STATEMENT OF JOHN M. BAER, REPRESENTING THE UNION LABEL TRADES DEPARTMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BAER. My name is John M. Baer. I am representing the union label trades department of the American Federation of Labor. Our department represents 51 affiliated international unions which have a membership of over a million, including the sheep shearers' union which is directly interested. Our department has the loyal support of the 4,500,000 members of the American Federation of Labor. In addition, I am representing here today 2,000,000_members of women's auxiliaries in the American Federation of Labor, and I speak for them as consumers.

The union label trades department of the American Federation of Labor has joined in the demand for Government action to protect the public from misrepresentation in the purchase of fabrics. We want truth in fabrics.

In the case of woolen products, we have appeared at hearings before the Federal Trade Commission, which has been trying to extend its limited authority to devise rules to check in some degree the growing tendency to deceive the public.

Recently we appeared before the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee to urge the passage of S. 3502 to establish the requirement that woolen products shall be labeled to disclose the amount of wool actually used and especially to distinguish between virgin wool and reworked or shoddy wool.

We are appearing before this committee today to repeat our conviction that this bill, here known as H. R. 9909, should be passed without delay as protection to the consumer. But in order to conserve the committee's limited time for this hearing we ask permission to include in the record a statement of our argument signed by I. M. Ornburn, secretary-treasurer of the union label trades department, who has asked me to represent him today. We should like to call your attention to the fact that in this statement we have analyzed the testimony of witnesses appearing before the Federal Trade Commission and the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee to show that opponents of this measure are unable to fight wool labeling on any basis that can be justified from a consumer point of view.

For ours is the department of the American Federation of Labor that particularly represents labor as consumers. We are primarily interested in identifying for the consumer commodities made under fair union conditions. But while the union label is a guaranty of fair wages and hours of work to workers, it does not pretend to constitute a guaranty that the ingredients of commodities so labeled meet any specified standard of quality. For the protection of workers as consumers, therefore, we have always supported private and governmental efforts for supplemental labeling that will give the buyer adequate information about the commodities he buys.

In this instance we are particularly concerned that wool garments be so labeled that the consumer may know, within reasonable limits, how much actual virgin wool was used in the manufacture of the cloth of the garment. If substitutes for virgin wool are used-re

claimed wool, rayon, cotton, or other fibers the consumer is entitled to know they are used.

Now, I should like to extend in the record this statement by Mr. I. M. Órnburn, secretary-treasurer of the union label trades department of the American Federation of Labor.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be inserted in the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

BRIEF PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY I. M. ORNBURN, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE UNION LABEL TRADES DEPARTMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AT HEARING MAY 4, 1938, ON H. R. 9909, THE WOOL LABELING ACT

Our department, as set forth in a verbal statement to your committee, believes there is urgent need for better identification of wool fibers. From this point of view we have analyzed the testimony presented to the Federal Trade Commission and the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee and we submit therewith what we believe to be the prevailing reaction of workers and consumers to the subject.

WOOLEN MANUFACTURERS

The testimony shows little disposition on the part of woolen manufacturers to question the desirability of differentiating between wool and nonanimal fibers, such as rayon and cotton. They see, as the result of many years of using substitutes for wool, that cotton and rayon manufacturers are now selling their products as woolen fabrics and thus taking away the market for woolen fabrics which many of them have so systematically undermined with inferior products. But the National Association of Wool Manufacturers apparently cannot take a positive stand in favor of disclosure of the amount of shoddy worked into a fabric because of the number of its members who have made that practice profitable in competition with manufacturers who make their fabrics of virgin wool. That is the crux of the situation. After the hearings before the Federal Trade Commission, President Besse of the association made an admission that seemed to indicate a realization of public reaction to the use of shoddy. He said:

"We believe that it is entirely practicable and reasonable to provide for a distinction between virgin wool and reworked wool."

But Mr. Besse's other statements and actions do not conform to that statement. He and others representing the association are proposing rules that will talk about disclosure but not actually disclose.

Opponents of the bill are concentrating their attention upon confusing the issue. They are willing to have the law provide labeling for products made entirely of virgin wool but they do not want any disclosure made of the amount of reclaimed or shoddy wool used in a fabric. The best argument they can make to justify application of a labeling provision to honest virgin wool fabrics but not to fabrics cheapened by substitutes for virgin wool is that it is impossible to determine by tests after the cloth is woven just how much shoddy has been used. In other words, we interpret their position to be that if experts can be fooled by the manufacturers, nobody should try to protect the public from misrepresentation.

We do not subscribe to such sophistry. Federal Trade Commission experience in the past has been that at least 90 percent of the manufacturers comply with the fair trade practice rules issued for any particular industry. We believe that most of the manufacturers in the woolen industry will comply with any Federal Trade Commission requirements for disclosure of shoddy content. As to other manufacturers who might be inclined to practice deception for the sake of making additional profits, we believe that the law, if the bill is enacted, would be sufficient to enforce compliance. Mr. Henry Miller, of the Federal Trade Commission, at the hearing showed how the law would work to provide for disclosure.

It was admitted by the representatives of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers that the superintendent of a plant knows what goes into a fabric. Upon that admission, Mr. Miller said, "Naturally, under the laws, he would be subject to subpena, of course." In other words, enforcement is possible under the proposed law and it is not necessary, as the National Association

of Wool Manufacturers contends to demonstrate chemically or microscopically the proportion of reclaimed wool in a wool fabric.

Mr. Besse, president of the Manufacturers Association, has gone so far in his attempts to draw a red herring across the trail of truth that he has proposed to the Federal Trade Commission that the manufacturers would withdraw their opposition to disclosure of reclaimed wool content in a fabric if the Federal Trade Commission would lend itself to a test carefully arranged by the association to show that it is impossible for the consumer to discover the amount of reclaimed or shoddy wool in a fabric. If such a proposal were made to a court, it is our opinion that it would be held in contempt of court. In our opinion, instead of constituting an argument against labeling, it is the best possible evidence that the Federal Trade Commission and the Congress of the United States must do everything possible to protect the public from any industry which tries in this manner to justify deception of the consumer.

Efforts have been made through the hearings to confuse the issue by the statement that some grades of shoddy are better than some grades of virgin wool. No more concise revelation of the true situation is available than the brief interchange of words at the Federal Trade Commission here which follows:

"Mr. FORSTMANN (manufacturer of virgin wool products). All comparable grades of shoddy are cheaper than all comparable grades of virgin.

"Mr. WILKINSON (representing National Association of Wool Manufacturers). That is conceded.

"Chairman MCCORKLE. You mean quality?

"Mr. FORSTMANN. Cheaper and worse.

"Mr. MILLER, Cheaper in price, you mean?

"Mr. FORSTMANN. Cheaper in price, yes; and considerably worse in quality. "Mr. WILKINSON. All other factors being equal?

"Mr. FORSTMANN. The same grade of wool, same fiber.

"Mr. WILKINSON. There is no controversy on that point."

It is significant that not even Mr. Wilkinson of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers could disagree with so clear a definition as that made by Mr. Forstmann,

VIRGIN WOOL MANUFACTURERS

It is fortunate for the public that the wool manufacturing industry is split on the subject of labeling. The number of large and reputable manufacturers who believe that the best interests of the industry will be served by honest labeling is considerable and their testimony has served to reveal the true meaning of the opposition.

SHODDY MANUFACTURERS

The word "shoddy" has come into disrepute. Shoddy uniforms during the World War became a national scandal. Another name for the product was sought.

Reclaimed wool has been used to identify shoddy, but that word in turn has lost easte

Wool manufacturers who use shoddy want to call it reworked wool. It has a nicer sound.

But the manufacturers who make the product, whatever name it may have, want the Federal Prade Commission to call it "reprocessed wool." Their testimony indicates they believe labeling to be inevitable; they also believe they can continue to do business if their product is given a different name.

Our opinion is that names are immaterial, but we see no reason why the Government should assist in disguising the truth, even by giring the product a pretier name.

KETAI DEY 60008 MANUFACTURESS

Brieffy, this group das:Y want to put the respenstiligy for labeling upon The retailers want to sell the products to the public on the basis

of the ledels as supplæd by the manufacturers.

dog oppton is that retailers must not be relieved entirely of responsibility the truth about fiðriks labeling must de provided 22 de my

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RETAIL CLOTHERS AND FURNISHERS

Applauded efforts to let the consumer know what he is getting would provide for disclosure of virgin wool in a garment. But, would not disclose precentage of reworked wool because of fear of a campaign of advertising that might destory value of garments in stock.

Our opinion is that there will be plenty of time for the average retailer to get rid of his stocks of clothes before the law goes into effect. While giving lip service to the principle of truth in fabrics, this group offered nothing constructive.

FARMERS

Farmers are united in favor of a wool-labeling act. The National Association of Wool Growers has a business interest, that of protecting the wool business against substitutes. But the national economy will be greatly benefited by protection of the wool-growing industry, which at present has been forced to obtain a loan of $50,000,000 from the Government to protect wool supplies from ruinous prices caused by the sale of substitutes as wool.

The National Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Farmers Union have all appeared at the hearings in support of wool labeling, but they have appeared chiefly as consumers of wool products demanding disclosure of the shoddy content in wool fabrics.

WOMEN'S GROUPS

The General Federation of Women's Clubs has taken the lead in urging truth in fabrics. The initial step was taken by the New York City Federation of Women's Clubs, which enlisted the aid of the Forstmann Woolen Co. in writing of fair-trade practice rules submitted to the Federal Trade Commission for approval.

Other women's groups have shown a deep interest. The women's auxiliaries of the American Federation of Labor are supporting this legislation, and they are prepared to become very active in its support should there be any doubt of its passage.

GARMENT MANUFACTURERS

Garment manufacturers are divided on the question of labeling of wool products. Higher-grade garment manufacturers favor labeling on fiber content. Their testimony has been submitted to the Federal Trade Commission and to the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee.

But, an amazing and growing volume of fabrics sold to the public as wool or part wool is known in the trade as "manipulated fabrics." These fabrics lend themselves also to price manipulations because of the substitutes for wool possible in their manufacture. Some contain no wool at all. One argument advanced by some garment manufacturers' associations against disclosing the fiber content of these fabrics is that this disclosure will injure sales and also destroy much of the style and fashion arguments on the basis of which these fabrics and the garments made from them are sold to the public.

Our reaction to these arguments is that no other case is necessary to prove the need for truth-in-fabrics legislation than the statements of those whose business is based on such manipulation of fabrics and prices at the expense of an innocent public. They stand convicted of misrepresentation by their own statements, as the following excerpts from their testimony before the Federal Trade Commission will demonstrate. And when these men say the present practice of deceiving the consumer is necessary because of fashion, we agree with the author of a recent book on dress who says of fashion, “T say it's spinach, and to hell with it."

DECEPTION NECESSARY TO SALES

Mr. MILLER. Well, would you feel that if you disclosed in a label to the consumer, that that particular fabric contained cotton, as it does, that they would prefer therefore not to buy it?

Mr. DEL MONTE. Well, I don't believe that we would even handle it.

Mr. MILLER. Because of sales resistance?

Mr. DEL MONTE. Because of the natural psychological reaction, sales resistance on the part of the consumers, the ultimate consumers * *

I feit

Mr. Barz* * I don know whether this is a wet bet. it and I con tre foot of it in my fingers Oh, and I took i It looked all right and I put it (Refer to his shit.) *ainen 10 percent estton Suppose they told me this conWeil I am supposed to know a little more than the werage in flott - I would have an immediate reaction against that piece of

EVADING THE ISSUE

Mr. Munak Now, if the content, as I gather from the advertisement, is not Important, why in the world should we use wool at all why not use all cotton Or something cheaper.

Mr Dowow. I don't know. Mr. Commissioner. I say I am not prepared to discuss the question I mean your question, of course, is a very obvions but nevertheless, I am not prepared to discuss the question of the value of the fiber content. "

DECEPTION DUE TO NONDISCLOSURE

Mr. MILLAR* " There are lots of things that undoubtedly the consumer would like to have, or perhaps should have and perhaps some people would ke to give them, such things as tensile strength, rubbing tests, washability, shrinkage, et cetern. But, while they might be desirable for a consumer to love, their absence may not lead to deception, and for that reason it might not be a requirement of law that they should be given.

Hot. In a situation where there is an element of deception due to nondisclosure, then there is considerable body of legal opinion to the effect that die losure is required. That was the purpose of my question as to which side of the fence on that legal proposition you stand.

HE ASKED FOR FACTS AND HE GOT THEM

MC MILTER You people are opposing labeling, and you don't want any label at all, which position is taken in the face of the tremendous body of evidence