Standards Act clearly shows that the maritime unions themselves advocated the exemption of seamen and were supported in such position by the industry because both knew from experience that it was not possible to successfully operate vessels under its provisions. There have been no developments since 1938 that have indicated this position was not proper, in fact war operations, and those presently prevailing, indicate the need of continuing the seamen's exemption contained in the 1938 act.

Employees on the vessels of domestic water carriers are not underpaid. Through collective bargaining processes they have received substantial increases in compensation and improved working conditions during the period they were exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. The industry and its members will continue to grant increases in compensation and to improve working conditions for such employees when and as general economic and business conditions warrant. Due consideration must be given to the fact that the principal competitors of the water carriers, namely the truck lines and railroads, are, and will continue to be, exempt in whole or in part from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The following indicates the typical increases in compensation received by domestic water carrier vessel personnel. Similar increases could be shown for other classifications of such personnel.

Compensation, Prior to June 1, 1943

Messboy received $90 per month, or $1,080 per year, with 72 days off per year. Ally worked 3,516 hours per year with hourly rate of 31 cents.

hood received $115 per month, or $1,380 per year, with 72 days off per ly worked 3,516 hours per year with hourly rate of 39 cents.

Wiper received $120 per month, or $1,440 per year, with 72 days off per year. Actually worked 3,516 hours per year with hourly rate of 41 cents. Compensation, June 1, 1943, to June 1, 1944

Messboy received $90 per month, or $1,080 per year, with 105 days off per year. Normal basis: 3,120-hour work year at hourly rate of 35 cents. War basis (work 9 out of 12 days): 4,066-hour work year at hourly rate of 43 cents (monthly earnings, $145; yearly earnings, $1,740).

Deckhand received $115 per month, or $1,380 per year, with 105 days off per year. Normal basis: 3,120-hour work year at hourly rate of 44 cents. War basis (work 9 out of 12 days): 4,066-hour work year at hourly rate of 54 cents. (monthly earnings, $184; yearly earnings, $2,208).

Wiper received $120 per month, or $1440 per year, with 105 days off per year. Normal basis: 3,120-hour work year at hourly rate of 46 cents. War basis (work 9 out of 12 days): 4,066-hour work year at hourly rate of 57 cents (monthly earnings, $192.50; yearly earnings, $2,310).

Present wage scale

Messboy receives $121.50 per month, or $1,458 per year, with 105 days off per year. Actually works 3,120 hours per year at hourly rate of 47 cents.

Deckhand receives $139 per month, or $1,668 per year, with 105 days off per year. Actually works 3,120 hours per year at hourly rate of 53 cents.

Wiper receives $139 per month, or $1,668 per year, with 105 days off per year. Actually works 3,120 hours per year at hourly rate of 53 cents.

Proposed under 65 cents minimum without overtime payments and under generally existing practices

Messboy will receive $158 per month, or $1,896 per year, with 122 days off per year. Actually works 2,916 hours per year at hourly rate of 65 cents.

Deckhand will receive $180 per month, or $2,160 per year, with 122 days off per year. Actually works 2,916 hours per year at hourly rate of 74 cents.

Wiper will receive $180 per month, or $2,160 per year, with 122 days off per year. Actually works 2,916 hours per year at hourly rate of 74 cents.

In addition to the compensation shown, all vessel personnel is furnished subsistence, meals, and lodging, which costs the employers or the operators of vessels, according to the National War Labor Board, $1 per day per person. That this figure is too low is indisputably revealed by the records of the employers, which indicate an average cost of $2 per day per person.

If the present seamen's exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act is repealed, and vessel personnel made subject thereto, the following compensation must be paid in addition to the cost of subsistence, which is an expense to the employers the same as wages paid:

Proposed rate under S. 1349 with 65 cents hourly minimum and time and one-half for all hours over 40 per week

Messboy will receive $300 per month or $2,389 per year (assuming he takes off 122 days per year without pay). Actually works 2,916 hours per year at average hourly rate of 82 cents.

Deckhand will receive $340 per month, or $2,720 per year (assuming he takes off 122 days per year without pay). Actually works 2,916 hours per year at average hourly rate of 93 cents.

Wiper will receive $340 per month, or $2,720 per year (assuming he takes off 122 days per year without pay). Actually works 2,916 hours per year at average hourly rate of 93 cents.

The above computations do not take into consideration that on Saturday afternoons, Sundays, and holidays, the vessel crews only perform the work required for safe navigation, and only work 8 hours per day while vessel is in port. The existing and accepted practice in the industry grants boatmen a considerable number of days off with full pay, the number ranging up to 122 days per calendar year and averaging in excess of 100 days per year per employee.

The wage rates shown above only cover the three lowest paid classifications of vessel personnel employed on river towboats. Other wages for similar personnel are comparable. Mates, engineers, and assistant engineers, pilots, master pilots, and captains now receive wages far above those shown here for the common labor aboard these vessels. Master pilots on the Mississippi River system, for example, generally receive, now, $550 per month, plus 105 days a year "leave time," which is paid for at the regular monthly rate.

Particular attention is directed to the rates of pay which would be payable under a strict application of the terms of S. 1349. Messboys would receive approximately $300 a month for the time actually worked, computed on the basis of 65 cents per hour for the first 40 hours' work and time and one-half for the remaining 44 hours work in each workweek.

The annual wage rates have been computed on the assumption that the employees would take off 122 days per year without pay, although if they should work any part of this time, their annual earnings would be substantially increased on the basis of the rate of $300 per month.

The rates for deckhands and wipers shown in above examples are computed on a percentagewise differential increase of the 65-cent minimum for the lowest paid classification (messboy), based on the existing wage differential in rates of pay for these job classifications. It should be strongly emphasized that the rates of pay shown on an annual basis allow for the employees taking 122 days per year "leave time" without pay. But the cost to the company would remain constant at the monthly rates shown because while one employee was taking "leave time," another man would be employed at the same rate of pay to perform the necessary work.

It is most interesting to consider the testimony presented by labor representatives in support of this bill. The most pronounced statement was made by Mr. Howard McKenzie, vice president of the National Maritime Union of America, who spoke for the CIO Maritime Committee on behalf of its many affiliates. Mr. McKenzie, in his written presentation which consisted of some 42 legal-size pages, devoted approximately 40 pages to the deep sea and Great Lakes operation and the balance to inland rivers. Insofar as the first two were concerned he advo cated the full provisions of the bill. Insofar as river operators were concerned. however, he advocated that the minimum wage be set at 65 cents, but he admitted that the small craft operating on the rivers have structural limitations which do not permit carrying sufficient men to stand four 6-hour watches. He stated that: constructive compliance with the 40-hour provision of the bill can be secured in another way. The towboat companies have themselves shown how. The method needs only to be improved and extended.

"As stated, the towboat and barge companies allow their men, in lieu of short hours or weekly rest days, a number of paid leave days monthly. These paid free days range in number with different companies from 60 to 122 a year. There is no valid reason for either the diversity or the smallness of these numbers.

"The Fair Labor Standards Act now requires payment at the ratio of time and one-half for all hours worked beyond a 40-hour week. If the boatmen must work an 84-hour week, they should be compensated by being allowed paid free time in the same ratio-an hour and one-half for every hour worked beyond 40 weekly.

"To give the men credit for time and one-half, the number of leave days for all of them needs to be increased to 122 a year, the present maximum in some companies. In this way the practical difficulties of providing a rigorous 40-hour week on these types of boat could be overcome with substantial justice to the men." [Emphasis supplied.]

From this last statement of Mr. McKenzie, which we have italicized, it is evident that his approach for river boatmen is entirely different from that which he used in the case of the deep sea vessels. Numerous companies on the rivers are meeting with Mr. McKenzie's representatives daily and as the economie situation permits they rapidly reach the 122 days which he states is all that is necessary to accomplish the purpose of the act insofar as hours and overtime are concerned. Negotiations between labor and management in this industry have made rapid progress, therefore there appears to be no need for statutory compulsion.

In order that the record may be clear it is felt that comment with respect to statements of certain officials should be offered. Mr. L. Metcalfe Walling, Administrator of the Fair Labor Standards Act, in his written statement beginning on page 9 advocates the elimination of the seamen's exemption. While it is true that he addresses himself principally to the deep sea operation, there are certain statements which bear upon the inland operations which do not precisely reflect the picture, nor are the reasons advanced by him applicable in the inland industry. It should be noted in passing that Mr. Walling stated that the Maritime War Emergency Board had dropped bonuses as of October 1, 1945, on deep sea operation, and it was his thought that the 65-cent minimum be adopted in lieu thereof in order to maintain incomes on the basis of seamen's wartime income. Such being

the case, it appears that his position with respect to inland seamen must be different for the reason that there has been no reduction in the take-home pay in the inland industry such as that in the off-shore trades. On the contrary, and as has been shown previously in this statement, inland seamen have enjoyed steady increases in their wages.

The domestic-water-carrier industry is an important element in the national transportation system. It is so recognized in the Transportation Act of 1940. The policy of Congress declared in that act requires that the inherent advantages of each form of transportation shall be preserved and maintained in the public interest. The domestic-water-carrier industry has proved its worth and its value during the war when millions upon millions of tons of war freight and equipment were transported by it on the inland waters of the Nation.

The industry provided transportation services in the war effort that could not have been furnished by any other transportation service. This included the movement of combat and other craft built in inland and Great Lakes shipyards for the Army, the Navy, and the Maritime Commission. The services provided by the industry in the harbors and on the inland waterways prevented a break-down in transportation in the critical period of the war, and thus helped to a most substantial degree in the winning of the war on all fronts.

As stated herein, the removal of the present seamen's exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act, as contemplated in section 13 of S. 1349, will be detrimental to the domestic-water-carrier industry. The repeal of such exemption will single out one specific type of transportation for coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and place burdens upon that one type that will most seriously handicap it in providing needed and desirable transportation services to the Nation and its shippers, and in competing for business with other types of freight-moving services.

The industry and its employees have made much progress in the matter of collective bargaining as to wages and working conditions. Negotiations for collective-bargaining agreements have been in the hands of those familiar with actual working conditions and practices peculiar to the industry. The economic condition of vessel personnel employed on the inland waterways and harbors can best be improved by collective-bargaining processes, and not by statutory requirements. Conditions in this industry are much different from those of any other industry and are so recognized by all concerned.

Therefore, it is strongly urged in the interest of the continuéd development of the domestic-water-carrier industry, in the interest of stabilized and maximum employment therein, that S. 1349 be amended so as to continue the present seamen's exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

EXHIBIT 11

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC., WITH RESPECT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

The Associated General Contractors of America recommends that action taken by the Congress in amending the Fair Labor Standards Act should include a statute of limitations of 1 year during which actions could be brought for damages. With reference to S. 1349, the association recommends that section 16 (b), page 13, be amended to reduce the limitation from 5 years to 1 year.

The principal reason for making this recommendation is that the greatest uncertainty exists as to application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to construction operations. Many organizations in the industry could be bankrupt by suits brought under this act, even though the organizations made every effort to comply with the act, and even though they followed the instructions of the Federal agency for which they were performing work.

Suits brought under the act against general contractors would not be for payment of minimum wages, because construction wages, with negligible exceptions, are and have been higher than the minimum specified by the law. The suits would be principally for overtime pay, either for nonmanual employees, or for some manual employees who were employed in accordance with prevailing customs of the industry or union agreements.