I think that I have touched briefly on the points that I wanted to make. We, too, like the American Federation of Labor, have had our differences with the Secretary of Labor, as to interpretations of the Walsh-Healey Act. For example, we find that while there is provision in the law requiring that all bidders have a certain amount of experience-I think they must be manufacturers or dealers in some of these products these contracts frequently go to people who are not in the industry at all, and they go to people who don't know how to bid, who don't know what is involved in the work. They take it for a very low price, and then discover that they are breaking their necks.

In the meantime they have hurt the legitimate parts of the industry which have the workers, the facilities, the plants. We have felt that that section of the law ought to be interpreted a little more strictly than it has been in the past. But in spite of whatever differences we have, and whatever criticism we may make of the Walsh-Healey Act, we feel that it recognizes a fundamental basic principle that sweatshop conditions should not be permitted to return, or be permitted to exist in our industries, and that everybody be given a fairly decent opportunity, whether large or small, to exist in our economy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I am a little surprised at both of you, the A. F. of L., and CIO, and your attitude toward the Secretary of Labor. I thought he was your friend. You all have taken occasion to say that he administered this act in a very unfriendly way.

Mr. LEWIS. I would say compared with some others he is certainly our friend.

Senator FULBRIGHT. The other day I though he said he was with you heart, mind, and soul, all the way.

Mr. MASON. It is just honest difference of opinion.

Senator FULBRIGHT. All of you, it would seem to me, have shown a rather ungrateful, unappreciative attitude toward him. He came up here the first day and went all out for Walsh-Healey, and you all kick him in the pants.

Mr. LEWIS. I hope it will not be construed as being derogatory. As compared with others, he is our friend. We know that surveys are made before the determinations are adopted, and there are real differences of opinion within our industries, and among the industries. We have never considered a difference of opinion as grounds for enmity. Senator FULBRIGHT. I have always considered him to be your friend. That is why it rather surprised me, the attitude you all have taken. Do you, Mr. Lewis, approve of the recommendation Mr. Barker made yesterday-he did not make it yesterday, he had already made it before the hearing, but he related the incident, or his position with regard to including fringe benefits, under Walsh-Healey determinations, and escalator clauses?

Mr. LEWIS. Well, I believe that it would help narrow the gap a little bit, to the extent that it exists, and, as a matter of fact, as the unions come in they get these things anyway and are coming into more places, so it might be better to do it and equalize conditions. Senator FULBRIGHT. You would support that contention.

Do you also support the finding that shops should be closed shops or union shops?

Mr. LEWIS. No; I do not think it is necessary for the Government to decide that question. Under the law, they cannot have a closed shop. So far as a union shop is concerned, we would rather it is true of our organization-convince the workers that it is their job to be members of the union, and prove it by actual experience. Senator FULBRIGHT. Is that your position, Mr. Mason?

Mr. MASON. We would certainly like to see all Government purchases carry a union label. However, we do not think it should be done through legislation.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Then you would not recommend that the Secretary of Labor include within his determinations, under WalshHealey, that the companies must be union shops?

Mr. MASON. No, sir, I would not.

Mr. LEWIS. That would be pretty much my feeling. When you first asked the question, Senator, I thought you were referring to the general question of open shop.

Mr. MASON. We would rather do that through collective bargain-ing.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I didn't know. I thought under the WSB finding, you would also like the Secretary to find in the Walsh-Healey determinations that they must be union shops to get any Government contracts.

Mr. MASON. No; we would like to confine our methods

Senator FULBRIGHT. Would you also approve that he find in his determinations or that he require, I should say, escalator clauses, and other fringe benefits, in addition to wages?

Mr. MASON. No; I think that is a matter for collective bargaining, and I do not think we need any Government interference in that connection.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Then you would not agree with Mr. Barker's position on that.

Mr. MASON. Personally, I would not. The American Federation of Labor has not taken any position on that as yet, but personallyI am giving you my own opinion-I think it is a matter for collective bargaining.

Mr. LEWIS. I am stating also my own opinion on it.

Senator FULBRIGHT. You cannot commit your organization?

Mr. MASON. It has never been discussed, so I would rather hold it to my own opinion.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you have anything further, Mr. Seidman? Mr. SEIDMAN. No, Mr. Mason has made the statement on behalf of the A. F. of L.

Senator FULBRIGHT. All right, gentlemen, that will close the hearing, but first I want to put in the record a telegram from Mr. John C. Lynn, legislative director of American Farm Bureau Federation, in support of the amendments, and here is a statement that Senator Douglas from Illinois requested that I place in the record, a statement by Elizabeth Magee, of the National Consumers League, in opposition to the amendments.

(The material referred to follows:)

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 19, 1952.

Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

American Farm Bureau Federation urges approval of Fulbright amendments to Walsh-Healey Act. Believe change in conditions since act was enacted, particularly extent to which Federal Government has become major buyer in many industries, warrants approval amendments.

JOHN C. LYNN, Legislative Director, American Farm Bureau Federation.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH MAGEE, GENERAL SECRETARY, NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE

I appreciate the opportunity extended to me by the Committee on Banking and Currency to appear today to present the views of the National Consumers League on the amendments to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act proposed by Senator Fulbright.

The National Consumers League for many years has urged child labor, minimum wage, safety and health, and other fair labor standards for the workers who produce the products that we buy. To promote these objectives, the league has long been active in working for the enactment of State laws on these subjects. We have also been very much interested in the development of fair labor standards by the Federal Government. Because of our very real interest on behalf of the consumers for fair labor standards, we have been very much concerned by the amendments which have been introduced by Senator Fulbright.

Let me say at the outset that I do not feel that it is incumbent on the National Consumers League to go into the technicalities of the legislative history of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act or the technicalities of interpretation of the law or of the Fulbright amendments. We are, however, most genuinely concerned about results, and the results of the Fulbright amendments, as we see them, would be most unfortunate.

The first amendment proposed by Senator Fullbright would require the setting of minimum wages on the basis of cities, towns, villages or other minor civil subdivisions. This is the approach taken in the Davis-Bacon Act for construction contracts. In that law, such a provision makes sense because construction is performed in a specific, predetermined, definite city, town, village, or other minor civil subdivision; a determination for such an area gives the same, uniform minimum wage standards to all competitors, and the contract goes to the most efficient bidder, not to the employer just because he pays the lowest wages.

Supply contracts are a different story, as the Senate Labor and Education Committee realized in drafting the bills which became the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. A contract for men's shirts for example, may be performed in Massachusetts, or New York, or Tennessee or in any one of many other States. Within each of these States there are many factories in many different cities, towns, villages, or other minor subdivisions where the work could be performed. All of these factories in these towns may be, and often many of them are in direct competition for the same contract. The work may be done in any one of many places. Each of these places may be in direct competition with each other, yat under the Fulbright amendment, each of these places may have a different minimum wage, even though there may be only a single plant in such an area. We are convinced that if the Fulbright amendment on locality were adopted we would take a long step backward to the days before the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act when companies with the lowest wages would be able to get Government contracts solely because of their inferior working conditions.

The second Fulbright &mendment would have the effect of eliminating mcst coverage of the Public Contracts Act by charging the present open-market provision. Now, we have no objection to the exclusion of supplies which the Government goes out and buys in the open market. We are not proposing that the Walsh-Healey Act be made retroactive to provide later corcitiers to apply to goods which have already been manufactured, and I understand that the act has generally been interpreted as not applying to work which the contracter has already completed before a contract is awarded. Products which are to be manufactured to specification after the contract is let are quite differert. These products ought to be covered by the Wa'sh-Healey Public Cortrects Act. Only a strained interpretation of the usual meaning of "open market" would exempt such products.

The Fulbright amendments would exempt "purchases of such materials supplies, articles or equipment of standard type and construction as are usually sold in the open market to purchasers generally, regardless of the method of procurement used by the Government."

Except for armaments and munitions, special machinery, and experimental materials, it would appear that the great bulk of Government purchases are "of standard type and construction" and sold "to purchasers generally" so that this amendment would apparently elimirate coverage of mest contracts in most textile, apparel, food, paper ard paper products, and other consumer-goods industries.

I want to stress that the well-being of our children is promoted by the protection of the Walsh-Healey Act of the minimum wages of their parents, thus making it much less necessary for the children to leave school early to go to work. It also enables the parents to provide better care and better homes for their children through protection of the father's earrings.

The effects of this second Fulbright amendment go far beyond the minimumwage provisions. This amendment would eliminate the protection of the child labor and safety and health provisions in the very industries and areas where such protection is most needed. Boys and girls 14 and 15 years of age have been found working on Government contracts in factories manufacturing shoes, boxes matches, clothing, and other products. In many cases, the employment of these boys and girls had extended over a long period. The Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act is the only Federal legislation through which bad safety and health conditions can be corrected in manufacturing industries. The act has materially helped to reduce industrial accidents and disease and their appalling cost in life, efficiency, and well-being. We feel that any action which would sharply reduce the scope of these provisions as the Fulbright open-market amendment does, is not in the national interest and ought to be rejected.

The Fulbright amendments would also make the Administrative Procedure Act applicable to actions taken under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. This is a highly technical field and we have not studied the details of the Administrative Procedure Act. We would urge the committee, however, in its consideration of this amendment to be very cautious lest it encourage obstructive litigation by substandard employers.

The National Consumers League believes that the Federal Government has a positive, moral obligation to see to it that the products it buys are made under decent working conditions. Substantial repeal of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, as would result from the Fulbright amendments would be a long, backward step away from this obligation.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible-I did not have time between the notice of this hearing and today to gather certain statistical data showing the distribution in our industry, and what the effects have been on wages. Would there be time in which to submit that in writing?

Senator FULBRIGHT. How long would it take?

Mr. LEWIS. A few days.

Senator FULBRIGHT. No, I do not think there will be time.

This closes the hearing. The committee agreed-if you would supply us with that, we can use it as an exhibit, but it could hardly be in this record.

Mr. LEWIS. Could it be submitted and used as an exhibit?

Senator FULBRIGHT. We can use it as an exhibit, if you submit it by Friday.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, I have here letters addressed to Senator Maybank, chairman of the committee, from our International Chemical Workers Union, and the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.

Now, if these letters are not already in the record, I would like to offer them to you.

Senator MAYBANK. They may be, but if they are not, we will ask the reporter to include them.

(The letters referred to follow:)

INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION-AFL,
Akron 3, Ohio, May 17, 1952.

Hon. BURNET R. MAYBANK,

Chairman, Senate Banking and Currency Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: In behalf of the 100,000 members of the International Chemical Workers Union, I must protest vigorously against the proposals affecting minimum wage determination under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act which have been submitted to the Senate Banking and Currency Committee for consideration in connection with the Defense Production Act. Enactment of any proposal which would require the Secretary of Labor to base minimum wage determinations for defense contract work on wages prevailing in a city, town, or village would have adverse effects upon our economy and upon defense production, and is not in accord with any acceptable concept of equal treatment for all groups, since it discriminates against certain employers and workers.

The proposal which would exempt from minimum wage determinations products customarily bought on the open market would prove particularly harmful to thousands of members of this organization. Many items which are manufactured by members of our organization are sold on the open market as well as to the Government for defense purposes. Among these commodities are photographic equipment and supplies, paints and varnishes, and drugs, medicine and toilet preparations. Approximately 40 percent of our membership are employed in plants manufacturing these products.

Because of their far-reaching effects, it is not sufficient to consider these proposed revisions solely in terms of the dollars and cents cost to the defense program. Minimum wage determinations made heretofore under the Walsh-Healey Act have had effects far beyond raising minimum wages in plants producing for Government consumption. Inevitably, raising the wage standards in plants holding Government contracts has also had the beneficial effect of raising the standards in plants not producing for the Government. In many cases, minimum wage determinations have been the only protection for the millions of workers who do not belong to labor organizations. In considering any proposal which would permit a reduction in determined minimum wages, it is necessary to realize that wages in nondefense producing plants would also be reduced. Thus, the proposals to revise the method of minimum wage determination and to exempt products sold on the open market could provide the wedge necessary to usher in an unhealthy period of downward pressure on wages which was characteristic of the sweatshop era, and it would lead to wide differentials in the standards of living of the various sections of the country. Neither condition is conducive to obtaining the maximum effort necessary to carry out successfully our defense program.

The existence of low wages and low standards of living in certain sections of the country is no excuse for writing into law a method of perpetuating or worsening this condition. Such action would be contrary to the original purpose and intent of the minimum wage provisions of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act.

The workers of this country are already carrying a disproportionate share of the cost of the defense program. The effect of the proposals before your committee would be to shift more of this burden onto the shoulders of the working people. Heretofore, such shifting has been accomplished primarily through higher prices and higher taxes. Now it is to be accomplished through a reduction in wages in low-wage areas. Is the profit margin on Government defense work also to be reduced in these low-wage areas?

Enactment of the proposals would place at a disadvantage many employers who are conscious of their obligations to their employees and are willing to pay decent wages, and it would be extremely detrimental to a large number of working people. The disadvantages far outweigh any advantages the proponents claim for their proposals. On the other hand, in its years of operation the present method of determining minimum wages on Government contract work has proved beneficial to the workers, to the employers, and to the Nation as a whole.