There is no reason for condemning seamen to a 56-hour week. Their work is heavier, their calling more hazardous, their living accommodations more undesirable than the vast majority of workers ashore. The 40-hour week at sea is feasible and necessary.

The 40-hour week is necessary for the maintenance of our skilled reserve of maritime manpower so vital to the national defense. It is needed in a full-employment economy to provide additional jobs. It will give the seamen additional free time in which to study and prepare for higher ratings and licenses and in which to secure adequate rest and recreation.

Is the 40-hour week at sea a feasible goal? The Australians have proven it. Here is what the Secretary of the Marine Transport Council of Australia has to say:

* *

The Government of Australia felt that it was necessary to bring the shipping industry into line with shore industries. That was an outstanding move for the shipping industry, because the seamen's organizations in Australia had invariably been told by the shipowners, in the arbitration courts, that it was not possible to apply shore conditions to the shipping industry. We asked them why, and the only reply we received was "because the shipping industry is different." However, the Government of Australia felt that the time had arrived when an attempt should be made to bring the shipping industry into line with shore industries, particularly as far as standard hours are concerned, and for that reason they introduced, early this year, a regulation which provided that the standard hours in the shipping industry should be 44.

It was then left to the maritime industry commission to decide the method by which the standard hours laid down by the Government should be applied to the different sections of workers on board ship. That was the job of the maritime industry commission just as in this country it would be the job of the various boards set up to control conditions on board ship. But that did not affect the standard hours; the tack of the commission in Australia was to apply the 44-hour principle to the various sections in a way which would meet any difficulties which might arise in its application. That was a task which needed a consid rable amount of discussion, but it did not present any insurmountable difficulty. We found when meeting the shipowners in conference or on the maritime industry commission that we were able to get down to a practical method of applying the 44-hour week to the shipping industry. So much for the argument which had been advanced by the shipowners for years, during all the time that the seamen's organization had been hammering at the arbitration court to have the standard hours applied to the maritime industry.

America likes to pride itself as being the most progressive nation in the world. It is time we caught up with many foreign nations in regard to seamen's welfare. The Australians have brought conditions aboard their ships in line with their shore-side industries. The United States has yet to do the same. H. R. 3914 would carry us a good deal along this road.

One subject remains to be covered. It is the ability of the industry to support a 65-cent minimum wage and a 40-hour week. Mr. E. N. Hurley, formerly Chairman of the United States Shipping Board, in his book, the New Merchant Marine, tells us that labor cost is only 10 to 15 percent of total operating costs.

Application of the 65-cent minimum wage to the merchant marine would raise labor cost less than 5 percent and operating cost only about 1 percent. Application of the 40-hour week would further raise operating cost by 2 to 4 percent. To say that a maximum raise of 5 percent in operating cost would bankrupt American operators is ridiculous.

Let me again refer the committee to Mr. Hurley's book. Mr. Hurley

states:

* **

The successful competition of American ships with foreign ships depends on such considerations as these (the encouragement of American shippers to use American vessels), and not upon such details as the small differences in the wages of seamen *. If the American wage scales were doubled tomorrow, the American steamship owner would not have as much to worry him as he has today in the doubt whether or not merchants of his own country are going to patronize his homeward-bound ships in preference to patronizing the ships of his foreign competitors for American business.

Our brief discusses the profit position of the industry in some detail and I am not going to repeat it except to state that the industry is in the soundest financial position in its history.

It is interesting to note that the American merchant marine paid its lowest wages when it was at its lowest ebb. In periods when the merchant marine paid its highest wages, it prospered. Then, too, labor cost aboard ship is but a small percent of the total labor cost of shipping goods. The total cost of shipping goods includes the wages of warehousemen, truckers, longshoremen, harbor workers, clerks, stenographers, and many other types of occupations. All of these workers ashore are entitled to coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, yet the seamen under the present exclusion, is considered to be some strange sort of un-American creature undeserving of an adequate minimum wage or a maximum workweek.

A few words about the subsidy question because we have already heard extravagrant charges of the necessity of billion-dollar appropriations if seamen are covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act. First, none of our domestic industry which operated more than half of our prewar merchant marine is subsidized. Second, only about one-half of our foreign trade fleet or one-fourth of our total fleet is subsidized. We have many examples of companies which operated American-flag ships in competition with foreign-flag vessels before the war, without subsidies, and which made good profits.

Although the shipowners would have you believe you pay a subsidy for the benefit of the American seaman and shipyard worker, you pay it for the general public in order to increase American foreign trade. The only company eligible for subsidization is one willing to accept the commitment of operating ships between specific ports on an unbreakable schedule, whether cargoes are available or not. The purpose is to build American commerce on essential trade routes.

Lastly, after recapture, all of the operating subsidies paid out under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 average less than $10,000,000 a year, a small price to pay for the national defense and national commerce when one considers $17,000,000,000 was spent in building a merchant marine during the war.

Lack of time prevents me from discussing the merits of the case for inclusion of seamen on the Great Lakes and inland waterways under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We hope each member of the committee will read those sections of our brief carefully. On behalf of our affiliate, the International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America, we wish to urge that the committee remove the exclusion of fish processing workers as proposed in H. R. 3914. These processing work

ers are engaged in industrial operations and there is no justification for their continued exclusion.

Our ships are no good without a trained and efficient maritime labor force. Unless service aboard our merchant ships is brought in line with conditions of work ashore, our merchant marine will not attract such a labor force.

Enactment of H. R. 3914 is simple justice to our seamen and a step forward in the development of a strong American merchant marine. That concludes my statement.

Mr. KELLEY. How was the merchant marine able to operate during the war with such a low wage level? How did it obtain employees? Mr. HADDOCK. During the war, or beginning before the war, the unions were able to negotiate with the owners an 80-percent increase in wages, which was termed a war bonus. That bonus, in various forms, was continued during the war period. It was recognized by the Government that even with a 100-percent bonus-that is, doubling the wages of seamen-their wages were still lower than comparable wages paid ashore. They were only able to maintain the labor force by recruiting people who were interested in going to sea to participate in the war effort. There is no doubt that the bonus helped some in that respect. But questioning people who did return to sea, we found that many of them left shore-side jobs where they were making much better wages, to return to their calling at sea; those who were experienced engineers, able seamen, and so forth. They left much more lucrative jobs to return to sea to participate more closely in the war effort. It was the patriotic feeling, of playing a bigger part in the war effort, which was responsible primarily for the manning of the merchant marine during the war.

Mr. KELLEY. The bonus has been discontinued?

Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct. And we are having difficulty at this time manning the ships, incidentally.

Mr. WELCH. Over 6,000 seamen lost their lives during the war; is that right?

Mr. HADDOCK. Yes; the figure is a little over 6.000. Percentagewise, losses among merchant seamen approximated those in the combined armed services.

Mr. KELLEY. That is by percentage?

Mr. HADDOCK. Yes.

Mr. FATTERSON. I was a sailor, and I know some of the hardships that a sailor endures. I noticed, before a Senate committee, testimony was given by the American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc. I will read it and will ask if you have any comment to make on it.

A vessel must be continuously navigated, day and night. The work of her crew must go on without halt and cannot be limited to any given part of a day or week. Today the crew of an oceangoing vessel is divided in three watches, each watch consisting of the bare minimum required by law to assure the safe navigation of the vessel. It can be readily seen that reduction of the workweek to a maximum of 40 hours would require 40 percent additional personnel. Such an increase would go beyond the limits of the accommodations of our existing ships, all of which were built to carry the crews required by our present statutes. Far more important is the fact that the addition of so many new members of the crew, with the resultant increase in the pay roll, would make it absolutely impossible for the American operator to compete with foreign shipping or with other forms of domestic transportation.

Have you any comment to make on that statement? Mr. HADDOCK. Yes; there are several comments I would like to make on that statement. It is quite true that there is a three-watch system aboard vessels, and it is quite true that they operate 24 hours per day. But I am sure that you know of many industries shore side which operate 24 hours a day on a three-watch system, industries which cannot shut down. Take for instance the oil industry or the steel industry; their operations cannot be shut down. They must continue 24 hours a day. Yet they have a 40-hour week, and the same could be applied to the merchant marine.

Mr. PATTERSON. How about living quarters on the ship?

Mr. HADDOCK. With respect to living quarters, on modern shipsand most of our ships are modern and will be modern-the men are now quartered two to a room. Most carry Navy gun crews of up to 28 men. As these gun crews are removed there will be plenty of additional space. However, there would not be a requirement for all that space. The 40-hour week would not require a 40 percent increase in the number of men. It is quite obvious that that is not the case. There would be a reduction of 20 to 25 percent in the work hours, and it would simply require one additional man where a watch is kept to institute the 40-hour week, or a total of 8 to 10 men.

Accommodations aboard ship, as some of you know, have been vastly improved during the last 10 years as a result of unions simply insisting that the very poor accommodations be improved. Heretofore very small rooms were used, where 8, 10, or 12 people were sleeping. They do not even put one in those rooms any longer. The rooms are much larger than during the time when 10 or 12 people were in them, and now they have only 2 in them. In most instances the rooms are about twice as large as when they used to have 10 or 12 in them. The question of putting additional people in there is no problem at all. It will not require any removal of bulkheads or any rearrangements

whatever.

Mr. PATTERSON. Another piece of testimony by the same American Merchant Marine Institute was given before the Senate committee. I shall read it and then ask if you have any comment to make on it.

A seaman spends both his working hours and his time off duty at sea within the confines of the vessel. Utilization of free time becomes a real problem, even today, where a man is on watch only 8 hours out of every 24. It must be realized that if the 40-hour week were to be applied to seamen, they would have 128 hours per week during which they would be on the vessel but not on watch.

Have you any comment to make on that, in the way of recreation facilities, or the need for rest?

Mr. HADDOCK. It is quite obvious that a seaman needs 8 hours of sleep, the same as shoreside workers. I should not think the operators would want to begrudge them that. That would be 56 hours per week, thereby leaving 72 hours in which to eat, wash, relax, and carry on study and recreation.

Mr. PATTERSON. I know that when I was a sailor, we had to have a night watch as well as a day watch, and when they broke up our night watch, we could not go back to sleep, and used to drink a great deal of coffee to stay awake.

Mr. HADDOCK. Not only that, but the way meals are arranged, many of the people are actually turned out of their bunks in order to eat,

and their sleep is broken up in that manner. Certainly those who are on the 12 to 4 watch have a very difficult time getting any sleep at all, because their so-called 8 hours free is broken up. They have to do jobs actually while they are off watch.

I would like to read from our brief, which I filed here, just on that question. It appears on page 31:

Furthermore, the argument that the 40-hour week will leave the seamen with far too much free time on their hands flies in the face of modern thinking about leisure and self-improvement. This argument, like those already considered, will be mouthed by the same men who opposed the reduction in the working day from 12 hours to 10, and from 10 hours to 8. Work at sea is arduous and heavy. The life is more vigorous and the need for rest greater. For the deck and engine men there are two different watches, breaking up the period off duty. For the steward's department there is still a spread of hours over a 12- or 13-hour period, Many seamen use what little free time they have to study and prepare for their certificates of higher rating or for their licenses. Others like to paint or write. The United Seamen's Service has held some highly popular and large art exhibits of the work of seamen. There are debates and planned recreation programs among the crews of many of our vessels. Aboard some of our large troop transports debates have been arranged between members of the crew and various military personnel for the education and amusement of both the troops and the crew.

It is nonsense to suggest that the seaman will not know what to do with the extra free hours occasioned by a decent working week. He will use them to good avail.

Mr. PATTERSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. KELLEY. If there are no further questions, Mr. Haddock, we thank you very much. You have made a fine statement.

Mr. HADDOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KELLEY. Our next witness is Miss Katharine F. Lenroot, Chief, Children's Bureau, United States Department of Labor.

STATEMENT OF KATHARINE F. LENROOT, CHIEF, CHILDREN'S BUREAU, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; AND BEATRICE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

Miss LENROOT. I am appearing in support of the amendment to the child-labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act contained in H. R. 3914, H. R. 3928, and H. R. 4222. This amendment will extend and aid in making more equitable the coverage of existing Federal child-labor standards.

Section 6 of each of these three bills (like sec. 6 in S. 1349) proposes to amend the child-labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by adding the following new paragraph (b) to section 12 of that act :

(b) No employer engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce shall employ any oppressive child labor in or about or in connection with any enterprise in which he is so engaged.

Section 12 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act now prohibits the shipment in interstate or foreign commerce of goods produced in an establishment in or about which, within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom, "oppressive child labor" has been employed. "Oppressive child labor" is now defined by the act. It means the employment of minors under 16 years of age, with limited exceptions for children 14 and 15 years of age in occupations other than manufacturing or mining, under conditions determined by the Children's