"The net profit for the 3 months to December 31, 1954, was $4,202,000 after income taxes of $5,166,000. This compared with $2,149,000 after taxes of $2,251,000 in the like quarter of the year previous. Share earnings for the 1953 period were 26 cents a share on 7,040,508 common shares, while the 53 cents share earnings of the 1954 period were based on 7,253,585 common shares." When the administration acknowledges the necessity of increasing the minimum wage, the only remaining question is the amount of the increase. When the administration recommends a 90-cent minimum to replace the prevailing 75 cents, the burden of proving that 90 cents an hour is a living wage under our American standards of decency rests entirely upon the administration. Simply to say that any minimum higher than 90 cents would cause economic dislocation is a fallacy in all that the word implies and most certainly will not deceive the millions of workers now laboring for substandard wages. The working people in this day and age demand more than the crumbs from the table of abundance, and the offer of 90 cents an hour is a poor excuse for the dynamic program we have heard so much about. Let us have a little more political and economic honesty and less political expediency. We have demonstrated a unity of purpose in our foreign policy; let us try it on the homefront. PRODUCTIVITY There are several sound reasons why the minimum wage should be raised to $1.25 an hour, but on the one question of productivity alone the working people are entitled to this minimum. There was a time in the textile industry when production was measured in yardage but today it is mileage. During the past 25 years the man-hour productivity in textiles has increased not less than 150 percent. About 175,000 textile workers in New England are turning out a great deal more textiles today than 400,000 workers turned out in 1930. In those days it was known as the multiple system; today it is known as technology and automation. In this connection, we would like to call the committee's attention to an article entitled "Business Outlook," by J. A. Livingston, which appeared in the Washington Post on Sunday, March 6, 1955. I will not read the full text of the article, but a copy of same will be submitted to the committee. I do want to point out, however, that Mr. Livingston lists 12 industries, including textiles, showing that in the period from December 1953 to December 1954 production was up 13 percent and employment down 3 percent. Mr. Livingston might well say that our children will talk about the 40-hour workweek, as we of this generation talk about the 10-hour day and the six-day week, because we come here today to tell you that the textile industry cannot provide steady employment even with the 35-hour workweek. SHORTER WORKWEEK ESSENTIAL One million textile workers in the United States have cooperated with management to increase production. We have worked so hard and at such a speed that we have worked ourselves out of a job. About 300,000 of us are completely unemployed and hundreds of thousands of those employed are on short time 2, 3, or 4 days a week. We have accepted the technological improvements without corresponding improvements in our wage scales, as you will notice from the enclosures on textile wages. With due regard for the opponents of the $1.25 minimum, we are asking Congress to approach the proposal from the standpoint of economic necessity, with which we are all familiar. TEXTILE WAGES Let us take a quick look at the wage structure in textiles. The prevailing situation in New England demands that the Members of Congress should know the true conditions in this industry because only Congress can bring forth a solution to an industrial catastrophe as demonstrated by textiles. To avoid any question of prejudice, we will utilize the Bureau of Labor Statistics as our authority. With about 20 divisions defined as the textile industry employing close to a million workers, we find that the average hourly wage for January 195 is $1.37. For all manufacturing, the average hourly wage is $1.84; for durable goods it is $1.96; and for nondurable, $1.68. With textiles in the latter category, we find ourselves with 31 cents an hour less than the nondurable average. We do not claim ourselves more skillful than other workers, neither will we admit to being less skillful; there isn't any reason whatsoever why our average wage should not be $1.68. That's just about what it would be if the industry was completely organized. But with only about 50 percent organized and the remainder denied the right of collective bargaining, as a matter of public interest, we must look to Congress to protect and improve minimum-wage standards, curb cut-throat competition and monopolistic mergers. NORTH-SOUTH DIFFERENTIAL There are a variety of opinions on the North-South differential in textiles. In a recent survey, the BLS placed it at 13 cents an hour (not including fringes). New England employers now challenging the unions to adjust the differential contend that the difference is 23 cents an hour including fringes; we believe this is too high. We do not minimize the seriousness of the differential; it must be narrowed, but we are in complete disagreement with the proposals advanced by the New England employers that we accept the substandard conditions of the South. The reversal is the proper approach. We must raise the wages and working conditions in the South. We have taken wage and welfare reductions in the North at a time when workers in other industries were receiving wage increases. We accepted additional workloads with increased physical and mental strain for the worker. The CIO and the AFL are standing firm in opposition to further cuts. The New England employers would do well to join with us in a justifiable and constructive program, even if it takes more time. JOINT EFFORT A joint appeal to Congress and the administration must receive the consideration it deserves. A minimum wage of $1.25 would provide the medium of settlement. We recognize that your committee is not charged with settling minimum wages for the textile industry, per se, and we would point out that a number of our locals-some of them in the South-now have minimum wages of $1.25 and $1.20, but over one-half million textile workers, the large majority in the South, would be benefited. The textile industry, second only to food as an essential, would be stabilized. The increased demand for textiles would insure the profitability of the industry if the minimum wage under fair labor standards is increased to $1.25 an hour. LIVING COSTS It should be unnecessary to go into a mathematical discussion of the trend in living costs since the 75-cent minimum became operative. All of us in the North, South, East, and West have had a personal experience with the highest prices for every commodity in the cost-of-living budget. This was the predominant consideration in the recent salary increase for the Members of Congress. We have food price listings from various sections of the country and while we find certain staples showing a uniform pattern, we have found that other foods such as cheese, hams, citrus fruits, etc., cost more in New England than the metropolitan area in the District of Columbia. There is also a mistaken idea about lower living costs in the South. What we really have in the South is lower standard of living compelled by lower wages. When the $1 an hour southern textile worker lines up in the big chain store, he has to pay the same price as the person receiving $5 an hour or more. The store man plays no favorites, and when a worker at $1 an hour gets through buying food for a week for a family of 4, he has about $10 left after working a full week. MINIMUM WAGES HELD UP BY FULBRIGHT AMENDMENT Our statement on wages would not be complete without reference to the Fulbright amendment. More than 3 years ago, we originated petitions to increase textile minimum wages under the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act. Our petitions called for a minimum wage of $1.30 an hour for woolen and worsted, and $1.13 for cottons and synthetics, to replace the old rates of $1.05 and 87 cents, respectively. The final determination by the Department of Labor called for a wage of $1.20 an hour for woolen and worsted, and $1 for cotton and synthetics. We certified our acceptance of the decisions but a group of employers from both divisions of the industry appealed to the courts for an injunction to prevent the Secretary of Labor from making the increase effective. And that is where the textile workers' wages are today in the courts; and there is no immediate prospect of the increase getting out of the courts. The unfair employers would rather give the textile workers' money to the lawyers. Our opponents were able to cheat us out of this moderate wage raise because Senator Fulbright, of Arkansas, attached a rider to an appropriation bill making the Public Contracts Act decision subject to court action. "The Fulbright amendment did three things. It required proceedings under the Public Contracts Act to conform to the Administrative Procedure Act. It provided for court review of a wage determination if suit is filed by an aggrieved or adversely affected party within 90 days of its issuance. The amendment, further, allowed court tests of any legal question under the act at any time by an interested party, even though he had signed a contract containing stipulations which he subsequently wished to contest in court." A number of mills have withdrawn from the court case, but the "bitter enders" are hanging on. A few days ago District Court Judge Alexander Holtzoff declared the $1 minimum wage in cotton and synthetic textiles invalid. He later reversed himself to reinstate the main terms of the preliminary injunction, but the fact remains that this injunction has emasculated the Public Contracts Act. In this industrial war between the States, I would like to quote the following: "BASE PAY RULING HAILED AS VICTORY IN SOUTH OVER NEW ENGLAND "(By Murray Wyche, Fairchild News Service) "ATLANTA, April 5, 1955.—A Federal court ruling yesterday barring the Secretary of Labor from setting minimum wages on a nationwide basis for cotton textile mills working on Government contracts was hailed here today as a victory for the South over 'unions and the New England textile manufacturers.' "A permanent injunction barring the Secretary of Labor from determining Government contract wages on an industrywide basis was first filed by a group of 20 Georgia mills in December 1952, and was known as the Covington Cotton Mills case. Later it was joined by a group of North Carolina Mills. "The decision was 'most gratifying,' declared Norman E. Elsas, chairman of Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, here, expressing the feling generally of the South's expanding textile industry. "The $1 minimum was 'inspired by the unions and the New England manufacturers,' declared T. M. Forbes, executive vice president of the Cotton Manufacturers' Association of Georgia." I think this, more than anything else, should demonstrate to Congress the extreme necessity for drastic measures to protect the workers-the victims now being squeezed in the battle of the textile giants. Legislation now before Congress would remove the disastrous effects of the Fulbright amendment. The Senator should know that his State of Arkansas is on the lowest rung of the economic ladder; textile wages are at the starvation levels. In consideration of the reasons I have put forward, the United Textile Workers of America would respectfully petition your committee to recommend a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour, a workweek of 35 hours, and the extension of coverage to all workers who rightfully and legally should receive the protection of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 63489-55-40 EXHIBIT B.-Mills with over $1.25 minimum 15. Local No. Wilton Woolen Co., Wilton, Maine. Name of company 444 444. 444 Chicopee Manufacturing Co. (Johnson & Johnson), Bensenville, Ill. National Dye Works, Chicago, Ill. 444. Western Piece Dyers and Finishers, Chicago, Ill. 444 444. Chicopee Manufacturing Co. (Johnson & Johnson) (Modess), Bensenville, Ill. Per hour $1.40 1.49 1.50 1.25 11.30 1.45 1.45 1.35 1.45 1.432 1.41 1.22 1.75 1.02 1.25 1.545 1.345 1.265 1.465 1.395 1.265 1.28 1,295 EXHIBIT C-UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA EXCERPT FROM THE REPORT AND STUDY OF THE NEW ENGLAND GOVERNORS AND THE TEXTILE COMMITTEE, RELEASED IN APRIL 1953 Burlington Mills Corp. appears to offer the classic illustration of resistance to union organization and collective bargaining on a grand scale. The firm operates 45 mills in the South. The NLRB has issued at least 9 orders directing the company to cease and desist from unfair labor practices, such as interference with employees in their right to organize, discharge of employees for union activity, and refusal to bargain in good faith *** though the union has been certified .as a bargaining representative in 8 of Burlington's mills over the last 12 years, not a single agreement has ever been negotiated. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. BOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Chairman and members of the House Education and Labor Committee, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to testify before this committee today on the proposed amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The proposal to increase the minimum wage to $1.25 an hour and to extend coverage of the act to workers not now protected by a minimum-wage floor and the provisions for time and a half for overtime work will continue to enlist my complete support. An increase in the minimum wage is not only a family necessity, but it is a national economic necessity as well. We must think in terms of increasing the purchasing power of the low-income earner. A clear analysis compels us to regard the worker as a consumer whose increased purchasing power could stimulate a lagging economy, rather than thinking of him as an economic liability to his employer whose wages, if increased, will either drive his employer out of business or raise prices for all of us. Opponents of the $1.25 minimum wage repeatedly say that this would increase unemployment and many firms would be forced to reduce their payrolls or even go out of business. This is the same argument that was used when the minimum wage was set at 30 cents in 1939 and again when it was set at 75 cents in 1950. This grim prophecy simply has not been borne out by facts. In 1950 when the minimum wage was increased to 75 cents an hour, there were practically no plant shutdowns or layoffs resulting from this measure. Opponents of the measure then, as now, had predicted economic disaster. In fact, the Department of Labor studies revealed that in five low-wage industries-southern sawmills, men's dress shirts and nightwear, fertilizer, men's seamless hosiery and wood furniture-even though the higher minimum wage required increased wages for a substantial proportion of the workers in those industries the adjustment to the higher wage scale was made with "only minor determinable effects." At that time the Secretary of Labor said in his annual report, "Prices for products of low-wage industries affected substantially by the necessity for the payment of higher wages do not seem to have risen as a group any higher than prices of other products ***. Increased efficiency of production, particularly through mechanization and high-volume operations, apparently absorbed much of the increased cost." It is self-evident that every American worker is entitled to a decent standard of living. It is also axiomatic that no worker can enjoy what we like to refer to as the American way of life on less than $1.25 per hour. The average worker putting in a 40-hour week will earn approximately $2,500 a year if he makes $1.25 an hour. An annual income of $2,500, although it may be an improvement over the income derived from the present 75-cent-an-hour provision, is still far from adequate to meet the minimum budget requirements of an average family. In 1951, the Bureau of Labor Statistics worked out a minimum income chart for an average family of 4 based on living costs in 34 cities throughout the United States. The budget required for a basic minimum standard of living varied from $3,812 to $4,454. It would require a minimum wage of $1.91 to earn enough to meet the lowest income requirements for a decent standard of living as defined by this study. The lowest budget figure was $3,812, the minimum necessary to live in New Orleans. A minimum wage of $1.25 an hour does not sound unreasonable to me. I don't know of a single area in the United States where you could provide your family with decent housing, clothes, adequate food, and even minimum medical and dental care on an income of $1.25 an hour or $2,500 a year. And this includes no allowance for recreation or luxuries. The administration proposal to scale down to 90 cents an hour, what already appears to be a barely adequate increase in the minimum wage to $1.25 an hour is sheer ignorance of the basic facts of the living costs in today's economy. The Consumer Price Index rose 14 percent between January 1950 and November 1954, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wages have been raised five times since 1950 in major American industries. The minimum wage was set at 75 cents an hour in 1950. Today, 5 years later, it is still 75 cents. It is totally inadequate and unrealistic in view of the economic picture today to increase the minimum wage to anything less than $1.25 per hour. The administration proposal to increase the minimum wage to 90 cents an hour will not improve the living standard of 3 million workers who earn more than 90 cents an hour, but are still existing on a substandard level. The 3 million workers who earn 95 cents or perhaps $1.04 an hour would receive no benefit from such legislation. They will continue to exist on a powdered-milk and driedmeat diet. They will still be unable to afford adequate housing and even modest conveniences. In addition to increasing the minimum wage to $1.25 an hour, I sincerely hope that coverage will be extended to many groups not currently protected by the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to recent estimates there are approximately 44 million people engaged in private employment, exclusive of proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family labor, and executive, administrative, and professional employees. Of these 44 million employees, 13.6 million were not covered because they were engaged in intrastate activities and 6.4 million were specifically exempted from the minimum wage and overtime provisions. The present Fair Labor Standards Act provides more limited coverage and contains more exemptions from the wage-and-hour provisions than the original act of 1938 did. |