goods for a learner. And you can only keep on the 80 cents for 6 weeks, and then it goes to 87 cents. Now we had only 3 percent of the learners in one of our departments where we were processing sheets and pillow cases and towels, and so forth, for the Government, for the Army. We immediately, of course, had to go up, after November 16, to the higher rate. But we have had no trouble getting learners at our 71.5-cent rate in that particular department in the last 3 or 4 months, because labor now, and unfortunately so for them and us, is very, very free. We can just hire all the people we want, and that is not good for us. It is not good for them.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. In response to what Mr. Bailey said a while ago about cotton manufacturers going down to Latin America, in Brazil, in view of the fact that a very high official who has been in the Government has been getting RFC money to go down there and build these plants. and now we are going to put back reciprocal-trade agreements, I will ask you this hypothetical question: If we were to build up these plants, and we put on a minimum wage to get it up to $1 an hour, do you think that he would be allowed to bring in his cotton products, which cost him much less?

Where is the manufacturer going to buy his cloth? From you or from South America?

Mr. CARLISLE. I think the American public will buy the cloth, of good quality, from whomever they can get it the cheapest.

Mr. SMITH. Then it is just natural to assume that they are going to buy it cheaper from Mexico or Brazil or other countries in Latin America?

Mr. CARLISLE. The American public probably will not know where the cloth is made.

Mr. SMITH. And they do not care?

Mr. CARLISLE. No.

Mr. SMITH. That is all.

Mr. LESINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Carlisle.

Mr. CARLISLE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. LESINSKI. The next witness is Mr. Kitchen.

Mr. SMITH. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman.

We have had an example here now of a man testifying who gave very important testimony as to minimum wage, probably the most effective testimony. We only have a few members here. I raise the point of no quorum.

Mr. LESINSKI. Will the gentleman come in tomorrow morning? Mr. KITCHEN. Yes; I can come in tomorrow morning.

Mr. LESINSKI. It is so scheduled, then.

Mr. KITCHEN. What time should I come in?

Mr. LESINSKI. Ten o'clock.

Gentlemen, we stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 5:35 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until the following day, Tuesday, February 1, 1949, at 10 a. m.)

AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

OF 1938

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1949

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., Hon. John Lesinski (chairman) presiding.

Mr. LESINSKI. The meeting will come to order.

Is Mr. Kitchen present?

Mr. Kitchen, it was too late yesterday afternoon to have you present your statement, but we will permit you 15 minutes to go ahead and present your statement. Do you have a written statement?

Mr. KITCHEN. I do not have a written statement with me, Mr. Chairman. I did not know that I was to appear until it was too late.

Mr. LESINSKI. According to law, you are supposed to have so many copies of your statement to furnish each member of the committee. Mr. KITCHEN. I will supply one later if that would serve your purpose.

Mr. LESINSKI. That will be satisfactory. You may go ahead and make your statement.

TESTIMONY OF C. W. KITCHEN, REPRESENTING THE UNITED FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION

Mr. KITCHEN. I appear here as the executive vice president of the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, which association has more than 2.000 members engaged in the growing, shipping, and wholesaling of fresh fruits and vegetables.

This industry is very much interested in wage-and-hour legislation because we are now eating about 1,600 pounds of food in the United States, and about one-fourth of that consists of fresh fruits and Tegetables.

The industry requires a great deal of labor and much of it is hand labor, and much is seasonal, and many of them are employed under varying conditions throughout the country, which makes it complicated to write wage-and-hour legislation.

I would like to point out to the committee that at this time the fresh-fruit-and-vegetable industry is in a big market. Production increased during the war. We virtually lost the export market for fruits, and competition is being renewed from foods which have been

scarce for several years, and there has been a perceptible softening of demands for these commodities.

In addition to that we have seven rounds of freight-rate increases, plus an increase of 4 percent in refrigeration charges. That means we are paying 39 cents a hundred pounds more to move 100 pounds from the west coast to the east coast than we did in 1939.

Mr. SMITH. How much was that?

Mr. KITCHEN. Thirty-nine cents a hundred pounds more.
Mr. SMITH. What does it cost now per hundred?

Mr. KITCHEN. It varies according to the commodities, but the freight rates are the highest we have had in 35 years, and petitions are still pending for even higher rates.

Mr. LESINSKI. That is general on all commodities that freight rates went up?

Mr. KITCHEN. That is true, but I am pointing out

Mr. LESINSKI. I believe that is a rise in freight rates of approxi mately 30 percent all told, is it not?

Mr. KITCHEN. I think maybe it is nearly 40 percent.

Mr. LESINSKI. Including the Government tax it would be about 40. Mr. KITCHEN. Well, the Government tax

Mr. LESINSKI. There is a 3-percent tax.

Mr. KITCHEN. Three percent tax, but I merely mention that to point out that condition makes the industry particularly sensitive to anything that may increase the marketing prices, including labor. These commodities are perishable and they cannot be carried over from season to season or year to year. They have to be sold when they are ready for market, and at the prices they will bring at that time, and in some of the producing areas the crop must be marketed within a matter of a few weeks. I do not know of any industry so completely controlled by the day-to-day fluctuation of supply and demand than the people handling the products.

The increased cost cannot be passed on automatically to consumers. That may be true where weather conditions cause a temporary shortage, but at the breaking point it is to curtail production or reduce marketing costs. So far as Government support, the only mandatory rule which applies is for potatoes and sweet potatoes. It seems to me Congress did recognize the conditions when it passed the 1938 act. It allowed a period of 14 weeks without overtime or a limitation of hours. and then it allowed 14 additional weeks in a calendar year without overtime for a total of 14 weeks at 12 hours a day, or 56 hours a week, and then it also exempted the first processing or packing of these commodities from both the wage and hour provisions when the work is done within the area of production, and, of course, all farm labor was exempted.

As I understand the proposal the committee has now under consideration, these exemptions would be cut down to one exemption of 14 weeks without overtime, up to 10 hours a day, or 50 hours a week, and that would be upon a finding by the Secretary of Labor that the work was seasonal.

With that exception the industry goes on 8 hours a day, or 40 hours a week, and for the most part I understand would require overtime on Saturdays and Sundays, and extra overtime for more than the normal working hours on those days. There is no exemption from

the minimum wages in the proposal, as I understand it. Farm labor would still be exempt, but I would like to suggest that if labor is increased in the packing sheds in communities adjacent to the farms. that it would naturally follow that there would be an increase in the farm labor in order to get the needed labor supply.

I would like to respectfully point out to the committee that in our opinion the 14-week exemption is not enough. We can barely get by now with the 28-week exemption, and the area of production definition has been eliminated entirely. As I understand it

Mr. LESINSKI. Will the gentleman stop right there?

Mr. KITCHEN. Yes.

Mr. LESINSKI. What is the area of production? That is something nobody has been able to define yet.

Mr. KITCHEN. It is extremely difficult to define. It has been before the Supreme Court, but I suggest that there may be as much difficulty in defining an industry. As I understand it now, the Secretary of Labor must find that an industry is seasonal or that it is characterized by recurring annual peaks of operation.

Well, now, what is an industry, and just what is a peak of operation? I anticipate that you may have considerable difficulty with that language, as well.

Mr. LESINSKI. Of course, you can define a large-area farm that runs 12 months a year as not seasonal.

Mr. KITCHEN. That is right, but what is an industry? Is it an industry in a certain community; is it vegetables in another community, or does it include operations within a city on those products, or the first process

Mr. LESINSKI. It is you men who should give us some type of definition. We are not farmers, and we know nothing about it; at least, I do

not.

Mr. KITCHEN. We will be glad to submit a definition which would be somewhat broader than the Administrator has submitted and which is now in effect. I mention that point. Though we are dealing with commodities that are highly perishable and they have to be handled when they are ready, and it is very difficult to put them under the limitations and standards that may be reasonable for many other activities in the country. Obviously these provisions will increase the marketing costs of these commodities, and I do not want to appear here to be unsympathetic with the objection sought by this proposal. I think they are laudable objectives, but I think we are dealing with an industry at a point where we can impose standards and limitations that will defeat the very purposes sought by the legislation. Therefore, my plea is that any amendment you may consider you retain the exemptions for fresh fruits and vegetables that are now in the 1938 act.

Mr. LESINSKI. May I ask the gentleman to mail the committee a brief outlining his views because the members of the committee are entitled to a written report so that they can scan it over and go over all the details. I wish the gentleman would be able to do so and do it as soon as possible.

Mr. KITCHEN. Within the next 2 or 3 days?
Mr. LESINSKI, Yes; that will be all right.
Mr. KITCHEN. I will be glad to do that.
Mr. LESINSKI. All right. Thank you.

85539-49-vol. 1-17

Mr. KITCHEN. Thank you.

Mr. LESINSKI. Now, gentlemen, this morning we have Mr. Irving J. Levy, general counsel for the United Auto Workers Union, CIO; Solomon Barkin, research director for the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO; and Miss Miller. I do not know her title. She is substituting for someone else, also of the CIO.

May I ask you all to come to the witness table?
Miss Miller, what is your full name and title?

Miss MILLER. My full name is Dr. Vera Miller, research associate for the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.

Mr. LESINSKI. Which one of you witnesses will speak first?
Mr. BARKIN. I shall start.

TESTIMONY OF SOLOMON BARKIN, CHAIRMAN, CIO COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, ON BEHALF OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. BARKIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am appearing before you on behalf of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, accompanied my my associates, in support of your committee print of January 20, 1949, with certain amendments which we will herewith suggest.

The Congress of Industrial Organizations believes that the minimum wage should be established at $1 per hour and endorses the revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act which prescribes a universal minimum wage of 75 cents with a provision designed to allow for the establishment of higher minimum wage standards up to $1 on the recommendation of industry committees with the approval of the Administrator and the extension of coverage to many classes of employees now exempt from these provisions. We endorse the proposed committee print of January 20, 1949, with the amendments suggested herewith and urge its immediate approval by your committee.

During the recent Presidential campaign both candidates endorsed the revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act in line with this proposed bill and it should be speedily approved by your House.

We urge that the provision allowing for the review of the minimumwage rates in individual industries be incorporated and be applied speedily so that more realistic minimum wage rates may be prescribed for industries where higher minima than 75 cents should prevail.

We have previously appeared before your committee and the Senate's Committee on Labor and Education since 1944 urging the upward revision of the minimum wage provisions and the extension of the coverage of the act. We have fully covered the various economic and social aspects of this problem in briefs offered at various hearings of congressional committees and through the testimony at various hearings of many witnesses who have personally described their own plight as underpaid persons. We hope that action at this session of the Eighty-first Congress will erase the long-standing inequities created by the present terms of the act which date from 1938.

To facilitate your study of our evidence and arguments throughout these years we have prepared a summary entitled "Toward Fairer Federal Labor Standards" which consists of questions and answers on improving the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. We are sub