The price gap between fresh and processed oranges, for example, has widened in the past 10 years, 1953-62, as shown in the following U.S. Department of Agriculture table: 3 Oranges-Retail prices per 24-ounce, single-strength equivalent, 1953-62 The retail price of fresh oranges climbed from 26.8 cents per 24-ounce equivalent in 1953 to 37.6 cents in 1962. Canned juice cost 17.7 cents per 24 ounces in 1953, compared with 22.2 cents in 1962. Frozen concentrate was 19.6 per 24-ounce single-strength equivalent in 1953 and 20.9 cents in 1962. I hope the above will be helpful to your committee and will serve as added evidence that all workers engaged in processing farm products should be covered by the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. I again urge that sections 7(b) (3), 7 (c) and 13(a) (10) of the Fair Labor Standards Act be repealed. In all other respects, we believe that H.R. 9824 should be passed. Very truly yours, ABRAHAM WEISS, Economist. INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, U.S. House of Representatives, DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT: We note that the American Farm Bureau warned your subcommittee recently of the dire consequences which will result from the passage of even the minimum administration bill to extend the Fair Labor Standards Act. They even submitted a diagram, apparently for the purpose of implying that their propaganda has a scientific foundation. But their diagram is no sounder than the words they use; and the logic behind both is childish, if not deliberately misleading. It is based on orthodox economic theory about which one of this Nation's greatest economists once said: "Allow me to make assumptions no more at variance with reality than those made by the orthodox theorists and I will produce for you a hundred theories about the economic order, impeccably logical and equally meaningless." Organized labor has become an old hand at evading the economic witch doctors; for the same unrealistic assumptions and logical nothings by which they prove minimum wages inimical to the working man and society can be, and have been on an infinite number of occasions, used to prove that labor unions cannot raise real wages. We know from experience that their labor unions can do a great many things which unorganized workers cannot do, and one of them is to raise real wages. We do it all the time, and do it well enough that outfits like the Farm Bureau (the rural NAM, as it should be known) cry out of the other side of the mouth for antilabor legislation on the grounds that unions do raise real wages and are inflating away their unearned increment. For those who say that sound economic theory proves that the Fair Labor Standards Act can do nothing for working people, we have only contempt. As 3 "Marketing and Transport Situation" (MTS-152), February 1964, pp. 32, 33. 34-421-64-pt. 2-- -10 one unsound economist said, the logic of the sound theory is best illustrated by an old nursery rhyme: "If all the world were apple pie And all the seas were ink And all the trees were bread and cheese, So much for those who champion Government tariffs and Government subsidies and Government price fixing for farmers as the God-given rights of absentee landlords, farmers, farm processors, and exporters but who hold that working people are best served by leaving their interests to chance and to the wisdom of those (to paraphrase an earlier reactionary) "to whom God in His infinite wisdom has given the property of this country." I hope that all the members of this subcommittee know that over the years the labor movement has supported practically every basic measure ever enacted into law to help farmers achieve a decent living and security on the land. I assert that organized labor has been more consistent supporters of programs for family farmers than has the American Farm Bureau Federation and its big business allies. We will continue to support programs to strengthen the family farm in American agriculture and to give family farmers and hired farmworkers a better deal in American life. We figure the big farmers and the farm bureau can take care of themselves. They have been doing so, frequently at the expense of the medium- and small-sized farmer, and even more often at the expense of their wage workers. To indicate why I speak out so sharply on this point, I refer you to the AFBF's recent attack on H.R. 9824 and direct your attention to the attached summary where we have spelled out the position the American Farm Bureau has taken on unions in the last 10 or 12 years-indicating that we have really been turning the other cheek, again and again and again. The principle is fine, but the cheek gets a little sore. Sincerely yours, CLAY L. COCHRAN, Legislative Representative. A BRIEF SUMMARY OF SOME FARM BUREAU POSITIONS ON LABOR AND LEGISLATION 1. Farm bureau lauds passage of right-to-work law in Alabama (AFBF Official News Letter, Oct. 12, 1953). 2. Farm bureau urges banning of industry and areawide bargaining and strikes by labor unions (AFBF resolutions, Dec. 17, 1953). 3. Farm bureau favors reversing generation-old rules on handling of unfair labor practices to decentralize administration, and also resolves in favor of leaving State governments in control of labor-management law "to the extent that they are willing and able to assume this responsibility," especially on strikes, picketing, and other activities (ibid.). 4. American Farm Bureau Federation urged State farm bureaus to promote right-to-work laws. Also expressed opposition to any increase in minimum-wage levels. (AFBF Official News Letter, Dec. 20, 1954). 5. March 11, 1955, Walter L. Randolph, vice president of AFBF, expressed AFBF opposition to any minimum-wage increase. (See U.S. Congress, 84th Cong., 1st sess., House Committee on Appropriations, "Hearings on Appropriations for USDA for 1956,” p. 2168.) 6. John C. Lynn, legislative director, AFBF, expresses opposition to FLSA and Davis-Bacon Act as inimical to the welfare of rural people because it discourages the location of industry seeking cheap labor (U.S. Congress, 84th Cong., House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture, "Hearings on Family-Size Farms," pt. 3, pp. 669–70, July 16, 1956). 7. Farm bureau favors ban on union shop, supports authorization of State right-to-work laws, urges State farm bureaus to push for right-to-work laws (AFBF Official News Letter, Dec. 17, 1956, p. 208). 8. "We recommend legislation to terminate the exemption of unions from antitrust laws * "The Labor Management Relations Act should be amended to prohibit the union shop as well as the closed shop. We recommend that State farm bureaus support State right-to-work laws ***" "Industrywide and areawide bargaining should be prohibited." "We oppose any increase in the minimum wage and any effort to establish a statutory minimum annual wage * * * we vigorously support the agricultural and seasonal exemptions of the Fair Labor Standards Act" (AFBF, 1957 resolutions, 38th annual meeting, pp. 37-39, Dec. 13, 1956). 9. J. L. Morton, president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau, told a congressional committee that we should have right-to-work laws; that labor has grown so strong that management gives in to labor and passes the cost to the consumer; that this robs the consumer of the benefits of improved technology and management (just how is not indicated, CLC); that this (?) contributes to inflation, harmful to all society; that "unions should be under antitrust laws similar to other groups" (U.S. Congress, 85th Cong., House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture, "Hearings on the Family-Farm Program," Nov. 14, 15, 1957, pp. 156-157). 10. "Delegates also lashed out at compulsory unionism by urging enactment of a national right-to-work law, aimed at curbing the powers of labor monopoly" (Nation's Agriculture, Jan. 1958, p. 8). 11. Frank K. Woolley, legislative counsel, AFBF, states that farm bureau philosophy is opposed to rigging the economy by a minimum-wage law. February 18, 1958: "Senator SYMINGTON. Are you against the concept of a minimum-wage law? "Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, I would say that the basic concept of the farm bureau— all I can give you is what it did on the last particular time the question was raised. It opposed the increase in the minimum-wage law. "Senator SYMINGTON. Well, when the law was first put in, what was their position? "Mr. WOOLLEY. I think the American Farm Bureau Federation was opposed to it. "Senator SYMINGTON. So the record shows that the American Farm Bureau Federation is opposed to the minimum-wage law, to the best of your knowledge. "Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, I would not say that their current position was being opposed to minimum wages as such. Now, the reason I am qualifying that is because there has been a lot of history developed from the time the original minimum-wage law was enacted, and it has been raised from time to time. And the last action that I can comment on with certainty is that it opposed the last increase in the minimum-wage law. "Senator SYMINGTON. That would mean, if you could, you would decrease the present rate, is that it? "Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, fundamentally I was going to back off and say what our basic philosophy and policy is, as I understand it. The American Farm Bureau Federation generally believes that farmers' interests, and the interests of people generally, are best served by people competing on the basis of their ability; and we deplore generally the rigging of the economy through governmental intervention. "Senator SYMINGTON. Would you call the minimum-wage law a rigging of the economy? "Mr. WOOLLEY. Oh, yes; it is definitely a rigging of the economy." (U.S. Congress, 85th, 2d sess., Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, "Hearings on Farm Program," pt. 2, pp. 390-391). 12. Charles B. Shuman, President of AFBF, says the farm bureau opposes increases in minimum-wage law. May 28, 1958: "Senator SYMINGTON. I see. How about minimum wage? Are you opposed to the minimum-wage law? "Mr. SHUMAN. We have opposed the minimum wage. "Senator SYMINGTON. You are opposed to that? "Mr. SHUMAN. We have opposed it. "Senator SYMINGTON. So you are against price supports for the farmers and workers, but for price supports for the businessmen; is that it? "Mr. SHUMAN. No, sir; we are for price supports for the farmer, against increases in the minimum wage, and against return to the old high tariff structure. "We are for the reciprocal trade agreement programs. We are opposed to fair trade pricing laws. We are opposed to monopoly law wherever we find it. "Senator SYMINGTON. Let me get this straight. "First you said you are opposed to the minimum-wage law. Now you say you are opposed to the increase in the minimum-wage law. Are you opposed to the principles of the minimum-wage law? "Mr. SHUMAN. No. We were opposed to the second law which increased it and so far we have taken no position in urging the repeal of it." (Source: U.S. Congress, 85th, 2d sess., Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, hearings on "Long Range Farm Program," pt. 1, pp. 111 and 112. 13. "We recommend legislation to terminate the exemption of labor unions from antitrust laws. *** The problem is labor monopoly-virtually unrestricted concentration of economic power in the hands of a few men * * (AFBF Official News Letter, Dec. 15, 1958, pp. 203–204, resolutions passed Dec. 11, 1958.) 14. President Shuman declares that farmers have a major stake in labor reform legislation. August 10, 1959: Mr. Shuman sent letters last week to all House members pointing out the major stake of farmers in labor reform legislation. "The marketing of our products and the purchasing of the goods and services we buy are affected," the Farm Bureau president said. "Many farmers are owners or operators of small businesses or have an interest in cooperatives. Many farmers or members of their families work full or part time in establishments where conditions of employment would be affected by labor reform legislation. Most importantly, farmers have an interest in these issues as citizens." Mr. Shuman recommended four principles for inclusion in labor reform legislation. These he listed as: (1) Effective prohibition of the use of secondary boycott and hot cargo practices. (2) Effective prohibition of recognition picketing. (3) State jurisdiction of local disputes. (4) An effective labor bill of rights. Mr. Shuman said the House Labor Committee bill is "deficient in these vital respects." He said the Landrum-Griffin substitute is "aimed at the specific abuses disclosed by the McClellan hearings." (Source: AFBF Official News Letter, Aug. 10, 1959, p. 126.) 15. "December 1960 Farm Bureau resolutions recommend legislation to direct the National Labor Relations Board to seek injunctions against industrywide or areawide strikes or lockouts and favor legislation which would limit collective bargaining to the unit representing an employer and his employees." (AFBF Official News Letter, Dec. 19, 1960, p. 209, referring to resolution passed Dec. 15, 1960.) 16. The resolutions of December 1960 also called for the virtual abolition of the National Labor Relations Board and returning its functions to the courts. (Source: Ibid, p. 210.) 17. In a speech delivered to the California Farm Bureau Federation, AFBF President Charles B. Shuman said, in part: “Agriculture can best meet the future needs of the Nation if farmers are unhampered by labor bosses or Government price fixers." He accused labor unions of having monopoly power which drove up the cost of "virtually everything we farmers buy." He charged unions with driving wages up faster than productivity increased with the "* ** inevitable inflationary consequences." (AFBF Official News Letter, Feb. 27, 1961, p. 34.) 18. American Farm Bureau Federation recommends that minors aged 14 and 15 be given the opportunity to work in retail establishments. August 1961: The Farm Bureau letter made these specific recommendations to the Labor Department: (1) That there be no restriction on the employment of minors 14 and 15 years old in service stations. (2) That they be allowed to work at repairing machines, as cooks or bakers, and in weighting and wrapping meat. (3) That they be allowed to load and unload trucks or conveyors. (4) That their hours of work be regulated in this manner: "During any week school is in session no minor of 14 or 15 shall be employed more than 4 hours a day or more than 20 hours a week and shall not be employed between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. During any week school is not in session no minor of 14 or 15 shall be employed more than 9 hours a day or more than 45 hours a week and shall not be employed between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.” (Source: AFBF Official News Letter, Aug. 14, 1961, p. 131.) 19. December 1962 AFBF resolutions charged that child labor laws have been "carried to the point where, instead of protecting children against exploitation, they now deny young people opportunity *** and encourage idleness and juvenile delinquency * * *. We favor *** liberalization of these regulations." (AFBF Official News Letter, Dec. 17, 1962, p. 212.) 20. In December 1962, a resoluion by the AFBF stated: "Further recommend legislation to direct the NLRB to seek injunctions against industrywide and areawide strikes or lockouts." AFBF also reiterated support of the LandrumGriffin Act, again called for a national "right to work" law; urged State farm bureaus to support State "right to work" laws and outlaw the agency shop. The same set of resolutions charged that "To increase minimum wage rates to a level which represents wage fixing by Government is a harmful extension of Government authority. We oppose any increase in the minimum wage ***." And the resolutions called for continued exemptions for FLSA for agricultural, retail, service, and seasonal exemptions and for reduction of "area of production to include all counties in which the commodity involved is produced * * *.” (AFBF Official News Letter, Dec. 17, 1962, pp. 211-212.) JASPER, TEX., March 11, 1964. Hon. JOE KILGORE, Congress of the United States, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Hearings on H.R. 9824 are currently being held before the House General Subcommittee on Labor. Your help and assistance is needed to help relay my message to the chairman or a member of the general subcommittee or a member of the full Committee on Education and Labor that the 12-man exemption pertaining to forestry and logging operations should be retained and exempted from the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1949. The application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to small operations is unnecessary for woods employees who continually earn more than the legal minimum wage and impractical for small farmer and small operator employers. With 12 or fewer employees engaged in woods operations the increased cost of compliance is prohibitive and discriminatory against the truly small business type of producers, foresters and loggers that harvest forest products. Congressman James Roosevelt is the chairman of the House General Subcommittee on Labor. Your help in this matter is needed and will be appreciated. With best personal regards, O. R. CRAWFORD, Vice President, East Texas Pulp & Paper Co. BATTERY PARK HOTEL, Asheville, N.C., March 10, 1964. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, Congressman, House of Representatives, DEAR ROY: Please excuse the delay in writing you regarding the proposed Federal minimum wage and the extension to include hotels and restaurants. I shall try to outline some of the basic facts in this letter and write more in detail at a later time. (Frankly, I cannot afford a full-time secretary until April 1.) The bill now proposed is for $1 per hour the first 3 years, $1.15 per hour during the fourth year, and $1.25 per hour thereafter. It also includes restriction on hours worked during the third year. The Secretary of Labor would be authorized to determine the fair value of board and lodging for employees and is permitted to determine the fair value and not actual measure of cost where applicable. It further states that the bill would only cover facilities doing $1 million or more in annual sales. Supposedly, this would not affect us. This is only the Government's way to get a foot in the door and then we would suffer the ultimate consequences. We have struggled under the North Carolina minimum wage and you are probably familiar with the number of hotels that have gone bankrupt since its inception or that have changed management or ownership trying to find a way to survive. None of the other Southern States have the State minimum wage of 85 cents per hour, and should the Federal Government pass the bill proposed. I am not joking when I say, "Please find us a buyer for our properties." We have already curtailed our services to a point of great danger resulting in 15 people losing their jobs because of the State pay increases. We shall further have to streamline our operation, thereby putting more people out of work, should this bill pass. Keep in mind that a hotel embodies both the room accommodations business and a restaurant, so the restaurant industry is in the same boat. |