do not believe that a minimum wage, below which you cannot fall, is going to adversely affect the employment situation. Mr. KEARNS. You remember that. Mr. LUCAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Raub. You have been very helpful to the committee. The next witness, gentlemen, is Mr. Joseph A. Clorety, Jr., vice chairman of the American Veterans Committee. Following Mr. Clorety the committee would be glad to hear Mr. Harmon K. Howard and Mr. Charles Haseltine. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. CLORETY, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN, Mr. CLORETY. My name is Joseph A. Clorety, Jr. I am vice chairman of the American Veterans Committee. Some days ago I sent up 75 copies of my testimony. If that is not available with the committee members I would be glad to supply additional copies. On behalf of the American Veterans Committee (AVC), I wish to i express our appreciation for the opportunity to present the views of the membership of AVC on the pending amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act to this committee. We wish to commend the committee for moving so promptly to consider appropriate amendments to an act which has required congressional revision for several years. AVC has two reasons for appearing here to endorse the proposed amendments set forth in the committee print. At the time this testimony was prepared, Mr. Chairman, the committee print was all that was available. I have inspected the provisions of H. R. 2033 and with respect to the testimony I would make no material change in the remarks which I am offering here. The first is to represent the direct economic interests of substantial numbers of our members who are affected by this act and the pending amendments, either as employees or as employers. Those who are wage earners obviously benefit by raising the wage floor from an obsolete 40 cents an hour to a somewhat more realistic although not entirely adequate 75 cents an hour, especially if the Congress retains provision for raising the minimum wage to $1 an hour as rapidly as public-industry-labor committees find it economically feasible to do so. They are likewise benefited by broadening the coverage of the act. Those of our members who are employers and representatives of management likewise derive economic benefits from the pending amendments. They include substantial numbers of men who desire to pay and do pay, to the full limit of their ability, wages which assure the ability of their employees to live decently. They pay wages in excess of 75 cents an hour, and are entitled to protection from the competition of that small percentage of eniployers who pay substandard wages. Our second reason for supporting the pending measure is that in line with our basic philosophy-that is, "citizens first, veterans -PCond"--we believe that the amendments set forth in the committee print not only benefit our own members, but promote the national welfare, strengthen the national economy, and provide the basis for raising the standard of living of that group of citizens who need assistance in attaining a minimum health and decency budget. he delegates to the Third National Convention of the American rans Committee adopted a platform which advocated universal minimum wage under Federal and State laws of not less than nts an hour; e extension of the Fair Labor Standards Act to cover all workers; e enforcement of the principle of equal pay for equal work, regardless of sex, color, and geographical location; e strengthening of the Labor Department; is relevant to point out that whereas approximately 51 percent of votes cast in their national convention favored calling for a 75 s an hour minimum, 48 percent favored a $1 minimum. The there drawn was on the basis of the minimum wage which deles believed should be applied universally and immediately. The ision for raising the minimum wage to $1 by means of industry nittees was not considered by our convention, but the entire deration of our position on this legislation was such that I feel endorsement of the provisions of the committee print represents wishes of the overwhelming majority of the members of the rican Veterans Committee. ith respect to the convention call for extending the Fair Labor dards Act to cover all workers, a plank to which there was no ficant opposition, we endorse the provisions of the committee which broadens the coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act as p toward the objectives set forth in our platform; we earnestly that the Congress will not see fit to reduce the coverage contemd by the amendments in their present form. e proposal to centralize authority and responsibility for admintion of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the Secretary of Labor, maintaining the Office of Administrator of the Wage and Hour sion, appears to be one desirable step toward strengthening the r Department. We trust that the Eighty-first Congress, pursuo the platforms adopted by all the major political parties, will gthen the Department of Labor wherever and whenever possible e end that the Department will be fully adequate to perform ions vital to the public welfare. hall be happy to set forth more fully the position of the American ans Committee and the reasons therefor if the committee so s. If not, I wish to reiterate our appreciation for the opporto present the AVC recommendations and to urge that the s set forth in the committee print and in H. R. 2033 receive your able recommendation at the earliest date consistent with the r discharge of your legislative responsibility. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Clorety. Do you have any questions, Sarden? LUCAS. Do you have any questions, Mr. Smith? y questions, Mr. Kearns? r. Clorety. ine? o gentlemen will be the Honand Congressman from the district of Florida. Instead of Mr. Rogers, Mr. Joe Ferris will be heard. You will be the next witness, Mr. Ferris. Which of you gentlemen will testify? Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Haseltine and myself. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Haseltine, will you begin by introducing yourself for the stenographer? TESTIMONY OF CHARLES HASELTINE, OWNER AND MANAGER OF PACIFIC STEVEDORING & BALLASTING CO., SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Mr. HASELTINE. I am Charles Haseltine, contracting stevedore. As an individual, I own and actively manage the Pacific Stevedoring & Ballasting Co. My father was also a contracting stevedore operating under the same name in the port of San Francisco. He took over the business from his father in 1895. My grandfather established the business in the port of San Francisco in 1850. He was a sea captain who brought his own ship, with his own cargo, around the Horn from Massachusetts to California. As soon as he dropped anchor, his crew joined the gold rush and he was faced with the prob lem of unloading the vessel. Many other vessels were in the same predicament: so he started in the stevedoring business. The firm today is one of the 100 oldest business establishments in the State of California. I took over the business at the age of 21, when my father died in 1929. Its net worth was approximately $2,500. For 20 years it has taken my full time, and I have plowed back everything I could spare. Today the business is worth approximately $125,000. This may not be big business, but it looks pretty big to me. It represents 20 years of hard work. I am now facing a number of overtime-on-overtime suits. In one of the suits the walking bosses employed to supervise longshoremen are the plaintiffs, and in two other cases I am sued by ship and dock clerks. These suits not only threaten my business assets, they also jeopardize my home, my investments, and, as I shall explain later, my wife's separate property. The overtime-on-overtime issue complicated by the 6-hour day, was one of the difficult problems that we faced in negotiation with the ILWU, CIO, last year. Following the Supreme Court's decision on June 8, we entered into negotiations in the hope that we could solve the overtime-on-overtime problem through changes in the language of our agreements. It soon became apparent that the men wanted to maintain their established overtime pattern, and that they were not ready or willing to give up the 6-hour day and the 30-hour week. The men have received overtime for work after 5 p. m. and before 8 a. m. for at least 30 years, also overtime for Sunday and holidays. They were given Saturday as an overtime day during the course of the war when this was recommended and ordered by the National War Labor Board. The 6-hour day was placed in west coast longshore contracts following the long strike of 1934. This strike was settled through the estab lishment of the National Longshoreman Board by President Roose velt. The Board was given the power to write the agreement for both employers and the men. After extensive hearings up and down. coast, the Board concluded that the men's demand for the 6-hour y was fair and reasonable and was in accord with the Administran's policy of "spreading the work," as exemplified by the NRA. cordingly, the 6-hour day was put in our contract. Having won these favorable overtime conditions through years of ective bargaining, with a few strikes thrown in, I can well appree why the longshoremen are unwilling to give them up. I used to longshoreman. If I still was I would be fully as unwilling to give n up myself, particularly for some reason as hard to understand vertime-on-overtime. n any event we were unable to reach an agreement with the union the overtime-on-overtime issue before the strike began last Sepber. 'hen full negotiations were resumed in November, and while the ke still continued, one of the most difficult problems was overtimevertime. The problem helped to prolong the strike by making an rim return to work impossible. After some time, we did arrive temporary stop-gap solution. This solution prohibits an emer from working a longshoreman more than 1,000 hours in any eek period. It puts a heavy penalty on working men more than ous a day, or more than 56 hours a week. It is equally unsatisory to the employers and to the union. Many of my employees seriously disturbed by what they regard as an unwarranted curent of their work opportunities. It has a definite effect on their faction with their jobs, and therefore on the quality of their work. hole series of problems could have been avoided if the Supreme t had upheld traditional overtime methods of pay in the stevedorndustry. e believe that this Congress is aware of the immediate necessity suring that there shall be no future interference in the ways collective bargaining solves the problems of overtime work. We you wish to do nothing that would in any way create or extend or dispute in the stevedoring industry. The language in H. R. nd H. R. 2033 indicates your clear intention to provide a solution he future. Other witnesses, more qualified on the technicalities I am, are presenting to you several other unique west coast proband are submitting various suggestions as to the language of corrective legislation, and the necessary intent that should be in your committee reports. I do not wish to repeat what the s have said. I do wish to concur in the necessity of legislation guage in your committee report that will recognize the special ems raised by our traditional overtime provisions. The first is -hour day. The second is to insure that the use of the words ght time" instead of one of the magic words, "basic," "normal," -gular," in our agreements will not take us out from under legal tion. Third, the legislation must assure us of the obvious fact our contract overtime provisions have been established in good and are so to be treated under the law, although men very frely work more than 6 hours a day and others start work at 7 p. m. v I would like to turn to the severe problem of retroactive effect. may have thought that only east coast employers are faced with uptcy. Well, I am in no better position. While I may not have as large operations as some who have testified before you, the bankruptcy court will leave me in exactly the same position as it will leave the other fellows. Like them, my financial legs are only just long enough to reach the ground. I am now faced with suits by ship clerks and by walking bosses. The walking boss case included all employees "similarly situated.” I am sure of one thing; as to overtime-on-overtime liability, all of the longshoremen that I have employed are "similarly situated" to the walking. bosses. They were all paid under the same overtime provi sions; if I owe to one, I owe to all, There is another aspect of these lawsuits which I believe should be brought to your attention. With the exception of one suit filed on behalf of some ship clerks in San Francisco, every overtime suit on the Pacific coast and all those in Hawaii have been brought by the firm of Gladstein, Anderson, Resner and Sawyer or their associates. Moreover, at the trial of a group of these overtime-on-overtime cases in San Francisco in June of 1947, the Department of Justice, which was defending the suit, introduced in evidence the contract between this firm and the plaintiffs included in those suits. This contract provided that if the claim of any plaintiff was settled before commencement of the trial a fee of 10 percent of the amount collected would be paid; if the claim was settled after commencement of trial but before judgment, a fee of 15 percent of the amount collected would be payable; if the suit was prosecuted to judgment and the judgment paid or settlement made, the fee was to be 20 percent of the amount collected, plus costs. The contract further provided that if the court awarded attorney's fees and the amount awarded was less than the fee provided by the contract, the balance under the contract was to be deducted from the moneys collected. Still further it provided that the firm was to advance all costs and expenses in connection with the case and that such costs and expenses were to be repaid out of the moneys collected, in addition to the fee provided. I have attached to my statement a photostatic copy of the lawyer's contract which was introduced in the record in that case. One of the largest sources of my liability under these suits arises out of the extensive carloading and stevedoring operations that I carried on for the Navy under my carloading contract. To do the work under this contract I had a steady work force which grew from two dozen to approximately 300 men during the war period. This crew was supplemented from time to time to carry peak demands for the Navy. It was necessary to use these men more than 40 hours during the week; to have not done so during the war would have been a dereliction of duty to country. All of us saw eye to eye on this matter. However, we were the only private employer on the waterfront with a large, steady crew of longshoremen. It now appears that this factor has reacted to increase tremendously my potential liability for overtime-on-overtime. The men worked for us steadily because they liked their work; they stayed with us even though the expressed policy of their union was to rotate all long-horemen and car gangs. Our efficiency was increased by steady gangs: but it now appears, so was our liability. As a result of our regular use of these men for long hours to meet the needs of the Navy, I am now faced with an overtime-on-overtime |