he stores it and gets a warehouse receipt; sometimes he merely hires the elevator to load his grain into cars.

If the

The man who is the sole employee at this establishment is on his own. law is going to require that time be kept on him for the purpose of paying timeand-one-half beyond 40 hours each week, he must keep his own time because there is no one else to do it. What kind of a problem does that create for his employer, whose office is at some distant point, perhaps hundreds of miles away? Remember, gentlemen, I am not talking here about some occasional instance. About a third of America's country elevators (of which there are about 14,000) are operated in this manner.

If it is suggested that the elevator be operated only 40 hours a week, in order to control this situation, we must reply that this is impractical.

The hours of employment in a country elevator are the hours of the farmers of the vicinity. These are unpredictable. They vary, depending on the weather, on the conditions of the roads for hauling grain, on marketing conditions and importantly now, on the needs of the Federal Government in its grain-buying and shipping programs.

Both the amount of work to be done, and the time at which it is to be done, are beyond the control of the employer. The work of taking in grain will be done at the hours when the farmers haul it in, and this may be at the rate of one load in the morning and another after dinner at night, with nothing happening during all the hours between.

If you think this is an exaggeration, here's an illustration: An average country station in our area will handle perhaps 100,000 bushels of grain in an average year. If it were possible to go to work on this volume in a planned way, the entire amount of physical work incident to taking in this grain and loading it out could be performed in much less than 1 month. Yet the operator is employed on an annual basis.

This illustrates the situation of an employee with unpredictable hours of responsibility, and yet many, many unavoidably idle hours as well.

The practical pattern of employment developed in country elevators to meet this situation is one of paying a man an annual wage, in the form of monthly salary and usually a bonus of some sort, to attract and hold the available type of employee at one of these isolated spots.

When the grain is pretty much under cover following harvest, and even during busy times when the weather turns bad, you will find the country elevator manager spending many hours during the day at home or at some nearby place where he can keep an eye on the elevator. It is quite typical during the long winter months in our country, for the farmers who want service at the elevator to stop by the manager's house to tell him about it.

Yet during all such hours the elevator is open, because it's got to be if the grain-the lifeblood of its business-is to flow in. Under such circumstances, how many hours of overtime will be law require should be paid to the man? And on what basis? And how will his time be kept?

As an illustration of the necessity for the elevator to remain open and ready to render service to the farmers, I ̧cite the competitive situation of two elevators, one operated as above and the other operated by the owner himself. That owner, who is beyond all reach of this law, is certainly going to be alert and ready for whatever grain is offered, and at any hour convenient to the farmer. So is any other competing elevator if it expects to stay in business.

In this respect I wish to point out that farmer-owned cooperative elevators are in exactly the same competitive situation. I am sure your committee will find upon inquiry that cooperative elevator people are on record as having recommended some type of exemption from this law.

There has been some question as to whether it would not be possible to broaden the seasonal exemption so as to take care of the country-elevator problem. I believe the committee can see from what I have said that such an approach will not meet the problem. The difference between 40 hours and 50 hours would have little effect on the basic problem of the single employee who is on his own and keeps his own time.

Also, picking a proper "season" is no longer a simple matter. The seasonal peaks occur not only at harvesttime, but also at any time the particular Government program of the moment happens to work out so as to put a heavy demand on country-elevator services. For example, just next month our country elevators all over America face a deluge of grain, because May 1 happens to be the date Commodity Credit Corporation takes title to last year's price support grain.

The "season" in our country would have to be several seasons: One for wheat, another for soybeans, another for corn, etc.

The committee has probably heard from many witnesses: "It isn't the minimum wage that causes the trouble, so much as the overtime requirements." Yet this is quite true in our case. Compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act demands maintenance of a strict mathematical relationship between number of hours worked and weekly wages paid.

Do you gentlemen think we can do this as a practical matter in the type of elevator I have described?

The "area of production" exemption, covering country elevators, would be eliminated by S. 653. If your committee does not find it possible to restore an exemption based on that principle, perhaps you can establish a simple exemption based on the number of employees.

If anything I have said here arouses your interest in our problem, you will find a more complete discussion of it in pages 697 to 712 of the printed record of last year's hearings before a Senate Labor and Public Welfare Subcommittee of the Eightieth Congress.

Gentlemen, my members, as well as yourselves, are interested in smoothing out the economic paths of all our people.

Let's not do it with a bulldozer, but with caution.

Senator PEPPER. Next is the International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America, CIO, Mr. Seth Levine.

STATEMENT OF SETH LEVINE, REPRESENTING THE INTERNATIONAL FISHERMEN AND ALLIED WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO

Mr. LEVINE. I represent some 25,000 fishermen and shore-side fish workers located primarily in the West Coast States and Alaska. Our fishermen catch and the shore-side workers process approximately 95 or 98 percent of all canned salmon in this country, all canned tuna, and besides the majority of the canned salmon and tuna, we pack a very large share of the sardines processed in this country and substantial amounts of herring which are caught for rendering, also large amounts of ground fish and shellfish.

We appear today to support the provision of S. 653 amending the exemptions contained in section 13 (b) for fish-processing workers. We also appear to urge the elimination of section 7 (b) (3), and if the committee decides otherwise, at least the elimination of the words "or of fish or other aquatic form of animal or vegetable life" contained in lines 19 and 20 on page 15.

I should like to point out that we have union contracts on the west coast in which the minimum wage is $1.18 an hour, and the great majority of the plants have higher minimum wages. So far as minors. are concerned, workers between the ages of 16 and 18, we have a minimum wage of $1.08 per hour.

Senator PEPPER. Will you please specify the language under discussion?

Mr. LEVINE. I was speaking about the language in 7 (b) (3), on page 15, the words starting in line 19 "or of fish or other aquatic form of animal or vegetable life." We favor the elimination of the whole section, but depending on what the committee decides in regard to the agricultural and horticultural products, we certainly feel our case is overwhelmingly for the elimination of this seasonal exemption.

Senator PEPPER. In other words, you think there should not be any seasonal exemption with respect to the first processing of fish or other aquatic form of animal or vegetable life?

Mr. LEVINE. That is correct.

The west coast industry, as I say, has a relatively high minimum wage. We have the 8-hour day with overtime payable after 5 p. m.

Senator PEPPER. You have the 40-hour week?

Mr. LEVINE. We have the 44-hour week prevailing mostly in Alaska, and this is an extremely important point to be taken into consideration in conjunction with section 7 (b) (3). Alaska is probably the most seasonal of all canning operations. The canned-salmon season runs at most 6 weeks. In many areas in Alaska, now for conservation purposes, it has been cut down to as little as 11 to 14 days, even in the areas where salmon is caught.

Within a period of 6 weeks, 75 percent of the canned salmon is caught within 10 days of that 6-week period. Yet, despite this highly seasonal nature of the industry, we have contracts going back for many years which apply a 48-hour week in the canned-salmon industry in Alaska, and which apply the 8-hour day principally. Now, if that type of operation can be satisfactorily worked into the Fair Labor Standards Act by contract it certainly can be done so by law.

We feel these amendments are needed for two reasons: One is that women and minors predominate in the canned fish, frozen fish, and fish-rendering industries. The work is disagreeable, smelly, and the plants frequently are partly open so that there are drafts. Quite often the workers stand in the water and on icy floors. It is cold frequently; it is refrigerated. We think that is long overdue that there be Federal regulation of the hours in such plants, not only for the reasons of health, but also for reasons of efficiency. A worker becomes so, after a while in a cold damp atmosphere like that, that he cannot produce a satisfactory amount of work. We think the second reason is that fish is a highly competitive food product. The average housewife, if she serves a can of salmon or serves a can of tuna fish, will not buy frozen ocean perch or frozen haddock that week, or will not buy fresh porgies or fresh mullet. In other words, the average American home eats fish only once a week. Now, our fish products, canned or processed under very favorable labor conditions, must compete in the consumers' market with fish products produced elsewhere in the Nation under substandard labor conditions, both in regard to wages and in regard to hours. We think that the industry will be generally stabilized and there will be fairer competition if the entire industry is made subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act without any seasonal exemption.

There are just two other points I would like to mention before closing, and that is that the margin between the prices paid to the fishermen and the prices paid by the consumer for fish products is fantastically high. In fact, the National Fisheries Institute, which represents a very substantial portion of the fish processors in this country, admitted to this committee during earlier hearings on amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act that fish had risen "to speculative high prices." Studies made by the Federal Trade Commission show mark-ups between the fishermen and the consumers of approximately 100 percent. I myself, have seen in the city of Boston fishermen paid 5 cents a pound for haddock on the fish pier and have gone into a fish store not more than a mile way from there and have seen the consumer pay for that fish, in the round, 21 to 22 cents a pound. The fish dealer did nothing there but put a little ice on that fish and cart it a mile away and the mark-up was approximately 300 percent. I should like to call to the attention of the committee the press release put out by the National Canners Association today which

interestingly enough coincides with their testimony here. The press release states that retail price indexes of the Bureau of Labor Statistics released here today again show canned fruits and vegetables have increased least in price of all foods in relation to prewar. In other words, they were trying to show they need the continued exemption in order to hold the price down to the consumer. I note that the National Canners Association, which also represents the great majority of the fish canners, does not include canned fish on this list. Now, I do know that canned salmon according to BLS was selling for 13 cents for a 1-pound can during the period of 1937, 1938, and 1939. The most recent figures given by the BLS is 63 cents a can. That is an increase of nearly 500 percent in the price of canned salmon to the consumer. The monopolization in our industry is very far progressed. Five canned-salmon producers control half the salmon traps in Alaska. The larger firms, such as Libby, McNeill & Libby, A & P, which has a subsidiary called Mackinap, and several others, the California Packing Corp., are involved. In the tuna industry, the picture is much the same. You have Van Camp, the largest packer, and you have French Sardine, and a few others. They feel the time is long overdue for fish processing workers to secure full coverage.

Senator PEPPER. Can the small processors pay minimum wages and observe the maximum hours under this law?

Mr. LEVINE. I would say that there are relatively few small canners. I would say that they most certainly can afford to pay since the price they receive has been set by the large canners, and the large canners have set these prices at exorbitantly high mark-ups.

I would like to call attention to one other point, and that is that the canners have increasingly squeezed the retailer. If you look at the ratio of wholesale prices secured by the canner to retail prices, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you find that a larger and larger proportion of the retail price is going to the canner.

One last point: The House committee in its bill eliminated the exemption in section 13. It eliminated the exemption for fish processing workers contained in section 13 (b) (2), but at the last moment, at the suggestion of Representative Barden of North Carolina, added some additional language as follows:

and in the icing, cleaning, salting or other preparation of such products in their raw state for shipment from the place of unloading to market, or to processors. Senator PEPPER. Well, you mean that broadens the exemption? Mr. LEVINE. Well, that continues a small exemption, or a more minor exemption for certain workers engaged in fish processing ashore. The reason given by the committee, on page 24 of their report, is:

It has been brought to the attention of the committee that in fishing villages it is customary on unloading of the catch to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve the catch in good condition until it reaches the market, including performance of such operations as icing, salting, heading of shrimp, and the like.

Now, I have been in many shrimp plants, and I have seen these operations carried on. They are purely industrial operations, and there are a large number of women there who chop off the heads of the shrimp, stand along a table, and when they come in throw them into bins where they are iced and shipped to the market. There is

no justification for that type of exemption. There is no problem in regard to the 8-hour day in the Fair Labor Standards Act. They can work those people through 40 hours a week. They rarely work over 40 hours.

We suggest that you retain the language contained in section 13 (b) of S. 653 and eliminate section 7 (b) (3), or at least the portion It referred to.

(The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Levine is as follows:) STATEMENT OF SETH LEVINE ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL FISHERMEN AND ALLIED WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO

The membership of the International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America, CIO, is composed of 25,000 fishermen and shoreside fish workers located primarily in California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. The membership of our union catches and processes a major proportion of the salmon, tuna, and sardines consumed by the American public and large quantities of herring, ground fish, and shellfish. We appear today to recommend:

1. Favorable action in regard to the modified exemption for the fishing industry found in section 13 (b) (2) (lines 24 and 25 on page 29 and lines 1 to 5 on page 30) which eliminates the present exemption for employees engaged in the storing, processing, and distribution of fish products while retaining the present exemption for fishermen.

2. Elimination by the committee of section 7 (b) (3) (lines 13 through 25 on page 15 of S. 653) which provides a 14-week seasonal exemption from the act for the processing and canning of fish and agricultural products.

Minimum wage and maximum hour protection is necessary for workers in the fish processing industry to protect their health and efficiency, to provide employment opportunities by spreading the work, and to protect those segments of the industry such as the west coast canneries where collective-bargaining agreements in many cases are far in advance of the conditions established under the Fair Labor Standards Act from unfair competition from other segments of the fish industry.

Women predominate in the shoreside fish industry. Minors are used extensively. Working conditions in many cases are cold, damp, drafty, disagreeable, and in general serious health hazards. The hours of work are long. Much work outside the normal work day is usually required. Minimum wage and maximum hour protection in this industry is long overdue.

Despite the protestations of the various fish packers, FLSA coverage is feasible, will not be burdensome, and will actually represent a benefit to large segments of the industry in which decent labor conditions now prevail. The packers have overworked the outworn argument that the fish processing industry must be exempt from the act because of the uncertain nature of the catch and the perishability of the products. There is of course no provision for the 8-hour day or any other limitation of the work day presently contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. All the act requires is the cessation of work after 40 hours in each week or the payment of a premium for work beyond those hours. There is nothing in the act to prevent the working of fish processing workers beyond 8 hours or 10 hours or 20 hours in a single day without the payment of any premium time when and if desired by the employer.

Our union has through collective bargaining established the basic 8-hour day in west coast canneries, filleting plants, and reduction plants. Our contracts stipulate that the workday shall comprise 8 consecutive hours between certain specified daytime limits. Our contracts provide for the payment of time and one-half for all work done in excess of 44 hours each week, and for work done on Sundays, on holidays, during a stipulated full hour for lunch, or during two 15-minute rest periods which are provided in the middle of the morning and afternoon shifts. The prevalence of these conditions has not prevented the west coast fish packers from making handsome profits.

The prevailing minimum wage in west coast fish processing plants is approximately $1.18 per hour. Minors between the ages of 16 and 18 who have had less than 30 days experience in the industry receive $1.08 per hour. Thus the extension of the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act will constitute no burden on the west coast fish processing industries which process in excess of 50 percent of the fish produced in this country.