more powerful than the Congress. Also, the independence taught these retailers in our schools is so strongly imbedded that many good citizens would unwittingly become confused lawbreakers. It is beyond their conception of law for the Federal Government to inject itself into strictly local small businesses. They will not long tolerate being taxed for such governmental infringement. 5. Coverage would seriously impair the services of the retail building material merchant to the consumers. He must serve the needs of his customers in his respective locality and must conform to local conditions and requirements. He can't change the fact that farmers and other workers must buy on Saturdays and before or after work hours on other weekdays; that contractors and builders must have access to supplies at unusual hours due to weather conditions and because otherwise their workmen would be idle while waiting for deliveries. This will increase the cost of construction. 6. The retail building material merchant's principal business is service and knowledge. He cannot operate on a restricted schedule of hours. He may be able to allow a siesta after lunch but their employees must be there when the customers need their services. 7. Obviously, it is in the public interest that the retailers exemption be retained. If you will kindly have placed in the record of the committee the enclosed copy of this letter and request their consideration of these facts, we will appreciate it very much. With the best of good wishes, Cordially, JOSEPH G. ROWELL, Counselor. SAVANNAH, GA, May 15, 1956. Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: It is my understanding that the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee has started hearings on proposals to extend coverage of the Wage-Hour Act to include some retailers. If maneuvers are successful they would lead to elimination of section 13 (a) (2) exemption for all retailers. Please give serious consideration to any such proposals and my reasons why retailers should not be covered. 1. The majority of retailers do not seriously affect interstate commerce or the wage scale of manufacturing plants. 2. If covered, this could cause a large portion of the retailers to confine their purchases within the State, which would then be exempt from the act. 3. Unfortunately the retail building-material merchant cannot control the need of his customers and must govern himself according to local needs. This alone creates a long working week, thus causing a hardship because he has to be on hand to serve the public or pay for this service to be performed at an excessive wage scale. 4. Past experience will tell you that any retail operation, whether it be retail building-material merchants, filling-station operators, grocery stores, clothing stores, and thousands of others that come under this category would have to close their doors if put to such test were the retail exemption eliminated. Please place in the record of the committee a copy of the enclosed letter and request their consideration in retaining the retail exemption which I am sure will be of more value to our economic structure than the changes now proposed. Thanking you in advance for any courtesies rendered, also wishing you good health and a successful administration. Yours truly, C. B. MIKELL, Director, Building Material Merchants of Georgia. Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE, THE DE JARNETTE SUPPLY CO., Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. GEORGE: We 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, 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 proposal and to the following reasons why retailers should not be covered: 1. There is very little interstate commerce affected nor the wage scale of the manufacturers who supply the goods. 2. Some of the retailers will confine their purchases and sales within the State and thus will not be subject to the act. Their lower costs would enable them to seriously damage or destroy those competitors who would be subject to the act if it is amended as proposed. This would create unfair competition which is not healthy. 3. It will also cause the Labor Department to increase the army of investigators and we are sure that the act could not be properly enforced. 4. The building-material merchant is a servant of the public and it is very necessary that they be allowed to serve the public without every restriction being placed upon them. It is very important to the public's interest that retailers exemption be retained. Will you kindly have placed in the record of the committee the enclosed copy of this letter and request their consideration of these facts, we will appreciate it very much. Yours very truly, B. W. FLEMING, General Manager. WILLIAMS BROS. LUMBER CO., INC., Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL and Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIRS: We understand that the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee has begun hearings on proposals to extend coverage of the Wage and Hour Act to include some retailers, which might lead to the elimination of the section 13 (a) (2) exemption for all retailers. We would appreciate your consideration to opposing any retail exemptions. We feel that elimination of retail exemption would cause some of the problems outlined below: 1. By virtue of intrastate buying some retailers would have a definite competitive advantage over retailers who could not avoid interstate buying. 2. Every local condition pertaining to retail hours vary, and it is difficult to conceive that these local habits could be successfully changed in order to comply with the shorter hours. 3. It is certainly obvious that the price of retail goods would increase substantially and the elmmination of the above would certainly be contrary to the public interest. We would appreciate if you would place letter in the committee records. R. W. WILLIAMS, Secretary and Treasurer. PEEK-HIGHTOWER LUMBER & SUPPLY CO., INC., Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR GEORGE: I have become very much concerned about the proposals to extend coverage of the Wage-Hour Act to include retail employees in that the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee has opened hearings on the proposals. This maneuver on the part of pressure groups seriously concerns me because I feel that it is against our public interest, and because: 1. It would create another era of unnecessary inflation and thereby reduce the purchasing power of the dollar, thus would considerably further jeopardize the security of elderly people whose old-age income was provided for before the devaluation of the dollar. Thus additional hardships would exist. 2. It would in many cases reduce the take-home pay of employees, because of the time-and-half-time rate over 40 hours, as employer cannot pay the extra rate and be competitive. 3. It would unnecssarily further incerase the tax burden of we taxpayers, because of the army of inspectors required to enforce. 4. It would further greatly reduce apprentice training of younger and inexperienced personnel, which is grossly unfair to our youth of today. 5. It would mean that the Government would further encroach upon the liberties of our free-enterprise system to the extent that the retailer could not continue to operate as a free citizen, but would become a subject of an unreasonable department of our Government. 6. It would place the small retailer, if eventually covered, in a position of no legal defense on unintentional violations, becase any hearing before the Wage and Hour Division would always be against him, and he could not afford the expense of going to the Supreme Court. 7. Retailers cannot streamline working hours of employees as can the industries, without seriously affecting their services to the general public; neither can the retailer control the buying hours of the retail customer nor their habits; thus extension of the coverage would grossly and unreasonably inconvenience both the customer and the retail merchants. 8. The average retailer knows his business does not substantially affect interstate commerce, and thus by being forced under the act would create a feeling of utmost resentment toward the Congress and the Government (there is already too much of this feeling for our national security-we need no more). 9. Then, it would create another unethical "black or gray" market by those people who try to get by without paying their share of taxes (including income) and thus make the honest taxpaying citizen suffer for his share of business, because these unethical operators could easily undersell a merchant covered by the act. In conclusion, I believe that the Congress of this great Nation is too smart to yield to pressure groups such as ascended on Washington most recently, but will give consideration to the public welfare of all the citizens by maintaining our free-enterprise system of economy. And I respect the wisdom of the Members of the Congress more than that of the university official who recently released a 368-page report on this question. There is enclosed an extra copy with the hope that you can place it in the record of the committee, which will be appreciated. With my best personal regards, DEAR SENATOR AND FRIEND: Our Texas association begs of you to positively oppose any attempt to eliminate the present retail service exemption. Please place this request in the hands of Senator Douglas for entry into the records. Sincerely thanking you, Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, R. J. SLAGLE, Executive Secretary, Treasurer. TEXAS RETAIL JEWELERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR AND FRIEND: As president of the Texas Retail Jewelers Association, Inc., I am writing you at this time to request that you oppose any attempt to eliminate the present retail service exemption. It would be appreciated if you would place this request in the hands of Senator Douglas for entry into the records. Yours very truly, DOLPH MILLER, President. Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. SAVANNAH, GA., May 15, 1956. DEAR SENATOR: It is my understanding that the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee has started hearings on proposals to extend coverage of the Wage-Hour Act to include some retailers. If maneuvers are successful they would lead to elimination of section 13 (a) (2) exemption for all retailers. Please give serious consideration to any such proposals and my reasons why retailers should not be covered: 1. The majority of retailers do not seriously affect interstate commerce or the wage scale of manufacturing plants. 2. If covered, this could cause a large portion of the retailers to confine their purchases within the States. Which would then be exempt from the act. 3. Unfortunately the retail building material merchant cannot control the need of his customers and must govern himself according to local needs. This alone creates a long working week, thus causing a hardship because he has to be on hand to serve the public or pay for this service to be performed at an excessive wage scale. 4. Past experience will tell you that any retail operation, whether it be retail building material merchants, filling station operators, grocery stores, clothing stores, and thousands of others that come under this category would have to close their doors if put to such test were the retail exemption eliminated. Please place in the record of the committee a copy of the enclosed letter and request their consideration in retaining the retail exemption which I am sure will be of more value to our economic structure than the changes now proposed. Thanking you in advance for any courtesies rendered, also wishing you good health and a successful administration. Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: We know that there are many forces trying to influence you to include retail establishments under the Federal wage-hour law. The people who are exerting this pressure either have an ulterior motive or do not understand the nature and problems of the retail business. Retailing is intrinsically local and the business of each establishment is confined to a trade area whether that area be a few blocks or a few miles. This applies equally to the units of the giant chains as well as to small neighborhood stores. Retailing is a pure example of American competitive enterprise and each establishment, to survive, must meet the conditions of its locality and the demands of its buying public. Rates of wages are certainly one of these conditions and you will find that retail employees are comparatively well paid. If this was not true the stores would not be staffed. Retail establishments compete for employees as well as for customers. The inclusion of retail establishments under the Federal wage-hour law will work a hardship on them, particularly on small retailers, to the extent that many will be forced out of business by such Government-compelled increase of overhead expenses. Expense increases cannot be passed on to the buying public and the narrow, survival margin of profit has been continually decreasing during the past few years. We urge you and your colleagues to take a firm, audible stand in our behalf, and we ask that you make this letter part of your subcommittee's record. Yours verly truly, RICHARD M. MILLER. SENATOR PAUL H. DOUGLAS, THE HOWLAND-HUGHES Co., Waterbury, Conn., May 11, 1956. Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: We operate an independent department store in Waterbury, Conn., and our business is essentially local in character. In the State of Connecticut, as you are undoubtedly aware, there is ample authority vested in the State commissioner of labor to increase minimum wages whenever his investigations find that an increase is indicated. We, therefore, urge that your committee recommend that the retail exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act be retained in its present form and that this letter appear as a part of your subcommittee's record. Very truly yours, RALPH H. PAINE, President. SENATOR PAUL H. DOUGLAS, SPOKANE DRY GOODS Co., Spokane, Wash., May 10, 1956. Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: It has come to my attention that the Senate Subcommittee on Labor and Welfare, of which you are chairman, are holding or soon will hold hearings on the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is my understanding that the primary purpose of these hearings is to consider extension of the act to employers not presently covered, such as the retail industry. Traditionally, I am sure that you know that the retail industry has always been expressly exempt from the coverage of this act. As retailers, we have always maintained that retailing is a purely local function and that retailers are not in interstate commerce. Here in Spokane the retailers as a group are much concerned about the possible expansion of the act to cover them, and are very much opposed to it. I notice that there is some trend at this time to only cover chainstores and the larger retailers. The smaller retailers still oppose this expansion of the act, feeling that it is only a first step in the expansion, and that if the larger retailers and chainstores are covered, it is only a matter of time until they would also be brought under the coverage. My friends in the retail industry, as well as I personally, sincerely hope that you will use your influence to preserving the traditional exemption of retailing. I would also greatly appreciate it if you would make this letter a part of the subcommittee's official record. Sincerely yours, R. A. PATERSON, President and General Manager. Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. THE ROBERT CLOTHING CO., DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: I am writing to you in regards to the Fair Labor Standards Act which is coming on the floor May 9. The retail exemptions should be retained in the present form for the following reasons: 1. Manufacturing and retailing differ in that manufacturing can figure their selling costs down to the fraction of a cent and adjust their selling prices accordingly, while the small retailer has no means of figuring how much each clerk will sell. I handle mostly branded merchandise with a nationally advertised retail and cannot make any allowances for an increase in overhead. 2. I employ a couple of high school boys after school and on the weekends and if the minimum wage affects us I will be forced to let them go. The same thing applies to my other part-time help during peak seasons. 3. Not only will it affect the small store owner, but it will throw a lot of part-time people out of work who need the additional revenue. |