Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 Since the Schechter decision, the only information we have as to increase in child employment comes from these same statistics of employment certificates issued to children. Immediately after the Schechter decision, the Children's Bureau asked the cities and States reporting to it annually hitherto to report monthly regarding employment certificates issued so that we might have some current indications of trends.

We have compiled these figures for the 7 months following the Schechter decision; that is, the period from May 28, 1935, through December 1935. Unfortunately, we are not able to break these figures down to show the figures for the textile industry. But the general trend indicates a tendency to return to employing children, although the gains are still being held to a considerable extent. But there is nevertheless evidence that children are going back into industry in many places.

For 6 entire States and 102 cities covering a very representative area in the country, the figures show that nearly 11,000 certificates permitting 14- and 15-year old children to go to work were issued in the 7 months in 1935 to which I have had reference.

In contrast, in these same areas during the entire year of 1934, only about 7,000 children were certificated. In other words, in the 7 months of 1935, after the protective provisions of the codes were removed, the number of 14- and 15-year-old children going to work in these localities was 58 percent larger than the number going to work during the entire year preceding. The percentage of certificates issued for manufacturing and mechanical employment rose from 1 percent in 1934 to 12 percent in 1935.

More definite information relating to the textile industry is contained in a bulletin issued by the North Carolina Department of Labor in January 1936. North Carolina has been outstanding in the attempt that has been made to hold the gains with reference to child labor that had been achieved under N. R. A. The State department of labor has conducted an active educational campaign among employers to hold these gains, and has had marked cooperation from a number of employers.

In North Carolina, in 1930, 3,118 children 14 and 15 years of age received employment certificates for work in manufacturing, of which probably about nine-tenths were for work in textile industries. In 1933, 1,805 received certificates for manufacturing. In 1934, there were no children 14 and 15 years of age in North Carolina receiving employment certificates for manufacturing establishments.

In the whole year 1935 there were 276 children certificated, 14 and 15 years of age, of whom 106 were certificated for manufacturing and 90 of these 106 were certificated for textile industries. All except 23 of the total number of certificates and all except 12 of these for manufacturing industries were issued during the last 7 months of the year; that is, since the Schechter decision.

These figures do indicate that while substantial gains are still being held through the cooperation of the State labor department and the employers, there is a measurable tendency to return to the employment of children in some of the establishments in North Carolina.

We do not have for the other textile areas of the contry as comprehensive figures as these for North Carolina.

With reference to the legal standards, the provisions in this bill regarding child labor, contained in section 21, incorporate the best standards that have been developed and put into practice with reference to the employment of children and young people under the age of 18 years.

Of 15 representative textile States, we find that there are 3 whose State laws meet the minimum age requirement of 16 years. Those three States are Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New York. There are only 7 States in the entire country which have established a 16-year minimum, the minimum which was generally accepted in practically all of the N. R. A. codes. Only one of the textile States has a night-work standard comparable to that in this bill.

Of course, the provisions for hours of labor in this bill are more advanced than those incorporated in State laws in any of these textile States.

There 5 of the 15 States which have provisions with reference to the employment of young people under the age of 18 in hazardous occupations comparable to the standards developed under N. R. A. and incorporated in this bill.

56725-36-20

I think that completes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KELLER. Are here any questions? If not, we thank you very much, Miss Lenrott.

The next witness is Mr. Meadows, of the American Federation of Labor.

STATEMENT OF S. P. MEADOWS, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. KELLER. Will you state your name and whom you represent? Mr. MEADOWs. My name is S. P. Meadows; I represent the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I wish to say that the American Federation of Labor is cooperating with the textile workers' international union in its advocacy of the legislative measure, H. R. 9072, which it formulated and presented to Congress for enactment into law.

The American Federation of Labor is in favor of the intent and purpose of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. WELCH (presiding). The next witness is Mr. Hinrichs, from the Bureau of Labor. Will you state for the record your name and your position?

STATEMENT OF A. F. HINRICHS, CHIEF ECONOMIST, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Mr. HINRICHS. My name is A. S. Hinrichs. I am chief economist, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared statement with reference to the bill. I was asked to appear to answer such questions as might be asked, and I presume that the interest in having the Bureau of Labor Statistics appear was that it might present the latest figures which are available with reference to employment and pay rolls and earnings in the various branches of the textile industry.

I have prepared a series of tables, which I will submit.
Mr. WELCH. You desire to submit them for the record?
Mr. HINRICHS. For the record, yes.

Mr. WELCH. Without objection, they may be inserted in the record at this point.

(The tables referred to are as follows:)

TABLE 1.—Index of total employment in textile industries 1932–35
[January 1932-100-U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics]

[blocks in formation]

TABLE 2.-Index of total payrolls in textile industries 1932–35

[January 1932-100-U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics]

[blocks in formation]

1934.

1935..

90. 1 125.0 135.3 137.7 134. 5 126.4
134.3 141.7 144.9 139.4 129.0 118.5 108. 5 133.4 145. 1 152.7 151.7 142.9

99.9 115.9 127.2 134. 3 108.7 113.0 115.0 135.4

126. 4
136. 4

112, 3

138. 1

TABLE 3.-Index of average weekly earnings in textile industries, 1932-35

[January 1932=100-U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics]

[blocks in formation]

TABLE 4.-Index of average hourly earnings in textile industries, 1932-35

[January 1932-100-U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics]

[blocks in formation]

Silk:

1932

1933.

1934.

1935

Dyeing and finishing:

1932

1933.

1934..

1935.

100. 0 99.0 95.6 94.3 90.6 91.2 89.1 83.9 75.8 75. 1 75.5 73.9
70.3 70.7 72.6 73.9 73.2 74.4 76. 1 100.2 104.3 103. 8 104.3 105.8
107.0 105.7 106.9 110.1 109.9 110.5 109.7 109.9 112.9 110.8 110.3 110.5
111.0 112.0 111.7 111.7 113.5 112. 1 109.4 108. 4 108.6 107.6 107.1 106. 1
100.0 98.0 91.4 92.7 92.7
81.4 82.7 81.0 81.3 78.8
111.9 111.9 111.4 112. 5 112.5
117.3 115.2 116.0 115.5 114.8

90.2 89.0 88.3 85.6 84. 1 83.9 82.6 78.8 77.9 104.4 105.4 105.6 11. 111.0 112.7 114.2 114.7 115.4 112.6 110.0 117.0 114.4 116.9 117.1 115.8 115.4 115.6 114.9

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »