FRED G. HUSSEY, MONROE, LA., June 30, 1955. Chief Clerk, United States House Education and Labor Committee, United States House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Many thanks for your telegram of June 29 advising that any statement that we desire to submit for the records of hearings concerning proposed amendments to the minimum-wage law must be received in committee by today, June 30, and we ask and shall greatly appreciate your submitting for the record of hearing the following: "Mr. Chairman and members of the United States House Education and Labor Committee, we ask that you please accept our sincere thanks for the opportunity to present for your records of hearings this statement opposing any increase in the minimum hourly rate of pay above 80 cents per hour with overtime provisions after 40 hours each week. Small automotive parts wholesalers, such as ourselves, who, of course, are already subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Act of 1938 are small distribution business of limited capital who must operate at least 461⁄2 hours per week with 61⁄2 hours overtime pay to our male employees in order to be able to serve our trade. Actually in practice, we are affording our male employees a guaranteed annual wage and a guaranteed minimum overtime pay of 61⁄2 hours per week at present. "Any increase to an amount in excess of 80 cents per hour will have serious adverse effects on the small automotive parts wholesaler employing only 38 people such as our firm does. We would be forced to require an inexperienced beginner delivery boy to observe shorter hours than the older and more experienced shipping clerk and order clerk in whose department he works and this forced discrimination among our employees does not seem right to us. Our experienced higher paid employees will resent the narrowing of the spread in the hourly pay between their pay and that of the inexperienced beginner which situation we would not be able to avoid because we could not stay in business and operate profitably if we maintained our present spread in pay rates for all of our employees for the 461⁄2 hours it is necessary for us to operate each week." Again we thank you. Respectfully, Hon. JAMES T. PATTERSON, MOTOR SUPPLY CO., INC., NAUGATUCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR JIM: This letter is being written to give you the opinion of our retail division in regard to the proposed elimination of the retail exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act. We are definitely opposed to the inclusion of retailing under this act because we feel that retailing is of a local character and should not be subject to Federal control. We favor the principle of States rights and don't believe that the Federal Government should undertake to do anything which the States can do themselves. The Fair Labor Standards Act was originally established to function in the field of interstate commerce, and we believe that any change in the act should not violate this principle. I want to point out also, in view of your remarks recently at a luncheon in Waterbury, that letters had been written to you by many of our merchants prior to that meeting expressing their feelings on this legislation. We have always been of the opinion that letters from individuals expressing personal views were preferred by our representatives in Washington and Hartford, otherwise this communication would have been sent to you several weeks ago. We feel that any regulation of retail trade not in interstate commerce should be debated and decided by the individual States, and we sincerely trust therefore that you will work for the retention of the retail exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sincerely yours, SIDNEY WEISS, Chairman, Retail Division. Representative JOHN PHILLIPS, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Riverside, Calif., April 22, 1975 DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: As a member of the National Retail Furniture I Association, a member of the Furniture Retailer's Association (for southern California), and the owner of a local retail furniture store I wish to make know? * my opposition to the proposed legislation amending the Fair Labor Standards Act. Originally and principally the Fair Labor Standards Act was established to equalize labor cost in manufacturing industries competing nationally or region ally. The retailing done by us is definitely a local activity, and it seems totally unnecessary to burden us with this legislation. The public would not benefit if any way from this, as a matter of fact our expenses would be increased a great deal and may influence necessary price increases to our customers. Please help us out on this issue. JOHN J. HUFFMAN. PROBLEMS OF THE CALIFORNIA AND ARIZONA CITRUS GROWERS IN RELATION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 SUBMITTE BY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS LABOR COMMITTEE, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. The Agricultural Producers Labor Committee (hereinafter called APLC is a nonprofit agricultural cooperative, organized under the laws of California. for the purpose of representing numerous citrus growers and cooperative nonprofit citrus packing associations throughout California and Arizona. The menbership of the packing associations consists of the citrus grove owners whos fruits they harvest and pack. None of the associations either ship or market citrus fruits. Their operations are confined to harvesting, washing, grading and packing oranges and lemons for the member growers. The member growers receive the net return from the sales price to the shipper or marketing concern, after deducting the packing associations' expenses for harvesting, washing, grading, and packing the fruit Therefore, APLC is primarily concerned with an adequate net return to the citrus farmer or grove owner. On behalf of its many members and the hundreds of citrus growers whom represents through the many cooperatives, APLC presents herein its total opposition to the proposed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. L particular, we oppose the proposed wage increase from 75 cents to 90 cents per hour, and elimination or modification of any of the following exemptions: Section 13 (a) (6): Total exemption for farm or grove work; Section 13 (a) (10): The "area of production" exemption for employees handling or packing fresh fruits and vegetables; Section 7 (b) (3): The 14-week partial exemption covering employees in the fresh fruit and vegetable industry; and Section 7 (c): The 14-week total exemption covering employees in the fresh fruit and vegetable industry. THE PROPOSED WAGE INCREASE The employees in the citrus packing houses are subject to the Federal minimum wage law. Therefore, the proposed increase from 75 cents to 90 cents per hour is a matter of extreme concern to the member growers. The 15 cent differential could easily be the determining factor in not only forcing innumerable individual growers out of the industry, but in forcing an exceeding large segment of citrus producing land out of production permanently. Such a result would be detrimental to the consuming public because of increased citrus prices caused by reduced supply, and loss of jobs to hundreds of citrus packinghouse workers. The likelihood of such results is very real because of several factors peculiar to the citrus industry in California. A major portion of the California crop is sold on the eastern market. The freight charge for cross-country shipment de tracts substantially from the return otherwise available to the grower. Tre prices are highly competitive and constantly changing in the eastern market. Under such circumstances a very substantial portion of the California growers have for years been operating on a highly marginal basis. This has been true to such an extent in recent years that literally hundreds of groves have been eliminated in favor of more advantageous use of the land. Rising costs resulting from a wage increase such as that proposed is certain to speed the process of elimination of agricultural production of a commodity vital to the consuming public. A second diversionary result is also certain to flow from such increasing labor costs. Rather than suffer a nominal return or an actual loss on the processing of fresh fruit, the average and below average grower will be forced to keep his fruit out of fresh fruit channels and divert it to juice plants for processing into frozen citrus juices. Five percent or less of the employees required in a citrus packinghouse can process the same quantity of fruit in a juice plant. Here again both the consuming public and the employees are the losers. The increased costs leave the grower no choice in the matter. THE 7 (B) (3) AND 7 (C) EXEMPTIONS The Congress in including the 7 (b) (3) and the 7 (c) exemptions in the original act did so because of the recognized necessity of prompt and immediate harvesting and processing of perishable commodities. We all know that this basic reason has not changed and will not change. Perhaps 90 percent or more of the season's crop of citrus fruit is handled during the 14-week exempt periods. Such quantities could not be handled on the basis of a 40-hour week because the spoilage would be prohibitive. When the fruit reaches the proper state of maturity, it must be harvested and processed, and quickly. The time for harvesting varies from year to year depending on the climatic conditions for the year and their effect upon the maturity of the fruit. If the fruit is picked too soon, its flavor and quality are adversely affected. If it is harvested too late, much spoilage is incurred by reason of bruises on ripe fruit fallen from the trees. Once the fruit has been harvested, it must be rapidly processed. Slight delay, especially in the warm California climate, means quick spoilage. Therefore, harvesting and processing require long hours of work during a relatively short period of time. Congress has recognized this necessity in providing for the 14-week exemptions. The loss of such exemptions would mean that the growers would be required to pay time and one-half the base rate of pay for the greater part of the employment involved in processing the fruit. Such rates would be prohibitive, and would seriously jeopardize the continued existence of citrus fresh fruit industry. The burden of such increased costs would be imposed entirely upon the grower. Neither the facilities nor the labor supply are adequate to handle a crop on the basis of a 40-hour week. In view of the present economic status of the grower, the elimination of the exemptions is certain to cause industry diversions by (1) converting the land for use other than the production of citrus; and (2) diverting the citrus from fresh fruit to fruit juice channels. Such a change would be to the detriment of both the consuming public and the packinghouse employee. THE 13 (A) (6) EXEMPTION The Congress has recognized that on-the-farm laborers should be exempt from minimum wage laws. Extensive hearings have been held on the subject. The reasons for the exemptions were sound at the inception of such laws, and are no less sound today. To eliminate the agricultural exemption, is to attempt to place the farm worker in the same regulated category as the factory or industrial worker. This the contrasting conditions will not permit. The diverse conditions of the two types of workers are many, including the following: (1) Regularity of period of employment versus irregularity; (2) regularity of hours of employment versus irregularity; (3) cash versus diverse mediums of pay; (4) practical versus impractical means of time and record keeping; (5) labor cost assumed by farmer versus consumer; (6) family employees versus regular employees; (7) minors and elderly employees versus regular employees; and (8) current financial means. The industrial worker is usually employed regularly 40 hours a week plus overtime. This continues throughout the year except in the case of seasonal industries or unusual stoppages. The worker knows he has a job to do and the employer knows there is work to be done. This is not so, however, with the farmworker. Several months of the year he cannot work because of inclement weather. Several more months of the year there is no work because it is neither time to plant, cultivate, prune, or harvest. There may be odd jobs for the owner or for one employee, but not for employees as a whole. There may be chores which take 1 hour, more or less, each day for 1 man throughout the year. Housing and feeding may be part of the compensation. If a minimum wage is ordered for the 1 or more hours of work, should not the housing and feeding charges be adjusted accordingly? Work may be interrupted for an hour or a day because of inclement weather. Must the farmer pay a minimum hocris wage for all such nonproductive time? We submit that the average farmer cannot bear such financial burdens. In the face of such minimum wage and overtime pay laws, the average farmer wil be compelled to do as much as he can through the efforts of himself and his family (assuming they are exempt from such wage laws), and allow the remainder of the land to remain unproductive. Such a condition would contribute to decreas d supply and higher costs to the consuming public, and considerably less farta employment. The irregularity and uncertainty of the hours of farmwork make timekeeping a great burden on the average farmer. He does not usually have sufficient earnings or capital to employ payroll personnel or facilities. He cannot ordinarily do both the farmwork and the bookwork, too. Workers may start or stop at different hours for their own convenience or for various other reasons. Such permissible variations often result in greater worker efficiency and frequently in a more stable labor supply. But the payroll recordkeeping on such employment under a minimum wage and overtime pay law would be a full-time joo for a clerk on even a small farm operation. The average farmer cannot withstand such additional financial burdens and is likely to be forced entirely out of farming. The minimum wage would preclude the farmer from utilizing the services of persons not physically capable of doing the work of the experienced and qualified employee. For example, there is light work which can be done by an elderly person at a leisurely pace. Both the farmer and the elderly or handicapped benefit from such employment. But the farmer could not bear the expense of such half-productive labor under a minimum-wage law. Similarly, there are many light, outdoor jobs which inexperienced minors can perform in connection with farmwork-especially in harvesting certain crops. This type of labor would not be sufficiently efficient and productive to warrant use under a minimum-wage law. The discontinuing of such employment would result in unemployment for many youths of school age. The average farmer, who operates on a marginal return even when disregarding a labor charge for his own services (which usually constitutes the bulk of the labor), cannot withstand the additional financial burdens which would result from additional labor expense plus added bookkeeping or payroll expense. The Agricultural Producers Labor Committee deeply appreciates this opportunity to present the views of the orange and lemon growers to the subcommittee on the effect of the proposed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Hon. SID SIMPSON, GARDNER-DENVER CO., Quincy, Ill., March 4, 1955, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Our attention has been directed to Senate bill No. 662 introduced by Senator Lehman, and others, to amend rather drastically the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, generally referred to as the Wage and Hour Act. Proposed amendments if passed by Congress would create undue hardship, including severe penalties and restrictions, to those employers now covered by the act. It would also place under the act a large number of new employees and employers, not now subject to its provisions, and whose coverage is questionable under the intent and purpose of the act. Provisions of the proposed bill presenting these radical changes are rather numerous and they include, as an example, the raising of the present minimum wage from $0.75 per hour to $1.25. The proposed minimum wage is substantially higher than the $0.90 level proposed by the present administration, and which we believe to be more nearly in conformity with the ability of a large number of employers throughout the country to meet. The minimum level in a major portion of industry, nationally, is slightly higher than the proposed max1 mum level of $1.25. Our larger industries, however, fail to include the independent employer and those industries not of national range, but vital to our continued growth and development, which would find it both difficult and impossible to meet the proposed level of $1.25. There are areas nationwise in which the economical problems would be seriously disturbed by the proposed $1.25. We respectfully ask your support of the administration's $0.90 level. We approve the use of negotiations between the employer and the employee in raising wages in lieu of congressional legislation. Another provision of the proposed bill would place under the act a large number of employers who are engaged in industries not participating in interstate commerce. The bill so drafted would include those employees in industry not "affecting commerce." This in itself is an all-inclusive phrase and would unquestionably be administered in rather broad terms and would actually include employees whose participation in commerce is negative. The present Wage and Hour Act carries certain provisions exempting executive, administrative, and professional employees from overtime, based primarily upon the class of work performed and the salary received. The latter being $55 per week for certain executive and $75 per week for administrative and professional employees. The proposed bill would increase the minimum salary to $6,000 per year, and, in doing so, it would place under the time and one-half provisions numerous junior executives and professional groups including those who have not as yet reached the top of their grade, whose duties and capabilities are higher than those of the average employee but below those of the top executive or professional. It is from this junior class of employees that industry selects and trains its managerial material. Certainly the matter of time and one-half beyond the 8-hour period is of little consequence to the junior executive or the junior professional; his incentive is more concerned with responsibility of management and the development of his own future. In connection with this limitation, the Secretary of Labor would be granted power to make, in his own right, other restrictions not defined and which may or may not be in conformity with the established and recognized policies of industry. Also, this proposed bill would grant to the Secretary of Labor the right to sue for back wages without the consent of the employee. The present act requires the employee's consent prior to any suit for back wages. This difference, we feel, is an encroachment upon the rights and privileges of the individual as a citizen of the United States. The bill further permits the increase of the effective period under the statute of limitations from 2 to 6 years. You will recall the confusion and uncertainty caused by the Portal to Portal case some years ago. It was based upon retroactivity under the statute of limitations for a questionable period of time. The decision finally came from the courts whereupon the maximum period under the statute of limitations was limited to 2 years. In view of the controversial problems that arose during that case, we feel that the decision of the courts should be recognized and continued. Furthermore, these additional powers and rights are contrary to our accepted and desired theories under the rights of a democracy, and, even more alarming, is the provision that imprisonment is permitted for the first offense. A further provision of the proposed bill would bring under the coverage of the Wage and Hour Act a large class of new workers, such as public telephone exchange switchboard operators, taxicab drivers, and those employees within retail chain stores having more than four outlets and doing over one-half million dollars business per year. All this is based upon the theory that employees would be covered whether engaged in interstate commerce or not. Such a proposition destroys one of the fundamental principles of the act, that of permitting the separate States to control and regulate industry within their own boundaries, a basic principle supported and sponsored by the present administration. Believing that this bill as introduced by Senator Lehman, and others, embraces certain policies that are both detrimental and destructive to our system of free enterprise, we respectfully ask that careful review of this proposed legislation be made by you, bearing in mind the provisions which we have heretofore discussed. Yours very truly, B. P. SPANN, Vice President. |