Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

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

some legislation to stop the downward trend and save you from destruction.

Scores of them came before our Labor Committee on the 6-hour bill. They were discussing the advisability of legislation aside from the 6-hour law or the 30-hour week bill, the Black-Connery bill. They were begging and pleading for the Government to set up machinery that would enable the trade associations to give some power to their decisions. And the administration did it.

If you could have done it better without interference, why didn't you do it before then, and why are you not doing it now?

It has been testified here before this committee that there are from 5 percent to 10 or 15 percent who would not go along. Some said 5 percent, some of your witnesses said 10 percent, and others said there are probably 15 percent of the manufacturers who would not go along with a voluntary code. How would you compel them to do so? Have you any conceivable method in your mind that you can suggest to us here which would compel these recalcitrant employers to abide by your voluntary codes, since the N. R. A. was voided?

Mr. GUTTERSON. It was not successful under the N. R. A. to stop the chiseling, generally.

Mr. WOOD. Do you mean to say that there was no general compliance with the 40-hour week and the minimum wage?

Mr. GUTTERSON. I will not say so much about that, Mr. Congressman. I think there was quite universal compliance in those things. But there are a lot of other things involved in successfully operating an industry.

Mr. WOOD. Hours and wages are the main things involved in N. R. A. The two things involved in N. R. A. were hours and wages, and section 7a, collective bargaining. When that is said, that is practically all.

Mr. GUTTERSON. That is not the whole question of operating a manufacturing industry.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Gutterson, under the N. R. A. you had a code known as carpets and rugs?

Mr. GUTTERSON. Wool carpets and rugs.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. That did not include linoleum?

Mr. GUTTERSON. No, sir; it did not.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Nor did it include hard-surface floor covering? Mr. GUTTERSON. No, sir; nor did it include cotton rugs and carpets.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. So that if we put you under this bill you are in the same position that you were in at that time, are you not?

Mr. GUTTERSON. Except that the hard-surface carpets were under codes.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Under their own codes?

Mr. GUTTERSON. Yes, sir. If you put us under this bill and leave them out and not under a code, but we are

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. We are going to catch up with them, too, some time.

Mr. GUTTERSON. That is not the point I wanted to make.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. But you are a part of the textile industry.
Mr. GUTTERSON. Certainly we are.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. A weaver could go from a wool mill into a cotton mill?

like to know what method you would consider to prevent this trend backwards. What do the manufacturers have in mind to stop this decline in wages and stretching of hours and this backward trend? Is there any method you know you can adopt to stop it?

Mr. MUNROE. I do not think that backward trend is going to continue very fast.

Mr. Wood. Well, it has right along. If it continues what would you suggest as a remedy? Is there any definite remedy that the manufacturers have for stemming this backward trend, when you admit that there is a lengthening of hours? You know so far as the textile industry is concerned that there is no opportunity to spread employment and give employment to 10 or 11 million people who are yet unemployed. That is what this bill intends to do. Mr. MUNROE. This bill?

Mr. WOOD. That is what this bill is directed at.
Mr. MUNROE. In cotton textiles?

Mr. WOOD. It is an effort ton the part of the Congress or the proMr. WOOD. It is an effort on the part of the Congress or the proponents of this measure to so adjust the industry that the employment can be spread. They did spread employment in the coal industry since the passage of the Guffey Act. There is no question about that. There is greater employment in the coal industry than there was before for probably 8 or 10 years. That measure was advocated by 80 percent of the operators in the country and 95 percent of the coal miners. Since its adoption there has been serious complaint. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the mine operators are very much in favor of the Act and they are defending it. They are dealing with the employees under the act.

Why would not a similar set-up as proposed-not exactly the Ellenbogen bill but something similar- be fine for the textile industry, if they could stabilize the industry, stabilize employment, and stabilize wage standards? If you can't do it or should not do it by legislation how are you going to do it?

Mr. MUNROE. Well, sir, I have the impression that those things are working to a solution through gradual education processes. It is my experience that the majority of mills-I mean the majority of those few mills which have lengthened hours or reduced their wages are mills which are on the border line of insolvency. I believe, sir, that public opinion is building up on those things and has been building up for some time. The industry and all of its more influential organizations are on record as being opposed to that sort of thing; and I believe that is a better way to effect that sort of situation than to treat alike the 95 percent good and the 5 percent bad, and put all of them into the same hopper under a rigid straitjacket with a dictatorial commission running the industry for them.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Munroe, I have heard that statement before, and I think it is ridiculous to make it. Where is the dictatorial commission? What dictatorial powers does that commission have? I wish you would point that out to the committee.

Mr. MUNROE. It seems to me it is obvious.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Don't say that it is obvious. That statement is ridiculous. Just point it out to us. What are the powers that you say are dictatorial? It ought to be very easy to do it if it is so obvious. Mr. MUNROE. All right, sir. I would say that it is dictatorial to set

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. If the Government goes through with the housing program, there would not be any difficulty about your industry operating at top speed, would there?

Mr. GUTTERSON. It would be very helpful, Mr. Congressman. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Well, I have one housing bill in.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Gutterson, I would like to ask you to what extent your industry_meets foreign competition.

Mr. GUTTERSON. Do you mean the importation of foreign fabrics? Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes; I do.

Mr. GUTTERSON. Under ordinary circumstances we do not have any difficulty with this situation because the importations have been very small. small. We are now faced with a potential possibility of having serious competition of a foreign nature.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. With what particular country?

Mr. GUTTERSON. If you want me to say one particular country, I would say Japan at the moment. And there is the risk of the possible reciprocal trade agreements being made by the Department of State.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. As to the tariff agreements which are now in effect, do they permit imports under lower rates?

Mr. GUTTERSON. Not any specific fabric. You mean whether the trade agreement has reduced the tariff, do you?

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes; that is what I mean.

Mr. GUTTERSON. Not as yet on any absolute fabric that we make. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Then your industry is not menaced by present importations?

Mr. GUTTERSON. Not by present importations. But a country like Japan is equipped with machinery which it can shift from one type of fabric to another very quickly, and at any moment they might undertake to make similar products and bring them in in as large quantity as they now do with the hooked rug, which is highly competitive with our industry.

Mr. WOOD. What was the occasion of these three or four strikes up in your factory there now?

Mr. GUTTERSON. The institute does not deal as a unit in connection with labor questions. It is one of our policies to leave it to the individual mill to handle.

Mr. WOOD. Are you a manufacturer yourself?

Mr. GUTTERSON. No, sir; I am not. I am a lawyer. I have been in the manufacturing business in my life. I have been in the manufacturing business and I had been in a mill

Mr. WOOD. Have you been in this type of manufacturing?

Mr. GUTTERSON. No, sir.

Mr. WOOD. You are an attorney, are you?

Mr. GUTTERSON. Yes, sir, I am.

Mr. WOOD. You don't know about these four or five or six strikes in progress now in the New England States? I am informed that these strikes are in progress due to the fact that there has been a reduction in wages and a stretching of hours in all these plants. Of course, it is perfectly natural that that would be the cause of all these difficulties.

Mr. GUTTERSON. I know that there are some labor difficulties at the present time in one or two isolated spots in our industry, but I do not think, Mr. Congressman, they involve the facts which are

« ÎnapoiContinuă »