about 50 law violations that you are guilty of in coming and g from this Hill. That we are all up against. We have had me!! the bench mention it. We have more laws than are enforced and 4 be enforced. But we are dealing here with a situation that the solvency of business and the solvency of banks, the finance b ness. Banks have been approached by men that have been threate with these terrific amounts, men that employ a large number 4 laboring men, and they are hysterical about it. I know that somewle along the line here we are probably going to write something the a little bit reasonable. But I do not think in my own opinion ta it helps when you mention that we define the subject as being res in accordance with customs of the trade. There are very few situations in the customs of retail trade whe it has been established that a business is retail as such by custom. Mr. URHEIM. I believe you would find that you would have difficulty, for example, in the grocery business in determining w was performing the wholesale functions and who was perform retail functions so far as the custom and tradition of that entire dustry is concerned. There would certainly be no question about In the coal business, it is clearly understood by producers and by h wholesalers and the shippers and the retailers where the line of marcation comes. It would be relatively simple, and I think that it could well apply to many, many other industries, because I do bel that there is custom and tradition that enters into the line of demars tion between wholesale and retail business. Mr. WERDEL. All right. Mr. URHEIM. They have invented a term such as "nonretail," which is some vague place off in suspension some place between wholesale and retail which I do not think should ever be permitted. In other words, if this committee or previous committees would spell that off the Administrator would not be in a position to invent a word s as "nonretail.” Mr. WERDEL. Suppose you have the same man as Administrator and another man equally honest but interested in expanding the duties of the particular bureau which is under him-we have to expect that and let us say that he calls you in for a hearing and you say you are a retailer, and you say you are going to prove that by the statements of other people who sold to you. Then they admit that they sell to you with the understanding that you are going to sell in enlarged quantities to somebody who is manufacturing things. But as a matter of fact, they do not use the word "retail" in that custom. Tast is what I am driving at. I think the language something like the chairman suggested, would be better, that if you as a man sell to party for consumption locally, then you ought to be able to say m your books, "I am not under the act," without hauling in somebody who is going to testify as to whether or not by a matter of custom that is a retailer. Mr. URHEIM. The difficulty is that if you read the present act, I do not believe you could find a single retailer of coal, for example, who would have had the slightest doubt in his mind that he was, first of all, not engaged in interstate commerce; and, secondly, had a specific exemption which says that a retail or service establishment, the greater part of whose selling or servicing is in intrastate commerce, shall be exempt. So they had every assurance so far as the statute is concerned t you now have, to make them feel, at least, that they were exempt. wever, through a long series of interpretations and regulations and rt decisions, which follow interpretations and regulations, we now I that we are something other than what we originally assumed we 'e. Ir. WERDEL. I do not think you have to sell that to the members of committee. Just the remarks between yourself and the chairmanchairman operating under the act in his business, paying a wage ilar to yours after the overtime and everything is paid-will exin that. hour. Mr. URHEIM. His is actually less in terms of per Mr. WERDEL. Now, there you are. Mr. URHEIM. But the difficulty is this: Let us assume that they find -. Pankow was not entitled to his exemption Mr. WERDEL. Then the better he is treating his employees, the worse is stuck. Mr. URHEIM. He will be compelled to go back over this period of e and pay time-and-a-half penalties which apparently the law proled for and he did not realize that they did, at least so far as they plied to him. Mr. WERDEL. The more he has paid them during that 48-hour period, e more he is hit. Mr. URHEIM. Precisely. Mr. WERDEL. All right. I still think we have to find some good guage on what is retail. Mr. LESINSKI. Gentlemen, are there any other questions? No response.) Mr. LESINSKI. Thank you, gentlemen. The next witness is Mr. Gilbert R. Johnson, counsel to the Lake Carrs' Association. ESTIMONY OF GILBERT R. JOHNSON, COUNSEL, LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, CLEVELAND, OHIO Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gilbert R. Johnson. I e in Cleveland, Ohio. I appear here as an attorney for the Lake rriers' Association.. About 10 days ago, I mailed to you, Mr. Chairman, 75 copies of my meographed statement, and if it meets with your approval, I would efer to comment in summary form on the statement and then have e privilege of having the statement put in the record immediately llowing my comments. Mr. LESINSKI. It is so ordered. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, the Lake Carriers' Association is mposed of the companies on the Great Lakes whose ships transport on ore, coal, limestone, grain, and other bulk commodities. Their ssels are all under United States registry, and the vessels owned the members of that association account for upward of 95 percent the total commerce on the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes transportation industry, whether it be measured the standards of the Fair Labor Standards Act as initially stated. 38 or by the standards which are proposed by this bill, is by no means 85539-49-vol. 2-27 a substandard industry. The minimum wage is less than the cash hourly minimum wage wh person occupying the lowest position on a lake to leave all those details with you. I would sin gamut runs from 92 cents an hour for the lowe the cash wage-to something over $1,000 a mo of the master. Then in addition, of course, ev ship receives his room and his board, or subsist no means a meager contribution toward the ne Congress wrote the seamen's exemption into ards Act in 1938 because, as I recall the 1 Congress had theretofore prescribed by spec usually referred to as the navigation and shippi seamen, which was equally high with those Labor Standards Act. The situation has not There is still a tremendous volume of regula to the employment of seamen. I will not take the time to detail all of them. refer to a few. No person may be employed unless he has met certain minimum qualificatio perience and professional training. Mr. LESINSKI. May I ask you there, are you time on overtime? Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir; I am not speaking please, Mr. Chairman. I am thinking solely ab the seamen's exemption in the Fair Labor Sta course, an owner must make a contract with th tract must be in writing. It must specify cert seamen's hours are regulated. The crew must b three equal watches, and no seaman may be r than 8 hours a day. I am speaking in general some few modifications here and there, but gene the modification. And in certain situations, t to penalties for breach of the contract. One some situations, is that he shall be entitled to day that he is required unreasonably to wait for due him. I mention that because under the Seamen's Act of the day's pay, and here we come to the Fair which has the concept of the pay by the hour; in is different. Our objection to the disturbance provided by the act is that you cannot engraft u with the multifarious regulatory provisions that provision that a man shall receive a minimum hour. Mr. LESINSKI. Now, where in that bill is the are speaking of? Mr. JOHNSON. You have in proposed section the exemption. Mr. LESINSKI. Have you got the bill? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I have a copy of it here. raph (d): The provisions of section 7 shall not apply with respe employee employed as a seaman. That means that the provisions of section 6 would apply—that is, the minimum-wage provision would apply. The difference between the Seaman's Act and the Fair Labor Standard Act is that the Seamen's Act is directed-or I should say this one difference is the Seamen's Act is directed to American vessels or vessels of United States registry. Here we come along with an act which would be applicable to all employers and all their employees, and it would apply to the full extent of the territorial or geographical jurisdiction of the United States. And while I am not speaking on ir behalf of the Canadian people who operate ships on the Great Lakes, I think it is only proper that we should bring to the attention of the *committee that if this act is passed as it is, Canadian ships trading in United States waters-and they trade there a great deal-would be subject to this act. Mr. LESINSKI. Do you not fall under interstate commerce? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Mr. LESINSKI. Well, it exempts interstate commerce. Mr. JOHNSON. No, it does not, if the committee please. You are looking at part II. Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act relates only to railroads. The Interstate Commerce Act is divided into four parts: Part I, Railroads; Part II, Motor Carriers; Part III, Water Carriers; and Part IV, Freight Forwarders. Mr. LESINSKI. On that same page, line 15, No. 4— Any employee employed as a seaman Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. That is the only provision of section 7. But the provisions of section 6 would now be applicable to the employers of seamen; that is, the minimum-wage provision. Mr. LESINSKI. I see. Mr. JOHNSON. Now, I wish to speak specifically with regard to that situation. In the Seamen's Act, the provision is that a seaman shall not be required to work more than 8 hours per day. This act would extend to all persons engaged in commerce and that is all we need for the Great Lakes, because we are either engaged in interstate commerce or foreign commerce--and thus we would have imposed upon the Seamen's Act a provision that the employer of a seaman who is engaged in commerce should receive a minimum wage of 75 cents or $1 per hour, whatever you may strike upon. if The seaman is engaged in commerce all of the time that he is aboard the ship and subject to call. I can illustrate my point by reference to adjudicated cases in the realm of personal injury. For instance, a seaman is injured while he is aboard ship and off duty, he is considered to be in the service of the vessel and entitled to all the benefits of a seaman who is injured in the actual performance of duty. Then in recent years, the doctrine has been extended to men who have been ashore on their own, for their own pursuits, their own enjoyment. There is one case that goes so far as to hold that if a seaman while he is still in the service of the ship is ashore and is injured in a saloon, he is entitled to be taken care of. Those statements add up to this concept: That so long as the seaman is in +1 service of the ship, subject to call, he is engaged in commerce, would be entitled to be compensated for the time that he is in ship's service, which is 24 hours a day. Instead of having an 8-h day, paying men on that basis, we would have a 24-hour day for wh they would be entitled to compensation. a substandard industry. The minimum wag is less than the cash hourly minimum wage person occupying the lowest position on a lal to leave all those details with you. I would s gamut runs from 92 cents an hour for the lov the cash wage-to something over $1,000 a m of the master. Then in addition, of course, ship receives his room and his board, or subsi no means a meager contribution toward the Congress wrote the seamen's exemption in ards Act in 1938 because, as I recall the Congress had theretofore prescribed by sp usually referred to as the navigation and ship seamen, which was equally high with thos Labor Standards Act. The situation has n There is still a tremendous volume of regu to the employment of seamen. I will not take the time to detail all of them refer to a few. No person may be employe unless he has met certain minimum qualificat perience and professional training. Mr. LESINSKI. May I ask you there, are you time on overtime? Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir; I am not speaking please, Mr. Chairman. I am thinking solely the seamen's exemption in the Fair Labor S course, an owner must make a contract with tract must be in writing. It must specify ce seamen's hours are regulated. The crew must three equal watches, and no seaman may be than 8 hours a day. I am speaking in genera some few modifications here and there, but ge the modification. And in certain situations. to penalties for breach of the contract. On some situations, is that he shall be entitled t day that he is required unreasonably to wait due him. I mention that because under the Seamen's A of the day's pay, and here we come to the Fai which has the concept of the pay by the hour; is different. Our objection to the disturbanc provided by the act is that you cannot engraft with the multifarious regulatory provisions th provision that a man shall receive a minimu hour. Mr. LESINSKI. Now, where in that bill is th are speaking of? Mr. JOHNSON. You have in proposed section the exemption. Mr. LESINSKI. Have you got the bill? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I have a copy of it here. graph (d): The provisions of section 7 shall not apply with re employee employed as a seaman. |