Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

TABLE 24.-Value of material orders placed on construction projects financed by Federal funds from the beginning of the programs to Nov. 15, 1935—Continued

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

tion 1

construc

tion W. P. A.3

Stone, clay, and glass products. $351, 815, 071 $316, 812, 746 $5, 891, 811 $10, 325, 538 $8, 328, 458 $10,456,518

126

266, 839, 483 26, 871, 613 15, 612, 437

4, 226, 71555, 071, 677

3, 274, 124 22, 449, 606

11, 408 492, 503

129, 945

217,069

74, 667 227, 401

1,505, 957

6, 987, 622

15, 809

528, 034

41, 471

813, 468

5,453, 030

12, 821

811, 208

158,398

6, 551, 118

Heating and ventilating

[blocks in formation]

232, 614

equipment..

[blocks in formation]

Nails and spikes..

[blocks in formation]

1, 201, 569

164, 898

1, 106, 098

475

Rails fastenings, excluding spikes....

39, 054

55, 942

5,844, 176

Rails, steel.

20, 297, 743

[blocks in formation]

Springs, steel..

12, 760

3, 343 24, 408

611, 910

611, 859

Steel works and rolling mill

51

[blocks in formation]

transportation equipment--5 $227, 382, 914 $202, 440, 303 $5, 333, 327 $14, 697, 832 $4, 026, 021 6 $885, 431

[blocks in formation]

TABLE 24.-Value of material orders placed on construction projects financed by Federal funds from the beginning of the programs to Nov. 15, 1935—Continued

[blocks in formation]

1 Value of orders placed for materials on projects financed from R. F. C. loans from Mar. 15, 1934, to Nov. 15, 1935.

? Value of orders placed for materials on projects financed from R. G. A. from July 1, 1934, to Nov. 15, 1935. 3 Value of orders placed for materials from beginning of program to Nov. 30, 1935. Included in "Other materials."

Includes materials for projects operated by the Works Progress Administration which are not classified in detail.

• Includes materials in this group which are not classified in detail.

Mr. DUFFY of New York. May I ask whether a study comparable to the one that Mr. Healey made was ever undertaken during the period when the codes were in operation?

Mr. HINRICHS. I am sorry I cannot answer that question with precision. Such work as would have been done in the field would have been done by the Compliance Division. Mr. Healy can undoubtedly answer the question authoritatively. I believe that in certain industries such studies were made.

Mr. HEALEY. You made the statement that you had a great many complaints coming from manufacturers themselves. What was the nature of those complaints? Will you amplify that?

Mr. HINRICHS. In general it was a complaint to this effect: "I, as a manufacturer, am maintaining wages and working conditions as they were set out in my code. I am having great difficulty in meeting the competition of those who are not maintaining standards in this industry, and I specifically resent the fact that one of my competitors whom I know to have cut his labor standards has secured a particular Government contract. Mr. President, what are you going to do about it?" That is the general tenor of those complaints. Mr. HEALEY. They were complaining because of their inability to compete with the manufacturer who was maintaining lower standards than theirs?

Mr. HINRICHS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. Their inability to compete in bidding on these Government contracts; is that correct?

Mr. HINRICHS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. Have you investigated any cases of really flagrant violations involving child labor, home work, or anything of that sort?

Mr. HINRICHS. No; I am sorry I know nothing of the child-labor situation or of the home-work situation. I think, however, that Miss Lenroot can inform you on that subject.

Mr. HEALEY. That is all, Mr. Hinrichs; and we thank you very much.

Mr. McEntee.

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. McENTEE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. McEntee, give your full name, please. Mr. McENTEE. James J. McEntee, Assistant Director, Civilian Conservation Corps.

Mr. HEALEY. You may proceed.

Mr. McENTEE. Mr. Chairman, my notice from the committee to appear here came Saturday morning. I assume that what it is expected that I will testify to is perhaps our experience with purchases for the Government.

Our cost records show that we have spent $294,000,000 on equipment and clothing. About $140,000,000 of that was exclusively for clothing.

We have a great number of complaints coming in, some from manufacturers and some from wage earners, and in taking up these complaints and trying to work them out, we find that the construc

tion placed on the law is that nothing can be done on a Government contract, under existing law, to set up standards that should be in existence.

Since the Supreme Court decision declared the National Recovery Act unconstitutional, there have come into prominence, insofar as our contracts are concerned, anyway, a number of manufacturers. who are disposed to brush aside implied obligations and who hesitate not at all to employ tactics in the way of wage reductions and the establishment of maximum hours of labor that give them an advantage in cost in competition over other manufacturers or producers who continue to operate on the basis of the code stipulations regardless of Federal release. This places this type of employer or the operators of sweatshops in an advantageous position over other manufacturers when it comes to bidding on Government contracts.

The Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps has tried repeatedly to direct all purchases for the corps to companies which have voluntarily carried on and established conditions in their plants consistent with present social trends and have maintained a wage scale that permitted their employees to support themselves and their families in decency and comfort. We found, however, that under existing laws contracts must go to the lowest responsible bidder, regardless of the conditions under which the goods are produced; and on numerous occasions an interpretation of the "lowest responsible bidder" has been made to the effect that that means financial responsibility.

If I may be permitted to cite a case in point, on May 8, 1935, the National Recovery Administration registered with the Government Contracts Division a complaint against the Michael A. Zielinski Co., of Trenton, N. J., alleging that said firm was operating in violation of article VII, section II, of the Cap and Cloth Hat Manufacturing Industry Code. On May 22, 1935, a decision was rendered by the Government Contracts Division finding that this company was operating in violation of the code, and recommendations were made on that date that the Zielinski contract be canceled. Up to May 22, 1935, when the above-mentioned decision was rendered, this company had failed and had refused to pay any or all of the amount of $2,883.90, which the compliance council for region III found was due in back wages to employees. Based on the findings and recommendation of the code authority, the contract between this company and the Government for hats for the Civilian Conservation Corps was canceled. In the meantime, the decision of the Supreme Court, out of which grew the unleasing of business from statutory direction, was made known. At the same time, bids were being requested for hats for the corps. This company bid, even though the N. R. A. was then in existence. Prior to the bids being opened, however, the Supreme Court decision was announced, and this company, which had pleaded guilty to defrauding its employees, was the low bidder and was again given a Government contract.

Congress has, by legislation, repeatedly endeavored to stabilize industry and throw necessary protection around wage earners and industry and to eliminate child labor.

58539-ser. 12, pt. 2-36-4

This bill should be passed in order that contracts for supplies purchased by the Government shall be manufactured under fair conditions, and that the fair employer-and, after all, Mr. Chairman, he is not an unknown quantity in American industry-should not be placed in competition with an unscrupulous employer who has no regard for the wages and conditions under which he works his employees.

If I may be permitted to say so, however, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the bill does not place sufficient responsibility on the principal

contractor.

To illustrate, under the system of letting Government contracts, John Doe may be awarded a contract; he subcontracts all or a portion of this contract to Richard Roe, who retains a part and subcontracts a portion to John Smith, who may, in turn, do some subcontracting. The result may be that the contract is completed satisfactorily to the Government, and John Doe is paid. He may or may not pay his immediate subcontractor. Assume that he does, but that the next subcontractor is not paid, or that one of the subcontractors operates his plant long, unhealthy hours and pays a very low wage rate, and, in some cases, as has developed on Government contracts, the wage earner who actually performed the work has been unable to collect his money. The principal contractor who was paid by the Government claims that he had no contract with the contractor who actually performed the work.

The Heard Act affords certain protection to labor and material men when the contractor in chief fails to pay, but when you reduce the matter down the line you get a number of opportunities to deprive the actual workers of compensation. If it involves employees of a second or third subcontractor, ofttimes the persons so employed by the second or third subcontractor have little knowledge of what their legal rights are, and, if they do know their rights, the amount involved in individual cases is so small they have no way of enforcing their legal rights. In many cases this embraces a class of people whom the Government and Congress have, by legislation, repeatedly tried to safeguard and protect. Many of this class are on or next door to Government relief.

As illustrating this point, may I call the committee's attention to the case of the Batavia Mills, a company in New York, which is an identical case to that which I have just described, where the thing was contracted and subcontracted out, and the workers who made the clothing were not paid until, after considerable litigation, the company finally, without any prejudice, as their attorneys claimed, met the obligations of the subcontractors, because of an effort on the part of the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps to bar them from Government contracts.

It seems rather doubtful to me whether or not this proposed legislation amply protects the class of people to whom I have just called attention for the reason that subcontractors of a certain type have nothing outside of the anticipated profit on the instant contract, and that, when they receive the money to which they are entitled from the contractor next above, they sort of "fold up" their business in some cases and leave those who actually performed the work to go unpaid, or, if paid at all, paid at a miserably low wage for exceedingly long hours.

« PředchozíPokračovat »