i. ' K ' I L" ' 1 5% 5 I 9 4 '3 - Q -~" ..... *--r ‘ ‘ 4/‘ ~“"“\ ; x 0 N G E R P R31...) I? i §"§”Z,fiY s> :3: am’ E¥fiRARY Zn.- .- ~ . 7' J'’“’'’:- 77 Z’ .' P‘ « "."-' I -E :5 . . 1 .+,""<""\a. “ A: '1 ‘Y’ '9 ?~ ‘«I'f : '5‘ 5- K = 4 in L :r . '_ .3. -‘ ’._ \LJL¢_/ 2 . E ., ,: . Issue Brief NOV 16 3989 ST. LGUES. MO. 1 T T CONGRESSIONAL »««u«»nm;yagnggm@ngi:@a £@[]‘:gwlfljfl[I‘5i4fiim:uw} MINIMUM RAGE AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IN THE 96TH CONGRESS ISSUE BQIEF NUMBER IBBOOOZ AUTHOR: Whittaker, W illiam G . 3 con oaics Div ision THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED g14Qgg§QC DATE UPDATED Quggggg FOR ADDITIONAL.INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 05 12 CRS- 1 IB80002 UPDATE-O4/29/80 l§§E§-2§El§£2lQ_ The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the FLSA), as amended, is the basic federal statute dealing with minimum wages, hours of labor, child labor, equal pay and related subjects. The intent of the Act is to eliminate "labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of minimum standards of living necessary for the health, efficiency and general well-being of workers-" Major revisions of the Act have occurred in 1909, 1955, 1961, 1966, 1974, and 1977. The 1977 amendments created a national Minimum Sage Study Commission, charged it with a complete review of the federal minimum wage statute, and directed it to report its findings and recommendations to Congress within three years. The current federal minimum wage, for covered workers, is $3.10 per hour. It Bill automatically be increased, as provided in the 1977 amendments, to $3.35 per hour on Jan. 1, 1981. EAEKGEQEEQ A!D.2QLlQl AEALYS § THE CURRE NT FCXIUS Federal wage and hour regulation, traditionally, has been a joint sphere of authority, shared by the states and the federal government. Normally, respective state and federal statutes complement each other. Where there is cl overlapping or dual coverage the standard most nearly in the interest of the worker prevails. The most recent revision of the federal statute, the 1977 FLSA Amendments, provided, among other things, for the following: (a) a phased increase in the federal minimum wage from the $2.30 level of 1977 to $2.65 per hour in 1978, to $2.90 per hour in 1979, to $3.10 per hour in 1980, and to $3.35 per hour after Jan. 1, 1981; (b) special subminimum wage arrangements for students, under limited conditions, employed in the retail and service industry; (c) a phasedown of the "tip credit" provisions of the Act (see discussion below); (d) a lower age at which children might work as field harvest hands, dropping the restriction from 12 years to 10 years, under certain circumstances; and (e) the creation of a national Minimum wage Study Commission. In addition, exemptions from the overtime provisions of the Act (time—and-one—half of one's:regular pay for hours worked in excess of forty in one week) were narrowed. ms a result of the Jan. 1, 1980, increase in the federal minimum wage to $3.10 per hour, it is estimated that 5.1 million workers will receive pay increases. That is approximately 9.0% of the workers covered under the Act; u.9% of the civilian work force as measured in Dec. of 1979; and 5.2% of the employed civilian labor force, also measured for December 1979. Approximately 57 million workers are covered under the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA out of a total civilian work force of about 103 m"lion in 1979. Since most covered workers earn in excess of the federal minimum, mandated by the Congress, they are not directly affected by these increases -- although there may be an indirect impact upon their earnings. The cost of the Jan. 1, 1980, increase in the federal minimum wage is estimated by the Department of Labor to be about $1.7 billion for the year. This should be weighed against an annual ttmal wage bill estimated to be in cns— 2 IB80002 UPDATE-OQ/29/30 excess of $1.2 trillion, based upon wags and salaries but not including fringe benefits. who are the 5.1 million workers who will receive direct pay increases as a result of the Jan. 1, 1980, increase? Most of the 5.1 million work in agriculture, the service industry, in laundries, private education, and hospitals. In addition.(sometimes paid at a sub-minimum rate under special certification from the Secretary of Labor), there are learners, apprentices, messengers, certain fulltime students employed parttime, and handicapped workers. Although some of these workers have been organized, most appear not to be trade union members. Many are employed in positions requiring little training and modest skills -— although there are exceptions, here, noteably among the handicapped and the student workers. In the wake of the 1977 FLSA Amendments, and continuing into the 96th Congress, interest in the Fair Labor Standards Act has centered upon the following eight issues. gigst. Are the mandated minimum wage increases inflationary and, if so, should the remaining step increase be deferred? (Only the increase to $3.35 on Jan. 1, 1981 now remains.) The federal minimum wage rate is established by Congress, statutorially, and remains at the set level until Congress again acts to alter it. For 1980, the federal minimum wage has been increased by 7%; in 1981, by 8%. (During 1979, the estimated percentage increase in the cost of living, as measured by the Consumer Price Index for that one year alone was between 12% and 13%. For that same year, the federal minimum wage was raised by only 9%. §g§Qgd. The FLSA Amendments reduced in steps the amount of tip income, received by employees, that employers could count toward their (the employer's) federal minimum wage obligation, from the 1977 level of 50% to 45% after Jan. 1 1979, and to 00% after Jan. 1, 1980. In the name of fighting inflation, should the remaining reduction in the tip credit allowance have been deferred --- some queried during the first session of the 96th Congress? with the implementation of the final step reduction of the tip credit, effective on Jan. 1, 1980, the issue would appear tr>be partially moot, absent an effort to reverse the process and to increase the tip credit or, conversely, to urge its further reduction. ghird. would the youth unemployment situation be ameliorated by the creation of a general youth/student subminimum wage under the FLSA? Eggggh. Should resident assistants or resident conselors, who are full-time students and are employed by the private institution of higher education in which they are enrolled, be exempt from the FLSA? §;;;;. Under the FLSA, blind and handicapped workers may be employed at" special sub-minimum wage rates, under certain conditions —- as, for example, in sheltered workshops. Has this sub-minimum wage arrangement (or special minimum wage) proved an advantage to blind and handicapped persons, facilitating the development-of their skills and their adjustment to the world of work? wor, conversely, has this special treatment under the Act impeded the full integration of blind and handicapped persons within the regular workforce while providing a ccntinuing source of cheap labor to certain employers? gigth. Has the time come to consider shortening the hours of work per day (or per week, per year, etc.) both to provide greater opportunities for leisure and as a means for fighting unemployemnt? gggenth. Should the equal pay provisions of the FLSA be strengthened to protect, further, the options of women who work? Should the concept of equal pay be extended to include the concept of “comparable worth“? gighth. In the fa 2 of global competition for markets, runaway industries, multi-national production of goods by frontier-straddling corporations, etc., should Congress consider methods to establish global standards for wages and hours and conditions of work? 0 CBS- 3 IBBOOOZ UPDATE-OQ/29/80 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES Early in the 20th Century, there developed a general awareness among public officials and others concerned with questions of social and economic welfare that too many Americans were living under conditions of poverty. Salaries of heads-of—households were too low, some argued, to allow for a decent lifestyle, for the rearing of children, and for setting aside a reasonable sum for old age (for a living, family, saving wage). The result, often, was the combined employment of husband, wife, and children -- frequently in competition each with the other - to produce an income adequate to provide the essentials of life. Wages were low and hours were long. when wage income was inadequate for sustenance, resort was made to public or private charity. Such charity was considered by some to be, in effect, a wage subsidy for management which was, thus, able to pay the lowest possible wage, to reap the highest possible profit, and to transfer to the public -- to the taxpayer - the social costs of their low-wage policy. These might include welfare, higher crime rates, the maintenance of institutions for the indigent and the delinquent and the elderly. About 1912, individual states began to enact legislation against child labor and for the protection of women workers. Among these state laws were those dealing with the length of hours worked and the minimum wage that might legally be paid. These first state efforts were tentative and very limited in scope and in enforcement -- where they were enforced at all. Battles .in the courts were intermittent, the laws being repeatedly struck down where their had any effe<=t- Finally. in F.s§f=..C.9a$..1.1.<2.t§_1. V- 1?.a££;'L.§h (1937) . the law of the state of Washington was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Numerous _-ates moved to re-enact minimum wage statutes based upon the Washington State pattern. In 1938, Congress enacted and President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA of 1938 gave labor standards protection to men, as well as to women, and children. The measure dealt with hours of labor and had special provisions concening overtime work, placed limitations upon the labor of children, and provided a special standard for learners, apprentices, and handicapped workers. Jurisdiction over the Act was vested in the Administrator of the Wage and House Division at the Department of Labor. Coverage was not universal under the FLSA, certain categories of workers being excluded. since 1938, coverage has been expanded regularly through amendments but is stil1.not.universal. The federal statute (the FLSA) does not necessarily preempt the several state laws. Rather, the two jurisdictions operate in a complementary fashion. In the §gtiQggl_;gQgQg_9f_gi;ig§ case (1976), however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not impose minimum wage and overtime requirements upon state and local government employees, as had been provided in the 197a FLSA Amendments. CONTINUING ISSUES INVOLVING THE FLSA Hearings were conducted on proposed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards At; both in the 94th and 95th Congresses, with major revisions of the Act evolving from the latter -- the 1977 FLSA Amendments. Labor standards issues, however, are rarely resolved with a.single enactment, the history of the FLSA being a continuing struggle between pro-labor and pro-management/industry forces. Not infrequently, an issue will appear as a CRS— 4 IBBOOOZ UPDATE-O4/29/80 subject of hearings in successive Congresses ——— essentially the same questions being asked, often, of the same witnesses. The issues .discussed below have long been of legislative interest and may be expected to receive further congressional attention. lndezetien Beyond the question of how high the federal minimum wage ought to be is the issue of how it ought to be set. Umder the FLSA, as it now stands, the federal minimum wage is set by congressional enactment and remains at the level designated by Congress, without regard to the general condition of the economy, until it is again altered by Congress. Through several decades, voices both within Congress and in the scholarly/professional community have discussed institution of a more flexible method through which the federal minimum wage might be established, a method more responsive to actual economic conditions than would be a mustering of votes, pro or con, in a committee or on the Floor. «One such method is indexation. Very simply, indexation means pegging the federal minimum wage to an independent figure and allowing the minimum wage rate to rise or fall as that independent figure rises or falls. Both the Consumer Price Index and a percentage of the average hourly earnings of production workers in manufacturing have been.suggested as the peg. Each has had its advocates and its detractors and neither, perhaps, is«entirely satisfactory. The concept of indexation is relatively old, and has been used in many countries at least since the World War I era. As far back as 19u9, the concept was suggested by the late Senator Robert A. Taft --- but withot legislative result. In the 94th Congress (1975), although no legislation was reported, indexation was the subject of hearings in the House Subcommittee on Labor Standards. Again, during the 95th Congress, the Subcommittee gave extensive consideration to indexation of the minimum wage; but, on the floor of the House, the proposal was defeated. A parallel provision in a Senate bill was dropped in the Committee on Labor and Human Resources in the wake of the rejection of indexation in the House. Given the intense interest in indexation by its proponents and the wide use of the concept in the private sector (cost—of-living escalator clauses, for example, in collectively negotiated agreements), it would seem reasonable that it may receive further. Congressional consideration. :he_:i2.§2eéiL-2:ezi§i2_§ The hotel, motel, and restaurant. industries had historically resisted coverage for their employees under federal wage and hour legislation. with the 1966 FLSA Amendments, such service workers in these industries were brought under the protection of the Act. Industry, however, argued that many of these people (waiters and waitresses, cleaning people, doormen, etc.) were beneficiaries of tips and that, therefore, they were already receiving work—related earnings, often in excess of the projected federal minimum wage. It was also asserted that if hotels, mouels, and restaurants were forced to pay their help a minimum wage, many would have to close, convert “a automation, or modify the type of service rendered. As a compromise, a "1 3 credit" arrangement was instituted that provided for two qualifying conditions under which.employers of tipped persons might avoid the full weight of the minimum wage requirements of the FLSA -- at least, momentarily. giggt. A "tipped employee" was defined as anyone who CRS- 5 IB80002 UPDATE—0Q/29/80 customarily and regularly receives more than $20 a month in tips (since raised to $30 per month). "_S__e_gg_>nd_. Employers could count a part of the tip received by "tipped employees" toward the satisfaction of their (the mployer's) federal minimum wage obligation. In short, each covered employee must receive the full federal minimum wage whether it be paid totally by the employer or in combination with tip income -- the latter creditable for up to 50% (subsequently reduced to uo%) of the total minimum amount. In the wake of the 1966 FLSA Amendments, coverage of service workers having been determined, the contest shifted to the tip credit provisions of the Act. To labor, the tip credit provisions were intended to be transitional -- to allow industry to adjust to the payment of a full minimum wage by_thg_gmpl9y§; -"and, then, to be phased out. To industry, the tip credit provisios were to be defended, at least, and to be extended to a full 100% credit, if possible. If employees were receiving at least the federal minimum wage, regularly and customarily, through tips, then the standrd had been met, in industry's view, and no additional direct wage ought to be required. Between the two extremes, compromise was effected. After extensive consideration in both the 9uth and 95th Congresses, the 1977 FLSA Amendments (a) redefined "tipped employee" to include those receiving $30 a month in tips and (b) provided for a phasing down of the tip credit to 45% on Jan. 1, 1979, and to 40% on Jan. 1, 1980. During the debates in the 95th Congress, as during prior consideration of the tip°credit and minimum wage issues, industry spokespersons foretold dire economic consequences if the tip credit were reduced: i.e., that firms would be forced to reduce their staff size (and to refrain from employing additional workers), to»convert to automation, to modify the type of service ,ndered -—- or, simply, to close their doors. At a minimum, industry branded the reduction in the tip creditx as being inflationary and called for a deferral of the 1977-mandated phasedown. Although no action was taken on the deferral proposal during the 95th Congress (nor on a parallel proposal to defer the mandated increases in the Federa1.ninimum wage), similar demands were made in the first session of the 96th Congress. $11.e-§.t11.«1e:1.t&_I9.u:c.h-§11_12:_;Ii;1.je2.I;a-me From the inception of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938," the Congress has allowed certain exemptions from theeprovisions of the Act. Provision for a sub-minimum wage for certain students, learners, and apprentices was written into the original Act (though trade union spokesmen opposed it); but, although the FLSA has undergone substantial amendment on six separate occasions, Congress has not provided for §__g§I_1_§£§_l__§_1_1_13_:I;_;Q__j_.§QQ_§_§_g§_ for _a_L_l._; youths or for all students. During recent Congresses, interest in such a provision has increased, in part, perhaps, for the following reasons: (a) because of of changes in the cultural/social/economic environment since 1938 and the manner in which youngsters are introduced into the "world of work,"; (b) because of the high and sustained rate of unemployment among youths seeking work --and especially so for minority youths; and (c) because of the inclusion of the retail and service trades (some 30% of food service employees are teenagers) under the FLSA1with the 1966 Fair Labor Standards A/‘1Amendments. During the 91st Congress (1969-1970), there was serious discussion of the establishment of a youth sub-minimum wage -— but appropriate legislation was not reported. In Bay of 1971 (the 92nd Congress), Labor Secretary James Hodgson, for the Nixon Administration, urged a special, general youth CRS- 6 IBBOOOZ UPDATE-0%/29/80 sub-minimum wage in testimony before the House Committee on Education and Labor. Congressman John Erlenborn (R-Ill.) proposed legislation to give effect to the Administration's suggestion -—- the Erlenborn amendment dying with adjournment of the 92nd Congress. In the 93rd Cogress, the proposal for a youth sub-minimum wage was again offered by Mr. Erlenborn who was joined, now, by Congressman John Anderson (R-Ill.). Again, the measure failed of enactment. In the 95th Congress, at the time of the 1977 FLSA Amendments, a major effort was made to secure adoption of a general student/youth sub-minimum wage amendment. Although the proposal failed in the committee, a floor amendment to provide for an 85% sub-minimum wage for youths under 19 years of age and for full-time students of any age (to expand the current law which allows an 85% subaminimum wage, under certification by the Secretary, for full-time students working part-time) was offered by Congressman Robert Cornell (D-Wisc.). On a vote of 210 yeas to 211 nays, the House rejected the Cornell (Erlenborn/Anderson) amendment. Similar amendments were defeated during Senate floor consideration of the 1977 FLSA Amendments. Early in the second session of the 95th Congress, Congressmen Cornell and Paul Simon (D-Ill.) introduced single purpose legislation to provide for a general youth/student sub-minimum wage --- the legislation dying in committee with adjournment. In the 96th Congress, several proposals for a youth/student sub-minimum wage (or “youth opportunity wage") have been introduced. No committee action has been taken. However, although the concept is strongly opposed by organized labor and by the Congressional Black Caucus (the chief beneficiaries, advocates suggest, would be Black youths), industry and academic spokespersons still express a considerable interest in the legislation. Further congressional review of the matter would not see" entirely unlikely. he-§1_1e=.’29.r-V12-l.=_!I._..eek Under the PLSA, as currently operative, overtime pay at the rate of time-and-one—half of’a worker's regular hourly wage, must be paid to covered workers, except where exceptions have been written into the Act, who work in excess of forty hours in a single week. There is no restriciton in the Fair Labor Standards Act upon the number of hours, prior to the requirement of overtime pay, which can be worked in a single day so long as the total hours worked per week do not exceed forty. Certain other federal and state statutes, however, also«deal with hours«of work but their provisions vary. Concern with reduction of the hours of work extends back into thei 19th century, both at the state and federal Levels. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, labor campaigned for shorter hours based largely upon humane considerations: an opportunity for the worker to develop physically, intellectually, and spiritually, to share in the good things his talents and energies had produced, to nurture and to educate his children, to partiipate in the democratic process and to shoulder, respomsively, the obligations of citizenship in a free society. Long hours of work in factory, mine, and field were regarded as ,physically, mentally, and_ psychologically debilitating, leaving workers broken in health and spirit. At least from the Depression Era forward, humane considerations for fostering a shorter workd ' (and a shorter workweek) have been less emphasized and the movement for reduced hours has been urged primarily in economic terms. Through the decade of the 1970s, an additional element, the desire for leisure, per se, emerged as a consideration in the scheduling of work. E CRS- 7 IB80002 UPDATE-O4/29/80 In August of 1962, taking note of persistently high rates of unemployment, he AFL-CIO Executive Council noted: "One certain answer to the problem is to spread the work by reducing the hours each worker devotes to his job, measured either by the week or the year, ghi;g_ gaintaining_ hi§_ tgtal ea.1.:.n.i-I_19§.- A shorter work period 2.i1_=h9§_a_r.edu9ti9n-in.:alse-h2me-2az is the answer American needs; ..." (Emphasis added.) The Executive Council called for an amendment to the FLSA to providezfor the 35-hour workweek with double time for overtime. The 88th Congress (1963-1964) conducted extensive hearings on legislation to provide for a 32-hour or 35-hour workweek, producing a voluminous record but no changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Again in 1965, the AFLPCIO Executive Council called upon Congress to reduce the standard workweek to 35 hours and to provide double pay for overtime in excess of 35 hours worked per week. "Such a reduction,” the AFL-CIO declared, "would ease the adjustnent to the spread of automation and create hundreds of thousands of needed job opportunities for the unemployed, for the increasing number of young people who are entering the labor force, and for workers displaced by technological change." In voting out the 1966 FLSA Amendments, Congress did not include the reduced hours and overtime provisions which the trade union movement had urged. In 1975, the AFL-CIO again endorsed a "decrease in hours worked whether on a daily, weekly, or annual basis _w_i_=_1;h___no _redu<_:tiog__i_13__g_a_q_e§_gg__b_gg§f_i_t_§ and the principle of a 35-hour workweek.“ (Emphasis added.) Hearings on hours reduction and increased overtime penalties, inter alia, were conducted during the 94th Congress (1975) but no legislation was reported. . Although agitation for shorter hours:never really ceased within the trade xion community, it was renewed with some vigor in 1977 at the urging of congressman John Conyers (D—Mich.) and with the creation of the ad hoc All Unions Committee to Shorten the Work Week. In March of 1978, Congressman Conyers introduced H.B. 1178a (the 95th Congress), which called for the adoption of the 35-hour work week by statute (amending the FLSA), and for double time pay for overtime work in excess of the 35-hour standard. Although the bill died with the adjournment of the 95th Congress, because no action was taken, Congressman Conyers re-introduced similar legislation in the 96th Congress: H.R. 178$. On Oct. 23, 24, and 25, 1979, hearings on the Conyers proposal were conducted by the House Subcommittee on Labor Standards, chaired by Congressman Edward Beard (D-R.I.). As yet, no legislation on the shorter work week issue has been reported from the Subcomittee. The equal pay provisions of the FISA (Section 6(d)(1)) bar employers from engaging in wage discrimination, based upon sex, for work of equal skill, equal effort, equal responsibility and performed under essentially equal conditions. The Act, however, provides an exception "where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality or prodution; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex; . . ." There has been developed a volume of case law concerning the several provisions of this 1963 statute and, in many instances, intra-cmaft pay inequities based upon sex may 1 re been eliminated. Recently, however, it has been argued that securing equality of pay within a craft or type of work may be of little value if entire classes of work are undervalued, as some would suggest, because they have traditionally been the preserve oftfewale workers. Thus, some would argue that "women's work,“ so defined by tradition, has been systematically undervalued in comparison with "men's work‘ and that the result has been a serious and substantia1.pay and benefits differential. For example, nursing, CRS- 8 IBBOOOZ UPDATE-OJ/29/30 elementary teaching, librarianship, domestic (household) service, etc., until" recently dominated by women, are fields with low earnings potential. In several states and within certain industries, there has been a concerted effort to effect a review of job classification systems and the development of a more equitable salary/benefit structure. Thus far, these efforts (the campaign for equal pay for work of "comparable worth") have not met with entire success. Several elements have combined to give the issue of "comparable worth" a high visibility. zigst. On October 20, 1979, a national conference on comparable worth was held in Washington, D.C., during which a variety of strategies were discussed and a more careful focus was given to the issue -- although the concepts of "comparable" and "worth" may not, thus far, have been defined with complete clarity. §§gQng. In February of 1977, nurses employed by the City and County of Denver filed a class action suit (under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1960) charging pay inequities based upon sex. Historically, they contended, nurses have been underpaid because their work has not been properly recognized and because nurses have almost universally been women. In an adverse ruling, Federal District Court Judge Fred Winner characterized the suit as "pregnant with the possibility of disrupting the entire economic system of the United States of America." Judge winner argued that Title VII has not given to the Federal courts "the job of leveling out centuries of discrimination." Congress, he noted, “cannot, and never has been able, to repeal the law of supply and demand," after which he added: "And the situation . . . is that the supply of nurses is very large as compared to the demand, and it puts the nurses in a somewhat disadvantageous negotiating position." On Apr. 21, 1980, the Court of Appeaf for the Tenth Circuit, in sustaining the decision of the lower court, affirmed that the “parity plaintiffs seek is not a remedy which the courts can now provide." (BEA/DLR, Apr. 2'4, 1980, D/1-D/2.) Third. A case of a similar nature, involving comparable worth issues in the electrical industry, has been brought by the Electrical Workers (IUE) against Westinghouse and is still under consideration by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice have filed amicus briefs in support of the union. At issue is the inter—relationship and applicability of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1960. IUE, which filed suit in behalf of women members of Local HA9, Trenton, N.J., is protesting "the system of sex-segregated jobs in which women do work that is different from ‘men's jobs’ but requires the sane skill, effort and responsibility." It seems probably, the union suggests, that the case ultimately will reach the U.S. Supreme Court. (The IDE News, April 1980, p. 3; BNA/DLR, Dec. 4, 1979, A/6.) Fgggthg On Apr. 28-30, 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission conducted three days of hearings on the issue of comparable worth. From the hearings, EEOC hopes to»secure a clearer definition of the issue and to develop appropriate and effective patterns for redress of current alledged‘ inequities. Thus far, the struggle for equal pay for work of comparable worth has been confined, largely, to public relations, to lobbying at the state and local level, and to action before the courts. Should these efforts not produce the result desired by advocates of comparable worth, some suggest, an appeal 3 the Congress may be likely. THE HINIHUH WAGE STUDY COHHISSION cns- 9 1330002 UPDATE-O4/29/80 During hearings and debate on the 1977 FLSA Amendments, there was wresented a substantial volume of conflicting testimony, much of it xechnical, concerning the viability of minimum wage legislation, per se, its potential inflationary impact, the value and likely result of a youth/student sub-minimum wage, the treatment of certain conglomerates under the FLSA, etc. Clearly, it would appear, there was a recognized need for a serious, scholarly, substantive review of the FLSA - especially of the minimum wage provisions of the Act. During floor debate in the House, Congressman Carl Perkins (D-Ky.), at the suggestion of Congressman Jim Guy Tucker (D—Ark.), introduced an amendment to create a nine-member “Minimum Wage Study Commission" which would review the FLSA and the social, political, and economic ramifications of the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act. The proposal for a Commission was approved both by the House and by the Senate. As it emerged in Public Law 95-151, it was provided that the study conducted by the Commission "shall include but not be limited to" the following: (a) The beneficial effects of the minimum wage, including its effect in ameliorating poverty among working citizens; (b) The inflationary impact (if any) of increases in the minimum wage prescribed by that Act; (c) The effect (if any) such increases have on wages paid employees at a rate in excess of the rate prescribed by that Act; (d) The economicrconsequence (if any) of authorizing an automatic increase in the rate prescribed in that Act on the basis of an increase in a wage, price, or other index; (e) The employment and unemployant effect (if any) of providing a different minimum wage rate for youth, and the employment or unemployment effects (if any) on handicapped and aged individuals of an increase in such rate and of providing a different minimum wage rate for such individuals; .(f) The effect (if any) of the full-time student certification program on employment and unemployment; (g) The employment and unemployment effects (if any) of the minimum wage; (h) The exemptions from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of that Act; (i) The relationship (if any) between the federal minimum wage rates and public assistance programs, including the extent to which employees at such rates are also eligible to receive food stamps and other public assistance; (j) The overall level of noncompliance with that Act; and (k) The demographic profile of minimum wage workers. In addition, a special study by the Commission of the impact of the FLSA upon certain employees of conglomerates was mandated. The Commission, which is currently at work, was given three years to complete its projected research and reports. .1.-..+:.~§l§.I.:AI'.I E The following bills, by no means a complete listing, are representative of proposals for revision of the Fair Labo Standards Act. H.R. 50 (Holtzman) cns-10 1330002 UPDATE-O9/29/80 Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to narrow the circumstances under which an employer of employees subject to the Act may have wage differentials based upon the sex of the«employees. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to House Education and Labor Committee; on Feb. 8, 1979, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Labor Standards. H.R. 1784 (Conyers) Revises the overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide that, effective January 1, 1983, employees who work more than thirty-five hours in any workweek shall receive overtime compensation for such work at twice their regular rate of pay. The bill would also abolish mandatory overtime. Introduced, February 1, 1979, the measure was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor, subcommittee on Labor Standards. Hearings on the bill were conducted by the Subcommittee on October 23, 2a, and 25, 1979, but legislation has not yet been reported. H.R. 1970 (Jones of Oklahoma) Amends the Eair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to delay for two years the increases in the minimum wage mandated by the 1977 ELSA Amendments and scheduled to take effect in 1980 and 1981, provides a special sub-minimum wage for the limited employment of youth under the age of nineteen (85 percent of the otherwise applicable wage rate), broadens the authority for the employment of full-time students at.a special minimum wage, and retains the 45 percent tip credit (rather than reducing the tip credit to no percer as provided for in the 1977 FLSA Amendments). Introduced February 8, 1979; referred to the House Education and Labor Committee; on February 16, 1979, referred to Subcommittee on Labor Standards. 5. 1327 (Hart) Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt full-time students serving as resident assistants and resident counselors in private nonprofit institutions of higher education from that Act, and for other purposes. Introduced June 12, 1979, and referred to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. S. 102 (Tower) Postpones the increases (not already in effect) in the minimum wage mandated in the 1977 ELSA Amendments and postpones further downwardp adjustment of the tip credit provisions of the FLSA as mandated in the 1977 ELSA Amendments. See also H.R. 117 (Barnard, with others). Introduced January 18, 1979; referred to Senate Committee on Human Resources. n.n. 1250 (Slack) Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, to establish procedures to relieve domestic industries and workers.injured by increased imports from low-wage areas and which is cited as the "Fair Labor Standards Foreign Tra ; Act." Introduced January 22, 1979; referred to House Committee on Education and Labor; on February 16, 1979, referred to Subcommittees on Labor Standards and Employment Opportunities. H.R. 3187 (Gaydos) CRS-11 IB80002 UPDATE-OH/29/80 Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, to require prenotification to iffected employees and communities of dislocation of business concerns, to provide assistance (including retraining) to employees who suffer employment loss through the dislocation of business concerns, to business concerns threatened with dislocation, and to affected communities, to prevent federal support for unjustified dislocation, and for other purposes. The bill would add an additional chapter to the FLSA but does not seem to impact upon the wage, hour and related provisions of the Act. Introduced on March 22, 1979; referred to Committees on Education and Labor, and Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. H.R. 3764 (Burton, P.) Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit the employment of blind persons, or persons with impaired.sight, at less than the applicable minimum wage under the Act. Introduced on Apr. 26, 1979, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor. On May Q, 1979, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Labor standards. H.B. 5063 (Dicks, et al.) Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to require that the Secretary of Labor, in determining whether to grant a waiver of the application of the child labor provisions of the Act to certain agricultural labor, base a a finding that the level and type of pesticides and other chemicals used would ‘ive an adverse effect upon the health or well-being of such individuals on ,cientific data developed by the Envircnmental Protection Agency or the Food and Drug Administration. Introduced September 28, 1979, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Educatitn and Labor. On October 5, 1979, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Labor Standards. QEBQEQLQGY OF EVE1."-£§ On/28-30/80 -- The Equal Employnent Opportunity Commission Conducted three days of hearings on the issue of "equal pay for work of comparable worth." 01/01/80 -— The federal minimum wage for covered workers, as mandated by the 1977 FLSA Amendments, was increased from $2.90 per hour to $3.10 per hour. - The tip credit allowable to employers of "tipped employees“ was reduced from #5 percent to 40 precent as mandated under the 1977 FLSA Amendments. 10/23-25/79 -- The Subcommittee on Labor Standards, House Committee on Education and Labor, conducts hearings on H.R. 1784. 02/01/79 —— Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) introduced H.R. 178u, a bill to reduce the pre-overtime workweek to 35 hours, to provide for doble pay for overtime in excess of 35 hours per week, and to elininate mandatory overtime. 01/01/79 -- The credit allowable to employers of "tipped CRS-12 IBBOOOZ UPDATE-OQ/29/80 employees“ toward satification of the employer's minimum wage obligation under the FLSA was reduced from 50 percent to H5 percent.as mandated in the 1977 FLSA Amendments. —— The federal minimum wage:for covered workers, as mandated in the 1977 FLSA Amendmetns, was increased from $2.65 per hour to $2.90 per hour. O1/01/78 —- The federal minimum wage:for covered workers, as mandated in the 1977 FLSA Amendments, was increased from $2.30 per hour to $2.65 per hour. 11/10/77 —- President Carter signed H.R. 37uu into law (P.L. 95-151), the 1977 Fair Labor Stanards Act Amendments. Blumrosen, Ruth G. Wage discrimination, job segregation, and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196fl. University of Hichigan journal of law reform. Spring 1979: 399-502. Chambers, John W. The big switch: Justice Roberts and the minimum wage cases. Labor history. Winter 1969: I-HI-73. Cook, Alice H. Equal Pay: Where is it? Industrial Relations. Hay 1975: 158-177. Douglas, Paul H. and Joseph Hackman.. The Fiar Labor Standards Act of 1938, I: the background.and legislative history of the Act. Political science quarterly. Decaber 1938: 491-515. ---- The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, II: the Act as finally passed. Political science quarterly. march 1939: 29-55. Edgren, Gus. Fair labor standards and trade liberalisation. International labour review, September-October 1979, 523-535. Elder, Peyton K- and Heidi D. Miller. The Fair Labor Standards Act: changes of four decades. Monthly labor review. July 1979: 10-16. Felt, Jeremy P. The child labor prcwisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Labor history, Fall 1979: H67-Q81. Gavett, Thomas, H. Youth employment.and minimum wages. Monthly labor review. March 1970: 3-12.‘ Gramlich, Edward H. Impact of the minimum wages on other wages, employment and family incomes. Washington, Brookings Paper on Economic Activity, 2, 1976: n09-461. Grossman, Johathan. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: maximum struggle for a minimum wage. Monthly labor review. June 1978: 22-30. cRs—13 IB8 ooo2 UPDATE-O L:/29/so Kalachek, Edward. Determinants of teenage employment. Journal of human resources. Winter 1969: 3-21. Keyserling, Leon H. The role of wages in a Great Society: stressing minimum wage gains to help the working poor. Washington, Conference on Economic Progress, 1966. 11H p. Kreps, Juanita H. Youth employment and minimum wages: some further questions. Nebraska journal of economics and business. Winter 1971: 14-21. ‘ Levitan, Sar A. and Richard S. Belous. More than subsistence: minimum wages for the working poor. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979. 172 p. ----- The minimum wage today: how well does it work? Eonthly labor review. July 1979: 17-21. Meany, George. The working poor cannot wait. American federationist. August 1977: 1-3. Mendelievich, Elias. Child labour. International labour review, September-October 1979, 557-568. Hincer, Jacob. Unemployment effects of minimum wages. Journal of political economy. August 1976: S78-S104. Phelps, Orme Wheelock. The Legislative background of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 1939. 71 p. Ross, Albert H. and Frank V. ncDermott, Jr. The Equal Pay Act of 1963: A decade of enforcement. Boston College industrial and commercial law review. November 1971:: 1-73. Schloss, Clara F. Closing the minimum wage gap. American Federationist. January 1976; 12-19. Tyler, Gus. Minimum wage: still fighting the War on Poverty. American Federationist, May 1977: 1-H. 0.5. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. "Background information on H.R. 178u: A proposal to reduce the hours of work, to provide for double pay for overtime, and to eliminate mandatory overtime." By William G. Whittaker. October 22, 1979. 16 p. ---- "The Fair Labor Standards Act Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-151) : discussion with historical background." By Charles V. Ciccone and William G. Whittaker. August 15, 1978. 103 p. ---- "Hearings on the ‘application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to blind and handicapped workers,‘ May 10-11, 1978, Subcommittee on Labor Standards: an overview." By William G. Whittaker. may 14, 1979. 27 p. cns-1n IB80002 UPDATE—-O ll/29/80 ---- "Indexing the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act." By Peter Henle. January 17, 1977. 22 p. ---’ "The inflationary impact of the federal minimum wage: consideration of perspectives and issues in the continuing debate." By William G. Whittaker. April 18, 1979. 21 p. ----- "Binimum wage and youth employment". Congressional Research Service review. By William G. Whittaker. November-Decenber 1978. 3-5, 13-11,! pp. -—-- “Public Law 95-151, ‘The Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1977 (H.R. 3744/s. 1871)’: comparison of major provisions with existing law." 1By Charles V. Ciccone and Hilliam G. Whittaker. November 4, 1977. 10 p. ---- “Should the federal minimum wage be lower for youth than fo adults? An inquiry, with pro and con arguments." By Joseph Fulton. January 29, 1973. 55 p. ---- "The youth/student sub-nininum wage issue: background, analysis, proposals and pro/con discussion." By William G. Whittaker. August 22, 1978. 103 p.