protected against substandard wages in the cities. As taxpayers, our farmers are inclined to think that a minimum-wage law results in an economy of public expenditures, because good wages inevitably will reduce the demands upon the public treasuries of municipalities, of the States, and of the Nation for a variety of relief and works programs. And as consumers our farmers agree with Price Administrator Bowles in his view that more efficient workers will result in the long run from the payment of good wages and that such productive efficiency ultimately will mean lower costs to farmers of the products of industry that they must buy.

Mr. KELLEY. That is a very good statement, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Welch.

Mr. WELCH. You stated that despite the fact we are the wealthiest nation in the world, we know now that millions of people are undernourished, quoting from your statement.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. WELCH. You maintain there are millions of people in this country at the present time who are undernourished?

Mr. SMITH. That seems to be the finding of the nutritionists generally, Mr. Welch.

Mr. WELCH. I would be surprised to know if that is a fact.

Mr. SMITH. Of course, let me add this, that some of that is not due to low income; some of it is due to not eating the right food even when they can afford it.

Mr. PATTERSON. Some of it is due to slum conditions; also to low economic conditions in certain instances.

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I think that is basic.

Mr. KELLEY. Proceed, Mr. Welch.

Mr. WELCH. That might have been the case before the war, that there were people suffering from malnutrition. The examination of young men who were drafted gives every evidence that many of them were turned down and their services discarded by reason of the fact that they were suffering from malnutrition.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. WELCH. But I would be surprised to know that there are millions of people in this country at the present time who are suffering because of being undernourished as you have stated it.

Mr. SMITH. Well, of course, it is a little difficult to produce any statistical evidence regarding the immediately current situation. However, there is this that bears on it. The Department of Agriculture has just finished another survey, which is pretty recent, bearing particularly on rural people. That was a sample taken of one county in the South and another, I believe, in the Middle West, which indicates that only one-third of the rural people had any buying power stored up and that the economists who had been relying on the accumulation of mass buying power during the war have probably been deceived, that it is not spread around as generally as people have thought. And I would suppose from that that the same people who have no reserve buying power are those who have done very little during the war toward permanent improvement of their purchasing power, so far as food is concerned.

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. PATTERSON. I would just like to ask you one or two questions: Have you any statistics as to what standard of living would be obtained by 65 cents or 75 cents minimum wage for a family of four? Just what would be the total of 75 cents? It is true that it takes about $1,500 per year for a family of four, with present prices, to maintain a decent standard of living, does it not?

Mr. SMITH. Of course the answer to that is contingent upon the price level, Mr. Patterson. At the price level, at the present time, on that basis, it would be almost impossible to maintain that standard of living. Of course, even so, it would be better than what some of them have now, I think.

Mr. PATTERSON. Everyone may be getting along fairly well now, with a fair potential high standard level because of the wages during the war, but these wages have been drastically cut, and at the present low it is certainly not enough to maintain body, soul, and mind today. Is that not true? They would have to get $1,500 a year, would they not, for that standard?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct. Of course, there is the other side of the picture, however. This testimony is just directed to one side. The other side of it is the price level of farm products, and if we should return to an economy of acreage restriction with an attempt by agriculture to gain an increased income from higher prices with a less volume, then the 75 cents an hour would be even less than during the war.

Mr. PATTERSON. In other words, you maintain that the present prices received by the farmers now are adequate now?

Mr. SMITH. In relation to the costs they are certainly better off than they have ever been, I should say.

Mr. PATTERSON. You have no figures on that in regard to wages?

Mr. SMITH. Not with me, but the parity index is about 112 or 113, and in conjunction with that we have had for the last 3 or 4 years the most successful growing years of modern history, and the highest production for any 3-year period.

Mr. PATTERSON. Would you agree that the person living in a rural area, whether he works on the farm, in a small factory, or what not, is entitled to the same health facilities and to certain educational facilities that the man or woman who lives in the large city has? Mr. SMITH. Absolutely.

Mr. PATTERSON. In other words, the farm population should be brought up to the level of the city population and it makes no difference whether the man is working for the United States Steel, or whether he works for General Motors, or whether he works on the farm, we ought to try to provide him with proper health and educational facilities and a standard of living that is decent. Mr. SMITH. With the opportunity to get them.

Mr. PATTERSON. With the opportunity to get them.

Mr. SMITH. And the framework in which he can get them; yes.

Mr. PATTERSON. You do not want to hurt the farmer-no one wants to hurt any farmer-and we all would like to see it worked out on an equitable basis.

Mr. SMITH. I do not think this kind of legislation would hurt the farmer, Mr. Patterson. I think the figures I have quoted from this document show that 9 percent of the farmers hire more than two-thirds of the workers, and I think during the war the proportion has gone up; I would guess that it would be from 70 to 75 percent.

Mr. PATTERSON. I have a feeling that there ought to be no exemption whatsoever, whether a person is working for a private family as a domestic, working in the field in agriculture, or working in a steel mill, that he is entitled to a decent standard of living.

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Adams.

Mr. ADAMS. I have no questions.

Mr. KELLEY. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HOYT S. HADDOCK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CIO MARITIME COMMITTEE

Mr. KELLEY. Our next witness is Mr. Hoyt S. Haddock, executive secretary, CIO Maritime Committee.

You may proceed, Mr. Haddock.

Mr. HADDOCK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Hoyt S. Haddock. I am executive secretary of the CIO Maritime Committee.

We appear today on behalf of 200,000 seamen, longshoremen, fishermen, and allied maritime workers affiliated through seven CIO international unions to the CIO Maritime Committee to urge prompt and favorable action on H. R. 3914.

This committee had heard witnesses from the CIO and many other organizations present conclusive argument in behalf of legislative enactment of a 65-cent minimum wage. Accordingly, we propose to limit our remarks to the questions of extension of coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act to seamen and to fish-processing workers.

Our committee has prepared a comprehensive brief on the coverage question, which, with the permission of the committee, we should like to insert in the record.

Mr. KELLEY. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE CIO MARITIME COMMITTEE ON BEHALF OF ITS AFFILIATES— NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, MARINE COOKS' AND STEWARDS' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC, INLAND30ATMEN'S UNION OF THE PACIFIC, NATIONAL MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, AND AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIA TION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, H. R. 3914

INTRODUCTION

The CIO Maritime Committee appears today on behalf of five of its affiliates— National Maritime Union of America, Marine Cooks' and Stewards' Association of the Pacific, Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific, National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, and American Communications Association-to urge prompt and favorable action on H R. 3914.

We believe the arguments presented by the CIO and by various other proponents of the bill are conclusive. They demonstrate the necessity of a 65-cent minimum wage, raised within 2 years to 75 cents, both for the well-being of the Nation and for the well-being of all its citizens.

Our affiliates, the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, American Communications Association, and International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America, are presenting separate statements in behalf of their memberships in the longshore, warehouse, and sugar industries, the shore-side communications industries, and the fish-processing industries, respectively. Accordingly we shall limit our discussion to the question of extension of coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act to seamen.

The

CIO maritime unions represent the great majority of American seamen. National Maritime Union has a membership of over 90,000 in the unlicensed ratings in deep-sea, Great Lakes, and inland-waterways operations. The Marine Cooks' and Stewards' Association of the Pacific has a membership of over 15,000 in the steward's départment aboard vessels in deep-sea operations. The American Communications Association, Marine Department, represents 5,000 radio officers aboard Lakes and ocean vessels. The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association represents 15,000 marine engineers on the rivers, Lakes, and oceans. The Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific has a membership of 3,000 employed on the inland waters of the Pacific coast.

PRIOR EXCLUSION OF SEAMEN

At the time of introduction of the original fair labor standards bill, it appears as if no exclusion of merchant seamen was contemplated.

On June 9, 1937, during the joint hearings on the original bill, the National Maritime Union testified in regard to coverage for seamen. This testimony called attention to section 301 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 which authorized the Maritime Commission to establish "minimum manning scales and minimum wage scales, and minimum working conditions for all officers and crews employed on all types of vessels receiving an operating differential subsidy."

In view of this provision of maritime law, the union urged that the report of the joint committee clarify beforehand any conflicting jurisdiction between the Maritime Commission and the agency established to administer the wage-hour law. It was the union's position that seamen be afforded protection under both laws. When questioned as to which agency the seamen would prefer if dual coverage was considered unwise, our representative stated our choice would be the Maritime Commission.

Our testimony was given on June 9, 1937. The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 was passed on June 29, 1936, but it was not until June 1937 that the ocean-mail contracts were canceled and operating differential subsidies substituted therefor. During the following month of July 1937 the Maritime Commission began hearings under the provisions of section 301.

Our previous testimony was given at a time when the outlook for governmental action to establish minimum standards for seamen was extremely favorable. A review of the subsequent history of proceedings under section 301 will indicate why we appear today urging repeal of section 13 (a) (3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

As a result of the substitution of the direct subsidy in place of mail contracts, the establishment of minimum wages, working conditions, and manning scales became an immediate necessity in the summer of 1937. Accordingly, the Maritime Commission held hearings in many coastal cities followed by concluding hearings in Washington in September 1937.

After consideration of the hearings, the Commission issued an order prescribing wage scales on subsidized vessels. Manning scales were established, and vacations with pay, bonuses for continuous employment, and other working conditions were set. A special crews' quarters committee was established and many improvements in crews' accommodations resulted.

However, the interest of the Commission in section 301 waned rapidly. The 1937 hearing was the first and last to be held. To our knowledge, after the initial minimum wage was established in 1937, no investigation or reconsideration of it was ever made. The one activity that apparently continued for some time after the 1937 hearings was the work of the crews' quarters committee. The last recorded action of this committee is dated January 1941. Operating differential subsidies were to continue for many more months until the war caused a temporary cessation.

80014-46- -47

With the advent of the war, the Government acquired control of the entire merchant fleet. While the control was vested in a sister organization to the Maritime Commission, the War Shipping Administration, the officials in policymaking positions were virtually the same. The WSA had direct responsibilities in the field of training and recruiting maritime manpower and in promoting harmonious labor relations aboard the Government-owned and controlled fleet. Despite constant pressure from the maritime unions and the compelling necessity of waging an all-out war, the War Shipping Administration never gathered an accurate and factual picture of the maritime labor force. All through the war its officials had, at best, good guesses as to the actual number of active seamen, as to their age, previous occupation, dependency status, distribution by home port, and other pertinent information. The Administration knew very little of the actual earnings and living standards of seamen and their families during the

war.

If there had been in the Maritime Commission prior to the war any personnel whose function it was to meet the agency's labor responsibilities, they must have been absorbed into WSA. Now with the conclusion of the war, WSA will shortly disappear. For many months, certain officials within the dual organizations have been urging that the Commission take steps now to meet its peacetime responsibilities under section 301 of the 1936 act and other provisions of law. Their suggestions are twofold: First, that the Commission again hold hearings in port cities throughout the Nation so that a first-hand picture of the living standards, conditions of employment, demands, and expectations of the seamen can be secured. Second, that a competently staffed division be established to gather facts, make investigations, and recommend policy to the Commission in regard to meeting its obligations to maritime labor.

Less than 2 weeks ago the Maritime Commission refused to place a discussion of this proposal on its docket.

The history of the last 8 years proves that the Maritime Commission is derelict in its obligations to labor. All indications point to continued inactivity in regard to minimum wages and minimum hours for seamen.

We strongly urge this committee to rectify the situation by striking section 13 (a) (3) from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SEAMEN ARE AMERICAN WORKERS

Continued exclusion of seamen from the benefits of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as from the benefits of other progressive legislation such as the Unemployment Insurance Act, can be justified only on the theory that seamen are a group apart from the main stream of American workers. The characterization of seamen as improvident drifters is a fiction which has been carefully kept alive by employers. It has no basis in fact. Whatever truth inhered in this view in the past was engendered by the very conditions under which seamen worked. Discipline comparable only to that of the most rigorous penal institutions prevailed on board ship; food was far below any decent standard; the forecastle was a place of filth and squalor; wages were only enough to purchase an unrestrained, if brief, period of recreation between voyages. Men were oftentimes coerced, even kidnaped, into service. Under these conditions, it was not surprising that the level of social responsibility was not high.

The appearance of union organization in the industry brought with it many changes. An analysis of the course of these changes is not necessary, but their present form offers a sharp contrast to the past. As living conditions improved, as seamen slowly won their self-respect as workers, as they gradually were freed from the burdens of literal servitude, the character of the industry's personnel also changed. The men began to claim the place in society that was theirs.

Today a seaman is not a casual, irresponsible drifter. He is a man with a craft.

The merchant marine is a modern industry. Seamen are technically proficient workers. Ships are highly mechanized and need skilled mechanics to man them. Freight ships of today cannot be compared with sailing vessels or even with steamships. Their development has kept pace with that of all other forms of transportation. Speeds have been increased by high pressure, intricately designed engines; the handling of cargo has been expedited by new kinds of equip