(The prepared statement and attachment previously referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF KENNETH A. MEIKLEJOHN, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Chairman, my name is Kenneth A. Meiklejohn. I appear here as a legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I appreciate very much this opportunity to present our views on S. 860, the Minimum Wage Amendments Act of 1963 for the District of Columbia.

Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that we believe you have performed a most significant service for the people of the District of Columbia in having prepared and introduced, and in pressing for early enactment of legislation which will bring the District of Columbia minimum wage law more closely into line with economic realities and with the needs and well-being of the people of the District of Columbia. Such action has been long overdue, and for having initiated it the people of the District of Columbia owe you, I believe, a great debt of gratitude. While there may be matters of detail as to which we may differ, I assure you that the AFL-CIO wholeheartedly supports the objectives and basic provisions of S. 860.

In our opinion, enactment of S. 860 is urgently needed at this time to make sure that wage earners in the District of Columbia receive wages that will provide for them at least a minimum standard of health, efficiency, and wellbeing. Unfortunately, many District wage earners are paid wages that are not adequate to provide such a minimum standard. That this is so is shown by the special study made in 1962 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor at your specific request of wages being paid, hours being worked per week, and work practices in the District of Columbia. This study showed that 20 percent, or one-fifth, of the employees employed in real estate occupations in 1962, 29 percent, or more than one-fourth, of the employees in motion picture theaters, and 42 percent, or more than two-fifths, of the employees in eating and drinking places earned less than $1 an hour. The percentage of workers who earned less than $1.15 an hour ranged from 19 percent, or nearly one-fifth, in retail trade to 61 percent, or more than three-fifths, in eating and drinking places, and included 33 percent, or one-third, of the employees in automobile repair and servicing, 32 percent, or nearly one-third, of the employees in hotels, motels, and rooming and boarding houses, 37 percent, or more than a third, of the employees in real estate, 28 percent, or more than one-fourth, of the workers in laundries, 25 percent, or a quarter of the employees in hospitals, and 19 percent, or nearly one-fifth, of the employees in retail trade. Employees earning less than $1.25 an hour in 1962 ranged from 29 percent, or more than one-fourth, of those in retail trade to between 50 and 60 percent, or more than half, of the employees working in laundries and miscellaneous services, and 60 percent and over, or more than three-fifths of the employees in eating and drinking places, hotels, motels, and rooming and boarding houses, and motion picture theaters.

These figures do not, of course, take into account the higher wage levels that prevail in occupations that are generally subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under that act the minimum wage for employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce who were covered by the act prior to the 1961 amendments was raised to $1.25 an hour effective last September 3. A minimum wage of $1 an hour, which has been in effect for 2 years, applies at present to employees, primarily in retailing, construction, and transit, whom the 1961 amendments brought under the coverage of the act. This minimum will be raised to $1.15 an hour effective September 3, 1964, and to $1.25 an hour effective September 3, 1965. Existing low wages in a number of presently uncovered industries must be considered rather in the light of the high cost of living with which low paid, as well as higher paid workers, in the District of Columbia must contend.

As is well known, living costs in Washington, D.C., have risen at a rapid rate 23 percent from 1950 to 1962-and are among the highest in the country. A modest but adequate budget for a family of four in Washington has been estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as requiring an income of over $6,000 per year. Compare, this, Mr. Chairman, with the annual income of $2,500 which a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour will earn during a year for a worker working 50 weeks at 40 hours per week. Even if two members of the family were working and earning at these levels, they could not between them provide an adequate level of living for the family in the District of Columbia.

But low wages affect adversely, not only the health, efficiency, and well-being of the worker himsef, but also the fair employer and his employees in their efforts to withstand the unfair wage-cutting competition of unfair employers. Low wages also undermine the stability of industry by leading to labor disputes and work stoppages and contribute to unemployment by reducing the purchasing power of workers. In many instances, as is evident from available wage and cost-of-living data, low wages must often be supplemented by public or private relief payments and thereby impose a heavy drain on public and community welfare resources.

Long ago the Nation learned that low wages threaten health and well-being and injure the overall economy. The District of Columbia has made substantial progress in alleviating substandard living conditions due to low wages under its existing minimum wage law, enacted originally in 1918. Updating of the District law along the lines of the Fair Labor Standards Act is clearly called for at this time and I quote from the bill itself "to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions" which I have described.

Attached to this statement is a supplementary appendix setting forth in somewhat greater detail the data which we believe support the need and propriety of enacting S. 860 at the earliest possible moment. I would like to request, Mr. Chairman, that this appendix be included in the record. In the remainder of my remarks I should like to deal briefly with some of the more important features of the legislation and to objections that have been raised to some of these features.

First, S. 860 proposed to apply minimum wage and maximum hour protection, not only to women and children but to men as well. Such action has been long overdue. Unfortunately, as the data included in our supplementary appendix show, there are occupations in which, because the present District of Columbia minimum wage law does not apply to men, women's wages average above those paid to men employed in the same occupations. The existence of State minimum wage laws, like the existing District minimum wage law, which apply only to women and children is, we believe, an anachronism under today's economic and social conditions. Sixteen States have already amended their minimum wage laws to apply to men, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, of course, applies to both men and women. There is no reason and no one can be heard to contend today that a reasonable case can be made for continuing to exclude men from minimum wage and maximum hour protection. We strongly support the provisions of S. 860 that would extend such protection to men, as well as women and 'minors, in the District of Columbia.

Next, the bill proposes to set a floor of $1.25 an hour under wages, and a ceiling of 40 hours per week over hours for employees employed in gainful occupations in the District of Columbia. In this respect, the bill would bring the District minimum wage law closely into line with minimum wage and maximum hours standards now applicable to the great majority of employees subject to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. These standards, we believe, are amply justified by the data available to us on current wage levels, cost of living, and other relevant factors in the District of Columbia which are summarized in our supplementary appendix.

The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have endorsed the $1.25 an hour minimum wage and the 40-hour maximum workweek as ultimate objectives. but have suggested that these objectives be accomplished on an escalator basis, with a minimum wage of $1.15 an hour and a maximum workweek of 42 hours per week to become effective upon the effective date of the bill, and the $1.25 minimum and the 40-hour maximum workweek not to become effective until September 3, 1965. This proposal is apparently based on the fact that similar escalator provisions were applied to the employees who were brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the first time in 1961 by the 1961 amendments to the act.

The position of the District Commissioners obviously has a certain plausibility to it. We would point out, however, that in our judgment the Congress was unduly cautious when it adopted an escalator method of applying minimum wage and maximum hours protection under the 1961 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act. We believe that the $1.25 hour minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek were more than justified on the basis of economic and competitive conditions in 1961. We saw no justification for the escalator provisions adopted by the Congress at that time, and accepted these provisions only very reluctantly. Because we believe that today, 2 years after the 1961 amendments became effective, the $1.25 an hour minimum wage and the 40-hour week are even more justified now in the District of Columbia on the basis of economic and competitive conditions, we are opposed to the escalator provisions suggested by the District Commissioners. We strongly urge immediate application of the $1.25 an hour minimum wage and the 40-hour maximum workweek, as proposed in S. 860.

There are also special factors in the District of Columbia which argue persuasively for this position. Whereas the Fair Labor Standards Act applies throughout the United States, in the District of Columbia the gap between the proposed minimum wage and the cost of living is especially wide, and the need to close it especially urgent and immediate. Here the types of business concerns that will be affected by the legislation are those which the existence of the Federal Government and the large numbers of persons employed therein have largely brought into existence. These concerns are needed here, in the District of Columbia, not in Maryland or Virginia to which in ordinary circumstances they might move if they were unwilling to pay the higher, but not unreasonable, cost of operation which adequate minimum wage and maximum hours protection may mean for them. These concerns, we are convinced, can well afford to provide the minimum wage and maximum hour protection required by S. 860.

We approve of the provisions of S. 860 which would permit standards higher than those provided for in the bill to put into effect on an industry-by-industry basis through wage order proceedings similar to those which have been in operation under the 1918 minimum wage law. If any industry should be exempted from coverage under the bill we also feel it is important, as the District Commissioners have suggested, that wage and hour standards and other benefits contained in outstanding wage orders issued under the 1918 law should be kept in existence so long as they do not undermine the standards provided for in the bill.

The bill contains provisions for administration, judicial review of wage order proceedings, and enforcement which are similar to those contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. These provisions have worked well on a national basis and we believe they will be useful in promoting effective enforcement in minimum wage and maximum hour protection under District of Columbia law.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the District Commissioners have suggested that the powers which S. 860 would vest in the Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board be invested instead in the Commissioners themselves. While the purpose of this proposal may be to provide greater importance and immediacy to the administration and enforcement of the District of Columbia minimum wage law, we see no reason why effective administration and enforcement cannot just as well be accomplished through the Board. The Board has the expertise which will have to be relied upon in any event to assure the law's effective administration and enforcement.

In conclusion, we trust that Congress will act expeditiously on this legislation. It is greatly needed, and the need is now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before you and present the views of the AFL-CIO on this important legislation.

SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX FROM THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF S. 860

INCOME NEEDED FOR MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING

The city worker's family budget calculated by the U.S. Department of Labor shows income necessary for a modest but adequate standard of living, slightly above a bare minimum but without luxuries.

In 1959 the Labor Department's calculations showed that an income of $6,147 a year is necessary to provide a modest but adequate standard of living for a worker with a wife and two children in a city like Washington, D.C.

Translated into weekly terms this annual income represents $118.21 a week. Translated into hourly wages for a 40-hour week, the $6,147 yearly income represents $2.95 an hour. This hourly wage necessary for a modest but adequate standard of living in Washington, D.C., is more than double the $1.25 an hour minimum wage proposed for the District of Columbia in S. 860.

Another basic budget yardstick comes from a committee appointed by the District of Columbia Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board. A 1959 study by this Committee showing the cost of living in the District of Columbia for a single woman worker with no dependents has been adjusted by the AFL-CIO Research Department to show the cost of living for a single woman with no dependents as of August 1963.

Cost-of-living budget for a woman worker in the District of Columbia, September 1959 adjusted to August 1963

NOTE.-The major commodity and service items have been adjusted by the appropriate indexes of the Consumer Price Index for Washington, D.C., with the following exceptions:

1. Health: Computed on basis of current GHA dues of $8.15 per month plus assumed proportionate increase in other medical expenses.

2. Transportation: Based on current cost of tokens, D.C. Transit (4 for 85 cents).

3. Insurance: No adjustment made.

4. Emergency fund: Increased by percentage increase in all other commodity and service items in budget.

WOMEN PAID MORE THAN MEN

An occupational wage survey made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in October 1962 for the Washington standard metropolitan statistical area, including parts of Virginia and Maryland, shows that women are paid more than men in some occupations.

This survey found 32 men elevator operators earning 70 to 80 cents an hour, but no women elevator operators were paid less than 90 cents. The same survey shows 81 male janitors, porters, and cleaners earning between 70 and 90 cents an hour, but no female janitors, porters, or cleaners earning less than 90 cents an hour in the larger establishments employing 50 or more workers.

STATE WAGE-HOUR LAWS

The present District of Columbia minimum wage law protects women and children but fails to cover men. The original District of Columbia minimum wage law was first passed in 1918 when the legal conception of minimum wage laws was such as to exclude men. Since that time, the coverage of men by minimum wage laws has been accepted both in the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as well as in a number of State minimum wage laws.

The minimum wage laws of 15 States and Puerto Rico are applicable to men. The States in which minimum wage laws apply to men as well as women and children are:

As other States accepted the legal policy of minimum wages for men, they amended their earlier acts to broaden the scope of their laws. As recently as 1961, Pennsylvania amended its Minimum Wage Act to include males as well as females and minors.

Provisions for $1.25 an hour State minimum wages-applicable to both men and women-have been enacted in Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and in the State of Washington, and in Alaska the State minimum wage is $1.75 an hour.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Meiklejohn, for a very helpful statement. I have no questions. Thank you.

Our next witness will be Mr. Allen Jones, representing the Hotel Association of Washington.

We are delighted to have you, Mr. Jones. You may proceed in your own way, and you are accompanied by Mr. Bourbon Dawes. STATEMENT OF ALLEN JONES, JR., ON BEHALF OF THE HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON; ACCOMPANIED BY BOURBON DAWES, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I am Allen Jones, Jr., of the law firm of Wilkes & Artis. Our firm is general counsel for the Hotel Association of Washington, D.C., and my appearance here is on behalf of the association and its 43 members in the District of Columbia, with approximately 7,000 steady employees.

This association wishes to record its opposition to S. 860 in its present form. The bill would set an immediate across-the-board statutory minimum rate of $1.25 per hour without giving any consideration whatever to the nature of the work performed by the employee as it varies from industry to industry and-like hotelseven within a particular industry.

Our hotels employ tip and nontip personnel. Because they receive no tips or gratuities, the latter group comprised of maids, elevator operators, cooks, porters, et cetera, historically have received higher wages than tip personnel such as waiters, waitresses, and bellmen. Significantly, the Minimum Wage Board of the District has always recognized this differential and has so provided in its wage orders. For example, tip employees in hotels today have a minimum wage order of 33 cents per hour less than employees who do not receive tips or gratuities. In addition to our Minimum Wage Board, both hotel employers and employees, through their respective representatives, customarily recognize the differential in collectively bargaining their labor contracts. Actually, the differential under our current labor contract is much greater than that provided in our minimum wage