Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

ganization during the life of the code pivoted around the issue of company unions.

The changed labor standards produced immediate results. Jobs became more numerous and employment steadier. Instead of employment being sectional and at low wages, it became more national and at wages more in keeping with a minimum of decency. The relentless trend toward liquidation was stayed. The institution of minimum wages and the 40-hour week in nonunion mills produced a demand for new machinery. These mill owners felt that it was cheaper in the long run to sell their old and buy new equipment. It would be easier for the workers to make their minima on new machines, and then too, the new machines could produce practically as much in 8 hours as the old ones did in 12. Some of this old equipment was brought to Philadelphia and was operated by small firms on a subcontract basis for larger mills.

The industry was picking up. But no one was childish enough to believe that the deep wounds which it had sustained in the previous years could be healed in 22 months. The industry was producing substantially the same amount of hosiery that it had in 1928-but of a cheaper grade. The emphasis had been shifted from the long quality stocking to the short coarser fabric. This is another reason why, aside from technological considerations, the 40-hour week was excessive.

Then came the Supreme Court's decision. We had gotten so used to the N. R. A. scheme of things, that the bitter memories of 1929-33 had begun to fade. We had looked upon the code conditions as being more or less permanent. We thought that the manufacturers had been so favorably impressed with the obvious benefits of stabilization that they would make a sincere effort to perpetuate code standards and prevent the industry from sliding back into the abyss.

Well, if they did try, they did not try hard enough. Conditions slowly but surely began to decline. We in Philadelphia, who had not had a strike in 20 months, found it necessary to declare five strikes in the last half year, with the prospect of many more to maintain code conditions in the months immediately before us.

The majority of the 80-odd mills in Philadelphia are small. Many, probably most of them, are running on a subcontract basis; that is, they produce goods in the grey for larger firms--but only when the larger plants cannot make the goods themselves. During the life of the code and under the 40-hour limitation, these companies could not fill all their orders themselves. But if the present stealthy pecking at the hour and wage provisions of the late code is successful, there will not be any overflow to the small mills, and Philadelphia will be afflicted with widespread unemployment. But the larger firms themselves are hardly in a better position.

It is true that they have been very busy, but, as we indicated above, they have been turning out work of coarse quality with a low profit rate for the most part. This diet has kept them from going under, but it has not conduced toward their putting on enough weight to be sure of surviving a rough-and-tumble struggle with the forces making making for chaos.

We are not predicating our pessimistic prophecies on gloomy theories. The industry is already on the downgrade. More mills are shut down in Philadelphia right now than at any time since the

summer of 1933. And the terrifying specter of liquidation, banished by the code, is again amongst us, wreaking havoc on the morale of the industry and our people.

We want something done quickly. We are not so naive as we were from 1929 to 1933. We do not care to go through that experience again. We know now that it is not necessary. And yet we know, too, that unless the National Textile Act becomes law, we shalĺ again be condemned to needless privation, misery, and great potentialities for good in the hosiery industry will be permanently impaired.. Mr. WOOD. That is a very fine statement.

Mr. KELLER. This Philadelphia delegation is doing a fine job.
We will now call Miss Helen Herman.

STATEMENT OF MISS HELEN HERMAN, REPRESENTING WOMEN WORKERS IN THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Mr. KELLER. Will you please state your name and state where you live?

Miss HERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Helen Herman; 2652 Bridge Street, Philadelphia. I am here representing the women workers in the textile industry, mainly the hosiery industry.

As has been stated here before, Mr. Chairman, there are four lady workers for every man in the hosiery industry.

I do not have a brief prepared in writing, but I will just cite a few things as they come to my mind.

In 1929 when our industry was on the slide downward we began taking reductions. We were told that in order for our manufacturers to compete in the downward business trend we would have to take a series of reductions, which we did. It seemed that every time we took a reduction we would get 4 or 5 weeks' work and then we were off for months, which meant no pay. That meant that the lady members who were employed had to go on relief or else depend on other members of the family who were lucky enough to be earning a few dollars a week. I can say that from 1929 until 1933 we took anywhere from a 40-percent reduction to 50-percent reduction. In the early part of 1933 things were so bad that every place you turned people were out of work. They were getting panicky. The mills were moving out of town and everyone was saying, "What are we going to do?” until finally the N. R. A. came into existence.

Many of our manufacturers agreed to go along under the set, and things got much better, and we could look forward every week to a pay check. We were more secure and our mills were remaining in town.

But it seems that since the N. R. A. has passed out of existence our jobs are again just a little uncertain. From day to day we don't know whether we are going to work. As soon as a mill closes down the rumors start around, "Well, there is another mill moving down South"; and again everyone is getting panicky.

Since I belong to a labor organization I an interested in these different laws that mean something for the workman. And I want to say that it used to be that a girl was only in industry until she got married, and then she would remain at home and take up the duties of a housewife. But today she is forced to remain in industry, or at

least many of them are forced to do so. That is one reason why I want to ask the members of this committee to consider seriously taking some steps toward having this bill reported out of the committee favorably.

Of course, I represent the organized section of the industry. But in many parts of the country that are not organized they are working 10 hours and more a day, which makes it very hard for us, naturally, since they are working longer hours. Their manufacturers can sell cheaper than our manufacturers can sell.

I want to cite an instance which happened just about 2 weeks ago in connection with the particular firm by which I am employed. We were going along fairly well and working fairly steady, when out of a clear sky the superintendent came and told the fellows that they were that night going to be laid off indefinitely. Of course, we did not know what it was all about. But finally we found out that somebody had underbid this man on his order. Someone got that order for 50 cents or 60 cents a dozen cheaper. And that meant that 200 or 300 people were thrown out onto the street.

Now, just turn this over in your minds and see what it means to us. If we do not have something to bind the manufacturers so that they cannot underbid each other it is a very serious condition in the industry. If we could stabilize conditions similar to what they were under N. R. A.—well, I don't know just how to put it, but I think we would be in a much better position.

This firm had all of this work on hand, yet the order was canceled. They had possibly 600 or 700 dozen finished and no one to sell them to. The manufacturer could not compete because he was paying us a fair wage. He was taxed, because he was willing to pay a fair wage. Yet someone else who probably was not paying a fair wage got that order. Do you think that is a fair way to do it? Personally I do not.

I know how hard it is to organize people, especially to organize the women workers in the industry. We have that argument every day. I want to say that this Ellenbogen bill, in my opinion, is a very good If this bill can be enacted I feel sure in my own mind that these ills can be overcome and that we can again feel security. And, after all, in the minds of most working people that is something that is very

one.

necessary.

I think the members of this committee have covered most of the other points, and at this time this is about all I can say.

Before closing, however, I again want to ask the members of this committee to do all in their power to have this bill reported favorably out of the committee.

I thank you.

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Miss Herman. That is also a good statement.

I wonder if you Philadelphia folks have not been getting together. Mr. GORMAN. Would you permit Congressman Fulmer, from South Carolina, to say a word? He is here at this time and would like to make a statement.

Mr. KELLER. We will certainly be glad to hear from Congressman Fulmer.

STATEMENT OF HON. H. P. FULMER, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. FULMER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am delighted to have this opportunity of coming before your committee.

I want to say in behalf of the wage earners of the country that they are fortunate indeed to have these members who compose this committee which is now holding hearings on this bill because of their interest in the wage earners of the country and their deep desire to be helpful to them.

I agree with the statement made by the chairman some days ago that, if this is not the proper bill to take care of that great class of people who need the assistance of the Federal Government today, you and your committee will work out something to take care of the situation.

I find that a great many of the people who oppose any legislation proposed by the Congress in the interest of unorganized classes have no objection to these unorganized groups doing the same thing intended under these bills. And, in that agriculture and labor are unorganized, they have not been able to compete with well-organized industry to the extent of getting a square deal. It is my belief that the Congress of the United States should pass legislation to enable that great class of people to do for themselves that which they are unable to do now, in that they are not organized and never will be thoroughly organized. In other words, it is an easy matter for industrial groups to organize, monopolize, fix prices and wages, in that they are composed of a small group of people, in a great many instances who are well educated and well financed. On the other hand, agriculture and wage earners, being composed of millions of individuals, in many instances uneducated (through no fault of their own but because of their financial condition), are absolutely helpless in trying to organize so as to bring about bargaining power in selling farm products and demanding fair wages.

I have not had an opportunity to study the Ellenbogen bill, and, naturally, would not be able to speak on its real merits. But Í wanted to appear before your committee and tell you that I am very much concerned about and in sympathy with that class of people who, as I said a few minutes ago, need the protection of the Government in the passage of legislation that will enable them to take care of their interests, especially when they have to go up against these well-organized and well-financed groups.

In my State we have a number of textile mills and in my district there are quite a number of them. I believe that the operators of the mills in South Carolina are trying to be just as fair as they can possibly be to the employees; but without some national legislation so that we can make the fellow who is not willing to cooperate or who is not willing to be fair with his employees, naturally the people in my State, perhaps, would not be able to do that which they would like to do or that which they should do.

Something has been said about the problem of passing legislation coming within the Constitution of the United States, especially after the decision of the Supreme Court some days ago on the A. A. A. It is my belief that the Constitution is elastic enough to pass legisla

tion to take care of the interests of the great masses of the people who, as I said a little while ago, are unorganized and, apparently, helpless at this time. It is my contention that the Constitution of the United States was so written that we can legislate today to take care of the masses of the people and still remain within the Constitution. I would not like to think that in this day and generation the Congress would not be able to pass legislation to take care of the unorganized who have to go up against the rules and regulations of these well-organized groups.

However, I can easily understand that, perhaps, although the men who wrote the Constitution of the United States were capable, outstanding, patriotic citizens at the time of the writing of this great document, they could not visualize the tremendous increase in population, communication, and other developments that we have at this time so as to be able to write a constitution 150 years ago which would take care of every situation that might arise at the present time. And, if the present Constitution is not elastic enough to take care of these problems, although I believe it is, there is only one thing to be done that is, let the people decide whether or not they want to amend the Constitution of the United States so as to take care of this situation.

I want to say to you that I am deeply interested in any type of legislation that will look to the welfare and protection of the great masses of the people who really need to be placed on an equal basis. with these well-organized groups. I have this feeling largely because of the understanding I have for suffering humanity. I have had to go up against a great many of the problems which are now confronting the agricultural interests and the wage earners of this country. I was born and reared on a farm. I had to walk 4 miles to secure a highschool education. I started life's work as a young man behind a grocery counter at $10 per month and board. During all of these years I worked, as stated, first, as a wage earner, then engaged in the mercantile business, country banking, and farming. And, during all of this time, I had to go up against well-organized and wellfinanced groups. I am in a position to understand and sympathize with the people for whom I am speaking here today. I have had a long and stumpy road to travel because of not being able as an individual to cope with these well-organized and well-financed groups I am talking to you about.

Therefore, as previously stated, I am deeply interested in seeing to it that this great group of innocent toilers of the soil and wage earners of the country get a square deal to the extent that they are placed on an equal basis with these well-organized and well-protected groups.

We have heard much about the policy of some people in regard to "sharing the wealth of the country." The policy I am interested in is to protect the people we have been talking about to the extent that they may be able to make for themselves a name and a reasonable livelihood to which they are clearly entitled. It is unthinkable to me, knowing as I do the conditions under which the farmers of this country have been operating as well as the conditions under which the wage earners of the country have been operating, knowing that they are not able out of their experience to demand for themselves a square deal, that the Congress of the United States, under the welfare clause of the Constitution of the United States, is not able to pass legislation to do

« ÎnapoiContinuă »