5. It shall be the duty of the Wool Textile Work Assignment Board to adjust such controversies appealed to it, making appropriate studies of any existing or proposed work assignment involved in the controversies. 6. The Wool Textile Work Assignment Board shall have power to require the production of records, the appearance of witnesses, and the presentation of such other evidence as is necessary in connection with its investigation of work assignments. 7. The Wool Textile Work Assignment Board shall issue findings of fact upon any question of work assignment referred to or studied by the board. When it finds that assignments require excessive effort, it shall recommend that they be reduced. 8. In controversies involving introduction of new machinery, the Wool Textile Work Assignment Board shall have power to set tentative work assignments pending investigation. 9. In controversies involving changes in work assignment without change in machinery, product. or materials-that is, through greater specialization-the Wool Textile Work Assignment Board shall have power to suspend any change in work assignment pending investigation, but not to exceed a period of 30 days. 10. The Wool Textile Work Assignment Board should have power to require the suspension of any strike or lockout pending investigation of the issues of any labor controversy over work assignments. 11. The Wool Textile Work Assignment Board may act as an arbitration board or create a special arbitration board, upon the voluntary agreement of the parties, for any labor disputes in its field. In such arbitrated cases, both parties shall agree in advance to abide by the decision of the board. 12. Each mill in the industry shall post in places accessible to all its employees. a summary of the regulations on work assignment prepared by the Wool Textile Work Assignment Board. VIII. CODE REVISIONS EMBODYING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS Work assignments in the wool textile industry have been frozen to those pre vailing on July 1, 1933, ever since the code was adopted 20 months ago. This provision has undoubtedly afforded some safeguard to the workers in the industry, especially in the past 5 months, when an agency has existed for handling complaints of its violation. It has not, however, afforded labor any protection against excessive loads which happened to be in effect before July 1, 1933. It has worked some injustice to employers whose load on July 1, 1933, happened to be low. As a matter of fact, this code provision was intended as a temporary measure "until adoption of further provisions of this code that may prove necessary to prevent any improper speeding up of work." This temporary provision should now be eliminated from the code and there should be added such other provisions as are necessary to provide for the functioning of the Wool Textile Work Assignment Board, as outlined above. Respectfully submitted, WOOL TEXTILE WORK ASSIGNMENT BOARD, RUTH RETICKER, Employees' Representative. APPENDIX II WOOL TEXTILE WORK ASSIGNMENT BOARD, To Manufacturers in the Woolen and Worsted Industry: In accordance with Executive Order 6878 (enclosed), the Wool Textile Work Assignment Board requests information concerning loom assignments prevailing in your mill. This information is for the confidential use of the Wool Textile Work Assignment Board. To simplify the task of supplying information we enclose Nine copies of a weavers' loom-assignment sheet. (Where a concern has branch mills, copies are enclosed for each branch mill.) One copy filled out as a sample showing the type of entries desired. This Eight blank copies, one to be filled out for each loom assignment in your mill, scuh as 1 nonautomatic, 2 nonautomatics, 4 automatics, 6 automatics, etc. allows copies to be retained for your files; if additional copies are needed to report the loom assignment prevailing in your mill, we shall be glad to furnish them. Two copies of a fixers' loom-assignment sheet, with sample entries, one copy to be retained for your files. We should appreciate receiving your report on your loom assignments, in the enclosed franked envelope, by March 23, 1935. Sincerely yours, WOOL TEXTILE WORK ASSIGNMENT BOARD. Fifth, as to excess production: The wool-textile industry produces most of its goods against actual orders, it being the exception when materials are manufactured for stock. Excess production, therefore, exists only rarely when a lessening of demand occurs too suddenly to be immediately reflected in curtailed manufacturing schedules. Exhibits E and F, attached, show the figures for production, shipments, and inventory of yarns and piece goods, the two largest items produced by the industry. In both cases the graphs show that the inventories have not followed the wide swings in manufacturing activity, but have remained at a low point as compared with average weekly billings, indicating that production is geared closely to demand. The wooltextile industry does not chronically overproduce due to the relatively high value of its product and because of the style factors involved. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 26 23 30 27 25 29 27 24 1935 28 26 23 28 N.A.W.M. The second false assumption in the legislative findings of fact is as to the effect of the alleged evils on interstate commerce, and consequently as to proper remedy. Subparagraph 3 of section 1 (a) states that— in recent years this flow of interstate and foreign commerce in textile products has substantially declined in value and amount. The succeeding subparagraph (4) goes on to state that * * exces such effects * * have been caused directly and primarily by * sive competition in lowering such wage rates and other labor costs, by overexpansion and excess capacity of productive equipment in the industry and by denial of the rights of employees to organize and bargain collectively. Competition which lowers wages is to be deplored wherever it exists and excess productive capacity is an undisputed evil but may I point out that neither of these conditions interferes with interstate commerce. The direct result of both is to decrease prices which, by widening the market, increases rather than diminishes commerce. Bear in mind that we are not here concerned with the profitableness of business but only with its flow in interstate commerce. The statement of policy outlined in section 2 (b) declares that it is among the purposes of the act (1) to deny the use of the channels of interstate commerce for the perpetuation and accentuation of such evils. Aside from the question of whether or not the alleged evils exist, it will be obvious that to the extent to which they do exist, they are neither perpetuated nor accentuated by reason of the fact that channels of interstate commerce are utilized. If the use of such channels can be legally restricted it is conceivable that such restriction might be used to permit the operation of textile factories on alternate Tuesdays only, but that is a far different thing from saying that the use of the channels of interstate commerce perpetuates or accentuates any present evils. I believe the exact opposite to be the case. To illustrate the falsity of this purported statement of fact it is only necessary to contemplate the effect upon the industry of operating on the basis of producing within any State only the material which is to be consumed therein. If it is the real purpose of the bill, as therein stated, to remove the impediments to the free flow of interstate commerce in textile products, the means provided for its enforcement directly contravene that purpose. Under this bill textile products or matter relating thereto may not be transported through the mails unless such products are manufactured under a license issued by the commission. Licensees alone may sell their products to the United States or any of its departments or instrumentalities. Any person selling to the Government must agree, as a condition precedent to such sale, that he will not purchase any textile product not produced by a licensee. No railroad may receive or renew any loan from the Government or any of its agents unless it shall agree in writing to boycott all unlicensed textile products. Similarly, banks and financial institutions are deprived of the right of receiving such governmental assistance except upon agreement with the Government to boycott any depositor engaged wholly or partially in the textile business, unless he is a licensee. Such coercive provisions are unprecedented. But the point here made is that they prevent and interfere with interstate shipments, whereas the object of the bill as stated is the fostering and advancement of the stream of commerce between the States. It would seem necessary to show in what respect the refusal of the Federal Government to accept goods for interstate shipment could possibly foster commerce between the States. Section 12 specifically prohibits the use of the United States mails for the transportation of textile products or matter relating thereto unless such products are manufactured under a license issued by the commission. There is no reason why any shipment of textiles by mails is, in itself, an evil or has an element of risk, as distinguished by the mailing of obscene matter, the use of the mails to defraud, or the shipment of explosives. The effect here sought is an indirect one. If the privilege of the mails is to be strictly limited to those who can be certified as having complied with all Federal statutes, the Post Office Department would soon supersede the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice as the guardians of our national morality. It is doubtful if the Constitution contemplated or the courts will permit any such extension of the Federal power over the mails. It is clear that, in a guise of an attempt to promote interstate commerce, the bill seeks to regulate, by extreme coercion, the relations between employer and employee and other details of operation. I have already pointed out that, in the wool textile industry, the legislative findings as to alleged abuses of this relationship are false. But in addition, so drastic are the regulations and so broad the powers given that even if the abuses existed, the bill would be completely unworkable, would break down the industry which it purports to regulate, and would injure those whom it seeks to protect. The bill contains detailed drastic provisions covering the operation of textile establishments which are not sound or proper and to which I want to call your specific attention. We particularly protest the proposal to give power to a Government commission-this is in section 8 (b) to publish information concerning and to investigate from time to time the organization, business, conduct, practices, and management of any person engaged in the textile industry. There is no valid reason for conferring any such sweeping powers to publicize the details of the operation of a private business. Such authority, if utilized at all, would be used largely to harass and annoy or would be employed as a political reprisal. I call attention also to section 15. The obvious doubt which must exist in many minds as to the constitutionality of this measure is made manifest by the proposed requirement that— no license shall be issued to any person unless said person shall agree in writing as a precedent to the issuance, receipt, and continuance in force of such license to comply with the provisions of such license. The only possible inference to make from this provision is that the framers of this measure hope to make it possible to hold the licensee to a written agreement even though the bill itself might later be held to violate the Constitution. The proposed bill provides, in section 16, for a minimum wage of $15 per week. This would amount to an increase in present weekly minimum rates as follows: Northern woolen mills, 7 percent; southern woolen mills and northern cotton mills, 15.4 percent; southern cotton mills, 25 percent. These weekly rates, however, are to apply to a 35-hour week against the present 40-hour week. This entails a further advance of 14.3 percent. If we assume that those above the minimum should be advanced by the same amount as those receiving only the minimum, the contemplated advances in hourly rates of pay then become: Northern woolen mills, 22.4 percent; southern woolen mills and northern cotton mills, 31.8 percent; southern cotton mills, 42.8 percent. Comment on these percentages, I think, is superfluous. Section 16 (g) prohibits the deduction of fines under any conditions. It is perhaps unfortunate but it is none the less true that in many instances the only way to secure careful work is to levy fines for careless operation. It is impracticable to draw the line properly between a bonus system and a fines system. No valid reason has been ad 56725-36-24 |