direct. Naturally, substandard wages paid to any part of the working people in an area result in a lesser total of money circulating in the economy. And also the substandard wage scale furnishes an unfortunate yardstick by which employers tend to measure their own willingness to pay for labor even though circumstances warrant higher standards. These effects operate whether the group receiving substandard wages consists of imported alien labor or whether it consists of those members of the citizen working force directly covered by provisions allowing the substandard wages. Of course, the opposite and beneficial effects flow from effective maintenance of adequate minimum standards. In this connection it should also be observed that the importation of alien workmen, particularly under contract at low wages, seriously impairs the competitive position of the resident citizen working people, by introducing large numbers of aliens at low wages, tying up large numbers of jobs, and decreasing the demand for labor as compared with the supply. The importation of alien labor can be justified only when and to the extent that the local labor supply is inadequate to meet the demand; and when importation is necessary, the imported workmen ought to be paid standard wages, for the reasons mentioned above.

We want our position to be entirely clear in this regard. We are speaking for the American citizens and residents of Guam and not for the imported labor. The importation of labor should be reduced now and hereafter to the extent local workmen are available. But we must repeat that payment of substandard wages to any group affects the entire working population.

For these various reasons, what is indicated is not repeal of these wage and hour standards as applied to Guam, not a legalization of the current substandard wages paid some workmen in Guam, but effective enforcement of the wage and hour standards so that the law will function as intended.

(5) Some may argue that the Guam Legislature could enact a local wage and hour law and by doing so protect the local working people. It requires little analysis, however, to show the ineffectiveness of such action in the present circumstances. In view of the large numbers employed directly and indirectly by the United States in Guam, it would seem that a great deal of jurisdictional confusion would certainly result from any territorial wage and hour law. Also in view of the large numbers employed directly or indirectly by the United States, a local law would not be adequately effective because too many workmen would be beyond its reach, and those beyond its reach would find themselves at an unfair disadvantage. It may be that a local law could advantageously complement the Fair Labor Standards Act, but under present circumstances a local law cannot do the job alone.

For all the reasons discussed above, in the interest of equality and fairness, and for the protection of the citizen workmen residing in Guam, we most earnestly request that bills S. 2404 and S. 1127 be rejected and that the existing wage and hour provisions applicable in Guam be effectively enforced. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Guam Legislature.

A. B. WON PAT.

Relative importance of consumers' cost-of-living items, Guam, March 1954 and

Cost of living in Guam survey, March 1955-Limited available list of comparative prices of food in Guam and in the United States mainland in March 1955

Cost of living in Guam survey, 1955, estimated consumption of food, clothing, utilities, services, etc., of an average Guamanian family of 5 persons in 1955, as of Mar. 15, 1955

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY DAVID VIPOND, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION AND TAXATION ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TOBACCO DISTRIBUTORS

On May 12, 1955, your honorable committee extended to me the privilege of appearing before you in my dual capacity of executive of a major wholesaling firm, and chairman of a committee of the National Association of Tobacco Distributors, in order to voice my views and the sentiments of the association on legislation pending before this honorable body.

I should like, at this time, to supplement my position of record as taken a year ago and to express, specifically, the opposition of the National Association of Tobacco Distributors to S. 770 and S. 3310 now being considered by your committee.

Speaking in an individual capacity, my views are those only of myself and my firm, a major tobacco wholesaler serving merchants in the States of Pennsylvania and New York. In my representative capacity, I speak for an association which reflects the thinking of thousands of businessmen whose more than 15,000 salesmen engage in business of an annual volume in excess of $5 billion. This corps of salesmen, in the course of its duties, deals with and services more than 1,350,000 retail outlets throughout the United States.

It is this vital group of salesmen in whose behalf, actually, I speak. It is my firm conviction and that of the National Association of Tobacco Distributors that the passage of either S. 770 or S. 3310 would ultimately redound to the disadvantage of that body of salesmen the law ostensibly desires to benefit. Both these bills attempt to remove salesmen from the category of professional, executive or administrative personnel exempted from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Speaking as a former salesman, myself, and on behalf of an association where sales and salesmanship are treated as both an art and a science, I resent this admittedly benevolent attempt to reduce the status of the salesman to that of a mere hired hand.

The ambassadorial posture of outside salesmen is significantly undergirded by a recent field research study sponsored by the association, as a corollary to the gathering of material for the impending publication of a text entitled: "Successful Methods of Wholesale Tobacco Distribution-What It Takes!" This comprehensive study pinpoints that:

(a) Salesmen of an apprecible number of distributors are invited to confer with the principals on determining and setting operational policies. (b) Salesmen are provided with office accommodations, in many instances, akin to that of the principals and proprietors.

(c) Many firms conduct, regularly, sales training programs for the purpose of familiarizing salesmen, at firsthand, with the most advanced methods and techniques in sizing up market potentials, consumer attitudes, merchandising techniques and retailing methods.

(d) The principals or proprietors of a substantial number of firms consult with salesmen regarding the addition of new lines and new products and, more often than not, when disapproved by the salesmen, such products are disregarded.

(e) Over 85 percent of the wholesale tobacco distributors hold weekly sales meetings for the ostensible purpose of eliciting the salesmen's views and reactions about any and every promotional idea, as well as orienting the salesmen with promotional ideas under consideration by the firm.

(f) A most revealing aspect of the study pertains to the earning potential of salesmen which is largely governed and influenced by the ability, industriousness, diligence and applicability of each salesman as an aspiring individual. The earing rate is between $5,000 and $15,000 a year. The

professional character of the salesman is further underlined by the fact that, akin to engineers, doctors, and dentists, the demand for promising sales talent is insatiable.

(g) The appropriation of American industry, at the present juncture, for sales training is phenomenal, and even then it is generally recognized that the dearth of promising salesmen is nothing short of disturbing.

I note with interest the fact that both S. 770 and S. 3310 are not essentially different in purpose or effect from the bills introduced by Senator Lehman (S. 662) and Senator Murray (S. 2748). Neither of these latter two bills deem it necessary to eliminate outside salesmen from exempted categories of work. Indeed, I find it difficult to understand why Senator Murray proposes to eliminate such outside salesmen from the exemption of law in S. 770, but proposes to include them within the exemption in the bill be introduced later in the same session of Congress. It is quite clear that the evils sought to be remedied can be equally well remedied without the arbitrary declassification of outside salesmen.

To date, no information has been unearthed which would indicate that outside salesmen, as such, need the safeguards of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As the study adverted to above has shown, they are very far from being a depressed economic group. Indeed, the cry that has gone up from most industrial concerns is for more persons learned in the art of salesmanship. A good salesman is at a premium and many firms compete actively in the search for such persons.

Business experience will show that no employer dictates the number of hours which his salesman employs in contacting customers. This is all the more so in the wholesale tobacco distributive trade. The function of the outside salesman is not, and cannot ever be, abridged in time. He handles, in our industry, not only cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and tobacco products, but also pens, pencils, wallets, hosiery, watch bands, toys, cosmetics, and a myriad of like commodities.

Our industry's salesmen are generally compensated by a commission, or a combination of salary plus commission. The test of a salesman is his ability or willingness to sell. The training of a salesman is the function and responsibility of management, and it entails a perpetual investment of more than $36,000 for each such salesman on the road. The saleman joins with management by contributing his ability to management's investment of time and capital. This unique combination he then places before his firm's customers. He alone is largely the judge of the number of hours to spend with each customer; the type of approach most likely to yield financial results for himself and his firm. He alone chiefly determines the scope and extent of his earnings. His ability to increase his earnings is limited only by his individual ambition and industriousness. Quite obviously, therefore, to fix maximum hours and minimum wages for the outside salesman is tantamout to degenerating his professional status into that of a mere order taker.

Who can measure the salesman's selling time when he is on the road and, when measured, who can check it? The time required to travel a route is always a variable. The salesman's own manner of dealing with customers has a marked influence on the time element. Should a salesman who takes 2 hours to sell a particular account be compensated eightfold better than a salesman who sells the same account in 15 minutes? Sales work is so ungovernable by any known measure of occupational time or wage standards that its inclusion under provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act is not only impractical, but unthinkable.

For all of these reasons, I must once again strenuously express the opposition of the National Association of Tobacco Distributors to the inclusion of outside salesmen within the purview of covered employees under the law. Such inclusion serves no useful purpose in that there is no evil here to be remedied. To the contrary: It would ultimately result in an overall reduction of outside salesmen's earnings and a measurable loss of sales volume to the employing firm, all to the deteriment both of employer and employee.

We accordingly take our stand in undeviating opposition to S. 770 and S. 3310 insofar as these bills attempt to devaluate the status of outside salesmen by removing them from the exemption provisions of section 13 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

FLORIDA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Jacksonville, Fla., May 10, 1956.

Senators LISTER HILL, JAMES E. MURRAY, MATTHEW M. NEELY, PAUL H. DOUGLAS, HERBERT H. LEHMAN, JOHN F. KENNEDY, PAT MCNAMARA, H. ALEXANDER SMITH, IRVING M. IVES, WILLIAM A. PURTELL, BARRY GOLDWATER, GEORGE H. BENDER, and GORDON ALLOTT

MINIMUM WAGE COVERAGE FOR RETAIL AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES

In our declaration of policy for 1955, we expressed our opposition in principle to a minimum wage fixed by Federal law as part and parcel of a planned economy. In 1956, we also opposed any further extension of minimum wage coverage to those businesses presently exempt from minimum wage law provisions. We wish to reiterate our position in this respect.

It is understood that consideration is to be given in the current session to extend coverage of the recently adjusted hourly minimum to employees of other business categories not now subject to the provisions of the law.

We are unalterably opposed to including employees of retailing and servicing industries under the minimum wage law, as these operations cannot properly be construed as interstate commerce, nor in any sense competitive as between various locations in several States. Furthermore, the minimum wage law was primarily designed for hourly wage workers, based on a straight 40-hour week; whereas, this would be the exception rather than the rule in retail and service establishments, where their pay is often based on bonuses, commissions, or in profit sharing. Work hours in such establishments also are irregular and subject to customer service needs, and cannot be adjusted to the 40-hour week provision. To attempt to cover these varying conditions by a minimum wage law would be virtually impossible.

It is respectfully requested, therefore, that you oppose legislation that would propose to extend provisions of the minimum wage law to employees of retail and service establishments.

Sincerely yours,

HAROLD COLEE, Executive Vice President.

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS AND RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC., WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

This statement is submitted by the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc., the only national trade association representing independent tire dealers and tire retreaders in this country. The association has approximately 2,500 members, all of whom are independent merchants, being in no way connected with tire manufacturers, chain stores, oil companies or other large distributors of tires or accessories. There are members in each of the 48 States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of the United States.

There are before the committee a number of bills seeking to amend various provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A number of the bills would amend section 13 (29 U. S. C. sec. 213) which sets forth those activities and industries which are exempt from the provisions of the act.

The independent tire dealers of this country are small businessmen. They are engaged in a highly competitive industry at the retail level, an industry which has reached an acute stage of competition for the current market. The share of the market serviced by independent tire dealers has been sharply diminished by a number of circumstances including the handling of large accounts by tire manufacturers direct, distribution of tires through major oil company service station outlets (this practice is now the subject of a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission) and competition from large interstate chain organizations. Independent tire dealers for the most part sell to individual customers as well as through some gasoline service stations, and a number of the dealers perform retreading services on customer's tires and in some cases on used tires for resale.

Administration spokesmen who testified before this committee last year stated that it was not the intent of the amendments to the retail exemption to expand the coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act to include small local merchants. Secretary Mitchell said, "The Federal Government should not reg