I was just trying to point out to Dr. Schmidt, whose testimony I have enjoyed, that there is more than 1 or 2 sides to this whole picture. Chairman BARDEN. Let's not blame the Puerto Ricans. If there is any blame for any condition of that kind it rests squarely on the shoulders of the industry committee that is charged with stopping that very thing. And I think that the Puerto Ricans will tell you the same thing. As the Governor said the other day, they are carrying on Operation Bootstrap down there trying to lift themselves by their own bootstraps. And if there are conditions of that kind existing, then the industry committee was set up to function in that field. Mr. THOMPSON. I would like the record to show that I am not trying to blame the Puerto Ricans, the chamber of commerce, the chairman, or anybody else. I am just trying to point out that there are factors here which must be taken into consideration, all of them. Thank you, Mr. Rhodes, for yielding. Mr. RHODES. I yield back the floor. Chairman BARDEN. I do not blame the Puerto Ricans. I do not have a penny's interest in anything that is produced there or anywhere else as far as that is concerned in the way of stocks, but I just hurt when I see people hurting like those people do. And I have been around among them. It is just a horrible situation. Mr. RHODES. May I yield briefly to the gentleman from New York? Mr. WAINWRIGHT. I would like to find out, Mr. Chairman, whether Dr. Schmidt is going to be available tomorrow for questioning. We are about to arrive at the second round on the rollcall over there. So there is not much time. Chairman BARDEN. Doctor, could you be here in the morning? Mr. WAINWRIGHT. I know Mr. Roosevelt undoubtedly has some questions, too. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I will say to the gentleman from New York that I do. Chairman BARDEN. Very well, we will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., a recess was taken until 10 a. m., Wednesday, June 29, 1955.) AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 9:55 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 429 of the House Office Building, Hon. Graham A. Barden (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Barden (presiding), Kelley, Powell, Bailey, Perkins, Elliott, Landrum, Metcalf, Bowler, Green, Roosevelt, McConnell, Gwinn, Smith, Wainwright, Rhodes, Frelinghuysen, and Coon. Present also: Fred G. Hussey, chief clerk; John O. Graham, minority clerk; Edward A. McCabe, general counsel; Russell C. Derrickson, chief investigator. Chairman BARDEN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Esters, I believe we will start. Dr. Schmidt will be here later on. We have quite a long list of witneses here that I would like to finish today. I would like as soon as possible to close up the rest of them tomorrow. Mr. Esters, will you identify yourself. STATEMENT OF BERNARD E. ESTERS, HOLTON, MAINE, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL EDITORIAL ASSOCIATION Mr. ESTERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Bernard E. Esters, and I am the publisher of a weekly newspaper in Holton, Maine. I am appearing before this committee this morning on behalf of the National Editorial Association, of which I am chairman of the legislative committee. The association is made up of 5,412 weekly and small newspapers published in grassroots communities in every State in the Union. It is a privilege to represent this important segment of the smalltown newspaper industry, and we are deeply grateful for the indulgence of your committee in permitting us to present our story. More than 90 percent of the 8,549 weekly newspapers now in existence in this country serve communities of less than 10,000 population. They are printed in every congressional district in the land, and most are, in our judgment, particularly sensitive to the needs, the demands and the thinking of the people who send more than one-half of the Members of the Congress to Washington. The combined circulation of these weekly newspapers was, in 1954, in excess of 20 million copies every week of the year. Survey after survey has shown that there are an average of 32 readers of every copy of a weekly newspaper. This fact supports our contention that the industry in behalf of which we speak here this morning provides a needed and sought-after intellectual, informational, and educational service to upward of 70 million Americans every week. We feel it is an equally accurate assumption that an uncountable number of these millions of readers could be deprived of the vital service furnished to them by their hometown weekly newspapers should any adverse economic assault be of sufficient severity to destroy in large numbers the publications to which these people subscribe. Increase of the minimum wage from 75 cents to $1.25 an hour could. in our judgment, have just such an effect, and on a considerable scale. Our association is deeply concerned with the future welfare and continued public service of the papers published in the small towns throughout the United States. We are gravely disturbed at the steadily narrowing margin between income and expense in these enterprises. We are greatly alarmed at the relentless annual decline in their number. It is for these reasons that the National Editorial Association is forced to go on record as being opposed to any increase in the legal minimum wage now being paid by our member firms coming under the jurisdiction of the Fair Labor Standards Act. We take this position fully conscious of the fact that it may appear to hostile interests that we are guilty of stubbornly attempting to impede normal economic progress or of standing in the path of reasonable advantages for the working man, or possibly of being guilty or unpatriotic motives. We firmly reject these or similar erroneous interpretations of our position. Our fears in this instance are solely for the economic stability and security of our concerns, for the continued existence of our small but vital businesses, and for the protection of thousands of small enterprises from the extinction that can follow excessive increases in present costs of doing business. The testimony I am about to present to you represents the composite opinion of proprietors of combined weekly newspapers and job-printing shops throughout the 48 States. First and the most important reason for our position is our belief that an increase of any amount in the present minimum wage will have the inevitable and immediate effect of practically eliminating apprentice and on-the-job training programs now being carried on in many thousands of our small shops in every State of the Union. Such an enforced curtailment in the education of skilled printing craftsmen can have the ultimate result of causing a serious labor shortage in the entire graphic arts industry. For many more years than this witness can remember it has been standard procedure for smalltown printers to train young men in their plants at considerable pains and expense, only to lose most of these trainees once they have acquired sufficient aptitude and skill to larger cities by the lure of wage rates beyond the ability of the smaller establishments to pay. Any curb on this progression of skilled printing labor from the small towns to the larger cities can have a profoundly serious impact on both localities. The establishments which our association represents would be the first to feel the effects. Printing plants in larger centers would be the ultimate victims of a shortage of qualified personnel that conceivably could have a far-reaching influence on the sources of all kinds of printed matter. It should also be remembered that the same factor of prohibitive costs that members of our craft testify would force them to abandon such training programs as they now conduct could have precisely the same effect in large city shops faced with the same economic obstacle. The second reason for our objection to a minimum wage higher than the present statutory figure is the fear that it could have the effect of accelerating business failures throughout the smalltown printing and publishing industry. This very real danger would not necessarily be caused by a higher statutory minimum wage, although such a development might hasten it. The impact would be strengthened by the certainty of demands that would come from other classes of employees already well paid for proportionate increases in their hourly wage rates. The law of a diminishing net return is already working its inexorable influence on these smalltown shops in which it is estimated at least 1 million men and women and young people find a remunerative employment at a wage with which they are, by and large, satisfied. And it should be born in mind that these small shops, unlike large industries, cannot successfully pass along excessive cost increases to their customers beyond the means of those customers to pay. So we conclude from the testimony presented to us by our members that to force the thousands of small independent enterprises that comprise this industry and who would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage to become the victims of across-the-board demands for wage increases, possibly aggregating as much as 66% percent, would be equivalent to passing on them a sentence of economic suicide. A study of newspaper operations each year for the past several years reveals costs rising faster than revenues, resulting in a continual declining margin of earnings for the management. The inevitable result of added costs because of mandatory wage increases would certainly hasten the complete disappearance of profit, and possibly cause the failure of thousands of vital business enterprises. In the judgment of our industry leaders, two things may happen if any increase in the present minimum wage is enacted into law by this Congress. These would be, 1, many newspapers will be forced to suspend publication, thereby depriving thousands of readers of a vitally necessary adjunct to their daily living, or, 2, there could be widespread mergers of publications, thus still further reducing the already dwindling number of smalltown newspapers. Our third point in this argument is that an increase of any amount in the present minimum wage would, in the judgment of our industry leaders, increase unemployment in the printing business, and thus curtail service and halt normal business expansion. It is practically a certainty that no new employees could or would be added to these smalltown plants either as learners or in any other capacity because such conditions would only cause a still further increase in an already lopsided overhead. Overtime would either be eliminated or reduced to a bare minimum, thus decreasing earnings. Thousands of the physically handicapped who have been absorbed by the printing industry with greater readiness than in most other industries would be deprived of these opportunities because they might not |