Then I told him the story of the decision I wrote in 1942 for a unanimous War Labor Board; all employers as well as all labor representatives joining in the opinion, or at least signing it.

In 1942 a hearing was held by the War Labor Board and the counsel for the laundry industry of the United States tried to justify a wage of 25 cents an hour. This was in 1942. Thousands of laundry workers were getting 25 cents an hour. In fact, the last time I looked into this matter I found that it is still true that in many parts of the United States the laundry industry is still the most underpaid industry of all industries in the United States.

In the course of the hearing the argument was made over and over again that if the War Labor Board raised the minimum wage or gave a requirement that would result in paying more than 25 cents an hour, the housewives of America would take their laundries to their basements.

I very particularly wrote in that decision that if the housewives had to be subsidized by the laundry workers of America by requiring them to work for 25 cents an hour, the sooner the housewives got into their basements the better.

I received some interesting mail but no real refutation. I feel somewhat the same way about this argument. That if we oppose the minimum wage in the Distirct of Columbia that would require such a wage as is called for by this bill, most families that would go out for their Sunday dinner or an evening dinner now and then will still go out, but if not maybe it would be just as well if they stayed near their own hearthstone for that meal.

I don't feel that I can very well justify voting against the minimum wage bill on the basis that this representative of the restaurant industry and his counsel made to me. I would like to have your comment as to any additional arguments you think I might use.

Mrs. KEYSERLING. Well, it is true that since minimum wage laws were first proposed and the consumers league started talking about them back in 1905, I can't say I remember it very clearly but it is there in the books, these same arguments have been advanced, everytime that minimum wage laws have been proposed, brought before State legislatures, brought before the Congress. The same arguments have been made.

I particularly remember the strength of the arguments when it was proposed that the Fair Labor Standards Act be lifted from 75 cents to $1. You will remember this was a 3313-percent increase, a far larger increase than what this District minimum wage bill would require here in the city.

The argument was made that there would be mass unemployment, and I think one of the most impressive reports in the record was what Secretary Mitchell said after the Department of Labor made a comprehensive study, after the dollar minimum wage law went into effect.

A study was made of the entire country, and Secretary Mitchell, speaking for the Labor Department, concluded that possibly in the country as a whole 1,800 jobs lost might be attributed to a 333 percent increase in the wage level.

Particularly if I may say so, turning to the District of Columbia, if I might make one other comment, the retail firms have very often

joined the restaurant owners in opposing the minimum wage laws, and, of course, it might be pointed out to the restaurant owners that the women waitresses have been covered by the District minimum wage law, and they have not lost business. They have gained business.

But turn, for instance, just to the retail trade industry here in the city. You see the same thing in most of the occupations reported in the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey. I was tremendously impressed as I looked at these figures, and I took the retail industry figures because almost half of the employees covered by that survey were in that field.

I was quite struck to find that the retail firms employing 83 percent of the employees in this field, as reported in the Bureau of Labor Standards survey, were either now paying $1.25 or would face the very minimum increase in the weekly wage bill of less than 5 percent. It is really quite extraordinary when you look at those figures. In 37 establishments, for instance, with 27 percent of the employees, there would be no increase. And as you go down the line and go up to under 5-percent impact, you reach that number of employers or firms which together embody 83 percent.

So that the great bulk of the firms in the city in that trade and in many others are now meeting these standards.

Then you go down the line and you do find quite a number of firms who would feel a heavy impact. For instance, in retail trade there are 15 firms who would suffer an impact of over 20 percent.

But it is very impressive that they are employing only 3 percent of all the employees in the retail trade.

Now as a consumer or as consumers, I think we can say to this 3 percent that if firms employing 83 percent of the employees in this field are sufficiently efficient to be able to pay a decent wage, then surely their grave underpayment reflects on their inefficiency and not on economic necessity.

As consumers, I think we would be entitled to say to them, "Either you must become more efficient or in the interests of the community you should find some other occupation, perhaps get a job yourself paying a fair minimum wage."

Certainly if the minimum wage of $1.25 went into effect, and these people could not compete, then only this small number, 3 percent of the employees, would be dislocated, and surely trade is not going to fall off.

The volume of demand isn't going to fall off. This 3 percent would be absorbed by those who meet decent standards.

To me this is a telling illustration of how impressive the BLS figures tell to this city a story of so small an impact of $1.25 an hour minimum wage that it seems almost unthinkable that anybody could oppose standards so low.

Senator MORSE. I am very glad I listened to this additional testimony from you. I think I ought to tell you of a speculative argument I used on my restaurant friend and his counsel, an argument which you cannot substantiate by objective proof.

I think you can by logic.

I pointed out that an important part of the theory of the minimum wage program-the increase of purchasing power on the part of people with very low purchasing power, and that every cent of it should

increase it doesn't stay in their pockets, it goes into the cash registers on the main streets of America.

And so I said I can't prove it, but I think I can substantiate it by logic. You don't have to worry about the loss of these family dinners, for if we can increase the minimum wage in the District of Columbia, two things I think will flow to the benefit of the people in the restaurant business. They will get a larger family clientele, they will get x percent of people who heretofore couldn't afford to go into a restaurant for a family dinner who will be able to have one now and then, and second you will also get the benefit of many people who are now buying very low cost meals when they ought to buy more food who will be in a little better position to buy a little more expensive meal which isn't going to hurt their cash register.

The interesting thing is that so many people, when they have to economize because they don't have the purchasing power, economize to the detriment of their own nutritional welfare in connection with their food bill.

As you well know there are many case histories showing that the parents make the sacrifices to buy the food for the children, and go hungry themselves, which results in their incapacity to be of as much help to the children as they are prior to the self-denial.

So I am not at all moved to tears over the plight of Washington restaurants. I will certainly always give them their day in court, but I want them to come in with better evidence this year in opposition to this bill, if they decide to oppose it again, than they did the last time when they made the type of argument that I have just outlined. I thank you very much, Mrs. Keyserling.

Our next witness will be Mrs. Hans Furth, chairman of the Employment Committee of the District of Columbia League of Women Voters. We are delighted to have you, Mrs. Furth.

Do you have a prepared statement?

STATEMENT OF MRS. HANS G. FURTH, CHAIRMAN, EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mrs. FURTH. Yes, I do, Senator.

Senator MORSE. You may proceed in your own way in connection with it.

Mrs. FURTH. The District of Columbia League of Women Voters appreciates the opportunity to appear before this committee and testify in favor of bill S. 860 which would give a minimum wage of $1.25 per hour to men and women in the District of Columbia. We are in favor of this wage because we know that a lower wage causes hardship and increases the size of our slums.

As you know, the majority of firms in the District of Columbia pay wages over $1.25 an hour. There are 125,000 union members in the District of Columbia and they receive wages above $1.25 an hour. The nonunion workers in this city have no one to represent their interests, and so we would like to explain their problem.

The survey "Earnings in Selected Industries in the District of Columbia" shows that of a sample of 87,000 persons in low wage occupations, 38,000 are earning less than $1.25 an hour. The data do not

23-806-646

tell us what percent of these 38,000 are heads of household. The District of Columbia census, 1960, shows that 16,000 families had total incomes of less than $2,000 per year and we can surmise that this was due in large part to our wage structure. I do not feel that I need to prove to this committee that a family cannot live in decency on this level, as you have said.

The District of Columbia is a socially conscious community. We give vast sums to United Givers Fund, we have a program to fight delinquency, we are working hard to help school dropouts; but in order to make our social planning more complete, we should include minimum wage legislation. The minority of businesses which are paying less than $1.25 an hour are forcing people to live in subhuman conditions, thus increasing the size of our slums, and thus increasing our taxes. This is a time when all men of good will should realize that incomplete social planning is unintelligent.

Incidentally, the passing of this legislation will benefit the business community because we know that money given to poor persons is spent immediately on goods and services and not saved. Thus it will increase consumption and promote our economic growth.

In our opinion $1.25 is a very small wage for a single person. The District of Columbia Minimum Wage Board compiled a minimum budget for a single woman. They point out that a gross income of $47 per week means a net income of $39 per week (Federal income tax $6.10; District of Columbia income tax $0.58; social security tax $1.40) and in our city this is hardly adequate for rent, food, drugs, transportation, clothes, haircut, etc.

I would now like to turn my attention to statements made at a previous hearing on minimum wage by those opposed to it. These representatives of some business firms said that:

(a) Some companies cannot afford to pay $1.25 an hour. (b) Some workers are not worth $1.25 an hour.

(c) A minimum of $1.25 an hour would increase unemployment by: (i) accelerating the advent of automation;

(ii) accelerating the flight of business to the suburbs.

I intend to refute these arguments and describe the wage picture in the District of Columbia.

A Bureau of Labor Statistics study made on the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia describes, for example, the occupation of switchboard operators. In December 1962, it shows that: 123 switchboard operators working in some financial establishments, insurance and real estate companies, were making less than $50 for a 40-hour week, while 690 switchboard operators working in public utilities, retail trade, services, and other financial, insurance, and real estate companies were making between $50 and $115 per week. Should one conclude from this data that those financial, insurance, and real estate companies which pay their switchboard operators less than $1.25 an hour cannot afford to do so, while service industries can afford it? Or should one argue that the personnel departments of some financial establishments, insurance and real estate companies were not able to locate competent switchboard operators and hence the low wage is justified on this basis? Surely the facts presented above raise questions as to the validity of the arguments of the opponents.

I would like to give another example, this time from an occupation for men. In December 1962, the figures in Washington, D.C., reveal that 491 male janitors, porters, and cleaners earned less than $1.20 an hour while 1,639 male janitors, porters, and cleaners earned between $1.20 and $2.60 an hour. Companies paying the highest wages were in public utilities and wholesale trade, services were in the middle range while finance and retail trade were generally in the lowest range. We wonder if the fact that many companies pay more than $1.25 an hour would not convince other companies that giving decent salaries is a good investment-it decreases labor turnover, increases employer satisfaction, production, health and morale. Does this committee seriously think that the majority of companies would pay more than $1.25 an hour if they found this procedure to be against their economic interests?

Turning now to the argument about automation, in my opinion a wage of $1.25 an hour will not materially influence the decision to automate. Firms are going to automate if they see a profit in it. We are deluding ourselves if we think that raising a few employees wages by 10 or 20 cents is going to substantially influence such a decision.

With reference to the flight to the suburbs, I hope employers do not consider us so naive that they would believe that a substantial number of restaurants, laundries, parking car companies are going to fly to the suburbs leaving the center city without these facilities.

Lastly we come to the moral question in wages. Is it moral to pay a man a wage that is so small that he cannot live decently? Which is the worse crime: to steal $10 or to pay a man 50 cents an hour, and thus force him to be hungry and cold?

In conclusion, we support S. 860 because socially and economically we consider the policy of paying a living wage the only sensible one. It benefits the community in every way and ethically there is no alternative.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much, Mrs. Furth. I have no questions.

Our next witness will be the Reverend Father Geno C. Baroni, of the Catholic Interracial Council.

Father, we are very glad to have you before us. You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF REV. FATHER GENO C. BARONI, SS. PAUL AND AUGUSTINE PARISH CENTER, ON BEHALF OF THE CATHOLIC INTERRACIAL COUNCIL OF WASHINGTON, D.C.

Father BARONI. Mr. Chairman, my name is Father Geno C. Baroni, assistant pastor of SS. Paul and Augustine parish. I am happy to appear before you today in behalf of the Catholic Interracial Council of Washington, D.C.

While June 1963 marked the silver anniversary of the Fair Labor Standards Act, this piece of social legislation was recommended by the American bishops as early as 1919 in the "bishops' program of social reconstruction." Once again some consider the proposed extended coverage and the increase in the minimum wage now being studied by this subcommittee for the District of Columbia as further examples of illegitimate governmental interference in the national or local