Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

TO REHABILITATE AND STABILIZE LABOR CONDITIONS
IN THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1936

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, at 10 a. m., Hon. George J. Schneider presiding.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. We will now hear from Senator Guffey, of Pennsylvania.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH F. GUFFEY, UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Senator GUFFEY. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing here to read a statement prepared by Gov. George H. Earle, of Pennsylvania, as he was unable to be here to do so. For that reason he has asked me to present his prepared statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE H. EARLE, GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: On behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I wish to endorse and support the purpose and scope of the legislation to stabilize and rehabilitate the textile industry which is now being considered by your committee.

The fact is frequently overlooked that Pennsylvania is an important textile-producing State. It is widely known that Pennsylvania is the greatest anthracite coal producing center in the Union, but it is not generally recognized that Pennsylvania today probably produces more silk textiles than any other State in the Union. Pennsylvania. manufactures considerably more than half of the full-fashioned hosiery made in the United States.

Philadelphia was for many years the most important textileproducing center in the country. Despite the fact that many of the old time textile plants have left Philadelphia, have gone out of business, or are producing on a much smaller scale, there are today more persons engaged in the textile and hosiery mills in Philadelphia than in any other type of manufacture in that city.

According to the 1930 census there were some 150,000 persons gainfully employed in the textile industry of the State. It may be assumed, on the basis of unofficial estimates, that approximately the same number of persons are engaged in this industry today, although there has been a considerable migration of textile mills away from the State. Despite the fact that woolen weaving has diminished in

[ocr errors]

volume in our State we are today one of the largest, if not the largest producers of synthetic yarns in the country. Today we have more silk weaving in Pennsylvania than we had before, but on the other hand we have lost a number of our cotton mills.

I am advised that what has happened in Pennsylvania in respect to textiles is that while in Philadelphia the highly skilled upholstery and rug weavers, who were at one time fairly well paid, have seen their mills leave for the South or for low wage centers elsewhere, a number of silk weaving and throwing mills have come into our State seeking cheaper labor than was obtainable in the organized centers in Paterson, N. J., and elsewhere.

I am reliably informed that in Philadelphia today, out of the 3,000 looms in the upholstery and drapery fabric mills in the city, less than 100 are operating. The manufacture of upholstery fabrics is one of the most highly skilled branches of the textile industry, employing only the most expert weavers. The fact that Philadelphians are past masters in several very specialized branches of textile manufacture has not protected that community from the inroads of low wage competition from other States or from isolated rural sections in some parts of our own State.

The problem of unfair competition in the textile industry in regard to labor costs is merely one important element in a difficult situation. The textile industry is "sick." This fact has been recognized by every student If modern industrial problems. The textile manufacturers themselves in the early part of 1933 were loud in their wailing as to the dire condition of this industry. At that time the textile manufacturers thought that they could obtain permission from the Government to fix prices by offering to pay paltry minimum wages of $12 and $13 a week. Pennsylvania textile manufacturers were like all others in that respect and Government assistance was welcomed when the industry was prostrate.

The history of Pennsylvania is, of course, linked with the history of textile manufacturing in this country. It is claimed by some economic historians that the oldest textile mills in the country are located in Philadelphia. The problem of textiles is therefore not new to us, although the character of the industry has undergone sweeping changes during the years.

For years child labor was common in the silk textile mills of our State. As late as 1930 there were more than 4,600 children under the age of 16 years, or about 3.1 percent of the total employees, working long hours in the silk textile mills of our State. I am proud to state that children under the age of 16 are no longer permitted to work in Pennsylvania industries. It was my privilege to sign a bill in July of 1935 forbidding children under 16 years of age to be employed in manufacturing industries. This act places Pennsylvania among the progressive States in respect to child-labor legislation. And it is just because we have adopted a higher standard of protection for the children of Pennsylvania that we are obliged to advocate that similar standards be adopted in all other States in the Union. My administration in Pennsylvania would strongly support State legislation similar to that proposed in Congressman Ellenbogen's bill, if it were not for the fact that if we passed such a bill we would place the manufacturers in our State at a competitive disadvantage as against manufacturers in other States where lower employment standards obtain.

Therefore, we are obliged to bend our efforts toward obtaining Federal legislation which will enable Pennsylvania to keep the textile industries she now has, to secure additional mills if possible, and to improve the working standards of the 150,000 wage earners in Pennsylvania textile mills..

It has been the custom of Pennsylvania manufacturers to oppose adoption of social legislation by the State on the ground that the Federal Government should enact national legislation to raise standards. However, when Congress attempts to pass national legislation to improve labor conditions we discover that Pennsylvania employers, through their national organizations, appear to fight the proposals they have advocated back in their own State. It is my purpose to demonstrate to the Congress of the United States that the present administration in Pennsylvania is well aware of the necessity of approaching our common economic and social problems from a national standpoint.

As Governor of the Commonwealth I feel it to be my obligation, therefore, to come before this committee of the United States Congress to urge immediate enactment of legislation such as the Ellenbogen Textile Act. Naturally, I am anxious to work for the improvement of citizens of my State, but it has become perfectly clear that Pennsylvania cannot advance the interests of its own citizens in any important respect at the expense of the citizens of other States.

I do not come before you as a specialist in the problems of the textile industry but rather as an advocate of a social policy which will prevent the demoralization which has overtaken such important industries as bituminous coal and textiles in Pennsylvania. It is my understanding that the type of legislation which is being proposed here for the rehabilitation of textiles varies considerably from the legislative method employed to assist the soft-coal industry. The fundamental similarity between the Guffey bill for the mining industry and the Ellenbogen bill for the textiles is that the attack on the problem in each case is being made from a Nation-wide scale, and in each instance the special needs of the industries involved are carefully taken into account.

The demoralizing effects of the depression in the textile industry and the helpful effects of regulatory action in the industry during the N. R. A. period were quite pronounced.

Investigations of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry which are available to this committee show that prior to the N. R. A. a wholesale destruction of customary working standards took place in the textile plants throughout our State.

The Pennsylvania Legislature also conducted an investigation into sweatshop conditions in our State in 1933, which produced evidence that an intolerable state of affairs existed in many of the textile and garment factories in our State.

Despite the fact that more than a million persons in Pennsylvania were without jobs in 1932 the hours of labor per week in textile plants had been increased not only to the legal limit for women of 54 hours per week but in addition violations of the hour laws were more numerous than at any other time. Due to the increasing severity of the competitive struggle we reached a condition where mills operated night and day for short periods on rush orders and then closed down. completely for weeks at a time.

Women in Pennsylvania textile mills, who earned an average of $18.20 per week in 1928, were reduced to a wage of $11.94 per week in 1932 and were obliged to work longer hours despite the lower wage. The men's wages in silk textiles dropped 37 percent between 1928 and 1932 while women's wages dropped 34 percent. In silk, hosiery, and knit goods the number of women earning less than $10 per week of 54 hours increased from 7 percent in 1928 to 24 percent in 1932. The number of men in Pennsylvania textile mills earning less than $10 a week in those industries increased elevenfold between 1928 and 1932. This wholesale collapse of wage standards was as dangerous to the economy of Pennsylvania as it was to the economy of the United States.

The rapid and quite general improvement which took place in the textile industries of Pennsylvania after the N. R. A. was enacted should be all the proof that is needed to establish the soundness of legislation setting up nationally uniform minimum standards for a basic industry such as textiles. In the hosiery industry for instance, although wage payments increased, the employment also increased and sales volume also expanded. The N. R. A. did pull the textile industry as a whole out of a disastrous economic tail spin and placed it back on the road to universal recovery.

After the N. R. A. was declared unconstitutional an effort was made to have the employers voluntarily adhere to the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the codes. It was soon apparent that the small minority of employers who would not conform nullified the efforts of those who did.

During the code period industry had "settled down" for a time. The migration of textile mills had been halted, as a result of the fact that a substantial equalization in competitive conditions had been temporarily achieved.

Today Pennsylvania textile manufacturers are again threatening to move out of the State to the South or other sections where local chambers of commerce offer a variety of inducements, which are in effect, opportunities for "chiseling" in one form or another. I am informed that in Philadelphia, between 1929 and 1933, 32 full-fashioned hosiery mills employing about 4,000 people left Pennsylvania for Southern States.

Can the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or the city of Philadelphia offer inducements that will be sufficient to have factories remain within the State? Most certainly we will not offer to cooperate with manufacturers to cut wages nor will we connive with private detective agencies, with local authorities or the courts, to enable employers in labor to avoid their obligation to bargain collectively with their employees. The day has gone by when the Government of Pennsylvania will act as the willing instrument of feudal employing interests.

Pennsylvania seeks to increase the employment opportunities of its citizens but not at the expense of our civic integrity or by depreciating the living standards of our wage earners.

Under my administration the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will join with other progressive States in an effort to promote effective and equitable Federal legislation which will afford protection to each State

without injuring the interests of any. It is our purpose to promote the welfare of the textile or any other depressed industry by seeking to eliminate unfair competition from any source whether it be from within or outside the borders of the State. No single State or group of States can cope with the problem of cutthroat competition in any industry whose product is even partially in the stream of interstate commerce. Only the Federal Government can provide an effective remedy for the economic maladjustment of Nation-wide industries. It is particularly appropriate that Congress should turn its attention at this session to the problems of the textile industry, which employs a large section of the wage earners of this country. I do not propose to discuss the precise terms of the National Textile Act but will merely state we endorse its general purpose and its method. Pennsylvania is willing to subscribe to a legislative enactment which says to a textile manufacturer "You are perfectly free to do just as you wish in your own establishment but if you insist upon paying wages below the modest minimum scale provided in the law and if you insist upon working your employees longer hours than those set forth in the law, you may not ship your goods in interstate commerce; nor may you enjoy the facilities or services or obtain loans or any other assistance from Government agencies or Government-supported institutions if you insist upon violating the Federal regulations set up for the protection of legitimate employers with whom you are competing."

Pennsylvania would join with the Federal Government in saying to the textile industry that it must accept Federal regulations in the interest of the States and the Nation as a whole or else it will inevitably degenerate to the point where it will virtually become a social parasite unable to pay its way and requiring subsidies of all kinds in order to exist.

Textile products are a basic need of mankind. Society is willing to pay what it costs to manufacture textiles on a basis that will give to labor a fair wage, to the employers reasonable profits, and that will permit the textile industry to contribute its fair share to the common fund which society must set aside to purchase a measure of security to all its citizens. I urge that this bill be enacted into law as expeditiously as may be possible.

Senator GUFFEY. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to present that statement in beahlf of the Governor of Pennsylvania. Mr. KELLER. I want to say for this committee that that is a great paper. We appreciate both the Governor's writing it and your reading it.

Mr. Wood. It is a valuable contribution.

Mr. KELLER. I shall certainly use a number of quotations from that paper in the report which I will submit to the full committee. I wish to announce that as soon as the witnesses who are now preparing to make statements have finished them that Mr. Vincent, the coordinator of what remains of the N. R. A. is to come here and give testimony. It will be interesting matter to all of you because it will be from the viewpoint of the Government in view of the whole work of the N. R. A. Mr. Vincent has been with the N. R. A. from the very beginning. I am sure that all of you who are interested in this subject at all will get a great deal out of his statement.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. We will now call Herbert Gutterson.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »