facturing: It was 1,800 hours a year. That compares to 1,600 hours a year in retailing. The method used to compute these figures were exactly the same. The data were taken from two different columns in the same publication. They are as comparable as two figures can be. And you get 1,800 hours a year as the average work experience in manufacturing, and 1,600 hours a year as the average work experience in retailing.

Senator DOUGLAS. Are you going to make that part of the record, Dr. Blum, those figures?

Dr. BLUM. Well, not the manufacturing, except right now.
Senator DOUGLAS. Can you make those a part of the record?

Dr. BLUM. Certainly. All that has to be done is to refer to the staff report that was submitted last year, because the data are there. I can copy them, because the staff report is out of print. And I can submit the data at this point as part of the record.

(The data are as follows:)

The following is the work experience of wage and salary earners in manufacturing during 1954: average number of hours worked, 3910; average number of weeks worked, 44.07. By combining these averages we obtain an average work experience of 1,749.62 hours, a figure which has been rounded up to 1,800 for purposes of this discussion. (See tables 17 and 18.)

TABLE 17.-Work experience during 1954-Number of weeks worked by wage and salary earners in manufacturing, full-time only

These figures are based on table B-2 in U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Annual Report on the Labor Force, 1954, p. 36. The percentages are computed by excluding part-time workers from the data given in that table; the class-interval midpoints are then multiplied by the percentages. The average of these values gives the average work experience.

TABLE 18.-Work experience during 1954-Number of hours worked by wage and salary earners in manufacturing

Hours worked:

Percent of wage and salary

earners

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Annual Report on the Labor Force, 1954, p. 29. Method of computation, see table 17.

It follows that an "average" single woman without dependents (that is, a woman who had the average work experience of a worker in manufacturing during 1954) actually worked 1,800 rather than 2,000 hours per year.

Source: Amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended, staff report to the Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, 84th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 36, 37.

Dr. BLUM. They summarize many factors, because they show the actual average work experience.

Senator DOUGLAS. In other words, although cyclical fluctuations in retailing are less than in manufacturing, seasonal fluctuations may be greater and there may be a dilution of employment within the week due to the fact that shopping is not evenly concentrated on all days within the week and at all hours.

Dr. BLUM. Also the Fortune survey has shown that high turnover is due to lack of training and poor pay. We must assume that turnover is higher in certain branches of retailing. Unfortunately, there are no data to prove this. I tried to obtain information from the Department of Labor. But the Department does not have any turnover rates. Senator DOUGLAS. Dr. Blum, we want to thank you very much for your testimony and your public spirit in preparing this material. Dr. BLUM. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service to the committee.

Senator DOUGLAS. The next witness is Mr. A. F. Hartung, president of the International Woodworkers Union.

STATEMENT OF A. F. HARTUNG, OF THE INTERNATIONAL

WOODWORKERS UNION

Mr. HARTUNG. Senator Douglas, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I have a prepared report, however, I do want to add some additional statements to it as I go through it, with your permis

sion.

I am A. F. Hartung, president of the International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, representing 140,000 workers in the lumber and wood products industries, of which approximately 25,000 are located in the southern part of the United States.

I appear before you to express the support of our union for the increased coverage required by Senate bill 3310, and House bill 8533. We believe that expansion of the general coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act to include all employees in firms engaged "in any activity affecting commerce," will allow the Fair Labor Standards Act to accomplish its original objectives.

The coverage provided by the present law contains wide gaps, leaves many important areas unregulated, and is, in general, rather planless in dealing with the economic ills it is intended to cure. The law is primarily designed for the protection of American workingmen who are unorganized, and lack the equality of bargaining power with their employers, needed to negotiate adequate wages as a matter of contract. We believe that extension of coverage is necessary to accomplish the economically sound and humane purpose of the act.

However, our union does not believe that these bills are far reaching enough. We believe that the $1 an hour minimum wage provided for the in present act is not high enough. We reiterate the position taken before legislative committees in the past-that a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour is needed at this time to place a proper floor under wage levels.

Our union also makes a strong protest against the failure of these bills to propose striking out subparagraph 15 of section 13 (a) of the act, which provides for exemption of

any employee employed in planting or tending trees, cruising, surveying or felling timber, or in preparing or transporting logs or other forestry products to the mill, processing plant, railroad, or other transaction terminal, if the number of employees employed by his employer in forestry or lumbering operations does not exceed 12.

We note that the proposed bills contain amendments striking out subparagraphs 4, 5, and 10 of section 13 (a) and subparagraphs 4 and

5 of section 13 (b). We believe that subparagraph 15 is equally inequitable and unjust, and should be stricken from the act.

The exemption in section 13 (a) (15) is completely unrealistic and inequitable. The materials produced in the operations subject to this exemption, chiefly logs and pulpwood, in almost all cases flow directly into the stream of commerce. Most of it goes to large corporations, producing lumber, paper, or other wood products.

I would like to leave the prepared text for just a moment and bring to the attention of the committee the type of companies that receive this commodity.

I have here a list of what is known as the One-Hundred Million Dollar Club of Pulp Paper and Allied Products. It has 17 companies, each one of them doing over a hundred-million dollars a year business. They are scattered from one end of the United States to another.

I have them also broken down in the areas in which they operate, not only the Hundred-Million Dollar Club, but other companies that range in sales anywhere from

Senator DOUGLAS. Will you make those a part of the record? Mr. HARTUNG. Yes. I didn't in the original presentation, Mr. Chairman. These are something new that I brought along to submit.

Senator DOUGLAS. I presume that they include such companies as International Paper, Kimberley-Clark, Long-Bell, Crown-Zellerbach, and others; is that correct?

Mr. HARTUNG. Yes. International Paper Co. leads the list with $796 million worth of sales, $83 million net profit, and this is 10.4 percent profit relationship to sales; Crown-Zellerbach Corp. did $414 million, with a $44,128,000 net profit.

They all ran about similar. These are, of course, only the companies with sales in excess of hundred-million dollars per year. However, we also have a list of companies that do less than $100,000 business. Senator DOUGLAS. You mean less than a hundred million? Mr. HARTUNG. Yes; a hundred million.

Getting back to my statement: There are few industries in the United States, doing better financially than the paper companies who buy the pulpwood produced in these small operations, exempt by present law. The lumber companies which purchase the logs, enjoy an extremely favorable profit picture, due to the building boom of the last few years. The elimination of coverage under the act for these logging operations, employing 12 people or less, has the effect of subsidizing the earnings of these large corporations at the expense of a group of helpless workers, largely unorganized, who do not have the bargaining power to establish fair wages and working conditions. through collective bargaining. To deny them the protection of the miserably low minimum wage of $1 an hour established by the 1955 amendments, is a gross miscarriage of justice of the greatest magnitude.

The problem is not a small one. According to the latest figures available to us, taken from the 1953 edition of County Business Patterns, published by the United States Department of Commerce, there were 11,052 logging operations in the United States (including Territories) employing 12 people or less. We estimate the total number of people involved to be in the neighborhood of 42,000.

I wish to bring to your attention, that Mr. Ruttenberg testified that there were 110,000. These figures we are submitting to you are the

figures of the companies that actually reported to the Census Bureau. They claim that there is possibly 1 out of 3 that made this report. So, our figures are not necessarily in conflict with Mr. Ruttenberg's. We merely took those that actually reported.

In the Southern States alone there are 4,484 logging operations which fall in the same category. We estimate that about 20,000 people are here employed, about 65 percent of the logging workers in the South.

Even under the present language of the act, the exemption provided by 13 (a) (15) is an inequitable and unjust advantage for a specialinterest group. To deny these workers coverage under the broader definition given in the proposed bills is a travesty on justice.

In support of our contention that the broadening of coverage proposed in these bills should be adopted, and that the exemption contained in section 13 (a) (15) should be eliminated, I should like to quote from the state of the Union message of President Eisenhower to the 84th Congress. The President said:

"We must also carry forward the job of improving the wage-andhour law. Last year I requested the Congress to broaden the coverage of the minimum wage. I repeat that recommendation and I pledge the full resources of the executive branch to assist the Congress in finding ways to attain this goal."

In view of this expression of opinion, we expect, with confidence, that President Eisenhower and those who support his policies, will stand shoulder to shoulder with us in this fight.

I should like to point out that Secretary of Labor Mitchell, presumably speaking for the administration, evidently supported this union's view at a press conference on March 15, 1956. In that conference, the Secretary of Labor said that he was for extension of the Fair Labor Standards Act coverage to retailing, the construction industry, and elsewhere within the limits of the Federal jurisdiction, drawing the line only at intrastate operations. We expect full support from Secretary Mitchell for our proposal to eliminate the exemption contained in section 13 (a) (15) since it is obvious that the vast majority of the material produced in logging operations employing 12 people or less flows into the stream of commerce, and comes well within the limits of the Federal jurisdiction, even under the wording of the present act.

Senator DOUGLAS. Secretary Mitchell is going to testify before us. Mr. HARTUNG. I can think of no better language to express the feelings of our union concerning the coverage limitations of the present act, and the need for amendments, than that contained in a memorandum concerning the Fair Labor Standards Act from the Department of Labor, dated May 13, 1955. The memorandum said, in part, "In this act, the primary purpose of Congress was not to regulate interstate commerce as such. It was to eliminate, as rapidly as practicable, substandard labor conditions throughout the Nation. ***

In contrast with the objectives of the act, its present coverage is much more limited in scope-both economically and legally. * * *

The reasons for such partial protection are (1) the theory on which the coverage is based, and (2) the specific exemptions contained in the act. It would seem that unless these limitations are legally or economically justifiable, the present coverage and exemption provisions of the act fall far short of accomplishing its objectives. *

I submit to you that the exemptions of employees of logging operations of 12 men or less is morally wrong, economically unsound, and unjustifiable from a legal standpoint. The exemption arose out of political logrolling of the worst kind. Its effect is to condemn thousands of American workers to a life of misery and poverty, in order to protect the pocketbooks and further inflate the profits of an already prosperous industry. Traditional American justice and the welfare of our free enterprise system demand the abolition of this injustice. Thank you, gentlemen, for affording our union an opportunity to testify, and for the courtesy extended to me here today.

(The documents of The 100 Million Dollar Club of Pulp, Paper & Allied Products, Logging Camps and Contractors, Pulp, Paper and Allied Products Financial Data, 1955, are as follows:)

The 100 million dollar club of pulp, paper and allied products