Imagini ale paginilor

shut down because of unemployment. So as an effective means of increasing employment the fixing of the hours at 35 will not accomplish any great increase in the number of people employed in the industry.

As to the question of wages: Now, of course, the minimum wage of $15 a week is roughly 25 percent higher than the minimum that prevails today. If a minimum of $15 a week were placed, certainly it would follow that all the other employees in the mills would have their wages go up, maybe not the same percentage but probably the same number of dollars per week. That would raise costs naturally.

The question of what a minimum basic wage should be is not for me to determine, whether it should be $15 a week or $10 a week or $12 a week. That in the long run will be determined by what the goods can be obtained for and wages that can be afforded to be paid.

It seems to me that getting the bill down, inasmuch as the other law takes care of collective bargaining and child labor is not a problem, this question of getting down to the hours of labor and wages immediately leads us to what in my opinion is the heart of the bill, and that is the public policy of Federal regulation of industry by means of Federal licensing and boycotts employed in the bill.

This means eventually the lodging of management in the hands of the Federal Government. Not only that, but it means the control of all working conditions in the Federal Government. That means & necessary rigidity. That has to be. That is, the administrative tolerance, the latitude, will have to be eliminated, if we are going to make laws strictly governing labor conditions and conditions of management. That also means that under laws of that kind it is quite possible that a different type of government or other administration might see fit to put restrictions on labor and management and make them more onerous rather than less onerous. That is, the rigidity of a system of licensing and a system of control of industry will in my opinion ultimately work just as much harm to the working man as it will to management.

The textile industry along with every other industry, of course, has had certain weaknesses exposed by the terrific pressure under which it has been during the depression. We have not been able to sell our goods. We have not been able to maintain wages under the depression that existed in our industry from 1930 on. Those weaknesses have been exposed.

In my opinion, the attention of Congress should be directed to the other end of the horn rather than trying to impose restrictive legislation on the production end. We should endeavor to widen the distribution so that our production may be increased, there may be more opportunity for employment, and the pressure on management will be relieved by a wider market for our merchandise. There are only 29,000,000 spindles in this country today as opposed to a maximum of some 39,000,000. There are about 24,000,000 of them active.

Mr. Wood. For cotton?
Mr. West. Cotton, cotton spindles.

With any kind of widened distribution of textiles, recapture of export markets and protection of the import markets would immediately relieve the industry from the pressure that it is now under and would enable us to expand our operation.

I believe the policy underlying the bill of setting up a Federal power with the system of licenses and the secondary boycotts that are in here

is a wrong principle; that the problem that faces the textile industry can best be answered by the other end of it, by the distribution of our merchandise.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. West, I am going to ask the committee to delay examining you for a moment while † call the attention of the committee, if I may, to the fact that I have about 20 men from the coal fields in my State and the adjoining States here sitting in on this hearing. They are going to be compelled to go back to their own great convention very soon, and I would like to know if there is any objection to my talking to them for half a minute.

Mr. RAMSPECK. No, go ahead. Mr. KELLER. Gentlemen, I want to present some of our coal miners. Will you stand up, gentlemen, please?

These men are sitting in here this afternoon listening to the way we do things here in Washington. They are also here having their own convention, among themselves.

I want you to see how they get together._I take pleasure especially in introducing them to you for this reason: They are the best organized industry in America or probably any other place in the world. I thought it would be interesting to the cotton producers, the cottonmill men, and the men who work in the cotton mills to know exactly what we do and how we do it in the coal fields of Illinois. I would like to say this for them, that I remember very well when there was no such thing as a miners' organization. That dates back quite a ways, when all the abuses that we hear here from the men who work in the cotton mills were rampant in the coal industry in my own State, in the midst of which I live. After many years through organization they have done away with most of those abuses.

I wish they had the time to sit here and listen longer to this work, because it is a development through which they have gone after many years.

I shall ask Mr. Welch to take the chair while I go with them and talk to them a little bit before they go back to their own convention. Will you take the chair, Mr. Welch. if you please?

Gentlemen, I am delighted to have had you come here and sit in even for a short time you have and listen to the way we try to do things here in our own work for you.

Mr. WELCH. I regret I was not here when you started to testify. May I ask what is the name of your company?

Mr. WEST. Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills.
Mr. WELCH. Where is that located?
Mr. WEST. Danville, Va.
Mr. Welch. How long have you been connected with them?
Mr. WEST. It will be 6 years in March.
Mr. WELCH. That will be 1930, then?
Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. WELCH. How does production in your plant of that date compare with production at the present time?

Mr. West. We have a higher production at the present time.

Mr. WELCH. How many employees are you operating with now as compared to the number employed by you in 1930, that is, the year that you became identified with the mill?

Mr. West. Our full complement in 1930 was approximately 4,500; we now employ approximately 8,500 people.

Mr. Welch. How does your production now compare with the production of that period? You have approximately double the number of employees?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. WELCH. What is the comparative production of your materials?

Mr. West. We have not quite doubled it. It is only about 40 to 50 percent more, because we were operating at that time a single shift of 55 hours, and we are now operating two shifts of 40 hours each.

Mr. WELCH. Have you laid off any of your employees during that period, by reason of new methods of production, new machinery, and speeding up processes?

Mr. WEST. No, sir. There may have been individual cases where they were temporarily laid off. The way we try to operate it, Mr. Welch, is that when we have occasion to make a change in our work at times for any reason, whatever it is, that is, new machinery, new methods, or new processes, we endeavor to do it sufficiently slowly to take up the displaced workers so that we have jobs for them elsewhere. And we have such a large plant that the normal labor turnover in our plant has enabled us to do that and handle it that way. There have been no workers that have been permanently separated from their work for that reason. We just do not do it that way.

Mr. WELCH. That is all, thank you.

Mr. Wood. A while ago you used this report made by Daniel Roper, Secretary of Commerce; Mr. Hull, Secretary of State; Mr. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture; and Miss Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor. I think you tried to prove the point you made about the hours of labor and the machine loading. Of course, it says nothing about machine loading; but this is the first recommendation of the committee (reading]:

Based upon the facts submitted in this report and other data and inforination available to your committee, we herewith submit to you our findings and recommendations. A summary of these findings and recommendations is as follows:

Ercess capacity and obsolescence.-Finding that excess capacity and obsolescence are serious problems in the cotton-textile industry, we recommend such legislation and administrative action as may be necessary and feasible to deal with this problem through one or more of the following methods:

(a) The limitations on the hours of machine operations; (b) A leasing system for retiring surplus equipment;

(c) The purchase and retirement of the most obsolete units after a probationary period under the leasing system.

That report, of course, recommends the regulation of the hours of labor. The reason they make that report is that the hours of labor are generally excessive in the industry.

Mr. WEST. Just where is that in the report, sir?

Mr. Wood. That is right in the beginning, right at the very start. It starts on page 3. This is the letter of the Cabinet committee to the President. That is the first recommendation, limitation of the hours of labor.

Mr. WEST. Where does it say that in that first recommendation?

Mr. Wood. It says, “Limitations on the hours of machine operations."

Mr. West. Yes; but that is not limitation of hours of labor, Mr. Wood. That is limitations on the hours of machine operations. Please do not misunderstand me, sir; I do not want to appear to be argumen

[ocr errors]

tative. But the "limitations on the hours of machine operations”, as discussed in this report, as you will see when you have an opportunity to study it all, has a very definite application. What it means is how long productive machinery is operated, whether it is one shift or two shifts. That is the machine operations; that is not the labor. That doos not refer to the maximum hours of labor, sir. I think that will be clarified in your mind after you have had an opportunity to read the body of the report.

Mr. Wood. Take your recommendation no. 10 on page V (reading]:

Labor standards.-We commend the attempt of the industry to maintain the labor standards provided in the code. We recommend that the Government supplement such voluntary efforts as are being made by such administrative and legislative measures as may be feasible. We recommend also, with regard to such legislation as may be proposed, a further study to determine the specific improvements and labor standards which may be in the public interest.

Mr. WEST. Precisely.

Mr. Wood. What is improvement in labor standards? Is it the stretching of the hours or the reduction of the hours?

Mr. West. I do not think it means either, but may I point out that that statement in regard to the hours says nothing about prevail. ing excessive hours.

Vír. Wood. And "improvements in lahor standards which may be in the public interest." "Now, is it not in the public interest to spread employment by the reduction in hours?

Mr. WEST. Sir, to an extent. And I tried to point out here a few minutes ago that under the provisions in this bill which applies to the textile industry and which we are discussing, the reduction in hours from the prevailing 40 hours to the contemplated 35 hours will create no new employment.

Mr. Wood. Of course, as far as the reduction in hours is concerned, Miss Perkins and others naturally believe that that has been generally understood by all at this late date, that the reduction in the hours of labor is a foregone conclusion, that it is an absolute necessity. Miss Frances Perkins, as well as the President, has signified on numerous occasions that she is favorable to a 35-hour week.

Don't you know that the President used his influence and the administration used its influence to pass the Guffey Coal Act, which provides the 35-hour week? And certainly no one would say the President of the United States and Miss Frances Perkins, the Secretary of Labor, are not favorable to a 35-hour week.

I would like to know when you identified yourself with this firm in Danville?

Mr. WEST. In March 1930.

Mr. Wood. From where did you come to there? What was your connection before that?

Mr. West. I was president of the Lancaster Mills in Clinton, Mass., before that time.

Mr. Wood. What was the relationship between the employees and employers when you went down to Danville?

Mr. WEST. Very strained.
Mr. Wood. Was there a strike on at that time?
Mr. WEST. No, sir.
Mr. Wood. There was no strike on?

Mr. West. No, sir; there was not. There was one subsequently.

Mr. Wood. Now, with respect to control of production, how do you expect stabilization to be accomplished if not by price fixing? How have you stabilized it in the past 3 years?

Mr. West. By limiting the hours of machine operation to two shifts of 40 hours each. There has been no price fixing in this industry, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Woop. But there has been limited production?

Mr. West. Theoretically, yes; as a practical matter, no. The number of available productive machines or equipment in the cottontextile industry permitted to run 80 hours a week has been ample to take care of the off-take by the consumer, particularly in view of our loss of export markets and the continued threat of Japanese products in our market.

Mr. Wood. In the absence of any legislation restricting the output or any legislation of this kind, how do you suggest you are going to keep your industry stabilized and maintain your operations?

Mr. West. Is it essential that I discuss maintenance of operations as a result of every question, because, sir, I have stated that four times?

Mr. Wood. Of course, we all agree in the years 1930, 1931, and 1932, the prices were at rock bottom; and everyone agreed then that the tremendously low prices for the commodity were not good for the industry, and representatives of the various industries that came here in 1933, told us very frankly that something had to be done to maintain prices.

Mr. WEST. Was there a representative of the textile industry who made that statement?

Mr. Wood. There were representatives of all the basic industries.
Mr. WEST. I am asking you for information.
Mr. Wood. Yes, indeed; there was.
Mr. WEST. I was not aware there was.

Mr. Wood. Steel, textile, oil, railroads, furniture, lumber, and others.

Mr. KELLER. Banks and insurance companies also.
Mr. Wood. Yes. They were all here.
Mr. WEST. I am asking you if textiles were here.
Mr. Wood. Yes, indeed; they were here.

Mr. West. I am asking for information. Could you tell me where the record is of a cotton-textile interest?

Mr. KELLER. You could not, perhaps, on this account, Mr. West. I think I may butt in now and talk to you about it. When the men came here they felt it was not wise to make a record of the meetings. Just to illustrate the point, Mr. Mills, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, came before the meeting in one of the committee rooms but before he would talk he made this statement (reading):

I want to feel entirely free to lay before you the conditions which exist in this country at this time. I will not feel myself justified in doing it unless and until I have the agreement of the members before me here that it will be kept entirely in confidence.

And we all agreed. Then Mr. Mills said these things, that unless the industries of the country—and he went on to name them very specifically-could receive immediately a tremendous amount of help from the Federal Government, that every one of them would go to pot. He named the railroads, the banks, the insurance com

« ÎnapoiContinuați »