Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

studies, and in many industries, that there is a difference of from 20 to 33% percent in the productivity of the employees in the South. That is due to the fact that these employees for the most part have come from the agricultural sections; they are inexperienced in industrial operations and manipulations. Therefore they cannot produce. Then, our climatic condition down there is conducive somewhat to a difference and causes an easy-going attitude not only in industry but in every other walk of life.

Mr. LUNDEEN. Including the raising of wages?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes. But we had to keep the wages down.

Another point I would like to bring out is that the South is an open-shop section of the country. The employer and the employee work side by side. The employer of today was the employee of yesterday, and he has gradually come into the position of the boss.

We do not operate under a lash; we do not drive people in industry down South. So my point is that we do not produce. For that reason, plus the high freight rates, from the South to the East, and the nonproductivity or the lack of producing ability of the employees, it makes it necessary for us to pay a lower wage than the other sections of the country.

Mr. Wood. You say the employee of today is the employer tomorrow? They must sort of take turns about that, one of them working today for the 6 or 7 dollars until he can't work any longer, and then he is the employer and lets the other fellow do it?

Mr. GILBERT. We find our industrials are very well satisfied down South. They appreciate the increase in wages. It was not our pleasure to hold wages down. We did it because it was necessary.

I will say that since industry got up to this level of $11, $12, or $13— and I want to say furthermore that the $9 a week or $11 a week or the $7 a week down South goes much further with the man or woman who receives it than twice that amount of money in other sections of the country on a cost-of-living basis.

Those of you who have been down South know that our workers have their own gardens and their own homes and do have those advantages and raise most of the things they have to eat. Their living cost is less. They can afford to work for less money than workers in other sections of the country. And when we pay a less wage than is paid in other sections of the country we are not grinding down labor.

Mr. WOOD. If a man had a garden, then you would sort of expect him to work for you and then make his own living out of the garden? Mr. GILBERT. We expect to give him employment and let him supplement by his garden the wages that he earns.

I just want to go back one step further and say that unless industry in the South is given some encouragement, Mr. Chairman, it cannot operate and cannot run. And we are doing the better and bigger thing by that vast army of workers who are now out of employment, who would be out of employment if it were not for industrial occupations.

And, I want to add one other word, if you don't make me sit down. Mr. KELLER. Go right ahead.

Mr. GILBERT. Under the A. A. A. curtailments in connection with the allotment of corn and cotton, we have this condition. I am a farmer as well as an industrialist. The Government has said to the

cotton planter in the South, "You plant 40 percent less cotton this year than you did last year." And that means so many workers in the army classified as farm laborers are now rushing into the city and small towns for employment. If it were not possible for industry in the South to give them employment, even though it might be considered to be a small wage, it would mean just that much more to the Government dole or Government relief which is now being expended in our section of the country as well as in other sections.

Mr. HARTLEY. How do wages now compare with those under N. R. A.?

Mr. GILBERT. Just about the same. As I stated, 92 percent of industry is keeping up the wages. It is a hard load to carry, but it would have been a very unfortunate thing when N. R. A. ceased for industry to have reduced wages. Through my organization we have urged every industrialist in the South, insofar as it is humanly possible, to pay the same wage that they paid under N. R. A.

Mr. HARTLEY. Isn't it a fact that the cotton-textile industry was the first to come in voluntarily under N. R. A. and establish a code? Mr. GILBERT. Yes, sir; it is. Unfortunately, that is true, because when they came forward they set a precedent that the rest of us had to live up to. They set the precedent of a dollar a week differential, $13 in the North and East and $12 in the South. That was the standard that the rest of the industry had to come to. And we never got beyond it. There were 263 codes that had no differentials at all. They had the same wage North, South, and West. So we had to suffer because of the $1 differential that the textile industry started.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I asked that primarily in the hope you would emphasize the difference in freight rates, because I think that is the only valid argument you have for a differential. I will say that in all candor.

Mr. GILBERT. I will emphasize that. Most of our markets are in the East. The freight rates from the South are exceedingly high. Furthermore, there is quite a decided difference between freight rates from Nashville, Tenn., to Boston, Mass., more so than there is from Boston, Mass., to Nashville, Tenn. In other words, you can manufacture the same goods in the East that are manufactured in Atlanta or Nashville and ship them down to Atlanta or Nashville for much less than the same goods could be returned back East. The freight rates are wholly against the South.

Mr. KELLER. Why is that?

Mr. GILBERT. I don't know whether I should say that or not.
Mr. KELLER. Go ahead.

Mr. GILBERT. There is an Interstate Commerce Commission with only one man from the South a member of the Commission. The remaining Commission is made up of members from the sections of the country that are favored. Whether the human element has entered into it or not we don't know. But we do know this, that a decided discrimination exists against the South with respect to freight rates. When we ship our goods into those markets that are thickly populated and where they have short hauls it makes quite a difference in the cost of our production. Unless we can even that up in the wage that we pay down South and get the employees to cooperate with us, we cannot do business.

Mr. WOOD. There has been a recent revision in the freight rates from the South?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes. But that is against us. That recent decision is very much worse than the original one. This recent decision is on a mile-haul basis. Down South we have 550 or 560 people, let us say, to the square mile, but up in this eastern section of the country you will have a few thousand people to the square mile. In other words, when we ship the products of the eastern factories, we have just a very short haul; when we ship the products from the South, even to our own people, we have to take them further. And then when we ship from the South back East, where most of our products go, this last decision makes it far worse than we were situated under the prevailing conditions previously.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Is it not true that mile for mile on cotton textile products, the rates from the South to the North are higher than from the North to the South for the same distance?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes; very much so.

Mr. RAMSPECK. That is the only legitimate argument I think you have for a differential in wage scales.

Mr. GILBERT. That is sufficient for a better differential than we had under N. R. A.

Mr. WELCH. How do you reconcile the statement that the 14 Southern States were vitally affected by N. R. A. by reason of the increased wages and that you went backwards during the period that N. R. A. was in force and effect, but since it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court a few months ago you have gone forward 18 percent, and in the same breath you tell us you pay the same wages that you did when N. R. A. was in operation?

Mr. GILBERT. Let me explain that.

Mr. WELCH. If the high wage was the result of N. R. A. that set you back during the period of its operation, how is it that since it has been invalidated by the Supreme Court you have gone forward but still maintain the same wage scale set up by N. R. A.?

Mr. GILBERT. May I answer that question?

Mr. WELCH. I wish you would.

Mr. GILBERT. Under N. R. A. there was fear in the hearts of industrialists in the South; there was the fear on the part of industrialists in the South and we did not know whether to buy raw materials, whether to manufacture the materials, whether to put it into our warehouses or what to do with it. When the annulment of N. R. A. came about that mantle of fear fell from us and we started out with new hope and new determination. Today we are not making any more money, and possibly not as much as we did under N. R. A.; but we believe the field is clear for us and our factories are running. They are not selling all of their goods, but they are accumulating them in the warehouses with the hope that some of this governmental restriction and regulation is removed. They believe the field is clear and open, and they are going forward with the determination, if they can, in their own way, to get out from under this depression.

But so long as N. R. A. was held as a fear over them they were discouraged; they closed their factories. More than 200 closed down in Tennessee, feeling that there was no encouragement for them to go forward, and they took a vacation. Those factories are opening up, and with some hope that some relief will be given. That is the reason we are going forward-not that we are profiting any more. Mr. WOOD. You are not selling any more goods now?

56725-36

Mr. GILBERT. We are selling a little more, but not in proportion to what we are making. We are manufacturing much faster than we are selling. We are taking the chance. That is exactly what we are doing. And we are very hopeful that we will come out all right.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I would like to ask the witness a question. What has been the effect of T. V. A. in Tennessee in the district in which you live?

Mr. GILBERT. It has been very discouraging. I will say it openly, that the worst thing that has happened to the State of Tennessee and to the South since the Civil War was the advent of T. V. A.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Isn't it reducing the electric-power rates in that section of the country?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes and no. It is not reducing the power rates, but it is having the effect of extending power lines. The object of T. V. A. was to give us farmers-and I am a farmer-electric lights. The electric power companies are taking advantage of that and they are extending these rural lines. But so far as rates go, we cannot reduce our rates, or the companies cannot reduce the rates without our State commissions granting permission. And up to the present time the State commissions feel that the power rates are low enough. in our section, and we are not getting the reductions.

Mr. LUNDEEN. In many sections of the South the record shows by statistics that the rates have been reduced. Congressman Rankin has time and again produced given statistics in Congressional Records showing that this yardstick did in many places reduce the rates. I do not say all through the South, but in many places it did reduce the

rates.

Mr. GILBERT. Perhaps it has escaped me.

Mr. KELLER. I wish you would read them. I think they are

wrong.

Mr. GILBERT. The reason we object so much to T. V. A. is that down in the section from which I come we do not like to see the Government and we respect our Government-come down and compete with private individuals in business. That is what they are doing under T. V. A. They are coming down there doing that. And I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that if the T. V. A. was confined absolutely and strictly to the making and the distributing of power we would not feel so badly about it. We think even if you put the power companies out of existence there are that many stockholders who have lost their holdings. And what we fear most is that other lines of business are going to be entered by the Government.

We have received many letters lately from T. V. A. or from some branch of it, asking what about establishing a mill in here; why not establish that mill in order to utilize the power and in order to buy the raw materials from that section and manufacture the stuff?

When you start manufacturing power there is nothing to keep you from manufacturing overalls and work shirts, woolen blankets, and hosiery, and everything else. Our fear is that this is an entering wedge of the Government going into private business.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Is it not true in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee that the commissions have reduced the rates?

Mr. GILBERT. I do not think we have gotten any reductions in Tennessee recently.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Do you use electric power on your farm?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes, I do.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And do you buy direct from the power company? Mr. GILBERT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Do they buy from T. V. A.?

Mr. GILBERT. No, sir. We have a dam right near my place up at Rock Island. The Tennessee Electric Power Co. has a power plant there. They do buy some from Muscle Shoals. But that was before T. V. A.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. As I understand it, all of those State Commissions that are regulating the power rates have reduced rates wherever the companies are buying the power from T. V. A.

Mr. GILBERT. The companies operating in my section have not bought any from T. V. A. They had a contract with Muscle Shoals and were getting the power there prior to T. V. A.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The fact is the companies will keep the rates up as high as they can until they are forced to pull them down. Isn't that true?

Mr. GILBERT. I do not think so. If they do, they will lose business. Mr. SCHNEIDER. T. V. A. is threatening them and, consequently they will have to reduce the rates.

Mr. GILBERT. We would rather deal with our own power companies down there.

Mr. LUNDEEN. As I understood it, you stated that the T. V. A. had been a damage to the South. How can it damage the South to have millions of dollars in the Norris Dam, the great structure now being completed, and the Wheeler Dam, and Muscle Shoals and I voted for it during the war-and the Pickwick Dam and all of these other huge projects that private industry failed to build; and they failed to utilize these great resources. These are now being constructed and great power is going to electrify the whole country_and stimulate everything down South. I cannot see how that can damage you.

Mr. GILBERT. We have never opposed the building of the dams. For the most part they were built for flood control and navigation, and not for power. Power for the most part is a byproduct. The Norris Dam was built not primarily for power but as a storage for Muscle Shoals. Muscle Shoals has 7 months primary power and the rest of the year it it is secondary power. In order to make a steady flow they built Norris Dam. We do not object to the building of the dam down there. But we want the Government to sell the power at the dam to a distributing company that already has its own lines. Mr. LUNDEEN. Would object to that power being distributed by a cooperative?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes; I think we would, because that is just a subsidiary, perhaps, of the Government. Let us keep business in the hands of the individual or private capital and let the Government perform the functions of government and let business perform the functions of business.

Mr. LUNDEEN. And let business exploit everybody?

Mr. GILBERT. I would not say exploit. I think business is the savior of the country. If it were not for business distributing their monthly or their weekly pay rolls we would be in a hopeless condition. Mr. WOOD. Do you mean from 1930 to 1933?

« ÎnapoiContinuă »