interpreted than they are now. We oppose any such extension of the coverage, for these reasons: 1. Increase of costs for retail feed dealers, and where the retail establishment manufactures some of the feed it sells at retail, cannot be passed on to anyone except the farmer-feeder himself, and at a time when farmers are suffering a price squeeze. Increased costs must be passed on to the feeder, or be absorbed by the retailer himself. 2. Retail feed establishments face the same economic pressures faced by farmers. Government supports the prices of grains that make up our prepared feeds, but does not support the price of finished livestock and poultry. Thus the feeder is in a squeeze and may attempt to avoid using prepared feeds by using makeshift feeds available on the farm, or just use less desirable feed. For many months the farmer-feeders have suffered an unfavorable price ratio in feeding, and for the same months the feed distributors have faced a slump in business and an increase in accounts receivable on their books. It is probable that this condition will continue for some time, as long as feeders are in this price-ratio squeeze. The feed retail establishment will not be in a position to absorb further costs. 3. In a retail feed establishment one of the strongest objections to expanded coverage and loss of exemptions would be the overtime pay, since farmer-feeders work long hours and expect long-hours service from feed dealers. Also, to put retail feedstore employees on overtime pay, while farm labor is not, would be a discrimination within the same labor supply. 4. We are obviously in a period of continued and expanding inflation, when the political pressure is to adjust individual and group incomes upward. While this is increasingly a penalty against persons of fixed income, it is questionable whether other persons or groups profit when overall inflation balances any of their short-time gains. We point out that increased inflation of the sort inferred in a proposal to extend coverage of this act, will be of immediate harm to farmers and farmer-feeders. EXHIBIT Names of grain and feed trade associations, State and regional, which are affiliated with the Grain & Feed Dealers National Association : American Dehydrators Association Arizona Seed & Grain Association Arkansas Grain & Feed Dealers Association California Hay, Grain, & Feed Dealers Association California Warehouseman's Association Central Retail Feed Association (Wisconsin) Colorado Grain, Milling & Feed Dealers Association Distillers Feed Research Council Duluth Grain Commission Merchants Association Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants Farmers Elevator Association of Minnesota Farmers Elevator Association of South Dakota Federation of Cash Grain Commission Merchants Associations Georgia Feed Association Grain Elevator & Processing Superintendents Association Illinois Feed Dealers & Mixers Association Illinois Grain Dealers Association Indiana Grain & Feed Dealers Association Kansas Grain & Feed Dealers Association Kentucky Grain & Feed Association Michigan Bean Shippers Association Michigan Feed & Grain Association Midwest Feed Manufacturers Association Minneapolis Grain Commission Merchants Association Missouri Grain, Feed & Seed Association Montana Feed Manufacturers & Dealers Association Mutual Millers & Feed Dealers Association (New York) Nebraska Grain & Feed Dealers Association New Mexico Grain & Feed Dealers Association Northwest Retail Feed Association (Minnesota) Oklahoma Grain & Feed Dealers Association Omaha Cash Grain Commission Merchants Association Pacific Northwest Grain Dealers Association Panhandle (Texas) Grain & Feed Dealers Association Texas Grain & Feed Dealers Association Utah Feed Manufacturers & Dealers Association Washington State Feed Association Western Grain & Feed Association (Iowa) Wyoming Grain, Feed & Seed Dealers Association COLORADO RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, Hon. GORDON L. ALLOTT, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ALLOTT: Our information in Colorado is that George Meany, president of AFL-CIO, and other organized labor witnesses presented a grossly unfair picture of wage and working conditions in retail stores when testifying before the Senate Labor Subcommittee on the proposal to extend coverage of the Federal wage-hour law to employees of retail stores and the service trades; also that their statements went unquestioned by any member of the committee. This report comes as quite a surprise to us. Whether or not the report is wholly factual we sincerely hope that as a member of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare you will see that the situation of retailing is properly presented to the committee. The possibility of the subcommittee reporting a bill extending coverage to retail establishments operating more than 4 stores or having an annual sales volume of $500,000 or more is quite disturbing. Such a change in the law would simply represent an attempt to divide and conquer, with the smaller type of retailer slated to be brought under the act through subsequent amendments. There are many reasons why retailing or any part of it should not be made subject to the provisions of the so-called Fair Labor Standards Act. Retailing, regardless of size, is local in character. Operations of a store are essentially local whether individually owned or a part of a chain. Each outlet is a local retail establishment in itself, serving its own trading area. It does not compete directly with stores in other states or even in other cities. A retail store competes only with stores in the same town and often only with stores in the same part of town. Retailing offers helpful employment for untrained and part-time workers, including college and high school students, housewives, and others who find it desirable to add to the family income. The opportunity for such employment would be seriously curtailed if retail stores or any group of them were brought under the Federal wage-hour law. A recent survey by the State industrial commission in connection with hearings on the question of minimum wages for women and minor employees in retail stores in Colorado showed a very healthy wage situation and one which, when all conditions are considered, retail employers can fully justify. With kindest personal regards, I am, Cordially yours, GEO. A. FLANNIGAN, Manager. STATEMENT OF HAROLD ANGIER, CALIFORNIA GRAPE AND TREE FRUIT LEAGUE I am the general manager of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League with offices at 717 Market Street in San Francisco, Calif. The California Grape and Tree Fruit League is a nonprofit industry service organization whose grower and shipper members produce, harvest, pack, and ship, approximately 85 percent of all the California fresh deciduous tree fruits, berries, and grapes shipped to market in interstate and foreign commerce. The average annual volume of California fresh deciduous tree fruits, berries, and grapes moved in interstate and foreign commerce is over 750,000 tons, 85 percent of which is marketed in the territory east of the Mississippi River. At the present time this important California industry is faced with what is commonly called the cost-price squeeze. The high cost of labor, material and transportation is responsible. Consumers are resisting the prices being asked for fresh fruit with the result that the volume sold is declining due to a shift in consumer purchases to competitive items. Fresh fruit is a highly perishable commodity. It must be shipped to market when it is ready and sold for whatever price it will bring. A large proportion of the fresh fruit moved to market in interstate commerce is handled on consignment for the grower's account. Under these circumstances all of the charges for packing, loading, cooling, transportation and selling, are deducted from the grower's account sale. This means that the grower is the one who is directly affected by increased costs even though such costs are paid by a commercial packer and shipper or by a cooperative association. Commercial packers and shippers and cooperative associations are subject to compliance with the minimum wage unless they qualify under the "area of production" exemption. We believe that Congress in its wisdom intended to protect the grower's position by providing the "area of production" exemption, but the parenthetical phrase (as defined by the Administrator) has resulted in a definition of "area of production" which is most unsatisfactory to the fresh fruit industry and agriculture in general. The solution is to amend the act with a sensible definition of the "area of production." The present definition promulgated by the Administrator is most unsatisfactory and has created severe hardships and discrimination. There are many country towns in California located in fruit producing areas with populations over 2,500 and some over 50,000. For the Administrator to establish a rule that a fresh fruit packing establishment located in a town of 2,500 population is subject to the minimum wage and another performing the same services for the growers in the same producing area located over one airline mile from that town is discriminatory and without sound reason. We urgently request full consideration of an amendment which would change section 13 (a) 10 by striking out, after the words, "area of production," the parenthetical phrase "(as defined by the Administrator)" and adding to this section a practical and reasonable definition of the "area of production." support the definition proposed by the United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association after consultation with various commodity and agricultural representatives. This definition is as follows: We "Area of production" means, with respect to livestock, poultry, or any agricultural or horticultural commodity, the area or areas (the geographical boundaries of which shall be expressed in terms of counties or States, or counties and States) which may be ascertained and designated by the Secretary of Labor, in which such agricultural product is produced in commercial quantities; and such contiguous counties in the same or adjoining States, if it is customary for the product to move from the county in which it is produced to an establishment located in any such contiguous county for the performance of any of the operations in section 13 (a) 10. In the absence of a reasonable and workable definition of the "area of production" the only relief afforded the fresh fruit and vegetable packing industry (a seasonal industry) is the 14-week partial exemption 7 (b) (3) and the 14week total exemption 7 (c) from payment of overtime. We believe that when Congress provided these exemptions it was intended that they be interpreted by the Administrator in a logical and reasonable manner so that employers who were forced to work their employees over 8 hours per day in order to avoid spoilage of highly perishable fresh fruits and vegetables would not be penalized for reasons beyond their control. This industry cannot afford the facilities or secure the personnel to handle peak season volume without working more than an 8-hour day. The Administrator now interprets the 7 (c) exemption to apply literally to the act of packing and operations directly incident thereto to the extent that the handling of a few packages packed at another location precludes taking the 7 (c) exemption during the work week. From a practical operating standpoint this interpretation is utterly ridiculous and is causing extreme hardship. In many instances fruit packed at other locations (at times on the grower's farm) can not be received, cooled and loaded, without causing the packer and shipper to lose his 7 (c) exemption from overtime in the entire establishment for the workweek. We respectfully urge that the 7 (c) and 7 (b) (3) exemptions in the act be retained and that a definition of the 7 (c) exemption be added which will preclude the Administrator from preventing its use by unreasonable and unworkable interpretation. Another problem confronting this industry is the refusal to provide a reasonable basis for employment of beginner or "learner" fresh fruit packers where the packing operation is in subject employment. This industry concurs in the statement of Ernest Falk of the Northwest Horticultural Council on this subject and seriously urges that the act be amended to provide a method whereby beginners or learners can be employed in packing fresh fruits at a sub-minimum wage. Elimination of the agricultural exemption section 13 (a) (6) would wreck this important California industry. Farming and fruit growing is not adaptable to the 8-hour day and 40-hour week. Agricultural production is a living thing which can not be shut off and on like a factory. Work in the orchards and vineyards must be done on schedule and in season. Mother Nature cannot be controlled. Living conditions for farmworkers in California are excellent and wage rates are as good as, or better than, in any other place in the country. Although conditions of employment are extremely favorable for farmworkers in California, there is a shortage of workers during the peak harvest season. This industry supports the agricultural exemption and is opposed to any modification of it. STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. LEE HALL, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman, this statement is submitted on behalf of the National Coal Association, which is the trade organization of bituminous coal mine owners and operators. The production of the members of the association amounts to more than two-thirds of all the commercial production of bituminous coal in the United States. The coal industry endorses the principles of S. 1437 and urges the enactment of this proposed legislation. This bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide that the term "employee" does not include an individual who is not an employee under the usual common-law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship. This definition of the term "employee" is already contained in the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act. At the present time it is virtually impossible to ascertain, with any degree of certainty, whether certain independent contractors will be determined to be employees within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Even the Labor Department itself is unable to furnish criteria with any substantial degree of certainty or clarity. This causes confusion which can and should be avoided. The confusion is confounded by the difference in definition between the Fair Labor Standards Act and other labor legislation. Frequently the owner of coal reserves will contract with an independent contracting firm, such as a road-building organization which owns heavy earth-moving equipment, for the extraction of the coal deposit. Under these circumstances, the independent contractor then hires employees and proceeds with the work. Under the present state of the wage-hour law it is often impossible to ascertain whether the employees of the independent contractor are in turn the employees of the owner of the coal deposits. Again, it is not unusual in the coal-mining industry for the mine operator to engage trucking firms to transport the coal either to the coal tipple or from tipple to a railhead. Here, again, S. 1437 would enable the mine operator to determine whether the owner-drivers are their employees for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The "total situation" test which presently prevails under the Fair Labor Standards Act is so vague that it contravenes the historic principle that we should have a government of law, not of men. LAW OFFICES KING, NOBLE & SONOSKY PAUL H. DOUGLAS, WASHINGTON, D. C., May 15, 1956. Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The National Retail Tea & Coffee Merchants Association last year filed a statement with the subcommittee in support of the retention of section 13 (a) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act which, among other things, exempts outside salesmen from the minimum-wage and maximum-hour provisions of the act. The association's statement appears on page 1228 of part II of the transcript of the hearings before the subcommittee. The reasons for the association's position are as valid today as they were last year. In order to conserve the time of the subcommittee the National Retail Tea & Coffee Merchants Association requests that the statement filed last year be incorporated in the present hearings by reference. If the subcommittee has any questions regarding the views expressed in that statement, we will be more than pleased to have a member of the industry appear before the subcommittee. Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the course of last year's hearings on proposed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. I was afforded an opportunity to file a statement with the subcommittee on behalf of the Northwestern Lumbermen's Association. This association represents the 2,300 lumber dealers in the States of North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota. My statement on behalf of the association appears on page 883 of part II of the transcript of those hearings. The reasons for retention of the present wording of the retail exemption are equally as valid today as they were last year. The association has requested me to remind the subcommittee of its membership's opposition to any change in the present wording of the exemption for retailers as expressed in section 13 (a) (2) of the act. To conserve the time of the subcommittee I suggest that the views expressed in my statement of last year be incorporated in the current hearings by reference. If the subcommittee feels, however, that it would like to question me regarding the views expressed in that statement, I would be most happy to appear before the subcommittee and answer any questions raised. Sincerely, Mr. STEWART E. MCCLURE. JOSEPH T. KING. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS. Staff Director, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MCCLURE: On behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers I am writing with regard to a number of bills which are the subject of hearings before the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. It is our understanding that these hearings are a continuation of the hearings on most of the same bills held by the subcommittee in the spring of 1955. At that time this association was represented by Thomas O. Moore, Esq.. 78155-56-41 |