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 CTIAHTS
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 verv '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-shop1, 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 Other 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
0
s
5FTF1T
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»
l1-
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 anc1 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 f1-
= 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 Labor 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 iTew 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 Js
: si
I i\
a £ gp ........ .
E *
3 :
• 4-
El £• .... ..««..
"M O
• T ■
I s?
1*
0 O CO
5. . . . . EOeeee
M +*
1 Ob c -
a. o
k •
O *rt
3!..
N * 0
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 50c/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.
s3h
3 I'
. •/> r" D
i a H o
i SH 5
w
It
s s H
I e*
E *
- I
. a-
25
5"?'
*:s
0 • «-
~* 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
thejr "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 TTew 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 III 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 bee11 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 Uinus" 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 childrens1 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
3et3
-j 2 w
O c to
™ ~ w
Isi
IfiS
III
M u. J
age
u o a.
E o
ill
■laS
-; 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.~lr.£-?i| P -^ '"^
C^~F
$&3g|s:S^|,&
^y:^^J.St".«'''fe/^:J.1 ^-- ^.V^Vi^^
gs^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
5BOT5F. « 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[al^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
Ifi:^^-^ £ 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 0
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 tTle 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
Ccrcets
'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
"Tee''":e Coat & Suit Coat & Suit
workers(*) 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 vol= 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 noted1, 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 7cl 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, Tloc.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 He1- 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\ \ \ \ \ sts:
OQVDIHD
s
»\\\\\\N^
^^^^
ONV13A310
s
^WWWPi^T^g
#7
6^
/*/
09
tl
763
131
601
01?
«t
viHjiiavni-id
sgnr noi ?oe
_)
a:
N019OS
2L\\\\\\\\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>Tf
*
//
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^^&WI
371LVJS
0NV7U/M
-pspwj wc
K
-\SJ 1JJW MlY
^^«)^^p
UO HQM,
wm&ymk
emoi is
tms^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
t9Z0±
* 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&^tes
sens jwj
mmm$H$m?m
0MJ///J
\mm$mti%5m>
< t^^A^Sy^
V7tM/
■sens- Musea
M01Q0ff
mmmmt&iB^
m^^^^m
'-y\\\\
WOfNAM
XMMQtHMY
I
+
re
/;
*/
///
tSI
H
«r
tot
f/
M
»«/
S>
*f
•/
9821
-50-
I
CO
o
K
CO
»
CO
•o co
I «
w o
Eh
z: £ S
o
Li
OW71#0c/
iMONtJNVS
&7MW M7
S //}<?? JS
-■\.
mmgj&sm
m$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
VSSSVsnSVE
HO1S09
^
^WVWWWWtj^^^
K\\\\\\\^^\\V^^^
M3/1J3NN9D
iKVV^^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
SKXNNNNW^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
wm>mi?mm™
*»ysp
»ggggp
|M^S£^
50/
//
/£?
96
+91
82
t
\\\\w\\\\\\y^^i
viHduawiiHd
mmm^^f^,
mm^^)$m
»gggp
mswmTO
^ ^ jj.tur*in
m
mww^g
SNJMb t HA 1M9 k
&
.ww,w,w,w.wsw;
to?
C0I
6*
6/Z
62*
A*
/?/
92
/??/
+£0U
J 0 lu
Is
982a
-53-
u
Li
2 l.
I
:^S§£§^
■M^^^7^
t^,^w
fcl^aw^
^aMfrss
t^£^
<9.
9/
.ST/
W
90/
K>/
X//
as-
r&
6»
9/.T
c#r
«/r
i
€
C
c
s^^§3$§sp
is^»^
MM^£&^
^w^w^y
aME&WM
_«&
fitting f-nttg
t^^SaaKSp
«9r
w
/«r
tfr*
«v
?6
*W9/
#««
.#£/
§
§
8
§
o
<Vi
S *
9aa
-54-
WAGE STATISTICS (Continued)
3. EARNINGS Ii: RELATION TO CODE STajDaRDS
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 "'estern 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, 52.8c,-> 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 0 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 0 4*
H K K
* fH to O tO
©
fl flT)
O -rt C
0 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 0 to 0 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 0
^ «H ^» tO *!• to
©
P
>
k
o
e
-P
m
0 3 3
O
O 1 ' II
to
X X K X X
co m f- 0 0 0 O
Q 01 * 0 0 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- 0 t-- 0
• •••••• 1
to to to to 10 0 0
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 0 01 0 m
• •••ill • •
0 O * m 0 co
to 0 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
0 -A a
0 3 3
lO
• 1 1 1 1 1
K K
• •III • •
t> lO <f H
X K K
O co ^« m 0 to
• ■ • • 1 1 1 • •
tO CM ^« *Jt O CO
X XX X
■* CM OO O
• 1 • 1 • • I •
CO to CO 10 0
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
0
CO tO ijt CO
CD CO iH en 0 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 0
• ••■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* 0 cm 0
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
0 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
© 0 n e
© —i 0 ©
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 0 a +>
© -p 0 1* s: 1 -h u
T3l; Q.aO a B-H
a d o, 0, d 0 t< jd
e q a. 0 »h
© 3 Cr-t -H
O 3 Q, Al
to 0 «< 0 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
0
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- btv 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 Ph1
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
ro
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
rO
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
43
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 0
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
& 0
C.-3
CO
iji
ti
to
to
n
-
r.
•H
f-l
, l
.rH
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
* 0
-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!!IChT 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! ec0 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 anc1 seme of them even more completely organized than are the
Her York suburban areasc 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 \Cfca 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 ed3 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 prevail1; 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$, Chicago 8k-to and St Louis 68$, 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
0 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
0 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-
0
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
0
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 ^,FRIrTl 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 shor'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 l2L-$. However, this loss
involves chiefly one concern. Next to New Jersey, the least favorable
showing is made by Los Angeles which shows a falling off in dollar
volume of business of one-fifth of one percent.
The most successful showing by any single market was made by
Baltimore which enjoyed an increase in dollar sales volume of al-
most 77$. 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 NeTO 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 40co,
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 cutterss 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 iTew 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 Y0rk 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 Price)
Lowest 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 8e69$.
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 YQrk 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 Y0rk, 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. Unfair 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 anc1 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 ' :lfi.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 workers1 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 progress1'. Finally, he stated that the decision was
reached with the thought in mind :ithat 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 63fA
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<WS
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 !Tew 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
W7'«)HKan,,IL 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£"tl5ui. 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 f0<ASnEeeles 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' Laou,c,.y ' liVs S3 3 .8 3 :8 8 .8 LM 8
iDr™" Sf^l 1 ;8 .8 8 51 Mo2 .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
'!^HS?lSfo...... 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''aHOl'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 ,0
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 bv wage deficiencies paid to Code Authonty-approximately 10<4 of
direct (2aborhij ^^ ^^ ^ 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-4r"_e°^s ,1(nir(, must be supplemented by wage deficienciea paid to Code Authority- approximately 3c
per RerrMnt.^ ^^^ MJ be ,UpP|emented by wage deficiency assessment pendlng-approxlmately 35c per
garment_Th.e ^^^ mus( be suppleraemed 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»™2Tnls 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 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 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
0
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^ f1- »» 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\JfH
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 0 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.
$1
■H -P
V O
rH m oj m -5 in io
HrHrH
*rH OJ OJ CM OJ
rH H H rH rH rH rH
i-l rH H rH OJ rH H
H OJrH OJ OJ
HHHH -IHH
-4- oj mvo moj in
m-* mco -=t o o
WH HHH'OJ H
m\o Hrio c\ico
O CArHO HOIO
H M rH H rH H rH
SO
rH H CM OJ rH OJ rH
oj t^\-=t m-tf -
OJ^t t-VO ^-*co
Oj CM^J- t-^J-^t fO
OJ OJ CM OJ OJ OJ OJ
fOIOmOJlO
tO
5
O 0\rO C\J\0 O\c0
OCOO
+j
H0H40HO
<a
(-,
rH H i-l H H i-l rH
H i-l H
OJ
o
o
IK
a
CO
o
C 0
a.w
Pi P< P* Pi P« P<
rHf=t=
>>
H v.
OJ OJ OJ rH OJ OJ OJ
m m oj to ro
h o o o> o
ft (1* ft ft ft ft
- fOO\H OJ OJ
ft ft ft ft ft ft
fL* ft ft ft
OJ CM OJ OJ OJ OJ
03
mmmmfnm
i i i l i t
OJ CM OJ OJ OJ CM
I I I I
mm m m
CO
m ki m r*\ m m
l i i l i 1
OJ CM o: OJ OJ OJ
5
to
01
IH
coco ro LHCO CO
9821
OOH
IH
P. O 0)
O-P tO
mat,
u 0)
OJ 4J >
!h -i O
0) CO o
3,-H ojfO-d- in no
jf^t jf -t <t J-
cy cy cu cvj oj <\j cvj
o
«■
t,
tl ri
0) c
□ o
JJO
OMDinrH OJ
o
o -* inn -3- cm m
o oj rH -3- m
COCO COCO CO
CO
vo rHMD -OMSMD VO
*o o o -o -o
^--H/^-^-^-
LO
o o o o o o o
\0 0^0 0 0
-+ -* * * -$
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
&
fOtO-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
Shjr
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
tie
.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
Terrs'
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
0
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
0
■<
Cm
0
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
0
©
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
0
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 AvE±-^.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 Jerse37
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. 0
9
a
yg
m
h
■
5
£
t, to
tn
.M 0
E
a to
(0
O
0
■P
1
3 ft
O 0
U)
a
+> -H
(d 4>
0 E
0 a S
.3 3
B to
i •< u
(0 gj
© .H
0 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 0
0 o t*
■p i* -p
0 A 0 at *
.M a- M a> +j
o a) v l< 0
si al at o
45 M -M • 1
3 O o ^. <
O g] 0 >» (
T-J v-j .H I
a a
0 13 13 O i
P © ©
> d bfl U) at
at t! "O 0
o o a> j4
...£ C ^
U <H <-4 t* ,
a o -z 0
© U •■-.
■3 Tj CO T3
0 U 0
„ -* DO
•0 U Tt Q^T) ^'M
a © © 1— t © <h o
H4>H «H D
M d-, SZ <m O 0) .
I 0
1
0
55 I
W>TJ
a a.
0 0
^ 0 © 0 -h 0 a
— - -p x +> a +» *■«
» a
fci 0 d. 0 0 to
0 0
•H -H
■P -P
+» +> ^n 4> '— ■ 4> w
t3 Tt
0 Tt -H >» -H • —
tj -d
0 0
a a
a co a 0 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 0 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
•.:nTii.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:;rceittage
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
0
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.. 0
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 ?iiTT OiDS ATTTHGKITY
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/
Western 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, 0 100.0
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 0 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
$1.50
239
2312
385?
5408
4.4
42.8
52.8 100.0
Eastern Area .90
1.35
- •
. . - . ■
— *
-
-
-
-
N.Y. State "
ii
n
57
48
87
2.3
42.5
55.2 100.0
Conn. n
n
3
35
21
59
5.1
59.3
35.6 100.0
N. J.
ii
17
199
49
265
6.4
75.1
18.5 100.0
Philadelphia "
ii
14
127
115
256
5.5
49.6
44.9 100.0
Boston "
ii
3a
16
96
78
190
8.4
50.5
41.1 100.0
Total Eastern Art
52
494
311
857
6.1
57.6
36.3 100.0
(Excl. N.Y.)
Western Area. .85
1,26
_
_
—
—
-
-
-
Baltimore
Cleveland
Chicago
St. Louis
Kansas City
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Portland
Seattle
60
79
147 5.4 40.8 53.8 1GJ .0
7
62 8/
5 "
1
6
8
4
1
201
239
37
4
202
36
15
5
163'
182
40
123.
53
13
8
371 5.9
483
aa
5
331
97
32
13
6.
20.0
2
8
12.5
50
46
80.0
61
48
46.9
42.2 100.00
37 1C0.0
48.2 100.0
0 100.0
36.8 100.0
52.5 100.0
40.6 100.0
14 7.1 35.7 57.2 100.0
Total Western Area 94
(Exclusive of Baltimore)
739
582
1415 6.6 52.3 41.1 100. 0
7/ Re-examination of payroll records shows that percent of workers
receiving less than code minimums os slightly lower than figures here
indicate.
8/ Mainly Chicago sutdutds.
9821
-120-
w -
-p
c
o
P"j O
^ .
rH
HI
Ph
O
EH
H
O
O
EH
n
to
PI
EH
O
o
EH
S '
pq
o
Ph
Pi
<i S
•t-H
CO S
g pq
f3 ph
2
o
o
o
EH
1
H n
0
to
Eh rrj
H O
M Eh
3 Ph
Eh
Ph
O
Ph
o
O
CO
EH
-, O EH
a o
pq pq
P3 53 ^
O -aj n
■a; o
o
Hi
pq
FQ
H ft n
o
o
I
0
h)
to
Pi
8
Ph
CT <$
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
TAIT ,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
7e 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
-
0
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 Only
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 rrTTT 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 A7 ,
.in CODE MINIMUM AidD OP TO THE CODE AVERAGE
C ltI"D FROM THE PAYROLLS FILED FOR
THE WEEK OF MARCH 5 - i/ARCH 9, 1934.
NO. OF WORKERS
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
5hila.
-
-
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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
|5tf Louis „
ii
_
2
-.
2
_
100.0
_
100.0
'ansas City
it
ii
i0S Angeles
0
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.
3clo'-' 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. 0
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 TT7J 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
ro. 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"rIP 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. 0
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-ld
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 PTI1UM
2- AT TH7 CODE iIPTII V.i AND TJP TO T^E (XDE AVERAGE
3-CODE AT.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. 0
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 ArrI> ABOVE
SUE i
TAGE
COMPILED FRO THE PAYROLTS 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 'TAPE
TOTAL
3
3 8
5 5
62.5 37.5
- 100. 0
- 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 TT1E '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) KALr EARNING
l-3rL0T." 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 AnD 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''. 0 100.0
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 PT .
AVER &
!'IN
.&
Uc 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
'ransas City"
ii
-
1
-
1
-
100.0
-
100.0
Los Angeles"
n
0
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 . 0
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-resser1 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 . 0
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. 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
0
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
Materials No 18, Contents 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 Materials No.. .17, Tentative Outlines and Summaries of
Studies in Process, these materials are fully described).
Industry 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
Trade Practice Studies
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 Studies
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 EVIDENCE STUDIES SERIES
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
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11