or the Secretary of Labor (sec. 16 (c)). This dangerously reduces the incentive for compliance with wage orders. Most workers cannot afford to bring suit themselves, and must rely on actions brought by the Administration. This bill would encourage employers to ignore minimum-wage provisions until caught, then take a chance on successfully pleading good faith and paying only the amount of unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensation. Further, even if suit is brought by employees themselves, they run up against section 11 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, which gives courts discretion to deny liquidated damages where the employer pleads good faith. Without the deterrent of suits for liquidated damages, the Administrator faces insuperable difficulties in enforcement. A 35-HOUR WEEK Finally, we urge the committee to take this opportunity to mark a new milestone of progress toward ever higher levels of health, efficiency, and well-being for the American people by establishing a standard workweek of 35 hours-7 hours a day for 5 days a week. This step would be in line with a basic long-run objective of the American labor movement, to move toward a 30-hour week, with no reduction in pay, as rapidly as technological advances permit. A reduction of the standard workweek to 35 hours has already been made abundantly possible by the levels of national production and technology attained in the 10 years since the 40-hour week was made standard for the Wage-Hour Act. Such a reduction would be feasible if national productivity had increased only 14 percent since 1938. Actually, the indicated increase has been much greater. National production per capita has increased 122 percent, as we have noted; and physical output per man-hour, on the long-term trend, has risen at least one-third. In the electrical machinery industry, for example, productivity has increased 20 percent just since the war, according to a survey in the magazine Factory Management and Maintenance. Many electrical machinery plants find they can produce as much in a 32-hour week today as in 40 or 48 hours some years ago. Each stage of human progress has been marked by a reduction in the hours of labor. The opportunities for fruitful leisure provided by modern technology are enormous, and continually growing. It would be an act of economic statesmanship of the highest order for this committee and the Congress to give legislative recognition to this fact by establishing the 35-hour week. Mr. LESINSKI. Gentlemen, at this point, Congressman Battle asked me to insert in the record letters and statements from certain laundry companies and associations in Alabama. If there is no objection, the same will become part of the record. (The letters and statements referred to are as follows:) Hon. LAURIE C. BATTLE, Washington, D. C. TOM JONES, CLEANERS, LAUNDRY, DEAR SIR: I am writing you in protest to the proposed 75-cent an hour minimum wage law which will come up in a few days. On the basis of my last week's pay roll it will add an additional $60,000 annually to my operating cost. It will be absolutely impossible for me to absorb this amount and laundry services would have to go so high that they would be prohibited. If this law is passed it will force me into ruination. Hoping that you will agree with me, I remain, i TOM JONES. AMERICAN LAUNDRY CO., INC., Hon. LAURIE C. BATTLE, Congressman, Fifth District, Alabama, and American Institute Laundering. GENTLEMEN: We have compiled a comparative sheet which was prepared from our actual pay roll records, and which will show the increase in our weekly pay roll should a minimum of 75 cents per hour be imposed on laundries. is comparison is so startling that we can see no way to operate our business h a wage rate is imposed on us. From these figures our weekly pay roll be increased 60 percent over the present pay roll which is now 60 percent r expense; this would force every laundry out of business. e question of increased prices is not in the cards for our industry because s are now too high and are cutting into laundry volume, by the necessity of washing, by families who cannot afford the present cost. are indeed pleading with you as our Congressman to do all in your power pressly exclude laundries from this 75-cent minimum wage for we are tely doomed if such a law should apply to us. I believe the following figures ear us out in this. SIR: The Parker's Sno-Brite Laundry, Inc., is much concerned about the ed legislation designated as the Lesinski-Thomas bill which relates to s in the wage-hour law. The suggested minimum rate of 75 cents per nd the inclusion of such service establishments as ours within the effect of v would make our operations very difficult, if not entirely impossible. should like to make comparison in the figures in our pay-roll totals as at t and as these would be under the proposed minimum rate. We might menat we operate under a union contract, A. F. of L, and under a 48-hour s agreed. After 48 hours, overtime rates prevail. d on 48-hour operation we will have the following comparison: 1 employee presently 59 cents per hour, $28.32; under 75-cent minimum, $36. The total of $1,274 is the amount of our present pay roll per week, and the total of $2,052 is the amount our pay roll would be at the proposed rate of 75 cents per hour-an increase of $778 per week or a yearly increase of $40,456, These totals show you how this increase would affect this laundry and would make it practically impossible for us to operate. If there is anything that you can do to help us it will be appreciated not only by the writer, but also by all launderers in this vicinity. DEAR SIR: This is a comparative statement showing the increased cost to this laundry, should the proposed 75 cents per hour minimum-wage bill pass. I 20 employees now making 39 cents per hour on shirt line. New wage would make 75 cents per hour: New wage. Old wage Difference- Number of employees.. Difference per hour__ Hours work per week. Difference per week. Work weeks in year... Increase per year.. $0.75 III ployees now making 50 cents per hour: New wage scale 75 cents per hour: sed on 40-hour week, union contract; over 48 hours, time and one-half. Very truly yours, LAURIE C. BATTLE, SNOWHITE LAUNDRY, LA DAME LAUNDRY CLEANERS, Birmingham, Ala., February 4, 1949. aited States Congressional Representative, Washington, D. C'. R SIR: In reference to the new minimum-wage law which is to come up the House if it is passed and put into effect, it will absolutely make it ited for laundries to continue doing business. ish to quote you our present union scale, and also what the additional inwill mean for the same amount in dollars and cents to this small plant dle. Proposed rate: 25, at 75 cents for 48 hours- $900 288 180 216 360 108 324 108 936 72 36 3,528 ally- 115, 415. 04 key employees, which are those who receive 75 cents or more an hour, will › have an increase, which will make the above figure even higher. These show you the amount that it would affect this laundry, which makes it tive for us to operate. ou are probably familiar with the laundry service, it is rated as over a dollar industry. ere is anything which you might do to save this service trade from deon, it will not only be appreciated by the writer, but also by every operator vicinity. Sincerely yours, I. LICHTENSTEIN. Hon. LAURIE C. BATTLE, ACE DAMP WASH LAUNDRY, INC.. Birmingham 5, Ala., February 4, 1949. United States Congressional Representative, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SIR: In reference to the new minimum-wage law which is to come up before the House, if it is passed, and put into effect it will absolutely make it prohibited for the laundries to continue doing business. I wish to quote you our present union scale, and also what the additional increase will mean for the same amount in dollars and cents, to this small plant to handle, as follows: Our key employees which are those who receive 75 cents or more an hour will have to have an increase which will make the above figure even higher. These totals show you the amount that it would affect this laundry, which makes it prohibitive for us to operate. As you are probably familiar with the laundry service, it is rated over a billion dollar industry. If there is anything which you might do to save this service trade from destruction, it will not only be appreciated by the writer, but also by every operator in this vicinity. Sincerely yours, Hon. LAURIE Battle, Washington, D. C. I. LICHTENSTEIN. THE DOMESTIC LAUNDRY CO., Birmingham, Ala., February 3, 1949. DEAR SIR: The Domestic Laundry Co. is much concerned about the proposed legislation designated as the Lesinski-Thomas bills which relate to changes in the wage-hour law. The suggested minimum rate of 75 cents per hour and the inclusion of such service establishments as ours within the effect of the law would make our operations very difficult if not entirely impossible. We should like to make a comparison in the figures in our pay roll totals as at present and as these would be under the proposed minimum rate. We might mention that we operate under a union contract, A. F. of L., and under a 48-hour week as agreed. After 48 hours overtime rates prevail. Based on 48-hour operation we will have the following comparison: 4 employees presently, 34 cents per hour, $48.96; under 75 cents minimum, $144 |