looms that is music to a weaver's ears. As I stood listening, watching, I became conscious that my body was wet with perspiration, every muscle taut, every pulse beating hard, and my heart pounding within my breast. I felt for a moment that I wanted to shriek and make my voice heard above the clattering thunder. I thought: "I can't stand this long", but my mind did not dwell on it for my trained eye went instinctively back to the loom where I saw work to be done. And so it was day after day, a constant effort to master the machine. Perfect cloth was not demanded at first under this new system, but as the weavers became more accustomed to operating more looms the management became more exacting until perfect cloth was demanded constantly. Weavers were fined for imperfections, often they were told not to report for 1 day, 2 days, and sometimes more, this being the managers' method of teaching weavers to be more careful. Oftentimes the imperfections were not the fault of the weavers, but of the loom-but this was not always taken into consideration. Fines and lay-offs were imposed just the same and weavers were often fired. For 2 years I worked under this strain, as did every other weaver, of fear of being laid off, fear of losing my job, and the constant physical effort necessary to keep the looms running. Finally, having difficulty with two of my looms, for which I was repeatedly blamed, I told the foreman that I had done my best, could do no better, and left the job. Textile workers do not object to efficiency. We accept the fact that healthy, contented workers are an employer's best asset. We do, however, object to efficiency being carried beyond the limits of human endurance. Stretch-out, speed-up, and wage cutting are again rampant in the industry-particularly in cotton and silk. I know of no plant running at present, in silk, which is not practicing or instituting one or more of the above charges. All textile workers need to be protected against them, but it is particularly important that the provisions of the Ellenbogen bill should apply especially to women who are for the most part a low-wage group, forced by economic circumstances to accept employment under conditions over which they, individually, have no control and which are oftentimes detrimental to their health. Most of the women in the industry are potential mothers. The question of the health of half a million future mothers of the Nation cannot be ignored. Excessive physical and nervous strain coupled with postural strain (long standing and walking about) constitute a grave hazard to the child-bearing woman of the future. One of the slogans coined by the Women's Bureau is "America will be as strong as her women.' It may be good efficiency to increase. production 53 percent in 8 years, but it is false economy to do it at the expense of the human element involved. May I say that in my particular city we were successful in reducing the number of looms in that city and in reducing the work load back to four. But again right at this minute the plants in that city are again instituting the stretch-out. On unautomatic looms the weavers are being put on 6 looms, and on automatic looms in some cases the looms are being doubled, with the wage rate the same, or not much more, in most instances, than they were for 8 automatic looms as against the 14, 16, and 18 today. Every organizer and every textile worker can recount many stories of speed-up and stretch-out. I talked to a girl who returned to her work not long ago after a year's absence. She does coning in a yarn-making plant. She went back to the same operation, but she said it is a new machine doing the same job and it is running five times faster than the machine that she ran a year ago. In another situation in which I am working at present the men report to me that their machines today on spinning make 22 changes. That means they take 22 full bobbins off of the machines a day, 22 full sets, whereas in 1929 the machines fill the bobbins in an hour. It was 8 in 1929 as against 22 today. Another situation which comes to my mind at the moment is one that I am familiar with at the present time. A new machine is being installed in an acetate department which will in 1 hour, with fewer men, produce the same amount of work which it takes eight men 8 hours to produce at present. That is all I have to offer, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WELCH. Are there any questions? Mr. Wood. As to this new machine, how many workers would that take the place of? Miss NORD. I understand the machine will require the attention of six men. The operation as it is being conducted in the plant at the present time requires eight men. But the 6 men in 1 hour will produce what it takes 8 men to produce now under the old process. Mr. WELCH. I will now call Mr. Riviere. STATEMENT OF HORACE A. RIVIERE, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA Mr. RIVIERE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, a very comprehensive picture of conditions in the textile industry has been presented so far, and an illustration of the suffering of the workers and the destruction of business, showing conclusively that there is an imperative need for the passage of the National Textile Act by the present session of the Congress. The New England district, which I represent as vice president, is the birthplace of the textile industry in America. And it is from this district I shall present hard, cold facts to show that unless the National Textile Act becomes law, the textile industry will be dealt a far stiffer blow than this so-called depression has yet recorded. Hon. KENT KELLER, THE RUSSELL MANUFACTURING CO., Chairman, Ellenbogen Bill Subcommittee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I am taking the liberty of enclosing herewith copies of correspondence between the Manufacturers Association of Connecticut and this company with regard to the Ellenbogen bill, H. R. 9072. While I believe that the enclosed letters are self-explanatory, I should like to emphasize that the information leading to the testimony provided by Mr. Riviere must have come from unreliable sources as we can find no record of any change made in the agreement between this company and the United Textile Workers of America, Local Union, No. 1997, on March 30, 1935. The earnings, as outlined in the schedule attached, are guaranteed minimum earnings, and I would further emphasize that there has been considerable cost involved in the main tenance of these minimum earnings, particularly in cases where we endeavor to keep employed men and women of indifferent ability. Inversely, skilled employees usually earn amounts considerably in excess of the minima. At times there are certain jobs where the actual piece-work rates are changed during the course of the contract. Sometimes these are raised, and, in other cases, lowered, but in no case do these changes give any effect to the minimum guaranteed earnings. It has been suggested that our position in this matter be drawn to your attention directly in order that you may have available our point of view in contemplating the situation. Thanking you in advance for your consideration of the foregoing, I am, Very truly yours, Re: Ellenbogen bill, H. R. 9072. Mr. W. A. DoWER, THE RUSSELL MANUFACTURING CO., THE RUSSELL MANUFACTURING CO., MY DEAR MR. DOWER: I was very much interested to receive your letter of February 7, informing me of the testimony which was given before the House Labor Committee last week, and, particularly, of a statement made by Mr. Riviere, of the United Textile Workers, that the Russell Manufacturing Co. had decreased wages from $18 to $15 a week. I am glad of the opportunity at this time to emphatically deny the statement made by Mr. Riviere as the facts do not correspond with the testimony. There has been no change whatever made in the agreement made with our employees, dated March 30, 1935, which is as follows: 1. Asbestos weaving, for 40-hour, full time, full job, $21 per week. 2. Cotton weaving, for 40-hour, full time, full job, $18 per week. 3. Asbestos weaving, full time, 40 hours, but less than full job, $17.60 per week. 4. Cotton weaving, full time, 40 hours, but less than full job, $14.30 per week. 5. Productive employees, except weavers, on asbestos, $17.60 per week, full time, 40 hours, for men, and $15.40 per week, full time, 40 hours, for women. 6. Productive employees, except weavers, on cotton, $14.30 per week, full time, 40 hours, for men and women. The foregoing earnings are guaranteed. I would be very pleased if you would find it possible to bring the foregoing statement of fact to the attention of the House Labor Committee as a matter of record. Should it be necessary to do so, I will be glad to arrange for one of our officials to attend any of the sessions in order to make further representation of the facts of the case. Very truly yours, THE RUSSELL MANUFACTURING CO., [Copy] THE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT, INC., Mr. G. M. WILLIAMS, Middletown, Conn. Ellenbogen bill, H. R. 9072 MY DEAR MR. WILLIAMS: Testimony on this bill before the House Labor Committee last week included a statement by Horace Riviere of the United Textile Workers purporting to demonstrate the need for the regulations contemplated in 56725-36--21 the bill by recent developments in New England. In the course of his testimony he charged the Russell Manufacturing Co. with decreasing wages from $18 to $15 a week. This information is being passed on to you with the thought that you might want to challenge the statement and correct the record if it is not true, or defend the action, if the facts correspond with the testimony. The exact language which he used in making this charge will probably appear in the printed report of the hearing when and if it is available for distribution. We shall have a copy as soon as it comes out, and will be glad to give you further information at that time if you so desire. Very truly yours, (Signed) W. A. Dower, Industrial Secretary. In my presentation of facts concerning New England's textile industry, I expect to clearly show that thousands of workers are being exploited by manufacturers. The exploitation, the facts will show, is not limited to any one branch of the industry but affects them all, and instead of decreasing, has shown a great tendency to increase since the National Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconstitional by the Supreme Court. Wages, instead of being on the increase, to provide the purchasing power to give recovery impetus, are being reduced and again diminished. Not only is the money being taken from the pay envelopes in outright reductions, but further pay declines are resulting generally through increased machine loads. The machine load and its sister evil, the stretch-out, have been responsible, not only for a great slash at the purchasing power of the workers, but it has been one of the leading factors in swelling the relief rolls of almost every textile center in the New England States. Hours have not been ignored by employers in their desire to make speedy profits, and despite their assertions that they have continued. to live up to the full letter of the outlawed codes, we find that textile operatives are employed 48, 54, and even 60 hours weekly in some centers, without any compensation for the so-called overtime other than the regular straight pay. With no additional purchasing power, lack of uniformity in wages, and no stability in production, there is not a possible chance of business improving on this basis. In the 3 days that I have been here I have listened to those who have preceded me, and during the course of that time two gentlemen came forward representing the point of view of the employers. One was Mr. Gilbert, who was from the southern part of the country. Mr. KELLER. Mr. Gilbert was from Tennessee. Mr. RIVIERE. The other one was Mr. Nickerson, from the State of Connecticut. Mr. Gilbert stated that down South they could afford to work for $7 a week and that they could live better on that pay than they could up North for twice that amount of money. Of course, down South we have people who are working at the present time for $7 or $8 a week. His discussion developed the question as to whether or not the N. R. A. had been helpful to business, whether it had been helpful to the workers, and the country as a whole. When the N. R. A. came into being I saw it as a Godsend to the country. And at that very time I believed it to be that very thing. Just previous to the N. R. A. going into effect I knew men and women who were employed in cotton textile mills, men and women who were skilled workers who were earning $5.50, $6, $7, $8, $9, $10, and $11. And they were not in the Southern States either but in the Northern States where they are gradually and slowly drifting back to those wages. Then the N. R. A. came into effect, and when it did some of these people received an increase in wages of 100 percent. And that meant, Mr. Chairman, that they earned only $13. The fact is that the N. R. A. gave them an increase of 100 percent. The N. R. A. gave them a little more money to spend, and the N. R. A. helped to develop a purchasing power. Some of the millmen say now that the N. R. A. was not a success. The N. R. A. was not the success that it could have been because the N. R. A. did not receive the cooperation of the employers in this country. Neither did it receive the cooperation of the bankers as a whole. who had anything to do with industry. I have figures here that I have picked from newspapers from time to time showing where someone says as to the cotton textile industry, for example, that 92 percent of them were living up to the provisions of the code. From time to time these figures have appeared in the public press. We read the statement in the New York Times some few weeks ago that some 95 percent of the textile manufacturers were living up to the provisions of the former code. That came to me as a surprise, because even during the days when the code was in existence we did not have 95 percent of them living up to the provisions of the code; and we did not have 90 percent who did. I figure we did not have in the country 85 percent of the employers who were living up to the code during the period of the code. That was the highest percentage we could hope for. I base this statement upon the fact that I came into contact with a number of employers in New England and in contact with employees who naturally come into contact with employers. And from time to time it became necessary for us to even threaten a strike in some of our mills in order to have the employer comply fully with the conditions of the code. The employers fought the labor unions during the life of N. R. A. Of course, not all of them did that. I exclude the fair employer, and I am willing to refer to the 15 percent to which I referred before. The best we could hope for was that 85 percent of them would live up to the code under N. R. A.; and that the 15 percent of them who did not live up to the code during N. R. A. are not living up to the provisions of the code now. And that is forcing the hands of the others to gradually reduce wages, increase working hours, and increase work-load. And eventually it is going to bring us to a condition that is worse than the condition that existed previous to the N. R. A. going into effect, unless this legislation or some other form of legislation is adopted that will enable the country to cope with the situation. Why did they fight the labor unions? It was not because they had any real objection to having the workers organized; but behind this is the fact that they knew that if the labor union became a factor in all the mills of the country that with it would come a reduction in the work load and an increase in wages, and the result would be that it would gain greater momentum in time. And that would help to make the N. R. A. a greater success than it was. They are going to tell us that after N. R. A. went out of existence that business is better than it has been. Surely N. R. A. has gone out of existence. |