Under the influence of governmental protection against abuses by employers the organization of labor in most fields of endeavor will undoubtedly go forward rapidly. This will result in a more effective balancing of our economic forces and a substantial raising of the standard of living of the workers. With more complete economic organization of labor will come greater political enlightenment and an ever-widening area of progressive social legislation. Organization of the mass production industries will greatly accelerate such progress. However, industrial conflict, fundamentally embedded as it is in the capitalist system, will continue and with it will come the demand for governmental intervention beyond the scope of such legislation as the National Labor Relations Act. The form such legislation should take will necessarily depend upon whether or not the much discussed public interest in preventing strikes is to take precedence over other considerations. I believe there is altogether too much emphasis laid on the losses and discomfort sustained by the public as the result of strikes. The proposition is usually so naively stated as to convey the idea that strikes mean a net loss all around with the public the chief victim. Actually insofar as successful strikes mean that the workers, who are decidedly the economic under-dogs in our scheme of things, are benefited in their purchasing power and their standard of living, the general public and our whole economic structure are the gainers. The argument is often made that strikes mean raising prices as well as wages and that no advantage accrues to the public or the workers from them. Those who hold this view might as well declare that all raising of wages by strikes or otherwise is a negative step that cannot improve the lot of workers. Yet this is apparent nonsense. We may need legislation to see that increased wages are not entirely compensated for by increased prices but are taken in part at least from over-inflated profits. If in fact our economic structure is economically and socially unbalanced by a disproportionate return to capital, public interest would certainly seem to demand that no obstacles be placed in labor's path when it attempts to redress the balance by using its economic power. Of course, there are many strikes unwisely called which cause unnecessary economic loss both to workers and the public. There are likewise all sorts of moves made by business men which result in economic disadvantages all around, as when industry makes too much of certain kinds of goods and demoralizes both the wage and the price markets. There is no public demand, however, that government shall enter the picture either as mediator or arbitrator to prevent the business man from making such mistakes. The reason that strikes provoke suggestions for restrictive legislation is that labor's bids for economic power by striking are carried on in an open and somewhat sensational fashion which receive wide newspaper publicity. Such publicity focuses a public attention that is lethargic and uninformed when parallel activities are indulged in by employers. If, for instance, an employer cuts wages this receives scant attention in the press as compared with the day by day reports of the progress of a strike. If he fails to raise wages when be should the press naturally makes no report at all. Yet if there is public injury in any of these things there is no reason to assume that such injury is greatest in the case of a strike. As a matter of fact when industries are well organized strikes are comparatively rare, although the threat either spoken or understood of a withdrawal of labor power by strong unions is always an important factor in keeping up wages. Legislative proposals which took to governmental investigation before a strike may be called serve to deflate the threat of strike and by so much weaken labor's bargaining power. Labor is likely to suffer by any such legislation. Many unions regularly and voluntarily resort to governmental arbitration by agreement between themselves and their employees. But this is where the unions are strong enough to have confidence that public arbitrators will give their demands due weight. Such a situation exists in the railroad and street carmen's unions. A weak union can marshal no such respect. If a union is protected by government in its efforts to organize it will soon grow strong enough to command the necessary influence with the employer. In the meantime minimum wage legislation to prevent employer exploitation is highly desirable, serving among other things to raise competition to a level of decency. There are many strikes which become bogged down because labor is not strong enough to enforce its demands. Such strikes drag along to the accompaniment of much misery and no benefit to anyone. Frequently, governmental mediation can do much to terminate such strikes in a fashion that gets the workers something if only a return to their jobs on the basis of the status quo. No elaborate governmental machinery is necessary to furnish such mediation. Many state labor de partments have been mediating strikes for years, and so has the federal Depart ment of Labor. If the present strike epidemic seems to demand more mediation let this be accomplished by strengthening the conciliation services of the national and state labor departments. Such simple means of governmental help leave labor free to work out its economic destiny without being hampered and possibly hamstrung by elaborate statutory and administrative red tape and by delay which saps its strength. When labor has arrived at a point where the public is astonished to find industrial profits dwindling while industrial wages rise, then may be a time when some more elaborate governmental restraint on labor's economic activities is in order. Meanwhile there is no dearth of other problems to which legislators concerned with the public interest may profitably address themselves. [Release Tuesday's Papers] EXHIBIT NO. 157 CONTENTS 1. Wages-51 Gauge-Contract. Boarding on Wooden Forms. 2. The Two-Machine System. 3. Discrimination Between Sexes. 4. Break-down of Collective Bargaining. 5. Specific Violation by Berkshire Knitting Mills of Code Standards in Effect In Reading Area. 6. The Berkshire Employees' Association agrees that Sub-Standard Conditions must be corrected. WAGES Typical wages paid at Berkshire as compared to vast majority of other employers follow: 1 Standard construction. This figure will vary slightly according to the number of courses in the stocking 1 Standard construction. This figure will vary slightly according to the number of courses in the stocking. 2 Per dozen. In some instances different wages were paid on the machines producing practically the same work. For example, on style #1287, on footing, some knitters received 33¢ per dozen, while others received 22¢ per dozen. The 33¢ rate was slightly under the prevailing rate paid in the majority of other mills, while the 224 rate was somewhat more than 11e under the prevailing rate. A real comparison can be obtained when considering that on a given 42 gauge style for which the worker receives a flat $21.50 for 40 dozen as against about $34.20 according to prevailing rates in the majority of other shops, more in some instances. This represents an approximate wage disparity of over twelve dollars on each single machine operating under such conditions. Remembering the magnitude of the Berkshire Mill which employs over six thousand workers, it can be appreciated to what extent such a wage disparity can create havoc in the market. A typical example of wage differential on double logging operations results from the following analysis: A particular 45 gauge, 4 thread style for which the knitter was paid 36 a dozen, with production set at 70 dozen, resulting in a wage of $25.20 to the knitter and 22c per dozen to the helper, resulting in $15.40 or a total of $40.60 wages for 70 dozen production under such a system as against 99 per dozen resulting in $69.30, the prevailing rate paid in the majority of other mills. Each such instance represents a wage disparity of $28.70 per two machines per week. With such a competitive advantage at the expense of labor, the Berkshire can and is endangering the industry and attacking labor standards throughout the country. WAGES-51 GAUGE MACHINES-THE CONTRACT SYSTEM AND ITS EFFECTS Several months ago, the company instituted a contract system of wages to knitters on 51 gauge machines for operating two machines. This was intended to guarantee a weekly wage of $45.00 with a production stipulation, which if reached or exceeded, enabled the knitter to earn more than $45.00. The real dangers which result follow: FIRST: It is below the average wage earned on 51 gauge machines which is $55.00 to $65.00 per week operating a single machine. SECOND: It established an earnings level for finer quality merchandise at $45.00 per week for operating two machines. This is the average weekly earnings of knitters on 45 gauge single machines. The tendency therefore is to depress the earnings and rates on the coarser gauges. Pressure on 45 gauge will in turn depress 42 gauge. Thus the contract system threatens the entire wage structure and is a stretchout system creating unemployment. THIRD: If the labor costs on 51 gauge are as low as on 45 gauge, then obviously the retail price level of 45 gauge must fall with similar effects on lower gauge or coarser merchandise. Looping rates.-Berkshire pays $.134 per dozen as against the prevailing rate $.142 on 45 gauge 26 point looping machines. While this represents a very slight disparity per dozen; on a 40 dozen daily production figure, it amounts to about $.32 reduction in labor cost per looping machine per day on such styles. Boarding on wooden forms.-Berkshire pays $.08 per dozen, regardless of style; prevailing rate on 7 to 12 thread work is $.1312, which represents about $.05 a dozen difference. Considering a normal production at 60 dozen per worker on this type work, represents an approximate labor difference of $3.00 per day per person. On 4, 5, 6 thread, Berkshire pays $.08 per dozen, while the prevailing rate is $.1443 per dozen, a difference of $ 0643. Considering a normal production of 50 dozen, this amounts to about $3.22 less, labor cost per person per day on such work in comparison with prevailing rates paid. Finishing operations.-Pairing, folding, boxing, stamping, packing, etc. In these departments many girls are employed at $8.00 per week, although they have worked more than three months. Some according to time of service (according to the provisions of the former Hosiery Code which are being maintained by many employers) should be receiving up to $15.00 per week. THE TWO MACHINE SYSTEM The practice at Berkshire Knitting Mills of employing one knitter and one helper to operate two machines (the double machine system) as opposed to 218054-40-vol. 3-12 the single machine system (one knitter to one machine) prevailing in the Reading area, and throughout the entire industry with very few exceptions results in the following: (a) It increases the present large unemployed body of skilled knitters. (b) It enables the employer to obtain the same amount of production by forcing the skilled knitter to greater concentrated efforts. (c) It enables the employer to effect an enormous labor saving, thus permitting him to market at prices considerably below those of other mills with disastrous effects upon other wage earners in the country. That these results are real is obvious when we consider that this miil, being the largest in the world, produces a substantial amount of the annual production of hosiery in the United States. DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN SEXES Boarders.-Women employed in the boarding department receive rates up to 50% below those given to men boarders. BREAKDOWN OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING The general hosiery strike in Berks County in 1933 was settled at Washington through the intervention of the National Labor Board. created by President Roosevelt because of that strike and of which Senator Wagner was chairman. An agreement was entered into between Emil Rieve, General President of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, and Luther D. Adams, President of Branch #10, the duly elected representatives of the employees, and the employers containing an arbitration clause naming Dr. George W. Taylor as Impartial Arbitrator. The Berkshire Knitting Mills refused to live up to the very first decision of the Impartial Arbitrator, which was adverse to the employers on a matter of general application. (About 6 prior decisions were all against the Union contention and were all complied with by the Union.) This caused a cancellation of the contract by the Union. Despite the fact that Rieve and Adams were the duly elected representatives of the employees of the Berkshire Knitting Mills, the management thereof did not enter into collective bargaining with them. Shortly after the elections of representatives in 1933, a company union was formed at the Berkshire Knitting Mills. (NOTE. The 1933 strike broke out against sweatshop conditions and the settlement increased wages in many instances to the extent of 250% and for the first time in the history of the industry in Berks County established a uniform wage scale, which wage scale was spread by the Union to 75% of the entire industry.) SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS BY BERKSHIRE KNITTI.NG MILLS OF CODE STANDARDS NOW IN EFFECT IN READING AREA 1. Nonpayment of minimum wages in boarding department. 2. Double machine system with one helper. 3. Elimination of 11.11% differential extra on double-shift footer and topper operations as provided in the Hosiery Code. This provision of the Code was adopted as a measure of production control so necessary in this industry which has a productive capacity even under Code standards of 50 million dozen per year, as compared with a market demand in 1935, the highest ever attained, of approximately 35,000,000 dozen. THE BERKSHIRE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION AGREES THAT SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS MUST BE CORRECTED (a) The Berkshire, since 1933, always insisted that any conference between union workers and management must be preceded by a written letter, stating the purposes of the meeting and outlining the points in dispute. This made it impossible for the Union Shop Committee to immediately negotiate on grievances as they arose. Mr. Hemmerich, General Superintendent, once stated his conception of collective bargaining, as follows: "We set wage rates and extend to the workers the privilege of working at such rates and under such conditions or go elsewhere." (b) On August 8th, 1936, the unionized employees of this section formed a picket line of about 1,500 workers at the Berkshire in a protest demonstration against Saturday work. This demonstration was entirely orderly and was decided upon after the Berkshire Knitting Mill had worked several hundred people in the knitting department on the previous Saturday, August 1, 1936. The fear of future consequences, in case of refusal to work Saturday, August 8th, when asked, naturally caused many to offer to work, among which were included union members. Managements' position was sought by President Adams. who phoned Mr. Hemmerich, who replied that it would be the policy of the Berkshire Knitting Mills to work such departments as were necessary on any Saturday. This position of the company was one of the most serious departures from the provisions of the former Hosiery Code, as to threaten the hourly workweek provisions set by the code. Upon petition by the Employers themselves, a period of curtailment was set by the Hosiery Code Authority in 1934; realizing that even two forty-hour shifts created a grave overproduction, considered at the time to be so serious as to threaten the stability of the entire industry. (Mr. Hemmerich was a member of this Code Authority.) (c) On August 18, 1936, Mr. H. W. Payne, District Representative of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, directed a letter to Mr. Hemmerich, copy of which is attached, requesting equal privileges as the Employees' Association in soliciting membership subscription to the organization's publication, in the mill during working hours. No reply was received. (d) On August 21, 1936, Mr. H. W. Payne, District Representative of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, directed a letter, copy of which is attached-Exhibit D-to Mr. Hemmerich, requesting a statement as to future policy of the Berkshire Knitting Mills regarding in substance, contract work, substandard wages, third shift in certain departments, Saturday work, minimum wages, etc., which also was not replied to. It should be distinctly borne in mind that the unionized workers were requesting nothing more from the Berkshire Knitting Mills, than was existing in other mills generally throughout the industry and especially in the Reading area. (e) Branch #10, American Federation of Hosiery Workers, called an open meeting, Saturday, August 29, 1936, for all Berkshire workers to discuss these various problems. Present was, among other members of the Employees' Association, Mr. Fred Werner, President of Berkshire Employees' Association, who agreed that condition should be corrected and stated that his organization opposed the sub-standard practices as in effect. Since the meeting's purpose was to discuss the entire situation, opinions were freely expressed. It was the action of that body, by motion, that a committee be selected, comprised as follows: Four Union representatives, four Employees' Association representatives, President Adams, of Branch #10, and Luther Ammarell, the Union Shop Chairman of Berkshire; and that this committee collectively seek an appointment with the firm to discuss these accumulated grievances, and that another meeting for Berkshire workers be held Saturday, September 26, 1936. Shortly after the meeting (a day or so) President Adams sent a letter to Mr. Fred Werner, copy of which is attached-Exhibit A-requesting cooperation in carrying out the instructions of the meeting. He received no written reply. However, the Berkshire Employees' Association released through the press a resolution, copy attached-Exhibit B-stating their affirmed position as objecting to existing conditions, but that this organization would not meet jointly with the union and management. President Adams, of Branch #10, of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, continued his efforts to carry out the desires of the meeting, and wrote to Mr. Hemmerich on September 22, 1936, copy attached-Exhibit Cstating his request for a meeting and outlining the grievances. The company refused to meet President Adams, but stated they would meet a committee of their employees; whereupon a letter was forwarded to Mr. Hemmerich by Mr. Ammarell, the Union Shop Chairman, in which the grievances were outlined. As a result, a meeting was agreed to and held Saturday, September 26, 1936, at 10:30 A. M., in the office of the Berkshire Knitting Mills. Mr. Hemmerich stated that present policies of the company would be continued. (f) The committee reported back as instructed to another meeting on Saturday, September 26, 1936, and as a result of the firm's refusal to do anything about existing conditions, a strike was declared and due authority voted to persons to set the date. |