That often happens. If a man does not feel like working, he is in a room by himself and he is paid on a tonnage rate. I understand that it is even possible and often happens that a man will take a nap or rest and not produce full time. Mr. PATTERSON. That is a poor place for napping. He ought to be napping in the sunshine. Mr. HALEY. That is true, but he cannot get out until the man trip takes him out. Mr. KELLEY. Of course, that is a matter of supervision. I cannot imagine a man lying around asleep very long without being caught at it. Mr. HALEY. Supervision is a rather difficult thing in a hand-loading mine. Mr. KELLEY. Why? Mr. HALEY. Because there are so many rooms and so many working places and the working places are so widely scattered. Of course, there is supervision. And I should like to say, too, to reiterate, that the gentleman is entirely correct in saying that there are not many who make less than 65 cents an hour. Mr. KELLEY. That might even happen a day or two even three days hand running, on account of conditions. Maybe the place is bad; maybe it needs timbering; maybe it needs track; maybe there is water, or numerous things. But even at that, if he is engaged in other work, he is still paid for it. Mr. HALEY. That is correct. He gets his yardage and dead work rate. Mr. RAMSPECK. Are there any further questions, gentlemen? As I understand, Mr. Haley, your statement is that while there are very few, yet there are some people who would be affected if this law were enacted, if the act should be amended to make the minimium 65 cents an hour. Mr. HALEY. That is correct; yes, sir. Mr. FISHER. And those that it would affect are in the main those old men that produce very little and who consequently average less than 65 cents an hour for their day's work. Mr. HALEY. That is correct. Mr. FISHER. And you state further that it is likely that because of that condition, and their low productivity, they would be discharged and could not be continued on the pay roll in the event the minimum were raised very much. Mr. HALEY. That is correct. Mr. FISHER. And you have someone here with some statistics on one mine which, would you say, is fairly typical of other mines over the country? Mr. HALEY. It is fairly typical of the hand-loading mines. Mr. PATTERSON. How many hand-loading mines have you? Mr. HALEY. I do not know how many hand-loading mines there are in the country, but a considerable number. Of course, the degree of hand loading varies even within the mines. Some of them are partly mechanized. The tendency is toward mechanization. Mr. PATTERSON. I mean, where these people around 70 years old are working, would you be in favor of advocating legislation to more or less take care of these old men and let them enjoy the rest of their lives in place of slaving in a mine at 70 years and up? They have earned it, have they not, through years of coal mining? They cannot work any longer. Would you be in favor of that kind of legislation? Mr. HALEY. I would have to give that considerable thought before I would be prepared to reach a conclusion on it. Certainly I think if there is any legislation which would permit them to stop working, I do not think there should be legislation which would require them to stop if they should like to continue. Mr. PATTERSON. I mean, to encourage them to enjoy the remainder of their lives when they are old and worn out. They have served probably years in the mining industry, and it has taken the best out of their lives by that kind of work. Mr. HALEY. I would have to give that considerable thought. Of course, I am not here opposing the social security laws at all. Mr. PATTERSON. You are dealing with the problem of these old people, keeping them underground at 70 years of age and over. Mr. HALEY. Well, of course, we are not keeping them there. They want to work, and they do work. They may quit any time, of course. Mr. PATTERSON. They would not affect the industry very much, would they? Mr. HALEY. It would not affect the industry very much; but now, where there is a definite shortage of coal, even a matter of a thousand tons a day is a serious problem. Mr. PATTERSON. We are not for curtailing the production of coal. We are trying to aid in getting as much coal as possible. I think if you would spread the work and employ more people maybe you would make more money and produce more coal. There are other factors, other than these old men, that are going to save your industry. Mr. HALEY. That is true. Mr. PATTERSON. There are other forces that you could bring to bear, saying that this is the motivating force, to produce more coal. Mr. HALEY. I should like to refer again to the fact that the socialsecurity tax law, since you brought up the subject, bears down with undue discrimination, as we view it, on the coal industry. We have some 350,000 employees, and since such a high percentage of our cost is involved in pay rolls, that means that our social-security tax is perhaps six times as high as the tax would be on natural gas pipe lines for bringing to the consumer the equivalent amount of fuel. Mr. PATTERSON. Then would you be for a Social Security Act that would not take it out of the pay rolls but take it out of a general fund blanketing the whole United States? Mr. HALEY. I personally would favor supporting the social-security program on some basis other than the one now used. I understand the committees of Congress are looking into the whole program, and I certainly think, for the benefit of the workers themselves and industries employing many workers, that the manner of receiving the funds or obtaining the funds for the program should be reviewed very carefully. Mr. RAMSPECK. If there are no other questions, we thank you, Mr. Haley. You may put that statement in the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF WARREN P. Ross, VICE PRESIDENT, PANTHER CREEK MINES, INC., SPRINGFIELD, ILL. My name is Warren P. Ross. I am vice president of Panther Creek Mines, Inc., a coal producer, operating two coal mines in Springfield, Ill., and having a production of 600,000 tons per year and having an annual pay roll of $1,300,000. I am opposed to amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage required under the law. To raise the minimum above the present 40-cent rate will work a severe hardship on our company and many other coal-mining companies, and will most certainly force us to reduce our operations and may eventually put us out of business. Our company employs 600 men working under a union contract with the Progressive Mine Workers of America. Approximately 200 of these men receive a wage of $1 or more per hour for actual working time and extra pay for travel time from portal to portal and $75 annual vacation pay per man. The remaining 400 men are diggers who load the coal into mine cars. Each of these diggers works alone in his own room and is paid at the rate of $1.08 per ton, plus oneninth for travel time. The basis of this rate, established by negotiations with the union, is the amount of coal an average digger can reasonably load to earn the same rates of pay as the other employees who are paid an average of $1 per hour. The average hourly earnings of these diggers is $1 per hour, with some earning as high as almost $2 per hour. The average age of these diggers is 60 years. Due to their advanced age and for other causes many of these diggers do not, even at prevailing high loading rate, earn 65 cents per hour. Of the 395 diggers employed by the company, for the semimonthly pay period ending August 31, 1945, 314 had average earnings of $1 or more per hour which indicates that the prevailing loading rate in the contract with the union is high enough to enable an average miner to earn the same rate of pay as the day worker. However, 51 diggers working in identical conditions and for the same rate per ton, earned less than 65 cents per hour. In addition to inability due to advancing age there are other reasons why some of these men do not earn more. Some of them have no dependents and no necessity nor desire to earn more by putting forth the additional effort. Therefore, it is apparent that should the minimum rate under the law be raised to 65 cents per hour many of our miners will be unemployed, since they have spent their entire lives in the mines and know no other trade. Moreover, many men, aware that they would be paid 65 cents per hour regardless of the amount of coal loaded, would soon become less productive. In any event, the company could not possibly continue to employ these piece workers, under a minimum wage of 65 cents per hour. If the law is amended to raise the minimum wage, it will be the direct cause of unemployment. The number of men employed in a hand-loading mine is more than twice the number employed in a machine loading mine of the same tonnage, thus a law penalizing hand-loading operations will reduce the number of employees required to produce the same amount of coal. Since the men are very effectively represented and protected by their union, it would seem to me that the proper way to treat the wage matter in the coal industry would be to exempt from the provisions of the act workers covered by a collective-bargaining agreement, and most particularly piece workers. Mr. HALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RAMSPECK. The other witness, representing the National Consumers' League, could not be here this morning. That is the only witness we have, and the committee will take a recess until 10:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon a recess was taken until the following day, Wednesday, October 31, 1945, at 10:30 a. m.) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1945 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee convened at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Jennings Randolph presiding. Mr. RANDOLPH. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. We will continue the hearings on H. R. 3719 and other bills and the general wage-and-hour subject. I now call James H. Durkin, national representative of the United · Office and Professional Workers of America, CIO. You may proceed with your statement, Mr. Durkin. STATEMENT OF JAMES H. DURKIN, NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA Mr. DURKIN. My name is James H. Durkin, national representative of the United Office and Professional Workers of America, here on behalf of that organization representing 65,000 employees in finance, insurance, public, nonprofit industrial and commercial offices in support of the amendments to the wage and hour law proposed by Representative Hook. We regard the enactment of all of these amendments as essential to provide rates of pay sufficient to insure minimum levels of health, security, and decent living standards. They are also necessary to fill the pockets of American workers with the purchasing power needed to keep our industrial machinery moving and our Nation prosperous and strong. National income and purchasing power are now declining as a result of increasing unemployment and reduction in workers' earnings, as President Truman pointed out last night. Higher minimum rates in the lowest wage brackets will lift purchasing power among those sections of American workers who need it most. We urge the adoption of the amendment providing minimum hourly rates of 65 to 75 cents as essential to eliminate the threat of hunger, privation, and ill health from the lives of millions of American workers, particularly the white-collar workers, whom we represent. The present minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 40 cents per hour is too low to provide a family or even an individual with minimum subsistence needs. It was adopted during the depression of the thirties and was intended to provide minimum standards |