A worker-even a textile worker-must eat. There are not many men who can stand by for long and see their wives and children starve to death. And well the mill owner knows this. The company store serves as a bludgeon over the worker. If he doesn't behave, he can't get credit at the store, and if he doesn't get credit, he doesn't eat, because he doesn't earn enough to buy food and clothing.

(The section of the act which prohibits deductions from the worker's pay is no less important than any we have so far dealt with. Union men and women are time and time again faced with short pay envelopes at the end of the week for "second" work. They know it is not "second" work, and so does the "boss man." Deductions are just a "friendly" way of warning the worker that he can't exercise his constitutional right to free speech and free assemblage and keep his job.

Even supposing the union angle were not there. Deductions are another way of stealing back-wage increases, won sometimes by bitter struggle. And in either case the practice is a vicious one and should be done away with.

It was a long time ago-before industry was on a mass-production scale that mill owners learned that women could be substituted for men, at the same work and at far less pay. The codes sought to correct this industrial malpractice, but they were not wholly successful. In this dreary, terrifying crises, a family feels lucky to have one person working. Men are laid off by the bosses and cheaper labor hired in their place. Sometimes, it is female help, sometimes child labor.

Women, however, have begun to resent being used as "cheap" labor. Women are organizing. And they must be protected in their right to the same wages as men while they are organizing.

Likewise, men must be protected in their right to organize by making it impossible to substitute cheaper, unorganized female labor for higher-priced, organized male labor. It must be a mutual protection, and the National Textile Act seeks to do this by leveling out the wages for men and women doing the same kind of jobs.

We spoke earlier in an analysis of this section about the increases in the cost of living, cheating the workers out of any theoretical increase in wages under the N. R. A. In the National Textile Act we make provisions for the readjustment of wages in conformity with changes in the cost of living. This is absolutely necessary if the purchasing power of the Nation is first, to be resorted, and second, to be maintained. The dangers of wage lags in period of inflationary price rises have been recognized by many, many kinds of people, representing every different shade of economic and political thought.

For instance, the sponsors of another bill now up for consideration before the Congress of the United States today-the Frazier-Lundeen unemployment insurance bill-recognizes this same principle, when they call for the readjustment of unemployment compensation to fit the increase in the cost of living.

I could cite many more sources, but time does not permit. Suffice it to say that, though a new principle, it is a vital one.

A table of average hours worked in the cotton textile industry which have been closely followed by hours in other branches of the textile industry are attacked as exhibit E. They speak for themselves

with respect to the modesty of the 35-hour week provision. Actually, you will find on scrutinizing this table that 35 hours has not been average over the past 3 years. Time does not permit a detailed analysis of the hours section, but I feel that the figures will speak more eloquently for our case than any rhetoric we could indulge in here.

(The matter referred to above is as follows:)

EXHIBIT E

Average hours per week in the cotton textile industry under National Recovery Administration and thereafter

We showed earlier the recent renewal of downward wage trends in the textile industry, a condition imposed upon the workers by the same type of chiseling employer described earlier in this statement, and once more, we are moving into the vicious cycle which can only be prevented by Governmental action. We know that the employers are coming here to oppose this bill. We would ask you to remember that there are only a few of them, but millions of us. If they had learned anything during the past 5 years, they would be here supporting the bill, and they should be successful in defeating labor in this instance; I ask you to remember this statement-that later on they will come to Washington again with tears in their eyes and appeal to the Government to get them out of the turmoil of their own mismanagement. In the meantime, we will be forced once more into the strike field for the preservation of our livelihood and our constitutional and civil rights. We want to organize the industry. They say "No." Not only that, they stand in open defiance of the President and the stated policies of his administration. We will never attain a balanced economy until labor is organized equally with management. We are quite confident that those who conceived the N. R. A. had this principle in mind when the legislation was drawn. In this bill we have attempted to correct the abuses under the code, discovered by our experiences. We believe the legislation is sound and constructive in character, that it will stand the test of the courts. The opposition contends subtly that it is no use passing legislation that will be declared unconstitutional.

The American Liberty League would seek to thwart the will of the people by insidious propaganda, directed at the Congress in the form of intimidation. The manufacturers association will oppose this bill with all of their powers, financially and otherwise. The workers, however, ask that the bill be considered on its merits. It deserves the support of Congress and the support of the Administration. We expect it to become the law, and we not only ask your committee for a favorable recommendation, we expect you, as the trusted servants of the people, to report our bill out with your approval.

Mr. KELLER. I want to thank you very much, Mr. McMahon, for the very thorough manner in which you have gone into this matter. I am going to suggest, if I may, that when we are asking our questions that we do it as quickly and as sharply as we can, because it is going to run us into two weeks of work of long hours anyway, because we want to give everybody here his opportunity to speak. We want to hear everything that is to be presented. I hope that the remainder of the time may be used to give us some idea of what wage increases mean, what they will mean to the industry, what proportion of the total income of the industry is being paid in wages. I would like to have the men who labor and the men who direct labor to try to work out for us some rational plan to consider, that is, just what lies at the base of our present condition. If we will do that we can get together. If we do not do it we will not get together. And what we are trying to do in this country is to get together.

There is not one of us who does not know that 10,000,000 idle men are not going to remain idle, and there is not anyone of us who ought not know that we are not going to ask them to remain idle. If industry is going to come in and give jobs it is going to serve greatly. If it is going to hold in its grip the industry without giving jobs, they ought to see the total impossibility of it. The reason I am saying that to you is this: I think I ought to bring it out into the open.

I received a very considerable number of letters from various manufacturers asking me to kill this bill in the Committee. I have written an answer to them in which I am trying to point out that the Congress of the United States is doing its level best, no matter what is being said about it, to get at the facts in the case. We are doing it for the benefit of the whole people of the United States, not just for the men who work, not just for the men who direct work. And I believe you will find this committee, quite as well as the whole Congress and the whole labor committee, is responsible for our existence here. I believe you will find that what we are driving at is a rational solution of those things.

And I hope you other gentlemen when you come to it, will bear that in mind and try to give the facts that will help us out of this thing.

Mr. MCMAHON. Mr. Chairman, may I say to you that in the exhibits I have submitted to you you will find an answer to all of the questions you have asked here as to the differentials, the wages, and so on. There is the Cabinet report included in Exhibit A, and others will appear here personally before you from the various parts of the country.

Mr. HARTLEY. Mr. McMahon, do those exhibits also include a comparison of wages and hours under N. R. A. and since N. R. A.? Mr. MCMAHON. Yes, sir.

Mr. KELLER. What attracted my attention to this, gentlemenand I am sure all of you have seen the same thing in one direction or another is this. In carrying on my research work on this very subject I ran across this rather remarkable statement, which seems to be very well proven, and that is that if we can raise the wage average or the income average of the men of this country 50 percent that we will take 20,000,000 bales of cotton to supply our own demand within our own borders rather than 11,000,000 bales. And that is worth

your consideration, both that of the manufacturers and the men who work, as well as the men who raise the cotton in the South.

I think we ought to keep some of those things in hand. I assure you I will not lecture you, but I thought I would like to direct your attention to that because I am sure this Committee wants to know these things.

Are there any questions?

Mr. WOOD. May I observe that a very long statement was necessary to be made. And I am very glad Mr. McMahon made the lucid statement that he did.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. McMahon a question.

Do you approve the Winant Report?

Mr. MCMAHON. Yes, sir. In general, yes.

Mr. RAMSPECK. You think it was a fair report?

Mr. MCMAHON. Yes, sir, I do.

Mr. RAMSPECK. The members of this committee approached the subject from a basis of fair play?

Mr. MCMAHON. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I asked that question because I want to put into the record the fact that one of the members of that committee, Mr. Marion Smith, is a resident of my district, and Mr. McMahon's statement constitutes a rather severe indictment of the employers in the South in the textile industry. And I presume it was intended to be a severe indictment. I am not questioning that. But I do want the record to show that on this committee of three that investigated this subject, this splendid gentleman served and approached the matter in a spirit of fairness and made a report which does set forth the facts in this industry.

Mr. MCMAHON. May I say to the Congressman that right back in my mind is this particular thought, that if the northern employers who control the mills in the South were taken care of properly through some action of this kind the southern employees would soon come to heel.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Thank you, Mr. McMahon. And I think that is true.

Mr. KELLER. In other words, you think there has been an immigration from the North toward the South and it has affected the conditions?

Mr. MCMAHON. They built mills in the South from our blood. Mr. WOOD. I notice in your statement you refer to the maintenance of company stores, company churches, and company theaters. I think you termed that as a type of paternalism. I think I would call it absolutism, wouldn't you?

Mr. MCMAHON. I would if I were talking to you by yourself. Mr. MARCANTONIO. As a matter of fact, it is about the most vicious piece of racketeering known.

Mr. MCMAHON. It is. But in appearing before you gentlemen I will have to use the lesser word.

Mr. KELLER. We are not so modest.

We will hear next the following gentlemen in the order named: Governor Greene, of Rhode Island, who has sent his representative here very considerately. Mr. L. Metcalfe Walling will be our next witness.

Mr. Walling will be followed by two gentlemen who are present, Senator Fitzgerald, representing Governor Greene, and Mr. Nickerson, representing Governor Greene. Senator Fitzgerald will represent the labor side, and Mr. Nickerson the other side of it.

STATEMENT OF L. METCALFE WALLING, ON BEHALF OF
GOVERNOR GREENE, OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. WALLING. Mr. Chairman, I appear at this hearing as a representative of Governor Theodore Francis Greene, of Rhode Island, who unfortunately was unable to come because of the fact that our general assembly is in session at this very moment. But he was very anxious to indicate his interest in the provisions of this bill and particularly to point out to the committee the feeling that he has very deeply and very sincerely that the textile problem with which we are all concerned is a problem which is peculiarly susceptible of national treatment. Our State, although a very small one, is a very important industrial State, and it is particularly important as a textile State.

We have seen in the last few years many of our mills lie idle, some close and move to the South. We have suffered from the depression along with other parts of the country. Fortunately we have had a wide diversity of industry which has somewhat alleviated the distress which otherwise would have been even keener than it was.

I am glad to report that this year we have had almost 600 new factory establishments, employing five or more people, which have started business in Rhode Island.

On this point of the necessity of national treatment and uniform labor standards in the textile industry may I make two or three comments?

I think all of us recognize that no one State, however high its intentions may be to help labor conditions for its workers, can step out too far ahead of the procession without inflicting damage not only upon the employers of industry in that State but also upon the workers for whom progressive labor laws are primarily designed-that is, they are primarily designed to help them.

That fact is very important for us to keep in mind. It is particularly so in Rhode Island, which is a very small State. That is why we are very much interested in the provisions of this bill.

Back in 1933, before the National Industrial Recovery Act became law, the six New England Governors got together, and Governor Greene, in common with the other Governors, signed an agreement to appoint commissions to study the problem of uniform labor standards in the New England States and such other States that might be interested in working with them, to the end of negotiating compacts between those States in order to effectuate uniform standards.

That was just prior to the enactment of N. R. A. I mention that simply to show the interest Governor Greene has in this problem and to illustrate to you that even at that date, before it was a matter of national legislation, we in Rhode Island and in the other New England States were thinking of the importance of crossing State lines in establishing uniform labor standards.

I am not going to rehearse for you gentlemen what you already know very well-the very bad conditions of sweated labor which existed everywhere throughout the country, and particularly in the textile regions north and south before the adoption of N. R. A.