Mr. HARTLEY. Have you any figures to show the break-down in wages since N. R. A.?

Mr. RIEVE. Yes; we have.

Mr. HARTLEY. Ánd also any figures concerning these increases in hours?

Mr. RIEVE. Yes, sir; we have some figures available.

Mr. HARTLEY. Will you present those figures to the committee, if you have them available at the moment?

Mr. RIEVE. I think I have them in my bag here. I estimate that the break-down is about 10 percent.

Mr. HARTLEY. You say you estimate that the break-down is about 10 percent?

Mr. RIEVE. Yes, sir; it is about 10 percent.

Mr. HARTLEY. Is that in the industry generally or just in certain plants?

Mr. RIEVE. No, no; it is certain plants. Out of 750 plants in the hosiery industry throughout the country about 10 percent of them have broken the standards either in hours or in wages.

Mr. WOOD. That will eventually cause the other ones to lower standards in order to meet them?

Mr. RIEVE. About 6 percent of them occurred within the last 4 or 5 weeks. I am sorry to say that in your own State we have a strike, in Griffith, Ga. We had the strike last week.

Mr. HARTLEY. Where is that in my State? Is it up in Paterson? Mr. RIEVE. Oh, pardon me, sir. I had you mixed up with Congressman Ramspeck. I have a number listed.

Mr. Wood. And you have that available for the record, have you? Mr. RIEVE. Yes, I have it right here.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

NOTE.-Practically all mills in South are working footer shifts 40 hours.

Mr. Wood. In these factories which have lowered the standards of wages and increased the hours, that has amounted to more than a 10-percent reduction in wages?

Mr. RIEVE. Oh, yes. There are 750 mills in our industry, both the full-fashioned and seamless throughout the country, and my estimate is that in 10 percent of the mills that has been done. Wages were cut at Martinsburg, W. Va., 2 weeks ago from 12 to 22 percent, and at Griffith, Ga., last week, 25 percent. They were at the minimum, then which was $13 per week.

Mr. WOOD. What is the average of the stretch of hours of these 10 percent which have increased their hours and reduced the wages?

Mr. RIEVE. I would not want to guess about it, and I do not have the figures available. I think we can supply these figures before the hearings are over and will be able to place them in the record. I think we have the information available.

Mr. WOOD. I have an idea that your hours have been stretched about 10 a week.

Mr. RIEVE. We have instances where hours have been stretched to 60 hours.

Mr. HARTLEY. In connection with mechanics working on looms, and one thing or another?

Mr. RIEVE. That is correct. And not only mechanics, but also our women. Our industry employs about four women to one man. We have instances in some of our Southern States where the hours of women were stretched from the original 40 hours to 60 hours, because there are no State laws governing the hours of women.

(Mr. Ellenbogen, Representative from Pennsylvania, submitted the following letters:)

Hon. KENT E. KELLER,

House of Representatives.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., February 12, 1936.

DEAR COLLEAGUE: I will appreciate it very much if you will have the enclosed letter from the American Federation of Hosiery Workers inserted in the textile hearings.

With kindest regards,

Very sincerely yours,

HENRY ELLENBOGEN.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS,
Indianapolis, Ind., February 4, 1936.

Hon. HENRY ELLENBOGEN,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN ELLENBOGEN: Enclosed please find a letter that is being sent by Branch No. 35 to Representative Griswold asking for support on the bill you have so ably presented, and after you read the same you will see the reasons that the hosiery workers, along with the textile industry, are so anxious that their industry be regulated.

We would appreciate that these facts be read in the records and support of your bill and you can rest assured that hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the United States will appreciate these facts being known public, because we are convinced that without regulation, our industry is on the way to the old method of "dog cat dog" as prevailed prior to the introduction of the N. R. A., which did regulate hours and provided minimum code wages.

Thanking you on behalf of the members of Branch No. 35 of Indianapolis, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

WALTER TRUMAN, District Manager.

FEBRUARY 4, 1936.

Hon. Mr. GLENN GRISWOLD,

Representative from Peru, House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN GRISWOLD: Branch no. 35 of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers are asking your support on the Ellenbogen bill, which is now being presented in Washington for the textile industry. If ever an industry needed regulation, the textile industry does, and anything you do on this matter will be appreciated by hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the United States.

Since the departure of N. R. A. manufacturers are drifting back to the "dog eat dog" days as prevailed before the N. R. A.

We have in Indianapolis, for instance, the Real Silk Hosiery Mills, who not only chisel their workers and pay them rates below the union standards, but have tried and succeeded in increasing hours since N. R. A. was lifted. They increased hours of labor from 40 hours to 50 hours per week in their finishing department, without any overtime rates being paid, and when the rush was over in these departments, the workers now average 20 to 25 hours per week, with no consideration whatsoever.

In the footing department, which had a regulation under N. R. A. to work two shifts of 36 hours per week each shift. This too was increased to 40 hours per week, each shift, and continued and only stopped under threat by the workers themselves, who were taking it upon themselves to talk strike.

Recently in the Real Silk Mills they had a department known as the swatch department in the mill, and this department was paid the code minimum wage of $13, we believe, and at any rate they weren't paid any more. Recently this department has been moved out of the mill to private dwellings on Noble Street, Indianapolis, with a few instructors from the mill and they are now paying this department 15 cents an hour, increased the hours from 40 to 50 per week and for the 50 hours these girls receive $7.50.

At the National Hosiery Mills, Indianapolis, since N. R. A. was lifted, they too have forgotten about code wages and besides that have been working girls 65 hours per week, and when the girls complain about it this management told them they could get the hell out, as there were a lot of unemployed girls in the city of Indianapolis, who would be glad to have a job.

These facts are some of the things that are happening in this city. It is needless for me to tell you that the same thing is happening all over the country and I would appreciate it very much, when you are speaking in favor of this bill, that you introduce this as testimony on behalf of the workers.

Trusting you will give this your utmost consideration, and with best wishes, on behalf of executive board branch no. 35, of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Indianapolis, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

WALTER TRUMAN, District Manager.

Mr. HARTLEY. Is that a rare case or has that been done in several instances?

Mr. RIEVE. In several instances, but they are rare. But the disease, in my opinion, has started to work and if it is not checked the cancer will keep on growing until we have the same conditions that we had in 1932.

Mr. HARTLEY. Have you found any tendency on the part of employers in the industry to try to block the Wagner-Connery bill? Mr. RIEVE. Oh, yes; very much so.

Mr. KELLER. Have you found anything else in addition?

Mr. RIEVE. We suffer from all the ills that any other industry suffers from. And that covers a multitude of sins.

Mr. HARTLEY. Perhaps I am the one member of the committee. who should have asked the question that the chairman asked. Have you found any that have cooperated?

Mr. RIEVE. Oh, yes; especially in the full-fashioned industry we have closed shops with about 40 percent of the manufacturers of

full-fashioned hosiery, and we have union conditions in about 80 percent of that branch of the industry.

Mr. HARTLEY. Then, there are some?

Mr. RIEVE. Oh, yes. Personally I will say that I have no objection to the employers. I am not one of those who thinks that every manufacturer is in business just to squeeze down labor. Rather I am one of those who believes that there are certain economic forces that govern conditions and that the employer is a helpless tool in those forces. And if we cannot eliminate those economic forces we will have that type of situation. I do not think there is any employer who is glorying over the fact that he pays two or three dollars a week wages. But it is the survival of the fittest.

Mr. WOOD. It is a vicious circle.

Mr. RIEVE. Yes; it is.

Mr. WOOD. The last man who testified yesterday named a number of mills in the South, and I was very much interested in his testimony when he revealed the length of hours as they had been stretched out in the South in those mills, and it ranged from 48 hours to 60 hours. Mr. RIEVE. That is right. We have the same thing elsewhere. Mr. WOOD. It averaged about 55 hours, and it indicates the hours in those mills have been increased from 10 to 15 a week.

Mr. RIEVE. That is right, sir.

Mr. WOOD. With a corresponding reduction in wages.
Mr. RIEVE. That is correct.

Mr. WOOD. Is that the condition, that some of these employers have based their contention upon that the voiding of the N. R. A. has caused an upturn in industry?

Mr. RIEVE. I presume so, Congressman Wood.

Mr. WOOD. They have made so many statements of that type that I have often wondered what was the cause of the upturn in industry, as they term it, since N. R. A. was voided. I have never yet had one of them bring forth a reason for his statement.

Mr. RIEVE. Well, Mr. Congressman, I think the witness who appeared here Monday morning representing the Southern Manufacturing Textile Council gave you as good a reason as I have heard, that is, that they were forced to increase wages 100 to 200 percent in some instances in order to bring them up to the $12 minimum. I think that is as good a reason as any.

Mr. WOOD. That was the gentleman who had so much interest in the gardens of the workers.

Mr. RIEVE. Yes; and he said they had a happy life because they worked in the mill part of the time and then raised their own potatoes. Mr. KELLER. We will now call upon Mr. Leader and the delegation from Philadelphia representing the hosiery workers in that section. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. LEADER, PRESIDENT, PHILADELPHIA BRANCH, NO. 1, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS

Mr. LEADER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is my statement on the Ellenbogen. I am for the Ellenbogen bill first, on the ground that we believe it will reduce unemployment in the textile industry, increase the purchasing power of the workers, stabilize the entire industry, affording the worker a fair wage and the decent employer a fair profit.

Branch No. 1 of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers represents the major portion of the hosiery workers in Philadelphia, and influences the entire Philadelphia market. By that I mean that those manufacturers who do not have collective relationships with the union in Philadelphia, for the most part maintain the union wage scale and union working conditions. This is done largely, of course, in an effort to prevent the employees from joining the union, but from an industrial point of view it means that as far as labor conditions are concerned, Branch No. 1 of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers has tended to stabilize it and make it uniform. Of the 18,000 hosiery workers in Philadelphia area, 13,000 are members of our union.

As collective bargaining, the Ellenbogen bill contains the same provisions with reference to collective bargaining as the National Labor Relations Act. Company unions are outlawed, and the majority rule is established. Philadelphia is definitely affected by the fact that in all parts of the country, and especially in the South, company unions flourish. These company unions are merely the puppets of the employer. They make out of collective bargaining a farce. The officers are hired and paid by the employer to carry out the employer's wishes. The entire textile industry is infested with them. They are the greatest menace to our economic democracy, and are today, by encouraging low wages, long working hours, and poor working conditions, tending to drive the textile industry into bankruptcy.

Labor agreement with union becomes part of manufacturer's license. As I understand it, the object of this legislation is to obviate strife, as far as possible, and establish normal working conditions within the industry. In those shops where the national hosiery agreement prevails, strikes are rare, but in those shops in which we have been successful in establishing collective relationships during the period of the strike, we find that immediately thereafter the employer begins, at first subtly, and then more brazenly, to violate the agreement. The union is handicapped. It has no recourse but to another strike. That again involves a loss of time and a loss of money to both employer and employee. The National Association of Manufacturers, an organization not likely to underestimate the losses resulting from strikes, has reported that the cost of strikes in the 10-year period from 1916 to 1925 reached the total of $12,982,048,000, of which $46,000,000 fell on employers, $1,804,000,000 on employees. By making the labor agreement with the union a part of the manufacturer's license to operate in interstate commerce, the Ellenbogen bill, if made law, would immediately offer the union a method by which it could enforce its agreement without resorting to the strike. It would relieve the burden of the strike from both labor, industry, and the general public.

However, strikes are not the only problems with which labor has to contend. There are also labor disputes. Most labor disputes in organized shops are amicably adjusted, but in unorganized shops they leave unsatisfied grievances, they lead to smoldering discontent. Such discontent is reflected in decreased efficiency and in increased cost of production. A system of collective bargaining would tend to obviate these difficulties.