ing pants for C. C. C. use reports that operators are being paid as low as $6 a week on these Government orders, and requests the Secretary of Labor to investigate.

Mr. DUFFY of New York. Was that investigated?

Miss ANDERSON. There was nothing that we could do about it.
Mr. DUFFY of New York. I mean was it investigated?

Miss ANDERSON. It was investigated and found to be true, but there was nothing else that you could do about it.

Now, let us go to Maryland. In August 1935 the Secretary of Labor was appealed to by an employee of a shirt company in Maryland working on Government contracts and paying as low as 10 cents an hour, most employees receiving only $2 or $3 a week for 52 hours of work.

Ohio: In August 1935 employees of a garment factory in Ohio making mattress covers for a C. C. C. camp wrote the Secretary of Labor asking relief from a situation under which they were paid a maximum of $1 a day and as low as 50 cents for a 9-hour day on a Government contract, though formerly receiving $2.80 a day for an 8-hour day.

Mr. HESS. What part of Ohio was that from? Miss ANDERSON. It does not say here. We usually do not give the company. I do not know just what part of Ohio.

that out.

I can find

California In November 1935, the Secretary of Labor was appealed to by a worker in a retail shop operated by a company that had orders for machines for Federal projects. Though 40 hours had been the standard work week, a 48-hour week was now being initiated, resulting in loss of employment.

Then we have Tennessee: A large knit-underwear mill employs 1,200 women and 500 men. The firm was still maintaining the code rate of $12 a week, but through October, November, and December of 1935, were working daily hours of 9 and 10, and weekly hours up to 57 for the women and even longer for some of the men. This firm had a large C. C. C. camp order and were working at breakneck pace to get it out as rapidly and as cheaply as possible.

Then we have manufacturers of pencils which, since the outlawing of the codes, have increased their working hours from 40 to 50 and are paying the same weekly wage for 50 as for 40 hours under the code.

Raincoats: On an Army contract, for C. C. C. coats, after the codes were dropped, wages have been materially cut. Due to a strike and the formation of a union by workers, the rates had been raised again to code standard and 40-hour weekly schedule resumed.

Mr. DUFFY of New York. Was that case in Tennessee also?
Miss ANDERSON. Yes.

Here is a laundry in Tennessee, that had been awarded the laundry contract for a Government marine hospital or camp. The rate was so low that at the end of the year the owner decided not to enter any bid. Several other laundrymen agreed on the price they would offer to take the contract. When the bids were submitted the officer in charge decided that there had been collusion among the bidders and threw all of the bids out and told the contractor he was to keep the work for another year at the same price. He objected and was

given a slight increase, but said that the rate was so low that one could not pay even the going rate of 14 cents an hour and make a profit on the contract.

Mr. HEALEY. And this was also from Tennessee?

Miss ANDERSON. This is from Tennessee.

Mr. HEALEY. You do not know what part of Tennessee?

Miss ANDERSON. No.

Mr. CHANDLER. I am glad.

[Laughter.]

Miss ANDERSON. It is not different from a great many other States, though.

Mr. CHANDLER. I would like to say this, however, for the benefit of the Ninth Congressional District, that not any of those things occurred in that district, because we do not have mills of the kind mentioned by Miss Anderson, and also the marine hospital at Memphis last year began-that is, on July 1, 1935-the operation of its own laundry for the linen of the hospital, so I know it cannot be in my district.

Miss ANDERSON. Then I have from Mr. Hinrichs of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, some letters that he wanted placed in the record. The first three letters are complaints from employers, the fourth letter is from a labor organization, and the fifth comes from an individual worker. I won't read these letters, if you don't mind.

Mr. HEALY. They are all in reference to conditions on Government contracts?

Miss ANDERSON. They are all in reference to conditions on Government contracts.

Mr. HEALEY. They may be received.

(The letters referred to are as follows:)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D. C. (Attention of Isador Lubin.)

NOVEMBER 19, 1935.

GENTLEMEN: We are engaged in the repair of damage to buildings caused by fire, and together with a number of other concerns in this city who specialize in this type of construction, have a first-class reputation and use nothing but A. F. of L. labor.

None of us have been able to even secure an opportunity of figuring with the Home Owners' Loan Corporation on any of their work of this kind, which amounts to a considerable volume over the period of a year.

We cannot secure any of this work principally because the jobs are let at considerably less than our material and labor actually costs us, which means that the parties doing this work are paying their men on a considerably lower basis than the prevailing wage scale.

We know that we are being discriminated against, and so do our employees. We have tried in vain to secure any consideration from the Home Loan locally; have also taken the matter up with our Representatives and Senator, but do not know whether this will do any good.

We, if this condition continues to exist, will certainly not support the present administration for reelection next fall.

Yours truly,

Mr. ISADOR LUBIN,

NOVEMBER 21, 1935.

Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.

Commissioner of Labor Statistics,

DEAR MR. LUBIN: We have today, under separate cover, as is our practice monthly, returned to you promptly, reports on the labor conditions at our quarry.

While we recognize that possibly this complaint should not be entered with your Department, we have written so many of the Departments in Washington, without any results, that we are determined to send our problem to you. The * ** * * Co. was the first company in the State of *, in the quarrying business, to sign up under the N. R. A. We have adhered both in spirit and in the letter up to this time in observing the N. R. A. in all of its particulars.

For 43 years, we have operated under a wage scale similar to the wage scale in the South, and yet, in many ways, this is not strictly true. We had for many years maintained wage scales above the wage scales of the South, although our principal competition came from a similar material in Tennessee. Under an arbitrary N. R. A. ruling, we were classed with the northern cities; put in what is called, the northern division. This gave us an increase of wage scales of 25 percent over those with whom we were in direct competition, and almost immediately, the small amount of business we had enjoyed ceased and the business all went to the South. This 25 percent increase is still maintained. If you will investigate, and if the information given us is correct, our competitors in this State, at least to the southwest of us, and our competitors in Tennessee and in Alabama are not maintaining the N. R. A. wage scales. And yet, the Department in Washington is giving the principal business in its vast building program to those who are not maintaining the N. R. A. scales, and leaving those of us who have continued the scales, and played fairly with you, without work for our men.

I am just wondering how long you expect us to maintain the present conditions, without your help.

We have a large organization, the largest quarry, and best equipped in the State of ** * lying idle because of the Federal Government's utter failure to recognize in any way the territory in which our quarry is located, and we are fighting for an existence. We have a material which until the present set-up has been satisfactory to, and used by the Supervising Architect in Washington; but for reasons unknown to us, we have had job after job where our material was specified, changed with the connivance of the authorities in Washington, to other materials, generally from Tennessee where we have been placed on a noncompetitive basis because of increase in wage scales. As you are aware, excepting from a moral obligation, there is no reason in the world why we should not reduce our wage scales at this time, and our men at * * would far prefer their former wages under their former hours, and consequent increased earnings, than they would to continue under the present conditions, without any work.

*

It is not so much the question of wage scales, as it is that the Procurement Department is ignoring us for the benefit of those who, I believe, if you will investigate, you will find have not shown the faith, nor the inclination to live up to what are the known wishes of the Federal Government in these matters. What would you do, if you were in my place? Respectfully yours,

President.

FEBRUARY 17, 1936.

ISADOR LUBIN,

Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor,
Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: You may have noticed recently in our reports that there has been a revision downward in our rate of pay. I regret that this action had to be taken by me.

I have always paid the highest wages and have tried to employ the best mechanics. During the last few years, however, and particularly since the Supreme Court declared the N. R. A. unconstitutional, my competitors have lowered the wages paid to a point where it seems to be utterly impossible for me to compete with them.

Is there any answer for this situation which affects other contractors occupying a position similar to mine? Is there any possibility of anything in the form of N. R. A. being again substituted for the chaotic situation which now exists?

Any information which you can give me on this will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours,

NOVEMBER 5, 1935.

Hon. SECRETARY OF LABOR OF UNITED STATES, FRANCES PERKINS.

DEAR MADAME: I desire to advise you in the interests of the above district council, an American Federation of Labor organization, that the company, a furniture and wood-products concern, have recently established a two-shift system for workers, each shift being obliged to labor 10 hours daily, a 55-hour week. This company is engaged at the present time in the manufacture of United States Government contract products.

Recently, the company, we understand, completed a Federal contract for interior trim for the Archives Building in Washington, D. C. This district council believes that the establishment of such work-hour schedules and such a work-week is detrimental to the best interests of workers in general and does not coincide with governmental policies of the present administration. We are calling your attention to this condition and the fact that the prevailing wage average is 38 cents per hour in this plant and sincerely hope you can assist in clearing it up satisfactorily.

Thanking you, I remain,
Yours truly,

Miss PERKINS: Would like to ask a little advice.

JUNE 6, 1935.

When the N. R. A. was ruled out, immediately the owner of * Manufacturing Co. put his men from 8 to 9 hours, and in some cases the men have one-third more work forced on them. His work is mostly Government work.

Is there anything to be done?

Respectfully,

Miss ANDERSON. It seems to me that this bill would do the necessary thing in regard to Government contracts. We feel very strongly in the Government, those of us that come in contact with this problem, that the Government on the one hand is trying to raise the standards of living throughout the country, as well as standards for the employment of workers, and on the other hand, because we cannot help ourselves, we are obliged to give the Government contracts to the lowest bidders, which in many instances means sweatshop conditions, so that we are really contradicting ourselves within the Government. We know that there are employers that will take these contracts on a low bid, and that that low bid is mostly made on what he can get his labor for.

For that reason, it seems to me that it would be very helpful to the Government all the way through to have some check on this question.

Mr. HEALEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. CHANDLER. Do you refer those complaints to the State labor department?

Miss ANDERSON. Yes; we do.

Mr. CHANDLER. The complaints about Tennessee have been referred down there?

Miss ANDERSON. Yes; we refer complaints of that kind to the State.

Mr. CHANDLER. They would be very glad to cooperate with the Women's Bureau in correcting those things.

Miss ANDERSON. Oh, yes. Your commissioner of labor is a very excellent person.

Mr. HEALEY. I will say, Mr. Chandler, that we have had complaints from many States of a similar nature.

Now, Mr. Gall, I know that you have been very patient, and that you have been around here for a great many days, but inasmuch as we knew that you were here in Washington, we felt that you did not mind our calling on the witnesses who had come from out of town and who could not remain.

We would be very happy to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. GALL, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS 1

Mr. GALL. My name is John C. Gall, and I am associate counsel of the National Association of Manufacturers, located in the Investment Building, in Washington, D. C.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that you must have reached the end of your patience in this hearing, as it was continued for practically a week. If I had appeared at an earlier stage of this hearing, I would have presented to you a much more complete presentation of the subject matter that I feel I ought to present today. I had prepared and expected to cover in detail a statement on the various provisions of this bill, which statement I would have read to you. However, with the number of witnesses that you have had here, a great many of those questions have been anticipated to some extent, and I do not want to wear out my welcome by covering matter which is merely cumulative or repetitious. Consequently, with your permission, I would like to refer to my paper from time to time as I go along, and simply to make an oral presentation, and ask that my paper may be inserted in the record as part of my remarks, in its entirety.

Mr. HEALEY. That may be done.

Mr. GALL. Mr. Chairman, I realize that this is not strictly analogous to a proceeding in a court of law, but that I am talking to a committee of lawyers, and therefore it might be helpful if we could narrow the issue and stick to it as closely as possible in what I shall have to say. I refer to the fact that there have been a number of complaints aired before your committee here about the use of child. labor, about the kick-back, about home work, about convict labor, and about bid peddling or bid brokerage.

I want to say that if this were simply a bill to provide that every primary contractor on Government work should stipulate that he would not use any of those five practices in the performance of his primary contract, we would not be here opposing the bill. I am not here, in other words, to defend the use of child labor in the performance of a Government contract by a primary_contractor. I am not here to defend the practice of bid peddling. I have represented the National Association of Manufacturers for 15 years now, and I have never known one of our members to operate through bid peddlers. So I can say to you, and I am willing to take the risk of saying to you on behalf of our membership, that that is not a practice

1 Also representing, Automotive Parts and Equipment Manufacturers, Inc., Detroit, Mich.; Associated Industries of Alabama, Birmingham, Ala.; California Manufacturers Association, San Francisco, Calif.; Industrial Association of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio; Associated Industries of Kentucky, Louisville, Ky.; Michigan Manufacturers Association. Detroit, Mich.; Minnesota Manufacturers Association, St. Paul, Minn.; Associated Industries of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, S. Dak.; Texas State Manufacturers Association, San Antonio, Tex.; Associated Industries of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio.