so that it would prohibit oppressive child labor in commerce even when there was no production of goods for commerce, and would remove this very indirect 30-day test which I think the Administrator must have testified to before this committee. The CIO agrees with the Secretary that it would be very helpful if he were given rule-making powers. A lot of criticism against the act has been that employers and employees did not know when the act applied, or exactly what it meant, and that was because there was nobody under the act that had any authority to issue regulations or interpretations which were to have any binding effect. If the Secretary were given this power, it would not be subject to any abuse, because it would have to be exercised under the Administrative Procedures Act, which this Congress passed a few years ago, and it would enable people to come to the Administrator or to the Secretary, present their problems, get a definitive answer, and be able to rely upon it without fear that if they did they would later be subject to any penalties or suit for damages. Mr. McCONNELL. Is it not a fact that if the Supreme Court gives great weight to the rulings and decisions of the Administrator, he would, in effect, be making a binding law by his regulations? Mr. LEVY. In the past, the Supreme Court has sometimes given great weight to the Administrator, and sometimes they have kicked him out of court. So you cannot be sure. Mr. McCONNELL. As a rule, they give great weight to the Administrator; they admit that. Mr. LEVY. They have said that. Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. Mr. LEVY. But there have been situations in which they have refused to accept on many occasions his interpretations. But I think we ought to realize that most statutes which the Congress passes indicate that they realize that you have to have an administrative agency to fill up these little gaps which you cannot legislate about, so that people can know what the law is. Mr. McCONNELL. There is some merit to your statement. Mr. LEVY. We also think that the Secretary's proposal that he should be given the right to collect back wages for employees is a good one. Most of the State labor laws provide that the Secretary of Labor can go in and sue to get back for the employees what they did not receive. I think it would be a great benefit to employers, because it would discourage the bringing of these suits for double damages. My experience has shown that in 99 percent of the cases-I think that would be accurate-if the employee receives restitution which the Department of Labor says is what is coming to him, he does not thereafter bring a suit for any liquidated damages. And it is only in those situations where the Department of Labor is not able to effect voluntarily at the present time the payment of restitution that you find these double-damage suits. In conclusion, I think that 10 years of experience under this act has shown that it is good legislation, good, not only for employees, but for fair employers and for the public generally. If it is to continue to fulfill its purpose, this 1938 act has to be modernized to meet the conditions of 1949. The bill before this committee goes a long way to improve it and make it adequate, and we have suggested some other changes which would help the improvement, and the CIO, there fore, endorses it and urges the changes which we have suggested so that the act may more adequately meet the needs of the people. Thank you. Mr. BARKIN. Mr. Chairman, may we have Mr. Levy's statement incorporated in the text, since many of the sections with which he dealt were not covered? Mr. KELLEY. Without objection, it will be done. Mr. BARKIN. Miss Miller will deal with two sections of this discussion which she has undertaken to study. Mr. KELLEY. Is Miss Miller's statement to supplement yours? Mr. KELLEY. Without objection, we will hear Miss Miller and then we will have discussion after that? TESTIMONY OF MISS VERA MILLER, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO Miss MILLER. My name is Vera Miller. I am research associate to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, and I am speaking on behalf of the CIO. This statement will deal with two specific considerations regarding the proposed revisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act: (1) The adequacy of the proposed minimum wage; and (2) the extension of coverage to retail and service workers. The purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as stated in the law itself is to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate * labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers. The adequacy of the proposed 75 cents to $1 minimum wage, therefore, must be evaluated in terms of a "minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers." Government agencies have been making studies of living conditions for many years. Between 1870 and 1900, more than 100 studies of family living were made by State bureaus of labor statistics, and as early as 1888 Congress instructed the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics to make such studies. Subsequently, several quantity budgets of goods and services were developed for special purposes. During the depression, the Works Progress Administration constructed an emergency relief budget for a family of four, representing a standard of living at the lowest economic level, the absolute minimum of commodities and services that a family must have to sustain itself. By far the most comprehensive work in this field was begun by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1945. Working under a directive of the Labor and Federal Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, the Bureau determined the annual cost of a city worker's family budget, including kinds and quantities of necessary goods and services, in accordance with standards prevailing in large cities. The family of four was composed of an employed father, a mother, and two children under 15. This city worker's family budget represents-and I quote the Bureau of Labor Statistics here- the estimated dollar cost required to maintain this family at a level of adequate living-to satisfy prevailing standards of what is necessary for health, efficiency, the nurture of children, and for participation in community activities. * This is not a "subsistence" budget, nor is it a "luxury" budget: it is an attempt to describe and measure a modest but adequate standard of living. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that in June 1947, the total annual cost of maintaining a family of four at an adequate level ranged from 3,004 to $3.458 in the 34 cities studied, as detailed in table 1. Adjusting these figures for the increase in the cost of living since June 1947, for which data are available, shows that in November 1948, it required from $3,064 to $3,579 for maintenance on the same level. When translated into hourly wages needed, it is clear that in no American city is an hourly wage of less than $1.53, earned 40 hours a week for 50 full weeks during the year, needed to maintain a family of four. The average needed in the 18 American cities for which November 1948 data are available is, in fact, $1.68 an hour. TABLE 1.-City worker's family budget, June 1947 and November 1948 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Calculated by dividing the total annual cost by 2,000 hours, i. e., 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year. Source: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Calculated by applying to the June 1947 data the percentage erase in the BLS consumers' price indexes after adjusting for the relation between the BLS city workers' family budget figures for March 1946 to June 1947, as compared with the increase in the consumers' price inder in that period. The June 1947 averages for the 18 cities for which November 1948 data were available were $3,238 a year and $1.62 an hour. In talking about an adequate standard in dollars and cents amounts, it is easy to lose sight of what these amounts mean in the ordinary, everyday terms of the American family living on this city worker's family budget. This budget has been described by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as neither a "subsistence" budget nor a luxury budget, but "an attempt to describe and measure a modest but adequate standard of living. Just how modest this standard is can be plainly understood when one realizes that this budget, with an annual cost of $3,365 allows the four-person family with two growing children less than 3 pounds a week of roasts, steak, chops, pork chops, and poultry and less than 2 quarts of milk a day. On this budget the employed head of the family buys one heavy wool suit every other year and an overcoat every 6 years; his wife buys two rayon dresses a year, one woolen dress every 5 years, and a heavy coat every 4 years. The allowances on certain items of children's apparel are such-rubbers or overshoes every other year, for example-that some "hand-me-downs" are obviously needed to fill the gaps, in view of the normal rate of growth of children of these ages. The wife does all the cooking, cleaning, and laundry without any paid assistance. As to recreation, the budget permits a motion picture every 3 weeks for the parents; one play, concert, or sporting event a year for each member of the family; and the purchase of only one book a year for the entire family. To support a family on even this "adequate" level, a man must earn $1.68 an hour. The proposed 75 cents minimum wage does not even meet the cost of the emergency relief budget constructed by the Works Progress Administration. In 1944, before the city worker's family budget had been developed, the research department of the Textile Workers' Union of America was assisted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in calculating the WPA budget at price levels then current. At that time the budget, exclusive of any allowance for taxes and savings, cost $1.415.36. Adjusted for the increase in the cost of living as measured by the BLS consumers' price index for the period from January 1944 to November 1948 the same budget amounts to $1,961.69 a year. A worker would have to earn 98 cents an hour, 40 hours a week for 50 full weeks during the year to meet the costs of even this emergency relief budget, a budget providing for subsistence at such a low level that if continued for any length of time it would endanger the life of the family, and described by the WPA Division of Social Research as "not approaching the content of what may be considered a satisfactory American standard of living." Some question has been raised as to whether one really ought to apply consideration of a minimum adequate budget for a four-person family to consideration of revisions for the Fair Labor Standards Act, because as we know from the 1940 census, only 17 percent of urban husband-wife families have two children. Without going into questions of national population policy, however, I think that it must be assumed that any minimum wage provided must be adequate so that the American population will at least maintain itself, and by very simple arithmetic this requires the marriage of two persons and the production of two children. I might say that the only adjustment made on this figure of $1,961.69 was the simple increase for the increase in the consumers' price index. Certain other adjustments should be made for changes in food-buying habits, and they have been made, I am sure, in the statement supplied by Mr. Barkin. To meet the requirements of even this emergency relief budget, which would amount to $1,961.69 at November 1948 price levels, a worker would have to earn 98 cents an hour, 40 hours a week for 50 full weeks during the year. I would like to point out that this 98 cents an hour would provide for a budget which is a subsistence budget at such a low level that if the family continued to exist on it for any length of time it would. endanger its life. I would also like to point out that this is a budget which was described by the WPA Division of Social Research as "not approaching the content of what may be considered a satisfactory American standard of living." Even this budget requires an average wage of 98 cents an hour, During the last 3 years a number of States and the District of Columbia have conducted surveys on the annual cost of a minimum adequate budget for a working woman with no dependents. Adjusting these figures for the increase in the cost of living since the dates the budgets were priced, it is found that a self-supporting woman with no dependents has to earn not less than 93 cents an hour, working full time the year around, to maintain herself adequately. TABLE 2.-Cost of maintenance of a self-supporting woman worker with no dependents 1 October 1948 for Colorado and New York; November 1948 for the State of Washington and the District of Columbia; December 1948 for Arizona, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Calculated by dividing the annual amount by 2,000 hours, i. e., 40 hours times 50 weeks a year. Does not include taxes, private insurance, or savings, items which account for at least 20 percent of the budgets of other States. All available facts prove that even an immediate 75 cents to $1 minimum is not an amount sufficient to assure the American standard of living. The city worker's family budget of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics calls for at least $1.53 an hour for the support of a four-person family at a modest level, while even a single workingwoman who is self-supporting and has no dependents must earn 93 cents an hour to maintain herself in health and decency. Even an emergency relief level of living now requires an hourly wage of 98 cents. The Congress of Industrial Organizations went on record at its tenth constitutional convention last year in favor of a minimum wage of $1 an hour. It is now supporting an immediate increase to 75 cents an hour with machinery for increases up to $1 an hour. An immediate 75-cent increase will do little more than bring up |