Average hourly earnings in specified industries in the United States (August 1946) and Great Britain (last week in January 1946)—Continued Sources: U. S. Department of Labor. Weekly Earnings in Manufacturing. Oct. 25, 1946: Great Britain, The Ministry of Labour Gazette, July 1946, Senate Committee on Finance, Statistics of Foreign and Domestic Wages, Prices, etc., Washington 1931. *=1945. NOTE. The average hourly earnings in the United States in manufacturing industries in August 1946, were $1.11. Very few wage statistics are available for European or Asiatic countries at the present time. The following fragmentary information was obtained from the files of the Department of Labor. Germany.-Wage rates current in 1939 have been frozen by the occupation authorities in all four zones. The average hourly wages in industry in 1939 were 79.6 reichspfennig. In the American zone the present average wage rate is around 1 mark per hour. The mark has no regularized exchange value, but its actual value is probably less than 10 cents. France.-Wages in the metals, leather, and textile industries in August 1946 ranged between 30 and 45 francs per hour. The franc was then worth 0.85 cent, making the range of wages between 25 cents and 38 cents per hour. Italy. Average industrial wages plus additional compensations in Italy are around $34 a month. Belgium.-Minimum hourly wage rates in August 1946 were 9 francs for women, 12 francs for laborers, and 15 francs for "tradesmen." At an exchange rate of 2.28 cents these rates would be 20, 27, and 34 cents, respectively. ical construction workers received 10 to 13 francs per hour. Mechan Japan. The average industrial earnings per day in Japan in 1939 were 2 yea or 52 cents. At the present time wages and foreign exchange values in Japan are in a confused condition. Because of Japan's economic deterioration since 1939, Japanese wages are certainly at starvation levels. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MR. CHAIRMAN: The so-called reciprocal trade agreements have been a continual cut in the tariff without regard to American industry and the effect on American workmen. The lowering of tariffs is forcing the American workers to compete with the low-wage products of Europe and eventually lowering the standard of living for the American workman. Much of this has been done on the plea that we must assist the foreign countries to restore their economy. I question this especially with reference to the glassware industry. Evidently it is doing very well in Europe and I include herewith for the committee photostatic copies of the Czechoslovak Glass Review, volume I, discussing the Prague Sample Fair of September 1946 and the Czechoslovak Comment, which calls attention to the fact that the glass industry in Czechoslovakia is flooded with orders, before, during, and after the official dates of the fair, customers from the rich overseas countries were in search of luxury goods and the more expensive lines, particularly cut and table glass, and that big business was concluded with the United States. In addition, I am enclosing copy of a communication addressed to the State Department by the glassware industry. I am sure an examination of this matter will disclose that there should be no further reduction in the glassware industry under the so-called reciprocal trade agreements. ALVIN F. WEICHEL, Member of Congress, Thirteenth Ohio District. CZECHOSLOVAK COMMENT (Zdeněk Bárta, export director of the National Corporation of Czechoslovak Glassworks) Reply to an article which appeared in the American Glass Review of 22. 6. 1946, entitled "Lack of skilled craftsmen real reason for Czech Glassware Industry falling below expectations." It was a great surprise to us to read information about the Czechoslovak glass industry in the above mentioned article which did not actually conform to the facts. Details were given which were completely wrong, as for instance: "It was estimated when the war ended that production of Czechoslovakian glassware would soon reach prewar levels, particularly by this time. The estimate, however, has been revised sharply downward, and this has been done on the basis of official reports from American representatives there. "Now, indications show that the production of glassware in that country for this year, will amount to about 10 or 20 percent." There was also a statement to the effect that there was little prospect for any genuine improvement unless a change occurred in Czechoslovakia. In answer to this we need only to point out that the total export of Czechoslovak glass between January 1 and September 30, 1946, amounted to Kes 830,504.000.-. Of this figure, Kčs 327,396.000.— went to the U.S.A.., i. e., the export of Czechoslovak glassware reached its full prewar level. As glass exports are on the increase and a steady rise can be noted every month, it is perfectly obvious that the export of glassware from Czechoslovakia will be much bigger this year than in any prewar year. It is therefore entirely wrong to state that Czechoslovak production of glassware will amount only to about 10 or 20 percent of its prewar level, and it seems therefore probable that the article in the American Glass Review was written by a person who had been absolutely misinformed. This is not all however. Reading a little farther we learn, under the heading "Craftsmen leaving country" that: "About 300.000 German families, with generations of glassworking behind them, constituted the backbone of the Czechoslovak glass industry. The industry was able to produce merchandise of a quality that could withstand competition in the markets of the world, both in price and quality, because of these German craftsmen. Now, as the Germans return to their homeland en masse, this asset to the Czech glassware industry has been severely curtailed." From such a paragraph any uninformed person would immediately imagine that tens of thousands of skilled craftsmen left the Czechoslovak glass industry and that the departure of these workers undermined the whole Czechoslovak glass industry. The article goes on to point out that this is really the case, and that it will take years before new skilled workers are trained. The author of the article states expressly: "Until something definite is done, the production of glassware in Czechoslovakia will continue in a small way only, and it is felt that its quality will generally be substandard." We consider it necessary to correct these false impressions. It is true that a certain number of German skilled men has left the Czechoslovak glassworks and the Czechoslovak Jablonec industry, but hardly more than 8,000 people are involved-a number which, compared to the total figure of workers in the trade, is small. Besides this, the figure of 8,000 also included unskilled workers. Approximately the same number of German workers will be left in the Czechoslovak glass industry, and these are for the most part highly qualified personnel. Although some German labor has been lost, it will hardly cause any serious change in the glass industry, either in total capacity or in output, and it should be noted that a training glassworks has been brought into existence. Here young people are being systematically trained mainly for manufacturing handmade glassware, but for machine-made glassware also, so that in the near future the decrease of workers will be completely made good. Nor is it a negligible fact that thousands of our foreign clients have had the possibility to convince themselves in the last months that not only is our glassware of high quality and of exactly the same artistic value as in prewar days, but also that deliveries are being carried out precisely and in rotation, even although we have permanently to struggle with a serious lack of the railway wagons needed for carrying the necessary raw materials and finished goods, and permanently to combat the fact that so far the direct transport of goods via Hamburg-our natural port-is impossible, and we are forced to use the very expensive and far away connections via Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam, facts which make our goods extraordinarily dear and hold up deliveries. There are also a whole number of technical obstacles which can only be removed gradually. That this is happening can be seen from the constantly increasing export figures. We feel that the whole of this article which appeared in the American Glass Review, was probably inspired by some of the buying agents of large American firms who came to Czechoslovakia to conclude business, in order to get ahead of their competitors, by discouraging them from going to Czechoslovakia. In the meantime we have been able to welcome a great many of our old business friends from the U. S. A. and Canada in our country, and they were able to see for themselves that our works are working at full pitch, that the quality of Czechoslovak glass is as high as ever, and that we are able to fulfil all demands in this respect. It is only natural, however, that many glassworks have completely exhausted their stocks of finished goods, while demands are flowing in at such a rate that it is not possible to have them all executed at one time. Unfortunately it really is not possible to execute all our orders as quickly as our customers would desire because the majority of our glassworks have orders sufficient for many months ahead. Nevertheless orders are executed comparatively swiftly. It is a fact too that there are only very few complaints and that our monthly export is much greater than in prewar days and is constantly increasing. We hope that this survey will correct the erroneous information given in the American Glass Review. It only remains to add that we are always willing to give our customers every information concerning the purchase of Czechoslovak glassware and to put them in touch with the glassworks which are manufacturing the lines desired. We are also always ready to give precise information about production possibilities, forwarding, etc., and will be very glad if our old business friends will, as they have done before, approach us with full confidence. We shall certainly not fail them. TOLEDO, OHIO, April 23, 1947 CHAIRMAN, WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, House of Representatives: We regret that is is impossible for us to make an oral statement, before your honorable committee, in the matter of tariff protection, and therefore most respectfully direct attention to the brief filed with the committee on reciprocity information December 13, 1946, and also our oral statement made as the president of the American Flint Glassworkers' Union of North America before the Committee on Reciprocity Information, January 29, 1947; and in behalf of the many thousands of workers in the American glass industry, and for the security of their future employment, we make further vigorous protest to your honorable committee against any reduction of present tariff rates on competitive handmade glassware articles through entry into trade treaties with other Nations. Already competitive glassware, imported from foreign countries, is on our American market for sale, which displaces glassware produced by the American glass workers and jeopardizes their future employment as well as destroying their American standard of living. INTERNATIONAL OFFICERS OF THE AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS UNION HARRY H. Cook, President. Congressman HAROLD KNUTSON, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., April 23, 1947. Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C: Our organization of export managers, San Francisco area, has consistently favored and fought for reciprocal trade agreements. Our membership represents producers of this area and instruct me to inform you that we beg your committee recommend extension of these agreements. We understand that some organizations with fewer responsibilities to our general economy are opposing the extension and are appearing. We regret that our position does not permit makIng trip Washington for appearance and hope your committee will accept this as unqualified recommendation for extension. J. F. MARIAS, President, Export Managers Association of San Francisco. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness to be heard is Congressman Hand, of New Jersey. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN T. MILLET HAND, OF NEW JERSEY Mr. HAND. Mr. Chairman, I have long been troubled with the ultimate effect that the Reciprocal Trade Act will have on the industry of America and its labor force. When Congress extended this act in 1945 for an additional 3 years and provided that tariffs might be lowered by another 50 percent, we abdicated our control over tariffs and delegated all of our responsibility to the executive department. It was for this reason that I then spoke against the passage of the bill and voted against it, and in the 2 years that have passed since then, during which I have given continuous study to the question, I have • not changed my mind. I represent the Second Congressional District of New Jersey, which comprises Atlantic, Cumberland, and Cape May Counties. This is the home of many substantial industries. Food processing and the manufacture of clothing is carried on extensively. Commercial fishing is of great importance. And primarily, so far as tariff questions are concerned, the district, particularly Cumberland County, is one of the most important producers of glassware in the United States. There are today between 9,000 and 10,000 workers occupied in the production of glass products in this district. The glassware manu factured here varies from ordinary containers to intricate apparatus for laboratory use, and represents a sales volume between $30,000,000 and $35,000,000 per annum. The actual labor involved represents from 25 percent of the cost of fully automatic machine-made containers to 89 percent in the production of glass apparatus for laboratory or industrial use. The average hourly wages, on a basis of a 40-hour workweek, range from $0.985 to $1.644. During the past 10 years, wage rates have increased 107 percent for male workers and 135 percent for female help. The plant and equipment investment per worker averages about $4,000. I would like to say in passing that the labor relations in this industry in my district have been for the most part exceptionally good, and the combination of excellent management and high-grade workers made an important contribution of vital materials to the United States during the war. This essential industry and other important businesses in my area are threatened by the power of the executive department to manipulate and decrease tariffs. The International Conference at Geneva, which began April 8, can spell the difference between the continuance and discontinuance of this and many American enterprises. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe in the exclusion of foreign products, and I recognize the necessity of cultivating foreign trade, but there are some specified industries which by their very nature require reasonable and adequate protection-and require, in my judgment, that that protection be guarded and provided by the elected Representatives of the people in Congress, and not by the State Department, which in its zeal to cultivate our foreign relations often neglects our domestic welfare. It is for this reason that I have introduced a bill to restore to Congress at least the right of veto of tariff treaties which are harmful. I think the bill is necessary, and I hope it will have the prompt atten- . tion of the Ways and Means Committee and of the House. It does not interfere with the International Conference about to proceed, and it does not retard foreign trade. It merely restores to the Congress, where it rightfully belongs, ultimate authority over tariff questions, the protection of the American worker and American industry. The bill is brief and reads as follows: A BILL To require approval by Congress of executive agreements with respect to the reduction of tariff rates before the same becomes effective Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That on and after the effective date of this Act no Executive agreement which contains any provision for reduction of tariff rates shall become effective until such agreement shall have been filed for a period of ninety days with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and with the Secretary of the Senate. If during such period of ninety days the Congress shall, by joint resolution, disapprove the agreement, it shall not thereafter be executed and shall for all purposes be void. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution gives the Congress jurisdiction over the regulation of foreign trade, customs duties, and tariffs. When Congress passed the original Reciprocal Trade Act in 1934, as well as the extensions of that act, it abdicated its responsibility under the Constitution and departed from a program which had been in effect in this country for many years. |