Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

putting the bobbins into the shuttle was the major part of the weaver's work up to that time.

Now, isn't it reasonable to believe that with that change a weaver could tend more looms without a bit more work than he could when he had to be putting bobbins in these shuttles?

From that time forward all that was necessary was periodically for someone to put the 24 bobbins into a hopper. For a while the weaver put the bobbins into the hopper. And here is what some people would call a stretch-out. Somebody said:

Now, it does not take any skill or brain to put bobbins into a hopper. We will hire somebody who does not know how to weave who will run a truck around and stick bobbins into this hopper, and that will take quite a load off of the weaver; he will not have to stop weaving and go fill up a hopper every now and then.

Mr. WOOD. Have you finished your statement?

Mr. MUNROE. No, sir; I have not. I am trying to answer this gentleman's question.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I was trying to find out what class of worker in these mills was the class that was suffering in largest number these reductions in the hourly rates. And I don't care about taking up all of the afternoon to get that information.

Mr. MUNROE. I am sorry, sir. You asked me another question and I was trying to follow it through.

Mr. Wood. Isn't there some way to get that information?

Mr. MUNROE. I have no way of knowing just which workers, but I told you I believed they would be the workers who probably were receiving the most pay and working in what were probably the highest wage mills, for the reasons I have explained.

Mr. WOOD. On the matter of the average wage, what percentage of the employees of the factory are on piece work and what percentage are on day work?

Mr. MUNROE. I told the Representative that I could only make the roughest kind of an estimate on that. I would assume perhaps onethird to perhaps three-eighths.

Mr. Wood. Three-eighths of what?

Mr. MUNROE. Three-eighths of the total workers might be paid piece work. That is what I understood the question was.

Mr. Wood. Three-eighths of the total would be piece work? Then there are five-eighths of day work? Is that the ratio?

Mr. MUNROE. I said, sir, I am making the roughest kind of estimate, and I am not sure. But I would say from one-third to threeeighths of the workers in the industry are paid piece work.

Mr. Wood. In arriving at this 37 cents an hour are you taking into consideration the piece workers?

Mr. MUNROE. My understanding is that the Bureau of Labor statistics takes all of the workers on which it gets information, piece workers or otherwise, and averages their wages down. They get, if they have gotten for a given period, how many total man-hours were worked and that is this average. This average represents the piece. workers and all workers.

Mr. Wood. Do you have the report here?

Mr. MUNROE. No, sir; I do not have it here. But I am quite positive that that is true. This is not an average of those who are paid by the hour but it is the average per hour of all the workers in the industry, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics. It repre

sents the industry as a whole, both piece workers and hourly workers, reduced to the rate per hour.

The facts are that in the 2 or 3 months preceding the adoption of the N. R. A. Cotton Textile Code in July 1933, wage increases were wellnigh universal in the industry, hourly wage rates increased by a huge percentage the day the code took effect, their advance continued at a minor rate under the N. R. A. regime and that since the invalidation of the N. R. A. the code wages have been substantially maintained by an overwhelming majority of the mills.

I refer you to Mr. Heinrich's testimony of last week, when he said his figures indicated very few situations of depression from code wages. In October 1934, the Bureau of Labor Statistics undertook, by Executive order, a study of wages, hours, and earnings in the cotton textile industry. The Bureau's report, submitted to the President by the Secretary of Labor on January 17, 1935, served effectively to refute typical charges concerning the industry similar to those which the Congress is now urged by the proponents of this bill to find as facts by legislative determination. Major facts developed in the Bureau's study were:

1. That there had been an "overwhelming compliance" with the wage provisions of the Cotton Textile Code for all occupations of work.

2. That employment during the first year under the code was in excess of 1929.

3. That the minimum wage had not become the maximum.

4. That, as required by the code, differentials in occupations above the minimum had evidently been maintained.

5. That higher proportionate increases, as contemplated by the code, had been made in lower-paid occupations below the minimum. 6. That "the tendency has been for hourly wages to so continue to advance from August 1933 to August 1934, both in the North and South".

7. That average hourly earnings had been raised more under the Cotton Textile Code than in any other major industry.

8. That in August 1934, the workers in northern cotton textile mills were receiving average hourly wage rates at the level that prevailed in 1926 to 1928, and the workers in southern mills were receiving hourly wage rates substantially higher than at any time during the decade 1922 to 1932.

9. That between July 1933, and July 1934, average hourly earnings increased 64.5 percent.

In the Bureau's report a table of average hourly earnings by occu pations in northern cotton mills shows that the increase between July 1933 (before the code), and August 1934, in the hourly rates paid for the different occupations ranged from 36 percent for foremen to as much as 110 percent. Similar increase shown in the table covering southern mills ranged from 51 to 124 percent.

Following the invalidation of N. R. A. codes by the Supreme Court on May 27, 1935, leading organizations in the industry recommended to all cotton mills that no change be made in the conduct of the business. Since that time the Cotton-Textile Institute, with the cooperation of other associations in the industry and the encouragement and help of mill executives generally, has undertaken, through its field staff and other facilities, to observe the extent to which the minimum

wage and maximum hour provisions of the former code have been and are being maintained. To the best of our knowledge at least 95 percent are operated by employers who are maintaining wages at least equal to the code minimum rates while at least 95 percent of the spindles in place are being operated by employers who do not permit employment at their mills to exceed the maximum of 40 hours per week which was specified in the code.

The bill undertakes that Congress shall find as a fact that "excessive hours" of work "prevail" in this industry. Not that they exist, but that they prevail, standard working hours per week in the industry immediately prior to the N. R. A. code varied from 48 to 60 or even more. The code established as a maximum a 40-hour workweek and this has since to this day been substantially observed as a maximum by the overwhelming preponderance of the industry. Unless 40 hours of work in a week is "excessive" the statement you are asked to endorse is false. In point of fact, the figures of the Bureau of Labor Statistics show as average weekly hours of employment in the industry in recent months in the following:

Average hours worked per week by employees in the cotton textile industry, January 1935, 35.2 hours; February 35.6 hours; March 35.1 hours; April 33.5 hours; May 33.5 hours; June 32 hours; July 32.4 hours; August 33 hours; September 35.1 hours; October, heavy fall season, 36.4 hours; November 36 hours.

If there was any widespread success of the 40-hour workweek would we find the figures averaging 10 percent below the 40-hour workweek?

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Are you asking that question or are you answering it?

Mr. MUNROE. Did I ask a question?

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Well, didn't you?

Mr. MUNROE. I suppose it was a rhetorical question.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. You could have widespread violations of hours and still have an average away below 40 hours, couldn't you? Mr. MUNROE. Conceivably so.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Certainly. And that is exactly what you have? Mr. MUNROE. I do not think so.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. There is evidence of it.

Mr. MUNROE. I have no evidence that that is the case.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. What is the top on that score? Did you compile those figures?

Mr. MUNROE. No, sir; I did not. Those are Bureau of Labor Statistics' figures.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Then, you don't know what the top was nor what the bottom was?

Mr. MUNROE. Not from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; no, sir. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. And they may be working 10 hours only because they have no orders?

Mr. MUNROE. Undoubtedly.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. And some may be working 80 hours?

Mr. MUNROE. I doubt it very much. I do not believe any employer would try to work anybody 80 hours.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Averages do not mean anything when you talk about violations of standards. Averages are absolutely misleading Every competent statistician knows that.

56725-36--34

Mr. MUNROE. I agree with you, sir; that averages do not indicate specific instances but they indicate general performance.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. No; they do not, because if you have 40-percent deviation from the normal you would still have good averages, because the Textile Industry has not been averaging 40 hours throughout the year. That is what makes your averages so misleading.

Mr. MUNROE. I do not contend, sir, that this is conclusive evidence; but I do believe that it is circumstantial evidence.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Well, pardon the interruption.

Mr. MUNROE. The bill alleges that "overburdensome work assignments"-"prevail" in this industry-not that they exist, but that they prevail. On May 13, 1935, the Cotton Textile Work Assignment Board released the text of a report it had just made to the President at his instructions as set forth in Executive orders of October 16, 1934. In that section of its report entitled "Findings and Conclusions", the very first paragraph reads:

1. The Board is convinced that the great majority of employers in the cotton textile industry have not set up machine assignments that create excessive work loads for the employees.

The second paragraph reads:

The Board is convinced through ignorance or otherwise there are some few employers in the Cotton Textile Industry who have set up machine assignments that may create excessive work loads on some jobs.

3. The Board is convinced that while there are some existing excessive machine assignments and work loads there are also some existing deficient machine assignments and work loads.

The Board, consisting of a representative of labor, a representative of management, and an impartial chairman and staffed with an expert and experienced corps of assistants, had been engaged in studying this matter in the mills and by questionnaire over a period of months from the time of its appointment on December 1, 1934, before its report was issued. Is there not a considerable probability that in this case again Congress is being asked to find as a fact that which is false?

The bill alleges that there prevails in the industry "the denial of the right of self-organization and collective bargaining." If such is the case one is impelled to wonder what has happened to the hundreds of thousands of members of the United Textile Workers of America which spokesmen for that organization are alleged to have claimed less than 18 months ago. Have they disbanded or did the 79,200 members on which the American Federation of Labor based the United Textile Workers voting strength at the recent A. F. of L. convention join the union without volition of their own, and having joined, found it impotent for collective-bargaining purposes? The National Labor Relations Act guarantees those principles and the very few hearings held by the National Labor Relations Board in an industry comprising over a thousand units would indicate either that but few workers desire to organize or to bargain collectively or that they encounter little if any difficulty in doing so. If the National Labor Relations Act cannot protect these privileges is it likely that H. R. 9072 can do so, or if it can then why must H. R. 9072 burden itself and you and us with such redundancy? In any event, we have here another instance of urging Congress to find as a fact that a thing prevails of which there is but little evidence. In this case, though, we have as

proof of its insignificance, the existence of a law on the statute books prohibiting it.

As to the situation which has developed since the invalidation of the code it is contended, of course, that there has been an extension of work assignments. The number of spindle hours per labor hour during September, October and November of this year, which is a reasonable method of getting at the average work assignment in the industry, was 114 as compared with the figure of 111.3 in the first quarter of 1935 when the code was in effect. The difference there, gentlemen, is about 2 percent increase. It would not seem to indicate that there had not been any general excessive overloading of workers.

Mr. WOOD. However, it does indicate an increase since the N. R. A. Mr. MUNROE. It indicates that there has been a slight increase. There is no question about that.

Mr. Wood. That there has been the stretching of the hours and there has been a policy to begin to reduce wages. Now, if the textile manufacturers are so bold as to carry on their industry and keep it at what we term normal, it occurs to me that so far as the stretching of the hours is concerned there should be some decrease if they are so interested in their employees and are so interested in abiding by the code. It indicates that since the N. R. A. has gone out and has been declared unconstitutional there is trend back to the old conditions of 1933.

Mr. MUNROE. But that is so slight that it will hardly afford an

excuse.

Mr. Wood. You agree there was a drastic reduction in the hours of labor per week by the advent of the N. R. A.

Mr. MUNROE. Surely.

Mr. Wood. There was a wholesale increase in the wages of the employees?

Mr. MUNROE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WOOD. But since the N. R. A. has gone, the testimony of the representatives of the manufacturers indicate that the trend is backwards again.

Mr. MUNROE. Unquestionably there has been a slight decline in the average wage rates, to the best of my knowledge about 2.5 percent.

Mr. WOOD. How are you going to prevent that from continuing? Mr. MUNROE. Of course, other factors affect it to some extent. But there has been an increase in the assignment of work to the extent of 2.5 percent on the average. In that connection our point is that that does not warrant the statement that these conditions prevail in the industry. Two percent is not a prevalent condition, and it does not warrant the statement that the industry is a menace to the country at a time when it is employing four hundred thousand people. Certainly it is an asset to the country.

Mr. WOOD. Your testimony together with that of the other representatives of the manufacturers, coincides somewhat with complaint of the workers' representatives who testified here. There is no dispute about the trend being backwards. Of course, they are contending there is a greater decline in wage and a greater stretching of hours than you claim there is. But the evidence of both indicate that since the N. R. A. is gone we have started back. Now, I would

« ÎnapoiContinuă »