Many of these dealers are located in small towns and rural areas where customers make purchases early and late in the day as well as on Saturday. Likewise, building contractors make purchases at irregular hours. Most retail employees enjoy stable employment under the present system but wage-hour coverage would endanger that stability. It is obvious that overtime premiums, increased minimum wages, extra recordkeeping, interrogation of employees by inspectors, plus lack of flexibility of operation will result in added operating costs. This in turn can only mean one thing— increased costs in home building and other types of construction. This could result in a decrease of home building which is one of the major industries in America today. It is our belief that the sale, use, and storage of building materials cannot be construed as interstate commerce and we respectfully urge that the wage-hour law remain as it now stands. It is our desire that this letter be placed in the record of the hearings. JOHN J. LAVENGOOD, Secretary. KNOTT HOTELS CORP., New York, N. Y., May 31, 1956. Hon. H. ALEXANDER SMITH, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR SMITH: It has come to my attention that there is a proposal before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Subcommittee to extend the $1 an hour minimum-wage law to retail and service employees. This would have little or no effect on the hotel and restaurant business in some of the larger cities in this country but would have a very serious one in most localities. My company operates a sizable number of hotels and restaurants in several States, including New Jersey. With respect to those in New Jersey, I should like to point out that for many years the hotels and restaurants have been exempt from the State minimum-wage laws. The compliance with a law which requires a payment of $1 an hour would, in my opinion, work a hardship on the employees themselves for it would possibly mean the elimination of tipping. Many waiters, waitresses, bellboys, etc., receive far in excess of $1 an hour. I venture to say that the unions would be the very first to complain if the tipping system were discontinued. You are probably aware of the fact that these tips, received by our employees, are considered to be income to them and are subject to income tax. If the tipping system were not abolished it would be necessary for every operator of a restaurant or hotel to increase their prices to pay the higher wages. This can only add to the problem of inflation and could have a far-reaching effect; employees of other companies who patronize restaurants for luncheon, etc., would be demanding higher wages because of increased costs. I sincerely urge you to oppose any change which would extend this coverage to service industries. Sincerely yours, WILLARD E. DODD, President. RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND, INC.. Senator LISTER HILL, Chairman, Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Senate Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: The Restaurant Association of Maryland, Inc., would like to go on record as opposing any change in the existing status of the minimum wage and hour law, now being reviewed by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee. We insist that the retail exemption be retained in its present form and urge that this request be made part of the subcommittee's report. Very truly yours, TALBOT H. WALKER, President. Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS, MOSES KAHN STORES, Baltimore, Md., May 23, 1956. Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Committe on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: It is our sincere wish that the retail exemption be retained in its present form, due to the fact that if our overhead goes any higher it will only effect the price of merchandise and in a great many cases might close us up, we can't take it. Please use this letter as a part of the subcommittee record. Very truly yours, Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS, JEROME KAHN. THE HECHT Co., Baltimore, Md., May 23, 1956. Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: I respectfully urge that your committee retain the retail exemption in its present form as the marketing structure of this country is a sensitive organization. A removal of the retail exemption will cause great dislocation of associates in the industry and will be harmful to American marketing and production. I further request that this letter be made a part of the subcommittee's record. Respectfully submitted. Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS, ROBERT H. LEVI, President. ROSENTHAL'S, Baltimore, Md., May 19, 1956. Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: We being in the smaller store group are appealing to your committee to leave the retail exemption in its present form, and that this letter become part of the subcommittee records. We have been struggling for some time, and to eliminate the exemption would be very harmful. Your very truly, MELVIN H. WIDERMAN, President. BUILDING MATERIAL MERCHANTS OF GEORGIA, Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL and United States Senators, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATORS: I hope this finds you well and happy. I am unhappy because I understand that the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee has begun hearings on proposals to extend the coverage of the Wage Hour Act to include some retailers. Evidently, this is a "foot-in-the-door" maneuver which, if successful, may soon lead to the elimination of the section 13 (a) (2) exemption for all retailers. Will you please give serious consideration to any such proposals and to the following reasons why retailers should not be covered: 1. Most of the retailers do not substantially affect interstate commerce nor the wage scale of the manufacturers who supply the goods. 2. In most cases only the receiving and perhaps some office personnel could be brought under the act and this would not warrant the expense of enforcement. 3. If covered, a large portion of the retailers would confine their purchases and sales within the State and thus would not be subject to the act. Their lower costs would enable them to seriously damage if not totally destroy those competitors who would be subject to the act if it is amended as proposed. This would create extremely unfair competition and be a very heavy blow, below the belt, to small local business concerns. 4. Enforcement of the act on the retailing industry would require an army of wage-hour investigators so large that it could easily make the Labor Department more powerful than the Congress. Also, the independence taught these retailers in our schools is so strongly imbedded that many good citizens would unwittingly become confused lawbreakers. It is beyond their conception of law for the Federal Government to inject itself into strictly local small businesses. They will not long tolerate being taxed for such governmental infringement. 5. Coverage would seriously impair the services of the retail building material merchant to the consumers. He must serve the needs of his customers in his respective locality and must conform to local conditions and requirements. He can't change the fact that farmers and other workers must buy on Saturdays and before or after work hours on other weekdays; that contractors and builders must have access to supplies at unusual hours due to weather conditions and because otherwise their workmen would be idle while waiting for deliveries. This will increase the cost of construction. 6. The retail building material merchant's principal business is service and knowledge. He cannot operate on a restricted schedule of hours. He may be able to allow a siesta after lunch but their employees must be there when the customers need their services. 7. Obviously, it is in the public interest that the retailers exemption be retained. If you will kindly have placed in the record of the committee the enclosed copy of this letter and request their consideration of these facts, we will appreciate it very much. With the best of good wishes, Cordially, JOSEPH G. ROWELL, Counselor. SAVANNAH, GA, May 15, 1956. Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: It is my understanding that the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee has started hearings on proposals to extend coverage of the Wage-Hour Act to include some retailers. If maneuvers are successful they would lead to elimination of section 13 (a) (2) exemption for all retailers. Please give serious consideration to any such proposals and my reasons why retailers should not be covered. 1. The majority of retailers do not seriously affect interstate commerce or the wage scale of manufacturing plants. 2. If covered, this could cause a large portion of the retailers to confine their purchases within the State, which would then be exempt from the act. 3. Unfortunately the retail building-material merchant cannot control the need of his customers and must govern himself according to local needs. This alone creates a long working week, thus causing a hardship because he has to be on hand to serve the public or pay for this service to be performed at an excessive wage scale. 4. Past experience will tell you that any retail operation, whether it be retail building-material merchants, filling-station operators, grocery stores, clothing stores, and thousands of others that come under this category would have to close their doors if put to such test were the retail exemption eliminated. Please place in the record of the committee a copy of the enclosed letter and request their consideration in retaining the retail exemption which I am sure will be of more value to our economic structure than the changes now proposed. Thanking you in advance for anv courtesies rendered, also wishing you good health and a successful administration. Yours truly, C. B. MIKELL, Director, Building Material Merchants of Georgia. Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE, THE DE JARNETTE SUPPLY CO., Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. GEORGE: We understand that the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee has begun hearings on proposals to extend the coverage of the Wage-Hour Act to include some retailers, which if successful, may soon lead to the elimination of the section 13 (a) (2) exemption for all retailers. Will you please give serious consideration to any such proposal and to the following reasons why retailers should not be covered: 1. There is very little interstate commerce affected nor the wage scale of the manufacturers who supply the goods. 2. Some of the retailers will confine their purchases and sales within the State and thus will not be subject to the act. Their lower costs would enable them to seriously damage or destroy those competitors who would be subject to the act if it is amended as proposed. This would create unfair competition which is not healthy. 3. It will also cause the Labor Department to increase the army of investigators and we are sure that the act could not be properly enforced. 4. The building-material merchant is a servant of the public and it is very necessary that they be allowed to serve the public without every restriction being placed upon them. It is very important to the public's interest that retailers exemption be retained. Will you kindly have placed in the record of the committee the enclosed copy of this letter and request their consideration of these facts, we will appreciate it very much. Yours very truly, B. W. FLEMING, General Manager. WILLIAMS BROS. LUMBER CO., INC., Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL and Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIRS: We understand that the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee has begun hearings on proposals to extend coverage of the Wage and Hour Act to include some retailers, which might lead to the elimination of the section 13 (a) (2) exemption for all retailers. We would appreciate your consideration to opposing any retail exemptions. We feel that elimination of retail exemption would cause some of the problems outlined below: 1. By virtue of intrastate buying some retailers would have a definite competitive advantage over retailers who could not avoid interstate buying. 2. Every local condition pertaining to retail hours vary, and it is difficult to conceive that these local habits could be successfully changed in order to comply with the shorter hours. 3. It is certainly obvious that the price of retail goods would increase substantially and the elmmination of the above would certainly be contrary to the public interest. We would appreciate if you would place letter in the committee records. Your very truly, R. W. WILLIAMS, Secretary and Treasurer. PEEK-HIGHTOWER LUMBER & SUPPLY CO., INC., Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR GEORGE: I have become very much concerned about the proposals to extend coverage of the Wage-Hour Act to include retail employees in that the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee has opened hearings on the proposals. This maneuver on the part of pressure groups seriously concerns me because I feel that it is against our public interest, and because: 1. It would create another era of unnecessary inflation and thereby reduce the purchasing power of the dollar, thus would considerably further jeopardize the security of elderly people whose old-age income was provided for before the devaluation of the dollar. Thus additional hardships would exist. 2. It would in many cases reduce the take-home pay of employees, because of the time-and-half-time rate over 40 hours, as employer cannot pay the extra rate and be competitive. 3. It would unnecssarily further incerase the tax burden of we taxpayers, because of the army of inspectors required to enforce. 4. It would further greatly reduce apprentice training of younger and inexperienced personnel, which is grossly unfair to our youth of today. 5. It would mean that the Government would further encroach upon the liberties of our free-enterprise system to the extent that the retailer could not continue to operate as a free citizen, but would become a subject of an unreasonable department of our Government. 6. It would place the small retailer, if eventually covered, in a position of no legal defense on unintentional violations, becase any hearing before the Wage and Hour Division would always be against him, and he could not afford the expense of going to the Supreme Court. 7. Retailers cannot streamline working hours of employees as can the industries, without seriously affecting their services to the general public; neither can the retailer control the buying hours of the retail customer nor their habits; thus extension of the coverage would grossly and unreasonably inconvenience both the customer and the retail merchants. 8. The average retailer knows his business does not substantially affect interstate commerce, and thus by being forced under the act would create a feeling of utmost resentment toward the Congress and the Government (there is already too much of this feeling for our national security-we need no more). 9. Then, it would create another unethical "black or gray" market by those people who try to get by without paying their share of taxes (including income) and thus make the honest taxpaying citizen suffer for his share of business, because these unethical operators could easily undersell a merchant covered by the act. In conclusion, I believe that the Congress of this great Nation is too smart to yield to pressure groups such as ascended on Washington most recently, but will give consideration to the public welfare of all the citizens by maintaining our free-enterprise system of economy. And I respect the wisdom of the Members of the Congress more than that of the university official who recently released a 368-page report on this question. There is enclosed an extra copy with the hope that you can place it in the record of the committee, which will be appreciated. With my best personal regards, DEAR SENATOR AND FRIEND: Our Texas association begs of you to positively oppose any attempt to eliminate the present retail service exemption. Please place this request in the hands of Senator Douglas for entry into the records. Sincerely thanking you, Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, R. J. SLAGLE, Executive Secretary, Treasurer. TEXAS RETAIL JEWELERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR AND FRIEND: As president of the Texas Retail Jewelers Association, Inc., I am writing you at this time to request that you oppose any attempt to eliminate the present retail service exemption. It would be appreciated if you would place this request in the hands of Senator Douglas for entry into the records. Yours very truly, DOLPH MILLER, President. |