than half of our member companies engage solely in freezing operations. The balance engage in both canning and freezing.

A good deal of publicity has been given in recent years to frozen foods. But little is popularly known about the details of the frozen fruit and vegetable industry. We wish therefore first to point out some very important facts about our industry which, we believe, must affect the legislative proposals before the committee.

One of the great popular attractions of frozen fruits and vegetables is that, to a greater extent than all other processed foods, they come closest to having the fresh taste and appearance associated with fresh fruits and vegetables picked and immediately eaten, at the peak of maturity. This is not an accidental result. It is the result of letting the fruits and vegetables reach the peak of their maturity on the tree or plant-and then processing and freezing them, immediately upon harvesting. Food and Drug Administration witnesses testified in a recent proceeding that the best maturity for processing frozen fruits is that degree of maturity when the fruit tastes best in the raw state.

The time interval during which this proper maturity lasts is very short. If the fruits or vegetables are not harvested and frozen immediately at the peak of maturity, the raw fruit or vegetable quickly becomes overmature, and becomes an economic loss. Equally unsatisfactory results occur if the fruit or vegetable is harvested before the proper maturity is reached.

We want to give special emphasis to the fact that the time period during which the fresh fruits and vegetables in the field reach and hold this peak of maturity may be extremely short. Weather conditions, which we cannot control, have much to do with this. Green peas in the field may be too immature today, but by tomorrow night they may be overmature for freezing. A similar situation exists in the case of sweet corn for freezing. Asparagus may overnight grow 5 inches. Strawberries ready for freezing today may be soft and overmature tomorrow.

To

Because of these facts, rush periods are a normal part of our harvesting, processing, and freezing operations. During these rush periods, it is necessary to operate long hours until the crops have been harvested, processed and frozen. The influence of weather conditions is partly responsible for this situation. the extent possible, we exercise control over the dates when proper maturity will be reached by arranging planting schedules with our farmers, so that, theoretically, the crops will mature in orderly fashion, not all at once. But weather conditions cannot be controlled, and may hasten or retard maturity dates, or rain may even prevent us from getting into the field to harvest at all, so that in spite of our plans and planting schedules the exact time that the crop must be harvested is beyond our control. If bad weather prevents harvesting today and stops our plants, hot weather tomorrow may hasten maturity and increase the rush in plants. Ideal weather may enormously increase our yields over what was expected, and again this means a greater rush.

Therefore, where a freezer is processing two or more products, and most freezers do, the overtime periods may cover many weeks, not necessarily consecutive weeks.

For example, a company freezes peas, lima beans, corn, and strawberries. While we try to control the rush by schedules of planting times based on estimated dates of maturity, as shown by experience in the different areas the influx of a particular crop for freezing will build up, remain at a peak, and then taper off. Fresh fruits and vegetables, such as the ones mentioned, mature at different times of the year. Therefore, in harvesting and freezing different fruits and vegetables, a freezer will have a series of rush periods, and the total processing periods for the different crops may overlap. Despite statements to the contrary, the entire season, including the rise and fall of rush periods, continues for a total of more than 14 weeks in a year.

We do not mean to imply, however, that a freezer is harvesting and freezing on a rush basis every day for 6 months or more. As we have tried to show, the rush periods will come at different times. At present, we are permitted a very necessary flexibility in being able to choose when overtime exemptions are to be applied, as dictated by natural maturing of the crops.

Under the proposed legislation this essential flexibility will either be entirely removed, or will be greatly curtailed. We would have, at the most, under these proposals only the opportunity to use overtime up to 50 hours in a week, for only 14 weeks. This is very inadequate.

All

We want to make one point clear. If we cannot process the raw fruits and vegetables in our plants in time, the loss falls mainly on the farmer. responsible freezing attempt to avoid this.

Rush work at some times is an absolute essential for nearly every single frozen fruit and vegetable. We cannot shut down, nor can we call in several different shifts of workers. Most freezing plants are located in rural areas of limited labor supply. There is not-and has not been for years-any stand-by labor available. Nor do we see any future source of stand-by labor.

We might say that freezers have generally good labor relations. Our employees are frequently furnished housing at very low cost to them. Various "fringe" advantages give them benefits which make their lot better in many ways than that of industrial workers in big cities. We have been fortunate, therefore, in having relatively few strikes.

Unlimited overtime work and careful production planning are essential to prevent serious, and perhaps ruinous losses to farmers by spoilage of fresh crops for freezing. We should add that many freezers are engaged not only in freezing, but farming operations.

With that background, we turn now to the particular legislative proposals under consideration. There are, of course, many provisions which we will not discuss, such as the broadened coverage of the act, or the increase in minimum wages, or the broadened child-labor provisions, or the Secretary's power to sue for unpaid wages, or the various legal questions, such as the need for public hearings on regulations. We want to discuss the proposals concerning overtime.

The original purpose of overtime requirements was to spread work. But these overtime proposals will not give any one any more jobs in our industry. Overtime work in farming and freezing is essential. Our overtime of farming and freezing continues more than 14 weeks a year, and more than 10 hours a day, and more than 50 hours a week. We submit that the overtime proposals for freezing are inadequate for our needs, and will only result in disadvantage to consumers, farmers, and freezers. We therefore urge retention of the present overtime provisions for farmers and processors.

We also wish to endorse the position taken by the National Canners Association. Since both canners and freezers now are covered by the same statutory language, we believe language acceptable to the canners concerning overtime would be acceptable to freezers if the words "or freezing" immediately follow the word "canning" in the amendments proposed by the canning industry.

In summation we would like to emphasize again the importance of overtime work to freezers and farmers and why premium wages cannot be paid for this work. 1. In the processing of frozen fruits and vegetables, speed is peculiarly important-there can be only a very short interval between the time when the fruits and vegetables reach the proper degree of maturity and the time when the frozen fruits and vegetables in their finished form reach the zero-temperature warehouse. 2. This essential speed is possible only if sufficient labor is available. It would be fatal indeed to the frozen food industry if required labor should be unavailable when needed.

3. Quality in frozen fruits and vegetables is extremely important. We contract to take the product of a certain acreage if the raw crop meets certain well-known quality requirements. Quality changes occur very rapidly. Too long delay in harvesting, or inability to freeze the product, means that the raw crop must be rejected for poor quality. This means an immediate loss to the farmer and, if continued over a period, it means reduced production of frozen food.

4. The economic difficulty presented by payment of overtime has two aspects: (a) The increased costs to the processor must be absorbed by him or passed on to the consumer. The margin of profit, because of the vagaries of nature, does not permit the absorption of these costs by either the farmer or the processor. In the end they must be passed on to the consumer.

(b) The amount of required overtime is not subject to control in freezing operations. Many industries can shut up shop at the end of the regular workday, or work overtime when the added cost of overtime is included in a prearranged price. Frozen food prices cannot be prearranged, but are subject to unpredictable conditions that will prevail long after production has been completed.

5. Weather conditions vary from State to State and even from county to county. Under these rigid legislative proposals, such variations in weather conditions can result in neighboring competitors and distant competitors having widely different costs resulting from overtime. This discrimination will lead to competitive dislocation in our highly competitive industry. Such effects, we believe, should be avoided and they are avoided under the present law.

For these reasons, we again urge retention of present overtime exemptions for farmers and frozen food processors.

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL COAT AND SUIT INDUSTRY RECOVERY BOARD This statement is submitted in behalf of the National Coat and Suit Industry Recovery Board, a labor-management organization representing over 2,000 employers and 60,000 workers in the women's coat-and-suit industry located in the following markets throughout the United States: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland (Öreg.). The collective agreements between the employers and the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union which have existed in our industry for many years provide for high wage standards and the 35-hour workweek, as well as retirement and health benefits. The fair wage and working conditions prevailing in the industry have fostered industrial peace and stability, uninterrupted by a general strike for over 20 years.

In 1938 the recovery board adopted a resolution urging the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was enacted in the same year. It favored the adoption of this measure as a means for putting a floor under wages and restricting excessive hours in order to eliminate substandard conditions and unfair competition, and also to help bring purchasing power closer to the level necessary to support an adequate volume of consumption, production, and employment. Subsequently, we supported the establishment of a 40-cent minimum for the women's coat-and-suit industry under industry committee procedure prior to the date on which the 40-cent minimum became mandatory for all covered industries.

Despite the dire predictions voiced by some before the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, it has had a most beneficial effect. It has raised wage and work standards in backward sections of American industry, and served as a stabilizing influence in our national economy. However, in view of experience under the law during the past 11 years, and in order to bring it into accord with existing conditions, we believe it should be amended to raise the prescribed minimum wage from 40 to 75 cents an hour.

The present 40-cent hourly minimum is outmoded and inadequate

The expressed purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act is to promote minimum standards of living necessary for the health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers. At the time it was enacted, there was general recognition that the 40-cent minimum which was set up as the objective to be attained under the act was less than adequate. Nevertheless, it was deemed a cautious and conservative standard which could be adjusted periodically to meet changing conditions.

At the inception of the act in June 1938, the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index of goods and services customarily purchased by moderate income families in the United States stood at 100.9 based on the 1935-39 average of 100. In February 1949 the estimated index was 169. This constituted a cost-of-living rise of 67.5 percent and indicates that the 40-cent hourly minimum has shrunk very considerably in terms of actual buying power. Clearly, the present minimum is entirely unrelated to current price levels and living costs.

During the war years, the War Labor Board took cognizance of changes in living costs and in cases under its jurisdiction recognized at first 50 cents, later 55 cents and, in January 1946, 65 cents an hour as the minimum wage necessary to eliminate substandards of living.

The 40-cent minimum is out of line with the higher level of earnings today compared with that which prevailed 11 years ago. Thus, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average hourly earnings for all manufacturing workers as of February 1949 were $1.38 as compared with 63 cents in 1938.

In view of the rise in the cost of living and the prevailing level of earnings, it is essential to raise the prescribed hourly minimum wage rate from 40 to 75 cents. This would amount to $30 for a 40-hour workweek, or $1,560 for a work year of 52 weeks. That this is reasonable is evident from the Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that a modest but adequate budget for a city worker's family as of June 1947 for 34 cities ranged from $3,004 to $3,458, and this fails to take account of cost-of-living increases in those cities between June 1947 and February 1949 averaging 7.1 percent.

The proposed 75-cent hourly minimum is economically feasible and would not burden industry

The proposed 75-cent minimum is feasible from the point of view of its cost to industry.

It is estimated that there are currently about 1,500,000 workers earning less than 75 cents per hour, of which the great majority earn over 60 cents per hour,

and that the 75-cent minimum would increase the total manufacturing pay roll of the country by less than 1 percent.

That a relatively small percentage of manufacturing workers employed in the apparel industries receive less than 75 cents per hour is indicated by the fact that average hourly earnings range from over 90 cents in the cotton-garment industry to over $2 in the women's coat-and-suit industry. In the latter industry, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics sample wage study covering plant workers (which included not only the manufacturing workers in the various crafts but also such workers as thread trimmers, maintenance men, stock clerks, watchmen, etc.), there were in July 1946 only 1.2 percent of all plant workers receiving below 60 cents per hour, and 5.0 percent receiving between 60 and 75 cents per hour. In view of the steady upward trend in wage levels during the past 21⁄2 years, the percentage of workers receiving less than 75 cents per hour in the coat-and-suit industry is infinitesimal and confined to those performing entirely unskilled tasks or to handicapped and aged workers.

As for nonmanufacturing workers such as office employees, shipping clerks, etc., who comprise about one-fifth of the industry's employees, the great majority receive more than 75 cents per hour. This is partly substantiated by studies of office workers' salaries conducted in various cities by the Bureau of Labor Statistics during 1948. Further corroboration may be found in the fact that the collective agreement covering shipping clerks in the New York market (which accounts for three-fourths of the industry's annual dollar volume) provides for a minimum wage ranging from $27 to $32 for a 371⁄2-hour week, and over 90 percent of these workers earn above the minimum.

Any slight increase in the industry's pay roll necessitated by a 75-cent hourly minimum would, in part, be canceled out by the greater productivity which characterizes better paid rather than poorly paid workers as demonstrated by experience in industry.

The net economic cost of raising wages in particular industries to the 75 cent minimum would, therefore, not cause hardship or place an undue burden on employers in the coat or suit or apparel industries or to industry as a whole. The proposed minimum would protect the fair employer against the unfair employer In normal times there is a tendency for a minority of unfair and selfish emplovers to undermine established labor standards, to the detriment not merely of workers but the legitimate employers who live up to their obligation to pay decent wages. This is particularly true in highly competitive industries such as apparel characterized by small mobile units scattered over a wide area.

Raising the minimum to 75 cents an hour would serve, to some extent, as a restraint on those who seek to gain unfair advantage by undercutting wage standards.

The proposed minimum would reduce wage differentials between overlapping apparel industries and minimize unfair competition

Although the women's apparel industry has separate branches producing different types of garments, such as coats and suits, house dresses, rayon dresses, sportswear, etc., the lines of demarcation are not always sharp. Similarity of machinery and skills render it possible for a firm in one branch to produce garments made in another branch of the industry. This is also true as between the women's apparel and men's clothing industry. A major incentive for such overlapping is the existence of wage differentials.

The women's coat and suit industry is a high-wage industry and has suffered encroachment from other apparel industries having comparatively lower wage standards. Even if the present minimum is increased to 75 cents an hour, the differentials above that minimum will remain and lower-wage producers will continue to enjoy a wage-cost advantage. Nevertheless, by gradually reducing the size of that advantage such unfair competition can be steadily reduced to a minimum.

The proposed minimum would maintain purchasing power as a necessary foundation for a sound and stable economy

One of the major causes of the 1929 economic debacle was the fact that while production rose to ever greater heights, wages did not keep pace; the earnings of workers were insufficient to buy back the products of industry. Glutted markets and excessive inventories brought about the collapse.

It is self-evident that purchasing power must be maintained at a level which will enable consumers to absorb the products of industry. Unless this is done, a depression sooner or later is inevitable.

To the extent that a 75-cent minimum would bolster purchasing power it would be a factor in helping to avert a depression. In the event a recession or depression should nevertheless develop, the minimum-wage standard would cushion the impact by setting a floor below which wages would not be permitted to fall.

A very large proportion of the consumers of apparel are wage earners and their families. Unless they receive an income which will support a high per capita purchase of apparel, our industry and kindred industries cannot maintain a high level of production and employment.

During the war years the volume of business of apparel industries increased very substantially corresponding to the rise in earnings and income of workers and their families. However, as conditions in our postwar economy return to normal the market for apparel has begun to contract and this process will continue unless ways and means are found to expand consumer demand. A 75-cent minimum wage is one step in that direction for it would enable the lowest income group to maintain an adequate minimum clothing budget.

A study in 1944 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the direct relationship between income and expenditures for clothing. Families with incomes of $1,500 to $2,000 spent on the average of $234 a year for clothing; those with incomes of $2,500 to $3,000 spent $364; and those with incomes of $4,000 to $5,000 spent $623. According to the standard budget of a worker's family in large cities developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, clothing purchases for a wife include an untrimmed wool winter coat once in 8 years, a light wool spring coat once in 4 years and a suit once in 9 years. Clearly there is a large potential market for a greater volume of apparel among low-income groups provided minimum wages are steadily improved in accordance with a proper American standard of living.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we urge the adoption of an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act increasing the minimum wage rate from 40 to 75 cents an hour.

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL RETAIL FARM EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION

This statement is submitted on behalf of the members of the National Retail Farm Equipment Association, which is composed of 19,000 farm equipment retailers located in rural communities throughout the United States.

These dealers, for the most part, maintain independently owned and operated establishments. They sell new and used farm equipment and maintain stocks of repair parts to provide service for such equipment. They repair and service implements in their own service shops and during periods of planting and harvesting they make emergency repairs in the farmers' fields. The principal, if not exclusive, customer of the typical farm equipment dealer is, of course, the farmer. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 provides under section 13 (a) (2) an exemption applicable to "any employee engaged in any retail or service establishment, the greater part of whose selling or servicing is in intrastate commerce." Since the farm equipment dealer operates a retail and service establishment selling and servicing farm implements for farmers it would seem that there should be no doubt about the applicability of this exemption to the retail farm equipment business. Interpretations which have been given to this section of the act, however, have led to complete confusion relative to its meaning.

Soon after the enactment of this act, field inspectors of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor began making checks of farm equipment dealer establishments and raised questions as to their compliance with the act. The National Retail Farm Equipment Association requested the Wage and Hour Division to clarify the status of farm equipment dealers with respect to the coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

By Interpretation R-1741, dated February 12, 1942, the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor advised that "the employees of the typical dealer in farm implements are exempt from the 40-hour-a-week and minimum wage provision of the wage-and-hour law." This interpretation was supplemented by a letter dated June 12, 1944, signed by L. Metcalf Walling, Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, which stated that the repair of farm machinery and equipment for farmers in an implement dealer's establishment would not result in the loss to the dealer of exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In spite of these rulings by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, farm equipment dealers in many sections of the country continued to be checked for compliance under the act and continued to be pressed by field inspectors of the Wage and Hour Division to accept coverage. When dealers referred to the rulings of the Administrator they were informed that decisions of the Supreme Court of