332 The CHAIRMAN. I do not rule out this examination, Mr. Hayden. You can go on with it. Mr. HAYDEN. I think it may be more expeditious for Mr. McGregor to go on in his own way. Mr. DAVENPORT. Right on this matter, may I ask him a question?. Mr. DAVENPORT. Are you in a general way familiar with the other shipyards around over the world? Mr. McGREGOR. Not outside of this country, except in a general way. Mr. DAVENPORT. Is there any country in the world where the men are limited to eight hours' work? Mr. McGREGOR. I am certain, absolutely certain, on that point. No, sir; there is none. Mr. DAVENPORT. If such limitations were put on the men in our shipyards that would be discriminating in favor of other shipyards against our own? Mr. MCGREGOR. I do not know how it would affect the yards in this country. Mr. DAVENPORT. Because it requires everything that goes into a Government vessel to be manufactured in that way. Mr. MCGREGOR. It would discriminate in this way, and surely we are badly enough discriminated against now in the time that it takes to turn out a battle ship here now as compared with other countries; and that is not due to any inferiority on the part of the workmen, because they are able to turn out as much work as the men of any other country, but it is due to conditions that exist here in this country. Mr. HAYDEN. And your plants are well equipped here? Mr. MCGREGOR. Our plants are very well equipped; very well equipped. Mr. HAYDEN. But the delays in the prosecution of the naval work are very largely due to departmental methods? Mr. McGREGOR. Yes, certainly. To bring this down to an eighthour day would lengthen the time required to build a ship, and would materially increase the cost. Mr. HAYDEN. Take a battle ship of 16,000 tons, the construction of which is now undertaken by most yards in thirty-six months. How much would the reduction from a nine-hour day to an eight-hour day increase the building period? I mean, now, the reduction to an obligatory eight-hour day, no overtime being permitted? Mr. McGREGOR. It would be more than the ratio of eight to nine. Mr. MCGREGOR. More than that; a good deal more than that. figured that up when we were taking up this question last night, of We an eight-hour day, and it comes, as we figured it, to from 18 to 22 per cent. Mr. NICHOLLS. What is that, time? Mr. McGREGOR. The cost. Mr. NICHOLLS. The cost? Mr. MCGREGOR. Yes. The reason for that is that we have a plant that cost so much money, and if we can operate that plant for ten hours a day, we can get ten hours' efficiency out of it, but if we operate it only eight hours a day, we can get only eight hours out of it. In other words, the invested capital is entirely idle; and not only the invested capital and the organization, which is something entirely outside of the men, paid by the day, but in addition to that the cost of running the yard what we call the overhead burden, the necessary operating expenses that are to be maintained there from day to day, whether there are 1,000 men or 100,000 men at work-varies from 30 to 40 per cent, according to conditions, and that is to be considered. as a part of the reduction, or in addition to the cost of a ship built under the nine-hour day, if built under the eight-hour day. Mr. NICHOLLS. What proportion of the total cost of productionwhich would include labor, purchase of material, and so on-is the wages? Mr. MCGREGOR. In a shipyard, in building a battle ship, for instance, a high type of ship, the labor would exceed the materials bought by some small percentage; that is to say, the labor would be rather more than one-half, possibly it might go up to 60 per cent, the material being 40 per cent, depending of course to some extent upon how far the shipbuilding concern might go into the manufacture of certain items and call that labor and material. Some yards, for instance, might buy their propeller blades. We make them. That would be more on our labor side and less on the material side. But roughly, say, 40 per cent and 60 per cent. Mr. NICHOLLS. If you bought your propeller blades, you paid for your labor done in some other place? Mr. MCGREGOR. Yes, of course; and I am saying that the amount. paid out for labor in a shipyard for the construction of a ship, as distinguished from what we pay for the material actually delivered to us, would bear that proportion. Mr. NICHOLLS. Of course that would make a difference, whether you bought it and paid for it, or made it in your own shops. Mr. MCGREGOR. Yes. Mr. HAYDEN. Are any of the operations in your yard that you call upon laborers and mechanics to perform so exhausting or so onerous that a nine-hour day is too great a tax upon a man's strength and leads to his deterioration? Mr. MCGREGOR. Oh, no; oh, no. There is nothing specially hazardous or that requires a more than normal amount of exertion, and I never heard anyone complain, who was in good health, about nine hours a day being too long a time for a man to work. Mr. HAYDEN. Have you observed your men to see whether they preserved their efficiency throughout the day? Mr. MCGREGOR. Yes, sir. Mr. HAYDEN. How does the efficiency and the amount of their work done in the ninth hour of the day compare with that in any earlier hour? Mr. MCGREGOR. I would say equally efficient. Mr. HAYDEN. It is? Mr. MCGREGOR. Yes, sir; I would say equally efficient. Mr. HAYDEN. There are no evidences of exhaustion, or anything of that kind? Mr. McGREGOR. No, sir. Personally I can not understand a man submitting to being dictated to that he shall only work eight hours a day or nine, for that matter. I do not see how an ambitious man-and most of them have ambition to get along and earn moneycan submit to being dictated to in that way. I know if I went in the Government service, certainly I should feel that I was being hindered. Mr. HAYDEN. Do you think that the laboring men, the laborers and mechanics, would resent a rule that prevented them from earning nine or ten hours' pay in a day? Mr. MCGREGOR. I think so. Mr. HAYDEN. Including the right to earn overtime pay? Mr. McGREGOR. I certainly should consider it an unwarranted interference with my liberties and my rights. Mr. HOLDER. I would like to ask a question, if you please. Mr. HAYDEN. Certainly. Mr. HOLDER. I would like to ask if Mr. McGregor knows how many hours they work in the Mare Island Navy-Yard? Mr. MCGREGOR. Eight hours. Mr. HOLDER. Only one shift? Mr. HOLDER. Not three shifts? Mr. MCGREGOR. No, sir. Mr. HOLDER. You know that they work three shifts out here in the Washington gun factory? Mr. McGREGOR. No. Mr. HOLDER. I thought they did in the Mare Island yard. Mr. MCGREGOR. No, sir; only one shift. They have only one organization force, I know. Mr. HAYDEN. They have no gun factory at Mare Island? Mr. MCGREGOR. No, sir. Mr. HAYDEN. And outside work can not be satisfactorily prosecuted at night? Mr. MCGREGOR. No, sir. Mr. HAYDEN. You can work in a gun shop at night? Mr. MCGREGOR. Yes, or in a machine shop. We have some men employed in the machine shop twenty-four hours a day, every day in the year. That is true also of work inside ships, in the engine room, perhaps, or in the shop, but never applies to hull construction. Mr. HAYDEN. The length of the day on the hull construction is limited by daylight? Mr. MCGREGOR. Certainly; it can not be otherwise. Mr..HAYDEN. In winter are you able to work your men nine hours? Mr. MCGREGOR. Yes, sir; because they have only forty minutes lunch time. They begin at 7 in the morning and work until 12, and begin again at twenty minutes to 1 and stop at twenty minutes to 5. Mr. HAYDEN. Working entirely by daylight? Mr. McGREGOR. Yes, sir. Mr. HAYDEN. That is all, Mr. Chairman, if there are no further questions. (At 4.45 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until Tuesday, March 10, at 10.30 a. m.) SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR No 1, Tuesday, March 10, 1908. The committee met this day at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. John J. Gardner (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Now you may proceed, Mr. Payson. STATEMENT OF L. E. PAYSON, ESQ., OF WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING THE NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY. Mr. PAYSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, which corporation, as its name indicates, is engaged in shipbuilding. Its works are located at Newport News, Va. The capital invested in the enterprise is from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000. The works are modern and up-to-date as respects all plants. We have two dry docks, one the largest in the country, and a third of equal size now in process of construction. We have done more Government work in the past sixteen years than any other yard. We have now upon the pay roll about 5,700 employees, not counting the office force. The hours of labor are ten hours a day, and a half holiday on Saturday, with overtime paid for at the usual rates. The relations between the corporation and its employees, I am authorized to say, are perfectly harmonious. There has never been any friction but once, some six years ago, and that was confined to the machinists, for a nine-hour day with ten hours' pay, and recognition of the union. It lasted but a short time, when the old relations were resumed. The homes of the workmen are very largely owned by the employees, built and paid for on the installment plan. The contracts taken by this company for Government work have been very low, often at estimated cost, and even less, in order to keep the plants at work and the skilled force together. We adopt Mr. Joseph Howell's statement made in behalf of the Cramp Shipbuilding Company in this record as to our position on this bill, as far as it goes. My own construction of this bill has been put into the record by Mr. Davenport, and I will not repeat it here. I here insert Mr. Gardner's history of these eight-hour bills, set out at page 121 of the Record of Hearings of the Committee on Labor for May, 1906, Fifty-ninth Congress. Mr. Payson said: "Before proceeding in an informal way, perhaps it would be better to understand one another. The chairman of the committee announced when I was in my seat that this bill originated in the committee; that nobody had requested to be heard except those he mentioned, and I would be glad to ask the chairman exactly what he meant by that-that this bill originated in the committee—that is, it was the bill that passed the last Congress? “The CHAIRMAN. What the Chair meant precisely by that is this: There is no secret about it. "Mr. PAYSON. There ought not to be. "The CHAIRMAN. There have been bills-- certainly a bill, and I think bills---aiming at just what this bill aims at, so far as the intention goes, before the Labor Committee of every Congress of which I have known anything by personal contact. They have always been favored and contested here in committee during the whole of Congress and have generally gone down, I think, for the reason that the fullest discussion of them has seemed to develop the fact that none of the bills, if passed, would accomplish the end at which they have been aimed. "Mr. PAYSON. To wit? "The CHAIRMAN. The reaching of work done for the Government of the United States by contract or otherwise. That has always been the expressed desire of those who have appeared in behalf of the measure, and I think I am correct in saying-Mr. Morrison, I think you have nearly always been present? "Mr. MORRISON. Yes, sir. "The CHAIRMAN (continuing). That the bill has finally met its fate because its friends have become convinced that it would not reach the contracts at which it was aiming. In the last session, a number of such bills coming in, the chairman of this committee was requested to put in form, if possible, and in constitutional form, the objects that had been sought by such attempted legislation through several Congresses. The bill, precisely, I believe, in the form, with the exception of what we know as the Lacey proviso "Mr. PAYSON. I do not remember that. "The CHAIRMAN. It is the one excepting public military or naval works in time of war. So, so soon as the House met this year Mr. Sulzer introduced a bill—” I suppose of like character to the former bills which have been introduced, "and it was a matter of rumor-I might say notoriety-that a flood of such bills was coming in, and it was thought, to avoid all matter of pride of opinion between gentlemen who might introduce this bill, that bill, and the other bill approved by the former Committee on Labor had better be introduced, and as I happened to be chairman of the committee in each Congress, I have introduced it both times. The draft of the bill is mine, the chairman of the committee." I also insert in their order the different bills upon this subject before this committee. First, House bill 5860, second session Fiftyfifth Congress; House bill 7389, second session Fifty-fifth Congress; the same bill (7389), second session Fifty-fifth Congress, reported by Senator Kyle; the same House bill (7389), third session Fifty-fifth Congress, reported by Senator Turley; the House bill 6882, first session Fifty-sixth Congress; House bill 3076, first session Fifty-seventh Congress; the same House bill (3076), first session Fifty-seventh Congress (Rept. No. 1793), as reported by Mr. Gardner, and the same bill (3076), as reported by Senator McComas. JANUARY 6, 1898. [H. R. 5860, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session.] IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Mr. GARDNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Labor and ordered to be printed. A BILL To amend an Act entitled "An Act relating to the limitations of the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon the public works of the United States and of the District of Columbia. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section one of the Act entitled "An Act relating to the limitations of the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon the public works of the United States and of the District of Columbia," approved August first, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows: "That the service and employment of all laborers and mechanics who are now, or may be hereafter, employed by the Government of the United States, by the District of Columbia, or by any contractor, or subcontractor, upon any of the public works of the United States or of the said District of Columbia, in any part of the United States or District of Columbia, is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia, or any such contractor or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control the services of such laborers or mechanics, to require |