raw or natural state, or canning of agricultural or horticultural products for market." For the reasons set forth herein, these exemptions should apply not only to workers engaged in the specific performances mentioned where more than 50 percent is so engaged, but to all other workers in the same plants including watchmen, janitors, checkers, foremen, clerks, etc., during the same period. All of these suggested changes come within the category of "agricultural exemptions" and are, therefore, wholly justified. In this connection, we call attention to the fact that a number of farmer and grower cooperatives are now engaged in the canning, processing, drying, storage, freezing, and other producer related businesses. CLARIFICATION AND RETROACTIVITY Of the warehouses represented by the undersigned, 44 percent do not operate under union contracts but operate in strict conformity with the wage-hour law, paying time and one-half after 40 hours. The remaining 56 percent have union contracts, with about a half-dozen different affiliations and all are affected by the failure of Congress to properly define "regular rate" and make such definition retroactive to relieve them of pending liability. Our members feel that they entered into these union contracts after weeks of negotiation and bargaining and arrived at terms and conditions made in good faith and mutually acceptable. They have employed and paid their employees in accordance with these contracts and they feel that the exceedingly untenable position they are placed in by the Supreme Court decision should be removed by statute. We concur fully in the definition contained in S. 653 and hope that it will be passed as set forth; but also respectfully urge that there be included in this bill an amendment containing a retroactive clause protecting all industry from any liability under the decision. H. R. 858 recently passed unanimously by the Senate and now in conference covers this inequity. MINIMUM WAGE Warehouses must compete for labor in their respective areas and therefore must provide take-home pay comparable with that prevailing in their vicinity. The regular staff of these warehouses enjoy a large measure of job security and yearround employment that is not found in many industries. The scale or rate of pay in the various sections of the country paid by warehouses match favorably with that paid for similar work for the reasons set forth above. We do feel, however, that the establishment of a fixed minimum wage for all industry, whether it is 60 cents, 75 cents, or $1, fails to accomplish the result Congress is endeavoring to attain. We suggest that the proposal recently made that instead of a fixed minimum wage figure, Congress should establish an escalator formula under which the minimum would be 60 percent of the average paid in an industry. We respectfully urge careful consideration of this proposal. POWERS GRANTED THE SECRETARY OF LABOR With respect to the provision in S. 653 that the Wage Hour Administration should be turned over to the Secretary of Labor and grant him the power to make binding regulations and sue for back wages due employees on their behalf; we consider it unwise to give any single individual this concentrated authority, or power. We admit that the present act is administered by an official, who for all practical purposes, is substantially under the Secretary of Labor; but we also call to your attention that the rules, regulations, and interpretations of that official obfuscated the issues and left industry many times more confused than before. It is believed that it is the function of Congress to make the laws but not to delegate authority to Cabinet members or others to make binding regulations, etc. The empowering of the Secretary of Labor or any other Federal official to act as a collection agency for employees seems to us definitely inappropriate. Any collections resulting from violations of the law should be left in the hands of the aggrieved parties under the process of law. Empowering the Secretary of Labor to be a collection agency can too readily be interpreted as obligating him to do so. We respectfully urge that the powers to be granted to the Secretary of Labor be eliminated. Respectfully submitted. Dated: June 2, 1949, Washington, D. C. JERRY P. JOHNSON. LETTER OF HON. WILLIAM LANGER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATEOF NORTH DAKOTA, TRANSMITTING COPY OF LETTER FROM JOHN F. OLSON, C. H. CARPENTER LUMBER Co., JAMESTOWN, N. DAK. Hon. CLAUDE PEPPER, UNITED STATES SENATE, April 29, 1949. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR PEPPER: I am enclosing herewith a copy of a letter I have received from Mr. John F. Olsen, C. H. Carpenter Lumber Co., Jamestown, N. Dak., in which he expresses his views on S. 653, as, in his opinion, it would affect the retail lumber yards, in an agricultural State such as North Dakota. This expression of views is being forwarded to you for your information and consideration. I am sure Mr. Olson will be pleased to know that this matter will be brought to the attention of your committee. With kindest wishes, I am Sincerely, Hon. WILLIAM LANGER, WM. LANGER, United States Senate. C. H. CARPENTER LUMBER Co., United States Senator, Washington, D. C. DEAR BILL: I am writing you regarding Senate bill 653, wage and hour law. We feel that this bill as it is now written will be a tremendous handicap and almost an impossibility for retail lumber stores to follow. In place of reducing costs, which we are now trying to do, it will be a hindrance and will materially raise costs. We are located, as you know, in an agricultural territory where the bulk of our business is done with farmers. In order to properly serve them it is necessary for us to keep our yards open long hours. We stay open 10 hours a day regularly and during harvest time more than that. We have found that it is necessary to do this in order to give the farms the service they need. They themselves work long hours and they come in for materials whenever they can spare the time from the farm. If we were to follow the hours prescribed in this wage and hour law, I am afraid the farmers would have an awful time to get any materials out of the lumberyards. And in this territory where most of the yards are small it is impossible to stagger the shifts because many of our yards are operated with one or maybe two men, and if we are to have the wage and hour law as prescribed in the present bill we would have to have extra shifts or be closed a big share of the time. If we put on extra shifts it will materially raise the cost of our doing business and if we close, then we can't give the people the service they must have and are entitled to. This bill as it is now written will perhaps fit nicely into some industries, but it certainly will not work in a retail lumberyard withut tremendous increase in cost or lack of service. The bill is so written that some of the sales in the retail yard would be considered a retail sale, others again would be considered wholesale. It is impossible to our minds to work it that way. Either we must be classed as retailers or wholesalers all together. We feel that the bill is purposely written to confuse us, in one paragraph it says that if you are doing a certain type of retail sales then you do not come under the wage and hour law, but in the next paragraph it comes right back and puts us into it. We wouldn't know if we were operating under it or whether we should be out of it. This feature by all means should be clarified and the only way to clarify it, as far as the retail lumber business is concerned is to exempt them entirely from it. We earnestly urge you to work and vote against this bill. Use every bit of influence you have to see that retail lumberyards are exempted from it. May we hear from you as to your views in regards to this matter. Yours very truly, JOHN F. OLSON. TELEGRAM OF J. A. LEVERIDGE, GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GRAIN MILLERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, KANSAS CITY, MO. KANSAS CITY, Mo., May 7, 1949. Senator CLAUDE PEPPER, Senate Building: This is to clarify our position as to why we are opposed to any change in wage and hour law overtime provisions for country elevators. The country elevator has no hardship imposed on it in comparison to terminal elevators. In most cases the country elevator has only one full-time employee, the only time additional help is used is at harvest time. The usual procedure in a country elevator is fill the house at harvest time and close it up except when occasionally loading out a car. This condition is true in country elevators on 10,000 to 200,000bushel capacity. The terminal elevators cannot compete with country elevators under present conditions. If the seasonal exemption was changed for country elevators it would make it more difficult for terminals to compete with them. Another major factor we must consider is that if you grant country elevators complete exemption from the overtime provisions of wage and hour law it will be only a matter of time until terminal elevators make the same request based on competitive situation. When seasonable exemption clause was established several years ago we appeared before the committee in Chicago and also Washington and proved conclusively that present exemption is more than adequate for country elevators and also terminals; in fact figures show that country elevators handle about 85 percent of their yearly business in an 8-week period. The facts and figures prove the country elevator has a decided advantage over the terminal elevator and no change is necessary. We authorize the printing and distribution of this telegram to your colleagues and we will pay cost of same. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GRAIN MILLERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, J. A. LEVERIDGE, General Vice President. LETTER OF HON. WILLIAM LANGER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, TRANSMITTING COPY OF LETTER FROM L. M. HAMM, THE PIERCE Co., FARGO, N. DAK. Hon. CLAUDE PEPPER, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MARCH 14, 1949. DEAR SENATOR PEPPER: I am enclosing herewith copy of a letter which I received from Mr. L. M. Hamm, The Pierce Co., Fargo, N. Dak. This information is being referred to your committee for your attention and consideration. DEAR SENATOR: It is not often that I write the members of our congressional delegation, but the matter of the Thomas bill now before the House Labor Committee which provides for a 75-cent minimum wage with the possibility of a $1 industry-wide provision does appear to me to be quite serious. The increase would have little effect on most business at this time as most of us are already in the bracket. The real seriousness seems to me to be in the fact that the more skilled and experienced laborer would demand a greater differential between their pay and that of beginners and the end result would be an immediate demand for another round of wage increases. I hope that you will give this matter your careful consideration and that you will find it possible to oppose my increase at this time. Yours very truly, L. W. HAMM. LETTER OF HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, TRANSMITTING COMMUNICATIONS FROM YAKIMA COUNTY HORTICULTURAL UNION AND THE YAKIMA VALLEY TRAFFIC ASSOCIA TION Hon. ELBERT THOMAS, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate. APRIL 15, 1949. DEAR SENATOR: Attached are copies of communications I have received recently from the Yakima County Horticultural Union and the Yakima Valley Traffic Association, with reference to the agricultural exemptions in the Fair Labor Standards Act. As I have indicated previously, there is grave concern among producers in the agricultural section of my State in regard to the possible impact upon the industry of curtailment of the two 14-week exemption periods, provided under the existing statute. If the exemptions are cut to one 14-week period, as originally proposed, I sincerely believe great hardship will be inflicted upon fruit and vegetable growers in the State of Washington. I know your committee will give this problem fullest consideration. Sincerely, WARREN G. MAGNUSON, United States Senator. YAKIMA COUNTY HORTICULTURAL UNION, Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Yakima County Horticultural Union is a farmers' marketing cooperative with a membership of over 400 fruit growers. It subscribes to the statements and testimony which have been presented to the committees of Congress, handling wage-hour legislation, by the International Apple Association and the Yakima Valley Traffic Association. In addition, it asks that these bodies give consideration to the effect of this legislation on small growers as embodied in the following resolution, unanimously passed by its board of trustees on April 3: Products of the farm have no value until they are prepared for market in usable and acceptable form to the consumer. Unlike industrial processes which may successfully operate on fixed hours of daily or weekly employment, the producers, especially of perishable fruits, must follow the schedule of nature if the harvesting and preparation of these crops is to be successful. Delays of several days to even as little as a few hours on some of these perishable fruits can spell the loss of the entire season's labor and investment of the grower. It is, therefore, essential that flexibility be provided in the handling and preparation work and that artificial penalties not constrict these natural processes. The agricultural exemptions of the present Wages-Hours Act afforded those who prepare crops are generally adequate for areas or handlers who produce and prepare one or but a few species of crops. They are often inadequate where many crop varieties are handled. The Yakima Valley, for example, is a multiple crop area producing a wide variety of fruits and vegetables each of which, in its limited season, must be harvested and prepared for market from April to December in a continuing process. Warehouses specializing in the preparation of but a few of these crops, can do so without difficulty under exemptions now provided. Others, including farmer cooperatives, who by their nature are expected to perform the service of preparation for market of whatever crops their members produce must continue their operations beyond the two 14 week periods granted in section 7 (b) (3) and section 7 (c). It is the normal yearly experience for them to find the exemptions exhausted and themselves placed in the unfortunate competitive situation of doing their work on some specific crop at overtime while their competitors with more limited operations handle and prepare the same crop at straight time. Cooperative marketing organizations are generally composed of small growers who individually cannot afford the plant and equipment required to prepare their products for market. Any reduction of the exemptions would impair the income of these growers by added operating costs, as well as increase existing competitive disadvantages. We, therefore, urge Congress to give full and adequate consideration to the economic needs of these small growers and continue, in total, the present agricultural exemptions now provided in the act. Yours truly, YAKIMA COUNTY HORTICULTURAL UNION. YAKIMA VALLEY TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION, Yakima, Wash., April 5, 1949. SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT ON MINIMUM WAGE ACT In the statement which we recently sent to you regarding the proposed Minimum Wage Act, on page 7 of the "Conclusions and Recommendations" we made the following recommendation: Definition of area of production. We propose that Congress amend by insertion under "Definitions," section 3, paragraph to follow proposed (f) and tentatively numbered (o): "(o) An individual shall be regarded as employed in the 'area of production' within the meaning of sections 7 and 13 when engaged in handling, cleaning, grading, packing, storing, drying, peeling, shelling, precooling, refrigerating or otherwise preparing in their raw or natural state, perishable or seasonal fresh fruits or vegetables which come to any establishment where he is employed, in their raw or natural state, and where such operations, according to historical practice, are normally and necessarily performed and/or when such operations are performed in an agricultural community or a city predominantly agricultural in character, and/or prior to their delivery to a terminal or consumer market prepared for distribution." The purpose of this letter is to state our specific reasons for this recommendation. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 left the "area of production" open to be defined by the Administrator. The subsequent definition and revisions thereof have consistently and substantially denied agriculture the benefits intended by Congress. The various phases of agricultural operations, such as wages paid, hours worked, employees employed in operations, volume of business, and related questions were fully discussed by Congress, both by its committees and on the floor during and before passage of the act. Although the "area of production" was left to be defined by the Administrator, it was the clear intent of Congress to grant an exemption to agricultural labor in all its phases at any place within the area of production. The intent of Congress is clear. In discussing the amendment which he introduced, July 30, 1938, Senator Schwellenbach said (Ref. S. 2475, line 4, Record, p. 10179): "The term 'person employed in agriculture,' as used in this act, insofar as it shall refer to fresh fruits and vegetables, shall include persons employed within the area of production engaged in preparing, packing, or storing such fresh fruits and vegetables in their raw or natural state." The following questions were asked and answered: “Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Washington a question. Would not the effect of this amendment be to exempt all industrial warehouses and packing plants in the apple territory? There is no limit. The condition is that they are packing plants, and if they are, they are exempt. "Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. If a packing plant is working upon fresh fruits and vegetables, in their raw or natural state, within the immediate production area, it would be exempt. "Mr. CONNALLY. My understanding is that the largest apple packing plant in the world is located at Winchester, Va., right in the heart in a great appleproducing region. That would be exempt, would it not? "Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. The purpose of the amendment is not for the protection of the owners of the packing plant. The cost is paid by the producer. These packing plants just pass the cost back to the man who produces the apples. The farmer pays the bill. The purpose of the amendment is to permit the small farmer, who cannot afford to have his own washing machine, to be placed upon a parity with the larger producers who can afford to maintain their own warehouses and their own washing machines and their own equipment." |