Mr. FRANK HEALY. This particular table, no. 3, shows the number of contracting firms in each industry group which, since May 27, 1935, have not maintained the wage and hour standards in effect prior to that date. A summary of each group is also attached.

The first breakdown is for the food and kindred products industry, and the next is for the textile industry. It is broken down into 13 classifications, and then it is further broken down by each individual industry.

Mr. HEALEY. How many industries were covered?

Mr. FRANK HEALY. I have 354 industries covered.

This table shows that of the 3,507 contractors, employing 1,515,486 employees, 1,912 firms maintained wages and hour standards, those firms employing 977,414 employees. It further shows that 1,448 of such firms, involving 405,373 employees, were not maintaining prior wage and hour standards. The table also shows that 147 of such firms involving 132,699 employees, refused to furnish information regarding labor standards in effect in their plants.

Mr. DUFFY of New York. Does this table indicate the number of employees employed on Government contracts, or the number of employees in the firms or manufacturing establishments?

Mr. FRANK HEALY. It covers the number of employees of the firms. They are not necessarily engaged on work under Govern

ment contracts.

Mr. DUFFY of New York. Then, this applies primarily to the number of employees of the contracting firms, including not only those engaged on Government work, but on other work as well?

Mr. FRANK HEALY. Yes, sir. It was then intended merely to show the conditions prevailing in those particular firms.

Table no. 4 shows a break-down by States of the departures from the code wage standards.

(Said table is as follows:)

TABLE 4.-Total departures reported by States

TABLE 4.-Total departures reported by States-Continued

Mr. FRANK HEALY. Table No. 5 shows the same information by States with respect to those firms which maintained the standards. (Said table is as follows:)

TABLE 5.-Firms in compliance reported by States

1

1

30

14

1

8

5

1,710

28

1

14

13

1, 513

6

18

12

9

0

528

1,053

Mr. FRANK HEALY. That, Mr. Chairman, is the extent of the investigations which the committee asked for, and of which I have furnished the results.

Mr. HEALEY. Are there any questions for Mr. Healy?

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Healy, there is one question I want to ask: Where the industry was supposed to comply with four or five codes, just how did you deal with them in connection with your studies?

Mr. FRANK HEALY. This inquiry was generally made at the plant, and ordinarily the officers would show their pay rolls. Of course, they knew what the code standards were.

Mr. MICHENER. Which code did you use as a basis for your estimates? Where several codes were operating in a plant, in making this study and in arriving at your conclusion, which code did you use as a basis?

Mr. FRANK HEALY. All of them.

Mr. MICHENER. Did you use an average, or did you take the code which would show if there had been any increase in hours or decrease in wages under those prescribed in a particular code? In other words, would you use that code as a standard in making your study, or would you take into consideration the codes which had been more than complied with?

Mr. FRANK HEALY. No, sir; we would take each code.

Mr. MICHENER. How would you do that? Suppose a factory were operating under five codes that they were supposed to live up to under the N. R. A. You went there to make your studies since the N. R. A. was discontinued, and under some of the codes there were possibly shorter hours stipulated, and they were paying more wages than they were under some other codes, or it may have been just the reverse. Now, which codes did you use, or on which codes did you base your studies?

Mr. FRANK HEALY. There would be so many employees under code no. 1, where the hours might be constant. We would keep that record, and the employees would go into the constant-hours classification. Then, under the second code, there might be so many employees whose wages had been reduced, and we would carry those wages into the reduction, and the concern would be classed as one of those which had reduced wages.

Mr. MICHENER. That would be important in arriving at your conclusion.

Mr. FRANK HEALY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HESS. Suppose you have a concern which as to one group of employees was maintaining hours and as to another group not maintaining the hours standard: In which set-up would you have that concern included? Would you place it in both categories?

Mr. FRANK HEALY. No, sir; we try to split that, and we would carry it only as departure. That firm would be carried as a departure.

Mr. Hess. It might be maintaining the hours standard as to, say, 24 employees, but not maintaining it as to others: Now, as I understand it, you would carry that firm as one not maintaining the standard?

Mr. FRANK HEALY. Yes, sir; where we cannot make a split. We try to carry them in the proper category.

Mr. MICHENER. It is a very difficult task.

Mr. FRANK HEALY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUFFY of New York. That would also apply to those employees who were not engaged in Government contract work.

Mr. FRANK HEALY. Yes, sir; we did not try to hold it down to the number of employees engaged in work on Government contracts.