Page images
PDF
EPUB

The $500,000 criteria..

Affecting commerce_

Section B (a) (2)

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1956

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 11:15 a. m., pursuant to notice, in room 429 of the House Office Building, Hon. Graham A. Barden (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Barden, Wier, McConnell, and Velde.

Also present: Fred G. Hussey, chief clerk; John O. Graham, minority clerk: James M. Brewbaker, general counsel; Kennedy W. Ward, assistant general counsel; and Russell C. Derrickson, chief investigator.

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will be in order.

We are meeting this morning for the consideration of various bills now pending before the committee regarding extension of coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Suffridge, I apologize to you for keeping you waiting but it was necessary because of a meeting of the committee. We will try to see that you have the time that you will require to make your presentation.

Gentlemen of the committee, this is Mr. James A. Suffridge, president of the Retail Clerks International Association. At this time we will be glad to hear your statement, and will you further identify yourself for the record as you begin your statement. STATEMENTS OF JAMES A. SUFFRIDGE, PRESIDENT OF THE RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO; WILLIAM W. MAGUIRE, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT; S. G. LIPPMAN, GENERAL COUNSEL; AND J. H. BENNISON, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, OF THE RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO

Mr. SUFFRIDGE. My name is James A. Suffridge, president of the Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO. I would like to first say that we did not find the waiting at all unpleasant, and we are happy to have an opportunity to appear this morning.

On my left for the record, is Mr. William W. Maguire, and Attorney Lippman on my right, and our research man, Mr. Bennison. They will be here in the event of questions, but otherwise will not testify. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Suffridge, you may proceed in any way you desire.

1

Mr. SUFFRIDGE. I have a prepared statement and if anyone wishes to stop me at any time for questioning, of course, naturally, we are happy to try to answer any questions as we go along. And after we make our presentation, we will also answer any questions we can. I will not read the appendix, but I think this has been passed around to all committee members. (See appendix referred to, p. 17.)

I am appearing for the purpose of urging that the present retail exemption found in section 13 (a) (2) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, relative to coverage, be eliminated and that the act be made applicable to large enterprises in the retail field which affect interstate

commerce.

It is not our intention to seek coverage over small local establishments. These, we believe, should remain primarily the concern of the various States. The bills introduced to amend the Fair I abor Standards Act-H. R. 6647, 6648, 6653, 6656, 6660, 6663, 6664, 6683, 6690, 6697-would accomplish this purpose.

The Retail Clerks International Association represents approximately 300,000 employees in retail stores throughout the United States and Canada. The membership is composed predominantly of employees working in chain grocery stores, chain drug stores, department stores and chain variety and specialty stores.

I would like to outline the position of the retail clerks relative to extension of coverage to large retailing operations in four parts, as follows:

(1) The philosophy behind the law is supported amply by religious and social welfare proponents of minimum-wage and maximum-hour legislation, and, in addition, humanitarian and welfare considerations were directly enunciated by the Congress in passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 and when it was amended in 1949.

(2) The several retail coverage bills previously mentioned carry forward the historical concern of Congress to exempt small retail enterprises and provide an administratively clear definition of those large retail enterprises which may be considered as coming under the commerce clause.

(3) We do not believe that large-scale business operations should be indirectly subsidized by the wage relief inherent in substandard wages or that Congress subscribes to any such philosophy.

(4) Retailing today is a multibillion dollar industry operating thousands of stores with hundreds of thousands of employees. The large independent and chainstores have a tremendous impact on interstate commerce. Although the firms for which we seek coverage represent only 2.2 percent of the total number of retail concerns, it is most significant to note that they account for 33.4 percent of the total volume of retail business and 36.5 percent of retail employment.

Underlying the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act there is a firm foundation of ethical and moral opinion which infuses life and substance into the legislative and judicial actions taken in connection with the law.

It is 65 years since Pope Leo XIII in his memorable encyclical on the Condition of Labor said, with respect to wages:

Let it be granted then, that as a rule, workmen and employer should make free agreements, and in particular should freely agree as to wages; nevertheless, there is a dictate of nature more ancient than any bargain between man and

« PreviousContinue »