Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. HARTLEY. That it was alleged. And I emphasized it was alleged.

Mr. KELLER. And that you had never heard it denied.

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes; that is right.

Mr. KELLER. And I spoke up and I denied it.

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes; you did.

Mr. KELLER. And that is why I say this.

Mr. HARTLEY. I also want the privilege of saying this. And this was also included in my previous statement. It was:

How many attorneys have been employed in N. R. A. who would have been available and who were doing nothing but drawing their salaries, from the time the Wagner-Connery board was organized?

Mr. KELLER. You may have that privilege, certainly.

Mr. HARTLEY. Because it may indicate that there were more than 14 or 15 at that time.

Mr. Wood. I would like to request the Chairman to again contact the National Recovery Administration officials and ascertain from them, if possible, how many lawyers were employed at any time during the life of N. R. A.

Mr. KELLER. I will be very glad to do that.

Mr. WOOD. There were nearly 600 codes that covered millions of employees and hundred of thousands of employers; and I am just wondering how many attorneys it took to look after the legal matters of the N. R. A. during the peak of its operation. I think that is well to be made a part of the record. I don't think there would be several hundred altogether.

Mr. HARTLEY. There may not be. But the point I am getting at is this, that anyone interested in the enforcement of the Wagner-Connery labor board bill should be interested in knowing how many of these attorneys were available and should have been taken advantage of by the board.

Mr. WOOD. I am interested in knowing how many available attorneys there were at any time.

Mr. KELLER. I shall make inquiry, as Mr. Wood has asked, as to how many there were.

Mr. WOOD. I would be very glad to have you do so, because those statements have been repeated so often that some people think it is It would be well to ascertain the number.

Mr. KELLER. There is no reason why it should not be done. I am just calling attention to the fact that those statements are made so often without justification, as you readily see in this case, not that my colleague stated it himself but he said he never heard it denied. And I denied it.

Mr. HARTLEY. You have admitted there would be 14 or 15 who would be available to the Wagner-Connery board.

Mr. KELLER. We will adjourn now until 2 o'clock.

(Thereupon the hearing in the above-entitled matter was recessed at 12:12 p. m. until 2 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

(The hearing was resumed at 2 p. m.)

Mr. KELLER. The hearing will please come to order.

There are a number of gentlemen here who find it necessary to go home this afternoon, and for their convenience I am going to call

76715-36--16

them in the following order: Mr. Valente, Mr. Christopher, T. F. Moore, Ed. Christenbury, and L. James Johnson. Henry Jennings will be called first.

STATEMENT OF HENRY JENNINGS, PRESIDENT, WOOLEN AND WORSTED FEDERATION OF AMERICA

Mr. JENNINGS. My name is Henry Jennings. I am president of the Woolen and Worsted Federation. That is a department of the United Textile Workers of America.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I might say that the Woolen and Worsted Federation represents approximately 127,000 workers. I am not only talking as a representative of the workers but I am talking as a worker in the industry. I would like to say that I have worked in the industry under the conditions before N. R. A., under the conditions existing during N. R. A., and under the conditions following N. R. A. I will not stress much the conditions before N. R. A. I might say that they were too deplorable to talk about; but I would like to say something about the conditions during the life of N. R. A.

I have been waiting a long time to get a chance to say something about many of the statements made as to the manufacturers upholding the codes throughout the life of N. R. A. It was my idea that the codes were put into effect to stabilize the industry, which they did, and to take up a surplus amount of help that was out at the time. Under the N. R. A. we did take up a surplus amount of help. But I want to say that it was not as much as we should have taken up if the manufacturers had cooperated as they claimed they did. We know that when the industry was brought down to the 40-hour weekly basis production in the industry was not decreased. The machinery was speeded up. With the 40-hour week the workers were turning out the same amount of production as they were in the 48-hour and 50-hour weeks, in some instances. I am not condemning all of the manufacturers, but I am condemning a lot of them who claimed that they were living up to the code.

The minimum wage was put into the code for one reason, so that no worker would receive under $14, which was the minimum wage in the woolen and worsted division. That was not put into effect so that 50 percent of the industry would be brought down to the minimum; it was put into effect so that nobody in the industry who was unskilled would be paid less than that amount.

In this industry we have thousands of workers running machinery who have to spend time to learn and have to have experience. And those workers are not unskilled. In many cases a majority of those workers were put on the minimum rate, and in order to get away from the minimum provision some of them were given 50 or 60 cents over the minimum in order to say that they were not on the minimum. If that is what they call upholding the codes, I will concede that they

did.

Under section 7-A there was the provision as to the right to bargain collectively. I heard about complaints that came in and the violations of this part of the code. I might say that there were many complaints which should have gone in but which never did go in. To my knowledge there wasn't any manufacturer who called one of

his employees into the office and said, "You are being fired tonight because you have been too active in the union." No; they are too smart for that. But I do know employees in New England who went to the Regional Board in Boston on complaints that they were laid off. But they were not laid off for union activities; the boss would come around to them and say, "Well, boys, I am sorry, but there is a let-down in business and I will have to let you go. If business picks up eventually, I will send for you."

But they were not sent for. And they could not prove that they were discriminated against because of union activity. But we know that they were.

I have in mind one gentleman who was president of an international union. That union went out in the 1934 general textile strike with the organization. After the strike that man walked the streets for 15 weeks. He had a family and was in bad circumstances. He could not get back. After pressure was brought to bear on every board that we had--and I understand the case was taken into Washington by Mr. Gorman the man was finally put back to work. But the conditions under which he worked were not conditions such as any American should work under. He was on a piece-work rate, and his work was inspected. And this man dropped his income down a dollar to 2 dollars a day in order to make sure that his work would be perfect.

Those were the conditions under which he worked for 3 weeks. In the fourth week the man was fired. He was not fired for his union activities; he was fired for eating a sandwich in the plant during working hours.

I say without fear of contradiction that the codes were not upheld, as it was claimed they were. And with respect to the statements that have been made about 90 percent of the manufacturers being willing to uphold the codes, I say now that they did uphold the codes when the N. R. A. was in effect, and they are not doing it now since N. R. A. is not in effect.

I would also like to say something as a worker in the industry as to the condition of the industry at the present time.

It is my idea that the condition in the industry today that is causing the most harm and that is causing the most dissatisfaction-that is, the most harm among the workers and amongst the manufacturers-is not only the wage and hours, but it is the production. By that I mean the work load that has been put on the employees. In the last 9 or 10 years the work load has increased in some instances 50 percent. In some instances it has been increased that much.

I have worked under conditions when I would really not have time to get a drink of water during the day. This is not an exaggeration. And I really did not have time to go to the men's room. If I did, then when I came back to my bench I was that much further behind the man who was working beside me, and with hardly a possibility of catching up. To put it in plain words, it just meant a "bawling out" from the boss that night.

This condition is not only detrimental to the workers in the industry, but it is detrimental to the manufacturers themselves. I attribute this to all of this competition. I have talked to committees of manufacturers, and there was never a manufacturer who defended the pro

duction that their employees were turning out. All of them will truthfully admit that the production is too much. But, they say, "What can I do about it? I have to do it because John so and so in some other place has advanced his and I have to advance mine in order to compete with him."

When we ask the other man he would give us the same story. We went around in a circle and we got the same story from every one of them. And when we got through we could not put our finger on any one of them because they all accused each other of being the aggressor in this matter.

As to the matter of wages in the industry, the minimum wage is $14 a week. And it advances accordingly. I might say that it is the understanding that a large percentage of the workers in the industry do not work 52 weeks a year. We have a great percentage of the workers in the industry who do not work 7 or 8 months a year. Last year I think I worked 4 months. With these 7 or 8 months' work it would cut the minimum rate down as low as $8 or $9 or $10. It would cut the minimum to that. And it would cut the other workers far down below a living wage. If a man is going to live and get some of the necessities of life and bring up a family, I say that the wages in the industry are too low, considering the fact that everything else has advanced.

I know that a question will be raised as to the violations of the hours and wage structure.

I might say that in the industry so far as violations of the wage structure and the hours structure are concerned, that the percentage is very small in the woolen industry. But I am not going to give the woolen industry full credit for all that; I am going to say that the reason, in many cases, that the hours have not been advanced or that the wages have not been decreased is because of the organization we have in the plants. We have had cases where it was put up to our organization to advance the hours, and they would say, "There is no reason why you men should not take it, because you will be getting 8 hours more pay." But our organization has stood firm.

And I might say that in some of the plants where the organization is not so strong there seems to be a general opinion of the employees that the 40 hours has been a gift from heaven and that they are not going back to the "horse and buggy" days, but that they are going to maintain the 40 hours. And that is why we have not had the violations.

I might see provisions in the bill which will take care of every matter that I have touched upon up to this time; that it, that will take care of production, of which a study is to be made; that will take care of wages, raise the minimum from $14 to $15 a week.

One thing that was a great mistake with the codes was that it was not so arranged that 50 or 60 percent of the workers would not be put on the minimum wage. And if a man has to serve an apprenticeship, as I did, for 2 or 3 or 4 years in the industry he should be compensated for his knowledge and paid accordingly and not drop down towards the minimum.

The provision in the bill on child labor does not need much comment. I do not think there is any need of stressing the matter of child labor. With 10 or 12 million people unemployed in the industry there is no need of any children employed in it. I think plenty

[graphic]

of adults should be put into the industry, leaving the children in school to get an education so that they will not have to go into the industry and take what we have been taking.

As I

The woolen and worsted industry cannot operate 40 hours; they cannot operate on an 80-hour productive machinery basis. said before, there is a large percentage that does not work 3 full hours, as you have heard before. In asking for 30 hours they felt that there would be much opposition to it, so they conceded the 5 hours, but still admitting it is doubtful that the firm can operate that amount of time.

Mr. Wood. Do you mean to say that with the method of operation and the amount of business there is now that they cannot now operate a full 40 hours?

Mr. JENNINGS. They could operate during a rush period, but on a general average throughout the year they would not average that much.

Mr. Wood. But the average of 40 hours a week would not hamper the production in any manner?

Mr. JENNINGS. No, sir; it would not.

Mr. WOOD. Some employers contend they cannot operate on 40 hours because in some seasons they have to work longer hours. But in this case the manufacturers in your industry are fortunate if they can even operate 40 hours a week?

Mr. JENNINGS. That is correct. They talk about State compacts and State legislation to remedy this condition. I come from the State of New Hampshire, and we have a 54-hour law there. For years we have been trying to enact a 48-hour law in the State of New Hampshire. In every legislature the manufacturers send their lawyers and all the aid possible, and leave no stone unturned to upset a 48-hour law. Any social legislation for the benefit of the workers is opposed by the manufacturers of New Hampshire. And that applies throughout the other States. I cannot see where State legislation ever will remedy the textile situation or the textile conditions. And the workers in the industry, and the manufacturers themselves, and everybody else who is concerned in the matter, knows that there is only one way to remedy the conditions, and that is in a uniform way; it has to be remedied by the Federal Government. Mr. WOOD. With reference to these compacts in the New England States, it was contended on the floor of the House during the last session in defense of this bill according the States power to set up compacts, that the employers and the employees were the prime movers in this effort to create compacts between the States. From your testimony it seems that while the employers have expressed themselves as being favorable to these compacts, yet when it comes to the actual operation before the legislature you find them there with their corporation attorneys and other representatives opposing the legislation that would seek to bring about a uniformity of legislation between the States.

Mr. JENNINGS. That is right.

Mr. Wood. On the one hand they say that they are in favor of the compacts, but when it comes to the reality their real actions are just the opposite.

Mr. JENNINGS. And they opposed the 48-hour bill in every legislature in New Hampshire.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »