Mr. STEELE. You understand, Mr. Ellenbogen, I am speaking as an individual. That has never happened in my plant. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. But it did happen under the code. Mr. STEELE. But what I am trying to point out is that the danger of this that is going to take the man who has worked for years in possibly one plant and keep him out of employment. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. There is no danger. Mr. STEELE. If you will pardon me, the danger is that if it is imperative and compulsory for the manufacturers to get the permit the average foreman will say, "You go ahead and get the permit, and if you get it I will let you stay on." And that does not happen in the office, and it is not what I would say. But we would have foremen of different departments, and they are not going to accumulate any more work for themselves than they can help. And I am talking about the human element in that. The foremen are not going to do work that they can get away from. But possibly some deserving employee has lost his work. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Some of the States require that already, Mr. Steele. Mr. STEELE. I see. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. It is just to make evasion more difficult. Mr. STEELE. I point this out only to show what is the handicap to the older employees. This bill says [reading]: The wages or other income of employees shall be exempt from any charges, fines or other deductions in other words, it forces the manufacturer to pay the same price for a mediocre employee whose work is not all first quality, as the expert, careful workman whose work is entirely satisfactory or from payment for provisions, insurance, or sick benefits, except those voluntarily paid by the employee, if approved by the Commission, and in existence at the time of the passage of this act, and except those required by State or Federal law. Yet this bill says: Nothing herein shall be construed or applied to prevent the deduction by employers from the wages of employees of dues of a bona-fide labor organization under agreement for such deduction between the employee and said organization. That is the matter of collecting union dues and is a matter between the union and the brother. And I would suggest that the employer be not asked to participate in this function inasmuch as it will cause him to bear extra clerical expense which bears no relation to our profit or to the management of our plant. As an individual having many union people in my plant, I will say that many of those people were there when I as a union operative worked with them. With regard to the union officials in our city, we have a textile council which is made up of the heads of the various crafts. They have never been denied my office when they have called. There have been times when we have not agreed, but I do not think there has ever been a newspaper clipping as to any trouble which has arisen from the disagreement. We have many individuals in the plant and many employees who come to us with their own problems. They are just as welcome as anybody else. When they cannot get satisfaction from their foremen or from someone else they still have the head of the union come in and talk it over. This bill says [reading]: No employee who has been regularly employed for 12 weeks by any one employer may be discharged without prior notice of 1 week. Does this mean that if a man was found willfully destroying property, perhaps committing arson, intoxicated beyond consciousness, perhaps insanely attacking and doing bodily harm to others, that we would have to give him 1 week's notice before removing him? This bill says: For the purposes of protecting employees who have been separated from their jobs by dismissal by their employers, each employer shall pay to any employee he dismisses, for any cause whatsoever, a separation wage computed at the ratio of 1 week's pay for each 20 weeks worked by said employee. This says, "for any cause whatsoever." Mr. ELLENBOGEN. It says "without cause", doesn't it? Mr. ELLENBOGEN. It refers to both. Mr. STEELE. I am trying to point out the fact that there should be some limitation. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. It is without cause. Mr. STEELE. I believe the next paragraph to which you refer says: For purposes of protecting employees who have been separated from their jobs by dismissal by their employers, each employer shall pay to any employee he dismisses, for any cause whatsoever, a separation wage computed at the ratio of 1 week's pay for each 20 weeks worked by said employee. Doesn't that go back to the other paragraph, Mr. Ellenbogena separation wage computed at the ratio of 1 week's pay for each 20 weeks worked by such employee? This clause is not workable and, if enforced, will be the cause of a large turn-over in labor, and once again will prove a detriment to those it seeks to help and protect. Neither is it workable to pay on this basis when business conditions bring about reduction of running time, and, furthermore, we are now contributing to the fund which is supposed to take care of this unemployment. While our Textile Institute is making a concerted drive on its members not to exceed the two-shift plan of N. R. A. and while it is stated in this bill that one of the objects desired is to prevent overproduction, it does make possible an increased production by a third shift, and the only penalty would be 5 percent of their respective wage. I will say that I am opposed to any third-shift operation in our industry at any time. I am opposed to mills working through the middle of the night, and I have always been opposed to it. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Steele, it only permits a third shift if, in the opinion of the Commission, it is absolutely necessary at a certain time to meet an emergency. I would not put it that way. I mean if in the opinion of the Commission it is a good thing. But it does not permit a third shift automatically by the payment of the 5 percent. The bill does not say that. Mr. STEELE. What does it say? Mr. ELLENBOGEN. It says if the Commission permits a third shift in some branches of the textile industry, and if the Commission finds that is economically sound, then in that case they must pay the 5 percent. But the payment of it alone is not sufficient to allow them to operate the third shift. Mr. STEELE. That is one reason why I am opposed to the Commission in this matter. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. I think there is a lot to be said about it. Mr. Wood. Mr. Chairman, may I interject that I am glad to hear one employer say that he is opposed to three shifts. Mr. KELLER. I think Mr. Steele has said a great many things along that line. Mr. STEELE. I will go further and say that I am one of those who believe in one shift. Mr. WOOD. I agree with you there. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. They call it the "graveyard shift." Mr. STEELE. My associates understand my position. And there are many people in our industry who believe in one shift. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. They call that the "graveyard shift." Mr. STEELE. Anything done during the night is called the "graveyard shift." And I think it is well named. I have worked it. Mr. SCHNEIDER. What is there about your particular situation that is different than that of others? Mr. STEELE. I don't understand what you are referring to. Mr. SCHNEIDER. You appear to be in favor of the one shift and two shifts but others are not in favor of that. Mr. STEELE. Do you mean others in the industry? Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, I do. Mr. STEELE. That is just like in any other family; there is a difference of opinion in the same family, no matter what the name of it is. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Do you think it is just a matter of opinion? Mr. STEELE. It is a matter of opinion on my part. Mr. WOOD. It is a matter of good policy on your part. Mr. STEELE. Call it what you will. Mr. SCHNEIDER. It is a good policy. But some of the other fellows do not see it. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Steele, many firms are now operating three shifts. Mr. STEELE. In the textile industry? Do you mean in the cotton textile industry? Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Yes; in the cotton textile industry. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. The gentlemen from the Cotton Textile Institute can probably tell you that there are a great many operating three shifts. Mr. MURCHISON. There are a few, but the great majority of the industry are opposed to the three-shift operation, and we are trying to eliminate the third shift through this plan to which I referred this morning. Mr. STEELE. And, gentlemen, please bear in mind I am pointing out the parts of the bill that I do not think are workable and are not for the best interests of all concerned. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. I think you are doing a service by expressing your individual opinion. Mr. STEELE. In addition this bill says [reading]: The Commission shall have power to fix a fee for the issuance of such labels or stamps which shall not be greater than the proportionate cost of defraying the expense of issuing the labels or stamps and the cost of administration of this act. This in itself again places further financial burden on an industry which is far from able to bear it. The textile industry is divided into so many classes that I know of no one man who could even be expected to know the entire problems of each branch. If I were asked to recommend a man for this Commission I would be at a loss to do so. I don't know a man in the textile industry who knows the problems of wool, silk, and all of those things that go with it. Therefore, it would be necessary for them to employ men to follow down each channel of the textile industry. And I want to say to you that by the time they got this complete organization that you would have an army of workers under this Commission. This in itself would place a further financial burden on an industry which is far from able to bear it. This bill written as it is, aims to give protection and benefit, and guarantees the rights of the employee, and makes no provision whatever for the rights of the employer, and in my estimation, will not only penalize the textile industry, but will also prove deterimental to those whom it seeks to help, and in addition, I believe it to be unconstitutional. Again I say, gentlemen, that in order to be workable and to arrive at what you gentlemen hope to arrive at, it should benefit all concerned. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Tell us what rights you would give the employer in that connection, please. Mr. STEELE. I would not attempt to stand here now and specify what the rights are any more than I would attempt to stand up here and specify what the rights of the employees are. Mr. WOOD. What do you think about the collective-bargaining feature of this bill? Mr. STEELE. Mr. Wood, as a workman in a plant many times I have been dissatisfied, and many times I worked under a foreman of one temperament, many times I worked under a foreman of a different temperament, many times I got what I thought was satisfactory treatment, and many times I thought I was being shunted to one side. Since being placed in the position of the employer I can look back many times and see without trying very hard where my contention was based upon the fact that I did not know the other side of the story. In our plant we have no objection to any man's coming in with any proposition either for himself or for others and presenting it to us. We have no objection to the secretary of the union to which he belongs putting before us his complaint. And we have no objection to the entire textile council bringing in a complaint. And it might be said, in justice to the textile council of the city where I am located, that they tried not only to be fair to their constituents but they tried to be fair to the employer as well. And in many cases we have worked out of what looked like serious problems. If you are going to put a label on it and call it collective bargaining, that is one thing. When you talk about collective bargaining and about bringing somebody, possibly from Pennsylvania, into my plant 56725-36-30 who knows nothing about my problem, who knows nothing about the problem of my employees, I would not like it any more than you would like to have a doctor brought into your case, if you were sick, who knew nothing of the background of your case. Mr. WOOD. The Guffey Coal Act and the Transportation Act have a collective-bargaining feature in them. In addition to that, we have the Labor Relations Board. The reason why I asked the question was that some of the former witnesses representing the employers objected to the collective-bargaining feature. I will ask if you do not feel that the employees should call in a representative of their own choosing. If you do not want to allow the employees to do that, then why does the employer assume the right to employ attorneys, professors and others who were never connected with the industry? Why do they assume the right to send representatives here to tell us something about the industry of which they know nothing? Mr. STEELE. Speaking about the employment of the professor, we are trying to further our cause; we are trying to improve an industry that has been referred to as being sick. Unless the industry is improved so that the stockholder, who has made the industry possible with his investment may at some time get some return, it is going to be detrimental to the return of the employee. Therefore, we are trying to find out if there are ways to further our industry, and we bring a man in from your side whom we think will be broadminded enough to see all angles. Mr. WOOD. It is a poor rule that will not work both ways. In all labor controversies invariably the employer will inject an attorney— usually it is an attorney. And in the negotiations between employer and employee very frequently the employer has the attorney or some agent not at all connected with the firm but who is employed by them to negotiate the wage agreement or contract with the employees. The employer has that full and free right at all times. Why should not the same right be afforded to the employee? Mr. STEELE. I have no objection to it, except that we just don't have it done; that is all. Mr. WOOD. Suppose they did have it; don't you think the employee should have a full right with the employer to select representatives of his own choosing? Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir. Mr. WOOD. Whether he is connected with the plant or not? Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir. Mr. WOOD. The employers themselves admit that they are not able at all times to defend their own position by the very fact that they employ specialists, technical men not connected with the industry, attorneys, and others to represent them. That is an acknowledgment on their part that they are not able to cope with the situation, so they employ somebody who can do it. Why should not the workers have the same right? Mr. STEELE. I have no objection to their having the same right that we have. Mr. WOOD. That is collective bargaining absolutely, that is, that the employees shall have the right to select representatives of their own choosing in negotiating contracts, and so on. |