Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR

STANDARDS ACT

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1945

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON LABOR,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10: 30 a. m., Hon. Robert Ramspect presiding. Mr. RAMSPECK. The committee will be in order. The first witness is Mrs. Gertrude F. Zimand, general secretary, National Child Labor Committee, New York City.

STATEMENT OF MRS. GERTRUDE F. ZIMAND, GENERAL SECRETARY, NATIONAL CHILD LABOR COMMITTEE

Mr. RAMSPECK. You may proceed, Mrs. Zimand.

Mrs. ZIMAND. I want to speak briefly on two points. On the first point I do not have a prepared statement; on the second I do.

The first point is the suggestion that was made before this committee that, if the proposed increase in wages were made, it did not apply to messenger boys under 18 years. The National Child Labor Committee opposes this as it has opposed similar suggestions from Western Union in the past.

There are only two factors that can justify paying lower wage rates to younger workers than to adults, and neither of these exists in this case. One is, if the younger workers are less efficient workers than older workers. But Mr. Giddings testified for Western Union before this committee:

Regardless of the minimum wage, the best messengers from the point of view of service to the public are young ones.

And in 1938, when Western Union also requested lower wage rates, at a hearing before Mr. William W. Leiserson, testimony was given to the effect that messenger boys, after 3 days of employment, were as efficient as messenger boys who had been in the service for 3 weeks or 3 months or longer periods.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Did Western Union ask for an exemption from the wage provision or from the child-labor provision?

Mrs. ZIMAND. At that hearing in 1938 it was an exemption not only for children but for all those engaged in messenger work; not an exemption, but permission to employ them at a lower rate.

Mr. RAMSPECK. In other words, it was not a question of the wage, it

was a question of being able to employ them?

Mrs. ZIMAND. No. At that time it was a question of wages for all messengers regardless of their age.

There has been no plea made here at this hearing, or at that hearing, that messenger boys should be paid less because they were not efficient. The second consideration that might justify lower wage rates for younger workers is where the work is educational, somewhat in the nature of an apprenticeship, where the boy secures experience and skills that might lead to promotion. But that this is not the case is indicated by the tremendously abnormal labor turn-over among messenger boys. The telegraph companies in 1938 testified that they employed annually about three times their normal labor force. At that time Mr. Leiserson remarked that such a high rate of labor turnover is usually a symptom of some underlying maladjustment, and the Western Union stated: "We consider a large turn-over a healthy condition for this reason. Messenger work is such that it certainly is not desirable as a profession."

In other words, it is not a stepping stone to better employment, but is a job that a child takes for a few months. Since neither of these justifications for lower wages exists, we would be inclined to believe that if the recommendation of Western Union were granted and they were given permission to employ boys under 18 years at lower rates than adults, gradually the 62 percent of the messenger boys who are now over 18 years would be thrown out of employment and an increasingly greater percentage of boys under 18 years would be taken on as messenger boys at the lower rate. It goes without saying that during this period, when we all fear unemployment, we are not trying to increase the employment of boys under 18 at the expense of adults.

The other point on which I wish to speak, and on which I have a prepared statement, is section 6 of H. R. 4222, which amends section 12 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, relating to child labor, and I understand that there is an identical provision in H. R. 3914 and H. R. 3928.

We strongly support this section which adds a new subdivision to the child-labor regulations of the act, directly prohibiting an employer "engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce" from employing oppressive child labor "in or about or in connection with any enterprise in which he is so engaged."

Under the present act only those employers are covered by the childlabor provisions who actually "ship" goods produced in an establishment in which oppressive child labor has been employed within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods. This phraseology is the basis on which the United States Supreme Court held, in a 5-to-4 decision on January 8, 1945, that Western Union telegraph messengers were not covered by the child-labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court held that, although telegraph messages are "goods," Western Union does not "produce" or "ship" the messages.

The minimum wage and hour provisions of the act have always had the broader coverage implied in a direct prohibition. I believe I can speak with authority, as representative of the National Child Labor Committee, which was probably more active than any other organization in working for the child-labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, in saying that it was never the intent to make. the coverage of the child-labor provisions of the act narrower than that of the wage and hour provisions. Certainly there should be no

hesitancy in correcting this inadvertent omission and extending the child-labor provisions to include all industries covered by the wage. and hour provisions.

The largest number of children who would be affected by the pro-posed amendment would be telegraph messenger boys. Western Union. probably employs more children under 16 years than any other single employer. According to the statement of Mr. T. B. Giddings, assistant vice president of Western Union, before this committee recently, Western Union employs 1,268 messengers under 16. It is. interesting to contrast this figure (1,268) with the fact (reported by Miss Lenroot, Chief of the Federal Children's Bureau, at the Senate hearing on S. 1349) that in 1943 nearly 6,000 children of 14 and 15 years of age received employment certificates for work as telegraph messengers. This is a partial figure because some States do not require employment certificates for work as a messenger boy. Insome States messenger boys are not under the child-labor law. So roughly, as a guess, if there were 6,000 certificates, there would be 6,500 messenger boys under 14 and 15, or about five times the numbernow employed.

The only explanation for the fact that telegraph messengers under16 years actually number about 1,300, althought 6,000 children of 14 and 15 years are certificated for such work in a year, is a tremendous labor turnover among messenger boys. This in itself is a strong indication that messenger work is not a desirable employment for children and that the boys themselves recognize this and refuse to stay in such: employment for any considerable length of time.

Although it is one of the most undesirable forms of employment for children under 16 years, telegraph messenger work is most inadequately regulated under State laws. Only 8 States now have a 16-yearage minimum for messenger work; 2 States have a 15-year minimum; 27 States have a 14-year minimum, and 11 States have no minimum; age. For work during school hours, the age runs somewhat higher, but the great majority of messenger boys under 16 years, 89 percent, work outside of school hours-18 States have a 16-year minimum for such employment; 4 a 15-year minimum; 22 a 14-year minimum; and 4 no age minimum.

I am submitting a chart listing the age regulations in the 48 States both for work during school hours and outside of school hours. (The chart referred to is as follows:)

MINIMUM AGE FOR TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS IN STATE LAWS

Below is listed the basic minimum age for telegraph messengers established through State child-labor laws. This does not include special provisions barring night messenger work, nor.the minimum age for girls.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Mrs. ZIMAND. If the proposed amendment were adopted, it would automatically set a 16-year age minimum throughout the country for such employment. The Children's Bureau has authority, under the act, to permit work at 14 years if it finds that such employment will not interfere with the child's health, schooling, and well-being. It is significant, however, that during the years before the United States Supreme Court decision, when it was assumed telegraph messengers were covered by the act, the Bureau did not deem it desirable to include messenger work among the occupations permitted at 14 years. The unsuitability of telegraph work for children under 16 years is due primarily to three factors:

[ocr errors]

1. It frequently involves long hours, and sometimes night employment, for boys who are still attending school. Mr. Giddings stated that the great majority of messenger boys under 16 years, 1,129, or 89 percent, were limited to work after school hours. He also quoted from a letter of instructions sent out on January 10, 1945, by Western Union, stating that it should be the "general practice not to work part-time messengers under 16 years in excess of 30 hours per week or 6 days." We would point out that 30 hours work a week for the school boy of 14 and 15 years is far too much in any occupation. Eighteen hours is the standard generally accepted as desirable for children working outside of school hours. Thirty hours of work,

plus 25 to 30 hours of school, would give these children an actual work week of 55 to 60 hours, not including the time spent on school homework.

Anyone who has had 14- or 15-year-olds knows that homework is a very important and very time-consuming part of education for a youngster of that age. In these days, when we talk of a 40-hour week for adults, it seems absurd to countenance a plan that would permit a 55-hour week for children of 14 or 15 years-whose school work is their primary job.

2. It involves, for immature growing boys, exposure to all sort of weather, physical strain, and frequently work under pressure to insure speedy delivery of messages.

3. The accident rate for messenger boys is high. The report of William L. Leiserson, presiding officer at a hearing on an application of the telegraph companies for permission to employ messengers at wages lower than those specified in the Fair Labor Standards Act, stated, on November 10, 1938:

Messenger service is a distinctly hazardous occupation and between 1931 and 1938 no progress has been made toward reducing the number of accidents serious enough to involve loss of time from employment.

Now, the Western Union at that time had submitted testimony as to certain changes it had made to reduce accident hazards, and this failure to reduce accidents was in spite of those changes which they thought would reduce accident hazards. Therefore, I was not particularly impressed with Mr. Giddings' testimony on the changes that they had instituted, his testimony the other day, which included some of the same changes that were referred to in 1938. What I would like to see would be the accident frequency rate for lost-time accidents over a period of years and by age groups.

Other occupations not now covered by the child-labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but which would be covered if this amendment were adopted, include work on railroads and water vehicles operating in interstate commerce. The number of children under 16 years employed in such industries is not large in normal times-although it has been radically increased during the war. It should be borne in mind, however, that the Fair Labor Standards Act, besides setting a 16-year age minimum, also authorizes the Chief of the Children's Bureau to determine what industries are particularly hazardous or detrimental to the health or well-being of minors between 16 and 18 years and to forbid such employment. It may prove desirable, in the future, to prohibit certain hazardous work around railroads up to the age of 18 years-and this could not be done unless the proposed amendment is adopted.

Even during the war, with its unprecedented labor shortage, the 16-year minimum incorporated in the Fair Labor Standards Act was generally approved and adhered to. That was the bulwark that kept our 14- and 15-year-olds out of the war factories where they had flocked in the First World War.

Now, when labor is plentiful and we face the possibility of unemployment among adult workers, there should be no delay in amending the child-labor provisions to give them the same coverage as the wage-and-hour provisions.

80014-46- -43

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »