Mr. SCHNITZLER. The fourth quarter of 1954, the latest figures available.

Mr. GWINN. The fourth quarter of 1954?

Mr. SCHNITZLER. That is right. Profits were $5,254,000,000. Mr. GWINN. That is $5,200,000,000. Well, that is $2.7 billion roughly, and that is in line with the figures we have just been quoting, namely, for 1954, the profits for the year were $9,600,000,000.

Mr. SCHNITZLER. You are talking about a year, and we are talking about a quarter. Four times $5 billion is $20 billion.

Mr. GWINN. But that is before taxes.

Mr. SCHNITZLER. It is profit.

Mr. GWINN. All of these figures that we are working with, all of the figures that you have cited have been after taxes. It would not make sense to talk about profits that are paid out in taxes.

Mr. SCHNITZLER. Well, all wages are before taxes, are they not. Mr. GWINN. That is quite so, and so are the profits that are paid out in dividends before taxes.

Mr. SCHNITZLER. We are not talking about the Government's tax policy, we are talking about profits now.

Now, industry makes profit, and what happens to the profits after it is made is something that we have no control over. We are talking about wages that become part of industry that makes it possible for profits.

Mr. GWINN. Well, Mr. Schnitzler, it is useless for us to continue that argument. The figures you gave on the third quarter, which is a yearly estimate for 1952, were $16 billion, and that was after taxes, and the first quarter, which is a basis of calculating the profits for the year of 1955, was after taxes.

Mr. SCHNITZLER. All right. There we quote the Department of Commerce figures, and these latest figures I gave you are from the Federal Trade Commission.

Chairman BARDEN. Let me say, I do not know whether you gentlemen have mixed each other up, but I am satisfied you have the committee pretty thoroughly confused.

I do not want to rush you, but I think there are other witnesses here, and we should continue.

Mr. GWINN. I must conclude. I tried to say to Mr. Schnitzler, and I hope he takes it in good heart, that you are one of the best sources of information in the country, and hereafter, if you would help us by isuing profits and making your comparison to show the true picture of what is happening to the manufacturing industry, it would be of enormous benefit to all of us, instead of creating an impression which I think nearly everybody has that manufacturing industries, where your organizations work, have enormous rising profits. It just is not true. But nobody seems to be able to get that point of view across. There are the facts, and you ought to help us get them.

Now, I have one more point, and I am going to stop, Mr. Chairman. I have a letter here from the National Retail Drygoods Association which just came this morning as a result of our controversy yesterday. You asked that this coverage be extended, and you make it $1.25. That would include the girls behind the counter in Woolworths. It would include other big chains. You have shopped at Woolworths, have you not?

Mr. SCHNITZLER. Not very often.

Mr. GWINN. Do you think that a girl behind the counter, a typical counter in Woolworth's, could earn $9 for an 8-hour day?

Mr. SCHNITZLER. Yes, sir; it is $10. I have bought hamburgers and hot dogs and found that they earned a whole lot more than that. That is under union conditions.

Mr. GWINN. I will read you the statistics on that point. Using 1950 as a basis, sales in department stores from 1951 to 1954 range from 101 percent to 104:

In spite of our increased business and increased productivity and increased population, retailing is almost static. Profits after taxes as a percent of sales are as follows: In 1950, 3.7 percent; in 1951, 2.4 percent; in 1952, 2.3 percent; in 1953, 2.3 percent; in 1954, 2.1 percent.

That is falling just the same as the manufacturing, except not at the same rate. Do you think that the retail industry could absorb $1.25 an hour for a minimum wage in the face of those facts?

Mr. SCHNITZLER. The answer is definitely yes, and then I must add are we going into extended coverage so that I can cover that point fully and talk about all of the contracts that our 350,000 retail clerks have throughout the country, unionized establishments, where the wages are far superior to those that you are talking about now?

If they are to keep going the way they are now, those people have to work for nothing in Woolworth's. Does that prove anything? If the management of Woolworth stores want to run their stores that way and do the things that they are doing by exploiting the workers involved, is that what we are going to support?

No; if we have something to say, and if you invite us to discuss management, let us talk to management. Perhaps we can show them some things about running a retail establisment and paying decent wages to their workers.

Mr. GWINN. I would suggest to you that you start a chain of stores right away, and you have the money in the bank, and that might be a good way.

Mr. SCHNITZLER. I am looking for money, and we are building a new building. We are broke, and I wish we had some in the bank.

Mr. GWINN. I used the Woolworth illustration simply to show the type of worker that may be involved in this minimum wage which we are trying to fix by compulsion. We cannot identify those. I looked up the record, and I find that nobody has been able to identify them except the sawmill workers you mentioned yesterday, and the fertilizer workers, and others.

But, all told, Mr. Roosevelt, referring to your point yesterday, we have been able to identify only about 200,000 such workers. There are over 1 million people that we are talking about here, and we have no idea who they are. They are not presented, and we are talking about something and legislating on something and about people that we do not have any idea who they are.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Did the testimony of the Secretary of Labor, where he said that the justification for the administration's figures was that we were dealing with exactly the same number of people that we were dealing with in 1950. In other words, we were dealing, I think he said, with 1,350,000. Mr. GWINN. That is right.

Mr. BAILEY. On 90 cents. It is $2,100,000 on a $1 basis.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Do you say that the Secretary of Labor comes up here and discusses exact figures and does not know where they come from?

Mr. GWINN. He does not have any idea who these people are, and he said so.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. He just picked it out of the air, and the chart he gave us does not mean anything?

Mr. GWINN. He does know by estimates and census that we have roughly 60 million workers. He accounts for those that are ascertainable, and then he has 1,300,000 left that we call the minimum, or the low-end earners that are not identified. And he cannot identify them.

Mr. McDOWELL. I can only identify one, but it just so happens that this morning I had a letter from a lady in my State, and she specifically, at the end of the letter, asked me not to reveal the identity of her name because she was afraid she had written the letter to me that it might endanger her employment.

Now, I will not give her name, and I will not give the location, but she was an employee of a J. C. Penney store in my State. She was making 60 cents an hour. She is a widow with three children in school.

Now, if she works a 40-hour week, that is $24 a week. I certainly do not think that any of us would consider that a family wage earner could today expect to live under any decent standard of living on $24 a week.

Mr. GWINN. I think that is right.

Mr. MCDOWELL. That is one of the million that we are talking about.

Mr. GWINN. We do not know that she is wholly dependent upon that wage.

Mr. MCDOWELL. Her other opportunity may be for a widow's pension or some form of relief such as welfare assistance.

Mr. GWINN. That is probably what we are talking about here, welfare.

Mr. MCDOWELL. I would much rather, or certainly it would be much better for her to have the opportunity to earn her own living than to have to turn to State or Federal Government for aid. That is in supporting her family.

Mr. WIER. After listening to this discussion for about an hour, would a motion to take a vote be in order, or would it be out of order? Chairman BARDEN. A vote on what?

Mr. WIER. $1.25?

Chairman BARDEN. The gentleman can take a vote on anything he wants to.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Schnitzler.

Mr. SCHNITZLER. I would like to say on the record, Mr. Chairman, and to you and the distinguished members of the committee, that on behalf of the officers and members of the American Federation of Labor, we deeply appreciate the privilege accorded to us to bring to you our views concerning this minimum wage.

Chairman BARDEN. Thank you, Mr. Schnitzler, and let me say this: The committee is delighted to have your views on it. You should be,

and very likely are, an expert on the subject of labor, and we certainly need some advice. We do not necessarily have to take it all, but it is nice to have and will be useful to us. Thank you very much. Mr. SCHNITZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BARDEN. Do I understand that Mr. Oliver and Mr. Barkin want to testify together?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. And Miss Gladys Dickason also, Mr. Chairman. Chairman BARDEN. All right, you may proceed.

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT OLIVER, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS; SOLOMON BARKIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE CIO FAIR LABOR STANDARDS COMMITTEE; AND GLADYS DICKASON, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO

Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Oliver, and I am director of the CIO legislative committee, appearing today in behalf of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. I have with me Mr. Solomon Barkin, who is chairman of the CIO fair labor standards committee, and also the director of research for the Textile Workers Union, and Miss Gladys Dickason, who is vice president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers.

I have a brief statement to make on behalf of the CIO. However, I will not take the time of the committee to read that statement. It merely states very strong support for the $1.25 minimum, and it also expresses the regret of President Reuther that he could not be here. He had planned to be here, and he would like to have appeared before this committee, but the important negotiations that he is engaged in in Detroit made it impossible that he be here, and he asked that I express his regrets to this committee at his inability to take part in the hearings on this very important matter.

Also, I would like to say on behalf of our organization that we sincerely hope that when the hearings have been concluded on minimum wages, that this committee will get into the matter of coverage that was talked about very briefly here. We think it is a very serious problem, and we think it is one that should be given a very thorough going over, and we certainly hope that this committee will give its attention to that problem, so that it can come forward with recommendations that will meet that very important problem.

We think that there is economic and moral justification for the $1.25 minimum wage that we are supporting. Mr. Barkin and Miss Dickason are well qualified to document this case. They are prepared to document it, and I would like to conclude my part of the testimony by presenting them to you.

(Mr. Oliver's prepared statement is made a part of the record at this point.)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT OLIVER, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF CIO LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Before proceeding with my own statement, I would like to read to the members of this committee a brief message from Walter P. Reuther, president of the

Congress of Industrial Organizations and of the CIO United Automobile Workers of America:

"Please express to the chairman and members of the House Education and Labor Committee my profound regret in being unable to present personally CIO's testimony in support of a $1.25 minimum wage and the widest possible extension of coverage. Present status of collective bargaining negotiations in the automobile industry makes my absence unavoidable. The adoption of realistic amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act is an important priority item for CIO even though very few of its members would be affected. Bringing the act up to date represents the best kind of public-interest legislation and the CIO is proud to join in the campaign for it."

For many weeks, President Reuther had expressed a desire to appear personally before you, as he did before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee. He feels strongly about this measure, as do all the officers and all the affiliates of the CIO.

This morning I am very happy to share the CIO presentation with Solomon Barkin, research director of the Textile Workers Union of America and chairman of the CIO committee on fair labor standards. Mr. Barkin has devoted many years to a detailed study of this question and has made significant contributions to the knowledge about and understanding of this very important area of legislation. Following our presentation on behalf of the National CIO, a number of affiliated CIO unions request the opportunity to make brief oral presentations and submit more detailed statements for the record. In the interest of conserving time so that these hearings may be expedited as much as possible, we have suggested to our affiliates that they reduce their oral presentations as much as possible. A number of affiliates have refrained from requesting any time whatsoever for oral presentation, although they have submitted or will be submitting written statements.

AMERICA WANTS MINIMUM WAGE LEGISLATION

Twenty years ago this Nation had no fair labor standards act. The NRA had been declared unconstitutional. The wisdom and need for minimum-wage legislation was a subject of serious debate. There was indeed much speculation about the beneficial effects of such legislation, on the one hand, and the deleterious effects, on the other. In 1938, the proponents of such legislation persuaded the Congress of the United States to adopt the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In the 17 years since the enactment of that act, I believe it is fair and accurate to say that the basic philosophical differences about the wisdom of minimumwage legislation have been almost completely eliminated. There are, of course, still some diehards with us. There are some few who still argue that setting a floor under our wages is wrong in principle. They would still have us believe that such legislation is a major threat to our free-enterprise system and to our democratic way of life. In a Congress of 531 men and women there are undoubtedly some few who hold such a view. There may even be 1 or 2 on this committee. I respect this view-although I reject it with all the vigor at my command. I submit, however, that in 1955 it is unnecessary to argue the philosophical merits of minimum-wage legislation. It has worked. The American people approve it. No bill has been submitted to repeal it.

The question then before us is: What is the right kind of minimum-wage legislation which an expanding, dynamic economy requires in 1955? This question has two basic elements: (1) What should be the level of minimum wages, and (2) how many wage earners should be included in the jurisdiction of the law?

EXTENSION OF COVERAGE

Before proceeding to comment on the first of these two elements, I should like to make a very brief statement regarding the question of coverage. This committee has decided that the present hearings will be limited to the level of minimum wages only. I do not quarrel with the committee as to the wisdom of this procedure. The question of coverage is undoubtedly a very complicated one and might require such protracted hearings as to make action on the minimum wage during this session of Congres rather difficult. I want to state most emphatically, however, that it is CIO's fervent hope that the committee has merely separated the question of coverage, and not abandoned it. We recommend to the committee that as soon as action is completed on the level of the minimum wage that either the full committee or a subcommittee thereof proceed forthwith to the necessary study and action in this most important area.