ommendations were reached by unanimous votes. The majority recommendations in the other 41 wage-rate cases were supported by the employers' votes in 25 instances; by labor members in 37 cases; and by the public members in all cases. Only two recommendations were rejected by the Administrator and these primarily because of the confusion likely to result from vague definitions of branches of the industry for which different rates were proposed.

The very modesty of the current 75 cents proposal makes it desirable that the universal minimum be supplemented by machinery which will allow more realistic industrial minima to be set for industries where higher rates can be set.

We believe in the desirability of a wage floor. It has distinct beneficial effects. We have urged the modernization of the level at which it has been set. We cannot understand why its application should be restricted. Its advantages should be extended to all so that the positive results would be enjoyed by employers and workers alike. Fair competition and a modicum of decent earnings would result from such action.

We therefore approve of the inclusion under the act of "activities affecting commerce."

The extension of the definition to cover the retail and service establishments with four or more establishments and an annual volume of sales or servicing of more than $500,000 will eliminate much uncertainty; as will also the provision covering establishments which derive more than 25 percent of their dollar volume from "activities other than retail selling or servicing." Unfair competition which has prevailed between the exempt and nonexempt companies will be eliminated. It will bring definitely under the jurisdiction of the law, the large and chain-type retail enterprises which should be covered. The exemptions for small, local retail or service establishments, including those dealing with farmers, are continued.

We endorse the proposal to eliminate the exemption from the wage and hour provisions for employees engaged in fish processing as distinct from fishermen. The minimum wage provision will present no distinct departure from current wage practice.

We urge the elimination of the wage exemption for employees engaged by large industrialized agricultural operations. For this purpose therefore the agricultural exemptions should be limited to "employees employed by farm enterprises which used less than 300 mandays of hired farm labor during each of the preceding four quarters." We are submitting a supplement of data on this subject.

We endorse the elimination of the exemption from the hours provision granted to employees processing agricultural products.

We urge the elimination of the provision granting the Secretary the right to exempt employers in seasonal and agricultural processing industries from the payment of the overtime premium for hours worked over 40 hours for a 14-week period. We are submitting a special supplement of data on this subject.

We endorse the termination of the exemption from the minimum wage provisions for all employees in the transportation industries and the limitations of the overtime exemption to over-the-road motor transport operations, line of road trains and flight personnel. These are equitable provisions which are long overdue.

We urge the application of the overtime provisions to seamen. We are submitting a supplement of data on this subject.

We strongly urge the change in the provision regarding the regulation of child labor. The indirect method of control which prohibited the shipment or delivery for shipment in commerce of any goods produced in an establishment in which child labor was employed should give way to a direct prohibition. Congress adopted the indirect method because it was uncertain of its authority. The Supreme Court cleared up its rights in the case of United States v. Darby in 1941. A direct prohibition is essential. We endorse the change which would insure that children will enjoy the benefits of such schooling as is provided by the State.

We have touched on many of the more significant changes proposed in the committee print. We urge its speedy approval together with the changes which we propose respecting the elimination of the seasonal exemption for agricultural processing and the extension of the coverage to employees on commercialized farms.

The merits of the proposed changes have been reviewed in a series of successive hearings held by congressional committees. They have approved bills from time to time which would improve the act and bring it up to date.

The data in support of such revision are overwhelming. Consideration has been given to the various arguments and facts which have been presented by various interests.

The Administrator of the Fair Labor Standards Act has carefully considered these various proposals and has appeared before your committee in support of the modernization of the act in order to realize its original purposes. We have furnished you with a summary of the various arguments, proposals and data which have been submitted to these committees. The material on which you can act is available to you. We stand ready to supply such additional information as you may request. We want to emphasize the need for speedy action.

(The supplements referred to are as follows:)

SUPPLEMENT I. RE SEASONAL EXEMPTION FOR AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING INDUSTRIES

The following is a summary of the testimony presented by the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers of America, CIO, before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on May 4, 1948, and reprinted in the hearings before the committee, Eightieth Congress, second session, on S. 49, etc., volume 2,

pages 1001.

The union urges the following in support of the elimination of the proposed exemption for seasonal periods for agricultural processing industries.

1. Workers who work overtime hours are entitled to standard overtime pay. There is no reason for discriminating against workers in seasonal industries.

2. Overtime rates are now being paid and have been paid for years by employers with no adverse effects on their profits or their ability to process agricultural commodities and fish expeditiously and with no injury to the product. The FTA has succeeded in negotiating for the payment of overtime rates in 83.3 percent of its contracts. (Table I.)

The seafood-canning industry, which is completely exempt under the present law from overtime pay and minimum-wage requirements, pays premium rates to 84 percent of its workers under contract with our union.

Fresh fruit and vegetable packing sheds, exempt by law for 28 weeks, pay overtime to 100 percent of workers under FTA contract.

The cottonseed-oil industry, located almost entirely in the South, pays overtime to 85 percent of its workers under FTA contract. The small minority of plants where the full exemption is permitted are for the most part newly organized establishments where we have not as yet had time to establish full union conditions of employment.

The fact that these companies can and do pay overtime after 40 hours, and many of them after 8 hours a day also, is positive proof that the exemptions are not justified by any economic considerations. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that these companies pay premiums for overtime work and still are able to compete with unorganized firms which do not.

As a matter of fairness and free competition to those employers who have agreed to eliminate overtime exemptions, the law should close this loophole against the chiseler and the sweatshop operator.

Here are some specific examples:

The Campbell Soup Co., in its two major plants, probably handles a larger volume of tomatoes-one of the most perishable crops-than any single canner or soup maker in the country. From the time of FTA's first contract with this company in the early 40's, time and one-half after 40 hours in any week and 8 hours in any day has been paid year round. During the tomato season, employment in the Camden plant of this company increases from around 4,500 to over 9,000. The overtime provisions of the contract are applicable to all employees, seasonal and nonseasonal.

FTA has contracts covering 10,000 workers in the major sections of the fresh fruit and vegetable packing industry in California and Arizona. These contracts provide for payment of time and one-half after 8 hours in any day and between the hours of 6 p. m. and 8 a. m. In some of these contracts payment of the night rate begins at 5 p. m. The period during which these contracts have been in effect since 1942 have been bonanza years for the industry.

During the last 3 years' consideration of amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, fishery and fish canning interests have been among the most vociferous in demanding continuation of the special privilege they now enjoy which exempts them from any legal requirement to pay the statutory minimum or to pay overtime after 40 hours. Yet for years, FTA has had contracts with the Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., covering over 5,000 workers, which provide for payment of time and a half after 8 hours in any day and between the hours of 5 p. m. and 8 a. m. A contract with similar provisions is in effect between FTA and Van Camp, the largest tuna cannery in the world located in San Diego. Contracts between the International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America, CIO, and numerous west coast canners also provide for payment of overtime. The contract between the California Processors and Growers, referred to above, and the American Federation of Labor provides for overtime beyond the exemptions allowed in the act. This contract, together with others on the west coast with both CIO and AFL unions in the cannery and dried fruit industries cover well over 100,000 workers.

The "area of production" exemption has been justified by involved reasoning referring to plants located in farming of rural areas. Included in the 83.3 percent of the plants under contract to FTA which have eliminated the overtime exemption in whole or in part are palnts located in small rural towns: Leverton & Co. in Alvin, Texas, a town of some 3,000, pays time and a half after 40 hours and after 8 hours in 1 day. This plant cans perishable and seasonal products, including cherries and figs. In Dade City, Fla., population 2,600, FTA has a similar contract with the Pasco Packing Co., canner of citrus products, And in Traverse City, Mich., Cherry Growers, Inc., a farmers' cooperative, is also party to a contract calling for time and a half after 40 hours. Evidently Michigan farms do not feel that they are injured if the cannery workers employed by their cooperative receive overtime compensation, however valiantly the National Canners Association strives to protect them from this fate. 3. Profits enjoyed by the industry are more than able to meet the cost of the overtime pay.

4. The special exemptions on the seasonal period have been previously obtained by arguments that it would adversely affect farmers' income. This position is unfounded.

TABLE I.—Overtime premium pay provisions of FTA contract, indicating progress made toward eliminating overtime exemptions allowed by Wage-Hour Act, percentage of workers in each category, total, and by industry, April 1948

1 Canneries and packing sheds are exempt from overtime provisions of Wage-Hour Act for 28 weeks of the year (14 weeks complete exemption; 14 weeks exemption up to 12 hours a day and 56 hours a week). (Sec. 7 (e) and 7 (b) (3).)

* Sea food, dairy processing, cotton-oil and cotton-compress plants are completely exempt from the over. time provisions of the Wage-Hour Act. (Sec. 7 (c).) Leaf-tobacco-processing plants are exempt from overtime provisions of Wage-Hour Act for 14 weeks of the year, up to 12 hours a day and 56 hours a week. (Sec. 7 (b) (3).)

SUPPLEMENT II. RE INCLUSION OF COMMERCIALIZED FARMS

We strongly urge the inclusion of commercialized farms. This position has been proposed to congressional committees by Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Division, and by various public citizens intimately acquainted with the problem, including General Fleming.

The low earnings of these workers should be corrected. As the Administrator declared in his annual report: "It is now possible for farm enterprises to pay a reasonable minimum wage, and the Administrator urges Congress to consider this problem now, not only to immediately benefit some low-paid farm employees, but, of much greater importance, to provide a floor under farm wage rates in case of depression." The commercialized farmers now receive financial support from the Government through farm-price floors and should be called on to pay decent wages to hired farm workers.

We endorse the distinction proposed by the Administrator that the large farm be defined to include farms other than those which use "less than 300 man-days of hired farm labor during each of the preceding four quarters." We believe that the Administrator's close study of the method of differentiating between family and commercial farms is workable and will attain the distinction in treatment which we desire to see achieved.

One further reason for this extension of coverage is to protect the family farmer. The latter is now confronted by the competition of the commercial farmer employing large numbers of migrant workers at low wages and under inadequate working and living conditions. By setting a floor on the wages for the hired labor of commercial farmers, we will not only aid the family farmer in his competition but also give him a chance to earn a decent living for himself and his family the year round.

Adequate provision is made under section 3 (m) to define the worth of the payments in kind. The Administrator assures us that it is entirely practical for him to develop regulations to define the worth of the payments in kind.

The definitions of "hired farm labor," "farm enterprise" and "man-day" as proposed by the Administrator should also be adopted.

SUPPLEMENT III. RE OVERTIME EXEMPTION FOR SEAMEN

We strongly urge that the overtime provision be applied to American seamen to assure equal treatment to them. It is essential to alleviate the widespread unemployment prevailing among seamen and to preserve the skilled maritime labor force essential to the national security.

The 40-hour week for seamen is practical. It now prevails on the Great Lakes and in the merchant marine of Australia and New Zealand. The seamen on oceangoing American vessels now enjoy a 40-hour week in port and a 48-hour week at sea.

The actual increase in housing required on board the ships would be small since certain members of the crews are day workers and now operate on a 44hour week. Certain merchant vessels which housed Navy gun crews of twentyodd men during the war can adequately house an increase of seven to eight persons in the crew.

The practice of granting time off with pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week for each overtime hour worker is now established in some union contracts. A provision for time off with pay at the rate of time and one-half would spread the work since the other seamen would be on duty during these periods of paid time off.

The adoption of the regular 40-hour week for American seamen would aline his rights and his conditions of employment with that prevailing among other American workers. His conditions have been improved during recent years. This adjustment is imperative to bring more complete equality.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, PORTLAND, OREG., NOVEMBER 1948

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

The 1947 CIO convention adopted a resolution condemning the Portal-to-Portal Act which cut in half, to 2 years, the period in which workers can sue to obtain minimum wages and overtime due them under Federal law, and which recklessly threw overboard wage claims which had accumulated before the Portal-to-Portal Act was passed.

Congress was quick to enact the portal-to-portal bill when big industrialists alleged they would be hurt if their workers were to receive minimum-wage compensation of 40 cents an hour and overtime compensation for work which the Supreme Court decided should have been paid for. In contrast, the Eightieth Congress dawdled through hearings from June 1947 to May 1948 on raising the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Neither the House nor Senate subcommittees which conducted these hearings have issued reports.

The big corporations are now trying to stir up a campaign similar to the portalto-portal tempest, by complaining against another decision of the Supreme Court, the longshore decision of last June. The Court, in that case, held that premium pay for shift differentials, for night work, for Saturdays, and Sundays, and holidays generally, must be counted in computing the regular rate of pay on which overtime is based. A smear slogan has been coined "overtime on overtime," which is deliberately designed to mislead and confuse the issue.

The United States Chamber of Commerce at a recent meeting in Washington made it very plain that it will press for amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act which would have the effect of virtually wiping out the overtime provisions of the law.

In 1938 Congress scheduled a 40-cent minimum, to become effective rapidly as possible without substantially curtailing employment, but in any case no later than October 1945. Month by month, however, the value of that minimum has gone down, so that today it is worth little more than half as much as before the

war.

Our Nation and our Congress should again think boldly of the plight and of the rights of our underpaid. Our experience has shown that many industries exempted in 1938 no longer have any real right to deprive their workers of the benefits of law. Congress should take effective action to assure that workers actually get the overtime and the minimum wage to which they are entitled under the law: Now, therefore, be it