Page images
PDF
EPUB

Especially during the current depressed agricultural economy, it is important that marketing charges for the farmers' products not be further increased. Senate bill 3310 would bring about a further increase in these marketing charges, and history has conclusively demonstrated that increased marketing charges for food products contribute to a wider marketing margin and a further depression of the farmers' share of the food dollar.

The passage of Senate bill 3310 would increase the operating costs of the foodprocessign and merchandising industries by millions of dollars, and it is contended that this huge increase in the marketing bill would be borne by the livestock and food-producing industries.

The Corn Belt Livestock Feeders Association further takes issue with section 2. paragraph (a), which assumes that a "minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers," does exist, whereas the present standard of living of employed people actually is at an alltime high. It is equally important to the labor segment of the economy that the prosperity and buying power of the food-producing industries be increased rather than further decreased. Despite the fact that the agricultural population is declining, the potential buying power of the huge food-producing industry is not declining to the same degree and further destruction of the agricultural buying power will seriously affect the national economy.

The Corn Belt Livestock Feeders Association urges that the Senate Committee on Labor regard Senate bill 3310 as improper legislation at this time, and the association requests further that this statement be made a part of the testimony before the subcommitte of the Senate Committee on Labor in opposition to the bill.

Respectfully yours,

CORN BELT LIVESTOCK FEEDERS ASSOCIATION,
DON F. MAGDANZ, Secretary-Treasurer.

HARMON COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

Hollis, Okla., May 10, 1956.

Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The people of Harmon County, Okla., are seriously concerned over the proposal to extend the $1 minimum wage law to cover retail and service outlets. There are economic problems here which must be considered in such legislation. Hollis is typical of thousands of small towns in the United States which would be harmed in many ways by the minimum wage law if it were extended.

Many of the small businesses in this area and across the Nation would be forced to close. Other businesses would reduce the total number of employees in order to stay within the wage law. This would give rise to serious unemployment problems. Other businesses would meet the problem by restricting all employees to a 40-hour week and thus reduce the weekly pay each employee earns. Some businesses would adjust to the situation by raising the cost of the items they sell. This, in turn, would drive business to the larger towns where volume merchandising is effective.

With the people here it is not a mere matter of what they wish in legislative matters but rather it is the imperative concern of how harmful legislation would throw our local economy into complete chaos.

It will be our pleasure to learn more about the basis for a minimum-wage law as we are eager to reach a sound conclusion on the matter. It is our belief, however, that we must avoid passing this legislation at the present time. Enclosed are statements by representative businessmen of the county. We shall be happy to present additional testimony in writing or by personal appearance in order to impress you with the city concern which we have regarding this legislation.

Very truly yours,

HARRY M. LATTIMORE, Manager.

STATEMENTS CONCERNING MINIMUM WAGE LEGISLATION

I operate a dry goods store in Hollis, Okla. My store is one of the two leading independent stores in town. My average wage is less than $1 per hour because I cannot stay in business if I have to pay the $1 minimum wage that has

been suggested. I recommend that this legislation be defeated because of the damaging effect it would have on small-town businesses.

MITCHELL TAYLOR, Owner, Taylor's, Hollis, Okla.

I operate the Ford Motor agency in Hollis. I am one of the largest businesses in Hollis from a standpoint of people employed. It would be impossible for me to continue to operate if I had to pay $1 per hour. The people who work for me are happy with the employee-employer relationship which we enjoy. They know that I will pay them more when business conditions justify it. If you want to save the businesses of small towns such as ours, please do not pass the minimum-wage law for retail and service businesses.

WILLIAM HALL,

Owner, Hall Motor Co., Hollis, Okla.

Although my business would not come under the minimum-wage law being proposed by labor leaders, I am opposed to the $1 minimum wage law for retail and service type businesses. It would hurt my own business considerably by weakening the economic structure of our community. There are very few of our retail and service outlets that could survive under this proposal. A large number of people would be out of work. Not only my service would suffer from this, but every other business in this area would. We are not ready for any such legislation. BILL FORD,

Owner, Harmon County Abstract Co., Hollis, Okla.

It is my honest and sincere opinion that the establishment of a $1 minimum wage scale for retail and service establishments of Harmon County would result in the closing of the doors of many businesses. The loans to small businesses which we have would be jeopardized and we would be hesitant to make additional loans to the businesses which would come under this law. EMORY CROW,

Vice President and Manager, First State Bank, Gould, Okla.

The enactment of a minimum-wage law would work a definite hardship on us here. In order to meet the $1 minimum wage we would have to either cut store hours, cut number of personnel, or raise prices. None of these solutions seems practicable. There is not much chance of increasing our volume to the point that we could pay the $1 minimum wage until our local economy is expanded. We are working for that now. Recently we have changed our method of operation to self-service type store in order to reduce the number of personnel so we could make enough profit to continue operation.

PAUL HART, Owner, Hart's, Hollis, Okla.

If a minimum-wage law is made applicable to retail and service businesses it would mean considerable change in our business operation. It would definitely make us close our fountain and it would affect the rest of our business operation also. We cannot afford this wage law.

JUDD MAXFIELD, Owner, Maxfield Drug Store, Hollis, Okla.

We operate a leading department store in Hollis. Our store serves a larger trade territory than any other department-type store in the city. We do everything we can for the people who work for us. They are given extra vacation days, and in every respect they are happy. To increase minimum wages in this area would hurt our business seriously. It would make us cut our store hours to the point that business would suffer. It would reduce total employment and cause some businesses in the area to close; hence our number of customers would be reduced. We oppose the proposed law.

LEON WHITE.

Manager, Hill's Department Store, Hollis, Okla.

I think the economy of Hollis would be weakened if the $1-minimum-wage law were extended to cover retail and service-type businesses. It would certainly increase unemployment.

WILBUR GREEN, Mayor, Hollis, Okla.

The extension of the minimum-wage law would not affect me directly because I am already paying more than the minimum. However, I think it would be extremely harmful to Harmon County. It would cause some of the stores and cafes and service stations to close. I would hate to see it.

SHERMAN SPRADLING, Owner, Tri-County Butane Co., Hollis, Okla.

If the minimum-wage law were extended, I would have to cut all my employees to a 40-hour week. Their earnings would be limited to $40 per week. They are making more than that now; therefore, it would be to the best interest of the people working for me if the minimum-wage proposal were not enacted.

BERNICE MACHEN, Owner, Machen Supermarket, Hollis, Okla.

Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS,
United States Senate,

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY COMMITTEE,
Washington, D. C., May 14, 1956.

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: We have noted that hearings are now in progress before a Senate Labor Subcommittee, of which you are chairman, to deal with extended coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Dairy Industry Committee, composed of official representatives of American Butter Institute, National Cheese Institute, National Creameries Association, American Dry Milk Institute, Evaporated Milk Association, International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers, and Milk Industry Foundation is and has been greatly concerned with this subject for many years.

We have supported the enactment of S. 1437, introduced by Senators Capehart and Curtis, as well as other bills that have been aimed at making the commonlaw rules apply in determining the employer-employee relationship and what constitutes an independent contractor. We believe that the same common-law rules that apply in social-security legislation should apply under the Fair Labor Standards Act and we have so testified before your subcommittee on May 3, 1955. There is much confusion within the dairy industry as well as within the Labor Department as to who is considered an employee and who is an independent contractor.

Senator Capehart has introduced a qualifying amendment to S. 1437 to make the bill more acceptable to the Solicitor of the Labor Department. The inclu sion of any new language which will accomplish, for the dairy industry, what was intended by the original bill, has the support of this committee. We request that this be incorporated in the record of the hearings. Sincerely yours,

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: The members of this organization, which is composed of retail lumber and building material dealers in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico, strongly oppose the extension of the wage-hour law to include their respective business establishments.

Many of these dealers are located in small towns and rural areas where customers make purchases early and late in the day as well as on Saturday. Likewise, building contractors make purchases at irregular hours.

Most retail employees enjoy stable employment under the present system but wage-hour coverage would endanger that stability.

It is obvious that overtime premiums, increased minimum wages, extra recordkeeping, interrogation of employees by inspectors, plus lack of flexibility of operation will result in added operating costs. This in turn can only mean one thingincreased costs in home building and other types of construction. This could result in a decrease of home building which is one of the major industries in America today.

It is our belief that the sale, use, and storage of building materials cannot be construed as interstate commerce and we respectfully urge that the wage-hour law remain as it now stands.

It is our desire that this letter be placed in the record of the hearings.
Very truly yours,

JOHN J. LAVENGOOD, Secretary.

KNOTT HOTELS CORP.,

New York, N. Y., May 31, 1956.

Hon. H. ALEXANDER SMITH,

United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR SMITH: It has come to my attention that there is a proposal before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Subcommittee to extend the $1 an hour minimum-wage law to retail and service employees.

This would have little or no effect on the hotel and restaurant business in some of the larger cities in this country but would have a very serious one in most localities.

My company operates a sizable number of hotels and restaurants in several States, including New Jersey. With respect to those in New Jersey, I should like to point out that for many years the hotels and restaurants have been exempt from the State minimum-wage laws.

The compliance with a law which requires a payment of $1 an hour would, in my opinion, work a hardship on the employees themselves for it would possibly mean the elimination of tipping. Many waiters, waitresses, bellboys, etc., receive far in excess of $1 an hour. I venture to say that the unions would be the very first to complain if the tipping system were discontinued. You are probably aware of the fact that these tips, received by our employees, are considered to be income to them and are subject to income tax.

If the tipping system were not abolished it would be necessary for every operator of a restaurant or hotel to increase their prices to pay the higher wages. This can only add to the problem of inflation and could have a far-reaching effect; employees of other companies who patronize restaurants for luncheon, etc., would be demanding higher wages because of increased costs.

I sincerely urge you to oppose any change which would extend this coverage to service industries.

Sincerely yours,

WILLARD E. DODD, President.

Senator LISTER HILL,

RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND, INC.,
Baltimore, Md., June 5, 1956.

Chairman, Labor and Public Welfare Committee,

Senate Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: The Restaurant Association of Maryland, Inc., would like to go on record as opposing any change in the existing status of the minimum wage and hour law, now being reviewed by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee.

We insist that the retail exemption be retained in its present form and urge that this request be made part of the subcommittee's report.

Very truly yours,

TALBOT H. WALKER, President.

Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS,

MOSES KAHN STORES, Baltimore, Md., May 23, 1956.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Committe on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: It is our sincere wish that the retail exemption be retained in its present form, due to the fact that if our overhead goes any higher it will only effect the price of merchandise and in a great many cases might close us up, we can't take it.

Please use this letter as a part of the subcommittee record.

Very truly yours,

Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS,

JEROME KAHN.

THE HECHT Co., Baltimore, Md., May 23, 1956.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor and Public Welfare,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: I respectfully urge that your committee retain the retail exemption in its present form as the marketing structure of this country is a sensitive organization. A removal of the retail exemption will cause great dislocation of associates in the industry and will be harmful to American marketing and production.

I further request that this letter be made a part of the subcommittee's record. Respectfully submitted.

Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS,

ROBERT H. LEVI, President.

ROSENTHAL'S,

Baltimore, Md., May 19, 1956.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: We being in the smaller store group are appealing to your committee to leave the retail exemption in its present form, and that this letter become part of the subcommittee records.

We have been struggling for some time, and to eliminate the exemption would be very harmful.

Your very truly,

MELVIN H. WIDERMAN, President.

BUILDING MATERIAL MERCHANTS OF GEORGIA,
Atlanta, Ga., May 11, 1956.

Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL and
Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE,

United States Senators, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATORS: I hope this finds you well and happy. I am unhappy because I understand that the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee has begun hearings on proposals to extend the coverage of the Wage Hour Act to include some retailers. Evidently, this is a “foot-in-the-door” maneuver which, if successful, may soon lead to the elimination of the section 13 (a) (2) exemption for all retailers.

Will you please give serious consideration to any such proposals and to the following reasons why retailers should not be covered:

1. Most of the retailers do not substantially affect interstate commerce nor the wage scale of the manufacturers who supply the goods.

2. In most cases only the receiving and perhaps some office personnel could be brought under the act and this would not warrant the expense of enforcement. 3. If covered, a large portion of the retailers would confine their purchases and sales within the State and thus would not be subject to the act. Their lower costs would enable them to seriously damage if not totally destroy those competitors who would be subject to the act if it is amended as proposed. This would create extremely unfair competition and be a very heavy blow, below the belt, to small local business concerns.

4. Enforcement of the act on the retailing industry would require an army of wage-hour investigators so large that it could easily make the Labor Department

« PreviousContinue »