25 NOTE: 1/ Includes industries where the product has remained fairly constant during the war period, such as, Boots and Shoes, Cement, Cotton Goods, Lumber and Timber Products, Printing and Publishing and Tobacco Products. Compiled from U. S. Department of Labor release. EXHIBIT V.-Southern pine costs, years 1937 and 1944-Group I (large) mills1 'Not available for group II (small) mills, and group III (concentration plants). Source: Southern Pine Association, New Orleans, La. EXHIBIT VI.-Production and consumption of lumber in the Southern States and percentages of production sold intrastate and consumption derived intrastate, 1936 and 1938 Source: U. S. Forest Service, Lumber Distribution and Consumption for 1936 and 1938, Forest Research Project Report No. 1, and Miscellaneous Publication No. 413, respectively. Per M. $44 $40 $36 $32 $28 $24 $20 $16 SOUTHERN PINE COST AND SALES REALIZATION With Straight Line Trend Showing Cumulative Effect of Changes (Whereupon the committee adjourned, to meet on Monday, October 22, 1945, at 10:30 a. m.) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1945 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON LABOR, The committee met at 10:30 a. m., the Honorable Robert Ramspeck (Georgia) presiding. Mr. RAMSPECK. The committee will come to order, please. The first witness this morning is Mr. Reuben S. Haslam, representing the National Association of Manufacturers. Mr. Haslam, will you come forward, please? Mr. HASLAM. Thank you, sir. STATEMENT OF REUBEN S. HASLAM, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, Mr. HASLAM. Mr. Chairman, my name is Reuben S. Haslam. I am an associate counsel of the National Association of Manufacturers, and appear today as substitute for Mr. Ira Mosher, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, who was unable to be in Washington because of a previous engagement. Mr. Mosher has asked me to express for him and for the association our appreciation for this opportunity to present our views on various legislative amendments and bills relating to the so-called wage-hour law now being considered by your committee. The legislation before your committee has two very distinct aspects. The one is economic, the other legal. The economic aspects reach into our whole economy, not just manufacturing, or even just business as a whole. The legal aspects, upon which I shall elaborate later, concern many problems that the Congress can solve by simple amendments to the law, and which we believe will be helpful to employees as well as to employers. Had it been possible for Mr. Mosher to appear before you today he would have discussed in considerable detail the economic effects of this legislation upon the country. He would have pointed out to you that American industry believes in high wages, and that the record of wage increases, plus higher living standards in this country is unequalled anywhere else in the world. But he would have emphasized that increases in wages that are not accompanied by increases in productivity can do the country no good whatsoever. They do not even do labor any good, for they must be accompanied by higher prices which take up the increases in wages. On the other hand, when higher wages come as the result of greater productivity, thus permitting stabilization, or even lowering, of prices, the worker and every other element of our economy that makes up the great general public benefits from the added money which can be saved or spent for the things that make for more comfortable and abundant living. That is the way we have raised our standard of living in the past; that is the way, we believe, we shall preserve it and raise it to even higher levels. Several days ago Mr. Mosher was invited to present the NAM views on S. 1349, which is a bill comparable to some of those before this committee, before the Senate Subcommittee on Education and Labor. He was unable to appear and filed a statement before the Senate labor subcommittee. He has asked that I present, for the record, a copy of that statement. Mr. RAMSPECK. Without objection, that will be put in the record. (The matter referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT ON S. 1349 (A BILL TO AMEND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES-POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE MINIMUM WAGE BILL), FILED WITH A SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, OCTOBER 12, 1945, BY IRA MOSHER, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS My name is Ira Mosher, I am President of the National Association of Manufacturers, an organization of 14,000 manufacturers whose members employ four out of every five manufacturing wage earners in the Nation. More than 70 percent of the members of NAM employ 500 or fewer workers. By far the greater number are small businesses. Because your committee was unable to hear me on the date originally assigned to me last week, I am filing this statement in place of that appearance. Since I shall have no opportunity to reply to questions, I shall attempt to confine myself to a few fundamental observations. These observations should raise serious question as to the economic soundness and timing of the legislation which you have invited me to discuss. SCOPE OF THE BILL The bill you have under consideration is of vital concern to NAM members. It not only proposes direct amendments to the wage and hour law to increase the statutory minimum from 40 cents to 65 cents an hour, with automatic increases to 75 cents an hour 2 years after enactment, but it proposes to require the Wage and Hour Administrator to fix the entire wage rate structure for each industry. I will discuss later the apparent effect of these proposals in some detail. I want to state at this point, however, that, in our opinion, the enactment of these provisions in their present form would tend to increase labor problems. In addition to the wage features of the bill, it would materially expand coverage of the act by eliminating a number of existing exemptions, it would extend the child labor provisions to employers engaged "in commerce" as distinguished from those producing goods for commerce, and would establish a 5-year statute of limitations affecting employee suits for alleged underpayments. CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS The proposal to amend the child labor provisions does not appear to directly affect many manufacturers in their operations since they are now prohibited by law from engaging children under 16 in connection with manufacturing, or children under 18 in hazardous occupations. The child labor provision of the act affecting manufacturers does not differentiate between boys and girls. However, the Walsh-Healery Public Contracts Act establishes that additional standard by prohibiting the employment of boys under 16 and girls under 18 on Government contracts for supplies. Serious penalties are invoked for the employment of girls over 16 but under |