Federal Minimum Wage Act the employees of theaters were exempted by both bodies of Congress and we now ask this same exemption from the proposed measure for a minimum wage for the District of Columbia.

I am also opposed to provisions of this act which would place the observance of this legislation in the hands of the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia with power to increase, but not decrease, the minimum wage of $1.25 per hour.

After the Congress of the United States exempted theater employees from the Federal Minimum Wage Act this same Wage Board for the District of Columbia, over our protests, raised the minimum wage of female and minor employees to as high as $1.25 per hour, although full-time employees could work from 36 to 40 hours at a weekly wage of $42. My association views with alarm the conferring of further powers upon the present Minimum Wage Board. This delegation of congressional authority to a civilian board is wrong, terribly wrong. As long as the District is without home rule, as long as Congress is our mentor, guardian, and tax master, Congress must assume the responsibility of wage legislation for the District. It cannot delegate its powers to a civilian board and give that board authority to even increase minimum wages above the rates set for the States by the Congress itself.

We have a Federal minimum wage law for the 50 States of our blessed Union; why do we have to have a special law for the District of Columbia?

I also wish to go on record against the provision of the proposal that would compel the theaters to pay time and a half for hours in excess of 40 hours in any one week. This would be an added burden as most theaters keep open 7 days and yet, with few exceptions, the theatrical business has become a weekend business. Eighty to ninety percent of the week's receipts are frequently taken in on the weekend. The price of keeping the theaters open the entire week is an absorption of loss during the weekdays in order to enjoy the weekend business. If the enactment of the legislation without the employees' exemption does not cause the closing of the better attended theaters of the District, it will most certainly force them into a weekend policy that will keep them closed the first 4 days of the week with subsequent curtailment of employment which could easily defeat the purpose of the legislation. The fact is that even without this additional expense, some of our fringe theaters are now on a weekend policy foretelling what will inevitably occur if this legislation is passed without the exemption we are requesting.

That is the statement that I had prepared, but I would like to comment if I may on some of the testimony that I have heard. I was pleased to hear that the Senator will have made a study of the minimum wage laws of the States.

I think if he examines them he will find that with the sole exception of the State of New York, and I speak now only from my own experience, I mean I haven't gone into this, that he will find that either the theater employees are exempted or received preferred rates of payment.

I heard the Assistant Secretary of Labor state that one-half of the theater employees now get less than $1 per hour.

Before I came up I made some checking. All day I have been spending trying to get some figures and statistics on this. I am prepared to state to the committee that, with the exception of ushers, I know of no theater employees that get less than $1 an hour. I know some get less than $1.25 but they don't get less than $1.

The only class of employees at the present time who are receiving less than $1 an hour are the ushers, and the average term of employment of an usher is usually less than 3 weeks. They are drifting. They are children. The boys go to school. It is a prank for them to come in and see the show for nothing.

I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you.

Senator MORSE. I am delighted that you came before us again, and I want to say to you, as you know I have before, I am going to ask counsel to take your testimony and prepare for the committee a memorandum on the exemption point, that memorandum dealing with the exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act on a national basis, and I want counsel also to include in that memorandum an analysis of the point that you make in regard to the provision of the bill that places the administration of the act under a special board here in the District of Columbia rather than under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Senator, I have spoken for my association. You, of course, intend to cover domestics under this legislation.

Senator MORSE. I didn't hear you.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Your bill intends to cover domestic servants under this legislation.

Senator MORSE. Yes, they are covered.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. I couldn't find any exemption for anything but newsboys.

Senator MORSE. Domestic servants are covered.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. I was going to ask you whether you have had any dealings with the Minimum Wage Board. Of course, you haven't, but we have. You are aware of the fact that they must keep records, that they must take inventories, they have got to post laws, keep lists of their employees.

I don't know how many families of the District of Columbia employ domestic servants. I should guess that it would be anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000.

Can you imagine what the housewives of the District of Columbia are going to have to endure if this is placed under the Minimum Wage Act?

Can you imagine how they are going to feel if their privacies can be invaded asking, "Did you or did you not employ Susie Smith on such and such a date and pay her less than $1.25 an hour?"

Senator MORSE. Yes; I have a pretty good idea of what it would involve.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. You said earlier that you had discussed this matter with Mrs. Morse.

Senator MORSE. I have a good idea what is involved, but you see the problem that confronts me with the issue which you raise is that a domestic servant has the same problem of buying bread and milk for her children that someone working down in Woolworth's store or Woodward & Lothrop has.

I don't know why, as a matter of governmental policy, that the domestic servants shouldn't be given the same minimum wage protection as an employee at Woodward & Lothrop's.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. You will notice that I have not attacked the $1.25 an hour at any time.

Senator MORSE. I understand that.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. You will notice that I am not questioning the minimum wage.

Senator MORSE. I understand that.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. I am just questioning what will happen if the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia extends to the housewives of the District of Columbia the same exacting standards and the same exacting investigations that they do to the commercial establishments.

Senator MORSE. The fact that it raises an administrative problem for the housewife doesn't seem to me to be any justification for exempting her employees.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Not exempting them. This is against the Minimum Wage Act having authority to activate this thing.

Senator MORSE. If you are going to take the position that domestics should be covered, then it seems to me you cannot escape the requirement that the employer of the domestic, who happens to be the housewife in this hypothetical case we are talking about, is going to keep records.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. I am just thinking what a holy mess it is going to be.

Thank you very much.

Senator MORSE. Our last witness will be Mr. Curtis E. McCalip, Jr., representing the Automotive Trade Association of the National Capital Area.

Mr. McCalip, we are delighted to have you. You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF CURTIS E. McCALIP, JR., ON BEHALF OF THE AUTOMOTIVE TRADE ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA

Mr. MCCALIP. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Curtis E. McCalip, Jr. I am here representing the Automotive Trade Association, National Capital Area. This association, formed in 1919, is composed primarily of 116 franchised new-car dealers in the District of Columbia and in nearby Maryland and Virginia. Of that number, 41 are dealers in the District of Columbia. I, too, am a dealer and my place of business is in the District of Columbia.

The large majority of automobile dealers in the country are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Their exemption is due to the complexities of the automobile business, primarily a service business. These complexities, which I will delve into later in this statement, create the need for the automobile dealers in the District of Columbia to be exempt from some of the provisions of the proposed S. 860.

Since this is a service business, the hours of service must conform to the customers' needs. The dealer must cater to the public, which requires most automobile dealerships to open before 8 o'clock in the morning in their service departments and remain open until 6 o'clock

in the evening. In order to provide complete service, many service departments are open on Saturday mornings also.

The sales departments are open all day long and every night. Some dealerships are even open on Sunday. The purchase of an automobile, which is the second largest thing that the average man buys, requires considerable time, and for that reason the dealership must make it convenient for the customer.

We wish to emphasize as our first point that the association is not opposed to a minimum wage of $1.25.

It is our understanding that, nationally, the average rate of pay to nonsupervisory employees in automobile dealerships is $2.23 per hour, based on figures obtained from the National Automobile Dealers Association, whose research department got this information from the U.S. Department of Labor. I believe that in the District of Columbia new-car dealers are paying nonsupervisory personnel higher than $1.25 per hour and I believe that this minimum is not unreasonable. I also think that any dealership that is not meeting this proposed minimum pay should be readily willing to do so.

Our second point is that our opposition to S. 860 is primarily directed against the overtime provision which would necessitate time and one-half for all employees in the dealership, other than administrative and executive. If this were the case, it would place the District of Columbia franchised new-car dealer in a very poor competitive position against the dealers in the neighboring States of Maryland and Virginia. Dealers in these areas would not have to pay overtime to office personnel, wash men, car jockeys, parts employees, and other straight-salary people. Yet, these same dealers would still continue to sell vehicles in the District of Columbia in competition with the District of Columbia dealer. In addition to this, our particular concern is with employees whose income is based all or in part on commissions. It would particularly cause serious problems for automobile mechanics and automobile salesmen who are, for the most part, commissioned.

In 1962, a survey made by our association of all of our members in the National Capital area indicated that the average mechanic was earning $112 per week, with some earning in excess of $10,000 per year. These are skilled men, and under their pay arrangements are able to make more money because of their ability and because of their speed of operation. The majority of mechanics work on a flat-rate basis. They are paid by the job and receive a commission based on the labor rate to the customer. In some dealerships, bonuses and profit-sharing plans add to the hourly rate. Many of these men are anxious to work in excess of 40 hours a week in order to increase their earnings. If, however, a dealer was forced to pay time and a half after 40 hours a week, this would be prohibitive since the increased cost could not be passed on to the customer. The dealer's alternative would be to curtail the mechanic's time to limit him to a 40-hour week. In some instances the mechanic would quit his job and go to work in Maryland or Virginia where he would be permitted to work more than the 40 hours. This would be particularly true of the more ambitious and efficient men. They would do this in order to maintain their usual income.

In order to give a picture of what exists now in the District of Columbia, a telephone survey of seven dealers was made this past

week. I have here the figures on mechanics that worked full time for the year 1962, showing the number of men involved, the amount of earnings of the highest, the lowest, and the average per man. Also given is the amount of hours that the shops were open to the public.

Figures from my own payroll records indicate the highest mechanic in my shop in 1962 earned $9,265.07, the lowest received $5,170.33, and the average was $6,891. These men worked an average of 4212 hours per week and their earnings were on flat rate. I would like to submit the attached figures of these seven dealers for the record.

Senator MORSE. The figures will be received.

(The figures referred to follow :)

1962 earnings of salesmen and mechanics in 7 District of Columbia automobile dealerships

Mr. McCALIP. Automobile salesmen in this area, in the 1962 survey conducted by the association, averaged over $7,500 per year. If this bill were passed as written, these men would have to be paid at one and one-half times their average hourly rate to comply with the overtime provision. An automobile salesman's time is a hard thing to measure since he is actually selling, or endeavoring to sell, every place he goes where he is in contact with the public. This would be a difficult problem to solve and a costly one as far as the overtime amounts are concerned. Incidentally, the recordkeeping attendant to the hourly rate computation of both mechanics and salesmen would be a monumental task added to the duties of the office personnel.

On the above table you will see the results of the telephone survey of seven dealers indicating the pay of salesmen on commission, and the average is even higher than it was in 1962. You will note that we do not indicate the number of hours worked for salesmen, as we feel that it is impossible to accurately designate the number of hours that an automobile salesman can or should work. However, at the average pay of these salesmen, we believe that they should be considered as highpaid employees regardless of how many hours it took them to earn this pay.

In the automobile business 1962 was considered a good year. Yet, according to National Automobile Dealer Association national figures, the operating profit on sales amounted to 2.2 percent. In spite of good business, the number of automobile dealers in the United States has dropped from 34,000 in 1961 to 30,960 in 1963. According to Dun & Bradstreet, from 1959 to 1963, over 603 dealerships went bankrupt. Consequently, I feel strongly against anything that will raise the dealer's cost of doing business.

23-806-64- -11