jK piiii* 
 
 175 
 
 ni8 r 
 
i 
 
 l!i!S 
 
 i 
 
IINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR 
 
 HOUSE OF EEPKESENTATIVES 
 
 SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 
 
 SECOND SESSION 
 
 ON 
 
 H. R 152 
 
 A lULL TO FIX COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 
 OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1918 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 

 COMMITTEE ON LABOR. 
 
 Sixty-Fifth Oongeess. 
 
 JAMBS P. MAHBR, New York, Chairman. 
 WALTER A. WATSON, Virginia. JOHN M. C. SMITH, Michigan. 
 
 EDWARD KEATING, Colorado. EDWARD E. BROWNE, Wisconsin. 
 
 EDWARD B. ALMON, Alabama. JOHN I. NOLAN, California. 
 
 CARL C. VAN DYKE, Minnesota. IRA G. HERSEY, Maine. 
 
 MEYER LONDON, New York. FREDERICK N. ZIHLMAN, Maryland. 
 
 JEFF : McLEMORE, Texas. 
 GUY E. CAMPBELL, Pennsylvania. 
 L. D. ROBINSON, North Carolina. 
 
 D. P. GermeeshauseNj Cleric. 
 
 De of D. 
 
 MAR 23 1918 
 

 <5 
 
 ^ 
 
 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 Committee on Labor, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington^ D. G.^ Friday^ January 11, 1918. 
 
 The committee this day met, Hon. James P. Maher (chairman) 
 presiding. 
 
 The Chairman. There is a quorum here. The committee will now 
 be in order. The l^ill before the committee is H. R. 152, introduced 
 by Mr. Nolan. 
 
 (A copy of the bill is as follows:) 
 
 [H. R. 152, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session.] 
 A BILL To fix the compensation of certain employees of the United States. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives oj the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That after the beginning of the first 
 fiscal year following the passage of this act the minimum compensation of any 
 person employed by the United States or by the government of the District 
 of Columbia shall be not less than $3 per day ; or if employed by the hour not 
 less than 37i cents per hour; or if employed by the month not less than $90 
 per month; or if employed by the year not less than $1,080 per annum: 
 Provided, That persons employed on a monthly or annual salary basis and who 
 regularly perform less than a full day's service shall receive compensation at 
 the rate of not less than 37J cents per hour: Provided further, That the pro- 
 visions of this act shall not apply to persons enlisted in the military branches 
 of the Government nor to persons receiving quarters and subsistence in addi- 
 tion to their compensation, nor to the employees in the Philippine Islands, 
 Porto Rico, the Territory of Hawaii, the Territory of Alaska, and the Panama 
 Canal Zone, nor to persons holding appointments as postmasters: Provided 
 further, That the provisions of this act shall apply only to those persons who 
 have been continuously in the employ of the Government of the United States 
 or in the employ of the government of the District of Columbia for a period 
 of not less than two years and who shall have attained the age of twenty years. 
 
 Sec. 2. That upon the passage of this act the heads of departments in which 
 are employed persons as defined in section one of this bill shall issue new 
 appointments at the increased rate of compensation herein provided. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Mr. Chairman, I think it is due to you and the coni- 
 mittee that I should make a little preliminary statement here. This 
 bill, H. R. 152, is an exact copy of the bill that was reported by the 
 Committee on Labor in the Sixty-fourth Congress. The number of 
 that bill was H. R. 11876, entitled "A bill to fix the compensation of 
 certain employees of the United States." The bill, as introduced 
 in this Congress, is in the same shape as it was when the committee 
 reported it out, with certain amendments. The amendments are in- 
 cluded in the new bill. 
 
 Mr. Watson. You mean the present bill is the same bill exactly as 
 reported by the committee then? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Exactly as reported to the House by the committee. 
 I understand that at the last meeting of the committee, in the early 
 
4 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 part of December, it was decided to postpone any action on it until 
 such time as the new members of the cormnittee could familiarize 
 themselves with the contents of the measure and also familiarize 
 themselves with the hearings that were held at the last session. There 
 were extensive hearings held on this bill, covering 423 pages. I pre- 
 sume that at this session we could go along for weeks or months hear- 
 ing the stories of those underpaid and lower-paid employees of the 
 Federal service that would fill several volumes. We all know what 
 has happened in the last year regarding the prices of commodities 
 and we all know that the people that have been hit the hardest are 
 those that are receiving the lowest salaries, and there are a great 
 many men and women here to-day, representing different organiza- 
 tions, and I presume they could go on and tell a story that would be 
 rather heartrending and receive a great deal of publicity, etc., 
 throughout the country, and could go on indefinitely, telling that 
 story. 
 
 I think we all know it ourselves, and anybody that knows condi- 
 tions, as we are expected to know them, knows that instead of things 
 slackening up and prices becoming more reasonable, they have been 
 going up by leaps and bounds, and if there was justification in the 
 Sixty-fourth Congress for the committee unanimously to report this 
 measure, I think there is ample justification in this Sixty-fifth Con- 
 gress for the committee to report unanimously in favor of the bill. 
 
 There are a number of men and women here today representing 
 organizations of Federal employees, and some of them are here as 
 individuals and some of them representing the postal organizations, 
 and I believe they want to say something, but as far as I am con- 
 cerned, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this committee, I think that 
 what we need now is speed, and I think what we ought to do at this 
 session of Congress is to give first consideration to the employees of 
 the Government of the United States that are receiving a small com- 
 pensation, and I think this is a proper way to do it, to set a basis. 
 I think you have surrounded this bill with enough restrictions, and 
 personally, I am in favor of taking definite action so that we might 
 have action in the House at the earliest opportunity. 
 
 Mr. ZiHLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I understood that the sentiment of 
 this committee was almost unanimously in favor of this bill, and 
 the matter was only laid over because of the absence of Mr. Nolan, 
 and the fact that some of the new members of the committee wanted 
 to familiarize themselves with the provisions of it. There have 
 been extensive hearings on the bill and unless there is some in- 
 formation that some member of the committee wants to bring out 
 some matter that is not clear to him I do not feel we should have 
 any further hearings, and I move, unless there is objection, that 
 we report the bill favorably. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Nolan very truly says that we can go ahead 
 and continue hearings for some time on this bill and people would 
 come from all over the United States to be heard, but I am in 
 favor of expediting this legislation and getting some action on it 
 in this Congress. If we allow it to hang fire another week or two 
 the chances are we will find ourselves in the same position that we 
 were in in the last Congress, with no action on the bill. 
 
 Mr. Hersey. Is there anybody here in opposition to it, Mr. Chair- 
 man ? ' 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 5 
 
 Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman, I suppose I was one of the last mem- 
 bers of the committee at the last Congress to give my consent to 
 sustaining this measure. My doubts on the subject arose from the 
 fact that I had entertained the idea that Congress, as a body, was 
 not so well qualified to speak on the question of wages, but the 
 situation has materially altered sin»e the last Congress was in ses- 
 sion, and, as one of those who was last to give his consent, I feel 
 that if anybody has any objection, perhaps I, myself, would have, 
 but the objections which presented themselves to my mind have in 
 a large measure been overcome and, Mr. Chairman, I move, sir, 
 that the committee report the bill favorably and recommend its 
 adoption. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I wanted to ask just a question. I am in favor, I 
 think, of this bill. I am in favor of the increase of wages right 
 straight through of Government employees. The only question that 
 I thought of was having a minimum wage of $3 a clay, whether it 
 would not be quite an injustice between employees right down. 
 There are some of them now that would not be affected, that are 
 getting $3 a day, that are performing much more expert service 
 than those that would be raised, and I did not know but what some 
 legislation might be worked out which would take all of these 
 Government employees and graduate their wages and have them 
 fixed in relation to each other some. They are now supposed to 
 be fixed according to the service they perform, the expertness of 
 their service. And another question that was asked several times, 
 I know, when this bill was up before, and I do not know whether 
 it has been answered or not, was just how much this bill would 
 cost the Government a year. That has been asked, I know, a good 
 many times and I would like to find out from Mr. Nolan whether 
 that has been computed by anybody? 
 
 The Chairman. There has been a motion made by the gentle- 
 man and I would like to put the motion to the committee. The 
 motion is that this bill be reported out favorably by the committee. 
 Now, go ahead, Mr. Nolan. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I will state, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of Mr. 
 Brov/n. that I agree with him that there should be a reclassification 
 of all salaries of the Government employees or due consideration 
 given to the class of work employees are engaged upon, and also 
 their skill. The unfortunate part of it is — not wanting to bring in 
 the subject of anothej committee — but there is one committee in 
 the House that is opposed to taking up the question of reforming 
 the civil service, classification bills, and one thing and another, and 
 as near as I can recollect in the nearly six years that I have been 
 here — a little over five years ; about five years — I can only remember 
 about three hearings by that committee, and none on any classifi- 
 cation bill. 
 
 My idea of this minimum wage is that it will be the basis for 
 a reclassification measure. I think that any man or woman who has 
 takin a civil-service examination or who is brought into the civil 
 service of the United States that has served the Government two 
 years and has reached the age of 20 years is entitled to $3 a day. I 
 think that the Government will receive better service ; it will receive 
 a better grade of workers by offering that inducement. It is not as 
 
6 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 big an inducement to-day as it was a few years ago, and everybody 
 seems to be favorable to the rate set — $3 a day — and I think from 
 that on they can begin to reclassify. 
 
 I understand, in talking to Mr. Sherley and Mr. Byrns, of the 
 Appropriations Committee, that they have an investigation in mind 
 for the purpose of reclassifying. In the meantime I think they are 
 going to provide in the annual appropriation bill for some sort of 
 a substantial temporary increase. Is that your understanding, Mr. 
 Keating, in connection with that measure? 
 
 Mr. Keating. Yes; they have given us encouragement along that 
 line. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. That is the situation as I gathered from the con- 
 versation which I had with them. That is their intention, although 
 I think there will be a reclassification, and I think it is necessary that 
 we should have one in the Federal service in justice to the employees. 
 
 Now, in reference to the question of cost of this bill, I will say 
 that after the committee reported this bill out in the Sixty-fourth 
 Congress I took up with all of the departments of the Government 
 of the United States and the independent bureaus the question of 
 the cost of this bill. I submitted a copy of the bill to them and got 
 replies back from all hands. In fact the War Department sug- 
 gested some modifications that the committee afterwards authorized 
 me to put in, and that was that this bill should not apply to the 
 employees in the Philippine Islands, Porto Eico, the Territory of 
 Hawaii, the Territory of Alaska, and the Panama Canal Zone, for 
 the reason that they had their own methods of payments, and it 
 would probably run into millions of dollars. They are paid in 
 silver in the Panama Canal Zone and paid at a certain rate in the 
 Philippines and Porto Eico, etc. The nearest estimate that we could 
 get was that it would be about $23,500,000 at that time. 
 
 Since that time there has been a 10 per cent advance to those re- 
 ceiving less than $1,200 per year. While I think there are some em- 
 ployees who have been brought into the Federal service since we re- 
 ported this bill last time that would be benefited by the provisions 
 of it, still I think the men and women brought into the Federal serv- 
 ice in the last year or two that receive less than $90 per month, or 
 $3 per day, are very few. The point is that the old employees of the 
 Government are getting wages considerably lower for the same class 
 of work to-day than those that are being brought in. In other words, 
 inducements are held out, and must be held out, to people who come 
 into the lower grades to-day to do certain service for the Govern- 
 ment, in the matter of higher wages, and they_ are getting increased 
 compensation over those that have been working 5, 10, or 15 years. 
 Mr. Brown. I think that is so. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. So that when it comes to the bringing in of people 
 working in similar employments with those that will be benefited by 
 this bill, the older employees, the newer employees are getting wages 
 equal to those which are now being paid the older employees, except 
 in, I suppose, probably a few hundred cases, so that the increased 
 forces of the Government will not increase the amount necessary to 
 put this bill into effect. 
 
 But even if it did, we know what has been going on. I do not know 
 whether you gentlemen have had this called to your attention, but 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 7 
 
 here, for instance, is the District of Columbia, I cut out of the paper 
 a short while ago, an advertisement of the Old Dutch Market, and I 
 have got a kind of an idea that those people put this advertisement 
 in in self-defense; that is, to show to the people of the District that 
 they were compelled to charge increased prices for certain commodi- 
 ties on account of the way things are going. I am not going to at- 
 tempt to read it here, but I want to call your attention to a few items, 
 and then show you the aggregate figures. Flour, Gold Medal, that 
 is a very high grade of flour, in December, 1914, was 4 cents; in 
 December, 1915, it was 4 cents, that was a few months before we held 
 the hearings ; now it is 6^ cents. Condensed milk for the babies was 
 10 cents in 1914, 10 cents in 1915, and now it is 19 cents. Corn meal 
 was 3 cents in 1914, 4 cents in 1915, and 6 cents in 1917. Oatmeal 
 was 5 cents in 1914, 4 cents in 1915, and 8 cents in 1917. Beans — we 
 have got the testimony of man after man and woman after woman, 
 in these 423 pages of hearings that dwelt upon the fact, that beans 
 had increased in cost considerably. ISTavy beans were 6 cents in 1914, 
 8 cents in 1915, and 18 cents in 1917. You can go down the line, and 
 there is no use talking about meats, because they have gone up to a 
 prohibitive figure ; and I call attention to the fact that in all of these 
 items — ^there were 61 items — the largest number of them are the kind 
 of foods that the people receiving small wages would naturally have 
 to subsist upon if they could buy them. There are a total of 61 items, 
 and the total unit of cost in December, 1914, was 770 ; it increased in 
 December, 1915, to 891, and it has increased in December, 1917, that 
 is, a month ago, to 1,434. Now, the average increase in all of these 
 items, shown on this list, from December, 1914, to December, 1917, 
 was 86^ per cent. The average increase in all items shown on this 
 list from December, 1915, to December, 1917, was 611*0 per cent, the 
 increase over 1914 being 86y% per cent. 
 
 The Government is making appropriations to the extent of mil- 
 lions of dollars. Of course, no matter what we spend, if there is no 
 justification for the measure, I do not think there ought to be any 
 consideration given to it ; but, in spending all of these billions, I am 
 sure that the matter of $20,000,000 — and that is what I figure it will 
 be — ^is small, compared to the consideration we are giving to every- 
 thing else, in the matter of increased prices. We have got to pay it 
 to-day ; we have got to pay it during this war ; we have had to pay 
 it for a long time past; we have had to pay increased prices for 
 everything we bought, except the labor power of those that were 
 working for us. 
 
 Now, you have always fixed the wages of these people according to 
 law. Congress has taken away the power of the executive depart- 
 ments under the lump-sum appropriation to raise the salaries of the 
 employees. The only way that underpaid employees could have their 
 salaries raised in years gone by was by the lump-sum appropriation 
 bills. In other words, the various executive departments and inde- 
 pendent bureaus of the Government have been prohibited from meet- 
 ing these increased prices that their people have had to pay by rais- 
 ing wages through the limitations that we have placed upon them. 
 There is only one way that can be remedied, and that is by congres- 
 sional action. I think all of our employees all over this country 
 would be better off if they had the same opportunity as the men in 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 the mechanical departments have — as the men in the shipyards to- 
 day working on Government work have — of meeting with their em- 
 ployer, which is the Government, or their representatives, and nego- 
 tiating annually the question of wages ; and if they can show that the 
 prices of commodities have increased in the year there are certain 
 allowances made. But where you have a fixed rate, and where you 
 have these limitations on appropriation bills, the only remedy for 
 these people is to come to Congress, and they have come to Congress, 
 and the remedy is provided in this bill. That is a basic remedy, fix- 
 ing a day's pay, and from that I think Congress will, through re- 
 classification, do justice to all. 
 
 The Chairman. Before putting this motion I would like to have 
 an understanding with the committee. There are a number of ladies 
 and gentlemen here that came here, no doubt, to give evidence on 
 this bill. I would suggest that they he permitted to submit whatever 
 statements they have in writing and let it go in as a part of the 
 minutes. We will not have time to hear them all. The committee 
 is ready to vote. Are you ready for the motion ? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, before you put the 
 motion, that those people who are here representing organizations, 
 and even those that are here as individuals, give their names to the 
 clerk of the Committee on Labor, and, if they have any statements 
 to make, that they hand them over to him so that they may be incor- 
 porated as a part of the hearings. I make that suggestion. 
 
 The Chairman. Is that the sense of the committee ? 
 
 Mr. London. It is so moved. 
 
 The Chairman. The question is that the committee report this bill 
 out 
 
 Mr. Almon. Mr. Nolan, I will ask you, for information. Are there 
 not a number of Government employees in the District of Columbia 
 who only work probably from two to four hours per day, such as 
 charwomen in the departments; and if so, do you think they should 
 be paid $90 per month, in accordance with the provisions of this 
 measure ? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. No, we expected that that was taken care of, Judge, in 
 the following language : 
 
 Provided, That persons employed on a monthly or annual salary basis and 
 who regularly perform less than a full day's service shall receive compensation 
 at a rate of not less than 37^1 cents per hour. 
 
 The idea of that was that if a charwoman was employed at the 
 rate of $24 per month, different salaries per month, that was a com- 
 mittee amendment to the last bill, that persons employed on a 
 monthly or annual salary basis, and who regularly performed less 
 than a full day's service, shall receive compensation at the rate of 
 not less than 37* cents per hour. That would mean, for those work- 
 ing four hours per day, $1.50 per day for the four-hour service. 
 
 Mr. Almon. What are the charwomen in the House Office Build- 
 ing paid ? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I think it is somewhere along about, anyway from 
 $20 to $25 per month. 
 
 Mr. Keating. I think it is from $20 to $25 per month. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I did see some of them and they told me something 
 about that. 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 9 
 
 Mr. Keating. This would provide an increase for them, but not 
 any radical increase at that. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. It would put them on the same hourly basis of every 
 other employee, under the full terms of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Almon. Take the Government work such as is being per- 
 formed in munitions works and nitrate plants of the Government 
 around over the country, and where private corporations, railroads, 
 and other interests employ common labor at, say, $2 or $2.50 or 
 $2.25 per day, do you think it would be right for the Government 
 to pay $3 for the same service, right in the adjoining yards, in the 
 same vicinity? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Well, I would say frankly, yes; Judge, I think it 
 would be right, but I think that the instances where they can get 
 common labor to-daj^ — now, for instance, here is a bill that provides 
 that a man shall be in the employment of the Government of the 
 United States two years before he is entitled to the benefits of $3 
 per day, and shall have reached the age of 20 years. That is to 
 take care of the young man that comes in at the age of 16, who has 
 got to wait until he reaches 20, and then the man who comes in 
 the service at the age of 25 or 30, he would have to be in the service 
 two years before he could get the benefit of the bill. I think the 
 instances in this country, in the labor sections of the country where 
 they can get common labor for $2 and $2.25 per day, are very rare. 
 You spoke about munition plants. The munition workers of the 
 country to-daj;^ are the highest paid workers, and the man who would 
 go in and be of any value to them at all and stay two years would be 
 paid $4 or $5 per day. 
 
 I think the statement made on the floor last Wednesday was a 
 little bit overdrawn, and I asked the man about it afterwards, and 
 he said that the common laborers in the coal mines of Pennsylvania 
 were being paid $5 per day and that the coal miners were making 
 up to $15 per day. I can not believe it, but if that is so, of course we 
 are away under in this bill. That is an extraordinary situation, but 
 if we want to discount that 40 per cent the common laborer around 
 the mines would get $3 a day. Wages have gone up tremendously. 
 I recollect here a few weeks ago I sat with the Assistant Secretary 
 of the Navy, Mr. Roosevelt, and a man who is now general manager 
 of the Emergency Fleet Corporation, Mr. Piez, and several other 
 men, and we were examining the wages of the men in the shipyards 
 along the Pacific Coast, and there was not an instance where wages 
 were as low as $3 per day, and the helpers and laborers were being 
 paid up to around $3.96 for eight hours' work. The statement was 
 made there that they would like to have the wages more uniform 
 in the shipyards of the country, to make the conditions so attractive 
 that men would come into them in preference to going into other em- 
 ployments, and they wanted to make them as attractive at the South 
 Atlantic ports where they have established several shipbuilding dis- 
 tricts, as they are on the Atlantic Coast and the Great Lakes. I 
 think that while a few years ago a $3 a day minimum might have 
 been looked upon as high, to-day it is not looked upon as so extra- 
 ordinary, and a man can not go very far on $3 per day to-day and 
 raise a family ; he can not do it. It is a help to him but he can not 
 do anything on $3 a day and raise a family. He must have some 
 
10 
 
 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 other money coming in. I do not think any place in the country is 
 hit any harder than right here in this District. 
 
 Mr. Almon. Do you remember what the janitors around these 
 Government departments in Washington get paid as a rule, sitting 
 around the doors, admitting guests, callers, etc.? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I do not know what their designation is; I think it 
 is that of messengers, and I think their pay is somewhere in the 
 neighborhood of $55 or $60 per month. Does anybody know what 
 messengers get that are in the public buildings ? 
 
 Mr. ZlHLMAN. $60. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. $60, or $720 per year. This would mean a raise of 
 $1 a day to them, Judge. The question has been spoken of. One of 
 the leaders in the House spoke of that. It is not a question of cor- 
 recting any evils of employment. I think that is a matter of ad- 
 ministration. If they feel that a man or a woman is filling a posi- 
 tion that is really unnecessary, it is up to the Government depart- 
 ment to correct that matter. I think any man that is hired by the 
 Government of the United States to-day ought to get at least $3 per 
 da}^ if there were justification 20 years ago to give those salaries. I 
 understand these salaries were fixed in 1854 and they have not been 
 readjusted since. If there was justification then for $60 a month 
 there is justification to-day for $90. 
 
 Mr. Almon. Then, if there is a percentage of increase added to 
 that, it would be 
 
 Mr. Nolan (interposing). I figured that before this thing would 
 go through there would be something on that. 
 
 Mr. Almon. Do you think that these janitors and messengers, sit- 
 ting around these doors in the departments, six or eight hours per 
 day, ought to be paid $90 per month and then an additional percent- 
 age, if there is an additional percentage ? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Well, I was not figuring on tjie percentage. I figured 
 that before this measure became a law, the annual appropriation bills 
 will have been put into effect and that if this measure passes, it will 
 passpass after that 10 per cent, or whatever it is, 25 or 30 per cent, 
 goes on. Last year we put on 10 per cent. That would give the 
 $60 a month man $66. 
 
 Mr. Almon. If he gets $90 he would get $100. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. If he gets this additional money that would be the 
 minimum. 
 
 Mr. ZiHLMAN. This bill would not affect it. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. It would not affect it. 
 
 Mr. Almon. The $60 a month messenger, under the provisions of 
 this bill, would get $90 a month ? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Almon. Then if there is 10 per cent added to that by Congress, 
 he would get $100 a month ? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. If this bill passess, unless we make some other pro- 
 vision. 
 
 Mr. Almon. Then he would get $100 a month? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. No; that would be $99, practically $100, if an addi- 
 tional percentage of increase was scheduled, but if this is granted this 
 year, the appropriation bills will pass before the 1st of July and will 
 take effect then. This bill I do not think will pass the House and 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 11 
 
 Senate before the 1st of July. In that case the man who is now 
 getting $60 a month will receive probably an additional percentage 
 between now and the 1st of July. On top of that percentage he 
 would get the difference between that and $90. For instance, we 
 will say that the House gives a 25 or 30 per cent increase, under the 
 provisions of Mr. Keating's bill. Then the $60 a month man, who 
 is getting $60 a month now, would get 30 per cent additional, or $18, 
 which would be $78. Then he would get $12 additional advance, 
 Judge, if my bill went into effect. 
 
 Mr. Almon. Do you think that those messengers we have just 
 spoken of, who are now getting $60 a month, ought to be paid $90 
 even if the same class of labor is being paid $60 a month by outsiders 
 in private business, department stores, apartment houses, and things 
 like that? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I do not know that you will find anyone, unless it be 
 boys, holding that sort of positions outside of the Government serv- 
 ice. There has been a general complaint here, in fact it is not a 
 complaint, it is a protest on the part of the department stores and 
 office people and men in the city of Washington against the Govern- 
 ment taking their help away and giving them higher pay. They are 
 not paying them, as I said awhile ago, the same pay that they are 
 paying the older employees whose salaries are fixed, but with the 
 unlimited money and no limit on the money in these special appro- 
 priations that we have made they are able to pay that sort of labor 
 now a good deal higher than those that are on the regular rolls. For 
 instance, the Council of National Defense are not under the same 
 restrictions as the Government ordinarily is. If they want mes- 
 sengers and they have got to pay $80 a month, they will pay it to them, 
 but the old employees get their old salaries. 
 
 Mr. Almon. You do not think the railroad employees would be 
 included under the provisions of this act since the railroads have 
 been taken over and are controlled by the Government, do you ? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I do not think there is anybody in the railroad shops 
 that would benefit by it. I think they are getting that much and 
 more now. 
 
 Mr. Almon. I am sure most of them are. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I do not beli'eve that any of them are getting as low 
 as $3 a day. 
 
 Mr. Almon. You know there are a great many railroad men in 
 the country who never have gotten anything like $3 a day. They 
 might have earned it, but they never have gotten it. There are 
 section men in my part of the country who for years and years have 
 been paid $1.25 per day, which is not what they ought to be paid. 
 I do not think they are getting more than $2.25 per day now. I 
 wondered if the provisions of this act would include the railroad 
 employees, since the Government has taken over the railroads and is 
 controlling them. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. The Provost Marshal, Gen. Crowder, I understand 
 from Mr. McLaurin, has decided they are not Government employees. 
 
 Mr. Almon. I would not think so myself. 
 
 Mr. Watson. As a legal proposition I would not think so. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. They would not come under the provisions of this 
 act because they are not in the Government employ. 
 
12 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 Mr. Keating. If the Government takes them over I think the 
 Government should increase the wages of section men and these 
 telegraph operators and station agents. 
 
 Mr. Watson. I think there are certain railroad employees, espe- 
 cially section men, whose wages should be increased. 
 
 Mr. Almon. I simply asked the question for information. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I know, Judge. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I would like to see in this report that is made, if we ■ 
 pass this bill, if it can be obtained, I would like to see the number 
 of laborers who will be affected by this measure, as accurate an esti- 
 mate as you can get, or the basis for your figures of $33,000,000. I 
 think you should work that out, and get those figures, because that 
 question was asked before when it was on the floor, and I think we 
 ought to have some pretty tangible basis there for answering that. 
 People want to know how much money they are going to appropriate, 
 and just what employees are affected, and what employees would be 
 exempt. For instance, those charwomen there, those, of course, are 
 working by the hour, but I myself am very ignorant about the em- 
 ployees in these different departments, and I do not know what they 
 are getting, and I have no idea how many employees are in the dif- 
 ferent departments. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON. Is it not a more equitable way to get at it, to pay 
 them for the service received? Mr. Keating's bill provides for a 
 certain percentage of increase in accordance with the high cost of 
 living, and then makes a lump sum as a minimum. Is not that more 
 equitable, to recognize the principle of pay for the service received? 
 
 Mr. Keating. I think Mr. Nolan's view it that there is a minimum 
 below which you can not go, and permit a human being to live as an 
 American should live. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON. Well, gentlemen, there are thousands of them in 
 this country, not in the employ of this Government, receiving much 
 less pay than $3 per day — thousands of them. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. That is true ; and a few years ago there were thousands 
 of men and women in different employements that were working 
 9, 10, 11, and 12 hours a day. The Government's establishment of the 
 eight-hour day as a basis for a workday has had a tremendous moral 
 influence on private employment. I think every shipyard in the 
 country, even before we went into war, was on an eight-hour day 
 basis, and a lot of industries were on an eight-hour basis and the 
 \ activities in a legislative way were largely, I think, responsible for it. 
 
 I think that a measure of this kind would correct and have a tendency 
 to correct and have a good moral effect in leavening up the wages 
 in private employment. I think the principle involved here ought 
 to determine our action on this ; and that is, whether we consider $3 
 a day too high or whether, under present-day conditions, we ought 
 not to say that $3 a day is the least that we think a man or a woman 
 can get along on in this country, and particularly so if they have to 
 raise a family. Mr. Keating's bill is like the amendment put into last 
 year's appropriation bill. It will go on from time to time until 
 such time as a rule is brought in maldng it permanent legislation. 
 There seems to be decided objection on the part of the Appropria- 
 tions Committee to that. They are of the opinion, however, that there 
 ought to be a reclassification. My opinion is that this is a good 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 13 
 
 foundation for reclassiJEication, and then if they go to take care of 
 some of the aches and ills and evils that there is some complaint 
 about, you can do that in the reclassification measure. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON. I do not know what experience you other gentle- 
 men have had. My term of office here has been rather brief ; my term 
 commenced on the 4th of March last, but for every Government po- 
 sition that I in any way had the disposal of I had about 50 applica- 
 tions for every job, so these positions are not going begging. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. That is perhaps due to the permanency of them 
 rather than the compensation. 
 
 Mr. EoBiKSON. Well, they are not permanent because with each 
 change of administration those positions are changed; they are not 
 permanent. 
 
 Mr. London. But your constituents assume the}^ will be perma- 
 nent. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I know they do not assume that, because changes 
 in politics happen very often. We all recognize that. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Will you let me ask you this question, Mr. Robinson ? 
 
 Mr. Almon. Let Mr. Robinson finish his statement first. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. You fix the minimum pay at $3 per day and say 
 that we ought to recognize this as the minimum pay or wages in any 
 branch of the service in the country and in private employment. 
 Now, I was born and reared on the farm, and I dare say there is not 
 a farmer raising cotton and corn in my section that could operate 
 and get out even on paying his laborers $3 a day to raise corn and 
 cotton. Our country is not a rich country like the country that my 
 friend Keating comes from, where they can make 100 bushels of 
 corn to the acre without fertilizers. 
 
 Mr. Keating. Two hundred bushels is the limit. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. We make 25 bushels per acre by using 1,000 pounds 
 of fertilizer, and we think we are doing very well. I know farmers 
 there who are working for $25 per month, raising families, rearing 
 families with 8 and 10 children, and living well. I do not mean by 
 that that they have porterhouse steak for breakfast every morning, 
 but then they raise what they eat. 
 
 The Chairman. What has been the percentage of increase in the 
 pay of farm laborers in the past two years ? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. All the farm laborers are trying to get in the Gov- 
 ernment because they are paid better. 
 
 The Chairman. What increase have they received for work on the 
 farm? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. Oh, it has increased — I would say it has increased 
 30 per cent at least. 
 
 Mr. Keating. Seriously, you can not get good farm labor in my sec- 
 tion for less than $3 a day. 
 
 Mr. Hersey. It is the same in m}^ country. 
 
 Mr. Keating. And in my section of the country labor is cheaper, 
 as a matter of fact, than in some other States. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. Well, I do not know; I have never visited your 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Mr. Robinson, are those constituents of yours looking 
 for civil-service jobs or just appointments? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. They are looking for any Government job. 
 
14 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDBEAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Have jou had a Government job to give out which 
 was less than $3 a day ? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. Yes; the only patronage I have is a job in the fold- 
 ing room, and they paid them $75 a month until that 10 per cent in- 
 crease went into effect, and they are now getting $82. I had about 
 25 applicants for the job, and the man who got it came to Washing- 
 ton, rented a house, and has a family of three children, and was 
 glad to get the job. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. You are getting him a raise of $7.50 a month under 
 this bill. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I would be glad to have them raised, so far as I 
 am personally concerned, butl am not in favor of spending the pub- 
 lic money in this way when there are so many seeking jobs and get- 
 ting less pay for more service in private employment. That is the 
 way I feel about it, gentlemen, but I am a new man here and not up 
 to the present-day methods of doing things. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I think, if it was necessary, we could bring down be- 
 fore this committee the officers of the Civil Service Commission. 
 They will tell you that the applicants for positions at less than $100 
 per month have fallen off tremendously ever since this war started, 
 and they say there are thousands and thousands of men and women 
 leaving the Government service to-day because they can do better on 
 the outside. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I would like to get some of those vacancies, for I 
 'have spent most of my time since I have been here running around 
 trying to get some of my constituents a job. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Those are civil-service positions, and they are required 
 to take the civil-service examination the same as anybody else. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. But when I go to the Civil Service Commission to 
 inquire about them, they tell me there are so many ahead that they 
 do not know when they will reach them. 
 
 Mr. London. Assuming that you were a private employer, you 
 would gladly pay a living wage, if you could afford it ? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I believe in paying for value received, gentlemen; 
 but when you make a minimum price without any regard for service 
 rendered, it looks to me like it is going rather far. 
 
 Mr. LoisDON. But every human being, no matter how simple his 
 service, is entitled to enough compensation to supply him with food, 
 clothing, rent, and some allowance for recreation and the education 
 of his children ; is not that so ? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. London. Now, if you will analyze those five elements that go 
 to make up the budget of a family you will find that you can not 
 make a living on less than $3 a day ; that $3 a day is the least possible 
 amount. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. Do you suppose that half the laborers in the United 
 States to-day are receiving a minimum wage of $3 per day? 
 
 Mr. London. In private employment? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. In private employment. 
 
 Mr. London. Well, if that be true, that would be the result of 
 merciless competition, unscrupulous competition, between employers 
 who have no soul and who are not animated by any noble motives, 
 but who are competing with another at the expense of the helpless. 
 The Government can not put itself in that position, can it? 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR PEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 15 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON. No ; I do not think so, Mr. London. 
 
 Mr. London. This is really the question, to my mind : Is $3 a suffi- 
 cient minimum for providing a man with food, clothing, rent, recrea- 
 tion, and the minimum of education? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Why not the maximum? 
 
 Mr. London. Because even our Congressmen have not got it yet, 
 so I can not ask it for the common masses. I meant no personal 
 reflection, gentlemen. It was at my own expense. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. We all understood that or we would not go so far. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I would just like to ask Mr. Nolan a question. One 
 of these young ladies tells me that in the Bureau of Engraving there 
 would be 4,173 employees affected, women alone. Now, could not 
 some statistics be compiled to go along with this report giving ap- 
 proximately in each department the number of employees affected, 
 the number of women and the number of men, so that we could 
 defend this bill ? This bill will undoubtedly be attacked, and there 
 will be some opposition to it, and we want to be prepared upon all 
 of these points. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. When this bill was first introduced in the Sixty-third 
 Congress it was submitted to the various executive departments, and 
 they submitted tabulations of the employees, cost, etc., and I put it 
 in here in a condensed form and had it compiled in the hearings. 
 From the last data that I got I had my secretary compile the number 
 of men and women affected — that is, the number of employees af- 
 fected and the probable cost, etc., from, the information given us by 
 all of the executive departments and independent bureaus of the 
 Government. I have got that and intended to incorporate it in the 
 hearings on this bill now. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I think that we should put that into the report. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. We can give the total in the report, but if I were to 
 include it in the report it would take up almost as much space as 
 that. [Indicating report of former hearings.] 
 
 Mr. Brown. We can give the total in the report and state where it 
 can be found in the hearings. 
 
 Mr. London. Mr. Nolan, what class of employees are employed 
 by the day, or for a period of less than a month ? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Well, there are a great many here in the district. 
 There are some working in the custodian service, and recently the 
 per diem employees in the custodian service have been put on the 
 monthly basis and their annual pay has been reduced $11 ; that they 
 suffered a reduction of $11 per year on account of goin^ on the 
 annual basis, the Government taking the position that they were giv- 
 ing them something for it — that is, the Treasury Department — in the 
 matter of 30 days' leave. Prior to that time those men worked 30 
 days in the month, and their wages were along from $55 to $75 a 
 month. Some laborers, for instance, in the mechanical departments 
 of the Government, the navy yard-s, arsenals, etc., are on a per diem 
 basis. There are some men in the customs courts, I think, that are 
 on a per diem basis. The report gave an idea of the number of per 
 diem men in the different departments. For instance, in the War 
 Department the per diem men were 8,436. This was in 1914. The 
 per diem men in the Navy Department were 11,221; the per diem 
 men in the Interior Department were 103. The rest of them were 
 negligible so far as this report is concerned. 
 
16 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 Mr. Brown. On what page is that found ? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. The per diem men in the Government Printing Office 
 were 1,638. This is on page 361. 
 
 Mr. Beown. I would like to ask Mr. Nolan if this bill would affect 
 these millionaires on the Council of National Defense, who are work- 
 ing for $1 a year? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I do not know. Some people seem to think that if 
 we gave them a little bit of a raise we might save some money. I 
 have not gone into their conditions of life, etc. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Most of them are staying at the Willard. . 
 
 Mr. Almon. Mr. Chairman, I am a friend of labor and always 
 have been, and I am in favor of the laboring people of this country 
 being paid a fair and reasonable wage, regardless of whether they 
 are in the employment of the Government or in private employment. 
 I am in favor of a substantial increase in the wages and salaries of 
 the Government employees at this time on account of the very great 
 increase in the cost of living. I stated before the subcommittee of 
 the Post Office Committee of the House recently that I was in favor 
 of a substantial increase of the salaries of post office clerks, rural 
 carriers, and fourth class postmasters, and I trust that such an increase 
 will be provided for by this Congress. I may support this bill 
 when it comes before the House, but I reserve the right to support 
 amendments to it and also to vote against it, for I am not at this 
 time prepared to say that I am in favor of a mimum wage scale of 
 $3 per day for all of the employees of the Government. 
 
 While ordinarily that is a very low and reasonable wage, there 
 may be in the employ of the Government those who do not earn, 
 even under present wage scales in this country, $3 per day, or $90 
 per month, and for that reason I am not at this time prepared to 
 give my approval to the bill as a whole ; but I do want it distinctly 
 understood that I am in favor of a reasonable wage scale and of a 
 substantial increase at this time, especially during the war, on account 
 of the very great increase in the cost of living, and I sympathize with 
 the wage earners, especially of the Government, and especially those 
 who are not receiving more than $1,200 a year, for I realize that it is 
 practically impossible for them to make a decent living and pay 
 expenses on that amount, especially those who have families. That 
 is all I care to say. 
 
 The Chairman. Does any other gentleman wish to speak on the 
 motion ? 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON. Mr. Chairman, I desire to state that I have not 
 had the opportunity to give this matter the thought and study that I 
 would prefer giving it "before making up my mind definitely as to 
 how to vote on this proposition, and one of the main reasons why I 
 have not had that opportunity has been on account of the fact that 
 I have been too busy with m;^ constituents who want Government 
 jobs. I have always been a friend of the laboring people and have 
 gotten along very agreeably with all the laborers that I have ever 
 had in my employ. In fact, I never had one who wanted to sever 
 his services with me, as I always treated them squarely and honestly 
 and tried to give them a living wage. I do not know but what, after 
 full investigation of it, I might support this measure when it comes 
 up in the House, but at the present time I would vote against a fa- 
 vorable report of this bill. 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOE FEDEKAL EMPLOYEES. 17 
 
 The Chairman. Does any other gentleman wish to speak on the 
 motion? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides that a man must 
 be in the Government service two years before he can receive the 
 benefits of it. Why is not an employee who is rendering the same 
 service, after six months' employment, as much entitled to it as 
 one who has been in the service for two years ? 
 
 I think that a man who has a permanent position in the Govern- 
 ment and who goes in under the civil service, and at the expiration of 
 six months is performing the same service as the man who has been 
 in there 2 years or 10 years, and who has the same obligations and 
 is up against the same conditions of living as the other man, is just 
 as much entitled to the increase, and I think it should be made six 
 months. 
 
 Mr, Nolan. I will say, Mr. Chairman, the original bill, of course, 
 had no limitations. The amendment was incorporated by the com- 
 mittee during the time the bill was under consideration in the last 
 Congress, it was a committee amendment, and in reintroducing the 
 bill I introduced it in the form in which the committee reported 
 upon it. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I think the two-year amendment should be cut out, 
 and I will offer that as an amendment, that it be made six months. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. To strike out two years and insert six months? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes. Will you accept it? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. That is perfectly satisfactory to me, leaving in the age 
 limit? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes; leaving in the age limit? 
 
 Mr. Watson. How can you tell how people will be affected by it, 
 unless you had some limitation of that sort on it? In estimating the 
 cost of it to the Government you would be unable to estimate about 
 what the increased expenditure would be unless you had a limitation 
 of that character. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. I understand the amendment provided for six months. 
 I think we could ascertain it under those conditions. 
 
 JNIr. Watson. Well, now, there are a great many people employed 
 by the Government at this time who are not under the civil service. 
 
 Mr. NoLAisi. Of course, the six months' provision Avould shut out 
 the man or woman who came in temporarily. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Well, I would be willing even to cut the six months' 
 provision out, but there seemed to be a desire to have some limitation 
 on it. I think if they render the service that the man who has only 
 been working one day is entitled to the same compensation as the man 
 who has been working a year. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Is not a man worth considerably more in any employ- 
 ment after he has worked a year, taking the average? Of course, 
 there are exceptions, but you can not make a rule on exceptions. In 
 the ordinary case, is not the man who has worked a year worth a good 
 deal more to you in most any service? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. This is the idea. The laboring man who goes in 
 and uses a pick and shovel in the streets of Washington, in one day 
 he is able to do that just as well as the man who has been doing it six 
 months or a year. 
 39898—18 2 
 
18 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOE FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Of course this affects, right here, 4,173 women alone in 
 the Bureau of Engraving. Now, that work is not common, ordinary 
 work. If you go in there you will find that it is very expert work. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. But they are not paying expert wages for it. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I know they are not, and that is what we want them to 
 do. They ought to pay it. I think you would weaken your bill if 
 you put it down to six months. It might be a year, but I think the 
 more you put that down the more you will weaken your bill. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. The idea here is to take care of the increased cost 
 of living, and the man who goes in now and gets a position is up 
 against exactly the same conditions as the man who has worked two 
 years. We are not making up salaries for the men who have worked 
 two years, but we want it to apply to any man. 
 
 Mr. Brown. A man who has been working for the Government 
 2 years, or maybe 20 years, came there under entirely different con- 
 ditions, made his contract under different conditions, when the cost 
 of living was not half as high as it is now. I have not near as 
 much sympathy for the person who goes into the Government em- 
 ployment now, and knows what he is going to get there, knows the 
 cost of living, especially in Washington, knows all those things, 
 and still he wants the job, as I have for the employees who have 
 worked faithfully for the Government for years and years, under 
 entirely different conditions, when they were able to support them- 
 selves for half what they do now. Those are the people that appeal 
 to me more than any others. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. They likewise appeal to me, but here the Govern- 
 ment needs this service performed, and they have got to have it done. 
 
 Mr. Brown. As a matter of fact, the Government in these new 
 jobs that are being created, as Mr. Nolan says, is paying higher 
 wages, a good deal higher. This wage matter has not been revised 
 for 25, 30, or 40 years. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. As an instance, I know a man in the Pittsburgh 
 post office who has been working there for 17 years who is getting 
 $900 a year now, and the people who have gone in recently are getting 
 $990 a year. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I would be in favor of increasing the wages of Gov- 
 ernment employees, but I have employed some labor, and I feel that 
 anyone who has worked for me a year is worth more each year, and 
 if they are not I ought to dismiss them and get some one else, and I 
 think a man who is working for you continuously ought to have his 
 wages increased right along. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Mr. Nolan, as I understand, the purpose of your 
 bill is to increase the wages of the employees so that they can get a 
 decent living, so that they can live in accordance with American 
 principles and ideals ? Is that your idea ? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Therefore you include everj^body? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. As I say, Mr. Campbell, a good deal of discussion took 
 place on that feature of the bill the last time as to putting that 
 limitation on it. The original bill did not carry it. 
 
 Mr. ZiHLMAN. Was not that provision put in as a sort of protec- 
 tion to the Government to prevent a man changing from one depart- 
 ment to another, from quitting one department and going in another ? 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOE. FEDEKAL EMPLOYEES. 19 
 
 Would not this bill, as drawn, be an encouragement to the Govern- 
 ment employee to stay in the department where he obtained his em- 
 ployment and continue there until he gets the increase? This pro- 
 vision, as I see it, is largely a measure of protection to the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Campbeliv. That is not the purpose of the bill, according to 
 Mr. Nolan's statement, Avhich is to increase the standard of wages, 
 according to what is right and proper. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. Of course, there were several reasons for it. There is' 
 the age limitation there, and the one of two years. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. That is all right ; that is proper. 
 
 Mr. Nolan. That was for the purpose of prohibiting employees 
 who might be just 18 j^ears of age from going into the service and 
 receiving the benefits of this bill. The committee took the position 
 that two years ought to elapse before he would be entitled to the 
 full benefits of it. The bill does not prohibit them from imme- 
 diately paying $3 a day to the man that goes to work, but it does say 
 that after two years they must get that. I think that is a thing 
 that will fairly well take care of itself. 
 
 Mr. London. Mr. Chairman. Avhat is the parliamentary status of 
 the bill just now ? 
 
 The Chatr:man. There is a motion pending to report the bill. 
 
 Mr. London. I ask that the motion be put. It is nearly 12 o'clock, 
 and we ought to adjourn. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any objection? All in favor of reporting 
 the bill will say " aye " ; contraminded, " no." 
 
 (The motion was agreed to.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF ME. WILLIAM F. GIBBONS, SECEETARY UNITED 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE CLERKS OF THE 
 UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Labor, in my 
 capacity as national secretary of the United National Association 
 of Post Office Clerks of the United States, representing a membership 
 of approximately 27,000 post-office clerks employed in the first and 
 second class post offices of the country, I am here to advocate a favor- 
 able report by your committee of the bill now before you for con- 
 sideration, better known as the Nolan minimum-wage bill, H. E. 152. 
 
 I believe that this bill ought to receive your early and favorable 
 consideration. Its adoption by Congress will result in great good 
 to the service and do justice to a large army of faithful and efficient 
 employees who have been overlooked for years. 
 
 The December and January reports of the Bureau of Labor Statis- 
 tics of the Department of Labor, printed in the Monthly Review, 
 does not show any decrease in the high cost of living. The January 
 report states that food as a whole was 48 per cent higher on Novem- 
 ber 15, 1917, than on November 15, 1913. During this four-year 
 period corn meal advanced 127 per cent; flour, 109 per cent; lard, 
 104 per cent; bacon, 77 per cent; sugar, 75 per cent; and potatoes, 
 72 per cent. No article declined in price. 
 
 A recent dietary study made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 
 conjunction with "the Department of Agriculture shows that 30 cents 
 
20 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 per day is the least sum upon which an adule male could be properly 
 fed at the prices now prevailing. 
 
 According to an investigation made by the New York Association 
 for Improving the Conditions of the Poor a family of five should 
 have an income of about $1,000 to maintain a normal standard of liv- 
 ing in the Borough of Manhattan. This statement of the New York 
 Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor was only made 
 after its experience in caring for 27 families in the hospital in the 
 Vanderbilt tenements. 
 
 _ According to the report of the investigation made, " The average 
 living expenses per family of five individuals for 233.37 days, the 
 average residence in the hospital during the year, was $548.83, mak- 
 ing a daily expense per family of $2,499, or $912.50 a year. As these 
 figures are exclusive of the cost of administration and supervision 
 and as the living afforded had not the semblance of luxury, the as- 
 sociation believes they furnish a fair basis for computing the cost 
 of maintaining a decent home and providing a comfortable living 
 for an average family of five persons^father, mother, and three 
 children under 14." 
 
 As this bill practically rewards faithful and efficient service, I 
 trust the committee will favorably report it to the House for early 
 enactment into law. 
 
 The Chairman, Mr. Nolan, will you make the report on the bill? 
 
 Mr. Nolan. If it is agreeable to the committee, Mr. Chairman, I 
 will be glad to do so. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MS. F. H. AINSWOETH, PRESIDENT OF THE FED- 
 ERAL EMPLOYEES' UNION OF SAN FRANCISCO. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent the 
 Federal Emploj'^ees' Union of San Francisco, which was the first 
 organization to form, composed of miscellaneous Government em- 
 ployees, after the passage of the act of August, 1912, giving legis- 
 lative sanction to the petitioning of Congress by the civil employees 
 of the Government, either individually or collectively. 
 
 Inasmuch as I am now engaged in the military branch of the 
 Government, I shall not attempt to present any arguments at this 
 time, leaving that phase of it to Mr. McLarin, the national pre-si- 
 dent of the Federal Employees' Federation, and the others who are 
 here to testify to-day. 
 
 Upon the formation of the San Francisco organization an investi- 
 gation was made of those matters which were of interest to the ma- 
 jority, and after considerable time and inquiry it appeared that the 
 most pressing grievance by which a large number were affected was 
 the low rate of pay which prevailed in many of the Government 
 departments. The organization having in mind the inequalities of 
 compensation to the Government employees, and becoming more 
 familiar with the varying methods by which this compensation was 
 fixed, resolved to start at the bottom, and to urge as a foundation 
 for all other salaries that the lowest paid employee should receive 
 an amount which would enable him to live and support a family at 
 least decently. This, it was dot'^rminpd, cnuld not be accomplished 
 on less than $3 a day; and having adopted that resolution, it was 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 21 
 
 put in the shape of a bill, which Mr. Nolan introduced and which 
 has since become well known to Congress as the Nolan $3 minimum 
 wage bill. 
 
 Perhaps I should say here that this does not represent minimum- 
 wage legislation as legislation per se but represents an effort on the 
 part of employees to have a wage scale and agreement established by 
 their employer, the Government of the United States. 
 
 During the last session of Congress exhaustive hearings were held 
 on this measure and, among other things, it developed that over 
 105,000 of the then 450,000 employees were receiving less than $3 a 
 day or that rate. Since then it is not necessary to go into details 
 concerning the enormous increase in the cost of living. Suffice it to 
 say that the lower paid employees are now on the verge of despair 
 owing to the meager compensation which they receive and the enor- 
 mous price which they have to pay for the bare necessities of life. 
 
 There has been . much discussion, and is now, of compensation 
 legislation, retirement legislation, reclassification, and various other 
 measures for the benefit of the Government worker, but the organi- 
 zation which I represent takes the ground that before any of those 
 proposals can be practically enacted into law, some uniform starting 
 point must be found and used as a basis to which all salaries would 
 relate in proportion to the value of the service rendered over that of 
 the minimum. If I may use a homely illustration, the present situ- 
 ation is so irregular, uneven, and distorted that it might be likened 
 to a structure which was built on rough and hilly ground and in 
 which no effort was made to obtain a level foundation, but the foun- 
 dation of the structure was laid on top of the ground and all the 
 inequalities and uneven characters should be carried throughout the 
 building. The position of the San Francisco organization is that 
 the Government worker performs a necessary legislative function 
 and that his salary should not be exclusively regulated by the law 
 of supply and demand for labor, but that when he gives his full 
 time he should receive at least enough compensation, so that he and 
 his children should not have to depend upon charitable contributions 
 or other sources of income for an existence. It has been stated that 
 in Chicago many of the custodian force, especially the women, have 
 to w^ork in other places when not employed by the Government, so 
 that the Government is the loser, because it does not receive the 
 result of a fresh and vigorous employee but rather the effort of one 
 who is fatigued in another occupation and then fills in on Govern- 
 ment time. 
 
 The custodian service is conspicuously one of the lowest-paid 
 classes of emplojanent in the United States either in private or public 
 life, and we have been recently astounded to learn that notwithstand- 
 ing the increased cost of living which has gone ahead by leaps and 
 bounds during the past two years, that that service has actually re- 
 duced the pay of some of its employees. If I may do so, I will site the 
 situation of the custodian employees wdio are firemen. Formerly, 
 these men received $2.25 a day, and by working 365 days in the year 
 the}^ could earn $822.50. In some cases at least they were given 15 
 days' leave each year. Now, their pay has been reduced from $822.50 
 to $810, and they have been put on a per annum basis which, however 
 gratifying it may be to know that they have that status, the reduced 
 
22 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 day of $12 a year is more of a penalty than they feel they should 
 be called upon to bear. In a communication on this point, dated 
 December 20, 1917, Mr. J. H. Moyle, Assistant Secretary of the 
 Treasury, states : " Per annum employees are required to render on 
 Sundays and legal holida5'^s only such services as are absolutel}^ 
 necessary and may be allowed 30 days' sick leave in a calendar year ; 
 while per diem employees must serve at least eight hours on Sundays 
 and holidays or deduction is made from their pay and all absences of 
 such employees on account of sickness are considered without pay." 
 In other w^ords, the Treasury Department advances the statement 
 that these underp'aid per diem men may not be paid on any day ex- 
 cept they work, and they are entitled to neither sick leave nor annual 
 leave. Therefore, b.y putting them on a per annum basis and prac- 
 tically assuring them 30 daj^s' annual leave it improves their condi- 
 iion somewhat. This offers an opportunity to contrast the condition 
 of these poorly paid per diem men of the Treasm\y Department and 
 other highly paid per diem men who receive $4, $5, $6, and in some 
 cases, higher per diem salaries, who are not required to work on Sun- 
 days or on legal holidays, but who receive full pay for those days 
 they do not work, and, beside, receive 30 days' sick leave and 30 days 
 annual leave under normal conditions. Here we see in the very 
 Treasury Department itself, one regulation and schedule of pay for 
 one class of per diem employees, the poorest paid and the poorest 
 protected, while another class of per diem employees, who are better 
 paid, more intelligent, and better able to protect themselves, receive 
 entirely different treatment. 
 
 Is not this ample and impressive evidence of the necessity of some 
 fundamental legislation insuring to all like treatement? It has been 
 A^ery gratifjdng to the organization I represent to note that many 
 of the departments, on their own motion, have given very substantial 
 increases of pay, especially to the lower-paid employees. This is 
 notably so in the Navy Department, War Department, Department 
 of Labor, and elsewhere, all of which is impressive evidence that the 
 ]uinimum sought by this bill is entirely meritorious. 
 
 In my reference to the custodian service and its inadequate pay, I 
 shoidcl mention that Assistant Secretary Moyle, in his letter of De- 
 cember 20, apparentlj?^ seeking to convey to the custodian employees 
 some comfort, states that House bill 344 is now in the Committee of 
 the Whole and if enacted into law will materially increase the pay 
 of custodian employees. While I would like to see them have their 
 pay raised — ^because in my somewhat wide experience among Gov- 
 ernment employees they are the most deserving of it at the present 
 time — I am reluctant to indorse a proposal whereby one group has 
 their pay increased and another group, who may be equallj^ worthy, 
 are not considered. I do not mean by that that I do not want to 
 indorse H. E. 344, but what I do mean is that this is onlj^ a repetition 
 of the irregular practice which has led to the complaint that is now 
 being made. One bureau or one department will get legislation to 
 advance its own employees and another department or another bureau 
 will receive none. Take, for example, the case of stenographers. The 
 pay for years has been so low that many competent stenographers 
 have declined Government employment. Some departments of the 
 Government have paid more than others, and those that paid the 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR PEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 23 
 
 highest were better served; but recentlj^, because of the increased 
 demands, the Government has, in some cases, increased the initial 
 pay for stenographers, and, as a result, there are now stenographers 
 in the (xovernment service who have been there a number of years 
 who receive less pay than newcomers. It would seem to our organiza- 
 tion that the Government should establish for stenographers a uni- 
 form entrance salary to cover all the departments and independent 
 offices in the entire United States. When a stenographer should be 
 needed for any particular branch he or she could be taken from that 
 list, and the entrance salary should be fixed at some amount which 
 would have a reasonable relation to the minimum pay of a Govern- 
 ment employee of $3 a day. In other words, if it shall be decided 
 that the minimum wage of the lowest character of labor, such as com- 
 mon labor, shall be $3 a day, then the degree of skill, education, and 
 responsibility necessary to produce an efficient stenographer should 
 be graded proportionately above that $3 a day. I may venture the 
 opinion, from my own observation, that if the Government would 
 offer an entrance salary of $1,200 a year for stenographers it would 
 receive a very substantial service ancl attract a very substantial class 
 of men and women, having in mind, of course, that future promotion 
 would depend upon the efficiency and reliability of the individual, 
 based upon a properly kept efficiency report. i 
 
 Again returning to the custodian employees, because their situa- 
 tion is so aggravated that it recurs to my mind in many ways, I want 
 to ask you gentlemen to consider foi- a moment the frame of mind of 
 a woman or a man in this service living in a city like the one I reside 
 in — San Francisco. There we have two magnificent public buildings, 
 one a customhouse and the other a post office. Both of them are mon- 
 uments testifying to the skill and art of the architects who designed 
 them. In the customhouse they have magnificent bronze doors which 
 are said to cost $8,000 each. These doors are guarded by artistic 
 bronze lamps which, it is said, cost $1,000 apiece ; so that the custodian 
 employee when he goes to work passes between the lamps and through 
 the doors into a marble palace. And when his days work is over he 
 goes to a palatial marble lavatory costing not less than $2,000 and 
 washes his hands in a $500 marble basin with nickel and bronze orna- 
 ments of artistic design. Yet, when he goes home he finds he has not 
 enough coal in the cellar nor food in the pantry to supplv the needs 
 of his children notwithstanding the luxurious and magnificent daily 
 surroundings during his working hours. It is reported that in a 
 public building in Detroit the custodian was unable to get the win- 
 dows washed for a period of three months because in that city the 
 window washers had an organization and received from $3.50 to $1 
 a day for window washing, and when any of the custodian employees 
 was told he had to wash windows, he replied, " If I got to wash win- 
 dows I will join the window washers' union and receive $3.50 or $4 
 and not $60 a month," and so in desperation in order to get the win- 
 dows finally washed the custodian resorted to the subterfuge of hiring 
 a new man and giving him that task as his first before he became 
 " wise," as it were, to the general situation. 
 
 In behalf of the organization I represent I wish to express its sin- 
 cere appreciation of the attention given by the Committee of Labor in 
 dealing with this question, because not until this bill was referred to 
 
24 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOE, FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 this committee was any attention paid to it, but in the last Congress, 
 when a subcommittee of your honorable body held hearings, illumi- 
 nous testimony was submitted showing the distressing conditions of 
 the Government employees, especially the lower paid, and their need 
 for immediate relief. It is our belief that if your committee will 
 report this bill out, if it can be brought to a vote on the floor of the 
 House, that few Members will care to go on record as saying that $3 
 a day is too much for the least important of those who serve the 
 Government. 
 
 I thank you, gentlemen, for your attention and this opportunity 
 to place our views in the record. 
 
 (Whereupon the committee adjourned.) 
 
 It\^ternati()nal Association of Machinists. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 11, 19 J 8. 
 
 To the Committee on Laboe, 
 
 House of Representatives, WashUif/ton. D. C. 
 
 Gentlemen : On behalf of the toolmakers, machinists, machinists' helpers, 
 and others employed in the Government service, whom I have been authorized 
 to represent on matters of legislation pending before Congress. I desire to urge 
 upon your committee the speedy report and passage of H. R. 152, generally 
 known as " the Nolan minimum-wage bill," which you are now having under 
 consideration. 
 
 The establishment of a minimum wage below which no head of a family or 
 potential head of a family shall work has long been advocated by our associa- 
 tion. 
 
 We believe that the Aniprifan stan(Un-d of livinji,- should not be r-iet in accord- 
 ance with what impoverished men and women in dire need of subsistence can 
 be forced to accept at the factory gate, but that Congress and other law-making 
 bodies should determine what that standard should be and that it should be 
 high enough to enable a workman to properly feed, clothe, shelter, and educate 
 his family, and, in addition thereto, to provide them with a reasonable amount 
 of recreation and amusement. In our opinion government is instituted among 
 men for the purpose of establishing justice and protecting the weak against the 
 unreasonable exactions of the strong and powerful, and not merely for the 
 purpose of so setting the rules of the game of life that each individual shall be 
 able to obtain such a share of the things of this world as he can without 
 actually resorting to physical force. 
 
 When the Nolan bill was first introduced it provided, among other things, a 
 minimum wage of $3 per day, but since that time the cost of living has ad- 
 vanced over 25 per cent, so that if $3 was the least upon which a family should 
 be required to exist at that time it surely should be at least that now. 
 
 We believe, however, that this minimum wage should be absolute for the class 
 of positions covered and that it should not be contingent upon a workman hav- 
 ing been employed for two years. This provision would eliminate a large por- 
 tion of the employees who would otherwise be affected from its provisions and 
 it would be possible to evade the provisions of this measure by frequent in- 
 terruptions in the service of low-paid employees. It is therefore suggested that 
 in lines 6 to 9, on page 2, the following language be struck from the bill : " who 
 have been continuously in the employ of the Government of the United States 
 or in the employ of the government of the District of Columbia for a period of 
 not less than two years, and." 
 
 While this bill, if passed, will affect very few machinists, it will affect a 
 large number of machinists' helpers and similar classes of workmen n the navy 
 yards and arsenals under the jurisdiction of the Navy Department and War 
 Department, respectively. In the navy yard service, for instance, the highest 
 pay for machinists' helpers is $2.96 per day and the lowest maximum in any 
 one yard for machinists' helpers is $2.64. The pay for common laborers at the 
 navy yards runs as low as $2.08 ; teamsters, $2.16 ; stable keepers, $2.24 ; jani- 
 tors, $2 ; hodcarriers, $2.48. In the arsenal service the pay appears to be about 
 the same for this class of labor. 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 25 
 
 We believe that your committee will be doing a great public service by having 
 this law placed upon the statutes, not only for employees in the service of the 
 Government but for those in private employ. 
 
 We can not hope to obtain high American standards of citizenship unless we 
 see to it as a people that our ideals of that standard are lived up to. Regardless 
 of how simple and insignificant a man's or a woman's work may seem, if it is 
 necessary work or work which the Government desires to have done, it is 
 worth a living wage, whether that work be that of a messenger who does noth- 
 ing but sit at a door of one of the departments to receive visitors or pick leaves 
 off the Capital Grounds. If any given work is not sufficiently important to 
 deserve a living wage on the part of the one who does it, it should be abandoned. 
 Very respectfully submitted, 
 
 M. P. Alifas, 
 President District No. 44, International Association of Machinists. 
 
 National Federation of Postal Employees. 
 
 yVasMngton, D. C, January 15, 1918. 
 Hon. James P. Mark, 
 
 Chairman of Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : I am inclosing a statement to be incorporated in the hearings on 
 the Nolan $3 minimum wage bill. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 [seal.] Gilbert E. Hyatt, President. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GILBERT E. HYATT, PRESIDENT NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL 
 
 EMPLOYEES. 
 
 Evidence has become hackneyed by repetition that a large portion of our 
 people were not only denied all the brightness of life but suffer from lack of its 
 necessities. It would appear to be the most obvious duty of the Government to 
 see that none of this pitiably exploited class were in the ranks of its own 
 employees. 
 
 The often repeated statement that the Government was justified in maintain- 
 ing certain standards because these standards might be found to prevail in some 
 helpless and unorganized industries is simply to say that the Nation should 
 place its sanction on all the far-reaching evils that follow in the train of an 
 inadequate wage scale. Two wrongs do not make a right, even when a gov- 
 ernment is guilty of one of these wrongs. Another argument sometimes heard 
 is that because applicants to these positions are numerous, no raise in pay is 
 necessary. Laying aside the heartlessness of this argument, it is a significant 
 fact that such statements generally eminate from rural districts, where the 
 cost of living and the wage scale are lower than in the big centers of popula- 
 tion. The fact that applicants, coming to these centers under the delusion of 
 the desirability of these jobs, are quickly disillusioned proves that the standard 
 of pay in Government employ is too low. Even this argument seems to have 
 disappeared. As one angle of the situation, post-office clerks in some offices have 
 complained of the insanitary condition of these offices and been told that it 
 could not be improved, as men would not enter the custodian service for the pay 
 allowed. The falling off of applicants and of applicants who accept appoint- 
 ment for the postal service is proof of the fact that men can not afford to work 
 for the salary in the lower grades, even with the prospect of a permanent posi- 
 tion and later promotion in salary. Thus the Government, which must largely 
 train its own skilled workers, has cut itself off from the source of its own 
 labor supply. 
 
 Among the lower-paid Government employees debts that constantly increase 
 and can not be met, resort to loan sharks, lowered standards of living are the 
 common stories. Attempts to eke out a scanty wage by extra work are so com- 
 mon that these workers have earned a place in the service vocabulary, in that 
 they are called " sundowners " or " twilight workers." 
 
 A recent investigation of the question of a living wage developed the testi- 
 mony that $1,433 a year was the minimum on which a family could be decently 
 supported. In view of this fact, the minimum contemplated by this bill is 
 moderate. 
 
26 
 
 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 AiiEEicAN Federation* or Labor, 
 
 Federal Labor Union No. 12776, 
 
 BuEEATT OF Engraving and Printing. 
 To THE Committee Considering H. R. 152: 
 
 The Avomen employees of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing are desirous 
 of bringing to your attention the following statements : 
 
 In this bureau there are employed the following women at rates per diem as 
 shown : 
 
 
 Per- 
 manent. 
 
 Tem- 
 porary. 
 
 
 Per- 
 manent. 
 
 Tem- 
 porary. 
 
 $1.60 
 
 IS 
 
 1,750 
 
 130 
 
 267 
 
 
 $2.24 
 
 1,392 
 31 
 
 84 
 
 85 
 
 SI 75 
 
 202 
 25' 
 
 $2.31 
 
 25 
 
 SI 92 ... 
 
 .152.50 
 
 1 
 
 $2.00 
 
 
 
 
 A large percentage of these women have dependents, and the increase in the 
 cost of living is a serious problem which the passage of the Nolan bill would 
 help solve. 
 
 It is not necssary to go into a discussion of the increased cost of living ; 
 everyone feels it. But, aside from that fact, the wages of the women employees 
 of the bureau are not commensurate with the work performed. Their duties 
 involve special training, responsibility, and integrity, and a great amount of 
 physical endurance. No general increase has been granted since July 1, 1902. 
 Many skilled employees have resigned to enter better-paid branches of the 
 Government or outside concerns, thereby hampering the work and output of 
 the bureau. 
 
 We heartily indorse the Nolan minimum-wage bill and urge upon this 
 committee the necessity for a favorable and early report. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Gertrude M. McNally. 
 
 Mary E. Ganzhorn. 
 
 Nora B. James. 
 
 Ll^la V. Harris. 
 
 Beatrice Aixpkess. 
 
 Isabel E. Mellen. 
 
 Catherine I. Myers. 
 
 some facts about the high cost of living. 
 
 In Washington during the past six years every article of food has doubled 
 in price, and some things are three times as high as they were six years ago. 
 
 First, corn meal six years ago was 2 cents per i^ound. To-day it is 7 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Flour six years ago was 3 cents per pound. To-day it is 8 and 9 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Yeast powder six years ago was 15 cents per pound. To-day it is 25 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Salt six years ago was 3 cents per pound. To-day it is 10 cents per pound. 
 
 Oatmeal six years ago was 5 and 7 cents per box. To-day it is 10 and 15 
 cents per box. 
 
 All kinds of meats are three times as high as they were six years ago : 
 
 Western fatback was 5 and 6 cents per pound. To-day it is 30 and 33 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Pork chops were 10, 12, and 14 cents per pound. To-day they are 38 and 42 
 cents per pound. 
 
 Lard was 10 cents per pound. To-day it is 30 and 35 cents per pound. 
 
 Butter was 20 and 25 cents per pound. To-day it is 52 and 60 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Eggs were 15, 20, and 25 cents per dozen. To-day they are 50 and 75 cents 
 per dozen. 
 
 Canned goods of all kinds have also greatly increased in price. Tomatoes, 
 peas, and corn have doubled in price. 
 
 The advance in the cost of clothing is just as great. 
 
MIISriMUM WAGE BILL FOE FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 27 
 
 A suit of clothes that cost $12 a few years ago now costs $22. 
 
 A hat that cost $1.50 a few yeai's ago now costs $3. 
 
 Shirts that were $0.50, $0.75, and $1 some time ago to-day cost from $1 to 
 $2.50, and I wish to state that the material in these garments is very inferior. 
 
 The advance in the price of leather has almost put shoes out of the poor man's 
 reach. 
 
 A few years ago $2.50 and $3 would purchase a good pair of shoes ; to-day 
 the same shoes cost $5, $7, and $9 per pair. 
 
 Coal, the way we laborers buy it, costs us $12.75 per ton, at $0.45 per bushel. 
 
 Wood costs from $12 to $14 per cord, and yet, Mr. Chairman we laborers 
 have not had an increase of wages for 50 years. 
 
 All other class of workers-^that is, the higher-paid man — have had several in- 
 creases within the past 50 years, but for some reason the laborer has had no 
 consideration. 
 
 Mv. Chairman, we are expected to be good-natured, smiling, and obliging in 
 cai'rying on our work, and, gentlemen, a man who is half fed and clothed 
 can not meet these requirements. I personally know men who, because of 
 their low salaries, seldom leave the building on pay days until every cent he 
 has drawn has been paid out for debts. 
 
 The Public Printer promised to recommen<l to Congress in h!s annual report 
 i\ substantial increase for laborers, in the Government Printing Ofiice, but we 
 find that he did not do so. He said to our committee on November 1 that our 
 wages could not be changed except by an act of Congress. 
 
 Genllemen, there are some laborers employed at the Bureau of Engraving 
 and Printing who are paid as low as $1.45 per day, and I desire to call your 
 attention to the fact that they receive no more for night or Sunday work. 
 There are three classes of wages paid on the yard, viz, $2, $2.11, and $2.24 per 
 day, and yet each and every ni;\n is doing the same kind of work. 
 
 I hope, gentlemen, that you will see your Avay clear to correct this rank injus- 
 tice to tliese men. \A"e liope that Congress will set a standard scale of wages 
 for all laborers employed by the United States Government. 
 
 Respectfully submitted by Local No. 71. 
 
 R. Taylor, President. 
 
 Washikgtox Navy Yakd Helpeks' Local Union, No. 14915, 
 
 Washington. D. C, Jamiary 10, 1918. 
 Mv. Chairman : The following is a true statement of tlie conditions which 
 confront the men employed as helpers in the Washington Navy Yard in regard 
 to the high cost of living. The follovv'ing is an exact account of the conditions 
 which exist in my own home : 
 
 House rent $16. 00 
 
 Gas bill 2. 50 
 
 Coal, a ton 10.50 
 
 Insurance 4. 00 
 
 Groceries for family of five 50. 00 
 
 One pair of shoes a month for my children 7. 50 
 
 90.50 
 
 You will notice that the above does not include clothes for myself and family ; 
 also there is nothing for the doctor, car fare, pleasure, or tobacco, if used. 
 
 In order for tlie helper to get clothes for himself and family it becomes 
 necessary for him to buy his clothes on credit and pa.v a great deal more for 
 them t]ian they ai-e really worth. I>ut wliat is he to do? He must have 
 clotlies for himself and family. Well, he gets the clothes with the under- 
 standing that he will pay so much every pay day ; but when pay day comes 
 around he finds out that he can not meet the payment ; he tries to make an 
 excuse to the credit man, but he is told that if he does not meet his payments 
 more promptly that he will write a letter to the officials of yard. The rules 
 of the department say that you must pay your honest debts or you will be 
 discharged. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, is this not a great condition for a man to have to meet who 
 Is trying hard to raise a family in a decent, respectable manner? 
 
 Now, gentlemen, you are told that you must pay these bills, and where in the 
 name of the good Lord are you going to get the money when we are not being 
 paid a living wage which to live on? 
 
28 MINIMUM WAGE BILL, FOE FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 As I have stated, my expenses for one month is $90.50 and my pay is $82.16. 
 If siclmess overtakes me or my family, why I am compelled to go in debt, and 
 there is no way for me to ever get straight again. Nearly every necessary of 
 life has increased double in the past two years, bnt our wages have not moved 
 very fast in that time. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, there is one more thing that I would like to call your atten- 
 tion to, and that is this: Nearly 80 per cent of the men. for whom I am speak- 
 ing are men who gave their country their services when needed. In the War 
 with Spain we willingly gave up our work and our chance to learn a trade to 
 fight for our country, therefore we feel that in return we should be given at 
 least a living wage'. We served our coimtry then and are serving it now, but 
 we are made sick trying to figure out how we are feoing to keep our little homes 
 together until you gentlemen come to our assistance. 
 
 We do not think that it is necessary for us to go into details in regards to the 
 prices of the diiferent articles of food, because we feel that you gentlemen 
 already know thr.t. Let us hope that when the bill introduced by the Hon. 
 John Nolan comes before you gentlemen that it will meet with your speedy 
 approval. We are only asking for something that is fair and just and something 
 that we believe belongs to every true American, and that is a living wage 
 and God grant that we may get it. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 A. Bridges, 
 Corresponding Secretary. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. FLAHERTY, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE NATIONAL 
 FEDERATION OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 The organization that I have the honor to represent gave its emphatic indorse- 
 ment to the Nolan bill at its last biennial convention, held in Memphis, Tenn.. 
 September 3-6, 1917. In my report to that convention I made this statement in 
 reference to the Nolan bill : 
 
 " One of the most far-reaching of all Government employees' wage measures 
 is the Nolan minimum wage bill, which seeks to establish a minimum wage of 
 $3 a day for all Government employees, except postmasters, who have been 
 in the employment of the Government for two years and are 20 years of age. 
 While fortunately the majority of postal workers receive more than the $1,080 
 yearly minimum by the Nolan bill, it nevertheless indirectly affects every 
 postal employee. The existence of a large army of poorly paid Government 
 employees is a constant menace to those better paid and tends to lower the 
 entire wage scale. In seeking the enactment of the Nolan bill, therefore, we 
 are not only helping those relatively worse off to reach a higher standard but 
 we are fixing our own standards a little more secure and bettering our chances 
 for a higher classification. 
 
 " On March 21, 1916, I testified before a subcommittee of the Labor Committee 
 in behalf of the Nolan bill and utilized tlie opportunity to expose the grievances 
 of the substitute clerks, carriers, and railway-mail clerks ; the inadequacy of 
 the present postal wage scale ; the misuse of the stop watch ; the tendency to 
 speed up the men ; the demotion of collectors and other service complaints. This 
 testimony was printed and distributed as a public document to interested service 
 workers. 
 
 " The Nolan bill was favorably reported to the House, but died on the calen- 
 dar. It has been reintroduced in the Sixty-fifth Congress. I recommend that 
 the convention indorse the Nolan bill and instruct the legislative representative 
 to work for its enactment." 
 
 The Nolan bill would do two big things for the Postal Service and postal em- 
 ployees. It would increase the entrance wa'je more than 30 per cent — from $800 
 to $1,080 — and it would operate to limit tlie period of substitution to two years. 
 In view of the fact that substitutes in the Postal Service must v/ork on an aver- 
 age of four years at a wage of $420 per year, one can readily see the necessity 
 of doing just what the Nolan bill proposes, namely, shorten the period of sub- 
 stitution and raise the entrance wage to insure to the service a steady influx 
 of capable, alert, high-grade young men, the type so necessaiy to an efficient 
 service. 
 
 In my testimony before this committee on March 21, 1916, found on page 
 107 of the printed hearings, I dwelt at some length on the various phases of 
 the postal employees' work and I shall not again go into the subject in detail. 
 
MIISTIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 29 
 
 Suffice to say tliat the same arguments then used are applicahle to-day with 
 even greater force. 
 
 News clippings herewitli submitted are 'typical. One from the Los Angeles 
 Record states that between 500 and 600 men have resigned from the Postal Serv- 
 ice in four Western States because of the iiiadequate wage, and the entire sub- 
 stitute force at Seattle quit in a body. Another is from the Toledo News Bee. 
 and is a condemnation of the department's method of getting school children to 
 step into the places vacated by men who have quit for more attractive employ- 
 ment elsewhere. 
 
 postai, ci.kltks quit say pay is too small. 
 
 San Fkancisco. 
 Between 500 and 600 men have resigned from Postal Service in California, 
 Utah, Nevada, and Arizona in the last few months, attributing action to alleged 
 disorganization and inadequate pay in the Post Office Department. 
 They say pay of mail clerks does not approach the cost of living. 
 
 special boys quit. 
 
 [By United Press.] 
 
 Seattle. 
 
 The entire special-delivery force of mail carriers here will quit December 31 
 to work in the shipyards where they will receive higher wages. 
 
 Postmaster Battle has advertised for boys with motorcycles or bicycles to 
 take their places, stating that the Government will pay $50 a month. 
 
 post-office s'alakies. 
 
 To THE Editor : During these days the Toledo post office is furnishing further 
 evidence of the retrogression of the mail service under Postmaster General 
 Burleson's administration. Uncle Sam has entered the ranks of the employers 
 of child labor by hiring n sw;irm of schoolboys, ranging from 13 to 17 years, to 
 meet the expected holiday ru.s'h. 
 
 Lo^^' wages are no inducement to competent help and the reserve list has long 
 been exhausted. The faithful old employees, with periods of from 10 to 25 
 years' service, receive only 5 cents an hour more than boys in knee trousers. 
 
 The Postal System is one of the most necessary adjuncts for the successful com- 
 pletion of the war. Why should our aims be jeopardized by the employment of 
 cliild labor? Important military correspondence, questionnaires, and such mail 
 matter upon which hang the lives of many of our citizens are subject to the 
 incompetent handling of mere boys not yet out of school. 
 
 Something sould be done, and were the American public cognizant of the con- 
 'litions in the Postal System there would be an upheaval in the department. 
 
 Press Committee. 
 Post Office Clerks Union 170. 
 
 A logical argument for the Nolan bill is found in a report from the House 
 Post Office Committee, in which this statement in regard to the substitute serv- 
 ice and meager entrance wage is made: 
 
 " The fact that these employees serve an apprenticeship as substitutes for an 
 average period of four years at an approximate wage of $35 per month, or $420 
 per annum, during their period of substitution. When they receive a regular 
 appointment they start in at an annual salary of $800, and if they render satis- 
 factory service they must serve five years in regular employment before they 
 reach the $1,200 grade, or a total of nine years from the time that they enter 
 the service. During the nine years these employees average $742.22 per annum. 
 Their work is not only hard and laborious, but it requires men of exceptional 
 ability and character to perform the duties in the efficient manner required oi 
 employees by the rules of the Post Office Department." 
 
 From the same authoritative source we learn that the entrance wage into the 
 Postal Service — the largest governmental agency — is the lowest paid to any 
 class of Government employees above the grade of laborer. This report reads : 
 
 " The present salary of $800 for these clerks and carriers after receiving 
 permanent appointment is the lowest entrance salary now paid by the Gov- 
 ernment to any class of employees in the classified service above the grade of 
 
 ■<»<«Np«i 
 
30 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 laborer. In view of this fact, and in consideration of the four years that they 
 are required to serve as substitutes before receiving permanent appointments, 
 the proposed entrance salary fixed in this bill at $1,000 is fair and just. An 
 entrance salary of $1,000 will make for the efficiency of the service, because of 
 making the service attractive to the right kind of eligibles. Under existing 
 conditions many young men take the examination to enter the Postal Service 
 without fully understanding the actual conditions that v/ill confrot them. The 
 result is that thousads who take the examinations and qualify with splendid 
 averages either refuse to be sworn in when called as substitutes or very shortly 
 leave the substitute service after becoming familiar with actual conditions."' 
 
 While I hesitate to state that the Postmaster General is an advocate of the 
 Nolan bill, knowing as' I do his attitude toward his employees' wage agitation, 
 as expressed in his annual report, when he referred to their wage as being 
 three times that of the men in the trenches, yet I am heartened by a subse- 
 quent message from him to his employees, dated January 1, 1918, in which he 
 says : " The magnificent achievements of the past year have been obtained by 
 your efforts, and you are entitled to the credit for them." 
 
 One of the achievements of the past year to which Mr. Burleson referred, 
 no doubt, was the accumulation of a surplus of $10,000,000. He admits this 
 was due to the efforts of the employees and wants them to be credited with it. 
 There is no better way of showing credit, I believe, than by permitting the men 
 responsible for this surplus to share it in the way of an increased wage. The 
 Nolan bill insures this. It will enable the poorer paid postal employees to 
 cash in on the credit — to get something substantial — for their magnificent 
 achievements of the past year — achievements for which Mr. Burleson wants 
 them to have due credit. 
 
 VAEIOUS CONSIDERATION'S TNDICATIXG THE AEED FOR INCKEASING SALARIES AND 
 M'AGES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 [By Florence Etheridge, fourth vice president National Federation of Federal Employees.] 
 
 At one of the hearings on retirement for Federal employees held last summer 
 before the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment the chairman 
 of the committee asked me whether among the v^^omen employees in the Govern- 
 ment service, other than charwomen, tiiere were more than a few whose wage 
 was less than $720 per annum. I was at the time unable to venture more than 
 an opinion on this subject, but, from percentages since worked out on a basis of 
 figures presented by Bulletin No. 107 of the Bureau of the Census, it appears 
 that over 56 per cent of the women, other than charwomen, in the Federal 
 services in Washington and the field received salaries of less than $900 per 
 year, as against 5 per cent of men similarly employed. Probably the percentage 
 is considerably lower to-day ; but in many offices, notably the Bureau of Engrav- 
 ing and Printing and the money-counting division of the Treasury Department, 
 there are many women receiving not more than $600 per annum. The Patent 
 Office also has women employees engaged in responsible clerical work and receiv- 
 ing $720 a year, though the Commissioner of Patents has asked in the current 
 estimates for an increase in the salaries of this grade of employees. 
 
 Strange as it may seem, at a time when salaries iind ^v:lges outside the Govern- 
 ment service have been increased more largely thau (>ver before to correspond 
 roughly to the increase in the cost of living — in England the wages of the 
 workers have been increased 40 per cent — at a time when the new appointments 
 to the Government departments are being made at a higher entrance salary 
 than ever before, the permanent employees of these departments are in a more 
 trying position than at any previous period. Nevr employees are appointed in 
 the same offices with those of long experience at higher salaries than those 
 reached by the experienced employees after many years of .service, and under 
 the new law advantageous transfers of these experienced employees are prac- 
 tically prohibited. Take my own case as an example : Entering Federal em- 
 ployment 17 years ago at a wage — nominally a salary — of $600, I have gradually 
 worked up through the grades by virtue of evening work in college and law 
 school to $1,500. My work in the Indian Office is that of a probate examiner. 
 Stenographers are now being appointed in the War Department at salaries of 
 $1,000, $1,100, and $1,200. Moreover, I can not, except after a very special 
 and somewhat humiliating effort — it is now necessary that the head of the 
 department from which transferred should state that in his opinion the appli- 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 31 
 
 canf for transfer can do better work in the department to which he seeks trans- 
 fer than in that from which transfer is songht — obtain a transfer to another 
 department, and if transferred can take no advantage of the higher rates of 
 salary now paid, as I must commence at and continue for at least a year at the 
 rate of pay at which I am transferred. I have at hand a letter from a woman 
 employee of the Post Office Department in which she says bitterly but witii 
 substantial justice that the situation in which we find ourselves amounts to 
 " being interned for the period of the war." 
 
 We appreciate the necessity of adapting ourselves to the exigencies of the 
 war, and we are glad to do so ; but we wonder if Members of Congress Mdao 
 voted favorably on sections 6 and 7 of the urgent deficiency bill appreciate what 
 it and the several Executive orders on the same subject have done to us. 
 
 Data in Suppokt of 1{p:qt;est of Government Employees eok Increased Pxi.Y 
 
 FOR AEL GOVEKNilEXT EMPLOYEES, SHOWING INCREASED NeED FOR NOLAN BiLL 
 
 (H. R. 152). 
 
 ISubmitted bv the National Federation of Federal Employees, 410 A. F. of L. Building, 
 
 Washington, D. C] 
 
 An advertisement of the Old Dutch Market appeared in the papers a few 
 days ago sliowing that since December, 1914, on 61 items of food there has been 
 an increase of more than 86.5 per cent. They estimate that during the last 
 thi-ee years the cost of living has advanced about 75 per cent. A copy of the 
 advertisement is herewith. 
 
 Page 84 of the December Monthly Review of the United States Bureau of 
 Labor Statistics shows that in the year from October, 1916, to October, 1917, 
 prices of food as ;! whole advanced 30 per cent. During the period from Octo- 
 ber, 1913, to Octobei', 1917, food as a whole advanced 52 per cent. These 
 figures cover 30 aA^erage cities of the United States, but the advance in prices 
 from October, 1917. to .January, 1918, is not shown by this report. 
 
 Latest statistics of the Department of Labor are borne out with regard to 
 food and other items of cost of living by Bradstreet's reports. These reports 
 show the cost of living based on a hundred different items has advanced from 
 a ratio figure of 12.08 in December, 1916, to 16.91 in November, 1917, or 32 
 per cent in 11 months. This is probably the best estimate that can be made of 
 the exact increase in the cost of living. 
 
 With regai'd to wage increases that have been granted, page 122 of the 
 December ^Monthly Review of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 
 shows that the average increase of w^ages in 13 classes of industries during the 
 year from October. 1916, to October, 1917, was 18.1 per cent, and the Decem- 
 iDer, 1916, Monthly Review shows that between October, 1915, and October, 
 1916, there was an average increase of 20.2 per cent. Similar reports for every 
 month in the last two years have shown constantly increasing wages. The 
 report of the New York State Department of Labor for November, 1917, shows 
 that wages have increased from a ratio of 100 in August, 1915, to a ratio of 
 170 in November, 1917, with a ratio of increase in the number of employees 
 from 100 to 120. or nearly 50 per cent increase within the last two and one- 
 half years. 
 
 Latest figures on the average pay of Government employees show that the 
 average annual pay is $948, but it is probably less than this now, because of 
 the great number of employees placed in the service within the last few years 
 at salaries lower than $900. The salaries now paid to Government employees 
 were fixed bv statute in 1854 and have not been generally changed since, 
 except to add to the number of low-paid positions — those receiving less than 
 $1,200 a vear — and the 5 and 10 per cent increases granted by the last Con- 
 gress for this vear only. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its 
 report of the cost of living in the District of Columbia, shows that $1,082.80 
 is the least possible amount on which a family could live decently in 1916. 
 This necessarily means that with an increase of more than 30 per cent since 
 1916 the majority of Government employees have lowered the stand;u-d of living 
 greatly, that they are not living decently, that they are piling up debts v/hich 
 they have not any hope of paying, and that literally thousands of them are 
 working nights and Sundays to make ends meet. 
 
 H. M. McLapvEn, President. 
 
32 
 
 MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 
 
 ConcerninK the pay of GoA^ernment clerks, the following price list sives some 
 idea of the increased cost of living : 
 
 Comparison of retail prices of 61 items of foods during Decemher, 19H, 
 December, 1915, and December, 1917. 
 
 Foods. 
 
 GROCERIES. 
 
 Bread, 1-pound loaf 
 
 Sugar, granulated, pound 
 
 Flour, Gold Medal, pound 
 
 Milk, condensed, can 
 
 Milk, evaporated, tall can 
 
 Milk, evaporated, small can. . . 
 
 Tomatoes, Std., 2A's, can 
 
 Corn, Std., 2J"s, can 
 
 Peas, E. J 
 
 Baked beans, Campbell's 
 
 Corn meal, pound 
 
 Hominy, pound 
 
 Rice, best, pound 
 
 Oatmeal, pound 
 
 Macaroni and spaghetti, bulk, 
 
 pound '. 
 
 Prunes, small, pound 
 
 Salmon, Red Alaska, can 
 
 Soups, can 
 
 Navy beans, best, pound 
 
 Lima beans, dried, pound 
 
 Catsup, bottle 
 
 Sirup, can 
 
 Corn Ha>es (Quaker), package. 
 
 Split peas, poimd 
 
 Scotch peas, pound ■. .. 
 
 Black-ej-e peas, pound 
 
 BEEF. 
 
 Rib roast, poimd 
 
 Chuck roast 
 
 Plate (soup meat) 
 
 Porterhouse steak, pound 
 
 Sirloin stea'-, pound 
 
 Round steak, pound 
 
 Chuck steak, pomid 
 
 Hamburg steak, pound 
 
 Beef liver 
 
 December — 
 
 1914 
 
 1915 
 
 1917 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 94 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 64 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 19 
 
 7* 
 
 9 
 
 15 
 
 ^ 
 
 4* 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 14 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 22 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 22 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 18 
 
 18 
 
 27 
 
 16 
 
 14 
 
 24 
 
 12 
 
 12J 
 
 18 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 35 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 32 
 
 20 
 
 18 
 
 32 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 
 24 
 
 14 
 
 124 
 
 22 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 Foods. 
 
 PORK. 
 
 Fresh hams 
 
 Fresh shoulders 
 
 Fresh pork chops, lean. . 
 Fresh pork chops, loin. . . 
 
 Fresh pork roast, lean 
 
 Fresh pork roast, center. 
 
 Corned shoulders 
 
 Corned hams 
 
 Smoked hams, whole 
 
 Smoked hams, sliced 
 
 Smoked shoulders , 
 
 Smoked bacon, sliced 
 
 Smoked sausage , 
 
 Lard, pure, poimd 
 
 Lard, compound, pound . 
 
 BUTTER, EGGS, ETC. 
 
 Butterine (oleo) 
 
 Butter, first grade, pound. 
 
 Eggs, dozen 
 
 Cheese (cream) 
 
 VEGETABLES. 
 
 Potatoes, peck. 
 
 Kale, peck 
 
 Spinach, peck. 
 
 December- 
 
 1914 1915 1917 
 
 Cents 
 16 
 14 
 16 
 18 
 16 
 18 
 14 
 16 
 16 
 25 
 14 
 24 
 12J 
 124 
 10" 
 
 Onions, yellow, pound j 2 
 
 Lettuce, head 
 
 Sweet potatoes, peck 
 
 Cabbage, new, pound 
 
 Total units I 770 
 
 891 
 
 Cents. 
 15 
 124 
 14" 
 18 
 13 
 16 
 12^ 
 15 
 15 
 26 
 12 
 
 22 I 
 15 
 11 
 10 
 
 Cents. 
 32 
 30 
 34 
 38 
 32 
 35 
 26 
 32 
 34 
 48 
 27 
 44 
 27 
 30 
 26 
 
 1,434 
 
 Per cent. 
 Average increase on all items shown on this list from December, 1914, to 
 December, 1917 86. 5 
 
 Average increase on all items shown on this list from December, 1915, to 
 DeceiQber, 1917 , 61. 1 
 
 About one-half (or 50 per cent) of the pay check is spent for food, which has 
 advanced S64 per cent in 3 years. 
 
 Assuming that all other items in the family budget have remained stationary 
 in price, it would require pay increase of 43 per cent to break even, as against 
 the cost of living in 1914. 
 
 What has happened to the cost of coal, shoes, clothing, and about every- 
 thing else is only too well known. 
 
 Conservatively figured, the cost of living has advanced in the past 3 years 
 about 75 per cent. 
 
 Were it not for the wise and energetic work of the United States Food Ad- 
 ministration many of these prices would now be very much higher than they 
 are. This is particularly true of flour, bread, sugar, and all canned goods. 
 
MIN^IMUM WAGE BILL FOB FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES. 33 
 
 STATEMENT OF ME. FRANK A. BUSH, OF THE CUSTODIAN SERVICE, 
 REPRESENTING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' UNION NO. 21, BALTI- 
 MORE, MD., RELATIVE TO NOLAN BILL. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I can say but 
 Yerj little more than has been said by those that have preceded me. 
 
 Baltimore, Md.. where I reside, has always been a cheap city to 
 live in. The rents were low, with good markets where produce and 
 other necessities of life w'ere cheap. But that is past. The high cost 
 of living has come to Baltimore like all other cities of the United 
 States, which make it hard on the Federal employee, as his salary 
 has remained the same while outside firms raised their wages to meet 
 the increased cost of living. 
 
 To make sure that the Government employee should stay in bond- 
 age and not be allow^ed to better his conclition, there has been a rule 
 made that he must be out of the Government service three months 
 before he can take an examination for a higher position. The same 
 ruling applies to all firms manufacturing war supplies. 
 
 There are vacancies in the service now which can not be filled, as 
 no one wants a Government job at the salaries now paid. 
 
 Now, as the Government wants the best there is, an applicant must 
 take a physical as well as a mental examination. He must possess 
 more than the average amount of strength, skill, and education or the 
 Government does not want his services. Therefore, as they require 
 the best, they should pay commensurate wages or at least living ones. 
 
 I respectfully submit the following as the salary and expenditures 
 of a laborer in the custodian force : 
 
 His salary is $60.50 per month, including the present 10 per cent 
 increase. 
 
 Board for himself, wiie. and child $30. 00 
 
 Reut 10. 00 
 
 Fuel 12. 32 
 
 Insurance and societies 4. 70 
 
 Clothing for three 20. 00 
 
 Car fare and church fund 5. 00 
 
 Total expenditures 1 82. 02 
 
 After finishing his work for the Government he must do outside 
 work in order to make up the deficiency. He is a janitor of a church 
 and gets $12 per month, his wiie makes $10 per month, and after 
 paying their obligations they can not save a cent— and live from hand 
 to mouth most of the time. This allows no provision for sickness or 
 diversions of any kind. If he should become ill his family would be 
 left helpless, as he can not provide for a rainy day. 
 
 LArisTDKY Workers' Union, BriiKAX- of Engravixg and Printing, 
 
 WasliiHffto)!, D. C, Januani 3. 1918. 
 Hon. J. P. Mahek, 
 
 Cliairman of Lahor C(>})nu}ttc<\ House of Rrijrcseiitafires. 
 Dear Sir: The aboA"e-nanied union desires to have a representative, but could 
 not, for fear of embarrassin,;:; tlie work in the bureau. Kindly see brief inclosed: 
 and have same inserted in the recm-d at the hearings. 
 Respectfully. 
 
 .John Ger^han, Vice President. 
 39898—18 3 
 
34 
 
 mustimum wage bill for federal employees. 
 
 Laundry Wobkees' Union, Local No. 110, 
 
 BUEEAU OF EnGEAVING AND PRINTING, 
 
 Washington, D. C, January If, 1918. 
 To the Labor Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 
 
 Gentlemen : The Laundry Workers' Union, Local 110, of Bureau of Engrav- 
 ing and Printing, beg to submit, for your consideration, tlie following: 
 
 There are employed in the laundry at the bureau 91 men who receive the 
 pittance of $2.11 per diem. Eighty per cent of these men are men of fami- 
 lies ranging from two to nine, and the lives of the men in this particular 
 branch are ever in jeopardy because of the nonsanitary conditions, brealjing 
 belts, rotating machinery, bursting steam pipes, etc. The records of the bureau 
 will show that 60 per cent of these men have sacrificed their pittance to buy a 
 liberty bond, endeavoring to be loyal to their Government and country. We 
 have appealed for an increase, but in vain. To say the least, our suffering is 
 intense, and we owe urgent bills that we wish to but can not pay, and thereby 
 we are chai'ged as being dishonest. W^e heartily indorse the Nolan $3-per-day- 
 minimum-wage bill and pray that you will give it your cooperation for its 
 immediate passage. 
 
 Fraternally, yours, 
 
 John Geeman, Vice President. 
 Chas. H. Kere, 
 Joseph Bkooks. 
 
 Statement of one idIvo receives $2.11 per diem imth four in family. 
 
 Months carrying 25 days $52. 75 
 
 Months carrying 26 days 54. 86 
 
 Months carrying 27 days 56. 97 
 
 Per annum 660. 43 
 
 Disbursements: 
 
 4-room house per month 16. 50 
 
 Fuel 8. 00 
 
 Food 28. 25 
 
 What one could live on per annum with four in family. 
 
 House rent $240 
 
 Food 536 
 
 Wearing apparel 80 
 
 Charity 30 
 
 Car fare 12 
 
 Fuel 50 
 
 Total 948 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 John German. 
 Charles H. Keee. 
 Joseph Bkooks. 
 
 A FEW letters IN FAVOE OF THE BILL. 
 
 Washington, D. C, December 31, 1917. 
 Hon. Mr. Nolan: 
 
 The inclosed article has been read very carefully, and therefore beg of you to 
 look after those Government employees who are working not as clerks but as 
 called by the civil service classified messengers. I know personally many young 
 men who came here before me who have started as messengers at $720 and it is 
 five months that they are here without getting a raise. I am only four months 
 and have received two raises, which brought my salary up to $1,200. 
 
 If a clerk is starving on $1,200, what in the world are these messengers doing? 
 They don't live, but at that salary they are existing. Why shouldn't a messen- 
 ger have a chance to advance? I think that the salary I am making is very 
 
MINIMUM WAGE BILL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 35 
 
 nice, and can and do live very well. I defy anyone to say otherw^ise. For God's 
 sake, help others. I am a citizen of your State and want you to fight them as 
 hard as possible for their sake of a raise and a chance to advance to a higher 
 position. 
 
 I am, your obedient servant, 
 
 A Citizen of Yottr State. 
 
 January 10, 1918. 
 Hon. John I. Nolan, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C: 
 We, the undersigned messengers at Army headquarters, San Francisco, who 
 are civil-service employees, beg favorable action on the Nolan bill. Maximum 
 annual salary now paid, $840; minimum, $720, which is entirely inadequate to 
 provide our children with ordinary food and clothing or to educate them. 
 
 Daniel S. Looney. Louis Richtee. 
 
 Thos. S. Hughes. Feedeeick Stanley. 
 
 W. A. Plumb. W. S. McCluee. 
 
 Samuel W. Wilkinson. C. J. Edwaeds. 
 
 James I\I. Wade. Petee Hellman. 
 
 George A. Westphalingee. Julian C. Nissen. 
 
 John E. O'Connell. Michael Keating. 
 
 Henry D. Foulk. Wm. M. White. 
 
 (Personal.) 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 12, 1918. 
 
 My Dear Sie : I take the liberty to write you for the purpose of congratulating 
 3'ou upon the bill you expect to put through Congress relative to the Government 
 workers. 
 
 Don't you think it far better to amend your bill so as to increase the salaries 
 of Government workers who have finished their probation period of six months 
 rather than let us who have not been In the Government service two years starve 
 to death in the meanwhile? 
 
 When appointed through civil-service rules an appointee is given six months 
 to make good in, at the expiration of said time, of worthy, is given a permanent 
 appointment. Your bill to increase salaries to all who have been in the Govern- 
 ment service two years is an injustice to we that have passed the six months' 
 probation period, and I am sure that if you will consider with me that you will 
 amend your bill so as to include all those who have served their probation period 
 of six months. 
 
 Thanking you so much for your faithful service to us, 
 I am, very truly, yours, 
 
 A $60 Skilled Laboeee. 
 
 Hon. John I. Nolan, M. C, 
 
 House of Represetitatives, City. 
 
 525 Sixth Avenue, New Brighton, Pa., 
 
 January 1, 1918. 
 Hon. John I. Nolan : 
 
 Mr. Nolan, how about the minimum-wage bill? Are you going to try to have 
 it passed at this session, or are you going to let it drop? I was hoping you 
 would get it passed, as it would help us low-paid fellows, as our wage is so low 
 that a per cent bill don't amount to much to us. 
 
 Thank you for what you have done for us. Hoping to hear favorably from 
 you. 
 
 James E. Houk. 
 
 X 
 
Gaylord Bros. 
 
 Makers 
 Syracuse. N. Y. 
 
 PAI. JAN. 21, 19D8