that, I think, the committee will want to give very serious consideration to, to the degree of the pay roll which should be met when the employee is discharged. That may be found on page 28 of the bill, section 24. The provision regarding homework is an extremely important one, one which we are planning to cover in legislation in the State of Rhode Island so far as intrastate business is concerned, and one which is very important to prevent the maintenance and spread of sweatshop conditions. The provision for study of the work load is an honest attempt to deal with a troublesome problem in the textile industry; and the theory of partnership between employers and employees on which the bill is based seems to me a realistic attempt to settle the problem to the satisfaction of both sides, and that, of course, is the only way the problem can be settled in a final way. A very interesting section of the bill is the one which requires that a 5-percent bonus on the wage earned by the worker shall be paid in the event of a three-shift operation of the mill. This is designed, as I understand, to reward the employees for increased efficiency. The thought is to pass on to the employees who have made that increased efficiency possible the rewards of the efficiency. The bill very wisely, as it seems to me, makes no attempt to deal directly with the problem of overproduction; but does require that fair study shall be made of the question before any definite procedure is adopted. So far as the trade practice provisions are concerned, they ought to cause no trouble. They merely provide for honest advertising and fair representation of the quality and type of goods being sold; and there is a provision that there shall be no defamation of competitors; no special rebates, rates, and so forth. I want to emphasize before I stop what I started in with, namely, that no lasting or economically sound treatment of the textile problem can be approached otherwise than from the national standpoint. We have seen for a number of years the various textile States trying to cope with this problem by biting off a piece here and there. We have all seen the failure with which that movement has been greeted. To those who say that there is a degree of voluntary compliance with fair labor standards let me say this: The textile industry has been striving for 15 years through gentlemen's agreements to maintain fair and decent provisions and to put into effect certain agreements between employers in that industry. It all broke down because somebody always failed to be a gentleman. In other words we enacted legislation not for the law-abiding, but for the lawbreaker, and it is idle to say that the problem of the textile industry and the proper protection of labor standards can be met by letting the industry police itself. It just will not work. You have got to have certain legislative standards that are mandatory on the members of that industry to effect the desired result. You must have standards which can be met reasonably; which are economically sound; which will not be unduly burdensome on the members of that industry. You must have standards which meet the moral standards of the majority of the members of that industry, which will enable them to be protected from the unfair practices of their undercutting, sweatshop competitors. That is the necessity for legislation on this problem, and the Governor instructed me to represent to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, his very serious interest in this obviously earnest attempt to settle the problem of the textile industry. He wanted me to particularly emphasize that any attempt made by the Congress to provide uniform standards which shall be binding on all sections of the country would have his hearty and unqualified support. Mr. SCHNEIDER. What is the attitude of the textile employers in your State toward the enactment of this proposed legislation? Mr. WALLING. I doubt that I can give very specific information concerning that, because I have not talked with any of them about it. I have not seen any reports by any of them. I know that they have been very much opposed to State legislation along these lines, not on the ground that they were opposed to higher labor standards, but on the ground that such would be destructive of their property interests and the welfare of the industry in the State if there should be State legislation. I am taking them at their word that they would be interested in national legislation that would obviate those difficulties. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Could we expect their actual cooperation if this bill should be enacted? Mr. WALLING. We have some history to go on so far as compliance under the National Recovery Act was concerned. I think more and more they are beginning to feel that the National Recovery Act was economically sound and I know that the textile manufacturers in New England, or many of them, feel that the provisions of the N. R. A. textile code, which did more to equalize labor costs and other costs in the production of goods, was a very real help to them. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Do you recall the efforts of the manufacturers of the New England States, as well as labor, prior to the enactment of the N. R. A., as trying to secure the enactment of a national 8-hour law; do you remember that? That being the case we, naturally, should have their cooperation in the administration and enforcement of this act in case it becomes law. Mr. WALLING. I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that there will be some textile employers in my own State, as well as in other States, who will appear in opposition to this proposed law. The employers' minds frequently work in such a way that they must oppose something that may lead to the present condition. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Many of them like to be rugged individualists. Mr. WALLING. Many of them are. Mr. Wood. The opposition of employers to State legislation is based upon the theory that if the standard of employees is raised in one State and other States do not take similar action, that will put the State that has elevated the standard in a bad position for competitive purposes. That especially applies to the textile industries of the North in competition with the textile industries of the South. Mr. WALLING. Yes; there is no question about that. That is true. One can only go so far in any one State. Mr. WooD. The textile manufacturers of New England came to our committee, came to Congress, in 1933 with the remainder of them, and asked the Congress to do something. They really were in favor of the National Recovery Act or something similar, and, judging by their talk at that time, I think they would be in favor of this legislation. 56725-36- -7 Mr. WALLING. I think many of them will be in favor of it. Mr. KELLER. What reason is there, anyway, for recognizing State lines in industry? Mr. WALLING. Do you mean economically or politically? Mr. WALLING. Economically I do not see any reason, if you are dealing with a national industry, as the textile industry admittedly is. Mr. KELLER. Is not all industry national? Mr. WALLING. I think that a great deal of it is; a certain amount should be said for local regulation of the service trades. Mr. KELLER. What industry is not national in character? Mr. WALLING. The service trades in many instances are not national in character, and in some cases they are. Let us consider the situation in New York where a large retail store, for instance, offers effective competition to the stores across the State line in the State of New Jersey. Any regulation of a New York department store imposing burdens upon it is likely to divert trade to the State of New Jersey if the regulation is sufficiently serious to increase prices. Mr. KELLER. But if there were national regulations there would not be any need for that. Mr. WALLING. That is true. Mr. KELLER. Why should we not recognize that industry is national and go to it from that viewpoint? Mr. MARCANTONIO. I think we should direct that last question to members of the Supreme Court. Mr. KELLER. We here are the supreme court! STATEMENT OF JOHN W. NICKERSON Mr. KELLER. The next witness is John W. Nickerson, who was sent here by Governor Cross of Connecticut as a representative of the textile manufacturers of the State of Connecticut. Mr. NICKERSON. I am an engineer employed by Jenny Bros. Governor Cross of Connecticut has asked me to represent him here today by presenting the views of the textile manufacturers of Connecticut regarding the proposed National Textile Act. In order that I might learn as accurately as possible what was the attitude of these manufacturers, a meeting was held last week, at which about 25 men were present, representing not only the cotton, woolen, and silk industries but manufacturers of rayon yarns, hosiery, velvets, carpets, twine, narrow fabrics, thread, lace, brake linings, and other similar products. During a several hour discussion, each individual expressed his views, and they were unanimously of the opinion that the passage of this bill would be against the best interests of both the employers and the employees in their several industries. These men spoke chiefly for medium and small-size businesses of good repute. As a matter of fact, under the present State labor laws as administered by the State Department of Labor, the problem of sweat-shop textile conditions prevalent in some other States is practically nonexistant in Connecticut. There were present many who pay top wages in their industries and who might be expected to profit most by a rational stabilization of wages and working conditions. In order that you may know their thoughts as directly as possible, I shall read a résumé of the prevailing sentiment, which was approved by that meeting. (The statement is as follows:) THE PROPOSED NATIONAL TEXTILE ACT-RÉSUMÉ OF PREVAILING SENTIMENT Presented by J. W. NICKERSON, Cheney Bros, Before House Committee on Labor It is a recognized principle of modern governments that new legislative proposals can be justified only when the need for them can be affirmatively demonstrated. There is no condition of distress in the Connecticut textile industry as a whole which would require, or could be remedied by, legislation of this type. From the standpoint of the Connecticut textile industry, therefore, the need is either nonexistent, or at least not acute and general, for the following reasons: 1. Our State labor laws are adequate to cover such elements in the proposed legislation as might be considered reasonable from the viewpoint of operating standards: (a) Under chapter 291 of the Public Acts of 1935, the hours of labor for minors and wonem in manufacturing establishments are limited to 9 per day, 48 per week, with limited tolerance for peak, emergency, and seasonal requirements, upon prior approval of the State labor commissioner. (b) Under chapter 215 of the Public Acts of 1935, the employment of women and minors is prohibited between the hours of 10 p. m. and 6 a. m. (c) Under chapter 301 of the Public Acts of 1933, when wages in any occupation are found oppressive, the State labor commissioner can call machinery into play for the setting of minimum wages for women, and for persons under 21. (d) Under chapter 8 of the Public Acts of 1935, the employment of minors under 16 is entirely prohibited in specified occupations, including manufacturing; and minors under 18 are barred from hazardous occupations. (e) Under chapter 154 of the Public Acts of 1935, industrial home work is virtually outlawed, except in limited cases on certificate by the State labor commissioner. (f) Under section 5205 of the General Statutes wages in specified occupations, including manufacturing, must be paid weekly. (g) Under sections 5218-5222 of the General Statutes, as amended, Connecticut has a board of arbitration and mediation for labor disputes with adequate powers. (h) Under section 6209 of the General Statutes, which has been on the books for over 35 years, Connecticut outlaws agreements not to join, or remain with, a labor organization. (i) Under section 6297 of the General Statutes, Sunday industrial labor is outlawed, except in specified occupations, mostly maintenance and emergency. (j) Under chapter 280 of the General Statutes, as amended, Connecticut employees are protected by complete workmen's compensation coverage, including a comprehensive occupational disease provision. 2. In the overwhelming main, good conditions prevail in employment relations of Connecticut manufacturers, as evidenced notably in the survey conducted by the N. R. A. organization to uncover departures from code norms after the Schechter decision. 3. Such departures from the typically good conditions as may be found in a relatively insignificant proportion of Connecticut plants could be corrected by adequate enforcement of existing statutes. If enforcement is not fully effective, neither the Ellenbogen bill nor any other statutory enactment will correct it. 4. Such aid as the bill purports to offer in the way of stabilization of competition through regulation of trade practices, is either not desired here at the price offered. in the Ellenbogen bill, or has proven ineffective in application under the N. R. A. Experience under the N. R. A. indicates that the expected help in this direction, even if originally effective, will eventually be so far subordinated to the restrictions in the bill as to be practically nonexistent. Moreover, insofar as such provisions tend to monopolistic practices, they are contrary to American tradition and American jurisprudence. 5. When and if greater parity between competing States in labor restrictions is needed, Connecticut manufacturers would prefer the device of interstate compacts, now already well launched, rather than direct Federal statutory control. 6. If reemployment is the bill's objective, its provisions are unwarranted, misdirected, and cannot be effective. In the peak year, employees in the manufacturing industries of the United States averaged only 8,800,000, according to United States census figures. That figure constituted only one-fifth of the total gainfully employed persons in the country that year, leaving the remainder to be accounted for in commercial and financial occupations, distribution processes, agriculture, domestic service, the arts, the professions, etc. Therefore, asking industry to absorb the remaining 11,000,000 alleged to be still unemployed is asking it to take on over twice as many workers as it ever had, which is obviously unfair and impossible. Moreover, since the low point in March 1933, the manufacturing industries of the country have absorbed about 2,526,000 according to data compiled by the National Industrial Conference Board-an advance of 53 percent. Manufacturing employment in Connecticut made an even more rapid rise, showing a 62 percent advance in that period, according to monthly statistical reports gathered in seven industrial centers in the State. The textile mills of Connecticut, which are now employing over 40,000 hands, have participated in this general advance. In fact, the textile industry as a whole in this country appears to have been a substantial factor in the general revival, and it is interesting to note that, in the general decline shown in census figures from 1929 to 1931, textile mill employment increased from 12 percent of total and manufacturing employment to 13% percent of the total, indicating a more tempered decline than the average industry. II Some proposals offered for the control of industry are harmful only because of the competitive disadvantage they would entail to producers within the jurisdiction where they are effective. Many others are economically, mechanically, and practically fallacious. Excessive delimitation of hours of labor would fall in this class because it would increase costs to the point where the product of labor in that industry could not compete, from the standpoint of consumers' varied wants, with other commodities which they might purchase as an alternative, such as the choice between a new suit, using the products of the woolen industry, and an article which is the product of an entirely different industry, or even of foreign labor and capital. Moreover, if widespread, it would inevitably decrease the standard of living of the average worker because his real wages, in terms of purchasing power, would be so decreased by rising prices as to deny him many of the comforts and luxuries which he can enjoy under present-day conditions. The Ellenbogen bill is replete with such fundamental fallacies. III Connecticut textile manufacturers, therefore— 1. Do not propose to become fogged in the details of the bill, like the 35-hour work week, because the bill would still contain objectionable principles from their viewpoint, even though such a rigid delimitation were slightly relaxed; and they, therefore, cannot be comforted by expressions of willingness on the part of the proponents to relax certain drastic features of the proposal. 2. Hesitate to lend endorsement to any phase of the bill, basing their hesitancy on their fate, after the promulgation of codes, when their eventual criticisms were rebuffed by the statement of the administrator that they themselves had lent endorsement to the N. R. A. principle. 3. Are not going to rely on the obvious unconstitutionality of the bill, because it could conceivably be rewritten to bring it within the limitations laid down or inferred in the Schechter and Hoosac Mills cases. Instead, the textile manufacturers of Connecticut are opposed to the Ellenbogen bill as written, and to any colorable alternative therefor, for the following reasons: 1. Experience under the N. R. A. demonstrated the impracticability of inelastic schedules of hours or wages. 2. The bill proposes a complete divorce of management and ownership, and creates in its stead a forced partnership, in which one of the parties, management, has no choice as to the personnel or the conduct of either of the other two parties-the Federal Government and organized labor. 3. Excessive delimitation on hours actually hurts labor as a whole, not only in eventually lowering the standard of living, as recited above, but in the proven usurpation by short-time industrial employees of work and income which would normally go to persons employed in other fields, such as house repair, and auto repair. |