Page images
PDF
EPUB

the minimum-ng-e first Illinois Minimum Fair Wage Standards for Women and Minors Act at the consenacted in 1933. The department of labor issued a directory order establishminumum wage in the macaroni, spaghetti, and noodle industry effective uary 11, 1935.

of law relate f living," en the constitutionality of minimum wage laws was questioned in the courts. lletin and Am United States Supreme Court in March 1937 in the famous case of West before the St Hotel vs. Parrish upheld the constitutionality of the Washington State law. he Illinois Department of Labor then issued two mandatory orders: one for wage rates for dry occupations effective August 2, 1937, and the other for beauty culture g in the afpations effective March 24, 1941. Two directory orders were issued: one for ear or more wash dress industry effective May 1, 1938, and one for confectionery industry potents of the tive June 1, 1939.

Minnesfter these three directory and two mandatory orders were issued, the Minia Fair Wage Standards Act as enacted in 1933 and amended in 1935 was again make ptioned. The issue in this action was section 19 of the original statute which State in th vided that the act should remain in force only until July 1, 1935. However, the slature in the 1935 session repealed section 19 apparently intending that this opposition be made permanent. This repeal of section 19 was not signed by the Governor il July 2, 1935, 1 day after the original act ceased to exist. The law was rected in July 1945.

nse.

bollowing the reenactment of this statute, the department was petitioned to Mishanke an investigation of the wages being paid to women and minors in the retail ale occupations. In accordance with the provisions of the act, a wage board do mest af rhed Directory Order No. 6, effective August 12, 1948, fixing the minimum fair ge for all women and male minors under 21 years of age at not less than 55 cents most had hour with a minimum of 45 cents permitted for learners and apprentices, and viding that handicapped workers could be exempted by securing a special nt for This order was contested in the courts, and on June 7, 1949 Judge DeWitt in ester bow of the Circuit Court of Sangamon County declared this directory order void, Sding that the department of labor had failed to have witnesses sworn or to hich are permitted witnesses to be cross-examined in the public hearings prior to the Jance of this directory order. The judge's decision stated that since no blic hearing as provided by law was held, the department of labor had exceeded te les authority in fixing a minimum wage for women and minors in the retail trades. rus, this order was voided in June 1949.

[ocr errors]

Following the voiding of the 1948 minimum wage order in retail trades, the partment again was petitioned to investigate wages in the retail trade occupaons. In September 1951 a new study of wages in the retail trade occupations was magun by the department. Two large department stores refused to permit their ge records to be reviewed as part of this study. The department of labor applied ra writ of summons in the Municipal Court of Chicago for these records. A becision on this action was continued pending the outcome of another case which roved to be of more importance. Meanwhile, the Circuit Court of Sangamon deunty in Vissering Mercantile Co., etc. v. Frank Annunzio et al., issued a tempory injunction prohibiting the department of labor from enforcing the Minimum air Wage Standards for Women and Minors Act charging that subparagraph 2 of ction 3 and sections 9 and 13 of the act in relation to minimum fair wage standds for women and minors approved July 25, 1945 were unconstitutional, oid, and of no force and effect. In July 1952 the Circuit Court of Sangamon ounty issued a final decree which found "that subparagraph 2 of section 3 and ections 9 and 13 of An Act in Relation to Minimum Fair Wage Standards for Vomen and Minors and Providing Penalties for the Violation Thereof, approved uly 25, 1945, are, and each of them is, unconstitutional and void and of no force nd effect; that section 13 of said act is an inseparable part thereof and that the nconstitutionality of said section makes the entire act unconstitutional and oid; that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as prayed in the amended comlaint; and that the motion of the defendants to dismiss the amended complaint hould be denied."

The court further decreed that "The director of labor *** is, hereby estrained and enjoined from making any expenditures, incurring any expenses or expending any funds of the State of Illinois for the purpose of carrying into effect or administering said purported act."

The department of labor appealed this decree and on September 24, 1953, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court of Sangamon County and upheld the constitutionality of the Minimum Fair Wage Standards for Women and Minors Act. The Illinois Supreme Court did find section 13 of the act

unconstitutional. Section 13 prescribes the review of decisions under the act and provided no appeal from the department's decisions on questions of fact.

The plaintiffs appealed this decision of the Illinois Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court. On April 26, 1954, the United States Supreme Court refused a hearing on the appeal of the retailers from the Illinois Supreme Court. Thus, the Illinois Supreme Court in its decision of the Vissering Mercantile Co. v. Frank Annunzio case was upheld by the United States Supreme Court. See: Illinois Dept. of Labor, 1953-54 Annual Report, pp. 23-25.

The 1955 annual report of the Illinois Department of Labor comments on its final legal victory in establishing the constitutionality of the Minimum Fair Wage Standards for Women and Minors Act as follows:

The Supreme Court decision of April 26, 1954, upheld the constitutionality of the act in the most vigorous attack brought against it to date. Shortly thereafter, the division intended to resume administration and enforcement of the two wage orders which were mandatory, but it was found that these wage orders had been issued and signed by the director of labor at a time when the effectiveness of the act itself was subject to serious challenge by reason of the Governor's signature having been affixed to the original legislation too late. Rather than attempt any enforcement procedures which might invite legal action attacking the wage order, the division has taken the position that the 2 mandatory wage orders and the 3 directory wage orders issued at that specific time were now legally assailable and not enforceable. There have been no wage orders issued since the repassage of this act in 1945 and therefore no orders are enforced by the division."

During the hearings held in June 1948, the Illinois Federation of Retail Associations opposed 45-cent and 55-cent minimum rates.28 If this opposition had been merely on technical grounds, it would not have been necessary to request a "later hearing to * * * * bring a substantial number of the individual witnesses, that is to say, local retail merchants * * It must, therefore, be concluded that the organized retail trade in Illinois has strongly opposed any minimum wage order for the industry and has so far succeeded in keeping such an order from being issued.

Ohio

* 29

A similar situation prevails in Ohio. This State does not have any effective minimum-wage legislation for retail trade. The director of the department of industrial relations informed the Subcommittee on Labor as follows:

There has been introduced into the last few sessions of the legislature a minimum wage bill that would set a floor for all intrastate industries including the retail trade, and these bills have been opposed by retail organizations of Ohio, and while approved by this department and the administration they have never gotten out of committee. No official transcripts are taken of legislative hearings *** but I have been present in the committee hearings when persons representing the retail trades voiced their opposition to any State legislation covering their industry.30

Additional information received on the Ohio situation indicates that when pressure was brought on the department of industrial relations to appoint a retail trade board some years ago, the Retail Merchants Association prevailed upon the director to have a board for the beauty culture trade appointed instead.

27 Statement given to the Subcommittee on Labor.

29 See Public Hearings on the Minimum Wage Standards for Women and Minors, 205 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Ill., June 1, 1948, printed by authority of the State of Illinois.

See ibid., p. 5.

Letter of February 27, 1956.

Maryland

Maryland is one of the States which have attempted-so far unsuccessfully-to introduce minimum wage legislation. Organized retail employers were among those opposing such legislation.

A bill setting a 75-cent minimum wage and a 40-hour maximum workweek was passed by the House in the State of Maryland in 1955. The bill exempted employees over 55 years old, handicapped workers, and apprentices with 6 months' experience or less. Before being debated by the senate of the State of Maryland, hearings were held on the proposed bill.

According to a report by the Bureau of National Affairs the following views were presented by opponents of the bill:

An overwhelming number of the witnesses and some 200 spectators oppose any law setting minimum wages or maximum hours. William G. Ewald, "coordinator" for the opposition and an official of Baltimore's Retail Merchants declares that such legislation "is in fact an entering wedge for wage control which *** would result in a general wage increase and would disrupt the existing satisfactory employer-employee relationships," in the State. The retail industry, Mr. Ewald declares, "surpasses all others in its gainful occupations for part-time employment for many thousands of workers, including housewives, learners, boys and girls going to school who work afternoons and Saturdays ***. This part-time work is an important supplement in the family budget, and helps to raise the general standard of living. Legislation such as is pending would ultimately, if not immediately, restrict the number of such opportunities." The Retail Merchants Association of Baltimore, Mr. Ewald concludes, finds the proposed law "unnecessary, inadvisable, potentially inflationary, impractical, and bureaucratic, and in reality*** would prove to be more harmful than helpful and could unwittingly result in the perpetration of a cruel hoax upon that segment of our community that can least afford to bear it." 31

Michigan

[ocr errors]

In Michigan minimum wage bills were introduced for more than 10 years at each session of the Michigan Legislature. A minimum wage bill passed the House in 1955 but was killed in the senate labor committee.

From the information available it appears that the retail industry employer representatives have presented their views against those bills.

West Virginia

The same is true for West Virginia where the department of labor introduced 4 years ago a wage-and-hour bill in the legislature. Opposition by restaurants and retail interests, however, made the efforts to secure such regulation unsuccessful.

The final score in regard to the attitude of the organized retail trade toward State minimum wage legislation may be summarized as follows: Eight States: The attitude has been, on the whole favorable: Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Wyoming, Washington.

Three States: The attitude has been somewhat ambiguous but seems to have become more and more favorable: California, Connecticut, North Carolina.

Three States: Organized retail trade has been opposed to increases in the minimum: New Jersey, Oregon, Minnesota.

Two States: Organized retail trade has been opposed to any implementation of presently existing legislation: Illinois, Ohio.

"See Bureau of National Affairs, Retail Labor Report, No. 298, March 18, 1955.

Three States: Organized retail trade has been opposed to any legis lation: Maryland, Michigan, West Virginia.

Six States: Rates are so low that any conceivable efforts made to issue adequate wage orders were ineffectual: Arkansas, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin.

Three States: No specific information could be secured-these States do now have minimum wage legislation, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada (New Mexico law declared unconstitutional pending appeal). Twenty States: No specific information available. None of these States has any minimum wage legislation: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia.

These scores add up to the following figures:

Fourteen States: Maximum number of States in which the attitude of organized retail trade toward minimum wage legislation may possibly be considered to have been both favorable and at least partially effective.

Thirty-four States: Number of States in which the attitude of organized retail trade was either unfavorable or ineffectual in regard to minimum wage legislation.

3. HOW "LOCAL" IS RETAILING?

The preceding survey of the attitude of organized retail trade toward State minimum wage legislation makes the argument that retailing is local in nature and should, therefore, not be covered by any Federal legislation, a dubious one. However, this argument deserves to be examined on its own merit. In view of the evidence presented in the preceding sections minimum wage standards in retail establishments may have to be established through Federal legislation in spite of the fact that retailing is "local" in nature. Who else could assure minimum wage standards in view of the inability of State legislation to show a better record than has been shown in the past? However, the case for Federal legislation becomes even stronger if the argument that retail trade is local in nature needs. qualifications.

There can be no question about the redundancy of the assertion that retailing is essentially "local" in nature. Here is one among many possible quotations illustrating this point of view:

Woolworth has no average or typical customer. Every person who enters a Woolworth store is an individual human entity with his own tastes and preferences, free to pick and choose, reject or purchase.

Realization of this fact has dictated the basic principle to which Woolworth has adhered for 75 years: customers will be served-and Woolworth's will serve them ***

** customers' preferences, expressed in cash purchases, determine the actual selection of merchandise offered in all Woolworth stores **

Similarly, Woolworth customers influence the kind of store in which they shop. Today's shoppers are educated, alert, and sophisticated ***. The shoppers own intelligence is reflected also in the higher type of personnel serving in Woolworth stores each passing year

***.

As customers' preferences continue to dictate changes in Woolworth policies, new ideas are constantly being introduced ✶ ✶ ✶

***Today, Woolworth's brings the pleasurably profitable adventure of modern shopping to every member of every family in many communities.

It is no coincidence that many an illustrator, when he sets out to portray "Main Street," shows a Woolworth store. Scarcely an adult today, when he recalls his hometown, does not remember fondly his exciting excursions into the

familiar variety store with the red and gold sign across the front. And wherever he lives, chances are that Woolworth's is still his neighbor.

For, paradoxically, Woolworth, one of the world's largest retail companies, is essentially local in nature. Its entire business can be reduced to a local customer making an individual purchase in a local store. And almost every aspect of that store, from the sales transaction itself all the way back to the very inception of the establishment, is local *** 32

This quotations reveals a true paradox, indeed, the Woolworth company "reduced to a local customer making an individual purchase in a local store." The paradox may be partially resolved by inquiring whether the character of "Main Street" has been changed by nationwide chainstores. This opinion is implied in an analysis made by the United States Department of Labor:

The Nation's retail trade and service enterprises number several million, and their employees total 9 million, about one-fifth of all wage and salary workers. The great majority of these enterprises are local businesses. They include the neighborhood grocery, drug store, barbershop, shoeshine parlor, restaurant, hardware store, and repair shop. These neighborhood enterprises are traditionally within State jurisdiction because they are largely outside the stream of interstate competition, and can have only a minimal direct effect on interstate labor standards.

Competing with these local businesses are a small number of retail multiunit enterprises, employing a substantial part of all retail and service employees, which operate establishments in more than one State,

A chainstore may serve only a neighborhood market but nevertheless it is operated as part of a multistore enterprise. A chainstore owned by a firm with headquarters far distant, especially if outside the State is not controlled within the local community, not locally financed, does not return its profits to local owners, probably does not have locally determined wage, managerial, and purchasing policy. A chainstore owned by a firm with stores in more than one State is in most major respects neither local nor intrastate. It is a unit of an interstate enterprise whose operations are in the stream of interstate commerce and whose labor standards directly affect intrastate standards,33

In view of the wide divergence of points of view in regard to the local nature of retailing, a more systematic exploration of this problem is indicated.

Retailing is undoubtedly local in the sense that it is the function of retailing to create a "place utility." Retailing is the last stage of an intricate process and it is the very essence of this stage to "deliver the goods" locally to the consumer. The local character of retailing thus interpreted is a truism.

The assertion that retail trade is essentially local in nature, mustin order to have any meaning-be supported by the structure of the industry and the organization of the business.

Retailing, for example, could be local in the sense in which a public utility is local, namely, it could be so much bound to a local community that effective competition is either impossible or a waste. There are economists who refer to certain aspects of retailing as having "Chain' linking of markets" and "gasoline monopoly character. filling stations" have been specifically mentioned as elements making for monopolistic competition: that means for higher prices and smaller output per unit than perfectly competitive conditions imply.34 There

"Woolworth's first 75 years. The story of everybody's store, 1879-1954, copyright 1954, F. W. Woolworth Co., pp. 35-40. Italics in the original. See Amending the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, 84th Cong., 1st sess., pt. 3, and sta tistical appendix, p. 1794.

See Edward Chamerlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Harvard Economic Studies, Cam bridge, 1939, p. 103.

« PreviousContinue »