TO REGULATE THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1937 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met in the caucus room, Old House Office Building, at 10:20 a. m., Hon. Kent E. Keller presiding. Present: Representatives Keller (chairman), Gildea, Schneider, and Smith. Mr. GILDEA. Mr. Keller is unavoidably absent for the moment, and he has asked me to start the hearing. STATEMENT OF ARTHUR BESSE, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOOL MANUFACTURERS Resumed Mr. GILDEA. Mr. Besse, who made a statement yesterday, wishes to add a little to what he told us, and we will hear him at this time. Mr. BESSE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, referring to third-shift operation, yesterday I spoke largely in reference to looms. A detailed examination of statistics covering certain other machinery of the industry indicates that the problem of a third shift is more complicated than my remarks concerning loom operation may have indicated. The percentage of looms and of worsted spinning spindles which are operated on a third shift is small, but the percentage of certain other equipment so operated is substantial. I beg to submit, for inclusion in the record, the last monthly report of the Bureau of the Census covering the month of March 1937. This report shows the machine hours operated on the first, second, and third shifts for various classifications of equipment. Expressed in terms of percentage of operation of the first shift, the operations of the third shift are as follows: All worsted combs, 45 percent; worsted combs, operated on commission, 81 percent; worsted spinning spindles, 5 percent; woolen spinning spindles, 13.8 percent; and looms, 9.6 percent. The operation of worsted combs and of woolen spinning spindles on the third shift is substantial. The same is true to an extent of scouring equipment and of cards, although I cannot submit detailed figures this morning covering these two latter classifications. I am informed that there are not enough worsted combs available to supply the industry with sufficient top if the combs are operated for only two shifts. In equipping a factory it has been customary to calculate that the combs and cards would be operated on a 24-hour basis, partly because a considerable additional expense is involved if the machinery is shut down and then started up again in the event there is a lag between shifts. As a result, the installed combing capacity and to an extent the same is true of certain other preparatory machinery is such as to necessitate its operation on three shifts to provide enough material to keep the primary machinery of the industry operating two shifts. Obviously, caution must be exercised in the attempt to solve the problem presented by this lack of balance between different operations. If there is no need for the third-shift operation and a manufacturer persists in continuing such operation it would appear reasonable to consider the feasibility of penalizing such operation by the payment of overtime rates. If, however, the operation of specific equipment on a third shift is necessary, either because its product is needed to keep the rest of the industry in operation, or is desirable because continuous operation is essential from a mechanical standpoint, it does not seem equitable to penalize such operation. Accordingly, if the proposal to pay overtime rates for three-shift operations is to be seriously considered, it may be necessary to provide for certain exemptions upon proper showing of the reasonableness thereof. In other words, the penalty suggested is designed to discourage the operation of a third shift, but if it appears that a third shift in some departments is absolutely necessary, it would seem that there should be provision for possible waiving of the penalty. Mr. GILDEA. In the operation of three shifts how many hours are worked in each shift? Mr. BESSE. If a third shift is run at all, how many hours are worked in it? Mr. GILDEA. Yes. Mr. BESSE. The same number of hours as are worked on the first shift, namely, 8 hours. Mr. GILDEA. How do you allow for a luncheon period in the 8-hour shift? Mr. BESSE. The practice is not to have a specified lunch hour on the night shift. On the day shift that lunch period varies. Many male operators prefer to take luncheon while at work, without time off. Those are pieceworkers. Women generally take specified time off. That practice is not uniform between mills or as between different shifts. Mr. GILDEA. Eight hours means what it says, 8 straight hours, does it not? Mr. BESSE. Yes. Mr. HANKIN. Would you suggest covering the exceptions you have in mind to the proviso in section 9 (d). Mr. BESSE. I should be glad to do so. I have not thought of specifying specific exemptions, but I would provide that they should be granted if a proper showing is made for them. That is my thought. STATEMENT OF CLEMENT J. DRISCOLL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN LACE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. Mr. GILDEA. The next witness this morning is Mr. Clement J. Driscoll, executive director of the American Lace Manufacturers' Association, Inc., No. 1 West Thirty-fourth Street, New York City. Mr. DRISCOLL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the comments I shall make are the result of a conference of the members of our industry. What I shall say is not my personal view but the view of the entire industry for which I appear. Our industry desires to be recorded as favoring, in general, the principles set forth in the bill H. R. 238 now under discussion. In approving the effort of Congress to provide for a stabilization of industry through statutory regulation, it is necessary, however, that I point out to the committee, on behalf of our industry, certain provisions of the proposed act which would operate to the detriment of our industry rather than aid in producing stabilization. While we are prepared to recommend and support the provision of the subcommittee print, which establishes a 40-hour week, we must oppose strenuously the provision of the original bill which provides for a 35-hour week, but permits employment for longer hours in the event that overtime is paid at the rate of time and one-half for week days and double time for Sundays and holidays. At the present time all of our skilled help in the lace industry operates on the basis of a 40-hour week, and as a matter of fact, the labor union, with which our skilled weavers are affiliated, restricts its members to a 40-hour week. To decrease the hours of employment to 35 hours per week would be of no benefit to the employees for the reason that they would then be limited to an income based on 35 hours production rather than 40 hours as at present, since no manufacturer could afford to pay time and one-half for the additional 5 hours. Moreover, the 35-hour provision as contained in the original Ellenbogen bill would not be conducive in the lace industry to providing additional employment for skilled help because of the fact that there are not at present sufficient skilled weavers, or as they are called twisthands, available to meet the current demands of the industry. The actual fact is that many machines are equipped ready for immediate operation, but standing idle on the floors of our mills because there are not sufficient skilled twisthands available to operate them. There are approximately 800 skilled twisthands available in this country, while on the machine basis, taking into account the machines standing ready for operation, there would be required approximately 1,400 twisthands, it being remembered that two twisthands are required for the operation of each machine. Because of the inadequate tariff protection given our industry in the various reciprocal treaties, we are faced with serious and damaging competition with the low production cost countries of Europe and Asia. Therefore, it must be obvious to the members of this committee that to increase our production cost in this country, unduly, would result in no additional employment, but would, in fact, create vast unemployment. It is scarcely possible for our industry today to compete with the low cost countries of Europe and Asia which are rapidly taking our market from us. That we have succeeded for the present and in the immediate past in providing employment for our help is in a large measure due to the fact that the disastrous effect of the reduction in tariff provided in the treaty with France has not as yet registered in full, although the importations are increasing in leaps and bounds. In this connection, it must be remembered that lace and lace products are strictly items of fashion, and therefore the demand is neces sarily limited. Thus, every yard of lace brought into this country from lower cost labor foreign countries destroyed our opportunity for the sale of an equivalent amount of domestic made laces. The enactment of legislation creating higher production costs by providing greater return to our workers would be of little help in solving the problem of unemployment or in bettering the conditions of American labor, if another branch of the Government, other than the legislative branch, destroys the opportunity for employment of labor in our industry by encouraging the flooding of our market with imported merchandise, thereby taking away a market which rightfully belongs to us as an American industry. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the attitude of the legislative branch of our Government in its effort to increase our labor cost with the attitude of the executive branch of the Government in its effort to destroy the American market for our production by opening wide the doors to foreign countries through reduced rates of duty, effected through reciprocal trade agreements. Our industry has ever stood in the forefront in advocacy of legislation tending to increase the opportunity for employment and an adequate reward for employment. As evidence of this, there is probably no industry in the country, which for the past decade or even longer, has operated in closer harmony with labor than has the lace industry. In fact, within the last 2 months, after conference and agreement with our skilled help, our industry provided an increase in the rates of pay. To burden the industry with provisions of law requiring overtime for hours of labor in excess of 35 hours per week would be most destructive, not only to the industry itself, but indeed to the opportunity of employment for our workers. Investigation of our cost records by any Government agency will reveal the danger to the industry which would be involved in the imposition of extraordinary added production costs at this time. Since the earnings of the industry would not permit of the payment of time and one-half for hours of employment in excess of 35 hours per week, it must be apparent that if the original Ellenbogen bill became a law, our manufacturers would necessarily limit the working time of our skilled help to 35 hours per week. Therefore, in view of the inadequacy of the supply of skilled help, the enactment of the original Ellenbogen bill would merely hamper and damage our industry without yielding any increased earnings for the workers. The workers, as already stated, operate on a rate based on their ability to produce, and of course, their production in 35 hours would be considerably less than their present production in 40 hours; consequently their earnings would be considerably less, thus defeating the purpose of the bill. Further, it must be remembered that lace is an item of fashion, which necessarily places our entire industry at the mercy of the whim of women. It is a highly seasonal industry and our success is particularly dependent on our ability to produce sufficient quantities when lace is in fashion. Thus to curtail our productive ability by a reduction of the hours of employment of our weavers would destroy our opportunity to meet the demand with promptness. We believe that because of the vast difference in operating conditions of textile plants made necessary because of the wide difference in the character of the machinery and the type of materials manu |