In the interest of elemental justice, therefore, we are concerned to see enactment of as universal coverage of minimum wage benefits as is possible through the medium of national action.

In this connection we note with deep interest and concern, however, that proposals for the coverage of wageworkers in agriculture are still not included in the general amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act under consideration at this hearing.

It is our understanding that proposals to this end are also before this committee in a separate bill. With all possible emphasis may I express our hope that every effort will also be made to secure the enactment of this companion measure.

Over the years the churches constituent to the National Council of Churches have felt and widely demonstrated their special sense of concern and responsibility for the largely unorganized-and hence politically and socially voiceless-group of workers, particularly those in the migrant stream, who have such a large part in the harvesting and processing of our food supply.

In this connection we recognize among the long-range problems related to farm workers: (1) The persistent poverty in which they continue to exist even in the face of increasing prosperity in other economic areas; and (2) the widespread lack of opportunity they have to achieve higher levels of living, often because of the low grade of educational opportunities or facilities.

After a process of study and discussion, conducted by the Department of the Church and Economic Life over a period of 3 years, the National Council of Churches adopted last year a seven-point statement on "Ethical Goals for Agricultural Policy," the first goal of which is entitled "The Opportunity for the Full and Wholesome Development of Persons." The statement under this heading says in part-and I quote from it:

Poverty is often crippling to human personality. *** A violation of the Christion concept of justice exists in the fact that wageworkers in agriculture are denied most of the legal and economic protections long accorded to wageworkers in industry. We believe that, with adaptations required for their practical application to the business of farming (as in the enactments on social security), the principles of workmen's and unemployment compensation, minimum wage laws, and the right to organize and bargain collectively under theNational Labor Relations Act should be extended to wageworkers in agriculture. As regards the migrant workers in agriculture, the Council's General Board back in September 1950, affirmed its conviction that—

The churches should support measures intended to provide the extension of minimum wage legislation, social security benefits and labor legislation to include migratory laborers.

While these last two statements apply specifically to workers in the fields, they give expression to the deep moral and ethical responsibility felt by church people for the persistent poverty which continues to be the lot of many of our Nation even as we move toward even higher reaches of economic growth and of relative prosperity for an increasing proportion of the population.

Placement of a floor under the wage rate, even though only in minimum terms, is felt by those whom I represent to be one practical means toward the correction of the most basic of these inequities.

For this reason we welcome this opportunity to express our wholehearted support of the principle of the extension of minimum wage

benefits as embodied in the legislation under consideration at this hearing.

You will observe that this endorsement relates (1) to the principle of minimum wage laws as a practical way of placing a limit below which no one should be required to work for his or her living, and (2) to the justice of the widest possible extension of this principle to workers through the Nation. It does not deal with the technical details of such legislation, particularly as it relates to the desirable rate of the minimum wage.

This we recognize will necessarily be subject to change from time to time and evaluation of the many variables involved in its determination is not within our responsibility or competence.

In keeping with the reasons for advocacy of the minimum wage as a device for assuring income necessary for at least a minimum standard of health and decency, we believe that the rate should be such, as in the opinion of the Congress, will meet this basic requirement.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Dean Sayre. You feel that the churches have a responsibility to concern themselves with the standard of living of the people who are members of their churches or may be members of other churches?

Dean SAYRE. That is correct, Senator Kennedy.

Senator KENNEDY. You don't concern yourselves just with the life hereafter?

Dean SAYRE. Absolutely right.

Senator KENNEDY. The churches should not just concern themselves with the life hereafter?

Dean SAYRE. Quite so. We understand man as God's creation, and by man we mean the whole of man, his soul, his body, his mind, his emotion and his will. And what concerns a part of him concerns all of him, and we are concerned with all those parts as well as the whole here on this earth.

Senator KENNEDY. And do you believe that it represents a denial of a fuller life to pay a subminimum wage? I think your statistics showed 3 years ago that half of the people in these trades were getting less than $1.25 an hour.

Dean SAYRE. That is correct.

Senator KENNEDY. That does not provide enough to permit them to live decently.

Dean SAYRE. We do not believe so, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. Dean, I am delighted to hear from you and am most appreciative of your coming in bringing a different perspective to this problem that is one not merely concerned with dollars and cents. Dean SAYRE. Mr. Chairman, while I have just completed reading a statement which I was asked to present before this committee in behalf of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, may I ask now the privilege of presenting a second statement, in behalf of the Citizens Committee on the Fair Labor Standards Act, of which I have the honor to be chairman?

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF REV. FRANCIS B. SAYRE, JR., ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

The Citizens Committee is not specifically a church group, but is made up of persons in the United States who have been concerned with the welfare of

working people generally. If I may have your permission to read the statement of the committee, I shall proceed to do so now.

The Citizens Committee on the Fair Labor Standards Act was first organized more than a decade ago, in connection with the effort to increase the Federal minimum wage at that time from 40 cents an hour to 75 cents an hour.

A number of us who, through our professions or through our community activities, came into contact with our less fortunate fellow citizens, felt it was our civic duty to see what could be done to relieve their distress.

It seemed to us that while there were numerous worthy agencies concerned with the ill, the aged, and theh unemployed, there was no organization through which public-spirited but otherwise disinterested citizens could help those who, for one reason or another, were forced to work for less than subsistence wages. We were pleased to find that several hundred outstanding persons throughout the country agreed with us, and were willing to lend their support to our efforts. And we were glad to play a small part in the successful campaign for the 75 cents minimum wage.

Our committee has been reactiviated several times in the last 10 years, when the need appeared most urgent. We feel the urgency has never been greater than now.

As you know, two issues are involved in the bill you are presently considering— the amount of the minimum wage, and the coverage of the law. We find it hard to imagine why there should be any substantial objection to the bill on either count.

It seems to our committee and this again is in answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, that an increase in the Federal minimum wage to $1.25 an hour can be criticized only on the grounds that $1.25 is not enough. It is not necessary to take a scientific study to prove that no one can live properly on less. visit to a supermarket will prove the point.

And yet we know that millions of Americans are paid less than $1.25; many of them less than $1. Less than 3 years ago the Department of Labor found that more than 25 percent of all the Nation's retail workers were paid less than $1 an hour, and a full half of them less than $1.25.

These workers, not only in retailing but in the other low-wage groups, have little recourse but the Congress in their quest for assistance. For the most part they are in occupations where union organization has so far been a practical impossibility. And the record proves that State legislatures, for whatever cause, have failed to come to their assistance.

The argument that the several States should take some responsibility in this area may have a theoretical appeal I submit, however, that the record of the last 21 years, since the first wage-hour law was adopted, proves that the theory has not led to action.

It may appear from those remarks that our primary interest is in the workers who are not now protected by that law. That is true only in the sense that the others, such as the workers in the garment trades, already have powerful spokesmen.

We are not minimizing the need for a $1.25 minimum wage for covered workers, both for their immediate economic benefit and to lessen the threat of sweatshop competition. But it is fair to say that the plight of the workers who are now denied the protection of the law is even worse.

There is no longer any valid excuse, in our view, for continuing to exclude almost half the potentially eligible workers from Federal wage-hour standards. This legislation is no longer an experiment, as it was 21 years ago. It was no doubt correct for Congress to proceed cautiously when this field was first entered. But now we are in a position to see that wage-hour legislation works when it is applied; that it raises purchasing power, relieves the distress of the lowest paid, creates rather than reduces employment, and has no visible effect upon the general price level.

We realize that in some fields which this bill proposes to cover, such as the retail and service trades, the present wage level is exceptionally low. Obviously the degree of adjustment that would be required by a $1.25 minimum would be much greater than, for example, in manufacturing.

On the other hand, the needs of retail workers in terms of food, clothing, and shelter are just as great, and fully as deserving of fulfillment, as those of any other workers.

It seems to us that the bill meets this dilemma by limiting the application of the law to larger enterprises, those having annual sales of $500,000 or more.

Without again pretending to be experts in the field, we feel an operation of this size should have the resources to make an orderly adjustment to fair wages and hours of work.

Moreover, experience has proved that the dire predictions which have greeted previous social gains-including the original Fair Labor Standards Act-havenot materialized. Our business community has adjusted to the social security system, to unemployment compensation and to a wide range of other changes brought about by law and by other means. All of these advances were opposed as potential disasters by many business spokesmen; yet our economy is far healthier today than it was when none of these supposed burdens existed.

Here again, we feel the human needs of the men and women involved take precedence over all possible objections. And we are confident that, just as before, progress will prove to be a boon even to those who oppose it. We hope your action on the bill will be prompt and favorable.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Dean Sayre. We are glad to have had you with us today.

Dean SAYRE. I appreciate the opportunity.

Senator KENNEDY. Than you.

The next witness will be Mr. Ralph Casey, American Merchant Marine Institute; accompanied by Mr. J. Monroe Sullivan, vice president of the Pacific American Steamship Association.

STATEMENT OF RALPH E. CASEY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC.

Mr. CASEY. I am Mr. Ralph E. Casey, president of the American Merchant Marine Institute which is a trade association representing 6,500,000 gross tons of American-flag shipping. We represent approximately 70 percent of all oceangoing ships. I might say in regard to the particular subject here today as president of the institute I also act as chairman of the negotiating committee which negotiates with the seven different unions that have contracts with the dry cargo operators on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

I will also, after reading my statement, comment briefly on the west coast situation which is somewhat different from the east coast, and is represented by a statement that has been filed with the committee.

Included in our membership are both subsidized and nonsubsidized companies. I appear before your committee today in opposition to those provisions of S. 1046 which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 so as to terminate the exemption of seamen from the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of that act.

The expressed intent of the bill is to broaden the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, to include many industries not now covered, on the grounds that labor conditions in those industries do not meet the minimum standard of living necessary for the health, efficiency, and general well-being of the workers.

I respectfully submit that neither the expressed purpose nor the general spirit of this legislation has any applicability to the maritime industry.

First, let us look at the maritime wage structure, which is the result of years of hard, arms-length collective bargaining. In that connection, our industry is well known, I might even say notorious, for its long history of strikes and labor disturbances. Even as recently as 1958, contract negotiations resulted in strikes with two officer unions.

You may remember that George Meany himself accepted management's invitation to act as arbitrator in one of these disputes. Incidentally, we are talking about an industry which is for all practical purposes, entirely unionized.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that in March of this year average earnings for manufacturing generally was $88.62 a week. Only an estimated one-third of the factory workers in this country earned over $100 a week. Almost all seaman, on the other hand, averaged well over $100 a week. Reference to table I, attached to my statement, shows that average monthly earnings for unlicensed personnel aboard one of the more common type vessels, C-2, ranged from $380.78 per month for a wiper to $715.36 for a chief steward. The average monthly earnings for all unlicensed personnel were $540. And, of course, the officer personnel earn considerably more.

On top of these earnings in the form of wages are extremely liberal fringe benefits in terms of pensions, welfare benefits, vacations, hospitalization, maintenance and cure benefits, and even an unemployment compensation, or as we call it, an employment security plan.

Incidentally, I have furnished to the staff of the committee a copy of our collective-bargaining agreement to which I will add some supplements and amendments. I don't know that it is complete as I have given it to you.

Table 2, also a part of my statement, compares annual earnings of maritime workers with those of other industries. It shows that in 1957-latest available data from the Department of Commerce—employees in water transportation earned on the average $6,443 per year. The only two groups to exceed them were the security and commodity brokers and those in the radio broadcasting and television industry. Does it look from these figures that workers in the seagoing part of the maritime industry need help from the Congress to maintain a high standard of living?

Seamen's earnings are high not only because they are well paid in terms of wage and overtime rates but also because of the substantial amount of automatic overtime that is paid aboard ship.

A ship at sea is in operation 7 days a week around the clock. Men must be on duty each and every hour, night and day, including Saturdays and Sundays to keep that vessel going. These men are called watchstanders. Hence, under the established practice in the industry, three separate groups of watchstanders are necessary for normal operation. And each of these men must of necessity work 8 hours a day, 7 days a week.

This fact alone makes ours a unique industry in many respects and particularly in connection with any legislative proposal revolving about a 40-hour workweek.

Please do not think for a minute that labor and management in this industry have not bargained in the light of the unique nature of this workweek. There probably has not been a negotiating session over the past 25 years where the demands of labor, though excessive in terms of other industries, have not been justified by labor spokesmen as being tailored to the working conditions of the seaman. The results of collective bargaining as evidenced by current agreements are ample proof of how this has been accomplished.