Mr. NELSON. No. We feel that the minimum rate should be uniform to alleviate any hardships experienced both by the employer and employee between the various sections of the country.

Mr. FISHER. And you disagree with the Government, or you think that its reasoning was unsound when it established the different areas for different minimum wages?

Mr. NELSON. That is a pretty hard question to answer. At that time, with the limited experience that they had and for the purposes they were trying to accomplish at the time, their reasons might have been sound, at that time, but certainly it would not be sound for the Government now.

Mr. FISHER. In other words, you agree that in times of recession or depression there might be a sound reason for a differentiation in minimum wages over the Nation, but during times of inflation there would not?

Mr. NELSON. Or normal times.

Mr. FISHER. Or normal times.

Mr. NELSON. Yes.

Mr. FISHER. But in times of depression or recession when there is a lot of unemployment and conditions are different you feel that it might be good reasoning to have a differentiation in the minimum wage for the various regions such as existed during the WPA times?

Mr. NELSON. Well that was on the basis of WPA times, I suppose. Mr. FISHER. That was in the depression period.

Mr. NELSON. Yes.

Mr. MCCANN. Mr. Fisher, I think we have had testimony from several witnesses who have distinguished between the urban and rural communities in the establishment of prices, and I wondered if you wanted to develop that thought too.

Mr. FISHER. Yes, that is true. You mentioned there are 26 States that have legislated on minimum wages. In most of those States, according to the evidence that has been submitted here, they have considerable latitude in the administration of minimum wages in order that they may be different, depending upon the various industries covered, and various conditions that exist in the individual States: that is, the individual States recognize that one section is different and a single minimum might be unfair if applied to all industries and to all conditions in the States, and provide for a differential. Do you feel that is a sound approach to the problem?

Mr. NELSON. No, we do not feel that is a sound approach by the States to this particular over-all problem.

Mr. FISHER. Do you not feel that the individual States are possibly in position to know more of the conditions and are better able to pass upon them than you are?

Mr. NELSON. That might be, than I am.

Mr. FISHER. That is all.

Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Nelson, for your appearance. Mr. NELSON. Thank you.

Mr. MCCANN. Mr. Chairman, before the next witness is heard may I offer in evidence a letter which was addressed to you under date of November 5, 1947, from district lodge 127 of the International Association of Machinists, which is signed by their secretary-treasurer, Mr. James N. Mulreed. It presents the views of one of the local sections of the union.

Mr. McCONNELL. Does the letter cover any new ground? Mr. MCCANN. I am not sure of that, but it is at least a personal statement of their position addressed to you and I thought this would be the appropriate place to put it in the record.

Mr. McCONNELL. I do not think it is necessary to put it in the record. We can keep it along with letters we have received from others. We have just had the statement by Mr. Brown, international spokesman of that organization.

Mr. MCCANN. Very well. Mr. Chairman, before you call the next witness, we have received a letter from Russ Nixon, of the Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America in which he has included some data by way of correcting his statement.

Mr. McCONNELL. That is a correction of the statement he made here before the committee.

Mr. MCCANN. That is correct, and I would like to ask that this be received in evidence and inserted in the record at the end of Mr. Nixon's testimony.

Mr. McCONNELL. Without objection it is so ordered.

(The corrected data was inserted in the testimony of Mr. Nixon as given before the committee on October 31, 1947.)

STATEMENTS OF MARTIN C. KYNE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND ARTHUR K. GARFINKEL, ATTORNEY, RETAIL, WHOLESALE, AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. MCCANN. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Mr. Kyne.

Mr. Kyne, will you please state your name and your business address?

Mr. KYNE. My name is Martin C. Kyne, executive secretary of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, CIO, 100 West Fortysecond Street, New York City.

Mr. MCCANN. Will you please give us your telephone number?
Mr. KYNE. Wisconsin 7-9305.

Mr. MCCANN. Mr. Kyne, do you have any recommendations to offer to the committee which this statement will support?

Mr. KYNE. May I read the statement?

Mr. MCCANN. Yes, you may read it, but I was wondering if you have any recommendations you could state first.

Mr. KYNE. I am addressing myself particularly to the problem of coverage rather than the specific minimum at this time, because the retail industry is not covered as such, and we feel very keenly about that, because we feel such a large segment of the population is excluded and that is an injustice to them.

Mr. McCONNELL. In other words, the summary of your statement would be in favor of a recommendation for the coverage of retail establishments?

Mr. KYNE. That is right.

Mr. McCONNELL. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. KYNE. Yes.

Mr. McCONNELL. You may handle your statement in any way you choose, and if you would rather summarize it than read it that is perfectly all right.

Mr. FISHER. May I ask if your organization operates under the TaftHartley Act now?

Mr. KYNE. You mean by that have we signed the statement?

Mr. FISHER. Signed the anti-Communist affidavit.

Mr. KYNE. Our board is meeting this next week at which time they will make a decision.

Mr. FISHER. I see; I was just wondering if it had qualified.

Mr. KYNE. Of course, we have asked the national board for the necessary extension orders to permit us to take the action the board will decide on at that time.

As indicated, I am appearing on behalf of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, CIO. The Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, CIO, is a labor organization representing in excess of 125,000 organized workers employed in and about retail, wholesale, department store, warehouse building service, food, bakery, confectionery, and production establishments.

The Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, CIO, strongly recommends that coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 be extended to include retail workers not presently covered as a first step toward achieving an American standard of living for millions of workers presently employed at substandard wages in the retail field. This union emphatically opposes, as detrimental to the entire American economy, any attempt to limit the coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act through exclusion of workers employed in the wholesale field, or any other field, at present covered by the act.

Mr. McCONNELL. That would be regardless of whether it is interstate or intrastate commerce?

Mr. KYNE. I will take the definition affecting interstate commerce as defined in the Labor Relations Act, I think that would be satisfactory with us, so far as affecting commerce is concerned.

Mr. McCONNELL. You feel then that every retail establishment is affecting commerce in some way?

Mr. KYNE. Not necessarily every single establishment. I doubt that the corner grocery store would affect interstate commerce too much, but the merchandise coming into the store would be involved in the wholesale phase, which is already covered by the law.

Mr. McCONNELL. It is rather hard to draw a line where you would stop and where you would start, is it not?

Mr. KYNE. We would be willing to discuss that and decide on certain figures. The definition that was in the previous act, since we were talking about that, eliminated all those stores doing under $500,000 and not having four or more stores, and we would be willing to arrive at a figure on that basis.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Do you have something to add, Mr. Garfinkel? Mr. MCCANN. For the record will you state your full name, address, and the capacity in which you appear.

Mr. GARFINKEL. Arthur K. Garfinkel. I am attorney for the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, CIO. My address is 51 Chambers Street, New York 7, N. Y. My telephone number is Wo-2-3390.

On the question which you have just asked: Although our union feels that basically all retail employees should be covered, as a beginning and until an adequate test could be made, the position would

be that there might be a line of demarcation between the little grocery store, that does a small amount of business, and the chain store and department store. In other words, at the present time they might be willing to exclude the stores doing a small volume of business and see how the coverage works out with the chain store and the department store, stores doing a large volume of business which basically has a very direct connection with interstate commerce because of the tremendous operations that get into interstate commerce.

In that connection I might point out that the definition in the National Labor Relations Act is different from that contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act in that the definition under the National Labor Relations Act is "affecting interstate commerce." The National Labor Relations Board has taken jurisdiction over department stores and has taken jurisdiction over chain stores, so that legally we think that could be well sustained under the interstate-commerce clause, because the Supreme Court has taken the position that the Congress, under the interstate-commerce clause, has the right to regulate intrastate activities because of their effect on interstate activities, as was done in the case of the NLRA.

Right at the moment

Mr. McCONNELL. I know of very few activities that do not in some way affect interstate commerce, and if you use that definition you would bring in all activities.

Mr. GARFINKEL. I am inclined to agree with you that, under the circumstances, the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act points out the distinction, that is, they point out that the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and the power to regulate intrastate commerce that affects interstate commerce, and has passed laws under which we regulate basically intrastate activities because of their effect on interstate commerce.

But as I was pointing out, in the beginning, these chain stores, at least where there are less than three or four, and those doing a retail business of, say, $300,000 or less, would be excluded from the act.

Mr. MCCANN. May we ask you at this point to state how many there are in the union, so we will have some idea of the representation? Mr. KYNE. As I indicated here, in excess of 125,000:

Mr. SMITH. You are a lawyer and I would like to have you explain to me the difference under the law why one store should be exempt, the small store and the big store should not be.

Mr. GARFINKEL. Perhaps at the moment I am just applying a pragmatic test, but the position of the union is that there should be included a test group and then see how the law operates, with an ultimate view of extending it to all. It might be, from a pragmatic view, that it would make it simpler to administer,

Mr. SMITH. You feel that what we call the papa-and-mama store, because it is small, that it does not come under the law that you propose to apply to others?

Mr. GARFINKEL. That is right.

Mr. SMITH. If they engaged in interstate commerce.

Mr. GARFINKEL. That is true, and as I pointed out, the small store, which you refer to as the papa-and-mama store, is one of the reasons why the union is willing to accept less. Basically it would like to see the whole retail field covered by the act, but because, as you pointed

out, the corner grocery store is often a papa-and-mama store, it might be excluded for practical reasons. I think a good argument can be made that al should be included without that distinction. But the union is not desirous of carrying the question to the point where it might not be as important as others. The importance of the thing is the reason for the line of demarcation, perhaps.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Would you advocate putting a floor under the income of all people? There will not be many people left out if you go as far as you indicate.

Mr. GARFINKEL. I think a good argument could be made for that. Mr. McCONNELL. We are going far afield then from where I think our American Republic was designed for us to go and we are going to get into deep water, I think.

Mr. GARFINKEL. Is there any reason why a retail employee should not receive at least the minimum provided under the act and be covered thereunder, while the other segments of our industrial life are covered under the act, particularly where the facts will show that the workers in the retail industry are the lower paid?

Mr. Kyne will present to you a statement put out by the New York State Department of Labor showing that even in a State like New York, where wages are comparatively high, the earnings of the retail workers are very much lower than the others who are covered by the act. Why should there be a differentiation; what economic argument justifies it?

Mr. McCONNELL. You are going to get us into an absolute position that we have a floor under everybody's income, are you not? You see, you get us into an absolute position.

Mr. GARFINKEL. A floor on the income when they are employed. Mr. McCONNELL. Of everybody?

Mr. GARFINKEL. It is not a guaranteed wage by the year; that is, the act does not in any way guarantee an annual wage.

Mr. McCONNELL. If you mean putting a floor under everyone's income I am afraid we are going far afield from my conception of what our American Republic was designed to do, and therefore I am led to the extreme position that I will either do that or nothing, so you get me into an absolute position, do you not?

Mr. GARFINKEL. When we are talking about minimums I think a floor could well cover all industry, Congressman, if you ask me my personal opinion, from the viewpoint of justice, I think it could. Is there any reason why one should be covered and the other not?

Mr. McCONNELL. The difficulty would arise in the Government setting up a requirement for every individual, and I am afraid of concentrating that much power in a governmental agency.

Mr. GARFINKEL. I do not think so where we are setting a minimum, and we are not setting a minimum at too high a standard for a family under our way of life. We are setting a minimum so that the people will be guaranteed, when they work, at least the lowest amount of income that will support them and provide the barest necessities of life.

Mr. McCONNELL. But if you are going to put every citizen of America under the direction of some Governmental agency, and consequently, if you come in and say you want this, and we do not want to go that far, you throw us into an absolute position of being for it or against it.