LETTER OF S. R. CHRISTOPHERSEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SMALLER BUSINESS OF AMERICA, INC., CLEVELAND, OHIO CLEVELAND, OHIO, April 14, 1949. Hon. CLAUDE PEPPER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR PEPPER: We have again taken a ballot of our members; this time, on the important issue minimum wage, which will soon come before Congress. We know you will be interested in having the opinions of our members who are in all types of businesses, and we give you herewith the tabulation of replies in percentages, together with pertinent remarks regarding the issue: 1. Are you in favor of raising the minimum wage to 75 cents per hour?. 30.5 Percent Percent 5.3 3. Are you presently employing anyone to whom you could not afford to pay 75 cents per hour?. 4. Would a 75 cents minimum prevent your hiring handicapped or parttime workers whom you might otherwise consider?.. 5. Would a 75 cents minimum affect adversely either your business or hiring policies if your volume of business contracts, or if more normal competitive conditions prevail?... REMARKS "I am not in favor of any law stating the minimum or maximum amounts to be paid to workers. In the first place, to whom and where are they paying these rates? It is impossible to hire even a floor sweeper at the rate of 75 cents per hour at the present time. Therefore, why should we be tied down to any minimum rate when we don't know what is going to happen in this unstable world of ours." "I am personally of the opinion that a law to cover this would restrict hiring, especially in a depression." "We need to know what consideration will be given us on meals and uniforms which we furnish. Also, we have a year-round business, not seasonal, and should not be considered with employees who get a seasonal wage at a higher hourly rate because of that." "Our minimum rate at the present time, which is more than 75 cents, may be entirely too much in case of a depression and reduction of prices." "I favor 'rule of reason.' Most businessmen want to be honest with their employees." "I do not believe it possible for us to pay apprentices such a minimum, and it undoubtedly will prevent taking on apprentices.' "The effect of a 75-cent minimum would raise skilled labor rates to such an extent that it would react against labor." "How about some legislation for the worker or public to guarantee business a minimum profit?" "Wage ceilings and floors tend to stratify society and are inconsistent with the idea of free economy." "Minimum wages should be arrived at on an economic basis. There is too much politics in favor of class legislation." "Minimum wage law will keep many off any payroll, and thus be thrown on Governmet support." On behalf of our members, I trust this activity will be of assistance to you in promoting legislation for the good of our Nation and for small business. Yours very truly, LETTERS OF FRED W. CLIMER, VICE PRESIDENT, THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Mr. EARL B. WIXCEY, AKRON, OHIO THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER Co., Clerk, Committee on Labor and Welfare, DEAR MR. WIXCEY: This will acknowledge your letter of April 8. I wired for time to present my views before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on the proposed amendments to the Taft-Hartley law rather than on the amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the request and your suggestion that I send a statement for the record. In accordance with your suggestion, I am attaching a copy of a letter which I sent to the Honorable John Lesinski, chairman of the House Labor Committee, which while brief covers the main points of the legislation under discussion in which our company has had some actual experiences. Sincerely yours, FRED W. Climer. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Mr. JOHN LESINSKI, Chairman, House Labor Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LESINSKI: Before long the House of Representatives, as the Senate is already doing, will be considering what to do about the Taft-Hartley law. I am vice president of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., in charge of industrial relations, and have been carrying such responsibilities since 1935. Having had that experience I am not only vitally interested in what happens to such legislation but have had personal experience in how the Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley law have worked. Moreover I want to express some views as a citizen. First let me say two things. One, I believe the present law needs some changes. These I will outline later. Second, I do not believe that the sounder, more responsible labor leaders of the country, if they could speak their firm personal convictions, free from all political implications, would favor all the changes that labor or the administration advocate. There are four changes which I think should be made in the present law: 1. Elections on the issue of a union shop should either be discontinued completely or held only when the employer has agreed to abide by the results. Under the present law the employer is free to reject the election results if they favor the union shop. This has often resulted in misunderstanding and bad feeling. 2. The non-Communist affidavits should be required from proper management as well as union representatives. The present provision which requires such affidavits from the union alone can be classed as discriminatory. However, it has been of considerable help to unions in freeing themselves from Communist domination and could be of value to employers engaged in operations having the aspects of national security. 3. It should not be possible for small craft units to split off from established over-all bargaining units in large and integrated operations such as ours, as can be done under the present law. This provision of the law if contained can cause us as well as the union a great amount of difficulty and turmoil. 4. The present law should be clarified so as to permit, after individual authorization to do so is received, the deduction by the employer of union dues, initiation fees, and general assessments when levied in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the union. Prior to the passage of the present law we made such deductions from the pay of union members in accordance with the list of those members furnished us by the union. Under that provision in our contract, 87 percent of all employees had those items deducted. Under the Taft-Hartley law when individual authorization was required, this percentage remained at 87 percent. I therefore feel that the individual authorization has not harmed the union and is better accepted by most employees. This provision, however, should be clarified to permit the deduction of all three items. There are a great many other provisions of the present bill about which there seems to be considerable controversy, but which I think are fundamentally sound. However, before touching on them I would like to point out that there has been a great improvement in our industrial relations at Goodyear in the past 2 years. This improvement started before the passage of the Taft-Hartley law and has continued since. While I believe that law has had a salutary effect on labor relations generally, most of the improvement in our own situation is attributable to an improvement in union leadership, with some concurrent improvement in our own methods of approaching the problem. However, the problem of industrial relations has become a problem of national concern affecting all elements of our citizens. Unions have grown so much in the past few years that their actions affect the welfare of our country just as much, if not more so, as do the actions of employers. In any activity where there are two opposing entities as unions and employers, whose actions can so greatly affect the entire public, there needs to be rules laid down by law which will place equal restrictions and regulations on each party. Improved stability in labor relations is thus attained. For this reason it is important that the following provisions of the law be kept: 1. Suability of unions. Employers can be sued for violation of contract and this very fact makes the employer more responsible. I do not advocate the handling of industrial relations by suits and countersuits, but the fact that an irresponsible labor leader could be sued for his irresponsibility would tend to make him more responsible; would have a stabilizing effect on labor relations; and would not in any way injure the responsible labor leader. 2. Employers can be found guilty of unfair labor practices such as failure to bargain in good faith, and many others. These would work no undue hardship on the reasonable, scrupulous employer when handled by an impartial Labor Board, nor would similar restrictions work any hardship on reasonable labor leadership. 3. The proposed law would eliminate any time limitation on the filing of charges of unfair labor practices. I know by experience that after any amount of time has elapsed from the filing of a grievance it becomes impossible either by record or memory to arrive at the facts so that such a grievance can be properly adjusted. This fact is generally recognized by contract, so the law should prescribe some time limit for the filing of charges of unfair labor practices. 4. Elections for bargaining agents should not be permitted oftener than once per year. Goodyear operates only one plant which is still unorganized and in that plant two elections were held within a 5-month period. This keeps the employees under constant pressure with a resultant loss in production and wages. 5. Under the Wagner Act it was not clear just what rights, if any, the employer had to discuss matters with his employees. Certainly he should be guaranteed the right of free speech so long as he does not promise benefits, or coerce. 6. If the Conciliation Service is to continue to render impartial service it should be maintained as an independent agency. How would labor leaders or union members feel if the Conciliation Service were a part of the Department of Commerce? It should be retained as at present-as an independent agency. 7. Employers should not be compelled to bargain with unionized foremen. If the proposed legislation were to be enacted employers would again be compelled to bargain with unionized foremen. Foremen are a very important part of management's team. Should we return to the same law which we had in this respect prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley law, foremen generally will be subjected to a barrage of propaganda for organizing purposes. Morale will be affected and the American production machine done untold damage. foreman who is a member of management just simply cannot also be a member of a union opposed to management. A There are two other provisions of the present law on which changes are being considered which have not affected our own industrial relations but in which as a citizen I am very much interested. One is the provision of the present law permitting the Government to get an injunction against strikes which threaten the public health and welfare. I feel very strongly that there should be some means prescribed by law which will permit the Government to ban strikes involving the Nation's general safety and welfare. I am not at all sure just what is the best provision under these circumstances but the present law was used quite effectively by the Government in the one case of this kind which arose while it was in effect. The other is the proposal to return to the Wagner law procedures which cornbined the functions of prosecutor, judge, and jury in a single labor agency of Government. This is contrary to basic principles of American justice. In conclusion let me repeat that labor relations in industry are and will continue to be of great concern to the general public. Therefore, there is needed a set of laws laying down the rules under which both sides must operate and it is fair, reasonable, and in accordance with the American system that the same set of rules applying to employers should also apply to the unions with which they deal. Respectfully yours, F. W. CLIMER, Vice President. SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF COMMERCIAL TELEGRAPHERS' UNION (AFL) In response to the request of the committee that we furnish additional information as to incidence of accidents among the messenger forces of the Western Union Telegraph Co., we have secured information from a representative cross-section of our local unions throughout the United States and submit the following reports: Without exception all local officers advise that the proportion of accidents among younger messengers is substantially greater than among the more mature groups. We are told that practically all the bicycle messengers are boys below the age of 18 and that the number of accidents among this group in particular increases as the age drops. The committee will be interested to know that in the year 1948 in nine of the largest cities in the Pacific area (Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Spokane, Oakland, Salt Lake City, Portland, Phoenix and San Diego) there were a total of 1,519,932 messenger-hours worked. This represented a drop from 1,716,235 hours in 1947. Despite the substantial drop in messenger-hours worked, the total number of accidents jumped from 79 in 1947 to 121 in 1948. Some of this is undoubtedly attributable to the speed-up occasioned by the lesser number of messengers. The ratio of accidents for each 10,000 hours was 0.46 in 1947 and 0.80 in 1948. The number of personal injury and property damage cases jumped from 12 in 1947 to 29 in 1948. In other areas of the country we find the same pattern demonstrating itself. In Chicago accidents are presently running at the rate of about 40 per year. In Pittsburgh there are very few accidents. This is caused by the fact that the company has deliberately curtailed the use of bicycle messengers (that is, the use of boys under 18). In fact, Pittsburgh, a very hilly city, had but three accidents for the entire year as contrasted with the other cities making lavish use of bicycle messengers as indicated above. Boston, Mass., reports that: "Bicycle messengers are frequently hit by parked autoists who suddenly open doors of cars as messengers ride by * * * The committee will recall the testimony of Doctor Leiserson in 1945 in which he stated that about 70 percent of all accidents in the industry occurred among messengers, although at that time messengers constituted only 36 percent of the total number of employees. The percentage of messengers has dropped substantially since the date of Doctor Leiserson's testimony. We again urge the committee to reject the exemptions sought by the Western Union Telegraph Co. LETTER OF L. N. DANTZLER, PRESIDENT, GREATER TAMPA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, TAMPA, FLA. Senator CLAUDE PEPPER. TAMPA, FLA., March 14, 1949. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR PEPPER: The Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes the present efforts to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act and particularly H. R. 3190 which we understand was voted out of the House committee on March 9 with certain amendments. The act as amended is not available to us, but we understand one draft contained certain provisions not in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. It would not only be a mistake to weaken the Administrative Procedure Act by giving the Secretary of Labor powers not consistent therewith, but it is a furtherance of a trend toward Government regulations of business which trend must be halted. There are many people, including the membership of our organization, who still believe in State rights and all proposed legislation should be carefully scrutinized on that point. The minimum wage of 75 cents might not today be tremendously injurious to business industries in this area, but it is our firm belief that the fixing of such a minimum at this particular time will greatly increase unemployment which today is 4.400 in Hillsborough County. Industry and business has become accustomed to the provision of the Wage and Hour Act and any changes will disrupt the practice of business when it is most important to maintain the stability of business. We certainly trust that you will use your best efforts to prevent the passage of this legislation. Sincerely yours, L. N. DANTZLER, President, Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce. LETTER OF DAVIES, HARDY, SCHENCK & SOONS, NEW YORK, N. Y., TRANSMITTING MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN TRAINERS ASSOCIATION Re American Trainers' Association. Hon. CLAUDE PEPPER, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, NEW YORK, April 20, 1949. United States Senate Puilding, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SENATOR PEPPER: On behalf of the above association we enclose an original and three copies of statement which we wish to submit to the committee for their consideration in connection with the proposed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. You will note that the statement has been jointly prepared by ourselves as representatives of the American Trainers Association and Messrs. Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, of Philadelphia. We respectfully request permission to submit this memorandum upon the record of the hearings of your committee. The memorandum concerns itself with sections 3 (f) and 13 (a) (2) of the act as they affect the activities of employees engaged in breeding, training, and caring for horses. Very truly yours, DAVIES, HARDY, SCHENCK & SOONS. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 3 (F) AND 13 (▲) (2) of the Fair Labor STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 It is proposed that the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare amending the above sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act for the purpose of clarifying the status of employees engaged in certain agricultural activities and employees engaged in certain intrastate activities. I Under the proposed amendment section 3 (f) will read as follows: "Agriculture includes farming in all its branches and among other things includes * * * the raising, breeding, or training of livestock, horses, bees, furbearing animals, or poultry, and any practices (including any forestry or lumbering operations) performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations. * * The above section is amended by including those words which are italicized. The purpose of the revision is to specifically include within the agricultural exemption employees of employers engaged in raising, breeding, and training horses. These activities are primarily conducted on breeding or training farms and are similar to those performed by employees of farmers engaged in breeding, raising, and training activities. The primary purpose of the industry is to develop horses for competitive sport and to improve the horse as an agricultural commodity. The language now contained in this section of the act has permitted the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division to hold that the raising and training of horses is not an agricultural activity within the meaning of the statute. (Opinion letter, p. 4, dated February 7, 1946, addressed to Davies, Auerbach, Cornell & Hardy, 1 Wall Street, New York, attached hereto and marked "Exhibit A".) II Under the proposed amendment section 13 (a) (2) will read as follows: "The provisions of sections 6 and 7 shall not apply with respect to * * * (2) any employee engaged in any retail or service establishment or at a local |