line for 8 hours or 4 hours steadily and do his job on the assembly line. He has got to have relief. He would break down.

Even if they have nothing to do between 3 and 5, the waitress, what does she do between 6 and 7? She is waiting on probably 12 or 15 people at the same time. It is not like a department store where the clerk stays with one customer until the customer has completed the transaction. The waiter has three or four tables. They have to keep them all going. They have to give you your soup, and give you your dessert, and they arrange that so that one gets done while the other is served.

That is all part of the business.

Senator PEPPER. You would not suggest, then that there be any exception with respect to overtime provisions of this law concerning hotel employees?

Mr. SANDS. No. I do not see why employees of hotels and restaurants are continually exempted from provisions of the act. They are human, and normal citizens. They raise families. They are the same as other people.

Senator PEPPER. I think I figured here yesterday that if they worked, I believe, 50 hours a week it would run around $200 time and a half over 40 hours.

Mr. SANDS. Two hundred dollars?

Senator PEPPER. Was I wrong about that? I think I figured about $50 a week.

Mr. SANDS. Based on what salary?

Senator PEPPER. I mean 75 cents an hour.

Mr. SANDS. Seventy-five cents?

Sentor PEPPER. Yes.

Mr. SANDS. That would be $39 for 48 hours.

Senator PEPPER. Maybe I was figuring 60 hours. Maybe it would require 60 hours to yield about that much.

As a matter of fact, do bellboys and waiters and waitresses actually work as much as 60 hours in any hotels?

Mr. SANDS. Not in the cities where we are organized. We have the 8-hour day. But less than 30 miles away from here I could show you a hotel where they do. As a matter of fact, we have had some communications from employees down there. They work 60, 70, 80 hours a week. Bellboys get $1 a day. Maids get $10 a week, and wages of the waiters are in proportion. Of course, they are not organized.

Senator PEPPER. What percentage of the hotel and restaurant employees are organized?

Mr. SANDS. We have 425,000 members organized. And I think there are 1,500,000 hotel and restaurant employees.

Senator PEPPER. What classes of employees in the hotels and restaurants are members of your union?

Mr. SANDS. Everybody.

Senator PEPPER. Does that include bellboys?

Mr. SANDS. Yes; everybody in the hotel.

Senator PEPPER. The maids, and all?

Mr. SANDS. They are all in with us. That is with the exception. of engineers, painters, barbers, musicians. With those exceptions they all belong to us-elevator men and women, clean-up people, scrubbers.

Senator DOUGLAS. Does your figure of 1,500,000 refer to hotels, or hotels, taverns, and night clubs?

Mr. SANDS. Hotels, restaurants, and taverns-everything.
Senator DOUGLAS. Then, you have about a third.

Mr. SANDS. Yes; I think it is over a million and a half.

Senator PEPPER. Do you happen to recall, in Florida, the extent to which they are organized? In Florida is the percentage more or less than the average in the country?

Mr. SANDS. We are organized pretty well in some parts of Florida, particularly Miami. We have been for years organized pretty well in Miami and Miami Beach, around the restaurants and night clubs. Last year, a drive was started on the hotels, and it is meeting with success in the hotels.

We are very well organized in Miami. I think we have a membership in Miami of around 5,000 members.

Senator PEPPER. My figure was 60. Figure it at 60 hours a week, 75 cents an hour, time and a half over 40, I believe would be $52.50 a week.

Mr. SANDS. Yes.

Senator PEPPER. Any other questions, Senator Douglas?

Senator DOUGLAS. No.

Senator PEPPER. Do any of you gentlemen on the staff have any questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Sands.

Mr. SANDS. Thank you.

(Mr. Sands submitted the following prepared statement:)

STATEMENT PRESENTED BY CHARLES E. SANDS, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

My name is Charles E. Sands, 4211 Second Street NW, Washington, D. C. I am the international representative for the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union. We are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and with the Railway Labor Executives Association. We have more than 425,000 members in the States and Territories in our 800 local unions. I appreciate this opportunity to express our views on the Fair Labor Standards Act.

I agree fully with the statement made by the representative of the American Federation of Labor before this committee.

The upping of the present low minimum to 75 cents should be a must for the Eighty-first Congress; it is long overdue.

Our members are not now covered by the act, and we are particularly interested in being covered. There appears no valid reason why we should not be covered if the purposes for which the act was created-viz, to raise the standard of living and to create purchasing power-is to be accomplished.

We are grateful that in this bill S. 653, section 3 (m) seeks to rectify the meal charge and places our dining-car employees in the same status as seamen. The compulsory charges for meals in some instances have worked injustice on our members who are employed on dining cars. This amendment will correct it. I am of the opinion that the definition in section 2 (a) of S. 653 will cover our members if employed in an establishment which the gross is $500,000 or more per year, or if employer operates four or more establishments.

If this opinion is correct, we are grateful, and many of our members in the lower-paid brackets of our industry will be embraced by the act, and they should be if the purpose of the act is to be fulfilled.

I am quite sure that S. 653 is quite clear in spelling out the definition as to what affects commerce.

But I would call respectfully the attention of this honorable committee to the language used in House Report 267 on H. R. 3190 on page 40, lines 13 to 18, inclusive: "burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;

(3) constitutes an unfair method competition in commerce; (4) leads to disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and (5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce.'

"While I am of the opinion that this part of the definition of commerce as contained in H. R. 3190 is broad enough to cover employees of hotels and restaurants that are not specifically exempt under the four or more extablishments or the $500,000 exemption, I prefer the language contained in S. 653. That definition, in my opinion, is much clearer and would perhaps not be subject to interpretation by the courts.

I therefore urge that the committee press for the definition as in S. 653 rather than contained in H. R. 3190.

Senator PEPPER. Next is the Retail Clerks Federation, A. F. of L. Is anyone here representing the Retail Clerks Federation?

Miss BLANCHARD. Mr. Chairman, I am from the retail division of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union, CIO.

Senator PEPPER. Do you care to make a statement, Miss Blanchard?

Miss BLANCHARD. Yes; I would.

Senator PEPPER. You may proceed then. Identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF HELEN BLANCHARD, DEPARTMENT STORE DIVISION, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, ACCOMPANIED BY IRVING J. LEVY, GENERAL COUNSEL, UAW

Miss BLANCHARD. Mr. Chairman, I am Miss Helen Blanchard, department store division of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union of America, CIO.

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman and committee members, that we in the retail clerks division of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union want to support the 75 cents an hour minimum for our division. We should like to reduce the coverage of $500,000 gross sales to $300,000 because we think in this we would be able to cover more people in the retail division.

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Levy.

Senator PEPPER. Before Mr. Levy speaks, can you give us any idea about the compensation that the retail clerks now receive? Miss BLANCHARD. In 1948 it was $40.48. Senator DOUGLAS. That is the average?

Miss BLANCHARD. That is the average.

Senator DOUGLAS. What would be the average number of hours, do you think, Miss Blanchard?

Miss BLANCHARD. The average number of hours in the retail industry?

Senator DOUGLAS. Yes.

Miss BLANCHARD. I have no figures on it.

Do you, Mr. Levy?

Mr. LEVY. No.

Miss BLANCHARD. But in large cities, it is less than $40-$37.50, for instance, in New York City.

Senator DOUGLAS. So that in the big cities the average is already above the minimum proposed?

Miss BLANCHARD. Yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. But in the smaller cities, I suppose that the average is below 75 cents an hour; is that not probable?

Miss BLANCHARD. Yes, that is very true; much below.

Senator DOUGLAS. So that 75 cents an hour would primarily affect employees in the smaller cities?

Miss BLANCHARD. It would.

Senator DOUGLAS. And in the smaller stores in the big cities.

Miss BLANCHARD. That is right.

Senator DOUGLAS. Is it probable that the Bureau of Labor Statistics collects its sampling from larger stores which have a higher wage scale than the average, and, therefore, their figure is perhaps above the real country-wide average?

Miss BLANCHARD. I would not be able to testify on that. I am not a research worker, but I have done some research work, and it seems to me you try to get a cross section of an industry when you are doing a particular kind of a job.

Senator PEPPER. How many of the retail clerks, or what percentage of them, are organized, would you say?

Miss BLANCHARD. I have no figures on that. The American Federation of Labor claims 104,000 in the industry.

Since we in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union have only recently taken over the department store campaign, our membership in this field is between 25,000 and 35,000 at the moment.

I would say, as an industrial worker, it is only a small percentage. Senator DOUGLAS. So you feel that this is a group of people who, on the average, receive low compensation; that is, a large percentage of the whole number receives low compensation.

Miss BLANCHARD. Yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. And a small percentage of them are organized? Miss BLANCHARD. Yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. Therefore, they should be particularly benefited by this legislation?

Miss BLANCHARD. Yes; and that is why we are so deeply concerned with the coverage for the retail clerks.

Senator PEPPER. Any other questions?

Senator DOUGLAS. No.

Senator PEPPER. Do you care to make any other statement, Mr. Levy?

Mr. LEVY. No; I was just here to answer questions.

Miss BLANCHARD. I have submitted my statement for the record. Senator PEPPER. It will be included in the record at this point. (Miss Blanchard submitted the following prepared statement:) STATEMENT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE BY THE DEPARTMENT STORE AND RETAIL CLOTHING DIVISION, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO

This statement will deal exclusively with the question of extended coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act to retail workers. Elsewhere in the records of these hearings will be found the general position of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and of the Congress of Industrial Organizations regarding the other aspects of the proposed legislation.

The Amalgamated Clothing Workers has jurisdiction over department store and retail clothing store employees throughout the Nation. More than a million men and women are employed in this branch of the retail industry alone. Once among the highest paid workers in the economy, this group of employees has seen its relative position deteriorate. No small reason for this deterioration has been the absence of adequate minimum wage legislation for retail workers.

90175-49- -17

Data available from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in 1932 the average industrial worker earned $17.05 as compared with $20.71 for the average retail worker. By 1948, however, the industrial worker's average weekly wages reached $54.64, while the retail worker's wage had risen to only $40.48. It will be seen, therefore, that in 1932 retail wages were 22 percent higher than industrial wages, but at the present time retail wages are 26 percent lower than industrial wages.

Retail employees constitute a vital section of our labor force. Through them passes the great bulk of the goods produced on the farms and in the factories of every one of our 48 States. They require greater than average education, training, appearance, etc. But under the present Fair Labor Standards Act, only 100,000 of the more than 4,000,000 retail workers are afforded any Federal wagehour protection.

Nor has State action brought any significant protection to retail workers. The argument that the intrastate nature of retail business makes State action both necessary and sufficient simply does not stand up to examination. Only 19 States and the District of Columbia have minimum wage laws which protect retail workers. And in almost every single case, the protection is so completely obsolete and inadequate as to make a mockery of the entire principle. Six of the States have not increased rates or lowered hours since the war years. State retail wage orders as low as $11 a week in Colorado and 321⁄2 cents an hour in the State of Washington are still to be found. And in most States, a workweek of 48 hours is still the rule.

The record is too painfully clear that those employer groups in the retail industry who insist that the States should handle this problem are not to be found in the State capitols supporting such legislation or demanding that the orders be brought up to date. As a matter of fact, those now applying the terrific pressures against broadening FLSA coverage today are precisely the ones who have been actively opposing realistic State action too.

Because the States have failed to do a satisfactory job, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers supports the administration's determination to broaden the basic scope of wage-hour legislation to include all employees of an enterprise whose activities affect commerce, and to limit the specific exemption for retail workers.

The Amalgamated Clothing Workers endorses the amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act included in S. 653 as they pertain to the retail industry, except that it would lower the exemption test from total annual sales of $500,000 to $300,000, as contained in Senator Thomas' earlier bill, S. 248.

The proposed amendments would bring into coverage several million retail and service workers employed by the large department and chain stores in the Nation. It would at long last correct a serious inequity which the unfortunate language of the original act made possible. It was the intention of the Seventyfifth Congress to exclude from the law the small corner grocery, the small drug store, the barber shop, and similar establishments. Unfortunately, however, the retail exemption contained in the act made it possible for the giant corporations and chain outfits in the retail industry to escape their economic responsibilities in the field of wage and hour provisions for their employees. Their exemption has been possible on the sole ground that the bulk of their selling operations are intrastate in nature. But they buy and operate nationally, frequently as wholesalers, and should therefore come under Federal regulation.

The law, as amendes, would continue to exempt the typical local retail establishment from the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions. It would, in addition, exempt those small retail establishments heretofore covered because of proximity to a State border which may have led to a preponderance of interstate selling. Removed from exemption would be only those retail organizations doing an annual volume of more than $300,000 or operating more than four stores. Such a distinction may appear to be arbitrary, but it is the result of elaborate studies by responsible agencies. It is a realistic solution to an admittedly difficult problem. It requires formal adherence to national wage-hour standards by those enterprises whose size is a presumption of ability to keep records, make reports, etc. And it will probably have some indirect effect on the smaller establishments who will have to compete in the labor market.

If minimum wage protection is accepted national policy, and the platforms of both political parties in the last election indicate that it is, then it follows that all wage earners should receive such protection. The present proposals appear to