tions to take their own stand. Only one retail organization-the Retail Merchants Association of Durham appeared against the bill, whereas several members of the North Carolina Retail Merchants Association wrote legislative representatives in support of the bill."

The specific bill under discussion was a bill setting a minimum wage of 55 cents an hour. The bill contained no overtime clauses, imposed no restriction on working hours and contained no recordkeeping requirement in addition to those already in effect.

The Charlotte News which came out for this bill, stated:

Some 45,000 North Carolina workers in retail and service establishments are receiving wages of less than 55 cents per hour*** it is [therefore] not surprising that we are fourth from the bottom among the States in per capita income,18

The bill, however, was not passed by the legislature.

If we disregard resistance against certain aspects of wage and hour legislation we can classify a maximum of 11 out of the 22 States for which information is available and which have effective wage orders in existence as having retail employers' organizations which are, on the whole, not unfavorable to such legislation.

However, the picture changes quickly as we examine other States. In the following three States, retail organizations have definitely opposed increases in the statutory minimum wage rates: New Jersey, Oregon, and Minnesota.

New Jersey

The present minimum wage in New Jersey, enacted in 1949, varies between 55 and 60 cents depending upon the area of the State.

On February 24, 1956, the mercantile wage board of the State of New Jersey proposed a basic minimum wage of $1 for the retail and other industries in all areas of the State.

The attitude of the organized retail industry in this situation is not clear-cut though there can be no doubt about resistance to the proposed $1 minimum. A statement put at the disposal of the subcommittee of labor by the department of labor and industry of the State of New Jersey reads as follows:

The wage board for mercantile occupations submitted to the commissioner of labor and industry their official report on February 14, 1956. The wage board consisted of 3 representatives of employers, 3 representatives of employees and 3 representatives of the public. One representative of the employers, three representatives of the employees and three representatives of the public signed this official report. The minutes of this wage board reveal that the recommendations contained in this report were approved by the unanimous vote of eight members of the board who were present at the time the recommendations were adopted by the board, Mr. Davis, an employer member, being absent. The report of the board containing these recommendations was approved by the

same vote.

After the report had been approved, two of the employer members failed to sign it and asked the board to accept a minority report for delivery to the commissioner of labor and industry. The contents of this so-called minority report had not been available for discussion and the board refused to receive it.

After the board had completed all of its business and filed its formal report, the document *** which bears the title of "Minority Report Submitted to Commissioner of Labor and Industry Carl Holderman by Employer Representatives of the Wage Board for Mercantile Occupations" was submitted direct to the commissioner of labor and industry by 2 of the 3 employer representatives on the board.19

17 Letter to Senator Paul H. Douglas by Mr. Frank Crane, commissioner, department of labor, State of North Carolina, Raleigh. The letter is dated March 26, 1956. Supplementary information obtained on the attitude of organized retail groups does not fully support this view.

18 The Charlotte News, February 15, 1955,

19 Mimeographed statement dated March 9, 1956, and signed by Mr. Edward J. Flynn, Jr., secretary of the wage board for mercantile occupations.

The minority report was signed by two employer representatives, one of the signatures is not legible, the other is the signature of Mr. Philip W. Schindel who is also the executive secretary of the Limited Price Variety Store Association of the United States. This report contains a number of economic arguments against an increase of the minimum wage based particularly on (1) capital investment per worker, (2) labor costs, (3) productivity per employee and (4) skill requirements in retailing (for details see appendix XXXIII). It also objects to the wage board's standard of fairness in the following terms:

It is emphasized that a "fair minimum wage" is not and cannot be a rate higher than that now being paid to 34.7 percent of the women employees and 58.2 percent of the male minors in retail stores in New Jersey.20

The circumstances under which this minority report was submitted seem to indicate divided feelings on the part of the representatives of the retail industry. No matter what the answer to this question may be, there can be no question that a large number of the retailers were not as strongly opposed to a $1 minimum wage as were some of the representatives of the industry. The Subcommittee on Labor has a photostat of a communication dated March 12, 1956, from the Greater Paterson Chamber of Commerce to "all members engaged in marcantile operations." 21

This communication is a document of sufficient significance to be quoted in full:

MARCH 12, 1956.

MERCANTILE MINIMUM WAGE AND HOUR HEARINGS IN NEWARK NEXT FRIDAY From: Greater Paterson Chamber of Commerce. To: All members engaged in mercantile operations.

Next Friday evening, March 16, the public hearing on the minimum wage and hour regulation for women and minors in mercantile operations will be held in the Essex House in Newark. Despite the very discouraging response to our bulletin in this subject last week, the Greater Paterson Chamber of Commerce is still hopeful that our members will realize the seriousness of this order, and will act. The Paterson chamber has agreed to supply 20 1-minute speakers for the hearing Friday evening at 7 p. m. As the third largest retail center in the State, this is our proportionate share. The hearing being in the evening, most members cannot claim that they must stay in their stores. The chamber staff will assist in preparing the 1-minute talks, if requested.

At the preparatory meeting last Friday, which was the subject of last week's bulletin, the chamber was represented by the manager of its distribution division and one retailer. The statewide response was equally poor. The 2 from Paterson were the only Passaic County representatives; less than 50 people from the entire State were present, and most of those were chamber of commerce and trade association representatives. Still, the group organized for an all-out fight at the hearings, because:

This order, at the outset, will cost retailers $50 million a year (and will cost the consumers a good part of that, if the increased costs are passed on).

Although the order applies only to women and minors, the effect will be to raise the wages of male employees; New Jersey law requires equal pay for men and

women.

More than the minimum wage is at issue; if the minimum is increased, those with greater experience or seniority will have to have comparable raises to maintain differentials. If learners and students get 85 cents per hour, which the new order provides, there would naturally be an upward effect on more experienced personnel.

Minority report submitted to Commissioner of Labor and Industry Carl Holderman by employer representatives of the Wage Board for Mercantile Occupations. This report is dated January 24, 1956, and was submitted to the Subcommittee on Labor in a letter to Senator Paul H. Douglas from the Depart ment of Labor and Industry, State of New Jersey. This letter is dated March 28, 1956.

This communication was sent to the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Paul H. Douglas, by Mr. Edward J. Flynn, Jr., Director of the Wage and Hour Bureau, Department of Labor and Industry, State of New Jersey. This letter is dated March 28, 1956.

Overtime would be paid on regular weekly rates, which would mean time and one-half of all earnings of the employee, including commissions. By January 1, 1958, this means time and one-half over 40 hours per week.

The regulation applies to all and any women and minors employed by a mercantile establishment, including nonsales help such as bookkeepers, clerks, etc. A 20-year-old boy whose sole job was to sweep out your store must be paid 85 cents or $1 per hour (depending on whether he is a student). If you have to pay a sweeper $1 per hour, could you continue to pay your salesmen $1 per hour or less?

Even if you employ all males, but one is under 21, you must comply with the order as to the posting of notices and regulations, and you must keep daily work records of the minor,

Penalties for violations of the order are very severe. It will be very easy to be in violation of the administrative regulations, even though you pay more than the minimum wage. The order will require a great deal of recordkeeping and sign posting, and the hours that will have to be spent complying with the redtape will be considerable.

The Paterson chamber, along with other chambers and merchants groups in the State, believes that it is imperative that retailers and other merchantile operations join in opposing this order with the greatest possible vigor. To date, merchants have been too willing to let others fight their battles in this case.

There must be an outpouring of merchants at the hearing Friday. It is the only hope if the order is to be opposed successfully. Even if the turnout does not change the views of the commissioner of labor and industry, it is very possible that a large and vocal opposition to the order will impress the Governor, the legis lature, and other elected officials. Technically, the commissioner of labor and industry can issue the order, without reference to the Governor or the legislature. Being an appointee of the Governor, and a member of the same political party, it is not likely that he would issue the order if the Governor told him not to. It is also possible that the legislature, if sufficiently impressed by the amount of opposition, will pass a law restricting the power of the commissioner to issue such orders. At the present time he has completely dictatorial powers in this field, and could issue an order for a minimum wage of $4 per hour and a 20-hour week. if he so desired. Therefore, a big turnout is needed Friday evening, to impress not only the commissioner, but also the Governor, the legislature, and political leaders. It is also necessary to build up a record at these hearings in case future court action is undertaken. (At the present time, court action has been taken against previous orders issued this year by the commissioner for other industries and trades).

Paterson must furnish 20 speakers, and should have many other nonspeakers in the audience. Those who are favoring the order will be out in great strength. It is very likely that the hearings will be packed with supporters of the order. Will you do your part? Will you take 60 seconds to say that you are opposed to the order? Time is short. Sign and mail the enclosed card today. The hear ings will start at 7 p. m., Friday, and by the end of the week we can tell you exactly at what time between 7 and 9 p. m. you will speak. It's your business.

Sincerely,

J. PALMER MURPHY, Manager, Distribution Division.

Whatever the merits of the arguments listed in this communication may be, the retailers directly affected by the proposed $1 minimum were obviously considerably less concerned about them than the Great Paterson Chamber of Commerce.

Oregon

In 1951 the wage and hour commission of the bureau of labor in the State of Oregon proposed an increase of the minimum wage applying to retail trade from 65 to 75 cents. The Portland Retail Bureau "a voluntary, nonprofit association of some 400 individuals and firms engaged in the retail mercantile business in the city of Portland" objected at a hearing held on February 1, 1952, to this increase in the minimum wage as well as to other aspects of the recommended "mer cantile order No. 9." The main argument of the retail bureau is contained in the following paragraphs:

In the Portland area only few employees are affected by the present minimum wage schedules. However the bureau speaks for upstate employers, also for those who have only 1, 2, or a few employees. Many of these perforce are governed by these schedules and the proposed increases of over 15 percent would so increase their labor costs as to drive them out of business as the Federal price regulations will not permit them to raise prices correspondingly.

***

*** for the reasons already stated we oppose all increases. If however the board is adamant on an increase, we strongly urge that it be limited to not over 71⁄2 percent in all classifications.22

It could be argued that the opposition of the Portland Retail Bureau was due to an unusual circumstance-namely, price regulations. But the brief of the bureau which is reproduced in appendix XXXIV hardly gives the impression that the bureau would not have opposed the increase in the minimum wage under other circumstances. Minnesota

The situation in Minnesota throws further light on various patterns of the opposition to State minimum wage legislation.

In August 1953 the industrial commission issued a wage order which increased minimum wages for adult women as follows:

From 55 cents to 75 cents an hour in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth

From 55 cents to 70 cents in cities from 20,000 to 50,000 population

From 60 cents to 65 cents in cities from 10,000 to 20,000 population

From 45 cents to 50 cents in cities under 10,000

For minors under 18 years old, the order set these minimums: 60 cents in St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth

55 cents in cities from 20,000 to 50,000 population

50 cents in cities from 10,000 to 20,000 population

45 cents in cities under 10,000

A merchant from Pipestone, Minn., brought court action against this order, charging that it was "confiscatory and unfair to retail merchants, that the commission had erred in setting up its advisory board to present evidence on the order, and that a woman member of that board was biased."23 As a result of this action which was supported by the Minnesota Retail Association, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided on November 10, 1955, to declare this order illegal.

Though the reason for declaring this order invalid was a technical one, there is no evidence that the Minnesota Retail Federation was not opposed to the increase of the minimum wage as such.24 The original brief submitted to the district court in the county of Ramsey in Minnesota stated explicitly "Plaintiff further alleges that said wage order*** provides for minimum wages which are confiscatory, unreasonable, and unfair to plaintiff. The Minnesota Retail Association did not disassociate itself in any way from this brief, or from the subsequent brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. A good part of the brief submitted to the supreme court was devoted to arguments against the determination of the minimum standard. Indeed the plaintiff computed "the

See appendix XXXIV.

See St. Paul Dispatch, November 10, 1955.

77 248

For further details see C. B. Thomas v. Ramberg. Brief submitted to the Minnesota Supreme Court. State of Minnesota, county of Ramsey, C. B. Thomas, plaintiff, v. A. Ramberg, Ralph Distad, and R. E. Faricy as Commissioners of the Industrial Commission of the State, district court, second district, September 30, 1953, p. 9.

75135-56-18

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES

percentage excess of the mini get" 24b and stated that "the c and improper theory of law determining the cost of living.

The Commercial Bulletin a the situation prevailing before

This proposed inflation of wage rat kind of help has been stewing in th Industrial Commission for a year or

The numerous employer opponent important skirmish when the Minne back to the district

the proposed rates would m highest of those required in any Sta It then expressed outright oppe wage legislation:

Competent students of the labor pro minor employees in such States as Mic and Texas, which have no minimum-w tures in that part of the labor list as do wage laws.

It is not generally realized that almo no minimum-wage statutes *** 26

The States listed so far account effective wage orders presently in information was available to the these 9 States have wage rates wh favorable attitude of retail federa be counted as an argument for Sta able attitude would yield such po between 16 cents an hour to 55 be registered as a strong argumen legislation. It must, therefore, be of the 22 States which have effecti were either opposed to an increase o New Jersey, Oregon and Minnesot ineffectual in their attempts to secur

If we place a possible maximum of "favorable" column we still have 34 ations were either actively opposed t were unable to implement or to obtai In a number of States retail federat either the enactment of any legislat existing legislation through the issuan Ohio, for example, do have legislation to implement the minimum wage lay Maryland, Michigan and West Virgin partly because of the opposition of ret Illinois

Minimum wage legislation in Illinois years of litigation in the courts. The report of the Illinois Department of La

24b 36653 State of Minnesota, in supreme court, C. B. Tho commissioner of the Industrial Commission of the State of Minne gelson, Pratt & Bradley and M. E. Culhane, 1515 Rand Tow 240 Ibid., p. 160.

25 See: Minnesota's Minimum Wage Hike Order Being Test Commercial Bulletin and Apparel Merch 1954, issue

20 Ibid.