May I point out one thing that, as a practical matter, would help you realize the soundness of what I am saying? The full-fashioned machine is a machine anywhere from 18 to 24 sections. That means it manufactures simultaneously from 18 to 24 legs or feet, as the case may be. The drift has been to longer sections. The drift has been very strong in recent years to 24-section machines. A machine of that size, as I said, is a very delicate machine. It contains somewhere from 120,000 to 130,000 parts. It is almost prohibitively expensive to take a piece of machinery of that kind, which cannot be moved in one unit, and transfer it to some other place. It is as long as from this wall here over to the end of that other table that you see before you. The machine has to be dismantled with extreme care and much detail. It has to be ticketed and marked with extreme care, and then it has to be packed up and has to be shipped. And then you have a task which takes weeks, if not months, to reassemble the machine and set it up on the floor. Taking a 24-section machine, there must be complete synchronization from one end of the machine to the other. It requires a very careful setting and leveling of the equipment, and that is something which takes considerable time before the management will be willing to say that the machine can now be operated commercially. Another thing in explanation of my statement that it is not a movement of equipment, that is, second-hand equipment in a mill moving from the North to the South, is the fact that rather it is a movement of new equipment out of the plant of the manufacturer of equipment into the South where there is naturally a much more rapid growth than in the North. And that explains that shift. The other point I wanted to make to support it is this: The fullfashioned industry was almost completely a northern industry even in the middle 1920's. There was hardly any equipment installed in the South. When they started to develop that branch of the industry in the South, part of it was by purchase of second-hand equipment. in the North, partly by northern mills establishing southern branches and moving some of their equipment south, while still maintaining their northern plant, but in larger degree it was the purchase of new equipment. Those were the heydays when you could get a good price for the product and when it was easy to finance a plant and get the money with which to buy the equipment. If the industry were primarily, if not entirely, located in the North 10 years ago, roughly, the older equipment in the industry is still in the North. The southern industry starts in with a higher percentage of new equipment. In time that condition may reverse itself as obsolescence puts the northern equipment out of use and replacement must take place. But the growth of the South is a natural growth, expended principally by new equipment and with relatively very little movement of second-hand equipment from the North to the South. Mr. Wood. Isn't it a fact that the eastern manufacturers are somewhat in a panic now as a result of talk of migration to the South? The Philadelphia papers ran a story the other day that there are eight hoisery mills that are planning to move to the South. Mr. CONSTANTINE. Well, Mr. Wood, we have been hearing that tale somewhat constantly for the last 2 or 3 years, I would say. casionally the discussion flames up a little bit stronger, and then it Oc dies down again. That discussion, of course, has stimulated the southern and western communities to give inducements to northern plants either to move or to install branch plants, and they are giving inducements which are quite extraordinary in character-free supply of plant, waiving of taxes, and other things, in order to attract them. And that stimulates the discussion. But the actual fact is that that type of movement is not taking place. Mr. WOOD. Where are the seamless hoisery made now? Mr. CONSTANTINE. Almost entirely in the South. Mr. WOOD. Up to 1909 or 1910 it was almost all made in the North, wasn't it? Mr. CONSTANTINE. Yes; that is true. Mr. WOOD. How do you account for that migration? Mr. CONSTANTINE. That was a very easy migration, quite in contrast to the one I have discussed in the full-fashioned. A seamless machine is a small circular machine, and you can put your arms around it. You can detach it from the floor and fasten it on a crane and put it on a truck, and put several of them on one truck and truck them to the South. Mr. WOOD. Do you mean to say that none of the other mills has moved to the South; that is, none of the other mills which you mentioned before, where it is such a difficult task to move the machinery? Mr. CONSTANTINE. No; I did not make the mistake of saying that. Perhaps you did not hear me correctly. I said that accounts for a minor portion. Mr. Wood. Some of them left their old machinery in the North and have erected the new machinery in the South? Mr. CONSTANTINE. There is some of that, too, where they kept their northern plants and established southern plants. They usually establish the southern plant in one of two ways: Either they move the same equipment, or install new equipment in the South. Mr. WOOD. That would indicate that as the old equipment became worn out and became obsolete the industry would go into the South, because invariably they install the new machinery in the South? Mr. CONSTANTINE. I would be very happy to secure and transmit to the committee information showing the volume of new equipment installed in the South and in the North for the last 3 or 4 years, which would give you some indication of the extent to which that movement is taking place. And that will show you how much new equipment the North is putting in. Mr. WOOD. Will you please state what your position is? Mr. CONSTANTINE. I am managing director of the National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers. Mr. WOOD. You are not a manufacturer? Mr. CONSTANTINE. No; I am not. Mr. WOOD. Are you an attorney? Mr. CONSTANTINE. No, sir; I am not. Mr. WOOD. Then you are in no way connected with the hosiery industry except through this organization; that is, you do not have any stock? Mr. CONSTANTINE. No; I have no stock. I have no interest at all. Mr. WOOD. Nothing but in the managerial capacity? You are just representing them? Mr. CONSTANTINE. I would like to put it in this way, Mr. Wood- Mr. CONSTANTINE. Well, I am a man who has been a "jack of many trades" and some 4 years ago the industry invited me to take this task and help the industry with their planning job. It so happens that I did not seek the job. I have been engaged in trying to better the conditions in the industry. I had not been in that task more than a year and a half when the codes came into effect. I was chairman of the committee which approved the Hosiery Code, and I administered the Hosiery Code in behalf of the industry. Since the codes ended I have continued with the general task of planning the progress of the industry. Mr. Wood. It is rather remarkable that the textile industry have brought in so many of what they consider outside representatives when they will not even allow the employees to be represented by one of their own choosing engaged in their occupation, if he is not employed in their plant. Mr. CONSTANTINE. I did not quite get that last statement, sir. I don't know whether it applies to our industry or not. They do not allow the employees to do what? Mr. Wood. The majority of the industry will not deal in collective bargaining with the employees; that is, they do not like to, and a great many of them object to collective bargaining. They do not accord the employees the right to be represented by representatives of their own choosing, if the representative is not working in the plant. They call that outside representation by an outside union. What they want is an inside union so there will be a nice, happy family, so that they can take care of them. Mr. CONSTANTINE. In all fairness, sir, I am not in any different position when I speak for the management of the hosiery industry than, let us say, Mr. Green is in when he speaks for the American Federation of Labor or when the president of any State federation of labor appears anywhere to present the case of labor. To my mind, that does not destroy a man's ability to do it. In fact, I have observed very frequently that they become experts in handling the case that they are presenting. Mr. Wood. I am mighty glad that your industry deals with unions. Mr. CONSTANTINE. Let me put into the record just a word or two of fact. I would say that around 28 percent of the full-fashioned product of the industry, which is the main product, is being produced in plants operating under a national agreement with the hosiery union. Mr. WOOD. Then those you represent are consistent? Mr. CONSTANTINE. And may I add one more thing? I think the committee would like to know this: Our code was no. 16. Our code had its public hearing as early as August 10, 1933, and it was in effect on September 4, 1933. Our code was not drafted by management sitting in a back room with the blinds drawn down; our code was drafted by labor on one side of the table and by us on the other side of the table, working for 2 months in the hot summertime in Washington. Mr. Smith will bear that out. Before the 2 months were over we only knew each other by first names, and we got mixed up around the table. We jointly presented and advocated our code at the public hearing, and it was management, as well as labor, each trying to beat the other one to it, that insisted that the code authority not be a unilateral body. And we secured a set-up of the code authority where there was a labor representation on the code authority with a vote. Now, a word as to the administration of the code: I am talking now about the labor provisions particularly. And the people who would speak first about it would be precisely those labor representatives of the industry; and one of them, I am happy to say, is sitting right here at the table. Mr. WOOD. Then you were one of the 31 that had labor representation on the code authority? Mr. CONSTANTINE. I don't know how many there were, but ours was one of the earliest codes, and it was of that character. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. During that time half of the industry was on strike, wasn't it? Mr. CONSTANTINE. No, sir; it was not. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. How much was on strike? Mr. CONSTANTINE. There was not strike situation in 1933 that I recall. Well, the Reading district was on strike. Mr. Wood. But it did not last long? Mr. CONSTANTINE. Seven weeks. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. You stated the full-fashioned part of the hosiery industry was mostly unionized? Mr. CONSTANTINE. No; I did not say that. I said that a large part of the employers had contracts, about 28 percent of the fullfashioned product being manufactured under the national agreement. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. How about the seamless? Mr. CONSTANTINE. I think that there is very little unionization in the seamless industry. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Isn't that one-half of the industry? Mr. CONSTANTINE. It is not one-half. I would say that it is about 40 percent of the employees who are in those branches, and the value of the product is probably about 35 to 40 percent of the total. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Would you say that there are about 130,000 people employed in the seamless branch of the industry? Mr. CONSTANTINE. Oh, no. I have those figures and I will come to them a little bit later on. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. That is the total for the entire industry? Mr. ELLENBOGEN. But the seamless industry has pretty bad conditions as regards the wages, does it not? Mr. CONSTANTINE. I would say that the wages in the seamless industry are necessarily considerably lower than those in the fullfashioned. The product which it produces is a lower-bracket product, and it necessarily has all of its items of cost lower. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. It could be more efficient; it could have more efficiency? Mr. CONSTANTINE. I think so myself. I could stand more in the full-fashioned branch, too. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. In the seamless industry I have been told that the wage is as low as $3 a week for 50 hours. Mr. CONSTANTINE. No; I do not accept that. I do not believe you can find a case of that kind. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. What is the lowest that you know of-the Priestess Hosiery Mills? Mr. CONSTANTINE. I wouldn't even believe it of them. I will give the devil his due. I think he is not that bad. He is pretty bad. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Do you think it was $4 per week instead of $3 per week? Mr. CONSTANTINE. Oh, no. Let me answer what you want. I think I know what you want to know. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. I just want the facts. Mr. CONSTANTINE. The seamless industry, prior to the code, because it has to produce the cheap end, because it is overcapacitated, drifted to a point where hours probably averaged about 55 in those plants and where earnings probably averaged somewhere between $6 and $8 a week. We found one striking case that I remember when we were testifying on the code, and it was the lowest that we had ever head of. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. What was that? Mr. CONSTANTINE. An average of 55 hours of work for an average earning of $4.85, if I recall correctly. And we brought that into the picture because it was the extreme that we had found, and those were in the days before the code, when things were the worst ever. Those conditions changed immediately under the code with the $12 level in the seamless industry. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. But it has changed back? Mr. CONSTANTINE. No; not anything like the other. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. That is what a colleague of yours says. Mr. CONSTANTINE. Well, Mr. Smith and I will agree on this score, Mr. Ellenbogen, that most of that industry is in the south. When you go to a central point where three or four or more mills are located, where there is, therefore, a grouping of labor as well as of plants, where there is a possibility of the shift of employment from one plant to the other, where there is also the element of the risks that go with being a bad employer-and there is always some of that element for the man who wants to be real bad. In communities of that kind you will find that the minimum is in effect today. I believe when you step out of communities of that kind into smaller communities where the plant is isolated and there is just one plant, where it started from scratch in the community and trained the local boys and girls to operate the equipment, and when they cannot go from there when that plant is shut down or when they lose their employment, naturally, in cases of that kind, there is a recession in the earnings of the workers. I have no doubt about that. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. That is, in cases where the opportunity permits it, the wages are cut down to the lowest possible point? Mr. CONSTANTINE. In part that is so. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Those isolated mills produce a majority of the seamless hosiery? Mr. CONSTANTINE. No; I do not think they do. I think the big majority of the seamless comes out of the larger communities. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. I just want to get one thing in the record here. Mr. CONSTANTINE. May I make one correction in a figure which I gave further back, Mr. Chairman. My attention was called to the fact that I misread my figure. I believe that I said that in 1935 we estimated that 24 percent of the full-fashioned equipment is in the South. I would like the record to show that it is 21.5 percent. |