-6

Mr. Chairman, I know that the members of this Subcommittee are well aware of the serious financial crisis of urban public transit. The transit industry in the United States had an operating deficit of $332 million this past year, and there will be an even greater deficit in 1971. Passage last year of the $3.1 billion capital grant program was acknowledgement by Congress of the crisis and the need for large scale Federal assistance to reverse the present trend and to provide more adequate upto-date transit systems.

It seems paradoxical that at the same time that Congress indicates its awareness of the urban transit crisis it would impose a new burden by way of this overtime amendment which will seriously affect a good many systems throughout the country. The systems which would have this added burden imposed upon them are in most cases those least able to bear it. These same systems invariably pay a wage rate approaching twice the proposed minimum and pay daily overtime by contract.

Mr. Chairman, it just doesn't make much sense to legislate wage increases for an industry with a wage approaching or in excess of $4.00 an hour, which needs federal support for operations as well as capital financial assistance and which to all intents and purposes is 100% organized by the labor unions. Furthermore, the Amalgamated Transit Union which represents two-thirds of the operating employees in the industry, as a stated policy, will not negotiate a labor contract without the inclusion of a cost-of-living escalator.

Το

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request that this proposed overtime amendment for operating transit employees be deleted. impose an overtime requirement by legislative fiat onto presently negotiated contracts is not necessary to protect the employee and is contrary to the public interest.

On behalf of the two million members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I urge your support of S. 1861, The Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1973. This bill will raise the wages of many Americans to levels where they can attain a better standard of living; extend coverage of the Act to workers who do not now enjoy even minimum wages; and remove a number of exemptions that are no longer necessary.

On June 6, 1973, the House of Representatives passed a bill, H. R. 7935, which, with one exception, reflects our overall views as to the amendments that should be made in existing law.

The exception is this: the House failed to remove the overtime exemptions now enjoyed by agricultural processing and seasonal industries under Section 7(c) and 7(d) of the Act. Senator Harrison Williams recently termed this exemption an "anachronism" and we concur. Section 4(a) of S. 1861 rightfully removes this exemption.

Although the House concluded otherwise, we continue to believe that this exemption should be terminated at the earliest possible time.

The reasons are these: In 1970, then Secretary of Labor Shultz concluded that this favored status should no longer be available to industry. The original rationale for this exemption was the perishability of the affected commodities, relatively short periods for harvesting and the great numbers of people needed to process these goods.

However, subsequent technological advances have made it possible for canneries to refrigerate their foods 11 months of the year, process during that time, yet take advantage of these exemptions. In our view, this is hardly a fair labor standard because it deprives working people of the wages. that should be theirs.

Page 2

Ltr to:

Senate Labor and

Public Welfare Comm.

6-13-73

In closing, we would also note that Secretary of Labor Peter J. Brennan, in testifying before your Committee on S. 1861 stated that "changes in technology and employment patterns over the years have undermined the original economic justification of the exemptions" such as that contained in Sections 7(c) and 7(d). Mr. Brennan also stated that he believes that the present law regarding this exemption can now be changed.

We thank you for your consideration in these matters and again urge your support of S. 1861, especially Section 4(a). Sincerely,

Daved a Sweeney

David A. Sweeney

Political and Legislative
Director

DAS:mh

EDWARD T. HANLEY, GENERAL PRESIDENT before THE
LABOR SUBCOMmittee of the SENATE LABOR & PUBLIC

WELFARE COMMITTEE ON S. 1861 TO AMEND THE FAIR

LABOR STANDARDS ACT.

The following testimony is presented to you in behalf of Edward T. Hanley, General President of the Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO with a membership of 1/2 million members.

We support Senate Bill 1861. We join the National AFL-CIO in their demand for top priority to its passage by this Session of Congress. The testimony of the AFL-CIO, to which our International Union subscribes totally and completely, is a masterpiece of legislative observation.

We feel that the Secretary of Labor Peter J. Brennan did the youth

of this nation a real

disservice when he testified in behalf of the administration before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House of Representatives.

In preparing this statement for today, I read the Declaration of Policy contained in Section 2 of the Act. Congress' finding of "labor conditions detrimental to the maintainance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being of workers" in 1938, that still exist today, 35 years later.

It was equally interesting to note that effects of those 1938 conditions

are still prevalent in 1973 and still cause 'unfair methods of competition" leading to "labor disputes" and interfering with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. It was nice to observe that Congress announced its intention to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions without substantially curtailing employment or earning power in 1938. It is nicer to observe that they have done so in the interim, and they are

considering doing so again.

Contrary to a popular American myth, which would have us believe that here in the "Land of Opportunity" anybody willing and able to work can support his or her family decently, 25 million persons currently living in poverty are members of families with a fully employed head of household. This includes one third of all our children who grow up in poverty..

In such circumstances, the cruel irony of the term fully employed" becomes apparent. It's time we faced the hard implications of the hard fact that righ–now in America, a man or a woman can work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, and still require public assistance to maintain his family at a sustenance level, and that this man or woman can be receiving the present federal minimum wage of $1.60 an hour the wage which, according to the Declaration of Policy of the Fair Labor Standards Act, should provide him with the "minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being". I should not have to remind you that the worker earning

96-478 O 73 - 26