(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Work materials ..."

I 

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 06317 357 7 



■ //o 



( 



OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOYFRY ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF REVIEW 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSION 

FOR THE 
COAT AND SUIT INDSTRY 

By 

George Gordon Battle 
Chairman 
N.I. Stone 
Paul F. Brissenden 



WORK MATERIALS NO. TEN 



MARCH, 1936 



OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF REVIEW 



REPORT OF TEE COMMISSIOE 

FOR THE 
COAT AID SUIT INDUSTRY 

By 
Gcorgo Gordon' Battle 
Chai rman 
H. I. Stone 

Paul F. Brissenden 



MARCH, 1936 



9821 



The National Recovery Administration Com- 
mission for the coat and suit industry was ap- 
pointed "by the Administrator on May 17, 1934, 
pursuant to a resolution adopted on May 4, 1934, 
at a hearing before Deputy Administrators Earl 
D. Howard and Morris Greenberg, in Washington, 
in which representatives of the several coat and 
suit markets of the country, together with repre- 
sentatives of the International Ladies Garment 
Workers Union, participated. 

The following persons were members of the 
Commission: 

Mr. George Gordon Battle, Chairman 
Mr. H. I. Stone, Acting Chairman 
Dr. Paul P. Drissenden 

The mandate to the Commission was to make a 
study of the competitive market conditions in the 
industry and to present its findings to the Ad- 
ministrator, in order to enable the Administrator 
to determine what changes, if any, should he made 
in the code for the coat and suit industry. 

The Commission made an exhaustive study of 
direct and indirect lahor costs and other compet- 
itive factors in the various coat and suit market 
areas. The report of the Commission was printed 
as a supplement of the Women's Wear Daily, Volume 
49, No. 19, Section 3, on Friday, July 27, 1934. 
It is here reproduced in order to increase its 
availability to students. 

The report was discussed at a hearing held on 
August 3, 1934 on several proposed amendments to 
the code for the coat and suit industry. The 
transcript of this hearing is located in the ERA 
Central Records Section. 

At the hade of the report will be found a 
brief statement of the studies undertaken by the 
Division of Review. 



L. C. Marshall 
Director, Division of Review. 



9821 -i- 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Pages 

List of Charts iii- iv 

List of Tables in the Text v 

List of Appendix Tables vi- vii 

REP02T OF THE COMMISSION 1 

SECTION I. Introduction 1 

SECTION II. Comparison of Costs in Different Markets 4 

A. Analysis of Run-of-Shop 

Co st s 5 



3. Cost of Manufacture of a 

Specific Garment 20 

SECTION III. The Supply of Labor in the Markets 34 

SECTION IV. TTage Statistics 40 

A. Earnings of Employees 40 

B. Earnings in delation to 

Code St?ndards 54 

SECTION V. Union Organization and Labor Agree- 
ment s 65 

SECTION VI. Volume of Sales Before and Since 

Adoption of Code 69 

SECTION VII. Summary of Complaints and Demands, 

with the Commission's Findings 73 

Apoendix Tables 91 



!821 



-li- 



LIST OF C T IAHTS 

Fig. 2-1 a 2un-of-shop costs and average hourly earnings in 

markets outside of Hen York: $6.75 and $8.75 houses... 7 

Fig. H-lAa 2un-of-shop costs and average hourly earnings in New 

York : $6 . 75 houses 8 

Fig. 2-1 d 2un-of-sho-o costs and average hourly earnings in 

markets outside of New York: $10.75 houses 10 

Fig. 2-lAb Hun-of-shor, costs and average hourly earnings in 

New York: $10.75 houses 11 

Fig. 2-1 c 2un-of-shop costs and average hourly earnings in mar- 
kets outside of New York: $13.75 and $16.75 houses.... 13 

Fig. 2-lAc Run-of-shop costs and average hourly earnings in 

New York market : $15. 75 houses 14 

Fig. 2- lb 2un-of-shop costs and average hourly earnings in 

markets outside of New York: $12.75 houses 16 

Fig. 2-1 e 2un-of-shop costs and average hourly earnings in 

markets outside of New York: $18.75 and $20.75 houses. 19 

Fig. C— la Cost of production of a specific garment in different 
markets in comparison with shop run costs and average 
hourly earnings: Grade "1-llinus" and Grade "1" coats.. 25 

Fig. G— lb Cost of production of a specific garment in different 
markets in comparison with shop run costs and average 
hourly earnings: Grade "2" coats 29 

Fig. G-lc Cost of production of a specific garment in different 
markets in comparison with shop run costs and average 
hourly earnings: Grade "3" coats 30 

Fig. C— Id Cost of production of a specific garment in different 
markets in comparison with shop run costs and average 
hourly earnings: Grade "3-4," "4" and "4-5" coats 31 

Fig. A Average number of workers and their earnings by 

market and by craft 39 

Fig. 2-7 Average hourly earnings of cutters in tailor and 

section shoos, by market 44 

Fig. E-8 Average hourly earnings of male operators in tailor 

and section shops, by market 45 



9821 -iii- 



Page 

Pig. E-9 Average hourly earnings of female operators in 

tailor and section shops, "by market 46 

Fig. E-10 Average hourly earnings of male finishers 

in tailor and section shoos, by market 47 

Fig. E-ll Average hourly earnings of female finishers 

in tailor and section shops, by market 48 

Fig. E-12 Average hourly earnings of pressors, in 

tailor end section shons, by market 49 

Fig. E-3 Average hourly earnings of male operators 

in "inside" and "outside" shops, by market 50 

Fig. E-4 Average hourly earnings of female operators 

in "inside" and "outside" shops, by market 51 

Fig. H-13a Average hourly earnings of finishers, by 

sex and market 52 

Fig. H-13b Average hourly earnings of ooerators, by 

sex and market 53 

Fig. K-12-1 Average hourly earnings of cutters in relation 

to code standards , by market 55 

Fig. H-12-2 Average hourly earnings of operators in 
relation to weighted code standards, by 
market 56 

Fig. H-12-3 Average hourly earnings of finishers in relation 

to weighted code standards, "ay market 57 

Fig. H-12-4 Average hourly earnings of pressers in relation 

to code standards, by market 58 



9821 -iv- 



LIST OF TABLES TTT TEXT 

Page 

Table G-2 Condensed summary of cost of production of 

a specific garment and of run-of-shop costs 23 

Table H-14a Number of needle workers in various markets 
compared with numbers of workers in the coat 
and suit industry 35 

Table p>14b Number of needle workers in various market areas.. 37 

Table 3-1 Summary of average hourly earnings by market and 

ma j o r craft 41 

Table H— 10a Percentages of manufacturing employees 

whose earnings, for week ended March 9, 1934, were 
(1) below the code minimum, (2) between the mini- 
mum and the code "average" and (3) above the code 
"average, " by craft and market area , 60 

Table B-X Percentage of manufacturing employees whose 

earnings for week ended March 9th, 1934, equalled 

or exceeded the prescribed code standards, by 

selected craft and market area 62 

Table B-S Comparison of code minimum and "average" hourly 
ra.tes, by craft and market area, with eastern 
and western differentials 64 

Table 3-2 Estimated proportions of coat and suit workers 
in tailor and section shops, in week-work and 
piece-work shops, in "inside" and "outside" 
shops, in union and non-union shops and of each 
sex, by market 66 

Table K-l Dollar sales volume of coats and suits, spring 

season, 1933 and 1934 70 

Table I[-2 Schedule showing number of sales inquiries and 

replies received 71 

Table C-l Number of employees and their earnings in each 
major craft in Baltimore tailor and section 
shops 89 



9821 -v- 



LIST OF AFPBTDIX TABLES 

Page 

Table 2-1 Run-of-sho'; costs and average hourly earnings 

in the various markets 92 

Table R-1A Run-of-shop costs and average hourly earnings 

in the New York market 93-97 

Table G-l Summary of cost of production of a specific 
garment in different markets in comparison 
with run-of-shop costs 98 

Table E-14c Numbers of needle workers in various markets, 

by age groups 99-101 

Table H-12a Summary comparison of number of employees, 
weighted code standards and actual average 
hourly earnings, by major craft and market 102 

Table H-12 Convoarative table showing weighted code 
minimums and averages and actual average 
hourly earnings by major craft and market 103 

Table E-7 number and average hourly earnings of cut- 
ters in tailor and section shops, by 
market 104 

Table 3-8 number and average hourly earnings of male 
operators in tailor and section shops, by 
market 105 

Table E-9 number and average hourly earnings of female 
operators, in tailor and section shops, ^ir 
market 106 

Table E-10 number and average hourly earnings of male 
finishers in tailor and section shops, by 
market 107 

Table E-ll number and average hourly earnings of female 
finishers in tailor and section shoos, by 
market 108 

Table E-12 number and average hourly earnings of pressers 

(male) in tailor and section shops, by market 109 

Table E— 3 'gur.ber and average hourly earnings of male 
operators, in "inside" and "outside" shops, 
by market 110 



9821 -vi- 



Page 

Table E-4 1'umber and average hourly earnings of female 
operators, in "inside" and" out side" shops, 
by market Ill 

Table H-13 y umber aiid average hourly earnings of cutters, 
male and fenale operators, male and female 
finishers, aid pressers, by market 112 

Table H-1C "lumbers and percentages of manufacturing 

employees in the several craft classifications, 

^hose earnings for ueek ended March Sth, 

1954, -/ere (l) belon the code minimum, 

(2) between code minimum and code "average", 

and (5) above the code "average", by market 113-142 



9821 -vii- 



S3CTI0N I. 

INTRODUCTION 

The K3A Commission for the Coat and Suit Industry was appointed pur- 
suant to a resolution adopted on May 4, 1934, at a hearing before Deputy- 
Administrators Earl D. Howard and Morris Greenberg, in "ashington, D. C, 
in which representatives of the several coat and suit markets of the 
country, together with representatives of the International Ladies' Garment 
Workers Union, participated. 

The resolution setting forth the scope of the Commission's investi- 
gations follows: 

"The Administrator shall forthwith appoint a commission of three 
persons, one of whom shall represent labor, to investigate all mar- 
kets engaged in the manufacture and wholesale distribution of 
wearing apparel included in the Coat and Suit Code. 

The commission shall study the following situations and conditions 
in the various localities and all markets: 

I. Labor conditions: Available labor supply, male and female; 
relative skill of labor in the market; method of operation; exist- 
ing labor agreements; cost of production. 

II. Availability of markets; raw materials, finished product. 

III. Competitive irregularities. . 

The Commission shall study all petitions and demands filed since 
the adoption of the Coat and Suit Code by particular localities and 
markets relative to wages and labor classifications. 

The Commission shall report its findings to the Administrator by not 
later than July 1, 1934. 

Upon receipt of the report, the Administrator shall hold hearings of 
the interested parties to consider and determine on such changes in 
rates and differentials between markets as may be indicated by the 
•report of the commission and the hearings. 

The decision reached by the Administrator as a result of said hear- 
ings shall be effective as of the date approved by the Administrator." 

The Commission was appointed May 17, 1934. After some preliminary 
discussions with the Deputy Administrator and with several of the leading 
members of the industry, of the problems committed to it in the terms of 
reference quoted above, and after making an examination of the available 
payroll data on file at the offices of the Coat and Suit Code Authority, 
the Commission mapped out three separate lines of investigation to be car- 
ried on simultaneously with the hearings in the several markets. These 
were:- 

(l) A statistical analysis of earnings and costs based upon payroll 

9321 



-2- 

data regularly submitted to the Code Authority on uniform 
payroll sheets by manufacturers throughout the country. 

(2) A study of the "run-of-shop costs" of competitive firms in 
the several markets. 

(3) A study of the cost of production of a specific comparable 
garment in the several coat and suit markets. 

In addition to there three lines of inquiry the Commission, in accord- 
ance with its instructions, visited and held hearings in all of the impor- 
tant coat and suit markets in the country. While these investigations were 
being conducted the Commission had the opportunity to acquaint itself at 
first hand with the problems of the industry and to give full opportunity 
to all members of the industry — employer and labor alike — directly 
or through their representatives, to present their claims, grievances and 
recommendations. The Commission also has examined the numerous letters, 
petitions and briefs submitted to the Administrator or to the Code Authority 
by members of the industry or their associations in various parts of the 
country since the adoption of the Coa„t and Suit Code. 

The Commission left New York on May 30, 1934 and held its first hearing 
in Cleveland, Ohio, on hay 31, 1934. Thereafter it visited the other markets 
in the following order: Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Soston, Newark and 
New York. 

The Cleveland hearings covered all 'of the Ohio markets; those in Chicago 
took in Minneapolis and St, Paul, Minn., Batavia, Illinois, and Crawfords- 
ville and LaPorte, Indiana; those in -Philadelphia included Scranton; in 
Boston, the Commission also heard representatives from other towns in Massa- 
chusetts, while the hearings held in New York included testimony from Connec- 
ticut. 

In each of these markets, leading representatives of the manufacturers 
and the workers presented their claims and made their suggestions for re- 
vision of the Code and submitted statistical and other documentary material 
in support thereof. 

The Commission was accompanied by Mr.' Leo Rosenblum, C.P.A. , who was 
in charge of the "run-of-shop cost" study, and Mr. Frank A. Garvey, Indus- 
trial Engineer, of Cleveland, Ohio, who carried on the cost study of the 
specific comparable garments. The Commission also retained Mr. Vincent J. 
Cohenour, statistician, who was responsible for an important part of the 
analysis of payroll reports. 

In some of the markets visited, the Commission was accompanied by 
Mr. Alexander Prints, of Cleveland, Ohio, Chairman of the Western Council 
and Mr. Milton Rosenfeld of St. Louis, Missouri, Member of the Western 
Council and both members of the Coat and Suit Code Authority. The labor 
member of the Commission was accompanied by Mr. Charles H. Green Director 
of the Codes Observance Bureau of the International Ladies' Garment 
Workers Union. 

Because it was highly desirable that the Administrator should be in 
a position to make his decision on disputed 'ooints before the fall season 

9821 



-3- 

reached its height, the Commission was obliged to carry on its work at top 
speed. The Commission regrets that it was unable to spend more time in most 
of the centers which it visited but it ia satisfied that the presentation 
of the claims and su bioris of each of the markets was comprehensive. 

The Commission takes >le;rue in expressing its lively appreciation 
of the hospi.talitj extended to it thrra-'unv',. J . .• ,v lole course of its hear- 
ings. It is indebted in this way to so iany in Livi duals that it is impossi- 
ble to mention them all by name. The unifoi uly courteous cooperation ex- 
tended to it and to its staff ao every sr; §.e of its investigations has immea- 
surably facilitated its tfork. Ti.e Comruission feels thet it is under an 
especially heavy debt of obligation to Mr. Samuel Klein, Executive Director 
of the Industrial Council of Coat, Suit ar.d Skirt Manufacturers of New 
York; Mr, Harry Uviller, Executive Director of the American Cloak and Suit 
Manufacturers Association of Few York; Mr. Maxwell Copelof , outgoing, and 
Mr. Joseph L, Dubcw, incoming, Executive Director oi the Merchants' Ladies' 
Garment Manufacturers' Association; Dr. Arthur L. H. 2." 'bin, of the University 
of Chicago, Deputy Director of the Code authority for the Chicago market; 
Mr. Alexander Prints of the Print z-Ei =jdernt\n Com) any of Cleveland and Mr. 
Milton Rosenfeld o'f the Cardais Manufacturing Company of St. Louis for the 
long hours which they generously ' devoted-. to assisting the Commission in 
the formulation of its plans and the prosecution of its inquiries. Finally, 
the Commission must express its sense of heavy obligation for their invalu- 
able assistance to Mr. J". Nathan Wolf, Secretary of the Coat and Suit Code 
Authority, Mr. Reuben Holland of the .Labor Bureau of the Coat and Suit In- 
dustry, ITev York, to other members of the staff of the Authority and to the 
code enforcement officers and the "Code -Authority's deputy directors inn 
the out— of— town markets. 



The Commission is keenly conscious of the short-comings of the report, 
made inevitable by the extreme pressure under which the work has been done, 
due to the limitation of time set for the completion of its work. It has 
undertaken, in a ver v 'few-' weeks, to cover a great deal of ground, both 
geographically and statistically. Une resulting figures are therefore both 
logfT comprehensive and more f ragmentary than it could wish. It has been 
at great pains, however, zo verify, so for as it has been possible to do so, 
all of the figures submitted in this preliminary report. The Commission 
does not flatter itself that the report is free from errors of calculation 
and estimation. It dares to Lopt that they are not numerous- In Djny event 
it does not believe that such errors as may be found will prive to be of such 
magnitude as to invalidate the findings of fact herein made. 

NOTE, 

A large part of the statistical matter embodying the results of the 
Commission's investigations ispresentod in chart form in the text of this 
report. Eor this reason, on"\y those statistical tables whose significant 
figures have not been graphed appear in the text, the others being presented 
in the Appendix. The charts are numbered and captioned to correspond with 
the numbers and captions of the tables from whose figures they were drawn. 



9821 



SECTION II . 

COMPARISON OF COSTS IN DIFFERENT MARKETS 
Basis of Cost Studies 

Two independent examinations of the cost of production of coats and 
suits in different markets, were conducted simultaneously "by different 
experts, under the direction of the Commission. One, covering "run- of - 
shop" costs, was in charge of Mr. Leo Rosenblum, C. P. A., who travelled 
with the Commission, attended its hearings, noted the special local 
conditions governing the manufacture of garments in various districts as 
brought out at the hearings "by local representatives of the industry and 
then inaugurated the study from the hooks of the concerns, leaving a 
local C. P. A. , who was in several instances the local Code Enforcement 
officer, to complete the studies for that locality. These studies were 
"based on the Spring 1934 production. 

The average direct labor cost per garment was obtained by dividing 
the total direct labor payroll for the manufacturing season by the total 
garments produced. The manufacturing part of the season commenced with 
the first week of production after the completion of the samples and 
continued until Easter week or until the completion of production of 
spring garments. The indirect labor and shop overhead were obtained in a 
similar manner. 

A comparison of these "run-of-shop" costs by different shops in 
different cities is based on a common range of selling prices of those 
shops. It is based on the theory that from a market point of view these 
concerns are in direct competition with one another on a similar price 
basis and disregards differences in construction of the garment on the 
theory that on the average or by and large they are competing with one 
another and, in the eyes of the buyer, the garments they produce though 
differing in detail of construction, are essentially similar. It is 
fully realized by the Commission that the differences in cost may be due 
to variations in construction; the garments, nevertheless, are regarded 
by the trade as comparable because they compete with one another in price. 

In the selection of comparable competing firms in different cities, 
the Commission had the benefit of the advice of Mr. Samuel Klein, Execu- 
tive Director of the Industrial Council of the Coat, Suit A Skirt Mfrs. 
Ass'n. (manufacturers); Mr. Harry TJviller, Executive Director of the 
American Cloak and Suit Mfrs. Ass'n. (contractors); Mr. Maxwell Copelof, 
before he relinquished his post of Executive Director of the Merchants' 
Ladies Garment Ass'n. (jobbers); Mr. Alexander Printz, of Cleveland, 
Chairman of the Western Council and Member of the Coat A Suit Code Author- 
ity; Mr. Milton Rosenfeld, President of the Cardais Cloak Company of 
St. Louis, representing the Western Council on the Coat A Suit Code Author- 
ity; Mr. Max Weinstock, of Shenker, Michell A Weinstock, President of the 
Chicago Association of Coat and Suit Manufacturers and Chicago Deputy of 
the Western Council. 

With the aid and advice of these gentlemen, a master list was made 
up of comparable firms in the coat and suit manufacturing centers in the 
United States. This list was modified wherever found necessary by 

9821 



additions and subtractions o^ local firms noon the advice of leading 
members of the industry in each city vhi>h tne Commission visited. 

The other cost investigation was conducted by Mr. Frank A. Garvey, 
an Industrial "n-'.vieer, .vho has cone expert work in niece-rate settlements 
in the City of Cleveland *'nr more than a dcien years exn who is thoroughly 
familiar with thr cechni cai details o^ coat and su t r. ufacture, espe- 
cially as it bears on the labor cost and methods o_ its adjustment. 

As a basis fci his studies, there war selectee with tne advice of 
leading manufacturers in a number of cities, amen^ them the two members 
representing the "astern Council on the Cods Authority, a spring sport type of 
double-breested mannish nolo coat made in the Spring 1334 season. 

Mr. Garvey, too, accompanied the Commission in its travels and 
attended the hearings and noted the references of local manufacturers to 
their competitive disadvantages as against othei markets. 

At tne close of the hearing in each city, Mr, Garvey visited the 
representative shops in that city or district, which were chosen through 
consultation with the representatives of the manufacturers and the Union 
in each market, with the aid of the master list of con-parable firms 
mentioned above. The shops so selected, it was agreed, presented a fair 
cross-section in each market. Accompanied by one representative each of 
the manufacturers and of the Union on the local price committee, Mr. 
Garvey visited the shops selected and picked from stock a garment identi- 
cal or comparable in style with his sample ccat. In Few York City, 
Mr. Garvey was accompanied by a representative from the Labor Bureau which 
is maintained jointly by the eraplovers and the Union. 

After the Committee accompanying Mr. Garvey "had agreed that the 
garment selected pas identical or comparable in style, he 'examined it and 
ascertained the actual piece prices naid for operating, finishing and 
pressing by the manufacturer or contractor visited, This 'being completed, 
a physical examination of the shop was made and the method of manufacturing 
and the procedure used to arrive at the piece rates were noted. The 
figures fox indirect labor of cutting and tailoring and for shop overhead 
were taken from the accountant's run-of-shop cost studies. 

A. AKA7.YSIS '•- ' 3DII-0F-SH0P COSTS 

Table R~l is a study of "run-of-shop 1, costs in the various markets 
outside of New York for the Spring season 1934 and of a/erage hourly earn- 
ings for the eight-week neriod ended March 31, 1934, by individual firms. 
The "run-of-shop" cost study was made by local accountants in all centers 
other than in New York. Table R-1A is a study of direct tailoring labor 
costs and of average hourly earrings for selected firms in the New York 
market for the eight-week period ended March 31, 1934. 

The labor cost figures for New York were tabulated by the Labor 
Bureau from payroi? sheets submitted by the New York shops. The latter 
included two contract shops in New Jersey and one in Connecticut and one 
inside shou in Connecticut. 



9821 



~6- 

As part of the Commission's inquiries, in centers outside New 
York, the average sales price of garments sold by the firms studied 
was ascertained. By reason of the inability or unwillingness of a 
number of the Hew York firms to make their records available at the 
time of the visit by the Commission's accountants, the New York firms' 
costs are grn-nped according to the predominant price of the garments 
dold by the firms. This price was furnished to the Commission by the 
executives of the associations of Hew York contractors, jobbers and 
manufacturers and the officers of the Code Authority. A check of shops 
for which both sets of figures are available shows that in most instances 
the predominant sales price by which each house is known is fairly close 
to the average sales price, although in a few cases a wide divergence 
is noted. It is possible that there may be some mis-classification in 
Table R-1A by reason of the fact that the average sales price was not 
ascertainable. Where this information vra.s obtained, however, it is 
indicated alongside the coded name of the jobber in Table E-1A. 

The labor costs, tabulated in the manner outlined above, show the 
following: 

$6.75 Houses 

Payroll .figures for thirty shops in Hew York and the Hew York 
district were stuuied. Four shops outside the Hew York market were 
studied. The direct labor costs ranged from under $1.00 to as high 
as $2.05, the distribution being as follows: 

Hew York O ther Markets 

Under $1.00 1 2 

6 1 

9 1 
6 



11.01 


to 


$1.25 


1.26 


to 


1.50 


1.51 


to 


1.75 


1.76 


to 


2.00 


2.01 


to 


2.25 



7 

1 _ 

2"! 4 

With respect to the direct labor costs in shops outside the Hew 
York market, it will be observed that a section shop in Camden and a 
section shop in Baltimore each show direct labor costs under $1.00; a 
section shop in Kansas Coty shows a direct labor cost of $1.07; a 
tailoring shop in Kansas shows a direct labor cost of $1.50. 

In the Hew York group, the lowest cost was found in a section shop 
in Connecticut. One section shop was included, among the six shops whose 
direct labor cost was between $1.00 and $1.25; one section shop was 
included among the nine shops whose direct labor cost was between $1.26 
and $1.50. It is to be expected that in a section shop, the ratio of 
indirect labor to direct labor is greater than in a tailoring shop, since 
some of the functions included in direct labor are transferred to in- 
direct labor in the process of sub-dividing the tailoring functions. 
When the three section shops outside ITew York in the $6.75 group are 
considered from the point of view of the total labor cost, i.e., both 
direct and indirect, it is found that the cost in the Baltimore section 

9821 



-7- 






I ? fe 







s 



5 FTF1T 



H3EEE 



»E 



-iEEHl 



* l " i ~ I - « T 



HEE 



M. 



seeezj: 



5ET 



UK 



? ffw 



sdZE 



m: 



en 



~wm~ 



T^F 



?bs: 



.£ O K 



9821 




8 1 2 

£3 8 i- 



^ 



i* 



IS 






s e h 



e ►- 






28» 



l 1 - 

I s *- 






= S =■ 

si" 



M 

u. (J H 



2 .. 



- " 8- 
I I 



1? 








f 


i-. 




t 


« 


1 


jf 


•c 








s 




f 


Q- 


fc 



* M ¥i to c 



5- 



u o — 

fc t. • 



■ * ■ 
:1 

p. d 

o • • 



*- ■ * 



si- 
f) Us 

c • C 

o « 

•H 3 ■ 

f -. -i 

o e Jc c 
• a C 



> o o to to w 



C < 

is- 

si" 



li- 



vi • HN"i*ioet-ioio- 



-a. 



3 



a 



i 



$ 



a 
B 

Ou 



■< 
E-i 



9821 



shop is 86rf plus a deficiency of 10$ of the direct l->bor charge? the 
total labor cost in the Camden section shop is $1.11 and the cost in 
the Kansas City section shop is $1.46. Of the group of thirty Now 
York shops, fifteen are found to have higher direct labor costs than 
the combined direct anc. indirect lahor cost of the three section .shops 
outside New York. 

Prom this comparative study of the New York figures and of a 
limited number of $5.75 firms in other markets, it appears that in 
this price class the Hew York labor costs are greater than those out- 
side New York. 

$10.75 Houses 

Payroll figures for sixty-six shops in the New York district were 
studied. Thirteen shops were studied in markets outside of New York. 
The distribution of direct lahor costs was as follows: 

New York Other Markets 

1 

1 

1 1 

6 
10 1 

16 6 

9 3 

10 1 

8 

4 

JL 

66 " 13 



Under 3] 


..OC 


1 


$1.01 


to 


$1.25 


1.26 


to 


1.50 


1.51 


to 


1.75 


1.76 


to 


2.00 


2.01 


to 


2.25 


2. 26 


to 


3.50 


2.51 


to 


2.75 


2.76 


to 


3.00 


3.01 


to 


5.35 


Over 




3.25 



A 11 of the $10.75 firms studied, both in and outside New York, 
were tailoring shops. The lowest direct labor cost was found in the 
New York market. Outside New York, the lowest cost was found in a 
Kansas City shop, the cost being $1.38; a San Francisco shop was next 
with a cost of $1.85, Included in the group whose direct labor cost 
was from $2.01 to $2.25 was one firm in St. Louis, two in Los Angeles, 
one in San Francisco, one in Portland anc 1 one in Baltimore. There is 
a deficiency assessment which amounts to approximately thirty-five 
cents per garment pending against the St. Louis firm; the addition of 
this assessment would bring the firm to the next higher cost group. 

In the group having a direct labor cost of $2.26 to 32.50, there 
were two firms in Portland and one in Baltimore; one Portland firm had 
a cost of 32.68. The highest cost was that of a Philadelphia firm at 
$3.26. Thus, for the /.roup of firms outside New York, the range of 
direct labor costs was from $1.38 to 33.36. It is of interest to note 
that the Kansas City firm with a direct labor cost of 31.38 sold its 
merchandise at an average sales price of $11.60, while the Philadelphia 
firm, whose direct labor cost was $5.26, received an average sales price 
of $10.40. 

In brief, of the total of sixty-six shops in the New York district, 
9821 



-10- 



T3 
rH 



=l 



; Ji*iiiii 



Si 



1 



fUZ 



H H -• N 



c 



E 




i 



5 f 1 - 



= a a. 
8 §1- 









M?l 



-XI- 



13 



H 



s 



Q 
O 



U 




» 
a 



o 

CO 

d 

o 

I 



n 



3 

Hi 



o 

M 



2 

i 



VI 

D 

o 

I 



o 
5 



S 

s 



o 






CO 

3 

eg 



< 






CO 
S-" 
10 

o 

o 




:§ 



6 

I 

i 

u 



9821 



-12- 

thirty-five or 53 direct tailoring labor costs of 32.25 or less, 
while cf the thirtet )s in tin other markets, eight or 52)o fell in 
that category. 

It will be noted in the discussion under the different price 
groups in this report, in practically every market there are 
variations in the cost of direct labor per garment within the various 

ri ..roup:. These variations may de accounted for by inequalities 
in shop efficiency and supervisory technique, variations in the size 
of t ip, volume of orders received and similar factors, as well as 
the bargaining Dility of the owners of the different shops and their 
employees. Thus, for example, ir. the $10.75 .roup, San Francisco 
tailoring shops irect tailorin labor costs ranging from $1.85 
to $3*19, which is a variation of ap roxinately 20$; Portland tailoring 

■ . e from $2*25 to 2. Co, the difference between the two 
bein ximately 2C - am -^-ltimore tailoring shops show a range from 
$2.14 to '2.33, the variation being ever 10$. 

$16.75 houses 

Forty-four Hew York shops and thirteen shops in m nufacturing 
centers outside Hew "fork were studied. Three of the latter were section 
shops. In Seattle, the accountant who made this examination for the 
Commission did not attempt (except in one case) to separate direct tailor- 
ing labor cost from indirect tailoring labor cost inasmuch as the pro- 
prietors or executives of a number of the firms examined devoted a part 
of their time to each of these functions. The distribution of direct 
tailoring labor cost (except for Seattle, for which in four cases direct 
and indirect labor are combined) is as follows: 

Hew York Other Markets Other harkets 



Direct Lab or Only Direct Labor 

and Indirect Labor 



$1.51 


to 


;i. 75 


1 


1.76 


to 


2.00 


3 


2.01 


to 


2.25 


7 


2.26 


to 


2.5C 


o 


2.51 


to 


2.75 


4 


2.76 


to 


3.00 


a 


3.01 


to 


3.25 


6 


3.26 


to 


3.50 


2 


Over 




3.50 


3 
44_ 



3 

1 1 

5^ _3 

9 _4_ 

Referring to oh- arkets ratside hew Yorkj in the ;rcup including 
direct tailoring labor costs from $2.76 to $3.00 are to be found one 
Kansas City section shop, a Worcester (has s . ) tailoring shop and one 
Seattle tailorin shop* The cost from $3.01 to $3.25 includes two 

: : one, a Cleveland section shop, the other, a Seattle tailoring 
ad a combined direct and indirect tailoring coot of $3.C6. 
The firms having a direct tailoring labor cost exceeding 33.50 were as 
follows: one firm in Cleveland, one in St. Louis, one in San Francisco, 
one in Philadelphia and one in Boston (all tailoring shops). In each 
of two Seattle tailoring shops and in one Seattle section shop, the 

9821 



-13- 




9821 



e 



-14- 



m 
u 

V) 

o 

X 



I 



o 
w 




Eh 



98a 



-15- 
comMned direct and indirect labor costs exceeded $3.50. 

Again bearing in mind that in a section shop it is to be expected 
that the indirect labor cost will be greater than in a tailoring shop 
manufacturing a comparable garment, it is found that when the direct 
and indirect labor cost of the Cleveland section shop are combined, 
and when the same thing is done with the Kansas Coty section shop, the 
resulting total labor cost of each of these shops reaches a sum in 
excess of $3.50. 

Summing up, it may be said of the $16.75 price group that the 
direct labor cost of the firms outside of the i T ew York district hear 
a higher ratio to Hew York labor costs than in the lower price groups. 
In none of the firms studied outside hew York* were the direct labor 
costs under $£.75. In the "Jew York district, rver half of the shops 
stucied showed direct labor costs under $2.75, 

Within this croup, it is observed that the direct tailoring labor 
cost in the Boston tailoring shops ranges from $2.83 to S3. 65, the 
variation being 30;i; in the Seattle tailoring shops, the total of 
direct and indirect labor costs ranges from $3.06 to 33.89, the differ- 
ence between these figures being over 25;?. 

In the above discussion, comparison have been made between ITew 
York firms and those in other cities. By reason of the narrower 
classifications of non-New York firms made possible ~'oy ascertaining 
their average sales prices, the above comments can be supplemented 
with the following comparison among the non-New York markets only, of 
firms selling garments" in the $8.75, $12.75, $13.75 and $20.75 classes. 

$8.75 Houses 

Sixteen firms in this class, located in markets other than New 
York, were studied. The distribution of direct tailoring labor cost 
was as follows: 



$1.00 to 


$1.25 


4 


1.26 to 


1.50 


3 


1.51 to 


1.75 


3 


1.76 to 


2.00 


2 


2.01 to 


2.25 


2 


2.26 to 


2.50 


1 


2.51 to 


2.75 


1 
16 



Five of the firms operated section shops. The direct labor cost 
in these section shops was lower in Baltimore than in Kansas City. 
The addition of indirect labor to the direct labor for the five sec- 
tion shops showed the same relative position. 

Eleven tailoring shops in this price group were studied. The 
direct labor cost ranged from $1.36 to $2.48 (the latter figure being 
exclusive of a wage deficiency of approximately Zip per garment paid 
to the Code Authority), Baltimore and Los Angeles showing th ■ lowest 
cost and Boston the highest. The Western markets of Portland and San 

9821 



-16- 



OS 



=EHI1 



* 



_i 



lib: 



€ 



£ 



It 




(- £ J 



I* 



IP 



1 \* 



3 3. 






5 * - 






a = 

e. 



3 °- 
s 






3 i 

1 J s 

: si 

I i\ 

a £ gp ........ . 

E * 

3 : 

• 4- 

El £• .... ..««.. 

"M O 

• T ■ 

I s? 

1* 

O CO 

5. . . . . EOeeee 
M +* 

1 Ob c - 

a. o 
k • 

O *rt 

3!.. 

N * 

U O «H 

B • *« 

• ■ 

g . J. . 

p * ■ .......... 

■ * 

a b 
o • • 

.C-UElEtEctlEIEE 

B ■ • 
o — 



sa- 
il! 



IS' 



aioi- »«o ^N 



9821 



-17- 

Francisco occupied a middle "oositioh. Briefly, the Eastern markets 
shrwed tho higher tailoring costs. 

In addition to these variations in labor costs between markets, 
there was a further variation in each aarket between shop and shop. 
Thus, the Kansas City section shops showed a range of direct labor 
cost from $1.13 to $1.33, or a variation of over 15$; the San Fran- 
cisco tailoring shops showed a range from $1.51 to 52.01, or a variation 
of 33-1/ 3$; the Baltimore tailoring shops from $1.46 to $2.21, or a 
difference of over 50 c /o', the Philadelphia- tailoring shops from $1.82 
to $2.26 or a variation of approximately 25$. 

$12.75 :-:ouses 

Fifteen firms in this class were studied. _Ihe distribution of 
direct tailoring labor cost was as follows: 



$1*75 to 


$2.00 


2 


2*01 to 


2.25 


1 


2.26 'to 


2.50 


•2 


2.-51 to 


2.75 


2 


.2,76 to 


3.00 


1 


3*ni;tn 


uiwO 


6 


3.2A t* 


3.50 


1 ■ 
15 



Two of the above firms were section shops, one in Crawfordsville ■- 
a contract shop in a Chicago suburb - and one in Ravenna, a shop oper- 
ated by a Cleveland manufacturer. Tho Cleveland direct labor cost was 
over one and one-half times the Chicago cost. 

Thirteen tailoring firms wore studied. The direct labor cost 
ranged from SI. 77 in an Indiana contract shop of a Chicago jobber to 
approximately twice that sum in Boston. Chicago and St. Louis had. the 
lowest direct labor costs - Boston and Cleveland the highest. One 
Chicago tailoring shop occupied an intermediate position in the range 
of direct labor cost - its cost being $2.56 exclusive of an estimated 
b<p per garment wage deficiency. 

Within this price group, the range of direct labor cost in the 
Chicag o tailoring shops was from $1.77 to $2.84 (included in the 
latter figure is the wage deficiency paid to the Code Authority) or a 
variation of 60$; the range in the Los Angeles tailoring shops was 
from $2.31 to $3.09, or a range of 33-1/3$; in tho Boston-tailoring 
shops, the range was from $5.15 to $3.45 or a range of approximately 
K . 

It appears from this study that the middle west lias both the lowest 
and the intermediate direct labor cost. The West Coast lias an inter- 
mediate and higher cost. In both the section and the tailoring shops, 
the Cleveland firms have high costs. 

,$13.75_Houpcs 

Seven .tailoring shops located in three: cities were- studied. The 

9821 



-18- 

lowest direct labor costs were found'in Los Angelas - the highest in 
Philadelphia. Boston occupied an inter>.:ediat<" pos-tioni 

In the Los Angeles tailoring shops, the'direct tailoring labor 
cost ranged from $2.87 to $3.23, or a variation of over 10$; in the 
Boston tailoring shops, the range was from $5.26. to $3.55 or a variation 
of approximately 10$. 

$1-3.75 Houses -: 

Six tailoring shops located in throe cities wcr.c studied. The 
figures in this group do not indicate a correlation between cost and 
geographic location. St. Louis is highest as well as in a low position. 
Boston is in the lowest, middle and high positions. 

In the St. Louis tailoring shops, the range vis from $3.97 to 
$5.03, or a variation of over 25$; in the Boston tailoring shop, the 
range v/as from $3.41 to $4.71, or a variation, of approximately 40$. 

$20.75 Houses .. 

Ten tailoring firms located in five cities were studied. Los 
Angeles showed the lowest direct labor cost at $3. 89>-. .Excluding the 
high-priced Chicago house, St. Louis showed the highest direct labor, 
the figure being $5.73. The Chicago costs show a wide range - its 
direct labor costs being in one shop $4,30, in another $5.10 and in a 
third $5.41. 

Within this price group, the two Cleveland tailoring shops, having 
substantially the same price line, .showed direct labor cost ranging from 
$4.14 to $4.63, or a variation of 12$; the Chicago tailoring shops 
shewed direct labor cost ranging from $4.50 to $5.41, or a difference 
of approximately 25$; Philadelphia tailoring shops showed a range from 
$4.70 to $5.38,- or a variation of approximately 15$. 



9821 



-19- 



■mi 



« 



« 






11 



Fnr 



50 



*! 



FT 




sit 
lit 

si 

s S 



S go. 



s3 h 



3 I' 



. •/> r" D 

i a H o 

i S H 5 

w 



It 



s s H 



I e* 



E * 

- I 



. a- 



25 



5"?' 



*:s 



• «- 

~* 3 ■ 
*» •-• *4 

ss2« 



JONDnN 



g 

c < 

4* O 

C O 



-•Nn^iatot-cDatOr 



9821 



-20- 

. ' Accountant's Explanatory Note 

In studying "rua-of-shop" costs in the nar':ets visited by the 
Commission, particular attention was -oaid to direct and indirect 
tailoring and cutting costs and to shOT3 overhead. Direct tailoring 
labor cost "as defined as including operating or machine "or'.c, finishing 
or hand -or': and pressing. Direct cutting labor cost was defined as 
including actual "age cost of cutting as well as wages for grading fo 
patterns. Indirect labor, .which "as classified as between tailoring 
g cutting, included the following items: Foreman and/or instructors 
and assistants (including salary of person who gives out "ork); 
examiners or inspectors and/or assistants; factors' 1 clerical (pertaining 
to factory operation) if any; and any other emoloyee who "orked in the 
tailoring departments but "ho did not actually -oroduce the garment. 

Sup-olenenting the classification "as the instruction that indirect 
labor was not to include any cost of designing, selling, general ad- 
ministrative, stock or shippin '. 

Shop overhead "as to include (a) rent - or rrhere the building "as 
owned b~ r the operator of the factory, a rjorti n of the building operation 
charges, (b) heat, light and -oo"er, (c) maintenance, repairs, machinist 
sup-olies, sweewers, etc. (d) any other exoenso uroperly classified as 
shop overhead by the manufacturer, Depreciati n "as not to be included. 

Shop overhead "as allocated to tailoring and cutting rooms on the 
basis of the area occupied by each of them. Shop overhead did not 
include any r>art of the rent, heat light, and power, etc. consumed by 
selling and shipping departments. There executives', officers', 
owners' or partners' salaries "ere included in the cost figures in the 
questionnaire, the accountants were to indicate the cawtion under which 
thej r "ere included so that the reasonableness of such allocation might 
be verified. 

Finally, the accountants were instructed that the Commission was 
interested in season figures only and that if the season tapered off 
or ended prior to April 30, 1934, direct, and indirect labor and cutting 
costs were to be obtained up to the date when production was completed 
but overhead costs "ere to be obtained until April 30, 1934. 



3. COST OF IJgUFACTUFJ: OF A SPECIFIC GAPJJFT 

Uhile in the accountant's run of shop cost study, firms "ere 
compared according to their price ranges, the technical study of the 
cost of the identical garment "as based on workmanship rather than on 
selling price. The same sport -oolo coat so far as style is concerned, 
was made in different mlants in different cities in -orice ranges running 
all the way from $4.75 to .$18.75 and even higher prices. The cost 
comparison of the specific garment was, therefore, made bet"een shops 
putting substantially the same workmanship into this coat. 

This workmanshi ") was graded as to quality according to the 
established 1'Tew York grades set forth in the grade book issued by the 

9821 



-31- 

New York Coat and Suit Labor Bureau, it being found uoon very close 
examination of the quality specifications and the tywe of garments pro- 
duced that the garments studied naturally fell into one of the Hew York 
grades with the following exceptions: 

1. Pour garments - two Hew York, one Hew Jersey and one Baltimore - 
are classified as Grade 1 Minus because of the exceptionally 
low quality in these garments, such low quality, however, being 
similar among these four. 

2. Two garments - one New York and one Chicago - are classified as 
between Grades 2 and 3 (Grade 2-3) because of additional hand 
work in finishing, making its finishing ™ork according to Grade 
3, while the operating and pressing are according to specifica- 
tions of Grade 2. 

3. Hine garments - four Cleveland, two St. Louis, one Chicago, one 
Seattle and one Scranton - are classified between Grades 3 and 
4 (Grade 3-4) because they have the finishing specifications 

of Grace 4 with the exception of machine-felled ooen bottoms - 
cloth and lining. These nine garments have percalino founda- 
tions in the fronts, sleeves, collar and lapels, thereby re- 
quiring additional operating. The pressing is substantially 
the same as Grade 3. 

4. Two garments, both from Philadelphia, are classified between 
Grades 4 and 5 (Grade 4-5)" because they have all the finishing 
specifications of Grade 4 with the addition of hand-felled fronts, 
but not sufficient ether requirements for Grade 5. 

To obtain the 51 shoos used by lur. Garvey in his comparison of 
cost of manufacture of the specific garment, it was necessary to visit 
104 shoos, to obtain the 14 shoos submitted for T T ew York City, it was 
necessary to visit 32 shoos. The shops rejected either did not manu- 
facture a conroa.ra.ble garment or worked on a week-work basis. Only two 
shops were found in Hew Jersey which manufactured the soecific garment 
and whose cost could be accurately ascertained. Two markets are not 
represented, namely, San Francisco and Boston. These markets work on 
a week-work basis.. 

No studies of identical garments were made by the Commission above 
the price range of $16.75. 



9821 



-22- 

ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTION COSTS OP A SPECIFIC GARIIFPT 
; 1 I II VARIOUS MARKETS 

Table G-l presents a summary of the cost of production of a compar- 
able garment in different markets together with the run of shop costs and 
earnings of workers in those shops. i' ■ ' 

Column 1 entitled "Grade Classifications" gives the classification 
of the garment according to the Hew York Grade Bool;. 

Column 2 designates the firm according to a code' number and the' city 
in which the firm is located. 

Column 3 entitled "Type of Shop" shows whether the shop is a section 
shop (S) or a so-called tailoring shop (T), a week-work shop' (?) or a 
piece-work shop (p). By a tailoring shop is meant a shop system under 
which the garment, after having been cut into several parts, is assembled 
in the cutting room into one bundle. It is then taken to the tailoring 
department in which an individual worker is responsible for the completion 
of the entire operation in his craft; that is to say, a machine operator 
is responsible for all the machine sewing whether he does it all by him- 
self or with the assistance of one or more help'ers. The finisher is re- 
sponsible for all the finishing, whether it is all done by' himself or 
herself or with the aid of a helper. 

By a section shop is meant a shop system under which, after a garment 
has bee 11 cut into several parts in the cutting room, the parts are assort- 
ed into several bundles which are distributed among several workers. In- 
stead of having cfne operator do all the machine operating, each part is 
sewn by an individual machine operator who is skilled in this operation 
and is responsible solely for the operation he or she performs. The 
finishing is likewise divided among several hand sewers, each responsible' 
solely for the operation he or she performs, such as felling edge's, tack- 
ing linings, setting lining, to coat, felling bottoms, sewing on buttons, 
etc. 

The meaning of Columns 4 to 12 will appear from their respective 
headings. ' ' 

Column 13 - selling price - gives the selling price of the comparable 
garment of each firm. As will be seen, the grade classification and the 
selling price do not always coincide; thus, the garments marked as Grade 
1 are sold at $6.75 by the first five firms, $8.75 by the three following 
firms and $10.75 by the three remaining firms. They are all, however, 
comparable as to workmanship and therefore as to their labor cost and 
total shop cost. 

Column 14 gives the "run-of-shop" cost; that is, the average shop 
cost for all the garments made in that shop during the Spring 1934 season. 
This cost is divided into two parts: (a) Direct Labor, corresponding to 
Column 8 for the individual garment, and (b) Total Shop Cost, correspond- 
ing to Column 11 for the individual garment. 



1/ See Table G-l in appendix. For convenience of the reader, a condensed 

table appears on p. 23.. 
9821 



-23- 



TABLE G-2 



CONDENSED SUMMARY OF COST OF PRODUCTION OF A SPECIFIC 
GARMENT AND OF RUN OF SHOP COSTS 

(The complete table appears at the end of this section. The table below 
with the column numbers the same as In the complete table Is printed 
here for convenience In following the text.) 

P— Piece Work; W— Week-Work; S— Section Shop; T— Tailoring Shop. 



Grade 
Classi- 
fication 



Firm 
and 
Location 



Type 
Shop 



8 

Total 
Direct 

Labor 



11 

Total 
Shop 
Cost 



IS 



14 

Total 
Run of 

Selling Shop 
Price Cost 



1 Minus 30 




T-W 


.81 


1.05* 


5.50 


1.07 


1 Minus 15066 




T-W 


.92 


1.20* 


6.75 


2.89 


1 Minus 38280 




S-P 


.90 


1.35 


4.75 


1.34 


1 Minus 40011 




S-P 


1.09 


1.23 


5.50 


1.00 


1 8090 


New York 


T-P 


1.84 




6.75 




1 Hammondton, N.J. 


S-P 


1.28(4) 




6.75 




1 38092 


Philadelphia ... 


T-P 


1.80 


2.26 


6.75 


2.53 


1 40131 




T-P 


1.54 


1.76 


6.75 


1.81 


1 40133 


York, Pa 


S-P 


1.20 


1.46 


6.75 


1.48 


1 40020 




S-P 


1.21(5) 


1.44 


8.75 


1.34 


1 40170 




S-P 


1.23 




8.75 




1 70170 


Kansas City . . . 


S-P 


1.43(6) 


2.39 


10.75 


2,47 


1 70110 


Kansas City ... 


S-P 


1.49(7) 


2.31 


8.75 


2.09 


1 70010 


Kansas City ... 


S-P 


1.54(8) 


2.18 


10.75 


1.95 


1 90040 




S-P 


1.91 


2.45 


10.75 


2.34 



2470 

8126 

3381 

2563 

3252 

303 

38261 

40160 

90220 

90340 

3580 

50031 



New York . 
New York . , 
New" York . , 
New York . , 
New. York . 
New York . 
Philadelphia 
Baltimore .. 
Portland . . . 
Portland .... 
New York . 
Chicago .... 



T-P 
T-P 
S-P 
T-P 
T-P 



2.25 
2.43 
2.96 
2.85 
2.70 
2.60 
2.59 
2.18 
2.43 
2.36 
2.29 
2.42 



2.90 
2.39 
2.94 
3.09 

2!77 



10.75 

8.75 

8.75 

10.75 

10.75 

12.75 

6.75 

10.75 

10.75 

10.75 

10.75 

10.75 



4.28 



3.01 
2.57 
3.55 
3.34 

3!ii 



3-4 
3-4 



8200 
3395 
7430 
520 L0 
50351 
42240 
80410 
80040 
80170 
80770 
38160 
90470 



New York . . 
New York . . 
New York . . 

Chicago 

Chicago 

Cleveland . . . 
Los Angeles 
Los Angeles 
Los Angeles 
Los Angeles 
Philadelphia 
Seattle 



T-P 
T-P 
T-P 
T-P 
T-P 
T-P 
T-P 
T-P 
T-P 
T-P 
T-P 
T-P 



4.05 
3.44 
4.20 
2.70 
2.60 
3.60 
2.82 
3.33 
3.15 
2.81 
3.95 
3.55 



2.99 
3.83 
3.01 
4.49 

3.'05 
4.29 
3.87 



10.75 
12.75 
16.75 
10.75 
13.75 
13.75 
10.75 
12.75 
12.75 
12.75 
10.75 
12.75 



42080 
42120 
42210 
42190 
3S180 
90100 
70060 
70208 
5850 



Cleveland . . . 
Cleveland . . . 
Cleveland 
Cleveland . . . 
Scranton, Pa. 

Seattle 

St. Louis ... 
St. Louis . . . 
Chicago 



T-P 
T-P 
S-P 
T-P 
S-P 
S-P 
T-P 
T-P 
T-P 



4.68 
4 4Q 
3.81 
4.70 
3.85 
3.40 
4.14 
4.07 
4.15 



5.13 
5.95 
4.42 
6.30 

i'.ii 

5.13 
4.74 



16.75 
16.75 
16.75 
16.75 
16.75 
16.75 
16.75 
16.75 
14.75 



3.15 
3.80 
2.66 
4.54 

2!97 
4.48 
4.96 

5.24 
6.81 
4.21 
6.24 

5!60 
5.35 
7.34 



3380 New York 



T-P 



4.40 



16.75 



4-5 
4-5 



38050 Philadelphia 
38250 Philadelphia 



T-P 
T-P 



5.44 
4.96 



6.21 
5.13 



16.75 
16.75 



6.99 
5.23 



(•)— Price paid 
(4)— Estimated 

code wage 
(5)— Estimated 

code wage 
(6)— Estimated 

code wage 
(7)— Estimated 

cWe wage 
(8)— Estimated 

code wage 



t'o contractor, 
additional cost per 
rates — 23 cents, 
additional cost per 

rates — 30 cents. 
additional cost per 

rates — 4 cents, 
additional cost per 

rates — 15 cents, 
additional cost per 

rates — 25 cents. 



garment to bring workers up to minimum 
garment to bring workers up to minimum 
garment to bring workers up to minimum 
garment to bring workers up to minimum 
garment \o bring workers up to minimum 



9821 



-24- 

Grade "1 Uinu s " Coats 

This coat was sold "by the four firms appearing in the table at prices 
ranging from $4.75 to $6.75 but all reporting the same grade of worlcnan- 
ship. This group contains the only two shops working on a week-work "basis 
that appear in this table since they are the only shops visited in New 
York City turning out a comparable garment in this grade. They were 
selected because of complaints of unfair competition made against these 
firms to the Commission on its visits to various centers. 

Since these two New York shops are operated on a week-work basis 
their labor cost had to be estimated. It was possible to estimate the 
total direct labor cost accurately by deducting from the price paid to 
the contractor as shown on the books of the jobber (Column 12), 30fj of 
the total direct labor cost allowed in the New York market for the con- 
tractor's overhead. This left 81 cents for direct labor to the first con- 
tractor and 92 cents to the second contractor. The allocation of the 
direct labor cost to operating, finishing, pressing and cutting was ma.de 
by allowing the same percentages of direct labor for each craft as were 
found to exist in the two piece-work shops in the same grade. 

As will be seen from Column 12, the two New York shops show labor 
costs lower than the two piece-work shops in Camden and. Baltimore. In 
one of the shops, the sum received from the jobber for labor and overhead 
is considerably lower than that paid to other contractors by the same 
jobber for the same garment, and is apparently barely adequate to permit 
the payment of the Code minima. Another explanation for the low cost in 
the two ilew York contract shops is that both contract shops have specializ- 
ed for years in childrens 1 coats which are turned out at great speed and 
low cost with apparently little regard for quality. 

Owing to the time limit under which the Commission has been laboringj 
there was no opportunity to find other shops in New York in the same grade 
for study of comparative costs. 

As will be seen from Column 11, the total shop cost of the Baltimore 
shop is about 10fb lower than in the Camden shop. As both are section 
shops operated on a piece-work basis, and no other reasons which would 
account for the variation are in evidence, the difference is apparently 
due to the fact that Baltimore is operating under the "estern scale while 
Camden is paying the Eastern rates. 

It is interesting to compare the labor cost for the individual garment 
with the run of shop cost (Coliiran 14) in the same shops as obtained by the 
accountant of the Commission from the books of these concerns for the 
Spring 1934 season. 

In the case of the first shop the $1.05 price paid to the contractor 
compares with the $1.07 run of shop cost. The total shop cost of $1.35 
in the Camden shop compares with the $1.34 run of shop cost. The $1.23 
Baltimore shop cost compares with $1.00 run of shop cost. The difference 
in this case is due to the fact that this concern was found violating the 
Code by paying less than the minimum rates, for which restitution has 
been made. This underpayment is reflected in the average run of shop cost 
for the season, whereas the $1.23 is the present price paid on the individual 
garment after the firm had increased in the month of May the wages paid to 

its employees. 
9821 



-25- 



65 

H -J 

Si 
U 

CJ o 
o 3 w 

■ is 

< w u: 
If W 

3 e t3 
-j 2 w 
O c to 



™ ~ w 

Isi 

IfiS 

III 

M u. J 

age 

u o a. 
E o 

ill 

■l a S 

-; U l 
o e- o 
<_- < t; 

o 5« 

_ n. i 
p ^ < 



I tu t- 

sari 






^i'i^^^^- 



I 









i fe 



s < 

x a 

3 — 

< ^ 



T 



*■■■? r»~*see>»y\& M^l 



•^■^■^l--'rr, 



S1E 



r ^g-l:-^:|^:-:;^v^V-:^ 



3,:"'-- 3 .~l r .£-?i| P -^ '"^ 



C^~F 



$&3 g |s:S^| ,& 






^y:^^J.St".«'''fe/^:J.1 ^-- ^.V^Vi^^ 



g s ^M^:^^ 



CE 



CLE 



; ^ »te;[ - fc^^ssg. 



C 



EsMHESIMl^ 



5T77' : 




?i 



ii- 



H< 



5 S X 



i > 

g, 



j 

i 



si- 



ft 

{I 

sis". 

if. 

!i- 

ill- 



"•mi 



M -. cj rt ■* "> c r 



9821 



-26- 

In the case of the second Mew York shop, the relation between the 
individual cost and the run of shop cost is reversed, being $1.20 in 
the former case and $2.89 in the latter. This was found unon investi- 
gation to be due to the fact that the individual garment was sold "by 
the firm at a loss in small quantities as a leader, while most cf the 
other garments which were made in the shop were made at much higher 
cost, showing a total run of shop cost of $2.89 as actually ascertained 
from the books of the company. 

Grade 1 Coats 

Eleven shoos in seven cities are covered in this class - eight of 
them working on the section system and three on the tailoring. The 
direct labor cost varies from $1.20 in the York Contract shop, working 
under the Western code scale for Baltimore, to $1.84 in the New York 
tailoring shop and $1.91 in a Portland tailoring shoo. The York sec- 
tion shop shows a 14.8^ lower unit cost than it had for a substantially 
similar garment at the time of the Baltimore investigation in January, 
1934. It has been found in violation of the code because of the earnings 
of some of its workers being below the minimum. To what extent this 
has "been adjusted, the investigators of the Commission have been un- 
able to ascertain. Its lower cost may in part be due to the increase 
in efficiency of the workers since the shoo had been in operation ap- 
proximately eight months at the time of the January investigation and 
the additional five months which have elapsed since then may account 
for the added efficiency of the workers as well as of the management. 

The first Baltimore shop (#40020) is estimated to have an addition- 
al cost of 30(£ per garment to make up for deficiencies in earnings of 
some of its workers which were found to fall "below the minimum. This 
would bring the cost up to a total of $1.51. The second Baltimore shop 
(#40170) which shows a cost of $1.23 per garment is a highly sectiona- 
lized and efficient shop. Its workers have developed a degree of speed 
and skill which is unsurpassed in this type of work. The management is 
very alert to take advantage of any manufacturing economies offered by 
special machines and equipment. The third Baltimore shop, (#40131) a 
contract shoo, operating on the tailoring system, shows the highest cost 
in that city, viz. $1.54. 

The section shop at Hammondton, New Jersey, shows a direct labor 
cost of $1.28 to which should be added an estimated additional cost 
of 23(£ per garment to cover deficiencies* in wages of workers earning 
less than the minimum. It is interesting to note that while the firm 
complained of its difficulties in securing competent labor for its 
shop which had been set up less than six months "before it was investi- 
gated, and the necessity of training the help and difficulties in de- 
veloping its shoo organization, it has "been able to produce its first 
garments at the comparatively low cost of $1.51 (including the estima- 
ted additional cost to cover the deficiencies in earnings of inexpe- 
rienced help. ) 

Turning to Kansas City, the lower difect lahor cost shown - $1.43 
- should be augmented by an estimated additional cost of \(t to allow for 
the deficiencies in earnings below the code minimum, (voluntarily added 

. . ~*i « — — ■ ■ — 

(* ' These deficiencies have since been paid to the workers. 
9821 



-27- 

to the workers' payrolls hy the manufacturer) making a total cost of 
$1.47. The $1.49 cost should he augmented for the same reasons "by 
15S**, making a total cost of $1,64 and the $1.54 should he augmented hy 
25^*, making a total cost of $1.79. The first mentioned shop is the 
most efficiently managed shop in Kansas City. The costs in the other 
two shops reflect their relative efficiency. 

The next higher cost is that of a Philadelphia contract shop which 
is operating on the tailoring system and shows a cost of $1.80. The 
New York inside sho-o, operating on the tailoring system, shows the 
higher cost of $1,84, while the highest cost of $1.91 is indicated for 
the Portland shop, although operating on the section system. The latter 
has the highest cost of any of the shops visited, apparently as a result 
of prohlems peculiar to this shop and not due to generrl market condi- 
tions. 

By comparing columns 8 and 14, it will he seen that the run of shop 
direct lahor costs for the different shops in the Grade 1 class coincide 
very closely with the direct lahor cost for the individual garment. For 
shop #40131 in Baltimore, the direct lahor cost of the individual gar- 
ment was $1.54 as compared with the run-of-shop direct lator cost of 
$1.59; for shop #40133 in York $1.20 as compared with the run-of-shop 
cost of $1.22; for shop #70170 in Kansas City $1.47 as compared with 
run-of-shop cost of $1,51; for shop #90,040 in Portland $1.91 as com- 
pared with the run-of-shop cost of $1.P0. 

As the two costs - one for an individual garment and the other an 
average cost of a group of similar garments - were arrived at hy differ- 
ent persons working independently and hy different methods, this close 
agreement on costs is a strong indication of the accuracy of "both sets 
of cost figures. 

Grade 2 Coats 

Ten shops are assemhled in this grade, of which nine are tailoring 
shops and one, in Portland, a, section shop. The lowest cost is again 
found in a Baltimore shop which, although operating on the tailoring 
system, has the advantage of the lower Western wage scale as against New 
York and Philadelphia. The lowest cost New York shop is a close second 
to Baltimore, although it, too, is operated on the tailoring system and 
on the higher New York wage scale. 

-he six New York shops in this grade show a range in direct lahor 
cost from $2.25 to $2.96 per garment, (i.e. a variation of approximately 
33-1/3/5) which may he largely due to differences in efficiency and in 
"bargaining power as "between workers and employers under the piece-work 
system. The Philadelphia shop shows a cost of $2.59 which is in close 
agreement with and within the range of the New York costs. The two shops 
in Portland, one a section shop and. the other a tailoring shop, show a 
close agreement in cost, which is $2.36 for the section shop and $2.45 
for the tailoring shop. 

Again the run-of-shoo direct lahor cost given in Column 14 is in 
close agreement with the direct lahor cost for the individual garment. 
Por the three New York shops whose run-of-shop costs are presented, it 
will he ohserved that each of the latter is within 10$ of the direct 

(*) These deficiencies have since heen paid to the workers. 
9821 



-28- 

labor cost of the individual garment. The sane is true of the Baltimore 
shop. For shop #38261 in Philadelphia, the two figures are-within 54 
of each other. 

Grade 2-3 Coats 

Grad9 2-3 is represented by one New York shop and one Chicago shop, 
showing costs in close agreement with the Grade 2 costs analyzed above. 

Grade 3 Coats 

Twelve shops are assembled in this gra.de, all of them tailoring 
shops. Of these, three are located in New York City, two in Chicago, 
one in Cleveland, four in Los Angeles, one in Philadelphia and one in 
Seattle. The selling price of most of these garments ranges from $10.75 
to $12.75 with the exception of one Chicago and one Cleveland shop 
selling at $13.75 and one New York shop selling at the lorice of $16.75. 

The lowest costs in this grade are found in Chicago, being $2.60 
for one shop and $2.70 for the other. The next higher level of costs 
is that for two shops in Los Angeles - with costs of $2.81 and- $2. 82 
respectively. The other two Los Angeles ,shois show costs of $3.15 and . 
$3.33 respectively. This range of $.52 between the lowest and highest 
direct labor costs in the four Los Angeles shops represents a natural 
variation which can he accounted for by differences in piece rates for 
the different operations, attributable to the rela-tive bargaining po- 
wer of the respective parties, as, well as to the different conditions 
prevailing in the four shoios. The variation' between the Los Angeles, 
shop having, the lowest direct labor cost and the one having the highes.t, 
is thus seen to be lS-A^. 

The ne"t higher cost is $3.55 in a Seattle shop, which is natural 
because of the smaller quantities which are cut in Seattle, resulting 
in higher cutting costs. The cost in Cleveland is only $.05 higher, 
being $3.60, while the three New York shoos show costs varying from 
$3.44 to $4.20 which are the highest costs in this grade of garment. 
The range within the New York market is 22";. 

The run-of-shop direct labor costs shown in Column 14 again indi- 
cate close agreement with the individual garment direct labor costs 
given in Column 8. For shop #42240 in Cleveland, there is a variation 
of only 3^ between the two; for shop #80770 -in Los Angeles, the varia- 
tion is only 80. There is a variation of 5^ between theso figures for 
shop #38160 in Philadelphia and of approximately 6fo for shop #50351 in 
Chicago. 

Grade 3-4 Coats 

This grade is represented by nine shops, six operating on the tai- 
loring system and three on the sectional system. Of these, four are 
in Cleveland, two in St. Louis and one each in Scranton, Seattle and 
Chicago. The lowest cost for this grade happens to be in a Seattle 
shop which was especially insistent on lower wage arrangements. It 
must be added, however, that this firm has been charged with code vio- 
lations and it is difficult to determine what its cost would be if it 



9821 



-29- 











65 




S=> 


|g 


J p 


S ? i 


= ES 




■< U OJ 

5§s 




^ - | - 


33w 




p?l 






ilg. 








sisS 


iii 


{3£s 








sow 

358 












C i « 




^ 








M g ^ 




ill 



o o o o 

l/N O ^ O 

«»> cn <*i est 



111. 



-i r 






«E 



5 BOT5F. « E-:-^^^. 



I 



i-H 

o 



a g e 



sr"s"1.-,;;:-l 
■»! i ■ -vT 



5EZHI 



&-*»si * t-H * £&mm 



<EK 






ci: 




? i:M - ^ g mims*.im 



3 il 



F £•»- 



=EMMZ3H 



S [ a l^m?l> s £&£>£??; 



**| *" f*'-'^''*'!""! '^ """ ^^t "^.*" ' -" :*'*■- '•" -"*'■?• \ ''"?•'•'•- •"' 



-*~m¥*-w;: 




(:' '<=» ' >-.r^r^T ° ie : ^'" v ;"-.- '- '-*;;'» 



II: 



II : 



it±3 



-2 
I 

d 

1 



5 
c 

o 



\h 



si 



s | 



lit 



s 2 ^ 






J 5 

i »| 

i£ O K 



|«» 

II,'- 

g 

It 

■O • 

II- 

If 

b ad 

I it 

So. 

• 0.4> 

"I as-. 

!i. 

* • V u 
1; "U. (5 B 






<■ ■ d 3 a 

i y> d o 

«4 « 4» 4>( 
■ 4> — 

• •<•« 

• -a 3 -O 

- - D 

J= *> i3 

■:i -3 c ■ c 

qc 04> 

a m -a © g 



9821 



-30- 




9821 



-a- 






t r 



-^3^213 



SQZE 



m&.ww£&?. 



^^•■~v:e 



I 



3 5 fe 



^ytM^l\«j.;j!p 



scrx 



^ESIM^^ 



a 

X 

3 

O 

u. 
o 

UJ 

s 



I fi:^^-^ £ 1 



Sf=^ «l » f.Svt 



T 



^[ZniMMZXEEl 







3 ** 



II* 



^ 



"S" 



§ 5 °- 






3 S" 



I I - 

R » H 



is. 






jr. £> m 

o m 

t -a *c 



• ■"> ■ « 

(- * < 3 

i fcp a o 

t- 3 c o -. 

,-. _ *> +J r 

■ +* " 

« -j 5 -6 



O £ 3 

o -* a -J 



J. 



10-jr-JW-^ujfr 



9821 



-32- 

paid the full rates called for in the minimum scale of the code. The 
next higher cost - $3.81 - is shown by a Cleveland shop, operating on 
the sectional system and probably one of the most efficient in the 
country. This shoo shows the lowest cost in the United States for this 
grade of product, outside of Seattle, in spite of the fact that its 
finishing cost of $1.05 is the highest of all the shops in that grade 
because of additional hand work which is worth about $.25. The other 
Cleveland sIiotjs, operating on the tailoring system and under union con- 
trol, show costs varying from $4.40 to $4.70. The non-union sectional 
shop in Scranton, Pa., shows a cost of $3.85 which is very close to the 
lowest sectional non-union shop in Cleveland. This shop would show 
a considerably lower cost if its cutting cost of $1.13, which is the 
highest of any of the shops in this group, did not provide for a knit- 
ted fabric, (which is more difficult to handle on a cutting table') , 
and for an interlining (used to keep the knitted fabric from stretching,) 
which is cut separately. The two shops in St. Louis, both operating 
on the tailoring system, show a higher cost of $4.07 and $4.14 which 
compares well with the tailoring shop in Chicago, showing a cost of 
$4.15. 

The individual direct labor costs in this grade check closely with 
the run of shop direct labor costs in Column 14. In shops #42080, 
42210 and 42190 in Cleveland, the variations are only 11^, 21^ and 6^ 
respectively. In Cleveland shop #42120 the difference between the 
run- of -shop direct labor cost of $5.26 and the individual garment di- 
rect labor cost of $4.40 is accounted for by the fact that the average 
selling price of the garments made in that shop is $19.70 as against 
$16.75 for the individual garment. The wide divergence between the 
run-of-shop cost of $6.43 and the individual garment cost of $4.07 for 
the second St. Louis shop is in part explained by the higher average 
selling price of the garments manufactured in that shop, viz., $21.91 
as against the $16.75 price of the individual garment. 

Grade 4 Coats 

Only one shot) located in New York City arrears under that grade 
and its total direct labor cost of $4.40 falls within the range of 
costs of the shops in the 3-4 grade. 

Grade 4-5 Coats 

This grade is represented by two Philadelphia shops whose total 
direct labor cost for the individual garment is $4.96 and $5.44 res- 
pectively. The $4.96 cost compares very closely with the $5.06 run- 
of-shor> cost, while there is a greater divergence between the $5.44 
individual cost and the $6.22 run of shon costs, although this diver- 
gence is not very great when the average selling price of $23.30 for 
the garments made in that shop is compared with the selling price of 
$16.75 for the individual garment. 

CONCLUSION 

Summing up the cost study of the individual garment, it may be 
said that Baltimore leads in low cost for garments of the first and 
second grade represented by the price ranges of $6.75 to $10.75; that 



9321 



-33- 

Kansas City is a close second in the same price range; that in Grade 3, 
represented chiefly "by the price range of $10.75 to $12.75, all the 
shops being operated on the Jul .vMlg system, Chicago is in the lead, 
followed closely ry Los Angeles and bh? t regardless of price range, the 
section shops which have good management tend to show lower costs than 
tailoring shoos irrespective of t»he city and area in which they are lo- 
cated. 

The Commission is not unmindful of the fact that a comparatively 
limited number of shoos, -oarticularly for the metropolitan district of 
New York, has teen presented in this cost study. This is due to the 
time limitations imposed upon the Commission. 

However, in view of the close agreement of the results of the two 
independent cost studies conducted by the Commission, it believes that 
amplification of the field of study would only have added to the volume 
of the data without affecting the net results. 



NOTE ON NET.7 J53SEY COSTS 

A study of New York's production costs is incomplete without in- 
cluding costs for New Jersey contract shops working for New York job- 
bers. An effort was made to ascertain these costs but it proved impos- 
sible chiefly because at the. time of the investigation most of the shops 
were closed because of lack of work, while the shops visited had not 
worked on the coat represented by the specific sample, or worked by the 
week. 

A statement with regard to lack of enforcement of the wage provi- 
sions of the code in the State of New Jersey and its effect on costs 
will be found on Page SO of Section 7. 



9621 



-54- 

SECTIOIT III. 
TJJv SUPPLY OF LABOR i;~ TW llAPTFTS 

It ms represented to the Commission "by the manufacturers from 
■practically nil of the Western markets, and from the satellite towns 
i n the Eastern area, that the surnly of labor, especially of skilled 
labor, was inadequate. It was repeatedly asserted by employers that they 
were \xn ble, particularly at the peak of the season, to secure an ade- 
auate supply of experienced labor. In reply to this contention it was 
urged by representatives of the Union that insofar as shops so located 
were sectionalized, labor possessed of the kind of skill involved in the 
ability to make a comnlete garment, no longer was recmisite, and that 
what was reouirel was a type of labor more or les? skilled in the sense 
that it is ?ble to work with soeed upon relatively simple and specialized 
operations in the making of a garment. The supply of such labor, the 
Union men contended, war, everywhere abundant — even super-abundant. 
The representatives of the Union contended, furthermore, that there were 
at hand for the staffing of tailoring shoos ad.eauate supplies of labor 
skilled in the making of comnlete garments. This, they insisted, was 
particularly true of the old, long-established coat and suit cent.ers in 
New York, 'Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland and St. 
Louis, and even in the transplanted tailoring market in Los Angeles. 
Any shortages of craft-skilled labor that employers may have found in 
the newer markets in Kansas City, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle, 
were due, the Union men contended, to the fact tha t the skilled crafts- 
men had gone into other industries because the emnloyers in the coat 
and suit industry in these centers would not pay them the wages of full- 
fledged craftsmen. 

'V_ 

It is important to note that the Kind of labor reauired in the coat 
and suit industry turns very largely upon the system of production followed 
in the work-shon. The develooment of the sectionalized shoo, largely 
irrespective of its location, results in making available to the employ- 
er a type of labor which would be auite inadeoua.te for an establishment 
which operates on the tailoring basis. The latter type of shop reauires 
labor equipoed with the ability to make a comnlete garment. It reauires, 
in other words, craft skill of the tradition- 1 sort. To the extent, 
therefore, that the firms in any market are sectionalized, with the re- 
sult that each worker makes only a very small part of the garment, it 
becomes much less imperative, if not entirely unnecessary, to secure 
highly skilled craftsmen for the work. What is needed, is a. type of labor, 
whether it be called skilled or semi-skilled, which has the ability to 
oerform a particular operation according to instruction, and with the re- 
quisite speed. 

In the light of these considerations, it would seem not unfair to 
consider that the presence in any market of considerable numbers of 
workr-rs in other needle trades would orovide an appropriate supply of 
labor, at least for the sectionalized sho~>. In Table IT 14a, we nresent 
statistics which should facilitate the formulation of conclusions on this 
subject. The figures indicate, for each market area., the total number of 
needle workers reported by the Federal Population Census, together with 
the number of workers in the Coat and Suit Industry, as reported for March, 
1934, in the enforcement officers' reports to the Coat and Suit Code 

9821 









- 55- 

Authority. The figures in t Tl e firrt column, representing the number 
of needle workers in the several areas, include workers in the follow- 
ing industries: 

■ Coats and suits . 
Ov«?val-ls 

Shirts, collars and cuffs 
Ccr c ets 
'eL', hats 
Gloves 
bailors 

Dressmakers and 
Other clothing. 

■ In the third column, a^e given the ratios of needle workers to coat 
and suit workers. These ratios, indicating the number of needle workers 
in the different localities to one worker in the Coat and Suit industry, 

TAPLE H - 14a 

Numbers of Needle Workers in Various Mi rket Areas Corrroared with 
Numbers of Workers in the Coat ind Sv.it Industry. 



No. of Needle 
Workers to 
Total Workers . 0*\e Worker in 

" T ee''":e Coat & Suit Coat & Suit 

w orkers(*) Indus try( ***) Industry 



New York City 134,369 43,604(**) 4.6 
N. Y. State (Excl. 

N. Y. C : ty) 58,356) 

Connecticut 19,162) .-3,342 54.3 
H. J. (Excl. Camden) 44,152) 

3oston 11,202 550 20.4 

Philadelphia & Camden 1,254(**) 39.8 

Baltimore 19,672 . 1,024 19.2 

Cleveland : 11,618 2,141 5.4 

Chicago 40,446 1,186 . ' 34.-1 

Kansas City 4,294 505 -8.5 

St. Louis 11,181 «±74 25.6 

Los Angeles 14,345 1,272 11.8 

San Francisco 6,976 580 12.0 

Portland 2,462 411 6.0 

■Seattle 2,937 175 16.8 

53,420 

(*) From Table F-14b Needle Workers include the following industries: 
Coat and Suit, Shirts, Collars & Cuff?, Overall, Corsets, 

Fetlt Sits, Gloves, Other Clothing, Tailors, Dressmakers. 

(**) Partly Estimated. 

(***) Workers in March 1934. 

9821 



-36- 

ma" s=rve aa a rough me -sure o the -.vail v ol= labor sup-jli^s in the dif- 
ferent markets. It 'ill "be observed that the ratios range from, about 
54 needle workers to one coat and suit worker in up-State He*" York, 
Connecticut and New Jersey, down to a minimum ratio of about 5 to 1 in 
Hew York City and in Cleveland, Ohio. It will be seen, therefore, that 
in all of the markets except Cleveland, the ratios of workers in other 
needle industries to workers in the Coat and Suit industry, are higher 
than in He™ York. In ev°ry market except Cleveland, Portland and Kansas 
City, they are very much higher. It should be noted 1 , however, that the 
highest ratio of all is that for the territory surrounding He™ York City. 

The market totals of Table H-14a are broken do™n some-what in Table 
H-14b, the whole of which has been assembled from the Federal Census of 
Population for 1930, references to which are attached to the table. 

The figures reporting the number and percent of the needle workers 
in the several market t who were unemployed on April 1st, 1930, are sug- 
gestive. April 1st is in the busy season of the Coat and Suit industry. 
The number of unemployed needle workers on April 1, 1934, probably wa3 
not less than it was in 1930. At any rate, it seems highly probably 
that in April last there were in many of the coat and suit markets large 
numbers of persons, with experience in the needle trade, among then 
presumably many male tailors, female dressmakers and male ana female 
clothing operatives. 

It is significant, in view of the type of labor employed in section- 
work shops, that more than half of the clothing operatives pre women. 
The figures for "Tailors", of course, probably represent male workers 
almost entirely. Some idea of the available supplies of labor in class- 
ified age groups is given for each market area in Table H-14c (*), the 
second part of which shows the per cent distribution of each market sup- 
ply. 

A word may be said of the relation-'of labor supply to sectiona. 1 Na- 
tion of the market. It has been suggested that to the extent that any 
market is considerably sectionalized, it has the less ground for com- 
plaint of inadequate labor supply, so long as there are resident in that 
market considerable numbers of men, and especially, ^ornen workers attached 
to other needle trades, Reference to Table H-14a shows that Kansas 
Cit^, sectionalized 93^, ha.s at hand eight .needle workers to every coat 
and suit worker in the market, a ratio slightly in excess of that for 
Hew York City, which is only 7 c l sectionalized; that St. Louis, 64^ sec- 
tionalized, has at hand twenty-four needle workers to each coat and suit 
worker; th^t Cleveland, 48^o sectionalized, ha.s at hand five needle trade 
workers to each coat and suit worker, and that Baltimore, 35-o sectional- 
ized, has at hand nineteen needle workers to each coat and suit worker. 
In the markets which are primarily on the tailoring basis, the ratios 
of needle workers to coat and suit workers are as follows: 3ost 30 to 1 , 
Philadelphia 30 to 1, Chicago, 34 to 1, San Francisco and Los Angeles, 
12 to 1 and Seattle, 17 to 1. 

(*) See appendix. 



9821 



-37- 



Table H 14b 

Number of Needle Workers In Various Market Areas, April t, 1930*. 

Dressmakers Total 

Clothing Operatives (Not in Needle 

City or State Male Female Total Tailors Factory) Workers 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

New York City 64,877 76,523 141.202 41,824 11.843 194,869 

New York (exc. N. Y. C.) 9,782 28,275 38,857 11.460 8,389 58,356 

Connecticut 6,893 9,328 15,221 2,377 l,564t 19,162 

New Jersey (exc. Camden) 7,272 23,723 30,995 8,188 4,969 44,152 

Boston 1,526 4,205 5,731 3,944 1,527 11,202 

Soringfield .... 750t 250t 160t l,160t 

Worcester 185 1.052 1,237 350t 240t 1.827 

Philadelphia and Camden 8.821 13,596 22,417 11,402 3,546 37,365 

Scranton .... 700t 2061 130t l,030t 

Baltimore 3,059 9,033 12,092 5,651 1.929t 19,672 

Cleveland 1,467 5.730 7,197 3,205 1,216 11,618 

Cincinnati .988 2,388 3,376 2,579 700t 6,655 

Toledo 163 850 1.013 600t 320f 1,933 

Chicago 6,721 14,128 20,849 14,739 4,868 40,446 

Minneapolis and St. Paul 585 3,215 3,800 1,437 1,722 6^61 

Kansas City, Mo 265 2,468 2,733 705t 856 4,294 

St. Louis 1,645 6,241 7,886 1,718 1,577 11,181 

Los Angeles 1.289 6,598 7,867 3,311 3,767 14,945 

San Francisco 582 2,211 2,793 2.375 1,808 6,976 

Portland 132 873 1,005 659t 798t 2,462 

Seattle 156 1,327 1,483 715 739t 2,937 

Total above cities 328,854 117.689 52,658 499,201 

•Based on V. S. Census of Papulation, 1330, Vol. II Unemployment Table 5. tEstimated. 



Unemployed 


Operatives 


Number 


% 


8 


9 


18,642 


13 


3,963 


10 


1,774 


12 


3,424 


11 


653 


11 


75t 




167 


18 


2,941 


13 


70t 




546 


5 


820 


11 


261 


8 


91 


9 


2,049 


10 


283 


7 


153 


6 


892 


11 


560 


7 


155 


6 


130 


13 


60 


4 



37,709 



11 



9821 



-38- 

It may very "ell b ■ true thnt the manufacturers, especially those 
running section work-shops, tend to overstree the necessity for craft 
skill in" the local labor supply on which they defend. For the section 
shop certainly it is not vital to staff the shop with tailors.— ^ It 
would seem that the most that the proprietor of such a shop could, in 
reason, ask is for an adequate supply of competent workers with ex- 
perience in one of the related needle trades. Indeed, f'r. "Sllis, of 
the Independent Cloak Company, Inc. of New Britain, Conn. , speakine - 
at the New York hearings before this Commission, stated that his com- 
pany was prepared to take "female help with no experience, usually from 
the metal industries, the hardware industries ..." and "through con- 
stant teaching and effort" to teach these workers one single operation 
and develop adequate productivity in a few months.-^/ 



1/ Yven the predominantly tailoring markets, Tl oc.ton, Philadelphia, 
Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland and Seattle, cannot fairl^ be said 
to be wholly dependent upon unskilled or semiskilled labor. In ad- 
dition to large numbers of dressmakers and clothing workers sho'Ti by 
the Census statistics to be resident in those cities, there are, or 
at any rate, "ere in 1930, thousands of tailors resident in them. 

2/ Transcript of hearings in He 1 - York, June 27, 1934 at p. 9. 



9821 



-39- 



< 




9821 



-40- 
SECTION IV. 
WAGE STATISTICS 
A. EARNINGS OF EMPLOYEES 



The wide margins of difference between the levels of earnings of 
the workers in the coat and suit industry in the various market areas, 
as well as between major crafts are revealed in the figures of Table B-l, 
which shows the average hourly earnings in each market of cutters, 
operators, finishers, and pressers, of the four crafts combined and for 
all employees on payrolls (i.e., including floor nelp and other non- 
manufacturing workers.) All of the figures which are broken down by 
craft are based upon payroll returns covering all market areas, for the 
week ended March 9, 1934. (*) The figures in the last three columns are 
based upon a payroll analysis of the out-of-town markets for the same 
week. Examination of the totals shows that the hourly earnings of 
workers in the Western area are considerably lower than the earnings of 
those either in the Eastern area or New York City. Except for Chicago 
and Los Angeles, the earnings of workers in the Western area appear to 
be on a level, roughly 25^ lower than the earnings of their fellow- 
workers in the Eastern area, and some 40^ lower than the earnings of 
New York City workers. Earnings in Boston and Philadelphia which, 
apart from the New York market area (**) make up the Eastern area, are 
on a level intermediate between Western area earnings and. those of New 
York City. 

As noted, among the cities in the Western area, Chicago and Los 
Angeles appear to provide their workers with earnings more nearly 
approaching those received in Boston and Philadelphia. No data are at 
hand to show the earnings of the several crafts in the suburban areas 
adjacent to Boston and Chicago. However, general averages are given for 
these areas for all classes of employees combined, and sub-divided only 
as to sex. They indicate in striking fashion the enormous differences 
in earnings that exist between metropolitan centers and the outlying 
districts surrounding them. Thus the average hourly earnings of coat 
and suit employees in the Chicago suburbs were 73^ an hour, while in 
Chicago proper they were $1.05 an hour. The corresponding figures for 
Boston are: Boston suburbs 84# an hour; Boston proper $1.03 per hour. 
Further illustration of the relatively low earnings in suburban as com- 
pared with urban areas is found in the earnings figures derived from a 



(*) Except that the figures for the New York market area in the second 
and third lines are for the eight-week period from Feb. 5 to 
March 31, 1934. 

(**) New York City, up-State New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, 

except that the few shops in southern New Jersey, including one 
large shop in Camden, are not included. 

9821 



-41- 

TABLE B-l 



3»s 



* «*. 



COMPARATIVE TABLE SI OWING AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS 
by MARKETS and MAJOR CRAFTS i/ 
(Except where otherwise noted, figures are based on payroll - week ended Mar. 9, 1934) 



Market 



Cut- 
ters 



Opera- 
tors 



Finish- 
ers 



Pres- 
sors 



Tot a 



12/ 



Total of 
__A11 workers on ^payroll 



(4 crafts) M t-. F f M & Fl 



New York City 6./ 1.60 1.37 



1.06 



1.62 



4 *Jew York City 
-(Opstate N.Y., N.J. 
\ and Conn. 



1.48 
1.38 



1.01 
.90 



.79 
.64 



1.30 
1.04 



Boston 

Boston Suburbs 



1.27 



1.25 



.81 



1.31 



1.32 



1.10 



1.26 



1.03 



M F 

■if -"if- 



1.03 > 1.14 .77 
\ 
.84 ! 1.06 .63 



Philadelphia 


1.50 


1.18 


.81 


1.34 


1.11 


1.05 


1.06 
.85 


1.23 
1.07 


.78 


Baltimore 


1.14 


.91 


.66 


1.13 


.90 .85 


.71 


Cleveland 


1.21 


1.01 


.65 


1.13 


.92 


.75 


.86 


1.11 


.66 


Chicago 


1.27 


1.03 


.79 


1.28 


1.01 


.98 


1.05 


1.18 


.74 


Chicago Suburbs 


- 


- 


- 


- 


! 


- 


.73 


.97 


.60 


St. Louis 


1.00 


.80 


.63 


1.01 


.80 


.74 


.84 


1.13 


.60 


Kansas City 


1.00 


.80 


.63 


1.01 


.80 


.74 


.66 


.86 


.61 


Los Angeles 


1.20 


1.09 


.66 


1.10 


.96 


.94 


.94 


1.13 


.67 


San Francisco 


1.16 


.85 


.60 


1.03 


.82 


.83 


.89 


1.11 


.70 


Portland 


1.16 


.85 


.60 


1.03 


.82 


.83 


.79 


1.07 


.61 


Seattle 


1.16 


.85 


.60 


1.03 


.82 


.83 


.75 


1.37 


<41 



l/ From Table !>12a, except where noted. 

2/ Fron payroll analysis of all market areas - eight weeks 2/5 - 3/31/34. 

5/ From payroll analysis of out-of-town markets - week ended 3/9/34 

4/ Data hssei on 7? section-work shops of which 36 are in Hew York City. for 
period 2/5 - 3/31/34. 

5/ Based upon analysis of sample of 598 shops. 



iS 



9821 



-42- 

special examination of 78 section-work shops in New York City and its 
outlying area- The data appear in the second and third lines of the 
table. Here the earnings in the suburban areas run from 10 to 25% lower 
than in the central urban area. 

In the last two columns there is a break-down by sex of the earn- 
ings figures for all of the markets except New York. There appears here, 
for each of the markets shown, a wide difference between the earnings 
of rale and female employees. The margin of difference seems to be 
wider in the Western markets and reaches a maximum in the Seattle market, 
where the earnings of women employees are less than one-third of those 
received by male workers. 

As is to be expected as a result of the regional differentials set 
up by the Code, it appears that, for each of the four major crafts, earn- 
ings are highest of all in New York City, those in the Eastern area some- 
what lower, while earnings in the West, with an occasional exception, are 
markedly lower even than those in the Eastern area outside of New York. 

These inter-relations among the markets are brought out graphically 

and on a somewhat different basis in Figure A which shows, by market or 
area, the absolute and relative distribution of the number of workers and 
their aggregate earnings among the several market areas, and, within 
each area, by major craft. It shows, apart from the very obvious general 
predominance of the New York market, that New York's wage bill in the 
industry is not distributed in close proportion to the distribution of 
workers, but that New York workers get proportionately more, and workers 
in the Western, and other parts of the Eastern, markets get proportion- 
ately less of the total wage payments made by the industry. Thus, New 
York workers, constituting 82-^ of the work-force of the industry, get 
87$ of the wages, while Western area workers, (*) making up 13^ of the 
industry, get 9^ of the earnings; Baltimore workers constituting 2% of 
the personnel of the industry get only 1.3& of tne industry's wage bill 
and Eastern area workers, (**) making up 3^ of the industry's personnel, 
get only 2.3^ of the industry's wage bill. 

The reasons for the wide regional differences which have been dis- 
cussed are traceable to a number of causes, the more important of which 
are: (l) the unorganized character of the labor supply in outlying areas; 
(2) the relatively lower skill (in the sense of craft skill in making a 
v;hole garment but not necessarily in terms of productive ability) of the 
available workers in those areas; (3) the more general tendency in such 
areas to resort to the sectionalized method of operation, between two and 
three times as large a proportion of the Western as of the Eastern shops 
being sectionalized; (4) the much higher proportions of female employees 
in the suburban and Western areas; and finally, (5) the existence of 
Code differentials. 



(*) Excluding workers in tne Baltimore market. 
(**) Excluding workers in the New York market. 



9821 



'13- 



fOTE OF SOIFIEfe'EKTAHY INTER-MA3KET STATISTICS OF EARNINGS. 



There is set out in Figures E-7 to E-12, inclusive, a series of 
graphic comparisons of the average hourly earnings of cutters, "\-tle 
operators, female operators, male finisners, female finishers, and 
pressers, in tailor and section shops, respectively. They are based 
upon the data of appendix tables E-7 to E-12, inclusive. A similar 
comparison of the earnings of male operators and female operators in 
"inside" and "outside" shops, respectively, is shown in Figures 3-3 and 
E-4, drawn from the figures of appendix tables E-3 and E-4 . Finally, 
an inter-market comparison of the earnings of operators and finishers, 
by sex, is given in Figures E-13a and H-13b which are drawn from the 
data of appendix table H-13. It should be noted that, as explained in 
the footnotes to the tables, the craft classifications here are in- 
clusive and embrace the auxiliary cutting, finishing, operating and 
pressing groups as well as the full-fledged craftsmen. 



9821 




aW7j#0j 



vaevtw/ws 



£J 7JMW 



u/j srfwy 



\\\\\\\W\* 



GM07 is 



w 



*r 



*^^g?^lP 



09?J///J 



Sk\\W\W^ 



^SSS5 



QNVVA313 



^^ 



J<2M/17yff 



ee 

cr 

on 

01 
oz 

71 

61 

19 

OC 
ill 

9? 



V7///C7 



H01S0ff 



c 



^WWWNNNNW^^^ 



^\\\\\\N\\\\\\\\ ^^^^ 



\XVOtfQ f WH\ - 



€S 






6C 

I 



oce/, 



St ^ 



,1 

Ji 



9ea 



CQ 

CO 

ft, 

o 



o 
w 
to 

o 

M 
< 
E-i 



CO 

X 
O 
E-i 



K 
ft, 
O 



ui 



7111*3? 



b" 



j ONViivdd] — [^ 



H oowyNvyj nys\ — I 
1 — ' [tot 



C 



S3139NV Wl 



ait 



^\\\\^\\\\\\ ^ S S ^ gp 



I 



#N\\\\j 



■ ""A"^ 



SWC 00K7///. 



p 



5C 



O9VJIH0 



b 



sr 



0NV13A3TJ 



b 



c 



luowtnvg 



b 



Of 
9SI 



3 



o 



co 
o 



►4 



< 
ft. 

o 

e; 

o 
to 

M 

ftj 

o 
o 



- I V/Hdl3aVHHd\ . 






c 



-I S g/7f N01SOQ 



b 



s: 



N01SO& 



k 



^w^wvxrx^^ ^ 






«9? 



\ an 3±vj.rdn 



% 



R\\\\\\\\v\v ^^.^ 7 ; g ^ 



- ) y/ve>yg y >VK/y| — 



oi 

,P19t 
60OV 






«0 






la 



9821 



-46- 



38 






51 



c 



*L 



L "T 3111*3? >°^ 



ONVllUOd 



H ODSIJNVUJ nvs\ — 



<Zin9NV SOI 






^W\\N ^^^ 



^^ 



^^^ 



SBH? OOVOIHO 



s 



^^^ 



y \ \ \ \ \ s ts: 



OQVDIHD 



s 



»\\\\\\N ^ 



^^^^ 



ONV13A310 



s 



^WWWPi^T^g 



#7 

6^ 
/*/ 

09 

tl 
763 

131 
601 

01? 



«t 



viHjiiavni-id 



sgnr noi ?oe 



_) 



a: 



N019OS 



2 L\\\\\\\\V 



s , \ \ s t— r 



Aisyjr mjn 



T 



& 



' •^NXNSXXnNV )noilojNNoo\^ 



^\\\\\\\\Y ^^^K^ ™ 



^\\\\ \\\\\\ ^^^A^ 



bL\\\\\\\\\> 



\\\\\\\ 



XNOU& 9 NVH 



SS 






,C95 



2 % 



% 



o 
<& 



S 



*0 $ 









<5 



Si 

o 

,1 



9821 



-47- 






a 2 

5 - a 

lu| — <n 






3U1VJS 



ONvm/ad 



tXKKWJ NV5 



SIJWW S07 



mmmmw ^^^m 



*m ^^xx$m 



QNV13A31D 



3dowinvg 



*/ 



19 



99 






S 



I 



* 



VlfHe/ 



sg/ts noisoq 



Noieog 



\^mmm$FZwm 



USMT M3U p 



*^^^^ ? * 



^^^ ^^^ 



* 



- Kvayg f w>T f 



* 



// 






r? 



9821 



„ I 



-48- 



« 

s 

o 

X 

w 

§ 

tn 
O 

« 

co 



3 

en 



CO 

I 

to 

a i 

,4 c 



z 



up 



CO 

1 



W^^&W I 



371LVJS 



0NV7U/M 



- pspwj wc 



K 



- \SJ 1JJW MlY 



^^«)^^p 



UO HQM, 



w m&ym k 



emoi is 



t ms^ m 



QQns J///J 



mmi&m 



-jmt^^m 



^ 



\ \\\\\\ \\\' 



axoHtnw 



w. 



r/ 

Hr 

es 

191 

Ki 
•iri 

89 

or 

S* 

a 

6€l 

63 'C 

LI 
LOI 



u. 
o 

CO 

o 

S3 



8 

w 



o 

55 

o 
co 

M 

o 



I 



17//%/ 



^r NO1C00: 



Moieog 



foe 
it- 







^S^^S^/ 



kW\\\\^\ ^^^ 



+sf 

ffS 

a 
m 

u 



+9 

■61 

t 9Z0± 
* S 

in 



9821 



-49- 



i 



M 



^ 



m 

co 

a. 

§ 
co 



E- 
O 

u 

CO 

e 
§ 



W 



co 

CO 



o 



co 

o 



i 

-1 



a 



O 
S3 

o 
co 



o 
o 



a 2 

On 
Lu 



1 



* 



37J1V3S 



atnrrjj*/ 



Jfoswne/ws 



S3TWSC7 



msmh 



\\\\\\\\y 



U0SVSWM 



im 



\W 



3 



i ^s&^te s 



sens jwj 



mmm$H$m?m 



0MJ///J 



\mm$mti%5m> 



< t^^A^Sy^ 



V7tM/ 



■sens- Musea 



M01Q0ff 



mmm mt&iB^ 



m^^^^m 






'-y \\\\ 



WOfNAM 



XMMQtHMY 



I 



+ 






re 

/; 

*/ 

/// 
tSI 
H 

«r 



tot 

f/ 

M 
»«/ 
S> 

*f 
•/ 






9821 



-50- 



I 



CO 

o 

K 
CO 

» 






CO 



•o co 

I « 

w o 

Eh 



z: £ S 



o 



Li 



OW71#0c/ 



iMONtJNVS 



&7MW M7 



S //}<?? JS 



-■\. 



mmgj&sm 



m$m ^$;m 



a 



0WJ/H3 



»|x\\N\\\\\\\^i^^^ 



^\\\\xxxx\\\\\x ^^xx. 



?f 



to/ 



«c 



Ft7 
01 
PC 

191 
W7 
£>7 

CSI 

IS 

91 



cs cu 

M O 



ft. 
o 



00 

o 



55 



s 



o 

K 



o 



< 



m\\\\x\\\x^ S?^ 



*7//%/ 



g ^\\\\\\\\\\\\\L 



V SSSVsnSVE 



HO1S09 



^ 



^WVWWWWtj^^^ 



K\\\\\\\^^\\V ^^^ 



M3/1J3NN9D 



i KVV^^xxxx-sxx^^^^^ ^ 



K\\\\ \xx\xxx\xx ^^^ 



rz 
»/ 

«. 

ZOI 

rs 

oe 
71 
fsir 



^m^m^m^^^ 



% 



§ 



i 



§ 



* 



a 



]f£W 

O UJ 

* s 

II 



9821 



-61- 



=*■«■ 



S 
1 






u 



1 



SI 1 J7JJV3S 



(INVJliKk/ 



txmwws 



S3U9W S07 



I 



/a? svsuvx 



si no 7 AS 



^^^ sans j///.?^ 



*s\s\sNN\ 



SSSTSSSSS 



QNV7JAJ70 



IS 



^^ 



\\SS\V-\ 



MMim 



B^ 



*4 












9821 



y7//^/ 



«^^^lP3f^ 



^^ 



;a\\s\\ ' / 



M3UMM3 



* kw^^ 



WWW'V 



AH UVLS-dfl 




S KXNNNNW^W ^ ^gg^ , 



s 



k\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ^ 



y^xvw, wv 



tNOHQTUm 



n 



01* 



esie 



1*7 



% 



Si 



$ 

>: 



% 



$ 



fF9 



-62- 



x 



M 

is 

M 

h- 

U, 
O 

co 

C5 



O 
I 



Z I 

O 



1 



U^ 



^ 



SSSSSSSSSSSSa^ 



J1JJ.VJC 



ONYlXHOd 



*m 



s^ 






G6 



161 



I 



w m>mi?mm ™ 






*»ysp 



»ggggp 



|M^S£^ 



50/ 
// 

/£? 
96 

+91 
82 



t 



\\\\w\\\\\\y^^i 



viHduawiiHd 



mmm^^f^ , 



mm ^^)$m 



»gggp 



mswmTO 



^ ^ jj.tur*in 



m 



mww^g 



SNJMb t HA 1M9 k 



& 



.ww,w,w,w.wsw; 



to? 

C0I 

6* 

6/Z 

62* 

A* 

/?/ 
92 

/??/ 
+£0U 



J lu 

Is 



982a 



-53- 



u 



Li 






2 l. 



I 












:^S§£§^ 



■M ^^^ 7 ^ 






t ^,^w 



fc l^aw^ 



^aMfrss 



t ^£^ 



<9. 
9/ 
.ST/ 

W 

90/ 
K>/ 

X// 

as- 

r& 

6» 
9/.T 

c#r 
«/r 



i 



€ 



C 



c 



s^^§3$§sp 



is ^»^ 



MM ^£&^ 



^w ^w^y 



aM E&WM 



_«& 



fitting f-nttg 



t^ ^SaaKS p 



«9r 
w 

/«r 
tfr* 

«v 

?6 
*W9/ 

#«« 

.#£/ 






§ 






§ 






8 



§ 



o 

<Vi 



S * 



9aa 



-54- 

WAGE STATISTICS (Continued) 

3. EARNINGS Ii: RELATION TO CODE STa j DaR DS 

The relation between the average hourly earnings actually received 
by workers in the various markets and the Code minima and averages is 
shown in the accompanying graphs. (*) The earnings data set out in 
them are derived from an analysis of payroll reports for all of the mar- 
ket areas for tne eight-weeks' period from February 5 to Farch 31, 1934. 

In order to work out a tolerably simple and understandable tabular 
statement of the relations subsisting between the code minima and aver- 
ages in the several markets on the one hand and earnings actually re- 
ceived on the other, it has been necessary not only to report earnings 
in the summary form of single market averages for each major craft; it 
has also been necessary to construct for each craft a single market 
series of code minima and a similar series of code averages. Each such 
code minimum (or code average) is a weighted average of the minima for 
male and female workers, respectively, prescribed by the code for the 
particular market and the particular craft, tne weights used being the 
number of male and female workers, respectively, of that craft in that 
market. The figures include only the skilled craftsmen in each of the 
four categories, the occupations included and the approximate number of 
workers covered in each being as follows: 



Cutters 






male 


2,983 


Operators 






n 


18,643 


Operators 






female 


4,704 


Finishers 






male 


4,827 


Finishers 






female 


8,489 


Fressers under 






male 


1,986 


Fressers upper 






n 


1,729 


Fressers machine 






ii 


1,105 


Fressers non-classif: 


Lable 






2,592 






Tot 


al 


47,058 



It is obvious that tnese figures comprehend the great bulk of the 
54,000 workers who make up the direct labor personnel of the coat and 
suit industry. The steps in the derivation of the weighted minima and 
averages, including the v/eights used for each craft are indicated in 
Table H-12 which sets out in more elaborate form the data of Table H-12a. 
Examination of the latter table and of the charts based thereon, reveals 
the fact that average hourly earnings in practically every case exceed 
the prescribed code minima, and in many instances they approach the 
code averages; in no case do they drop appreciably below the minima. 
Average hourly earnings of cutters are in excess of the code minima ex- 
cept for several "' es tern markets wnere they show small deficiencies. 
However, a check of the payrolls indicates that these deficiencies are 
more nominal than real, being largely attributable to failure to distin- 
guish on the payroll reports between full-fledged cutters and those less 

(*) 3ased upon the data of aprendix Tables H-12a and H-12. 



Jc2l 



-55- 



1 





311 IV J? 


^1 


ONVlliJOd 




079IONW3 NV? 




93139N\/ ?01 




o 

o 

o 

1 o 

1 *"* 


AID svswv 






vmoi i? 






• 09VDIHO 




(J 


(JNV13A313 




1 V 

1 "** 


3&CW/11VS 



6£ 



£> 



Oil 



01 



9? 



Qll 



Sfl 



7? 






VIHdl3<3Vlll-/d 



NOKOQ 



A1I0 Xt/OA M3N 



IV 
76/2 



% 



$ 



^ 

^ 



<0 



VO 



Q 
^ 






*^ 



9821 



-56- 



<• 

to 
o> 

r-t 

to 

a 

I 

o 

BE 
g 

a 
o 

B 

Qu 

i 

E 

O 
W 

H 

K 
O 

fa. 


ill 

g8- 
















291 

on 

9CS 
Z9I 

£5/ 
(18 

6/6 
«S 

6Sfr 
6f? 

* £ 

I J 


tig- 

1\ i * 


3111VX 


aNviiyod 


M ■ 




009IONVUJ /VKf 


i« 


1 


i 

i 

i 

i 

i 




1 
\ A1I0 WSNVM 

1 

1 


I 

\\ sinoi is 


5 


1 

! 09V0IHD 

i 

i 




ONV13A310 

i 


* 


3yowuiv9 

1 












<8 

_J — 


VIHdl30VWd 






1 
1 
1 

1 


N01?09 


1 ^ 


A1DHU0A M1N 

| 


i i 


i i 


i i i i 


160 
140 
1.20 
1.00 


o o q <& 
oq <5 v «\j 



9821 



-57- 



00 
Eh 



>H 



eh 
co 

w 

Q 
O 
o 

o 

a 



SI 

o 

Eh 

55 
O 
M 
Eh 

3 



"I 



o 

CO 






o 



<; 

g 



il 

JO S3 

-J I 



l 





i 

i 

i 

• 

1 
\ 

i 

i 

i 

1 
i 

i 

1 

^» 


o 
r 

•» 

<• 


TU1¥X 




aNviiyod 




oomwyjm 




J7729VKQ77 




^i/P WWW 




C/O07 1? 




09V0IHJ 




5 If 0NVHA1V 




Ml 

'•I 

L 


ivomnw 






1 

1 


V/HdUOVlINd 


1 

i 


Noisva 


! - 
i s 


1 

AID HWA MJN 

i 


i 


i 


1 i 1 1 






% 



R 



{5 



09 
60/ 

HZ 
SZf 
U 

811 

us 

601 

m 



*1 



9821 



-58- 



^1 





•> 

o 

>4 


r ■ ■ 

l 




1 

ONVlWOd 




1 


•> 

o 


1 03S1DNVVJ NV? 




5 




?3139NV SOI 








A1I0 W9NVH 




§ 

X 


?moi is 






OOVOIHO 


! 5 

r 




ONV13A310 


i 




3V0W11VQ 



S¥ 
H 
09/ 

ze 

9S 

Of? 

89Z 

9/1 





* VIHdliaVllHd 


i 


5; N01C09 

x; 


i 

AID MWA M3N 
L_ i 



171 
66 



1 


• 


1 


i 


i 


■ 


■ 




8 


S3 


§ 

*< 


15 


S 


S 






9821 



-59- 

skilled. Average hourly earnings of operators failed to exceed the minima 
in only one market (St. Louis) and there they dropped below by only l4. 
Average hourly earnings of operators equaled the code average in Cleve- 
land; in six markets they closely approached the code "averages", and 
in only five of the twelve markets, viz., Kansas City, St. Louis, San 
Francisco, Fortland and Seattle, was the difference between the earnings 
for "workers of average skill" as set forth in the code and the actual 
average hourly earnings more than 15$. 

Actual average hourly earnings of finishers were at or above the 
code minima in all but three cities; San Francisco, Portland and Seattle, 
where they fell below by slight margins. They fell below averages in 
every one of the markets, the amount of the difference with one exception, 
being appreciably greater in the Eastern and Western area markets than in 
New York. 

Hourly earnings of pressers ranged above the minima in every market, 
and in New York City and Chicago they even exceeded the prescribed aver- 
ages; in Chicago by about 2$ and in New York City by about 8$. In all of 
the other markets, the average earnings of pressers were below the code 
averages; in the Eastern area by small margins, and in the West by margins 
of from 13$ to 20$. 

The proportions of workers whose earnings (l) reached or exceeded 
the average, (2) were between the average and the minimum and (3) dropped 
below the minimum are shown in Table H 10a which sets out this information 
for each craft, by market area.(*) Thus, in the case of cutters (**) 
95$ of those in New York City, 83^ of those in the Eastern area outside 
of New York City, 60$ of those in Baltimore and 86$ of those in the 
Western area exclusive of Baltimore received earnings above the code 
minima for the week ended March 9, 1934. (***) 

Of the male operators in New York City, 52.8 c, -> reOeived earnings at 
or above the average, 42. 80 between the minimum and the average, and only 
4.4% below the minimum. In the Eastern area 36.3$ of these male operators 
received earnings at or above the average, 57.6$ earnings between the 
minimum and the average, and only 6$ made less than the minimum; in Balti- 
more, 58.8$ were at or above the average, 40.8$ between the minimum and 
the average, and 5.4$ below the minimum; in the Western area, 41.1$ were 

(*) The figures are drawn from the much more detailed portrayal in Table 
H 10 which shows the individual markets and shows the absolute numbers from 
which the percentages are derived. The percentages in Table H 10a which 
are marked by asterisks are those based upon groups of workers numbering 
less than 50. 

(**) Cutters are week-workers and no "averages" are set for them in the 
Code. 

***) As a matter of fact the actual situation is probably even better. 
Cf . discussion of cutters' earnings on page 54 above, and note 1 to 
Table H-10 in the appendix. 

9821 



-60- 



■ 








> 








© o 








h0.O 








a 


o) at 

© L- 

V 4- :■ 1 1 1 1 1 I 

o > n 
04 1 


K H 
H W ^ tO » 
• ••ll • • 

h in w c ■* 

■* r-t l-> CM r-i 


K K K K 
CM O « O 
• ••••■III 

lO ^f to to CO 

rH CM U5 


KK K K 

*ow to 
• • • 1 . . . 1 

0001 en to 

CO CM ■* 3h tO to 


1 














• 








C 


t> 








■ 

P 

03 


3 .n X X K X 

E; of OIOOION 


tO lO CO O CM W (O 


M K K 

to t- 1-1 to 4* 


H K K 
* fH to O tO 


© 


fl flT) 
O -rt C 

S a 


CO(DNO«) O 


CM (O O O O tO tO 
IO IO CO O C> CO CO 


Ifl IO * N "f O CM 
l» CO * CO CO O CT> 
i-l 


CO iH M< O to tO tO 

tO C- ^ O W in rH 


D S* 


O CM <H CD 


K K K K 

OWN CO <T> r-» 


K K K 

to to to ■* CO 


K K X K K K 

CM CD CM rH O O 


© o -r 


HION tO 


CO rH lO O to 0> 


CD CM (CS f- 
H 


• ••I * ■ • 1 

rH CO tO tO lO *JI 


? 










« o 










MX 










. 8 a 

*tf © T5 
O ^ C 


I 1 1 I 1 1 


K KM 

CD t»- CO O CO 
•••II • • 

to to to 

U} H IA CD 


K K K 
• • • 1 1 1 1 

O <• * CM O 

NHH 


X K K K K X 
O *J* CM in CM <b 

• • • 1 • • • 1 

O to CO 0- CO 
^ «H ^» tO *!• to 


© 


P 
> 










k 

o 

e 

-P 

m 


3 3 


O 

O 1 ' II 

to 


X X K X X 
co m f- O 

Q 01 * O m 

VNlO OONN 


K K K K K K 
ONMOMOQ 

til 1 

O rt ID © * t- O 
lO U5 tO t- Oi BO O 


X X K X K K H 
to en co t- t-- 

• •••••• 1 

to to to to 10 
to e*. in to cm to 10 




• • 1 1 1 1 


K K X 
*f <D ifl ^1 
• •■til* 


K K K K K K 

O * O H M Ifl 


XX K X X 

t> t~ tO lO rH 

■ •1 •••It 

CD t— tO 0- to 
CM to to CM 


to" 

m o a 


3 O 
i-t 


• 


Q 1"OHlD N 
•O CM W rH tO 












© 










> 










© o 










60,0 

© u 

T) © T3 

o t> d 

o ■< a 




„ K * 


K K K K K K 


XXX 


1 1 1 1 1 1 


W © <M 
••III • 1 

CO rH 


to to 01 m 
• •••ill • • 

O * m co 


to to c- 
• t • I • • 1 

CD O CM rH O 
t-t to CM CD 




tO (H 


r-l rH rH CD tO 


g 


? 










© 

h 

£ 

© 


SI 

-A a 
3 3 


lO 
• 1 1 1 1 1 


K K 

• •III • • 

t> lO <f H 


X K K 
O co ^« m to 
• ■ • • 1 1 1 • • 

tO CM ^« *Jt O CO 


X XX X 

■* CM OO O 

• 1 • 1 • • I • 

CO to CO 10 


CO 


m to *# to 


m to N co n to 


t- M* to CM O 


■ 












ri 












w 


g .5 


K 
to 
• 1 1 1 1 1 


K X 

• •Ill • • 


K X K X K 

c- to to to 00 
• ■••III •• 


K X K K 
O CO * CO 


© a -3 

m u a 





CO tO ijt CO 


CD CO iH en to 


m to en to 




I-t •<*• (O 


CM CM i-t CM CM 


tO i-H 


? 








■ 


« o 










UOxi 




X 


K K K 




. 2 * 




CO H O 


in to ■* co to 
• ••■III • • 


t- r~i t- to 


•O © X) 

o > a 
o <i 3 


1 1 1 1 1 1 


CM CO 1 1 1 V Q 
U3 CM 


C- <M OJ N to O 
CO CM lO CM tO O 


« -a* cm 

to N CD t- 




1 
1* 

© -rl 


en 
• 1 1 1 1 1 


X K 
CO to 00 
• •III • • 

CM H CO CO 


to O in co t-- 
• • • • 1 1 1 • 1 

tO O CD CM CO 


O O Ot- H 

• 1 • 1 • • 1 • 

CO tO tO * r-l 

CM cm cm cm <H 


J4 


O -H C 

a 2 


en 


*N CD (O 


in e- 10 co to 


o 










Si 












6 












2 












6.1 


K 
• 1 1 1 I 1 


K K 
•# to 00 
• • 1 II • • 


K 

OlOH* 

• * •• 1 1 1 1 1 


K K XX 
co en to t- en 
• 1 • 1 • • 1 • 


B 0«( 

m o a 


to 


<* CM 00 CM 
CM to 


ctj t-- ^* en 


CO CM tO CM CO 

i-t CO 


CO 




© DC 


© © © © 


© 


© 
H 

« C r r = c 


1 si © sj © d 
at © c dan© 


c 31 $ c ©aj©a] 

i-l Ed 1 r-tE3ria 

■s©cd©c a)©ai© 


© a © 
dcrcec od 

a &, a 




3 


at- a fc a &. 


a&-s&- ac^atf 




■ 










© 










«H 




















0, 






© 




HI 






l-i 

.0 n 




a 






d 1- 




"TJ -rt 


•a 


u u 


iH © 




© © a 


« 


© © 


4h d h 




rH © -H 

rH O J 


i-i © 

•-H O 


S © -p 
© n e 


© —i © 

O M *- TJ 




•H iH 


•ri -H 


CO -H d 


ti <b t-H a 

+> © d p> 




^d +> «a 


>- -P 


» 4J CO 




« « a n 


n a 


«- c a 


d drl m 




1 d c ~ u 
■«H > t* P © 


1 © = +> 

© a. J4 


© O © o> 
Q<= -P k c t_ s 


t« u © -h a +> 

© -p 1* s: 1 -h u 

T3l; Q.aO a B-H 

a d o, 0, d t< jd 




e q a. »h 

© 3 Cr-t -H 


O 3 Q, Al 




to «< a. 


CO 'O -< CO 


co X Cj < '.-j 


1 


g 


i 


3 


CO 


CO 
CO 

'A c c c c r s : 

g 


l 


H * r r t r 


.J - r = = c r 

a, 




fr« 


O 





k 



to >> I 

3 HH 

d -P i-t 



jz m © 
* © 5. 



to a, .h 
>> © » 



© T) 

S S: 

U)-P 



XX <-* 3 rH 



9821 



-61- 

at or above the average, 52.3 ? i bet"een tihe minimum and the average, and 
only 6.6? below the minimum. 

The foregoing discussion of the relation of average earnings to 
code standards, as well as the tables on which it is based, should be 
read, in connection with the fisrui i . Section 7 of the differences 
in the hourly earnings of opera! >r& ij' twoen tailoring and section shops. 
It is there pointed out that e-r:;- .gs in tailoring shops closely approxi- 
mate code "averages" while in section shops they generally do not much 
exceed minima. (*) 

In order to simplify the ilata, a summary of the material presented 
in Table H-lOa is given in Tabic B-X for the crafts represented by the 
largest number or workers. Tne eleven crafts here shown account for the 
great bulk of the workers in the industry. 

In general, it appears that- b t v fai the highest percentages of workers 
having earnings above the mirima are those in New York, although the pro- 
portions of the Western area workers outside of Baltimore exceeding the 
minima range so high as to make that region a close' second. In the 
Eastern area, outside of New York City, the percentages of the workers 
earning above the minima are somewhat lower, although even here the per- 
centages were above 8(y% for eight of the eleven crafts. Earnings in the 
Baltimore market are low by comparison not only with the New York market, 
but also alongside the Eastern and Western area groups of markets. It 
shows appreciably lower proportions of its workers rep.ch?ng or exceeding 
code standards than do most if not all, of the other markets. Even in 
Baltimore, however, it appears from the figures of Table 3X that six of 
the crafts had from 70 to 100 so of their workers earning above their minima. 
The figures in the lower part of the table showing percentages of the 
workers whose earnings were at or above the "average" reveal less clearly 
marked alignments between market areas, except that in general, larger 
proportions of New York workers have jiusned their earnings up to or 
beyond the code "averages" .nan have the workers in the other areas. (**) 

Although these figiu js convey highly significant facts about code 
enforcement, the Commission is not concerned with that problem except 
insofar as it impinges upon the other important problems of regional 
differentials and of the competitive irregularities precipitated by the 
system of differentials. The question of code enforcement, as such is 
outside of the scope of the Commission! s instructions. But the three 
problems of (l) the relation of actual earnings to code standards, (2) 
the system of differentials and (3) the resultant competitive irregulari- 
ties are so intimately interrelated that the first cannot escape consider- 

(*) A tabular comparison of code minimum, and "average" hourly rates, 

by craft and market area, with the Eastern and Western differentials, 
is presented on page 64. 

(**) The figures given in appendix Table K-12a convey some idea of the 
magnitude of ih.3 margins oy which average earnings in the several 
regional and craft classifications fell below the minima or ran 
above the "averages". 

9821 



-62- 





N H 




w o 




rt n 




O Ph 1 




Fh PH 




H 




to rt 




O o 




|2i CO • 




h H (rt 




>3 pr{ .jj 




s ^ li 








H y -4 




W Eh CH 




to r-i 
o o J 

W H m 

-0H 








00 PI 




W O ,-h 




n M m 




>H w 




o , P 


X 


^ p < ^ 


Fh 


ft, o -4 




m n to 


r ^ 


e> '3 Ph 


n 
--4 


n -4 m 


EH 


P Or 




EHflfi 




o M 




■a! -Eh 




hJO 




5 wh 






< H F3 
r-H CO 




Fh c^M 




o m 




I^H 




M y " 




e> ph to 

< -A Q 
eh ;q pq 




13 <H 




80P 




Ph Q < 




H ,=! EH 




(-L, Fh CO 



CM 

to ' 

CTi 



■a" R . fn 

• rH O 

d 'J r: 

P £ . H 

CD r- ! -P 
-P O H 

W i*! 6j 

CO TH n 



n 



CD 

in 



fcjj 
d r 



p p 

CD H 

-P O 

w ! , 

co n 



u 

c 

>- , 

CD -Hi , 



■d 


rf 




CD 


•H 




•P 


c. 




<— • 


cu 




■H 


r o 


0? 


-P 


j.i 




to 


rl 




Ph 


i& 


; j 



I 

v;l 
•H 



CD 
rd 

o 
o 

CD 
> 
O 

O 



to 

CD 

o 
o 



N 



CD 



CD 
"J 

m 

o 

m 



V£> ro CT, O tO O l-O C^J- I — LT\ 
to CTiVjO CT\ to O 0"'> to CTiO^O^i 



O LT\0 O **0 O G \ ro O 0J 

vjd ovt lt> r— lpvco 1-— o <-0 



r— 



cvi ^:j- U5 ro ro cv o io*jd r-i r— 
to cam r- ■- r— lo c^ crvo"\vo to 



lovo i — r-i ro vo r ■: ru r— ,-;- r— 

Ci"\ O^i I — CTi cy-i ffi.010"\Gi to CT\ 



ro ro d- i — mn H vx> o^ i r> oj 
to j- o c^J tq v J- co ro o cri 

C^iVD r^-tO-"* l^\ i-l O . I— ,-H LTi 



oj to j- At" to 



^0- H 



CM 















0) 








CD 














H 








r-1 












CD 


Ri 








r O 












r— 1 


*-"! 








c„ 












Cu 


CD 








• H 














! H 








t(H 
•H 












n 


n 








to 












CO 


r/1 








V' 






CD 




CD 


; i 


Jh 






CD 


CIS 






r-i 




r~! 


J> 


D 






s 


H 




CD 


Cj 


« 


S) 




'" 


f4 


rH 


• -H 


O 




rH 




r-l 


. 


■ 


, i 


u 


CD 




I 




i 


CD' 


- 


Q' 


'. 


D 


r ' 


Pi 


J 


Pi 






r i 




,-l 


i 


W 


r 




l:^ 


o 

f 




•» 


V\ 


» 


- 


~~ 


-- 












t/1 


m 


00 


65 


• ■> 


S! 


" 


-. 


M 






r i 


?H 


'•, 


r : 


' ; 


;h 


CO 


u 


jQ 


to 


tfl 


c 


o 


; 


3) 


0. 


» 


.'n 


1 


U 


rH 


In 


•p 


•i- 1 


,--• 


zi 


i ; 


^ 


CD 


CD 


'; 


CD 


CD 


Cu 


i 


,•/. 


to 


1/3 


V 


n 


C/0 


f* 


to 


-P 


in 


fn 


■H 


■r : 


■i 1 


-1 


* . 


ro 


jl 


ca 


4 3 


CD 


0) 


.-' 


' 


I ; 


<-\ 


CD 


CJ 


<D 


o 


^ 


Pi 


i "i 


■H 


■H 


•'rl 


•H 


Ih 


T-i 


u 


h 


o 


6 Fh 


r i 


r--i 


: h 


Pi 


m 


I'h 


Ph 



CD 

rH 

C) ' 



fH 
O 



(.1 

CD 
O 

^^ 
o 



CD 

I "* 
CJ' 



CD 
O 



CD 
IH 



O 
-P 



o 

r-H LPi LfV-t VDU) O O H CTl CD 

h/'hhwlti r^v lo -cj- iv>, r_, 

rH 
O 

O 

d 



CO 

rH 
CD 

o 



LT-* H (M H HJJ- r^H; 



& » 
S to 

<D fn 
O 

<(H -P 

O Cj 

rH 

>> 0) 

- y p- 1 

£ O 
CD 

iH. rd 

VOHNriJVDr-OKsnj fl 
r^i HrHH r-HLOvCMvncDM 

H^ Ti 
CD 
CD H 
rd <H 
-P I 
H 
SH H 

° c5 

HH 
CD 
CO CO 



K^VQ tO r^\ CT\ tO Al" 

lp, ih^ ro t^v 00 ^O 



d" H ro rj 
i — ud r— s 



o to 



w ft 

•H O 

rd 

0) 

■^ d 

Ctf Cfl 

rd 6 

i~ CO 
5) «H 

£ _i 

O "O 

CO CD 

H 

(1) H 

-C-H 

rd W 























pi -H 












CD 










o E 












H 








CD 


rd CU 












Cj 








H 


CO to 










CD 










,'-2 












rH 


CD 








to 


>> u 










rf 


Ph 








■H 


H -H 




















•rl 


jO CD 

Cfl rC 










CO 


to 








D5 


rO -P 




CD 




CD 


u 


fn 






CD 


CO 


o 




rH 




H 


w 


CD 






d 


cd 


fn <H 


CD 


t 


CD 


ci 


Pi 


P^ 


rH 


fn 


■H 


H 


Ph O 


rH 




r-H 


<~l 


H 


H 


CD 


CD 


cj 


O 




«3 


& 


Cj 


CD 


CD 


CD 


'd 


Pi 


o 


1 


CD >s 




; T ! 




T'H 


U'\ 


! -! 


!i 


P4 


fij 


d 


rH fi 












„ 


P 


a 


o 

d 


& 


C.-3 


CO 


iji 


ti 


to 


to 


n 


- 


r. 




•H 


f-l 




, l 


. r H 


fn 


■M 


co 


to 


to 


CO 


<M >5 


O 


o 


CD 


a) 


CD 


CD 


U 


fn 


rH 


p 


<H 


+■> 


• J 




rH 


r-J 


r^ 


CD 


CD 


CD 


<!/ 


(0 'H 


cd 


t , 


'to 


'to 


to 


"to 


to 


W 


CD 


to 


•rH tfl 


rH 


rn 


■ H 


•H 


•H 


•H 


CO 


to 


to 


Cfl 


rd 2 


CD 


0) 


rH 


d 


d 


d 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


EH tfl 


p.. 


Q, 


•H 


•H 


•H 


•H 


rH 


rH 


u 


P 


H 


o 


6 


ft 


Ih 


Fr 


F"H 


Ph 


Ph 


FM 


Ph 


* 



-63- 

ation here if the other two are to have realistic consideration. 

How this inter-relationship between the competitive cost situation 
among individual firms in different markets and the system of differentials 
affects the issues with which this Commission is concerned is well exem- 
plified by figures in Table H-lOa. They show that 23-i of the female 
operators in New York City received in the peak week of the last season 
earnings in amounts lower than their code minimum, v/hile only an in- 
appreciable number of workers in other crafts dropped below their re- 
spective minima. At the New York hearings before the Commission it was 
strongly contended — and the Commission believes tne contention to be 
fully justified — that this situation was largely, if not wholly, the 
result of the competition of sectionalized Western-area plants (including 
Baltimore) employing mostly semi-skilled female operators at a much lower 
rate than the Eastern area rate for female operators. Since this situa- 
tion is largely the result of a system of differentials which is suscept- 
ible of improvement, it may be expected that, once the differentials are 
rectified, the industry will be able still furtner to improve its already 
enviable record of code enforcement. 

The wage statistics summarized in this discussion are the best 
indication that the various interested parties will wish to iron out 
the inequalities that produce such conditions. In this sensitive 
industry, so complex, so beset with vexing problems, so dependent on 
the vagaries of trade and on the shifting whims of the consumer, a Code 
of Fair Competition has been so well enforced that only a negligible 
percentage of its workers have failed to earn the code minima, and a 
very high percentage have earned above the code "average". 

Openings for competitive inequalities in the code may in a large 
measure be accounted for by the haste with which it was drawn up. But, 
with such a proud achievement in industrial self-government already to 
its credit, the Commission is confident that all elements in the coat 
and suit industry will cooperate to make the code an even more effective 
instrument for fair competition by closing up these openings, and for 
industrial recovery by maintaining the code wage levels. 



9821 



-64- 



TABLE BS 

COMPABISON OF CODE MINIMUM AND AVERAGE HOURLY RATES BY MARKET AREAS'* 

<J — Jacket; V — Coat ; R— Reefer; D— Dress; M— Male ; F— Female) 















Eastern 






Western 














(10^ 


) 






Percent 














Differen 


tial 






Differen 


tial 














over 








over 






No. 






New York 


New Yo 


rk) 


Weste. 


rn 


New Y01 


rk 




of 






M 


F 


M 


F 


M 


F 


M 


F 


Employes 


Craft 




















M 


14 


Apprentice Cutters 
6 Mos. 


Min. 










.63 




•• 




M 


2983 


Coat and Suit Cutters* 


Min. 


1.34 




1.20 




1.17 




13 




M 


40 


Semi-sKilled Cutters 


Min. 










1.11 








M 


13 


Cloth and Lining 
Pilers 


Min. 










.94 








M 


13 


Pilers 


Min. 










.80 








M 


13 


Canvas Cutters 
Samplemakerst 


Min 
Min. 


1.14 




1.03 




.74 
1.14 












Examinerst 


Min. 


1.03 




.93 




.93 




io 








Draperst 


Min. 


.83 




.75 
















Begraders on skirtst 


Min. 


.91 




.82 




, . 












Bushelment 


Min. 


1.03 




93 












M 


18643 


Oprs. (JCRD) 


Min. 


1.00 


.90 


.90 


.81 


.85 


.75 


15 


17 


F 


4704 




Av. 


1.50 


1.50 


135 


1.36 


1.29 


.95 


)« 


S7 


F 


629 


Oprs.. semi-skilled (1) 


Min. 




(.90) 




.81 




.62 




31 






(JCR&D) 


Av. 




(1.60) 




1.35 




.88 




41 


M 


136 


Oprs. (Skirt) 


Min. 


.90 


.80 


.81 


.72 


.75 


.70 


16 


17 


F 


179 


Piece Tailors (2) 


Av. 
Min. 
tAv. 


1.40 

.90 

1.30 


1.40 


1.26 

.81 

1.17 


1.26 


1.15 


.90 


18 


36 


M 


4827 


Finishers (RJ&C) 


Min. 


.85 


.85 


.77 


.77 


.75 


.63 


12 


26 


F 


8489 




Av. 


1.25 


1.25 


1.13 


1.13 


1.10 


.84 


19 


33 


M 


363 


Finishers Hips. (3) 


Min. 


.63 


.63 


.57 


.57 




.53 


16 


16 


F. 


4141 




Av. 


1.00 


1.00 


.90 


.90 




.70 


30 


30 


F 


181 


Button Sewers (4) 


Min. 


(.63) 


(.63) 


f.57) 


(.57) 




.53 


15 


15 








Av. 


(1.0C* 


(1.00) 


(.90) 


(.90) 




.70 


30 


30 


M 


1729 


Upper Pr. (JCR&D) 


Min. 
Av. 


1.00 
1.35 




.90 
1.22 




.15 

1.26 




15 
7 




M 


1986 


Under Pr. (JCR&D) 


Min. 
Av. 


.90 
1.25 




.81 
1.13 




.77 
1.15 




14 

8 




M 


36 


Upper Pr. (Skirt) (5) 


Min. 


.90 




81 




(.77) 




5 








. 


Av. 


1.25 




1.13 




(1.15) 




8 




F 


17 


Lining Ironers (6) 


Min. 
Av. 


(.90) 
(125) 




(.81) 
(113) 






.60 
.82 


33 
34 


., 






Under Pr. ( Skirt) t 


Min. 
Av. 


.85 
1.25 




.77 
1.13 




.77 
1.15 




8 
8 








(Basters (Skirt) (7) 


Min. 


.60 




.54 






(.53) 


10 


10 


M 


57 


( 


Av. 


.80 




.72 






( 70> 


12 


12 






(Finishers (Skirt) (8) 


Min. 


.60 




.54 






(.531 


10 








( 


Av. 


.70 




.63 






71 






M 


1105 


Machine Pr. (9) 


Min. 
Av. 


1.30 
1.80 




1.17 

1.62 




85 








M 


116 


Part Pressers 












3 




£1 








(JCR&D) (10) 


Min. 
Av. 


(.90) 
(125) 




(.81) 
i\ 131 








B • 




M 


44 


■ Apprentices (11) 




















F 


240 














» 


.- 







53.290 

t No special study was made of this cratt classification because of the small number of workers in it. 

• Such classifications as cutters, semi-skilled, canvas cutters, etc., are not provided for the Eastern area. Their 
work Is generally done by full fledged cutters. 

•• Some ciaft classifications are provided for the Eastern area only. Others a;e provided for the Western area 
only. The Commission has made inquiry to ascertain the cra'ts which perform the w ork of the non-classified 
crafts in the Eastern and Western areas, and the wage rates of the classified crifts appear in this ta'oie in par- 
entheses. 

(1) Operators, Semi-Skilled, Female, are not classified for the Eastern area. Their work is performed bv Oper- 
ators, Female, in the' East. 

(2) Piece Tailors are not classified for the Western area. 

(3) Finishers, Helpers, Male, are n ot classified for the Western area. 

(4) Button Sewers are not classified for the Eastern area. Their work is performed by Finishers Helpers in the 
East. 

(5) Upper Pressers (Skirt) are not classified for the Western area. Their work is performed by Under Presi- 
ers in the West. 

(6) Lining Loners are not classified for the Eastern area. Their work is performed bv Under Pressers In the 
East. 

(7) Basters (Skirt) are not classified for the Western area. Their work is performed by Finishers Helpers in the 
West. 

(8) Finishers (Skirt) are not classified for the Western area. Their work Is performed by Finishers Helpers. 

(9) Machine Pressers are not classified for the Western area. Their work is performed by Upper Pressers in 
the West. 

(10) Part Press-.is are not classified for the Eastern area. Their work is performed by Under Pressers in the 
East. v y 

(11) Apprentices are not classified for the Eastern area. Because of the variation in the rates for The several 
crafts into which an apprentice may graduate at the end of the apprenticeship period, no attempt is here made 
to estimate the differential. 



9821 






-65- 

Si52L DK I 

U!!ICh T DHQ&iTIZAlinH AED IAP03 AG3E33 IMTS 



It is well known that si] e tl ■ feiia '. ent c.f the Fational Indus- 
trial 3e covers Act., the La occurred in in. ' i ' ■' S atesj a tremen- 
dous growth in track) unci or^enisn I ie c ; j r : l: t ' : us'fcry 
has shared in this increase, Fracti calls'" all of i - Lmportar."! markets 
have shared in this increase of organisation stri ' though the 
gains have naturally varied seme-, hat from market to u ,r! ec The Inter- 
national Ladies' Carment Workers : Union is the domirant organization 
having jurisdiction over the workers in the industry, In New York City, 
which is by all odds, ' \ >st important market, this Unioa has now or- 
ganized 89,-> cf the manufacturing units. In up-state Hew York and in 
the States cf Cornecti :ut end her Jersey, all three of which are tribu- 
tary to the metropolitan hew Torch m, ' a ?8$ of the shops are union, 
While e:;act figures indicating the r ortions of the workers in the 
industry in these two jurisdictions who are organized pre not available 
to the Commission, there is little doubt that the percentages run some- 
what higher than the percentages already givan for manufacturing units. 
In Thole 3 2 percentages are pre rented.- shoring the extent to which the 
several markets are organized, for ell of the markets except 'Jew York 
and her York suburbs the percentages show distribution of classifiable 
employees (including indirect labor") according as they are emwloyed in 
union or ncn— union shops, respectively. 

In general, it wixl be noted that the out-of-town markets are not 
as well organized as the Hew York City area? although many of thera are 
as well anc 1 seme of them even more completely organized than are the 
Her York suburban areas c The most completely organized markets among 
those out of torn, appear to be the three rost important Pacific Coast 
markets in los Angeles, San Ik a.ucisco., and Portland, -here the percent- 
ages of workers organized are 85 9 96 and 97 respectively, and the Chicago 
market, '-here the industry is 8-hk organized, The Chicago suburbs, like 
those adjacent to hew York, arc very much less completely unionized than 
is the central city arc?,., the proportion ri the industry organized there 
being nbouo \Cfc a In Baltimore, Eansas City and Cleveland, the workers 
in the industry are respectively 35, 40 and 69^ union-, In Boston 72/j 
of the workers ari organized in the Boston suburbs 21h of then running 
true to the suburban non-union tendency; and in Philadelphia 69Jj of 

the ^o rhe r s are o rgan i z ed 3 1 

-. 

In most of the markets, the International Ladies' Garment Workers' 
union apparently faces no compebition from rival labor organizations* 
Almost the only exception is "the Kansas City market, four of whose shops 
are organized in the International; and the remaining th^ee in a local 
organization, a comany union 9 known as the Ladies' Garment Crafts As- 
sociation, The only ether market where any labor organization other 
than the International "as represented by a spokesman at the hearings 
was Boston wh<; re a. representative of the ITeedl'e Trade Workers' Indus- 
trial Union (Communist/ appeared and made a statement to the Commission, 

1, In terms of shops organized, the jercentages of organization 
naturally a.re somewhat different. 



9821 



-65- 

T^BLS 3 2 
A TED PE1CENTAG-: 5 IS CLASSIFIABLE E PLOYEES 



Market Area 


In Tailor 


In rtcek" 


In Inside 


In Union 


\Tho are 




Shoos 


Wt r'--_ Shoves 


44 


Shoos 


men 


United States 






1/ 
65 


New York 


2/ 

93 


5/ 

21 


U 

42 


1/ 
89 


4/ 

70 


New York suburbs 


3/ 

10 


5/ 
40 


U 
15 


1/ 

78 


4/ 

34 


Boston 


100 


82 


57 


72 


69 


Boston suburbs 


100 


80 


91 


21 


48 


Philadelphia 


100 


21 


82 


69 


62 


Eastern Area 












Excl. N,Y. City- 


~ 


- 


- 


- 


45 


Baltimore 


65 


27 


51 


35 


38 


Cleveland 


52 


30 


54 


69 


43 


Chicago 


84 


29 


69 


84 


71 


Ch i cago suburb s 


30 


76 


56 


10 


35 


St. Louis 


36 


53 


130 


68 


46 


Kansas City- 


7 


16 


100 


40 


19 


Los Angeles 


100 


49 


99.6 


85 


57 


San Francisco 


ICO 


94 


100 


96 


46 


Portland 


ICO 


91 


100 


97 


37 


Seattle 


79 


86 


— • 


- 


27 


Western Area 


- 


- 


- 


- 


46 



1_/ Percentage of shops based on an analysis of 1987 shoos, i.e. practically 

all of the shops in the New York market area. 
2/ Calculated from Table H 16. (percentage of shops). 
3/ Percentage of shops (Table H 20). 
4/ Estimated from Table H 1*. 
5/ Percentage of shops. Based on distribution of tailor shops only; section 

shops not classified as to method of wage payment (Table H 20), 



9821 



-67- 

The terms of reference imposed upon the Commission have specifici- 
ally laid upon it the duty of inquiring into the facts with regard to 
labor agreements in ths different markets. In conformity with this 
phase of its instructions* the Commission has secured from one or anoth- 
er of the' parties copies of ail of the agreements now in force in the 
several market Sc 

Written collective agreements are in effect in the majority of 
the markets. In four of the markets each agreements are not now in 
force., ilo agreement appears new to he in force in "Baltimore although 
in the past, collective agreements have "been in effeeb there from time 
tc time. Another important exception- is the Chicago market, where 
collective bargaining has bulked large in the labor history of the mar- 
ket, but where at 'present no written agreements seem now to be in 
force. It appeals, nevertheless, that collective bargaining is not 
absent from the Chicago market, fare local union officials explaining 
that the agreements are merely verbal. It is also reported that the 
last written- agreement, dated December 30j 1930* which runs between 
the local union and individual firms instead of with employers' asso- 
ciations, is typical, and according to local union officials, contin- 
ues even now to have general application in the market. 

Somewhat the same situation prevails in Cleveland, Ohio. In that 
market it appears, according to testimony offered at the hearings, that 
the impression prevail 1 ; in some circles in the Cleveland .market that 
th« market is to some extent at least still governed by the terms of 
the continuing agreemenb set up in December, 1321, under a Board of 
Referees, and revised in 192'-' and 1925s At ■ any rate, oral collective 
bargaining prevails in the Cleveland, market, with the "aonfcinuing agree- 
ment" as the only written instrument. 

The fourth market of the twelve in which the Commission held hear*, 
ings, where no written agreements are in effect, is that of St. Louis, 
where the local union officials reported that all agreements were oral. 
Inasmuch as the figures already given regarding the proportions of the 
shops organized in the various markets indicate that Baltimore is 35$ 
organized, Cleveland 69$, Chicago 8k- t o and St Louis 68$, there seems 
good reason to believe that the absence of written agreements does not 
necessarily indicate the absence of collective bargaining with indivi- 
dual firms, without formulation of the terms thereof in formal written 
contracts* 

Among the eight markets in which there are either individual firm 
or market agreements with the Union, Hew York naturally occupies first 
place and boasts the most elaborate pattern of contractual agreements. 
Hew York agreements are collective bargains in the complete sense of the 
word, tha.t is to say, they are agreements between associations 'on both 
sides and n^t typically contracts to which the employers are parties as 
individual firms. The New York agreements may be divided into two groups: 
First, the agreements to which the Union is a direct party. They are the 
agreement between the Merchants- Ladies' Garment Association and the Union; 
between the Industrial Council of the Coat, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers 
Association and the Union, and between the Aierican Association of Cloak 
& Suit manufacturers and the Union. The second group of collective agree- 
ments between the Merchants' Ladies' Garment Association and the American 

SS21 



-68- 



Association of Cloak & Su.it Manufacturers and "between the Industrial 
Council of the Coat, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers Association and the 
American Association. 

In Los Angeles, a market agreement is in force between the union 
and the Los Angeles Association of Coat and Suit Manufacturers. In San 
Francisco, a similar market agreement is in force. In Portland, there is 
not only a market agreement between the union and the Association of 
Cloak and Suit Manufacturers but also some agreements between the union 
and individual firms. In Boston, there is a market agreement between the 
Union and the 3oston Cloak Manufacturers Association. 

For the Philadelphia market, the Commission was supplied with two 
printed blank forms of agreement, one for contracts with the Manufacturers 
A ssociation and the other for agreements with the jobbers. The local 
union officials represented to the Commission that these agreements, app- 
arently signed with individual firms, are still in effect. In addition, 
there appears to be a special agreement in force in Philadelphia, between 
the Union and Adelraan and Sons. In Seattle, there is a market agreement 
between the Union and the Association of Coat and Suit Manufacturers. 

Finally, in Kansas City, there is first a series of four individual 
firm agreements between the International and as many individual employ- 
ers, and second, a series of three market agreements between the Ladies' 
Garment Crafts Association and each of three firms which have recognised 
it. 

The trade union agreements now in force in the industry are of four 
general types: (l) oral agreements, chiefly as to wage scales, (Baltimore, 
Cleveland, Chicago and St. Louis); (2) written agreements of the convention- 
al sort between the Union and individual finis or between the Union and the 
employers association, containing provisions covering union recognition. 
overtime, wages and hours, etc. (Boston, Kansas City and Philadelphia) , 
(3) written agreements of the conventional sort, but which, additionally, 
incorporate, either explicitly or by reference, the minimum and "average" 
scales of the Code, (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle); 
and (h) vrritten agreements of the traditional sort which incorporate the 
scales of minima and "averages" of the Code with the addition of a proviso 
permitting any employer party to the contract, "with the consent of the ■ 
workers and of the Union" to substitute for the Code "averages" a scale 
of weekly minimum rates running about $2.00 'below the Code "averages" 
(New York)^' 






1. The Boston agreement carries a scale of week-work minima for pressers, 
operators, finishers, etc. which is higher for all of the crafts- than 
the Code "averages" for the Eastern area, 

2. This arrangement appears in the same form in each of the Union* s agree- 
ments with the three employers' associations in New York (see P. 9 of the 
printed agreement between the Union and the Merchants Association). 

At the Commission's hearings in New York, the representatives both of 
the Union and the manufacturers stated that practically all of the 
workers in New York week- work shops actually earned considerably more 
than the agreement minima and therefore appreciably more than the Code 
"averages" . 
9S21 



-69- 

SSCTION VI. 

VOLUME OF SALES BEFORE AND SINCE ADOPTION OF CODE 

The data presented in this report not only indicate the relative 
advantages in respect of labor and overhead costs in different markets, 
but also will disclose the fact that there is a great deal of variation 
between firms located in the same market. It is next to impossible to 
reduce to a sim-ole formula or positive statement the net result of the 
relative advantages and disadvantages of differences in labor costs, 
shop overhead, selling costs, labor efficiency, efficiency of manage- 
ment, etc. There is one figure, however, in which all of these factors 
find their ultimate reflection and which in the long run, gives a con- 
clusive answer to the question of the relative competitive advantages 
of the different markets. The figure is the volume of sales, for what- 
ever advantage or disadvantage a market has, will find its expression 
in the competitive price and resulting volume of sales in that market. 
Insofar as the Code affects the markets unevenly through wage differen- 
tials, its influence upon the markets should be reflected in the statis- 
tics of sales. 

Owing to limitation of time, it has not been feasible to utilize 
the Commission' s accountants to assemble the figures for the number of 
garments sold in each market. 

The Commission was, therefore, obliged to resort to a short-cut by 
sending out a questionnaire to all the manufacturers and jobbers in the 
coat and suit industry in the United States asking for the dollar vol- 
ume of sales in the first 6 months of 1933 and for corresponding months 
in 1934. It has not been possible to check these figures on the books 
of the concerns, but there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the 
figures reported. 

The representative character of the returns on sales volume is in- 
dicated by the figures of Table K-2. 

Out of a total of 1328 firms in the United States to which the 
Questionnaire was sent, 908 or 68^ replied. In presenting this report 
of increases and decreases of sales in the several markets, only com- 
parable figures for the two periods have been used. This means that 
only firms which were in business both in the Snring of 1933 and 1934 
have been included in the tabulation of sales given in the first two 
columns of Table K-l. If a firm was in business only during a part of 
the Spring season of 1933, its total spring 1934 figures were not used, 
and only the figures for the months of 1934 corresponding to those 
which it reported for 1933 were taken. The figures net included in the 
two year comparison are given in the last two columns of the table un- 
der the heading "non-comparable figures." 

While the data presented in Table K-l are incomplete, the compa- 
rable figures for the United States as a whole are based on more than 
49*0 or almost one-half of all the concerns in the industry. This is a 
reliable sample of the country's business, since it includes large, 
medium and small concerns and represents a large section of each market. 
Thus, the percentage of firms furnishing comparable figures is 100$ in 



9821 



-70- 



•a o 



at 

to a) 

3 

g9 




r-l ...i, 
<J> -C 



lO 




1-4 


to 


CD 


t- 


o 


o» 


O 


to 


to 


R 


m 


A 


CMl 




o w 


-1 U3 




CO 


■>* 


CM 


(O 


00 




t» 




to 


CO 


Ol 


a> n 


O CM 


3. <o 


O OD 


■Si 


CO 


CD 


CO 


to 




t- 




CD 


* 


CO 


«H 


<-< 


o>0 


CD O 


CO o 


C7> 


■V 




rH 


r-l 


■<* 


r-l 


r> 


,_i 


CO 




o 


C- 


BO 


(Dl 






7- CM 






CO 


CO 


o> 








CO 




m 


lO 










S ^f 


iO 


■* 


O 




CO 


0) 


in 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


■* 


r4 


■^1 


Ol CM 


U3 iH 


» 




N 

to 


r-l 


r-l 




<-l 






~ 


- 








M<fl 
CO| 




CM 





CM 


m 


t> 


to 


m 


CM 


to 


CO 


CI 


* 


BO 


to 


in 


.-< 


«H 


eo cm 


CO CD 




ID 








f* 








t> 


1-4 


CO 




CO 










] 


C- 


r-t 


to 


r- 


CM 


CO 


r-l 


-t 


LO 




o> 


r-l 


CO 


•-( 


en 


to en 


■* IO 




to 




IO 


i-t 


O 


CO 


CO 


<# 


CM 


r-l 


CM 


CO 




-f 


O) 








e- 


.-< 


CO 




CO 


CM 


f-l 


CM 


CD 


o> 




*}* 


CO 


o 






in to 


> 


w 


r- 


CD 












CO 




CO 






CM 


i-H 




to CM 




















































CM 






to 










t- 













CO 
























t- 


a 





91 







o 














fl 


<n 








| 






1-1 


« 


o 




n 


- 




s 


B 


a 


o 

a 








.1 




a 


o 


•rl 




o 






d 










o 






<-) 








■<h 






»« ^ 


■P tn 










■? 








■r-t 


a 


O 




^t 














O 




o o 




hOX 


U>-H 




01 





01 u 
















•H CO 


X 


A 




J3 -H 


& 


o 




B a 



9821 



-71- 

TAILE K-2 

SCHEDULE SHOWING HUKB'SR OP SALES I1IQUIRIES AND BEPLISS RECEIVED 
FOR THE ^,FRIr T l SEASON OJ 1933 end 1934, 





Total 


I ami 


Co c Lira 


' 


■■ ived 






Nor-Comoarable No Figures 




No, of 
InavJ ries 


Total 


Rerl: e 


00 

s 




Periods Submitted 
.i 9 -A 1933 


N.Y.C. 


915 


610 


444 




49 


' 122 2 42 


N.Y. State 


7 . . 


4 


1 




14 


2 1 


New Jersey 


8 


4 


2 




•25 


■2 


Connecticut 


A 


A 


A 




100 




Total Metropolitan 














Area 


934 


622 


451 




48 


126 3 42 


Boston 


68 


55 


33 




55 


.14 8 


Philadelphia 


36 


25 


20 




56 


4 1 


Baltimore 


21 


17 


12 




57 


2 3 


Cleveland 


25 


20 


13 




52 


4 3 


St. Louis 


12 


9 


9 




75 




Kansas City 


7 


7 


7 




100 


■ 


* Chicago 


91 


59 


36 




40 


17 6 


Los Angeles 


.79 


51 


39 




49 


7 5 


San Francisco 


39 


29 


21 




54 


7 1 


Portland 


10 


8 


6 




60 


2 


Seattle 


6 


6 


5 




83 


1 


TOTAL 


1328 


908 


652 


, 


49 


183 ' '3 70 



# of Replies 68 49 14 5 

♦Chicago - City 77 50 30 39 15 5 

" District - Outside 14 _9 _6 43 _2 1 

TOTAL of Chicago 91 59 36 82 17 6 



9821 



-72- 

Connecticut and Kansas City; 8.3$ in Seattle; 75$ in St. Louis; 60$ 
in Portland; 57$ in Baltimore; 56$ in Philadelphia; 55$ in Boston; 
54$ in San Francisco; 52$ in Cleveland; 49$ in Los Angeles; 49$ in 
New York; and 4G$ in Chicago. 

As will be seen from the -figures in Table K-l the country as 
a whole shows an increase in sales volume nearly 20$, viz 19.78$. 

New York City sho r 's a somewhat smaller increase in dollar 
Volume, namely, 19.45$, and has almost though not quite, held its 
relative position in the country, its -pro-oortion of the total having 
dronped a mere fraction of one percent i.e., from 80.02 $ in 1933 to 
79.8$ in 1934. 

The least favorable showing is made by the State of New Jersey 
which suffered a loss in dollar volume of l2 L -$. However, this loss 
involves chiefly one concern. Next to New Jersey, the least favorable 
showing is made by Los Angeles which shows a falling off in dollar 
volume of business of one-fifth of one percent. 

The most successful showing by any single market was made by 
Baltimore which enjoyed an increase in dollar sales volume of al- 
most 77$. Sales increased in that market from $694,337 in Spring 
1933 to $1,223,822 in Spring 1934. In this connection it should be 
stated that four among its largest firms failed to furnish their 
sales figures. 

The next most favorable showing is made by Connecticut with 
an increase in sales of 39.78$ and Kansas City with an increase of 
35$. The increase in Kansas City was less than one-half of that in 
Baltimore. 

The following markets, in addition to those just mentioned, 
show a percentage increase in excess of the country as a whole: 
Chicago, 33.66$; Cleveland, 25.17$; Portland, 23.5$. It is inter- 
esting to note that the cities which were most insistent on in- 
creased differentials in their favor, both at the hearings prior to 
the appointment of this Commission as well as at the Commission's 
hearings, show larger increases in sales than the country as a 
whole. Among these are : the outlying district of Chicago, includ- 
ing St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minn., Aurora and Batavia, Illinois, 
with an increase of 56$; Connecticut, nearly 40$; Kansas City, 35$; 
Portland, 23.5$. Among the other outstanding complainants, Seattle 
shows an increase of only 8.48$, while Scranton suffered a loss of 
over 14$. 



9821 



-73- 

SEQTICIjT VII . . ■ 
SOW -AST 0? COMPIAIITTS AMD DEMAMDS, 
WITH : ITSSION'S FINDINGS 



The resolution creating +he Fact-Finding Cciimission provided 
among other matters that "the Gooiission shall study all petitions 
and demands filed since the adoption of tile Coat and. Suit Code by 
particular localities and markets relative to wages and labor class- 
ifications". 

In pursuance of this mandate, the Commission held hearings in 
thirteen of the largest centers of the Coat and Suit Industry and 
studied the complaints and demands of the various factors in the 
industry throughout the country,. 

These complaints and .demands are summarized herewith tohether 
with the Commission's findings and conclusions with reference to them. 

1 . Competition of Section Shops Against Tailoring Shops 

The tailoring shoos complain that they suffer from the com- 
petition of section shopg. The complaints against the section 
shop are based not on the form of its shop organization but on the 
fact that it employs largely demale labor at considerably lower 
wages than the workers in the tailoring shops. The point was made 
that while it is it rue that these lower-paid workers are less skilled in 
terms of their ability to make a complete garment, they are, never- 
theless, more skilled in terms of their ability to produce with great- 
er speed than the higher paid skilled workers who make the entire 
garment in the tailoring shop. Therefore, it was maintained that the 
section shop has a cost differential in its favor, of a purely 
economic nature and not arising from any provision in the Code. 

2. Competition' of Western Section Shops Against Eastern: 

The Eastern section shops, such as Ellis of Ne TO Britain, Conn. , 
Seitchick of Camden, N.J. , and Linder Bros., of Scranton, Pa., con- 
tend that the.-Vestern section shops offer them unfair competition 
because the Western section shops enjoy the benefit of the "semi- 
skilled" and "apprentices" cla.ssifications in the Code. These class- 
ifications do not apply to the Eastern area. The' contention of the 
Eastern*. shops, broadly speaking, is that a section .shop can be run 
with about the same degree of efficiency in one market as in another. 
They contend that the length of time required to turn an inexperienced 
OTker into a fast worker on simple operations is the same, regard- 
less of the territory in which the shop is located. 

Ellis, for example, stated that in his Hew Britain shop by far 
the overwhelming majority of the employees h^ve had no previous ex- 
perience in any of the needle trades but had been drawn from the 
hardware and metal factories in that town and that, nevertheless, 



9821 



-74- 



within a few months he was able' to turn out five thousand to six thous- 
and garments a week at the peak of the season. 

Some of the Eastern section shou manufacturers stated that they 
were perfectly willing to continue to nay the present Code wage rates 
for skilled operators to their section workers urovided that the 
Western section shops were reouired to 'oay similar wages. What they 
want is equality "brought about through the extension of the Western 
"semi-skilled" classifications to the East or through their abolition 
in the West. 

FIKDTTG 

The nuestions dealt with under Complaints 1 and 2 can be best 
discussed by grouping them together. The Commission finds, as a re- 
sult of its studies, that the section shon enjoys a favorable dif- 
ferential a.s against the tailoring shon, due largely to two important 
factors; (l) the natural techno logical advantage which the section shop 
has through its greater sub-division of labor, which enables a girl 
of little skill and experience in tailoring to acquire the skill of 
doing a simple operation, after a brief period of training and to 
perform it with equal or even greater speed than the old time all- 
around operator is capable of; (2) that these section onerators, most 
of them women, are enroloyed at lower wages with the result that the 
prevailing earnings in section shcos are close to minimum code rates, 
while the tailoring shops enroloy chiefly male operators who are paid 
clo.ce to the Code averages. 

The Commission finds that in addition to the formal differen- 
tial provided for in ' the Code, the Western section shops enjoy lower 
costs than Eastern section shops because of the special classification 
of "semi-skilled" workers provided for in the Code for the Western area 
but not for the Eastern area. The minimum rate for a "semi-skilled" 
operator in the Western area is 62rf per hour. A female operator of 
similar skill receives a minimum of 90^ per hour in Uew York and 81#> 
in the remaining Eastern area, making a differential of 23 - ZOfo. 
The Code thus gives the Western section shops manufacturing the 'lower 
grades of merchandise a competitive advantage over similar shops in 
the Eastern area. In the case of pressers, the differential due to 
differences in classification rises to 40 c o, 

In addition, the Western area is allowed the classification of 
apprentices who can be hired at 47rf an hour and kept at that rate for 
a neriod of six months, while the Eastern shops must pay at least min- 
imum rates of 90^ in !>Tew York and 81^. in the remaining Eastern area to 
female operators even if they are only beginners. This is equivalent 
to a differential of 42't to 48<o in favor of the West." 

It is true, however, that this applies only to not more than 5f& 
of the workers, and them only toward the latter part of ±ie period 
of their aonrenticeship after they have reached comparable speed or 
skill. 

When we compare the Western section shop with the Eastern tailor- 
9821 



ing shop, which is the predominant type in the East, the difference 
"becomes even greater. 



The .Relative Strength of the Section Shop 
aid Tailor .ng bh op > stenr- 



The Commission finds that the section system aid the tailoring 
system in the Ccat and Suit industry differ so greatly that each 
presents a distinct problem from a technological and aeon inist rat ive 
point of view. 

In the past, full-fledged tailors, "both in the men's and women's 
garment industries, came here from European countries,. The virtual 
cessation of immigration has crt off this supply of skilled tailors. 
In Europe the training of a tailor begins in his "boyhood when he is 
apprenticed to a master tailor for a period of from five to seven 
years. In this country, industrial and psychological frctors do not 
favor the training of fall- fledged tailors, "as experience in the 
training of such persons nas de-ions t" ated„ The genius of American 
industry, the impatience of the young American worker to make rapid 
progress has forced the breaking up of the tailor's craft into sev- 
eral special crafts such as cutters s pressors, hand-sewers, machine 
operators, etc. Such is the division of labor among different crafts 
in the tailoring shop. The section shop has carried the specializa- 
tion process still further and has sao-divided ea.cn of these crafts 
into sever-1 sub-c.ivisi ors or o-jeraco ons, each operation being simple 
enough to enable a young worker to learn it rapidiv in a few days or 
weeks and to attain in a fei nontns the necessary speed to enable 
him or ner to earn an adsouato wage according to prevailing standards. 

It should be added, however, that the section system can be 
operated most economically when a given s byle is produced in fairly 
large volume. Otherwise, it is extremely difficult to maintain a 
proper balance of production oet^een the several sections in the shop, 
which results in frecuer.t interruptions of work, causing in turn an 
increase in shop overhead per unit of output, and thereby, tending 
to offset the economies effected in direct labor cost. For these 
reasons, the growth of section shoos is necessaryily confined to pop- 
ular priced merchandise in which the Jest now largely specializes. 

These natural economic inpedienents in the way of the growth of 
section shops ma: r serve to explain why the section shop in the coat 
and suit industry has not grown to the extent it has in the men's 
clothing industry. Out of a total of 9,20C workers employed in the 
industry outside of the metropolitan area of ile" York, only 2,337 
workers, or 25fj of the total worked in section shops, while the re- 
maining three-fourths of the -orLers are employed in tailoring shops. 
In the metropolitan area of He" York (including i T ew Jersey and Conn- 
ecticut) of an approximate total of nearly 44,000 workers, 3,800 or 
less than 9$ are working in section shops, the remaining more than 
nine-tenths being employed in tailoring shops. The workers employed . 
in all the section shops of the entire country thus constitute but 
llf# of the . total. 

9821 



-76- 

It is necessary to bear this fundamental fact in mind in weighing 
the problems of the industry created oy the section shop and in con- 
sidering the remedies for any of the existing evils. 

3. Code Wage Rates for "Workers of Average Skill" : 

That clause in Article Fifth of the Code which provides that "in 
fixing niece-work rates on garments, the same shall be computed on 
a basis to yield to the worker of average skill of various crafts for 
each hour of continuous work" certain specified earnings, has been the 
source of much complaint. 

Complaints of non-enforcement of the clause came from the East 
against the West and from the West against the East. Chicago and 
some of the Western markets complain that they are no longer able to 
produce $6.75 and .similar merchandise on account of competition from 
Hew York because of the ability of New York jobbers to avail themselves 
of the services of contract shops in New Jersey, where it is claimed 
the code rates are not enforced. Some of these Western jobbers in- 
formed the Commission that they were able to procure their merchan- 
dise direct from New Jersey contractors, or from Ne'^ York jobbers who 
employed New Jersey contractors, for less money than they could get 
it manufactured at home. 

Cleveland had no complaint to offer against the clause other than 
the fact that other markets were not enforcing it with the same strict- 
ness as was done in Cleveland and thereby Cleveland manufacturers were 
placed at a great disadvantage. 

Those operating tailoring shops complained that the Code "aver- 
ages" are not being enforced in section shops. 

Other markets asked that the above auoted provision for workers 
of average skill be eliminated from the Code altogether, leaving min- 
imum rates only. 



FINDINQ- 

The Commission finds that the Code "averages" are being unevenly 
enforced in the various markets and that they .tend to be enforced chief- 
ly in tailoring shops and especially in tailoring shops located in 
communities where the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union is 
a strong factor. 

The Commission finds that one of the reasons for the difficulty 
in enforcing the Code "averages" in many section of the country is 
that the term "worker of average skill", as used in the Code, although 
sound in principle and in theory, is too vague and elastic to permit 
of exact and uniform application. The measure of output of a "worker 
of average skill" will vary not only from city to city, but from shop 
to shop in the same city, depending u^on the skill and speed of the 
workers, the efficiency of the shop management and last', but not least, 
upon the respective bargaining powers of the workers and employers. 

9821 



-77- 

The last mentioned factor probably largely accounts for the fact 
that the average earnings of operators in tailoring shops tend to he 
close to the Code average while in the section shops they tend to be 
close to the Code minimum. The proportion of workers earning Code 
averages in section shops is very irregular from city to city and even 
from shop to shoo in the sane o:ty„ 

Due to the vagueness of the teria ''workers of av rage skill", the 
enforcement officers in the several districts h;. ■'-, each used their own 
judgment in interpreting the druse. -There hnr bw6n no attempt so 
far by the Code Authority to lay down a uniform interpretation for the 
guidance of enforcement officers. 

This has resulted in unfair competition not only between market 
and market but between concerns in the same market. The conscien- 
tious manufacturer who tries to live up to the Code is out at a dis- 
advantage by his less conscientious competitor. A premium is thus 
set on code violations and those who observe it are paying a penalty 
in the form of higher wages than those who disregard it. 

The situation is tou unsound to continue, and should be remedied 
in such a manner as to create clarity and enable the Code Authority 
to formulate a uniform procedure for all the markets. 

4. Differentials : 

(a.) Shop Overhead 

Some of the Western markets asked for greater differen- 
tials than those now prevailing in their favor on the ground 
that their labor is much less skilled than the labor avail- 
able in New York and that they are put to an additional ex- 
pense in training apprentices and supervising the work of 
their semi-skilled workers, 

finding- 

With the exception of Kansas City, no proof based on the books of 
the concerns was submitted to the Commission. Nor does it appear from 
the Commission's own investigation that indirect labor costs in the West 
are higher than in the East when comparing shops manufacturing similar 
garments. As a rule, section shops have higher indirect labor costs 
than tailoring shops in the same price range although exceptions occur. 
Kansas City shows the highest indirect labor cost, mostly in its sec- 
tion shops; St. Louis is another high indirect labor ccst city al- 
though operating on the tailoring system, thus confirming the conten- 
tion of its representatives that it has high supervisory costs due 
to the necessity of training and employing inexperienced help. Balti- 
more shows the lowest indirect labor cost for section shops and is in 
the low cost group for its tailoring shops. 

Owing to the limitations of tine, it ^as impossible for the Com- 
mission to obtain comparable detailed indirect labor costs for New York 
inside shops. Its contract shops have a uniform allowance of 30 to 33$ 
here 

9821 



-78- 

of the direct later cost. 

(b) Selling Costs 

In practically all of the Western centers at which the 
Commission held hearings, it was maintained by the manufac- 
turers that they were at a decided disadvantage as against 
New York with respect to selling expenses. It was repeated 
in center after center that the local manufacturers were 
compelled to send salesmen on the road to obtain business 
whereas the New Y rk manufacturers were in the enviable 
post ion of having the customers come to them. It was claim- 
ed New York attracted buyers from all over the country and 
therefore did not have to employ salesmen. 

It was maintained in Kansas City and Saltimore that 
the selling expenses locally were 6.09^ and 6.07^o of sales, 
respectively. They believed that New York's cost was only 
a third of that. 

The Commission undertook a study of selling expense 
in each of the markets visited. Through its accountants 
in the various markets, detailed analyses of selling ex- 
penses were requested and were obtained by the accountants 
directly. Inasmuch as the accounting records and systems 
varied considerably from manufacturer to manufacturer, in 
the reports rendered selling expenses have not been item- 
ized under uniform classifications; nor have all the man- 
ufacturers included the same specific items in their figures. 
Some of the analyses presented are obviously incomplete. In 
many cases, officers' and executives' salaries were included 
as selling expenses although it is to be observed that these 
items frequently are more nearly in the nature of fixed over- 
head charges rather than items which vary with the volume of 
sales. 

FINDING 

Bearing in mind the above qualifications, the data presented to 
the Commission do not bear out the claim that New York selling costs 
are exceptionally low. It appears from the following summaries of 
the highest and lowest selling costs derived from the statistics ob- 
tained in each market that the variation of selling costs in each mar- 
ket is as grea.t, and often greater, than the difference between market 
and market and between New York and Western markets: 



9821 



-79- 

SELLIIG SXF3WSB 

(Percent of Ceiling Pr ice ) 

Lo wes t Highest 

Cleveland 7.8$ to 15$- 

CLicrgo (*) 2.3$ and 9.7$ 

St. Louis 4.2?fe to 14.4$ 

(For the firm having 



3.3$ to 


8.5$ 


2.2$ to 


6.2$ 


3.6$ to 


9.3$ 


5.6$ to 


6.3$ 


6,1$ to 


16.6$ 


4.6$ to 


7.5$ 


4.6$ to 


10. 3$ 


4.43 to 


5.6$ 



14, 4$. approxj rat ely 
5$ was for t reveling 
and entertaining. 
Total spring volume 
for this firm was 
$47,000.) 

Kansas City 

Los Angeles 

San Franc isoo 

Portland 

Seattle 

Boston 

Philadelphia 

Baltimore 

New York - A cost study was undert; ken of approximately 25 New York 

firms. Selling expense figures in detail were obtained for 
thirteen of these* In the $6.75 wholesale urice class, the 
selling' exoense ranged from 3$ to 5o75$ with four of the five 
firms cited between 5„5C^ and 5a 75$., In the $10,75 price 
classj the selling expense ranged from 3.47$ to 8 e 69$. 

In the $16-75 wholesale price class, the selling expenses 
(three firms whose figures were available) were 4^,10$ and 
10jr$, It is interesting . L ,o observe that the selling expense 
percentage "as highest for the firm with the smallest volume 
and lowest for the firm with the largest volume. 

Another group of selling expenses was submitted by one of the 
New York manufacturing associations. It included tem firms 
and showed selling eiroenses ranging from 5^$ to 11?$ of the 
sales volume. 

(*) Exclusive of cost of selling done by executives - amount not 
available. 

9821 



-80- 

From the small sampling obtained by the Commission, covering 
23 houses in Ne-7 Y Q rk City, it was found that all the houses employed 
salesmen. Their salaries and selling commissions ranged from less 
than Vp of sales to 7f£. While relatively few of the out-of-town firms 
re-ported show-roora rentals as an expense, this was a substantial item 
with the New York firms. 

The Commission is not able to state what percentage of New York 
houses employ or do not employ traveling salesmen. However, where no 
salesmen are enrol oyed, the firm members or executives who take care 
of the sales draw a fixed salary which constitutes an overhead sell- 
ing expense, which exoense in -percentages will vary inversely to the 
volume of business done and, as a rule, does not mean a saving in sell- 
ing expense. 

It is apparent from the figures gathered by the Commission's ac- 
countants that the method of sales promotion varies from firm to firm 
within a market, which stiuation obviously makes it impractical to 
compare selling exoenses of one market as a whole with those of another. 

So much for the Commission's own study. As regards the claims 
that selling expenses are lower in New York than in other markets, 
those making the claims have failed to "oroduce figures from the books 
of their firms to prove their ca.se. 

5. Overtime : 

Many of the markets of the country, particularly the smaller 
markets, asked for a limited -period of overtime of four to eight 
weeks at the peak of the season on the ground that they have a small 
supply of skilled labor and limited plant space, and are, therefore, 
unable to expand their forces at the peak of the season. They are thus 
conroelled to lose a certain amount of business which would otherwise be 
theirs. 

Those opposed to overtime pointed out that overtime should not 
be allowed to one market when other markets were not working at capac- 
ity. They also were confident that the maintenance of the present 
policy against overtime would mean a flattening out of peak -produc- 
tion. They claimed that there has already been an appreciable change 
in the retailer's method of placing orders, and that, warned by the 
experience of the Fall season, when the retailer found himself unable 
to get immediate delivery at the height of the season, he anticipated 
his requirements when -placing his orders for Spring 1934 to a much 
greater degree than in former years. 

The OTroonents of overtime believe that this trend will continue 
as the retailer learns from experience that he must distribute his 
orders over a more extended -period of time if he is to get deliveries 
under a 35-hour week. 



("»L 



-81- 

The Commission finis that the present -policy of refusing permiss- 
ion for overtime to individual concerns or markets, results in great 
gains to the industry as a whole. It believes that these gains 
out-weigh any disadvantages that nay "be suffered "by individual firms 
or markets. 

6. Apprentices 

Most of the Western markets want an increase in their present 
apprentice allowance of 5fo of the total number of employees provided 
by the regulations of the Ccat and Suit Cede Authority* They claim 
that because of the lack of skTJLed labor in the markets outside of 
New Y rk, it is necessary to train continually large numbers of 
workers 

Union representatives in these markets insisted, however, that 
employers desired more apprentices, not because of a shortage of skill- 
ed labor but because theymshed to reduce costr- by employing apprentic- 
es who very quickly HessrarsHL to perform the simpler operations in their 
craft as speedily as a full-fledged worker, yet are allowed lower wage 
rates under the Code, 

FINDING- 

The Commission finds that some of the markets in the West in which 
the development of the Coat and Suit Industry is of comparatively re- 
cent origin and which lack a large supnly of workers in other needle 
industries, are obliged to resort to continuous training of new help 
in order to maintain an adequate force of skilled workers to take the 
place of those who leave the industry. This circumstance is further 
aggravated by the fact that the majority of the employees in this in- 
dustry in such centers consists of women who leave the industry in 
larger numbers than men because of marriage and other family reasons. 

For details as to availability cf needle workers in the several 
coat and suit markets, reference is ma.de here to Section 3 of this 
report. 



-32- 

On the other hand, the Commission believes that serious consider- 
ation should he given to the apprehension of the Union that a, provision 
for a larger number of apprentices may lend itself to abuses in efforts 
to lower the wage level of the workers. 

The Commission believes that it is feasible to give due weight to 
both considerations in modifying the present Code provisions with refer- 
ence to apprentices. 

7. Contractors 

Article Ninth of the Code, referring to the contract system of 
manufacturing, states: 

"It is recognized that in the Eastern and Western Areas 
the methods employed to a very large extent in the pro- 
duction of garments in the coat and suit industry neces- 
sitate the employment of contractors and sub-manufacturers; 
Accordingly, all firms engaged in the coat and suit indus- 
try who cause their garments thus to be made by contractors 
and sub-manufacturers as aforesaid, shall designate the 
contractors actually required, shall confine and distribute 
their work equitably to and among them, and shall adhere 
to the payment of rates for such production in an amount 
sufficient to enable the contractor or sub-manufacturer to 
pay the employees the wages and earnings provided for in 
this Code, together with an allowance for the contractor's 
overhead. 

In pursuance of this provision, the associations of the manufactur- 
ers, the jobbers and the contractors of : etropolitan new York have 
determined ~"oy mutual agreement that the allowance for the contractor's 
overhead shall be 30;' of the labor cost on all garments the labor cost 
of which does not exceed $2.50 and 33-1/3$ on all other garments. 

This arrangement is in force in the area under the jurisdiction of 
those three associations. It lias not been officially recognized by the 
Code Authority. 

At the hearing held by the Commission in Ba.ltimoro as well as in 
Philadelphia and some of the other centers-, the representatives of the 
local contractors' associations complained of the lack of an arrange- 
ment in their cities similar to that prevailing in New York and re- 
quested that the Commission recommend to the Code Authority that it 
take steps for effectuating the provision of Article Ninth of the Code 
so that all the other cities may have the benefit of an arrangement 
similar to the one in force in New York where about 85$ of the contract- 
ing business of the country is said to be done. 

The last paragraph of Article Ninth of the Code provides that: 

"To insure the observance of this provision, the 
Committee named in this Code, together with the Ad- 
ministrator, shall formulate provisions to carry into 
effect the purpose and intent hereof." 

9821 



-•83- 

Representatives of the New York Contractors have asked for the 
strengthening of the provision equitable distribution of work among 
a jobber's registered contractors, by providing- that in the event of 
failure to observe I d irovi sicn on the part of the jobber or manu- 
facturer, the Code Authority gj: it .-\ nated representative shall be 
vested with the power to ord^r payment, as restitution to the contractor, 
of an amount equal to the overhead allowance set forth above on the number 
of laments which he failed to receive as his equitable share. 

F INPUTS 

The Commission finds that the contractor is frequently caught be- 
tween two fires: on the one hand, he must pay the Code wage rates, 
while on the other, in the absence of enforcement machinery under the 
Code, keen competition from his fellow contractors frequently leaves 
him at the mercy of the jobber with the alternative of violating the 
wage provisions of the Code or of failing to earn his own living, let 
alone his overhead. The normal business mortality among contractors, 
which i.s notorious, is increased b this lack of protection promised to 
him under the Code but not effectuated so far. 

8. Unfa ir Competition from Other Industries : 

The Commission heard complaints in every market of unfair com- 
petition suffered by the Coat and Suit Industry from the raincoat, 
cotton garment and dress industries. It was stated that firms in these 
industries were manufacturing garments that in the past were manu- 
factured almost exclusively ^y the Coat and Suit Industry. The com- 
-peting industries' code wage standards are lower than - those for the 
Coat and Suit. Industry and as a result their entry into the field' as 
competitors has been disastrous, it war alleged. 

The. complainants- asked that firms making ^urments which are 
normallj'" made in the Coat and Suit Industry be required to pay Coat 
and Suit code wages. They alsj ashed that the fields of the competing 
industries be clearly defined, so as to prevent these industries from 
talcing unfair competitive advantage of the Coat and Suit Industry. 

fisjdhtg 



The Commission finds that there is merit in these contentions. 
It is aware, however, that great progress along these lines lias already 
been made by the Administration, and calls the situation to the atten- 
tion of the Administrator for such further action as he may deem necessary, 

9. Baltimore 

No issue -.in connection with the Code has aroused 'such bitter con-- 
troversy in the Industry as the question of the allocation of Baltimore 
to the Eastern or Western area. In spite of Baltimore's geographical 
position on the Atlantic 'seaboard, Baltimore -manufacturers took the 
position at the time of the adoption of the Code that in respect to 
labor conditions it was in the same position as cities in the Western 
area. Baltimore manufacturers, especially those operating section shops, 
claimed that they had the sane problem in training help as the West and 

9821 



-84- 

therefore had to have the Western classification of apprentices and of 
"semi-skilled" operators. They also claimed that , like the West, they 
were at a disadvantage a,s against Hew York in the matter of selling, 
purcnasing and designing and had to make frequent trips to Hew York 
and even maintain special selling and buying offices there. 

As against their assertions, with regard to labor, New York 
pointed out that unlike some of the Western cities, Baltimore was an 
old coat and suit market and had employed thousands of skilled cloak 
makers in the past and, in addition thereto, was the home of several 
needle industries upon which the coat and suit industry could draw for 
skilled workers; it was urged, therefore, that unlike some of the West- 
ern cities Saltimore was not in need of apprentices. Yew York further 
contended that Baltimore is only a short distance from Hew York as com- 
pared with the Yfestern cities, scattered all the way from Cleveland to 
the Pacific coast and that the expense of maintaining a selling office 
in Hew York was insignificant as compared with the savings in wages 
which Baltimore effects because of the Western area differentials. 

The Code was adopted with Maryland in the Eastern area. Because 
of the strong objections raised by Baltimore manufacturers, a provision 
was finally inserted in the Code that "The Baltimore market is included 
in the Eastern area with the provision that employers' association there- 
in may request the appointment of a Commission by the Administrator to 
determine after investigation what modification should be granted, if 
any." 

Acting upon the request of the Baltimore manufacturers, the Admin- 
istrator appointed such a Commission with Professor Jacob H. Hollander 
of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, as Chairman. Associated with 
Frofessor Hollander as the other members of the Commission were: Mr, 
Hathan Hamburger, Counsel for the Baltimore manufacturers and i'r. Charles 
Kreindler, Vice-President of the International Ladies' Garment WoitY-fs 
Union, Since the other members of the Commission were the direct repre- 
sentatives of the contending interests, the decision rested entirely 
with Professor Hollander as the sole impartial member of the Commission. 

The Commission resolved the question in favor of the Baltimore 
manufacturers and allocated Baltimore to the Western area. In view of 
the importance of the considerations which led Professor Hollander to 
make this disposition of the matter and in order to -'reserve continuity 
in the consideration of the subject, it may be well to quote from his 
decision significant passages which weighed heavily in the scales in 
shaping his conclusions. 

In reviewing the historical background which led to the present 
condition -of the Baltimore market, Professor Hollander said: 

"The Baltimore market has been in existence for more than 
twenty-five years. During this time it has undergone 
successive changes so complete and spasmodic as to divest 
it of real continuity. The industry has been in turn 
flourishing and prostrate, it lias been at tines largely 
unionized anc 1 at other times predominantly anti-union; it 
has sometimes operated on the entire-garment plan and is 

9821 



9821 



-85- 



at present largely "section; lized"; rale operatives 
have been succeeded b; d girl "hands"; at one 
tine nr tici-vide i. the selling area, it has now a 
restricted sellin field. 

": prese iso of the Baltimore mar et dates 
perhaps from the posi-war deflation - . matter 
roughly of ten years. Ir bhis conte ■■ ■ period 
the industry Lias passed Jnto new hands, unionization 
has been shot to pieces, i: sectionalization" has been 
introduced, raale wor?:ers h ve been displaced by women 
and girls, real earni ] • been reduced and working 
hours lengthened, competitive power en secured by 
underselling and extension i 1 on-preferred credit. All 
of this is -co be r jected against a background of a 
Baltimore in which business sentiment and even public 
opinion has been chill to any effective organization 
of labor with attendant collective bargaining, in£. in 
which the habitual practice of municipal authorities 
and commerci 1 or "nizations has been to proclaim to 
prospective r/anufacturers seeking new location the 
advantages >i ' :l f i.vre as a city of cheap labor and 
freedom from labor "troubles," 

"The industry has now - almost overnight - been con- 
fronted with new and radically different conditions. 
There have been imposed upon it by governmental author- 
ity, bj public opinion; 'cy administrative supervision, 
fundamentally different conditions of wages, hours, over- 
sight j workers 1 organization - all of the new familiar 
features of the National Ser-overy Administration. The 
first phase of this transformation was the "blanket 
code" to which, a? apj eared from appeal proceeding before 
the local g-ievance lotee under the chairmanship of 
Colonel "7. Z . A. Ardersor, the industry after a brief 
period adjusted itself* The second phase dated from the 
approval of the industry code by President Roosevelt on 
August 4, whereby substantially more drastic provisions 
were imposed" 

"It thus appears that within a period of four weeks 
the Baltimore market has suffered tweo shocks. It 
seems to the Commission inexpedient and even dangerous 
that it should in quick succession be ercposed to a 
third. This on twe counts: first, on the score of 
justice it is not fair that a group of manufacturers 
who have lapsed into socially unsound practices with 
the tolerance and even approval of public opinion 
should be me.de in scapegoat fashion the victim of a 
new-born conscience. In the second place, it is at 
variance v.ith the spirit of the National Recovery 
Administration th t she major ends of lessening un- 
employment :.nd eliminating swaac-shp conditions 
should be endangered by too swift and too drastic change. 
It means little that the operation be successful if the 
patient die. To endanger the positive gains of markedly 



better working terms ana. of prospective increased em- 
ployment "by the risk of business suspension consequent 
upon too abrupt action, seems to the Commission un\7ise. 

"The Commission has given careful consideration to the 
arguments presented vith ;-;reat ability by the repre- *' 
sciicatives of the workers ark my spol e a ri of important 
Eastern are?. men afacturers . that the B< ltimore market 
should be retained in the Eastern area as provisionally 
assigned to the Cede, The prospect of woi'king con-.; 
ditions uniform throughout the country,' subject to the 
differentials provided in the Code, is attractive in 
the extreme; but it seems to the Commission in the 
nature of a goal hereafter to be attained, rather than 
of a project immediately tc be realised,, Tne maladjust- 
ments of ten years cannot prudently be eliminated at one 
stroke o The familiar principle of healthy evolution 
rather than of peril rats revolution might be here invoked. 
If the Baltimore market can be forthwith raised above 
submerged working conditions to relatively decent living 
conditions with the likelihood of increased emoloyment 
or at least reasonable assurance against reduced employ- 
ment - an advance has been made of such desirability in 
itself end of such narked accord with the purposes of 
the national Recovery Administration, that a holder and 
more hazardous course dees not command itself. When 
these gains will have been consolidated, the way lies 
epen for further progress," 

From the foregoing citation, it is clear that in resolving the 
doubt in favor of the Baltimore manufacturers, professor Hollander 
recognized the establishment '3of working conditions uniform throughout 
the country, subject te the differentials provided in the Code "aa a 
goal hereafter to be attained' 1 and that when the gains of the workers 
under the Western area wage scale baa been consolidated, "the way lies 
open for further progress 1 '. Finally, he stated that the decision was 
reached with the thought in mind :i that the functioning of the Code 
Authority permits a later reversal should developments so warrant". 

The Baltimore market has been operated now under the Western 
wage scale of the Code for practically a year. The markets which have 
felt the competition of the sectional shops of Baltimore claim that it 
has had sufficient time "to consolidate the gains", in the language 
of the Hollander decision, and that the time has arrived "for further 
progress" . 

When the question was first debated before the Hollander Commission, 
the only opponents of Baltimore came from Hew York City. During the past 
year, the ranks of the objectors nave been reinforced ^j the addition of 
these Eastern markets which have felt tne competition of Baltimore, 
operating under the Western scale. This competition is felt particularly 
by concerns catering to the mail order trade. These include manufacturers 
and jobbers in New York City, in Few Britain, Conn., and Camden, N. J. 
All of them are obliged to operate either under the Eastern wage scale 
or under the still higher scale applicable to New York City. 



-87- 

This disparity in labor cost is further aggravated "by the fact 
that, in addition to Baltimore City proper, the Western allocation 
has been extended to three Pennsylvania towns in which are located 
plants working under contract for E Itiraore manufacturers: Waynes- 
boro, York and Karrisburg. These towns are located only a short 
distance from Camden, N. J. and Scranton, Pa., containing section- 
alized shops whose owners cannot see by what logic they are -denied 
the same treatment that is accorded to there tovms whe 1 in the 
matter of labor conditions, the necessity of training new help and 
availnbility of suitable labor they are in all respects in the same 
position. 

The co plaint of the competing concerns in the Eastern area is 
t they are losing business to Baltimore solely because of the unfair 
competition which Baltimore is able to offer because of the exceptional 
treatment granted to it under the Code. 

As has been pointed out in Section 2 of this report in discussing 
production costs in different markets (See Section 2 - pages 11, 23, 
34, 56, 57, 39 and 46), Baltimore section shops are consistently in 

lead as low cost producers, both when comparing costs of a specific 
irment in different markets, as well as on a comparison of "run-of- 
shop" costs for competitive houses in com -arable price ranges. 

.'./.other fact to be borne in mind in considerin; the Baltimore 
situation is that the market is composed of two distinct groups: (l) 
the sectional shops whose owners have been the sole contenders for the 
allocation of Baltimore to the Western area, and (2) the old style 
tailoring shops which employ nearly two-thirds (65$) of all the workers 
in the market. The latter are, for the most part, under union control 
With the result that the average earnings of their operators and pressers 
are distinctly above Eastern Code minima, and of the finishers one cent 
above the Eastern Code minimum. On the other hand, the sectionalized 
shops are largely non-union and their owners have taken full advantage 
of the opportunities offered by the classifications and lower rates 
of the Western scale, with the result that the earnings of their em- 
ployees are far below the earnings provided for "workers of average 
skill" even in the Western code scale. As will be seen from Table C 1, 
the average hourly earnings of the piecework operators in the sectional 
shops are 85^ as against 31.03 in the tailoring shops; of finishers 63f A 
as against 68^ in the tailoring shops; of pressers, 96^ as against $1.16 
in the tailoring shops. The question of allocation is thus a matter 
of concern chiefly to the sectional part of the trade which is given a 
tremendous advantage over their competitors in the Eastern area. 

Just as the manufacturers competing with Baltimore feel their 
business menaced because of what they regard as an unfair advantage 
which Baltimore has gained under the Code as a reult of the decision of 
the Hollander Commission, so does labor feel its interest menaced be- 
cause of the wage disparities pointed out in the preceding paragraph. 

In the opinion of the Union, the allocation of Baltimore to the 
Western area' unjustly deprives the workers of Baltimore of the wage 
classification which is rightly theirs* In the second place, the Union 
contends that the continuance of a lower wage scale in one part of the 

9S21 



-88- 

East which is :i natural geographic unit, made up of highly competitive 
parts, cannot f^.il to exert a highly depressant effect upon the earn- 
ings of ,11 the workers in the Coat and Suit Industry in that region, 

FI'/ rigG 

The Commission finds: 

(1) That Baltimore's position ->,s regards ~v ,il '.bility of labor, 
necessity for training workers, and distance from the center of the 
indvustry, is subst -jitially the sane as the "issition of other Eastern 
markets outside of ITew York City; 

(2) That as shovm in this report, B' ltimore section shops enjoy 
the lowest labor costs per garment in the country, the difference in 
cost "bein^ substantially in excess of the basic differential between 
the Eastern and Western sciles; 

(3) That is follows, therefore, that B-.ltimore section shops 
have been able to idjust themselves to the wage changes brought about 
by the Code ; 

(<£-) That the Baltimore tailoring shoas which employ two-thirds 
of .all the norkers in the market are now paying wages substantially 
higher than the Eastern minimum scale ,and, therefore, would not be 
materially affected by 1 transfer of Baltimore to the Eastern area; 

(5) That Baltimore failed to orove its contention that its sell- 
ing costs are higher trun those of Hew York, and that there is nothing 
in the ii^'ures obtained through the Commission's own investigation to 
sus tain Bal t imore ' s claim; ( *) 

(6) That Baltimore ',s indirect Idbor cos'ts which include the cost 
of supervision and training are among the lowest in the country, thus 
disproving the assertion made by the spokesman of the B ltimore manu- 
facturers at the Commission's hearing that Z". ltimore was entitled to a 
differential to offset its higher cost of supervision and training;' 

(7) That B .ltimore 's shop overhead is likewise 'mong the lowest 
in the country; 

(8) That in the matter of buying costs B ltimore has failed to 
submit -any figures that would '-u-ove that it has higher costs than any 
other market, in the Eastern area, air' the Commission has no other ground 
for believing that Baltimore is at a disadvantage in this regard as com- 
pared with jiy other center subject to the Eastern Code rates; 

'(9) That the same conclusion applies to the item of freight 
charges- -on pfece goods, since Baltimore's geographical position is such 
as to put it on substantially the same footing as -other Eastern markets 



~v^ 



(*) It should be stated that not all the Baltimore concerns were 
willing to furnish the figures colled for by the Commission. 
among those which refused were- two of the largest concerns in 
Baltimore. 



9821 



-89- 
TABLE C-l 

BALTIMORE MARKET 
Week Ending March 9, 1934 
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, HOtJRS AND EARNINGS FOR EACH MAJOR CRAFT 

and the 
TOTAL FOR WEEK-WORK TAILOR - PIECE WORK TAILOR OR SECTION 



SEC. &P.9T 















Total 


Average 


Average 


Average 










Total No. 


Total 


Earn- 


Earnings 


Hours 


Hourly 




Ml 


Hor Craft 


^irjtjlnye^f! 


, , H<W S 


ings 


Per Week 


_Per Wftek... 


Earnings 


WEEK-WORK 












TAILCR 


1 - 


l 


Cutters 


16 


507 


$ 626 


$39.12 


31.7 


$1.24 




1 - 


2 


Operators 


25 


700 


467 


18.68 


28.0 


.67 




1 - 


3 


Finishers 


7 


317 


132 


30.99 


31.0 


.61 




1 - 


■4 


Pressers 


5 


168 


139 


28.00 


33.6 


.83 




1 - 


5 


Floor Help 


6 


210 


88 


14.66 


35.0 


.42 




1 - 


6 


Other Mfg. 


4 


150 


98 


24.38 


37.5 


.65 




1 - 


7 


Non Mfg. 


28 


1,071 


_477 


17.07 


38.3 


.45 








TOTAL 


91 


3,023 


$2,029 


$22.24 


33.2 


.67 


WEEK-WORK 




















SECTION 


2 - 


2 


Operators 


104 


3,510 


$2, 336 


$22.46 


33.8 


$ .67 




2 - 


3 


Finishers 


35 


1,132 


612 


17.67 


32.3 


.54 




2 - 


4 


Pressors 


28 


962 


828 


29.57 


34.4 


.86 




2 - 


5 


Floor-Help 


10 


356 


164 


16.40 


35.6 


.46 




2 - 


6 


Other Mfg. 


1 


35 


33 


32.50 


55.0 


.93 








TOTAL 


178 


5,995 


$3,973 


$22.31 


33.6 


$ .66 


PIECE-WORK 




















TAILOR 


3 - 


1 


Cutters 


10 


337 


344 


34.43 


33.7 


1.02 




3 - 


2 


Operators 


341 


9,506 


9,827 


28.96 


27.9 


1.05 




3 - 


3 


Finishers 


128 


3,264 


2,223 


17.36 


25.5 


.68 




3 - 


4 


Pressers 


80 


2,325 


2,69,6 


33.71 


29.1 


1.16 




3 - 


6 


Other Mfg. 


3 


105 


112 


37.33 


35.0 


1.07 




3 - 


7 


Non Mfg. 


1 


23 


35 


34.50 


23.0 


1.50 



TOTAL 



563 



15,560 $15,237 



$27 .06 



27.6 



$ .98 



PIECE-WORK 
















SECTION 


4-1 Cutters 


6 


210 


259 


$59.81 


55.0 


1.14 




4-2 Operators 


115 


3,486 


2,950 


25.65 


30.3 


.85 




4-3 Finishers 


42 


1,204 


754 


17.96 


28.7 


.65 




4-4 Pressers 


12 


414 


598 


55.14 


35.0 


.96 




4-5 Floor-Help 


1 


35 


19 


19.04 


35.0 


.54 



TOTAL 



176 



5,349 



1,360 



$24.77 



50.4 



.82 



NOT CLASSIFIABLE AS TO 
W.W. or P.W. or TAILOR 



9-2 Operators 
9-6 Other Mfg. 
9-7 Non Mfg. 


1 

1 

14 




40 

55 

550 


14 

65 

304 


14.00 
65.00 
21.70 


40.0 
55.0 
57.8 


.55 

1.86 

.57 


TOTAL 


16 




605 


385 


$25.93 


57.8 


.63 


TCT AL BALTBICR E 


1,024 


50 


,532 


$25,982 


$25.57 


29.8 


.85 



9821 



~90~ 
with respect to freight costs; 

(10) That Baltimore has failed to substantiate its claim of higher 
costs under a.ny of the items mentioned "by its spokesman, and 

(11) That, as shown "by the figures on sales volume presented in 
Section 6, the Baltimore market enjoyed a much i reater increase in 
dollar volume of sales from 1933 to 1934 than did my other market in 
the industry. 

In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the enjoyment 
by the Baltimore market of ! differential higher than that accorded to 
other markets in tne East with which it is in direct competition gives 
it an unfair competitive advantage, 

10 Hew Jersey: 



The Commission heard several complaints on its visits to other 
m rkets of tne competition of New York jobbers in the low price ranges 
due to their utilizing the services of New Jersey contractors. From 
its inquiries, the Cemmission is convinced that these complaints were 
largely justified due to the fact that there has been a wholesale dis- 
regard of the Code rates by New Jersey contractors. 

This was caused by the fact that the State of ! T ew Jersey adopted 
a code of its own for the Co it inc Suit Industry, creating its own 
Code Authority, with i^s own director. It went a step further and 
provided for a label wnich might easily be mistaken for the national 
label and thus set tne national code it naught so far as New Jersey 
was concerned. While some jobbers were able to take .advantage of that 
situation, it was combated by the New York market and vigorously fought 
and denounced by Mr, George W. Alger, Director of the Coat and Suit Code 
Authority, 

As a result of the efforts made oy the officers of the three New 
York associations in the Coat and Suit Industry and of the Code Author- 
ity, a settlement of the conflict was finally reached at the end of 
April by the terms of which the New Jersey Code Authority has agreed 
to withdraw its state 1 bel. 

In the meantime, charges nave been ".referred against contractors 
found paying wages below the Code minima. More than $30,f00 has been 
collected by the Code Authority for wage deficiencies md charges for 
more than $30,^00 are pending. 

The Commission is assured by all the responsible officers of the 
Code Authority, who hove been directly concerned in this matter, that 
they are confident that all these obstacles to code enforcement have 
been removed and that they look forward to effective enforcement of the 
Code in the coming Fall se3.son. 



Respectfully submitted, 

COMMISSION I'OR THE COAT AND SUIT INDUSTRY 
N. I. Stone 
9821 Paul F, Brissenden. 



-91- 



APPSliDIX TABLES 



9821 



TABLE Rl 

Hi f Mm. i. Costs In the Various M arkrts for (he Spring Season. 1834. and Average Hourly earnings for (he 

Flshi Weeks' Terlod Ended March 31. 1934. by Individual Firms,, 

Letter '*" preceding a firm code number Indicates a contractor - * shop, (ode tor t>pe of shop: F— Piece 

work. W— Week work; T— Tailoring shop. S— Section shop. Hun of shop costs obtained by accountants; average 
hourly earnings obtained from pav roils, 

,11 1:1 ,31 14) ,31 l«l 17) 181 IS) ,10) 111) lit) (It) 

Average Tvpe Total shop 

sales Firm of — Direct labor— Indirect Factory cost per Average hourly I; * 

price I'llv code shop Tailoring tutting labor overhead l.arntent Operating Finishing Pressing Total 

SO IS Jl'il ^ I 

4.80 Camden 3(1 280 PS 81 08 30 .15 1.34 97 71 .88 .92 

5.16 Baltimore C40.011 PS 79il> 07 07 07 100 .69 .61 74 .69 

8.23 Kar.-.,. City 70 090 PT 150 40 25 .13 2.28 .68 .53 .64 .64 

6 84 70.010 PS 1 1)7 24 .39 .25 1 95 61 .57 .70 .61 

W 7'«) H Kan,, I L Clly 7(11™ PS 119 32 76 .26 2 53(2) .62 .60 .69 62 

837 J 70.110 PS 111 16 69 .13 2.09,31 .61 ,57 .70 .61 

921 711170 TS 1.33 18 .68 .28 2.47 .76 .61 80 .74 

7 75 Los Angeles . 80.430 PT 146 17 ,11 .07 181 .99 .61 .76 83 
7.63 San FrlricUCO, 90.440 WT 151 15 29 .09 2.04 .91 .56 .95 79 
S25 90.360 WT 17(1 26 .20 14 2.30 .91 .63 112 .82 
J 62 90.430 WT L01 24 07 .15 2 47 1.01 .59 1.16 80 
889 90,240 WT 1.81 59 .09 .21 2 70 .78 .55 106 .74 

8 34 Portland 90.040 WT 111 29 21 33 2.34 64 .63 122 68 

7 40 Ball, more 40.020 PS .97 14 .11 12 134,121 .79 .63 1.01 .77 

7 97 C40.133 PS 1(19 13 .12 14 1.48 .78 .59 .89 .75 

707 C40 131 PT 146 13 12 10 181 1,07 .74 1.30 109 

9 37 C40.161 PT 2 21 15 10 11 2 57 135 .96 158 129 

7 38 Philadelphia ...C38.092 PT 182 25 .27 19 2 5J 66 .51 .88 66 

8 JO C38.261 PT 126 44 .24 "7 3 01 121 70 128 106 
675 Boston C36.351 WT 2 18 23 .24 17 3.12(4) 124 66 118 IPS 

"a£"t l 5ui. 70180 WT 3.08 42 DO 22 322,5, 82 63 103 73 

11 60 Kansas City . . 70.040 WT 1 88 47 14 45 2 44 64 .65 66 62 

10.50 Los Angeles . . 80.820 PT 2 (19 35 . 16 260 1.15 .69 .94 .97 

10 16 80410 PT 2 11 36 07 12 2 66 120 .63 .96 97 

1002 San Francisco. 90.450 WT 185 42 22 18 2 67 84 55 91 .74 

10 07 90 520 WT 2 19 36 17 20 2 92 131 58 164 100 

9.8» Portland 9O350WT 2 46 50 35 22 3 53 .71 .59 9J .73 

10 32 90.220 PT 2 66 36 .31 20 3 55 79 57 8} 71 

ioii 90 340 WT 2 25 36 42 .31 3 34 .76 58 87 71 

in 42 C90 341 PT 2 48 36 23 23 3 30 .74 .58 .77 70 

!n 82 Raltimore 40210 PT 2 38 50 32 26 3 46 100 81 183 1 OS 

10 82 Baltimore 40.210 JT ^ g ^ ,„ 2 76 , „ g, , ,» , 00 

1040 Philadelphia. ... 38.160 PT 3 26 a. 25 09 4 48 140 68 151 1.16 

"l'S C?eveland 42.240 PT 1123 61 .23 23 4.30 173 74 1.48 1.24 

1250 42 250 PT 3 19 38 18 05 3.80 Incomplete 

1275 42 191 PS 3 17 55 35 30 4 37 .95 61 113 80 

i2 7S Chlcaco CS0 354 PT 177 17 07 .04 2 05 79 .66 .98 .78 

12,5 Chicago C50352 PS 2 02 1= 11 08 210,61 77 61 75 .73 

CM 011 PT 27* .2(1 21 .18 3.15 17, 93 .71 103 .89 

iS 45 C52 017 PT 2 74 32 .18 -17 3 41(8) Not Available 

12 48 s.Lou.s 70030 WT 1.76 26 «8 23 2 75 30 60 1 00 70 

U65 tiSTeU.:. 60.770 PT 2 31 42 11 13 2 97 j 30 62 113 1.00 

,«7- 80 360 PT :t.fl9 34 19 3 °2 1.25 .67 134 106 

lo,T,^ sco ■ « w? £3 8 50 T, If l % :S ':8 :?? 

1 --»■■•• li wT 1:8 ii :S SI 5:8 S3 'S 1:8 i.8 

ill C36.340 WT 3 17 .38 19 17 3 91 Not Available 

'lJ'2 f 0< A S n E eeles 80 460 PT 2 87 « » 3.43 1.11 .72 102 .90 

450 L. Angeles ... «"•«"' ,£.£ |g , s , 9 34 4 54 1.25 .69 153 104 

,5° Phliad.lphia .. 38.230 PT 3 79 52 .9 18 4 68 145 87 166 1.27 

g-g »»""■ SHSIr? 13 .3 J-S ill S 1:8 IS 

II III? H 3 .8 5? 5.J? » :B 18 ill 

K ?a -Sc1 ¥4 8 3 2 *l\ .3 :S 1:8 .3 

k' L a ou, c,.y ' liVs S3 3 .8 3 :8 8 .8 L M 8 

iDr™" Sf^l 1 ; 8 .8 8 51 Mo 2 .8 1:3 :g 

15 19 Seattle 90 ,130 PT -TO » J ^ M 76 ,, M ,72 

Jf -« So 500 WT 3 06 .86 • 31 4 23 89 .58 1 11 79 

I 88S ?8 .8 : * .-8:8. SS* 

l| Philade.phia.. |S|f 4 1 93 31 23 6 45 136 85 ,54 ,.1| 

".2* 83o WT 3 65 57 .52 34 5 08 141 .90 126 1.18 

■ •) Included In flRures for Direct Labor 

'!^ H S? l Sfo...... 70.00 PT 506 68 .59 .32 887 1.1. ,73 1 J. * 

88 San Francisco £™ gf 38 .07 36 70 6 |> 99 .53 1 1| .64 

"•2 Boston 36.400 WT , 3. 39 34 5 80 138 .85 .38 .12 

1?8 "S WT 34, 8 24 16 4.3. 140 .94 125 1.18 

•^ V? D , l ''a HOl ' S M 120 PT 4 63 63 94 61 6.61 1 47 65 1 10 1 09 

19 70 Cleveland 42.120 PT 4 63 bj .94 ?< j M , , s 

SH cv.( in/mo PT 430 90 35 34 5 79 100 .89 113 100 

20.19 Chicago 50.650 PT 4 JO ^57 32 7 22 116 .90 183 1.14 

2J.4 S?SS 5J Hi, „ ,36 43 6.83,111 126 .78 145 1.10 

23-89 50.430 PT 5 10 9J ™ j , 

2191 St. Louis .0.200 PT 3.73 70 07 n [ 02 

19.75 Los Angeles.. 60 710 PT 3 89 i! 5, 18 6 99 140 92 182 1.22 

2330 Phila 38.060 PT 5.38 84 .59 23 2 05 ,„ 

8:8 Chicago 3:3! 3 ,3 i3 .a « 7»o ,, 8 .93 i. M ,,3 

.\OIES:_ Tb . s (i ^ ure muBl be !uppl< . menled b v wage deficiencies paid to Code Authonty-approximately 10<4 of 

direct (2 abor hij ^^ ^^ ^ supplemented by ivage deficiencies paid to Code Authority—approximately 4c 

per ^aT-Thls figure must be supplemented by wage deflciencie. paid to Code Authority-approxlmately 2c 

per f- 4 r "_ e °^ s , 1(nir( , must be supplemented by wage deficienciea paid to Code Authority- approximately 3c 

per RerrMnt.^ ^^^ MJ be , U p P | e mented by wage deficiency assessment pendlng-approxlmately 35c per 

garment_ Th . e ^^^ mus( be sup p leraemed by wage deflciencid paid to Code Authority-approximately 2c 

per garment^ ( ,^ re ^^ bt Mppl< , menni by „ age deficiency asaeaament pendlng-approximately 5c per gar- 

men, ',8l-Th, 8 figure must be supplemented by wage deficiencies paid to Code Autbority-approximately loc 

per 8»™2 T nls figure must be supple mented by wage deflciencie! paid to Code Authority-approximately 2c per 

garment _ Th|j ^^ must be suppl<! mtn ,„, by wage deficiencies paid to Code Authority-approximately 8c per 

^""Tl'll-This figure must be supplemented by wage deficiencies paid to Code Authority-approximately 3c per 

Ban *", n ,2)_Thi« figure must be supple mented by wage deficiencies paid to Code Authority-approximately 12c 
per garmenL 



98S1 



-93- 



M 

U 
u o 

a 



> i 

a : 



:i 



a 


d 












- 




I- CO r-4Q 

h mn-3 


omakn 


c-c- o\ ir\t- 

-* -* K\ rH fO 


co ojin 




« 


«3 
O 


rH rH rH rH 


H r-l rH 


rH H H H rH 


,-1 H H 


to 




«] 










<h •»; 




■i; 


-* mo o\ 

If \ 0\ -O -O 


KNONC- 


OiAHO^ 


OJOsfN 


i-t 




4» 
0« 


HHHH 


rH H H 


CO H CM H H 


t-*t-*r4 


t. 












3 
O 














a: 
o 




L.J 

-rl 


-* 0\H OJ 


ONC-O 
O O 0\ 


OJinOJ OMTi 
CO ON O C\ 0\ 


■$ t-m 

0NO\O\ 



co t-o omhknvo t- co in on to 

OHOOHOHt-COOOH 



rH r* H rH rH H H H 



t-cocomojino o hco c-in 

^^H444lOCOOOOJm 



rHrHrHHrHrHrHrHr 



OHOiAmHt-O O\C0O\i-4t- 
CT\ 0\ C- 0\0\0Nc00>O0\O ON 



\oc-comcommvo moovo -* 

OHOOH0\0J«0O\OOH 



HHHrHH 



l040Wrlt-W4 CUt-COO 
4rrnAin4H4cOOn4 m 



o 



SCO i 
KV 



4- \Q CO C- OS 



rH * rH i-t lT\ ON ^t 

HO\HO OdO H 



Lnmvoo\KWcovoinvoo , £ 
CMC\JC\;c\]<\iojOJf<NrHOjr*-\Oj 



t-m-^-mMDOJOJOrHOOcp 

0J0J0JC\ICVJ0J0J-OOj^-f< _ \<^ 



H4O-0WHW00 OH^lJJ 
O\c0c0O\C\t-O\O^ ^ co co 



■h 03 fL, a, a« n, m [l, Oi 
o 

•rH 



oj oj <M 

I I CO I 

rH H I H 



OJ OJ OJ OJ CO C\J CO CO OJ CO CM CO 
HI I J I I I I I It I 



o moj rH o c— \& 

ONONONON *0 h"\0 

rH rH rH rH OJ O O 



O rH KNK"\CJ O^tH OH O WIO4NC0H WlOinOjvO 

4.J404 tmnm mj -o rMPiiAinin inm*o*o iTtmin 

ON O 0\ OJ ON ON ON ON t- 1- 0\0>000:>ONO\0\0\0\0\ 

rH rH rH L^rH O-O'O OJOJOJOIOJOJOJOJOJ-.\jOJOJ 



r> 


o 


i > 


d 


u 






s*^ 


u 


<o c 


r-n 


.o o 




.0 



.a o 

.QO 

o 

-J 





US 


■p 


Ml 


CJ 


a 


o 


ol 


as = = 


= u 


OJ = 


U 


U 


0) 


L, 


<o 


u ^ 


> 


u ^ 


> 


a> £ 


< 


<o a 


< 


Q O 




a o 




OU 




.0 





9821 



-94- 



zz 

a 



m 






c 
c 


o o 
o o 






M 


■o 

4) 




o 
o 


CO CO 






c 


+^ 












C\J *H 


s-a 










rH 


— 


«-> 


o 


OJO\r<-\ 


lA^HHO 


O O OCQ QtO tO 

inn in-r -r oj ro 


c 


a 







ao\o 


OJ O O rH O 




Ec 


H 










u 










r1r-\r*H rH 


rH <H rH rH rH rH rH 


a 














(■! 




— < 










H 




UJ 






co oj oj .n oj 


too on oj^o -* o 


H *■> 






ON 


r-iO r-i 


CV (M H IO Ol 


0\lAQ\00\04 


rS 




fct 


• 


rAr-lr-i 


rH H rH rH rH 


rH H OJ rH H H rH 


!-. 














3 




8 










o 




~j 










o 




q 










HK 




OJ 


t- 


X>-* ON 


o -orico O 


t- >-■*■ torooNco 






-H 


•.n 


>-cO t-\ 


OJ Ot)C\0\ 


WWK\HOOH 


o> 




c 


• 


• > > • • 








-H 








rH H H rH H rH H 


ti 




u. 











rlHHHH 



rH H rH rH rH rH r 



t— c— co m t— on r*~\ c— <o in 



^■f_CO OJ ON ON CO fO t- H 
Cy^OJOJOJOJrHOJHH 



ITl^HOOJWaJHlAH 



rH-4- 0J0Jino\OMnt-in 

OCOHt-OCO O ON l> CO 



I rH H rH H rH rH 






OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 



oj t— id to on o oinojvo 

o\inoooa)cOHino 



CVOJOJfO OOJOJfAOJOl 



rHOJOJrHOJOJfHC-JOJ 



0\^3\OC-t-HO 3" 

4-oj^--+^-<j--*in^- 



£ 


K> 


TNX) tO 


3D canoco .n 






^f 


CO CO CO 


ot-o^oo\ 








rH H 




ol 








OJ 

a 


p 




CO 




o 


o 




tO 




rH 


<D Xi 








B> 


a a 


tn 


into co 






>> 


& 


S=tj* 




0) 


E-" <M 




a 




o 


O 




o 




■H 



rHOJONONOrHirtOJ-^H 

mm torn oro^o our>m 



OJ 0) OJ *- O -* OJ |O-^-WfO0J0J^-rO0\rH io w o i^ o o oj h a 

lOrH OrH OJ rH Ol O fO C- C- O *> U~*C0 tO\0 H tO rH On rH O t— m rH 

HHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH H rH H rHrH M rH 



(L-, CM O, |1, (1« ft, fX, f^ f 1 - »» A* CM CM fU CL, fl, fl, IX, fn fL, fl, (1, fl. 



»0 
CO 

r. 



o h CM o oj mro-3- 

nmm t-t-urit-c- 

rorofO o\ on o on, o\ 

T\lT\ r\ rH r-l ^ H «H 



CSs 

0) C 
O o 

no 



is 
u 



OHC-tooo\m 

O O OO O Q O 



O 

« = 

U ±> 
<u C 
Q O 
BO 



ro jr, jrMO "<"» io to KM*^ o 



►0 
a 



oj oj ^ j cj oj oi oj c\j • i in 



TMnininin.om o c\ 



a o 
no 
o 



c o 

QO 



-9&- 



55 



'i-d 






W 



r-i r-t r-i r-i rH rH 



in^O C-Q >-C-*0-* lT»lf\OJ^O Q 



i-H r-COcOCOKMriCT\t-Cr»OMAC-- 
rH iHi-HrHr-IK^C\Jr-|OJfH.HrHC\J f H 






IA4 -T -3" Kt-i 



5 



H rH rH r-t rH i-H rH H r 



OMOCO^trHONHKAOJlA 

Ot-C-IAHHO\CMACO 



WHHHOJOJHHHH 



mm mvo c--* o oj 






HHHWweyn f-t 



m ojonoj ma» 

co^hoioio 



M rH rH i-H rH rM 



ojco-* mo-*vomtorr> 
m m m\o k^ m a\ -* oj m 



HHHHHHHHHH 



H 

.r. 
U 

3 



a 

c 



OJrHOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJ 



co-tmininino^i-iocooco 
-* t^v-* ■* m ■* rimmmmm-? 



OJ0JO)0JOJ0Jr*\0J0J0J 



OJ t- CO H rH oj co to c- o 



r-l OJ H r-l i-H rH H iH 



OJ m ro ro -* r<~» ^* 



omrHoc-t-mmHco 
i-iOJfOK-»ooj-*mojOd 



OJ^t t--*vO Q\ rH H 
l>HHHOOiH O 



PI 

o 
>> 



ex, a, n, fx, ex, 



OJ OJ OJ OJ 
I OJ 1 1 
rH I M rH 



FL« rH (X, CX, CM - u a. (X, CX, CU (X, (X, (X, [X, 



u l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

ojojojojojojojojojojojojoj 



(X, tX, Pn fX, CL, CL. {X, (X, £X, rH Ph O, (X, Ph O, Ch [U fX, 



u 

Pi 

r<"vmf<"\ro ojojojfooj ojojojojojojojoj 

till I <Q 

OJ OJ OJ OJ CM q> 



-3 



a- 
> 



1 



U 
OJ 

5 



OOIOJlTHH OH OOt-H-*U1Mt-t(MfH)tU 

O* C7\ O* ON 0\ OJ OO O -O O C-<0 O C-M3 vo C— *0 C-- 

000000 -om >- :-c-fr-t-c-:-t--t-c-t-c-t- 

it)n)co(OB n >- > :- t- t~ ^ >- t~c- c- 1- 1- 1-- 



Y \0 in OJ CO rH t- OS in O COrH r-t tOOJlAvO -* 

} CO CO CO CO 0\ CO 0\ 0\ HHWHlflHHH W 

HOfllOMn^lOfl MrHiHrHOiHr-liHH 



r\KMAmmr*~w~\mtoiK\ 



CO CO CO CO iTKO CO CO CO 



P, o 

o +3 

.c o 
m cox 

OJ *3 

•0 c 

© al O 
o c 



U 

U P 

aj c: 
o o 



o 

01 = 

u 

0) C 

a o 
.Qo 



o 

,Q O 



OS: 



-96- 



3 

a. 



$1 

■H -P 

V O 



rH m oj m -5 in io 



HrHrH 



*rH OJ OJ CM OJ 



rH H H rH rH rH rH 



i-l rH H rH OJ rH H 



H OJrH OJ OJ 



HHHH -IHH 



-4- oj mvo moj in 
m-* mco -=t o o 



WH HHH'OJ H 



m\o Hrio c\ico 

O CArHO HOIO 



H M rH H rH H rH 






SO 



rH H CM OJ rH OJ rH 



oj t^\-=t m-tf - 



OJ^t t-VO ^-*co 
Oj CM^J- t-^J-^t fO 



OJ OJ CM OJ OJ OJ OJ 



fOIOmOJlO 



tO 

5 






O 0\rO C\J\0 O\c0 


OCOO 


+j 


H0H40HO 




<a 






(-, 


rH H i-l H H i-l rH 


H i-l H 


OJ 






o 






o 




IK 


a 




CO 


o 






C 






a.w 


Pi P< P* Pi P« P< 


rHf=t= 


>> 






H v. 







OJ OJ OJ rH OJ OJ OJ 



m m oj to ro 



h o o o> o 



ft (1* ft ft ft ft 



- fOO\H OJ OJ 



ft ft ft ft ft ft 



fL* ft ft ft 



OJ CM OJ OJ OJ OJ 



03 



mmmmfnm 
i i i l i t 

OJ CM OJ OJ OJ CM 



I I I I 

mm m m 



CO 



m ki m r*\ m m 
l i i l i 1 

OJ CM o: OJ OJ OJ 



5 



to 

01 

IH 



coco ro LHCO CO 



9821 



OOH 



IH 

P. O 0) 
O-P tO 

mat, 
u 0) 

OJ 4J > 

!h -i O 
0) CO o 



3,-H ojfO-d- in no 
jf^t jf -t <t J- 
cy cy cu cvj oj <\j cvj 



o 

«■ 
t, 
tl ri 

0) c 

□ o 

JJO 



OMDinrH OJ 


o 


o -* inn -3- cm m 


o oj rH -3- m 


COCO COCO CO 


CO 


vo rHMD -OMSMD VO 


*o o o -o -o 


^--H/^-^-^- 


LO 


o o o o o o o 


\0 0^0 



-+ -* * * -$ 



u 

CO c 
a o 
.a o 



-*itvj* ^- -» ■* -* 



to to m to to 



0) c 



m 


■p 


01 


o 


u 


01 


01 


t. 


t> 


!-. »> 


< 


QJ C 



-97- 






[0 



a) 

, 0) O 



oojroQ-tfcQOJt-ojtoo 

HHHHHrlHHHrlH 



rO -* OJ OJ ^* CO OWHlTlO 



HOJrHHOJr-tHr-iHHH 



Ot-lTtONOJOJt-C-^t-rH 

rlHHHHHrlHHrlH 



COtO-^-O >- <J\ t- KMiV-n t- 
r^rHr-lr^HiHHrHr-lOJrH 



3 

CO 

*-* 
C 

■H 



u 
<§ 



OHOOHCUHHKMOH 



HC0» 0J0\OlA0J:0O\0J 

-*co co c— -^m-^-^LOOi o 

rHHr-IHHHiHHt-tHH 



t-focoo-^oo-^^ocoo 

00\0\r-IOOfOa\0\OH 



OJ rO-O OC01AU3VD 0\ H fO 






OJ ?U OJ oj 



co— ootrHsO-o o mm 

C- On '-AVO HHXtOO) LACO 

oj'OOJiorOfOOJOJOJHOJ 



inmi^cpo\4cooHiA^ 
cOHt-3F wwrAHOJHOJ 

r-|OJi-IOJOJOJOJOJOJr<-\C\j 



mm-^-voin-:*-*-* -f^vi 



— ( 
3 



fOfO>0 OJ a\fOO\-* i-cOON 

<oaiorOH t-coco (mo oo 



OOJHOJHt-lOOO\C\IO 

^-t-inc-c-^OMS £>fOo\o 



ro>m-*-+aJcotOHO^' 



-H HHrlHHHHH 



o 

P,tO 



PtfefeP^cttCL.hAifefe 



oj^fMf^hp^rii^p^^fi* 



OJ 

& 



f OtO- r \rOtotOfO(OrOfO 
1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 

OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 



m I I I I I J I I I I 

<i>ojojAojojojojojojoj 



5 



O H OJ O O OJ^OCOcO-4- r4 H OJ tO^O 

t-^-t- m a\oo\oo\coocoo>o\o 

O 6 O O • IO-* lO^t rOtO-* tOfOfO-^- 



t-t-Ot-t-0\C-C-C-C-i-» 

oToJmoj oj noJinoj oj n 

H H f-l H 



W 
CO 



p 


Ml 




-p 




i 




o 


a! = 


u 




It 


Li 


n 




(4 


ti *> 


> 


u 


tn •> 


IB C 


< 


« 


o C 


Q o 




a 


O O 


a o 




^ 


BO 



(4 

P.O 
O-p 
J3 o 
gq ale 

U 
<o -p 

■o c 

t* rf o 
aj to o 
a c 



5 



9821 



SUMMARY OP COST OF PRODUCTION OF A SP6CIHC GAMBIT IH OinVHUT MARKETS 
IN COMPARISON WITH RUM OF SHOP COSTS 



Sport Typ* Folo Coat - Sag Ian 
Flair Side 3«uj - Raised Top 
3 Hand Made Button Hoist - 111 
Cuffa - Pooketa kkI Salt Edge 



Sleevea - Man! eh Jotoh Ulatar Type Collar 

Sleev* s«am - Separate All Around Cuff - Regular Walt Pookete 
Around Bait - Collar Faoing* - Arm Hole* - Top Sleev* 











Op* ra- 


Piaieh- 


Prees- 


Grade 






ryp* 


ting all 


ing mil 


IjU H*.r:.l 


Claeai- 


Firm 


of 


maohlna 


band 


and 


fl oat loo 


•nl Location 


Shj r 


work 


Work 


Mao Una 


I kinu* 


30 


Mow York 


?-* 


1 .61 


4 .09 


1 .12 


1 Klnus 


16066 


Sow Tor* 


:-:•■ 


.68 


.11 


.13 


1 klnua 


38280 


Camden 


S-P 


.59 


.10 


.13 


1 HlBua 


40011 


Salt. 


9-f 


.71 


.14 


.17 




8090 


Haw York 


T-P 


1.06 


.26 


.35 


1 hameondton, H.J. 


S-P 


.72 


.21 


.20 




38092 


PWU. 


w 


.96 


.26 


..36 




40131 


Bait. 


r-p 


.94 


.17 


.30 




40133 


York.Pe. 


S-P 


.68 


.14 


.26 




40020 


Bait. 


h 


.73 


.15 


.19 




40170 


Salt. 


S-P 


.72 


.23 


.IB 




70170 


Kansas 














City 


S-P 


.80 


.28 


.17 




70110 


• 


S-P 


.87 


.26 


.20 




70010 


■ 


S-P 


.70 


.25 


.35 




90040 


Portland 


B-4 


1.00 


.40 


.22 


I 


2470 


Bow York 


r-p 


TToo 


.40 


715 




812$ 


Bow York 


T-P 


1.26 


.45 


.40 




3381 


How York 


T-P 


1.60 


.65 


.55 


2 


2563 


Haw York 


T-P 


1.35 


.80 


.60 


2 


3252 Haw Tort 


T-P 


1.46 


.60 


.60 


2 


303 


Haw York 


T-P 


1.40 


.60 


.60 


2 


38261 


Phila. 


T-P 


1.36 


.90 


.60 


2 


40160 


3a.lt. 


T-P 


1.35 


.33 


.35 


2 


90220 


Portland 


T-f 


1.22 


.60 


.35 


2 


90340 


Portland 


a-* 


.99 


.68 


.43 


2-5 


3680 


Haw jforfe 


:-- 


no 


To? 


753 


2-3 


50031 


:hio*f;o 


W 


1.10 


.60 


.40 


| 


(?aoo 


Now York 


:-' 


1.65 


.85 


1.15 ( 


3 


3395 How lor* 


T-P 


1.80 


.85 


.60 


3 


7430 Mow Tort 


:-t 


1.75 


1.26 


.70 


3 


62010 


Chicago 


?-; 


1.40 


.66 


.40 


3 


50351 


Chioago 


T-P 


1.30 


.70 


.40 


3 


42240 


Cleveland 


T-P 


1.72 


.72 


.78 


3 


80410 Loa Ang. 


T-P 


1.50 


.66 


.31 


3 


80040 


Loa Ang. 


T-P 


1.50 


.75 


.60 


3 


80170 


Low Ang. 


T-P 


1.40 


.60 


.65 


3 


80770 


Loa Ang. 


:-f 


1.40 


.67 


.32 


3 


38160 


Phil*. 


m 


1.80 


.72 


.55 


3 


904 70 
42060 


Seattlo 
Dbawwlual 


i-y- 

T-P 


1.40 
2.60 


.76 
.78 


.65 


3-4 


776" 


3-4 


42120 


Cl eve land 


T-P 


2.15 


.86 


.76 


3-4 


42210 


CI oral am 


S-f 


1.85 


1.05 (2) 


.46 


3-4 


42190 


Cleveland 


T-P 


2.35 


.90 


.60 


3-4 


38180 


So rant on. 














Pa. 


S-P 


1.46 


.62 


.44 


3-4 


90100 


Seattle 


:-? 


1.15 


.80 


.60 


3-4 


70060 


St. Loula 


M 


2.20 


.80 


.76 


5 - 4 


moo 


St. Loula 


7-f 


1.96 


.75 


.85 


3-4 


6850 


Chioaea 


H 


1.75 


.85 


.80 


i 




How fS& 


H 


2.05 


TTso 


.80 


4 - 6 




Phila. 


T-r 


27So 


T26 


-^5 


4-5 


38260 


Phil*. 


;-f 


2.4S 


1.30 


.85 



Cut- 
ting 



Total 
Labor 



.25 |.09 t .81 



.07 


1.09 


.07 


.19 


1.84 


— 


.15 


1.28(4) 


— 


.25 


1.80 


.27 


.13 


1.54 


.12 


.13 


1.20 


.12 


.14 


1.2116) 


.11 


.10 


1.23 


— 


.18 


1.43(6) 


.66 


.16 


1.49(7) 


.69 


.24 


1.54(8) 


.39 


.29 


1.91 


.:.] 


.40 


2.26 


— 


.33 


2.43 


— 


.26 


2.96 


— 


.20 


2.86 


— 


.25 


2.70 


— 


.20 


2.60 


— 


.44 


2.69 


.24 


.15 


2.18 


.10 


.36 


2.43 


.31 


.36 


2.36 


.4;' 


.09 


2.29 


— 


.32 


2.42 


t ie 


.40 


4.06 


— 


.19 


3.44 


— 


.60 


4.20 


— 


.25 


2.70 


_ 


.20 


2.60 


.21 


.38 


3.60 


.18 


.36 


2.82 


.07 


.48 


3.33 


■82 


.50 


3.16 


_ 


.42 


2.81 


.11 


.88 


.3.95 


.25 


.76 


3.65 


_ 


765* 


4.66 


.27 


.63 


4.40 


.94 


.46 


3.61 


.Sfl 


.85 


4.70 


.99 


1.13(3) 


3.86 


_ 


• oTT 


3740- 




.39 


4.14 


.69 


.52 


4.07 


,60 


.76 


4.15 


__ 


.28 


4".40 


— 


.84 


5,44 


.59 


.36 


4.96 


— 




.13 2.31 
■26 2.18 
.33 2.46 



2.90 
2.39 
2.94 

3.09 



2.99 
3.63 
3.01 
4.49 

3.06 
4.29 
3.87 
5713 
5.96 
4.42 
6.30 



4.11 

6.13 
4.74 



10.76 
8.75 
10.76 
10.76 
10.75 
8.76 
8.76 
10.76 
10.75 
12.76 
6.75 
10.76 
10.76 
10.75 
10.75 
10.75 
10.76 
12.75 
16.75 
10.75 
13.76 
13.76 
10.76 
12.76 
12.75 
12.75 
10.75 
12.76 
16.75 
16.75 
16.75 
16.76 

16.75 
lft.76 
16.76 
16.75 
14.75 

T errs' 

Tff.75" 
16.76 



2.70 
2.36 
3.04 
2.61 



2.76 
3.67 
2.47 
3.71 

2.78 
4.14 
4 .64 
4779 
6.26 
3.60 
4.64 



6722" 

5.06 



3.01 
2.67 
3.66 
5.34 



2.97 
4.48 

4.96 
672T 
6.81 
4.21 
6.24 



6*60 
6.35 
7.34 



6.99 
6.23 



8.50 
9.37 
10.32 
10.42 
13.23 
12.76 



12.76 
12.60 
10.76 
14.76 

11.66 
10.48 
15.42 

TaTTf" 

19.70 
16.50 

16.75 



17. B4 

19.06 

21.91 



T7JJ 

1.47 



.70 1.28 



1.12 1.62 



1.13 


1.00 


1.61 


1.16 


1.10 


.72 


1.0S 


1.16 


1.10 


1.09 


1.36 


.63 


1.06 


1.04 



1.11 

1.10 



P - Piece V.'ork 
W - We ok Work 
S - Section Shop 
T - Tailoring Shop 



(1) All hand prosalng. 

(2) Inoludaa additional hand work worth about 26 oenta. 

(3) High Coat dua to ua* of knitted fabrio and of an Interlining to keep thekoitted fabrio from etretohing. 

(4) Estimated additional ooat par garment to bring workara up to minimum oode wage ratea - 23*> 

(5) _3tl_r»tod additional ooat per garment to bring workara up to ainiaum ooda wag* rata* - 30/. 

(6) Estimated additional ooat per garment to bring workera up to "<"'»"« oode wage ratea - 4/. 

(7) Estimated additional ooat per garment to bring workers up to minimum oode sage ratea - 16/. 

(8) Eatimated additional ooat per garment to bring workers up to minlmm oode wage rates • 25/. 



-99« 
3 \BLB u 1 1 c 



Numbers of Ivfeedle Workers 
In Various Liarlcet Areas 
3j Aje Croups 

Preparea frci.i U. S, Census of Papulation 1930 

(Data Incomplete) 



10-17 18-19*20-34 25-34^5-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 
lew York City (l 
tfew York City (V 5827 5754 11230 22803 34107 23051 16334 5888 

few York (Excl.", Y.C.) 

(2 - 
lonnecticut (3) ■ 2374 1615 2643 3015 3754 2660 1307 763 



CO c 

Over 
6 ! 



31 



'.. J. (Excl.Cai.u-en) 

( -.,) 1170 934 
Lston (5) 149 21' 



1864 5332 4557 3481 1S?3 777 
881 1822 1747 1137 465 



"phila(And Camden) (6) 932 1152 

Baltimore (7) 

Cleveland (o) 

Chicago (9) 

Kansas City (10) 

St. louis (11) 

L^s. Angeles (12) 43 127 

San Francisco (13) 4 39 

PerUand (14) 25 52 

Seattle (15) 16 65 



2245 3372 5183 3909 2453 782 

569 1173 1970 2746 2089 12^2 469 

173 376 779 1051 1795 1396 606 156 

777 1222 3523 9108 12745 7949 3780 1175 

167 344 601 510 346 137 

547 1132 1372 1104 726 274 



24 42 

185 215 



481 1445 2531 2419 134* 



£S7 



»Y«i 



169 '707 12C0 133< -719 331 
111 307 637 "653 '415 137 
191 457 775 744 410 104 



Totals 

150656 

13712 



10 3 


18090 


67 


6873 


89 


20617 


66 


loos;-: 


24 


6581 


101 


40380 


30 


2131 


28 


5583 


44 


5911 


35 


4433 


9 


2326 


14 


277 6 



Totals 



12313 12376 25512 50424 73827 58026 53196 11871 1342 278836 



. 



9821 



-100- 

TABLE H 14 o 

Percentage of Needle Workers 
In Various Market Areas 
"by Age Groups 

Prepared from U.S. Census of Population 1930 



10-17 18-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 & 10-19 55 & 

Over Over 

Uev; York 

City 4.46 4.40 8.60 17.45 .26..10 21.47 12.50 4.51 0.51 8.86 17.52 

New York 
(Excl.NYC) 

Connecticut 12.69 8.63 14.12 16.11 20.06 14.22 9.66 4.08 0.43 21.32 14.17 

N. J. 
(Excl. 
Camden) 6.47 5.13 10.30 18.42 25.19 19.24 10.35 4.30 0.56 11.63 15.21 

Boston 2.17 3.11 5.69 12.82 26.51 25.42 16.54 6.77 0.97 5.28 24.28 

Phila. 
(And 
Camden) 4.52 5.59 10.88 19.79 25.15 18.96 11.90 3.79 0.43 10.11 16.12 



Baltimore 5.56 5.20 10.73 18.02 25.12 19.11 11.36 4.29 0.60 10.76 16.25 

Cleveland 2.80 5.91 12.25 16.52 28.22 21.95 9.53 2.45 0.38 8.71 12.36 

Chicago 1.92 3.^3 8.72 22.56 31.56 19.69 9.36 2.91 0.25 4.95 12.52 

Kansas City x.10 1.93 7.66 15.77 27.56 23.38 15.86 5.82 0.92 3.03 22.60 

St. Louis 3.31 3.85 9. 80 20.28 24.57 19.77 13.01 4.91 0.50 7.16 18.42 

Los Angeles 0.48 1.43 5.40 16.22 28.40 27.15 15.13 5.31 0.49 1.91 20.93 

San Prancisco0.09 0.87 3.77 15.75 26.74 29.72 16.02 6.26 0.78 0.96 23.06 

Portland 1.07 2.24 4.77 13.20 27.39 27.21 17.84 5.89 0.39 3.31 24.12 

Seattle 0.58 2.34 6.88 16.46 27.92 26.80 14.77 3.75 0.50 2.92 19.02 



Totals 4.41 4.44 9.15 18.08 26.47 20.81 11.90 4.26 0.48 8.85 16.64 



9821 



-101- 

TA3L1, H 14c 

1. U. S. Census of Population, 193C Vrl IV 

Occupations by States - Table 12, Pages 1134, 1136, 1138, 1139, 

1141, 1143, 1144, 1146, 1147, 
1149 

2. « Table 11, Pages 1120, 1122, 1123 

3. " Table 11, Pages 272, 274 

4. " Table 11, Pages 1023, 1025 

5. » Table 12, Pages 728, 730 

6. » Table 12, ?ages 1027, 1029, 1413, 1415 

7. " Table 12, Pages 674, 676 

8. » Table 12, Pages 1285, 1287 

9. " Table 12, Pages 447, 449 

10. » Table 12, Pages 900, 901, 902 

11. « Table 12, Pages 904, 906 

12. " Table 12, Pages 199, 201 
15. » Tabic 12, Pages 208, 210 

14. » Table 12, Pages 1370, 1372 

15. " Table 12, pages 1709, 1711 



9821 



-103- 



ill 






5 So 



e U 

> d 
-1 M 



6 TJ 



gg* 



tt. = 



8-J5 

U 



U. c 

g s 

4 w 



^ tf 






9821 































103- 






• • *J 




























feSS 


w 


r-t 


■^ 


to 


to 


00 


r-t 


r-l 


o 


n 


•o 


to 




<o 


to 


to 


rH 






o 


o 




o 


o 


o 




> t. C 




























-< W W 


























m 




C 


s 


LO 


IO 


<o 


« 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


CD 


u 




B 


to 


to 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


Ol 


CO 


CM 


CM 


c 




t* 


























o 
































■O 




























I 


O 




























C 


o 




























a. 




q 


o 


8 


o 


to 


LO 


to 


IO 


IO 


to 


in 


LO 


IO 








o 


en 


CO 


00 


CO 


00 


CO 


00 


en 


CO 


CO 






3 






























r-l 






















































• * B 




























>* >» w < 






CO 


to 


o> 


to 


to 


to 


o 


o 


o 




e*2E 


o 


CO 


CO 


to 


<o 


t- 


<0 


to 


to 


CD 


to 


CD 




<aja 


H 


























• 






























"9 






























5 


^ 


in 




CM 


CO 


to 


cn 


to 


* 


to 


<f 


-* 


* 




o 


© 

< 


CO 


•H 


i-l 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 




B 


H 


H 


rH 


















































U 


* 






























S 


lO 


fc- 


c- 


LO 


to 


IO 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 




V 


CO 


C- 


C- 


u> 


to 


to 


CO 


to 


to 


ID 


CO 


to 




S 


a 






























• 
































v- 


If) 


CM 


CM 


^ 


■«*• 


•* 


* 


M* 


"* 


« 


■* 


**• 








s 


■s 


iH 


i-4 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


00 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 








- 


i-l 


H 






















• 


• 






























rH 


<fi 






























g 


o 

u 


a 


in 


t- 


C- 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 




6 




CO 


O 


t- 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


CO 


to 


to 




^. 




3 


























«J 


to 


o 

CO 


O 

CO 


CO 


CO 

o> 


CM 

CO 


ID 

CI 


o 
o 


to 

o> 


? 


8 


8 


m 




















«-t 




rH 


r-l 


«H 


s 


























































x 






L. 


to 


CM 


CM 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


a 


to 






D 


CM 
























-r* 






> 


























a 







■< 


























Cm 





T3 
O 
O 






























5 


LO 


e- 


e> 


to 


lO 


to 


LO 


LO 


IO 


IO 


LO 


to 




d 




CO 


c- 


t- 


r> 


t- 


t- 


t- 


t- 


t- 


s 


t- 


t> 




i£ 




a 


























«J 


to 


O 


o 


to 


CM 


oo 


^r 


( 


^J« 


1 


1 


, 






to 


CM 


CM 


rH 




t-i 
















• • to 




























^ >i t-: 


fr- 


to 


CD 


<H 


r-i 


to 


o 


o 


en 


LO 


in 


to 




© J cT 


ee 


CO 




Ol 


O 


o 


CO 


00 


o 


en 


CO 


00 


U 


<; 2? aj 




r-l 






















d 




























H 




























H 




























§ 


p 






* 




















1 


ye h 


O 


IO 


to 


o 


rH 


to 


f 


to 


CD 


o 


,_, 


rH 


©op 


m 


to 


to 


o 


O 


■H 




o 


r-t 


H 


o 


o 




5 o < 










l-H 
















P 




























■*i 




























R 




























s 


•p 




























X 




























>.L- Q. • 


CO 


o> 


CD 


t- 


O 


CM 


l-\ 


LO 


to 


O 


t- 


c- 




•H -a « 


o> 


CO 


CO 


t- 


CO 


03 


CO 


t~ 


CD 


<n 


t- 


t> 




© G -H 




























== o 3 




























, 






























It 


o 


m 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


tn 


m 


ID 


to 


LO 




© 


g 


LO 


to 


to 


o» 


o> 


0> 


Ol 


o> 


en 


en 


en 


en 






©H 




























1 


-al 






























© 


cj>| • 




























u. 


5 


o 






LO 


to 


to 


IO 


in 


to 


to 


LO 


LO 






<J> 


CO 


CO 


t- 


C- 


t- 


t> 


t- 


c- 


D- 


t> 


t> 


10 




a 




















































u 




^J 


t- 


C4 


to 


to 


o 


CM 




co 


m 


t-t 


a> 


*H 


o 






■H 


r-l 


CM 


CO 


to 


to 


a. 


CM 


LO 


t-- 


CO 


p 


























































u 


































u 


S 


IO 


LO 


tf> 


<0 


CO 


to 


CD 


CD 


10 


(o 


to 


a 
o 




% 


to 


to 


CM 


CM 


CM 




CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 






T5 

ol • 




























© 


O 


o 


O 


LO 


LO 


ID 


to 


LO 


LO 


LO 


ID 


LO 




H 


U 


o 


o 


en 


CO 


CO 


X 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


00 




si 






























^ 


a 


to 


CO 






















e- 


t- 


o 


CO 


o 


CM 


LO 


Ol 


rH 


en 






03 


CD 


t- 


r-f 


to 


to 


to 




t- 


T 


CM 


r-t 






o 


c- 


o 


V 


rH 


e- 


o 


o 


o 


to 


to 


to 




l! £ D 


to 


CM 


so 


«-t 


CM 


CM 


o 


o 


CM 




r-l 
































a 


< 33 a 


























--< 
p 


« • 


























p 


15 


* 


l-l 


rH 


t- 


t> . 


t- 


e> 




e- 


t- 


C» 


t- 


3 


w 


CM 


CM 




















o 


o a 




























■p 

• 


■rl 

o 




a 
•H 










-p 


■ 

O 


o 

o 

■ 








M 






O. 


© 


•d 




to 















U 


.M 




r-t 


h 


a 




•H 


u 


© 


i 


TJ 






3 


1* 




© 


O 


O 


3 




hO 


a 


o 




a 


o 


§ 


T3 


8 




bC 


o 


n 


4 


u 


iH 






>• 


d 


•H 


« 


cd 


_) 


i. 


.-3 


Ct. 




p 








■P 


r-< 


■P 


? 


o 




at 






•p 


p 






1 


O 


2 


i-( 

at 


© 


■H 

X 


+> 


i 


01 

O 


3 


b 


o 

i 






z 


m 


a. 


CO 


o 


o 


CO 


M 


-1 


CO 


a. 


CO 


V821 


































X X 










T3 t, o a -P CO « 








P '*-, PhTI L, dC. 


U Cm 






bo ot o tj at. t- 


bD to 


_, ■:■ c '•'"-■ t- 1 




Cm m 


^ d X - u © 


o 


O & 






x t* t< © a ax 

Eh d o JE £ 3 P 





-104- 
TA3LL E-7 

NUMBER A'£D aV3RAGE HOURLY SaRI'II'GS OE MALE CUTTERS-* III TAILOR AMD 
SICTIOE SHOPS (Eor week 'beginning March 5th and ending March 9th, 1934) 









TAILOR 




SECTIOIT 






Number Aver.Hrly 
Earnings 


Hunber 


Aver.Hrly. 
Earnings 


Manhattan & Bronx 


1930* 


$1.64 


(a) 


$1.58 


Brooklyn & Queens 


137* 


1.52 


39* 


1.47 


New- York State 
IT.Y.O. ) 


(Except 


(a) 




(a) 


1.10 


Connect icut 




(a) 


1.25 


(a) 


1.23 


New Jersey- 




14 


1.34 


21 


1.20 


Boston 




35 


1.27 


(a) 




Boston Suburbs 




(a) 


1.19 


(a) 




Philadelphia 




53 


1.53 


(a) 




Baltimore 


« 


26 


1.15 


(a) 


1.14 


Cleveland 




115 


1.26 


30 


1.19 


Chi cage 




81 


1.39 


(a) 


1.40 


Chicago Suburbs 




19 


1.18 


12 


.85 


St. Louis 




(a) 


1.11 


20 


1.06 


Kansas City 




10 


1.05 


(a) 




Los Angeles 




110 


1.21 


(a) 




San Francisco 




43 


1.23 


(a) 




Portland 




39 


1.04 


(a) 




Seattle 




(a) 


1.51 


(a) 


1.11 



♦♦Including in addition to coat and suit cutters, workers in the following 
classifications found in the Western area only: apprentice cutters, semi- 
skilled cutters, cloth and lining pilers, pilers, and canvas cutters. 
♦Estimate based upon sample of Z8fi> of employees. 

(a) i!o data. Numbers negligible in most cases. 

9821 



-105- 
IABLE E-8 



NUMBER HID AVERAGE HOURLY EAFNING-3 OF MALE OPERATOhS** IN TAILOR AND 

SECTION SHOPS BY MARKET (Tor week "beginning March 5 and ending March 9,1934). 









TAILOR 

Aver.Hrly. 




SECTION 

Aver.Hrly. 






Number 


' Earnings 


Numb e i 


Earnings 


Manhattan & Bro 


nx 


12089* 


$1.57 


(a) 


$1.46 


Brooklyn & Queens 


1674* 


1.34 


476* 


1.22 


New York State 
... Y, C 


(Except 
.) 


10 


1.33 


(a) 


1.52 


Connecticut 




23 


1.33 


36 


1.27 


New Jersey 




86 


1.31 


183 


1.09 


Boston 




181 


' 1.24 


(a) 




Boston Suburbs 




20 


1.23 


(a) 




Philadelphia 




269 


1.40 


(a) 




Baltimore 




156 


1.28 


(a) 


1.61 


Cleveland 




372 


1.25 


(a) 


1.16 


Chicago 




454 


1,19 


(a) 


.97 


Chi cago Suburb s 




23 


1.30 


30 


.89 


St. Louis 




46 


1.10 


47 


1.37 


Kansas City 




(a) 


.86 


(a) 


.88 


Los Angeles 




358 


1.17 


(a) 




San Francisco 




104 


1.12 


(a) 




Portland 




36 


1.14 


(a) 


.61 


Seattle 




11 


1.11 


(a) 


1.20 



•♦Including in addition to jacket, coat, reefer snd dress operators, workers 
in the following classifications: skirt operators and for Western area only 
apprentice operators 

♦Estimate based on sample of 38^ of employees. 

(a) No data. Numbers are negligible in most cases. 
9821 



-106- 

TABLE E-9 

NIMdER AI© AVERAGE HOURLY SABHIiTGS OP EEilALE OPERATORS** I IT TAILOR a!jT> 
SECIIOIf SHOPS 3Y I.ARIGCT (Por week beginning March 5 and ending March 9, 1954) 







TAILOR 

Aver. Krly 




SSCTIOIT 

Aver. Hrly. 




Number 

550* 


Earnings 

$1 . 09 


number 
350* 


Earnings 


Manhattan c'j Bronx 


$.83 


.Brooklyn L Queens 


655* 


1.07 


965* 


.94 


iTer York State (Z::ce- 


it 








11. Y. C.) 


32 


.79 


245 


.84 


Connecticut 


15 


.32 


121 


.32 


New Jersey 


103 


.33 


336 


.34 


Boston 


11 


.79 


(a) 




3oston Sulmrbs 


21 


.84 


(a) 




Philadelphia 


7G 


.37 


(a) 




Baltimore 


210 


.30 


109 


.71 


Cleveland 


121 


O i" 

. ofa 


292 


.75 


Chicago 


13 


.78 


50 


.66 


Chicago • Suburbs 


29 


. 65 


147 


. 53 


St. Louis 


(a) 


.75 


49 


.53 


Kansas City 


(a) 


.61 


244 


.58 


Los Angeles 


11? 


.31 


(a) 




San Prancisco 


104 


.33 


(:) 


.31 


Portland 


132 


. 6S 


(a) 


.38 


Seattle , 


51 


r r 


10 


.54 



** Including in addition to jacket, coat, reefer and dress o jera.tors workers 
in the following classificrtion: skirt operators, seru-skilled operators 
(Pestern area, only) and a'o^r entices (b'estern a.rea only). 

* Estimate based on sample of 58. j of emplojrees. 

(a) No da.ta. ITunbers are in jiost cases negligible. 



9821 



-107- 



TABLE E-10 

MJli3ER AHD A v E±-^.ri: H0U3LY liABi.'HIOS OP MALE FINISHERS** III I'AILOH A".ID 

SECTION SHOPS BY LiARJCCT (For week beginning March 5 and ending March 9, 1934), 



dumber 

Manhattan & Bronx 4000* 
3rooklyn & Queens 310* 
Nor York State (Except 

1I.Y.C.) (a) 
Connecticut (a" 1 

lie'-* Jersey ■ IB 



TAILOR 



Aver. 


Hi 


■ly. 


Ej 


jmin, 


,'S 


$1, 


.19 






1, 

i 


.00 
.79 






1, 


.03 
.98 









SECT 


I Oil 








Aver, Hrly. 


Uumber 




Ei 


irninss 


(a) 






$1.18 


47* 






.82 


22 






,69 


(a) 






.51 


11 






.88 



Boston 


39 


Boston Suburb s 


10 


Philadelphia 


53 


Baltimore 


23 


Cleveland 


(a) 


Chicago 


37 


Chicago Suburbs 


(a) 


St. Louis 


(a) 


Kansas City 


(a) 


Los Angeles 


1,5 


San Prancisco 


(a) 


Portland 


(a) 


Seattle 


(a) 



.90 
• So 
.32 



.65 
.73 
.92 
. 52 



(a) 
(a) 
(a) 



(a) 
61 
53 
(a) 
(a) 
(a) 
(a) 
(a) 
(a) 
(a) 



.51 
.97 
.74 
.92 
.53 



** Including in addition to reefer, jacket rnd coo.t finishers, workers in the 
following classifications: finishers' helpers, skirt "basters and finsihers 
(Eastern area only), and apprentice finishers (Western area only). 

* Estimate based upon c sainle including 38^3 of the employees. 

(a) No data. ITurfoers are negligible in most cases. 



9821 



-108- 

TABLE E-ll 
NUMBER AMD AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OE FEMALE FINISHERS** IN TAILOR AND 
SECTION SHOPS BY MARKET (For week beginning March 5 and ending March 9, 

1934 ), 





TAILOR 




SECTION 




Number 
7026* 


Aver.Hrly. 
Earnings 


Number 
195* 


Aver.Hrly. 
Earnings 


Manhattan & Bronx 


$1.09 


$.79 


Brooklyn & Qjueens 


1234* 


.93 


647* 


.78 


New. York State (Exc< 
N.Y, 


rot 

,C.) 11 


.61 


111 


.56 


Connecticut 


13 


.68 


58 


.60 


New. Jersey 


65 


. .75 


154 


.70 


Boston 


136 


. .81 


(a) 




Boston Suburbs 


47 


.59 


(a) 




Philadelphia 


204 


.83 


(a) 




Baltimore 


107 


• .71 


77 


.59 


Cleveland 


260 


. .72 


329 


.58 


Chicago 


198 


' .86 


14 


.71 


Chicago Suburbs 


25 


.65 


50 


.54 


St, Louis 


38 


.62 


68 


.62 


Kansas City 


(a) 


.86 


74 


.58 


Los Angeles 


352 


.66 


(a) 


.63 


San Francisco 


181 


.63 


(a) 


.56 


Portland 


99 


.58 


(a) 




Seattle 


41 


.57 


13 


.52 



** Including in addition to reefer, jacket and coat finishers, workers 
in the following classifications: finishers' helpers, button sew- 
ers (Western area only) and apprentice finishers (Western area only), 

* Estimate based on sample of 38;$ of employees. 

(a) No data. Numbers are negligible in most cases. 



9821 



..I, . 



TA^LE 2-12 



ffMBER AND AVT.^OE HOURLY EOTOTGS CE P2ES3ERS (:1ALE)** IS TAILOR AKTO SECTION SHOPS 
$Y luAREET (Eor ueek beginning March 5, and <>nding March 9, 1? : ^4). 





TAILOR 




SECTION 






Aver. Hrlv. 




Aver. Hrly. 




"'• nber 


Earnings 


Number 


Earnin ;-s 


Manhattan & Bronx 


4421* 


$1.73 


(a) 


$1.20 


Brooklyn c": Queens 


682* 


1.55 


311* 


1.30 


few York State (Except 










H.Y.O. ) 


(a) 


1.02 


68 


1.16 


3bnnecticut 


10 


1.19 


39 


1.02 


iev? Jersey 


45 


1.22 


104 


1.17 


Boston 


79 


1.28 


(a) 




Sbston Suburbs 


13 


1.26 


(a) 




Philadelphia 


103 


1.49 


(a) 




Belt ir.iore 


79 


1.18 


• 39 


.88 


Cleveland 


74 


1.16 


159 


1.11 


3hi cago 


111 


1.45 


25 


1.19 


Chicago Suburbs 


15 


1.22 


27 


•83 


St. Louis 


13 


1.10 


27 


1.27 


Kansas City 


(a) 


.74 


23 


.95 


IjOS Angeles 


133 


1.09 


(a) 




San Eran. cisco 


66 


1.15 


(a) 




Portland 


40 


.94 


(a) 




Seattle 


17 


.87 


(a) 


1.19 



["•including in addition to jacket, coat, reefer and dress utroer and under pressers, 

porkers in the following classifications: skirt inroer nressers, (Eastern area 
mly) machine oressers (Eastern area only), jacket, coat, reefer and dress part 
ressers (Uestern area only) and apprentice pressors (Western area only). 

[•Estimate based on sample of 38£ of employees. 

j(a) Ho data. Numbers negligible in raost cases. 



19821 



-110- 



IA3LE E-3 

NUMBER AND AVSHAC-E HOURLY EARNINGS QP MALE OPERATORS** IN INSIDE AND 
OUTSIDE SHOPS BY MAEKET (Por week beginning March 5th and ending March 
9, 1934) 







INSIDE 






OUTSIDE 








Ave 


r. Hrly. 




Aver. Hrly. 




Number 
5734* 


Ee 


rn i ng s 


Number 
6495* 


Ea 


rninss 


Manhattan & Bronx 




$1 . 59 


$1.55 


Brooklyn & Queens 


(a) 




1 . 40 


2158* 




1.31 


Upstate New York 


12 




.99 


SO 




1.58 


Connecticut 


(a) 




1.41 


54 




1.29 


Few Jerse3 7 


45 




1.20 


224 




1.14 


Boston 


102 




1.21 


77 




1.30 


Philadelphia 


193 




1 . 37 


73 




1.17 


Baltimore 


75 




1.31 


91 




1.28 


Cleveland 


153 




1.39 


243 




1.14 


Chicago 


252 




1 . 30 


167 




1.02 


Chi cago Suburb s 


30 




.97 


19 




.97 


St. Louis 


93 




1 • o5 


(a) 






Kansas City 


(a) 




.37 


\ c ' / 






Los Angeles 


357 




1.13 


(a) 






San Prancisco 


104 




1.13 


(a) 






Portland 


38 




1.10 


\ Cl / 






Seattle 


(a) 




1.22 


(a) 







**Includin~ in addition to jacket, coat, reefer and dress operators the 
following classes of workers in the markets "here such classifications 
exist: Skirt operator? anc apprentice operators. 

* Estimate baser upon a sample of 53 - of the employees. 

(<a)No data. The numbers are in most cases negligible. 



9321 



-111- 



TA3LE 2-4 



NUMBER AMD AT ".PAGE HOURLY EAHPItfGS 0? FE1AL2 OPERATORS** IF INSIDE AMD 
OUTSIDE SHOPS 3Y MARKET (?or reek beginning March 5th and ending 
March 9, 1934) 







INSIDE 






OUTSIDE 






Aver. Hrly. 




Aver. Hrly 




Number 


Earnings 


Numb e i 


Earnings 


Manhattan & Bronx 


653* 




.95 


247* 


$1.09 


Brooklyn Cc Queens 


(a) 






2158* 


1.02 


Upstate He^: "fork 


25 




.81 


252 


.84 


Connecticut 


(a) 






139 


.82 


I>Iev: Jersey 


(a) 




.38 


410 


.83 


Boston 


(a) 




.63 


(a) 


1.02 


Philadelphia 


(a) 




.87 


77 


1.23 


Baltimore 


209 




.79 


210 


.72 


Cleveland 


99 




.35 


203 


.72 


Chicago 


(a) 




.75 


(a) 


.79 


Chicago Suburbs 


74 




.64 


52 


.65 


St . Loui s 


69 




.59 


(a) 




Kansas City 


254 




.68 


(a) 




Los Angeles 


116 




.82 


(a) 


.65 


San Prancisco 


106 




.83 


(a) 




Portland 


140 




. 65 


(a) 




Seattle 


22 




.58 


(a) 





♦♦Including in addition to jacket, coat, reefer and dress operators the 
following classes of '.orkers in the markets ■here such classifications 
exist: Semi-skilled operators, skirt operators and apprentice operators. 

* Estimate bcseo uoon a samnle of 38^o of the employees. 

(a) No data. The numbers, are in most cases negligible. 



9821 



-11*. 



I -?• 



51 S 









g* 

S.E 

D- © 



a w 



e g- 



td to 



.G 
n 

'J 


• 

s 


t 


c 


■p 


© 


1 




E 








h 


>> 


■p 








!.; 


fi 


■s-s 


j) 


d 


-•a 




0) 




t 


4 


0) 0} 


j, 


e 


ra © 
u t. 

© m 






h 






Q* d 












U O 


.1 


* 


© +> 

Q. 


9 


a 


yg 


m 


h 




■ 

5 


£ 


t, to 




tn 


.M 


E 




a to 

(0 




O 





■P 


1 


3 ft 

O 








U) 


a 


+> -H 
(d 4> 



E 






a S 



.3 3 



B to 



i •< u 



(0 gj 
© .H 
O 



gj K^O 0! 

r* rH S S t. 



i © a *— * 3 -o 

■aj to TJ Tt 

i n u a q 

• d i* o aJ o 

u aj : 



.3-3... 



J3 -P » oJ 

» '.: t, c 

•rj O-O O 



■P .H O 

•u a •» a 

o t* 

■p i* -p 

A at * 

.M a- M a> +j 

o a) v l< 

si al at o 






45 M -M • 1 
3 O o ^. < 
O g] >» ( 

T-J v-j .H I 

a a 

13 13 O i 

P © © 

> d bfl U) at 

at t! "O 

o o a> j4 

...£ C ^ 

U <H <-4 t* , 



a o -z 

© U •■-. 

■3 Tj CO T3 

U 



„ -* DO 

•0 U Tt Q^T) ^'M 

a © © 1— t © <h o 

H4>H «H D 

M d-, SZ <m O 0) . 



I 



1 




55 I 



W>TJ 

a a. 






^ © -h a 
— - -p x +> a +» *■« 








» a 


fci d. to 





•H -H 




■P -P 


+» +> ^n 4> '— ■ 4> w 


t3 Tt 


Tt -H >» -H • — 


tj -d 













a a 


a co a q u> 




Tt 1-1 t. Tt © -H tO 



H . -p - ^ .1,1 

■4 u) to bo to a. d 

h d at d p d o 

3 Tt *o TJ d +» 

1 3 +* 3 +j 3 .h aj . 



1S3 



o © o o ■ 



9821 



• 



TABLE E 10 - COAT AND SUIT CCD" AUTHORITY - TABLE SHOWING BY-LARK 
AREAS FU13IES ASD PERCENTAGES 05" CUTTERS-EARI7ING (l) BELOW CODE 

•.:n T ii.rx!;(2') code MINIMUM & ,.,cve compiled from tee rAYROLLS 

FILED I'OR I F/ESJC OF ilA C 5-l.IARCE 9, 1934 l/ 





MIN. rate 


:io. 

BELOW " 


OF WORK 


IRS 


BELOW 


p:;rcei t tage 

CODE 




CITY 


CODE 


TOTAL 


TOTAL 






CODE 


i:ii".& 




CODE 


MIN.& 








MI1T. 


A30VE 




MIN. 


ABOVE 




IT. Y. C. 


SI. 34 


41 


758 


799 


5.1 


94.9 
83.3 


100.0 


p. Y. State 


1.21 


1 


5 


6 


16.7 


100.0 


Cpnn. 


1.21 


p 


9 


11 


18.2 


01.8 


100.0 


:\ j. 


1.21 


10 


24 


34 


29.4 


70.6 


100.0 


Phi la. 


1.21 


4 


49 


53 


7.5 


92.5 


100.0 


3oston 


1.21 


8 


51 


39 


20.5 


79.5 


100.0 


Total Eastern 
















Area 




35 


118 


143 


17.5 


32.5 




(Excl. f.y.c.) 












Western Area 
















3altimore 


1.17 
1.17 


12 
2 


18 
116 


30 


40.0 


60.0 


100.0 


Cleveland 


118 


1.7 


98.3 


100.0 


Chicago 


1.17 


9 


04 


93 


9.7 


90.3 


100.0 


St. Louis 


1.17 


14 


10 


24 


58.3 


41.7 


100.0. 


Kansas City 


1.17 


6 


10 


16 


57.5 


62.5 


100.0 


Los Angeles 


1.17 


4 


83 


87 


4.6 


95.4 


100.0 


San Francisco 


1.17 





33 


39 


15.4 


84.5 


100.0 


Portland 


1.17 


10 


14 


24 


42 


58 


100.0 


Seattle 


1.17 


1 


4 


5 


20.0 


80.0 


100.0 


Total '.Tester:"; Area 




52 


354 


406 


12.8 


36.2 


100.0 


(Excl'. Baltimore) 

















1_/ The figures throughout the table are preliminary and subject to correction. They 
are based or. analysis of payroll data for 598 shops in Tew York and environs. 
For the smaller cities, e. check of clerical errors by re-examination of payroll 
data on earnings for individual er.rilo.ycos shovs that the number of v/orkcrs belov 
code minimums is actually considerably smaller, perhaps as much as 50p, than shown 
in table, due chiefly to codir._. of semi-skilled cutters, pilors, etc., as full- 
fledged cutters. Data for Chicapo throughout the tabic include its suburbs and it 
is probable that most of the Chicago workers reported as having earned belov/ the 
minimum uer 2 er.plcpees in shops i the Chicago suburbs. 



9821 



-114- 



TABLE E-10 Cont'd. 
COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOWING BY-MARKET AREAS IIUMBEES AHD PERCENTAGE 
. OF CUTTERS-SEMI-SKILLED 
1 -BELOW CODE MINIMUM 
2-CODE MINIMUM AND ABOVE 

COMPILED FROM TEE PAYROLLS PILED 

FOR TEE WEEK OF MARCH 5, -MAR. 9, 1934 2/ 



Western Area Only 



CITY 



MIN. RATE 



NO. OF WORKERS 
BELOW CODE TOTAL 
CODE MIN. & 
MIN. ABOVE 



PSRCEIiTAGE 



BELOW CODE 
CODE MIN. & 
MIN. ABOVE 



TOTAL 



Baltimore 


1.11 


2 




2 


100. 




100.0 


Cleveland 


ti 


- 


11 


11 


- 


100.0 


100.0 


Chicago & Suburbs 


it 


1 


5 


6 


17. 


83. 


100.0 


St. Louis < ■■ 


t! 


- 


1 


1 


- 


100.0 


100.0 


Kansas City ■ ■ : 


11 


- 


4 


4 


- 


100.0 


100.0 


Los Angeles 


II 


3 


2. 


.. 5-"" 


60.0 


40.. 


100.0 


San Francisco ■ 


II 


4 


1 


5 


80.0 


20.0 


100.0 


Portland 


II 


1 


1 


2 ' 


50.0 


50.0 


100.0 


Seattle 


11 


- 


- 


- 




- 


- 



Total: Western District 
(Exci. of Baltimore) 



25 



26 



74 



100.0 



2/ In tie case of smaller cities, a check of clerical errors by re- examination of 
pay-roll data on earnings for individual employees shovs a greater number of 
semi-skilled cutters then here indicated, some of these having been incorrectly 
classified rs full-fledged cutters. 



9821 



■Hi - 



TABLE II- 10 Cont'd. 



COAT AND ?ii T T OiDS A TT THGKITY 
TAELE SHOWING 3Y-llA.cS ST .<H'"..'.S M~ BEHS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF C„ IVA.S 01 ! iSS- EAHKTJSTGS v 

l-3_LOW CODE MINIMUM 
2-C0__i Mil [2 :.. AND /BOVE 

COUPILEU -TiOM THE PAYROLLS TILED 
FOR TILE WEEK 0? MARCH 5-LARCH 9, 1934 3/ 
Western Area Only ; • " • ' " 



City 






PERCENT.} G3 



MINIMUM BELOW CODE TOTAL BELOW COLE 
RATE CODE JIIH, &' CODE LIN. & 

LIN. ABOVE MIN. ABOVE 



TOTAL 



Baltimore 



.74 



Cleveland 
St. Louis 
Kansas City 
Los Angeles 
San Francisco 
Portland 
S°attl«-> 
Chi cago , SuTj . 



Total: Western Area 
(Excl. Baltimore) 



2 3 

2 2 

1 1 

4 5 



33.3 



20.0 



50.0 



66.7 


100,0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


loo .0 


80.0 


loo.o 



50.0 



10 13 



23.1 



76.9 



10O.0 



100.0 



3/ Thy figures given here are subject to qualifications of the kind 
indicated in note 2, above. 



9821 



-116- 



TABLE H-10 CONT'D. 



COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOWING BY-MARKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 
OF CUTTERS (APPRENTICE) EARNING 
1 -BELOW CODE MINIMUM 
2-CODE MINIMUM AND ABOVE 

COMPILED FROM THE PAYROLLS FILED 

FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1934 4/ 



Western Area Only 



CITY 



NO. OF WORKERS PERCENTAGE 

MINIMUM BELOW CODE TOTAL BELOW . CODE 

RATS CODE MIN. & CODE MIN. & 

MIN. ABOVE MIN. ABOVE 



TOTAL 



Baltimore 



-.63 



Cleveland 
Chicago 8- Sub. 
St. Louis 
Kansas City- 
Los Angeles 
San Francisco 
Portland 
Seattle 



6 6 
2 2 
2 2 



100. 



100. 



100. 


100. 


100. 


100. 


100. 


100. 



Total Western 
District 
(Excl. Baltimore) 



14 14 



100. 



100. 



4/ See "Note 3, above. 



9821 



-117- 



TABLE H 10 CONT'D. 



COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOEING BY«- MARKET AREAS NUiviBERS AND PERCENTAGE 
OF CLOTH & LINING FILERS 

1-BELOU CODE MINIMUM 

2- CODE MINIMUM AND ABOVE 

COMPILED FROM THE PAYROLLS FILED 

FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 5- MARCH 9, 1934 5/ 



West ern Area Only 



CITY MIN. 


RATE 




NO. OF \ 


.OEKERS 


PERCENTAGE 


TOTAL 






BELOW 


CODE 


TOTAL 


BELOW 


CODE 








CODE 


MIN. & 




CODE 


MIN. & 








MIN. 


ABOVE 




MIN. 


ABOVE 




Baltimore 


.94 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Cleveland 




- 


4 


4 


- 


ieo.0 


18Q. 1 


Chicago 




- 


3 


3 


- 


100.0 


100.0 


St, Louis 




- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Kansas City- 




2 


2 


4 


50.00 


50.0 


100.0 


Los Angeles 




2 


- 


2 


100.0 


- 


100.0 


San Francisco 




- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Portland 




- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Seattle 




- 


- 


- 


— 


— 


— 



Sotal-Western Area 4 

(Excl, of Baltimore" 1 



13 



30.8 69.2 100.0 



5/ See note 3 above. 



3821 



-118* 

Table H-10 cont'd. 

COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOWING BY- MARKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF FILERS-EARNING 

1-BELOW COLE MINIMUM 
2-CODE MINIMUM AND ABOVE 

COMF1 LED FROM' THE FAYROLLS FILED 
FOR THE WEEK OF iAARCH 5- MARCH 9, 1934 6/ 
Western Area Only ___ _ 



-■ i ' NO. OF wORKERS FERCENTAGE 

CITY . MIN. RATE BELOW CODE " TOTAL BELOW CODE TOTAL 

CODS MIN. & CODE MIN. & 

MIN, ABOVE MIN. ABOVE 



Baltimore • .80 



Cleveland " ._...-.. - 

Chicago, Sub. " " 3 3 - 100,0 100.0 

St. Louis "-11 - 100.0 100,0 

Kansas City "-11 ~ 100, 100.0 

Los Angeles "-44 - 100.0 100.9 

San Francisco "-11- 100.0 100.8... 

Fortland " 2 2 - . 100.0 100,0 .. 

Seattle "-11 - 100.0 100.0 



Total Western Area 13 13 © 100.0 100.0 

(Excl. Baltimore) 

6_y... See note 3, above. 



:821 



-xi.ZLL H 10 (CONT'D) 



-113- 



CCAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOWING BY-MARKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 
OF OPERATORS (MALE) - EARNING 
1-BELOW THE CODE MINIMUM 

2-AT THE CODE MINIMUM AND UP TO THE CODE AVERAGE 
3-CODE AVERAGE AND ABOVE 

COMPILED FROM THE PAYROLLS FILED 7/ 

FOR THE- WEISS OF MARCH 5-MARCH 9 , 1934 



Min. 


Ave r . 


NO. 


OF WORKERS 








PERCENTAGE 


CITY Rate 


Rate Below 


Code Min. 


Code 


Total 


Below 


Code 


Code Total 




Cc 


de 


& up to 


Aver 


t 


Code 


Min. 


Aver . 




Mi 


n. 


Aver. 


and 




Min. 


and 


and 










Ahove 




up 
to 
Aver 


Above 
















. 


ST. Y. C. $1.00 


$1.50 


239 


2312 


385? 


5408 


4.4 


42.8 


52.8 100.0 


Eastern Area .90 


1.35 


- • 


. . - . ■ 


— * 


- 


- 


- 


- 


N.Y. State " 


ii 


n 


57 


48 


87 


2.3 


42.5 


55.2 100.0 


Conn. n 


n 


3 


35 


21 


59 


5.1 


59.3 


35.6 100.0 


N. J. 


ii 


17 


199 


49 


265 


6.4 


75.1 


18.5 100.0 


Philadelphia " 


ii 


14 


127 


115 


256 


5.5 


49.6 


44.9 100.0 


Boston " 


ii 
3a 


16 


96 


78 


190 


8.4 


50.5 


41.1 100.0 


Total Eastern Art 


52 


494 


311 


857 


6.1 


57.6 


36.3 100.0 


(Excl. N.Y.) 


















Western Area. .85 


1,26 


_ 


_ 


— 


— 


- 


- 


- 



Baltimore 



Cleveland 
Chicago 
St. Louis 
Kansas City 
Los Angeles 
San Francisco 
Portland 
Seattle 



60 



79 



147 5.4 40.8 53.8 1GJ .0 



7 
62 8/ 

5 " 

1 

6 

8 

4 

1 



201 

239 

37 

4 

202 

36 

15 

5 



163' 

182 

40 

123. 

53 

13 

8 



371 5.9 



483 

aa 

5 

331 

97 

32 



13 

6. 
20.0 

2 

8 
12.5 



50 

46 

80.0 

61 

48 

46.9 



42.2 100.00 
37 1C0.0 
48.2 100.0 
100.0 
36.8 100.0 

52.5 100.0 

40.6 100.0 



14 7.1 35.7 57.2 100.0 



Total Western Area 94 
(Exclusive of Baltimore) 



739 



582 



1415 6.6 52.3 41.1 100. 



7/ Re-examination of payroll records shows that percent of workers 

receiving less than code minimums os slightly lower than figures here 
indicate. 

8/ Mainly Chicago sutdutds. 



9821 



-120- 



w - 
-p 

c 
o 

P"j O 

^ . 



rH 



HI 

Ph 

O 

EH 

H 

O 
O 

EH 

n 
to 

PI 



EH 

O 

o 



EH 

S ' 

pq 

o 

Ph 
Pi 

<i S 

•t-H 
CO S 

g pq 
f3 ph 



2 



o 
o 



o 

EH 



1 



H n 





to 
Eh rrj 
H O 
M Eh 

3 Ph 



Eh 



Ph 
O 

Ph 

o 



O 
CO 

EH 



-, O EH 

a o 

pq pq 

P3 53 ^ 

O -aj n 



■a; o 



o 

Hi 

pq 

FQ 

H ft n 



o 
o 

I 







h) 

to 

Pi 

8 

Ph 



CT <$ 
Eh 

PI 

o 

Pi 

pq 

Ph 



CT 

o 

f 

LP 

w 

O 



9321 



EH 

O 
EH 






p 






o 

EH 



B 



<>! 



Ph Pi Ph 

§ Bp 



o w 

hI o 

Ph O 

Pi O 



3 

EH 
O 

EH 



Ph 

O 

Ph Pi 

n -3 
o 



n o 

U eh 

S3 & pI 

n \3 pq 



o 

o 



S3 

r!8 



Ph pq 



• pq 
3S 



OJ 



tP. 



LP, 



C\J 



o 



to 

LP 



rP 

OJ 



OJ 

rp 



O O O O O 



o 


O O 


O O 


O 


O 


O 


o o 


O O 


O 




H 


rH r-\ 


r-H rH 


H 


rH 



LP KM^ 

• I • • I 

rH OH 



en cr\ i — rp o 
• • ■ • • 

tO J" rH OJ LP 



M3 rH O Jt O 



CTi rp tO V£> LP 
rH OJ 



H CAU5 to t>0 

r-— rp rP I OJ 

OJ rH J" 



J- I rH H I 



rH tO O OJ rH 
H/HOh-W 
OJ H J" 



>X> H LP LP h 

OJ OJ n, . 



O LP 
LP I^P 



r-i r-i 
-CO- 



O H 

cr. to = 



vn 



LP 



en 
to 



en 



OJ 
LP 



VJ^ 



OJ 
LP 

to 



CTi 



o 



LP 



h-W H; r-PtO J- 
• ••••• 

ONJ- r- hP rP rH J- r- J" 
OJ J- rH tO r— LPVJD O 



to 



LP 



J' 
hr. 






LP 

CTv 



• LP 

O r-- I 



o 



>H 



0) 

<! 

u 

<D 
•P 
W 

cG 

pq 



•rl 

>"£ 

0) Pi 

CO rH 

?■( 

03 
•"3 



0) • 

■P r-i 

W O 

pi pq 



o 

EH 



oooooooo 

o c o o o o o o 
oooooooo 

r-\ r-i r-i rH rH r-\ r-H 



G""v CO tO *.0 rH 



tO 1^- LP CP> LP, tO tO 
OJ (-P rH OJ 



J" J" tO rH hpvjO 

w to oyJ M r— j- lp 

OJ LP tO H rH OJ 



t.O r — rH OJ to LP I — to 
Q-\ LP LPVJD ^P l~P t^P rH 



to j^r rpvx) V3 o rP I 

OJ nA 



l>P rH r— OJ to 0"\ LP h- 
J" OJ LP OJ rH OJ 



r— oj , 
oj rp. 



^,-yo C\r- 



w 

•H 

O rj 



-P 

•H 



o 
o 

to w 

0) -H 
O 



OJ 



LP 
rH 



LP 



rp 

LP 



r-\ 
hP 



^p 



o 

VX) 



O 0) fj t) 

, d w c f-i cd 
ni Hi cfl <j! m h 



3 



-H> 
P -P 





0) 


ctt 


in 


0) 


O 


u 


r 


< 


•H 




■P 




"SI 


(U 


pq 


-p 




CO 


«H 


(1) 


o 


H- 










• 


^ 


H 
O 


-P 


K 


O 


W 



i-l w h m [h 



TABLE :: 10, CONT'D 



TAI T ,E SB SING BY-I.LAHKET AREAS NUI.1BER3 AND PERCENTAGE 
OF OPERATORS (FBLiALE) SEMI-SKILLED, EARNING 

l -below code ::i:.:ii.im: 

2-AT T 3 CODE LIINILiUM AND UP TO TilE CODE AVERAGE 

3- CODE. AVERAGE AND ABOVE 

C0i£PIl 5D FH01;i T::E PAYROLLS FILED 

FOR T1IE WEEK OF LiARCE 5-l.iASCII 9, 1934 



7 e stern Area Cr. 1 y 



CITY 



NO. OF WORKERS 



PERCENTAGE 



;iin. Aver. 

Rate. Rate BELOW Code Lain. Code .Aver. Total Below Code Code Total 
Code C; up to . and Code I.iin. 

Liiri. Aver. above Min. C. up 

to 
Aver. 



Baltimore 



62 .88 



Cleveland . 

Chicago *■ 
Suburb s 

St. Louis 

Kansas City 

Los Angeles 

San Francisco 

Portland 

Seattle 



14 26 11.5 34.7 53.8 ]QCO 



178 



248 2.C 71.8 25.4 



10 


43 


- 


53 


20.7- 


79.3 


- 





2 


- 


9 


- 


100 


- 


- 


111 


10 


121 


- 


91.7 


3.3 




36 


6 


42 


- 


85.7 


14.3 


•7. 


37 


1 


41 


7.4 


90.2 


2.4 


6 


53 


3 


• 62 


9.7 


85.5 


4.8 


3 


21 


w 


• 29 


27.6 


72.4 


m ^ 



Total '..'extern Area 
(Excl. Baltimore) 



34 



33 



603 5.7 80.6 13.7 " 



3321 



-122- 



IA3LE H 10 CONT'D 



COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 

TABLE SHOWING BY-MARKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF OPERATORS (MALE) APPRENTICE-EARNING 

(1) BELOW CODE MINIMUM 

(2) CODE MINIMUM AND ABOVE 



COMPILED FROM THE PAYROLLS FILED 

FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1934 



Western Area On ly 



CITY 



NO. OF WORKERS 



MIN. RATE 



BELOW CODE 
MIN. 



CODE 
MIN. & 
ABOVE 



TOTAL 



PERCENTAGE 



BELOW 

CODE 

MIN. 



CODE 
MIN. & 
ABOVE 



TOTAL 



Baltimore 



.60 



100 



100 



Cleveland 
Chicago & Subs. 
St. Louis 
Kansas City- 
Los Angeles ■ 
San Francisco 
Portland 
Seattle 



2 
2 
1 



2 

2 
1 



100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 



100 



100 ■ 



100 



100 



TOTAL WESTERN AREA 
(EXCL. BALTIMORE) 



15 



15 



100 



100 



9321 



-123- 



TABLE H 10, CONT'D 



TABLE SHOWING BY-MAPKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 
0? OPERATORS (ESMaI-E) APPRENTICES, EARNING 

1 -below c03e mi] ejkm 
2 -code minimum amd above 

compile:; from the payrolls filed 
for the week of march 5-march 9, 1934 



CITY 



NO. OF WORKERS 



MIN. RATE BELOW CODE CODE TOTAL 
MIN MIN & 
ABOVE 



PERCENTAGE 



BELOW CODE 
CODE,. . MIN.& 
MIN. ABOVE 



TOTAL 



Baltimore 



.47 



18 



100. 



100, 



Cleveland 


ti 


Chicago 


ii 


S t . Loui s 


it 


Kansas City- 


it 


Los Angeles 


ii 


San Francisco 


n 


Portland 


n 


Seattle 


ii 



17 


17 


9 


9 


2 


2 


38 


38 


21 


22 


8 


8 


22 


22 


14 


14 



4.6 



100. . 


100 


100 


100 


100 . 


100 


100 


100 


95.4 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 " 


100 



TOTAL WESTERN AREA 
(EXCL. BALTIMORE) 



131 131 



0.8- 



99.2 100 



9821 



-124- 



TA3LE H 10 - CONT'D 



COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOWING EY-MAHOiT AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 
OF HI2.RT OPERATORS (MALE) EARNING 

(1) BELOW THE CODE MINIMUM 

(2) AT THE CODS MINIMUM AND UP TO THE CODE AVERAGE 

(3) CODE AVERAGE AND ABOVE 

COMPILED FROM THE PAYROLLS FILED 

FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 5-MARCE 9, 1934 



NO. OF WOFKERS 



PERCENTAGE 



CITY 



N.Y.C, 



MIN. AVER. BELOW CODE CODE TOTAL BELOW CODE CODE TOTAL 

RATE RATE CODE MIN & AVER & CODE MIN & AVER & 

MIN. UP TO ABOVE MIN. UP TO ABOVE 
AVER. AVER. 



.90 1.40 2 



17 



25 8.0 68.0 



24.0 100.0 



Eastern 
Area 

N.Y. State 
Conn. 
N-. J. 
Phila. 
Boston 



.81 1.26 4 

ii ii _ 

n ii 

n ii 2 

ii ii 6 



4 
5 
2 



5 80.0 20.0 

4 - 100.00 

10 20.0 50.0 

8 75.0 25.0 



30.0 



Cleveland 
Chicago 
St. Louis 
Los Angeles 
San Francisco 

Portland 

Seattle 
Kansas City 



8 
1 

5. 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



TOTAL EASTERN AREA 
(EXCL. N.Y.C.) 


12 


12 


3 


27— 44.-4 ■ 


■44.4 - 


11.2 


100.0 


WESTERN AREA .75 
Baltimore " 


1.15 

ii _ 


1 


4 


5 


20.0 


80.0 


100.0 



10 20.0 80.0 - 100.0 
6 - 16.7 83.3 100.0 
2 - 100.0 - 100.0 

11 - 72.8 27.2 100.0 



Total Western Area 
qR01 (EXCL. BALTIMORE) 



19 8 



29 



6.9 65.5 27.6 100.0 



-125- 



TABLE H-10 CONT'D. 

COA.T AND rr T TT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOWTK !• 11 .'.:, 'VS NUMBER AlTD PERCENTAGE 

OF SKIRT CI ...-' L'Cfifl (FEULE) EARNING 

i - i &LCW 2SE COD^ ICHIKUil 

2 - .- 

3 - CODE A "I ?_AGE AND A 7 , 



.in CODE MINIMUM AidD OP TO THE CODE AVERAGE 



C l t I"D FROM THE PAYROLLS FILED FOR 
THE WEEK OF MARCH 5 - i/ARCH 9, 1934. 



NO . OF WO RKERS 
JITY MIN. AVER, BELOW COTS CCDE " TOTAL 
RATS RATE COD" Mill, AVER. 
MIN. & UP AED 

TC ABOVE 
AVER. 







PERCENTAGE 


BELOW 


COTE 


CODE TOTAL 


CODE 


MI No 


AVER. 


Mill. 


& 


& 




UP TO 


ABOVE 




AVhIR. 





N.Y.C. .80 1.40 



17 



25 32.0 68.0 



100.0 



Sastern 












-^S&S& 


.72 


1. 


26 






ff. Y. St 


ate 






5 


1 


Conn. 








_ 


4 


ff. J. 








— 


3 


5 hila. 








- 


- 


3oston 








_ 


_ 


-etal Eastern 


Area 







Excl. N. Y. C. 



6 


83.3 


16.7 


4" 




100.0 


3 




1G0.0 



13 



38,5 61.5 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100,0 
.100.0 



100.0 



Western Area 

i,70 .90 
3alti- ' " " 
more 



28 



71.4 25.0 3.6 



Total Western Area 
(Excl. Baltimore) 



12 



42 



63 



19.1 



66.6' 



14.3. 



1C0.0 



. 




















Cleveland „ 


ii 


4 


13 


2 


19 


21.1 


68.4 


10.5 


100.0 


"hicago " 


it 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


|5t f Louis „ 


ii 


_ 


2 


-. 


2 


_ 


100.0 


_ 


100.0 


'ansas City 

it 


ii 


















i0S Angeles 



























7 


6 


13 


- 


53.9 


46.1 


100.0 


ian Fran- 




















cisco 




3 


18 


1 


22 


13.6 


81.8 


4.6 


100.0 


Portland " 


ii 


5 


2 • 


- 


7 


71.4 


28.6 


- 


100.0 


Seattle " 


ii 


„ 


„ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


„ 


_ 



100.0 



0821 



TABLE H-10 Cont'd 
COAT ABED SUIT CGDE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHG.jIPG BY-!:A"K£T AREAS JUT.-.' ITS AID 
■' PiPCd'TAGE OF PIPISKERS (l".UiE) EAP.HI1TG 

i- belgh the code ::iiti:ui: 

2- AT THE CGDE LliriPU:: A2ID II? 

TO THE CGDE AVERAGE 

3- CGDE AVERAGE AHD ABOVE 

COMPILED PRGP THE PAYROLLS PILED 

PGP THE UESIC OP ■ APCH 5TH - OPCH 9th, 1934 



".EPS GP UGRKERS 



PPRCP'TAGE 



CITY Pin. Aver. Belor Code Code Total 
Rate Pate ' Code Llin. Aver. 
Pin. And And 

Up to Above 

Aver. 



3 c lo'-' Code Coc'e Total 

Code " in. Aver, 
i in. & Up & Above 
to Aver. 



H.Y.C. .85 1.25 .141 



587 



15S4 9.0 



37.5 



100.0 



Eastern 

Area .765 1.125 



N.Y. State 
Conn. 
N.J. 
Phi la. 
Boston 



Total Eastern Area 

(feci. 1T.Y. ) ■ 31 
Western Area 

.75 1.10 



9 


9 


1 


19 


47.4 


47.4 


5.3 


100.0 


5 


1 


2 


6 


60.0 


15.7 


33. 3 


100.0 


2 


17 


2 


21 


o -c; 


81.0 


9.5 


100.0 


14 


19 


5 


38* 


36.8 


- 50.0 


13.2 


100.0 


3 


19 


10 


32 


9.4 


59.4 


30.2 


100.0 



65 



116 26.7 55.0 17.3 



100.0 



Baltimore 



Area .75 


1.10 


7 


7 


— 


14 


50.0 


50.0 


— 


100.0. 


Cleveland " 


it 


1 • 


3 


1 


.- 


20.0 


50.0 


20.0 


100.0 



Chicago & 
Sub.. " 

St . Lo xi s ' 



12 



33 9.5 75. S 14.5 100.0 

2 _ loo. n _ loo.o 



Kansas City " 



Los Angeles " " 

San Francisco " " 

Portland " " 

Seattle " ' " 



11 



15 '5.7 7S.3 20. 



100.0 



Total 'He stern Area 

9821 (e::cl. of Bait.) 10 



79 



105 9.5 75.3 15.2 



100.0 



-127- 



Table H 10 Cent 'd 
TABLE S"C "I TG BY- ARXET AREAS 7UI.3JERS ABD- PERCENTAGE 
L" 1 71 IS'::* 7 ? (FE"ALE) EARITIITG 

l- btlo7 th: code ; r~i7ir 

- AT T T 7J CODE riiJIi.Ul' X'Z UP TO THE CODE AVERAGE 
3- CODE AVER &£ AID ABOVE 

CGilPILED FROM THE PAYROLLS 7ILED 

BE 7£.:.K 01 LlAItCH 5, - IX1CH 9, 1954 





1. 11. 


AVER. • 


NO. 

L0".7 


07 I7GBKERS 

CODE CODE 


TOTAL 


PE 


ICEHTAGE 




CITY 


BELG77 


CODE 


CODE 


TOTAL 




RATI 


7AIE 


CODE 


UP TO 

AV57. 


AVER. & 
ABOVE 




CODE 
: 17. 


i 17. :-. 

UP TO 
AVER. 


A' r £R. 
ABOVE 


& 


N.Y.C. 


.35 


1.25 


180 


1681 


541 


2402 


7. 5 


70.0 


22.5 


100 


£?stern 






















Area 


.765 


1.125 


















II. Y. S. 


it 


ii 


9 


17 


- 


26 


34.5 


65.4 


- 


100 


Con:-., 


ii 


ii 


- 22 


"7 


- 


29 


75.9 


24.1 


- 


100 


N. J. 


ii 


it 




40 


7 


69 


71.9 


58.0 


10.1 


100 


Phi la. 


ii 


it 


22 


93 


19 


154 


15.4 


69.4 


14.2 


100 


Boston 


n 


it 


.13 


51 


9 


73 


17.8 


69.9 


12.3 


100 



Total Eastern Area 
(E-cl. B.Y.C- ) 



38 



208 



co 



331 



62.3 10.6 



100 



T7e stern Area 

.63 .34 

Baltimore. " " 



20 



42 



20 



32 24.4 



51..- 2 24.4 100 



Cleveland " 
Chic?.go " 
St. Louis H 
Kansas City " 
Los Angeles " 
San Francisco 
Portland " 
Seattle » 



n 
it 
ii 
n 
ti 
ii ii 
ii 
ii 



57 


197 


41 


27 


36 


119 


9 


29 


7 


3 


2 


- 


12 


137 


32 


-5 


55 


9 


11 


34 


1 




14 


— 



275 


*1 r* r- 

lo. O 


71.6 


14.9 


100 


232 


11.5 


37.2 


51.3 


100 


45 


20.0 


64.4 


15.5 


100 


5 


60.0 


40.0 


- 


100 


181 


7.7 ' 


74. 5 


17.7 


100 


59 


7.2 


79.7 


13.1 


100 


46 


24.4 


73.3 


o. o 


100 


17 


17.6 


82.4 


— 


100 



7/e stern Area 

(Escl. of Baltimore) 127 



554 



20= 



370 



12.3 



63.7 24.0 100 



9821 



-128- 



TABLE H 10 Cont'd 
COAT Ai.D SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHCWIRG BYr-liiRKET A^EAS IIU1.3HRS AIR) PERCENTAGE 
OF FETISHERS' HELPERS (lIALE) EARRING 

1- 3ELO".7 THE COBS LL'F.UI 

2- AT THE CODE L'lRIIRJL ASB UP TO THE CODE AVERAGE 

3- COBE AVERAGE AIiB ABOVE 

COMPILES FROM THE PAYROLLS FILEB 

FOP THE '..'£ .K 07 LARCH 5 - i'ARCH 9, 1934 



City 



Bin, 
Rate 



Aver, 
Rate 



r o. of Workers 



Below Code Code 

Code ! in. & Aver. 

Min. Up to and 

Aver, Above 



iotal 



Percentage 



Beloi.7 Code Code Total 
Code L'in. & Aver» & 
I'.in. Up to Above 
Avpr. 



E.Y.C. 



.63 



1.00 



56 



39 



4..1 



56.5 39.4 100,0 



Eastern 






Area 


.557 




j.. • 1 • • 






Conn. 






N.J. 






Phila. 




' 


Boston 




• 


Eastern 


Area 




(Excl. 


R.Y.C. 


) . 



.90 



1 
1 
1 



4 
1 
6 
9 
12 



6 


16,7 


6 6. ..5 


15.7 


100.0 




50,0 


50.0 


~ 


100.0 


8 


12.5 


75.0 


12.5 


lon.o 


11 


- 


31.3 


13.2 


100,0 


16 


12,5 


75.0 


12.5 


100.0 



- 5 



43 11.6 74,4 14.0 100.0 



Western Area, 

.53 .70 

Baltimore " " 



14 



50 



35.7 14.3 100.0 



Cleveland » 
Chicago & Sub. H 
St. Louis " 
Kansas City " 
Los Angeles " 
San Francisco " 
Portland » 
Seattle " 



ti 
ii 
ti 
ii 

H 
1t 

n 
it 



4 
1 



3 

4 
2 



100. ~ 100.0 

100. 100.0 100.0 

50.0 50.0 100.0 



Western Area 

(E::cl. of Baltimore) 



44 



56 100.0 



9821 



-129- 

PALLE 3 10 CGBT'D 
CCAI A3 5" r IP CCPE ' [GRITY 
TABLE SHGT7I • 3T- ARXE'I AREAS UliBER AID PS^CEPTAG-E 
C^ "IITISHERS' HELPERS (FEl ALE) EA?.""I"G 

(i) belo. ifi code ni'irui: 

(2) AT [•« CODE l.'IlTIf'UK AME UP TC T"£ CODE AVERAGE 

(3) CODE AVERAGE Mi) A3GVS 

CGi PILED FOP. TIE PAYROLLS "ILED 

FOE THE I'C Gr ::AP.C:I 5 - ARCH 9, 1934 



CITY I! . AVE - :. 3LLGVJ COPE CGDS TGTAL ■ BELG7.' CODE CODE TOTAL 

RATE RATE CODE • '. I"". L AVER.& COPE I.T".& AVER.& 

IIITT. UP TG ABOVE I.'I". UP TO .ABOVE 

AVE?..- AVER. 



:.C. .55 l.on 117 



Eastern 



QP 



::. Y. State " " 75 7 

Conn. " 



II 


4 


75 


7 


II 


5 


37 


- 


II 


3 


150 


5 


II 


8 


67 


1? 


It 


6 . 


97. 


3 



4.8 


3o,9 


o. o 


100.0 


11.9 


83.1 


- 


100.0 


3* O 


90.9 


3.5 


100.0 



::.j. » " 3 150 5 14: 

Philr. » " 8 67 1? 37 9.2 77.0 13.8 100.0 

Boston » " 6. 97. 3 106 5.7 91.5 2.3 100.0 

Total Eastern Area 

(Excl. 5. B.C.) n 404 27 432 5.7 37.4 5.9 100.0 

Western Area . 53 . 70 

BEiico-e » " 9 62 10 81 11.1 75.5 12.4 ino.O 



Cleveland " 


ii 


9 


193 


25 


07D 


3.9 


35.3 


10.8 


loo.o 


Chicro & Sub. " 


ii 


10 


34 


- 


44 


(GO» C5 


7S.2 


- 


100.0 


St. Louis " 


ii 


2 


40 


2 


44 


4.5 


90.8 


4.5 


100.0 


Kansas City " 


it 


«i 


45 


5 


54 


5. 5 


82.3 


11.1 


100.0 


Los Angeles " 


ii 


i 


l:. 4 


7 


142 


1.4 


95.7 


4.9 


100.0 


San Francisco " 


n 


7 


105 


4 


114 


7.3 


36.3 


5.4 


100.0 


Portland " 


n 


6 


«_ o< 


- 


11 


14.6 


35.4 


- 


100.0 


Seattle " 


ii 


8 


17 


— 


2'o 


35. 


51.0 


— 


100.0 


7" J - 1 Western Area 




















(£::cl. Brit.) 




45 


SOS 


44 


595 


5. 5 


87.1 


6. 5 


100.0 



3821 



-130- 



TaLle H-10 cont- l d 

COAT A~"D 3ITIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TAILS SHOTTING- BY-l.ARKET AREA." 1TH3ERS AED PERCENTAGE 
OF BUTTON SETTERS (FEiALE) EARHIHG 
l-BELO'" THE CODE I P T I1UM 

2- AT TH7 CODE iIP T II V.i AND TJP TO T^E (XDE AVERAGE 
3-CODE A T .rERAGE A^D ABOVE 

COMPILED FROM THE PAYROLLS PILED 

W R ^TB "7EEJC OF ilARCN 5-KARCH 9, 1-34 





I XT. 


AVER. 


BELO? 


HO. OF '""0 RT7.RS 


BELOW 


CODE 


PERCENTAGE 

CODE 




CITY 


CODE 


CODE 




TOTAL 




RATE 


RATE 


CODE 


MIN & 


AIER : .& 


TOTAI 


CODE 


MIH & 


AVER & 










liin . 


UP TO 
AVER. 


ABOVE 




MIH. 


UP TO 

AVER. • 


ABOVE 




3al t i . 10 r e 


.53 


.70 


i 


18 


- 


19 


5.3 


94.7 


- 


100.0 


Cleveland 


ii 




5 


31 


- 


36 


13.9 


86.1 


- 


100.0 


Chicago & 


ii 




2 


65 


12 


79 


2.5 


82.4 


15.4 


100. c 


Sub. 






















St. Lords 


ii 




2 


7 


- 


q 


22.2 


77.8 


- 


100.0 


Kansas Cit 


ii 




- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Los Angeles " 






18 


1 


19 


- 


94. 7 


5.3 


100.0 


S. ' Francisco " 




- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. . 


Portland 


n 




2 


8 


- 


10 


2.0 


8.0 


- 


100,0 


Seattle 


ii 




1 


8 


__ 


9 


11.1 


88.9 




100. 



Tot pi Uestero Area 

(Bxcl. Bait ii lore) 12 137 



13 



162 7.4 84.6 8.0 



9821 



-131- 



rABLI H 10 C01"I !n 



COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 



TABL" SHO^HTCt 3Y-MABXET AEEAS NHvLBERS AHD PI 
OF FT"; \P1 tENTICE (MALE) EABTPTG 

(1) B Li " CODE KDTI [fii 

(2) COLE MINIMUM A rr I> ABOVE 



SUE i 



TAGE 



COMPILED FRO THE PAYROL T S FILED 

FOR THE TEE7 OF LARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1S34 



fESTEBS AREA F'LY 



BEH OF "ORDERS 



CITY 



min. rate 3el0u code 
min. 



Baltimore 



^.60 



Cleveland 
Chi cago 
St. Louis . 
Kansas City 
Los Angeles 
San Francisco 
Portia.:/ 
Seattle 



CODE TOTAL BELOU CODE 

LPr. & CODE MIN. & 

ABOVE MIN. ABOVE 



PERCE 'TA PE 

TOTAL 



3 



3 8 

5 5 



62.5 37.5 



- 100. 



- 100.0 



1C0.0 



100,0 



1CC.0 



Total "est era Area 
(Exc. Baltimore) 



14 



- 100.0 



iro.o 



3^21 



-132- 



TABLE H 1C, CONT'D. 



TABLE SHOWING BY-MARKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAC! 
OF FINISHERS (APPRENTICES) FEMALE EASfllttG 
1-3EL07 CODE MINIMUM 
2-CODE MINIMUM AND ABOVE 



COMPILED FROi. THE PAYROLLS FILED 

FOR T T1 E 'TEEK OF MARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1934 



WESTERN AREA ONLY 



NO. OF WORKERS 



PERCENT A.G-I 



CITY 



MIN. RATE BELO" CODE CODE TOTAL BELOTT CODE 

MPT MIN & CODE MIN & 

ABOVE MPT . ABOVE 



Baltimore 



.47 



11 



11 



100. 



TOTAL 



IOC. 



Cleveland 

Chi cago 
St. Louis 
Kansas City 
Los Angeles 
San Francisco 
Portland 
Seattle 



37 


43 


11 


11 


2 


2 


5 


5 


12 


12 


5 


5 


1 


1 



14. 



86. 


IOC. 


ICO. 


100. 


100. 


mo. 


100. 


100. 


100. 


100. 


100. 


100. 


100. 


ICO. 



Total 'Test em Area 
(Excl. Baltimore) 



73 



79 



7.6 



92.4 



100. 



3821 



-133- 



TABLE H 10; CONT'D 



TABIT SHOTTING BY^KARKET AREAS IIUITBER' A'T> PERCENTAGE 
OF SKIRT (BAST^RS FINISHERS) KAL r EARNING 
l-3 r L0T." THE COD^. MINIMUM 

2-AT THE CODE UINIIUJU AND UP TO TIT CODE AVERAGE 
3-CODE AVERAGE AND ABOVE 

COMPILED FROM THE PAYROLLS ^ILED 

FOR THE T7EEK OF LARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1934 











NO. OF "ORICERS 




PERCENTAGE 


CITY 1 


[IN. 


AVER. 


3EL0K 


CODE CODE AVER TOTAL 


BELOX 


CODE MIN CODE TOTaL 


raee 


RATE 


cor. 7 : 


KIN & AND ABOVE 


CODE 


& IP TO AVER & 








LIK. 


UF TO 
AVER. 


MEN. 


AVER ABOV" 


NYC 


.60 


. 80 


- 


2 13 


- 


66.7 33.3 TOO 


Easterr 


l.54 


.72 










Area 














N.Y.S. 




ii 


1 


1 


100. 


100 


Conn. 




ii 


- 


_ 


- 


• _ _ 


N. J. 




it 


- 


_ 


- 


- - 


Phila . 




ii 


1 


2 6 9 


ll.i 


22.2 66.7 100 


Boston 




ii 


- 


- - - 


- 


_ 



TOTAL EASTERN AREA 
(EXCL. N.Y.C.) 



10 



20.0 20.0 



60.0 100 



9321 



-134- 



TABLE H 10 (CONTINUED) 



COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOUI T- 3Y-MAEBET AREAS NUMBERS A n D PERCENTAGE 
OP SKIRT (FINISHERS AND SKIRT BASTERS) FEMALE, EARNING 

(1) BELOTi THK CODE MIKIJ'TJII 

(2) AT THE CODE MINE UK AND UP TO THE COD"" AVERAGE 

(3) CODE AVERAGE AND ABOVE 

COMPILED FROM THE PAYROLLS FILED 

FOR THE EEEK OP LARCH 5->MARCH 9, 1934 



NO. OF WORKERS 



PERCENTAGE 



CITY MIN. AVER. BELOW CODE KIN. CODE AVER. TOTAL BELOW CODE Mil!. 'COLE TOTAL 
RATE RATE CODE & UP TO AND ABOV^ CODE & UP TO AVER. 

MIN. AVER. I 'IN. AVER. & ABOVE 



N.-'.C. .60 .70 



100.0 100.0 



astern 
Area .54 .63 



TiT V S _ It 

Conn. " 

N. J. " 

Phila. " 

Boston " 



12 



5 
9 



50.0 41.7 



100.0 



8.3 100.0 



100.0 
10''. 100.0 



TOTAL EASTERN AREA 6 
(E^CL. N.Y.C.) 



10 



10 



26 



23.0 38.5 



38.5 100.0 



9821 



-135- 



Table K-10 Cont'd 



COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOWING 3Y-iiARKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 
OF PRESSERS (U DEB.) EARNING 
1-BELO"' THE CODE i INI U 

2-.iT THE CODE i INL.UM AND UP TO IK CODE AVER. 
3- CODE AVERAGE AND ABOVE 

COMPILED FROi: THE PAYROTE S TILED 

FOR THE *!EEK OF MARCH 5-IULRCH 9, 1934 







EC. 


OF • 


ORKERS 








PERCENTAGE 




CITY 


KIN. 


AVER. 


B^LOE 


CODE 


CODE 


TOTAL 


3EL0E 


CODE 


CODE 


TOTAL 




RATE 


RATI 


CODE 


VIS. 


AVER 




CODE 


i P T . 


AVER & 










!'IN 


.& 


U c TO 
AVER 


AND 

ABOVE 




-IN. 


& UF TO 
AVER 


ABOVE 




N.*\C. 


.90 


1.25 


44 




148 


336 


528 


6.3 


28.0 


63.7 


100.0 


Eastern .81 


1.125 




















Area 
























N.Y.S. 




M 


- 




31 


2 


33 


- 


93. 9 


6.1 


100.0 


Conn. . 




II 


1 




29 


- 


30 


- 


96.6 


- 


100.0 


N.J. 




II 


5 




51 


6 


62 


8.1 


82.2 


9.7 


100.0 


Phil a 




II 


3 




17 


11 


31 


9.7 


54.8 


35.5 


100.0 


Boston 




II 


- 




14 


11 


25 


— 


56.0 


44.0 


100.0 



TOT^L EAST RE AREA 
(EXCL. N.Y.C. ) 9 



142 



30 



181 



5.0 



78.4 



16.6 



100.0 



WESTERN 




■ 
















AREA .77 1 


15 


















Baltimore" 


ii 


8 


10 


12 


30 


25.7 


33.3 


40.0 


100.0 


Cleveland" 


:i 


5 


30 


25 


60 


8.3 


50.0 


41.7 


100.0 


Chicago & 




















Sub " 


ii 


7 


8 


5 


20 


35.0 


40.0 


25.0 


100.0 


St. Louis" 


ii 


- 


6 


5 


11 


- 


54.5 


45.5 


100.0 


' r ansas City" 


ii 


- 


1 


- 


1 


- 


100.0 


- 


100.0 


Los Angeles" 


n 





28 


11 


39 


- 


71.8 


28.2 


100.0 


S^n Francis- 




















co " 


ii 


1 


13 


2 


16 


6.3 


81.3 


12.4 


100.0 


Portland" 


ii 


4 


9 


- 


13 


30.8 


69.2 


- 


100.0 


Seattle " 


ii 


— 


— 


i 


1 


— 


— 


100.0 


100.0 



TOTAL EESTERN /EEA 
(EXCL. BALTII'OES) 17 



95 



161 



11.2 



58.4 



30.4 



100.0 



9821 



-136- 



TABLE H 10( CONT'D) 



COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOTTING BY-MARKET AREAS NUKBT.S AND PERCENTAGE 
OE PART PRSSSERS-EARNING 

(1) BELOV." THE CODE MINIIUK 

(2) AT THE CODE •ilNL UI: AND UP TO THE CODE AVERAC-1 

(3) CODE AVERAGE AND ABOVE 

COi "FILED FROM THE PAYROLLS FILED 

FOR THE ". EE"" OE MARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1934 



KO. OE wORKERS 



PERCENTAGE 



CITY UIII. AVER. BELOW CODE CODE TOTAL BELO" COLE CODE TOTAL 

RaTE RaTE CODE I "III. AVEP..& CODE HIN.& AVER.& 

M-IN. &UF TO ABOVE Mill. UP TO ABOVE 

AVER. AVE.R. 



Baltimore .65 .92 2 



20 



26 



7.7 



76.9 15.4 100.0 



Cleveland 


ii 


ii 


• Chicago & 






• Sub . 


ii 


it 


St. Louis 


ii 


ii 


• Kansas City 


ii 


n 


Los Angeles 


n 


n 


San Erancis- 







CO 


ii 


it 


- 


Portland 


ii 


ii 


1 


Seattle 


ii 


ii 


1 



21 



28 



9 


- 


11 


5 


1 


6 


2 


6 


10 


13 


- 


13 


6 


3 


9 


3 


1 


5 



19 



20.0 



20.0 
8 12.5 



75.0 25.0 100.0 



81 


- 


100.0 


83.3 


16.7 


100.0 


20.0 


60.0 


100.0 


100.0 


— 


100.0 



66.7 33.3 100.0 
60.0 20.0. 100.0 



87.5 



100.0 



Total "estern Area 
(Excl. Baltimore) 6 



66 



18 90 



1.9 71.1 20.0 100.0 



9821 



-137- 

TABLE H 10, CONT'D. 

TABLE SHOTTING 3Y-MARKET AREAS NUMBERS AMD PERCENTAGE 
OF PRSSSERS (UPPER) EARNING 
(1) BYLCY THE COPE HI III MUM 

(?) AT THE CODE MIlttMUl.! AKD IIP TO THE CODE AVERAGE 
(3) CODE AVERAGE API AEOVE 

COMPILED FROM THE PAYROLLS PILED 

POD THE WEEK OD MARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1934 



NO. 0? WORKERS 



PERCSNTAG3 



city ::r.". aver. code avdd total -belo" code code total 

RATE RATE 3YL0Y CODE CODE MIN AND ABOVE CODE MIN & AVER & 
Mil". & UP TO MIR. UP TO ABOVE 

: ' ' AVE?.. . AVER. 



N.Y.C. 1.00 1.35 



13 



10E 



338 



455 2.9 23.0 74.1 100 



Ea stern 






Area ■ 


.90 


1 . 215 


Y.Y.s. 


it 


n 


Conn. 


ii 


ii 


N.J. 


ii 


ii 


Phi la. 


ii 


ii 


Boston 


!l 


ii 



3 
5 
17 
3 
2 



7 
3 

13 
4 

12 



15 
9 

30 
10 
14 



50.0 



53.3 
66.7 
55.7 
30.0 
14.3 



45.7 
33.3 
45 . 3 
40.0 
35.7 



100 
100 
100 
100 
100 



Total Eastern 

Area (Ezcl. N.Y.C.) 3 
Vestern 

Area .85 1.26 
Baltimore " 
Cleveland " 
Cliic^.-o " 
St. Louis " 
Kansas 

Citv " 
Los 

3les " 
San 

Yi—ncisco" 
Portland " 

oSC'j DIG 



3 

10 

1 

2 



35 

7 
65 

50 

1 

15 

1 
5 

1 



39 



6 
52 
53 

5 



13 

5 
2 
1 



73 



13 

120 

93 

5 



3.3 46.2 50.0 100 



29 

5 
7 
2 



53.8 
2.5 54.2 
10.3 30.9 
15.7 



3 65.7 33.3 



3.5 51.7 

16.7 
71.4 
50.0 



46.2 100 

43.3 100 
5C.8 100 
33.3 100 

100 

44 . 3 100 

85 . 3 100 

28.5 100 

50.0 100 



Total Ye stern 
Area (Excl. Belt.) 17 



117 



135 



270 6.2 44, 



49 . 5 100 



9821 



-138- 



-26- 
TA3LE H 10 CONT'D. COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 

TABLE SHOWING BY-MARKET AREAS NUMBERS ALU PERCENTAGE 
OE PRESSERS-EARNING 

(1) BELOW CODE MINIMUM 
(2)' CODS MINIMUM AND ABOVE 



WESTERN AREA ONLY 



COMPILED PROM THE PAYROLLS FILED 

EOR THE WEEK OF LARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1934. 



CITY 



NO. OF WORKERS 



PERCENTAGE 



MIN. RATE 



BELOW CODE CODE TOTAL 
MIN. MIN. & 
ABOVE 



BELOW CODE TOTAL 
CODE MIN. w 
MIN. ABOVE 



Baltimore 



.60 



33.3 66.7 100. 



Cleveland 
Chicago & Sub, 
St. Loiiis 
Kansas City 
Los Angeles 
San Francisco 
Portland 
Seattle 



4 


4 


- 


100 


100 


1 


1 


: 


100 


100 


1 


1 


— 


100 


100 


2 


2 


- 


100 


100 


1 


1 


- 


100 


100 


1 


1 


- 


100 


100 



Total Western Are.- 
(Excl. Baltimore) 



10 



1^ 



100 



100 



9821 



-139- 



-27- 



TABLE H 10 (CONT'D) COxiT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 

TABLE SHOUING BY-MARKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 
OF MACHINE PRESSERS -EARNING 

(1) BELON THE CODE MINIMUM 

(2) AT THE CODE MINIIKLI AMD UP TO THE CODE 

(3) CODE AVERAGE AND AJOVE AVERAGE 



(COi TILED ERO:' THE PAYROLLS PILED 
FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1934 









NO 


. on : 


roHo 


sas 






PERCENTAGE 


CITY 


::n : . 


AVER. 


BEL0T7 


CODE 


till 


7 . CODE 


TOTAL 


BELON 


CODE' 


CODE 


TOTAL 




RATE 


RATE 


CODE 


& UP 


TO 


AVER. 




CODE 


LilN. & 


AVER. 


& 








l;in. 


AVER. 




& ABOVE 




I-IIN. 


UP TO 
AVER. 


ABOVE 




N.Y.C. 


1.35 


1.65 


53 


75 




198 


326 


16.3 


23.0 


60.7. 


100 . 


Eastern 
























Area 


1.21 


•..43 




















N.Y.S. 


ii 


ii 


2 


12 




2 


16 


12.5 


75.0 


12.5 


100.0 


Conn. 


it 


ii 


7 


2 




2 


11 


63.6 


18.2- 


18.2 


100.0 


N. J. 


n 


ii 


15 


10 




8 


34 


47.1 


29.4 


23.5 


100.0 


Phi la. 


ii 


ii 


2 


1 




3 


' 6 


3313 


16.7 


50.0 


100.0 


Boston 


ii 


ii 


1 


2 




1 


4 


25.0 


50.0 


25.0 


100.0 



Total Eastern 

Area (E::'cl. N.Y.C.) 28 27 

(Ucraer P-resser 1 s -Rates) 



16 



71 39.4 38.0 



£2.6 100.0 



WESTERN .85 1.26 

AREA 
Baltimore " " 



24 37.5 25.0 



37.5 100.0 



Cleveland " 


n 


Chicago 


ii 


St. Louis'" 


n 


Kansas 




City " 


n 


Los 




Anceles " 


ii 


San 




Francisco" 


n 


Portland " 


it 


Seattle ■»" 


ii 



1 

6 



3 
6 



2 
4 
1 



3 

] 



3 


- 


33.3 


66.7. 


100.0 


in 


- 


60.0 


40.0 


100.0 


1 


- 


- 


100.0 


100.0 


t-r 
O 


33.3 


66.7 


- 


100.0 


2 




- 


100.0 


100.0 


6 


— 


50.0 


50.0 


100.0 


7 


- 


-85.7 


14.3 • 


100.0 


— 


— 


— 


— 


100.0 


32 


3.1 


56.3 


40.6 ' 


100.0 



TOTAL WESTERN /.REA 
(EXCLUDING~3ALTI . ) ' 1 



18 



13 



9821 



TABLE H 10 CONT'D 



-140- 



COAT AM) SUIT CODS AUTHORITY 

TABLE SHOWING BY-MARKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF NON-CLASSIFIABLE PRESSERS-EARNING 

(1) BELOW THE CODE MINIMUM 

(2) AT THE CODE MINIMUM AND UP TO THE CODE AVERAGE 

(3) CODE AVERAGE AND ABOVE 

COMPILED PROM THE PAYROLLS FILED 

FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1934, 







NO. OF 


WORKERS 




TOTAL 


PERCENTA 


GE 




CITY iinr. 


AVER. 


BELOW 


CODE 


CODE 


BELOW CODE 


CODE 


TOTAL 


RATE 


RATE 


CODE 


MIN & 


AVER & 




CODE 


MIN.& A.VER.& 








MIN. 


UP TO 
AVER. 


ABOVE 




MIN. 


UP TO 
AVER. 


ABOVE 




N.Y.C. 1.00 


1.35 


21 


193 


568 


782 


2.7 


24,7 


72.6 


100.0 


Eastern 




















Area .90 


1.21 


















N.Y. State » 




- 


4 


1 


5 


- 


80.0 


■ 20 . 


100.0 

- 


Conn. " 




. - 


- 


~ 


X! 


- 


- 


- 


N. J. ii 




8 


4 


6 


18 


44.5 


22.2 


33.3 


100.0 


Phila. " 




5 


12 


39 


56 


8.8 


21.4 


69.8 


100.0 


Boston " 




4 


12 


33 


49 


8.2' 


24.5' 


67.3 


100.0 



Total Eastern Area 
(Excl. N.Y.C.) 

Western 

. Area .85 1.26 



32 



79 128 13.3 25.0 '61.7 



1^0. 



Baltimore " 




ii 


6 


8 


12 


26 


23.1 


30.7 


46.2 


100.0 


Cleveland » 




n 


1 


4 


2 


7 


.14 


58 


28 


100.0 


Chicago " 




ii 


1 


18 


18 


37 


2.8 


48.6 


48.6 


100.0 


St. Louis « 




ii 


2 


4 


8 


14 


14.3 


28.6 


57.1 


100.0 


Kansas City" 




it 


1 


5 


1 


7 


14 


72 


14 


100.0 


Los Angeles" 




ii 


1 


75 


9 


45 


2.9 


80. n 


18.0 


100.0 


San Francisco 


! 


ii 


- 


11 


17 


28 


- 


39.2 


60.5 


100.0 


Portland " 




ii 


mm 


3 


3 


6 


- 


50.0 


50.0 


100.0 


Seattle " 




ii 


1 


5 


2 


6 


12.5 


62.5 


25.0 


100.0 


TOTAL WESTERN 


AREA 


















(EXCL. BALTIMORE) 




7 


85 


60 


152 


5 


56 


39 





9821 



-141- 



CCAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 

TABLE SHOWING- BY-MARKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 

OE LINING- LP.CNERS (FEMALE) EARNING 

(1) BELC\ " DDE MINIMUM 

(2) AT I C E MllfJ [UM AND UP TO THE CODE AVERAGE 

(3) CODE A.Y I ' '..ID ABOVE 

C( OM THE PAYROLLS PILED 

; THE WEEK OF MARCH 5-MARCH 9, 1934 



no. op w;~; 



PERCENTAGE 



CITY 



MIN. 



AVER. BELOW CODE CODE TOTAL BELOW CODE CODE TOTAL 



RATE RATE 



CODE 1.1 III. & AVSR.& CODE 
MIN. UP TO ABOVE MIN. 
AVER. 



MIN.& AVER.& 
UP TO ABOVE 
AVER. 



Baltimore 



.60 



.82 



50.0 50.0 100.0 



Cleveland 


n 


ii 


Chicago & Sub 


ii 


ii 


St. Louis 


ii 


it 


Kansas City- 


ii 


n 


Los Angeles 


ii . 


ii 


San Francisco 


M 


ii 


Portland 


"5 


it 


Seattle 


ii 


n 



1 
1 



1 



1 
1 



-6 16.7 16.7 66.6 100.0 

1 ~ " . 

1 - 100.0 100.0 

6 100 - 100.0 

1 - 100 100.0 



1 100 



Total Western Area 
(Excl. Baltimore) 



15 54 



13 



33 



100.6 



9S21 



PABLt; H 10 CONT'D 



-142- 



COAT AND SUIT CODE AUTHORITY 
TABLE SHOWING BY-MARKET AREAS NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE 
OF SKIRT PRESSERS (UNDER) EARNING 
(1) BELOW THE CODE MINIMUM 

( 2> AT THE CODE MINIMUM AMD UP TO TIE CODE AVERAGE 
( 3) CODE AVERAGE AND A30VE 

COMPILED PROM THE PAYROLLS PILED 

FOR THE WEEK OP MARCH 5- MARCH 9, 1934 



NO 


. WORKERS 






p: 


SRCENTAGE 






■.. • 










.u 


CITY MIN. AVER. 


BELOW 


CODE 


CODE TOTAL 


BELOW 


CODE CODE 


TOTAL 


RATE PATE 


CODE 


MIN.& 


AVER. 


CODE 


MIN. AVER. 




• 


MIN 


UP TO 
AVER. 


&A30VE 


MIN. 


& UP & 

TO ABOVE 




(_ 


8 








AVER. 




N.Y.-C. .35 1.25 


1 


9 


88.9 


11.1 - 


100. 


Eastern Area. 765 1.25 














N.Y.S. >' n 


- 


5 


5 


- 


100. 


100. 


Conn. " I' 


- 


4 


4 


- 


100. 


100. 


N. J. » » 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Phi la " » 




- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Boston " " 


- 


- 


--_ - - _ . - - 


- 


- 


- 


?otal Eastern Area 




(Excl. H.Y.C.) 




9 


9 


- 


100. 


100. 



9821# 



OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION 
THE DIVISION OF REVIEW 

THE WORK OF THE DIVISION OF REVIEW 

Executive Order No. 7075, dated June 15, 1935, established the Division of Review of the 
National Recovery Administration. The pertinent part of the Executive Order reads thus: 

The Division of Review shall assemble, analyze, and report upon the statistical 
information and records of experience of the operations of the various trades and 
industries heretofore subject to codes of fair competition, shall study the ef- 
fects of such codes upon trade, industrial and labor conditions in general, and 
other related matters, shall make available for the protection and promotion of 
the public interest an adequate review of the effects of the Administration of 
Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the principles and policies 
put into effect thereunder, and shall otherwise aid the President in carrying out 
his functions under the said Title. I hereby appoint Leon C. Marshall, Director of 
the Division of Review. 

The study sections set up in the Division of Review covered these areas: industry 
studies, foreign trade studies, labor studies, trade practice studies, statistical studies, 
legal studies, administration studies, miscellaneous studies, and the writing of code his- 
tories. The materials which were produced by these sections are indicated below. 

Except for the Code Histories, all items mentioned below are scheduled to be in mimeo- 
graphed form by April 1, 1936. 

THE CODE HISTORIES 

The Code Histories are documented accounts of the formation and administration of the 
codes. They contain the definition of the industry and the principal products thereof; the 
classes of members in the industry; the history of code formation including an account of the 
sponsoring organizations, the conferences, negotiations and hearings which were held, and 
the activities in connection with obtaining approval of the code; the history of the ad- 
ministration of the code, covering the organization and operation of the code authority, 
the difficulties encountered in administration, the extent of compliance or non-compliance, 
and the general success or lack of success of the code, and an analysis of the operation of 
code provisions dealing with wages, hours, trade practices, and other provisions. These 
and other matters are canvassed not only in terms of the materials to be found in the files, 
dux also in terms of the experiences of the deputies and others concerned with code formation 
and administration. 

The Code Histories, (including histories of certain NRA units or agencies) are not 
mimeographed. They are to be turned over to the Department of Commerce in typewritten form. 
All told, approximately eight hundred and fifty (850) histories will b6 completed. This 
number includes all of the approved codes and some of the unapproved codes. (In Work 
M aterials No 18, Content s of Code Histries . will be found the outline which governed 
the preparation of Code Histories.) 

(In the case of all approved codes and also in the case of some codes not carried to 
final approval, there are in NRA files further materials on industries. Particularly worthy 
of mention are the Volumes I, II and III which constitute the material officially submitted 
to the President in support of the recommendation for approval of each code. These volumes 
9768—1 . 



-ii- 

set forth the origination of the code, the sponsoring group, the evidence advanced to sup- 
port the proposal, the report of the Division of Research and Planning on the industry, the 
recommendations of the various Advisory Boards, certain types of official correspondence, 
the transcript of the formal hearing, and other pertinent matter. There is also much offi- 
cial information relating to amendments, interpretations, exemptions, and other rulings. The 
materials mentioned in this paragraph were of course not a part of the work of the Division 
of Review. ) 

THE WORK MATERIALS SERIES 

In the work of the Division of Review a considerable number of studies and compilations 
of data (other than those noted below in the Evidence Studies Series and the Statistical 
Material Series) have been made. These are listed below, grouped according to the char- 
acter of the material. (In Work M aterials No.. .17, Tentati ve Outlines and Summaries of 
Studies in Process , these materials are fully described). 

I ndustry Studies 

Automobile Industry, An Economic Survey of 

Bituminous Coal Industry under Free Competition and Code Regulation, Economic Survey of 

Electrical Manufacturing Industry, The 

Fertilizer Industry, The 

Fishery Industry and the Fishery Codes 

Fishermen and Fishing Craft, Earnings of 

Foreign Trade under the National Industrial Recovery Act 

Part A - Competitive Position of the United States in International Trade 1927-29 through 

1934. 
Part B - Section 3 (e) of NIRA and its administration. 
Part C - Imports and Importing under NRA Codes. 
Part D - Exports and Exporting under NRA Codes. 

Forest Products Industries, Foreign Trade Study of the 

Iron and Steel Industry, The 

Knitting Industries, The 

Leather and Shoe Industries, The 

Lumber and Timber Products Industry, Economic Problems of the 

Men's Clothing Industry, The 

Millinery Industry, The 

Motion Picture Industry, The 

Migration of Industry, The: The Shift of Twenty-Five Needle Trades From New York State, 
1926 to 1934 

National Labor Income by Months, 1929-35 

Paper Industry, The 

Production, Prices, Employment and Payrolls in Industry, Agriculture and Railway Trans- 
portation, January 1923, to date 

Retail Trades Study, The 

Rubber Industry Study, The 

Textile Industry in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan 

Textile Yarns and Fabrics 

Tobacco Industry, The 

Wholesale Trades Study, The 

Women's Neckwear and Sc?rf Industry, Financial and Labor Data on 
9768—2 



- Ill - 

Women's Apparel Industry, Some Aspects of the 

T rade Practic e St udies 

Commodities, Information Concerning: A Study of NRA and Related Experiences in Control 
Distribution, Manufacturers' Control of: Trade Practice Provisions in Selected NRA Codes 
Distributive Relations in the Asbestos Industry 
Design Piracy: The Problem and Its Treatment Under NRA Codes 
Electrical Mfg. Industry: Price Filing Study 
Fertilizer Industry: Price Filing Study 

Geographical Price Relations Under Codes of Fair Competition, Control of 
Minimum Price Regulation Under Codes of Fair Competition 
Multiple Basing Point System in the Lime Industry: Operation of the 
Price Control in the Coffee Industry 
Price Filing Under NRA Codes 
Production Control in the Ice Industry 
Production Control, Case Studies in 

Resale Price Maintenance Legislation in the United States 

Retail Price Cutting, Restriction of, with special Emphasis on The Drug Industry. 
Trade Practice Rules of The Federal Trade Commission (1914-1936): A classification for 
comparison with Trade Practice Provisions of NRA Codes. 

Labor Studies 

Cap and Cloth Kat Industry, Commission Report on Wage Differentials in 
Earnings in Selected Manufacturing Industries, by States, 1933-35 
Employment, Payrolls, Hours, and Wages in 115 Selected Code Industries 1933-35 
Fur Manufacturing, Commission Report on Wages and Hours in 
Hours and Wages in American Industry 
Labor Program Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, The 

Part A. Introduction 

Part B. Control of Hours and Reemployment 

Part C. Control of Wages 

Part D. Control of Other Conditions of Employment 

Part E. Section 7(a) of the Recovery Act 
Materials in the Field of Industrial Relations 
PRA Census of Employment, June, October, 1933 
Puerto Rico Needlework, Homeworkers Survey 

Administrative Studies 

Administrative and Legal Aspects of Stays, Exemptions and Exceptions, Code Amendments, Con- 
ditional Orders of Approval 

Administrative Interpretations of NRA Codes 

Administrative Law and Procedure under the NIRA 

Agreements Under Sections 4(a) and 7(b) of the NIRA 

Approve Codes in Industry Groups, Classification of 

Basic Code, the — (Administrative Order X-61) 

Code Authorities and Their Part in the Administration of the NIRA 
Part A. Introduction 

Part B. Nature, Composition and Organization of Code Authorities 
9768—2. 



Part C. Activities of the Code Authorities 

Part D. Code Authority Finances 

Part E. Summary and Evaluation 
Code Compliance Activities of the NRA 
Code Making Program of the NRA in the Territories, The 
Code Provisions and Related Subjects, Policy Statements Concerning 
Content of NIRA Administrative Legislation 

Part A. Executive and Administrative Orders 

Part B. Labor Provisions in the Codes 

Part C. Trade Practice Provisions in the Codes 

Part D. Administrative Provisions in the Codes 

Part E. Agreements under Sections 4(a) and 7(b) 

Part F. A Type Case: The Cotton Textile Code 
Labels Under NRA, A Study of 

Model Code and Model Provisions for Codes, Development of 

National Recovery Administration, The: A Review of its Organization and Activities 
NRA Insignia 

President's Reemployment Agreement, The 

President's Reemployment Agreement, Substitutions in Connection with the 
Prison Labor Problem under NRA and the Prison Compact, The 
Problems of Administration in the Overlapping of Code Definitions of Industries and Trades, 

Multiple Code Coverage, Classifying Individual Members of Industries and Trades 
Relationship of NRA to Government Contracts and Contracts Involving the Use of Government 

Funds 
Relationship of NRA with States and Municipalities 
Sheltered Workshops Under NRA 
Uncodified Industries: A Study of Factors Limiting the Code Making Frogram 

L§£§I S tud ies 

Anti-Trust Laws and Unfair Competition 

Collective Bargaining Agreements, the Right of Individual Employees tc Enforce 

Commerce Clause, Federal Regulation of the Employer-Employee Relationship Under the 

Delegation of Power, Certain Phases of the Principle of, with Reference to Federal Industrial 
Regulatory Legislation 

Enforcement, Extra-Judicial Methods of 

Federal Regulation through the Joint Employment of the Power of Taxation and the Spending 
Power 

Government Contract Provisions as a Means ;f Establishing Proper Economic Standards, Legal 
Memorandum on Possibility of 

Industrial Relations in Australia, Regulation of 

Intrastate Activities Which so Affect Interstate Commerce as to Bring them Undet the Ccn- 
merce Clause, Cases on 

Legislative Possibilities of the State Constitutions 

Pest Office and Post Road Power — Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Industrial Regula- 
tion? 

State Recovery Legislation in Aid if Federal Recovery Legislation Histcry and Analysis 

Tariff Rates to Secure Proper Standards of Wages and Hours, the Possibility of Variation in 

Trade Practices and the Anti-Trust Laws 

Treaty Making Power of the United States 

War Power, Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Regulation of Child Labor? 

9768—4. 



THE E VIDE NCE STUDIES SERIE S 

The Evidence Studies were originally undertaken to gather material for pending court 
cases. After the Schechter decision the project was continued in order to assemble data for 
use in connection with the studies of the Division of Review. The data are particularly 
concerned with the nature, size and operations of the industry; and with the relation of the 
industry to interstate commerce. The industries covered by the Evidence Studies account for 
more than one-half of the total number of workers under codes. The list of those studies 
follows: 



Automobile Manufacturing Industry 
Automotive Parts and Equipment Industry 
Baking Industry 

Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Industry 
Bottled Soft Drink Industry 
Builders' Supplies Industry 
Canning Industry 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry 
Cigar Manufacturing Industry 
Coat <tnd Suit Industry 
Construction Industry 
Cotton Garment Industry 
Dress Manufacturing Industry 
Electrical Contracting Industry 
Electrical Manufacturing Industry 
Fabricated Metal Products Mfg. and Metal Fin- 
ishing and Metal Coating Industry 
Fishery Industry 
Furniture Manufacturing Industry 
General Contractors Industry 
Graphic Arts Industry 
Gray Iron Foundry Industry 
Hosiery Industry 

Infant's and Children's Wear Industry 
Iron and Steel Industry 



Leather Industry 

Lumber and Timber Products Industry 
Mason Contractors Industry 
Men's Clothing Industry 
Motion Picture Industry 
Motor Vehicle Retailirg Trade 
Needlework Industry of Puerto Rico 
Fainting and Paperhanging Industry 
Photo Engraving Industry 
Plumbing Contracting InJustry 
Retail Lumber Industry 
Retail Trade Industry 
Retail Tire and Battery Trade Industry 
Rubber Manufacturing Industry 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry 
Shipbuilding Industry 
Silk Textile Industry 
Structural Clay Products Industry 
Throwing Industry 
Trucking Industry 
Waste Materials Industry 
Wholesale and Retail Food Industry 
Wholesale Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Indus- 
try 
Wool Textile Industry 



THE STATISTICAL MATERIALS SERIES 



This series is supplementary to the Evidence Studies Series. The reports include data 
on establishments, firms, employment. Payrolls, wages, hours, production capacities, ship- 
ments, sales, consumption, stocks, prices, material costs, failures, exports and imports. 
They also include notes on the principal qualifications that should be observed in using the 
data, the technical methods employed, and the applicability of the material to the study of 
the industries concerned. The following numbers appear in the series: 
9768—5. 



- vl - 

Asphalt Shingle and Roofing Industry Fertilizer Industry 

Business Furniture Funeral Supply Industry 

Candy Manufacturing Industry Glass Container Industry 

Carpet and Rug Industry Ice Manufacturing Industry 

Cement Industry Knitted Outerwear Industry 

Cleaning and Dyeing Trade Paint, Varnish, and Lacquer, Mfg. Industry 

Coffee Industry Plumbing Fixtures Industry 

Copper and Brass Mill Products Industry Rayon and Synthetic Yarn Producing Industry 

Cotton Textile Industry Salt Producing Industry 

Electrical Manufacturing Industry 

THE COVERAGE 

The original, and approved, plan of the Division of Review contemplated resources suf- 
ficient (a) to prepare some 1200 histories of codes and NRA units or agencies, (b) to con- 
solidate and index the NRA files containing some 40,000,000 pieces, (c) to engage in ex- 
tensive field work, (d) to secure much aid from established statistical agencies of govern- 
ment, (e) to assemble a considerable number of experts in various fields, (f) to conduct 
approximately 25% more studies than are listed above, and (g) to prepare a comprehensive 
summary report. 

Because of reductions made in personnel and in use of outside experts, limitation of 
access to field work and research agencies, and lack of jurisdiction over files, the pro- 
jected plan was necessarily curtailed. The most serious curtailments were the omission of 
the comprehensive summary report; the dropping of certain studies and the reduction in the 
coverage of other studies; and the abandonment of the consolidation and indexing of the 
files. Fortunately, there is reason to hope that the files may yet be cared for under other 
auspices. 

Notwithstanding these limitations, if the files are ultimately consolidated and in- 
dexed the exploration of the NRA materials will have been sufficient to make them accessible 
and highly useful. They constitute the largest and richest single body of information 
concerning the problems and operations of industry ever assembled in any nation. 

L. C. Marshall, 
Director, Division of Review. 
9768—6 . 



• . & 



'2