Mr. DUBINSKY. Forty years old as a national organization. Otherwise, they are about 60 years old. Mr. HEALEY. Now, most of the workers in this industry previous to the real activity of your union were poorly paid workers; were they not? Mr. DUBINSKY. The shortest workweek that it was in those days was 70 hours a week. Mr. HEALEY. And those workers as a rule were on the very bottom rung of the economic ladder; were they not? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right, and that is why it was known as the sweatshop industry of the Nation. Mr. HEALEY. A highly competitive industry? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Mr. HEALEY. Now you have organized this industry in some thirtyodd States, you say? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Mr. HEALEY. And how do the working conditions and standards, say, of this year compare with a decade ago-10 years ago-for these workers, in this industry? Mr. DUBINSKY. Will you permit me to give you charts on that? Mr. HEALEY. I'd like to have it. Mr. DUBINSKY. This is a chart of the dress industry which indicates the maximum hours worked per week from 1913 to 1939, as provided for in collective agreements in New York City. In 1913, the hours were 50 hours a week, according to the collective agreements. Up to 1917, when they were reduced to 44; 1919 or 1923, when they were reduced to 40; and 1933, when they were reduced to 35, not going back to prior of 1913 when it was 60 and 70, but since the union was established in the industry, we reduced the hours from a 50-hour week to a 35-hour week. Mr. HEALEY. Do you have anything in that chart to show the wage scale at all? Mr. DUBINSKY. Yes, sir. Mr. HEALEY. That will give us some comparison of the wage scale! Mr. DUBINSKY. I have one chart here for the coat and suit industry, minimum hourly wage provisions, lowest paid crafts, from 1910 to 1937, as provided for in collective agreements. In 1910, 20 cents an hour. It jumped in 1919 to 40. cents. Mr. HEALEY. Is that an average, a country-wide average, or where the industry Mr. DUBINSKY (interposing). That was the highest. The country was lower than New York, yet. That is New York, but that is the highest. And then going up so that until 1935, we were able to bring it up to 64 or 65 cents. That is in the coat and suit industry. Then the dress industry Mr. HEALEY (interposing). I'd like to have these charts introduced in the record. (Chart entitled "Dress Industry, Maximum Hours Worked per Week, 1913 to 1939, as Provided for in Collective Agreements, New York City," was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1460," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) (Chart entitled "Coat and Suit Industry, Minimum Hourly Wage Provisions, Lowest Paid Crafts, 1910 to 1937, as Provided for in Collective Agreements, New York City," was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1461," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. DUBINSKY. In 1913, the minimum hour wage provisions of the highest paid craft-the highest paid, not talking of the lowest paid, but the highest-was 50 cents. When it rose to 60 and 70 through the efforts of the union until it rose for the highest craft $1.25; and then for the lowest craft, which was in 1913, 12 cents, and they were able to bring it down now to 46 cents for the lowest crafts. (Chart entitled "Dress Industry, Minimum Hourly Wage Provision, Lowest Paid Crafts, 1913 to 1939, as Provided for in Collective Agreements, New York City," was received in evidence marked “Exhibit No. 1462," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) (Chart entitled "Dress Industry, Minimum Hourly Wage Provision, Highest Paid Crafts, 1913 to 1939, as Provided for in Collective Agreements, New York City," was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1463," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. HEALEY As a rule, this industry was located in the largest metropolitan areas of the country? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right, in the olden days. Mr. HEALEY. And back before your union became so active, many of these factories and places that these people had to work were unsanitary, poorly lighted, and poorly ventilated? Mr. DUBINSKY. In bedrooms and basements, and you remember probably the story in 1933 where it was discovered in Collier's Magazine, they wrote a famous article where girls were working for $1.50 and $2 a week, 60 hours and 70 hours. Mr. HEALEY. Now, your union has initiated legislation to cure those situations, has it not? Mr. DUBINSKY. Through the collective agreements, and also promoting Federal legislation for that purpose. Mr. HEALEY. Federal and State legislation? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Mr. HEALEY. Now, as a matter of fact, can you give us the percentage of the industry now that have working agreements with your union, members of your union? Mr. DUBINSKY. In the coat and suit industry, about 95 percent of the working force, of the working population, are members of our union, and about 98 percent of the employers are in contractual relations with our union. Mr. HEALEY. Now you have amicable relations with the employers? Mr. DUBINSKY. In fact, for the last 7 years, we were able to renew all agreements, practically, without strikes. Mr. HEALEY. And the employers recognize that this particular union and the payment of the wage scale and the keeping of the hour agreements that you make with them is for the benefit of the employers as well as the employees? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. It is arrived at through the medium of collective bargaining, bargaining between both parties. Mr. HEALEY. I mean you have a very good understanding and arrangement with most of the employers of the garment workers throughout the country? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Mr. HEALEY. And the industry is so competitive that if any large factory employing a considerable number of employees depresses the wage and hour scales, it shows immediately in the competitive market, doesn't it? Mr. DUBINSKY. Correct. Mr. HEALEY. So that if one large factory in this industry was maintaining standards below the union standard, it would have the tendency immediately to bring down the other standards to meet the competition of that particular factory? Mr. DUBINSKY. Congressman, not only one large factory, but any factory may destroy the structure of an industry. We have experience where we have decent wage scales and all kinds of regulation, when there is a firm that is able to get lower labor costs because of stretch-up conditions, and sell it to the retailer, this individual firm establishes a standard for its competitors which they must follow. In order to follow it, it must resort to similar tactics as this individual firm resorted to, and that is how a structure of an industry could collapse. Mr. HEALEY. By the payment of 372 cents a week dues, I believe that is the ultimate, that is the maximum that they pay, 372 cents a week, all of these benefits, through the medium of your organization, have been established for the benefit of these workers who pay these dues into your union? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Not only in wages and not only in hours and treatment, but in position of the industry, in the position of the community, in interest, in social, cultural, spiritual, moral, they are different human beings today than they were 30 years ago under the sweating system of our industry. Congressman, if you have a chance, take a look at a book issued by our international union on the 21st anniversary of our educational department, entitled, "Growing Up," giving the educational activities, and educational progress of these workers, some of them immigrant workers. Mr. HEALEY. So that for their 372 cents a week, they not only get protection for their working standards, but you also have provided educational and cultural facilities in addition. Is that correct? Mr. DUBINSKY. Yes; and health and insurance. Mr. HEALEY. Now, regarding these unfortunate affairs that took place, I believe one was in Texas and one was in Memphis, those things were beyond the control of any recognized leader in your organization, were they not? Mr. DUBINSKY. The conditions that prevailed in the industry? Mr. HEALEY. No; this particular affair that took place in Memphis, where some woman was stripped of her clothing. That was beyond the control of any recognized official or leader in your organization? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. And it is not sanctioned or condoned by the leaders of the union. It happened and it is bound to happen. I say, in a time of strike, it is bound to happen. Mr. HEALEY. I recognize that perfectly well, Mr. Dubinsky, that these are times of great emotional stress? Mr. DUBINSKY. That's it. Mr. HEALEY. On the part of these workers? Mr. HEALEY. And the human reactions that may happen on the picket line, where there is provocation, no one can control? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Mr. HEALEY. So that whatever took place there did not take place with your acquiescence, or by the direction of Mr. DUBINSKY (interposing). Absolutely not. Mr. HEALEY (Continuing). Of any responsible person connected with your organization? Mr. DUBINSKY. Absolutely not. Mr. HEALEY. As a matter of fact, when strikes are being conducted or when there are strikes occurring in any of these industrial plants, it is a matter of fact that those persons interested in breaking those strikes have deliberately placed persons there as provocateurs to cause these acts of violence, have they not? Mr. DUBINSKY. The La Follette committee disclosed plenty of it. Mr. HEALEY. Do you know, as a matter of fact, of your own knowledge? Mr. DUBINSKY. Oh, sure; we have our own experience in our own industries, and right there in Kansas City. Mr. MURDOCK. I'd like to ask this question, Mr. Dubinsky. In this Donnelly case, you resorted to what had been set up by Congress, the National Labor Relations Board, for relief, did you not? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Mr. MURDOCK. Or to effect your remedy? You were met there, were you not, by the Donnelly Garment Co., and a record was made by you and by them, is that right? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Mr. MURDOCK. After the decision of the Board, the Donnelly Co. took an appeal to the circuit court of appeals of that district, did they not? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Mr. MURDOCK. You submitted your briefs and argument there and they submitted theirs? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Mr. MURDOCK. You were willing, were you not, to allow it to rest before that court had decided? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. Mr. MURDOCK. You didn't come here voluntarily to retry it, did you? Mr. DUBINSky. No. Mr. MURDOCK. You came at the suggestion of the committee? Mr. TOLAND. I may say for the record that the witnesses that testified last week came under subpena, on behalf of the committee. Mr. MURDOCK. The reason I asked the question is this, Mr. Toland, and I'd like it to appear in the record, where there is a case pending before a circuit court of appeals, in my opinion it is a mistake to retry it here before this committee. Mr. DUBINSKY. And I hope I am not in trouble because of that. I will ask for your protection on that. The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask another question that is suggested. Mr. DUBINSKY. We complied with the injunction. We haven't done anything while the injunction is pending. All that we have done is resorted to higher courts, and I am, by the way, Mr. Chairman, I am under injunction, as I understand, and it was a question with our counsel whether I could be free in talking what our position was at that time. The CHAIRMAN. Let me now conclude the question I started to ask. Mr. Healey asked you if these acts of violence were not committed. by persons who were not officials of your organization, and that you had no control over, and you said that they were. Now what was the position with your organization of this Mr. Perlstein who was convicted and sent to jail in Texas for acts of violence? Mr. DUBINSKY. He was reprimanded. The CHAIRMAN. He was what? Mr. DUBINSKY. He was reprimanded. The CHAIRMAN. I asked you what was his position? Mr. DUBINSKY. He is a director. Pardon me, I didn't hear your question. He was a director of that territory. The CHAIRMAN. He was director of what? Mr. DUBINSKY. Of the midwestern territory. Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. The CHAIRMAN. Now he is still connected with your organization? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. The CHAIRMAN. And in what position? Mr. DUBINSKY. Same position as he was. The CHAIRMAN. Same position. Has he had an increase of salary since he went to jail? Mr. DUBINSKY. Yes, $10 more; if you asked the question, I think you want to know how much, too. Ten dollars more. Mr. HEALEY. In a month? Mr. DUBINSKY. Ten a week. The CHAIRMAN. He is an official of your organization? Mr. DUBINSKY. Right. The CHAIRMAN. A very responsible official? Mr. DUBINSKY. Very responsible and very able and very efficient. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. DUBINSKY. And makes mistakes, too. Mr. TOLAND. I have one document that I'd like to put in the record. It is a copy of a letter from Mr. Witt to Mr. Krivonos, dated February 1, 1939, and it reads as follows: DEAR FRED: I talked with Elias Lieberman yesterday about the Donnelly case in Kansas City and told him that you knew something about it. Please get in touch with him and tell him what you can about the case. I offer that in evidence. (Copy of letter to Fred G. Krivonos from Nathan Witt, dated February 1, 1939, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1461," and is above.) Mr. TOLAND. I am through with the witness. I would like to state for the record, Mr. Murdock, that when this case was presented on Friday and Saturday the presentation, notwithstanding the fact that the case was before the court of appeals, was pursuant to the inquiry and the resolution as to the conduct of the members of the Board and |