in order to prevent wholesale financial ruin among fruit growers. We urgently plead that you do your utmost to see that just hearings on this bill are held and that the threatened chaos and ruin of the fruit industry be publicly aired and reviewed. We could not survive under the conditions of this proposed new wagehour law. Representative CLARE E. HOFFMAN, MICHIGAN FRUIT SPONSORS. ST. JOSEPH, MICH., January 25, 1949. House Office Building: This organization, composed of over 400 members, mostly small business houses, objects to any action on proposed change in minimum-wage law without hearing from all segments of small business. Strongly object to proposed inva sion of retail field. Many veterans having established small businesses could be wiped out should this become law. Congressman CLARE HOFFMAN : ST. JOSEPH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NILES, MICH., January 26, 1919. Urge that you use influence to delay legislative action on increasing minimum wage until new hearings are held. WOOD NILES STEEL TANK CO. THREE RIVERS, MICH., January 26, 1949. Hon. CLARE HOFFMAN, House of Representatives: Kindly use influence delay legislative action increasing minimum wages until new hearings are held. Business conditions have changed since previous hearings over year ago. Hon. CLARE E. HOFFMAN, Congressman Fourth District: F. R. JUBB ALLEGAN, MICH., January 26, 1949. Inasmuch as previous hearings on minimum wage was 11⁄2 years ago we suggest delay legislation on this matter pending further hearings. DAVIES WHEELER, INC. ALLEGAN, MICH., January 26, 1949. Congressman HOFFMAN, Washington, D. C.: We deplore undemocratic action to throttle hearings on legislation vital to the people of this country. We oppose proposed increase in minimum wage as detrimental to the small-business man, the housewives, and odd-job men. The proposed increase in minimum wage deprives many of opportunity to add to family earnings, to learn trade, and to be independent. Forces them to accept Government dole. The proposed legislation would be ruinous to many infant businesses started by veterans. It is imperative that little people of this country be given a chance to earn their own living, that they be given a chance to be heard before being forced to rely upon charity, that you as our Representative fight for constitutional government as against socialism and bureaucracy. ALLEGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Hon. CLARE HOFFMAN, Washington, D. C.: HARTFORD, MICH., January 31, 1949. Proposed wage and hour bill will jeopardize food production. Hearings must be held on this bill. Provision for proper court review in Federal courts of every regulation and case must be provided in the law. Power of Secretary of Labor to be accuser, judge, jury, and prosecutor is drastically communistic and undermines the very foundations of democracy. Agriculture cannot operate on restricted hours or excessive wage scales. Nature works 24 hours per day every day and we farmers are working for Mother Nature. HILL TOP ORCHARDS AND NURSERIES, Hon. CLARE E. HOFFMAN: ST. JOSEPH, MICH., January 25, 1949. Urge you to use your influence to secure hearings for small business on minimum wage increase. WILLIAMS BROS. Hon. CLARE E. HOFFMAN, ST. JOSEPH, MICH., January 25, 1949. Understand it is proposed to change minimum-wage law to include small retailers whether engaged in interstate commerce or not. We cannot urge you too strenuously to oppose legislation that could be considered an invasion of the retail field especially as it applies to small operations such as ours. HON. CLARE E. HOFFMAN, RIMES & HILDEBRAND. SOUTH HAVEN, MICH., January 26, 1949. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: DEAR CONGRESSMAN HOFFMAN: I understand that hearings are being or will be held shortly, on bill S. 248-together with the amendment offered by Senator Pepper. Of course, this is a Senate bill-but if it passes the Senate or if a similar bill is before the House, will you please give the following facts consideration before voting on same? Small stores must pay about what the larger ones do or they cannot get competent help. I do not favor "sweatshop" labor-but the fact remains, that many retailers simply cannot pay a minimum wage of $0.75 per hour. That means for schoolboy help or similar jobs that entail no responsibility—and the more responsible jobs, of course, would demand a great deal more. Among other results, I am sure, would be a further trend toward higher retail prices if this bill goes through. Or-it would tend to cause many stores to cut down on the number of employees. Here in our town, the total number of people employed in retail outlets just about equals the number on the pay roll of our largest factory. I am writing a similar letter to both Senators from Michigan-and I trust you will use your combined influence against the above provisions of this bill. Very truly yours, B. H. JOHNSON. Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, while we are on that subject, I have a statement from the Oklahoma Restaurant Association which I would like to make a part of the record. Mr. LESINSKI. Without objection, the same will be made part of the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF OKLAHOMA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION CONCERNING RESTAURANT OPERATIONS IN OKLAHOMA This statement concerning restaurant operation in Oklahoma is made by Mr. F. C. Bacon, owner-operator of the Kennedy Luncheonette, 109 East Fourth Street, Tulsa. Mr. Bacon's qualifications to speak for Oklahoma's restaurant industry is based on his being the operator of a typical small restaurant, and as chairman of the Government affairs committee of the Oklahoma Restaurant Association, a nonprofit trade organization chartered under the laws of Oklahoma. Preponderantly, being more than 90 percent, Oklahoma restaurants are small, with the number of employees being fewer than eight persons. The latest report (November 1948) available from the Oklahoma Tax Commission shows 3,956 restaurants, cafes, and lunchrooms reported sales-tax returns paid amounting to $125,553.83. This figures just under $32 sales tax for each establishment, as an average, with sales amounting to $1,600 for the month and less than $54 daily sales. Undoubtedly, many of these places are bankrupt. and are out of business by now. Fundamentally, restaurants must sell at the lowest possible price to compete with the housewife. Oklahoma restaurants have done this to such an extent it accounts for the poor record of stability and is responsible in large part for the bankruptcies. There are few multiple operations in the State, restaurants being mostly one-unit enterprises. The public must be fed 7 days a week, day and night, including holidays. which causes lows and highs of operating costs. Many hours of restaurant operation are unprofitable. Any increase to restaurant operation, of necessity, will force menu prices up at a time now when the public is expecting and demanding living costs to come down. Food costs and labor cost are 75 to 80 percent of sales now. Lower prices are impossible unless operation overhead, food, and labor costs can be reduced. Added costs make lower prices impossible, which is a fact proven so many times that no more proof is needed because it is now a fact. With the two largest items of restaurant operating cost being food and labor, and neither showing declines of substantial amounts, any additional expense coupled with decreasing sales volume can bring only disaster. Despite efforts of restaurant operators to eliminate tipping, the public give gratuities which is not a factor in most other industries but does affect restaurant employees' pay, as does the giving of meals, and lodging in some cases. The State unemployment commission requires these extras to be included as wages when reporting for tax purposes. Restaurants purchase food and other supplies from local jobbers and wholesalers but in many cases from neighborhood grocers. Buying economies are not possible to most restaurants in Oklahoma. Legislation that affects restaurants brings strict pressure upon small business in every community. Since restaurants are a vital service this means community interests as well as economic considerations are involved. Oklahoma restaurants are overwhelmingly little business enterprises. The restaurant industry should not be included in Federal laws affecting interstate commerce setting hourly pay schedules becauses of the manner of the methods and history of doing business which differs from other industries. Uniforms, meals, lodging and other remuneration always have had more to do with restaurant wages than in other industries which are facts recognized by the United States Treasury Department for tax purposes. Unemployment is increasing. Any law that raises wages higher will undoubtedly increase unemployment. Employers experiencing decreasing sales volume cannot afford to increase overhead. When unemployment begins to multiply over the Nation as it has been doing for the past several months, common sense tells us this is no time to cause more unemployment by forcing employers out of the market because higher wages cannot be paid by restaurant operators. Higher pay schedules will force restaurants to operate with fewer employees. This statement represents the viewpoint expressed by many restaurant operators throughout Oklahoma for we believe Federal legislation as to wages and hours can result only in the closing of the majority of restaurants in the State. It certainly will result in a radically different type of restaurant operation in comparison with the restaurants as they now exist. Mr. LESINSKI. The next witness is Chester C. Thompson, president of the American Waterways Operators. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dletis Davis. I am assistant to Mr. Thompson. Mr. LESINSKI. You are taking the place of Mr. Thompson? Mr. DAVIS. Merely to offer his statement and to ask that it be included in the record. Mr. LESINSKI. Without objection, the statement will be part of the record. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Thompson was here, but he had to catch a train and could not stay, so he asked me to offer it in evidence. Mr. LESINSKI. Is there no other statement the gentleman wants to make? Mr. DAVIS. No. Mr. LESINSKI. Very well. (The statement of Mr. Thompson is as follows:) STATEMENT OF CHESTER C. THOMPSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC., WASHINGTON, D. C., ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 My name is Chester C. Thompson. I am president of the American Waterways Operators, Inc., a national association of domestic water carriers and operators serving the inland rivers, intracoastal canals and waterways, the bays, sounds, and harbors of the United States. The association maintains its principal office at 1319 F St. NW., Washington, D. C. It is my understanding that these hearings are being conducted generally on the basis of House committee print dated January 20, 1949, although several other bills to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 have been introduced and are now before this committee for consideration. Members of the association I represent are deeply concerned about the proposal contained in committee print of January 20, 1949, and in most of the other bills introduced on this subject, to amend section 3 (m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The organic act provides, under “definitions" in section 3 (m) thereof, that the term "wage"-paid to any employee, includes the reasonable cost, as determined by the Administrator, to the employer of furnishing such employee with board, lodging, or other facilities-if such board, lodging, or other facilities are customarily furnished by such employer to his employees. In the towing vessel and barge industry operating on the inland waterways and harbors of the United States, it has always been the practice to furnish vessel employees who are actually and legally seamen-with board and lodging. That practice is as old as the industry itself and goes back to the formation of this Republic. The committee print of January 20, 1949, and practically all of the other bills introduced to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, contain language which will amend section 3 (m) to except seamen (vessel employees) from the application of the original definition of "wage," and thus deny the inclusion of the cost of furnishing food and lodging to such employees in the computation of minimum hourly wages. The new definition would apply to galley help and waiters employed on passenger vessels, as well as to those employed in the actual operation of vessels. This new definition of “wage," providing that the furnishing of board and lodging to seamen shall not be used in determining minimum wages for such employees, appears to grossly discriminate against the water transportation industry. The vessel employees of this industry and the railroad dining car employees are singled out for this special treatment. Proponents of the provision state that in the case of seamen or vessel employees, board and lodging are furnished solely for the convenience of the employer-meaning of course the commercial vessel owner and operator. Why vessel owners should be considered in a different category than lumber, construction, and mining camp operators is beyond reasonable understanding. Certainly contractors and others who operate camps for the feeding and housing of their employees, do so for their own convenience, as much as and to the extent that commercial vessel owners and operators provide their workers with food and lodging while aboard such craft. The Social Security Board requires that the cost of food and lodging furnished seamen be included in the computation of social security taxes, and thus that has been a mandatory practice since the inception of social security and unemployment taxation. The United States Government itself includes the cost of furnishing board and lodging in computing wages paid its own employees. Those employed by the Corps of Engineers on dredges and other floating equipment are actually charged the cost of food and lodging furnished them, and the amounts of such costs deducted from their salaries and wages, which are fixed by civil service, wage boards, or other similar agencies. It is my understanding that other agencies of the Federal Government use the same procedure, when board and lodging are furnished employees who are obliged to be away from their homes in the course of their employment and work. Inland water transportation and harbor services are in continuous and aggres sive competition with other forms of freight transport, all of which are needed to maintain the national economy. Its employees are not underpaid, by any American standard, and a substantial number of them are covered by collectivebargaining agreements with the several maritime unions. In addition to being paid good wages and salaries, they are given liberal time off with full pay and are furnished plenty of wholesome, well-prepared food, and adequate sleeping and recreational quarters. The costs of furnishing board and lodging to employees should either be considered-or not be considered-in the computation of minimum wages; there is no justification for any discrimination among types and classifications of employ ment in this regard. The domestic water-carrier and operator industry believes that food and lodging furnished vessel employees actually constitute a portion of their wages and salaries. Thus the costs thereof should be considered in the computation of any minimum wages which may be established. This can be accomplished by striking out the proposed amendment to section 3 (m) contained in the committee print of January 20, 1949. Mr. LESINSKI. Now, we have one more witness, Mrs. Elizabeth Sasuly, Washington representative of the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, CIO. You may proceed, Mrs. Sasuly. TESTIMONY OF MRS. ELIZABETH SASULY, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO Mrs. SASULY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Elizabeth Sasuly. I am the Washington representative of the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, CIO. I have prepared my statement for the record, and I should like to direct my testimony to a couple of major points in it. Mr. LESINSKI. May I interrupt you there? Mrs. SASULY. Yes. Mr. LESINSKI. Do you want to make this a part of the record and then make a statement? Mrs. SASULY. Yes; I would like to make my written statement part of the record, if I may. Mr. LESINSKI. If there are no objections, the statement may be made part of the record.. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH SASULY, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, ON PROPOSED AMENDENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 The chief problems with which this statement will deal are (1) the discriinatory minimum-wage and overtime exemptions now granted to industries processing agricultural commodities and fish products under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and (2) the complete exclusion of workers in industrialized agriculture from the protection of the act. |