In regard to the migration of the textile industry, we want to point out that the home plate of the textile industry was New England. It was born and reared there. However, when the feudalistic agricultural kingdom of the South collapsed and slavery was abolished as such, the southern States began to look around for some industry. True, slavery was not abolished with the Civil War. It exists now, except it is in a disguised form. However, a vast change did occur in the economic structure of the South with the Reconstruction period.

How was the South to get industry to move from the East and North? There had to be some inducements, and the concessions held out as bait for Northern industry were the most attractive possible: cheap labor and plenty of it. This was the primary inducement. Added to this, local chambers of commerce (or business organizations) extended the enticement of freedom from taxes, free light, water, etc., and free rent, and many other such "civic concessions.'

The cotton textile industry was one of the first industries to be developed in the South. And when the South began to develop the cotton textile industry, New England was hardest hit. Even today there are still hundreds of stranded populations in old cotton textile villages, where thousands of textile workers stare out at the bleak, dilapidated walls of deserted mills and wonder. where the next meal is coming from.

The N. R. A. perpetuated the North-South wage differential by giving the southern textile manufacturers in almost every code with the exception of the rayon code, the advantage of one round dollar in the minimum wage over the northern manufacturers. The differential widened, however, when it came toward above the minimum. The B. L. S. in its special textile reports in 1935 showed regional differentials of as high as $10 in certain occupations. Our experiences in the N. R. A. days prove conclusively that there must be no loophole in any textile legislation for a North-South differential. It is disasterous not only to the textile workers, both North and South, but also to the New England textile industry.

Hosiery is another industry which has felt the ravages of migration from the organized center of Philadelphia to the unorganized centers in the South and in Pennsylvania.

Let us examine some cold figures to prove what we are talking about. In the crop year 1921-22 there were 17,938,000 active cotton spindles in the New England States. By the crop year 1936-37 (6 months) this number had been reduced to 5,637,000. At the same time there were in 1921-22, 15,906,000 active cotton spindles in the cotton-growing States of the South. By 1936-37 this number had increased to 17,439,000, despite the fact that 10,600,000 spindles have been retired since 1924. Obviously, the spindle-retirement occurred in New England, where southern competition severely decreased the profitability of the cotton-textile industry. (Attached to this report are charts showing in detail the migration of the cotton-textile industry from New England to the South.)

In hosiery, to take another example, there were 37,529 hosiery workers in Pennsylvania, 11,452 in North Carolina, 11,500 in Tennessee and 4,945 in Georgia in 1925. By 1933, there were only 39,703 hosiery workers in Pennsylvania, while the number in North Carolina had increased to 24,909, the number in Tennessee to 12,675 and the

number in Georgia to 5,257. The South gained at the expense of the organized Pennsylvania region.

These figures, in my estimation, are proof enough of the fact that uniform labor standards without differentials must be established quickly in the textile industry, and must be made sufficiently inflexible that evasions are too costly to indulge in.

In conclusion I believe it is clear from this cursory examination of the facts pertaining to the textile industry that regulatory legislation is a real and urgent necessity.

The low labor standards, the disorganization of the industry itself together with the fact that it is one of our major industries makes this need too clear to emphasize any further.

The textile industry is in better shape now than it has been for many years. It is prosperous and can easily bear any burdens which might be imposed on it by improved labor standards. If, however, we do not take the first steps toward stabilizing it now, while it is in comparatively good shape, the opportunity for lifting it out of the economic doldrums will be lost for many years to come.

It is neither just nor economically sound that an industry should be permitted to function in such an uncontrolled fashion when the consequences of the lack of restraint serve only to victimize millions of people dependent upon it for life itself. This is what happens in the textile industry.

The United Textile Workers of America does not endorse this revised draft of H. R. 238, because we have strenuous objections to several very important labor provisions. It was redrafted without any consultation with labor, so far as we know, and consequently it contains provisions which are not compatible with our best interests, or the interests of the public in general.

First let me point out that industry is getting some important concessions out of this bill. Quite apart from the obvious advantage of uniform labor standards, industry has been granted additional concessions in the trade practices section. So far as we are concerned these trade practice provisions do not really belong in the bill. At any rate, we are not disposed to fight for a measure which contains more of an advantageous nature for industry than it does for labor. For every concession granted to industry, labor must have a safeguard for industry is infinitely more strongly entrenched and at a far more advantageous position than labor. We still need protection, and that is what we conceive a national textile act primarily to be.

Now, as to specific provisions to which we object. The principal objection is to section 9, containing the enumeration of the labor practices. In the first place, the $15 minimum wage is too low. Indeed, the average wage for the entire industry in 1936 was $16.12. The average for the first few months of 1937 is slightly higher.

I might point out one disadvantage, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in regard to the minimum wage provision. It has not meant that, and did not mean during the N. R. A. days, that when a minimum wage of $13 was agreed to and made part of a code, that the workers received $13. Under the existing operation and working policies of the mills, most of the workers are on piece work. Immediately after the codes were accepted, the employers reduced the piecerate prices, making it impossible, in a number of instances, to make the $13 minimum wage. Workers would come out of the mills with

$9 and $10. They could not make the minimum wage with the prices allotted to that particular job. The same thing is happening now, only to a greater extent. If you set a minimum wage of $15, or if you set a minimum wage of $18, it does not necessarily mean, unless our union, unless our organization, can maintain some stability of piece prices-it does not necessarily mean that they are going to get $15 or $18. We think $18 is low enough. We believe with a floor set at $18, and supplemented by our union activities, we can establish a real minimum wage in the textile industry; that is, for skilled and unskilled labor. We, of course, are asking for the setting of minimum wages in other occupations, such as weaving and loom fixing, and others which are considered skilled. We say that $18 is low enough. It is too low, but we are prepared to accept it as a base-wage, providing we can take steps to protect wages above the minimum. In an industry as seasonal as textiles, $18 even will not afford a decent annual wage. On the basis of $18 per week, if the textile workers worked 52 full weeks a year (which they never do) their annual income would only be $936. This is not a decent wage.

We still hold, also, as pointed out before, that a 40-hour work week is too long for the textile industry. Employment and work must be spread over a longer period of time to more people.

It is held that employment in textiles is now at the 1929 level. We ask this committee to remember that more and more new workers— children of older textile workers have come into the industry, and that the 1929 level is no longer sufficient to care for the people who should be rightfully attached to textiles. The use of this employment level to indicate reemployment is, we feel, deceptive.

We have already discussed the hours structure of the textile industry. When the fact that the industry has been in a period of accelerated activity for the past 2 years is taken into consideration and we see that, in spite of the tremendous increase in activity, the average work week is still only a little over 35 hours, the necessity for shorter hours becomes even more apparent.

We recommend again the inclusion of a work-assignment provision. We wish, also, that the clause in section 9 (g) providing that branches, subdivisions or individual manufacturers in the industry may secure exemptions from the minimum-wage provisions be struck out. Under the N. R. A. codes this provision was a source of constant irritation, confusion, and complaint.

We likewise wish the provision which states that the wages determined under collective agreement shall be considered prima-facie evidence of the "reasonable value of the service rendered" be eliminated. This may seem to be a good provision, but under the present circumstances it will operate to peg wages above the minimum at a lower level than they should be. Living costs are rising rapidly, and whereas our agreements last only 1 year, this legislation is a permanent proposition. We urge you to bear in mind that in writing legislation we are committing ourselves to long-range policy.

We propose, therefore, that the following amendments be made to H. R. 238 as it now stands:

1. Section 2: We propose that the definition of "division" and "subdivision" be added to this section. It is possible that the in

dustry might be interpreted to be divided geographically, or by other such artificial divisions, unless these words are clearly defined.

2. Section 3 (a): We wish added to this section, merely to serve as a guide, the suggestion that in selecting the Commissioners, two of them shall be chosen to specifically represent the interests of labor and industry respectively.

That was the question we discussed on Monday and we thought that in the selection of the commissioners, the representative of industry should come from the organized employers, someone, undoubtedly, who is competent to talk about the technical conditions in the industry; and the representative of labor should come from the organization of labor, because he is more likely to know just what the workers desire.

To continue:

3. Section 3 (b): We wish the first sentence in this subsection to be entirely eliminated. We do not wish the fear of court litigation to hamper the vigor of the Commission.

4. Section 9 (g): We want the $18 minimum wage restored.

5. Section 9 (c): We wish the section making wage rates in collective agreements "prima facie" evidence of the value of services rendered eliminated.

6. Section 9 (d): We wish the 35-hour week provision restored.

7. Section 9 (i): We urge the Commission to eliminate such weaknesses as "until the Commission shall otherwise determine" wherever they apply to labor provisions, and particularly with respect to the number of learners and and the amount of wages to be paid.

8. Section 10 (c): We propose to the committee that there shall be added a clause to this subsection providing that the elimination of a shift shall not be accompanied by the displacement of the workers employed on that shift. This can be done by providing that hours shall be shortened and the work spread, or by any other means which the Commission thinks advisable. The important thing is that the workers must not be penalized by machine-hour limitation.

9. Section 19 (j): We suggest that special annual reports on labor conditions be required by the Commission from industry, and that the penalty for refusing to file a report requested by the Commission be made stronger.

Mr. Chairman, annexed to my statement is an appendix containing a number of charts, tables, and lists, which we would like to make a part of the record, if it is agreeable to the committee.

Mr. KELLER. In view of the expense of printing tables, and the inability to reproduce charts for the record, the committee will take under advisement that request, and after examining the tables, will decide whether to put them in the record or not.

(The appendix above referred to by Mr. Gorman is as follows, except the charts, which are on file with the committee:)