Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Mr. KELLEY. I don't know of any contract now that has been arrived. at between unions and management that is less than 75 cents. It is certainly not under 40 cents.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LESINSKI. Are you through, Mr. Kelley?

Mr. KELLEY. Yes.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Kennedy?

Mr. KENNEDY. No questions. I only wish to say we appreciate the benefit of your testimony.

Secretary TOBIN. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Lucas?

Mr. LUCAS. Has it not been your experience and the experience of the Department that they always raised the wages to the maximum; they gravitate it upward, in other words?

Secretary TORIN. No; their purpose is to elevate it without affecting the industries adversely, and they want to elevate it to a level at which there will not be a loss in employment as a result of the raise. I wouldn't say they will raise it to the level that the mathematical study they make of the whole situation warrants.

Mr. LUCAS. But experience has shown us that such committees have raised the rates throughout the country or industry.

Secretary TOBIN. Raised it to the highest possible level? I would say not, because under the Walsh-Healey Act, where we have a similar system, you will find rates established that are 30 and 40 percent below maximum for the same skill.

Mr. LUCAS. Now, Mr. Secretary, it has been suggested in this bill which we have before us that you appoint the public members of this industry committee. In view of the fact that you represent labor under the statute

Secretary TOBIN. I would like to have that corrected immediately. I represent 145,000,000 people in the United States, and when we bring the proposal to you it is not only for the purpose of helping individuals in the country, but the whole economy; we are making them also consumers. In the passage of this bill-when the Congress does it, rather you will be likewise helping the employer who wants to pay a decent wage, and you are contributing to the establishment of a far better economy, and I consider myself a representative of all the people of the United States and not a representative of organized labor.

Mr. LUCAS. But you do not deny your primary duty is as a representative of organized labor?

Secretary TOBIN. My duty is to the 145,000,000 people, and I will do the job to the best of my ability.

Mr. LUCAS. You do not primarily represent labor?

Secretary TOBIN. I represent 145,000,000 people in the United States, and, whatever our proposal is, it will be to the sound interest of the whole industry of our country.

Mr. LUCAS. Would you object to permitting the employees' representatives and the employers' representatives on this industry committee to select a nonpartisan third party rather than having him appointed by you, sir?

Secretary TOBIN. I would suggest that you take a look at the public members who have served down the years, and I am sure you will not

want to change them. They were the highest type people that could be found in the whole United States of America, and there was an agreement between employers and employees that they were fair. Mr. LUCAS. That is all.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Bailey?
Mr. BAILEY. No comment.
Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Irving?
Mr. IRVING. I have no comment.
Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Perkins?

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Secretary, where the Secretary is authorized under the provisions of the bill to convene the industry committee, the true purpose of that and the purpose of raising the minimum wage to 75 cents is only to take care of unsatisfactory labor conditions and better the public welfare, and not to interfere with collective bargaining; isn't that the reason?

Secretary TOBIN. Absolutely. In your collective bargaining I will say 95 percent of the cases will be at a level above this wage.

Mr. PERKINS. That is all.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Howell?
Mr. HOWELL. No questions.
Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Sims?
Mr. SIMS. No questions.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Jacobs?

Mr. JACOBS. In regard to overtime on overtime and incentive pay, is it not a fact that, in almost all industries, the employer expects the employee to make more money than the straight hourly rate-the incentive pay that he earns on an average?

Secretary TOBIN. That is right. The incentive pay added to his basic rate is then a part of his base rate. He would get overtime on the average he had earned.

Mr. JACOBS. As a general rule, if a man doesn't make more than his straight hourly rate, his employer doesn't want to keep him?

Secretary TOBIN. That is right. The purpose is increased productivity, and if the incentive pay isn't achieved, I imagine the average employer would prefer to have somebody else.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Burke?

Mr. BURKE. No questions.
Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Steed?
Mr. STEED. No questions.
Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Wier?

Mr. WIER. I will withhold comment until Mr. McComb gets through this afternoon.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Secretary, I realize that you are not too familiar with the technical aspects of this bill, so I won't get into that; but I would like to ask one or two other general questions.

Secretary TOBIN. Thank you, Mr. McConnell.

Mr. McCONNELL. We have heard so much during the past session of Congress about who wrote the Taft-Hartley bill, and all kinds of erroneous statements-that it was written by the NAM-and so I think we should ask who wrote this bill, if I may ask?

Secretary TOBIN. Lawyers in the Department of Labor contributed a great deal to it, after going over all of the hearings and the reports of your committees for the last 2 years, which were very extensive.

Mr. McCONNELL. Now, you have stated that the overtime controversy would not have occurred

Secretary TOBIN. Changes have been made after it was brought up to the Hill. Just what the changes were-I don't think they have been made yet.

Mr. McCONNELL. I thought I recognized a lot of the language and statements made at former hearings.

The Secretary states the overtime controversy would not have occurred if Mr. McComb had been given rule-making authority by the Eightieth Congress. I don't know whether you realize it or not, but he supported the decision of the appellate court in granting the damages for the overtime. Mr. McComb was asked for a definition of regular rate of pay in December of 1947, but we did not receive any suggestions from him on that score until about 1 week before Congress adjourned in 1948, when they were sent up to me. I don't know whether you imply it was our oversight or your fault. We were waiting on suggestions from Mr. McComb, and I am sure he will verify that.

Secretary TOBIN. I think, under the Federal rule-making power, he might have been able to make a definition of what was the regular rate of pay.

Mr. McCONNELL. In other words, you are making it as a general academic statement, rather than any criticism of the action on the part of the Eightieth Congress?

Secretary TOBIN. What you wanted to do was to put in an amendment to the law, and that is what we are doing now.

Mr. McCONNELL. That is right. We were waiting for his suggestions, and they did not come along until about the time we adojurned

in 1948.

You are saying, in a general academic way, if he had rule-making power that would not occur?

Secretary TOBIN. That is correct.

Mr. McCONNELL. But you are not meaning to reflect on the Eightieth Congress. You mentioned it in here.

Secretary TOBIN. I don't think I did.

Mr. McCONNELL. We can't be blamed for everything. We have been blamed for enough already.

Secretary TOBIN. I think I said during the past 2 years.

Mr. McCONNELL. That is when the Eightieth Congress was in

session.

Mr. McCOMB. I think he said if we had had the rule-making power

5 or 6 years ago.

Mr. McCONNELL. Suppose we say if you had had the rule-making power during the last 6 or 8 years. Why pin it to the last 2 years? Mr. BARDEN. If we just forget our responsibility and pass a rulemaking or power paragraph here and give it to you, there wouldn't be any necessity of considering the bill, would there?

Mr. McCOMB. I think the more

Mr. BARDEN. If you will come down and explain that to my constituents satisfactorily I might agree to it.

Mr. McCONNELL. Do I get the impression that you approve, in a general way, of flexibility in fixing minimum wage rates? At least you have a partial flexibility in the 75 cents to $1 rate.

Secretary TOBIN. To come down from the dollar, with a floor of 75

cents.

Mr. McCONNELL. Why do you use the figure 75 cents? On what do you base it?

Secretary TOBIN. It just comes to the cost of living. This law was enacted in 1938 with a fairly stabilized economy

Mr. McCONNELL. Do you believe we should follow the cost-of-living index?

Secretary TOBIN. Not solely. I hope there will always be increased productivity so the American people are going to have constantly better living standards, but if the Congress in 1938 had to go forward with a 40-cent level in that economy, I think it is sound to establish the 75cent level today.

Mr. McCONNELL. Suppose the cost-of-living index you mentioned would show a rate that would bring you out around 65 or 70 cents?

Secretary TOBIN. I would like to establish it at a 75-cent level on this basis: Your national income has gone up four times, and there has been increased productivity to a point where you could even justify 75 cents today. I think 75 cents is perfectly justifiable on the basis of the cost-of-living index, now called the consumers' price index. Mr. McCONNELL. And suppose the cost-of-living index would come to a lower figure, what would be your reaction?

Secretary TOBIN. I know the economy can stand 75 cents.

Mr. McCONNELL. That is just a matter of your judgment and opinion. You are quoting certain statistical data to justify an increase to a certain rate.

Assuming that that material or those statistics justify a lower rate, then what is your position? That is the question.

Secretary TOBIN. You mean at a subsequent date?

Mr. McCONNELL. Any time. I am trying to find out on what you base your 75-cent rate.

Secretary TOBIN. I told you what it is based on, but I would say that our economy could decline, and I would certainly want to hold the line on the 75 cents, and not go below.

Mr. McCONNELL. You are not using the index-you are only using it to justify one direction; is that correct?

Secretary TOBIN. That isn't entirely so. We are recommending, in the event we have a recession in the future, that wage rates, on the advice of industry committees and given industries, can be dropped back to the 75-cent floor but I want to leave the 75-cent floor as an insurance to stop recession.

Mr. McCONNELL. Why do you pick the 75-cent floor and hold to it in the future? Even though the index which you used to raise it goes below that.

Secretary TOBIN. One of the contributing factors is the consumers' price index at the moment, and I want to see advances beyond that level. If we are going to prevent slave-wage employers getting the business of the country, it should be going to employers as well who want to pay a decent wage to their employees, and I say a 75-cent floor because I do not want to see the wages go below that level, and I feel that will be a contributing factor to the soundness of the whole economy.

Mr. McCONNELL. I approve of the general principle of trying to protect a subsistence level for the workingman, but don't you have the subsistence level if you raise or lower that minimum wage or that subsistence level according to the changes in your economic cycle, and if you push it up too high you are getting into regular wages. You might do that during a period of lower economic activity.

Secretary TOBIN. I would say that, then.

Mr. McCONNELL. Or vice versa?

Secretary TOBIN. In the light of the facts at the time, Congress should give due consideration to the problem, but I would like to see and I think it will help the economy-I would like to see it hold the floor at 75 cents just as long as possible, and I would like to see it written into the law of the land, and if, at a future date there should be a change, I would be one of the first ones to come up and say so, if I felt it would be to the interest of the whole economy.

Mr. McCONNELL. Will you pardon me, but from what I have heard this morning. I get the impression there is a lack of definiteness in writing the provisions in this bill. All through it is a general tendency to be hazy. You can't tell us now who is covered or who isn't?

Secretary TOBIN. Only on the definition of the words "affecting commerce.' We can tell you anyone else who is covered.

Mr. McCONNELL. You can't tell us who is covered in paragraph (n)? Mr. PERKINS. Don't you think the Secretary has demonstrated by his evidence that he is perfectly familiar with the technical provisions in this bill?

Mr. MCCONNELL. No; I don't, and he admits it himself, and I am not trying to embarrass him by asking him questions, and if Mr. McComb can answer them it is agreeable to me.

Secretary TOBIN. If you want him to answer them, go right ahead. Mr. McCONNELL. What effect do you believe will be made on the cost of living by the raising of wages? Does it increase the cost of living or does it have any effect, or what?

Secretary TOBIN. You would have to have a given case, Mr. McConnell. In a plant in which there was increased productivity to take up the increased wage there would be no effect on the economy or cost of living. In a plant where there is an increase in wages and an increase in productivity in proportion to it-let's say, a 10-percent increase in wages a and 5-percent increase in productivity-it might result in an increase in some prices. But I would say, within a month after this went into effect, you wouldn't have a rise of over 1 percent in the whole cost of living, and I would say probably not a rise at all.

Mr. McCONNELL. But there is a likelihood that increased wages would affect the cost of living?

Secretary TOBIN. That is correct.

Mr. McCONNELL. The question I am coming to is this: Are we adjusted in this country, in your opinion? I don't know whether we are or not. There was a witness last year when I conducted the hearing on the Fair Labor Standards Act who said he believed we were adjusted in this country to a 65-cent level. Are we adjusted to a 75-cent minimum wage level?

Secretary TOBIN. Definitely.
Mr. McCONNELL. Do you know?

« ForrigeFortsett »