Mr. McCONNELL. No. They were the yardmen, engineers, switch tenders, yard masters, firemen. Mr. WIER. I think they are a split-off of Whitney's group. Mr. McCONNELL. That is right. Mr. PRINCE. The two principal brotherhoods representing yardmen are the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Switchmen's Union of North America. The organization mentioned is definitely not one of the so-called standard brotherhoods. Evidently, as Mr. Wier and this other gentleman said, this is some small offshoot. Mr. BURKE. Will the gentleman yield to a question right there? Mr. BURKE. I think it is germane to this discussion to have it here. Do you feel that the exemption provided for in the new section would split the operating group between the yard operations group, or the switching crews, and those who operate out on the iron? Mr. PRINCE. Generally, yes. Mr. BURKE. In other words, your classification to date has been operating and nonoperating, but this would set up another dividing line? Mr. PRINCE. That is true. Mr. BURKE. That is all. Mr. McCONNELL. I think I understand one part of this. Maybe we can clarify it this way. This group coming in consists of operating men. They feel that Mr. Whitney has not gone to bat for them, but has accepted the 48-hour week and they want to have a 40-hour week. I think that was the argument, as I recall it, from last year. It has been a year since it took place. Mr. PRINCE. I have no doubt you could find some little element in the industry that would probably want a 35-hour week, and some would probably like a 30-hour week, and some would probably not want to work at all. Mr. McCONNELL. Summarizing this, Mr. Prince, I very much like the idea of the management and brotherhoods getting together and agreeing on this thing, and if this provision in the new law would interfere with that, I would very much be in accord with not having that provision-that is, elimination of it. Beyond all that, there is a little sentiment in this for me regarding these employees. I do not come from that section; I come from Pennsylvania. But I had a colleague here on this committee, Tom Owens, who died, and Tom Owens said to me several times, "Sam, I wish you would do your best to preserve the interests of this group because I think they have been unnecessarily hurt." I said, "Tom, every chance I get I will bring it up and see that they get a fair deal all through this.' That is the reason for my additional inquiry here. Mr. PRINCE. I would be very glad to address myself to that if you wish, at this point. Mr. LESINSKI. You may proceed. Mr. PRINCE. I should say, Mr. McConnell, that the appropriate way and the way in which the overwhelming majority of the railroad employees in this country feel that a matter of this kind should be settled, is through collective bargaining through their elected representatives. If this group that you are referring to is dissatisfied, the dissatisfaction is really with the people who represent them. They are at perfect liberty to get representation which can present what they think are fair demands. If they think that they should not be disassociated from the nonoperating employees in the matter of the standard workweek, assuming that the 1,000,000 employees get the 40-hour week, which appears to be almost a certainty at this point, then those people have the right to make the same demand. They can get consideration for their demands under the Railway Labor Act. And the overwhelming majority of railroad employees and railroad. management feel that here is an area in which they can settle the matter between themselves with complete fairness and justice to both sides, and that there is no necessity for putting the Government into this. A rigid workweek would not be satisfactory. You have to work out all these adjustments. This emergency board was made up of people at least one of whom had a lot of experience in these matters, and they heard a lot of detailed expert testimony, and they recognized the necessity for this. Mr. McCONNELL. I do not want provisions of this proposed new bill to interfere with the collective-bargaining agreement, of the getting together of management and labor. I think that is an ideal way, to keep the Government out of it. It suits me. Mr. PRINCE. You asked whether they were going to settle this dispute. I am not at liberty to disclose the position being taken by the parties in those negotiations in Chicago. That is confidential. But, as I previously mentioned to you, both sides announced several days ago that they had asked the emergency board which heard this case to return in an effort to help them work out an agreement which would effect a settlement. I do not think there is any question but what a settlement will be reached. Mr. McCONNELL. That is satisfactory to me, Mr. Chairman. Now I have a letter from the Canners League of California. Without objection, the same will go into the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:) CANNERS LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA, Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, Chairman, the House Committee on Education and Labor, The House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The Canners League of California, representing approximately 86 percent of the fruit and vegetable canning industry in California, is strongly opposed to the bill presently before you for consideration to amend, among other sections, sections 7 (b) (3) and 7 (c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Such legislation would, without any possible justification for its doing so, penalize the entire canning industry in California by placing it in a highly unfavorable economic position. Large portions of agriculture in California would, as a direct consequence, be immediately and harmfully affected. We believe that this proposed legislation would have such far-reaching economic consequences that full consideration and hearings should be scheduled before you take any final action upon it. Yours very truly, CANNERS LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA, Executive Vice President. Mr. LESINSKI. I have a letter from the American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute. Without objection, the same will go into the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:) AMERICAN COKE & COAL CHEMICALS INSTITUTE, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, GENTLEMEN: The American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute is a trade organization, organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, whose business office is located in Washington, D. C., and whose purpose is to promote the interests of the coke and coal chemicals industry. Your committee has before it a bill which, among other things, clarifies the language of the Fair Labor Standards Act in respect to the regular rates payable by an employer to an employee for overtime. As you know the existing act has been interpreted by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor and by the courts to require the payment of overtime on premium time. The proposed amendment should, we believe, correct this interpretation and thus achieve the legitimate purposes intended by Congress in the original statute. We understand that management and labor are agreed that the amendment formulated by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor should be passed. To that end this institute hereby wishes to record its approval of the passage of an amendment which will eliminate payment of overtime on premium time. Very truly yours, SAMUEL WEISS, Executive Secretary. Mr. LESINSKI. Now, we have the Department of the Army here today. But as it is 12 o'clock we will recess until 1:30 and we will hear the Department of the Army as the first witnesses. I will have to announce this, that we will have to excuse Congressman O'Hara of Minnesota, Congressman Pace, of Georgia, and Congressman Phillips of California, and we will assign other times in the following days to come. Mr. WOOD. You mean they will not be on this afternoon? Mr. LESINSKI. We cannot put them on because we have five witnesses from the Army, and I think that may take several hours. So it is impossible to have the gentlemen sitting here and waiting while we may not be able to put them on, because we have two other witnesses, I believe, from out of town, and we will hear them. Then we will put the Members on either the following week or the week following that. Mr. LUCAS. We can put them on any time. They are here in Washington. Mr. LESINSKI. Yes, sir. General YOUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am a representative of the Department of the Army and I shall be the only person to testify. Mr. LESINSKI. We have five names here? General YOUNT. They are to be present, sir, but not to testify. We will excuse the Congressmen and we will give them other days. (Whereupon, at 12 m., a recess was taken until 1:30 p. m. of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION (The committee reconvened at 1:30 p. m., pursuant to the recess.) Mr. LESINSKI. The committee will come to order. STATEMENT OF HON. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE I have here some telegrams and communications I wish to enter into the record in regard to the minimum wage law as proposed by this committee, and will come before Congress. I feel that the majority of people in the Nation want this law, but these people represent some small businesses which I believe should be given consideration by the committee when this bill is reported out. Mr. LESINSKI. Is there any objection? If not, the same will be made a part of the record. (The telegrams and letters referred to are as follows:) HARLEY O. STAGGERS, CHARLESTON, W. Va. House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Proposed action putting restaurants under Federal Wage and Hour Act would be disastrous in our State, causing many bankruptcies and closing of eating places. Respectfully request that you use your influence to allow our committee to be heard before House Education and Labor Committee hearings which will be held week of January 31. Our committee is prepared to submit figures substantiating arguments against this action. Earnestly beg your cooperation. Please advise hearing date as soon as possible. WEST VIRGINIA STATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION. KEYSER, W. Va., January 25, 1949. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, Congressman, Second District: Am very much opposed to the new bill coming up on minimum-wage law, which would put me out of business along with thousands of other small operators. RALPH E. CASTEEL KEYSER, W. Va., January 25, 1949. Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: We understand that law to raise minimum wage will be put to vote before views of small-business men affected are heard. We ask that action be deferred until small business has had an opportunity to present facts. KEYSER, MINERAL COUNTY, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. CHESTER J. COMPTON, Executive Secretary. Congressman HARLEY O. STAGGERS, ELKINS, W. Va., January 25, 1949. Washington, D. C.: Our organization urges you to protest speedy action on law raising minimum wages without first giving small businesses a chance to be heard. This law if passed without a thorough study from all angles may affect our entire economic system. ELKINS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Representative HARLEY STAGGERS, CHARLESTOWN, W. Va., January 26, 1949. House Office Building: Imperative that you act to defer all wage-increase measures until small business is consulted and assured of proper representation. CHARLESTOWN RANSON Board of TraDE, Hon. HARLEY STAGGERS, MARLINTON, W. Va., January 27, 1949. House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: On behalf of our 80 or more telephone companies in West Virginia who have exchanges of less than 500 subscribers, we ask your support and influence in opposing the changes in our present 500-station-exchange exemption in the wageand-hour bill as proposed by the Lesinski and Thomas bills. The loss of this exemption would force the companies to increase rates from $1 to $2 per month or curtail the hours of service. This would cause a loss of one-fourth or more of the subscribers, which would have a bad effect on the business and social life of the communities served. We are sure you want the telephone companies of our State to expand and improve service in the communities served and not be forced to curtail it, and for this reason will vigorously oppose any changes in our present 500-station exemption. WEST VIRGINIA INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, J. M. BEAR, President. Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. ELKINS, W. Va., January 17, 1949. DEAR SIR: I am enclosing a statement which I have prepared for the independent telephone association relative to minimum wage and 500-station exemption as it applies to the Tygart Valley Telephone Co. This little rural telephone plant has been operated by myself since 1932, and You can readily see what will happen to it if the minimum wage is raised to 75 cents with no exemptions. Maybe there is no place in present-day economics for the rural independent telephone set-up. Maybe they should be absorbed into the Bell system and let the ones who are making the money from city telephone operations assume the responsibility of furnishing service to the poor rural sections. At any rate, I shall be out of the telephone business if the present arrangement is changed to comply with what labor is requesting. Yours very truly, BYRON WOODS. INFORMATION NEEDED BY THE USITA FOR USE AT CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON LEGISLATION RELATING TO 500-STATION EXCHANGE EXEMPTION AND TO INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE 1. Name of Company: Tygart Valley Telephone Company. (a) Address: Mill Creek, West Virginia. JANUARY 15, 1949. 2. Number of Stations: (a) Co. Owned, 275. (b) Switched, 25. Total, 300. 3. Number of Exchanges: (a) Under 500 Sta., 1. (b) 500 to 999 Sta., None. 4. Gross Operating Revenues, 1948, $17,702.50. 5. Operating Expenses, 1948 (including taxes and depreciation), $17,352.50. 6. Total Investment in Plant and Property, $30,000.00. 7. What is your present hourly starting wage for telephone operators? (a) At exchanges having less than 500 stations, 35 cents. (b) At exchanges having from 500 to 999 stations, |