Skip to main content

Full text of "Work materials ..."

See other formats


3 9999 06317 379 1 



0. W. Rosenzweig 

(A Section of Part D: Control of Other Conditions of Employment) 


Work Materials No. 45 falls into the following parts: 



Control of Hours and Reemployment 

Control of Wages 

Control of Other Conditions of Employment 

Section 7(a) of the Recovery Act 

MARCH, 1936 




0.T7. Rosenzv;ei('- 

iviimcii, 1933 




Tills study of "VRk And Indiistrial Homework" vjas 
■fay 0. Tf. Rosenzvjeig of the Labor Studies Section, 
Solomon Barhin in charge-. 

As originally planned, the stud)'' contemplated both more extensive 
and more intensive coverage than could be completed under the 
existing limitations of personnel and research facilities. In par- 
ticular, it will be observed that the manuscript of Chapter II con- 
tains only one of several projected sections; and Chapter lY, which 
was to set forth the author's conclusions, has been entirel;'- omitted. 

Tlie study of homework in the Knitted Outerwear Industry, v/hich 
is added as a suoplement to the re-port proper, was prepared liy the 
Homework Bureau of the Knitted Outerwear Industr;^ in cooperation 
with the Labor Studies Section. 

If uniform, or even comroarable, la.bor standards are to be estab- 
lished in industries, the na.tiire of the homework problem mw-st be funs'- 
e:rolored and understood. The author of this work as chairman of a 
special committee appointed by the Administrator to study the problem 
of homework, was closely associated with the development of policy 
on this subject and was in a position to observe the manner in which 
the problem manifested itself under the code system. This sitijation 
should add to the value of the data presented. 

At the back of this report will be found a brief statement of 
the v;ork of the Division of Review. 

L.C. ilarshall, Director 
Division of Review 

I.Iarch 20, 1936 



iTiiA AlO I.IDUSTRIAL ho::ev;ore 

ChaiDter I. i;.^0DIJCTI.011 

A. The prolDlem of ladustrinl IiOhiework 5 

Ext ent o f _ Ijld^-as t_ria]^ JIome^^TO rk 5 

Definati_o^is S 

garni iijgs o_f Homev/orkers V 

Relief " r 9 

HomevfO_rker s__a_nd _^ac_to_ry jTorkers 10 

~^9I2:^lSJi^Lj£ik.9^3]i22kL ^^ 

^l°ff-S]Tq^rk yj:eyieA:_^J-';oji}: _S'lg.^'|p..o i^^.^, _1^^^liM.s.'BQ^'^,^. -'-■'• 

Hours _of _Hojnewq_rke_rs 12 

Clliid.jLaJqor. .'...."..." 13 

Sanitation _ai id J^ e al tl i 13 

Conclusions 16 

3. Homework and tlie National Industrial ilecover.y Act 13 

C. Develooment of NHA Homework Policy 21 

Posit ion of the Advisory J3oards_ 21 

jj.S-^^XA^-^A^Jr'-.^'^s of_Some Industri^os^ 23 

■^^st. --PjA.Ji6 giQ ^g.^i'jg^ .PJk .K9I^}'i9J^Ji. -^^ 

IIPlA. Homewo rk ..C on]]ni_t_te^e 27 

Executi ve^ OrAejl _ o_n _Hp_mewor_k 29 

Q2-.^MXzS;1^j^^sLI!A^J:£lJsjl ]l?AiiLil.i2J}M. ■^•^ 

Advisory Coixncil on Jioraeworl^ 32 

Chapter II. g0ffljJj:;gg2O:TCE (Only Section A appears in this report) 

A. Sunmary and Analysis on Code Homework Provisions 34 

!^BSL_S2?lS™Z}S_?Z£§. '^'^ 

Suimnary .and Ang^lysis_ 35 

Homev/o rk _and_ _Co de Laho r S t andar ds 39 

Inconsistency Amon^a; Code Home'-'ork J^ revisions 40 

Conclusion 45 

3. Industr^^ Studies 

1. Introduction 

2. Prohihition 

(a) hen's Clothin;-; 

(h) Artificial Plower and Feather 

(c) Pleatin^-;, Stitchin ,, Bonnaz "nd Hand Einhroidery 

3. Partial Prohibition 

(a) Cotton C-".rn,cnt 

(h) Handkerchief 

(c) Hosiery 

(d) Infants and Children's Wear 
(o) I&iitted Ou.terwear 



4. Rei2,-ulation 

(a) Lace 

("b) Furniture 

(c) Ifeedlework in Puerto Rico 

(d) Fresh Water Pearl Sutton 

(e) Candlewick "Bedspread 

5. liiscellaneous 

(a) Fabricated Iletals 

C. Comoliance: ProDlerns and Technique 

D. Siuniaary of Code Sioerience 

Chapter III. lEAJ.iFgRTSjrO^TAiraAHMZEJCH3 _C^^^^ 

A. The IIFlA Homework Committee '*° 

Orgaiiization of the CpiTiriiittee, "^6 

Efforts to Qhtain fnForjiiat_iqn ^^ 

The Advis ory Stagje . ^3 

Formulation of Standards "^"^ 




Origin of the Order ^^ 

The Orde r and Its deception ^3 

Effect of Or der on Codes.- ^^ 

HeK-,u.lation of Exceptional Cas es ^" 


The Executive Order on Homework. 

G-eneral Baclcground, 

C. Administration of the Executive Order. 

D. Conclusioi 

Persistent Administrative Probl ems. 


Introduction ^'^ 

The Homework Protective League . "^^ 

The 3udd Cas e • "^^ 

The hew Jprk Hojaework Law "^"^ 

Executive Order or State Law '° 

Attacks Upon Executive Order ^•'■ 

The Bost on Conference of Certificating Officer s. 90 

The Lauer Decision '^^ 

Ax)peal and Reversal 

Homevjork in Rocheste r and Troy, '^evi York 105 

Exce-ptions Under the Executive Order 121 



Is Regulation of Homework possible? 126 



Chapter IV. C OlICLUSIOas AivH) HECO ii ASl.'DATIQjS 

A. Critique of the Code S-stem, 

B. Other attempts to Control Home^.'ork 

1. State Legislation 

2. Union Agreements 

3. Social Agencies 

C. Final S-ummar;- and Suggestions 

1. Factors maicing for Persistence of Homework 

2. Factors tending to Eliminate Homevrork 

3. A Kew Method of Ccntrol - Interstate Compacts 

4. Conclusions 


A. Classification of NEA Code Homework Provisions 133 

B. List of Code Homework Provisions 134 

C. The Rosenberg Hsport 169 

D. (The) Women's or Women's National Democratic Cluh . . . 174 

E. Kew York Times Homevrork News 177 

F. Members of the New York State Labor Staiidards Committee 180 

G. Report on the Investigation of Industrial Homework in 

the Men's Neckwear Industry, Troy, New York 182 

H. Tables on Number of Special Certificates Granted 

Under the Executive Order 194 

Supplement on Homework 
in the 
Knitted Outerwear Industry 

Part I - Introduction 200 

Part II - Documents: 206 

Exhibit "A" Knitted Outerwear Code Provision 207 

E>±Libit "B" Memorandum to the National Industrial 

Recovery Board from Prentiss L. Coonley, 
Division Administrator, Jaiiuary IS, 1935, 
Subject: Code of Fair Competition for the 
Knitted Outerwear Industry - Stay of the 
Provisions of Section (a) of Article VI, etc. 207 



E:dai"bit " C" Administrative Order Wo. 164-36 Staying 
Application of Article VI ^''ith Respect 
to H;md Homework 209 

Exiii'^it "D" Reflations for Homerrarl: Production in the 

Knitted Outerwear Industry 211 

Part III ~ Summary Analysis of Statistical Schedules: 216 

Classification of Homeworkers 217 

Classification of Homework Employers 218 

Homeworkers in the Knitted Outerwear Industry 218 

Payments to Homeworkers Across State Borders 222 

Hom.ework Employers in the Knitted Outerwear Industry 223 

Products Classification 223 


Il umher 

Analysis of Manufacturers' Registry & Reports X-A 

Analysis of Contractors' Registr;^ & Reports I-B 

Analysis of Numter of Homeworkers & Payrolls I-C 

Analysis of Method of Operation I-D 

Manufacturers "by Groups in the Industry I-E 
Employers of Homeworkers only hy G-roups ^ I-E (a) 

Employers of Homeworkers and Contractors I-E (h) 

Employers of Contractors only I-E (c) 

Location of Contractors I-F 

Contractors hy G-roups I-^ ^a) 

Geographical Relation of Manufacturers & Contractors I-G 

Homeworkers Registered & Percentage Paid II 

Homeworkers ty Groups and Areas II-A 

Homeworkers hy Crafts (Paid Homeworkers only) II-B 

Earnings Data of Homeworkers for 8 week period III 

In Metropolitan Area III-A 

In Cities of 50,000 and up III-B 

In Cities 5,000 to 50,000 IH-C 

In Rural Areas III-D 

Earnings - Group (l) Fnolly H;ind Knitted or Crocheted 

Infantswear (including Headwear) to 6 yrs. IV 

By Areas IV-A to IV-D 

Earnings - Groiip (2) Wliolly Hand Knitted or Crocheted 

Ladies Sport sv;ear "V 

By Areas V-A to V-D 

Earnings - Group (3) Fnolly Hand Knitted or Crocheted 

Headwear 'I 

By Areas VI -A to VI -D 

(*) These schedules cover an eight-week period from April 1, 1935 to 
May 25, 1935, and they are reproduced exactly as submitted. 




Earnings - Group (4) Hand Joined Infant sv/eax VII 

By Areas VII-A to VII-D 

Earnings - C-ro-up (5) Hand Joined Adult swear VIII 

By Ai-eas VI 1 1 -A to VIII^B 

Earnings - Group (6) Hand Finishing IX 

By Areas ' IX-A to IX-D 

Earnings - Group (?) Hand Embroidery X 

By Areas X-JD 

Earnings - Group (8) Hand Sevang of Buttons and 

Buttonholes XI 

By Areas XI-A to XI -D 

Earnings - Group (9) Hand TriiTimings XII 

Earnings - Summary of Groups XIII 

Payments to Homeworkers Made Across State Borders XlV 



The economic evolution of p nption usupIIv involves a transition:; 
from household manufpcture to the fpctory system of production. "The 
major portion of colonipl manufacturing wfs done in the home, and no 
small part by the voraen and children, " says Harold U. iaulkner in his 
"Economic Historv of the United States." (*) The next stage was that 
of snail shops, ^inall'^, ijith the acvent of nachir.ery and meciianical 
power the factory system came into uein^'. 

But in some industries rhere the materials and tools are light 
and easily portable, the home has continued to pla^' a part in the pro- 
ductive process. In these industries "ork is regulaily distributed 
to homes, --here it is performed ]a.rgely by vomen, so'it times vith the 
help of small children. 

L'lany studies of industrial homei/ork have been made in various 
industries and localities. Invariably these studies have disclosed that 
the homevrork system resulted in child labor, extremely loi" rates of 
pay, and excessively long hours of "ork, in unsanitary surroundings. 
■Eiese conditions have led some investigrtors to the conclusion that 
homei-'ork is a menace, not only to the workers themselves but also to 
the consu.aers of home^'ork products. Others believe the homevork is not 
an evil; that it raerely enables a le'-' old or crirplec people to i^ork at 
home and thereby heln to earn their o^n living, or housevives to supple- 
ment a meager fanily incoae. 

Labor organizations and social agencies have dedicated themselves 
to a fight against the homework system. As long as homework continues, 
they argue, it i^ill be -oossible for manufacturers to evade the higher 
working standards set by unior' agreements and State legislation, 

A number of States have attempted to deal with the evils of the 
homework system through legislation. The United States Department of 
Labor has expressed the opinion, ho-ever, that "no adequate measure 
of control by means of state legislation has been devised during a 
period of fiftv years since the first state home'^Tork law was enacted." (**) 

The FIEA proposed to increase employment by shortening hours, to 
raise purchasing povjer by establishing minimum wage rates, and other- 
wise to improve the standards of labor. It provided a uniqae opportun- 
ity for the majority of an industry to establish standards for the 
entire industry on a national b^-sis. 

A program of stabilizing industry by fixing maximum hours and 
minimum wages and eliminating "unfair" and "destructive" competitive 
practices, had to reckon with the problem of industrial homework even 
though the Act made no mention of it. 

118 out of 556 industries under basic codes included homework 
provisions in their codes. These provisions were by no means uniform 
either in form or in substance; thev varied to meet the needs of the 
particular industry. The majority, however, definitely prohibited homework, 

9840 ^*'^ '^' ^^' ^^''^lished by Tne Ivi-cMillan Company, New York City, 1929. 
(**) p. 3, "A Study of Industrial Homework in the Summer and Fall 
of 1934," mimeographed, IJo. 32^8, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Honie'"Ork lorovisions not meet '^ith''' s^accessiul recults, 
due to the v; rvin^- degreup of ur^fnization praong the industries ard 
the different frctorK pnc. circumstpnces peculiar to the vprious industries. 
Sone home^-'ork provisions FCCO'irolisnec' tht puroosef for i-hich thev ^ere 
designed, others did not. T!ae cetFils of this exneriei^.ce are in most 
instances lackir^g; the records contained in KnA files fve sketcn>/. If 
they could be sn'---Dle'nented bv the .naterLal in the files of unions, 
trade associations, and State and federal de-cartiiients of labor, a ,nuch 
iiiore co.niDlete a'-'alysis coulc' undoubtedly be made. 

Nevertheless, there is enouc"^h inior^ation available in NSA files 
to inoicate the irroblenis that arose and the oostacles that had to be 
met, and to disclose in some detail the exnoerience oi certain individual 
industries in their efforts to aeal "dth the home^'ork nroblem through 
their codes. 

One industry — Ivnitted i^uter'-ear - made a study of home^r'ork. 
Although this study was not co.apleted, due to the Schechter decision 
'i^hich ended all code activities, the facts collected have been asse.abled 
and foim the basis for the sucole'aent to this study, on homework in 
the Knitted Outer'^ear Industry. 

Unfortunately, oecause ci: shortness of tiiie pv.d li'aitation of 
personnel, this re'^^ort includes orly a n^rtion oi tht study much had 
■been planned. Cranter II vas to have isresented an analvsis of the 
experience of S'-V'eral industries ndth cade ho le^-'orl: provisions and the 
problem of reflating 'U3':irauia "rages and .laxiiouiQ hours of home'^'orkers. 
Cna.pter IV ^"ps to have contained the "Titer's conclusions based u-pon 
a general study of 1:RA and industrial iio-ie'-ork, as '-lill as his fc.s.TDerience 
as Chairman oi the KEA. Homc'^'ork Goia.dttee. Oi these, only the first 
Section of Cha-oter II has been '^ritten. 

hatever merit this unfinished product can lay claim to is due, 
for the most part, to the generous counsel oi :;iy ai-visers, Dr. ~aul i\ 
Brissenden and 't. Solomon Barkin. The Departnent of Labor has been 
more than helpful. The interest oi several of its members has been 
a constant source of encourageaent. 



WA Ai'j riDus TRIAL "r:c::r-'Oiiic (*) 

C'ilKr"23R I- Irii'EODuCTIOlT 

A. TI-~: FRO BHSI'I Or IlIDUST-n AL KOiffi 'ffORK 

Por more than fifty years industrial liomevrorl: lias "been a constant 
cliallenge to those interested in inrorovin;; the conditions under which 
goods are inade. Social v/orkers, la"bor learlers, conscientious employers, 
health officers and govern- lent officials l> -onceasingly eixerted their 
efforts to correct the abxises of the homeworl: system and to eliminate 
its eveils.(**) There is no lack of evidence to shov/ 'rliat these abuses 
have teen in the past pnd are in the present, (***) and why the situation 
calls for zorae measure of control, A large numl'-er of studies of indus- 
trial homework in different states 3.nd in different industries point 
defi'nitely to the conclusion tlie.t v/herever homework is done sweatshop 
conditions (long hours, low wages, child labor, etc.) are sure to be 

Extent of In dustrial Sor.iework 

The n-catfoer of homewor]::ers in the UniteO. States is not Icnovm; no 
census on this stib.ject iia,s ever been talren. (****) The extent to which 

(*) Unless otherwise indicated the docijmentary rmtter cited in 

the' follovdng pages may he fo-'jnd in ^'RA files, 

(**) Some contend th"t the evils aro inherent in the system and 

t-ia^t only "by abolishing homev/ork ca.n v/e elimina.te the evils; 
they insist tiiat regulation of homeworlc is im.possible. Others 
argue that tne I'^roblem is to set up sufficient safeguards 
through careful roi^ul-ation to eliminate tne possibility of 
abuse. "Rid tiie ;jatient of his disease," tiiey say, "but don't 
do it b;/ killing himi" The issues involved in this contro- 
versy will be discussed later, 

(***) On September 30, 1935, the KORWALK HOUR in ITorwalk, Connecti- 

cut, contained the following front-page headline: 
"C-rand Street Roll Manufactujrer Rined; Paid Four Cents. Per 
Kour.'Sta.te Charges." Sub-heads told the following: 
"(Pay) As Lovf as 2 cents in Some Instances, Investigo,tor 
Says — Ref' Says He'll Send Work Out of State if He 
Can't Have it Rone in iJorwalk Homes," 

A i'evA Jersey newspaper, TKR iiOlIEOUTH Ili7'RPi;iTDE^'T in Asbury 
Park, ran a story on homework i-i the October 18, 1935, issue 
under the headline: "Sweatshops Still Operate at Shore; 
Pay 2ii Per Hour," 

(****) "All statements of nur.ibers employed at homework are roii^'h 

gTiesses," says the Women's R^u-eau, U.S, Department of Labor 

9840 (Continued) 

homework is ■ascd in the va.rious states is — for t/is r.iOst part — a matter 
of conjecture, since tlie states tlidnselves are not fully informed on 
this subject, (*) Daring t'.ie :^\A exj^erience, it v/as found that even 
in industries v/nerc the use of hor.ierfor'!: vas extensive enouf;h to create 
a competitive yoroblem, there was a sv-r-iirising (to sa^^ nothing of in- 
convenient) lack of infor.nation as to tnn extent of homework. Thus, 
whether the subject of industrial home',7ork is viev/ed industry by in- 
dustry, or State by State, there is little statistical data to show 
its real scope. That this is a serious liandicap is a point tliat cannot 
be too much eophasized. Such material as is available, tha.nks mostly 
to the Federal and various Sfca,te La,bor Departments, is sporadic and 
fra;5nentary, and in nearly all instr.nces is limited to a local area or 
to a single industry. 


Industrial homework means manufacture in the home. The materials 
worked upon are furnished by the employer and must be returned to him. 
The work may be distributed by an intermediary Izr.oxm as e. "contractor", 
or it may be called for by the homey/orker himself at the plant of the 
manufacturer or at the office of the contractor. This definition does 
not include "the home manufacture of articles independent of a contractor 
from the sale of which the individ-jal receives the vhole profit, nor the 
distri&LLtion of iiomevork goods through a cooperative 'orljeting system," (**) 

(****) (Continued) (p. 15, ISullotin Ao, 155), In the same place, how- 
ever, it is estimated tliat "in at least 77,000 homes, scattered 
over 48 States, the nome maker, assisted b?- meml^ers of her family, 
was employed vith some rc,y-'-larity by industrj" in 1930." (Adding 
Puerto Hic'o v/ould s^vell this fi/;;are considerably.) Else?/here 
(p. 10, "A Study of Industrial Hojiiework in the Su-nmer and Fall of 
19G4-, "Preliminary Report to the ITjIA, IJ,S.De-->artment of Labor) 
vie find "uhat in 1934 "in... 1,473 farailios studied, 2,320 did home- 
vrork, an average of 1.5 per family." Assumin;^ tliat since 1930 
the number of homes in which industrial homewroS: is done Iiad in- 
creased from 77,000 to 80,000 and multiplying this figure by 1.5, 
v/e would get only 120,000 home¥rarke-rs . On the other hand, "con- 
tractors liave set the number of honeworkers in the United States 
at one million," says a ITe'w York State Dept. of Labor press re- 
lease. (iJarch 7, 1934. The basis of this estimate is not given.) 
Obviously, these figures ;orove nothing but the truth of the dictum 
at the head of tnis note. 

(*) cf . . Report of Committee on Industrial I-Iomework, pp. 34-40, PrQ~ 
ceed'ings of the IL-th Annual Convention of the Governmental Le.bor 
Officials of the United States and Canada. Bulletin JIo, 4^9, 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Committee concluded (1926) that 
basic information on homework v/as "either lacking entirely or 
ac'jTiittedly inadequate in many sections of., the country, even in 
States v.'here the existence of homework (at least in some indua** ■ 
tries) is laiovm to the State authorities, and even in States where 
the existence of a homework problem mis been recognized in the 
enactment of rirohibitory or regulatory legislation," The situ- 
ation v/ith respect to information Its.s not clir-nged much since then, 

(**) p. 3, REPORT, Third Annual Meeting of the Labor Standards Confer- 
ence, Hew York City, December 10, 1934, called by the iTational 
Consumers' League, 


It is important to understand th",t t,ie industrial honeworker is a v;age- 
earner vorlcin^ for someone just like any. qthev industrial enrployee, 
v/liile those xhio make articles at lioine and sell tiem at roadLsidLe stands, 
for example, are — in a very real sense — private entrepreneurs. In 
the one instance, the individuT'.l is seilins^ a service — his lalior; in 
tiie otner, he is selling?; a finished product v/hiCi he las ...ade and on 
tne sale of w^iich lie is realij^in^ a profit, Tho f^ijr,nificance of tuis 
distinction will become more app?.revit in the later discussions of home- 
work and tne Sational Industrial Recovery Act, ard of the litigation 
which arose d^irin^, the administration of the Execxitive on homework. 

Earnin:-^s of riomev/orkers 

ThoiTsli the industrial hor^eworkcr is as aia.i employee of industry 
as the factory or shop v,'orl:er, the rates •■.aid her (*) and her ea-rnin-^s 
are invariatly lov/er, Hourl;'" earninf:s of 2, 3 and 5 cents are not un- 
common. In a study of homework by the U.S. Department of Labor in the 
summer and fall of 1934, of the 1044 honevrorkers studied a majority 
v/ere found to be earning: less than 10 cents an hour. Only 4 pp" cent 
vfero earning between 25 cents and^ 30 cents oer hour. The minimimi rate 
per hour in codes was usiaally 3.0 cents, sometimes 35 cent?. In the study- 
reforrod to, weekly earnings arc sliov,!! to have been correspondingly low, 
"It v.'as rare," says the Departm.cnt of Ixibor, "to find a single home- 
viforker earning $5,00 a vreok in less tlr'.n thirty hci:rs. Half the famil- 
ies. studied, received less tlvo,n J-'S.OO a week from homework, 70 per cent 
reccivL;d less than $5.00, c>nf' 37 -jer cent less than -ilO.GO a week. In 
only 5 per cent of the families we-^c homcv.-ork earnings as high as $15.00, 
and 22 families (2 per cent of about 1,370) earned as much as $20,00." (**) 

There arc many reasons for those low earnings* I'ost families en- 
gaging in homevrork do f^o because they arc in de economic straits; 
they arc railing to accejjt even the lowest rates for their labors, 
CouT>led witn this is the fact th3,t homeworkers , ' most of whom are vramen, 
are isolated and scs.ttcred. Since they laiow little or nothing about 
rates paid in factories or shops, or about conditions in the industry, 
for which thc\- are working they Imve no basis upon which to judge what 
they oiight to be paid, Tliey seldom even Icnow v/ho the m.anufacturer is 
who is sending them v;ork thro-U{5h a contractor. Consequently they are 
witliout anything thx'.t remotely resiiribles "b-ar^aining power"; they are 
almost entirely at the mercy of the contractor who employs them, or of 
te.c manufacturer if they deal vdtli him directly. 

Competition _ among homeworkers th.cnsclves is another factor which 
tends to lo\7cr their s^'it'^S and earniyigs. Sometimes a homevrorker vdll 

(*) Since .most horne\7or]:ers arc wOiX-n, the feminine pronoun is used 
here and- througiiout, 

(**) p,17, "A Study of Industrial Homiework in the Shimmer and Pall of 

1334," a preliminary report of the !T;'.tional Recovery Administration, 
U.S, Department of Labor. See the v/hole report for further evid- 
ence of lov; wages and earnings r^-ceivcd by homewoi-kers. Mimeo- 
graphed report, Ho. 3268. 



offer to CO v/ork for less tlian othcrr in the liope tlvat she will tc ,: ivc n 
a larif-er quantity of v/orl:. It is not tmus-ual for iiiiscrvpiilous employers 
to "play" one Avorlrer agr.inst anotlK.r or on.. ..--"ov.-) of honev/or^rers against 
another ^roup, by promises of more work at lo-./cr rates or Toy threats of 
no work at all, if tncrc is any nint tlrt hir.hcr r-.tes arc dosired. 
Other factors which operate to c'.cr.jress tiie earniUiTs of homeworkcrs are 
the charges and deductions irrrioosod "by onrploycrs, Homev/orkers are fre- 
quently called upo_- to pay transportation costs (street car fare, etc.) 
and excessive cliarges for allegedly im crft ct or incorrect and spoiled 
work, lost yarn, etc. 

Even if the rates ^aid for oiitsidc (ix^me) ^,7ork were the same as 
trie rates paid for inside (factory) v/ork and the. work load were evenly 
distributed hetv^ocn the two, the homcworkcr still would "be getting a 
lower real wage. The reason is that horaew'trkers carry the cost of much 
of the manufacturer's overhead and absorb nearly all tlie irregularities 
in production, Putting this thought in another way, the homework system 
imposes upon the worker not only the risks of enterprise, but also some 
of the operating costs which arc ordina.rily borne by the employer, such 
as rent, light, heat; etc.; sometimes the homeivorkers carry the cost 
of -.nachincs, their upkeep and the materials needed to operate thom,(*) 

(*) A striking example ma;." be found in the Leather-glove Industry, 

In a sti.idy made in July, 193^', Uie "iTomen's Bureau, U. S. Depart- 
ment of Labor, foimd tliat of 3S0 homeworkers using machines (the 
Nov/ York Stcate Bureau of Homework Inspection rc"ported approximately 
■ 3,082 homev/orkers listed by 153 glove firms in ?ulton County in 
the Spring of 1933) only 50 'lad '..cen provided v/ith machines by 
their employers, v/hile in the 17 firms covered by the study, the 
management furnished practically all the machines used in the 
factory. In 3 factories a few of the machines vrerc ovrned by the 
workers. Only one finn cliargcd inside v/orkors for power, the 
charge being 50 cents a v/eek. In anothe'r firm, inside v/orkers ' 
vrero charged for needles, 7/hich wei'c sold at cost. With these tv7n 
•o - exceptions, insidr operators in the 17 factories v.'erc provided with 
pov/er, repairs, oil and pr'.rts without cliarge. In contrast, home- 
workcrs bore the cost 'of all these items. Of the 280 homewor>ccrs , 
221 used power-driven machines and I-ibA to pay the electric bill 
for povrer, estimated by the local power and light comrpany to amount'i' [, 
to about $1.10 a month 'of 49',- hours work a week. Jor shorter weekly ^' ' . 
hours the cost would be less, of course.) :-Iomcworkers estimated the ••' 
cost of oil to be about 10 cents a month; needles, about 30 cents a 
month. All but a few homeworkers -orovided those items, (See pp.9, 
10, et seq. , Bulletin lio. 119, Women's Bureau, U. S, Department of Labor.) 



The c:cai!PloD ^:ivu/^ 'j.i:;ovo oi' !;;.-■■■ icp.1 Aoraev/or :ers ' earnings are 
sufficient to s"Lif;';'ost thxt-' Vdtli i\ ■ > ..,:c, .tions families are not able to 
support tlie--.iselvc-r, by hor.ievrarlc . "' t little i/:come is derived 

from liomoworl!". .is sup:i:)le:;T.cntar;/ -■ , ;'' ■.c,> io or else the fax;iily mast 

be helped frc.ri .the outside. 'T'^ii'^ o^v-i-u ;:.t.lp may "be .."jivcn "by relatives; 
usiia.lly it coniesin th& forni of' roliof , ^Lfures shov/ing. the number of 
h'omev/orlrors on relief, iaesid-cs being difficult to Qot , are when ob- 
tained usually incorrect on the sic'^e of lAnJ^rstatcment . The reason for 
this is the fear of vna.ny f'-i.milies to disclose tTfo sources, of income 
(ho'-'cver rnria.ll) lest thc:^' Inco one or the other, "19 'icr cent of those 
doin;;; iiO:riCY;ork yrevioi\s "o the KRA r.-ported they iiad been on relief", 
sa}"s the U. S. Departnent of Lr^bor.C*) 

"In Jan-LU'iry, 1955, one-fourth of the Fhilad.- Iphia hor^ev/orhers rei->orted 
by ir..T.ruaactv.rers of infants' and children's wear ^-cr: from families 
Y/ho v/er'. receivin,; r>d.i..f , rccordiri;; to b. checl: radn with the relief 
agencies." (**) I/i tii 'L:-'ce In^iistry in Connecticut, "the inadequacy 
of \va.':c3 ;, aid (to horacv/orhers) is indicated by t:ic fact tloat at ti\nes 
durin;- tnc --ast /ear (19GC0 5<~'^ jr.r cent of the fxnilies on paj^roll were 
being aided by T-rivate or public .rcelief a encies." (*'*'t) 

Som^ contend that the dependence of l-^rgc nui;.bers of homcv/orkers 
uooi: relief nieans t/:.;^t the --uolic b - tar.cs or voluntar;,^ contributions 
to cha.ritable aii;encies is si"bsidi:^in,p honevrorh industries and paying a 
considerable portion of tneir n/agc bill. The question is ashed, how 
can a.famil.]?- be b.-'-t off relief rolls on j-.rnings of eight cents an 
hour or less?" Tliat the •ansv/or is an emphatic"it can'tl", is sufficiently 
indicated by tlie following statci'icnt tahen froru a roiport by the U. S. 
Dcpartmciit of Labor: "In sorae cases — so Ioy/ are the homeworl: rates pnd 
earnings — contractors reported that i:-.ilics v/ere vnwilling to accept 
tno work if thcj- conJc obtain relief instead," (****) 

(*) p. 22, "A Study of In^ v.3^:rial Hon- uTork In the Summer and Pall 

of 193-'-," a pr^li.hi ■';•- -? ■ ^■'•*:. ^.; the hational Recovery Ad- 
ministrn-tion, U. f: . I;c^i,-rt cat of Labor. According to the 
same report, UFA. nad little effect on the }-.roportion of 
families r^^ceiving relief. Sut of this more later. 

(**) p. 21, ".Industria,! Heme Work in Pennsylvania under the 

• jatio,n3l Recovery Administration, "Eureau of ',7omcn d Children, 
Pcnn.sylvania Tiepartrnent of Labor and Industry, March, 1955. 

(***^ -,^_ ]_ ^f Summary a:ia Recorainendations , "-loncvrark in the Connectj 

cut Lace' InduBtry-, •• Connecticut State Department ''cf Labor, 

llovember, 1935. ' • 

(*■'**) p..22, "A Study of Industrial Home Vfork in the Summer and Fall 

of 1954, '5 a preliminary report to the iMj-.tional Recovery Ad- 
ministration, IJ, S. Ixrpartment of Labor, 


-10- ■ 
?Iorae^7orl:ers and J actory 'Vo rhers 

The manner- in v.'h.icli houoworkers compete with one another and the 
effect of this competition ixoon rates paid to homeworlzers have already 
"been pointed out. Actv>ally or potentially, directly or indirectly, 
homeworl~ers also coiTrpete with fn,ctor>" vorlxrs and this tends to lower 
the standards of the latter, "It is i.mdoii'btedly true," says a Hew York 
State Departrient of Lahor re^o-.-t , • " th-t there . . . industries in 
which homework is substituted for factory '.vork durin;:, a depression." (*) 
As a nabter of fact, it is not at all -unlikely tliat in some instances 
homework was originally \ised and developed as a means of evading the 
his^;her lahor standards set .vp in factories and shops by Law or union 
agreement, (**) It ?/as probably just ?uch t. situation involving comjieti- 
tion between inside v/orkers and outside .v.'orkers and the consequent lower- 
ing of factory standards timt made the ■a.bolition of homevrork a major 
issue in several important strikes in 1910 and 1913,(***) and which has 
for many years influenced organized labor to oppose industrial homevrork. 
In an article on necla,7ear workers' unions "The Advance" states tliat 
"the employers used the horaevrorkers a,s a shield aga.inst the efforts ~f 
the union to organize the industry. Homework caused the loss of many 
strikes." (****) Granting that trade unions and strikes are legitimate 
instruments used by the working for its betterment, ve may accept 
the Quoted statement as evidence that, in some instances at least, 
industrial honeTrork stands as an obsta>,cle to the improvement of v;orking 
conditions for labor. 

(*) p. 134, "Industrial riomev/or': During lusiness Depression," 
The Industrial Bulletin, Vol. II, ilo, 5, ?ebru;iry, 1933, 
.". Y. Sta.te Department of Labor, 

(**) In the Leather-riove Industry, vhich uses a great deal of home- 
work, particvtlarly in Fulton Coujity, IT. Y. , where a large part 
of the industry is concentrated, the ■■anion has taken steps to 
protect the factory wa.;,:; stan.dards 'o,-- stimulating in the agree- 
ment tiiat there shall bo a 10 ■~'cr cent wa e differe.-.tial betv/een . 
honevrorkers and f jctor:, workers, vdth. tlie homcworkers, of course, 
getting the lower rates. This is a departure from the general 
rule that organized labor favors the abolition of inc'-ustrial 
homework. T'ae problem of homework in thi'j industry will be dis- 
cursed more fully later, 

(***) The cloak, suit a-nc" skirt malcers in :''ev; York, and the men's 

garm.ent v/orkers in Boston, respectively. See p, 22, "Industrial 
'iome Vfork in ilasssachusetts , " Labor Bulletin No. 101, June, 
1914, Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics, Oddly enough,- this 
report concludes in another place (p,4) that "there is little 
com-oetition betv/ecn factory and homevrorkers', so t-lmt the effect 
upon factory work is slight," 

(****) "The Advance," a labor monthly published by the Afaalgarnated 
Clothing Y' oT.zcrs p£ America, Loccinbcr,. 1935, p. 8, 


Hoineworl: L abor Sigp_lj 

■Tlie ^-ujT'^ly of lalDor for honcviorl: cnplo;.Taent is .ractice.lly im- 
limited. In oi-'.ler to coinplote a jo'o, it is .not Tjiiusual for all 
menibers of -. f.^u;iily (i.^clucin,-.,- tn'>se c.iildren T'ho are at all atle to 
help) to be "drafted" into tlic v.'orl:» "iirtnermore , tie low rates paid 
in thcmsclvos freqi-iently nia'Ce it in-'Grative tiirt members of tne family 
contribute their efforts so that more T'ork will be done and the family 
earnings increased thereby. And it is to nc noted that even the small 
amotmt paid to one hor.ievror::or is often act-aally the combined earnings 
of several homevrorhers in the family. 

Koneijorl: Viewed from Standpoint of r[ana;9:ement 

Viewed from the st.ndpoint of manaA-ement , the homeworl: system 
offers a of chea.p labor a,nd a means for the reduction of over- 
liead to the enrployer, ^-ho is alv?ays interested in cutting dovm his cost 
of production. Most industries in which hon.ev/orl- labor is en-iployed 
are characterized by i luct'o-ations dxie to seasonal f-^ctors or style ch-anges. 
Ey the \ise of homeworl-ers, employers can call- into service a labor re- 
serve, for which no factory '^•pace need be provided, to talce care of 
sudden c.umges in demand. :'oncwor]3rs can be dismissed and their v/ork 
stopped at any time by the a.'iaployer without his incxuring any real loss. 
1'hus, ta3 burdens of irre^jular and cheap produ-ction can be passed on to 
the honearorhers in the form of u:. certain enploj'-ment- and low earnings, 
while the maniii'actiu-er assumes for these workers none of the responsibili- 
ties connected with the hiring of regular cimployees. 

There is a serious q;iestion v.'hother the homcTOT-k system of decentral- 
ized yjrod-action is the most efficient or economical to management. This 
is evidenced by the largo number of manufacturers -vmo favor the iibolition 
of hom.ework in spite of wnat soem to be it's advantages. Obviously, the 
"breaking up" of the nanufactu.ring process by sending out work to be 
done in a nm.iber of widely scattered homes, nrxkes impossible even a min- 
imum degree of s-upervision and frequently involves annoying, if not 
costly, losses of time. The cov.petitive result is most siarnificant . 
"Tnen an employer can hire wor'.:ers for r^ractically his o\m price," says 
Professor Commons, "he can be slack and inefficient in- his m.ethods, and 
yet, by rcdiicing wages reduce his cost of production to the level of his 
more able competitor ." (*) That such a sit-aation -does not encorjrage the 
development of srsperior abilit"/ in the field of either management or the 
teclinical arts is aTiiaront. The words of John Ri Comanons, though offered 
as e:.i a.rgujr.ent in sup--ort of the minim-am wage, apply vath especial force 
to tne homework problem. It is a well-:'aiOTOi fact among factory and home-r- 
work inspectors as well as man-^afacturers tltat the difference betv/eeh the 
rates paid in one factory and those paid -in -.another in the same industry 
is never as great as the difference in rates paid to homeworkers for the 
same type of work. (**) Thu^, even where one xnanufactiirer using home- 
workers, tale latter is likely to be in a position to undersell the manu- 
facturer who does not emj^loy homev.'ork-ers, It vra.s -tliis "unfair com-oetition" 

J*) p. 171,. "Principles of Labor Legislation" by Jolin R. Commons and 
J. S. Anarcws, Revised, edition, 1927. 

(**) Enov.-n to vary as much as 30 ■ per cent. 


more than pjiythin;; else that led manj^ namif actui-ers to a<';r(=e upon the 
orohiliition oi" honewcr:: in taeir vnen the I'llA. offered t'tevi t is 

Hours of Honev/orkers 

While industrial hcLif-v/orl: is an ir.teinittent occupation -^nc' the 
horaoworker follo^7S no i-e.-rul-^r scliedv.le of ^lours as dees the f-ctoi-"- en- 
plo3'ee, a lar. 'e proportion of •onrTor]:e_ '. work 40 ho-ars - week or ■ o-p. 
Uanj'- a.rgued tna.t boi.iework is doi'^ o 1-r in "I'-isure tin.e". That 
this is trtie in a :ii::ber of ir.stances ca.inot j. deniec", "but if it is 
st-^.ted "3 a;pplica'ole to all uonrvrork tlv- f- ts helie the -^s;. ortion. Of 
l.OcS honevrorkers stuoied o-/ the Depart'ient of Lahor, nearl-," half r'orkpc. 55 
hours a. ^"eek or nore; appro:-i lately on'^-fo\ j-tli r'orkpo. rD "loiir's a '^eek 
or longer; more taan 254 v,-orked 60 lours a l^•pek or nore; .xid 25 -'orked 
80 hours a. week or over,(*) Of Z22 jici.iev.orkers who reiorted to the Tevr ^ 

York' State Departnent of Later, (**) the ariroxir.iate nufDer of hours the3r 
were en3-,,'':ed in industrial honework, 22 oe:.- cent said t.'e'-' worked oetween 
7 and 8 hours a daj'; and 11 ^f^r cent tii-t the;- "orkec' 9 hoiirs or -ore a da,y; 
69 per cent worked at night. Tor wo;. en, i.idustrial honework -t ■:i.'-"ht means 
in neaxlj'' .^ll cases, a very lo;i; aJid hare o-e-' liecr.v-se the da.yti'ip is filled 
with the ucual househol c '.ores a: c" tar- f::-ctini'; den-nds on timo and ener- 
•gy involved in looi:infc rf ter s- all chile re'i, C ?■.■"= r>f ■'lo-iework^rs working 
late into the ni^ht and ret tin-'- up early ir the ■ ornia;;: to finish a rush 
job ai'e quite coni^on. 

It is cle~r t:\p •■■rent are of vgip: '-iloyvient, 1 "t/ wages, etc., o'ler- 
ate to i:-.daee thp i\oiie' -or'-pr te 'n-r--j rX her industrial work for e:;ces;uvely 
long perioc.E of tir:e, Ho^.'ever, z\e evyoossihility of oolicing a.^y reg :la,tion 
injosing restricutions en tae ;:eurs ef h^^ :r- -erke:. s is too ohvious to re- 
quire more than -.ention. Such ^olicin-, rpqi;ire a -"'."st cx^^^J of in- 
spectors, the cost of 'Thich ijoule oe prohihi'ive. ,i 

Child Lahor 

•Proha.hl-y no as--)ect of the^xohler ef ind.istriAl n-ie^-ork has received 
so :.uicli -puolic attention or aroised so nuch ^uolic ind ig'.ia.tion -^n^:. resent- 
ment as ci^ild l-^.hor, (***) It is in tiiis sector of the homework system that 

(*) 1). 12, 14, et seq,, " A Stud;- Of'.astrial ".ep.e "'ork in tie Sw:- 

mcr and Fall of lSo4," a preli- i:-L--u-y report to t/ie 'J-tir-i,al Jtecovery 
Administration, U, S. Dr lart-ient of La.jor. 

(**) p. 26, Special Bulletin '"o, 158, "So]-.- Social anc Economic As-oects oi 
Home\7ork," Fehruary. 15S9, 17. Y. St.-te I)e;iart!iep.t of Lahor. 

(***)Sfce p.rrticularly "Tl^e A erican Ch.ilc , " Vol. V, :'o. 7, Jul-^ 1925; 
also the following: "Industrial HojioWorlc of Childre.\, " Btu-eao. 
Riblication i'o, loo, 19 2, -Children' s Lureau, '), S. Department of 
Labor; "Industrial Home Work and Chxld Labor," Special L-illetin i'o. 
11, 1926, Pen:isylvania De-.)artnent of L bor and Industry; "Child 
Lrboi- in lie''-' Jersey", Publication jlo. 185, 19 -8, Children' s 3-. u-eau, 
U. S. Department of Labor, ^ 


the .■;reatcst abuses. Imve 'peen comnitted. "oracvrarkers are soiitimes re- 
q.-u.irod to si£:,n a -.js/ocr in ■'■'iiicri they promise not to permit children 
luider sixteen to. help, b-ut the tempta:tion is' too c^os..t and violation 
of the ■■yleCiQC is too' eas" to conrdit vdthout interference, f or , it .to "be 
effective. It is hard to iinagine an inspector stop-dnc a mother driven 
b;' economic necfissstjr- from i-'orhin^. her children even tho-Uti-h the work 
should Qo on -until two or three in the morning or the children, he ralced 
up at five or si:: so as to jiut in several hours of work before school. 
Much (if not mos-t) of the v;ork done in homes is unskilled and thus lends 
itself of.sily to ih'. employment of children in its -ocrformancc. Even 
Tdiere the process is of a sMlled t j-pe , there is alv/a>'-s some part, that 
caji he done "by children, such as wra'ippin^'i- or unwrapping "bundles. That 
homework ta3:es its toll u-on children vmo arc tlius forced to a.ssist in 
tlic family v/hcn they should be playing, studying or resting, is 
obviotis frcn the many stories of children falling; asleep in school be- 
ca.use of late hotirs at ^-orl:: the ni.fnt before. (*) Ir. recent years the 
number of children cnga^.ed in homework 1to,e been declini:\'- steadily. 
This ;Tas' 'been due to State regrala.tions auc' ITEA codes. -"ov;ever, those 
most familiar with the administration of State lav.'s regr.rc' inf: child labor 
and honcvrork have so repeatedly discovered violations tiiat they despair 
of eliminating ciiild labor in homes until the homcv.'ork system, itself is 
abolished. As long as nomework is permitted, tiiey say, c'idld labor in 
homes v.lll continue. 

Sanitation and Health 

"i-Io discission of th, problem of industrial homev/or]- vrauld be com- 
plete v.'ithout some consideration of the serious questions of sanitation 
and health. In 1902 Jacob Idis wrote, .. 

"The"n ofiicers are on constant ,an'.'- s'ne.rp 
■ lookout for hifden fever-nests. Considering tliat 
half of t'ne rcady-raa.dc clothes that are sold in 
the big stores, if not a good deal more than half, 
are made in these tenement rooms $' is not ex- 
cessive caLition. It hp^s ha.ppencd more than once 
tlmt a child recovering from nsmall-pox, and in the 
most contagious of the disease, has been found 
crawling araon;",' hqaps of half-finished cloii'ing that 
the next day v/ould be offered for sale on the coujitcr of 
a U'roadTray store; or tlial a tj'phus fever pa,tient has been 
discovered in a room whence perliaps a hu.ic'red coats had 
been sent home tliat week, each one with tlie v/earer's^ 
death-warrant, ixnsoen and unsuspected, basted in the 
• lining." (**) ■■ ' 

(*) See p, 4, "Investigatio.n of Homework in the Artificial FlovTer £:■ 
Feather Industry," national Child Lfi.bor_ Co-..mittee , .Ilarch, 1934, 
The whole report v.dll repay* reading. Also p.?, ":--ome?rork in the 
Connecticut Lxce Industry", C onnecticut Department of Labor, 
llovember, 1933. 

(**) "now the Other Half Lives," p. 109, by Jacob A, Eiis, 
Charles Scri^ner's Sons, i-Tew York, 1902, 



The first homenork law '-■as entitled "An Act to Improve Pu"blic Health" 
(*) and. was the result of the efforts of the Cigar i.Ir,kers' Union to 
arouse mihlic interest in the health nenace of honework, (**) " "During 
this early period of legislation," says a ITew York State Department of 
Lahor report, (***) "there was great agitation concerning the dajigers 
of tenerient house manufacture. Jacob Riis nas arousing popular interest 
in" 'the other half and describing vividly the conditions in tenement 
working ^nd living rooms, Ifewspavjers were making independent investiga- 
tions ?.nd "warning the puhlic of the 'cigars of death' , , ," The New York 
Department of Lahor referring to the same time says: 

"In the reports of this period man;'- pages were devoted to de- 
tailed descriptions of the overcrowding and the unsajiitary 
conditions in the .tenement workrooms, descrihed as 'the seed 
oeds of contagion, the sinlcs of pollution.' It wan pointed 
nut that 'to turn the dark, foul crowded rooms of the poor into 
a workshop or factory is to sprea,d disease by steajn power. ' 
The ingestigators reported the prevalence of 'consumption' aaad 
other communicaole diseases among homeworkers and call atten- 
tion not only to unsanitary rooms from which disease might he 
spread to consMmers hut to the. dangers, for' the workers them- 
selves, of working long hours -aid ea.ting poorly prepared food 
food." (****) 

The final report of the Indu.striol Coniiiiission to 57th Congress in 
1902 stated that "while neither the Federal Government nor any State 
Goverir-ient has undertaJcen to abolish tenement-house work where 'the goods 
are sold to private purchasers, yet, Y.rhere the Federal Government itself 
is a p"o.rchaser of clothing, as for the use of the Army and Kav;'', it has 
endea-vored to protect its public -servants b;'" a prohibition of tenem.ent- work on all clothing by contractors. This prohibition 

(*) Hew York Laws of 1S34., Chap, ^72, p, 335. This was a re- 
vision of a similar law passed in the jreceding year. 
(Cf. L-ws of 1883, Cha;o.'93, p, 79.) 

(**) Economic motives were not lacking of course. The law T'as de- 
clared unconstitutional by the highest court of the State, (In 
re Jacobs, 38 New York Reports 98.) "Uliat possible relation cm 
cigarraalcing in any building have to the health of the general 
public?", asked the Court, though consiunptives wpre known to 
. lick cigarette tips- in' the procosa of home manufacture, (Cf, p. 
233, et seq. , "Some Ethical Gains Througli Legislation",' by 
Florence Kelley) 

(***) p, 189, "Changing Conditions in Hoi-iework, " The Industrial 
Bulletin, Vol, XI, Ho. 6, March, 1932, 

(****) Ibid. 



in thi^ cc.iie of the Ait:" '/; .s Li-'-vi 'lit .■■.•■bo-..-.t t-iroagli revelations reg-'^.rding 
the conveyance of ueasles ■/aO. Lii-.ilrr di£'.e,".f;p.s di.ring the Spanish- 
Axiericcai I7ar, " (*) This ■irohioiti :i of ho-ievrorlt;, as fa„r as Federal 
Government T)-archac;es are cGncer-\ec',, xh f.tlll in effect. The sta,nda,rd 
contract forra in use diirijig ll>L-)5 r(-(r,.J.res bidders to give the nane and 
location of the factories "w^iere trie;,.- .irtpor.e to man'of acture the 
gaxp.ents" and forbids "tlie perfornance of my \/orl: of an^ description 
in the !:a;Tafact-are of an:/ garr.ent bid upon in .any other premises than 
those stated in the bid " (**) 

In 1313, the factery investigating coinnittee of he'? York reported 
that "it seens evident that honeuork is a, danger to the health of the 
conm-uiiity a,nd that the ef i ort to -.vintrin proper sanitarjA conditions is 
so herculeaji a tack as to be v,-holly illusory as a s?i"eguard of public 
health," (***) Hov/ever, it appears the.t cince that time there have been 
changes in the situa,tion, A number of recent hcme\7ork studies report 
that conditions have improved, that the -na.jority of homes visited v.'ere 
clean and fairly wel^-kc-^t, (****) H.-.verthe^.ess, sone filthy hc:nes 

(*) ' Final Heport of t;ie Industrial Commission to the 57th Congress, 
ig02, Vol, 19, pp. V-lt-o, "Labor-The S-jeating Systems." 

(**) See Sheet ilo. 5 of Strnidard aoverniTient Form of Contract, Ho. 36, 
Hex Department, Qiaarterms.ster ' s office, 

(***) o, 103, Vol, I, r.eport of the Factory Investigating Commission, 191C 

(****) pLeport on liamji'acturing in Tenements submitted to the Comm.ission 
to E::ajrdne the Lav/s delating to Child Welfare, by Bernard L, 
Shientag, 1924, B.-^ys, "The s-nitar;^ conditions in the homes in 
nhich the vrork T/an_ done xrere on the whole reported to be good. 
In this respect, there undoubtedly is an improvement over con- 
ditions that prevailed some years ago, " 11 of Special 
Bulletin ITo, 158, il, Y, State Depart' ^ent of Labor, February, 
1929, "Spm.e Social and Economic Aspects of Homework," states, 
StandardE of housekeeping in the 526 iTorkers' homes for which 
there was a report ifore usuaAlj'' good, although cleanliness '7as 
often obtained under difficuities , . .Comparatively few hemes 
il6fo) veve untidy or dirty; some of these were only untidy and 
less thaji 10 were re-oorted as very dirty," Page 190, The In- 
dustrial Bulletin, Vol, XI, "xlo, 6, Mtirch, 1932, IJ, Y. State De- 
part;ient of Labor, states t-:«at "Twenty percent of the 16,000 
inspection (homevrork) reports for the firat six months of 1931 
were chosen at random and ajialyzed. according to a, sanitarjr rating 
schedule which had been adopted 'ov- the inspectors the previous 
yea.r. On the whole, sanitary conditions v/ere found to be good, 
..." A striking exceptii. n to the rule of im-aroved sanitary 
conditions in homes AThere 'indus'trial homework is done is the 
following (from pp, 7 and 3 of "Investigation of Homework in the 
Artificial Flower and Feather Industry" b3^ the National Child 
Labor Committee, uarch, 1934): Gr.t of 606 homes investigated, 
only 79 were rated ".-ood"; 155 - "fair"; 223 - "poor"; 149 - 
"bad". Thus 372 vrere rated as less than "fair". Of course, the 
standa,rds of sanitation upon which the ratings were made would 
have much to do with the results, 



and hones iniestrd r/itli ccnt-gious diKepces pj-n alvr^^s fouiid ;'.nd fe^ 
faniliRS, if an;;-, doiii^; homev/or!: enough spree to isolate the hone- 
work np.terials fron t!ie sic]:-room. 

It ccjinot 1)6 denied th.'.t tliere is" a serious lack of information on 
this phase ox the horae-'ork prohleia. DeoartriPnts of labor and puhlic 
health have mede no studies that uould shed anjr of . the needed light on 
this inportant question, Thcu-^h thei-e is no concrete evidence available 
that contagious diseases have been spreas?. by articles made or worked on 
in hones, coixnon sense warns us of great potential hazards. The consuxier 
(paj-ticularl; if there are children in his fainily) need only ask him- 
self, "Do I rjant to bioy an article made by a consumptive or a sjnDhilitic, 
or ail article that has been vrorked on v/here measles, whooping cough, 
influenza, tu.berculosis, gonoriiiea, etc., have flourished?" To this 
question there caxi be bat one ansv/er. 

Conclusions , 

The attitudes toward industrial homework Have been summarized as 

"Because of unre-jalated hours of work,' low wages, the dif- 
ficulty of restricting- child labor, industr.ial- homework ranli's 
in the minds of ua-nj- -z one of the most insidious of industrial 
hazards. On the other hand, large groups of relief VTorkers 
and those interested in the welfare of the h'andicap^Ted, con- 
sider the benefits of the added income made possible by work 
performed in the home imoort-ijit and are of the opinion that 
from a psychological point of vie-w ,as well, nar^'- who are 
physically or mentally unfit to cope with the modern factor;'- 
system are much better off doing some \7Qrk, however under- 
paid, than sitting at home in idleness. Both of these points 
of view should receive thoughtful, cojisideration in any further 
attempt to control or limit industrial homework, '. ,. ."(*) 

There are few vrho will not agree that the system of industrial homework 
has been characterized oy a, njomber of evils about which something should 
be done. But exactly what should be done is the point at which con- 
troversy bogins. As previously stated, a nuiaber of people who have had 
e:rperience v;ith attempts to regulatf. hoinewo;rk ui%der State laws have 
cone to the- conclusion that it is Inpossible to regulate it. The re- 
port of the Committee on Industrial Home Uork at the National Conference 
for La.bor Legislation held in Washington, D, C, , 1934, stated that "the 
Committee on Industrial Home Work has concluded that the abolition of 

(*) P, 6, "Homework in the lion's Clothing Industry in New York and 
Rochester", SiDecial Bulletin ilo, 147, iJ, Y; State Department of 
Lo,bor, August, 1926, 


home T7ork is the. only 'ap^r to control its f^rowin,:; evils." (*) The reasons 
for such a conclusion are too nuraerous to be dealt with at this point, 
they nill be discusned in the l.-^st cb.cipter. It is sufficient to say 
that those who hnve had trie 'uost rr.perience vrith efforts to regulate 
homeworl: are practically united in tiieir public declarations that home- 
work should be abolished, .On the other hpjid, there are a number of 
persons vrho -c some from selfish HiOtives, and some from genuinely or 
allegedly humanitarian motivf^s oppose any program looking towards the 
ultimate e::tinction of the homerrork system, on the ground that such a 
j^tep uould deprive thous.aiids of people of their sole source of income. 
(**) They urge that through a more stringent regulation and "proper 
policing" rates to homeworkers should be increased, hours of work con- 
trolled air limiting the quaiitity of work distributed, etc. They argae 
in terns of "the inalienable right to v/ork" and "the dignity of honest 
work even rt low rates" as contra,sted with "the shaiae of being on the 
Relief Rolls", They say that it, is impossible to do awaj'- with home- 
work; that homeworkers cannot (and do not want to) leave their homes to 
go into fo.ctories, etc. This view, it would appear from the evidence, 
is usually pat forth by those least inforraed on the difficulties of 

(*) P» 73, Proceedings of -^he ITational Conference for Labor Legisla- 
tion, Tfeshington, D. C, , Febri.iaryi' 1934, 5ure?u of Labor Statistics, 
'Bulletin ¥c, 583, TJ, S. Bepar'tmcnt of Labor, All the members of 
the Committee (except the Chalri.ian, who wrs from the U, S, Depart- 
ment of Labor) v/ere from St.ates that had regulatory legislation 
of one tyje or juiother c"i homework, 

(**) To this point the other side replies that in view of the pitifully'^ 
low ea.rnings of horaowoi-kers the prohibition of homework would '.' 
not be tak-ing Ttvach from tuera and tha,t Kothers' Assistance Funds 
are provided in many States for the purpoEe of freeing women from 
the need to do other work, in order tha they may give their full 
energies and attention to the care of their children, (See "A 
Tabro-nr SuLimai-y of State Lavfs Relating to Public Aid to Childred 
in Their Ovm Homes",- U, S, Denartraent of Labor, Children's Bureau, 
Chart iTo. 3,) 



p . hoi;e:.'o?.:: AlID t"~ i'atiq7-L i:t dt:st::ial is co^cry act 

It has oeen snic'. thnt "in the c.ivc-rso hopes rnch interests rhich 
it embodied, the. ITLIA cane near to "bcin§; »all thin.55 to all men'". (*) 
To ls.l)or there vtt.s the prpmige of inproved -.-.'orkin-: conditions; for 
inductrj' thero uas th.- o-oportunity to elininate "-anfair competition" . 
"To social reforuers a:;d hu-nanitarians it seemed a war/ of obtaining 
a,t one stroke national lej-:islation on . . • subjects theretofore beyond 
the reach of the federal goveirjpent ." (**) Hovv'evcr, there is no state- 
ment in the "JIBA vfhich sio^^gests tlia.t its authors or sponsors ware at 
all concerned '.7ith the problem of industrial honev.'ork, assuninf that 
they \7ere aware of its existence. Their attention rrae focused on 
matters of broader significance to labor, industry and the public. 

nevertheless, ^certain objectives of the Act, as they 'jere stated 
in the "Declctratioii of policy" in section 1 of the Act should be kept 
in aind. They v/ere (l) to eliininate vuifair co!.ipetitive practices; "(2) 
to increase the consunption of rgricultiiral rnd industrial 'products 
by increasinf: purchasing power; (?) to red-ace and relieve unemploi^nnent; 
snd (4) to improve stoJid:',rds of labor. 

These purooses nade it inevitable that indiistrial, labor ?nd 
administration leaders should hpvo recognized the importance of dealing 
with the homework problem as a part of the a&iinistration of the Act. 
"Pair competition" for the manufacturer means in part the stajidard- 
ization of the price of labor. The rdnimum wage and maximum hour 
provisions in codes sought to establish the basic determinonts of the 
labor price. Obviously, in order to be effective these standards 
would have to apply to all rrorkers engo.gcd b;^' the manufacturer, whether 
employed in the factory or in homes. Products made in hones entered 
into conpetition witl,.. those made in factories; actupjly or potentially 
homework labor competed ilth factory labor; end, finally, home-workers 
competed among themselves. To e^xlnde home^-orkers from tne benefits of 
the Ipbor stpjidards set by the codes would nean the gradual under- 
mining of those standards. 

Irieflj- sunnarized, these ^-'ere t'le isrues w]^ic;i tjie IIBA had to 
face in its efforts to deal with the homev;ork problem; ! manufacturers who 
wanted a home\7Gr]c prohibition in their codes argued that industrial 
homev.'ork was a source of "imfair .co/roetition" and should be eliminated 
because the object of codes was to bring about "fair competition." 
Orgaziized labor contended that industrial ho).icwork had the effect of 
beating down labor standarcs and that abolition of homework '-oiild tq~ 
suit in an increo,se of factory employment (assuming tliat the demand for 
the product did not decrease or disappear as a result of price in- 
creases) at higher wage rates, vdaich v/ould "increase purchasing power," 
The opposition argued that the elimination of homework would increase 
unemplo;;ment rather thpJi "reduce and relieve" it, and that the true 
solution of the problem lay in improving, as far as the indvistry could 
bear, the pitifully low rates paid to houev'orkers and "supervising" 
^'i''-- conditions under whicli the -'ork w.-^.r, done. All of this, of co-urse, 
was based .upon the assumption tnat effective regulation of industrial 
homework v;as possible. 
(*) Lyon, Lcveratt S. and others, "The ITationol T'ecdvej-/ Adainistration" 

The Brookings Institution, 1935, -o. 751. 
(**) 0. 751. ibid. 



As coue experience i.'ith horae'/ork developed!., the second paragraph 
of Section 5 of the Act, reading in po,rt ar. follows; "nothing in this 
Act and no regulation tiicreunder, sh.-\ll prevent exi individual from 
pursuing the vocation of inrjiup.! laoor rno. sellin-; or trading the prod- 
ucts thereof", was cited against inclusion. of a prohihition of home- 
v.'ork in a code, thfe argument \/'as that a provision in a code prohilDiting 
horne^rorl: v.'ould not stand up in court in the face of this section. (*) 
Though no Pederal court was ever called upon to decide this question (**), 
it rascf not "be out of place to inciuire into the legislative history of the 
clause and the intent of Congress in enacting; it. 

The Congressional Record discloses that this paragraph of Section 
5 did not appear in the Act as first suhmitted h;"- the Coianittee on 
Finance of the Senate. It was put in ujoon the insistence of the late 
Senator Huey P. Long, who feared the excessively rride coverage of the 
original hill, which he considered applied to ever--- person engaged in 
ind^^stry, including r,s a matter of course individuals vfho had no em- 
ployees irorhing for then. (***) 

After some study, the Le ;al Research Division of the lOA, con- 
cluded that "Congress only intended to exempt from the provisions of 
the national Industrial Recovery Act those individ^, engaged in in- 
dustry- who perform their own v.'or:': for themselves and who do not employ 
others to assist them. Congress did not intend for this paragraoh 2 
of Section 5 to apply to employees engaged in industry." (****) if 
this construction is valid, the clause was intended merely to spje- 
guard the right of tin individual ^;ho employs no assistajice, to pursue 
his voctition and sell the products of his Ip.hor. 

This last point is significant. In the definition of industrial 
homewor]i given ahove (*****) ^ it was pointed out that the material 
upon which "industri.-^l homewoi-k" is done, is not owned "by the home- 
workers themselves, hut is suoplied t"- the employer. The employers 
took advantage of this pjnd fo!'" the pui^^jose of evading code provisions 
prohihiting homework, sold the materials to the homeworkers and then 
"bought the article "back when finished hy the homeworker. Of course, 
the whole transaction wa,s fictitious, its purpose being to place the 
homeworker in the category of those selling oroducts of their own lahor 
and. thus specifically exempted "oj the Act. In no sense can the in- 
dustrial homev/orker "be considered as sellin ■ tiie -oroducts of his lahor. 

(*) The implication '7as that code provisions prohihiting "nomev/ork 
were inconsistent with tiie clause referred to., See testimony 
of Dr. E. n. Pratt, p. 89, Vol. I, Part 1, Hearing on Pro- 
posed Amendment to the Pleating, Stitchin:-, Bonnaz and Hand 
Em"broidery Code, ITe^-r York City, Jpn.uary 31, 1935. 

(**) A similar clause in o. State la'-^ fig-LU-ed in a ITevj York case 
that v/as decided "b"" the Stats courts. See Chap. III. 

(***) Congressional Record, 

(****) p. 8, "The Effect of the Second Paragraph of Section 5 of the 
illRA on Code Provisions Prohihiting Inclnistrial Home\/ork" , memo- 
randum of Legal ..Research Division, ilo . 983, September 27,1935. 

(*****) p. 5. supra. 



Sveryone T7ho has trD,veled ty automoLile hr.s i^een of fereifor sale ■ on 
the side of the road, haiicl-\70ven haskets and floor mats,'- rustic tatles, 
hand-made vrhisklsrooms, fireplace hroons, etc. It was the sale of 
articles such as these "by tha "oersons "ho .made thom tha.t the clause in 
question was intended to excl^^de from the; operation of the" Act and from 
codes approved under it. Other thpii this, the Act contained no pro- 
visions rtiich could he construed as hr.vinf: direct relation to the home- 
T7orl; nrohlem. 


c. D]i:v::LOPL:iTT o": itja i:c::3.:o:t: policy 

A:;?.it frora iis"tij\;^aniral oojectives, xm'.er vmich as shovri 
atove a program of either eliainp.tion or reg-Ldatic:! of home\7ork 
couir. logically be fitted, the Act oiade nc reference to the prob- 
lem of industrial h-i-ie'.ror:.:. :"^il "-lie:; on this subject was the 
product of conflictiu;, proscure-; -:n experiences. Within H3A 
there was a wide diversit,/ ci attioit-a toward hornevrork. G-enerally 
sneakiiig, there v.'ere tv;: main ^r.uT;. : those who favored the com- 
plete prohibition of hoaev/orj: an 1 bolieved tliat elimination of 
homework was not only -possible but desirable; and those who 
favored regulation, on the theory that indtistries differ so wide- 
ly tiis.t each should be left to work out its own homework problem. 

Position of the Advisory Boards 

Among the. three Advisory Boards - Labf.r, Cons-omers ' , and 
Industrial - there was a unanimity of opinion tnat industrial 
homework was a 'tlestructive practice" and tl:iat it should be elim- 
inated. Tho Consumers' Boai-d arrived at this point of view m^^ch 
later tli?.n the Lsibor Advisory Board, for the latter - as far as 
labo:." juesticnr. were concemsd - was from its v^^rj- ince-otion 
advocated policies tli3.t imd become traditional in labor circles. 
In Au<;,ust 191.3, the 3xecutive Co-ujicil of the American Tederation 
of Labor issued a d.eclaration to the effect that "homework . . . 
is •'oneconomic, denoralizino to the men, women and children engaged 
in it, LTfdces ir.possible thorotif^h •■^p'olication or enforcement of 
sanita-ry conditions of work, roa-scnable regal^tion of the hours of 
labor or laws lirnitinc or abolishing-; child labor; that the entire 
tendencj^ of home^/ork is calc\ilated to frustrate the hur:ianitarian 
work of the labor movement for ;orotection ?.:iC- ^-^romotion of the 
rit;hts an:, interests of the v/orkinp people, anc i^-iarticxilarly detri- 
mental to v/omanhood and childhood. The Executive Couaicil, therefore, 
endorses and v.-ill aid to t:.e ful_est of its ability tne abolition 
'of homeATork, . ."(*) 

Private as well as p-ablic or^^-'/ii^.-^ti :ns interested in social 
problems been unanimous in conderanin, industrial homework. 
The ITationrl Consumers' League since its be,'jinnini, in 1839, has 
wage'd an i;icessant cara>ai;jn -'.^■a.inst the transformation of the homes 
of working-, people into "adj"ujicts of the fa,ctories. "(**) The national 
Child Labor Cormittee in 1918 stated its policy as being in favor 
of the "complete and -ujiiversal prohibition of home work. "(***) 

(*) Report, Vol. , p. 

(**) See p. 5, The I'ational Contamiers ' Leajue, First Quarter Centviry, 
1S99-19,.34, a par^iphlet. 

(***) itChild -.Jork. in 'the Home," national Child Labor Committee, Para^^hlet 
ilo. 333, 1918. 



Th3 Vi'omen's 3xii-eau of the U. S.L''-3:>r.rtmer.t oi Laoor lias cleclai'cd 
itself for tlie alDolition of honev:ork. (*) 

freneraily s-ieakinb, the position talren Id;/ the Lator Advisory 
loard and the meaibers of its staff folloved these points of view. 
The Board did recognize, however, that there were exce'Ttiens to the 
rule and gave its a-y-rroval to re^Talator;.' provisions in a ii-w codes 
for industries with peculiar homeworl; ;5roblems. It is not unlikely 
tha.t in so.:ie i/istances the Lahor Advisory Board's recession froin 
its. genera.l policy favorin,^- coiiiplete prohihition of horaewofk was 
in order to &aii^ vdxat it considered a larger objective on ?omo other 
front. On the other l^.nd, a few codes v/ith rej:.:alatory rather than 
prohibitory provieions were approved over the protests of the 

^-nong the t^uides available to the ConsLtmers' Advisor;,' Board 
in frajTiin,]^ its homework policy t le a.ttitude of the National Consum- 
ers' League, toward this subject h^s already been noted. In December, 
1333, while a strca.rn of proposed codes was still beint,' considered by 
ITBlA, this or^^anization drafted and circulated amont^ 1^^ officials 
a list of "Proposed Principles for Labor Provisicns of i-IBA Codes." 
On the subject of homowor]:, the League declared tiia.t "the letting 
out of work to be done in homes of worlcern I'la.s led to u:icontrollable 
labor exploitation. The codes of inciustries in which honework 1ms 
been practiced should definitely prohibit it." In this connection 
it should be borne in mind timt tlie lT?.tion?l Consumers' Lea-^we is 
an organization primarily devoted to arake^iing "Concumers ' interest 
in their res:oonGibility for conditions under v^hich goods are made 
'^nd distrib-atod" 3/aC. to raobilizin,^- "-molic opinion in belmlf of an 
enlightened standarc". for worlrors. " (**) 

Usually whore a labor qtiestion was involved the Consumers' Ad- 
visory Board wac willing t: leave the matter to the Labor Advisory 
Board and abide hy its decision. However, in the absence of a clearly 
started or generally u^iderstood policy on indr^strial homework, it was 
natural tl:ia.t occasionally a Consumers advisor should exercise an in- 
dependent judgment when a home-.or:: irroblem arose; and this judgment 
was not alv7ays in line with tk. genox--'^l I'liA sentiment against home- 
work. As a result, ma.ny conflicting opinions were rendered by the 
staff of the Consumers' Advisorj' Board. Finally, to settle the issue 
and to eliminate the possibility of any future misunderstanding, the 
Consmaers' Advisory Board declared its position with respect to home- 
work in the followin.;, resolution adopted by the Board at a meeting 
on October 2Z, 1934: 

"V/Hj]?dJ]AS, tho evils of in..ustrial omti^loyment 
of vage workers in the home, - child labor, long 
hours, low wages, unsanitary woi-king conditions," the 
lowering of labor standards in competing factories - 
are well recognized; and 

(*) See p. 17, "Home 'Tork' in Bridgeport, Conn.," Bulletiii ilo. 9, 
'.Jomen's Bureau, U. S. Department of Labor, Dvjccmber, 1919. 

(**) See Statement of Principle, National Consumers' League Bulletin, 
Vol. I, lio. 1, October, 1934, 


"Tr-ii;?JZA3, years of effort to re<^i.late and 
control t^t; tr.-sten in tae /.eo.di-io; r.iclustrial 
states ] denonstrcited trie ir.nossi'bilits'- of 
preventin;-"; t"ie evils of t?ie system 1)?/ regulation; 

"TJ'^IUrAS, the consuinor "ants tVie ;;;oods he 
'ouys to he nade imder -■jood -'brl-i ■■; co-.ditions and 
at a livin':; ^■'a:;;e; and' 

"TlEItaAS, the eliniination of luifair conpetitive 
practices 'oy mitual agreement of emplo'^ers under the 
"TRA offers c-n opportimity to do awa^^ "ith this . 
destructive practice; therefore 

"BE IT BE SOLVED, that the Consigners' Advisor.y 
3o9,rd "believes that industrial home xrorh for '"a-'^es 
shoiild he oliniinated und-cr the IIRA codes and favors 
code provision!? to that end." 

The Industrial Advisory Board seens to have heen more directly 
influenced ty the ITationpl ConsuraerL-' Leagiie proposals on lahor pro- 
visions, for shortly after the League's proposals \7ere issued they T7ere 
discussed at a meeting of the Board and in Januarjr, 19u4 the follor/ing 
statenent of nolicy v;as enunciated hy the Board and distrituted to nen- 
bers of its staffr(*) "Homeworh should hep^rohioited -dth very rare ' 
exce-otions such as in sane -cases of homework in rural local.ities and 
the making of certain samples not for sale." Apparently, no thought 
had been given to the effect of exempting rural areas from homework 
restrictions. In lien York State a flow, of hQme\7ork to ru.ral districts 
resulted from the passage of State homework law which exempted "any 
village or to^.Tn" or " a city having a. oopiilation of less, than 200,000 
persons," (**) There is no indication whether th.e Industrial Advisory 
Board would have a.noroved of such. a development. 

It is clear from the preceding observations that of the three' 
advisors'' boa^rds the Labor Board was the only one that had a single 
consistent attitude toward industrial home^-'ork from the very begin- 
ning of the code-naking i^^eriod. The otliers , (industrial aid Consumers') 
did not declare their ooints of view mitil conparativel^/ late (January 
and October, 1934, resiiectivel^-) • 

Early Attitude of Some Industries ' 

The fact a nuhber of indirstries quickly took a stand against. 

(*) Conies '-rere circulated within the ITRA and a draft vras sent to the Ad- 

(**) See definition ITo. 4, Section 350, Article 13 of the Labor Law 
of 1934, Stc.t of i:ew York. 

industrial homework and prohibited it in their codes undoubtedly 
influenced the lahor development of the general IIHA' homework pol- 
icy. The first three coded industries to prohibit homework (Au^Tist, 
1933) were Coat and Suit, Corset and Brassiere, and Ivlen's Clothing. (*) 
In the Coat and Suit Industry, horaev/orl; had hean abolished by agree- 
ment between the union and the manufacturers' organizations a num- 
ber of years before the advent of the H?A. (**) Hovraver, it was agreed 
to incorporate a provision prohibiting homework into the code as a 
statement of principle and as an indication that the achievement of 
fcrner years Y/ould be ma.intained under the code. 

In the Men's Clothing InLLustry(***) both labor and the several 
factions of ma,nagement agreed Tananimousl;^ during code negotiations 
to abolish homework. The only point of discussion tlTa.t arose was 
how long a period of adjustment shoiild be allowed for the completion 
of tl.e prohibition of homework. Three months were finally set. 
In view of the fact tliat the Men's Clothing Industry employed 
approximately 7,310 homeworkers (****) in the Rochester, Philadelphia 

(*) For various reasons - chiefly the la,ck of adequa-te information - 
^ the Coat and Suit Industry and the Corest and Brassiere Industry 
are not included in the study of industr^,^ experience with code 
homework provisions presented in Cliapter 11, 

(**) In New York City since 1910 and Boston since 1913. (See pp. 
25 and 26, \7omen's Bureau Bulletin Ko. 9, U. S. Department of 
Labor) A letter from the Executive Director of the Industrial 
Council of the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers, Inc., to 
the Division of Review, HRA, 26, 1935, stated that: 
"Homework in the Coat and Suit Industry vv-as abolished many 
years ago .... To my Iciowledge (having been' in the industry 
for upwards of 37 years), I feel certa-in tliat the ban on home- 
work has boon lived up to." 

(***) Long before tiie HPA attorcrats were made to abolish homevrark in 
various centers of this indiis t rj-' . In 1920 homework was pro- 
hibited in the Rochester market ''oi' agreement between the manu- 
facturers and the \inien. In the Chicago market the Board of 
Arbitratio:i raled (1920) that "there shall bo no introdu.ction 
of this prs-ctice (homework) where it does not already exist, 
and no further extension of it where it does exist; and further, 
thet v:ithin a reasonable time that practice must be brought to 
an end." (See pp. 215, 23o, in "The Amalgamated Clothing Work- 
ers of America" by Cl:iarles 3. Zaretz.) Tlmt these efforts were 
not entirely successful over a long period of time is evidenced 
by the facts given above regarding the extent of horaev/ork in 
the Men's Clothing Industry-' before 'JRA. 

(****) "Memorandum Regarding H^.raevrork", prepared by the Men's Clothing 
Industry Code Authority, April 30, 1935, see p. 14, iIRA ^Ividence 
Study Series, llo. 34, The Men's Clothin^^ Indtistry. 


and ITew Yorl: mai-'rets ;jrior to tjii GC'"e p.:ul y/d-s listed as the 
"second larj^-est honevjo :■:> indvLctry" i:i ?e:in.?-ylv-inia(*) (l3"o), the 
proiiibition of hcms-j/orl: in industi^" ■■■aG -lartiCT.larlj'' si£,nifi- 

From the results of this effort it may he possible to judge 
vrhether or not conrplote prohihitior. of homenorli is possiole in in- 
dustries which hp,ve depended upon homeworh to any considerable ex- 
tent. This -ocint vjill be analy^^d later. 

There is little information in the records of the hearings on 
the Corset and Brassiere Code relative to the extent of homework in 
tliat inchistry. Ho?/over, the ma.nufacturers in the industry recognized 
that since their products are v;om- close to the body clean and sani- 
tary- conditions of mairafactiare vera of the utmost importance, and 
thiat tmless homework: vas completely eliminated there could be no 
assurance tha.t proper standards of sanitation and cleanliness r/ould 
be ma.intained, _ Per this reason a very exTlicit homework provision 
was put into the Corset and T^'rassiore Code, v.'hich served as a model 
for ether industries, "at least as to ideas, if not as to actual 
ccntent. The jjrovision was as follows: 

(1) Th5 minimum standard (of sanitation) shall be in 
coai'pli.'?nce with the standard.s set in tha.t part of 
the factory law of the State of ilew York, which 
is apj^li cable to plants in this industry. 

(2) ITo person Siia.ll ei.ploy -workers- except in his own 
plant or pL?.nts. 'i'^o shall be allowed. 

(3) lie person siia.ll loiowin^ly pur::-has ; mp.terials to be 
used in his products wliich hav^ :::t been made in a 
clean and sanita-rj^ factory, an. it sija.ll be stipu- 
la,tedL op. each purchase order, .that-: *'*Dhedm.atei:ial 
cov-red by this order must be mantifactured in a 
clean and ss.nit?.ry factory 

(4) ITj' person shall purciiase garments for resale which 
are-rnp-nufactui-ed v;holly or in part tuider-: conditions 

which -do not crnforrfi with the provisions of this code."(**) 

The la:-.t parat^raph of tlij provision required the manufactp.rers 
to insert in their invoices the statement: "Jliis merchandise was manu- 
factured in compliance with the Code of Fair Co.inetition of the Corset 

(*) P, 6, "Indv.strial Home Work in Peniisylvania under the HHA", 
Bureau of 'Jomen and Children, Pennsylvania Department of 
Labor -and Industry liarch 1935. 

(**) Article 5, Sections (a), (b), (c), ?nd (d), 

and Brassiere Industr;y'". It is interesting to note that the third 
paragraph given ahove Tvas in effect a "boycott against products 
made in homes. 

While the actual effect of these early prohibitions of homework 
in important apparel industries upon the development of homework 
policy in the ilRA cannot of course he accurately gauged, it can hardly 
he douhted tiiat they served as precedents. 

First HHA Memorandum on Homework 

Though the serious nature of homework problem vvas early recog- 
nized in some quarters of the iJM, no official mention of it appears 
until February 17, 1934, when an "Office Memorandum" on the subject 
was issued ty the Executive Office to all ITHA officials and staff 
employees. By that time more than fifty codes with homework pro- 
visions(*) has been approved, "It l:ias been found that provisions 
in codes suminarily eliminating home\7ork have caused severe hardship 
among those employed in such work", the meraorandiom stated, "On the 
other hand, it is recognized tha-t homework offers a vicious type of 
unfair competition in many industries." The conclusion intended to 
be drawn from these statements was not clear. The idea \7Guld seem 
to be conveyed tiiat the prohibition of homework liad not pi-oved a 
satisfactory policy, and tliat since homework was " a vicious type 
of unfair competition" something - other than prohibition - should 
be done about it. As the only other alternative, aside from com- 
plete noninterfe.rence, is regulation, these sentences might be 
interpreted as a. dictum favoring the "regulation" of homework rather 
than its prohibition- though perhaps this ana.lysis finds a meaning 
where none was intended. It certainly was not clear whether codes 
not "summarily eliminating" homework (i.e., codes providing for a 
period of adjustment of three months or six months before prohibition) 
would be acceptable to the Administration. 

The memorandura provided tlmt a prelirainar:,^ study of the question 
be made, by an individua,l who had already started to collect homework 
data at the request of a Dgputy Administrator in charge of the gar- 
ment codes (vi'here the homework problem was particularly troublesome). 
Further, the Memorandum recommended tliat "pending corpletion of this 
study and solution of the problem . . . homework provisions be very 
carefully weighed and stayed where hardship may result." Nowhere is 
it made clear exactly what amount of "hardship" should be decisive, 
or whether "hardship" to workers, employers, and consumers was to 
be of eqta.1 weight. 

This statement of policy, raising as it did more questions tlian 
it answered, resulted in the staying of homework provisions in several 

(*) Of which 44 prohibited homework 


codes that were in the process of "being approvedC*), which may indi- 
cate tliat the Office ;,.eraoi-a;idvun \:c<.t, intonded to stala the prohibi- 
tions of homework \fas not a satisfactoxy policy. Clearly, if this 
memorandxmi ^vas sixoposed to "be an annou-Cment of "policy", it hy 
no means refloctek the point of view of the Later Advisory Board - 
which was most directly concerned - nor did it take account of 
the already-declared position of the Industrial Advisory Board; 
and it completely ignored the developint; attitude of the Consum- 
ers' Advisory Board, which served as 'bac>£;round for the resolu- 
tion quoted above. (**) At the time th: Office Memorandum v/as 
issued there was no effectively functioning policy-making agency 
in the HEA. From these facts one can only conclude that the 
memorandum was inspired by an individual who was apparently none 
too Y;ell informed on the subject of industrial homework, who had 
not even taken the trouble to determine from the various advisory 
boards their general attitudes toward homework, and who had not 
surveyed the experience of industries with codes prohibiting home- 

H?A Homework Gomraittee 

In a memorandura to the Acijuinistrator dated liarch 3, 1934, the 
Secretary of Labor (apoarently that a "preliminary" study 
v/as under way) urged tiis.t extended consideration be given to the 
subject of homework under codes. "If any study of home work under 
the codes is to be made in the ITHA", she wrote, "it should be on a 
broad basis. I s'm.11 be glad to put the facilities of the Depart- 
ment of Labor at your disposal in the making of such a study." That 
there was need for a study of wider range than that already begun(="***) 
is .evident from these facts: At the end of iviarch, 1934, 88 codes 
containing homework provisions liad been approved. Of these, 73 

(*) See orders of approval, ?iber and Metal Work Clothing Button 
ivianufacturing Industry' Code, Flag ; ;anufacturing Industry 
Code, and Umbrella and Frame and Umbrella Hardware ivanufac- 
turing Industry Code. The Code Authority set up under the 
last-named code registered its objection to the suspen.sion 
of the horaework provision. The staying of the homework 
prohibitions in these codes was more inporta.nt for the principle 
than for the nuraber of homeworkers involved. Vol. , Codes of 
Fair Coropetition, p. . 

(**) P. 22. 

(***) It was limited to apparel codes and the homework problem was 
bobbing up in industries making furniture, tags, lampshades, 
buttons, bedspreads, etc. 


ji-olii'bitcd iioadwork, 11 p.imed -?t its r-od/action jy various devices(*), 
t'To orcvi&i 3ii for s one forM of ■. coatrol(**) , and tvro provided 
that stv.dies should Toe made, (***). -Tno lacl: oi uniformity in code 
provisions Bhc.-m oy this fra, nontar,- analysis (v-hich T/ill l^e fully 
supplemented later) lia.d "beco . i-'.cr..asin,:,ly a source of confusion 
. in the ac"jai:".istratinn of tiioso ■T;rovisi ons. I'ha difficulty of 
properly clasp ifyin~ firms u:idor h-astily-drav.Ti definitions of in- 
dvistries added t3 t'^e per-'lczcit;,' and frequently produced absurd 
situati::ns. Eras, ?. rjanufact'arer utider one code A7culd 'oe allov/ed 
to send out vror".: to be c"on,- in mraas vhile a competitor \7hos6 pro- 
duct fell Uiidor another code vas foroidde-ji to smd out the same 
liind of ^: : i-h. Of ton nei.^xor n :;iov.'crlcors were puzzled because 
one family coiild ,^ot hojiio'/c.r]; to do vhile the other family next 
door. could not, riraply "becausd their employers vere under differ- 
ent codes. 

Hea^lizin^ tlia.t the problem of homevrorl: \mdrjr codes ■'A'a.s much 
lar::;er than l:iad been orij^inally £u-roosed, and th^t it required 
more atteoitirrn than could be f;,ivc^n it by one person vdao ■J.n.rln^- 
most of his time was eni^ajed in acuriiriistrative work, th:- Director 
of Resea.rch and Flanni:-:.:: sup ested to t:i.r AVai.iistrator tte-t a 
special comi-nittee be appointed to cc'isider the su.bjoct. (****) 
In Liarch, IQld, an Order (*****) -.-nr issued constittitinfj a comraitteo 
"to stiidy th-e eliminotion of hom^'orh vnc'cr the cedes of fair com- 
petition". The comTiiLttoe was infitiucted to "investigate and.... 
make recom-.iendations tc the Administrator. .. ,concemin_, reticulation 
of homework or modifications of ezistin-s provisions,..." Commenting 
upon tne establisiTraent of corajviittee, the U. S. Department of 

(*) '2>7 3rad"as,lly eli/.iinatin^, honew.^^r;: as in the .Xioather and Vj'oolen 

Kiiit'TIove Code", or o}/ prohibiting^ homework o\\ machines 

(sewing or laiitting), as in the Infants' ana Children's V/ear 
Code, in th-- Knitted OuteiT/ear ar^d the Cotton Garment Code, 
or by prchibitin, all home\/crk except that done on samples 
and disTlaj' models "not intended for sa-le" as in tne Art 
'Jeedlev/ork Code, etc. 

(**) The Drus]-: i.ianufacturing Code prohibited homework "except by 
specific perraissicn of the ArViinistrator" in individxxal 
cases; the Fishinf;^ Tackle Code uaranteed minimijm rates 
for hoinework, etc. 

(***) 'Tithin five months in the Fresh V;at-;r ?eai-l Button Code, and 
within sixty days iii the i-'^irniture Code. 

(****) The activities of the Homework .OoiTimittee will be discussed 

') Office Order llo. 7^, :.arch 17, 19:34. 


Labor stated that "...if (imA) progress in controlling home'Tork ^:r.s to 
contiffie, if in fn.i-.t tA'^ -'.-cins alver.c'y nix.e vA^-ro to be held the home;'orlc 
policy of ths various roG-.iiret' 'onif ic-tion and simplification... 
To deal v.ith this coiil'afsed and oerole^zing rlt'oation a special Home T7oi-k 
CoiTimitt..e vrs created in t'\e I'Pii.. . . ( *) 

3xeciitiv e Order on rIo iTi.ev'Q rl' 

TLiile it \"as exoectec" that \;here liO'iie^.'oi'k vp.r, rholished those uho 
had forrierly been homev.'orkers T/cmld generally be absorbed into fa,ctories 
in the same industr,- or in anotaer, there t,o,s sone ap^irehension about 
the handica;o--)ed £ir.d the infirn, rnd the enerrence of evidence that hard- 
slaip ^^irx\ been r.'orhed a-oon a few invalid of a^ed individuals \7ho rrore un- 
able to ac\1ust themselves to faotorj' routine, led the Committee to s-ionsor 
an iil:-ecv:.tive Order (**) which had the effect of rela"in2 in favor of this 
clasiL-. all code provisions prohibiting horn.e'Jork. The Order v;hich applied 
to tho'^-c codes "heretofore or hareuftor approved, which -nrovide for the 
abolition of homevork", ercempted from such proaibitions tv-o general 
classes of persons — (a) the ph^-sicallj,'- incapacitu.ted, and (b) those uhose 
services at home r/ere reqpiired in attr-ndance upon "a. person nho is bed- 
ridden or an invriid". Tlie oro.-nption vt s not automatic; even where a 
homevrorker came -jroperly ^/ithin either of the ereri-Tted classes, before she 
cou].d continue wit'i her humev.ork it '.-r.s necer.sary for her to obtain a per- 
mit or certificate. Tlie E::ecutive Order autliorizec" tlie U. S. Depr.rtnent 
of Labor to cxppoint certif icrtiii^; agencies in every Sta.te aiid to issue the 
necersar-- instructions for passdng on applications for certificp.tes. 

The Executive Order h?,d the effect of cr?/stalli3ing and clarifying 
IHA. honework polic^^. It seemed that home-.'orl: V7ps to be generally pro- 
hibited, T'ith certain er.ceptions set forth in the Executive Order. Thoiigh 
it '.vas not lega.ll3r necessary (***), several codes vuth homework prohibi- 
tions './'ere ajiended to include the terns of the E::ecutive Order. 

Erom the end of the month of Ilarch to A-ug-art, 1934, the number of 
codes \-it'i horae'.'ork -orovisions increased from 8C to 110. Of this total 
92 com-.letely -orohibited home',,-ork. Si:: of the S2 incor^oorated the langua^ge 
of the E.-^ecutive Order. 

During Atigust a memorrndun entitled "lertative Eormixlatior of Labor 
Polic:^" (****) ap-oeared over the name of the Deputy Assir:tant A-drainistro,- 
tor for Employment Policy. It was described as "th^at polic3- (v-hich) seems 
to have emerged in the operation of Code making" and it dealt with ""lours, 
Wages ard General Labor 1-rovisions. Under the heading, the memoran- 
dum said: "As eroerieuce accxxm-alated, certain general labor provisions 

(*) p. 3, "A stvLd-' of Industrial Homeror!: in the Sianmer and Fall of 1334", 

a Preliminary^ keoort to the IZlk, U.S. Department of Labor. 
(**) -0. 6?ll-ii, if^sued on ka:^ 15, lCo4, 7ol. X, Codes of Pair Coi.ipetition, 
'1. S5Q. -The te>-t of this Orcer is reproduced on p.. Chap. Ill, where 
its subject matter is more full:; discussed. 
(***) Because the Order vrould aogdy regardless - unless tae pro Ibition 

were lifted entirely by a code amendment. But this never haupened. 
(****) kimeographed Report, i'o. IJOGV, -undated. 



hnve -cone to tc rcftrj-ded' as in keeping rith oolic:/. These have been so 
frequently and so carefully v/orked over that it is ap^iropriate to thinic 
of the.T as 'standard'. Belo^r are stated the more comfnonly used of these 
•stojic.ard' provisions." The follouin.^ v^as the T.'ording of the homevrork 
previer/: "Horaeuork in tiiis industrj is horeb-r -.irohihited ercceiot as allov- 
ed under the E::ec-ative Order of La;'- .15, 19C4, pertaining to this subject, 
and an3'- amencjnents thereof". This might have "oeen accepted as a final 
statement of IIIA policy on homei.'orh had it not been for the fact that the 
memorsjadun was -prefaced 'vith the vords "These p£,geE have no official 



Clarif icpti o n of t olicv bv "")e.i ' ions 

By Jonunry, 19o5, the number of codee vith ho;.ie--ork: provisions 
had increased to 113. In spite of this co:ntiarptively large number, no 
one had taken the trouble to deiine exactly r^hat ^^as meant by the term 
"hoiae^'ork", • "home", "living quarters", "direlling place", etc. These 
terms hac a /generally understood meaning and were comiaonly used not 
only in the codes but in everyday conversations inside the NHa and 
outside. But toi'-ards the close of the year 1934 a situation arose 
ifhich called for a clarification of these terms. The wierchant and 
Custom Tailoring Industry Code contained a homework provision which 
prohiDited (aiter 4 months). "The practice of manufacturing in the home 
or living cuarters of an emplovee". (*) In the absence of standard 
deiinitiors, the words "home" and "living ouarters" \yere interpreted 
Dy gome to exclude "-'orkshops" (**) in homes, which were oiten no more 
than rooms set aside for work. Out adjoining the la.iily's living ouarters. 
It was found that unless the .miniioum i^age and maximum nours (the latter 
particularly) of the code could be made to apply to all workers engaged 
in the ir.custry, the code standards i-^ould give away under the pressure 
of the coiircetition of the journeviaen tailors (of '■■horn there '"ere a 
considerable number) plying their tr^ce in the so-called home "'-'orkshop" . 
The only solution was to state officially '--hat was obviously the original 
intent of the code - the pronibition o:: all hone^'ork in the industr.y. 
This the Administration did, by iseuin.g an Administrative Order (***) 
which defined "hoiie .or living nuarters" ^s meaning 

"The'prive house, private ppart'P.ent or private room, "-hichever 
is the most extensive, occupiec as a home by the eraployep and/or 
his faj:iily. " 

lUrther, the Order ruled, that 

"The practice of processing, articles, the material for T'hich 
has been furnished by the em-c'lo/er, 'whether performed in the 
home or living ouarters of the ei-aplovee, or the so-called 
shop, operated '--ithin thb nome or living quarters of the 
emplovee, as t.hf term "horae or living cuarters" is detined 
herein, constitutes a violation oi codes i-hich provide for 
the abolition of home v-ork; e.-vCept as provided in Executive 
Order 6711-A, dated lay 15, 1954'." 

In order to forestaf the possibility of futiire evasion of homework 
prohibitions in the codes oi other industries by the subterfuge of calling 

(*) Article V, Section &. 

(**) A number oi these workshops in New York were licensed to ao v-ork 
uncer the State home^-ork law.' Tnis and other similar situations 
led to conflict bet"-een State law and code requirements. These 
matters will be more fully ti e^.ted later. ■ 

(***) Administrative Order I'To. X--134, January 26,- 1935. Vol. 21, Codes 

of j;air Competition, p. 566, 


a room commonly used for d'^-elling purposes, a "'"orkshon", pnd in order 
to avoid any further ambiguity, the Order vps issued in the forn of a 
£;enerpl inter-oretpt ion ''hich appliec to ?11 codet. Though this order 
contriDuted no nev element to NlA horae^"ork policy, it. clsrified terras 
frequently used in connection with the homework problem, and thus 
rectified a cora'aon deficiency in a large number of codes. 

Advisory Council on Home^vork 

In the spring of 1935 the Kr.A began to pay attention to the need 
for revising code provisions on the basis of ej^perience. Actual 
steps in that direction depended, oi course, upon the renei'-?l of the 
code system by Congress on June 16, 193r, vmen the National Industrial 
Recovery Act was scheduled to expire. As a preparatory uensure, the 
National Industrial Board, ^^hich had replaced the Administrator,' recuested 
the Advisory Council to consider the subject of general la Dor provisio^ns. 
In its report the Council defined home^'ork as .-meaning "industrial work 
done in the home for '"pgez paid by an outside e.aplover". The report 
continued '-ith the st-^tement: "Home'-ork ... is a form of labor, '-'hich 
despite arguments of cor.venioi^ce arc lo-" cost, has usually be accompanied 
by lo"- I'-ages, lon;^ hours, and roor '■ oriri^'^.r; conditions, iurthermore, 
it creates a state of unfair competition beti-een the employer "'ho 
maintains an establii^hment '^hert laoor conditions c-n be reftulated 
and those '-he rei uire their '-ork to be done in the hones of the e:.iployees, 
since this i"or'>' cannot be re^^ulated acecuately. ", (*) 

"Present Wk-t^ policy (on home-ork)", said the Council, "directed 
to discourage hone^ork except '-'here such action vould work undue 
hardship, is the result of a long period of study, by a special Home"'ork 
Committee, and is embodiec in detail in the Executive Order ©f May 15, 1934, 
Ivo. 6711-A" (**) (The Order noted above p. ). hile the statement 
tnat the trend tovards tiie abolition of home"'ork, '"ith the exceptions 
provided by the Executive Order, as a policy resulted from extended 
study Dy the V'RA "o-nei-^ork Committee ^as not entirely accurate (^**)^ 
the policy set forth by the Council lyas the policy actually m eilect. 
" jcemptions or variations from tne specific policy outlined beloi." granted only '-hen absolutely necessarv", said the Council. 
The follcang nrovisiun i^'as suggesteo as being "consistent TJith the 
Executive Order": 

"No employer shall permit any horae^'ork except at the 
same rate of wages as is paid for the same t'.rpe of "-ork 
performed in the factory or other regular place of busi- 
ness and after a certiiicate is obtained from the State 

(*) -. 4?0, decision No. c30. ay Jo, 193b, v.ul. V, Advi-sory 
Council Decisions No, 214-^33. 

(**) Ibid 4?0. 

(***) Briefly, the reason for. this statement is that '"hile the Oirder af- 
fected home'-ork policy, it ^-'ps not offered as a policy recommenda- 
tion, , And no "long period of study" preceded its sponsorship by the 
Committee. The Com littee ur^ied its issuance on the basis of the 
most general considerations. 


puthority or othe?:- oflicer oe 3i':;.M^'ted. by the United 

Stptes ■^epPit itnt of Lr.jor, such certiiLicpte to be f;rant- 

er' in sccorcpnce v.'ith instiuctions issuec by the Unxted 

Stptes Department of LaDo . Such certiiicpte shpll be 

^rpnted onlv if: , . 

(a) The eiaployee is pheyically mcr ppcitated for ^'.lork 
in a fsctorv oi' othei regular rlace of business and is 
free fro-u any contpgious cisease; or 

(b) The eiurloyee is unable to leave home because his 
or her services are absolutely essential for attendance 
on a person 'ho is bedridden or rr invalid and both 
such -persons are free fro'n any contPi?:ious disease. 

An e^.roloye.r engaging such a person shrll keep such cer- 
tificate on file and shall file i--ith tiie Code Autnoritv 
for the trrde or inrustry or suDdivi.sion thereof concern- 
ed the name anr address oi each i-'orker so certiiied." (*) 

Actuall^r^ the .statement of the Advisor-^ Council '-ris no .nore than 
a re-affirmation and slight elaboi'ation .of FEA home"Ork policy as it 
had already been formulated. In orief, it said that ho:7ei?'ork should 
be abolished, the only e..'ce'Ptions being those allo^^ed by the Executive 
Order. The imolications of this iiositi.n are significant. The 
classes of hcmeT-'-orkers e;-.e-n?ted by the .^.xecutive Order aefinitely 
represented only a small percentage of the total nu.aber of home'-orkers. (**) 
The home'"ork svsteia could not be expected to siirvive if so. fe^-' home- 
workers '-'ere permitted. B^'- and larT;e, the motives which n.pc perpetuated 
the home-'ork system as a p^iase of industrial production were not 
huKianitarian. '-.'ith all the economic advfntpges. gone, it was not 
likely that a large number of manuiacturers would continue sending 
work out to be done in ncm-es simply oecaUse a fe'-'.. crippled , invalid and 
aged persons needed the v/ork tu get along. Thus,, by its last, "'ord 
on the subject, the N?a\ placed it sell on record for the complete 
elirai'-ation oi' homework. , - . . 

The pronouncement of the Advisory Council cuotf^d aoove was made 
on Mpy So, 1935, i our days before tne Supreme Court decision invalidated 
the codes. Advisory Council recommendations obtrined "official 
status" only after they had been approved by the A/"'ministrator or the 
National Incustrirl i ecovery "Board, and for oDviou;^. reasons tnis did 
not tsk. place in the case of the Council's declaration oi horae--orV- 

(*) Advisory Co-o.ncil i^ecision, see aoove. 

(**)■ See the first parr.graph of the discussion of the Executive 
Order in Chapter III. 




TThy Hoinei-rorl: Provisions ? 

Since the frctors -Iiich influenced, the inclusion of honenork pro- 
visions in codes of fair coir.ietition hrvo already loeen indicated in a gen- 
eral w'ft (*) It is not necessrry to re-:)Gat then here. In passin/"^, how- 
ever, it T;ia,7 he said that manufacturers '-'ho favored code clauses prohihit- 
ing homenork Tere usuall7 Motivated "oj a desire to elininate iTOhieirork as a 
source of "unfair competition". Orronized Irhor, on the other hnnd, 
op-DOsed homo-work as a nenace to higher standards of va:3;8 5 pjid hours and 
improved, workings conditions. 

While these reasons generally accoimt for code honerrork provisions, , 
the specific hoiieuork 'orovision -Tritten into ^ particttlarly code nas a 
product of the special conditions iii the ind-ustry a:id. the bargaining -covers 
of those T/ho particroated in the code ne,;otiationo. Thus in spite of the 
fact thrt labor favored the univcrrjal prohijition of honev/ork, a m-u.iher of 
industries in ^Thich the honevork syHte;n ^rs r considera'.)le factor (**) failed 
to prohibit homework in their 

In r.ddition to those indicated above, n~a:iber of other reasons prompted 
the inclusion of horaer^ork -irohibitions. In certain cases, usually at the 
instance of tho Labor Advisory 2oard, prohibitory provisions nere Dut into 
codes p,s a indicrtion of polic/ for iiidustries' thrt hrd. no homework. The 
coat ond suit industry code hr,a been mentioned (***) rs p,n example. At 
least one case is Joiov.-n of an industry (Fibre rnd I.ietal TTork Clothing 
Button ii>na:",icturi;:g Industry) in -hich rlthough it had no honenork, in- 
cluded in its coc.e r -orovision -prohibiting honevork for fear that hone- 
rrork night develo J. (****) 

(*) See Chapter I, Section B. 

(**) Lace, Knitted Out-:ear, Infants' and Children' s TJ'-j; r, Leather and Woolen 
Knit Glove, pnd othorr-. 

(***) Chapter I, Sec. C, P. 21 . Since honeiTork in this industry had been 

abolished by union agreement, it is quite likely that the honevfork pro- 
hibition rr.^s put into the code '-'ithout -oressure from the Labor Advis- 
ory .Boprd.. 

(****) The folloiTing is a^i erxerpt fron a letter b"^ It. Geo, P. "]:'rne, Secre- 
tary, Code Authority of the Fibre rnd Metal TJork Clothiiig Button Ilami- 
facturing Industry, dated August SI, 1C34, and addressed to Mr. H. D. 
Vincent, Assistant Deputy Administrator: "The paragraph prohibiting 
horaeT.rork in the industry;- v-as inserted in the code because hom.enork is 
one of the serious malpractices of the Button Industry as a whole. It 
\/as recognized that Fibre and. Metal Work Clothing Buttons night con- 
ceivably at sono ti.'ie be produced at honsv The clruse '7as therefore in- 
serted to prevent such an abuse from ueveloping in the Industry." 



Sumnery pni. Aii?l''sis 

Ihoring its life, IClii. a-) iroveC. son.e 555 Ijasic codes. Of this niom- 
ter 113 contained honeuork -orovisions. {*) A glance at the classification 
of code hone\7ork provisions (**) vrill sho^- thrt 73 codes prohroited horae- 
i;Tork on the ei'.'i'ective arte of tb.- code. In t-ro i-'.stances, the prohihi- 
tion of homework did not apoly to the;; p.s n, '.7hcle hut only to a 
certain portion of' it. (***) Of the 72, throe codns (Beauty and "larher 
Shop MochanicaJ- Equipinent, etc., Coat and Suit rxid. Tanning Extract) were 
later amended to conform to the Executive Order on ho- lerrork. (****) 

Nineteen codes -Drohihited honer/ork after pllor.dng a period of ad- 
justment for the transfer of ho..iev;ork to factor production. (*****) These 
-periods varied from one to si:: months. Though it is not so listed in the 
tahulaticn (Appendix A), the luiitted Outerwear Industi-y Code (******) 
might oe classified as prohihitin ; honevrork after a period of one year. 
Justification for such a classif ico.tion ^-ould t\irn upon inferences as to 
the intent of the -provision. Eat 'hether the ohjective i-t.s the prohihi- 
tion of homework or its regialrtion is not, at this tine, cle?a-. (*******) 

Ten codes drafted rnd apiorovod after the Executive Order xres issued, 
incorporated its terms oi* iiade soiie reference to it. 

Adding the various tj'^:ie3 of jrohioitions, ue find that out of 118 
codes with hone-.-ork provisions 101 codes, prohioited homework or ahout 86^. 
Twenty-one iDor cent (IIS) of the totnl nufoer of ap"iroved basic codes 
(55S) contained home'/ork n-ovisions. 

It must he reiterated th.-^t homework '.<as not necessn.rily a prohlera 
in all industries with horwork provisions in their codes. The U. S. 
De-oartment of Lahor hps lioted tlie follo'-ring industries as hrving included 
homework or ovis ions while not c CLvolyin.; homework: (********) 

See A~ jendices A r-nd. 3. 

AT-nendix A. 

See homework -orovisions in Rub":'er Industr.^ Code — Rainwear 
Division and in ilovelty CijTt-ins, Drrperies, EedsDreads, etc. Code. 

This T'as not really necesso.ry oecause the Executive Order ap- 
plied to oil codes which prohibited homevrork. 

See Colijmn (4), horaework -irohihition "on si-'ecified future date", 

Ap-iendix A. 

See homework provision in Appendix 3. 

) See suj-olement on hoj/iework in the ICnitted Outenjear Industry. 

(********) Sou.rce: Appendix D, -5. 43, "The Commercialization of the Home 
etc.," Bulletin '."o, loF., TTomen's Bureau, U. S. Dept. of lahor. 










Assenbled ITatch ^ 

Blackboard and 'Slackboard Eraser 
Cigar Container 
Cloth Reel 
Cocoa and Chocolate 

Corrugated and Solid P'iher Shipjin ; ContainGr 
Cylindrical Liquid Tight Pa:oor Container 
Dental Goods and Equipment 

Szipanding rnd Specialty Pai^er Products 
Fi'ibar and iletal TTork Clothing Button 
Fiber Can and Tube 
Folding Pa'jer Box 
Pood Dish E-nA Pulp and Paper Plate 
Glazed ma Fancy Paper 
Graphic Arts 
Gr,?.ss and Fiber Rug 

Light Serdng (e:vCe;Tt garnents) 

Open Paper Drinhin ;■ Cuid pnd iRomid ile^ting Pa-oer Food Container 
Ornamental Holding, Ca.rvin.-; and Turning- 
Package Lie di cine 
Paper Disk Llilk Bottle Cap 

Perfume, Cosmetic, f.nA Other Toilet Pre-oarrtions 
Precious Je-.^ilry Produ.cing 
Printer's Rollers 
Ready-IIrde Furniture Slip Covers 
Robe and Allied Products 

Rubber Raini.Tear (included in Rubber jirnufrcturing Code) 
Saaiitary liilk Bottle Closui^e 
Shoe Pattern 
Slit Fabric 
Stereotype Dry Ikt 
Tainiing Extract 

Tr an sp ar e n t l,Ia t e r i al s Co jive r t e r s 
Umbrella Frame and Umbrella 
Underwea"'" and Allied Products 
Used Textile Bag 
Watch Case 
Uaterproof ■ Paper 
TIelt Manufacturing 
TTood-Ca.sed Le-d Pencil 

On the other hand, five codes are listed (=^) under the heading "Homo'vork 
Continues nith no ReigulaJb'ory Provisions T'ritten in Codes": 

Clothos':iin Division (included in TTood Turning r'nd Shaping Code) 

Curled Hair iianufacturin;; and Hortje Hair Dressing 


Pecan Shelling 

Punch Borrrd 

(*) Ibid, p. 47. 

That the pjvioimt of honeT.'ork -unto-achod h^ tlie code system nr.s cOri- 
sideratle rani'- dg infei-red fron the folloivin.-^ list nhich appears in the 
reDort imder the ti'tle "Honc^-'or}: Contin-aoB, ilo Code for Indiistry" (*): 

Hoine~\7orJ: Process 
Lead Stringing 
Bone Button CFrdinL^- 

Poxuitain Pen rnd ilechanical Pencil Assein- 

G-old Leaf Kalcin: rnd Bookin.^ 

Greetiii^; Card Coloring, Ribhonin£;', Inserting, 

Kf'nd Quilting and Hpnd Applioueing 
Hooked Rug Malting 
Hook and 'Ljq Carding ' , : 

Leather Button Carding 
I.Ioun t iiig of; ;.iai.i-s , o tc » . 
lie e die Packing . ^ 

Pin Carding 

Ocrea Pearl Button Carding 
Bag Se-'ing 
RosebLid liaking oy Seving fron lUhbon 
Safety-Pin Carding ^ • . 

Snap Carding 
Pasting, sli-QS. of' hearing hidden numbers 

on card 

plastic fabrication 
Bone Button 

Pountain Peji and fiechani- 

cal Pencil 
G-old Leaf 

C-reeti2ig Card 

Hand Quilled Te::tiles 

Hooked Hug 

Hooks fnd Eyes 

Leather ]3utton 

liounter and Pinisher 



Ocean Pearl Button 

Hag Serdng 


Safety Pin 


Tally. Card 

Ilh-ile the tabulation in Apoendirc A is for the most loart self-e:cplaiia- 
tovj, there are r. n^onber of -loints that deserve special comnent. The 
second major col-;jnn of Aopendix A suggests tT/o laonths of li,.nting hone- 
rrork: (a) reduction of the nuTf.ier of honevrorkers, and (b) prohibition 
of a certain tyoe of horiei^orl;. The latter -lethod ''as the ?iore popular 
of the t\70. Ho'-'everjin sor.e instances the orovision instead of specifi- 
cally prohibiting a. single t-^'je of hone'-'ork, prohibited horae\7ork genoral^^'r ■ 
but loernitted the specific t"- ee. (**) Such jorovisions are a^lso noted 

(*) Ibid. 


(**) Thus, the Light Sevdng Code prohibited hoiierrork except handviork on 
candlenick r.orGcds, and on hand-quilted s-ore-^ds for six months. 
■ She Knitted Outor'-rerr Code barred all^or]; except hand loiitting 
which included hamd crocheting, hand eiribroidering, etc. The Ladies 
Handbag Code prohibited all honeirork except haiid bea,ding, hand 
crocheting, hajid eiibriodoring., etc. (See Appendix B for the provi- 
sions.) In such instances the -orohbition of honenork meant little 
or nothiixg 'oecause the kind of hoiiemjrk forbidden (e.g. homowork 
on machines ua.s not done anyhOTr or if it -laz done, did not coninare 
in extent 'lith those types of honer/ork -Thich .^ere, iDernitted. 



in Column (?) of Ap-,iendix 

Attention should "be called to a n\irnl3er of stays (*) which tended 
to negative the purposes for trhich the provisions ^-'ere written. Typical 
examples rre the follovfing (**): 

The Athletic Goods Code prohibited all horneTjork except the serr- 
ing of lon-grpde baseballs for a period of one year from the effective 
date (Fehruarj'- 12, 1934), At the end of the ye-r the KEIA. gra,nted a 
stay of the prohbition for 60 days (until April 12, 1935), In the fol- 
lowing month the code systen was invlciidpted h"' the SuiDrerae Court, It 
cannot he said then that the prohibition of homework, as far as Iott^ 
grade baseballs were concerned, ever meant much in pctual operrtion. 
The rates for homeworkers in the CandJlewick Bedspread Code were stayed 
three tines. (***) The Ishor provisions of the Purniture Cpde were 
stayed insofar as thsy ap-.ilied to homeworkers (****) pending a report 
by the code authority on the subject of homework in the industry. In the i 
Knitted Outerwear Industry com-olete prohibition of homev;ork (*****) ^ras ^ 
due to take effect on Janup.ry 1, 1935, one year o.fter the effective date 
of the code). In February 1935, the prohibition was sts.yed. until Hay 
15, Less than two weeks later came tino Schechter decision. 

Besides these stays, the tabulation in AiDpendix A fails to show 
several other important factorf;. (******) Thus, it does not list the 
Lace Industry Code among the codes with homework provisions; yet the 
Lace Industry made an earnest effort to re^^ulate homework under the code, 
(*******) Though no homework provisions were written into the Code, the reg- 
ulation .ofi h.o■raewoxk,.^746 a part of the indu.stry's effort to give full 
effect to the minimuja wage and no,;cimuin hour orovisions of the code, 

(*) A stay wp.s an officieJ suspension of a provision, 

(**) Some of these stays are indicated iii Apoendix 3. I 

(***) See Aippendix B. 

(****) By Adiainistrrtive Order ilo, 145-3 

(*****) Art, VI, Sec. (a) .and (c), I&iitted Outerwear Code, See AiToendix B 

(******) It must be reme-ibered that Aopendix A, "Classification of Code 
Homework Provisions" deals only with the -orovisions themselves. 
It does not sho'r actions taken pursuant to the provisions or 
having rclrtion to them, 

(*******)"In no other industry had the Code Authority prescribed so high 
a. standard of wage payment for hoiaeworkers, and in no other 
industry were such intensive efforts made to -see that the sta-n- 
dard wa.s observed," says the U« S, Department of Labor of the 
Lace Industry, (p, 38, "A St\idy of Industrial Homework in the 
Summer aad Pall of 1934," U, S. Department of Lr.bor,) Fur- 
ther, "In regar to hour of work pnd the em'oloyment of children, 
rgain only the Lpce Industry has made a concerted effort to 
regulate,..," (ibid., o, 61.) 


the theory 'beinf: th.'\t the term "en ■■loyees" vrr.s uroad. enoarh to include 
all -'orkei-j in tlio i;KLa';;tr^.^. 

Further, tho t.-Cmlrfi' ' doo3 act ro^n..??I the fact thr.t the regala- 
tions suhmitted b:/ the Trer.h 7n±e::- Pearl .!uttor Code Authority included 
oiece-vrork rp.tas .'or hoMe^-orj.-.ers. Ir. the I'urniture Industry rnanuf?,c- 
turers employing hovnenork Irl^or \'cr3 offered hy ITEA exem-ptions from the 
mini.^utmi -'^^,-e .irovisions rs to thi- l.-hor n'ovided cc'rtrdn rates v'cre laid. 
Only ono or tY.'o fir:nn availed thcnselves; of this o-y ■ortmiity. The 
others orotosted that the rrtcs set oj the deputy wore too high. 

The o-'jeration of ;;orno of the provisions tahultatod in A^viendix A 
vfiil be descrioed and nnrlysed in the later sections of this Chrpter. 

HoF.erTor!: and Coda Lahor Standards 

Everj'- code ostr.blished four standards for lahor: (a) inaxinum 
hours of work, (h) rainir:rajn '7a^-e, (c) the right to organize and "bargain 
collectively, end (d) prohibition of child lahor. 

In those industries Tjhich did not aholish hoj^erjork -jjiless it was 
clearly understood the,t the definition of "en-oloyee" included homeworkers, 
the homeworkers , the honenork syste-Ti constituted a Dieans of evading these 
standards. G-enerfdly it w:s -onderstood that houeworkers r;ere included, 
and that they -^ere entitled to the benefits of the la.oor provisions, of 
the codes. It vr-.s on this theory that the Lace Industry set uo regula- 
tions: (a) guaxanteeiii;': a :iinim\m r'fge to hornenorkers ; (h)' regulating 
their hours to conform to the ma::imura ;:iernittinp; by, the code; (c) elimin- 
atin-]; chil'"' labor, etc. 

In somcquarters, hoijever, there was a tendency to. consider home- 
workers as boy^-nd- the rpngo of code benefits. The Furniture Industry 
Code for exrjirole, exce-ot for requiring that a.stuc^y of homework be made, 
made no mention of the -^robleLi. TThen the manufacturers ulilizing this 
type of labor realized that the Minimum wa-je ^irovisions of the code a^yjliec 
to homevjorkers, they asked for a ste.y of the labor n-ovisions insofar as 
homeworkers -■■'ere ccncerned, and their request ^rrrs grcanted (*) Even 
where there was an under strndinp- that ho leworkers were entitled to code 
benefits like other eraoloyos, there reiirined the serious problem of de- 
vising and enforcing rc^^polrtlons to a,ccoi.r:ili3h this end. The cominendable 
and thorough efforts of th.. L-ce Industry net with only partial success, 
according to the U. S. Department of Labor. (**) 

In industries where ho-iework was aJbolished and also in indvistries 
with homework regnilations, the use of contractors offered a means of 
evading code labor standards. The following is an excerpt from a letter 
written by a Department of Labor investigator who had been interviewing 

homework onnloyers in a nuubor of lle^' York industries; 

(*) Administrative; Order l.'o. 145-3. 

(**) "A Studi^ of Industrial Homework in the Sumiae.- and Fall of 1934." 

p. 33, 61, 


"Tlia abolisxipfl (*) induKtii-s hav? for the nost -ibrt turned 
til? •'■^ir^- cv-r to contr^ctorl^, rnd th-f^e con-tractors under one 
form of tric'terj'" or anoth r hfve '-iven the "'or': oiit to individual 
hone'-'or^'ers. '^en in th : norp'oolirh :d (**) iiiduwtrieF,, ^con- 
tra.ctin.^ has coiie into V0:eu-:;. This method of /^ivini?; out the 
T'or> fr^es the nann.fact"arer frnra .v.ll r :s->o;;siuiliti.?r. of living 
u-D to code r?--'?ra].atioas. Thr; contractor be'ng ? nan '-'ith little 
or no ca-oital, rnd no r-3->atr.tion to ris':, has little to lose 
2ven if he is Cf.u<^ht violctin-5 the code." (***) 

Inconsistency !Aaong Code Pora'^'^'ork Provision;: 

The cla.ssification of home'^ork Torovisions contained in A-o-oendix 
A shor/s a heavy concentration in the colaTms to the left, "hich in- 
dicate '-Drohibitions of horae'vork. In a sense, however, this is mis- 
leading 'because it fea.tures the similarities among the "orovisions and 
neglects the differenc-s. Horever, these differences -oresented a 
serious "orohlem onl'/- in the needle trades, and related Tjrinci-oally 
to a, few hand ■orocess=s: emhroidering, crocheting, and heading., 
which aa-e used very generally in the ao-oarel' industries and occasionally 
in non-aoparel industries such i:s Light Se-dng or Art Needle'-'ork. 

The following summary ind.ica,tes the variations in the home- 
work -orovisions of several cider- ^-dth res-oect to these -processes (****) 
■oarticularly whether the -orocess is -orohihited (either hy a s-oecific 
provision to that effect or hy a s'en^ral hone-ork rirohihition) or 
permitted (either er-oressly or heca.use the code contained no home- 
work prohihition). (*****) 

(*) i.e. indaistries ■'.ind^ir codes -hich did not -orohihit homework. 

(**) i.e. industries imder cod^s '^'hich did not nrohihit hone'-'ork. 

(***) Quoted in a inemorandiijn to ilr. 0.7,.Rosenzweig, Chairman, w?iA 
Horae-'Ork Committee, from iirs. Clara!.!. Beyer, Executive Sec- 
retary, Secretary's Connittee on ianinum "Jage, U. S. De-oartment 
of Labor. Se^ite'iher 2.', 1934. 

(****) For this material, the -'riter is indebted to Urs. Lucy, llanning 
of the U. S, Denartment of Labor, who iireToared the data in 

(*****) For the ditnils, see the actual code -orovisions in Ap-':>endi7: B. 




SloTj^e_a,nd _S-vi.r t 

Dres s (Women's) 

Pleatin-:; (': Stitcliin,,:, etc. 

Under)2:a rment ii._'-it-v;.l i£ee_ 

Underwear & Allied Products 


.<i£.tJi'^i£.4.l.®3;i°-i;ii (SamiDles only 

,Q2.t±2il -'£'i^''l i'\''i. (^^ incidental) 

Handkercnief (on handmade handker- 
cliieis and those on which the 
laoor cost of hand operation is 
equal to 60 -oercent of total lahor 
cost provided wholesale cost is not 
less than $3.50 a dozen.) 

l.o?i§JlZ (i^ certain individual cases) 

Infa nts & Childre_n,s_ ..Wear 

Knitt ed O ut_e^rwe_pr_ 


Id rjit _Se'.vi n.:^ (On candlewick Bed- 

ha:d chochetiho 


Blouse and SMrt 

Cotton Jjarment 


Pleat in.^ & Sti.tcliij.ij< 

Un de r A'ar me nt_ _& ^-TO j-^ l_i t^e e 

Underwear c- Allied Product? 


Art Needlework (Samoles only) 
liaddfe"iXQ]li§£ (on hand-made handker- 
chiefs and those on which the 
lahor cost of hand operation is 
equal to 60 percent of total labor 
cost -orovided wholesale cost is 
not less $3.50 a dozen.) 

Ladies haiidoa.::; 

Li;-:ht Sev.'in^' (if used can be on 
Candlewick Bedspreads) 

HA:3 LSADim 


E 1 us e aud_Ski rt_ 
Cotton ^&ar me_n t 
Dress (Wom en's) 
Pleating: £; Stitching 
Underficarment cc :"e^;ligee 
Under',7ear & Allied Products 


Art^^eedlework (Samnles only) 

Hosic._r2; (i-"^ individual cases; bead- 
ing probably not used) 

S^dker chiefs (if beading is used, 
it can be done on hand-made hand- 
kerchiefs and on those on which 
labor cost of hand operation is 
equal to 60 percent of total labor 
cost, provided wholesale cost is 
not less than $3.50 a dozen.) 

L^JL^l'i^-." Chil dr e n '_s _l?ear^. 

S2.LLke^_Qiiter;ii6S£ (provided beading- 
is used and if it is crocheted 
beading and therefore crocheting 
or if it is held to be form of 
hand embroidery.) 




Ladies Handbag 

Li<:,lit Sevang-, (if used could be 
done on Candlewick Bedspreads.) 



'There differencoc "between hone-rorl: pi-ovinions, coupled '-'ith tlie 
loosely c.rr.-'2; def initio/in oi' inc'ustr" , led to serious jurisdictional 
conflicts ai.ion-; code authorities r.nd cuseT. -ic.v.-r aoxiinistrative diffi- 
culties. If honei.;or': h:d. be'-.n prohioitod in <?-!! codes, or at least in 
all apparel or neec'le trrde codes, one source of Jurisdictional conflicts 
uould 'oeen eli;iinatct., I^iit ::o "".on;; a'-, o'le :iaiTifacturer Gould ci"^e 
out hone.' or:: "liile another -/rs restrrinod I'^ron rpivin/^,' oxit the saiie hind 
of norlr hecraise".e:.' a difj.crent code, conflic.t A'ras l)ound to develop. 
These circimstance-. led also to a practice on the part of nanufactufers 
T?ho hac ocen usinf; honeivorl: until their code ;-jrohil)ited it of "shopping 
around" to f:et vindcr a code tiiat pernittec it. 

In descrilTin;; such i' situation a Depf.rtment of Lf-hor official said: 
"The pos'rihility of ^shoppi:^;"; around' piion.';- the codes, affiliating "ith 
that ind'artr;- -hich offered the fjre-^ter.t loopholes, is illustrated hy 
the cpse of r- firr: vrhich originally oelonged to the Pleatinp-, Stitching, 
Bonnaz r.nd Eand j3r.ioroidery Code, Upon discovering that codes for the 
Infants rnc" Children's './ear and Ihiittf-^d Outer-Terr Industries did not 
prohihit ho"ie--orl:, ' this firn attenptec' to -[ithdraT fron the first group, 
on the groiinds that so -:e of its products '-rere infants' and children's 
garvients. This nove -re.s naturally resisted' "by the Code Authority. The 
case is still pendi:^.g. "(*) 

Difficulties such as these led the Fler.,ting and Stitching Code 
Authority to ash for jurisdiction over all the processes listed in the 
definition of tlie ten "inf"v.stry" in tiiis code.(**) 

The Pleating anc Stitching Code prohihited hone^-rorh and its defini- 
tion of "industry" it cla.ined jurisdiction over all "enoroidery". The 
Lr.c'.ies Ilr.ndhag Code pe:.TTitted iione^-'orh involving hand heading, hs-nd 
crochetin'! and hand cuhroidering., "There is no valid reason uhatsoever 
for per.'.iitting in hones, 'oer-Linc: on handhags, nhile prohibiting in hones 
heading on dresser,, jl.o\\ses rnd other f;arnents," said the E;:ecutive 
Director of the Pleating cut Stitchi:'ig Code Authority. (***) 

Sirailarly, tlie. Ilnitted Outervrear Code permitted "hand crocheting, 
ha.nd erhbroiderin;: rnc" ha:ad se-Ting" in ho.ies. The Infa:'its' and Children's 
"Tear pe:rr.iitted lirnd -rorh in hones. On the otlier hand, the Dress, Coat 
and Suit, Blouse and Shirt, iiillinery, Underg:irnent and llegligee, and 
other a:r:.rrcl -jrohihited lioiie-vor':. 

(*) ■ "henorandiui on I:nvdustrial Hoqe'-orh in Sforoidery" filed i-'ith "-.'.P.,A. 
ty Ilrs, Cla,ra 3eyer, U. ,S. Departnent of La.hor, in connection rith the 
Pleating, Stitching, etc. Interpretation liearing llovenoer 20, 1935- 

(**) p. 1, henorrnd-L-un on "The Inconsistencies of NRiPolicy on Mone- 
■,7ork" to the h^lA Konev'orh Connittee f ro ! h'r, Ivrr Avelson, Executive 
Director :"or the Ple.-tin.-;, Stitching Code Aiithority, AUigust U, 193^. 

(***) Ihid, , p. 2 


"It would "be -useless to discuss with other Code Authorities this 
conflict ns to jurisdiction an"i aholition of homework," said the Execu- 
tive Director of tiie Pleating::, Stitching, etc., Code Authority. (*) 
"Even- if an agreement was reached "between code Authorities," he continued, 
"there would still remain considerahle confusion as there would he no uni- 
form, conristent policy in reference to the prohihition of homework." 

This lack of uniformity among homework -irovisions in codes for the 
a-piDarel industries was described, by a State Labor denartinent official 
as "adrainistrativslj' chaotic." (**) The Executive Director of the pleat- 
ing and Stitching' Code Authority, said: 

"As a result of this we have the anomalous situation 
of a homeworker being prohibited froni i:)erforming em- 
broidery, such as hand beading, dra\vn v/ork, fagoting, 
and various forms of decorative stitchery oh dresses, 
coats, suits, blouses, skirts, millinery, and -underwear. 
On the, other hand a homeworker is allov.'ed to embroidery 
in the home on inf rats' ajid ciiildren's viear, luitted 
outerwear, la.iies handbags, womr^n's nocl:wear, hosiery 
and various novelties. I-faturally the bewildered home- 
worker, is ?t a loss to -understand why it is legal to' 
do embroidery on one tyoe of garment in the home ajid 
illegal to do it on another tyoe. The manufacturers 
and contractors "also are at a loss to ■■'.understand the 
reason for the same ■i:)rocess bein;^ -orohibited in the 
home on one article and not on another. 

"The situation is so co:.Tnlicated and' so confusing 
Mr. Axlcson continued, "that the officials of the 
State Labor not ^.:now, v/nich mamxfac- 
turers, , contractors, and ho'-icworkers, are entitled, 
to permits. In granting a -iicruiit to a "nomoworker 
' -under tnc stato law to do hand embroidery, it is 
impossible to specify on what work homo vrork is r)er- 
mitted and on what articles it is -orohibited. Eur- 
thcrmoro, -many m:inuf acturers and contractors do 
embroidery work on all kinds of garments ai-id specifi- 
cation is ii-tpossible in their cases as well." (***) 

■(*) Ibid, 

(**) Hiss Frieda Uiller, New York State Department of Labor, p. 108, 
Transcript of Pleating, Stitching, etc., intei-pretation hearing, 
November 20, 1934. Day Session - Eirst day. 

(***) p. 3, Memoraiadum on the "Inconsidtencies of 'NM Policy on Home- 
work Committee from Mr. Ivar Axelson, Executive Director for the 
Pleating Stitching, Etc., Code Authority, Augus,t 4, 1934.- 



It lias- been ;iinpoEsi'bie to discuss .tlie pattern of code hone work 
provisions v.dthout giving some indication of how those provisions 
operated. We have, however, "been more concerned: in this Section with 
the pattern than with the operations. In the remainder of this chap- 
ter, we shall trace, t)ie indiviclual e::perience of a nnmher of industries 
vdth the homework pro^^isions in their codes. 

Hovrever, in spite of the obvious dtjirers involved in judging the 
te-;t of a law without inquiring fiily into Mts; adnihistration, we may 
pause to note that the above analyti^a clearly pointed to the need of 
eliminating t-he disharmonies among code homework provisions. 






The experience of several incVaGtriec under code homework ■ 
provisions has lieen described and analyzed. S"applementing the exper- 
ience of the individual industries - the llationpj Recovery Administra- 
tion ?„ttempted in several ways to introduce tmiforra standards in the 
control of homework, and the present chapter is devoted to an analysis 
of the conditions which created a need for uniform regulation, the 
instruTJientalities chosen to formulate standards, the standards them- 
selves, pjid the prohlens which arose from the efforts to maintain then. 

Orr..'anization of Committee 

At the time the MA Homework Coiiirnittee was estahlished 
(March, 1924) nea-rlj"- one hundred codes containing homework provisions 
had heen approved. In spite of this there was little information about 
homework- in IJRA files. One might reasonahly suppose that if an indus- 
try was interested in putting a homework provision into its code, it 
would have made a careful survey of its homework situation. But this 
was not the case. Industries were chiefly concerned with larger and 
more inportant prohlems than homework, which after all was only inci- 
dental compared to the reduction of unemployment, the distribution 
of purchasing power, the stahili Nation of the price structure, etc. 
It must also he taiien into consideration that in the haste that charac- 
terized the code making process there was not time for more than a 
cursory collection of factual evidence. Hot one of the industries that 
submitted codes with homework provisions came to KRA hearings prepared 
to show what the economic and social effect of these provisions would 
be. In no instance did a horaevrork industry even know how many home- 
workers employed. (*) 

¥liile it was the purpose of tlie public hearing to advise "the 
National Recovery Administration of the facts upon which the exercise 
of administrative authority must be predicated" (**) the hearings, 

(*) On a much smaller scale it is not unusual, for a manufacturer 
not to know hov; many homeworkers are doing his work, particu- 
larly if he uses a "contractor" or middleman to distribute 
the work. 

(**) iIRA RELEASE, Jime 27, 1933. Not ntrabered. 



generally speaJcing failed to provide an adeqjaate view of the homev/ork 
problen even in those industries v/here the prolDlem v/as of serious ua-5- 
nitude. Careful consideration of numerou:; transcripts of hearings on 
codes vdth horaenork provisions leads one to the conclusion that the 
subject of home\70rk inspired raore oratory (*) thrji disinterested analy~ 
sis. There -jere several reasons for this in addition to those already 
suggested, even uhen information a7oout honework iia a particular indus- 
try or locaJLitj'- ims available it v?as spora.dic and frai'^nentary. (**) 
On the other hajid, the absence of homev/ork information in transcripts 
of hearings was the fault of the industrj'- or labor representatives who 
neglected to acquaint themselves with the few facts that were available, 
a.s it wa.s the fa 'olt of the deputies and. their assistants who, in the 
rush to get codes ap;oroved, failed to give the subject the attention it 

The effect of the variations or "inconsistencies" among code home- 
work provisions iias already "been mentioned, (***) The situation has 
been aptljr described by the Department of Labor: 

"Owing to the .jeciiliar d,efinitions of indur.tries for 
purposes of code malting, an employer doing a certain 
line of ;7ork might be prohibited the use of homeworkers 
by the terms of his code, whereas a competitor who was 
able to classifjr his business a, little differently could 
affiliate with another industry group and be permitted 
by the terms of that code to continue the practice. The 
hoyieworkers could understand the situation even less 
thoji their employers; the injustice of depriving one 
fa::iily of wori: while permitting its neighbors to con- 
tinue with a slightly different tj-pe of work was appar- 
ent, and weakened the zeal of enforcing officers." (****) 

It was plain that a reduction, if not complete elimination, of these 
inconsistencies was necessary if effective adrainistra.tion was to be 

The need for ba.sic homework information, coupled v/ith the fact 
that the lack of uniformity code provisions was crea.ting confusion 
and reta,rding effective administration, led to the establishment of the 

(*) Obviously it is a subject that easil",'- lends itself to 
emo t i onal t reatment . 

(**) And this will continue to be true until a national census 
ef homewori; is taken. 

(***) See Chap. I, p. 5 . sxiC. Chap. II, p. 34. 

(****) p. 3 "A Stud"/ of Industrial Homework in the Summer and Fall 

of 19Z4. " A Preliminary lleoort to the ilSA, U.S. Department 
of Labor. 



K3A Homework Cc::vnittee. On l.iarc.'' 17, ir54, a:i.\Gffice Order (*) was 
is'^-ued wl^icl?. '_Drcvided for tie setting up Oi a special conrnittee "to 
stacly eliraina-tion of hoaewor'': under c-des of fair ccapetition. "'.ier rneent t .at tie Curnnilttee V'/as to confine its attention 
to industries Ltnder cedes w;.icl proliiljit'ed honevvork or whetlier the 
coiamittee was to exaanine "tl:e_ elininr.tion -,f I.o.nework" as an oId j ec- 
tive and explore the .ossioility cf fittin^' sxic-i a proeTaiU "lindsr 
codes of fair co;.ipetiticn" , v/ai- n.^t ...ade clear. At rny rate, the 
ccixnittee did not interpret its as;"'.,-TL;:ient c.s limited tc an inquiry 
covering only those industries under c _ dc; ^ that iroaibited homework. (**) 
T:^e Order provided f-jjrther that "tl-e C.; :.htLeo siiall investi:^ate 
rnd within sixty (60) days shall mslce r': c _ -jMeno'l-.tions to the Ad- 
ministrator, for l:ds ap'orovEil, cohcernm, so.:;x] - '.iori cf h.j:aeworI: 
or :;iodifi cations, of exir-tin:^- n-ovi':;i_ns w-.ere midue ::ardship re- 
sydts." The members. --ip of the C.,-.mitt3e '.vas to consist, of the 
followinij;: "A Chairmrn de3i::nat.2d .r/ i'.-.e Directrr of the Division 
cf flese-^rch and Planning;; ;:/ re a-e-'entative ::f erch Jdvisory Beard; 
and. such reprasentative r ?, the Socreta.ry of L-;,bcr may desi^^nate. " (***) 

Efforts t-- obtain I nformation 

Tl^e first taslc tc ;'/-iich tlie Gc.inittee addressed itEelf(****) was 

(**) At t e tiiue' the Co-vnittei was e - ta^disiied sr;.ie fifteen 

codes eit-er provided xzr limitation of hoMewoiic, 
set up reimlations, or specified tiat a. study sliculd 
be mgxle. ' 

(***) It may seem odd that dcuble provision wa? made for 

representation ^oy labor (cne representative from the 
Le.bor Advisorj'' Board and "suaj. represent^r-tive as the 
Secret -.ry cf Labor ;"ia.y def.h,i,nate") . The f,?.ct of the 
matter is that homework is essentially a. labor pro- 
bla.i and the KRA members of the Committee lacked the 
technical loaowled^r^e end experience v'.ich the Labor 
Depr:',rtiAent meinbers ' ad. 

(****) Before this the Gomiuittee had prepared an Executive 
Order w;.;.ic.i enabled a few O.and.i capped homeworkers 
to continue doing hcmeviTorl: in these industries under 
codes which prohibited h.omewcrk, Tlie Order was 
referred to in Cl-.ap. I (see pp. 5 -to 33.) and is 
given special treatment in the next Section. For 
these reasons it 'does net oeem necessary tc do 
mere than mention it at tlh.s ^oi.nt. 


gettirii:^ inforrnaticn upon v/^iic/i to base :.-ecoiiimendations. T-iere were 
t'.iree i.ietl--oclE (*) t.:e.t could be used se.'arateiy or in combination: 

(1) a "Tablic iiearin^:;: by tlie ComiTiittee, at wIiicIl social v/orkers, 
^.onieworkers, economists, labor leader^;, state laocr 'Te^^artment 
officials, indu'-tr:/ meinbers, etc. niijlit be called to te'^tify; 

(2) nixe^ticnnaires to c-;de authcrities renuestinL,- s-^eclfic infor- 
mation; (?) a field investii^ation including intervxews wit>- both 
iiomewo rker <; and ei i ,1 oyer s . 

T'.ie idea of calling a liearing on hcmework was quickly tabled. 
T-ie Co;.iJnittee l-ad little faitli in the pablic liearing as "a fact 
finding device"; vLiere there v/ere so few facts t: begin with a 
hearing could ha.rdly be expected to contribute more. 'Jith a.llow- 
ances for the nature of the information being soug;..t, the most ade- 
quate method of investigating hcmework is t'.'.e:l of field inspection, 
hut tli-'-S involves: extended work in th-,? field and much travel and 
necessitates employment of a staff of expert investigp.tors, and 
obviously sucli a committee as the h3A ho..iework Committee, limited 
a.s t: both facilities and time, could entertain no hope of maicing 
a fiew study. The questionnaire method, tierefore, remained. 

Only once before had a committee been set up to ga.ther infor- 
mation on l,.;:.iev/nrh froin a nation-v;ide point of viev;. Tiat was in 
June, 19?5,D.t t.. e Tv;elftl.. Annual Con'cention of the Association 
of Governiaent Labor Officials, v;hen a committee was established "to 
look int- the queBtion of industrial homework, the extent to which 
such work is conducted in txie various states, and the methods being 
taken to deal with the situation, etc." This ccmnittee addressed 
a ouestionnaire to officials in forty-five states, (**) but the re- 
sults vvere negligible. On the basis of the limited information 
^athered, the Comi-aittee ccnclixded that .while "industrial homework 
is without question a live problem in many sections of the United 
States ... inf ori.iation a,s to its prevalence, tie nurabers ajid k:..nds 
of workers enge.ged in it, the conditions under w'.hch the work is 
done, the industries affected and the interstate aspects of the 
problem is lacking entirely or adiuittedly inadequate ... 
even in States where tie existence of homev/ork (at least in some 
industries) is known to the Sta.te authorities, and even in States 
where the existence of a homework problem ha,s been recognized in 
the enactment' of prohibitory or regulatory legislation. "(***) 

(*) Barring "library research", which t>.oug^i it would have pro- 
vided valuable background ;.iaterial was not considered as 
of:, erin^; much help, vr.iat the Ooai.iittee needed \7as current 
information which would indicate tie actueil effect of code 
homework provi sions. 

(**) Arizona, Idpho, and Kew hexico were left out because they 
had no factory inspection depart.nents. 

(***) "Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the 

Governmental Laoor Officials of the United Sta.tes and Canada' 
U. S. Department of Lr.bor, hareau of Labor Statistics, 
Lulletin No. 429, "o. 37, Jejiuary, 1927. 



■. In s"j;itc of discoura^in^^ "5i-ecedent t^.e I'RL "omeworli Commit- 
tee decided to circulate q''J-estionnF,ires. As pcinted out above, 
t^-G Coi"n:.iittee mterpretsd its assiijjiment liberc?!!;,- and wliile its 
primary tasl:. was "to study the eliidnatirn cf l.c uework ujider codes" (*) 
its original intention ?;as to infon.iaticn general l.y in coded 
industries eni:loying ho-i-nev?ork; regardless of t.-e nature of tl/e 
particular code liomework provisions, and even vLiere tb.ere vas no 
lioi-iewcrl: provision. Accordin;;l5- it was planned to cover tlie follow- 
ing- groups: (l) industries u:ider codes v/liich laade no mention of 
/- : "ie-.7crlc(**) t. .e assunption oein^ t .r.t t e .r.bsence of a homework 
provision was n't necesso,rily evidence t.^.t t er'.^ was no homework 
in tl-e industrv, (2) industries liider codes \i.ic— orol-.ibited hcme- 
■wcrk ■(***), (p) industries under codes which provided (a) for the 
re^pilatir.n - 1' "._■ ..'.ov/crl; (****n or (b) that a study of homework in 
the in'histry sl.iuld be made. (*****) 

Questionnaires wore drafted for these in the first and second 
classes but en account of the yr_rif tions in tie provisions in the 
third tiro'O-iD, it \7.1s felt tiat indivif.ual letters woald have to "be 
ivritten radopted to tie nature of tii.e particular provisions, however, 
the Conmrittee decided thpt since tl-is p e^se of tie problem was less 
important than the otfe s, it was not necessary to t;:ke iiroediate 
action upcn it. (***>;=**) 

(*:) i,T:.ic[. was telcen to mean industries under codes pro- 

liib i ting homev/o rk . 

(**) Tlie Lc ce Code, for example. Pecan 31-elling, Pujich hoard, 

and others are listed by the U. 3. Deiartment of Labor. 
See "The Coiriiercializaticn "f the "'o/ie Throiigh Indus- 
trial homework," hiilletin ho. 13-5, VJcmen' s Burea,u, p. 47. 

(**!i:^ jj^ t.iis ^roup were included provisions prol^ibiting 

homework on the effective date of a code or on 
some specified day thereafter. 

.(****) Exam-^les: Caiidlevirick 3edpread, hosiery, Leather 

": 'Toelen Knit Sieves, etc. 

(*****) Hxai'-rples: Two of t"ie Br^tton Code? - hresh 
V/ater Penrl pjid Ve.^etable Ivory; 
Furniture, etc. 

^ ******) These letters were never written because of the 
DOor results obtained froia tf.e nuestionnaires. 



With regard to industries imder codes raakinj no mention of home- 
work (t/:e first ii;roup) v/hat the Cora lit tee wanted to laiow was whether 
hoi.ieworh was used at all and if so to what extent, e.nd if tlie use of 
lioi.iewori: had increased or decreased v/itliin the year (April 1953 to 
April 1934) , and if so what was the cause of the change. (*) Tlie 
question was also ashed whether (in the ahsence of a code provision 
dealing with ho aey/ork) the code authority had prescribed rules and 
regulations governing tlie use of homework. 

In liay, ir54, questionnaires were sent to some 254 industries 
in this group. 'J.iere an industry wa,s o''oviously of a nature preclud- 
ing the possibility of homework, such as coal, iron end steel, loco- 
motive manufacturing, it was omitted from the list, otherwise the 
selections were riiade at random. To "be sure, the n-umber might have 
been ";.>ared dovm, but t'..e Committee preferred too many to too few 
lest a value.ble clue be lost. 

Gne hundred tv/enty-two replies were received, iiost of these 
were sim.ply the nuestionnaires with the word "HGilE" (meaning pre- 
suiiiably "no homework"): others were short letters stating that the 
industry employed no homeworkers. ITcne of the returned questionnaires, 
presented any information in the form in which it had been requested, 
and tierefore it was not possible to tabule.te the results. 

Enually dise.ppointing w-as the Ccm^nittee' s experience with the 
cues ticnnai res sent to industries in the second group (those under 
codes prohibiting homework). Tlie inquiries covered: (1) the number 
of homeworkers (for a one-year period between April 1933 and April 
1934), tiie total payroll to homeworkers, and the total industry 
pa,yroll: (2) tiie extent of expansion of factory facilities to 
absorb homev/orkers; (3) the nature and number of complaints, if any, 
which had arisen under the .lomework provision; (4) the extent to 
whic.i the code authority liad obtained compliance with the homework 
provision; and (5) the fa-Ctors preventing complete compliance with 
the homework prevision. These questionnaires were sent to 72 in- 
dustries (**) and 27 code R,uthorities a.nswered. hany of the re- 
plies vrere definitely evasive; some offered mere ^-.uesses or opinions 
as to the number of homeworkers. A lev; code authorities which did 
not have information requested, m£>,de efforts to collect it -from 
members of tl.eir industries, but could get no cooperation. Such 
facts as were submitted were fragmentary and fa,iled to represent a 
genuine cross- section of homework. 

(*) Sa-ip'le fa-ctors were sug^jested - limitation of machine 
h.ours, mini^nom v/age provision, maximum hour provision, 
and other. 

(**) Tiie list was talcen from an analysis of code homework 

provisions oy the Labor Advisory Board, dated April 30, 
1934. liimeogra-ohed, ITo. 5640. 



■• It :.s ti-c.c; t..c-t fev.-, ii raiy, cc'-e r.CLti.. r.-tic;3 v/ero orQPXiizeC. to 
i-anctic-: P'ltTuately r,p er.rly (*) in t.-.s ;:... ^t:r;^ ci.l'.TA as A_:ril , l?7/_-, 
and tliUs t'.iey .x:/ not l;ave been .rn - ::''^-.tion tj'.i^ive inf : rnr tion Cor:i:iittee :ie.^ rerri::s'.tc;d. :'CiVGv:r, t: e -:;. \\- .'iv<'r,vk in- 
telli_,:ence even in tl'.cse :.nuustriuf \;l.'.c:. ,.F.d :>l..ced ;i:..iev/orl: pro- 
visions in tl.eir codes ioi:;teci. cltj.^rly Lo tljc ir,mx-er in wliicli code 
.'.■rovisi-ns in .^'eneral wore written — vrLt. _cut ,?. oc,C:;:vroi-aad of str.- 
tistical or econor.iic knvjv/led^e. Tdat t-ii 3 v.j.^ po,rt .culariy trae 
of hjnev;orl: previsions was due not asre]y to t.e diPficulties of 
^at.erino: inf ;ri-.iati;;.n inl-erent in tne .1. ;,:e".'or'- rroljleui, "but it w.-s 
due ■also to indifference or noi-,lijence .,.: tPe part of "industry 
(wl?.ich in -turn was due to indtistry' s rec cci;. ja.tion v/itd problems 
larger in scope and in i.-\port.uic.o) :uid tc t. lacl; -f comiTionly de- 
fined TRk strnviprd.s by .neanp of whic"'. de/uties and't. .cir assistants 
C3uld dcter;.iine Wiat cnstituted on oderniate s^.owin j of fact. 

Pailinp in its effort? to obi-vl,. i P - i- a.-\t:'.c 1 fr-m cede autliori- 
ties, the ITISl Poraev/orlo Co-':noiittec ■ . ■ .. oxlei:. to foil back on the 
United States Depart.."ient 'c ~ '' ro r. In a i;;o..iorrji.';o.r.i. to tlie Adminis- 
trs-tor dated June 11, li' ■; , t o 3> ..;Ltteo otated t, at "the results 
of toas 'pa. 'er' (n;o.e-::t:.onn. iro) :■;.¥... t,L ,, tP:.'; u-jvidc no adeqxiate 
basis u :on wliici the 3cia-:iittGe oiap r.iidor a report. It is clear 
tPiot r/e need a :.iore extended _nvs- t .at -n of an^tlier sort. Such 
an mvesti^rati n oculd be c n:iuct^^ -i.' ■ \, f^ttirply 0/ t/ie U. S. 
Department ol Lab - r throupi tho ■.■.^■■: -.P i.t- trained inve'3ti;:;aitors. " 
The Achiij-nistrf^tor promptly :. letter to tne Secretary of 
La.bcr ur^'inp "t. rt a field :'.nveiit1.^,ati on of th.e hcrneworh situation 
be made." .^ . ' 

r.-e De--iartment of Labor herp^^ this field study in June 1954- 
and finished hn IToveofoer cf that yerir. [Eia sto.dy (**) ccvered- 
2,320 hcraeworkers inl,P73 ffu.P.lieL. located in seven states (Iowa, 
haane, l-Jew Jersey, hov/ Yorh, pennsylvanio., Ph )'le Isl^aid and Texo.s) 
and doin, w^rh- for n.L:uo induotrie;: ("aiiitte:! outerv/ear, lace, in- 
fants End c ±]-reni:;. wear, ;.rt needlewoh;, fr3;-:h water pearl- button , 
dolls' dres-^es, ta.^s, eiooroider r, etc., and i_,l ov e s ) . (***)■ ■Jie 
findings of to. is =>tu.d,v will be dj. scussed. oiore fully lavter "n con- 
nection with tie induo tries nasaed. 

1'*) "Early" because th.e I'PJl was ^-till in t:e t.-roes of the code 
inohinL'; ooccess. It ho.d not pet sottle>l dovm to t'.^e work of 
e/b.iini ■:; traticn. 

(**) The results were published in iirrc.;..., 'li'p'.i> under tue head- 
in-p "A Study of Industrial Pome ".Toxk in the Sui.mer and 
Fall of 1934, a Preli.viinary Report to the National; He- 
covery APninistrat ion, " U. o. De'p-'.rti.ient of Labor. 

(***) Ta,e findings of t.hs study were used liberally in 

Chapter II of this re;.)ort, in the discussions of certain 
individual indastr?es. 


Tlie Ac'vi'scry Sta^'e 

In turning over tc tl.e Department of Labcr tlie task for which 
it had been created, tlie usefulness of t'.ie '.'.2k "homework Coi.mrittee 
seemed tc he at an end, Ilcv/ever, tlie v/ide variety in the homework 
provisions in codes siv^t^ested a further function which the Coi.xmt- 
tee mi^it ■.-•erforrn. In the day-to-day adiiuni strati on of these pro- 
visions (i.e., the ..andlin^ of petitions for stays and exemptions, 
tie setting of piece v/ork rates, the supervision of code autliority 
studies etc.), the results were determined largely by the background 
or point of view of t'.e de:puty or assistant demty in charge and tlie . 
ze£'2 of the labnr adviser, and it wa<? not strpjige there was a 
marked lack of coordination in I'M. h':mework activities, in spite of 
a fairly v/ell-crystallized policy on hrmework,- 

To >.6lp tiis Eituation, in July, 1034-, the homework Committee 
war re-csta,blished as rn a -visory coMimttee t., deputies on all matters 
conceniing hcmewcrk, Tlie Office Order (*) rer[uired that "all 

questions concerned witl.i homev/ork, such as ;;tays of homework provi- 
sions, exemptions from homework prov.sions, the setting of piece-v/ork 
rates for "hcmev/o racers under codes v/hich do n.'.t prrhbit homework, 
etc., shall be submitted to the homev/ork Committee by the De^Aity 
Adra.'-nistrat:.r in chr.rge." The plan v/as tiat in eac-j. cs-se the 
Horaewjrk Committee should analyze tie issues involved, examine the 
facts submitted (and gather others vf.en possible), and render a re- 
port tc the deputy, 

ITor several months during this second, advisory stage of its 
existence, the Committee held regular meetings and disposed of a 
fairly steady but not voluminous r-tream of business, T-ie follov/ing 
is a saxiple list of some of tj-e mntters considered and reported on 
by the Committee: 

Termination of exemption from homev/ork provision in the 
hediui^i and L^v/ Priced Jev/elry Liaxiiifacturing Industry 

Stay of homework prohibitions in tliese codes: Umbrella 
Frame and Umbrella. i-Iardware lla.nufacturing Industry, 
Flag l.ianufacturing Industry! and Tibre and Metal ifork 
CI tiling. 

Plan for the control of homework in the Texas Area of 
the Infantry' and Children's ',7ear Industry, 

Hates for the home caning of chairs in the Furniture 

(*) Office Order ho. 98, July 7, 1934. 

9 840 


I]:-:t-3nsi.:ri of from ";i:..iRv;?rl;: or:vi?;i'_n 
in -tl.e Toy aiid Plp/tliings Code. 

Aj..enc..iir;:it .to t.e Code for tlio Ta.j; In-lastry to 
cov5r.7 licrievTOrk. 

I'lece rp.tes for :.;Cii:e cr.rdin? cf "buttons in Fresl; 
\7r.ter ?era-?. button Industry. 



Lo.C'-i:v a r,tn.ff of jmj^ ':i:';', the Conraittee l:p.d to 0T:^:c<l7e itself 
for the pro;TOt lia-.c.i;.r.G of svcli nc.tters as it ni.7;ht "be cabled u-oon to 
considei-. The decision of the •oro'blens -orese:ited to the Coitmittee in- 
variahly called for more ir.f ornation than nas in tho 'ooss'-;ssion of the 
deputv or assistant de-oxity, ard in anj- event, it vras necessarj'- to analyze 
each TDrotle^ thoroiighlj--. Accordingl-,-, it '/as deci6.ed by the ComiMittee (*) 
that the Chairjaan should assign in rotation to the several rnenljers of the 
Connittee the -oreTjaration of suanaries s.rd reports on the cases that a.rose. 
It rras ;olair-.ed to circiilate copies of these re-oorts among the nemhers a 
da,^.' or so "before the ne::t .neeting, to ^ive then an op"oort\i:iity to acotiaint 
themselves trith the iss\ies r,]-.d if possihle arrive at a concliision. 

This arran:;;enept did not vji-ove satisfactory for the reason that the 
me iters of the Connittee T/ere all too busy rath other matters. Finally, 
the Departiiient of Lahor assigned an aide to the Chairman of the Ilone'jork 
Connittee to relieve him of the load rf corres-oondeice , and to cooperate 
vrith him in the preparation for n?nb9rs of the Connittee of analyses and 
sunnaries of the various cases. "Hach reocrt contained the Chairman's recon- 
nendations regardi.v; the dis-oosition of the, 

Formulation of St3.ndo.rds 

Thou,-^h each case that c;;-ne hefore the Coniuttee \7as considered on its 
individual narits, the reioorts rendered hy the Connittee and the recoranenda- 
tions nado siig-rested a number of .^uiding principles, T'le need of accurate 
information vs.s stressed reoeaiLodly. Thus, men the Fresh Water pearl 
Button Code Axithoritj'- (**) (autliorized hy the co6.e to fix piece rates for 
cardiiYj "buttons in h^nes, rith the aoproval -"f the Administrator) submitted 
certain homevrorl: -oioco rates (***) to the Administration for official ap- 
proval, the. ComT.-iittee declined to ta're any action unless further informa- 
tion TTas subnitted. {■■■■^■**) Th- evidence Tjresentad b];- the Code Authority at 
a public hearing held on these rat^s Tras analj'-sed oj the Connittee and found 
to be inadequate. (*****) A fiold investigator ras sent out by the De- 

(*) ;!inutes of Keetirg lo, 6, -o, 2, ItRA Homevrork Connittee. 

(**) Code I'O, 310, approved Eebrao-ry 26, 1SZ4. 

(***) Onl-^ thr- rates, tlienselves vrere subnitted to the Connittee; there 

rras no erolaration of tbe basis L\pon vhich.the rates rere fix- 
ed; no figiires to shov r'ho,t the '"■f tiie hone'Torker of 
• soeod vrotild be. at these rates, etc, 

(****) I'enorandun to iir. i.I, D. Vincent,, then Assistant Deputy Adr.iin- 
istrator, from ITPJl Ilome'r^ork Connittee, July 27, 1934, 

('*****) "i lenorandirn to menbers of the Hononork Connittee from 0. W. 
?L0senz'7eig, Chairman, July 20, l'r34, in re Plone^^ork Piece 
Rates — Fresh Water Peo,rl Button Code, 


-oartMPnt oi LalDor to gather the :iecer,Gary cata, c.r'd. the C'^de Axithority ^-ro.s 
ashad certain qiiertions rsj^ardin,:; "tlte "basis us.'d in establishing the -pro- 
posed rates; also ■'jhether, since the hearing, the -oro^osscj -oiece rates have 
■been tested to see hov imch they 3-ield in hourly earnings." (*) Finally, 
the Gom.iittee recoiru-iended approval of t];e -oro-iosed rates for a trial -oeriod 
of t'ro months, szid. also recoanended that "the Deputy... request the Industry 
to subnit -aroduction 8,nd other record-S irhich trauld help the Conriitt'ee... 
to estinate the effect '^f the ne-^r ratQS," (**) iluraerous instances arose in 
'.Thich the Conr.iittee delayed, making reconnendations until it had. obtained 
fvller or nore accurate information about a particular situation. In this 
connection the State labor departneiits r;ere of consid.erable as^^'istance, 
especis-llj- those in reT:, York and Pennsylva-nia. 

In ir.dustrles vhero honerrork vras not ijrohioited , the Comittee in- 
sisted that careful safogu.r.rds be f.iro^'n abo-^-t the use of homework labor 
to eliminate as many of the evils of the system as possible. 7or ercaiTole, 
a nunber of firms in Te:-:3s vro.ei- the Infants' and Children's TJear Code 
(***) ■"Thich had been granted e::eniotions from the ninimujn r.'a;5;e -orovisions 
01 the code, (****) to submit a plan for the control of hone-'ork. The 
Com.mittee recommended that the plan nhich vas finally offered be rejected 
because "it falls to set Up any :-;athod designed to enforce observance of 
rates fined in the e:;e'V)tion order, or to obtain con.r)liance i-'ith the child 
labor orovisions of the C-^de, r id fails to orescribe a method for deter- 
mining the amouiit of v^orl: an efficient vorl^er earning the... minimtun can 
prodxice in 40 hours of -'orl' in a factory". (*=»=***) j,-. a similar situa- 
tion in the I^lrnit^^re I: dustry, the Go-r:!ittco insisted r:oon certain safe- 
guards if homerorJ: T;as to continue. (******) 

It must be kept in mind that the -oreso.rice of a prohibition of home- 
nork in a nwnber of codes ras a fact, or rather a -oolic"', i^hich the Com- 
mittee as a i-'hole had to accei^t, -nrohibitor;- -orovisio'.s being alreadT-- in 
these c-ides -Taen the Corimittee vf.b ''stabl' shed. G-enerall--, hoi-ever, the 
Committee -^o.s not o-yosed to this r)olicy. 
— — _ . . 

(**) ""emorandum to hr, U. D. Vincent, Di-^'ision ildninistrator, from 

0. T7. Hof.ensweig, Chairman, "116. nojir'^'er^-: Cor,nittee, August 10, 

(***) Code To. 37o, 9.pproved i.iarch 27, IT'S-I-, rtiich prohibited homework 

on].y T^liere done on sei/^ing machines. 

(****) :3y Adrdnistrative 03:-der 3?3-5. 

(*****) I.Iemorandun to hr. B.. Tl, C^oooiilieim, 3:r5cutive Assistant, A-onarel 
Section from hrLA Homei-rork Committee, July 27, 1934, Subject: 
"Iorae\7ork re certain meimfacturers of infants' and children's 
uear in Te:-:as. 

(******) Sec Charo, II, -0-.. 34 ti 45 . 



I?or 50--0 ti-ie vytev the ir,T.i.r-"GG of Office Orr' IV. ^o, f . e :ievie'.7 
Divislo:-- (*) ni the ITJl :..-eav-ireu that p. a3V.0T0x.d.\m fron the Ilonenorh Con- 
-ntteo (to Rh.o^- thr.t it teen concstated) Td3 included rith the c'oCTjnsnts 
forwarded ^Ith each adni-iisti-P-tive order in the last sta^e "before its ap- 
■oroval.. 3tit this -iractice vp.p. fiscojitimied as the nunljer of liome\7ork -oro- 
tleras reoiiiriiic official attention ncr.ed and the nwiher -^f lar.^;er proolens 
of code adiinistratioii incrisased. 


ITrou its ver7 inceiDtio?i the iIRA Coiriittee iran heset Toy practically 
instirniOT-uataole difficulties. It has already- he.^n noted that the menters of 
the Co::nittee were so nuch occvipied with other natters that they had little 
tine or energy;' left for fornint^ careful o-oir.ions on honsT^oi-k problems. The 
Chairnan of the Coriinittee was mi assistar.t deputy vrho dnrir,g the -oealt of 
code congestion vras res-oorsilile for sorae twelve or thirteen codes in addi- 
tion to his honeworl: duties, VTik -orocediu-e reouired every Board to pass 
judgment upon an industry proposal or retn^est. "There are too nany Boards 
to consvit" was the conplaint of nany trade association executives, and a 
nujnher --^f dep^Aties shared this oiDii.ion. Accordingly, sovie of the 6.e-w.ties 
in charge of codes under which hoiaewor]- proo?.ens vrore arising "began to feel 
that the ISA Ilonework Comiiittee vra,s "just another Board" - i.e., an added 
obstacle tc efficient aininistration. As a result hone'-or]: problems drift- 
ed away fron the central, coordinated handling of the Coraiuttee, and began 
to "be dealt '-dth individual!;- by the deputies and their advisers. 

In adcition, it umst be i^ointed out that the Cort:ittee was utterly 
without the facilities necessary for proper fujictioning. It lacked even 
so elementary a requirenent as secretarirl help. The dearth of basic in- 
formation on hone\'ork was a constant handicap. In numerous instances, if 
there had been a field staff E-vailable, it could have been used to gather 
specific data in connection with oartictilax homework problems which the 
Comnittee was called upon to consider. Of course, the offices of the state 
conr)liance directors maintained staffs of investigators, b^^t these staffs 
were usually under-manned and over-worked; they had little tine for in- 
vestigfitions having no imiediate bearirg upon their compliance activities. 
Besides, the kind of information which the Committee needed (regarding, for 
example, the productivitj'- of honeworkers, the setting of piecework rates 
to yield a certain minimmi hou.rly rate, actxial earnings on the basis of 
trial rates, tine studies, nricc and quality, etc.) was technical in nature 
and could be obtained onl;- by snccially trained field workers. (**) 

(*) It was the function of the Review Division to c'neck all papers 
as to form — ■ to see thr.t there were no mechanical faults, and 
&,s to substance — to see that what was being done " was not in- 
consistent with established policy." 

(**) It shotxld be noted however, that in several ira^^ortant instances 
alread;- mentioned (see also Appendix G) the services of IJ. S, 
Bepartne; t of Labor investigators were utilised in connection with 
homework problems. But the Department's small field staff was 
ordinarily too busy with its own ^-ork to be used regularly by the 

Sone of tlie Co-T.ut b?e' ? J.ifi'ic^ilti.-TS arose -from the code s^'-stem itself, 
C^der, i-'?re looked -uoon Jis vcranta.rj'- a.^reeraentr., 'vol-Ti.ntnrily r.ulDni 1 1 ad "bv a 
"tralj"- repi-esantative" -oortion of the ino-iiEtr". Th.-^u"'!; t::3 Act £^av8 the 
Fresideut t)0'7er to a'^end co6.3s by cfincelline; cr modifyin.'; "his an-oroval of 
tills Code or any conditions i:Tjosed bv hin inon uis a-o-onval thereof", the 
Administration was relucta-vit to this oow-jr. A loro-oosec code amenurient 
ori.?;inatin>i5 \7ith a demity or 'nie of th,-; toa-rds, for e:-:araole, Tras seldom 
a-^-oroved Trithoiit the "assent" of the i^idustr;/ and this '■ran not al-Tays freely 
given. Thus, on one occasion, the Coti littee in'-^r-nally decided that the 
lack of uniformity in the hone^-orl- ■nnvisi'-ns o'^' a nunher of codes cover- 
in? related a-oi-iP,rel industries, whidi ■'Ts cni'iin^^ ac'jninistrative confusion 
and defeating C0ia-olia.nce (*), could easilv be rei-iedied if a uniform pro- 
hibition of honer"^rk rere i-ritten into these cod^.s. -The CoiTunittee realized, 
hov'ver, that rs lon?:^ as thos" i dustries ^v ch -T^.n-r^iitted ho^ie-'ork i'ad an 
advantare to ■^ain from its co;iti:iua.:ce, t-.'='y '-'ould refuE3 to consent to 
any pro-oosal f or itn prohibition and tlj^s frustrat3 any: recommendation of 
the Committee to that effect. The dile— na ^—r en th.^ Coni-nittee -faced •7as 
that on the one hand, it 'va.s not -oos- ibl e to obtain •th?- assent of the af- 
fected industries. and on f-.e ot.ier, tjat the/'A-d-rinistration "ould not im- 
uose the prohibition. 

For these r^as-^r.s ad beca.'u.e -^f certrirL i:■!^ernal dissension (more 
Toersonal than official (**)) the ''..l . ' •■ .1 influence of the Commit- 
tee dmndled until it -'aE redn.ced to r er' ^ .' nv jn.-.l ezistOi.ce. A few 

(*) 7or coT/olete details, see Chae. II, -to. J54_. 

(**) haturally, the lat'oor me'ibers if t; e Conuttee lined ui^ a^q^ainst 
hone'7ork, Th2 Consumer r ^' !i esenta.tive and the lenber a^-o-oointed 
by the Division of liesearc'j, and Plannini;; believed that hoi-ae'-rork 
should, continue -There necessary (they iiit .-^'^"eted "i-'here -neces- 
sary" liberall;-), '--ith s-oacia.l emi-^h.asis -a, ion imoroving rates for 
homeworkers but not to a rioint t.iat "'o ild ifrive the commor'ity 
out of the -Market by rBason of -orohibitive -orice 
That the Consumer -nember did. -not s-oea'- iJie senti-aents of the 
Cons-ir-iers' Advisory 3oa:.-d is eviderceci by the resoluti'-in on home- 
Tiork v.-hich it ado-oted. The Divisi-n e:^ Research a^'.d Planning 
never adoTjted an official attitude to^-ards ho-ieii^^rk, Ho^-'ever, 
the ^oosition taken b"-- its reioresentative on t: e Committee was 
in every case concurred in by l^er imriediatt; s-iroervisor. 
(3oe Cha-^o. I, -pi. ^' , ) 

months bef'^re the ejroiratiin dpte of the If.I.R.A,, tha Committee had ex- 
pected to draft a reoort recoranencline inodel honenork -orovisions for use 
diiring an ai^'tici-oated "oeriod -^f co6e revision, out in •'-ie'^ of the -ancer- 
tainty T7hich "orevailed just nrior the Schechter decision, the Committee 
suspended all its activities. 

Had the Committee had the o-o-^ortunity to co-'tinue its work, there 
is little douht that it r^ould have gone far IJorrarc's the accom-olishment 
of a numher of -ourooses for which it was estahlished. It would have 
further defined standards for the de-outies in the treatment of homework 
prohlems; all unusual cases for which no precedent had "been set the Com- 
mittee would have handled itself. It would have educated the DeiDuties 
to the necessity for adeauate information in the handling of homework 
problems. And finally it would have urged UTDOn the ITRA a policy looking 
towards greater uniformity of code homework orovisions. But whether 
such a policy could have heen followed through .without hasic revision of 
the code system (at least in its vol-'ontary as-oect) is an-^tJi'er question. 



G-eneral B'- ckj^r ound 

By iiP.Y 01 19o4 some eif^'nt^'- coder; h-^d either prohioited horaevork 
or provided for its eliininption at a stipulated future aate. Though 
no comrireher.sivfc figures were avpj.l^ble as to the number of horae- 
"'Orkers aifected, enough inior.iation vas at hand to indicate that the 
proni.iition of hoaei^ork vfs iinpcsiRij harcsnio upon p relatively f^raall 
group of workers ^'ho i-ere unable to ''■'ork in factories. In tnis c--roup 
'.■-ere the Thysicrlly disabler- p-ro the aged - those in pour health, the 
crii-oled, and those "'Lo '-ere too olc to st-^nd tti';; strain oi a full- 
ti le joo. Altofethe- , tiiis grvjup constituted net more th^n ten or 
t'^^enty percent of the totrl namoer of hoi;ie- orkers. (*) 

As the number of codes pr-hintins; ho ae-'ork increat^ed, protests 
began to arise fro:i various soiircec. A fei" c^me fro a home^-'Orkers 
who had been deprived of th^ir ■■■o:k. Some ca le from a small group 
of persons '-ho ielt tjirt "it - s '-'ron;- to take p'-p-r from these poor 
people, many of i-iiom are cick and crippled, th? onl,'- source of live- 
lihood they have. (**) tuick to sfize u-'-.on the snntiiner.tsl possibilitieE 
in the horae'-ork situation a? r ;ae^ns of arousing opposition which 
'■■ould ultitiately redoxind to their o-n benefit, a number of Nei' York 
City npnufacturtrs in various inductries sponsored the estpblishment 
of an organization, the ".om" ':^rk .-rotective Lea-TdP of the United 

(*) A p-nnrylv^nia !Dernrt >-nt of L'-'boi '-fulletin repbrts thpt out of 
a numoer (trie fieure ii: not ^Iven) of ho :ie "orkers intervieved, 
'.nort than thi'ee-f ourths j;-"V'- t o j*^" dc reasons for doine; homework. 
Personal reasons -'ere pIbo given. " .ore than one-naif of the 'rroraen 
i-'Orked at hone because of fa.-iily crref> — siall children, aged 
parents, or the illnesc, of some menoer of the fanily — which 
necessitated thnr pr'-sence in ti.e even tnough the home 
duties left time '-.aich thtv could use to rcvp-ntpge in earning 
.-loney ... Gusto i played an i'lipjitant part in t^ie case of this group 
of horaewoikers ... in .' p,oro.'.i:i;atelv 10 pi ^^'•'"t jf the- homes, the 
hone- -or' ers vrere oerso'^s incapacitrted oy ri ason Ox physical dis- 
ability for regtilar f-ctory '-orr. >iOre th?'n hrli of tliis group were 
perrons '. ho ''ore to^.. old to t.tand the st. air of regular joos, but 
'7ho had alwpys been accusto:iied to work and \;ho welcomed the oppor- 
tunity thro..,..;h homework for occupation as "-ell as for earning." 
(pp. 10, 11, and l.<, Labor anr Industry, Vol. XIV, Fo. 4, April, 
1S27, " hv Industrial P'ome'-'ork? ", rtnna. TtPt. ui Labor.) A iV'ew 
York Department of Laoor report :.a.. td upon interviews with 670 home- 
"■orkers states tnat three main reasons were given by ho leworkers 
for their preferring horae^'ori'- to factory work: "56 percent of the 
-omen gave care of children, i'O percent care of ho ;e, and ?0 percent 
Physical disaoilit/ or olr agt.." (p. 6, Special ^.lletin No. 15b, 
"Some Socifl and hcono dc AaPects oi '{omework, " February, 19?9, 
Few YoH: State Dept. of Labor.) 

(**) The aTc:u.vnt ^'•pv. cut tnis wry by one i'^dividual daring a conver- 
sation with the '-Titer. 

states (*), '-hose chie; pur-oose ^•'pb the re-estPDliE-hiaent of home'"ork 
(presumaoly urder form of re,:ml;?tion) in those codified industries 
^'hich had eliininrted homei^oi'l- or .ni/^iit do so in tht,' future. 

It niust not be asau'aed hO'-ever, that riublic sentinient in lavor 
ox oroai biting- ho/ne'-'ork --ps Irclcin^. (**) The iollo"'ing, i^hich appeared 
in J. G. Atchison's '-'C'll-knj' -n colu-.m " .psain.^^t ^n Looks rt Trade," vfps 
p tyi?icpl expression ol an o-nmion nelc h-- aany: 

"There seent to oe a ''ell or/;;."ni7ed i.iovenert 

on foot to have ho::ie'-'ork reinstated m codes 

of fpir co.Q-netition. Already Tatjonrl Kecovery 

officials have' been rpperlec to. and otners hi£;n 

m of: circles ave b(.(:n told tiiat un"'-esf;. 

nome'-'ork afi;ain became prrt of oui economic liie, 

ttiousands "ould remain jobless ano without means 

of suT)port. I might oe --ron^: but I can't see 

this homei-ork pro -^ositi...n irom r-nv pn;:;le. Tiiere 

is no necessity for it and certai'Tlv under con- 
ditions b/ '-^hich industry ii- no'^ oreratinff, 

sucn pr^ctic;. s ca not be tolerated. It is an 

evil that has lon^j e^^isted in our commercial 

liie, B.nd it seems to me that iDeo^ole ought to be 

duly grateful and thankful tha-: unoer cooes of 

fair com-oetition it nas been possible to v-ipe 

out this pr^-ctice alon;-- •■ith s--eat&hop and c.ild 

l-^oor. ■ The 'hone' shoulo bt "n?'t the implies." (***) 
Origin of the Order 

In March' 1934,' the Secretary of Labor addressed the Adamisfratof 
of Y.2A as follo'^s: 

"I understand that /ou are having protests or 
the elimination of"ork iDruvieions in some 
of the codes. iivcellent " ork aas been i one under 
the iv'rj^ to corti'ol hoiae-'or't: and I horje it can oe 
continued intelligently. 

(*) The ¥.>^v York DAILY 1'3.3 Ru'JOrJJ of i-'ebruarv IP, 1934 heralded 

i^"s birth pnd described, its objective under the headline: "League 
in ilove to I-estore Fome'^ork. " The article cortinued 'The Home'^ork 
?rot. ctive Le^rgae of the U.S.', sponsorec oy -the Fational Hand 
Embroidery Association ... is circulari?ing employers to aid in 
combatting the abolition o.i home-'ork ... The organization "dn 
demanc reopening of codes in industries "'here home'^ork has been 
aoolished. ' " 

(**) Of course, as the issues ^^ere defined by WhA experience, -Duolic 
opinion i^p.s later .ore clearly and positively- expressed. This 
•-ill be -lade clear m the Section derlmg '"ith the administration 
of the j:,:.ecative Order. 

(***) He- York r..IL'-' N£ 3 :-UbCOr.D, rcoruary Ico, 1934, 



"Tne Acvisory ;"'.oerc*s ?n( iiO'ae oi tue other 'oer- 
sons ir. the Acrainistr- ti jns pre in f -ncsitior tc 
kno\" the serious evils oi hurae/'orxc e-n^' the bene- 
iitp to "be oDtpired by tne erariicatioT?. .oi this 
method oi breaking dj"'ri inoustrir-l f-tandF.rde. 
The Labor Advisory: Bo.-^rd and the Dep'^itraent oi 
Labor -"il?. Dotn be heliDfLil ---ith o-iinons pnd 
knoTfled^e on this subject. 

"Sirce the codes have f-one irto eiiec'. , I have 
-etched closely th': onerption of the hcne'^orl-T 
Troviaions pnc so far thc^ retconse from the 
States has been most fpvorable. Tl:Le :iome'-'orl: 
provisions of th( codes ought to be given an 
oc-portunity to pi ove their eif ectiveress. (*) 

"The relatively fe"- cpse:; 

hards-aiD shoulc be cpred 

executive order se'.tin^''' 

tyne of control that is no"- effective i or 

the substpndard ■"■•or-'er under many oi the codes, "(**) 

The- Secretary's sugr^iestion was trans'iitted to the^'ork 
Con littee, and y."" lore fall^ e^.-^lEi'^ed oy thu t o rtrresentrtives 
fro.ii the Department oi Labo? , who nnc rrepprec ^ rought draft of 
the piODOsed orcer. In ^tjener-^l, tias crpit follo'-ed tne language of 
the Executive .Order on hpndicar'oet -'orkers in giving to the Department 
of Labor primary respcnsibilitv for the consideration of applications 
for ei^eifiption froa regular code st'^nc^rcs (in this case - prohibitions 
of home'"ork; in the esse of h'^rcicpTOi.ed ^--orkers - miniinura ^-pge pro- 
visions). This -"PS to be accohi-.lisrifcd by tne setting up oi national 
mpchinery "dth agtncies in epch State desiv'nated by the Department 
01 L°bor -hich i"Ould be putr.orizt-.c to co'^sider pp .li'cations and grant 
exemptions in rccordance '^ith its iri. tructiors. The Gum.ittf-;e gave 
serious consideration to the propot.-l ('■iiiv.ri, it saoulc be noted, 
ori-;inptro ^ith the ""enartment of L.-uor} pv c after so'.'ie ciscassion 

'S of 1' ' 

r ivic'ufl 

. I or th: 

rou. 'n pn 

up so -1- 


(*) This uipv i^irly be construed as r thpT the prpctice of 

stpvinr- homev'ork •orovisj.ons .b>.;iore tJiey became onerptive shoild 
OS stop-ed. See On. I, p. 

(**) Memorrniiim to C^en'-ral Jr^h^^son iro;:! tlie Sfcretar " of Labcr, arch 3, 
1934 in le: Home'ork Frovisi^^ns oi the Codes. T"r. v E:eautive Order 
on substandard '-'orkers to vhi ch tht Secrtt.-ry referred vas Vo. 
6606-];' issued or _ebruary 17, 1934, It provided mainly that "a 
person -'hose ear'ning cpppcity is limited oycause of age, physical 
handicap, or other i^f j-raity, ::jpv be e iployed on light vork at a 
•"a-'e beioi" the rainimom estaolisaed .by a Codt), if the employer 
oDtains f ro.m the state rathority, cesignatcd by the United 
Staiies Dep.'^rtment of Labor a certificate authorizing such person's 
tixLojinant at such '-ages and for sucn riourt-. as shall be stated in 
the certiiicptfr. " (7 Codes of Fair Cora^-'eti tion 706) 



endorsed the pronosed ordei- ^--ith a sinjijle raodii ic- tic . (*) ?rer)prptions 
^-■erc mpc'e imMecir tely to iovftc the order to tht Aduiristrntor for 
his approvrl and trarsmittrl to tht President. 

In recOi;nencino^ tli^t the Administirtor rpprove the Order, the 
"lominittee -eve this exnlaration: 

"A relatively smpll nuinDer of laen and ''?o:.ien 
accListo.aec to doinr,' hoiae'-ork are incrpacitf'ted 
lor doing lactory '-'or'.-. oy rerson of injury, 
pnvsical defects, certnii typec: oi illnass, .or 
a£;e, or. their services ■■^i e essertipl at 
in order t. c^re for rnotaer oerson I'dio is 
bed-ridden or an i^yj^lid. In order not to in- 
flict, neecless harcshii-^ or suiierin,!; on this 
gTOuv, the r.>xecutive 'roer is i;n'opose.d per- 
mitting such ^-'Oi-kei E to continue to do in- 
cuEtrial hOTie'ori- under v'rorer saf eijaarcs, 
such as the payment oi' tne same rate oi v.'ages. 
PS is paid in the factory, freeco^Q fron con-, 
tp-i^ious ciserse:, etc. For such ' orl:ers 
specipl certificates rre to be obtained fro. a 
St-'te PT'encieT defif:nfted a?id instructed b'^ 
the United States DGpar t.itnt oi Labor. 

"The Cornaittee is Pif^reed thrt ii provision is 
npce tarour'h this Jxecutive Order to for 
these cifiicui.t cases of persons de-nercent 
upon homei^'or''" for their livii^.g, opposition to 
the present code provisions abolishmq; home- 
work T'ill be lar^-el - eliminated." (**) 

The Order and Its .- e ci-pticn 

On ,lr'Y 15 the -resident signed the order and it vas issued as 

(*) A proviso that -"here a code coverin,^- a food industry -nrohioited 
hoiae^-zonk, the Order shoulc not apply. In other '-'ords, for such 
industrv — no e^ceot -ons. At tne tiiae the order "-as issued, 
no sucn food codes had been pi^proved. Ho^'ever, three subseouently 
came under this cl-use: The Gocoa rnc Giiccolate ; anuf acturing 
Incustrv Code (June 11, ly^4), the Oancy .anufacturing Code 
.(June 15, -1^,^^.), rnd the Cigarette, Snuff, Cne'^'ing To-bacco 
Manufacturing Code (iebruary 19, 1935). 

(**) r/iei!iorpnru:a to C-eneral iiu.;?;h S. Johnson, Ar ministrator, iron the 
Home'^orh Comiaittee, Subject: lieport on a pro-^osed Siecutive 
Order to alio" hoiae-ork in certain cases. By so'ae oversigi^t 
this memorandum '-written on A"ril 9, 1934, '''as not dated '^'hen 
sent to the Aoministrator . 


64 . .. 



In of Con^etition heretofore and hereafter arj-croved, which 
"orovide for the abolition of ho'ziework, the .question has arisen or may arise 
a.s to whether the abolition of hoKework has •orecluded certain persons who 
are incapactitated for factory work from their former op'oorttaiities for 
obtaining employment. 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by Title I of the National In- 
dustrial Recovery Act and in order to carry out the purposes and policy 
of said Title of said Act, pnd u^Don due consideration of the facts and u^on 
the re-oort and recommendation of the Administrator. 

I, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, President of the United States, do hereby order 
that no provision of ony Code of Fair Competition heretofore or hereafter ap- 
proved pursuant to said Title of said Act, shall be so construed or applied 
as to violate the following rules and regula.tions which are hereby promulgated 
and prescribed, to-wit: 

1. A person may be perjr,itted to engage in homework , t the same rate of 
wages as is paid for the same type of work performed in the factory or other 
regular place of business if a certificate is obtained from the State atithority 
or other officer designated by the United States Department of Labor, such 
certificate to be grajited in accordance with instructions issued by the United 
States Department of Labor, provided 

(a) Such -oerson is physically incapacitated for 

work in a factory or other regular place 
of biisiness end is free frora any conta- 
gious disease; or 

(b) Such oerson is unable to leave home because 

his or her services are absolutely es- 
sential for a.ttend?nce on a person who 
is bedridden or an invalid and both such 
persons are free from any contagious dis- 

2, Any employer engaging such a person shall keep such certificate on 
file and shall file with the Code Authority for the trade or industry or sub- 
division theraof concerned the nane and address of each worker so certificst.ed. 

This Order shall become effective immediately and shall be binding xmon 
all trades, industries or subdivision thereof r-nd members thereof subject to 
Codes of Fair Competition in which homevrork is Prohibited, and, to the extent 
necessary to permit the full application .Tuid operation of the foregoing rules 
and regijlations, shall operate as .a condition upon any previous order approving 
any Code of Fair ComT)etition under Title I of the National Industrial Recovery 
Act, and shall remain in effect "Uiitil revoked or modified by my further order 
or by order of the Administrator for Industrial Rocovei-y; provided, Lovrever, tt^at 
this Order shall not apply to or affect Codes of Fair Competition heretofore 


-65- • ■■■ 

or hereafter apnroved for food or allied t)rod\icts trades, indus tries or sub- 
divisions thereof, ^-'hich contain provisions TDrohiliiting the mariufactiire and/or 
processing of food products in homes. (*) 

Considering the variety' of attitudes to'-'ards the nroblera of industrial 
homework it ^^as natural that the Executive Order; should meet vith a varied 
rece-otion. Some felt the r)ro'blem had been solved; others feared that the 
Order v/as an entering wedge \7hich would lead to- the ultimate breakdown of code 
homework -nrohibitions. Still others believed that the Order discriminated 
against those not included, mothers with deriendent children, etc.) and urged 
that the exempted claspes be exnoanded. (**)■ Thus, one group which had been 
h-^.rassed by the homewoVk nrdbl'em for a -lon.^ time wrote to the President: 
"You exceedingly obliged the members of the National Flower and Feather 
Manufacturers Association, Inc., with the declaration of your Executive Order ... 
The ... Association ... voted ... to send to you (its) expression of great 
aprireci?!tion .for solving the industrial homework -oroblem." (**♦) 

; Less optimistic was the Hen's Charter, Suspender and Belt Manufacturing 
Industry. According to the vie- of certain members the President's Order "has 
wrecked (the) homework nrovision of the code for this industry. "(****) Later 
those who believed that the Executive Order did not go far enough denounced it 
as "discriminatory" and "inhximane. "(*****) 

(*) Executive Order Fo.6711-A.10 Codes of Fair Competition. Interestingly 
enougn, a soine^-'hat similar method of handling snecial homework cases in the 
states was suggested by Professor John R. Commons in 19.13. It was his idea 
"that the bureau of homework ins-nection (of the state labor De-oartment) deal 
with individual persons, firms and situations, so that those who could not work 
in the fa.ctory sho\ild not be deprived of the su-rroort gained from homework; that 
a committee be a-Dtjointed by such a bureau ... which could dea,l with cases of 
persons desiring to do homework, as the widely varying conditions of work, 
workers and localities would apnear to demand that the case method be used in 
dealing with the situ^^^tion. " (See footnote Ko. 1, p. 30, Labor Bulletin No. 101, 
"Industrial .Homework in Massachusetts," 1914, Massachusetts Bureau of Stat- 
istics.) The Executive Order on homework used the "case method" but carefully 
defined the standards by which this method was to be applied. 
(**) A number of interesting events that developed from this noint are 
fully discussed in the next Section. 

(***) Letter from the National Flower and Feather Manufacturers Association, 
Inc., J-une 15, 1934. The Code for the Artificial Flo"'er and Feather Industry 
provided for the gradual abolition of homework. At the end of three months, 
the number of homewcrkers in the industry was to be reduced by 50^; at the end 
of seven months, home'^ork was to be entirely eliminated. (For further 
developments in this industry, see the next Section, especially p. 48 et seq.) 
(****) p. 6, Summary of Replies to Questionnaires, G-roup II, Exhibit "D" in 
Appendix to Confidential Report on Homework (unpublished) to the Executive 
Secretary of the National Industrial Recovery Board, from the C'.iairman, NRA 
Homework Committee, November 5, 1934. 
(*****) Cf. See next Section. 


Effect of Orde--- on Coues 

It rill be noted that the order in effect raodif led, all codes vrhich loro- 
} iuitei' :io.-ie"'orlc. The ^'ationn.l Industrial Recovery Act, gave the President 
porer to irn-nose conditions u-oon ? n industry ^vith his a-Dnroval of its code 
"for the protection of cons-uraers, competitors, employees, rnd others in 
furtherance of the -ouhlic interest, etc."(*) This -norrer, to^frether vith the 
PresirJent's authority to "cfncel or modify any order" or ap--iroval issued 
under the ActiC**) provided the basis for the modification of ap-oroved code 
provisions by the President, and accounts for the statement in the Executive 
Order on horae^orlc that "This Order ... shall operate as a conditioi u-non 
any previous order ap^^roving any code ... under ... the ... Act. "(***) 

Briefly stated, the Executive Orde" a-'iplied only to industries under 
codes wnich pr'ohibitep homei-orl:; on all other codes and on food codes prohibiting 
home^70^k it liad ho effect. It provided that under certain conditions trro 
general classes of home^'orliers could cor. tinue to perform 'homework: (l) the 
physically handicnp-ned, etc., nnrl (2) those needed a.t home to care for invalids, 
etc. The reciiireements set forth in the ■ Order may be suramfrized as follo"-s: 
( l) tha.t the homeworker must obtain •■ s^iecial certificate from the s _tate agency i 
designated by the U. S. De-onrtment of L; bor; ( '^) that these certificates 
^"ere to be issued only in accordance ^--Ith the- instructions of that Department; 
(3) that all applica,nts for home-ork certificates miist be free of contpgious 
diseases (in addition to coning vri thin the exem-oted classes); (4) tliat rates 
paid to certified horaeworkers must op the same as those paid for feii6 same type 
of Tork in the factory,, and (:,/) that the emnloyer must register the riames and 
addresses of his homevrorkers i"ith the Code Aut/iority for his industry. 

At the time the Executive Order ras issued approximately 450 codes had 
been approver'. Of these,. 95 codes (or more than 2^^} of the total) contained 
home-vork provisions — 80 (****) prohibiting homework, the others (through 
p-'^rtial prohibition or regulation) P'-rraitting it to continue with some 
limitation or ijmder some control. Figures on the total niomber of horaeworkers 1 
in these industries are linf ortimately not available. From the fact that in 
the Knitted Outer-'ear Industry alone (under a code tliat did not prohibit 
horaeTork) there were some 20,000 homevorkers, (*****) it is clear that^the 
number of home-'Orkers in industries unaffected by the Executive Order ■<."' as 
considerable. In the 80 industries tmder codes prohibiting homeivork, the 
Executive Order merely established criteria f or vBxceptions. That the prohibition 
of home'^ork in those industries ^-as to be the rule to which exceptions mi^'^ht 
be grantpd under the order, is a point that must be kept in mind in the 
discussion that follo-s. ' 

(*) Section 3(a), Title I of the Act. 

(**) Section 10(b). 

(***) The ground i"orthis hnsty -Mirlysir. ^"-ys -nrovided a memorandum 
from Beverly H. Colerrvin, Senior Attorney, ISALegfl Division, 
to O.W. Rosenz'-'eig, Labor Studies Section, Sul^Ject: Modification 
of Codes by Executive Orders, September 2G, 1935. 

(****) The number later reached a maximum of 06 (See Ch. II, p. 34). 

(*****) See Ch. II, V, J±_. ~ ■ 


B,e,q:-alntion of Exceiitional Cases 

With the issuance of the Order, it ras realized ^y both KRA and La-bor 
Department officials that sv^cipI effort would have to he exerted to nreyent 
some ma.nufacturers from using the order as a looi^holo to escape from their 
code obligations (payment of .■linimum wa^?-es, observance of maxim-ura hours, com- 
pliance ^7ith prohibition of horne^'ork, etc.) Thus, it tc s necessary that the 
whole process of granting; exem-^tions to code nrohibitions of horae^-'ork should be 
closely su-oervised and regulated. In a sense, the inachinery set up p'jj'swant to 
the Executive Order and the instructions issued thereunder by the Department 
of Labor may be considered as the first nation-^-ade attempt to regulate in- 
dustrial home^'Tork in this country. (*) Hot all homevork, because some codes 
expressly allowed it and the Order and the re,'7;ulations under it did not ap-nly 
to these industries, but only that -nortion of industrial homework which was 
iDerraitted to continue \mder the terms of the Order. Again, it must be re- 
membered that regulation v-s not the lorinary object; regulation was im-oortant 
only insofar as it w--^s necessary to safeguard code standards against indis- 
criminate granting of exemptions. Heverf-ipless, for the first time uniform 
stajidards of control ^-ere estaolishfed for all St^-tes, and for all those in- 
dustries to which the Executive Order applied. Tlie results of this effort shed 
lirfit ui^on the controversial question "Is regulation of industrial homework 

While it is not our -our-nose here to inquire into the nature of regulation, 
it may be well to consider a few of the more im-oortant aspects of the -oroblem 
in order to understand clearly the full import of the Executive Order. Generally 
• speaking, a nlan to rei'ulate industrial home'"ork must rirovide for (l) the 
control of hours and wages; (2) the elimination of child labor; (o) the main- 
tenance of high standards of sanitation ?nd health; (4) reg^ilar inspection 
to check comnliance, and (5) the ]ceer)ing of accurate registers (names and 
addresses) of home-'orkers. 

The instructions issued by the De-oartraent of Labor in June and July of 
1934 (**) covered all these -ooints and others. The ap-olication for a homework 
certificate (to be made out by both horae^'orker and eraioloyer) reauired the 
employer to sup-oly information concerning the unit of work, the time required 
ner unit of work, the number of units to be given out, and the time to be 
allowed for the return of this, work by the worker. This information, it was 
expected, would serve as a. basis for checking cora-oliance with the rule that 
the "number of units of work should not be more than can be comnleted by the 
certificated worker in the code hours." Further, it wa.s rjrovided that the 
"certificate shall state the anount of worlc which ma.y be given out to the na,med 
employee during a specified period." To avoid the common practice of homework 
eaT)loyers of. making the homeworker iwait around the sIiot) or office for the work, 

(*) The exnericnce f individual industT'ies in the regulation 

of homework directly under their resnective codes has been considerpd 
in Chan. II. 

(**) Mimeogranhed "Instructions for Issuance of Certificates Permitting 
Homework in Special Cases under K.R.A. Codes, under Executive Order 
of May 15, 1934," June 1, 1934, Secretary's Committee on Minimum Wage, U.S. 
Department of Labor. All references and Quotations in the text are to 
or from this source unless other'-'ise indicn.ted, A supnlementary instruc- 
tion sheet concerning interstate matters t''s issued on July 5, 1934, 



or of nuikine: the hoine'-'orker travel p 1or^> dir,tri,nce to ~et the work,(*) the 
instructions re-uireri, that "the employer m\ist certify ... that all material 
"n5 ri-idin.t:s -vrill .be :f-arnipheri, delivered, and returned Vithbiif e>:t) ens e to or 
assist-nce hy the-, rorker. " By these means it was intended to eliminate the 
possibility of the homev/orker's "out ting i : more hours in total than the 
iTiaxinviim nunber Derraitted hy the code for the particular industry in Hiich the 
iiome'-crker ras engaged. 

Y/ith res-oect to wages, the . in?tractionr. reaffirmed the standard already 
contained in the Executive Order, na!,aely, tkt home-workers should be -naid "at 
the same r;'te of wages as is paid for the ra;.ie tyne of ''' ork nerformed in the 
factory. "(**) Many studios had shpvnthat -rnile thr earnings of homeworkers 
vrere extremely lov in the' first -oiace, they ^^ere de-oressed still further by 
the •!-)revalent -practice of em-oloyers makin; deduc'tions f6r lost or s-ooiled 
materials, etc. Thus,, if the Fork T-vas not done exactly according to s-pecifica- 
ticns, the horae^orkei- lost -paj' for the spent or^as reqrdred to dc the 
v'crk over "'itl^out extra comnensation. Often the home^rorkers -naid trans-oorta- 
tion charges incurred in calling for the ^'crk and delivering it. Ordinarily, 
tl.irty or forty cents a -^^eek. ear-fare does not seem very much but out of a 
"xeekly income ranging from $3..00 to .^5.00, it is a considerable sum. To 
eliminate such -practices the instr-uctiohs. s^-iecif ied ' tlia.t not only mus.t era- 
•oloyers De res-nonsible for the t ransport.-^tion of vork materials, but, also 
"the em-iloj/er raurt certifv ... tart no deductions vill be made for s-ooilage 
or for imperfect work." Ooviously., this was necessary in order to keep home- 
workers' earnings from falling below the minimum wage levels of codes. As 
an aid to -checking com-olirnce, the .-■plication for a homei^ork certificate 
required 'the employei? to, state what araou-rit he was going ■ to -nay ner unit of 
i"ork, wha.t was the unit (dozen,, ,-;;roEs, etc.),' ho'" much time it took to do one 
unit, etc. State agencies were -ins trtxcted by the Department of Labor t'o check 
the emDloyer's estima,te of %ime required -ner unit oy corn-nutation of the 
earnings -nossible during the -neriod covered by the maximum hours permitted 
in the code. And "if these estimated earnings are in- excess of the code 

minimuiii wage the era-'-'loyer 's- estimate of the time required per anit should be 
questioned and the f&cts ertablished, as fe-,v can e,arn more than 

(*) See , p. 185, Appendix G. 

(**) An important -t-ioinl phoulf) ue noted here: It 'Tas contem- 
plated that due to the code prohibition of homework (-onder 
w'nich the regialations of the Executive Order were effective) 
the major. portion cf homework in the ind-ustry under such- 
code would end and the work v.'o-ald be brought into factories . 
and shops. Thus, there '"ould be set un a yard-atick by 
means of which propor rates to home^-'orkers coijld be deter- 
mined. This -noint '-ill be adverted to fgain. 


the minimiim wa^^e in the hours permitteil by the code."(*) 

Though child lalior was nowhere specifically mentioieil in by the 
Department; of Labor instructions, the reouirement that "the worker must 
certify that no -oart of the work assigned to nim will be -oerformed by any 
other person" was aimed at this Dractice, Since this was ^ne of the con- 
ditions upon which the homework certificate was to be granted, if it was 
violated, i.e., if the -nerson to whom the certificate v;as granted should 
employ the assistance of children (or others), the certificate could be 
revoked. (**) 

The instructions re-oeated the reauirenent in the Executive Order that 
the ar)plicant for a certificate must ,be f ree of contagious disease. This 
was a matter that couM be checked "with the .assistance of local boards of 
health. The qu.estion of whether to require a medical certificate signed 
by a public health physician verifying physical incapacity was left entire- 
ly to the discretion of the issuing officers. 

The instructions directed that "the State Authority should verify . 
by investigation the statments made in the application to determine whether 
an exomptiton .pr^rmitting homework is /justified under the Executive Order." 

(*) A hypothetical illustration 'may serve to clarify this point: let us 
ta2-ce an instance in which the code miniraiun wage is $ir^.00 per week; 
the raaximurn number of hours is 40.' If the average homeworker can do 
two unites per hour, the rate per unit should be at least Id//; so that 
the worker can make the $i;5.00 per veek or bettei". Suppose the employer 
using a "pace-setter" or very fast worlrer as a basis, estimated that 
only twenty minutes (inste^'d.of thirty) were required to turn out one 
unit. . According to the employed then that Homeworker can do three 
units in an hour and since thirty cents is the hourly minimum, the 
employer would (by his o-'u figures), have to pay only ten cents -pcir 
unit. As the' average homeworker can do only two imits per hour, at 
the ten cents per unit rate, he^ ^frould earn only $8.00 per week or $4.00 
less tlian the code minimum. Suppose further that the employer who 
in computing rates for homeworke'rs inyc^.riably allows less time for 
a piece of w^ork that it actually takes)' estimated timt it took only 
fifteen minutes to do one unit of work (four in one hour) and expressed 
a willingness to pay ten cents per unit which according to his estimate 
of time would enable the homeworker to earn forty .cents per hour or 
$16.00 for a week of forty hours'. This would be — on paper, at 
least — $4.00 per week above the code minimum. It is plain to see 
why the Department of Labor wa? suspicious of a sitviati.on where the' 
estimated earnings were in excess of the code minimum wage, 

(**) On t.iiis point see statement of MR. Vf. S. Eitzgerald, Deputy 
Commissioner of Labor, Connecticut, Next Section. 


The state agencies were urged to raa!ce "periodical re-investigation... 

to deterinine whether the conditions of e: ch case warranted the continu- 

f nee of homework." They were instructed further to determine by reference . 

to the employer's payrolls and -nroduction records "whether the -oiecevork rate 

which the employer agrees to pay is, in fact, the r-^te paid for the same 

work Derforned in the factory." 

The instructions further T^rovided that copies of tlie certificates 
granted should he ke-ot on file in the office of the Code Authority and in 
the office of the issuing t^'ent. The imnortance of this may he seen from 
the fact that often f ictitions names or the names of v ery small child- 
ren are sent to the manufacturers "by homeworkers so that they may he given 
more work and thus have an opnortunity to ' their earnings. (*) 
Obviously, such a practice malces imnossihle the keeping of accurate re- 
cords as to the niomber of homeworkers. 

In addition to those indicated ahove, the Department of Labor in- 
structions touched upon s Gveral other -points. They defined more cltaTly 
the exact coverage of the Execiitive Order. The Order had declared that 
its terms "shall be binding u-oon all tr-ides, industries. . .and members 
thereof subject to Codes... in which homework is nrohibited. " However, 
a number of codes provided for a partial prohibition of homework. (**) 
The Cotton Garment Code, for example, prohibited sewin^e-machine work at 
home.(***) Exceptions to this rule were allowed for aprocess known in 
the^ trade as "turning collars" provicied the collars were given "a 
laundry wash in the factory before shipping." "Homework on hard embroid- 
ery, which is incidental to the man-'.ifacture of cotton garments.'' was 
specifically permitted by the code. In view of several instancas such 

(*) "In order to secure enough work to keep themselves regularly em- 
ployed, women were receiving work under four or five names from 
as many different firms. Neighbors, friends, relatives and"even 
a three-year old child' were receiving consignments from New York 
firms, which were tiirned ovt^r to the rctiial homeworker. One 
mother stated 'I play a little trick on the company, I send In 
the. names of my two children a,s well -as my own. Ey the time I , 
finish Agnes '(age 13) package and send it off, Grace's (age lO) 
is here. When Grace's is finisjied, mine is here.'" "A Study 
of Industrial Homework, etc." Chap. I, p. 5 , n. 1, supra, p. 

(**) See Chapter II, p, 34 

i***) Cotton Garment Code, Article VIII. 



as this, the Department of Lahor niled that "the Execative Order... 
an-nlies to codes. . .which contain in -Drovision prohi ting homework in 
the industry or in part -of the industry ." 

The Department's instri:.ctions re-statod the exempted classes as 
follows: "Certificates are to be is?ued only if and when one or more 
of the following conditions exist: 

(a) "The homeworker is suffering from a -physical defect,, 
injury or illness not of^a contagious nature which 
physically inc^iTiacitates STich horaeworker for work in 
a factory or other regula.r place of "business; 

(h) "The homeworker's services are alDsoliitely essential 
at home to for another person who is either 
bed-ridden or an invalid and neither person is suf- 
fering from a contagious disease; 

(c) "The homeworker was accustomed ,to this method of earn- 
ing a living before the Code prohibition went into effect 
and is too old to be able to make an adjustment to 
f actors; routine . " ■ ' 

It will be recalled that the Executive Order listed only two exemptions 
classes; the instructions ind'oded what seem to be three groups. On this 
account some question was raised as to the legality of the instructions. 
The argument was that while the Order empowered the De-nBrtment to issue 
instructions, covering the distribution of certificates, it gave it no 
authority to amend the Order, which the Department had done by adding a 
third group for exemption. 

As a matter of fact, quite apart from any legal points that may have 
been involved, the Department of Labor was not anxious to expand the ex- 
empted classes. "The exemption is intended only to care for these cases 
of special hardship," the instructions stated. And further, "if other 
reasons were admissible — such^'as alleged necessity for mothers to combine 
work with care of children and household — there would be no limit to the 
applications for exemptions, and the code prohibitions would be nullified. 
The question of permitting mothers with d ependent children t o do indus- 
trial homework under the Executive Order arose later on several occasions, 
and was the subject of important litigation. 

Concerning the third class listpd in the instructions, this further 
observation should be made: Although the form in which the reauirements 
were stated did. not clearly show it, the requirement that the worker 
applying for a homework certificate must have been previously engaged in 
industrial homei"ork, was not limited to class (c) of the instructions, 
but applied to the other groups as well. The opening paragraph of the 
Executive Order referred to "the question. . .whether the abolition of home- 
work has precludc2d certain persons who are incapacitated for factory work 
from their former opportunities for obtaining emplojonent. " (Underscoring 
supplied.) This suggest that it was the intention of the Order to relax 
code prohibitions of homework onlj^ in favor of those formerly engaged in 
industrial homework. Such a construction was necessary in order to pre- 
vent the possibility of a maniifacturer's recruiting new homeworkers and 


thus prepetuating the homework system in aii industry which had abolished 
it hy £odc agreement. ■ 

A few minor points in the instructions remain to he mentioned before 
p, discussion of ths administration of the Executiv*^ Order is begun. They 
are as follows:: (l) The Department of Labor did not :consider any "able-'- 
bodied person under 50" as "too old... to make, aii adjustment to factory 
routine" i (2) No limit was set to the n-uinber of certificates which 
might bo issued to the homcworkers cf any one employer or to the home- 
workers in any given industry (*). The State issuing officers were 
urged to exercise "special caution to prevent fraud... if a large number 
of apnlJcations are rec^^ived from any one firm",- (3) Certificates could 
be revoked if (Ja) the original reasons for granting the certificate 
no longer existed, or (b) any of the conditions VLvon which the certi- 
ficate was issued were being violated. 

(*) The Dcpartmant of Labor instructions issued pursiiant to the Execu- 
tive Ord.^r on handi cammed workers (]"o. 6606-r, February 7, 1934) 
limited the number of substandard vrorkcrs to "five per cent of ths 
working force of any establsilmcnt; usually one to two per cent 
of the working force is sufficient." 




The iiiachinery for the iinndling of a-rplicpticns pnd for the issuance 
of permits or certificates v/ns outlined in the Order itself, which pro- 
vided that the certificptes were to he ootained from "the State authori- 
ty or other officer designated hy the U.S. Department of Lahor." Acting 
under this clause, -the Secretary of Lahor named the State agencies to 
administer the terms of the Order. HFherever p^ssihle State labor de- 
partment officials were selected; otherwise NUA coraoliance officers 
for the State. (*). 

Broadly speaking, two tjTpes of problems, aininistr/^tive and legal, 
arose during ERA' s experience with the attempt to regulate that portion 
of homework which was permitted to continue under the Executive Order. 
The former type centered mainly about the terms of the Executive Order 
and of the regulations prescribed thereimder by the U.S. Department of 
Labor. The latter involved a conflict of jurisdiction between state 
laws and code provisions and the Executive Order. In some important 
instances the two merged and administrative difficulties led to litiga- 

One of the first questions to present itself during the administra- 
tion of the Executive Order was whether wcien with children were not 
discriminated against by reason of their exclusion from the exempted 
classes listed in the Order. "Where was the logic," it was asked, "in 
permitting a woman to continue doing honew^r]^ if she had to stay at 
heme and care for an invalid adult -^r a crippled child, but n't if she 
had to care for a nursing. infant , frr examnle, or even a small, normal 
child? " 

This question had been discussed by the i\TRA .Homev/ork Committee be- 
fore the Executive Order wns issued. It was suvjested by a member of 
the Committee that another class, "v/omen with two or more children 
under school age, whose husbands were unemoloyed," be added to the exempt- 
ed grouips already a^vreed upon, or if this was too wide that it be slight- 
ly restricted to read "widows with two or more children under school 
age." Further consideration made it clear, however, that to make the 
husband's lack of employment a condition upon which the granting of a 
homework permit should depend would be to multiply tremendously adminis- 
trative and enforcement difficulties. If women whose husbands were un- 
emplcj'-ed could continue doing homework, what about women whose husbands 
were emioloyed at earnings below the level of subsistence? And if wi- 
dows were permitted to continue working at home then why not women whose 
husbands had deserted them or whose husbands were idle? Obviously, no 
matter where the line was ultimately dravn, someone or some group of 
persons just outside the line would be provided with an opportunity to 
claim unjust discrimination. 

(*) In 35 states l^bor department officials were chosen; in 13 states, 

NEA Compliance Directors were named. See list of "State Authorities 
Designated by the U.S. Department of Labor to Issue Certificates to 
Homeworkers and Handicapped Workers," issued by the U.S. Department 
of Labor, November 17, 1934. (Mimeographed, llo, 114.) 


Tlie csase for vonen ••itli cliili'ren -rrs cWr/ str.tecl in tlie follo'-'inc 
letter :Cro-; r ho'ie^orlzer, (At. .this point r. note o:^ crtit.on :Tust oe 
sounc'.ec"., \'.c:ay letters frou '-vy..\e''or'.:e::h "reve pro '.ptec., riic go'.ic 'rere 
ui-itten 1)7 enployers. ITevertiieless, -'ie-rec'. even v'ith the neceTsar3^ 
si-epticisn, this letter o:":"ei's c. concioe strtenent --hich cr.rries its 
o--n --ei-'ht recr-rcless of aii-thorsnip) : (''') 

Dear Sir: 

I rri r. 'vico'" -'ith t-'o 'iro'Tinr; chilc"ron.,to s--pport. i'y not oeinn 
aole to c".o '-'orh lione Till wcrn I cr.nnot loo"'; r"'-..:.^ r^ cliili' r-on properlv. 
"hey -.'ill not have -.Tarn "lerls anc". nourisxiin.;; ::o' ". '-,1:,-' i-, ^-3:.p- neces- 
scvy for their health anc. f;ro--th "jecaufio I r - n rt xio. ic ti prepare thei. 
Hot "bein-'; there thej -'ill hxirrp throiiph their -loalG ano. Go-ieti'ies 
not even "bother to eat at all cra;.sin.'; the-.i to "jeconc i].l cnC. necesoita- 
tinp -ip re. !p.inin£; hone to crre for the:.!. If "rere I coi.ilc. '-'orh 
even tho\v:h tliep ^'■ere sic^':. 

It pe. to ":ec-p rrj ho:ie clean, neat anc", cheerf-..l ;rovic-inp 
a place for the:i to hrinp their fiiends anJ. co?ipanion'.i, there'j;' heeping 
the:: off the streets a;i(". out of troujle. . , 

I can also c'.o --lOre -/orl; "becai\.-'.e I have the satisfr.ction of h~no'^- 
infj -ip children are havinp the crre anf protection a, -lother can i'ive 
thevi rrhen she coes not have to po o\it to vorl: earl;- in the lorninp 
and ret-Lirn late at nipht. 

'.ly case is Ei:;ilpr tc ln:.ndredr> of <'-':,.,c.t T:other£. -ho are tr^-'inp to 
];ee" a hoie, sippport the v:clveG rnC thoir chile ren and "brinp tJien iro 
as onlp a ::other ','ho is at iioue rll dr;j- cr.:z do. 

I trast poa '".'ill taho or.r crrase into consideration so thrt..-re na;' 
"be aole to -'orl: at hone. 

Ver;.'- tral:"- :-o"0-rs, 


r-reon Island, p.'::. , 

The I-Ion.e'Torl,: Protective L ea-'''^-' * ) 

The faiTure to incluf' e -oienvith depsncent children in tliC clarses 
e::e :pted "j^^ the !ZIxecu.tive Order l)ecr, le the -"ocal point, of t"he attacl: 
of tlie Hone'Torl,: Protective Leapae upon the a'oolition of !:one-,'or' : in 
codec, r.e^^-inning in 7e'o-jx:c..r'j , lS3''-f '^"^'^- con^iMUinp throivhout tiie life 

(*) This letter -vas addressed to hr. Sol .""loGenljlatt, W.?A Division 
Adninistrator, Tho'ch it '-'as not r.atod, the letter ''as received at 
IITA so-'-e tine in ha", lyM. 

(**) See a"bovei p. 64 , of Section 2 on " hrzec^tivc Order, etc' 


of KRA, this organization, through its attornej--, lir. Julius ". Hoch- 
f elder, engaged in an unceasing narfare against code hoTnework prohibi- 
tions, with funds contributed mostly by manufacturers {*) , and, 
partly by sympathizers — "those v/ho are kindly disposed, to the work we 
are doing," in the words of the coionsel for the Lea.gae. "They contri- 
bute to nay for . . . work in behalf of a principle. — justice to those 
poor women," said he.(**) Publicity and a heavj'- barrage of telegrams 
and letters to the IThite House and KRA officials, constituted the 
League's nost pov/erful woapons. (***) 

(*) A letter from the Acting Chaiman of the Code Authority of the 
Artificial Slower and Feather Industry, dated August 24, 1934, addressed 
t9 the Chairman of the MA Homework Committee, stated: "I am enclosing 
herewith some reports by our Inspectors and an affidavit by Mrs. 
Kathryn S. 3udd, which spealc for themselves. These refer to the subject 
of homework and indicate clearly that iir. Julius Hochfelder, who acted 
as the attorney for the Homework Protective League of the United States, 
was paid and retained professionally, not by employees, but by employers 
of tile Artificial Zlower and Feather Industry." The Hew York EVEIIING 
POST of July 19, 1934, described lir. Hochfelder as "attorney for the 
Artificial flower interests. .. several concerns dealing in home-made 
artificial flowers, feathers and other ornaments." The same newspaper 
of Jan. 22, 1935, told tiiat "The 'dual role' of Major Julius Hochfelder 
is representative both of the 'Homeworkers' Protective League' and 
the employers" was denounced by the Labor Conference for the Abolition 
of Industrial Home Work "v,'hich includes representatives of the Inter- 
national Ladies' G-arment T/orkers' Union and the Analgaraated Clothing 
Workers of ipi^rica." For more detailed information regarding the 
Homework protective League and its counsel, Mr. Hochfelder, sec "The 
Rosenberg Report," Ap:oendix C. 

(**) New York Herald Tribune, May 15, 1934. 

(***) This is not, of course, a study of the Homework' Protective 
League. If it were, a more complete ca.talogue of the League's activi- 
ties would haVe to be listed, for example: the conferences with ITow 
York City manufacturers at which, it appears, agents of the League 
advised industrj'- members to ignore code' prohibitions of homework $see 

p. ^of "The Rosenberg Report," Appendix C); the unsuccessful 

efforts of .the President of the League to convert to her cause certain 
influential women's clubs (a resolution condemning NRA's homework policy 
as "unwise" was submitted by Dr. Hochfelder to the New York City 
Federation of Women's Clubs but it was not adopted; for an interesting 
"situation" that developed with respect to Pr. Hochfelder' s efforts 
to have various organizations endorse the purposes of the League, the 
reader is referred to the correspondence in Appendix D) , etc. There 
is no evidence that the officers (other than the president and the 
counsel) of the League were ever active, or that they met with the 
homeworkers whom they purported to represent. 



■The 3udd C^se 

The setting for the League's first major encousiter with the WRa 
"VPS the Artificial Flower and Feather Industry, for many years one of 
the TTiajor homework industries in the country. (*). The industry is 
Inrgely concentrated in Hew York City, and h'^lf of its. employees or 
more are hcmeworkers. (**). Seeing in the lOA an opportunity to elimi- 
nate homework, the industry through its representatives agreed to ^mt 
into the code a nrovision Tirohihiting it. The Code \ias apnroved' on 
Septemter 18, 1933, and became effective one weeh later. It j. rcvided 

"No homework shall he permitted after May 1, 1934. After January 
1, 1934, no emDlcyer shall employ raox-e than fifty percent (50f0 of 
the number of horaevv'orkers em-uloyed by him as of September 1, 1933." 

Thus, the elimination of hone^crk in this ind-astrv "'as to be a gra- 
dual process, seven months being allowed for manufacturers to adjust to 
factory production and for horaeworkers tc find factory em-olo;</ment . 

Shortly after the complete prohibition' of hcraeiTOrk went into effect 
in this industry, the Homework Protective League selected as a test case, 
a Mrs. Kathryn Budd of Brookljni, N. Y. It w^s alleged that if the code 
TDrovisions prohibiting homework were enforced, llrs. Budd' s "two little 
girls will be forced into an institution and herself reduced to a pit- 
tance." (****). The New York HERALD TRIBUNE was not satisfied to take 
the word of the Leagues spokesmen; its re-oorters interviewed Mrs. Budd 
herself who made the following statement; 

"Late in March I went to Albany with Mrs. Kochf elder (Anna ',T. Hoch- 
felder, President of the League) to protest to Governor Lehman, 
about the loss of homework to the many women doing it. He said' it 
was Federal Law, the N.R.A. , and could do nothing for us. I didn't 
know much ^That it was all about, but I am glad tc help out those 
less fort-unate than I. 

"I don't know why they came to use me in this case," she uaid. "It 
seems to me they would do more tc enlist public s:/::roathy if they 
went to some poorer person." (*****), 

(*■) See Mary Van Kleeci-r's, "The Artificial Flower Makers," 1913 New 
York Survey Associates, (Russel Sage Foundation Publication). 
(**) The exact nimber of homeworkers in this industry is not known; 

no exhaustive survey has ever been made. This proportion must be 
inferred from statements made by members of the industry at code 
hearings and elsewhere. At any rate, in 1913, Mary Van Kleeck 
op.cit.p. 90) estimated that in New York City, which was then 
even more than now the center of the Industry, more than half of 
tTde industry was carried on in tenement homes. 
(***) Art. VIII, Sec. 1. 
(****) Story by ass. Press, New York, rer)rinted in the ',7ash. STAR, Mpy 
14, 1934. 
(*****) New York HERALD TRIBUl^, May 15, 1934. 


TThen questioned alDOut . . . fae le--::ae", the ncrfs -rticle con- 
tinued, "she said she didn't thi:T-: sije \7-,s a ne:ao~,r of it, and rras 
unahle to recall having heard the nane before," Another interesting 
f"Ct revealed 03- ilrs. 3tidd v;as that "oji the Aloany trro pll e:roens9s 
'.vere -Taid . . .She '-'ent t the raoxerjt of her emjlc/er ..." 

:jrie:.l7, I.irs. 3udd and hor s":)onaors, the I-Ionc--o:-''.t Protective 
Le/'.g-ae ?n.d a nunoer of nanuf-.cturers (*), sued for - .f ederrl injunction 
to restrain the State ITRA Con-oliance Di?:ector and the IT. S. Distrjct 
Attorn.e3- fron enforcin.]; the hoie-'or.' -Drohi jitio ". of the Artificial 
JTlower and 3?eather Code pjid other;;. After revr-ral oost"30ne-aents re- 
quested, "by the plaintiffs, durinr; ■""hicii tne ^roiiihition '.t^.s "'->rr':i.':\ll,7 
nodified hy Execxrcive Orc'er To. 5711-A, '. '""■ 13, ir,3-i, Federal: Jud::9 
Corce denied the aovlicption for injunctive relie" ; nd dismissed the oill 
of co-y.-ilaint. (**) 

Thou;,h the --'roceedin^;s -rere no-'^ened oefo.-e ancthor jud;;e, "orac- 
ticE-lly, this effort to restr.ain enforce lent of ho^ie'Torh "irohioitions 
vas i:e:.i-)or-.ril3^ laid aside vhile the ''e" Torh Eonev/orh La"' centered its 
attpcl: vcoo'z mother front. 

On '"a" "5, 1934, Governor Ls'.rian .0 ■" 'Tg" Yorh sx'-ned the "eustein- 
0'3rien Irx: (*"■•*), \7hich v'-^s —1 icnt tc the Labor La-r of the State, 
and oecaue effective on Jul^' 1, 19':M. (it did not a^nl-- to one-or t'-o - 
fa:nil-- 'mouses in tcjus havin;"^- a ■■■o -inlaticn less than POO.OOO (**-=*) ), 
2-/ its terns the IndustriaJ. Co't -i-'sioner of the State Departnent of 
Labor 'rr-.s e'voo^ered to issue ccrtifictos or licenses to hor;e'"'orhers, 
and ■^'^'r'.iits to en'olo3"ers unon -:Da3"':'3nt of -irrac'il fee of $S5 . O'aners of 
hotises -dierre hone'r-orh 7r,s done ',,-o.'e ^Iso re^-nired to obtain licenses. 
These houses as '-ell rs the risidents "-^re rer-uircd to 'Je free from 
conta:^ious diserse, r.nd the hoiase "rnd the articles in 'orocess of rioxi- 
iifacture there" to he clean and smitar", r;o.d each v/or'-^rinj room to he 
'Tell li,;;hted and ventilrted. 

(*) See ::e-.- Yor> Dairy Yavs Record, July £, 1334, for list of 


(*-) liudd et al. v. Strauss et -1., D.C. S.I^.i:. Y. , Yo. 78-129, 

June r?, 1934. 

(***) See Article 13 of the Lahor La;.' of 1934, governing industrial 


(****) Thu\s, thn la'.'Yhr.d -oractic-ll"^ no effect ^voon home^'orh in 

the Glove Industr;- concentra.ted in ,^ nufoer of snail toiTns 
in li^ilton Count--, 


The hone ormer \7,^,s reniiired (l) to prevent the xise of h>> house 
for industrial homework at any tiie 'Then it T7as not clean and sanita,ry 
a;id free from contagious disease, {?.) to keep a, cora-Dlete and accurate 
register of all persons engaged in industrial ho:ae\7ork in his house, mo. 
(3) to "orevent industrial homeovrk in his house e-:cept in accordance v-ith 
the i::dividual honev/orker's certificate. The emoloyer '7?s recuired (l) 
to determine from the Commissioner whether an3'- house to ^-hich he "oro- 
-oosed to send homework was licensed, (2) to keep a register of ho'ie'-or'erj 
era-olo:-ed and (3) to atta,ch to all articles or materials given out labels 
beaxing his name pjid business address. Provision was made for "oeriodic 
invest ion of ever3'' house in which industrial homework v/as -oerriittec', 
¥.0 restrictions were TsLaced u-oon who ni.?:ht petition for .a ho:.iewor':er ' s 
■oernit, the Ip.w reading, "Ary -oerson nia"' e:o'oly to the Conmissionsr for 
an industrial horaeworker's certificate," This, it will be noted, was 
ouite different from the terms of the E::ecutive Order, which crr-efull:'' 
defined and limited the classes of -oersons eli-ible to a'Toly for hone- 
work -Demits. 

Exe cu tive Order vs. State Law '■ 

Obviousljr, the iJeustein-O'Brien law was designed to "oermit the 
contiimance of industrial homework in the State of lie'- York imder a few 
restrictions; it was oji instance of State reg'.ilation of honeviork. On 
the other hand, a considerable nui.iber of I'HA codes covering industries in 
lie'.' York -orohibited homework, with a liyiited munber of exce-'otions -oer- 
raitted by Executive Order, Under both State Ir," read. Sxecative Order the 
State i?Ldustris,l commissioner was authorized to issue the homework cer- 
tificates. The State la'7 -oerraittod a,n7 orospective homer/orker to a^roly 
for a certificate. The Executive Order exce-oted fro)-i code prohibitions 
two carefull^r defined classes of -oersons, and onlj'- those who came with- 
i'n these, exempted classes '7ere considered eligible for homev;ork cer- 
tificates. By which set of strjidards was the industi-ial com: \ssioner 
to be guided? '.That rule was to govern if r^a a'o'olicant who did not come 
within either of the classes excepted in the Executive Order apolied 
for a State license to do work for ?. ma:iufactursr -under a code -oro- 
hibiting homework? Escientially, the problem involved a conflict be- 
tween state law and federal laa^ as contained in codes and in the Ex- 
ecutive Order, 

As the next ste-o in its ca:7riaign, the Ho:;iework Protective Leag-.'.e 
maneuvered into concrete existence just such a dilema. It ./as well, 
ho-'ever, that the isgue was .forced; .the net result was -a clarification 
of the entire problem. The League's first move was to -obtain an order 
requiring the Hew York Industrial Commissioner to show cause why a '.-rit 
of nandar.uis should not be issued com-^oelling him to grant a license to 
the sar.e l.irs. Kathryn Budd to continue maJiing artificial flov/ers in 
her home. The affidavit on the basis of v/hich the order was obtained 
charged that "De-oa,rtment of Labor and ■.'.?.. A, officials refused to issue 
her a permit to do homework because 'Mrs, 3udd's handicaps are not such 
as are set forth in the 'Executive Order' of the President of the United 
States and that construing literally the said 'Executive Order' iirs. 
3udd is a oerson not "oermitted to do hoiaework, ' " (*) 

(*) Philadel-ohia ?J!;C0::D, July 10, 19: 

A short vmile later, the Co:riinsion6r --ctii: --uicer the 
'new State law granted a perriit to Mrs. Budd. This was de- 
scribed PS "the first lics-ioe to be issiied \ the lie" ■ lav,' iThich -.7c:.s 
si>ied ^o'-y ao\-e-r.iQT Leiii-.ip.n on '.ir^'-, 25." (*) It a-y^9-=,rs that ;:rs. Budd's 
attorney (-ho --as rlso p.ttorne:/ for tV.a IIone-.TOr":: Protective Lea^^ae) h-^.d 
sued ror the "rit of iaajida:}ias oerors he hr.d .fd ven .the Comnissio-ier an 
orjportimit:- to pct voluiitaril3-. (**) "In annrjancini:;,- th-t the lic3 ise 
had "been rr-nted, the (State) La.bor De-^.irt lent dnclare:! it had levely 
gone throi\::h routine procedure and tlxrt the le;.-! ■nove h-^.d heen ."-^de 
"before a.ny .ap-olic<ation had "oeen filed," (***) 

On this occasion, it 'irs ann otuiced th-t "h-r,. B'ndd had "von a con- 
plete victor;^ . . . rrhen Attornev-G-e-eral Johi J. ^"Jennett, Jr., riiled 
that the State indiist: ial l;'- re/^^v-la'^i'iL^ -0';-.'sons i-i her circu-^,sb.— .ces 
Tere a"o-o].ica'ble, --t'ler thnji the provisio-s of t'ne .".~,A . . .Attorney- 
General "ennett's decision ended p:i erfoarrassin,'; situ-tion for "'.^.A. 
offici'ls -^nd established a "orecede it for thousa?ids of aethers ^7ho h-ve 
"been '-orhin^; in their hones to suTcort their children," (****) The 
"Jashin;i,ton HERA.IiD decla,red th^t "Attorne^'-Tfeneral John J, Bennett, Jr., 
ruled thrt the {'JRk) rule -orohi'bitin2: 'none ■orh i;i this State (iTs" Torh) 
"by mothers 'aas tuiconstitutional. " (*****) 

That this ••:as a %-ross -iisre'-!-"e?,eat;-t i on of t":ie -^ctual circu-istpnces is 
evident fron the fret tn,'t ^ 'len the Zoneuor^z Protective League first 
filed suit r.^^ainst the Indiistrial Coriiscioner to force the issurnce of 
a honevrorh -^ernit to Hrs, 3udd, St-te Attorney Gencrrpl Bennett ordered 
that a vi:^orous "De npde. (*=;<****) 'p^-ieri the -oer:it ^jas issued in 
the "ctitine manner under the st-te lau, the np.ndpams action agpdnst the 
Connissioner ■:'as ■'ithdrav,-!; Ho'.'eve ., in order to clear uo a nunoer of 
uncerteantie's '^hich hp.d p.risen tne Indujstrip.l Co/oissioner addressed a 
letter to the Attorney'- Ge leral of il'j • York (*******) oresentinj: the 
pro^olen pnd reouestin;;^' p. le^:;al o-oinioni 

(*) Hasain-jton TI-."ES, Jtily 30, r3o4i 

{**) iDid. 


(***) loid, 

(***:^) -:g-. York -ZVn.'TfJ S'J.' , Jul- 18, 1954i 

(*****) July 20, 10 C4. 

(****=•'*) Confidential he-ioran-du;: to G-ener-l aujh 3. Joimson from James 
Co-o, ?.e: ::rs; I'atnryn Budd, I'e:' York Eoiea'orker, Auj, 'i,13Z4. 
See pIso -j, 160 of "T'ne P.osen'jerp; 5.e-:ort", Ap-iendi- C. 

(*******) ATvjast 5, 19.:;4-. 


"The -^roolen rrinies out of du.-.l res'nonsi Jilities laid vnop. this 07 the tens 01 (l) the Sh.^c^^no Act (*) (Cha-o. 781 of the 
L?;.7s of ilen Yorlc; effective AU;2,'^st cS, 19S ) rad (") the recentl:/ 
vevisec. hoMer/orh lrj7, Article ICITI of the Lrhor Lpa:, rhich 'becane ef- 
fective Ji\l7 1, 19S4," the C'o-Tiissioner --rote, li errolm-tioi of bho 
ne'J strte honevork Ian and the social pad ecor.onic -r^ects of indus- 
tri.-'JL hone'.70^^:, the Con;nissioner 

"i;^" I re'.:i-id you thr-t the -^oresei^t hone-rorlc 1?;.7 is 10 fc 
venture into a :^.e:'- field of control out. rarely the nost ro- 
cent revision of a Ion;!' series of ne- sures de:;i~-^ed to ivo 

the De-orrt lent "ooner 



nith th.' 



I't ■ " 

:ia : ov 



this iniouitous s-:'-st 




-\i "■ 


. ,' c< 


I.?.'- -.r-s -massed in 1?' 


I';. ■■ 


- . '- 1 

the r.- 



of it,o d;7. ■ It sou':: 

Jt t 


'■:■ : :• 


. tene- 

••:eht huil'5ih7s to tn: 

rn Q 

r\t r'-: 



th' t 

pould oojToete O'l r.ii^ 


ith t 

' 'lon 

hcin.;* "oroduced. T^ib 

'ae :: 



for the earl;/- neasiir' 

•L.a d 


s'^re prohleyas and cv 


t - t 






; the 



"orn-, "children on i'r 


\i "1 




their hone:' 

; at 


T.'hen they should h- - 

ai\-u :■■ 

■ t ■■ ^ 

- -or'-. 

of ronen; the shoe' i 




cated in the TO^e'd 

■. . ■ 

'. 0-:' 1- 

:.y t ■ 


Dill PS intro:u:.ced. 



ra 'o 



thrt f 


Y'l cen- 

an- hour is rn rrlnost 

St ' 




3 rate for 

a ho 

ne-, that five ce" 


-•■■5r 1: 


is r 



y co: 

irion on 

.e, t 

h - 1 

evea t'-'O and three cent 


; have oe 




as a±.: 


d 0:^ 

the nrnufactnrers. 

"Por nearly fift- y 







-s '-ell -s 


;oresent Lrbor Deo rt. 


a ve 

: OCf 

2a ac 



1 - 

. -o?-o • 

to - 


ten that pernits of s i-a: 







iz.-^ ; !-. 

.1 '-, 


rs in the relation to jt 

hjr -■ 





''l '0 , 



est of the State -.-e-n 


s thn 

t t; 

.le he 


■ h 



■ of 


citizens he nrotecter 

I ?o 

r its 


1 '7ell-l 


ii- ' 




"Therefore, it ame--'-^, t'l- n-, the reseat aosition rnd nolic: 
of the Depart'ient 'oust ' o ■'- \r ^/l ■ . -^ 3 -j':'t3d to he in co.ifor''- 
it-^ vnth this long sta :.' i ' ■ 1 e^ nf- it — :.e of using ev^r" 
nepns "olaced nt its dis-'OsrJ. to aradic'to the ■'7ell-]:nov'n evils 
of hone-.7ork and to e>:tend the field of its control over siich 
forns of it.' as '7ei-e -oeraiittcd to conti'me," 

(*) The Shcaclnao Act •7r.s the st.-te "enrhlina la;-." lb -orovided th^-t 
the filing adth the Secretar,^ of State of a Code of ?air Cora- 
netition,. 3,donted -oursuant to the T^itioru'l Industrial ?.ecover" 
Act established the Code ^rovi'sions as "the standard of f-ir 
co-Toetition for such or industry or suh-division tnereof 
in the State as to tra;isactio-i.s intra-st.-te i.i character...." 


In siui:.iary, the Connissioner levie'.voc'. these facta: (l) On 
Hay 15, 1934, the President si. necl rui Executive Order •:)enittin2 cer- 
tain e:cce^otions to the -orovisiona of the Code prohibitions of hone-.-'ork 
upon con-oli-nce vrith ce-t-'^in co:iditioris env-nerr.tec' in the Order; ' {2) 
under the provisions of the: Schacxno Act, the -"ili:v; of the 3^:eciitive 
Order r/ith the Secrebr-r/ of State had the !?' 'e effect -^.s the filing of 
a Code; and (3) under the 3.-:eciitive Or^er, the United States De- 
TDartnent of Lr.bor had authorized the In' Cornissioner of h'-^-' 
York to iss\ie horned/or]: certifier tes in accord r;ith the -orovisions of 
the President's Executive Order. Tha lette?- closed -lith the follo-'ing 
str.teMent of the iroble i: 

"Tiie question h-^.s -riser, r.s to -..hetn_er or not an a'roli- 
c-.t for a state license ui^der the st'te lar is entitled to 
receive such a license in co-ioliance -ith the "orovisions of the 
State Ian v.'hen the aoplic-nt is a iienher of en' industry in 
vhich hone'Tork is -orohioited h" Code ^orovisions and the ap'olic-nt 
does not corrol-r -jith the conditions cont~ined in the President's 
Executive Order of Hay l'3th, I sh?ll oe gl-d to receive an 
official o-oinion fro:! your office on this ruestion," 

On Aurust 9, 1934, the Attorney General replied in nart ^s follo-js: 
"The puolic ;oolicy of the Strte is fovaid in Chariter 781, Lans 133o, 
(the Schackuo Act) to oe one of cooperation in eff ectuatiuti the p^lr- 
poses of the :~ational Recovery Act ~-id Indust^irl Codes. That "Dublic 
polic"- is not repealed hy enact' lent of Article XIII of the L:'hor 
La'.7 (*) , . .It is not for the St:„te to -do-it a cour'^.e desi..^ned to -de- 
feat the effect of the code -orovis:' .rur, You. pre therefore ad- 
vised thrt licenses for i.iduGtriu.l 'lo: ..^v.-or"', 'Then oroaibited oy codes 
of fair corroetition duly filed . . . she Id not be issued under Article 
XIII of the Sta^-e Labor L? :.', " 

Attacks U'oon Execu tive Order 

'ieanrhile, the Hone'.7ork Protective Lea,:^,u.e v-^.s not contented v-ith 
TThat the ;nress had descrihed ar. a "victor--", {*"■■■) It desired to 
achieve the ssne result -ond-jr the E:-ecutive Order, In other '7ords, if 
the League could not obtain a soecial hone-,/or!; certificate for llrs, 
3udd under the Order ' she did not nualif-^ as a neiiber of the 
exeiTDted classes,, it 'Tould address its efforts towards sec-aring an 
amend; lent to the Order Thich '.TOU-ld include h'rs, 3udd pnl others si 1- 
ilarly situated. Accordingly, On Jul- "^o, 1934, Br. Anna '-7, Hoch "elder, 
president of the Lep.g-ae addressed the- following radiog-ran to, President 
Roosevelt ahoard the U.S.S, HOUSTOr' i-A the Pacific: 

"IIoyi.e-;-o"j-':ers Protecti-v;-e Ler.pae besie-jeo 'py nothers vrith 
ce -endent children deorived fron earning livelihood hec-use 

(*) The ITeustein - O'Brien 1 -;."'. See above 

(**) Th-t is," the ranti. ly of ;:. -oe-rnit to llrs. Budd under the 
Str.te hov.";eT/ork lav:. 



ITRk •orohioition arj"in?t iidustvial homevorl:, ITe-/ York Laoor L?;.7 -oer- 
-rlt:^ ;:o-ie'-orh, -These mothers petition Your Ericelle-nc]- p.-iend Executive 
Or:".er '. p" 15 incltide thei in -^emissive class. The?,'- feel certain 
failiire to include then xips -unintentional omission." (*) 

The '-ire \:rs sbanted to the T.Tiite --.nd x^rora there ref en ed to 
the 'YJl :'7or re"oly. The f ollo'ving letter drafted 07 the Chair;.-i?ji 
o"" the "YLA. Eoyaer'ork Comnittee, approved hy the A'dmiaistrator and se'it 
out 07 one of the White Hotise secrete,ria.t over his si-^nature: 

. July 23, 1934. 

Dr. Anna U. Hochf elder, President, 
Honer.'orh Protective Lea£U.e of U.S., 
10 "Jest 4-Oth Street, 
He-.' York City, Y.Y. 

Dear Dr. Hochf elder, 

This is to aclrno':7led7e receiot of yotir tele£,Taa of 
rece'it date on the subject of the E::ecutive Orcer dealing 'jith 

Before the Execf.tive Order '.ra.s is'-'^ued on 'Ar:y 15th, 
i^^V Codes of Fair Com-Detition h-d aholislied lio-ie-7orh 07 agree- 
ment aaong representative raairaf rct'irers v;iuh the national Y.ecover;^ 
Administration, It vras not the inteition of the Eirecutive Order 
to co'itinue honework but merely to relr3: the -^rohioitive Torovisions 
in order to "orovide for the -more difficult cases. 

Had the class to '^h-ich vour telejr^j.i refers oeen i'l- 
cluded, this i^ould — in effect — hrvs 'jeaicened code -orohihitions to 
a -ooint vhere the purpose for v-hich they -jere desi,3;ned ^70uld he de- 

Very trul'- "ours, 

Tliis letter, it. seems, "rs the signal for a rene'-ed vijor and a 
heivhte;ied zeal on the ^Dart of the Konenork Protective Lea^j-J-e, The 
follo'::in-, story ^ rs :,iven out to the -oress and it a'o-?e?red in the 
Carhondale, Illinois ZIEE PT'ESS on July 31, 1Q34 uader the headline 
"liothsr Denied Sight tcV/ork oy President". The ne-.'s article is 
here reproduced in, its , entirety so thrt the reader ma:^note the ^lanier 
in -.'hich o" ervohasis iDon half-truths the subject of homevTork '.■'as used 
for 'iropr-mda -mr^oses: 

(*) ?v.lly a'TOreciatin-; the dramrtic if not s-oectacular ouality of 

this nova, the Leafc,ue — it arooears — lost no tine in inforn- 
in,' the press of Dr. Hochfolder's messafje to the President. See 
lie-- York TLiES, July 24, 1954. • 


Fe"' York, Jaly 30 - In her hanole Broolclyn hone tod?.'/, 
Urs. Catherine Eu'.ld, a, mother '-ith t^o snail children to 
sivo-oort, ras inforned that President Roosevelt had turned 
do'-n her plea for "oernission to vor]: in her home ni?J:ing 
artificial flovers hec-use "tho ourooses of lElA. cod'^s vmuld 
"be defeated. " 

Sono three -.Tee'is a-zo :^ath?.n Strauss, Jr., the code en- 
forcer in ITe-' Torh, heard to his horror that the st:\te had 
issued a lahor aernit to lirf.. Budd, 'jho has suD-oorted her- 
self and her children "by vialzinj flov;ers since she uas de- 
serted "by her hus"band three years ago. iir. Strauss innedi- 
ately ordered the oeruit revoked. Pointing; out that the 
TRiV did not p.llov/ homework in the of nothers nith de- 
pendent children. 

Attorney Jxilius ¥. Hochfelder, attorney for the Hoine 
Wo-^kers' Protective Les-gue, outlined lirs, Budd's plight in 
a radiogram to President Hoosevelt. The chief executive's 
reply, trpjisnitted throur'h iiis IThite House Secretpry, ".iarvin 
H. Hclntyre, \7a3 received today. 

"Before the executive order (hanning nothers r^ith de- 
pendent children from houe '.7ork) a^.s issued, rapny codes of 
fair con-Detition had aholished honerrork hj .agreenent ainong 
representative nanufacturers ^^ith the :^"[3A", the missive said. 
"Had the class to nhich "/ou refer "oeen exempted from the 'oro- 
hibition agrinst hone'-Tork, it '70uld — in effect — have ^'repjz- 
ened code prohibitions to the ooint -mere the "ourTDOses for 
vhich the-/ Tvere designed v;oi.ild "be '-"'.efeated. " 

"ilrs, Ludd had ertertrnned hi h hones that the -oresident's 
s^'^nnathj'- -'ould "be enlisted in her "behalf and the re-oly -r^.s a 
cruel disamoointnent to her. 

"\71iat ho.rm can it do anyone if I i.7ork in my room and 
nfike a feA7 dollars a neek to keeio a home tOj;ether for ny 
children"? she as'ced "bitterl" toda"^. 

The Chicago T?.I'3TJ";E of Augijist 1, 1934, v/as more original. On its 
front nage there appeared a ca.rtoon entitled "Cracking Bomi". It de- 
picted a huge Brain Truster in can and ;oFn sninging a massive clu"b 
tagged "3"iBA Prohi"bitions" at a small, helnless v/oman seated at a ta'ole 
mailing- artificial floners. Behind her skirts tr/o children crouched in 
terror. The cant ion read: "iler; "JTork: - i.irs. Eathr^m Budd a mother "ith 
t-'.7o children to sumoort, T'as informed that President Roosevelt had turn- 
ed do'7n 'ner olea for nernission to nork in her hone making artificial 
flo'7ers 'The nur/'Oses of LIRA Codes would "be defeated'," Speak-ing 
at the Century of Proj.ress, the Adninistrator of ]^A commented upon t"ne 
TRIBTJJB'S attack as follors: 

"The ^7hole vast humanito.rian surges for the elimination 
of the s'.7eatsho-os euif'. child la'bor are perverted in such a 
cartoon as apneared in yesterday's T.-JBUl'E, rhich advertises 


a noi-e"istent sitii'-.tion to oecoie star!: "oroo" jr-ida foi' tne 
rGturn of both s-.7e?.tsl-iO-os a d cliild labor." (*) 

The Tr.T.'<T:"Z reoliec'. in Innriage nrr^iad o;- o::trene vitv-Deration aid 
a so-.erl"at h-rsterical distortion of fact: 

"This case (the Zudd case) has all the ele'nents to riva^ce 
it an exarxole oi"" the hlixriders of the ;orof essoriat , of the 
£;rand and pett;'- dictators and the inech-nical morons in Uash- 
in£jton. llaturallj'' it has achieved -^rorineace and 'Then G-eneral 
Joh-nson in Chicago again turned to hlastia^ his opposition, 
press and other, he tried to justify the acts of the ourocratic 
rohots. . . .I.Ir. Roosevelt in effect has si-ned a fugitive 
slpve warrant. Lirs Biidd had esca^oed. Gen. o^ohnson dT;--!ns cit- 
izens who tried to help her. The old law ipde it treason to 
refuse to helo catch the escaoed slave. Is thc.t the General's 
ne::t ;jropos8,l?" (**) 

At this stage of tne narrative, industrial ho'iework ?nd the .,'?A 
ente-ed politics and hecazae a loc-l issue i.i t/ie 20th District of 
Illinois 1934 congressional ca;.roai ,:::. hr. VJari-en E. "i/, Reraoli- 
can candidate, criticized the ilEA "as iiavin^ strpjif.-led initiative". 
He said: 

"Over in the s.nall villa.^e of i urva^/ville in th/ s count-/ 
where I ^.jas "born and raised, a little ;'irl tnhes froi' her 
riother's hitciien the discarded bri; tin cans that fruit -^nd 
ve^^etahles conie in. 3y the use of a ' of shears aid some 
oright colored tissue Ocaper sxie np]>3s these cans into flc'er 
-lots filled with beautiful tin anc'. oa'oer folowe"s. 

"Their hea.t-- has attracted Many tourists and she has 
sol'' the'.i to 'Tieoole fro^: far and near for a ver/ snail sun. 
These fe'.; dimes gleaned fron her labors has oeen soent for an 
occasional dress for herself or a shirt for hor smaller 

"Just ■ ecentl;" b:;- an e::ecutive orler of the President 
a similar project in 'aiich a aother (lirs. Budd in Hew Yor'c) 
desired to su'oport her tv.'0 children in her hone, was sto;o-oed 
because of the IIIA.. She now will be obli.-^'d to go on relief; 
she didn't want to do that but is forced into it. 

(*) TJ.ME, August i;:, 1954.' The cartoon was reproduced in this i'isue, 

(**) "".T'lc ratio Robots and Anerican Citizens", Editorial in the 

On. -ego TaII.OJJE,. August 4,. 1934. Viewed in the light of avai].- 
■■<\:^ C-ris, the statement about the President's having signed 
'''■- Vi '-Itive sl've warrant" obviously hr.s no meiT.ning whatsoever. 


"TThen the initi^.tivs of the little ;;urrr--ville :Z^vl has 
■been called to the attention o'" state IIHA enforcer, no 
douot she also ',/ill tie obli^-^ed to discontinue her labors .-^nd 
\7ill lie de'orived of the fe-,v -jeniies she noxr er^rns." (*) 

Clerxlv, this state-ient \:p.s based woon a failure to distinguish 
"betiTeen i:idustria.l hone^orh in \7hich the hone-.7or':er is an enployee, a 
TTage earner in an industr^'-, ?nd Y7ork at lioie -.Thich results in the pro- 
duction of articles that rve sold hy the ho lewor'-rer as ?„ orivate 
entreore-ieur. (**) It already has heen "oointed out th-t a clause in 
the national Industrial Recovery Act exeixoted fron the ap'olica-tion of 
any code or regulation Lender the Act, ho: »e ^.lanufacturin,:; rrhich involved 
the sale of horae-raade ;oroducts "oj those who made ther.i. Code prohibi- 
tions of industrial hone^./orh were ained at e. systen of industrial ex- 
ploitation; the claaise in the Act specifically sa,fegn.arded the right 
and initiative of ho:.ier;orl:ers vho ''ished to go into "business for then- 
selves hy selling the Tjroducts of their o'^n labor. It seems th'.t the 
candidate's fea/rs afooiit "the initiative of the little lAirrajnrille girl" 
were not ;oarticularly well foixided, 

A"o;oarentl3'- not satisfied with such results as ina^^ have a.ttended 
its previo\is efforts, the Honeworh Protective League on AugU-st 13, a,d- 
dressed a teleg-raji to the Preside:it '-rhich described the E::ecutive Order 
as "discriv.iinatory", "inhumane", and "u;iconstitutional because it at- 
teTots to assi'une dicta.toriaJ uo-ers in violation of spirit of our 
democratic institutionsr " (.***) The telegran closed with a plea "to let 
us Iciovf vrhether the alle-;ed E:-:ecutive Crdar stands." 

3"- this tine r^ nnjiber of labor organizations had become a„ware of 
the a.gitation to raodif;- the E^recutive Order in the direction of '■'ider 
exempted cl-'sses. Emjhatic ~rotests againct the ;iro"oosed changes were 
re'jistered with the Adrainistrator of the ITa.tional Sccovery Administra- 

(*) The Chicago TPJI'inO, August 2., 1934. 

(**) See Chaoter I -ox). 5_tD_33_ 

(**>ic^ Telegram to the- President from the Honeworher Pro- 
tective Lea^gue, August 13 , 1934, The 'ooint has al- 
ready been made that it was the purpose of the Executive 
Order to rela.x code -prohibitions of homework so thr t the 
more hel"olesG of forier homeworhers could be taJ:en care 
of. If rar^thing, this wais an hu.ruiita.rian move. As for 
■the alleged assu:;iption of "dictatorial powers", the 
V'tioial IndustriaJ P.ecovery Act gave the President 
po\er to modify codes. (See Chaoter I, Sec. 3) 


Tile Secretar-- o-" Laoor •-r'ote: 

"It li.-s jast co::e tc uy atte-^tion th-t there hr.s 1)68:1 
' a reni.iest for rdninistrative nocTific tion of the Execu- 
tive Order of'i'u:-/ 15, .19G-'i , -.'hich -oer litted aor.e-;orl: in 
SDecirl cases. 

"I conSi.idered the Order cr.refully at the '.t '::ps 
ore-oared. In nj o-iiiion it serves adviiraoly to crra for 
those c-:ses vhich nerit r.opcial atte/ition \;ithout ej-dan- 
gerin,- the social ,:,T-ia3 ..~\e '.p- the Adninistration in 
■arohihiting indii^vtri-l hon3\7o:-l-, 

"I an convinced th-t any relpriation of the Executive 
Order vriil -.esult in nn e'ltire aorov^irtion of bhe hone'orh 
- ronj.ji':ion? -rir. r, rcstor - tion of this fori of incuatripl 

"As iraiv hno'.-, the oro'.-;:"e3s •■''hic'':i h-.s 'ciee-\ made I)-'- the 
/ational He cover-; Ad- li-.iistr' tion in cli- i.;.- fci :;,■ the .■;r7ve 
evils connected -itn in'-j.sto'i 1 ho:!:; . ." ".; : ;. een ^. sonrce 
of gratification to -le. I sh-a;-.] d li' r to va-oress to "/ou 
"!v se?-io'as oojectiori to r:r- aodif ica tirai f.r-.t ^-'ould. undo 
the '-'orh -aiich thj hj-!e--oa"- 'a.-oaioiti jns ia the codes h-ve 
a.ccon-olished u-j to this tia.e." (*) 

The Ac tin- Chief o.:' the Children's lureau, TJ. S. De.oart-ient of 
L-hor stated her josition -p follo-'s: 

"The aro^-aess :i-'fe \y^ tha f-tioa-'l Recovery Administra- 
tion in eli-ii'i tii ; i^a^-.ira;: id. .orV: -"or nianufacturi-'-g 
estahlisbaentrj i- - -■ " - ; ---- of x-^-t int-a,-e"t to "le. 
This S3''sten of .; ' jZ-'zin:\ \ z 'jO';-: for r-rxj 

3''e-rs irides-^re-^a i - a i or of our inda:: tries. 

Child lafDor, u.ns; .- ccr.ditions, lo-a "aa-er, , ?re , 11 
inevitafole -ahen the hone ooco les r -'orhsho-^. A lar :e 
nii-rfoer of industries for ■3rl3'- a.s-in;^' h.o.ia a-oid: ha,ve 'vgreed 
to codes nhich o^rohihit it. '.z:rr ol then are ea^jer to 
eliminate th-is method of comaetitioa, hich ha,s had a 
stran(--lehold oa the indiista;-, 

"I have follov.-ed the case of 13uc"d v. Strauss and 
Con'boji' (**) a-ith interest, rs it re-oresents an attempt to 
orea': doaai tha -:.rohioitions nov rn effect. I iriderstand 

(** ) 7--e c.',p;p Ideation for an injunction to restrain enforcement of 
cario h:;n}dvrork provisions. (See above) 

(*) Let^3r to General liugh S. Johnson from Secretary of labor Perl-inj 
Aw&ust 10, 1934. 


that an effort is being made by the plaintiff to obtain a 
modification of the Executive Order of May 15, 1934, which 
permitted home work in very exceptional cases. Jiny relax- 
ation which would permit home work by mothers on the grovmd 
that they have young children woxild nullify the home work 
prohibitions and I trust that no modifications of the Order 
will be allowed." (* ) 

An official of the New York State department of labor telegraphed 
the followine;: "Consider a:iy extension of reasons for permitting home- 
work under Executive Order in codes where it is prohibited would go far 
to nullify original purpose. Trust you will oppose any such effort. "(**) 
The General Secretary of the National Consumers > Lea^^e wired that "We 
are convinced that modifications or exceptions to Executive Order con- 
cerning homework would seriously impair effecti^reness of control and 
therefore urge that you oppose them." (***) 

In the face of such opposition on the part of organizations and 
persons whose disinterestedness in tnc ma,tter was beyond any doubt, 
the NRA chose not to disturb those adjustments which had been made in 
a number of industries to the Executive Order as it was issued. In 
other words, the request for a modification of the Order was rejected 
not in any formal manner but merely by a failure to act favorably up- 
on it. 

One other attempt to modify the Executive Order (this time by 
'Interpretation") came to naught. On August 22, 1934, the Executive 
Assistant to the New York State Compliance Director addressed the fol- 
lowing query to the Chairman of the NEA Homework Committee: 

"Tliis office has received a great many inquiries and also 
a request from the State Labor Department fonceming one phase 
of the President's Executive Order of May 15th. The question 
is whether a nursing mother or a mother who must stay at home 
to care for a young infant (up to six months or thereabouts) 

(*) Letter to General Hugh S. Johnson from Acting Chief Katherine ?. 
Lenroot, Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, August 10, 

(**) Telegram to General Hugh S. Johnson from Kiss Frieda S. Miller, 
New York Department of Labor,. August 13, 1934. 

(***) Telegram to General Hugh S. Johnson from Miss Lucy Randolph 
Mason, General Secretary, National Consumers' League, August 
13, 1934. • 


is included within the exception of the President's Order which 
deals with invalids cr oedridden persons, "(*) 

This request .for an interiDretation (**) of certain ternn in the 
Executive Order was pro.motly trnnsnitted to the U. S. Deprrt'p.ent of 
Lfhor. Inasmuch as the Executive. Order on homework placed c^iief re- 
sponsitility for administration of the Order upon the U. S. Department 
of Lahor it was felt thet the Department of Lahor rather than the Na- 
tional Recovery Administration should issue the inter.Tretation. 

The Department of Labor's ruling and the reasons therefor follow: 

"A normal infant cannot he considered a 'bedridden' person in 
any literary or medical definition of the term, and a mother who 
must care for such an infant is net in the class ^lerraitted to 
do homework under the Executive Order. 

"It was the purpose of the Executive Order to care for certain 
individual cases of hardship without n-allifying the homework 
prohibitions which the industries adopted to iirevent the cut- 
throat competition of homework. If the exemption should be 
broadened to include mothers with ^^1:5 children, it means the 
return of the sweat-shop with all the evils of low wages, long 
hours and child labor, 

"The Labor Department is now en^a.Ted in a study of homework 
in cooperation with KRA, and the Schedules for working mothers 
with babies a year old or less show that they earned from 3 to 
6 cents an hour, working 27 hours or more — even 40 to 48 hours' 
a week — for a mere pittance of from 57 cents to $1.94 a week. 
One young mother worked 48 hours a week for $1.50; another with 
a 4-raonths-old baby and three ctner children under 6 earned 
$1.75 for 35 hours a week. Another with 4 children under 5 work- 
ing an average of 4 hours a. daj'- made 63 cents for her w;.-ek''s' 
wor]c. These are not isolated cases of the starvation wares that ' 
homework yields. The industrial homework must often be done 
late at night after a full day of household and nursing duties, 
putting a heavy strain upon the health of the mothers, 

"Many of these workers are on relief rolls in spite 

of homework, indicating that -/here homework -.vages are so ' 

(*) Memr'randun to Mr. 0. W. RosenEweig, Chairman' :~Jl Homework 
Committee from Llrs. Anna M. Hosenberg, Executive Assistant, 
New York Office, August 22, 1934. 

(**) In official WA terminology, an "interpretation" meant a riiling 
on the meaning of the langua^.^e used in a code or order vThere 
the intent cf that language was in doubt. An "expilanation was 
a. clarification of the meaning of the language vvhere the intent 
of the language was net in doubt. ("rPJi Office Manual, Part III, 
"Code Administration," Sections 3110-3112.) 



low, relief fionds niast supply the difference required to 
sustain life, resulting, indirectly, iti a subsidy to the 
industries in which homework prevails. 

"Daring a period of unemployment where the chief 
breadwinner is unahle to earn, the mother of young child- 
ren should "be the first to secure relief. It has long "been 
considered good puhlic policy to provide mothers of depend- 
ent children with funds so that they may care for their child- 
ren at home. Mothers' Aid lavrs giving such assistance are 
now in effect in forty-five states. Ordinarily, these states 
do not permit mothers who are receiving such aid to take in 
homework, on the gro"'.inds that their experience has shown 
that adequate care of children and industrial homework can- 
not "be com'bined, 

"In considering individual hardships arising under 
code provisions aholishing homework, it must "be "borne in 
mind that for every mother who is deprived of the opportun- 
ity to earn a mere pittance "by long hours of toil in indust- 
rial homework, another person unemployed and equally deserv- 
ing will secure a jo"b in a factory at code vyages and for short 
hours." (*) 

(*■) Memorandum to Mr. Rosenzweig, ■ Chairman, Homework Committee, NEA 
• from Mrs. Clara M. Beyer,. Executive Secretary, Secretary's 
Committee on Minimum Wage, U.S. Department pf Labor, September 
1, 1934. . ' ■ 



Kaving failed to ootrln a modification of the Z;::ecutive Order "by 
direct a.lninistrative r.ction, the Homework Protective Lee^ue rene\7ed its 
efforts t0'.7ard3 tlie acliievenent of the same through litigation. 
The opinion by the Attorney-C-eneral of New Yorl: in hie letter of Au/'^ust 
9, I93U to the Industrial Co-'Tnissioner {*) nade it clear that licenses 
under the State lav; sh-0".ild not he issued to hor.e-jorl:ers in in 'ustries 
under codes which -prohioited horaework. The Coixussioner nas determined 
to ntand hy these ins timet ions; he therefore refiised to issiie homework 
certificates to those '.;ho did not qualify under the Uriecutive Order. 
The Lea'ue, acting throujh its attorney, Kr. Ilodifelder, took up the 
cause of two wonen who had heen denied certificates, and sued for a-.i 
order to co-npel the Infustrial Corariissioner to issue the permits. The 
granting of the order j- a State Su-prerae Court Justice ;:iet with a storm 
of disapproval fro;: various organizations. The natter -.jas closed when a 
higher court reversed this decision and reaffirmed the 02Dinion of the 
Attorney-General. (**) The issues involved in this case and its out- 
cone will be TTiore full^' c::amined later. 

The Boston Conference of Cert ificating Off icers 

On Septeraber 25, 1S3'-!- a conference of st vte officers designated 
by the U.S. Depart: '.e:^^; of Labor to issue ho'iev/orh certificates un;-er 
the Sxeciitive Orc'er, \;:-,r;. held in Joston, hascach.^^etts. The purpose of 
the meeting ws.s to Llcc:.r,z the probleus which had rrisen and to pro;note 
a higiier degree of -aniforiut-- in local aKninisuration, (***) Practical- 
ly all states in -.-^.ic". ":-o:'.e-,'ork is vadespread --ere represented. 

An interesting variety- of opinion was e:roresc-ed at the conference 
with respect to the rucction of wonen with depo:ident children-. Thus, 
one represent.? tive tsv.': e-.ted that "in the interest of securing grea.ter 
unifornity, all ho^:e-.;orl: in every industry be jiro'iijited under IjRA and 
the policy of grr:itl:\; e:;e;'ptions be liberalised to include widows with 
families to support, ard special crses certifie;. by r.-elief agencies. "(*•■"' 
Another delegate objected to the -nolicy of gra'\ti/.g c::e -.ptiors in any 

(*) See above. 

(**) Sabatini et al v. Andrews, PjV} Apv. ^iv, i'.OQ, 276 H. Y. S. 502, 

■Oeceraber 3I, l?;,!-!-. 

(***) The TJ, S. Dep-.i't- lent of Labor has published in ;iineographcd form 
p rpther coi.riplete suranary of the viinutes of 'c'.ie conference imder 
the heading "Conference on Cert if i cation of :Lo::e '"orker", ■t.s, 
"Department of. Lr.bor, Secretary's Coraiitteo on hiuiruim TTage, 
7ashington, D, C. This v/ill hereafter be referred to aT "Sun- 
nary of Conference Minutes." 

(*=!,**) j,;r.. Charles li. T7ce]^:s, Depity Comdssioner of Labor, hew Jersey, 
■D. 1, Six r a,:;:" of Conference ilirnates. 


instaiice "'becauce tliir. uondod to -..'eaken the prof.'rr; : :.'or totpl p.tolition. "(*) 
The generril concearjus of o^pinion, ho.\7evGr, ',7?.s fa'ijoiT'.Dle to the E::ecu- 
tive Order as it Suood, -./ith no modifications. 0" o' point the state- 
ment of the Fennr." 'Ivrziia representptive is ;or.rtic"-0.:'.:.-l7 interestin.™. 
"Hoine-701-j: is not a jantified phase of industrial . ctivitjr", she said, 
"but if there is ever cur- justification for ho- e-jor':, it is under the 
provisions of the Z::ecutive Order. Tal-te the ca-.:e of one -/ -.Those 
hustand ^ras ill, and -hio for t rent,-''- years h;',d oeon earning enough money 
to he independent, sc-,-i:-i^- i-n her o\7n hone by ^ir.clxine. She co\ildnot have 
adjusted herself to a factory. Horrever, nothinf-; co-aid he done for her 
until the E:;ecutive Or-'e:' uas signed. T]ie first ho::e-7or!: certificate in 
Penns""lvania :7ap issued to her". (**) 

Practically all piccent at the conference a; ;::eed that "It is ne::t 
to impossihle to re^yJ.r-.e the convlitions un^-.e:.- '.:".ich ho e'7ork is done 
^^^ti(***^ 3pe.?l:in.'; o:': one of the re-Tdatious of vhc U.:, Departnent of 
Lahor yoverni-ng i\nder the Execvutive Order, the representative 
frora Connecticut said: 

"Although the a:oplicr,tion hlarJc says no ore hut the certificated 
person cazn do t'lc ;orh, it 'jould be i iposciiUo for any Depart- 
ment of Labor to enforce this 'anless taey had the -.hole State 
police and. :-.ilitia to go a.round and chec-: up. ,.,'_'}0 per cent 
of all ho-iev.'orhers are violating. .. the rule that only certi- 
ficated persons Ghall do the 7/-ork, ... In. one case an inspec- 
tor found that -.-here one jjerrait hau been '.r.ztcd s nenbers of 
a family of 11 --ere doing ho:.-ie-70i'k. ... "(*"-^ •■-■=) 

(*) ; r. 'Jr^ J. :ut'.-:ge:.\-dd, leputy Co-i.-iissione:.- of Labor, Connecticut, 

(**) p. 2, S-un-a--- of ..onference hinutes, Str.te::cnt of iiiss Beatrice 

■;'.va da L'G-oartraent of Labor. On another occasion, 
ir.'O'oos. 1 to 'lodify the y::ecutive Order to include 
.ent children, iiiss IicCo-n:iell, then Director of 
Children's Bureau, Pe"nns ivania '.-ep.-rtraent of 
■. I'ight as -7011 thro^T thie v.diole thing open if you 
in possibly S5 or 90,,i of ^-our homev.'orhing- fon- 
ci.ildren unde-j- Id... "fO'.i. :l.:- be interested (to 
::•:; first home-'/orl: stnd- that ':;e -^ade in Pennsyl- 
E^io-'Ted in this... indactr:' (infant's and child- 
; ;0,^. of the families -..'ith children were employ- 
•e-.-_ ille.^al-.' on the (ho-ae) -'orh". (See p. 52, 
!:e^,ring on ProiDOsed Interpret^^tion to the Pleating, 
id Haaid Snbroidery I...".uutr:- :ode. Vol. 1, Day 
hoveiiber 20, 193^.) 

(***) i iss h.cCoraold, ihid. 

(****) Statement of h.r. '.."ilJ.iam J. 7itzger.^ld, "oyr.t- Com- dssioner of 
Labor, Connecticut, -'-^. 2, .SuiTip.r-' of Co:if cre.-ice hinutes. 

dr. VJm. J. :atT 


p. 2, ibid. 

p. 2, Sum -ar"- o'f 

hcCoiinell, Pen- 

spesking on the ; 

TTom.en \Tith depc 


the 7omen' s anc" 

'. ( 

L.abor, srid, ""_ 


do that, becriisc 

ilies, there a-^ 


kno'v) that the 


vania. 132- 


ren' s ■i,7ear) , t- 


ing those chil-' 


Transcript of . 


Stitching, hon:- 


Seesion, .7irst 




A general dinsu-.tic; 
■Torlc pro\dsions of coc'.ci 
a contributiiv; c'-L-'.r-e of 
in their efforts to ...C::: 
also, tJiat owing to the 
hone-Torkers displncec'- "^■, 

ction -/ith the lack of "o.nifor: '.it;;- in the home- 
nas evident. This sitviation nas deplored as 
'.cziy difficulties experienced hy stp.te a^^encies 
'ister the ICxeciitive Or'.er. It 'jas pointed out 
'hsence of 'uniforn hoiievrorl: code prohioitions, 
a code prohibition in one ind'.strv \7ere cro\7d- 

inf: into other in^\\stries nnder codes per"iittin 
inf pressure on v/;v;e ra', and earnings. 


';?ith r resnlt- 

The representative fron l\Ie\7 York stresseT". 

industrial honer/orl:. 
recognise the inters 
result." Ihe i.-e.; Yo: 
ers to register u:c nr.-.cs 
the st'te as ".rell ac ■•it]"! 
basis of this infor :-ti)n, 
(fron Kew York, of cor.r.-r;.e) 
liississip-oi, and nout/. to 

;;'o;iev.'orl: ilegul?,ti'on", : 
G c/uaracter of the pro". 
St. te Hejpartnent of La"t 
cs of 'lomev/orkers to "tI 
f.^in the state. A r:poi 
■)n, Rl:ov,'ed tlirt the di; 

Ljitersuate asi.iect of 
id, n-fhich failod to 
:r .]. ;' reduce little 
,•. rcnuired manufactur- 
3p sent nork outside 
constructed on the."i of honevrork 

i-an,.:-ed as f:\y north as Canada, 
•he Kexican border. 

iTBst to tne 

A nunber of r,d:ini;yi;r tive problems of lesGe::' i:-.port.-^nce 'jere dis- 
cussed. The question ■■■.oce v/hat to do ^ith cert'\in ho-'.e'7orkers (rural 
home^orkers, for ' c::a: r le) t;>o, -fiile not inca ^ '.:.t c d for factory nork, 
lives! at prohibitive dint,noes fr6:n the fajic:.-;'. ."O' e ■'. S. Dep.artient 
of Labor insisted r.pon r strict i2ito?--;ore;.--t:. o... o:? the torMs of the 
Executive Order to protnct code sta:ii. rrds •vainci; r::i e::cessive mmber 
of e-cceotions. 

ATx interesting- pro 
whether the nunber:- of '\ 
niitted to give out >.oj .c 
by the state issuing: of 
o'.7n discretion refus t 
es to any enployer, '.'':. 
should establish a urif 
Departnent of Labor (-) 
ed for guidance on 
Order" it was pointe,', o 
certificates vrhich -ri /i 
.er or to the "7o::'ke:.''s in 
..individual inst.nces," 
applications \f.\ic.i, i;.' 
ho:.neT7orkers that ciec:^ec. 
The L::ecative Orde" i\:\C. 
to industries unt'^er cod 
enplo^'er in such a;:'. i:u. 
factory, or to e::pand :;. 
CO ipl 'in;^ \7ith the code 
or a contractor T/ho fov 
be pernitted to ci;jn hi 
\7orker on the aro-licr.ti 

b?.en (i.7]iic]-. w'.s to cone ■ 
o::e\7orkers to who^i .V'lY o 
'or': undei- the ■^-cecutive 
ficer. Of course, the s 
issue I'lOre tli.'An a L;ert 
t the :'Uestion vvs 
01-: violicy ::'o" .11 


t beis:7ied to the 'd -:n\: ,■■:•' 

ivj given industry. Po'.-e- 

sc-r's the 'same report, "Stv 

;;;rrnted, wovild h-ive ;':ivr:i 

out of proportion to the 

the exceptions "'dch it :: 

es -.'hich prohibited hoie-w-o: 

ur'.try no r.iovc to brin 

is f.icilities for factory ; 

;'.a'ohibition of hone-7orl:. 
:ierly used as ;--ia,ny hoine-.-or] 
s' :itrie as an ewployer join 
on for a ho)ne-.70Tk -certific. 

ao'f'i'-T- later) was 

er.plo^'er night be per- 
.' '.er, should be li'iited 
:.e officer could o.n his 
z nr.;:ocr of certificat- 

thc lepa.rtnent of Labor 
A report of the U. S. 
■j^'ities frequently ask- 
■ of "The Executive 
Li. 'it the nunber of 
:e :.';■; of any ■ one enploy- 
'01-, "In p nunber of 
:c .'uthorities reported 
:h.c c.-oloyer a force of 
■i' ' of his ffictory." 
■ovi cd, applied only 
.'k. Obviously if an 
■; the. ■ or.- into 'ds 
ii'oduction, he vir.s not 

Vor could a jobber 
:ers as he pleased, 
;!-• V7ith the hO'ie- 

te, for the sii-TOle 

(*) Exceptions to ti-.e I -.dv atrial ■-loraov.'orl: Pro'lbition.s of i'T.A Codes 
A Hineographed . .ulletin, U.S. Depart'ient of Labor, "i vision of 
L:'.bor St;=in0.ards, Jjccer.ber 3, 1935* 


resscn tlmt jobbers f?nd contr'ctrrs, if t':ey had offices at all, had 
only distrilj-atir..'^ offices rnd iv t sl.o'os or factories . Strictly s;oeal:- 
ing, tlie^r i-iere art nenbers cf th.e ■ :! .raf ^ctii.rin^ indvs tries which they 

The -princi-ole was th?t if a C'-de -ircl-.ibited iio;T!e'7cr>. in pn industry, 
then hoine'.7or]c in that industr;' 'vrs to be elininated. The exce-ptions 
provided in the E::ecutive Order v;ere nr t to be used by any employer as 
8 mediuin for the evasion of his resv..^nEibility , '.vhich was to organize 
his "'roduction on a factory basis. The Deo'^rtnent cf Labor stressed 
this point and advised the issuing officers "to proceed cautiousl;'-. " 
At the conference, the discussion leader (*) enr-ihasized the fact that 
"the Executive Order '-as intended for the benefit of the emrjloyee, not 
of the erailoyer. If under it enr-loyers were permitted to continue 
homework, without setting up factories, the ab'^lition of homework would 
be quickly broken down. Certificates should not be issued for work 
from employers who do net have factories, nor to em^iloyers who fail to 
ccm-oly with labor iDrovisions of codes." (**). 

Before the conference closed, the disc\issicn leader called for 
s\3ggestions frov.i the groun which she night take bac'- to the WSA Eorae- 
vrork Committee, of which she was a menber. In res-i^nse to this re- 
quest, the Conference ado-.ted the following resolution: 

"".THESSaS, the State Representatives administering the Executive 

Order en Industrial Homework ccmvaend the ilPJ. for the serious 

consideration it is giving to the control cf this system of 
industrial exploitation; and 

"YfllESEAS, the administration of this Executive Order has strengh- 
ened the conviction, long held by State labor departments which 
have been in charge of St^'te homework regulation, that industrial 
homework should be abolished; and 

"^^-IEIIEaS, it ii3 recognised th-st there exists a m:dnerically small 
grouT) of handicaprjed Tiersons for whom under present conditions 
there may be social justification for ^-jeraitting the continuance 
of industrial homework; 

"THEiffiEOEE, ES IT RESOLVED, tliat this Conference cf State Officials 
on the Certification of Honeworkers urge that the National Recove- 
rj;- Administration prohibit industrial homework ujider all codes, 
■ subject to the provisi'^ns of the Executive Order, and in so doing 

(*) Mrs. Clara l.;. Beyer of the U. S. Department of Labor. 
(**) P. 4, Summary of Conference Minutes. ■ 



set U'-i nqchiner-'- to ina^-e such, ■orohibiti'-n effective.'' (*). 

'The Laiier Decision 

Strangely enough, there ^as no disctissicn at the cnnference of 
the conflict tet\7een state l-r'W and feder;:! regulati^-n under the Ei^ecu- 
tive Order. The f^ct th-^t the questirn had arisen onl-' in the State 
of Hew York nay partly account for this. Again, such a proMem 'tps 
a matter for the courts to decide; adriinistrative agencies could do 
little about it. (**). At any rate, shcrtl-'^ after the conference ad- 
journed, the problem of conflicting Jija-isc.ictir n bet'-een state larr and 
federal regulation ncved one step closer to solution. 

On October 1, 1934, Ke-j York State S^^^^e.le Court Justice Edgar J. 
Lauer directed the Industrial Coraiiissioner of th-?t state (by a writ of 
perem-otory mandamus) to issue homeror]: certificates to tvo 'fomen whose 
applications had been rejected by reason of their failure to qualify 
under the Executive Order. Their cause had been talten u-q by the Home- 
T7ork Protective League vrhich a-oparentl;'- -.vas responsible for the prepa- 
ration of the case and its presentation to the court, (***). 

(*) pp. 5 and 6, Suiriary of Conference ilinutes. ^t about the same 
time (Seritember 26-28, 1934) the International Association of 
Governmental L'^'bor Officials met in Boston and adcnted a similar 
resolution com:.iending the. !Ca "on the progress made" and urging 
it "to extend the abolition of industrial homework to all in- 
dustries." The Association reouested "speedy enactment by the 
several states of industrial homework la-'s designed to establish 
uniform standards and to regulate the wractice with the idea of 
eventtislly eli-iiniting it entirely." Because of the "large 
amount of homework sent from, state to state," the Association 
urged "the federal government to take action looking tov/ard the 
control of this whase of tiae wractice of industrial homework." 
(Discussion of Labor Laws and Their administration, 1934 Con- 
vention of the International Association of Governmental Labor 
Officials, Soston, iviass., Bulletin IJo. 1, Division of Labor 
Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, p. 134.) 

(**) This, of course, did not prohibit discussion of the problem but 
it may sugjest a reason wh'^'- the matter was nr t brought up. 

(***) The iJew York E\'i;i^IIl\rG POST of ITovember 16, 1934, stated that 

"ITettie Sabatini and Pose perriccne are the honeworkers named 
in the case, but the fight is being made through them by the 
'Home Workers Protective League,' organized by embroidery and 
other manufacturers. Julius Koclifelder was to represent the 
manufacturers in court today." The Ne'/r York TRIES, (January 1, 
1935), noted that the trro women "vrere represented by Julius 
Hochf elder, cotmsel for the Homework Protective Lea^gue of the 
United States and for the National Hand Embroidery and Novelty 
Manufacturers Association." 


In principle this case was identical vrith th'e' Budd case. Mrs. Satatini 
and Mrs. Ferricone vers both mothers of small children.. Tlie'y wanted to 
contin-ae industrial woi-k at home — the argii-nent ran — in order that they 
mis-ht take care of their clxilcren. 

The code involved was the Code of Fair Comjietition covering the 
"Schiffli, Tlie Hand Machine Sahroidery, and the E-nbroidery Thread and 
Scallop Cutting industries" (*) which contained a :orovision prohihiting 
homework "after six months from the effective date (Fehruary 12, 1934)". 
Tlie two major groups under the code were the Schiffli erahroidery industry 
and the hand machine en'broidei\y industry, aaid these were concentrated for 
the most part in a small area in Hudson County, Few Jersey, directly 
across the river from Hew York City. Such homework as Y/as done was con- 
fined almost entirely to hand processes conceraal with triinming the em- 
hroidery work tha.t came off machines, i.e., cuttin;^ threads, etc. (**) As 
to the extent of homework in the "industries" under the code, "It is 
estimated that the concerns co:;dri.;; luider the Schiffli and Hand Machine 
Industry provide v;ork for close to IvOOO homeworkers" .. (***) 

{*) Ko . ?56, approved on Fehriiary 2, 1954. See Article IV, 

Section 2. 

(**) In Vol. I, Transcript of Hearin-^s on Code of Fair Practices pjid 
Competition presented hy the Schiffli and H,and Machine Emhroid- 
ery Ind\istr:,-, Septemher 11, 1933, p. 50, Lr. Victor Edelman rep- 
resenting the Cooperative Emh-roidery Thread and Scallop Cutters' 
Association, listed the followin.?; homework operations: "Thread 
splitting rnd/or cutting oy hand; scallop cutting by hand or 
machine; lace cutting; lace making up; and strai;2ht cutting of 
embroidery" . 

(*=*=*) Statement of I'.r . Edelmrai, ibid., p. ol. 'Fae economic report 

which accompanied the code to the President stated "...homework 
operations huve Ion ; prevailed in this industry. . .It is diffi- 
cult to estimate the extent... It has presented a significaiit 
amount of the total production activities of the industry," 
(p. 135, Reijort to the President, see the printecl code..) 



The total mirabex- oi" eraplo--es in all -iTou-ps tuioer the code has heen esti- 
mated as 5,000. (*) . , 

Justice Lauer ruled that the code prohihition of homework was "not 
an inj-unctioa a^'ainst the individual worker. Tlie code seeks only to re- 
strain -the mem"bers of- the industry.. This provision affords no justifica- 
tion for the refusal of the application of the petitioners. (**).. Nor 
does the State Recovery Act (***) offer any vi'arrant for the Industrial 
Commissioner's refusal to issue the parT.its sou^"ht. The Act specifically 
providEd that "nothing in this Act shall prevent an individual from pur- 
suing the voca.tion of msnufal lahor and selling or trading the products 
thereof." It is sufficiently clear from this section said the Justice, 
that while tlie Act is. an enahling act to enforce the provisions of codes 
adopte.d «nc.ei" the National Industrial Hecovery Act, "the le;^islative in- 
tent was- ±'6 restrain aiid restrict the codes from invadin;; the field of 
indl^yadual lahor. It shows a clear intention not to interfere with the 
individual in pursuing his vocation." 

The decision concluded as follows: 

"The code a± the emhroidery industry does not limit the indi- 
vidual from performing work whether at home or elsewhere, hut 
affects only the manufacturer as a member of the industry. 
The policy of this state in respect to homev/ork, as exjpressed 
in the State Hecovery Act and Article XIII of the Lahor Law, is 
to homet/ork, providing the provisions of the law are com- 
plied with (****).... Chapter 825 of the Laws of 1934, which 
added Article XIII to the Labor Law. the last expression of 
le.:;:islative intent as- to the public policy of this state respect- 
ing ind.ustrial homework. (****) 

(*) Figures that the writer has seen -as Assistaiit Deputy in charge 
of -this code, on various papers that drifted across his desk 
lead him- to believe tnat the estimate (which was made by an 
association er.ectitive) of .about 5000 employes in all branches 
and .'-.roups under the code, is approximately correct. 

(**) Sabatini et al v. Andrews, h'ew York Supreme Court, 
153 Misc. 190, X7-1 Y..Y.S. 531. 

(***) The Shac^xo (State ."ecovery) Act, Charter 781 of the Laws 
of 1933. 

(****) Compare these -points witn tnose v.pre in the Attorney G-eneral's 
st;i.tement. cf. See above. ■ 



Ilo occasion er-rists, thereforo, for the o-ort to permit 
any interference v/itli a rig:ht so jealously protected as 
tlie right of, the individual to contract for his own 
manual labor ... . The.. Industrial Coianissioner in re- 
fusing to issue the honie-.7oric certificates to the 
petitioners has exceeded his authority. The motion 
for a peremptory writ of raandamtLs is therefore 
grantedi'. (*) 

The codes did not apioly to, although nji important part of their 
purpose was to "benefit, employes is a point which one is not disposed 
to argae. As a matter of fact, no resi^onsihle National Recovery Ad- 
ministration official ever contended that they did. However, Justice 
Lauer admitted hy implication at le.'.st that the provisions of codes 
were "binding upon employers. If this v.fere the case and manufacturers 
were prohihited under a code from giving out v/orh to be done in homes, 
what would it avail a homeworker to obtain a permit to dp homework if 
there was no homework to be done? Justice. Lauer' s decision in effect 
said to the home\7orker, "You may be permitted to do homework, that is, 
if you can find a manufacturer who is. willing to violate the law by 
giving you homework to do." The Justice f?dled or refused to recognize 
that it had to^ be either the state labor law on homework or codes and 
the Executive Order duly filed under the Shaclaio Act, but it could not 
be both. Por this reason, the decision by no means solved the problem 
of conflicticting jurisdiction; it merely resulted in the reductio, ad 
absu rdun noted .cbove. Obviously, if the decision had been permitted 
to stand, (**) it could only have become a dead-letter; an empty "vie- 
tory" for the honeworkers at best. All of this was apparently recogniz- 
ed at the outset bjy the acting Kew York State KBA .Compliance Director, 
who declared in a press interview: 

"The decision of Justice Lauer does not affect the val- 
idity of the code provisions forbidding the use of 
homework on the part of manuf .-.cturers eng.?.ged in in- 
dustries covered by such codes. The court's decision 
is limited specifically to the rights of the actual 
worker... The manufacturer, therefore, is still requir- 
ed under the very terms of Justice Lauer' s decision to 
comply with the code under the penalties provided in 
the Shaclaio Law and in the Kational Recovery Act. 

"The code provisions relating to homework h.ave never 
aioplied to the worker and no attempt has ever been 
made by the National Recovery Administration under the 
Shackno Law to punish a homeworker or any other em- 
ploye with relation to whom there is some violation 
of the code by his employer. The decision of 

(*) Log. cit., supra. Sabatini V. Andrews, etc. 

(**) As already noted, the Lauer decision was later reversed by a 
higher court. This will be more fully discussed in the ap- 
propriate place. 


Justice Lauer should not be misunderstood in this 
regard. "(*) 

One other point rpased hy thir^ decision merits attention. In 
support of his argument that the Shacloio "enahling" Act was not in- 
tended "to interfere -Tith the individual in pursuing his vocation," 
Justice Lauer cited Section 4 of the Shaclaio Act which provided that 
"Hothing in this act shall prevent an individual from pursuing the 
vocation of manual labor rnd selling or trading the products thereof.-" 
Except for a few words which were left out, this language was identical 
with that used in the analogous clause in tne National Industrial Re- 
covery Act. (**) The point has been emphasized several times that 
Paragraph 2 of Section 5 in Title I of the Hational Industrial Recovery 
Act was designed for the protection of individuals working or "manu- 
facturing" for themnelves, neither employing nor employed by others, 
and selling for a profit what they themselves had made. (***) If the 
provision in the Shaclaio Act was suggested by the analagous clause 
in the national Industrial Recovery Act (pjid the language certainly in- 
dicates that it was), then it is not illogical to assume that the 
legislative intent of the provision in the Shacloio Act was the same as 
that of the clause in the Kational Industrial Recovery Act. The sole 
difference being that the former was for the state of Hew York and 
the latter for the nation as a v;hole. It follows necessarily then, 
that Justice Lauer' s emphasis v/as misplaced by reason of his failiire 
to distinguish between the homeworlrer as an entrepreneur who sells 
the products of his o^7n labor and derives a profit from the transac- 
tion, and the industrial homeworker. who is an erploye in the industry 
in which she is engtiged. In the case 'which Justice Lauer was called 
upon to decide, the two '.7omen were industrial employes; they were not 
selling the pr odu cts of their labor. 

(*) Statement of L'rs. Anna i.:. Rosenberg, acting State MRA 
Compliance Director, Nevr York in the ]JHW YORK TILSIS, 
October 4, 1934. The article appeared under the 
heading "Andrews to Pight Homework Ruling". 

(**) Por the sal^e of comparison. Paragraph 2, Section 5, 
Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act is 
here reproduced in its entirety: "IIo t hing in this 
Act, and no regulation thereunder, sh all ■'^ yeyent__an 
individual fro m -pu rsuing th_e vo cati on af__LianiiaI 
l^oj", and sell in,-^ or__tr_a,din£ the_ prod ucts thereof; 
nor shall anything in this Act, or regulation thereunder, 
prevent anyone from marketing or trading the produce of 
his farm," The underscored portions apparently were 
taken to serve as Section 4 of the Shackno Act. 

(***) Of. Chapter. I, id. 13 Chapter III, n..4G •. 



The fsct thr t manuf-'cturerE under codes prohibiting homework were 
not relieved by the Lauer decision of their obligation to comply, was 
apparently overloohed by the newspapers and others, judging from the 
general reaction to the decision. "The fight of KRA. authorities 
against permitting homework in variouis industries, notably the needle 
trades and the artificial flower industry, suffered a setback ... 
in a decision bv Justice Edgar J. Lauer in the Supreme Court," said 
the New York TIMES. {*) The Kew York JOU-IML of COiv.. ,SRCE -declar- 
ed in a headline covering a brief story that "TTOA is Hit in Court 
Decision on Home Vifork". {**) The WALL STREET JOIIRI^'AL anno^mced 
that "Hone Work is Uriheld" and added that the decision was regarded 
as a serious blow to iTRA efforts to eliminate this form of employ- 
ment. (***") Another newspaper declared th;..t "Justice Lauer' s de- 
cision . . , dismissed the MRA as a regalatim; factor in the lives of 

perhaps 1, 500, joo homeworkers " (**=i«*^ iphe sane jotLrnal stated 

that the two women had become "heroines to the hundreds of contrac- 
tors who employ housewives to do their work" while to the IIRA author- 
ities "they became mart;;A's of a sweatshop system." The article called 
Mrs. Budd "the original Joan of Arc of the worafjn who earn their 
pittance away from the factory." .(***=t!*^ Further, the DAILY 1-lET/fS 
described Mr. Hochfelder, counsel for the women, as "jubilant" bepause 
of the decision. "It reaffirms the inalienable rights guaranteed 
under the Federal and Stt.te Constitutions," he said: (*****•*') prora 
the analysis given above of the implications of Justice Lauer' s de- 
cision by no means solved the oroblem of conflicting jurisdiction 
between State and Federal law; (*******'» rather, it added confusion 
by affirming one standard (the State Labor Law) without denying 

(*•) _(**) ^(***) Octobers, 19rr4. 

(****) . rj-,j^g jjgY/ York D^.ILY lE'WS, October 3, 1934. 

(^*:t:***') J.J- ^111 be recalled that rirs. Budd' s case was dis- 
missed on June 28, 1934 by Judge Alfred C. Coxe. 

(******) rp]^j_g j_g quoted in the DAILY ilEWS and the i:Jew York 
Tri:ES, both of October 3, 1934. 

(*******) By this time it should be apTjarent thrt this state- 
ment of the -oroblem though satisfactory for the sake 
of ultima.te contrast is not entirely accurate. Strict- 
ly speaking, the conflict was betv/een Article 13 of 
the Labor Law and thrt part of the Shackno Act (also 
a state law) which made codes binding in the state. 
Ultiraa,tely, of course, the question was whether the 
Industrial Commissioner should act under the State 
Labor Law or in accordance v/ith U. S. Department of 
Labor regulations issued pursuant to the Executive 


the other (codes, the Executive Order, etc.) in a situation where 
"both could not stand together. The Industrial Coamissioner had no 
choice "but to appeal the decision to a higher court. In announcing 
that no permits would he issued (not even to the two women), pending 
the appeal. Commissioner Andrews said: 

"A matter of public policy is involved in the issuance 
or- withholding of these homework certificates. In re-- 
fusing to issue the certificates, I acted under the 
authority given in the presidential Cfrder Uniting and 
defining permitted types of homework and after obtain- 
ing an opinion from the Attorney General that the 
Shackno Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act , the 
Embroidery Industry Cofle (which forbids homeTrork) and 
the Presidential Order on homework constitute the con- 
trolling law in this case. 

"Whether or not the Commissioner, acting as 
the enforcement officer designated by Vcb presidential 
Order, finally shall be held to have oower to withhold 
cr issue homework certificates under the provisions of 
that Order, there will remain the fact that industrial 
homework constitutes a great and rapidly growing menace 
to industrial recovery, to standerds of wages, hours 
and working conditions, f aii? competition among manufac- 
turers and the health of employees and the consuming 

"Whatever the decision in this case mi.rht be, the fact 
is that many industrial homework contractors employ 
women to do skilled work at parasitic T;ages of from two 
to ten cents an hour; that continuance of this exploita- 
tion at low labor costs constitutes a threat to every 
employer who pays fair wages for decent hours of vrork 
to employees performing that work in factories and 
chaps which meet certain requirements of sanitation,,. 
safety and fire protection and :f or which he is required 
to pay taxes and carr.y adequate insurance; it is no less 
a menace to wage-earners employed in such shops and fac- 
tories ...For every Airs. Sabatini or Mrs. Perricone 
brought to public notice, there are thousands of women 
homcworkers who are forced by dire need to do skilled 
work at coolie wages ranging dowravard from $1.50 to as low 
as $.50 a day for a full day's work. ...The welfare of 
industry and society as a whole requires that homework 
shall not be permitted to be a drag upon industrial rec- 
overy and wages generally!'(*) 

(*) Press Release, October 3, 1934, Labor Publications Editor, 
State Department of Labor, 80 Centre Street, Hew York City. The title 
is "Homework permits to be Vifithlield by Industrial Commissioner Andrews, 
pending Appeal from Justice Lauer's Decision." 


- 101 - 

Tlie Actint," Stptc KRA, ConiDlipnce Director of irevf York promptly announc- 
ed that the KLa was ''in perfect &,ccord" vdth bhe position t?ken by the 
Commissioner ancVwitn the views expressed by him (*). ' Other groups were 
not slow to -..iledge 'support. "L.epresentatives of trade unions with a mem- 
bersnip of more thaB. 500,000 women v/orkers ... adopted resolutions pledg- 
ing the organizations to oppose attempts to restoi'e homework i n t his State. 
More than a -century of struj^gle by org^a".iized labor to abolish homework 
would be nullified if a recent decision by Justice Edgar J. Lauer in the 
Supreme Court is allovjed to stand, according to the resolutions. Union 
representatives at the. conference, speaking for organizatio^is in the needle 
trade and affiliated tr?.des, supported Elmer F. Andrews, State Industrial 
Commissioner, in refusint?; to g rant homev/ork nermits to women, as ordsred 
by Justice Lauer, and apreaJing his decision." i*"^) 

Stimulated if not ius^Tired by the Lruer decision, a movement develop- 
ed to oo'Jain legislation outlav.-ing "homev'oxic in all industries." (***) 
With this object in view, the Labor GonfereixCe for the Abolition of 
Homework (****) at a meeting on October 11, 1954, adopted a resolution 
wiiich endorsed by "duly accredited delegates of unions with a membership 
of hundreds of thousands of women workers in ."Jew York State," by a number 
of individual unions and by the Central Trifles and Labor Council of Kew 

(*) Kew York TliviSS , October 4, 1954 

(**) i'Tew York TIMES, October \i, 1934, under the headline 

"v;o:;eh»s uivior heads ?o ?ig;:t hole'woek - 300,000 ;orkers 

Represented in Line S-ourred by Adverse Dscision by Lauer." 

(***) Ibid. 

"Tile Labor Confr;rer.ce for the ADclition of Homework was 
called into being October, 1934, originally under the 
nrme of the Labor Conference on Homework, but pu its last 
meeting it decided to go quite clearly on record as a 
conference for the abolition of homev/ork The con- 
ference was called under the aus^-iices of the liew York 
Women's Trade Union League, but the s-oonsoring groups 
numbering .twenty-six include local unions in Few York ■ 
City, and also several .of the large international unions, 
the Interne-tional Ladies O-arment Workers, the Amalgajiirited 
Clothing Korkers, the milliners, tne textile v;orkers and 
so on." Statement of iviiss Elsie Cluck, Secretary, Labor 
Confererjce for the Abolition of Homework, Vol'. 1, Pt.l, 
pp. 153, 155, Transcririt of Hearing on Pleating, Stitching, 
and 3onne,z and Hand Embroidery Industry - Proposed- Amend- 
ment to Code, ITew York City, F.Y., January 31, 1935. 



The resolution placed the Conference on record "in favor of 
legislation atolishing completely all inaustrial homework in the 
State of New York," and pledged its support to a proposal to make 
the existing state homework law more stringent "as the first steps 
toward the complete aholition of homework. " (*) The New York State 
Standards Committee representing some sixty religious, social, civic, 
and lahor organizations (**) adopted a resolution which read in part 
as follows: 

"WHEEEAS, we recognize the provisions of t he State 
Lahor La'-' and the NEA codes as important steps 
toward the elimination of an ancient evil, and 

"WHEHEAS, these efforts have "oeen met with strenuous 
(Npposition, in part from manufacturers profiting by 
the homework system, in part hy well-meaning persons 
unaware of its far-reaching evil consequences, nnd 

"^iTHEHEAS, many industries are on the other hand now 
making strenuous and intelligent efforts to eliminate 
homework and to bring their whole process of msnufac- 
ture on to a basis of factory production: 

"BE IT TEEHI^FO'IE lESOLVED that the Labor Standards 
Committee of ^ew York herwith protests the decision 
of Justice Edgar J. Lauer ordering the Mew York State 
Industrial Commissioner to issue permits to homeworkers 
to whom the NBA codes prohibit their issuance, and 

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Committee heartily 
approves the appeal against this decision being entered 
by Attorney General John J. Bennett Jr., and pledges 
its support to Commissioner Elmer p. Andrews in the 
stand he has taken in requesting this appeal and in 
his refusal to issue homework certificates until a 
final decision has been rendered, etc." (***) 

(*) press Release, January 14, 1935, from the Labor Conference for the 
Abolition of Homework, Auspices of ^ew York T;7omen's Trade Union 
League. This movement resulted in tne modification of the Labor 
Law of 1934 Govertiing Inaustrial Homework, Substantially along the 
lines urged by the Conference. See Article 13 of the Labor Law of 
1935 and compare with the homework sections of the Labor Law of 1934, 

(**) A complete list of t he members of the Committee may be found in 
Appendix F. It will be noted that an inijPressive cross-section of 
the social structure is represented. 

(***) Kew York Labor Standards Committee Meeting, October 23, 1935. 



"TliG trade luiion movement is Cetomirrid to fight tliis imports-nt issue 
throivdi everj-- means possible and has alrecdy -ol edged its support to 
Coi.iriinsioner Andrers, " I/Iiss i.Iar^' Dreier, acting Prerldent of the 
Uoncn' s Trade Union Lea:-:ue. (*) She det;criL)ed the efforts to compel Com- 
missioner Andrew's to issue the hoiaovorl-: certificates as "an attenpt of em- 
ployers to break dovm standr.rds built im in the industries. " (**) 

On lloveraber 14, 1934 the Few York TIISS told of another case in v/hich 
a hrs. Rose Deligio hrd Iseen denied ]iomev/ork permits and the court refused 
to intercede. (=•=**) The v:oman \^as referred to, by the Tli.IES, as having 
"learned something abou.t planned econc/ny, etc." Apparently provoked by 
the r?al or imagined sarcasm, i.iiss G-luck addressed a letter to the 
Editor of the ilew York TILIES in v/hich she presented impressive evidence 
of the e:cnloit£ition of homeviorkers and offered several explanations for 
the stubborn efforts to continue homer/ork in spite of code prohibitions. 
Her letter closed Pith the following: 

"At the trade union conference of October 11, the union represent 
tatives voted for fvll support to the aopeal taken b->^ Commissioner 
of Labor Andrevs ?.gainst the decision of Jxistice Lauer ordering hira 
to issue permits in violation of the codes. Organized labor, uhich 
includes thousands of these foriier horaev/orkers, is determined that 
the system which a hundred years of e:r:jerienco ha.s "oroven is costly 
to the community and to the uorker shall not be revived." (****) 

IJew York HERALD - TRI3U1IE, November SO, 1934, Headline: "Eight 
to Eorbid Homev;ork to Come Up Today. 


Ilovember 14, 1934, He.?dline: "Home T7ork Plea Pails. " Cf. 
Appendix E of this report. 

Editorial prge of the iJew York TIMES, i.:onday, i-Ioveraber 25, 
1934. Miss Gluck's letter, in itself an able, brief analysis 
of the homev/orl: problem, is v/ortii reading in its entirety'-. 
For this reason it hrs been incorporated in Appendix "E" of 
this re-oort together with the TII.iES ston^ which invoked it. 






In the nrgument on the n-n-rienl , ".^r. Hocnf elder, "counGcl for a 
grciuD of manufacturers interested in horaework" described the President's 
Ex'^cutive Order on homework nz a "rubber stfmro order." (*) "Hochfeldcr, 
tuough counsel for tne m?>nufficturers , snoke repeatedly in the name of 
'a million women homeworkers' . . . Farther, the attorney suggested 
that the only reason the labor movement was fighting homework was be- 
cause it wanted to or^^anizc more workers and collect dues from them." ' 
He Said V/illiam D. G-reen, head of the American Federation of Labor, 
hnd admitted that to liim.(**) 

The New York Child Labor Committee apnearcd as amicus curiae and 
argued that "cnild labor is so definitely -ui' incident of homework that 
the determination of this appeal is of vital importance tc the New 
York Cnild Labor Committee and to otaer organizations vorking against 
the exploitation of cuilciren in industry . . . T'estructive wage rates 
and bad sanitary conditions as well as nignt work and child labor are 
all shown by competent evidence to be inseparable factors in che home- 
work evil. (***) For taesc and other rp^sons, the Committee urged that 
"the order of the Court below be reversed." 

It is not necessary here to consider the legal aspects of the 
decision by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. It is 
sufficient to observe that the Court overruled Justice Lauer and de- 
cided "by a unanimous vote . . . that permits for inoustrial homev,'ork 
in New York should be granted 'i)y the State Labor Department only in 
line i-dth the provisions of IW.a codes and the President's Order on 
homework." (****) "We are of the o^^iuion tnat tne position taken by 
the Commissioner is correct in so f-n- as he was witnin his rights in 
refusing to grant the permits," s^-id the Court .( *'■-***) 

(*) Few York EVFFING POST, Fovember 30, 1934, 
.(**.) Ibid. 

(***) pr). 2, 16, 17, Brief presented on behalf of the New York 
Cnild Labor Committee, before the Supreme Court Appellate 
Division, in the mntter of the ^-.policntion of Nettie Sabatini, 

(****) Fgv/ York Tli.'FlS, January 2, 193b, ^leadline: "Women Lose Fight 
on Homework Ban - Appellr^te Court Voids Order of Justice 
Lauer Directin.'^ Andrews to Issue Permits." 

(*****) Snbatini et al vs. Andrews, 243 App. Div. 109, 276 ■'!. Y. S. 

502, December 31, 1934. >i.s far as tne writer tmows, tnis case 
v/as not appealed to the nigncst court of the State, the Court 
of Appeals. 


Homeworlc in Rochester and T roy,. Mew _Yp..4- 

In the interim tetween the L;mer decision aid its reversal "by a 
higher court, discontent with the Executive Order on homework develop- 
ed and was e:cpressed in other quarters. Heretofore we have "been con- 
cerned largely with the efforts of the Eoraework Protective Lea^e to 
modify or vitiate the Order. Eefore we proceed to a consideration of 
other instances where the Executive Order was a hone of contention, it 
should be pointed out that the phrase "discontent with the Executive 
Order" diverts attention from causes to sjT:iptoms. In most instances, 
opposition to the Order (particularly if inspired hy manufacturers) was 
based upon an underlying antagonism to the prohibition of homework — 
and more, upon a positive desire to continue the homework system as 
long as there was some gain in it. For t]ie most part finding fault with 
the Executive Order was merely one way in which the refusal to accept 
code prohibitions of homework manifested itself. 

Early in October, 1934, The Legal Aid Society of Rochester, New York, 
a social service organization en,;;aged in giving legal assistance to 
persons unable to employ private coimsel, b.ecarie interested in the case 
of two women, both homeworkcrs formerly emtaoyod by the H. C. Coiin and Com- 
pany, manufacturers of men's neckties (*). Tne applications of these 
women for homework certificates were rejected by the ilew York State 
Department of Labor as not falling "within any one of the three clauses 
under the provisions of the President's Order ... for v/hich 

(*) Mr. K. C. Coiin was Chaimian of the Men's Neckwear Code Authority; 
his plant was under the Men's Neckwear Code which prohibited home- 
work in the industry "on and after June 15, 1934. " (See Article 
IV, Section 1 of the code). Code negotiations began in the sukv- 
mer of 1933; the code was approved in March, 1934 and became ef- 
fective on April 3, 1934. All told, those members of the industry 
who used homework labor had alm.ost one year to adjust themselves 
to factory production. At the original code hearing neither labor 
nor management knew exactly what the extent of homework in the 
industry was, but Mr. EayiTiond TTalsh speaking for the manufacturers 
offered the estimate that the number of homeworkers constituted 
"on^- fourth' or as high as one- third ... of the employees of this 
ind:ustry. " (The total is somewhere between 5000 and 8000). 
(Transcript of Hearing on Code of Fair Practices and Competition 
presented by the Men's Neckwear Industry, Friday, September 15, 
1933, Volume 3, p. 11). Mr. Walsh argued that "the odor of the 
sweatshop'* so typical of homev/ork in other industries was no 
characteristic of homework as it appeared in this industry. (Ibid. ) 
On the other hand, Mr. Williaia Green, President of the itaierican 
Federation of Labor urged "that Che industry take steps to rid 
itself of homework." (ibid. p. 227.) "If the Industrial Code of 
Fair Practices for the Neclavear Industry serves no other purpose", 
he said, "or accomplishes no other result than to eliminate this 
social evil, this menace of homework, it v;ill accomplish a great 
deal for the people of the country, not only those directly con- 
cerned, but all classes..." (Ibid., p. 228.) 


ilone special permit m^y be granted." (*) 

In a lectcr addressed, to the President, the Legal Aid 
Society wroi;e: 

"^ i-. C. Cohn Manufacturing Co-iroany, of this 
city, engaged in the making of neckties and 
operating under the Men's Lieckwear Code has 
for some time past followed a nractice of 
allowini^ aiDproximately sixty women of this 
city to do hand sewing on neckties in their 
homes. V/e ?re advised from responsible sources 
that thj s homework permitted by this company 
aoes not comoete with factory labor either as 
to the amount of work given or as to the rate 
of pay. Applications hrive been made to the 
New York Stpto Department of Labor ... for per- 
mits "for :'ll of tne employees doing homework 
for this company. To date, sixteen aPDlications 
hnve been acted urpn r^nd of these, eleven were 
rejected as not coming within the exceptions as 
set fortn in your order. 

"we feel tuat v/hile these neople do not come 
within the letter of the exceptions allowed 
by you, their cases merit an order staying the 
execution of your Executive O-'der ... -Ve are, 
of course, aware of tne very Inudable social 
purpose of the various code provisions restrict- 
ing Homework and assure you of our whole-hearted 
cooperation to the end that the vicious abuses 
of tne past in tais typo of employment may come 
to an end," ( **) 

Subsequently in a letter to the Chairman of the }TRA Homework 
Committee, tne Society repeated its assurance that " .'e a.-,ree heartily 
that the conditions of homework previously existing in industry call- 
ed for drastic correction in many localities and are entirely sym- 
patnetic with tne effort to wipe out those conditions." The letter 
continued with taese Questions: 

Is tnere not, however, some disposition on the 
p.-^rt of your committee to recommend to the President 
a furtner mocification of the Code )roLiibition 
against homework in favor of the mothers of small 

(*) New York Stnte Department of Labor Form for the "Denial of 
Permit To 'unploy Industrial Homeworker." 

(**) Letter to the President, October 3, 1934, from the Legal Aid 
Society, Rocaester, New York. (NRA.iFlles). 



children whose husbands are seuarated from them or 
are confined to health or ^enal institutions or are 
unable to work? Sucn a modification should of 
course, set u-i safc-guaids as to the volume of work 
per week and the rate of pay so as not to compete 
uTifairly with factoiy labor, and snould make amnle 
■orovisions as to the healoh conditions of the home. 
But assuming these conditions to oe r)resent , is it 
not to the best interest of the state and the social 
well-being of tne faiaily that opportunity be given 
these mothers to work in their homes, have satis- 
faction of being able t'^ provioe for themselves 
"and their children without charity and win there- 
by the greater res-oect of tneir cnildren and the 
community?'' (*) 

The Chairman of the W.A Homework Comn.ittee replied in part 
as follows: 

"The pur-DOse of the Executive Q-der permitting 
certain -persons to continue doing horaewox-k v/as 
to take care of some of the cases of individual 
hardsnip which resulted 'from the code prohibitions 
relating to homework and still not break dovm 
these provisions. The homework prohibitions were 
inserted in the codes not only because industrial 
riomework has proved to be an unfair method of com- 
petition, but also because it was hoped to elimin- 
ate this industrial practice which so often carries 
with it starvation wages, child labor and long hours. 
T'he condition of the nomeworker, as you knovvr, has 
been even worse in the df^pression years ... I am 
sure that you will see that to relax the homework 
prohibitions as far as mottiers of small children 
are concerned would entirely nullify the homework 
pronibitions in the codes, since employers would 
ce tainly find enough mothers to continue the sytem 
of industrial homework with all its attendant evils. 
Bringing minimum wage for the workers brought in- 
side." (**) 

Before further defining or deciding its position with respect 
to the homework problem and the Executive Order, the Legal Aid Society 
undertook to make an investigation of "nearly all of the local cloth- 
ing and neckwear manuf picturing, (including the H. C. Gohn Company) 
with the idea in mind of determining the extent of the problem locally, 
the effect of tne present (homev/ork) provisions upon employment in 
this cominunity, and especially the effect upon the emoloyment in 

(*) Letter to !vlr. 0. Yv'. EosfnBv.eig', Chairman, NHA Homework Committee, 
October, 10, 1934, from the Legal Aid Society, Rochester, Few York. 

(**) Letter to 'ir. Emery A. Brownell, Secretary, Legal Aid Society, 
Rochester, New York, October 24, 1934, from 0. W. Rosenzweig, 
Chairman, NRA Homework Committee. ("TRA Files). 


their nomes of women confined necause of children." ( *) 

Though by no means eyiiaustive and limited only to questions 
asked of manufacturers, tne investigation disclosed a number of in- 
teresting facts: 

" ... The total number of -nersons wno have lost 
tneir menns of support by this prohibition (of 
homework) is relatively few and .... presiomably, 
not all of those who did werw in zhe class of 
women confined to their homes because of children. 
Previous to the adoption of the Code, only four of 
the six firms (from which replies were received) 
engaged homeworkers. The number so employed total- 
ed at)proximately six hundred twenty-one. One of 
these films upon adoption of the Code, brought all 
their one hundred twenty-five homeworkers into the 
factory with the exception of one cripple. Tv/o 
others who hr-d employed taree hundred sixty-four 
homeworkers changed over to factory work exclusive- 
ly and it is my uiaderstanding that a large nxomber 
of these form.or homeworkers h-ive beon taken into 
the factory. 

"v."ith the exception of one, it is doubtful if any 
of these concerns would rc-employ any of their 
former homov/orkers outside of their plants even 
if the Codes were further modified ... Only two 
of the concerns who replied definitely favored a ■ 
. further modification of the Code prohibition of 
homework in favor of women with small children as 
proposed. Tw> were definitely o-pposed to further 
modification and of the other two, one did not 
employ homeworkers before the Code was adopted and 
the Qther, as stated, brought all but one cf its 
homeworkers inside the factory when the Code was 
adopted." (**) 

(*) Letter to 0. W. Rosenzv;cig, Chairman, ITRA Homework Committee, 
Dcceiiher 1, 1954, from Mr. Emery Brownoll, Executive Attorney, 
The Legal ^dd Society, F.ochester, TTew York. (NRa. Files.) 

(**) Letter to 0. "u. Rosenzweig, Chai rmr-iji , NRA Homework Committee, 

Decembwr 1, 1934, from Mr. Emery A 3ro\;nell, Executive Attorney, 
Legal Aid Society, Rochester, i^ew York. See also attached to 
it. "Summary of Iveplies to Questionn-'ire Sent to 9 Leading 
rlanufacturers of Lien's Clothing and Teckwear in Rochester, 
Monroe County, ilew York." This Summary is marked "Confidential 
to -homework Committer, I'ational Recovery Administration." 


Having thus ascertained the. facts' fo^r itself, and uninfluenced by 
the importunities of any single mauufacturer with an immediate interest 
at stake, the Board of Director3(*) of the Legal Aid Gociety adopted a 
resolution that the "Society (will) take no steps toward securing a 
further modification of tiie hcmev/ork proTisions of the codes of fair 
competition prohibiting homework." ( **) This conclusion in the resolution 
followed a long recital of pertinent facts( snowing careful study and 
thought, as well as understanding) among wnich werp the following; 

"It is a matter, of comn-ion kiiowledge that 
previous to the ado-otion of these codes, of 
fair cora-oetition, homework in industry was 
accompanied by many vicious and 
harmful abuses including' the use of child 
labor, unconscionably low wages insufiicieni: 
even for the barest necessities of life,_ in- 
tolerably long hours of work, and unsanitary 
working conditions; and 

"The eliminatinn ^f homework should Btimulato 
an increase of factory emr)loyment which is a 
more desirable condition of employment in that 
thereby the welfare of the workers can be best ' 
hromoted -and controlled and in that industry 
itself can be protected against unscru-oulous 
comTDetition; and 

"In the interest of society, it is desirable 
that women with small children, be enabled to 
apr)ly tueir energies to the proper care and 
training of these children without the burden 
of earning their support and of competing with 
men and unattached women in the labor markets, 

Not all those who registpred objections to the Executive Order on 
homework or to the prohibitions of homework in codes, were as tolerant 
in their approach or as rational in their methods as the Legal Aid 
Society. The following is related further to illustrate the situations 
and the forces v;ith which the HP.A had. to deal in relation to the 
homework problem. 

(*) "Since our Board includes several lawyers, two judges, two 

social workers, tv/o doctors, a business man, a public official 
•and a newspaper man and represents both major political parties, 
its conclusions should be fairly representative of local opinion. 
I man add, however, that it was not until the problem had been 
quite exhaustively studied that tne Board came to agreement. 
■ Excerpt from Mr. 3rov/nell's letter of December 1, 1934. 

(**) Resolutions adopted by the Bonrd of Dirpctors of the Legal Aid 

Society, Rochester, New York, November 1934. (NRA Homework File, 
see "Resolutions".) 

(***) Ibid. 


On October 24, 1934, a letter addressed to Mr. Stephen Early, 
Secretary to txie President, found its way intc the ITEA mail hopper. 
Tne .letter was from i,!r. E. Smith Payne, Director of Engineering and 
Industrial Relations, Cluett, Peabody and Company , Inc. , Troy, New 
York. After a few preliminaries in which the a.ddressce was reminded 
of boy-nood days with the letter-writer, !vir. Early's attention was 
called to "the problem of the homeworker -onder the various codes, 
and in particular ... to the Men's ITeckvyear Code." The letter con- 

"The Men's Neckwear Industry in which we are 
vitally interested as the sole owners r£ Franc, 
Strohmenger and GoirHn, the' 'F.esilic' house, is 
faced vifitn a ruling wnich is completely upset- 
ting tne industry ... I bring this matter to 
your attention because I am firmly convinced 
that sooner or later it will get to tne Chief 
Executive of the ITation, due tr the political 
asTD-'Ct it is r.ssumin'g. 

"To get dovYn to cold facts, there are thousands 
of homeworkers wi.o , through the years of the de- 
pression, have keot their families alive by home- 
'.York and I don't mean, necessarily, in sweat-shct)S, 
There are no sweat-sno-ns in this, locality. But 
th^re are hundreds of workers who have been unable 
to come into the factories and work who are being 
deprived of homework as a result of certain rules 
and regulations of codes, and their criticisms of 
the treatment which they are receiving arc directed 
at the •Adi.iinistration. ..." (*) 

The letter failed to make clear the precise "ruling" which it was 
claimed was "completely upsetting the industry.'" This could hardly 
have referred to the prohibition of homework in the f;'en's Neckwear 
Code which — by the date of "i"5r. Payne's letter — had been in effect 
for some four months. Tnere is no record that the industry or even 
a part of it had availed itself of the right to petition the National 
Recovery Administration for relief from the homework provision in the 
code if thiB was working some hardships. 7/hy so many homeworkers 
"nave been una le to come' into factories," or whether a genuine effort 
to bring tn'';m into the factory had ever been made, was nowhere ex- 

According to kr. Payne, "a very prominent local physician" had 
become interested in a number of homeworkers formerly employed by 
Cluett, Peabody and Company (or Franc, Strohmenger and Cowan, Inc.), 

(*) Letter to i r. Stephen 'Carly, Secretary to President Roosevelt, 
^i.ecutive Offices, The .nite Kouse, 'October 'PA, 1934, from 
H. Siui kh Payne, Director of Engineering and Industrial Relations, 
Cluett, Peabody and Go, mp any. Inc., Troy, New York. 



whose a-onlications for hcmevvioi-k ncr.nits ijn,d "been rejecced by the Kew 
York State Deriartraent ' of Labor. "I feel sure," said Mr. Payne, "that 
if tnis particular doctor, who is quite v-ell known in medical circles 
should -Dublisn any d-ita on the suoject it will bria.,^ the matter to a 

The letter to 'at. Early was accormanied oy two others, (**) one 
a memorandum from kr. P.. 0. Kennedy, Vice President of Cluett, 
Peabody, to Hir. Payne, and the other, a cony of a letter from Dr. 
Crawford K. Green, of Troy, I'ew -York, oo >ir Kennedy. 

In brief, kr. Kennedy's msmorand'om (***) reviewed the experience 
of Cluett, Peabody with industrial homework (leadinf,,- u-o to the Code 
and the Executive Order). 3y way of introduction, he recalled that 
"in the days when the codes were being written ... in some quarters 
there was an attitude unfavorable to homework. This was based on the 
possibility," he said, "that it could lead to tne exDloitation of the 
homeworkers. It probably was true," lAr. Kennedy admitted, "that in 
many instances (the) work was T)roduced in the aome , rather than in 
the factory, because unconscionably long hours could be worked and 
pathetically low wages could be paid." However, while it was common 
years ago for the housewives ■ in the district to have sewing machines 
at home and to receive work from the factory, this was all eliminated 
as far as Cluett, Peabody was concerned. Tow, not a single machine 
operator was doing ner work at homo. 

In the neckwear industry, ■'r. Kennedy asserted, "a different 
situation had develOTDed^" During the past few years "a transition 
most unique in the industrial history of the l^st 100 years" had taken 
place. There was "an actual turning back to hand craftmanship from 
the factory macnine;" this 'Was "Technocracy in reverse," said Mr. 
Kennedy. A decade or more ago only the highest priced neckties were 
made by hand; the other by machine. A new method of construction was 
devised, whereby a hand-m-'_de tie could be produced at a popul^^ir price 
because less silk was reqaired. "The market will siiow today," the 
memorendum continued, "that all but the very cheapest ties are actually 

(*) Ibid. 

(**) Later kr. Payne asked that these De returned to him. '! . . If 
this matter is going' to take the routine channels of submittal 
to the WRA officials," he said, "we might oetter make the pre- 
sentation ourselves. I .nm. more or less familiar with what 
happens to these cases wnen they are routed through 1\I?.A bec^^use 
I npve been on the receiving end, as a servant of TT-A. in 
?vasr.ington. If you have not already forwarded the two letters 
v/hich I sent to, you tn ^I-A. , will you pler-se return them to 
us so tnat we can file a brief on tne subject?" From a letter 
to ,r. Stephen Early, Sec'y ^<^ President Roosevelt, Executive 
I5f'fices, The 'wnite House, etc. October SI, 1934, from R. Smith 
'Payne, Director of Engineering, etc., Cluett, Peabody and Com- 
pany, Inc., Trey, ■:'i.Y. 

(***) Dated Oct. 22, 1934,- and addressed to Jir. I..S. Payne, (originr'l 
FRA Files.) 



hand-stitched, or what we call ' slin-stitched' ." (*) 

" ... SliT)-stitchers are among the most skillful (workers) in the 
industry," Mr. Kennedy observed, "h-^nd craft has always iDrovided an 
expression for the creative instinct." But wtien tae Men's Neckwear 
Code prohibited homework (four montns ago) Franc, Strohmenger and 
Cowan, "was faced with a very serious -oroblem." ' There was no lack of 
space to bring these workers inside, "in many ways it would be a real 
advantage if it could be done; it would save considerable time in rjro- 
duction. "But," said Mr. Kennedy, " ... it was impossible to find 
sufficient of this hand skill in the factory v/orker. It is a skill 
developed over years and not one that can be taught rather quickly as 
can machine operation." Tne President and the NRA realized that the 
elimination of homework would entail "immeasurable" suffering, said 
Mr. Kennedy. Thus, an order was issued -oermitting nomewori.; to certain 
operatives who could not come into the fpctory. "At ttiis time'i 'Mr. 
Kennedy continued, "we were building u'o a factory organization by 
bringing into the factory those skilled operators who could come inside, 
but we found many who Just could not leave their homes." "In fact," 
said Mr. Kennedy, "when we l^ioked into it we were not surprised to find 
that this skill in hand sewing was acquired to a very great extent by 
the fact that the operator was forced to stay at" 

The Executive Order, hov/ever, did not list the care of cnildren 
as an eligible reason for obtaining a permit uo do homev?ork. Vmen we 
learned of this, "w(5 were certain that there had been some mistake ... 
it just did not make sense," Mr. Kennedy wrote. The memorandum con- 
cluded with the following; 

"As your Department knows, Dr. Crawford 3. Green 
has examined some of these applicants for the 
homework privilege, ^le apparently has been shock- 
ed by the rejection of some of the applications 
made on the basis of the necessity to stay at 
home to care for chilaren. I have received from 
him a letter in which he very vividly expresses 
his astonishment at this ruling. You will see 

(*) Compare the above with this: ' -lam sure you will be interested in 
a statement from t'r. Gottesman, Secretary of the KeclcweMr Union, 
to the effect that tue Cluett, Peabody 'Company were the originators 
of homework in the necktie industry. He said that before 1937 
Cluett, PoFibody was a union suop loc'^ted in Kew York City. To get 
aWay from the union they moved to Ithica, At tnat time all men's 
neckwear except a small number of hand-made ties were made in the 
factory on macuines. Cluett, Peabody began the 'back to the home' 
movement, cr 'technocracy in reverse', as tney called it. You can 
understand why their pious expressions on behalf of the workers 
rather irritated those of us wno know their record of low wages 
and anti-union activities." — Excerpt from a letter to the Chair- 
man of the NRA Homework Committee by the Assistant Direc;tor, 
Division of Labor Standards, U.S. Department of L -bor, ^'-ovember, 
5, 1934. 



Dr. Green intends to oublicize the anomalous 
Gituation that he found. As tuis letter v/as 
written: in tue sole interest of these emiloyees, 
I believe that those- high wn in the Administration, 
and in the Department of Labor, find in the Recovery 
Administration will be most interested in Dr. Green's 
attitude. I am wondering if there is not some way 
that you can present this, so that it will reach 
those most interested." ( *) 

Dr. Green's letter(**) b'^gpn witn the cxolanation that he had 
Deen "given to understand" that "tnose with little children who require 
tneir mothcr.-s attention" at home" .woulci be permitted to continue doing 
homework with the other classes of homework exempted by the Executive 
Order. In furtner preface Dr. Green assured hr . Kennedy that by virtue 
of his long experience as a -nhysician, "•! am not likely to bo unduly in- 
fluenced by morbid sentimentality or to succumb to affected hysteria." 
Next, Dr. Green raised what he believed to be basic questions, as follows 

" I am wondering if you, can explain the logic of 
the Government's position in- the (permitted.) clpsses 
of exemptions in comparison with its position regard- 
ing the workers with the little cuildren wno are not 
exempt., . If a worker has some physical handicap which 
enables her to stay at home t«- y/ork - say a rheumatic 
condition or a deformed hip or a bad heart - is it 
not reasonable to presui:ae that sne is more likely to 
impress others to do' her work' for her than if .she is 
robust and in good health^ And is any more 
reason to presume that a worker staying home because 
of the need of caring for an invalid- will be more 
ethical in cari-ying on the work than will a worker 
who is kept at home for children?" 

Dr.- Green then offered this summary of the situation: 

"If my premises are correct and my reasoning s,ound, 
we -have three, facts to consider: (l-) A considerable 
group cf people in need of work and anxious to do 
work of sucii a nature that they may remain at homo 
to care for their dependent cnildren ajid to keep their 
families intact; (2) A manufacturiiig concern with 
B long and honorable record for just and beneficient 
treatment of its employees wnich is anxious to give 

(*)■ For tnis, and the quotations abive. See the original of Mr. 
Kennedy's memorandum' to !:r. Payne, dated October 22, 1934. 

(**) Ae-''.res.sed to, Mr. R.»;0. K-nnedy, Cluett, Peab.pdy & Co . , Inc., 
Troy, H. Y. , dated October 16, 1934. A cppy accompanied, the 
original of Mr. Kpnned;y''G memo to I.'ir. Payne. 


these -neople "the kind cf work they cqn do at 
home and lo pay them a decent and satisfactory 
wage for the work they do. (3) A governmental 
authority which denies to these people the right 
to do this work. As a rpsult of this denial of 
the right to work, the workers are faced with 
three alternatives: (l) Tney can put their 
children in institutions or leave them to snift 
for themselves while they go to work in the factory. 
(2) They can appeal to caari table agencies for 
relief. (o) Tney can starv---." 

The letter concluded with the following: 

"-'■t seems clear to me tnat these women wno are 
struggling by hoiiest, decent work to keep their 
homos together and to supDort tueir children 
arc in sad need of a chamTDion. (*) I know that 
"you are helrjless because you are tagged before 
you start as having a mercenary interest in the 
matter. If you feel that I am wrong in my con- 
clusions, I shall appreciate it if you will point 
out to me wherein you consider that I am in error. 
Otherwise I propose to assemble my data ... and 
make a magazine article of it. It will be very 
easy to have a human interest story of this kind 
publisiied where it will be widely read. Tne gist 
of the material can also be widely disseminated as 
news matter. This seems to be the surest way to 
enlist public interest in what I seriously take to 
be a violation of the most fundamental principles 
of human liberty. 

"Knowing wnat I do of the struggles of these people 
to exist, of their willingness to work and your 
willinmess to give them the work to do at a decent 
wage, 1 feel that I should be failing in nsy duty not 
to combat to the utmost of my ability any agency 
which tends to take away from these people 'the 
unalienable right of life, liberty and the pursuit 
of happiness ." 

The letters quoted above wf^re referred by Tar. 

Apparently Dr. Green was not aware of the existence of the 
Homework Protective League- of tne United States, the activitie 
of which had been amply advertised in the New Yo /k papers and 
others for almost a year preceding the date of Dr. Green's 
letter. Or, if he was, perhaps he 'd^d not think that the 
League was a fitting "champion." 


Louis McHenry Howe, Secretary to the Presi^'ent, to the National 
Recovery Administration for consideration, Tlie Cnairman of the WA 
Homework Committee promptly replied to the writers (Dr. Green and 
Mr. Payne) explaining that the NBA through the Committee was making 
a study of the problem of industrial homework "in all its aspects" - 
and that the Committee "is seeking all available data" to "assist us 
in mailing sound recommenc'ations, etc," Tliese gentlemen were invited 
to "cooperate with us by sending whatever data you may have, etc." 

Mr. Payne replied with an offer of .assistance and an invitation 
to visit Troy "and let us give you a first hand picture of the 
situation as v/e see it..." "If we can be of any help at all in furni- 
shing data for yoiir investigation,'' he said, "we would be most 
pleased to do so ..... but I still think that the best bet is for 
you to take a trip into the field and see the problem at first hand." 

Less personal but more important were the following comments: 

"This (homework) matter is becoming quite acute. 
Rejections are coming back to us from the De- 
partment (of Labor) in ITew York at the rate of ten 
or twelve per day and it is creating considerable 
turmoil here in the city ... These slip-stitchers 
are skilled needle workers, many of them having 
been at the job for quite some time. The work 
having been taken^ awa^/- from them throws them 
on the city Welfare Department,... 

"I believe that Dr. G-reen proposes to get in 
touch with you but he also has a very close 
friend who is a friend of President Roosevelt's. 
It is my belief that he will attack the problem 
through that source, in the meantime keeping 
you advised of ?7hat he is doing." (*) 

In his reply, (**) Dr. Green assured the Chairman of the 
MRA Homework Committee that "my concern in the matter is purely 
humanitarian. I have no connection with the firm of Cluett, 
Peabody and Co., Inc., either in their medical personnel or 
otherwise, I have no political axes to grind for I am entirely 
independent of party ties or obligations." The following point 
was stressed particularly: ".,.. while I expect to be compelled 
to appeal to public opinion in the matter, I deliberately re- 
frained from bringing the subject to light before the consumma- 
tion of the election so no local, politician has had an opportunity 
to make political capital out of it," "The fact is," Dr. Green 
continued, "that the situation in which we are interested is one 
that calls not for prolonged study, but for immediate relief... 
I have no interest in a prolonged academic discussion of the subject. 
It is reasonable to assume that the President could immediately 
correct a v/rong of this sort if it were brought to his personal 

(*) Letter to Mr. 0. W. Eosenzweig , Chairman, HRA Homework 

Committee, etci, Dated November 6, 1934, from Mr. R. Smith 
Payne, Director of Engineering and Industrial Relations, Cluett, 
Peabody, & Co., Inc. (NRA Piles) 

(**) Letter to Mr. 0. Y/. Rosenzweig, Chairman, NRA Homework 

Cor.mittee, etc., dated November 8, 1934, from Dr. Crawford 
R. Green, Troy, New York, (NRA. Files) 



sttention ... Unfortunr,tely for all concerned, the attempt 'to reach 
the Presicent in this wa;^ proved futile." 

GJhe letter continued: 

"The only alt amative, if the President cannot 
he reached or if some authority cannot give relief, 
is to attac': the prohlem from the standpoint of 
puhlic opinion. I have already "beg-on the outline 
of a magazine article to that end and have put 
together some items of which at loaat some of 
the newspapers would, he bI'I"-- ^° have copies. Of 
course, you know as well as I that nothing .^oes 
better for the purpose I have in mind than 
specific huiian interest stories of just that kind 
... In the anticipation of "being compelled to 
carry on ray proposed propagetnda, I have jotted 
down several strijcing instances which have come 
to my attention in the past years wherein Cluett, 
Peahody nnd Co. have f-one far out of their way 
to he of help to individual employees. I intend 
to use these facts in talking to selected ;"i-oups 
of people vrho I expect to int-.^rest in the suoject." 

In summ.ary, Dr. G-reen condemned the policy of excluding women 
with dependen'tr'. children from the 2xempted classes in the Executive 
Order as being "cruel, anti-social, and a violation of the funda- 
mental concepts of human liberty for which at all times it has been 
easy to find men willing, if need be, to sacrifice their lives." 

It should be obvious that something m.ore than logic was needed 
to make possible an impartial and thorough analysis of the homework 
situation in Troy, New York, and that was a scientific collection and 
presentation of the facts. Dr. G-reen' s letter had been accompanied 
by an "Appendix" listi:jg ten anonymous case studies. But what was 
presented in each instance was a recital of the difficulties both 
physical and financial of the particular worker. One could. not be 
sure that these cases constituted a "fair sample", a representative 
cross-section of the vvhole field. Moreover, gathering data from 
industrial homeworkers, as in any other technical investigation, 
involves the use of a special technique and approach to which the 
layman — however expert in anothex- field — cannot aspire without 
proper training. Realizing these points, the Chairman of the WA 
Homework Committee armnged with the U. S. Department of Labor to 
have two investigators visit Troy for th^ purpose of obtaining 
first-hand inforn.ation. 

The survey was made in IToveraber, 1934. (*) Among other things, 
it disclosed that homework was one way of "beating" the apprentice 
(or learner) provision of the code v/hich provided that apprentices 

(*) Only the highlights are summarized in the text. The entire report 
may be found in Appendix G. Part of the report consists of a list 
of cose studies Y/hich show vividly what the homev:ork regulations 
mesnt to those directly affected by them. 

(or learners) should "be paid no less t.xpn $10.00 per vmek of thirty-six 
hours and "the period of appreriticsship shall he strictly limited to 
eight v/eeks." (*) ''There is no make-up h^t ween earnings (at piece 
rates) and the $10.00 rainimun for learners when ^vork is taken home," 
the report stated, "even though the slip-stitcher has not teen inside 
the plant for the period of ei^ht weeks perroittod "oy the code, nnd is 
not producing at minimum wage rates when she hegins." X^hen applying 
for work candidate slip-stitchers were r.eqp.ired to state whether they 
preferred homev/ork or factory work. "The firm has continued to employ 
some slip-stitchers with the expectr-ition of giving them work at home 
after the factory learning period, since the code was approved," the 
report said. "In fact, one worker who was visited said she applied 
for homework hecause she had heard it was easier to secure employment 
if you had an excuse to -work at home. .Those who apply for homework 
send in application for special homework certificates and after their 
learning period is over, take work home v/hile waiting for action on 
the applications." 

Ttie v?ork involved in "slip-stitching" was comparatively skilled, 
requiring constant attention and much precision. .(**) One homeworker 
said that she had placed her child in a Bay Home because she could not 
give her the care she needed and make ties at the same time. Other 
v/orkers said it was difficult to work with children around and they 
did their hest work after the children had gone to "bed. A few mothers 
reported working on neckties at night after their regular household 
duties, and "arising at 4 or 4:30 A. i'.:. to 'do a few dozen' before the 
children were up. (***) 

(*) Men's "iveckwear Code, Article III, Section 4 

(**) For further description of the process, see text of the report, 

Appendix G, p. 15:-"! 
(***) Ibid p. 7. At'this point it is appropriate to consider the following 
letter from a necktie homevorker to the Nev; York Department of 
Labor. It appeared in a Press Release from the Office of the Labor 
Publications Editor, I'lew York State, Dept. of Labor, 80 Centre Street, 
}lew York City, January 17, 18, 1935: 

" Avenue 

Troy, llev; York, 
December — , 1934 
"Dept. of Labor: 
Dear Sir: 

I viTOuld like to Imow if you please could try and let me work 
in the shop. I air. doing ties home. We have a large family also my 
father is out of work six months, there is no sign of him going to 
work yet. I have a drainage on the right hip I am also lame, I have 
always work in shops. I v'ould rather work in the factory because I 
only get $4.00 week working home if I vrorlz in shop I will get more 
and I really need it bad there are six children I am the only one 
old enough to v/ork. If you don't believe me you may send someone 
to the house. Please try and get me back to the shop before 
Christmas because you laiow when there are children in the family 
how they want things for Christmas. Please do your best I will 
appreciate -very much. I work for Cluett Peabody and Company. I am. 
twenty-Two years old you laiow I am use of working in a factory 



only are work is very slack so I got call to vork in Cluett 
tut it is hard for me to do ties home the children nearly 
drive me crazy. 

Please do your best for me thank you very OTich. 

F.S. I vTould like to hear from you. Thank you from 

RosR G 


Troy, Hew York. 

In commenting upon this letter, i'lss Freida S. Killer, 
Director of the Division of Women in Industry and ivlinimura 
Wage of the Department of Labor, said that it was "typical 
of many received by the Division ,... since the l^?A codes 
were put into effect. The writer (of the letter)", Miss 
Miller said, "asks that v/e cancel her homev/ork certificate 
because she has found that factory v/ork pays better and that 
it is easier than working at home. This has been the 
experience of hundreds of homeworkers in the last year. 
It is our contention that, wioh the exception of relatively 
few aged or partially incapacitated homeworkers, or others 
who must care for invalids, most of the homevrorkers in t_ie 
State would be happier and better paid in factories." (ibid) 



One hundred and sixty applications for horaework certificates had 
been filed(*) with the Ke\/ York State Department of Lahor "by Cluett- 
Peahody and the homewoikers. (**) 

Twenty certificates ha.l hdon issued; 43 dsfinitely rejected; 21 
were heing held pending; a conference with the firm; and 76 applications 
were awaiting: action hy the State De^^c\rt■l.lenc of Lahor. Thirty-two 
individuals (or 74%) out of the forty-three who were denied permits 
were employed in tjie factory, and el':5ven v/ere without v/ork at the time 
of the investigation. 

The Department of Labor investigators interviewed a total of 
sixty-two homeworkers who were quite representative of the entire group. 
Among them were a number who had been refused homework certificates; 
to some, permits had been granted. Others had applied and were 
awaiting definite action, etc. (***) Tvrenty-one vfomen (out of the 
thirty-two who went into the factory) were visited, and all of those 
(eleven in number) who as just noted were reported idle at the time 
of the investigation. Of the twenty-one women visited who had gone 
into the factory: eight definitely preferred factory work because 
it was more steedy—, wages and hours and working conditions were 
better; seven were not especially pleased with factory work mostly 
out of the fear that if they failed to make the code minimum the 
employer would discharge them., and also because of concern for their 
children, ■(****) Five of the twenty-one believed that the advantages 

~) November 9, 1934 

(**) On November 15,1954 ther° were 110 slip-stitchers ' in the 

factory and 103 doing his work at home. Only 20 out of the, 
103 had been given permits to do homework under the Executive 
Order; action on the applications of the others were pending. 
Nevertheless, tney continued doing homework, (pp. Appendix &) 
Cluett-Peabody stopped giving out work to a homeworker only 
when her application had been definitely rejected by the Stat^ 
Department of Labor. (Dr. Green'-s letter to Mr.O. W. Rosenzweig, 
Chairman, NRA Homework Committee, November 8, 1934, in KHA Piles) 
A number of applications, filled out in July and August 1934, 
were not received by the New York State Office until October; 
nevertheless, those employees were given homework in the period 
between Tialcing out the applications ,and filing them. That this 
v/as not strictly "according to the rules" (the Executive Order 
provided merely that "A person may be permitted to engage in 
homework ... if a certificate is obtained from, the State AuJbho- 
rity, etc."; not that homework may be permitted if an appli- 
cation is filed, etc.) was a detail that apparently went 

(***) Pq-p ^j^q exact figures, see p. 183 Appendix G. 

(****) Some information presented here not found in Appendix G, 
was obtained by the writer in personal conversation with 
the investigators. 


-120- •• 

of factory work and of homevrork were about equally divided; one person 
was undecided. Among the eleven r/hose applications vrere rejected and 
■who had not gone into the factory: two were pregnant and could not have 
continued their industrial homework heyond a few weeks; five were ad- 
vised to make reapplications; one had no children and her only reason 
for wanting to continue homework was "to maintain social status" (*) ; 
one wanted factory work, hut "had not been offered it";(**) and two 
were "uiiahle or unwilling" to leave their children. 

Particularly interesting was the fact that throe women who had ap- 
plied for homework certificates hoped their applications would be denied 
"because they preferred to work inside after hearing former homeworkers 
tell of the advantages of the factory,.." (***) Of special interest, 
too, was the opinion expressed by the industrial engineer of the firm 
(Cluett-Peabody) that the "work can be done more efficiently under su- 
peryision and in regular hours. "(**** ) 

The investigators fo-und that the problem of adequately providing 
for small children was considerably simplified in Troy (as compared with 
other cities) by the location in proximity to the factory, of two day 
nurseries. Both were adequately equipped (one, xvith a pediatrics clin- 
ic, two nurses, etc. ) and charged nomical fees (no charge ma'"-e for 
families on relief). When questioned about it, officials at the day 
nurseries and various social agencies in the city "'-'ere unaware ... that 
the abolition of homework was creating any problems." (*****) Never- 
theless, they declared themselves as "being opposed to the industrial 
homework system." The investigators learned also, that "only one ap- 
plication for relief had been received (by the city relief department' - 
the only relief oi-ganization) from the families who had lost their 
homework. " 

After careful consideration of all the facts, in consultation 
with various members of the NRA. Homework Committee, and others, the 
Chairman addressed a letter to Dr. Green of Troy, New York, which 
summarized the: evidence presented by the special investigators, 
and closed with this statement: "in view of the findings of the 
Department of Labor inspectors, I cpnnot recommendany change in the 
Executive Order of May 15th" (******) 


See p. 177 Appendix E. 






Ibid., p. 3. 


Ibid. p. 8. 


Letter to Dr. Crawfo: 

Gre&n, Troy, IJ. Y. , dat,.d 
November '^, 1934, from 0. W. Rosenzweig, Chairman, 
NRA. Homework Committee. 


This ntteiTipt to obtain a modification of the President's Order on 

homework concluded vdth a final reply from Dr. Green which read in pari a: 


"Tlie statistics vhich you have sent rae from their 
( the iJ. S.I^epartuienl; of Lahor invBstigntors) reports 
are of no valu.3 in estimating the f-undaincntal issue 
... A careful analysis of the co.T^.itions as they 
exist in the industry and of your communication 
upon the suhject liads m:) to t/ie opinion that you 
are wron-^ in your premis--'S, illogical in your 
deductions, and in error vdth regard to the 
conclusions you have reached. 

"I am, therefore, spj^arently comp'illed to publish 
the facts, and v/e will l.-.t the facts speak for 
themselves." (*) 

Exceptions Under tlie Bxecutive Orde r 

Thus far, this Section has he-n d.evoted to a discussion of IIEA' s 
experience with the Executive Order on homework, the problems which 
emerged from that experience, the efforts made to solve these problems, 
and the pressure groups which had to be reckoned with in the adminis- 
tration of the Order. For practically an entire year, the Order re- 
mained in effect as issued. (**) Diaring that time the ISA was under 
almost consttint pressure to modify the Order in tlie direction of 
further relaxing code prohibitions of homework, i,ei, further 
limitinc;; the ambit of their application. That this vras never done 
was due partly to KEA' s unwillingness to change an industrial home- 
work policy to which a number of industries had made a satisfactory 
adjustment, and pai'tly to the inability of the petitioners or the 
pressure groups to prove that lowering the bars would contribute more 
to tne success of the recovery program — in the long run — than 
prohibiting homework altogether and gettin-j the work done in factories 
where reg-ulations could be enforced. 

What the administration of the E.^^ecutive Order on industrial home- 
work meant in terms of the number of certificates issued, refused, 
revoked, etc., has been summarized statistically by the Division of 
Labor Standards, U. 3. Department of Labor. (***) Shortly after the 
machinery for certificating homeworkers exempted from code prohibitions 
was established and began functioning, the Department of Labor required 
the State issuing officers to furnish monthly reports. "While the 
reports sent in by the issuing officers are not in all cases abso- 
lutely complete," says the Division of Labor Standards, "it is believed 
that they do furnish a substantially accurate pictiore of the exceptions 

(*) Letter to Mr. 0. "J. ?.osen%v;eig, Ch-drman, ITHA Homework Committee, 
dated December 19, 1934, from Dr. Crav/ford H. Grreen, Troy, N.Y. 
A careful search throiogh the Headers' Guide to Periodical Litera- 
ture for the months between the date of this letter and the 
Schechter decision (May 27, 1935) fails to disclose aiiy publi- 
cation by Dr. Green on the subject of industrial homework. 
(**) From May 15, 1934 to Ma^' 27, 1935 (Date of the Schechter Decision) 
(***) Mimeographed report, "Exceptions to the Industrial Homework 
Prohibitions of IIEA Codes," — December 9, 1935. 



that were grcnted." (*) 

A total of 2,508 horaework permits were iasuad in 23 states and in 
45 inaustries, mainly the needle trades. In onl/ a fev/ states (**) 
dia tne number of certificates issued reach anv substantial figure. 
Thus, Hew York was first with 1,428 permits granted; New Jersey second 
with 304; Pennsylvania third witn 247; and California fourth with 220. 
All the other states issued less than 100 permits each. In only ten 
industries did the nuraher of certificates equal 100 or more each. The 
list (***) follows: 


Men' s lleclrv/eor 

h:!_"chrnt -uici Cuatora, Tailorint^ 
Infants' and Children's Wear 
Artificial 5'lower & Feather 
Undei-gnrment & lleBli^ee 
Men's G-arters, Suspenders, etc. 
Pleating, Stitc.iing, & Bonnaz 

and Hand Embroidery 
Toy & Playthings 
Cotton Garment 
















■ 150 





In many industries out of the total the nvunber of applications 
denied vere about the same as the nuinber granted, while' in some 
instance's the rejections exceeded the certificates granted. 

(*) p. 6, op., cit. 

(**) See Appendix H, T.-blf I, for mo.-e complete tabulation: 

nurnbox' of certificates iss\ied, refused, revoked, and 

cancelled, by states.- 
(***) p. 7, op. cit. See Api^endix H, Table II for more complete 

tabulation: i-Iujnber of certificates icsued, refused "oy 

code (industry) and state. 
(****) Ibid. 



The Executive- Crdei' on industri?.,! ho.jeiTorV,: entatlinhed (-onder the 
direction of the TJ. S. Dc-partiient oC I->or) r rrthe:: elphorp.te machinery 
for the grantin.-' of erej.i'-tion : fro.: coao -orohio tionn of hcu^'orl:. (*) 
T7hy, it ua^^ "be rn::cd, vir.c the -jrohle;-. of i-^cu", trial hone'-orh singled out 
for such cpecial treatnent? PcrhapT the n;\in reason rfan th-.t the proh- 
lein of honer'or': war, nuc". r,i .ifler thnji nont of tha induntrirl, 
T^ith vrhich ""1.A hp.d to deal. Itr co.roarative ■■•i.^ elicit"- made it ea.sier 
to define i-riiforn;-.rdG or conditionn for exceptionr to code -'^ro- 
hihitionn o;"' honenor'.:. (**) Pi.^rther, indo/- trial ho;:ei7o:,-l': war- one of 
IHA'''' lesGer concernr.; it reori-^ejited , rela.tivGl"^ ni.ia,li Geg.ient of the 
industrial proolo.: as r, 'hole. Thi^. i". aardl^- a Biaf."icient reason vrhy 
the prohleu of honer/orh v/aG ive i a->ccirl a.ttention "but it hel ^n to ex- 
plain xiliy there 'vrcs no ohjection rrisod -hen ITEA gave the Depart:;.ent of 
Lahor complete recponsihility for the .landlin- of choGc exe;.rotion- . It 
would have heeyi dif ric-'olt to inagine industry's accepting with ea-ual 
coiiplccence gji effort ^y 'SAA. to tva-n over to the Department of Lahor the 
tash of ad-ainintaring cnC. enforci^ig all the -rager; piic hburc provisions 
in codes, (***) 

Persistent Aconinistrative Probleur. 

In the State of TTott Yor'- (****) •.Thic.i led all other-, in the n-amher 
of horae'-orh certificates issued .--nd aohlied for, the failure of the U.S. 
Depai traent of Laoor to fix the nuifoer of certificates Trhich could he 
issued to any one firm (**>k*=K^ continued to he a trouhlesome question 
thro-ughout the aduini strati on of the Executive Order on homevrorh. Thus, 
in Janusxy, 1935, hiss Jreida. S. i'iller of the "su Yorh State Department 
of La,hor, r/rote "... the greatest -'ealoiess of the -iresent set-up for 
granting ... permits to "■•pocir.l groivos of vonen to do homerork rdiere the 
code prohioits it lies in the co;rolete a/bsence of a ... provision limit- 
ing the nufoe:- or proportion of hiOmc-orl^ers that a;iy n^n-afa-ctiarer naj" 

(*) Several months hefore (Peoruary 17, l'J34-) hy a similar 
order (llo. 6606-7) the Department o;" Lahor was placed in'-e of exe rations from minimum --age -orovisions of codes 
for suo 'Standard ■■■orhers. 

(**) This is not intended to si^'rgest that the homei-rorl: sitijation 
nas the sa;.ie in every industry. Variations ojnong "types" 
of industrial honevrork have heen di'-.cussed in Chapter II. 

(=^**) At one time or o.nofier drijrin'T its life, some r?Jl of "icials 

considered this a pretty good ideo,. I]ut clear l^r, it -'as not 
consistent T:'ith the oelief of those v/no thou^lit that the 
chief f-^jLLiction of the I'lA should %e to develop "self- 
gover;rient" in industry rather than to regulate ind-astry. 

(****) ".riiere home^orl: seems to oe a larger proolem than in eny 
other state. 

I*****) As '7as done in the crse o." handica;pped iTorhers. 


have." (*) "I 'believo tlip.t thir. nen.iit;- ::r n -. ' 2 \ :-; \.-lio i.7ir-:h to Co no 
to undercut the provinion'5 of their code," ..: ■ -.', " -^.nd I helieve fur- 
ther that cjrt3,in na"imp.cturcrG in vpriouf. i:i j-r^,-, i ;■ -re te'iinr; advan- 
tar^e of that "oo-^ihilit;;'." 

'(Under the pj'er.ident 's "i;r:ecutiva. -Order - :- it r.tandc, (KiSE 
::iller'n ineiaora:ad-.i.i conoinuod) ever:" o.Trlicrnt for a homeror]: 
pei-nit v'ho cai :^-et w . lajmffctux'or to ;;ign the joint a.r5plica- 
tion for her •'•orl:, ;;nd r-ho coinea lindei'' the tern". 0" the Order 
(i.e., ir, old pnu Vu.r ar ;-.itw.ll,- done hoLie^ -or':, is hernelf 
disahled for factor;- -.'o:':, or in eo'ential to the crre of an 
invalid in her hone; /art i-^va r. certificate iorjued to her. 
The ■aamifactiiT'er h' /■ t'-;j olioicon o-icn to hi 1. He cm put in- 
to effect the inten-'-, of hin code, .vako provi'^ion in hio fac- 
tory for the carr^-in--; on of the oroca ■"■.e;; ; done at and merel;^ continu-e ;.o ive oat "or': to t'lo fo'' honc-'ork- 
err, whom he ]is,n ernolo-od ,-:-'d TJho f-11 vithin t^io provisionr; 
of the President's Er-ecr.tive Order, or ho mny in one ve"'" or 
another collect a large nu,;;Der of ■oiie-.i "ho hrve previously 
done home-rar'; in the industry fnd ■ 'ho are eli-'-ihle for per- 
mits, and si;^n their applications. 

"There is, for o:,sj;rule, a nectaTerr firm in 7:i.xi Yor]; City uhich 
has made provisions in-idc for fou.r or five slip-stitchers. 
It signed tho application^, of thirt;'- rio:ao\'or];ers, nineteen of 
A/hom were eligihle for permits. Ohviously, honework is still 
the customary mode of -n-oduction of such a 'l^nt as compared 
T.'ith the j.irnuracturer "ho has taken the code provision for its 
clinin.ation seriously. fc are forced to 'ive this mrji an un- competitive advantajp in i^'suing certificates. 

"It was mv" ori2,'inrl intention to refuse ermit;-. in sach cases 
■'here I felt that if grmted the individ^ial ■lam.ii'actLirer i70\\ld 
still he relying-; primarily- on ho;.ie\7ork to get out his product 
hut tho federal De^oart.ient of Lr.hor has r'.aled that the Execu- 
tive Order does nor -o f r cno-a,,-h to justif--- an;- sxich -o-\-.ctice 
P-ince it reQvii:.-.;s tl ai; .a omit he granted to eacoL individuaJ. 
falling within (its) tcr ;s ..." 

The er-oerience of otlier states was similar to tliat of hew York 
particularly with respect to txie noc:'o:wear industry. The following state- 
ment hearing on such, erperience is tva-ea fron a report hy the Penisyl- 
vania Department of Labor: 

"The expected effect of the code ;orohihitions in reducing the 
nuiher of ho:ie--orkers has "ocen slightly offset hy the granting 
of a fevr Special' Industrial Iloneirorkers ' Certificates for work- 
ers specially hrndicapped for fr.ctory e; :"oloy:.ient ... The exemp- 
tion system r.s-umed drngeror.s -oro ortions in a few industries. 

(*) "eiio;. onduF,! to hiss f.ose Schneidernan, Labor Advisor;"- Toard, "RA, 
fro. 1 hiss i'iller, yew York State Department of Lahor, Januar-;=- 21: 
IS.^S, Suhject: Executive Order on Hontjwork. 

The :eri'-, :iec!D-'ear Incluntry no- craoloy;-. i.ioro than 30 per cent 
of the •jor::er3 v/ho have Speci.-.i Industrial Home Workers' Cer- 
tificp.ten, r.ltho-uL-:h it ernployi^d. only two per cent of the home 
workers re"oorted in Septen'jer 1:;:"';. Hoirie ••or]- wac prohibited 
hv the i;en'c :Toc:'.a-;eai Co(?e pe;;,-inniag Jtme 15, 1934, after the 
certifica,tG sj-nten "/ent into ef"ect. In adjusting to the code 
pi-ohihition of hORe v.-or'-, :vny ii'.^ckvrcg.r iinjiufacturers have 
therefore sought exerrotion fo" fie na.jorit:/ of their hone- 
workers instead of discr.rdi:o^;:' Tork alto.^ether , s-s wan 
done in the much larger j'en'r. Cloi'liin/: Industry. One firn, 
for instpjice, ap'olied for certi icatc" for 74 hone worker-,, 
of whom hut twelve wera foimd to be eligihle. Only hy most 
careful investigation of ercii cane has the Bureau of lojp.en and 
Children kept the prohibition of homework from "being nullified 
in the i!ec-a7ear Industry." (*) 

The statement of the ITew York La-hor Department official pointed to 
the iieed of limiting the number of honework certificates; the Pennsyl- 
vania report suggested the accomplishment of this end "by "most careful 
investigation." Another State i;-,'^uing of:''icer raised the Question whether 
any exemptions from code homework prohihitions should "ue granted. (**) 
The argument '"'as that in allowing certain tj'-ocs of people to continue 
doing homeT/oi-k in sn industry where it vras prohibited ay a code provi- 
sion, "a loophole \;,n,s left open for evading the code ;rovision." TJluen a 
manufacturer was -^emitted to give owt hO-:ework to a few, there was little 
to prevent him from ;;ivin5 out work to rorc than those v;ho had actually 
received certificates. If the npaiufacturer v/ere not permitted to give 
out homeworl: a,t all pJid if he tried to do so, it could more easily he 
detected. (***) 

nevertheless, the final report of the U.S. Department of Lahor con- 
cluded ths,t "the E^-ecutiv;^ Order vt--,- on the whole carefully administered 
hy the State issuing officers." Thi:- was indicated "hy the numher of 
certificates that were refused." 5\!-rthermore, "The total numher of cer- 
tificates issued (3,60':) indicates that the Executive Order did not re- 
sult in a hreakdo'-'-a of the code homevfork p^rohihitions . The numher is 
insignificant compared to the total mnahers of homeworkers formerly at- 
tached to those industries. In ken's Clothing, generally recognized 
previously as the largest industrial homevrork industry, only 16 certifi- 

(*) pp. ?, 10, "Industrial Honevfork in pe-nsylvania Under ITRA., " 

prepared \r- 'Sureru of "Tonon snd Children, Pennsylvania Depa,rt- 
ment of Lahor sjid Industry, karch, 1935. 

(**) This TDoint, it v/ill o::-. rei;.emhei-ed, was hrought up at the Con- 
ference on Certification of HOiiev/orkers, held in Tjoston, Sep- 
teiher, 1934. See "Afhninistratiori of the Executive Order." 

(***) Prom a ^jersonal menorandwn c!^-i.ted Septemher 18, 1335, to the 

writer hy i.'iss "ae i"ecdle!.^.o,n '.'ho w-.s Supervisor for Illinois of 
Suhstp.ndard and Houewo'r^-: Certificates. 



Gates T7e"^e granted." (*) 

TTliile it \7a,G e::pected tLat certificated honenori.ern \70uld Toe .?aid 
"at the sane rate of uagen as is ^ for tne sr'io t;~pe of vorlc per- 
formed in the faxtory, etc., " ( **) experience sho^-ed tuat ver- freqiiently, 
.the particular process which was perforjiied by the horaeworJ^er wp,s not done 
in the factory. This ~ave rise to adriinistrativs difficulties (***) 
(devolving ahout the chechinr; of wa^ge ra^tes hy is'.uinf-; ofi^icerij) which, 
in the case of the Ten'- Carter, Suspender, and Belt ' anuf act'ori vt Indus- 
try, were reduced '.'hen the Code Authority drafted for the ^Tev; York De-oart~ 
nent of La-hor a fairly coi.rolete catalog of processes done in the 
with the rates for each process. '..Tr.ether this could heen done in of the other houei^or^: industries (****) is douhtful. Soea''-:iig on 
this point, ilns ;:iller of the Pew Yorl: State Depa.rt :ent of Lahor e'Tipha- 
sized the fact that "these are st^'le Industrie--,, in /hich an;- nuifoer of 
procest5es are done, on air- nurahor of kinds of irteriaJ, with any nunher 
of different kiiids a.nd thiclXiesses of thread, -nd "o:'dr- --u, 'O forth. 
The detail is troLiendous !" This, she ohserved, "n; '.er; it ip-ossiljle for 
us to do the a/nount of hone checkin;;; that v;ould be necessar;;-." (*=!:***^ 
These points, properly weighed, do not :;o .nich dra;;.' attention to a r.iinor 
adaninistrative -oroDley.a that arose ■'jnder the Szcecutiv:- Order, as they il- 
lustrate some of the difficulties inherent in efforts to refuJ.ate indus- 
trial hOi.iework. 

Is Hegiilatirn of FoMevork Pos'-iole? 

In an earlier chapter, it v/aa indicated t^ia.t the lio.chlncry set up 
under the Execative 0"der on houe-TO}-': mi:-:ht he viewed as "the fir-.t nation- 

(*) PP' S, 7, "Exce .tions to the Indu;.;trial Ho'ic-ork prohioitions 

of IRA Codes," ki leographed R-joort, Division of Lahor Standards, 
U.S. Department of Lakor, Dec. D, 1D35. 

(**) See the E::ecutive Order, sjite, p. 64 

(***) See statement of k'iss Beatrice r'cConnell, Director, Bureau, of 
Uonen and Children, Department of Laoor Pennsylvania, 13. 100, 
Vol. 1. (Day Sesrion) First Day, Tr-.nscript of Hearing on Pro- 
posed Interoretation, Floating, Stitching, Bonnaz and Hajid Em- 
■broidcry Industry, Ilovenher SO, 19o4. Also the statement of 
kiss Frieda S. killer, of the kew Yor]: Staty Depart.ient of 
Lahor, p. 121, Vol. I, Pext 1, :'■■ a.scri'it 0" ;. k-aring on Pro- 
posed Aj.T3nck.ient to Code of Competition, Pleatin-;, Stitch- 
ing, Bonnaz a^id Hand Euoroider-' Industry, kov^ Yor]..: City, 
January 31, ],935. 

(****) Particularly where sone of the innurierrklo varieties of krnd 
cnhroidery ^jcre concerned. 

(*****) State, .icnt of ilss Frieda S. killer, represe:-.ting the "'ew York 
State Departnent of Lakor, p. 120, Vol. I, Part 1, Transcript 
of "earinf- on Proposed Auenu.ient to Code of .Fair Competition, 
Pleatirig, Stitchin,g, kon-uaz ojid Hand Er.;3roider-y In,.ustry, 
ilew York City, Jamaary 31, 1935. 


rride attenpt to re;;-ul".te industrir.l. Iin, le'-'orh in fair, coimtry." further 
it was G-ugu-ecteu. tlirt tliu ru". Tltn of tai-. ef ort "Ou].d thro-' li^lit upon 
the ouection, "In regu-l-^.tion o.-' induct -i;-.! ]iO:,ie"orl" •^osnible?" Here is 
the ansvrer of one ntate depart: unt of 1-vor. 

In a re^iort entitled "pennG;-lvani3. 's Zlxperisnce VJith Certificated 
Houevforhers, 'I the Depart^ lent of L-aI-o:,^ of tliat state telle -\r, that the pur- 
pose of its study \'e,G "to dctern.ine tlie e::tent to v.'hich the s^ston of 
honcnorl: certification fulfilled its fimctions." (*) These f-.mctions 
were: "(1) to serve a,s a aepiis of adjustuent to a certain f~roup of home- 
v'orkers, pnd (2) to set up certain stcndards within the home '-.rhich would 
approxinate factor.7 conditions." (**) The jiateriol of the report was 
gathered fros^ coiroliance investigations, and the conclusions were hased 
upon aji analysis I'of the degree of violation of the ter. 'S of the certifi- 
cates" and the E:cecu.tive Order. (***) "Is it possiole for a stringent 
regulator;/- system to control the conditions under which the horievrorjier 
is en ;loyed so thr.t long hours, inademi-a.ts pa;'', pud child looor do not 
persist? In short can svreatshop conditions in industrial homev,'ork he 
abolished as long as processing of aA'ticles in eawloye-j 's homes continues?" 
This, according to the pennsylvpnir, Deuartuent of Lahor is the key ques- 
tion which its study pjtisv/ers. (***=ii) 

70T the purpose of the study, the period between June 26, 1934 to 
Fehruar-^ 19, 13?5 was tal'en, during ■ hich time a total of 197 certifi- 
cates were issued. (*****) investigations were iiade to ohtnin informa- 
tion on hours of '--ork, weekly earninf;s, hourly eamin-s, md cO'Tolirnce. 

One hundred and fifteen ho'ieworhers reported on hours. 44 or 38.3;^ 
stated that they had worked acre thaj^. fort;' hoiirs r wee:; of fifty-five 
hours or nore. This, the report adds, -.'as " a violr.tion of the State 
TTouen's Law which pcrnits no :iore than fifty-foioi^ ho-ars a week. (******) 

(*) p. 2, "iLieog:ra"''\ed Zer^ort pra^-ared' "jy' 3ureoAi of T/onen rnd 
Children, Pen:isylvr n:u';. Dc;3a:'t lent of Labor rnd Industry, 
E:n"r isburg , A'Uf'^'ii-" t , IC 35 . 

(**) Ibid., p. 7. 

(***) The reader \/ould do well to keep in nind the caref-ol safe- 
guaa-ds which were set U'~> to protect the hoiieworker against 
excessive hours, low wa'^es, etc. See "o. 64, et seq. , "The 
Executive Order. on Homework". 

(****) Ibid., -:D. 2. 

(*****) Ibid., -o. 2. The sa:ae report states f-u^.t a total of 256 

certificates were issued to ' a-^- 27, 1335. (p. 1) The final 
report of th3 U.S. Depart:ient 0:' Labor lists Pe:insylv3nia as 
third (after '.'ew Yor]-: and "ew Jersey) -'ith 247 certificates. 
(See Appendix H, Table I.) 

(******) Ibid., p. 3. 



Tliilp the median for the grouos as p "holft (57.5 hours) ^as lo'^er than 
th"? npdian mm"ber of hours STDficifind in th<= codns (40), thn honfl- 
vror^'ATs in som« industrif^s Dut in ^OTf'. hours v^.v i-f^^k than the codes 
■oermitted for factory eniDloyees. Thus the Toy and Pla.ythings Industry 
made the "rioorest showing" ^ith a reported rnedian of fifty liours 
weekly; the code for that industry -Dermitted a maximam of forty hours 
per '"eek. Tor Cotton G-arment Industr3'- honie--70 risers, the median ■was 
4?,1 hours; six hours nore than the n.od° ma,ximum. The 3louse a.nd 
Skirt Industry sho-^^ed a -median of 0808 hours, thr^o hours more than 
the maxiraum set "by the code, (*) There is serious question, the 
report continued, '"hether it is "possih]." to control the '-orking hours 
of hom^workers to effect higher Igtor standards '^ithin the ind.ustry 
as a whole and to lessen their c^-m °'CDloitation." (**) 

One hundred and t'^enty-four certificated ho-n^'-or^'ers reported on 
weekly earnings, th° T^dian of '-hich -^as ^>10.11. "This fig'.ire is high 
for the earnings of a r-rotip of honeworVers, " th° report said, "yet 
it is less than the lo'-'est (code) rainiTrrun for the industries 
covered." (***) The report continued: 

"The code for the Toy and P]ai^things Industry stipulated a 
"linimum of $12. -oer ^^eek, the lo-?est of th^ group, -"hile the 
raininum for the Blouse and Skirt Industry "'as $18.90, on<= of 
the highest in th° group covered.. S-opgi-ing in comparative terras, 
therefore, the median was not high. Th^ reported median for 
the Cotton Garment Industry was as low as $7„50; Toy and Playthings 
showed a median of $5.00; the Set-up Paper Box Industry showed 
that its (hom°) ^or^':ers were heing -oaid $7.33 we°kl-"-, slightly 
more than half the stipulated code minimum of $13.00. The 
miscellaneous group, including underga.rment and negligRp-, 
umhrella, hat manufacturing, underwear and allied, -oroducts, 
TDl-^ating, stitching, and "bonnaz and hand emhroidery, came out 
"'ith a, median of $7.00. How m.°ager these earnings ar'= can he 
se-^n when compared ^^ith the minimiim "budget set hy the Jewish 
Welfare Society of Philadelphia for a family of five (3 children 
and 2 adults). Nineteen dollars a.nd five cents is consid'='red 
the standard helo™ -'hich no family can exist and still maintain 
some serahlance of health and decency. The "budget of the 
Philadelphia County Relief Board, consid°ring the same neeifis 
to he satisfied, is $14.50. 

In vieT7 of these facts can -iven the lost Oritinistic "b-^lif^ve 
that homework wages "ill eyer a-oproximate th'= su"bsistence 
Iftvel?" (****) 

(*) Ihid. 

(**) Ihid. 

(***) Ihid., p. 3. 

(****) Ihid., p. 4. 



Two typ'^'.s of violation ^°Tf recorded 'by the Pennsylvania 
DeiDartment of Labor investigations: (a) violations of the U. S. Depart- 
ment of Lahor re^ilations (or the roncHtions on ^hich certificates 
were granted) , and (h) violations of the Stnte '^o'-ien's and Child 
Lahor La^s. "A-nproxi'Tiately 79 out of every 100 certificptes reporting, 
(*) were violated on one or piore ref-alations. Informstion ^as 
obtained shout 1?5 certificates of the 19? issu^-d in the eight months 
period." (**) Of this number, in 107 instances (79.3^) the Department 
of Labor regulations were being violated; 50 (53.3^) involved 
violations of hours Drovisions. Of thf= 107 cas^s of violation, 
?5 i25.5fo) showed violations not only of the terms of th-^ certificates 
(Labor Deioartment regulations), but also of the State Women's and 
Child Labor La^s. "Superficially the figure a.-nt)eprs negligible," the 
reiDort stated, "but consirierption' of the standards set by these tr^o 
State Laws forces a different conclusion. ■ The provisions and 
standards of these Laws pre so lo^f in comparison ™ith the standards 
set by th° codes that 25 certif ica.tes violated on the state law pro- 
visions, is p significant figure." (***) 

"It must be understood (The i eport continued) that these 
violations are only the reported ones. It is probable that 
in many instances violations occurred which ^-ere not renorted 
to the invest ie-a tors. In some instances the '^nployer 
instructed the '"or^ters as to ^^ha.t to say wh'=n interviewed, 
a.nd the instructions were carried out for fear of losing 
th'= work. In other cases 'the homewori'-ers themselves decided 
it would be better not to -feell the whole truth." It was 
possible to detect so many violations only through subtle 
questions and a friendly approach, 

"Cases of non-compliance .not recorded for those ^ho 
continued to work at home --without certificates. It is 
probably true that there wore many cas°s who ma.naged to pass 
undetected by the investigators arid wor'''ed at home without 
certificates. This phasf^ of non-compliance is not within 
the scope of the present study," (****) 

Commenting further on the o^uestion of compliance, the report 
declared that! 

"Although fivery homeworker and employer was informed of the 
regulations and terms of the certificates there were 79. 3J? of 

(*) That is, certificates on ^hich reports were obtained. 

(**) Ibid., p. 5. 

(***) Ibid., p. 6. 

(****) Ibid. 


the cf?rtificPt'^G violated. In iiany instpnces th?'. ■^'iroloy^r ' s 
non-coTinlip.ncp Tras clu-^^ to thp; fact that eiroloying a competent 
■nerson to d'=^livor the ^ork and ^ive instructions ^ould have 
involv'=!d higher costs. Moreover, working out a schedule of the 
amount of work to he given to each ^nmloyee ^ould have required 
additional planning on the part of the emDlnyer. Theref-'re, 
we find the o^iplcyer resisting the certificate regulations, 
tecause that (corrnlying) ^-'ould hf)v= meant invalidating the 
DurDOse for which homei-ork was undertaken. Ijess°ning the 
costs of production s.t the e^^^ense of the worker. 

"Non-corroliance on the part of the employee was due largely 
to economic -oressure. Earnings would not even have ap-oroached 
their' low level and almost subsistence level if the home- 
workers had not worked long hours and drafted their children 
to assist with th^ work." (*) 

It will "be recalled that the Pennsylvania Department of Lahor 
SB'" two puTOOses in the Executive Order and the system it estahlished. 
for granting excentions to code home-ork -orohihitions. First, to 
provide "a m°ans of adjustment" for a limited n-umher of homeworkers; 
second, "to set up certain standards within the hom^ '-'hich ^-'ould 
aiDnroximate factory conditions." ^e may now ask, "How T^ell did the 
Executive Order accomplish its -nurDOses?" 

"The first function is a relatively imimportant one, when con- 
sidered from the point of view of the la.rge masses of workers in the 
factory and homes. That the certificates aided that amall group of 
workers in enahling th°m to work, is clear," (**) 

"Did it accomiDlish its second nurnose and its most imoortant 
one?", the Pennsylvania r^-nort as]-ed. And replied "Unconditionally, 
the answer is NO]" (***) 

The report concluded as follows: 

"Homework can never he regulated. This study -oroves the con- 
clusion. Under the IJEA an efficient staff of , investigators 
was employed to- control the numher of workers at home, check 
for compliance, and report regularly on the situation. There 
were only P56 certificated home^-'or^'ers in Pei=nsylvania, Of 
this numher, in a period of less tha,n eleven months, "^3 cer- 
tificates w^.re cancelled, 16 revoked, and 8 expired, after the 
temporary period for which they had been issued "'as over. In 
total figu.res, 47 wore cancelled. If the NEA had heen contimied 

(*) Ihid. , P. 7 

(**) Ihid., p. 8 

(***) Ibid. 


mor'^ than 16 '-'ould have "b'^^n r^voh^d on th'=^ "basis of non-co'Tplianco, 
Almost thp entire mimlDer of certificates issued shoulci have been 
revoked on th° "basis of non-comrilipnce. 

"No matter ho^- strins-ent th"? re^lntions, ho'" great the enforce- 
ment, ho'-' honest the> investip-iators, the s'^eat shOT) conditi-ns 
'"ill continu° to e-'-ist unless horaeworV is a'boli?h'=d. Th<= 
conditions ^^hich exist are s,n intsp:ral i^art of indvistrial 
homework and only ^^hen Toroc^ssing of articles in emriloyees 
homes is abolished can the conditions ^cvo^inr out of this system 
of production disamDear." (*) 

The conclusions of th" U. S. Da-oartnient of Lphor together with thos? 
of the Pennsylva.nia Department of Labor renort may b° a,cce-nted as a 
general a-onraisal of the Svpcutive Ord^r on home'^ork, as ^^ell as an 
evaluation of the methods used in accorrolishing its ^un^oses. Though 
no other state has yet (January, 1936) taken th^ trouble to record its 
experience T^ith home'^or^'- under the NKA, the experience of the 
Pennsylvania Denartment of Labor may be taken as typical of all the 
states esioecially those in "hich homework is a considerable loroblem. 
As evidence we need, only recall that the consensus of oioinion at Jhe 
Boston conference of certificating officers {**) was that industrial 
homework could not be regulated. And further that the conference as a 
whole adopted a resolution which declared, that "the administration of 
the Executive Order has strengthened the conviction, long held by the 
State Labor DeDartraents which have been in charge of State homework 
regulation, that industrial homei-rork should be abolished," 

(*) Ibid. 

(**) See p. 73 et seq. , "Administration of Executive Order." 






iu - E^DIX B 


Name of Industry, Amend inents, 
Administrative Order-s, and 
Effective Dates. 

Text of Fruvision 
and Code Heference 
in fsrentheses 

Academic Costume Industry 
March 5, 1934 

Advertising Specialty rilfg . 
November 13, 1933 

I'o v/ork shall be carried on in homes or 
tenements or in unsanitary buildings un- 
safe on account of fire or dangorous to 
(Article II, Section 8.) 

On and after the effective date, no 
.ipnufacturer shall permit any work to 
be done in tne homes of workers, all 
ipork being done inside the factory. 
(Art. IV (d). 

Animal Soft Hair Industry 
February 12, 1934 

On and after the effective date horre 
work in tnis Industry is hereby ^^T0- 
(Art. VI.) 

Art Meedle^-'ork Industry 
..irr. 25, 1934. 

All members of the Industry shall 
arrange to discontinue the system of 
homeivork o^r A'^ril 1, 1954. If how- 
ever, t'iis -provision works an unreas- 
onable hardship on any employer, he 
may, upon appeal to the Code Authority 
and subject to the apnroval of the ;.d- 
ministrator, be allowed additional time 
up to a total of t^o months in which 
to complete its abolishment. 

This -orovision shall not prohi- 
bit home-^york on the finishing of 
samples and display models not inten- 
ded for resale, but the name and ad- 
dress; of every ejnployee so engaged 
shall be reported to the Code Au- 
thority. (Art. V, Sec. 6) 

Amendment 2 
Feb. 15, 1935. 

Article VII, Section 4 is amended and 
the following clause is included in the 
amendment : 

"(4) Such facts regarding home- 
workers as may be required by the Code 
Authority in drs>.'dng up and enforcing 

(*) From a "Compilation of Homework Provisions in Approved Codes" By 
Pauline C. Gilbert and Nancy Jones, Labor Advisory Board, National Hecov- 
ery Administration, May 6, 1935. Himeographed, No. 7701, Ti:is report 
covers 556 Codes, 786 A;aendments and 196 Supplements. 

pirns for homework rates and the con- 
trol of homework, " 

Artificial jlower 
and Feather Inc'ubtry 
Sept. 25, 1933. 

Note: This iniormation it; to be 
sent in by rll ineiubt rs of the industry, 
returns to be filed every four rveeks. 
This ho!nev;ork clause comes under the 
he^^ding "'.I'agei: ana Hours of Labor," 

Fo ho.iie\'ork siiall be permitted after 
■lay 1, 1934. After January 1, 1934, 
no employer shall employ more than 
fifty percent (SOya) of tne number of 
homeworkers enployef' Dy him as of Sep- 
tember 1, 1933. 

2. Until up:/ 1, 1934, no work shall 
be done in any home unless and until 
evidence has been presented to the 
Code Authority as a.^ent for the Ad- 
ministrator, that all State, muni- 
cipal, anri otuer la'' s and regulations re- 
lating to honeworkhave been complied 
I'dtl; and unless the names and addres- 
ses of such home workers and their 
employers shall havp been filed with 

the Code Authority. 

3. The Coae Autliority shall file with 
the Administrator a list of the names 
and addresses of f11 home workers em- 
ployed in the industry and shall in- 
dicate by vhor,; all such home workers 
ai^e employed, 

4. No home '-cr'-cer shall be engaged at 
the same time by more than one employer. 

5. All home workers shall be paid on 
the seme piece-rate basis as factory 
employees engaged in sirailsr '•7ork, 

6. Cooies of article III, (Hours, of 
Lebor), IV, (Rates cf Fay), and VIII 
of this Code chall be supplied to all 
home workers, (Art. VIIl). 

A mendment 1. 
Aug. 27, 1954, 


I'o manufacturing, assembling, or pro- 
duction work shall be performed nor 
be contracted for performance in any 
home, nor in any pprt of the living 
Quarters of any employee or other per- 
son, except in accordance with the pro- 
visions of the Executive Order cf the 
President, dated May 15, 1934. (Art. 
V, Sec. 6) 


A ssemblec Wptch Industry 
Sept. 6, 1934 

(1) A person may be permitted to en- 
^fge in homework at the same rate of 
I'^ages as is paid for the same type of 
'■'ork performed in tne lactory or other 
regalpr place of "business if s certi- 
ficate is obtained from the State 
autxiority or other officer designated 
by the United States Department of 
Lf/bor, such certificate to be fi;r?nted 
in accordance vith instructions is- 
sued by the United States ~'ttr)art!iJent 
of Lpbor, provided: (p) ;:ach nerson 
is iDhysicallr incpcrcitateti for work 
in a factory or other regular vlpce of 
business and is free from any conta- 
gious c^isease or 

(b) Such person is unable to lepve home 
becpuBB iiis other services are absolu- 
telv essential for attendance on a 
oerson rho is bedricc'en or an invalid 
and both such pers')ns are free from any 
contagious disease. (2) Any employer 
engaging such a pe rson shall keep such 
certificate on file and shall file with 
the Code Autnority for the trade or in- 
dustry or subdivision thereof concerned 
the name arid address of each iporker so 
certificated. (Art. V, Sec. 7). 

Athletic Goods 
Feb. 12, 1934. 


llo eiQployer shall oermit ■"^ork of any 
kind to be performed in any iiome or 
homes o ■ outside oi a factory, v/orkshop, 
or tiie lik<j, except tiiat lor a oerioc of 
one yc^.r from tlie eifective date of this 
code, 1 '—grade uaseballs made vdth corn- 
pressed- cottonseed, or si"'eepings or 
compressed felt scraps and Dlay,i:^round 
balls mpde from scrap felt or other si- 
milar cheap 'Tstc material mav be 
cewed in a home or noiaes, -rrovideC, 
however, that the compensation therefor 
shall be not less tnan tne rate of pay 
in ef;:ect on Jul-r 15, 19^9, plus an 
increase of ?0-/o and, orovided further, 
th;i.t the rates of coirioensation to be 
pai-d for such V7ork snail have the ap- 
nroval of the Code Autnority anr be 
uniform throughout the industry. With- 
in 90 days after tne approval of. this 
Code, the Code Authority shall make or 
cause to be made a study of the prac- 
ticability of elimination of homework 
insofar as possible and shall report 



its findinr-s to the Administrator, (Art. 
IV, Sec, 6) 

Adm. Order 1 9 
Feb. ?1, 19?5 

C-ranted stay of provisions of Article IV, 
Section 6, insofar as said provisions 
prohibit nome'-'ork on low-grade bpseballs, 
far a iDeriod 6 dO days from February 12, 

Beauty ano ^^rber Shop iiechani- 
cal ji^guipment Manufacturing 
February 26, 1934 

Fo homev/ork shall be alloved and no 
T-'-ork shall be done or iDerraitted in te- 
nei.ients, private homes, baseinents , or 
in any unsanitary or unsafe building, 
(Art. V, Sec. 8.) 

Amendment 2 
April 15, 1935. 

Amend Art. V, 

S'3C. i to reac! 


(a) 1. A person may be i^ermitted to 
engage in homework at the same rate 
of is'a.ges aK is paid for the same type 
of '^'ork performed in the factory or 
other reg-alar r3lace of business if 
a certificate is obtained from the 
State Authority or other officer de- 
sig2\ated by the United States Depart- 
ment of Labor, such certificate to be 
granted in accordance i"ith instructions 
issued by the United States Department 
of Labor, provided (a") Such person is 
phjrsically incapa.citated fa work in 
a factory or other regular "olace of 
business and is free from any conta- 
gious desease; or 

(d) 'Such person is unable to leave 
home because his or her services are 
absolutely essential for attendance 
on a -person 'Ao is bedridden or an in- 
valid and both persons are free from 
any contagious disease. 

2. Any. employer eng-ging such a per- 
son shall keep such certificate on 
file anc shall file with the Code Au- 
thority for the Trade or industry or 
subdivision thereof concerned the 
name and address of each worker so 

(o") l.'O manufacturing operations shall 
be conducted or permitted in any u^"- 
sanitary or unsafe tenements, private 
houses, b: semtnts, or in any unsanitary 


or unsafe 'building'; nor snpll any labor 
be employed in any manufacturing cr as- 
sembling operation or in repair work 
under conditions, or in buildings, that 
are unsanitary or unsafe. 

Blackboard and Blackboard 
Eraser ivlanufacturine; Industry 
SeT3t. 3, 1934 

Homework in this Industry is hereby 
prohibited except in accordance i-'ith 
the Executive Order of the President 
ITo. 6T11-A, dated ae.y 15, 1934. (Art, 
IV, Sec. 7). 

Blouse and Skirt Manufactur- 
ing . 
January 1, 1934 

ilo home work shall b€ 
bers of the industry, 
(Art. IV, Sec. 8). 

per;iitted by mem- 

Brattice Cloth Manufacturing 
Dec. 6, 1934. 

The General 1"HA Code Authority shall 
Eubinit to the National Industrial Ke- 
oovery Board within ninety. (90) days 
after the approval of this Basic Code 
a list of industries covered by the 
Basic Code, in wiiich work on any part 
of the product is performed in the home 
and/or contracted out. The General 
NRA Cooe Authority may also submit a 
list 01 special problems affecting par- 
ticular industries operatin.; under the 
Basic Code, and recorainendatiOns per- 
taining thereto. (Art. IV, B, a, d. ) 

Brush Manufacturing: Industry 
April 2, 1934 

All home-ork in this Industry is here- 
by prohibitea, except by specific per- 
uissicn of the Administrator in each 
individual case, and provided employees 
engaged in homei-'ork snail be paid the 
same wage rates that r re paid for iden- 
tical occupations in the shop, (Art. 
VI, Homework, Sec, 1) 

Balk Srinkin^'< Straw. Wrapped 
Drinking Stra"-, '..rapped Tuoth- 
pick , and Vrapped Manicure 
Stick Industry 
March 26, 1934 

Candle Manufacturing: and Bees- 
liax Bleachers and Refiners In- 
dustry , 
I larch 5, 1934 

The manufacture or partial 'fianuf actare 
of any product of the Industry in hoiaes 
shall be prohibited. 
(.\rt. V, Section d) 

Uo Manufacturer of tne products of these 
industries shall cause or permit any 
rart 01 the ''Ork of the production of 
his products to be performed at any place 
other than his or its factory premises, 
or those of another manufacture, 
(Art. V, Sec. :;.) 



Crndlewick Bedsr 
June 11, 1954 


Thf.^ rainiiauin scale of compensation for 
all Candle' ick '."ork; done ty home workers 
shcill be: (a) i-J per ounce for 12 
t:trpnd uni'mishod yarn worked on all 
lif^it veii^ht spreads 60/60 or under, 
Titli 25./ ;js ainiiOLUi for any pattern, 
10-^ per ounce for 1? strand unfinished 
yarn r-'orked on all heavy \''eight spreads 
ovor 60/50 with ZOi as minimuin for any 
pattern, i'or erca additional color or 
tone above thres, 5(f- shall be added on 
each spread. The price per ounce shall 
be doubled on all patterns where manufactur- 
ers or t le pattern requires each stitch 
to be pulled up pnd cut separately and 
on all i'rench knots. 12 strand yarn 
shall be ;he st-md^rd and any yarn with 
fei-rer strands shall oe paid for as if 
its weif^:ht equalled the 12 strand. 

, (b) For he;n'nin,-.^ spreacs workers shall 
receive at lepst 1-* per spread. 

(c) For laving off patterns from forms 
each worker shall receive at least 2ri 
per spread. 

(d) For fringing:; the mini^mm scale of 
compensation shall be 25t;'* for single 
V:not with 5^ additional for each tie or 
knot. (Art. IV, Sec. 2) 

Order approvijag Spd:e 
(paragraph 3 'and 4' 


No member of the Industry shall dis- 
tribute materi-'l through haulers unless 
;:uch haulers contract in writing not to 
accept from any home workers a compen- 
sation a.^gregating more than 15^0 of the 
pcraount received br such nome worker for 
each finished product and in no event 
to accept r co.iipensation of more than 
thirty cents (3 i*) per spread. Such con- 
tracts shall further provide that haulers 
when delivering raw materials to workers 
should deliver them i^ith a slip provided 
by the member of the industry and printed 
with his n^mr- thereon, s-^ecifying the 
numoer ox ounce;: of yarn required tor 
each pattern and the amount of coijpen- 
sation to be paid ior each pattern, (See 
Paragraph 3 rnd 4 of order approving 
this Godu"> (iirt. V, Sec. 2) ' 

Provided tupt, upon application of the 
Carolewick Bedspread Association, the 

provisions of Article IV, Section 2 
of Said Core in so far as they Torovide 
for aconroensation of eigLt cents (bd) vei 
ounce of varn used for v'ork: on the 
60/60 spreads and ten cents (lOi^ per 
ounce of /arn used for work on the 64/64 
spreads, be and thev are hereby stayed 
until July lo, 1954, on condition that in 
the interim inenibers of the Indus trv -cay 
to home workers not less that six and 
one-fourth cents (04^) per ounce of yarn 
used for ^"ork on the 60/ 60 spreads and 
not less than eight cents i-i(f:) ver ounce 
of yarn used on the 64/64 r oreads, 
r.ending my furtiier order; 

And provided lurther that the ai^proval 
Ox Article IV, Section 2 and Article 
V, Section 2 is limited to such period 
as ;aey ce necessary 1 or a coiamission ap- 
T.iointed by me ut)on recommendation of the 
Iiivision of n.eBe;,rch arid Planning and the 
Labor and Industrial Advisory Boards to 
investi.-'ate the econo;aic desirability of 
said -orovisions. It is proposed that 
such coiamission be immedirtelv arnointed 
bv the Arministrator and directed to re- 
port 'ith all rers'.inable expedition and 
if r:osKiu"ie by July 13, 1934. T,Vhen such 
comuiission has reported, The Adminis- 
trator will hold a public hearing on the 
rerjorts and findinft-s of the commission 
'giving interested' -DSTties reasonable 
notice and opportunity to be heard. On 
the basis of such report and of the 
facts brought out at such public hear- 
ing,, it is contem7:lated that these pro- 
visions !^nd any otiicr provisions in the 
Code, may be modified so as to meet ex- 
istin,"^ conditions. 

Admi nistrative Order 2 A."'pointPd Eosvell u'. Henni^' :er as a Corn- 

July 2, 1934 uission to investi,^!- te the economic de- 

sirability of Article IV, Section 2 
and Article IV, Section 2 and Article V, 
Section 2. 

Administrat iv e Order 5 (*) Granted continuation of stay of pro- 
Aug. 26, 1934 visions of Ar.' IV, sec, 2 )?iece"'ork: 

lates for homeworkers) . 

(*) There is no trace of an Administrative Order before this which 

granted the stay in tlie first place. Probably this wgc done by tht 
Deputy himself before any formal procedujre had developed. 


Administrative Order 6 Gr^-^ntei extension of tjtpv of Torovisions 

October 3, 1934 of Article IV, Sec. ,• , until Oct. 13, 

1934 )-Diecev'ork rntes fore homeworkers. ) 


- 142 

C andy liaiiufacturinig: 
June 25. 1934 

No memlier of the industry shall -oermit 


(Art. V. Sec. 15) 

Canvas Goods 
March 51, 1934 

As a rnanuf n.c turing process, the having of 
work done or labor performed on any awnings 
or tents or other cansfas prodxicts in rooms 
used for living quarters is hereby oroaibited. 
I>Io work snail be done or labor performed in 
any unsanitary building, or ijnder un- 
sanitai'y conditions. 
(Art. VII, Sec. ll) 

C ap L Cloth Ha t 
June 18, 1954 

ITo member of the Industry shall contract 
out any manufacturing or production v/ork for 
performance in the hom.:^ or in anj^ part of 
the -living quarters of any emTiloyee. 
(Art. V, Sec. 10) 

Cellulois Button, Buckle &. 
Kovelty iiaiiuf acturing In- 
April 30, 1954i 

Ho member of the Industry shall give out 
work to be perfomied in any home or dwell- 
ing place. 
(Art. V, Sec. 9) 

Cigar Container 
December 11, 1935 

Home work shall not be permitted. 
(Art. V. (e). 

Cigarette, Snuff, etc. 

February 18, 1935 

Ho member of tne industry shall permit 

home V'/ork. 

(Art. V, Sec. 9) 

Chlorine Control A")Paratus 
Industry & Trade 
Dec. 28, 1934 

The General HRA Code Authority shall 
submit to the Hational Industrial 
Recovery Board within ninety (90) days 
after the approval of this Basic Code 
a list of industries covered by the 
Basic Code in which work on any part of 
the product is performed in the home and/ 
or work is contracted out. The General 
HRA Code Authority may also submit a list 
of special problems affecting particular 
indiistries operating under the Basic 
Code, and recommendations pertaining 
thereto. (Art. V, Sec 4) 

Clocjc Ma nufacturing 
liiar. 11, 193^ 

(l) A person may be pen.iitted to > 

engage in homework at the s;ime rate of 
wages as is paid, for the same typo of 
work performed in the factory or other 
regular place of business if a certifi- 
cate is obtained from the State Authority 
or other officer designated by the United 
States Department of Labor. 



such certificate to "be granted in 
accordance with instructions issued 
t"'- the United States Department of 
Lator, provided 

(a) Such person is ph,yGically in- 
capacitated for work in a factory or 
other. reguLar place of Tjusiness and is 
free from any contagious disease, or 

("b) Such person is una'ble to leave, home 
hecause his or her services are ah- 
solutely essential for attendance on 
a person who is "bedridden or an in- 
valid and "both such persons are free 
from any contagious disease. (Art. V, 
Sec. 7) 

Cloth Reel Industry 
February 26, 1934. 

The manufacture or partial manufacture 
of any product of the Industr;';- in the 
homes shall he prohibited. 
(Art. Y, Sec. 8.) 

Coat and Suit 
August 7, 193G 

No home work shall he allowed and no work 
shall he done or permitted in tenement 
houses, basements, or in any unsanitary 
"buildings or "buildings unsafe on account 
of fire risks. 
^Part Three - 4th Par. ) 

Amendment 1, 
August 3C, 1934. 

Except in accordance with the Executive 
Order of the President, dated May 15, 
1934, no home work shall "be alowwed 
and no work shall "be done or permitted 
in homes or tenement houses, basements, 
or in unsanitary buildings, or in build- 
ings unsafe on account of fire or danger- 
ous to health. 
(Art. V, Sec. 8). 

Cocoa and Chocolate Mfg. 
June 18, 1934.' 

No member of the industry shall permit 


(Art. V, Sec. 14). 

Corrugated and Solid Fibre 
Shipping Container Indust ry 
February 12, 1934. 

The manufacture or partial manufacture 
of any product of the Industry in the 
home of a worker shall be prohibited. 
(Art. V, (9). 

Corset and Bras s i er e 

No, person shall employ workers except in 
his own plants. No home work shall be 
(Sec. 5 (b). 


}]o person shall kno'.vin^-ly nurshase mater- 
ials to te used in his product which have 
not been made in a clean and sanitary- 
factory ^ and it shall be stipula&ed on 
each purchase order that: "The material 
covered -hy this order must be mamifactured 
in a clean and sanitary factor^'." 
(Sec. o, (c) . 

Cott on Garment . - : '. After tnree montiis from the effective d: te 

llov. 27, 1935 (noveiuber 27, 1953), no member of the in- 

dustry shall have any sevdng-rafchine work 
done on any garment or any part thereof 
in the privr^te home of any vi/orker, but all 
such sevdn-^:, -machine v/ork snail be done in 
the blant of the :aember of the industry 
, ■ . . producing such g-irment; provided, novv- 

ever,'that any member of the industrj^ mny 
apply to the Cotton Garment Code Authority 
' ' ' ' ' for oxeijntion from the provisions of this 

• Article for wnat is l-o-iovv-n in the trade as 

turnin,:; collars v/nich "have a laundry 
-ja'sa in the factory before shipping, 
orovided, also, that homework on hand 
■ ■ ' ' embroider, vdiich is incidental to the 

manufacture of cotton garments, may 
continue,' qjid that witnin throe months 
the' Cotton Ganuent Code authority shall 
report on the homework proolvi so that 
• ■ the Administrator, after due notice and 

herring, may determine whether or not 
this nrovision shall be chan.j-edi .Each 
member of the industry shall report at 
once to the Cotton Garment Code Authority 
the names of any individuals employed 
under" the provisions of this section and 
the reasons for such era-iloyment, a,nd -^fter 
the effective date, no member of tne in- 
dustry shall increase the number of nersons 
so employed prior to July 1;j, 1933. (Art. 

Cyli ndrical Liquid Ti,':;h t The manufacture or partial manufacture of 

Paper Container • • any' product of the Industr?,^ in nome shall 

February 12, 193^* be pronibited. 

(Art. V, (9) ;■ 

Den tal Goods <^ Equipmen t /No homework sxiall be allowed and' no work 
I ndustry & Trade • be done or permitted in tenements, private 

July 15, 1934 uouses, or in any unsanitary building, 

■'J'tinsafe on account of fire risks. 
■ '' (Art. 6, "$■30. u) 



Dental Laboratory 
February 1, 1934. 

Drapery and Up hoi stery 
Trimming; Industry 
Jan. 26, 1934. 

Dress Manufacturinis: Industry 
November 6, 1933. 

All horae'TOrk in this industry is hereby 


(Art. IV, Sec. 10 ) 

Home work of any kind shall be permitted 
only for a period of one month after the 
effective date of this Code. (Art. V, 
Sec. 3) 

1^0 work 'shall be carried on in homes or 
tenement houses, basements, or in un- 
sanitary buildings, or in buildings un- 
safe on account of fire or dangerous to 
(Art. V, Section 8. ) 

Envelope Industry 
February 5, 1934. 

The manufacture or partial manufacture 
of any product of this Industry in the 

_horae of a worker is hereby prohibited. 

'(Art. Ill, (5). 

Expanding and Specialty Paper 


April 9, 1934. 

The manufacture or partial manufacture 
of any product of the Industry in homes 
shall be prohibited. 
(Art. V, Sec. 8.) 

Fibre Can and Tube 
March 5, 1934. 

The manufacture or partial manufacture 
of anv product of the Industr^^ in homes 
shall be prohibited. 
(Art. V, Sec. 8.) 

Fibre and Metal ^ork Clothing 
Button Manufacturing 
March 27, 1954 

Fishing Tackle 
Aug. 29, 1933. 

Flag Manufacturing 
April 5, 1934. 

ITo homework shall be permitted by members 
of the Industry. 
(Art. 'V, Sec. 7.) 

Homeworkers and workers whose remuneration 
is dependent u-oon quantity and/or quality 
of production shall in no case receive 
less than the above specified hourly rate 
of pay (35,i). Art. II, Sec. 3 (b). 

1. No home work shall be permitted by 
employers after June 1, 1934. After 
April 1, 1934, no eraplo-"-er shall employ 
more than sixty percent (60^) of the 
number of home workers employed by him 
as of September 1, 1933. (Art. X) 

2. Until Jujie 1, 1934, no work shall 
be permitted in any home by employers 
unless and until evidence has been pre- 
sented to the Code Authority, as agent 
for the Administrator, that all State, 


m-unicip':! J •irl other laws a,nd rapralations rela- 
ting to lioiop -,vn^:: V - •: ^.-■- r-v; c.i-rolied with 
and unless ■■.;:.e n ; ■ :;■? of such home 

workers pj-iC th^ :. . ■ -- ..ic.ii have teen 

filed with Ccus .^^ll'.i.Jx i ty„ 

3, The Code Avthcrity shall file with the 
Administrator a, list of the names and addresses 
of all iiorae workers employed in the Industry and 
shall indic'ite hy whom all such home workers are 

4, IJo home workers shall be engaged at tne same 
time by more t'lan onp emx)loyer. 

5, All homp workers shall be 'oaid on tne same 
piece-rate basis as factory emr)loyees engaged 
in similar work. 

Fluted Cro, ??n Liner 
and Lace Pa/oer Indus - 


February 26, 1934 

The manufacture or oartial manufacture of a,w 

product of 'he Industry in homes shall be jto- 


(Ai't. V, Sec. 8.) 

Folding Paper Box • The manufacture or partial manufacture of any 
January 8, 1933 product of the Industry in the home of a worker 

shall be prohihited. 

(Art. V, (9). 

Food Disn and Pulp and Tae manui'acture or partiral manufacture of any 
Paper Plate Industry product of the Industry in homes shall be "oro- 
February 12, 1934 hibited. 

(Art. V, (9). 

Fresh .j'ater Pearl 
Button Iianuf acturing 
I ndustry 
Ivlarch 12, 1934 

The Code Authority shall study the problem of 
homework in tiic Industry a' d propose to the 
Administrator, not longer than fi^re (5) 
months after the effective date of this Code, 
appropriate provisions for the regulations 
and control of such liomework, and when ap- 
proved b"/ the A: ministrator, shall become 
binding uoon all members of this Industry. 
(Art V, Sec. 7) ■ 

Fur Kanufactaring 
l-.'ay 28, 19::4 

Dec, 18, 193;: 

No manufacturing or production '-'ork shall be 

contracted for performance' m the home of an 


(Art. V, Sec. 11.) 

Within sixty days after this Cocie goes into 
effect the Code Authority shall iavestisate and 
report to the Administrator concerning the 
question of homework. 
(Art VI, Sec. 3) 


Glazed and Fancy Paper 
February 12, 1934. . 

The manufacture or partial manufacture 
of any products of the Industry in 
homes shall "be prohibited, 
(Art. V, Sec. 9). 

Graphic Arts (Trade I^Iountin ^ 
& Finishing Division ) 
February 26, 1934 

All labor shall be performed in the 
establishment's plant and no home 
work shall be allor'ed. 
Section 22-B (Sec. c). 

Graphic Arts in Hawaii 
April 6, 1935 

Prohibition of Home Work . - All la- 
bor shall be performed in an estab- 
lishment's plant and no home work shall 
be allowed, except in accordance with 
the provisions of the Executive Order 
of the President, No. 6711-A, dated 
May 15, 1934. 

Grass & Febre Rug Mfg . 
Sept. 19, 1934 

llo member of the Industry shall employ 
any person or persons to manufacture, in 
whole or in part, any product of the 
industry in the home, except in accord- 
ance with Executive Order, Hay 15, 1934, 
(Art. V, Sec. 7). 

Gummed Label and Embossed 
Seal Industry 
Peoruary 26, 1934 

The manufacture or partial manufacture of 
any product of the Industry in homes shall 
be prohibited, provided however that 
members of the Industry who are now em- 
ploying home workers shall have until 
May 1, 1934, to adjust their operation. 
(Art. V, Sec. 8) 

Gumming Industry 
February 26, 1934 

The manufacture or partial manufacture 
of any product of the Industry in the 
house shall be prohibited. (Art, V, 
Sec. 8.) 

October 19, 1933 

On and after January 1, 1934, the man- 
ufacture or partial manufacture of hand- 
kerchiefs at home shall be prohibited, 
except that handkerchiefs made entirely 
by hand may be manufactured at home. 
The manufacture and processing of hand- 
kerchiefs on which the labor cost of the 
hand operation is equal to sixty percent 
(60^) or more of the total labor cost of 
the finished handkerchief, shall not be 
bound by the provisions of Sections 1, 
4, 7 and 8 of this Article, provided that 
the wholesale price of such handkerchiefs 
is not less than three dollars and fifty 
cents ($3.50) per dozen. The Code Authoi^ 
ity shall study the geographical distri- 
bution of members of the industry coming 



within the privilege of this exception 
and shall males to the Administrator recom- 
mendations for confining the privileges 
of t.iis exception '.vithin a certain geo- 
. graphical range or ranges. Any member of 

the industry coming within the privilege 
of this exception shall not manufacture, 
or cause to be rapjriufactured, any hand- 
kerchiefs, either in whole or in part, 
elsewhere than vdthin the Continental 
portion of the United States and sell 
the sai:ie in the Continental portion of 
the United States unless he siiall clearly 
specify the place of manufacture on each 
■ . handlrerchief so uanufactured. 

.(Art. jy, Sees. 8-9, Ai't. VI, Sec. 4 (5) ). 

; Code Aathority given power: "To study 

the problem of home'7orl: in this industry 
and to reconiaend to the Administrator 
appropriate means for its effective reg- 
■ ', ulation and control. " 

■Amendment 2 Amend Article IV, Section 8 by deleting 

October 3, , 1934 the present Section and substitutiijg 

therefor the following: 

(a) Except as hereinafter provided, 

no member of tne industry shall manufacture 
or finish or cause to be manufactured or 
finished any handlcerchief by means of 
home labor, except that handlcerchief s made 
.... entirely by hand may be manufactured at . 


(b) An;^hing to the contrary herein 
notwithstanding, a person raaj'' be permitted 
to engage in horaeworlc at the same rate of 
wages as is paid for the same type of 
work perfonaed in the factory or other 
regular place of business if a home- 
worker's certificate is obtained from the 
State Authority or other officer designated 
by the United States Department of Labor, 
such certificate to be granted in accordance 
with instructions issued by the United States 
De-partroent of Labor, provided: 

(l) Such person is physically incapaci- 
tated for work in a factory or other reg- 
ular place of business and is free from 
any contagious disease; or 


(2) Such iDerson is unable to leave home 
"because his or her sei'vices are absolutely 
essential for attendance on a person who 
is bedridden or an invalid and both such 
persons are free from any contagious 
disease, or because of the necessity of 
caring for minor children or dependents 
unable to leave home. 

Any employer engaging such a person 
shall keep such certificate on file and 
shall file with the Code Authority the 
name and address of each worker so 
certified. (Arti IV, Sec. 3 as amended). 

Amend Article IV, Section 3 by deleting 
the present section and substituting 
therefor the following: 3. Each member 
of the industry shall file with the Con- 
fidential Agency of the Code Authority 
duly certified schedules of rates of pay 
for piecework production for each type 
of standard operation in force in his 
plant (including homev/ork, if any and 
where permissible) , and shall advise said 
Agency of any change or alteration which 
may at any time be made in such schedules. 
Said Confidential Agency shall report to 
the Code Authority, under key numbers, all 
such schedules, in order that the Code 
Authority may be kept informed as to the 
observance or non-observance of this Code. 
Unless ordered by the National Industrial 
Recovery Board, said Confidential Agency 
shall in no case disclose the name of any- 
one to who any key number may have re- 

Administrative^ Order IT^ IS_ Oap_E_B3D_ PURTIEBH; that there shall 

(included in iinendment) be created forthwith a Special Commission 

composed of three members, one of whom shall 
be nominated by tne L.-=bor Advisory Board 
of the National Recovery Administration, 
one by the Division Administrator of the 
Textiles Division of the National Re- 
covery Administration, and one by the 
Code Authority for the Handlcerchief 
Industry. Said Commission shall study 
and investigate the production of hand- 
kerchiefs by means of hand sewing and 
hand embellishment in the home, and shall 
submit to the National Industrial Re^ 
covery Board, within forty (40) days from 
the date hereof, a report containing 



Administi-ative Order 14 
Fob. 4, IS 35 

findings vrith rGcomjaGndr.tions for iiiii- 
imuja piece r/orlr and/or hourl7 rates 
for hand se'-ing and hand embelli siiment 
in the home, T.'hich recommendations, upon 
the ap-oroval of the ra^tional Indtictrial 
Hecover:/ Board, shall oecome effective 
as part of this Codu. PencUng the re- 
port of said Comnission and the a,pproval 
of ani^ recommendations thereof t)v the 
ifetional Industrial Recovery Board, 
as ar.iended, shall "be sta,3'-ed, insofar 
a.s the provisions of sedd Section maj?- 
appl,7 to liand r.ev/ing and hand emoelliali- 
raent in the home. (Order) Cr^ ated 
Special Coinmi'^sion to stud"" r; d investi~ 
gate the production of Iianrl;.;: caicf s bjr 
means of hf.Jid scv.'ing and hand cmhellish- 
ment in the home, and e::tended tlie time 
in v'hich this \'as to he done. 

Administrs.tive Order 22 
Mar. 21, 19S5 

Sxtonded to L.Iaj' 10, 1935, the time r/ithin 
which tlie Special Commission shall mahe a 
reooi't' of its findinf;s. 

Hat ilanuf acturin^; 
Feh'rur.17- 19, 1934 

ITo morcliandise sli 
'Homo v.'orlc' . 
(Article 17, (7). 

all he manufacture 


Sept. 4, 1933 

All productive operations sliall he carried 
on on the premises of a plant, this being 
understood to specificall7 prohibit the 
farming out of \7orlc to be done in private 
homes or elsewhere than in a "plant. S::- 
ceptions in the causes of individ-^aal v/orkers, 
may be granted xihore the proofs sho\7 that 
the worker can only work at home, and re- 
quires such work as a means of livelihood. 
Permits for o:;ceptions shall be proctira-ble 
from the Code Authority which will pre- 
scribe the manner and conditions under 
which thej?-- shall be considered. 
(Art. VI (l)). 

Infsjits' and Children' s 
AiDr. 9, 1934. 

ITo member of the Industr"/ shall emploj" 

hom •. labor for the porf ormanc-.- of jiome 

work on sowing machines. 

Sec t ion 9 . Tlie Code Authorit''- shall, 

witain (6) months of the effective date 

of this Code recomraend to thu Acininistrator 



o.poropririiiG ner-r.r, lor the rGg"J.lation 
and coiitrol of sucli hoinov/ork in this 
ir.'i.tistiy as? is not providod for in 
Seotion 8 cf this Article. 
(Art. V, Sec. (f^). 

Knitt^ed 0uterv36\r . No Knitted OutciT/ear producbr. simll be 

Jan. 1, 1C34. manaf R,ct'arcd at home for nalo or other 

co^amorcial purooes, except that for the 
period of one yerr after the effective 
r^ate of this Code hand hnittin^ (vhich 
shall include hand crocheting, hand 
embroidering, and hand seuing together 
of machine-iicde parts of garnents), vrill 
he permitted v;hen performed in accordance 
with reg-jJ-S-tionp and/or ^oiece rates r/hich 
nay he eataolish^d -.r.s herein -orovided. 

An^^-tliinr contained in Article IV of 
this Code to the contrar^r notvH.thstanding, 
the Auninistrator may fi::, on or before 
Jaai-uar;- 15, 1934-, ;.fter notice to the 
Code Authority, and ma-y cham^e from 
tiriO to time after like notice, m.inimum 
piecev'or;: rates for any of the operations 
described in para^^raiDh (a) of this Article. 

The Administrator shall appoint a 
Hand/-?Knitted Division Committee of seven, 
tirree of v:hom siiall be fahrly representaitive 
of the hand-hnit maniif acturers, three 
fairly representative of the machine man- 
ufa.cturers and recommended by the Code 
Authority, and one representing the 
Administrator. This Committee shall re- 
port to the Administrator vrithin thirty 
(30) days after the effective date of 
this Code or -i7ithin such f^arther time 
as may subsequently be allorred by the 
AcJTiinistrator or his Deputy, r.'ith re- 
spect to proper minimum piecev/orlc rates 
and sliali make a study of and rcoort 
within six months from the effective 
date of this Code, U;ion the practicaibil- 
ity of discontinuing homework in the In- 
dusti^' or sotting up a s;;'stem of control 
for honeror]:ers. 
(Art. 71 (a) - (c) 



AAp.inistrrtive Order 9 A";'-ooint :c". "land Knitted Division Co'r.ittec to re- 

A'^r^ 3C, 1E34 T)ort on piece rates "or lione''or;:f--rs, and to re- 

port on the practica'bility of disco "tinning horr.e- 
•'or!c in the Knitied Ou.tor'-'ear Industry. 

_Adr^^.-^jLstJa.ti^'e .Order .36 ' H-n,S"^i S. Jolir.son 

Feb. 4, 1S35 ' Adr.inistrator for Industrial 

Gra:itinc A"oplicption for a Stajr of the Provi- 
sions of Section (a) of Article VI, insofar 
as They AtoIv to Hand Knitting as Described 
in Said Section; ?jid Section (b) rnd (c) of 
Article VI, and Ao-^rovinc Ile.^-ilations for'or]: Production. 

17I-SZEAS, the Code of Fair Competition for 
the Knitted Oute:-"ear Industry provided for a I 

■"and Knitted Division Ooin litte, rhich Connittee 
v-as to have studied and ro-iorted to the Admin- 
istration its rocou lendr.tion for mininian piece 
••or': r-tes apr»lic?-ble to homeijork Tjroduction 
in the Industry, and further to have rsriorted 
upo'a the practic^bilit;- of discontinuing hone- 
i.7orh in the Indixstry or setting i-.-;,' a s^-stcra 
of co'ntrol for ho ^.enoricors; end 

'.'riErJ^AS, the H?nd Knitted Division 
tee has rendered a report to the Administration, 

I7"EZI1AS, he rings having been duly neld 
tliereon, a,nd the Deputy Adninistrator having re- 
proted, a-nd it a.ipears to the satisfaction of 
the national Industrial Hecovery Soard that . 

the stay hereinafter granted is necessary a^id ' 

rill teid to effectuate the policies of Title 
I of the ITationa-1 Industria-l ".ecov-ryAct; and 

THSrcAS, Reflations for Honenork Production 
have been submitted by the Code Authority to 
the ITational Industrial ":r.covery Loard for its 
revision, iiodif icatio-i., and a-^^oroval; 

ITOTJ, THEREFOR".', ^a:i.rsuant to authority vest- 
ed in the Wa.tional Industrial Recovery Board, 
the attached Re;:.:ulations are hereby a-^proved; and 
it is hereby ordered that the provisions of Sec- 
tion (a) of Article VI of the Code of Fair Com- 
petition for the Knittr:d Quter'-'ear Industry, 
insofar as they -orohibit the manufact-ure in 
hones, for sale or other coiiiiercial purposes, of 
the products of hand Jmitting (vrhich 
includes hand crocheting, hrond emLi-oider^'-, 
and hand sewing togctlier of nachin-^ made 

parts of :'^-ai--ie-ats) on and after Jamary 1, 1955, 
rnd Secti-ns (j) aiic. (c) of Article ''1, "be ?nd 
t :e3'- are 'lei-ety stayed for the -period from the . ^ 
c-ate of this Order to April 1, 1935; 

PTVIDID, ''(Tl-J-l, that t>.e nenbers of the Indus- 
try enja-ed in hone'-ork production in the Knitted 
Outer'-'ear Indr-str^' compl;?- -rith the rjrovisions 
of the said Code and The ?,e;^-.lations attached 
hereto; ?nd 

PPlOVIDID, FJ?.T"1:S, that a TTone'-'orh Connission 
of three (3) menhers shall he a-^-Dointed hy 
the national Industrial Recover3r Board, rhich 
shall co:isist of one (l) representative fron the 
Division of p.esearch and Planning of the national 
Recovery Adainistr:.tion, -mo shall be Chairman, 
one (1) representative froa the labor Advisory 
loard cf the national Recovery Administrr>tion; 
and one (1) representative to be selected by 
the Code Authority by the I[nitted Outernear" 
Industry. The duties and porrers of the HoneTTork 
Connission shall incl^ide t le collection, assem- 
bling", and analyzing cf all infornation, data and 
facts relative to and concerning Home'^orl- Pro- 
duction in f.e Knitted Oiiter^jear Industry, and 
to make reports and reconi:;endations to the 
national Industrial Recovery Board on or before 
April 1, 1935, relative to the most practical 
method of enforcing the provisions of Article 
VI of this Code, or as required by the national 
Industrial Recovery 3o?rd; and 

P'XVIDRD, Ri;?.TR:R, that the Code Aitliority of the 
Knitted O^ter-ear Ind-istry shall administer 
and enforce the Ratv-lnticns attached hereto 
for Hone'-'or]-: Production, a;id shall render to the 
'Ione'7ork Comission in.formation,data, rnd 
re-^orts as the "■'o:':eT'ork Coiinission ma,y reqp.ire 
from tine to tine, .?nd aesist the Ho^ie^ork Con- 
mission generally. The actions and fxiiictions 
of t'.ie Code .'Author it- and/or its 
agencies with regrrd to t'v3 enfcrcenent 
of the Regala.tions for "lone-rork prodx\ction 


shall at all times "be subject to tliG 
apyoroval, s-jr^ervisiou, .and dir^^ction 
of the Homework Co;TKiission. The Honie- 
\7orl: Commission shall also h-3,ve the 
ri.2;ht to participate in any of these 
actions of the Code Authority and/ or 
its agencies vrith respect to 
vrory. Production. 

This Order is suhject to revocation 
upon proper shcvini'-i of cause or sub- 
sequent order. 

Natio:ial Industrial Hecovery Board 

B y T;. A. Harri:nan /s/ 

W. A. :--arrinan 
Administra.tive Officer 

Ap-iroval Hecoi-iinended: 


prentis- L. CoDuley 
Divisi X": A-'-irhnistrator 

Fehr-jary 4, 1935 

Administrative Order 38 R D E H 


?0H ?:-!', 


Appointm.ent of Members :f the Honie- 
wor]c Coranission for the Ha.nd Knitted 
Division of the Enitced Outerv.-ear In- 

17:-iEIEAS, Administrative Order 
No. 164-36, Staying tne Provisions of 
Section (a) of Article VI of the Code 
of Fair Co.niietitian for the Knitted 
Outerwear Industry, provides that thb 
national Industrial Hecovery Board 
shall a-ppoint a ?7o;aev.'orlc Commission 
of three members, vdiich shall consist 
of one (l) representative from the 
Division of Research and Planning; of 
the national Recovery Auninistration, 
who shall be Chalrnan; one (1) repre- 
sentative from the Labor Advisory 
Board of the National Recovery Ad- 
ministration; andt one (l) representative 


to "be selected "by the Code Authority 
for the Knit'.ec:. Oxiterv/ear Industry; 

NOW,, T:-"E?J]F0EE , p-uxG-uant to author- 
it;- vested iu the i^Iational Industrial 
Hecover^,' Board, it is here'by ordered 
tho.t William H, Dillinghaia, represent- 

ing ,tne Division o: 

search and Pl^,n- 

ning of the national Recovery Ad- 
ministration, I'issHose Sclmeidernan, 
re rp resenting the Lahor Advisory Board of 
th.e ly.r.ti^nal Hecovery Administration; 
and >>rold E. Lhowe , reioresentin;';^ the 
Code ii.ithority for the Knitted Outer- 
'.'e'lr Industry'' are hereby ap-oointed .lem- 
hers of the Horiev;ork Coifinission for the 
Knitted 0^^ter^7ear Industry to serve 
■jurGUCi/.r: to the provisions of Ad- 
ministrative Order llo. 164-36. It is 
fui-b.ier ordered tliat William H. Dilling- 
:iar:i is here'by a:n"-'0inted Chairman of said 
Co!'-V;ittee . 


B y W. A. rlarriman /s/ 

17. A. Harriran 
Adrtiinistrative Officer 

A-n-T o intnent E'eccT lended : 

Plffll'i^'ISS L. COO:' 


iivisiovi Administrator 

Washington, D. C. 
Pebr-u;iry 12, 1935, 

Administrative Order 41 
Feb. 27, 1935 

Extendin;: stay of ^^rovisions of Article 
VI, Sections (a), (h) and (c) granted 
in Order 36 uiitil Ma.^'- 15, 1935. 

Ladies Ha2id"b ag Industry 
Mar. 26, 1934.^ 

No i'lemho:^ of the industry sliall give out 
worl: to be oerforKed in any hone or dvrell- 
ing place, e::cept t'lat this prohibition 
snail not applj.' to handbeading , hand- 
crocheting, liandembroidering, and except 
th-.'.t hj-.ind sevring at hone s1t/i.11 be per- 
mitted until July 1, 1934, but sh,?.ll 
not be permitted thereafter. The Code 
Authorities sha,ll, in conjunction with 
such State governments and such dep-3rt- 
■nents oi the Fe-'eral Goverrjiiient and such 
other agencies ::s the Administrator may 



designate, study and investigate the 
prclileTii cf home ivork in this industry 
and shall make to the Adininistratrr 
recoranendations for the effective and 
appropriate control of such homework as 
is herein jjernitted. Should the Ad- 
ministrator find it to the best interest 
of the industry or to the "best interests 
of later or otherrdse necessary to fur- 
ther effectuate the purposes of the Act, 
he may further effectuate the purposes 
• of the Act, he may further restrict, or 
wholly prohibit, the practice of home- 
work in this Industry. 
(Art. V, Sec. 10). 

Xeather and Woolen For the Purpose of eliminating heme work 

Knit Glove Industry in the industry as rapidly as possible, 

Nov. 13, 1933 within six (6) months after the effective 

date hereof, employers shall reduce their 
. outside, work by at least twenty-five 
percent (25)a) of sewing machii-.e opera- 
tors, taking as a basis for r:duction 
the number of outside workers as of the 
-■ effective date hereof. Within one (l) 
year after the effective date hereof, 
era;nloyers shall effect a further re- 
duction of outside work by at least 
another twenty-five percent (25^o), tak- 
iV'-E f's a basis for reduction of out- 
side work by at least another twenty- 
five percent (25;i) , taking as a basis 
for reduction the number of outside 
workers as of the effective date here- 

Within one (l) ;v'^ar after the ef- 
■ fective date hereof, the Code Authority 
shall conduct investigations and make 
recommendations to the Administrator 
designed to eliminate outside work ccm- 
■oletely, which recoranendations when ap- 
proved by the Administrator sliall have 
full force and effect as provisions of 
this Code. 

Pron the date of a-mroval of this 
Code, no additional outside operators 
shall be employed and no employer shall 
increase outside work for the purpose 
of evading the provisions of this Code. 
Employers shall register witr: the Code 
Authority the names of all outside 
wo rke r s . 
(Art. V, Sec. 9) 



l,ig,ht Sewing Industry 

Feb. 2, 1934, No employer shall have work done or La- 

bor performed on any article produced 
in this Industry in the home of a worker, 
except handwork only as follows; 

(1) Candle wick spreads 

(2) Hand quilted textiles for a 
period of six months, but 
thereafter only if specifical- 
ly exempted by the Administra- 

(Art. V, (9). 


Loose Leaf and Blank Book 
l-:a.y 14, 1934 ... 

The mrnufactiire or or.rtial niafiufacture. of any 
product of the Industry in homes shall be -pro- 
.(Art.. VI, Sec. 8.^ 

Luggage and F ancy Leather Goods 
October 13, 1933 

Hone \''ork in any branch of tnis industry is 
hereby orohibited, nor shall any work be -oer- 
mitted. by the em-oloyer to be performed in 
tenement houses, basements, or in any lonsani- 
tary building. 
(Art. VI, Sec. (5\ 

MediTOJa and Low priced Jewelry 
Manufa.cturing Industry 
Pecember 24, 1933 

Employers in this industry shall not directly 
or indirectly permit work of any kind to be 
done in the home or homes. 
(Art. VI. ^ 

Men's Clothing Industr-- 
Sept. 4, 1933 

Three (3^^ months after the effective date 
(September 11, 19oo^ a manufacturer shall not 
be permittea to have v/ork done or labor per- 
formed on any sja-rment or part thereof in the 
home of a worker. All work done for a manu- 
facturer on a garment or part thereof shall 
be done in vdiat is commonly known as an inside 
shop or in a contracting shop. (Art. Ill) 

Men's Garter, Suspender and 
Belt Manufacturing Industry 
Jlov. 19, 1933 

No home work shall be permitted by employers 
after May 1, 1934. After March 1, 1934, no 
employer shall employ more than sixty percent 
(60fo'» of the number of home workers employed 
by him as of September 1, 1933. Until May 1, 
1934, no home Yiork. shall be permitted by em- 
ployers tinless and until evidence has been 
presented to the Code Authority, as agent for 
the Administrator, that all State, municipal 
and other laws and regulations relating to 
home work have been complied with and unless 
the names and addresses of such home workers 
and their employers shall have been filed with 
the Code Authority. The Code Authority shall 
file with the Administrator a list of the 
names and addresses of all home workers em- 
ployed in the industry and shall indicate by 
whom all such home workers are employed. 
No home worker shall be engaged at the same 
time by more than one employer. a11 home 
workers shall be paid on the same piece-rate 
basis as factory employees engaged in similar 
work. Copies of Article II, III, and VIII, 
of this Code shall be supplied to all home 
workers. (Art. VIIl) 



Men's Neckwear Industry 
April 2, 1934 

On and after June 15, 1934 no home work shall 
be permitted by merabers of the Industry. 
Prior to that date no member of the Industry 
shall: (l) Increase the number of home workers 
employed by him or make any replacements of 
hone workers. (2^* Fail to list v/ith the Code 
Authority v^ithin ten {V~)) deys after the ef- 
fective date, the na;r,es and addresses of all 
home T/orkers emoloyed by him. (3) Employ any 
home vi^orker on a piece rate basis less than 
that provided for in the Code for same or 
similar operations. (4'* Issue home work ex- 
cept directly to the individual v/ho performs 
the productive operations thereon. 
(Art. IV, Sec.lV 

ivierchant & Custom Ta ilo rin ig: 
Aug. l'"^, 1934. . 

Home Work. — The practice of manufacturing in 
the home or living quarters of an employee 
shall be terminated not later than four (4) 
months a.fter the effective date of the Code; 
except as provided in the Executive Order of ■ 
luay 15, 1934. In the meantime and until such 
ternina,tion the follovjing rules and res'^ula- 
tions shall govern the members of this Indus- 
try in relation to homework, 
(a") ITo member of the Industry shall permit 
homework in any home not used by such member 
for such p\irpose on the effective date of 
the Code. 

(b) Every member of the Industry shall file 
with the Code Authority a list of such home 
work establishments. 

(c) Every member of the Industry shall be 
personally responsible for the compliance by 
an employee, working in his home, with all the 
labor provisions of this Code. (Art. V, Sec. 8) 

Millinery Industry (*) 
December 25, 1933 

Fo member of the industry shall permit work to 
be done in any homes or tenement houses, base- 
ments, or in any iinsanitary building. 
(Art. V, (8\ 

Marrow Fabrics 
Larch 12, 1934 

The having v/ork done or labor performed on any 
product' of the Industry in the home of a work- 
er shall be nrohibited. 
(Art. V, Sec". 8.) 

Needlework Industry 
(in Puerto Hico) 
July 19, 1934 

Ho member of the Ind'j.stry shall allow any 
stamping, cutting, washing, pressing, folding, 
ribboning, ticU'eting or machine sewing in a 
home on products of this Industry. Members of 

(*")i.'OTE: This Homework Provision, due to an error, 
Millinery Code when it was reprinted. 

was omitted from the 



the Indus tr:/- may, hoFever, emploj'- workers who 
have been employed at machine sewing in homes 
during the year immediately preceding the ap- 
proval of this code, to do machine seV'?ing at 
home on those m.",chines o^Tned by home workers 
as of the date of approv:^! of this Code uoon 
which they have theretofore done such machine 
sewing, -provided every such home worker is 
registered with the Code Authority, and provi- 
did further that the machine used by such home 
worker is registered with the Code Authority 
as provided for in Article VII, Section 8 (i) 
of this Code. All work done in homes on sewing 
machines must be paid for at a rate not less 
than -the rate for similar work done in the 
factory and 'in no case at less than a rate of 
$5.'"i'^ -per week of forty (40"^ hours. 

The Adininistrator shall apnoint a Commission, 
on or ^fter the effective date of this Code, to 
study the Community 7/'ork "^oom "olan, and if that 
plan if. not adjudged tc be feasible to propose 
an altefnte plan the object of which shall be 
to take from homes to Community 'York Rooms or 
Factories as many home workers as practicable. 
The poromission shall report its findings on 
the Coratiunity .("ork ^lOom or alternate olan with- 
in, ninety (90') days after its first meeting. 
(Art. y. Sees. .7 and 8) 

Administrative Order 9 - 
Dec. 23, 1954 

Granting' conditional erceraption from provisions 
of Art. IT. Sec. 3', and modifying piece work 
rates .for homeworfcers. 

Administrative Order 11 
Jan. 23, 1935 

Supplementing' Orders 9 and 11, which granted 
conditional exemption from provisions of Art. 
IV, Sec' '3, and modified piece work rates for 

Administrative .Order 15 
Jan. 8, 1935 

Supplementing Order 9, which granted condi- 
tional exemption from provisions of Art. I'V, 
Sec. 3; and modified piece vvork rates for 

Administrative Order 1 5 

Supplements Orders 9-11-13 which granted con- 
ditional exemption, from provisions of Art. IV, 
Seci 3' and modified piecework rates for horae- 
workers . 

i-Iovelty Curtains . 
Dre.peries. etc . 
Amendment 2 
Aug. 24, 1934. 

Article. V ajnended: 

The doing' of work' or the performance of labor 
on any product of the Domestic Decorative 
Linens Branch of the Industry in the home of 
a worker shall be prolirbited. (Art. V, Sec. 9). 



Onea Paper Drinking; Cup and 
Round I'Testin^: pgper Food 
April 9, 1934 

The manufacture or partial manufacture of any 
product of the Industry in hoaes shall be pro- 
(Art. V. Se. 8.V . 

Ornamental Molding. Carving , 
and Turning Industry 
February 19, 1934 

No member of the industry shall permit any 
product of the Industry to be ma,de in the home 
of any worker. 
(Art. V, Sec. 1.) 

Package Medicine 
May 28, 1934 

YiO homework shall be allowed in this industry. 
(Art. V, Sec. 8.) 

Paper Disc Milk Bottle Cap 
February 12, 1934 

The raanuf r ctiore or partial manufacture of any 

product of the Industry in homes shall be 


(Art. V, Sec. 9.) 

Pasted Shoe Stock Industry 
May 13, 1934. 

Ho ho'-ie work shall be uermitted after A\igust 1, 

1934. ■ ■ 

(Art. IV, Sec. 6.) 

Perfume. Cosmetic and Othe r No home 

Toilet Prepa.rations (Art. V, 

April 2, 1934 . 

vork shall be allowed in this industry. 
Section 8. "i 

Photographic Mount Industry , 
February 26, 1934 

The manufacture or partial mamifacture of any 

product of the industry in the homes shall be 


(Art. V, Sec. 8.) 

Picture Moulding and picture 
Frame Indus tr:/' 
January 29, 1934 

I\Io member of the industry shall permit any 
work in. the Indus trv to be performed in the 
home of any worker . 
(Art. V. Sec. S.) 

Pleating and Stitching, Sonnaz 

and Hand Embroidery 

Feb. 19, 1934 


All homework in the industry shall be abolished 
not later than June 1, 1934. By May 1, 1934, 
the Code Authority, after proper investigation 
and conference shall recommend to the Adminis- 
trator the wage scale that should be paid to 
the .cla,sses of workers taken into the factories 
from homework which upon his approval, after 
such notice and hearing as he may specify, 
shall become binding provisions of this Code. 
Prices for articles done by homeworkers, until 
June 1, 1934 shall be determined by the basis 
of a minimum hourly rate of 35;^. 

■ Within one month after the effective date 
of this Code, every employer shall register 
with the Code Authority the name and address 
of each person who performs homework for said 
employer, directly or indirectly, and no work 
shall be given by any employer to such person 
unless said person's name is register with the 
Code Authority. (Art. IV, Sec. 7) 

Portable TTlectric Lam-pshade . 
Supplement 2, Electrical Mfg., 
Amen dment 1. Aoproved Feb. 12, 
1935. (HoraeTTork cl"-use not to 
become effective for 90 days\ ■ 

Home work. Y.o emnloynr shall manufacture or 
cause to have manufactiired in whole or in part 
any oi the products of this subdivision in the 
home, premises or living quarters of any oerson, 
■orovided, however, 

(1^ A person may be permitted to engage in 
homework at the same rate of wages as is paid 
for the same type of work performed in the 
factory or other regular place of business if 
a certificate is obtained from the State Au- 
'thority or other officer designated by the 
United States Department of Labor, such cer- 
tificate to be granted in accordance with in- 
structions issued by the United States Depart- 
ment of Labor, provided 

(a) Such, person is physically incapacitated 
for work in a factory or other r.^gular place 
of business and is free from any contagious 
disease; or. 

{b") Su-ch person is unsble to leave home be- 
cause his or her services are absoltely essen- 
tial for attend&nce on a person who is bed- 
ridden or a,n invalid and both such persons are 
free from any contagious disease. 

(c") Any employer engaging such a person 
shall keep such certificates on file and shall 
file with the Supervisory Agency the name and 
address of each vrorker so certificated,. 
■,(Ar.t. XIV. \ 

Powder 'Puff Industry 
Jan. 27, 1934 

All members of the industry shall arrange to , 
discontinue the system of homework by Pebniar; 
1, 1934. (Art. ?, Sec. 7) 

Precious Jewelr^'- Producing 


■November 30, 1933 

On and ;ifter the effective date of this code 
home \/ork in this industry shall be prohibit- 
ed. (Art. V.) 

Print Roller and Print Block 

Lianufacturing Industry 

April 9, 1934 

After l:ay 1, 1934, no employer snail have work 
done in the home of a worker. V.'ithin one 
month after the effectiAre date of this Code, 
every employer shall register with the Code 
Authority the name and address of each person 
who performs homework for said employer, 
directly or indirectly, and no work shall be 
given by. any employer, to such person unless 
said, person's name is registered with the Code 
(Art. VIII.) 

Ready-made Furniture Slip 
Covers Mamifacturinj:: Industry 
Febmary 26, 1934 

Members of this industrv shall not -nQTmit work 
of any kind to be done in the home or homes 
either directly or indirectly, or by contracts 
?/ith those v/ho let out work on subcontracts. 
(Art. VI.) 



:::ietail Custom iiilline ry T rade 
Febi-uary 4, 1935 

No member of the Trade shall work, or permit 
any wcrk to be done for hira, in any building, 
hoiie, tenement house, cellar, or other place 
which is unsanitary, dangerous or detrimental 
to health, or unsafe by reason of fire risk, 
or other hazard. 
(Art. VI, Sec. 4.') 

Robe and Allied Products 
January 29, 1934 

Horue v;ork is strictly prohibited. 
(Art. V, Sec. 9.^ 

:iubber Manufacturing Industry 
Rainwear Division 
December 25, 1933 

Ko member of the Division shall permit or 
allow the processing or manufacturing of any 
of his oroducts except within his own plant 
or plants and/or the plants of registered 
contractors, as provided in Article I V-B. 
In particular but without limitation, it is 
hereby provided that no part of such process- 
ing or manufacturing shall be done in the 
ho^nes of anj"- eiaployees. 
(Art. IV, Part D, Sec. 1.) 

Sample Card 
March 5, 1934 

The manufacture or partial manufacture of any 
product of the Industry in homes shall be pro- 
(Art. V, Sec. 8.) 

Sanitary Milk Bottle Closure 
April 9, 1934. 

The mnnufacture or partial manufacture of any 
product of the Industry in homes shall be pro- 
(Art. V, Sec. 8.) 

Sanitary and 'Taterproof 
Specialty Manufacturing 
:'.ar. 26, 1934 ' 

Schiffli, The Hand Embroidery, 
and the Embroidery Thread and 
Scallop Cutting Industries 
Feb. 12. 1934 

Ko home work shall be permitted by employers 
ninety (90) days after the effective date of 
this Code. (Art. x) 

After six (6) months from the effective date 
of this Code no member of the industry shall 
give out work to be done in homes. Prior to 
that date, the Code Authority shall gather 
facts regarding the operation of homework in 
the industries under this Code and shall make 
recommendations to the Administrator, who, 
after due hearing, shall determine whether the 
above prohibition shall be modified, cancelled 
or continued. (Art. IV, Sec. 2.) 

Scientific Apparatus 
November 27, 1954. 

All home work is prohibited after the effec- 
tive date of this Code. 
(Art. IV. 7.^ 

Set-Up Paper Box iianufacturing 


Jan. 1, 19S4 

After January 1, 1934, the manufacture or 
partial manufacture of any product of this ir 
dustry in the home of a worker shall be pro- 
hibited. (Art. V, Sec. 4.) 



Shoe Pattern /'anufacturing 


J\me 5, 1934 

Ho work shall be dene or permitted in tenement, 
private houses, basements or in any -onsanitary 
buildings or buildings unsafe on account of 
fire risks.- 

l-Io home '.vork shall be vermittsd after September 
1, 1934. (Art. IV, Sees. 5 and 6) 

Shoulder Pad Manu facturer 
February 15, 1934. 

No home work shall be permitted by members of 
the industry. 
(Art. Ill, (7). 

Silverv7?-re Manufactiiring 


December 25, 1933. 

llo member of tne Industry?- shall distribute or 
permit to be distributed, directly or indirect- 
ly woTi: of any kind to be done in hone or homes 
(Art. VI.) 

Slit Fabric Manufacturer 
January 29, 1934. ' 

No home work shall be r^ermitted by members of 
the industry. 
(Art. Ill, (7). 

Stay Manufacturing Industry 
Mar. 8, 1934. 

No homework shall be -nennitted in this industi" 
after June 1, 1934. 
(Art. V,-. Sec. 6) 

Stereotype Dry Mat Industry 
Aug. 6, 1934 

The manufacture or i^artial manufacture of any 
product of. the Industry in hemes shall be pro- 
hibited, except in accordance with the provi- 
sions of the Executive Order of the President, 
■'dctted .J/ay 15, 1934. (Art. V. Sec. 7^. 

Tag Industry 
Feb. 12, 1934 

The manufajcture or partial manufacture of an^r 
product of the industry in homes shall be pro- 
hibiteo. after. Hay 1, 1934. (Art. V, Sec. 9) 

Amendment 1 . 
Nov. 4, 1934 

The manufs-cture or partial manuffcture of any 
product of the industry in Homes is nrohibifed 
after Jr^nuary 1, 1935. Prior to January 1, 
1935, the following provisions shall govern ' 
home work in ^ the Industry: 

(a) within five (5^) days after the effective 
date of this amendment, the Code Authority 
shall prescribe a schedule of rates to be paid 
for all home work operations and submit the 
same to the National Industrial Recovery Board. 
In no event shall such schedule prescribe ra,tes 
which will yield a home worker for an hour's 
work less than eighty($0) percent of the mini- 
mum rates of wages prescribed, in Article IV 
of this Code. After the aforementioned five 
da.y period and prior to November 1,' 1934, no 
home worker shall be paid at rates less than 
those contained in .such schedule. The Code 
Authority shall furnish every home worker 
employed in the industry with a copy of such 


schedule qnd a copy of this amendment. 

(b) ],7j thin ten (l'^'* days after the effective 
day of this amendment the Code Authority 
shall prescribe a second schedule of rates 

to be TDrdd for all home work operations and 
submit tJr-e same to *-he National Industrial 
Recovery Board. In no event shall such Sched- 
ule prescribe rates which will yield a home 
worker for an hour' s work less than the mini- 
mum rates of wages prescribed in Article IV 
of this Code.. After November 1, 1934, no 
homo v?orker shn.ll. be paid rates less than 
those contained' in such schedule. The Code 
Authority shall furnish every homeworker em- 
ployed in the industry with a copy of such 
schedule., . , 

(c) Each member of the industry shall submit 
to the Code, Jiuthority within five (5) days 
after the effective date of this amendment and 
on the first day of each month thereafter, the 
following reports: 

1.' The names and addresses of every home 
worker employed by such member, together with 
evidence tha.t he has complied with all State, 
municipal, and other laws, including the wage 
provisions of this code, pertaining to home 
work. (V, 9 as amended) 

Tanning Extract Indu stry 
April 9, 1954. 

The manufacture or partial manufacture of any 
product .of the Industry in homes shall be pro- 
(Art. V, Sec. .7.) 

Amendment 1 
October 9, 1934. 

Delete Section 7 of Article V and substitute 

The manufacture . or, partial ma.nuf acture of any 
product of the Industry in homes shall be 
prohibited, except in accordance with the- 
provisions of the Executive Order of the 
President of the United States, dated I'ay 15^ 

Toy and Playthings Industry 
Nov. 13, 1933 

Homework is hereby prohibited after January 1, 
1934. (Art. Ill, Sec. 7) 

Transparent Materials 
C onverter Industry 
April 16, 1954. 

The- manufacture or partial manufacture of any 
product of the Industry is homes shall be 
prohibited. ' 
(Art. VI.,. ,Sec.. 8.) 

Umbrella Industry 
October 16, 1933. 

Home work in this Industry is prohibited. 
(Art. .VI.) 


Umbrella Frame and Umbrella 
Hdw. Mfg . 
Aoril 9, 1934,.' 

Adminis tra±lTeL_0riL.ex^2 
llovember 24, 1934. 

Y!o home work shall be allowed. 
(Art. V, Sec, 7.^ 

Removed stay of orovision set forth in Condi- 
tion, No. 3 of order approving Cod, and stip\i- 
lated that the provisions of Art. Y, Section 
, 7 be in full force from this date. 

Undergar me,n t and Ne gll .£.'ee 
May 7, 1934.;... ■ 

Up home work shall be permitted h.r members 
of this industry. 
.(Art. V, Sec. 6.) 

Underwear and Allied Pr o ducts 
Manufacturi ng Industry 
October 2, 1933. 

Ho. part of the process of the manufacture of 
the underwear and/or ' allied products covered 
by this eo^e shall take place in the home 
premises or living quarters of any person. 
The -Durpose &f this provision is to prohibit 
th6 distribution by any "oerson governed by 
this code of products or materials to anyone 
for home work.- 
.(Part II,. Sec. 2.) 

Used Textile Bag 
Februaxy 18, 1934 

Vegetable Ivory Button Mfg .. 
June 13, IQ3U 

January 1, 1934. 

Kg home work shall be permitted in the Indus- 
try. (Art. V, Sec. 8.) 

The, Code Authority in conjection with the Ad- 
ministrator and . such other agents or agencies 
as he may designate, shall study the problem 
of "home work in. this industry and propose to 
the Administrator within a reasonable time 
after the effective date of this Code appro- 
priate provisions for the regulation and con- 
trol of such home work. (Art. V, Sec. B) 

On and after the effective date of this code 
all heme work shall be prohibited. 
(Art.' Y, Sec. 6.) 

V/aternroof Paper 
Febnaary 26, 1934 

^elt Manufactur ing Industry 
July 30, 1934. 

^omen' s Belt Industry 
October 13, 19:Z3 

./omen' s Neckwear & Scarf Mfg . 
Jan. 7, 1935 

The manufacture or partial manufac^ture of any 
■Draduct of the. Industry in homes shall be 
(Art. V, Sec. 8.) 

No homework shall be permitted in this industry, 
except in accordance with Executive Order of 
May 15,, ■ 1934. (Art. V, Sec. eV 

No home work shall be permitted. 
(Art^ III, (6.^ 

Home-Work - (a) A person may be permitted to 
engage in home-work at the same rate of wa.ges 
as is paid for the same type of work performed 



in the factory or other regular place of "busi- 
ness if a certificate is obtained from the 
State Aiithority or other officer designated hy 
the United States Departirant of Lator, such 
certificate to be granted in accordance with 
instructions issued by the United States De- 
partment of Labor, provided 

(1) Such person is physically incapacitated 
for work in a factory or other regular place 
of business and is free from any contagious 
diseases; or 

(2) Such person is unable to leave home be- 
cause his or her services are absolutely essen- 
tial for attendance on a person who is bed- 
ridden or an invalid and both such persons are 
free from any conta.gious disease. 

(b) Any employer engaging such a person shall 
keep such certificate on file and shall file 
with the Code Authority for the trade or indus- 
try or subdivision thereof concerned, the name 
and address of each worker as certificated. 

(c) In addition to persons who may be per- 
mitted to do home-work as hereinbefore set 
forth, home-work may be given out by a member 
of the Industrj'- to the workers not included 
under^SuBsection (a) of Section 4 of this 
Article, only if subsequent to the effective 
date of the Code, at least one-half of the 
total number of articles of each type are pro- 
duced in a factory maintained by, or operated 
for said member. Rates of pay for all types 
shall be established in the inside factory. 

(d) Wo member of the Industry shall give out 
home-work, unless the rates of pajr, paid for 
such home-work, shall be not less than the 
rates of pay paid for such work in a factory 
maintained or ooerated by or for such member 
of the Industry. 

(e"^ No home-work shall be given out by any 
member of the Industry to any worker, unless 
simultaneously therewith the names and ad- 
dresses of the home-workers who receive the 
work and the workers engaged in the actual 
performance of the work are registered with 
the Code Authority, and unless an exact re- 
cord of the work performed by and the prices 
paid to such home-workers are kept by the 
manufacturer. The Code Authority shall have 
the right to examine all such records. 'lith- 
in thirty (S'l"^ days after the effective date 
of this Code, the Code Authority shall appoint 
a committee, to consist of an equal number of 
representatives of emplojrers and employees, 
to investigate the home-work problem. 'Jithin 
sixty (60) days thereafter the committee shall 


report its findings and make such recommenda- 
tions as will enable the Code Authority to 
control home-work to safeg:uard the labor staji- 
dards provided for under this Code, 
(f") The Code Authority?- shall within ninety 
(?')") days after the effective date of this 
Code, adopt rules and regulations for the pro- 
visions of this Section and may from time to 
time amend same. Such rules a.nd regulations 
and amendments therto shall be subject to the 
approval of the National Industrial Recovery 
Board. (Art. Ill, Sec. A) 

Wiring Device Industry 
January 26, 1935 

Wood Cased Lead Pencil 
I Manufacturer 
February 27, 1934 

Section 1. iTo employer shall permit or allow 
processing or manufacture of any of his pro- 
ducts in the homes of any employee or in any i 
public or private institution excex)t under the 
following conditions: 

(a) A person may be permitted to engage in 
homework at the same rate of wages as is paid 
for the same type of work performed in the 
factory or other regular r)lace of business if 

a certificate is obtained from the State Author- 
ity or other officer designa.ted oy the United 
States Department of Labor, such certificate 
to be granted in accordance with instructions 
issued by the United States Department of Labor, 

(l'^ Such person is physically incapacitated 
for work in a factory or other regular place of 
business and is free from o.ny contagious dis- 
ease; or 

(2) Such person is unable to leave home be- * 
cause his or her services are absolutely essen- 
tial for attendance on a person who is bed- 
ridden or an invalid and both such -oersons are 
free from any contagious disease. 

(b) Any em;oloyer engaging such a person shall 
keep such certificate on file and shall file 
with the Suoervisory Agency the name and ad- 
dress of each worker so certificated. 

(Art. Y.) 

On and after the effective date of this code 
all home work shall be prohibited. 
(Art. V, Sec. 7.) 

wood Heel Industry 
February 12, 1934 

All work connected with every operation of the 
i.ood Heel Industry shall be porformed in the 
•factories of the employers. No such work 
whatsoever shall be oermitted to be taken to 
the home of the emplovees, 
(Art. VI, Sec. 4.)^ 





On ;:ay 10, 19.?4 a suit was com enced in the United States District 
Court, Southern District of Ifev; Yorlc, entitled "Kathryn 3udd, Anna W. 
Kochfelder, President of the Home\/ork Protective Leat:'ue of the United 
States, Julius Hochf elder, Attorney for the HomevTork Protective Lea^jue 
of the United States, Joseph Zalin, Executive Secretary of the ilational 
Hand Emhroidery & iNJovelty Association, August Bentkainp, James Toscani, 
Arthur De Jong, President of Jacoo' De Jong & Company, Inc., et al., 
Plaintiffs, against ilathnn Straus, Jr., N. R. A. Compliance Director of 
the State of i^few York and Martin Conboy, United States Attorney for the 
Southern District of i.'ew York, Respondents." 

A comolaint r;as served only on behalf of the plaintiff Zahn, although 
the other plaintiffs T;ere naiaed in the surajiions. Anna W. Hochf elder is 
the wife of Julius Hochfelder, the attorney for the plaintiff. 

The so-called Homework Protective League seems to have no real 
existence or membership. The offict?s of Zahn' s' Association, the Home- 
work Protective League and Julius Hochfelder are all at the same place, 
namely lir. Hoclif elder' s -lav; office. 

The comiDlaint alleged that, the "irovisions of the Artificial 
Flower <i Feather Industry Code against homework deprive homeworkers of an 
opportunity to earn a livelihood in violatioii of their constitutional 
rights; and that they prevent manufacturers engaged in that industry 
from giving homework, and thus restrict their rights and liberties in 
violation of the Constitution. 

The order to show cause for a temoorary injunction was returnable 
on liay 15, 1934. lir. Hochfelder obtained an adjournment until Ilay 29th 
on the ground that he was arrfjiging for the elimination of the homework 
provisions in the codes so that the case vrauld become- academic. In 
.Court he referred to a letter from the President v/hich later, outside of 
Court, turned out to be a letter from '.It'. J. S. Scott of the Legal 
Division. On l\ay 15, 1934 the President issued his Executive Order 
modifying the homework provisions of the Code to a certain extent. 

On :;ay 29, 1934 lAr . Hoclifelder again obtained an adjournment of his 
own motion for a temporary injuiiction, as he stated, "in deference to the 
President of the United States", Y/ith whom he was "communicating" in an 
attempt to obtain a further modification. The motion was then argued on 
June 12th at vfhich time '■■'^r. Hochfelder souj^it to file a complaint on 
behalf of Mrs. 3udd containing the same allegations as those in Zahn's 
complaint. 'Judge Coxe on June 27th denied the motion for a temporary 
inj-unction and dismissed the coiiK'laint for failure to state cause of 
action, and on July 5th a decree was entered to th^t effect. 

On J'oly 9th V.i- . Hochfelder obtained an order to shov' cause return- 
able on July 17th, in which he sought leave to file an amended bill of 
complaint, and this motion was adjourned by agreement until July 24th, 
and on that day Mr. Hochfelder appeared in Court and asked for a further 



postponement on the srcund that he h?d radioed the President of the 

United States for the elimination of restrictions on Horae'^ork, and that 

he expected an early reoly. Desnite the Assistant District Attorney's 

objection that such communication to the Presioent on the latter 's 

Ha'^aiian trip was improper, and that a-oplication should be made for such 

modification through the N.R.A. , the Court granted an adjournment until 
July 51st. 

On July 31st Mr, Hochfelder again asked for an adjournment referring 
to a commionication from the President's assistant secretary acknowledging 
Hochfelder' s request and stating that the matter had been referred to 
the Attorney General and the N.R.A. The Court granted an. adjournment 
until August 14th. 

It is to be noted that the proposed amended complaint contained no 
substantial change from the original complaint dismissed by Judge Coxe, 
It merely contained additional allegations referring to a New York State 
Law which had no bearing on the subject, Mr, Hochfelder 's own affidavit 
submitted on the motion, makes the untrue statement that a State home- 
work license was refused at the request of an accredited N.R.A. official. 

We have concluded from the conduct of Mr. Hoclif elder that his en- 
tire proceedings were not brought in good faith,' He obtained orders to 
show cause on applications for injunctions, and then on the return elate 
and constantly thereafter, requested postoonr-ments of his own proceed- 
ings, at the same time charging tremendous damage to his clients and 
others. In his statements to the courts he referred to the countless 
homeworkers he represented. In fact it is clear that he represented an 
association of employers who as far as we are able to ascertain are fi- 
nanc ing Mr. Hochfelder 's pr oceedings. His method has been to commence 
4 proceeding and then dela;/' it endlessly on the theory th^t he could then 
request the N.R.A. to take no =)Ction because the courts were -oassing upon 
vital questions. In the courts his method was to obtain delay by claim- I 
ing that executive modification was in progress. His statements in Court 
have been misleading, unfair, and in essential respects untrue. His con- 
duct in argument was to make claims unsubstantiated by his own papers. 

On June 28, 1934, a hearing was held before the St^te Director upon 
complaints filed by the Code Authority for the Pleating, Stitchins- gjid 
Bonnaz and Hand Embroidery Industry against Mr. J. Zahn, Executive Secre- 
tary of tne National Hand Embroidery and Novelty Manufacturers Associa- 
tion, This is the Association of which Major Hochfelder is counsel, con- 
sisting of some alleged 158 manufacturers, on whose behalf the 3udd liti- 
gation was actually instituted. 

The Code Authority presented facts shovfing th-^t Mr. Zahn as Secretary 
of the Association was openly and flagrantly advising all the members of 
this Association to disregard the Code prohibitions against homework, and 
to continue the employment of homeworkers despite the prohibition. The 
Code Authority also presented facts shoeing that because of these efforts 
of Mr. Zahn there was widespread non-coraoliance and violations of the Code 
and that as a result the Code Authority was being openly flouted and made 
a laughing stock. The Code Authority pointed out that those members of 
the Industry "ho were abiding by the Code nnd eliminating homework were 
threatened with the ruin of th»ir busin"ss. 



Mr, Zahn, on behq.lf of thfi Associ-^tion, qerppd to spnd Iptters to 
all mpinbers of his Association instructing them to comnly with the oro- 
vision of the Code_ dealinp; with horaework. Thesp iptters wi^rp suhseauent- 
ly sent out by Mr, . Zahn "'ho supolied this office with a list of the 
members of the Association to whom it had been sent. 

Although this particular hearing did not deal '-vith the Artificial 
Flower 'and Feather Industry, the Industry in which Mrs. Budd was engaged, 
these facts are all pertinent as bearing upon the Budd case since Mr. 
Hochf elder is involved throughout. 

After the hearing of June 28th, the State Director received a re- 
quest from Mr. Hochf elder asking for a hearing' in which he might discuss 
some method of cooperation between the hand and machine groups in the 
Embroidery Industry and also to prefer charges against the Code Authority 
in this Industry. This hearing was held on July 26th, 1934, 'In the 
meantime, however, variotis events bearing upon the case took olace. 

In order to clarify the position of this offic^ on the homework 
question, a request for a definite ruling was sent by the State Director 
to you, and we have your memorandum of July 18th with resoect to homework 
prohibitions and the method of procuring hoi^ex^ork certificates. 

The Sta.te Director's office then took the matter up with Mr. Andrews, 
the New York State Industrial Commissioner, in order to have the question 
of potential conflict between the State Horaework Law and the TOA Homework 
prohibitions clarified. Under the Statp La'^, which went into effect on 
July 1st of this year, the; State Labor Department is authorized to issue 
licenses to do industrial home'^ork uDon com-'Dlia.ncp -^ith the conditions 
enumerated in the statute. The question arose as to i«:hether this la^-^' 
was not suTDerseded by the Code provision, and whether the State Labor De- 
partment could issue State Licenses in industries in which homei"ork was 
Tjrohibited if the applicants f-^iled to con'oly -'itn the conditions of the 
President's Execative Order. 

In the meantime, Mrs. Budd had instituted a suit against Mr. Andrews, 
the industrial Commissioner to comoel him to issue to her a State license 
which was to be argued on July 24th in the New York Supreme Court, The 
Attorney General of the State of New York instructed his New York Office 
to prepare for the defense of that suit and to contest it vigorously. 
Deputy Attorney General Walsh and Mr. Elliott of the United States Labor 
Department conferred with Mr. Hoth of the Litigation Division in antici- 
pation of the defense of that suit, and made all preparations to contest 
the motion. 

fithoat any prior notification to this office, we learned on July 18, 
1934, a State license na.d been issued to Mrs. Budd and th-^t the action 
against the Industrial Commissioner had been withdra""'n by Mr. Hochf elder. 
The information given out to the newspapers by Mr. Hochf elder wqs that 
the Attorney General of the State of New York had ruled the home'^ork 
orohibition unconstitutional. This office imjnediately communicated with 
Attorney General Bennett and Solicitor General Henry S^ostein and were in- 
formed by them th^t no such ruling had ever been made and that n^^ official 
request for an opinion of constitutionality had been received bv their 


On further investig .tion, we ascprt-^ined th-it Derjatv Attorney Qpn- 
eral HcLa.ughlin, assigned to the State Labor Department, had decided 
that a State license should he' issued and advised the Industrial Com- 
missioner to do so v/ithout consultation or conference, either with Mr, 
Roth or with any oHe in this office. At a conference held on July 19th 
between "fir. Zorn of this office and Industrial Commissioner Andrews, it 
was agreed that the Question i"0uld be irmiediately referred to the Attor- 
ney of the Statt-' of New York, but that in the meantime no State license 
would be issued in industries where Code prohibited homework. This re- 
quest for opinion was prepared by Mr.' Zorn, in cooperation with Miss 
Frieda A. killer of the State Labor Deoartraent and was sent to the 
Attorney General last Friday. 

The next hearing on July 26, 1934, was held at this office at the 
request of Mr, Hochfelder and the National Hand Embroidery and Novelty 
tianiifacturers Ass'ociation. Prior to that hearing numerous complaints 
had been received from the Code Authority and its Administrative member, 
that Mr, J, Zahn '"as continuing to advise mem.bers of taat Association 
to disregard the homework prohibition despite his agreement -rith the 
State Director that he would discontinue his efforts in that direction. 

Although the hearing was originally called, not to consider merely 
the charges against the Code Authority, but ^Isp the question of coo-oer- 
ation bet^'^een the machine and hand embroidery groaps, Mr, Hochfelder 
limited his presentation to a series of charges against members of the 
Code Authority, which for the most part dealt with alleged labor viola,- 
tions by members of the Code Authority themselves; and in addition 
there were other charges "'ith res"oect to their ■ conduct. 

Prior to^July 26th, neither Mr. Hochfelder nor the Nation-^l Hnnd 
Embroidery and Novelty Manufacturers Association .had filed any of these 
comolaints through the usual channels in the State Director's office. 
In the light of the tactics of Mr. Hochfelder and his Association, in 
ooenly advising violation, in raisrerjresenting to newsnapers the fact 
that the Attorney G-eneral had ruled the home'-'ork orohibition -unconsti- 
tutional, and in seeking by every means to circumvent comoliance, the 
State Diripctor came to the conclusion that these charges were being 
brought in bad faith and for the ourpose of creating such confustion 
that it would be impossible for the Code Authority to enforce the Code, 

Information received at this office indicates that Mr. Hochfelder 
is using the Bud d case as a vehicle of publicity for himself, .and through 
his activities in the entire matter, has actively solicited other re- 
tainers as well ns additional p.ayments from the National Hand Embroidery 
and Novelty Manufacturers Association. 

The State Director at the hearing of July 2bth ruled that in the : 
.light of the history of the entire matter, ne was satisfied th-it these 
charges were brought in bad faith and refused to consider them. The 
basis for his decision will be found in the minutes of the hearing wnich 
are submitted herewith. 


Although the newsp^ers have olayed this matter uo as a human in- 
terest story, the facts of the conditions submitted to this office by 
the State Labor Department and others, both in the Artificial Flower 
Indastrj/- and in the Hand Embroidery Industry, show ruthless exploita- 
tion of the hone worker by payment of sweat shor) wages, running as low 
as $2,00 a week for the services of a woman and two or three children. 
The State Labor Department tells us that it is practically imDOssible 
to regulate homework and the only effective regulations is a direct 
prohibition. You undoubtedly have full and coraulete data on this 
aspect of the matter. 

So far as Mrs, Budd herself is concerned, a report submitted to 
us by investigators for the National Child Labor Committee shows that 
she is not living in want, and as a matter of fact is living very 
comfortably. She lives xvith her mother at 411 Caton Avenue, Brooklyn, 
in a house which is owned by her raotner and her children al'^avs a'0"Dear 
to be very well dressed. 

In conclusion it appears quite clear th^t the conduct of Mr. 
Hochfelder in connection with the litigation and compliance with the 
Code has been contrary to the interests of the National Recoverv Pro- 
gram, and have been accompanied by tactics on the part of Mr, Hochfelder 
which, to s^y the least, are imioroper and rerDrehensible, 


Anna M. Rosenberg 
August 8, 1934 Executive Assistant 


. -174- 

" ' apfeiidix d 



1526 Hew Haraj-jshire Avenue 

'."/ashington, D. C. 


Mrs. Cliarles S. Hamlin 

Honorary President 

i.irs. J. Borden Harriman 

1st Vice President 

Mrs. Edward B. Meigs 

2nd Vice President 

Mrs, Rose y^tes Forrester 

Honorarjr-' Vice P'residents 

Mrs. Emily llewell Blair 
Mrs. Carter Glass 
Mrs. HUj^h C. V/allace 

April 27, 1934. 

Mineral Hi:igii S., Johnson , 
ERA Administrator, 
Commerce Building, 
Washington, D. C. 

Dear General Johnson: 

"In order to keep the 
record straight" we are addressing 
this letter to yoxi on "behalf of 
the VJoman's national Democratic 


Mrs. Burton K. Wheeler 

Recording, Secretary 

Miss Eleanor M. Connolly 

Our attention has "been 
called to an article that appeared 
in the "Daily Hews Record" of 
Fehruary 12th, 1934, headed "League 
in Move to Restore Home Work." 

Corresponding Secretary 

Miss Elizaheth B. Howry 

(Here, a long list 
of other names.) 

The article stated that i 
"The Home Work Protective League of 
the United States," sponsored by 
the National Hand Embroidery Asso- 
ciation, "is circularizing onroloyers 
to adi in combatting the abolition 
of home vrork. " 

Dr. Anna W. Ho ckf elder, 
"President of the Home Work League,' 
and J. Zalm, "Secretary of the Em- 
broidery Association," vrere repre- 
sented as demanding the reopening 
of codes in industries where home 
work has been abolished. 

Dr. Hockf elder • was quoted 
as saying that among the "sponsors 
of home work v/cre the V/oman's 
National Democratic Club and the 


General H-ugh S. Johnson, liVashington, D. C. - y2 

American Alliance of Civil Service VJomcn. " (*) 

ue liave never lieard oi" the "American 
Alliance of Civil Service Vfomen." However, 
z'ach an or^-;anization ra3.y exist. 

VJe can speak vvdth authority con- 
cerning the VJoman's ITational Democratic 
Club and we desire to assure you, and 
others interested in the abolition of 
home vrork, that the 'Jomanfe- National 
Democratic Club lias never, either direct- 
ly or indirectly, suj:);oorted Dr. Koclcfeldor' s 
crusade to perpetiiate the American industry 
the manifest evils of home work. 

On the contrary, the Woman's 
iI?.tional Democratic Club is in complete 
synrpathy with the principles and ideals of 
President ?.:0Gevelt 's recovery program and 
has contributed to the limit of its ability 
to the advancement of tlictt cause. 

If any further attemot is made by 
Dr. Hockfeldcr or Mr. Zahn to implicate the 
Woman's National Democra.tic Club in their 
movement, we trust you will see that this 
letter is i^laced in the record so the position 
of the Woman's National Democratic Club may 
not be further misroTrescnted. 


(Signature) H. P. Hamlin 

(Mrs. C. S. Hamlin) 

(Signature) I.Ia.rgaret Keating 

(*) On this organization's stationery, Dj-. Anna W. Hochfelder was 
listed as "President". (March 29, 19S4) 


-176- ■■ 

Lillian H. Sire, (*) Fciinder-PresiLLent 

Vice Presidents 

Anna W. HochfeldorC**) 
Sally Thoiras Anton 
l.;iriam ??.itt 
Frances A. Fisher 
Kristine Kiefaiiver 

(Here, a 
long list 
of other 


Hotel i#.yilov7er 
15 Central Park V/est 
Hew York City 

Telephone: Col-um'bia 

Alice Baroni;, , Sac to Pros, 
~ose Kay, Rec. Soc. 
Josephine C. Veit.Corr.Sec, 
May A. Ifen^ian, Treas. 
Dr. ClTarlotte 'Vest, 

Mrs. J. Kornfoldt, 






Mr. 0. W. Hosenv/ei;^;, 
Coranierce Building, 
Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: - 

It has been brought to my attention 
that it T/as claimed that the Women's National 
Democratic Club, Inc., did not endorse the 
movement for the' protection of horaeworkers. 

iviay I take the liberty of informing 
you that that does not coincide with the facts. 
The matter was bro"J£;ht up at a regular meeting 
of the organisation, was debated thoroughly and 
was unnmlifiedly endorsed. 

Very truly ycurs, 

(signature) Lillian H. Sire 


(*) Listed on the Horaey;ork Protective League •;■; stationery as "Honorary 

(**) Listed on the Leag-ue ' s letterhead as "Pi-csiden-tfl 



APPEroiX _S 


This story ap-^eared in the New TorlcTime:; --n IJovcmbcr 14, 1934: 


"Code Balks Efforts of Mother ol 
Three to Support Family. ^' 

"Mrs. PlOsg Deligio of 1,'^27 Eighty-fourth Street, Brooklyn, 
¥/ho is the sole support of her unemployed hudhand and her 
three children, learned something ahout planned economy 
in the Supreme Court in Brooklyn yesterday. 

. "She nas infortned, "by judicial decree, that she might no 
longer continue to earn $15 to $18 a week making neckv/ear 
in her home, because a State code provides that neck^wear 
must he made in a factory, 

"When she ^^'as told that she must have a State license to 
mate necicvear in her home, and when Elmer E. Andre?/s, State 
Labor Commissioner, refused such a license" because of State 
code provisions, Mrsi Deligio appealed to Justice Eurman to 
compel Mr. Andrews to grant the license. 

"The court ruled, however, that under the law he must refuse 
her pica." 

Tht following letter to the Editor appeared on the editorial page 
of the New York Times on Monday, November 2'^, 1934, It constituted a 
reply to the above-quoted article. 

"To the Editor of The ITew York Times: 

"According to an article in The New York Times, Mrs. Rose Deligio of 
Brooklyn, the sole su'Toort of her unemployed husband and her three children, 
'learned some-thing about planned economy' when Justice Eurman refused her 
s-npeal to compel Sta.te Labor Commissioner Andrev/s to issue a State license 
which vrould ;oermit het- to continue earning $15 to $18 a week making neclcwcar 
in her home. 

"What are the actual facts about homework? The records of the New York 
State Department of Labor would show that earnings of most of the homeworkers 
are in the main far below those cited by Mrs. Deligio. For Mrs. Deligio 
actually to make these wages no one knows hov; many hours she would have to 
work during the v.'eek or Y/hcther they represent her own labor alone or that of 
herself and her unemployed husband and perhaps also her children. No one 
Icnor.'s whether this v/ork was not done under unsanitary conditions which 
constitute a. menace, not only to her- family, but to the cons-uming public and 
to the community at large. Even with these qualifications, however, the fact 
that she could earn such wages is a direct result of the very code which she 
is seelcing to annul. Under that code, as modified by President Roosevelt's 
order of May 1*^, permitting homeworkers to certain handicapped workers, the 



rates for homework were raised on typical items from a"bout 18 and 
20 cents a dozen to 45 cents a dozen. The last-mentioned price is 
still lower than that paid to v/orkers in the factory and, in addition, 
the homeworker must provide space and light a.nd call for and deliver 
the work. In those industries where no code as to homework prevails, 
the testimony of a social worker is that the homeworker earns from 35 
to 70 cents a day for work which begins at davm and ends at midnight. 

"Some light on the real attitude of homeworkers was shed at a conference 
held on Oct. 11 at the ^ew York Women's Trade Union League. The 
information on the neclcwear industry, in v/]iich Mrs, Deligio is employed, 
was particularly illuminating. Edmond O-ottesraan, secretary of the ■■ 
Neckwear Workers Union, cited case after case of workers who, after 
working ten or twelve hours a day, together vath children or other 
relatives, earned prior to the code about '^0 cents a day. This was 
in the halcyon days of an 'unplanned economy.' }Tor '.-/as this, as has 
already been pointed out, a net wage. _ ( 

"Subsequently, at a luncheon conference lander the ausTjices of the 
Consumers' League, at which Mrs. Elinor M. rierrick reported on the 
survey of homework in the State, tvro former home?/orkers in the neckwear 
industry testified. They v/ere Mrs. Uicolette Raconova and Mrs. 
Theresa Gogliann, both residing in the same section of Brooklyn as 
Mrs. Deligio. This is the case of Mrs. Raconova: Tlie mother of nine 
children, she had for years been a homeworker. By her own la.bor a.nd 
that of some of her children, by working from <^ o'clock in the morning 
until late at night, she earned from $3 to 55 a v/eek. In order to 
earn even this amount she had to exploit her own children and to 
neglect her home and her children, Wlien the code went into, effect and 
her employer told her that 'it was the fault of the union* that she 
could no longer be permitted to work at home, she went to union head- 
quarters and protested. Mr. Gottesman placed her in an organized 
factory. Now she earns $20 to $24 a week for thirty-six hours of work, 
^er working day, which begins at 8:30 and ends at 5, gives her time 
to attend to her household and gives her income enough to get occasional 
supplementary help. 

"If the actual records reveal a system of exploitation, why, one may 
ask, does Mrs. Deligio make this appeal? There several possible 
explanations. In one case of a similar appeal the attorney fo''' the 
homev/orker v/as, we have every , rea,son to believe, actually representing 
a group of employers who are trying not only to exploit v/orker^ but to 
brealc down the standards of wages, hours and sanitary conditions which 
the more forward-looking employers in the same indixstry have built up. 
A second cxpla.nation may be found in the fact that the employers have 
encouraged a number of homeworkers to subcontract their work to other 
homeworkers, thus profiteering from them, and to give them 'lessons' 
at an exhorbitant rate, Finally, there undoubtedly exist a few 
homeworkers who have been so accustomed to the system that they cannot 
envisage going to the factory. 

"At the trade union conference of Oct. 11 the union representatives voted 
full support to the appeal Uiken by Commissioner of Labor Andrcv/s against 
the decision of Justice Lauer ordering him to issue permits in violation 
of the codes. Organized labor, which includes thousands of these former 
homeworkers, is determined that the system which a hundred years of 
experience has proven is costly to the community and to the v/orker shall 

not "be revived. 

Secretary Labnr Conference on ?:o!viev/ork. 
New York, Nov. 17, 133-1." 



1^17103225 or TI.IE 1~J.: lOFli STATj] LA30R STAIDA^DS COi.uJTTEZ* 

Affiliated Suininer School for "Workers 

Allied Beaxiticians of Americr, 

Analsajnatec'. Clot/.in^; Uorlters of Ajnorica 

Anerican ?ederption of li^all ITnsliioned rlosiei-]' T/oricers 

Aneric;.T Association of Social T7orkers 

Association of Dress Ilamif acturers, Inc. 

i3rickla3'-ers' Union of Brookl'/n, Local ^ 

Bureau of Occiipations 

Cliurcli of tae ?il2;rims 

Civitas Club of Brooklyn 

Congregation Ed-acation Societj^ 

Community Cliurcli 

Consumers' League of iTer? York 

Consumers' League of Syracuse 

Cornell University 

Council of tToraen for Home i/issions 

Democratic "Jomen' s Club of l-'redonia 
Diocese of Long Island (iL-oi sco"oal) 

Eastern Parla.'a-y Conmunity Leag-ue 
E-iiacoyal Diocese of I'ev York 
Episcopal Headquarters 

Henry Eatton, Inc. 
Eel lov; ship House 

Girls' Eriendly Society 

Good Shepherd Prer^b^yterian Church 

Greenwich House 

Haarlem House 

International Ladies' Ga,rment workers' Union 

Junior Lec/^xie of I^rooklyn 

Labor Bureau 

Labor Herald and Citizen 

League for Industrial Domocra-cy 

League of TTomen Voters: The folloning sections: - 

Hassau County, He'.; York State, 
Scarsdale, 'Testchester 

L-^ons Civic Club 

* List sabnitted by Kiss iiarjorie HcEarland, Executive 
Secretar;", The Consiimers' League of Hev/ YoJrk. 



xrison House Ler^iie 
Kerc.iaiits Lcoies Crprncn'o Associction 
i'odel Civic CI at 

rational Coixiicil of Jev/isli T7onen: The follo\"ing sections:- 
Al'ban;.'-, AjTisterden, Jaldrrin, Baysiue, Bronxville, 
Brooklyn, Ellenville, Elmira, Hempstead, Herkimer, 
Etuiter, Ja,naica, lit. Vernon, Her.' York, Port Chester, 
P.ichraond Hill, Rochester, East Iloclraway, Scarsdale, 
SchenectacV, Staten Island, Syracuse 

National Consumers' League 

lev/ York State Zmplo^ine nt Service 

Tev York State College of Home Economics 

i'er.' York State federation of Laljor 

Pharmacists' Union of G-reater Her,' York 
Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 

Siinnj'-side Go.rdens Cominunity Association 

Temple Keighhorhood School 
T;r,-)0graphical Union #5 

Union Health Center 
United i ei^-hhorhood Houses 
United Tostile T7orkers of America 
Urban Lea^:;ue of Brooklyn 
Urban League of He',7 York 

Vocational Service Agency 

Uomen' s City Cluo of '..~exi York 

■Jomen' s Civic Or.vanization 

Somen's emocratic Club of Hei? York, Inc. 

T.'omen' s Trade Union League 

Yoiuig TT'omen' s Christian Association 

Brooklyn, Cortland, G-loversville, ilev/ York, 
Syracuse, ITestfield 


-182- . 

BiroBS or THE i:ti;3Tig.-.tio"/ or iinDUsiHiiL hciitivoh!: i: 


I.:arj- Skim-er ?nu Hr.'th Sc:r.drett 
U.S. De-oar tnent of Lrhor 

3 8ginniii," of neclg-ear v.'orh in Tror 

The r.eclr\7ear firm of Trai-.c Strol-mien-^-er rr.d Cov.-an, loccteu in 
Poughlcee;)sie, "ev: Yorl:, was trJcen over by Cluett FeF'ooc'^- ir. 193?. 
The firn lira been in Pou£,lTl:eer)sie since 1927, liavi:".^- moved there fro:a 
Tew Yorl: Cit;.' cfter a strike. Cluett Peabod^^ be<:,^n in 193? to trans- 
fer the ':orl: to Troj-, I'ew Yorl:, rhere their shirt riid collrr f-^ctorv 
is located. I- roveniber 1934 rhen the surve;' 'vas made -iracticall7 all 
of the v.'orl: was bein^- done in Troy. 

Trainin , new vforhers 

It v£ ~ necessar;^ to traiii. alniost rll of che nechtie r'orhers r.-liei. 
tlie iiirnufrcturing was moved to Troy. The cv.tti:i{,, hey.r.iii'.c e.nd boxin^^ 
was done inside the iron the beginnin.:^. The sli;^. stitchers were 
brought i::to the irctory for braini:'.,;, periods of fron C drys to 8 weeks. 
Before Jcnurry, 1954 learners rec-ivcd only their e-^r:iinc,5 rt -^iece 
work races. Since thr.t time learnerc h^.vs received $10.00 .a week. The 
learning :-£riod still varies from 1 to 8 weeks. Tlhen avnlyin;^ for 
work sliy stitchers state whether the;- prefer homeworl: or factory 
work. The firn hc\s continued to em-^loy sli;i stitchers with the 
exTectrtion of giving them v.'ork at heme after the factory learning 
period since the Code was "pproved. In fact one wor]:er v;ho.was . 
visited srid she a-jTolied for homework because she had herrd it v/"s 
easier to seciire enroloyment if you l:ad rn excuse to -orl: at hone. 
Those who r- yl;' for homework send in a->--licrtions for s'-ecial hone- 
work certificates rnd after their ler.rning ;~eriod ir- over, t-'-l:e i.'orl: 
hone while writing for action on the a-)ylicrtions. There is no i.irke 
un between eE.rnings and the ">10.0C nininnn for learners vv;en ^.ork is 
telren houe, even though the slip stitcher h-^s not bee:i inside the 
nlaiit for the ;oeriod of £ weeks permitted by the Code end is :aot ^ro- 
ducin^ at ninimn-n wa.^e rrtes ^ hen she begins home-'orl:. 


The slip stitcher takes a tie which has been cut, joined and, rnd completes the -or]: o:i it. Under the system used at Cluett 
Peabod;- ohe does the p;ressing re well ar, the -linning rnd sewdng of the 
ties. The i.'ork is cora^paratively skilled. The mrterirl is cut on the 
bias and it is difficult to fold it correctl"-. In sewing the tie, it 
is necessary to use an under stitch which does not catch the lining and 
c- :'.not bo seen. Sufficient thnread must be left to alloT; the tie to be 
stretched \.ithout brerking the stitches. The work requires constant 
a.ttention. It must be done with exrctness. One lioraeworker said that 
she h-.d -laced her child in a Iic.y Hone becau. e she could not give her 



the she needed rr.d. tcelie ties c ■: the tine. Other v.'orL-ers said 
it w:-.s difficult to rorl: Fith children r,round rnd they did their best 
work r.fter the children hrd t,:one to hed. Tnile '^he stitch itself is 
not difficult, it t?J:p.r> tine to :-couire s^eed. .. ---or :er must he 
able to \:ov'l: v.'ith vrrious i.v- terirO-s. Pew v.'or';ers have been rble at 
the end of their lerrnin^ :-criod to com-->lete 20 doL:en ties a \eek, the 
numbar necessrry to yield the r.iini'Mira code "'ar/e of $13.00. 

;:ost of che sli;i stitcher n in Troy ±a- lenians rho are slcill- 
ful needle '. orher:.. Americans rnd Italians art else enrloyed in 
this c^- V city. 

Trans f srrinc from hone '"ork to factory v.-orh 

O-.-L jV-iril 11, 1334 there v/ere in Troy 33 sliy stitchers \7orkin£ 
in the factory and 210 at home. On hovember 15, 1934 there 110 in 
the f.:.ctory end 103 at home. Of the 103, 20 h^.d secured certificates 
under t2ie Executive Order. The ar^licabion of the reniE-ining were 
-^cT-din-v:. Seme of the a'r-lic tions received by the ITew York State 
office in October v.ere filled out in July and Au^ and homerork 
r:as ,iven to these eri-'lo3^ees in the -leriod betv/een rnf/rin^ out the 
a;-j;~jlic.- tions rnd filing; them. 

The industrial engineer of Cluett-Ferhod;;^ Com-i-n:- stated that 
there '.as room in the neclr 'ee.r section of the factory for 195 sli") 
stitchers and that he e:~iects to brin^; this number inside. Ke 
estiiiaies tli^.t they need 250 sli;) stitchers for the volune of v:ork. 

Th.e industrial enfc,ineer is of the oyinion that vork en be 
done more efficiently i.u:ider supervision and in regul?.r hours. Factor;^ 
r,'ork in slii stitching lis.s not been under vrir long enough for the firm 
to be able to com'oare accur8.tcly the ":)roduction of factory and home 
workers. Eov^ever, the industrial engineer estimr .es that the -pro- 
duction of thjree f'ctory v/orkers eou-^ls that of five homeworkers. 

The m<an in char.e of production in the necl3"ear division v.'-.s 
not v/illing to sty whether it is ac sr.tisfactory to have sli;- stitch- 
irij^ done in the i ctory as at home. His hesitc^ncj- might have been 
due to the fp.ct tlia.t he was c.ccustomed to the sj^stem used in 
PoU;_.l-L;ee:Tsie v;here all of this tyie of work wrs done at home. 

■a r-licacicns for s . 'ecicl homework certificates 

The stctus of a;yolic.:- Lions for s->ecial hom>e\.ork certificate on 
rovember 9th wrs as follows: 

Total ": plications 150 

Certificates issued 20 

Certificates rejected' 43 

In. factory/ - after rejection 32 

Unemployed - rfter rejection 11 

Certificates held, -oendin , conference 

v:ith firi.i ?1 

A-T-lic, tiono sending 73 


Through ^ misunderstcvndint\- of the firm of the conditions under 
\.'hich certiiicetes might he obtained, v.-orhers were told that care of 
chilca^en would constitute re "son for exce-ition, '/hen it vas found that 
certificates could not he irsued on this ground there v. r, confusion 
and dissatisfr.ction. 

It v.'as necessar;;- to have medical examinations of a --li cant 3 
who -nlied for certificates on the basis of bein^ unable to go into 
the factor;- because of health conditions. The firm felt the;- could 
not use their plant plij'-sician for these e:caminatio;.s, so sent the " 
r.-.nlicants to a v.ell laiown -ihj'siciran v;ho had been assisting in the 
examination of handica^iped workers. Ee stated that he became in- 
terested in the situation through the stories of the v/onen. liothers 
who wished homework in order to be with their childi^en s.roused his 
sym-)atlT^,- : Ee believes it to pz^ohibit homerorl: under these 
circvjns ;ances :nd says that he considers it his dut;- to inform the 
puolic of this rction of i;he ,,overnr;ient which requires mothers to 
place their children in institutions if they have to v'orl:, 

Eome v/onhers visited 

Sixt3--tv;o homeworhers were visited. Their str.tus v^as a.s 

33 had been refused hcmeworh certificrtes 

9 h?d been granted certifics.tes 

G had been gr-'nted certificates but these were being with- 
held pending conference I'ith the firm 
15 had a-T-ilied but their ao^ilicftions were yiending 

The "2 workers visited vliose ap-oliCc-tions for a certificate 
hrd been rejected represented tln:'ee~fourths of the totrl number re- 
jected up to the time of the stud;- F.nd the workers visited to v/hom^ 
certificates had been issued rej-iresented almost lialf of the number 
receiving certificates up to tlir.t time. In, one of these a reapplic-'.tion 
for a certificate v/as advised or. the basis of conditions that \rere not 
st:,ted on the first a^^ilication. 

The situation of e; of the 11 rejected ar?licanti. v.'ho hp.d not 
gone into the factor;- was as follov/s: 

2 were ;jregnant and could l-i£'.ve gone for their homev/ork 

onl;'- a fe\.' more weeks 
E were p.dvised to rarl:e rear.jli cat ions 
1 h; d no children and her onl;- rerson for remaining at 

home vfas to maintain social status 

1 wanted to go into factory, but had not been offered 
v/orl: there 

2 were unalbe or unwilling to leave their cldlclTen 

Of tiie 1 .omen visited wb.o had ;.one into the factory it wrs 
found thc.t: 

1 preferred factory work to bot.:i:: with 
7 preferred factory v/ork after being inside from 1 to 
3 v/eeks 



.' iCelt tlie c.v. ;itr. e;- of f c'^ory P.nA homev/or:: equ£-l 
? -yref erred houe ■.'or',. 
1 I:r d forned no o linicr. 

I']''.ree vomer v;hose a. lie :ic:.'u; for certiiic -■es \:c'xe er.dirit:; 
srid tlie-j hcTed thej- '■ ould be rejected 'becf.usc i.lie" nreferred to 
wor?: ir.side --ftei hecrin^J former hone'/or.,j--rs tell of the t dv- ,nt£.i_:e of 
the f-CGor" -^.nd ?fter their tr-ini-v; period ir. the factor:/. 

i:.:"r:i in. ;f?, 

■.: zl-e .:n.hiu- of nechties is skilled v;orh the sarni:i~s of the 
sli 1 stitchers are com larr.tivel/ hi^h. The rates -'aid the hono^/orher 
are the rsriiie £.s chose in the frctory, - 65 cents "ler dozen for 
t;-.e le-s er/'ensive variety and 90 cents r. dozen for the five, seven 
nd 3 fold. The i.ia.ioritv of the homev/orhers n:ahc the 65 cent 
V. riet;;-. The rate for the l",fcter has heen raised three ti;.ies v/ith- 
in the ;-)ast -ear. Pro;i the time the fpctory v/as moved to Troy 
•mtii Tv.l":- 19r.3 it vas 43;^- cents per dozen; the latter 'icvt of that 
iiionth it r;; £ raised to 47-- cents, sever: 1 moaths later to GO cents, 
end at the time the Code nent into effect, to 65 cents. The nini- 
iX'sti rate set o-y the Code for the t'n-es hinds of vorh done h:/ home- 
wor'ier:;, i.e. -.inni:v, se'-in^ and "'ressinr;, is 5€. cents a dozen. 

The i'ollov.-in^' fi,;,ures shovf the weehly carnin:;s of the 62 
]iomev/or:;ers visited, for 'the veeh -^ior to the inte:--viev.' or, in 
the case of vrorhers who had heen refused a homevorh certificrte he- 
fore tnrt'date, for the I'.st veeh they had v/orlred: 

■ Totpl hoiArv/orhcrs visited — •' ' — '32 

Totrl re>ortih,\: earnin s 55 

Less tnan $5.00 13 

^^5.00 lees th^n ■'lO.OO — 19 

$10.00 le-;s tha^ ;;^li3.00 13 

015.OO less thaa '■'^O.OO 7 

''■20.00 or more 3 

hot re;iortint; errninjs — 7 

Ih.e rvf-rage hourly earnin;;s of the homevorhers visited arc 
s]iov/n oelov'. These' earninf.-s estiuif.ted on the basis of the length 
of tiae it t^hes the T,'ar]:er to ;'in, sov: and ;^ress 3 dozen ties (the 
usa-^,1 -T-ssi^rjaen-t) for \/hich she receives ^i^l.SD. 

Total hcraev/orhers visited 62 

Total hone'.orhers re;-)ortin^; earnings 47 

Less than 25 cents 10 

25 cents less thr.n 30 cents 11 

30 cents less than 35 cents 14 

35 cents less tha,n 40 cents G 

40 cents or more 4 

hot re;>ortini:; earnings 15 

In com-^utin;: these er.rninvr., the time r-^ent ohtainin^; and re- 
turning the v;orh h.r s not been t^hen into account. As the factory 


mrnuf j.cir.rers on order, the homei.-orl:ers .".re required to retirn their 
com-)leted '.orl; within tr/o or, r.'c, 5 da-ys ■ fter it if. trher. out. 
They cr.ll at the factory 3 tines one T.'eeh a.nd tv/ice t^.e ::cxw to rut'o.rn 
and collect their v/orh. Due to t. -»cor system of inGi<?c^io.: and dis- 
trioution they txe kept v itin,. frora 1-3 hours £.t each visio. In thir 
wry, v.' the tr/o veeh ;u5riod they . .ive from u-lG hours of thieir tine 
for \Thich they receive no :^a;;-. It is often not so auc]: the tine s-ient 
in the frctory thet is ■ matter of concern to the vor?-;er ' p the fact 
"goinc-; for work spoils h?,lf a day" rnd it is necessary to \7or^: Ir ie 
at nij^ht to complete their assign, tents in the ref^uired time. 

Hours of Uc rl ; 

The follovrinj figures shov the nr-mher of da^^s 
in the week previous to the intcrvievr ,as reported h; 
v;ho v.'erp .-■'blo to aive tlie inforrvr-vion: 

vd hours vor];ed 
4-5 homev.'orkers 

"mnber of dcp's \.or],:-?d '^er vee"' 





: 7> 


: 4 Cc 


. ■ ^,; -c 

: - d r 


-- -1 








: 10 

: 15 



• 16 


'■ 2 


30 hours " 


• 4 



: -; 


-15 " II 


• ■ /. 


: 1 


:■■ 1 


GO " " 





: 5 


40 1' " 






45 " " 





. _ 

: o 


50 '.nd over 



. 1 

: 7 


Slipstitchini], ties is c::r.cji?-.^. \-orh- and n 
they could not do it \ her. the chaldrc:: v'ore .mo 
i..-ere in school or in ht.d. .e mother eve:^ ^ o:i 
her child to the dsy nursery so she coulc. I'orP 
Hc-'-ny xione-A reported tliat they worked rr/ul;.rl, 
\'ork '..'..s on- l.and, p,nd r. numhcn rc-iortou 
?.h. A. few mothers not only \ onh-cd .'-t : 
to "do r few dozen" before th^' ehildinn • 

Co m.iunit:- la cil i'c i es 

:■■ Chens strted ^hat 
ut vT.ited a;-. til t^.e" 
vi to t]-;c c:-'e-.:Le of scndin^ 
h i. ! :,ce during the d-.y. 
V '.'.:■ tn 10 and 11 k-h. \;hen 
lot or hours - 1"^ rnd l?:oO 
out r,ro3C ac 4 or 4:S0 A.!;. 

There are 2 dry nurseries in Troy Y/licro mo then s mpy lerrc their 
children \;hile at v/ork. One is Cat]iolic ; r.d. the other Protestant, 
neither mc^]:e any religious discrimin-.^ion. One is ].ocatcd in the im- 
mediace vicinity of the factory rnd the other is v;ithin v;al^;inp dis- 

One homo accc;->ts children of riX" a e u~ to 1,'-; -^ (inclusive) 
and the other ta!:es childi'cn from 3 to 1.? --ears inclusive. The re;-:>a.^r 
cb-.r^e is the seine ii^. hoth homes - $1.00 --.or wcc.': -^er child. It is 
usu.all-' adjusted to the fam.ili-s' rifility to --lay hoi/evcr. At '--he 
present tine the . ajority of the mothprs :iatroni7an/,- the Protestf-nt 



nui-f.^r;,- -le rjiii.-. or.l" TO cente ;:, reel:. Wo chr;r:;e is mcde for frmi- 
lies on relief. The iro uestcnb home hr.s cXCOhinod cions for I'^O children; 
the Catholic for more tlar.r. 60. Both are -dequatel;;- eo.ui-ocd. The 
Prote^trnt i-stitutiori cor.ducts c-r. excellent r,cdi;v.tric clinic, and hr.s 
two nurses on the scE.ff vho visit the homes of the chilciren under t^ieir 
care. This hone hr.s a uaitin^ liot of 30 at the nresent bime. The 
Cr.tholic home c;in acconunodr.te more ';heir present enrollment. 

The Public Schools in Troy o:^en at 0:30 A.H. and close at 3:30 
r.LI. -?-C-or7 hours are from 8-4 P.i.;. v/ith no ror': on Saturday, 
ilothers rerch home shortly'- f.fter the children return from school, l^o 
lu:ichss rre F:erved in an;.'" of the ^jrrde schools, out -iroper super- 
vision ir, rovidfd children v.'ho brin^- lunches from heme. 

The day nuiseries rnd the social a^,encies in the city - v/hich 
i:icludc the Council of Soci"l Agencies, the City relief department 
rnd the Y.U.C.A. v/ere unav.-are v/hen interviewed that the aholition of 
homev.'or:..: v-s creatin,;;- anj'- problem. In the coranunity all ei-r'-.ressed 
themselves rs hein^ opposed to the industrial home rorlr system. The 
city relief de;.->r.rtment - the onlj- organization extending relief 
strted that only one avolic bion for relief had oeen received from 
the families v;ho had losb their homcorh. 


0-.:iy 6 of "the 33 families visited hr d received relief rithin 
the la-it t^. years. Host of the femilies hcd mortgaged their homes, 
oorroved and received aid from relaiives hut they had not received 
assistance through s.n a.gency. One of the 6 frjnilies receiving relief 
had had shoes and clothin;; only. The other 5 families had obtained 
aid r-.i folloT-f; : 

1. Several months of relief rid 2 --ears .-'...o, I'one 

last '.vinter before be^^inning nechtie work liarch 1934. 

?,. Four monthe relief last year. ITone since began neck- 
tie 1.0 rl- ITebrurry 1934. 

3. All of last year up to r-resent time both before and 
after b-^ginnin^, nec]-:ie work in Il^y 1934. Aauount 
of relief varies v'ith errnings. 

4. Last 5 years (iTife se-iarated from husbrnd, 3 children) 
before rnd after b-ginnini;, neckcie vork in July 1933. 
.inount durin^-^ 1 year vrried rith earnings - Relief 
cut off 3 v:ee]:s ago v/hen returned to husbi nd. 

5. rTusband h"d relief v/orh' rinter before 1- st. Famil-' 
had grocery ord'e: s (not v rying in the earnings) 
from hov. 1933 to hv?y 1934 r^ien husbf.nd secured 
tennorary job - 3eg-n necktie rork Key 1933. 



Ioniev;or';er:- \hose A'rilicr iiciis for S'lecir.l ?!ome 
Woi'l: Certifier tes \-ere Rejected, 

r;:ers v.'iio }ic ve not the f: ctory rnd rxe unem'"'loyed . 

I Irs. J - 

y.Ts. J '.'ent throii^jh c. ^^re-'^.t deal c;Arini_, the 'orld '.'e.r in 
b>e old co".n:ry. She s.ys tlic-t since c:':^min:_ to this coruitry 
she hcs hrd 3 nervous breelcdovns. She clrims to "je too 
n-'^rvous and u^set to worh in the f' ctory. She r.-^-^eers e::- 
cit. ole. She says th.^t '..-hen she x^ent to Dr. Green for ex- 
rviivxtion for homev.'orh -'-rmt -he v;r s too u-^set to ejr^lain 
her co:-.dition intelli^:e:.tly, rs she hf.s "been under the 
of Lr, Er.didirn for 5 ^-crs. I sUGi_;Gsted to her thrt she 
hcve her -.'hysicir.n tjet in tonch i/ith Dr. Green £ nd tha.t if the 
letter 'ere villin.;; she i'x,he r rea^-'lic uion. 


s. 33 has ti/o children a. ed 16 ?nd 13 years. She lihes to 

money she earns £t home- orh but en ,_et along i-Tithout 

d does not ilsh to leave her home to vorl: in the fr ctory. 

hrs. S is r. youn^ m-iried v;oman \.ith no cliildren. Ker 
husornd is em-^loyed part tine. She operates r. Deouty larlor 
in her home from vhich sho nets ahout ''1.00 a \/eel:. lirs. S 
hf E a. fooden leg. ^ft -r lier j-r-ilic tion for a home vrorh 
ereiT'tion \.\ s rejected s'lc tried to ^ into the fr ctory but 
\.':s rejected by Dr. Eorio, the examining fc'sician. 

hrs. A has tro chilt'a-en 5 and 8 years of r:;e. She is v/ell 
:.ndhE:,s no invr.lids to for. She c.shed for exem-ition from 
the homev/orh --irovisions of the code because of the children. 

hrs. Z - 

I.h's. E f, lied for a ccrtificf.te on the basis that she h^ d 
children and that she v;. s ;-iregnant. She lia.d been worhung since 
Jul-/, 1C34. lir. E is a moulder and has been unem-^loyed for four 
years. They have tv.-o children, aged 8 and 3. They own their 
"".cne, but it is mortgaged heavily. They have exhausted their 
savings. 'I'hcy hrve not received relief. Urs. E will be con- 
fined in rebrua,ry and said that she would have been unable to 
wor!: at home only a" out one more month. She would be unable to 
go for her worh after it wrs cold and ic;^. She of course is sorry 
thf t she \;ill not liave work during this month, but realized that 
it would only tide them over a few weeks and that the real need is 


iirs. E - continued 

work for Mr. E. She is cr.ring for the tv/o children of her next 
door neiG;h'bor v/ho has ^.-onc into the f.-rctory upon the rejection 
of her r. 0311 i cat ion for r, certific"te. Por this she receives 
$2.00 a week. 

llrs. L - 

Mrs. L a-oplied for a certificrte on the basis that she has 
a child and that she was pregnant. She had been working since 
March, 1954. L is emvaoyed as a clerk at $17.00 a week. 
While they need additional income they are ehle to get along 
v;ithout relief. Mrs. L will be confined in December and said 
thf.t she would have been able to do homev/ork only a few weeks. 
She would -irefer being inside the factory and hopes that v/hen 
the baby is old enough to be left in the Day Home she will be 
able to get a job inside. \Then she was doing homework she 
left the 19 months old child in the Day Home because she could 
not -oay attention to her work a,nd care for the baby. (Mrs. L 
does not spealr English. A neighbor served as intemr eter). 

Mrs. T - 

Mrs. T aniDlied for a certificate on the grounds that her 
husbrnd is an invalid and that she has children. She had been 
working since January 1934. She has two children, aged 2 and 
3. Mr. .T' worked in a brkery shop with his brother until two 
years ago. At that time, his brother v/as injured in an auto- 
mobile accident and told Uir. T to close the shop, that he 
would give him a prxt of the money he would collect for his 
injury. Mr Y closed the shop and did not secure other employ- 
ment. In Mrrch 1934 he borrowed money from the Building and 
Loan to erect a house on some land he owned near Ua.tervliet, 
still deriending on the money his brother would give him to re- 
pay this loan. V.T-ien his brother settled his accident claim 
about 6 months ago he did not give him anything. In the mean- 
time rent and grocery bills Imd eccumulated. About 6 weeks 
ago Mr. T fell end hurt his knee, btoke his leg, and dis- 
located his wrist. He was not well, following several abdominal 
o;Terr.tions befora his marriage 4 years ago ?nd the invalid 
cl?ira war based on this plus the teranporary condition of his 
knee (;jresanedly temporary). The family received relief for 4 
months last year before Mrs. T began work. They are greatly 
o-ip.osed to going on relief. Llrs. T admitted that her husband 
could care for himself. She also said that she was willing to 
go to woric in the factory, although she did not want to leave 
the childroji, but tha.t her eyes were so brd she could 
work ujider artificial light or for more than 2 or 3 hours at 
one time. She said she had had 4 different lenses from opticians 
during the last 8 months. Agent suggested that she have her 
eyes examined and malce a rea-oplicrtion if the doctor thought it 
advisable. Agent felt that Mrs. T was seeking an excuse for con- 
tinuing home?;ork. She kept f skint, what she could do if the doctor 



Ilrs. T - continued 

fouiid nothini^- v/ront; '"ith her eyes, vhile she.hnev,' she could not 
them under f^.ctoiy conditions, '.'.vs. 1! lire ■■f,.roused much concerr 
on the ;t rt of Dr. G-i-'^en ; :\C. the f. ctorv. She is a forceful 
;->err.erverinir, oeraor.. She srld she t"U;,ht school in Marseille 
cefore conin^, to this country- <L- years She met I'lr. T in 
Prance and married him there. She refuses an^.' assistance in 
the T/r;- of relief or a "lorn" from Dr. C-reen, insisting th£tt 
she .only v/ants the ri{;ht to v;or]:. The frmily moved to their 
ne\/ hone on ITov. 19. They hrve no mone:'-, I.irs. T says, and 
are getting iSroceries from r, man v/ho owed Hr. T some money. 
The relief a^^ent visited the frmily on ITov. 17 end offered 
o!:er.-., at si stance, according; to i.i"r. T., hut he said he v^anted 
•■..or";, not relief. Mrs. T r.'as v.-illinc to listen and agreed 
thr t she v;r.s one of ma-nj'- who want the "right to work", etc. 
She is individu?,listic and while she eT>pears to understajid, 
>:.,0i;E hr clc to the fact that she caji get worh if only she can se- 
cure a certificc'.te to do it at home L.nd that this o't 'Ortunity 
for e"--nirig should not he telcen from her. 

hm.. r r 'idied for p certifier, e on the basis of having 
childi-en. She is i.:ell, her husbrnd ir well. She has been 
\.-orhin^, siix e Se-ytember 1935. She lia.s tln^eo children, aged 
1.3, 9 rnd 6. i.Ir. T is r, coiitractor. Mrs. T said he w s un- 
er.T loyed, but later in the con^.- :r- abion the.t in esti- 
rocting his .earnings for the yecr ending ,Se:ot. 1934 he found he 
hx.d e.bout $300.00 less tlii.n the .;;ireceding year. This war, 
about the amomit Mrs. V had made on neckties. Mrs. P's father 
has, c-;.sisted them. They received no relief.' Mrs. P 
does not ex-ierct. to su;Toort the f.?aniiy on her e:..rnings and said 
th^-t r..he v.'ould never toJce so much Vork thr.t she would be -anable 
to care, for the childi-en. She feels ths.t she cannot' leave 
them to. go. into, the fr-ctoxy. She does not see wlij.^ she cannot 
kve the work at home; she resents the fret tht.t women who do 
not need the money as much as they do pxe working on neckties 
while she ct-nnot secure rork.. It is a strai-^ht case of having 
children rnd needing rdditionrl income, but bein^' unable to 
lerv^ the childi'en, or at least miv.'illing to do so. 

Ivh-s. 'R o,--^-'licd for r. certificate on the grounds that she hr,d 
hi;^h blood ^iresoure and that she hrd childi-en. She had been 
working since August, 1933. She has three cldldren, aged l.>, 
13 and 9. Kr., E has a printing shop. Ke has been able to ra?ke 
vcr;- little :nd they fear that they are going to lose the busi- 
ness, liirs. il said tlvat he v.t.s unwilling to quote below code 
Mricos and had lost several jobs because other peope were not 
so honest. Fow her v.^ork is prohibited by Code and she does not 
feel too kindly toward the ITiA, thouji she is not resentful and 
understands the general homev.'ork situation in other industries. 
She is trj'-ing to decide whether or not to g;o into the factory. 
I-Ier doctor advises her not to do so, on the basis of her health. 
She i'errs th:-.t it \/ill make her health \/orse .'nd also is un- 




v.'illi;v to lee.Yc tlie child^ e:i. Eer -.lother lives on the lo\;er 
rioor of the hoa-e (h.::r Urtliev ovns the house vhere thev live) 
r.nd could lor the, out Mrs. R h,--,<5 always super- 
vised them and does not v;c.nt to leave them v.dth some one else. 
The situation she thinl:s further comilicrted d:' the fact tliat 
her "brother-ir-lav, who is unei.i )lo;-ed, is in the home and she 
does not li::e his influence on the children. It is difficult 
to :-.:-o\.- \.hethpr it is her herlbh or the children which is im- 
■)ort; nc r.s she miI:eB her decision. 

Urs. 3 r- ilied for a certificate on the ::;rounds tlir.t her 
huslx-nd is an invalid fnd th-t she has childreji. ^ She had been 
nor,;, since March, 1954. he Ivxs tvio children'hy this 
marri.-£:e, aged 10 and G. There rre two childjen hy a former 
marriage, aged 30 aid :;2. Hoth of them ore em doyed rt present. 
;Ir ~. is not v.'ell enoUi^li to V'-orh lout is able to care for himr- 
self . He h;:d a grocery business '.;hich he lost 5 years c\^o. 
Then he had a ta,ilor shop v/hich also failed. He owned the 
sho-) which hs.d a -->1.: ce for living in tlie rear. He rented the 
building, but after the renter friled to "lay the rent he 
i.iovid b; ch into the j-lace. The shop is now emoty. The femily 
received relief two ysrrs, but evidently the boys have 
mc de enough for them to er-ist on durin;; the h- st t^'o years. 
Mrs. :• WPS willing:, to :^:o into the fiicoory, but \.ts rejected 
for inside worh by the factory doctor. Awent su£i„_,ested that a 
rer -ilicf tion be made on the basis of the whysical condition of 

Hiss D - 

Hiss D ;:-'-ilied for a certificrte on the basis of ?n invelid 
mother. She hcd i.'orhed since Seytember 1953., Her mother is not 
-.,'ell, but can c:re for herself to some extent and a married 
sister can come in occasion.: lly to assist her, Hiss D would lihe 
to i:;o into the frctor;-. She aooa not teo\, whether or not she 
can uishe the minimi.un, but would lihe to try. She she hfd 
never tah.en out more than 1,S dozen ties r, week (jO required to 
earn the minimvun wat.;e) becruse she did not v.'ork at ni^iit nor 
did she li2,ve ar^y hely f.s some woi'hers hf,ve. She thirlcs this is 
the reason she v;as not i,,iven an o -oortunity to try inside work. 
She v."& told tliat she would be notified if there v.'as a ylrce 
insiuc. This was a month a^o. This is the only c?,se agents 
found v.'here home\/orker had not been offered a ylace inside. 
Hiss D lives with her father, mother, and sister. She v.'orked 
in € fc-ctory in Hr.tervliet until 3 years ago. At that time v.'ork 
\:.-,s slack ajid her mother was not well, so. she left. Her 
f'thor lia.s been mienr-ilos'-Gd until recent ''y. He is now worMn;.; 
three days a week as a Irborer in the :i; .j.ier mill in Watervliet. 
Her sisoer is em-)loyed in the office at Cluett's. Tbe friaily 
hr.s rec.-^ived no relief. 



1 1 • Adjustments hy Home V" or];ers ^;ho h ■:ar.e i nto t he factory 

i,;i-s. ? - 

I'rs. T, child 2 yerrs of a^e has heen :^lr.ced in Day Home. 
Two childi-en, a:,od 10 and 11 who are in school come home for 
lr.nch. Its. T lives v/ithin fev; hloclcj^ of frctorv and also comes 
hone for lunch. 

Ih-G. D - 

Mrs. D, child a^,'ed 8 in Eichool <- child a^^'ed l-jf, kept by 
neij^hbor, is ill and mother A.'orries about him. Advised to 
reapply for certificate. 

i.irs. C - 

I'jcs. C, children 13 and 15 in school. 

Lrs. J - 

Mrs. J, Gra.ndmother coues every day to for children, 
a^.ed 3, 6 and 9. It is difficult for grandmother to come as 
she lives at a distance and ^Tays twenty cr-nts bus fare daily. 

I.irs. B ~ 

Mrs. B, Mother mys nei£:hbor $5.00 r week to care for children 
c^ed 2 and 4 child 10, in school, stays ATith neighbor after 

Vccs. D, children 6 and 10 in school - Lfother leaves before 
they do in morning, but father odos not. Cliildren reach home 
at 3:45 and mother at 4:43. 

Mrs. B, child 11 in school - Frmil'^ lives above father's 

Mrs. G, childi-en C and 9 in school - Father is at home until 
they leave for school in mornin^'. A noih^'^or --jreparcs lvmch_ for 
the children and si;ays with .them until mothcn^ returns in 
afternoon. She is -.aid fifty cents a day. 

Mrs. Z - 

Mrs. Z, children 8 and 12 in school. Mother must leave hone 
at 7:30 and worries about, children havin;', responsibility of 
loc::in.., the house before they ,\o to school. Father is not at 


LliBS r- - 

j.iss G ]v"o adjuf^tiuont neces^arj. V/ished to £'o into fpctory. 
llrs. A - 

Ilrs. A - One child r-od 11 in school. 
Lii-s. E - 

Lrf3. K - Children 7 r?a^Ld 12 in school: They ^'O to home' of 
Aant.-^cro&s street tvfter school. 

I.'rs. S..-^ Children 3 .?nd 16 in school. 'I'he.y come home for 
lunch v;hicfo raother leaves for then. Child aged 5 in Day Home 
Lothsr does not go to rorlc until 9 as she 'is ■exceptionally ' 
frst worlrer-. : • ' ■.■■•••■ 

Ilrs. P - . : • ..■■■■ 

Lire. P. -,- Child 4 left v/ith neigh'jor who' is --la'id oE.OO a 
T/eel.:.. ... ■ ■ - . • • 

Hrs. M - ; • ' ■ ■ ' 

ilrs. M - Child; 9 is in school. I.'other worries ehout care of 

child- during- vacation. ' ' '' ' 

nr&. D -. children '9,- 11 and 14 and 16 in 'school. They come 
hone f.nd oreoare their ovm lunch. C'irl 14 trkes care of younger 
children. ; ■ ■ 

i:rs. J 

lirs. J - ITo children - no rdjustnent necessary. 

Hrs. A 

Ui'z. A. Family live v.ith ta-arifeioth'^-r who takes caro of children 
9 months, 4 years and 7 years. 

Ilrs. G 

Mrs. G. Children 7 and 14 in j^chool. Girl 14 cones home for 
lunch sometimes. Eoy 7 iL,oes with the father to ^riH v/hich he owns. 

Lira, K. 

;urs. i.i - To children. I'o c'.djustmcnt necessary. 



:aBLES on number of special certificates GRAl-ITED IBIDER EXEa^TIVE ORDER 

TABia I . 






Co lo rado 











New Jersey 

New York , 



Rhode Island 

Tennessee , 

Vermont , 

Virr:inia , 


West Virginia. . . . , 







































C.-an celled 



SOURCE: p. 13, MimeOi<:;raphed Report, Division of Labor Standards, U. 
Department of Labor, Washington, D. C, December 9, 1935. 






* ttn rl ft afi ri Stfrltp ' * 

Nmib er o 

e Certificates 

: . Isstxed 




■ ' 5' 



: • : , 1 . 

: ■ Illinois : 

: • Y\ew Jersey : 

" ■ 14 


! •' New York : 

• ■ 135 


: - Pennsylvania ^ : 


1 : 

: Rhode Island ; 

■ ■ 6 


:BloUse and Skirt : 

• 26 


: California ..'.'. : 



: New York : 

■ 14 


: Pennsylvania...... ; 


: Corset and Brassiere : 

■ 44 


; California., : 



: ■ New -Jersey : 



: Pennsylvania. ... 1 , , : 



: Cotton Garment. ■• • 



: California .,,.....: 






: Kentuclij'- >.,,...,.; 

! Maryland >.,,,,..: 



: " Mas sachus ett s. . .:....., : 


• ' ■ • 

: ' Michigpji -,... ,. : 



: • Missouri ■...,........: 



: ■ New Jersey .:...,.........: 



: ■ New York :.......,,......: 



: Pennsylvania. ..»•.....,.. .. .. . : 


: 19 

: Vermont ,■„...........: 



: Washington < , ; 



: Drapery and Upho istery Triramiijg. , : 



: ■ Illinois >,, : 



: ■ New Jersey. ... . * , , : 



: New York ,,,, : 


: 70 

: Penns^.'lvania. ..» ,, : 


: 1 

• Dress. s 



t N ew Yo rk. ....... ........* 


: 9 


: Vermont : 


SOURCE: p. 9; Ibid. 


II-urn"ber of Certificates 

Code aand State 



Hew Jersey. . . 
Infants' & Cnildren's 7ear. 

California. . . 

Cormecticut. . 


ilew Jersey. . . 

Kevv York 


, Virginia 

Ladi es ' Handbag. 


¥.ev Jersey , . 

Kew York •. . 

Light Sewing (Except G-arments-), 

lle'f? York 

luggage and Fancy- Leather Goods, 

Comiecticut ...... 

Karj^land »• 

Massachusetts. .> , 

¥.er York y . 

Medium Priced Jewelry » . 

Kagsacl'iusetts. . . . 

ITew Jersey 

ITew York , , 

Eiiode Island. . . . . 
Men ' E Clo thing 


I'ew Jersey 

Hew York _. . 

Pennsylvania. . . . . 
Men's Garters, Suspenders, etc. 

California . 



Massacliasetts. . . . 

Mew York 


len ' s i'leckwear. 








ilew Jersey 

Mew York 










. . 2 









■ ' 1 
























































; lluniber of Certificates 
Code and State Issued : Refused 

Merchant and Custom Tailoring ,..: ,220. : _ 73. 

California : .14. : 

Illinois .: 7, : — 

Indiana : . . .2 . :. 

lientuclcy , : . 3 . : 

Marj^land , ■. :. . 2 . . . :. , 

liassacliusetts :. . .7 . ,:, . . . . — 

Minnesota :. .2 ' ..-.-. 

Missouri : . . .4 . : 1 

ITew York ; • . 139 . .: 37 

Ohio, , '. ...: 3 . : 5 

Pennsylvania '. [.:, . .32 . , : , , 30 

Yirginia ..,: 1 . . , .:. , . — 

West Virginia....! ...: .3 .,.:.. .. — 

Wisconsin • . . •: ;..!. . . . 1. . ■ '. ■ - : — 

Narrow Fabrics.. ". ^: .49. .:... 83 

Connecticut , , .: 14. ....:,.' 56 

Hassachusett s. ..:,._,. 1. . . : ■ — 

Hew York ,...-. ,.:.,.. 32 : . . . . 26 

Pennsylvania '- . .: 1. . . . :. — 

iihode Island !....■-, ?.:.... 1- ..: 1 

Novelty Curtains, Draperies, etc »;,. ..6. .,:...- 13 

IT ew York '. ", : 3. . . : 8 

Pennsylvania '. ; 3 ,.■.:.. ■ 5 

Pleating, Stitching and Bonnai: and . ; 

Hand Hub roidery '. »: 125..,,:.. 447 

Ca.lifornia .:.... 7 .,.,:.•■ .— 

New Jersey ; 4 ..;... ~ 

New York .;, ,100,...:- ■ 428 

Pennsylvania •: : 15 : 19 

Powder Puff. .; : 13 : 1 

Cali f mia ,: 6 : • — 

Illinois , ..:. . ,..2. ......... — 

New York .! , : 5 : 1 

Sshiffli, thd Hand Machine : : 

Bnbroidery, 'etc •: 22 : 1 

Ne'.v Jersey : sO . . :. — ► 

liew York .' .'■:" 2 : 1 

Set Up Paper 3or- ! : 21 : 9 

New York ' : 7 : 7 

Pennsylvania : 13 : 2 

Rhode Island..... : 1 : 

Silt Fabric : 5 : 10 

New Jersey : —- : 1 

New York : 5 : 9 

Stay : 3 : 25 

New York : 3 : 25 



^■umlDer of Certificates 

Code and State 

i a»M<s 

Illinois. .. 

Indiana. . . . 


Minnesota,. , 

Hew York;. . 

Ohio. ...;., 

Rhode Island. 
To.y and Playthings... 


G-eorgia. .■• . . 

Missouri.". . . 

New Jersey. 

New York.;. 


West "Virginia. 
Under^ai'i-'ioiit and NeglJ 



Minnesota;. . 

New Jersey. . 

New York..:. . 



Minnesota.:. • 
. New Jersey. . 


Other Codp.s , 


' • • 113 


■■ 6' 

■ 14 





■ ■ 4 

■ 21 








■ ■3 



■ 4' 













Codes not Reported.. 





Supplement on Homework 
in the 
Knitted Outerwear Industry 

-200 _ 

Part I 





The proposed Knitted Outerwear Industry Code is first submitted 
contained a -orovision orohibitin.p- nnme^'or^Co This did not reuresent a 
DOlicy arrived at by carefal f^ctua?- study. There was little accurate 
or comorehensive information availaule about horiie'^ork in that industry. 

However, tne production of a number of grouus in the industry 
(soortsrear, headwear, hand-finished sroducts and infants' and child- 
ren's wear) depended upon homework to a considerable extent. As a result 
of their efforts %e prohibition of homework was stayed in the code for a 
period of one year after the effective date (or until January 1, 1935). 
It was provided that piecework rates for homeworkers be fixed and that 
a committee be, appointed to make a study of homework and to render a 
reoort "upon the practicability of discontinuing homework in the Industry 
or setting up a system of control for homeworkers. " (Se<= "Documents", 
Exhibit "A" - Knitted Outerwear Code Homework Provision.) 

The report of the Administrator to the President on the Knitted 
Outerwear Industry Code described homework as "a major oroblem in this 
industry" and added that "more time should be allowed for study of the 
uroblem, " 

On April 30, 1934, the Hand-Knitted Division Committee was offici- 
ally appointed by Administrative Order. No, lo4-9. (it had however, 
been orggjiized oefore this. Its first meeting was held on AT)ril 5.) 
This committee made no statistical survey. It relied entirely upon 
the personal knowledge of its industry members. 

The committee could not agree upon the question of wage rates to 
homeworkers. However, the members of the committee who employed home- 
workers proposed to .amend the code and incorr>orate. therein a s^t of regu- 
lations for the control of the homework system of nroduction on the Knit- 
ted Outerwear Industry. It "'as planned also, to submit certain standard 
hourly rates upon the basis of which piecework rates to homeworkers were 
to be computed. 

The report of the committee was presented orally at a tjublic hearing 
on October 8, 1934, At t.his hearing also the pro"Dosed regulation of home- 
work and the basic hourly rates ""ere' more fully analyzed and discussed, (**) 

(*) Prepared by 0. W. Rosenzweig 

(**) See Voliune 1, Transcript of Hearing on the Knitted Outerwear 
Industry, Regulations for the Homework System of Production, 
etc., Day and Night Sessions, October 8, 1934. 


After consideration of the rocorr and the evidence offered in 
support of the Co:.inittee 's proposals, the "ational P.ecovery Adminis- 
tration too."; no action to approve either the reg-ulations or the 
"basic rates. This i.Tas "because "the Dep\ity Aoministrator (in charge 
of the Knitted OuterTrear Code lir.d reconunended tlir.t the report \7as 
inadequate, and that the Comnittee failed to esta'blish any facts 
rrhich •-ould narr^nt the continuance of honer;ork in. this Industry, and 
also failed to present any adeoiaate plan for the control of spjne." 
(See "DocuQents," Exhi"bit "B".)' 

This left the houevrbrh provision of the approved code in effect 
with the stay of the prohihition of houerTorf: scheduled to expire on 
Decem"ber 31, 1934. 

",7nen the . hcuevorh production groups and Hem"berG of the Knitted 
OuteriTear Industry were advised that ITHA rrould not rpprove the recom- 
mendations of the Hand ICnitted Division Coi.ii.iittee, the home'7ork em- 
ployers petitioned the national "'.ecovsry Ac'ninistration for a further 
stay of the code prohiMtion of honewor^- in the jrnitted Outenveaj' 

After n-umerous conferences, it vas decided "by "."QA to i°-rant this 
request and stay the honeworh provisions of the code for a period of 
three months (from Jmua.ry 1 to April 1, 1935). (*) The Order, 
(Administrative Order ilo . 164-36, 'iDocuments, " S7'lii"bit B) granting 
the stay approved certain regulations of. the homer.'or;: system (to "be 
in effect for the duration of the stay) and reauired tlie.t the mem"bers 
of the industry usin': houenork la'bor should couply rdth the provisions 
of the code and regulations. It uas provided, further, that (1) a 
Homework Conmission "be estp."blished for the purpose of collecting, 
assen"bling, and amalyzing "all information, data and facts relative 
to and concerning Homevrork Production in the ICnitted Outerwear In- 
dustry"; (2) the ICnitted OuterT'ear Industry Code Authority "be re- 
sponsi"ble for the adninistratioi and enforcement of the re^^ulations 
for the ho;.iework production; and (3) all actions of the Code A"uthor- 
ity relatin- to enforcement of the homework regulations "be su"bject to 
the supervision and direction of the no:ie-'or;: Commission. (See 
"Documents," E-:hi"bit "C".) 

Briefly, the homework re,-:'ulr,tions (1) required a complete regis- 
tration of all manufacturers, contractors cjid homeworkers involved in 
the Knitted Outer^'ear Industry homework system; (2) provided for r. 
standard classification of homeworlc products and the settin',; of piece- 
'.7or': rates for the various types; (3) contained safegur.rds a~ainGt 
child lahor; (4) provided the ..lems for 'checking the rates paid to 
houeworl:ers "by manufacturers and contractors; and (5) esta"blished the 
machinery and procedure for handling alleged violations of the regu- 
lations. (See "Documents," E:di.ihit "D".) 

Shortly after the granting of the stay and the approval of the 
homework regulations, the three nem"beTs of the Honewoi-^: CoiiLiission 
were appointed, gjid a'-ork Bureau to gather the facts sjid secure 
compliance with the regulations was esta'blished. To provide the 
necessary operatin.": expenses a "bu d-':et for t he worl: of the Em-eau was 
(*> On'Fb"bruary "27, 1935, ty Adrinxstrative Order 154-41, thia stay 

v/as further extended to "a- 15, 1935. 


approved oy the Kational Hccoverv At^mi-istr-^t^ on (*) 'v^.r. >, • .• 
of the Hcework Commission (-) ;ere as ^'llo;;: * ^^ °^Jectxves 

(1) To tab-oJate the honeworkers eirroloyed in the 
Knitoed Cuterwear Industry and" indicate (a) 
tnose m rural sections; (b) tho^e in Metro- 
politan Areas; and (c) the types of homework 

(2) To daterini:-.o the earnings of hor.eworkers. 

(?) To study the conditions of nianuf nct^oi-e ^juder 
homework production, including hours of work 
assistance hy others, -aaid saiiitary conditions 

(4) To classify the articles manufactured by 
hoEework production and to determine which 
If any, compete directly with machine-made 
articles or i-roortations. 

(5) To study the total cost of the manufac^.irer, 
the selling ..rice aaid value of the article 
manui'actiu-ed by homework production. 

(5) To study all the f.-^cts and circumstances ; 

pertinent to the qtiestion of transferring home- 
work -oroduction to factories, and to examine 
the possibilities of eliminating the evils 
of the homework system under some form of 

(?) To study and determine Drooer labor rates to 
be paid for homework production. 

(3) To study and formulate a -oolicy with respect to 
homework contractors. 

avaiiaole lis^s of firms m the industry known 

^ * ^ S^- p"?monrr /"' *'"'^ --^^"^"^"^^i^r^Ti;;!^;;;;^^ 

On the oIh! n? homeworkers were registered with the Bureau. 

Out^rwe'r r duf^; '^l^'^^''^ ^^^OO homeworkers in the Knitted 
■^ing Se'b^SSy^LS^dr^^^*^' ^'^^ ^'''''' ^'^'^ '^ -^-^ 

^**^ JZi^lf'^i-^'"n ^"^'■'"" '''" Homework Commission :orovided for in 
t^i '.' \^°''^''■ ''"' ^^^-26 (See "Documents", Exliibit "C% 

Sbfr^rlI,S^,- -— - Bureau, (see -.cedents", ' 



or reported to "be employers bf ho le- orhers . These lists nere checked 
T7ith naies of laiitted outer\rear naniofacturers licensed hy the lTe'.7 York 
State Department of Lahor, The Lahel and Inspection Division of the 
Knitted Outer-r.-ear Code Authority assisted hy reportin.;c to the Homework 
Bureau on possihle honei7ork employers. PuDlicity vras given in the 
"Knitted Outerweej- Tines" (*) to the fact that the stay of the code 
horaev/ork prohihition applied only to homevrork employers v.-ho registered 
in accordance --ith the air-iroved rsfTilations . Before labels were 
issued hy the Code Authority to raerihe-i-s of the industry, they neve 
required to declare whether or not tha-- ^-^ere employing homeworkers. 

Wlien they registered (see "Documents", Exhibit "D", 4), 
"both manufacturers a^id contractors 'ere required to submit complete 
lists of their homewor]-ers. These lists were filed with the Homewor]: 
Bureru snd. an individur.l card was made for each hO!.!ewor]cer. Homework 
employers reported vreekly o.ll pa^Tjcnts raao.e to honevorkers, raid these 
pa^'ments were in tui'n posted on the individap,l homeworker's card. 

From this brief description of the mechanics of the. Homework 
Bureau's operations, it is evident that evsry step \inv, talien oy the 
Bureau to insure as complete a registei' of hone'v/oriiers and homewor]: 
employers (inducing; contractors) in the industry as possible. 

The Homework Bureau" continued its '-'orl: until Kay 27, 1935, when 
the Supreme CovLrt invalidated tlie code system^ At tiie tine its ac- 
tivities ceased, the Bureaf. had collected information for the eifjht- 
week period between A;prll 1 pjid 1 ;ay 25, 1935. But this material had 
not yet been assei.ibled. Arrangements i-rere hiacTe by the Division of 
Heview, HRA, and the ITationa,! Knitted Outerwear Association to com- 
plete the work. Several former raeiiibers of the Buree„u staff viere re- 
employed and the assistance of four ¥PA workers wa.s obtained. The 
statistical schedules contained in Part IV of this report are the 
results of their efforts. These schedules are reproduced as submitted. 
The "Sminary Analysis of the Statistical Schedules" (Part III) v/as 
written by ilrs. R. L. Landow \7ho acted as Director of the staff v7hile 
the work was bein': completed, and checked by Iir. ?!arold R. Lhowe, 
Executive Director of the ITational ICnitted Outerwear Association. 
,The docwnents in Part II were collected and arran:';ed by the irriter with 
the assistance of LIrs . Lojadow. 

The pta't played by the IIonewo:L'\- Cohinission ajid the Homework Bureau 
in the collection and. preparation of the statistical material herein 
presented sho\ild be made clear. The latter agencj" consisted siraplj^ of 
an office staff which cMd the phjrsical work. The Comnission (see 
"Documents", Erdiibit "C", paragrpph 7) defined the scope and nature of 
the investigation to be made by tho Bureaix. rurther, the Commission 
prepared or aided in the preparation of all forms sjnd questionnaires 
that were sent out to manufacturers, contractors, and horae^-'or^'rers. 
Durinr; the progress of the investi'^.-ation the Coruiission made such 
changes of procedure and direction c:S developneAts reauired, Tfi-iile the 
Comi-iission '-as able to examine '-reekl^r reports on data being collected 
and assembled, it did not nji opportiinity to pass npon or check 
tho 'final, tabulo.t ions. 
( *) Tho indastr:i''s trade pe;per issixed weekly by the yational Knitted 

Outer- -ear Association. 


A Glance at the "Lidex to SciifcdrJles", Part IV, is sirfficient to 
liao.icate that the rjcconplis'iTaents of the Komeworlc Cournission (sjid of 
t'le B'.ireau) fell shorrt of -the objectives. This v;as hecaiise the study 
•unfortunately, i./rs not p-.-rrratted to run its course. The statements 
concerninr the earninp:s of ho'aeT'or^-.erfi, ^)articul^.rly, vould he much 
noro valushle if t>&-'^ had hsiin ;Avv:;le lented hy information concerning 
the ho\irs which tli-) hoiiie-.'or'-.ers v.'or]:;ed to receive the rages paid to 
them, nevertheless, this is the first instance in the historjr of the 
stmy of the '"o:]-: pirooleii in the United States rrhere an industry under~ 
took a thorourh investigation of its home\^orl: prohlem. It ::as the only of its kind under the IJEA. and had tha investif;E,tion continued 
there is little dcaht that other iiidutitries with vexing homeuork proh- 
lems would have r-.rofited hy this ercajaple, hoth r.s to technique sn.d 
suhstantive results. At sax/ rate, the results of the study, incomplete 
as the-;- are, tell 5x1 interested tjyiC significant story. 







Exhiliit "A" 

Knitted Outerrear Code Home'-'ork Provision (Code aTD-orQ-zcd on Dooemher 18, 
1933; effective on January 1, 1934) 

J,rticle VI. 

.(a) 'Mo Knitted Outerwear ijrodncts shall "be man^if^ctured at home for 
sale or other cominercia,l rjurDOse, e-.'ce-ct that for the -Deriod of one year 
•after the effective date -.f this Code hand knitting ('•'hich shall include 
ha.nd crocheting, hand emoroidering, and hand sevring together of machine- ^oarts of garments), '"ill he loermitted '^hnn iDerformed in accordance yrith 
regulations and/or Tiece ra.tes '"hich 'nay he estahlished as herein -orovided. 

(b) Anything contained in Article IV of this Code of the contrary not- 
'fithstanding, the Administrator nay fix, on '-■r hefore January 15, 1934, after 
notice to the Code Authority, and may change from time to time after like 
notice, minihrnm T^iece-Tork rates for any of the onerations described in para- 
graph (a) of this Article. 

(c) The Administrator shall aio-ooint a Hand-Knitted Division Committee 
of seven, three of iwhom shall be fairly reoresentat ive of the hand-knit 
manufacturers, three fairly re-oresentative of the machine manufacturers and 
recommended by the Code Aiithority, and one reioresent ing the Administrator. 
This Committee shall report to the ^d-ninistrator "rithin thirty (30) d^ys 
after the effective date of this.; Code or '"ithin such further time as may 
subsequently be allo'^ed by the ^Ciministrator or his Deouty, '^ith reioect to 
proTjer mini'.'vua piecework rates and shall make a study of and renort "7ithin 
six months from the effective date ■'if this Code; uoon the -oracticability 

of discontinuing horae'TOrk in tiie Industry or setting un a system of control 
for home.Y/orkers. 

Exhibit "B" 


January 18, 1935. 

To: National Ind.ustrial lecovery Board 

From; Prentiss L. Coonley, Division ^.dminastrator 

Su'b.ject: Codeof Pair ComiDetition for the Knitted Outer'^ear Industry - - 

Stay of the Provisions of Section (a) of Article VI, insofar 
as They Ap-oly to Kand Knitting as Bscribed in S-^id. Section; 
and Sections (b) .'md ( c) of Article VI. 

When the Code of ?air Competition for the Knitted Outerwear ^ In du- 
try ',7as aiDproved, it contained a provision that all hor.e'-'ork in the Industry 
should eicoire on January 1, 1^35, and that before s-ach expiration da,te, a Hanf 
Knitted Division Committee should roiDOrt ot the Administration on the -Dractica- 
bility of discontinuing homevfork in the Industry or setting up a system of 
control for home'-'orkcrs. 


Diie to vrrious delays, the Hand Ilnitted Division Coranittee did not 
start this 'vork within the time antici-oated. On Octoter 8, 1934, a hear- 
ing was ncld on the report of the Committee. Following this hearing the 
Deputy Adninistrator recommended that the report ^^as inadeqxiate, and that 
the Committee failed to establish any facts which '^rould warrant the continu- 
ance Tf homework in this Industry, and also failed to ^resent any adequ.^te 
■olan for the control of same. 

The resnective associations reoresenting horae"'ork -oroduction and mem- 
ters of the industry ^^ern advised of these fa.'cts, i^rhereu-Don the associations 
■oresented to the Administration petitions for a stay of the nrovisions of 
tne Code which terminated homework. , , ' 

After numerous conferences we deem it advisable to stay the homework 
provisions of the Code until Ai^ril 1, 1935,. for tnose meBibers of the Indus- 
try '"ho agree in writing to coin-oly with the Code and tne Regulations. 
The stay shall become effective u-oon the date of sie;ning of the Order ap- 
proving same, and the '^.egulat ions shall become effective February 1, 1^'35. 

It was decided in arranging this stay not to -orovLde for minimum 
rates, as it '^as felt tnat '-without Drooer refi:ulatory provisions and adequate 
statistics, any attempt at establishin?; minimum wai:;:es would result in creat- 
ing wholesale violations a,nd in addition woiild uioset tne Industry, as rates 
would be increased at a tine ^--hei raerabers of the I vestry had contracted 
for their yarn and sales for the season. The knitwear assoCi?-ions involved 
stated that their season usualD.y run;i from the end of December to .'^fter 
July 4th, but that April 1st would give them sufficient time to work off 
their present commitments. 

Filed petitions will be heard to deterraine what if any further exemp- 
tions are justified. 

This stay period, however, is intended as a transition onriod, during 
which the "sport si'fear", "hand joined'' and "beret" branches of the industry 
may adjust themselves to Code nrovisions by bringing their work to inside 
sho-:>s or factories. Some members are 'oreparing to do this and the Code 
Authority will te advised of the iDuroose of the stay when the order is sitrned. 
If at the exolration of the stsy some members are still in Drocess of trans- 
ferring the vrork to shoios or factories, it may be necessary to grant reason^ 
able addition of time to those who snow need for it, ' 

The "Infants" and Children's" brai^ch x^resents ^ more difficult problem ' 
of transition and vdli reriuire further consideration. 

Tno Regulations -orovide for a Homework Commission of three oersons to 
bo established ,by tne Administration which will be .re-oresent-itive of Labor, 
Industry and the Administra.tion. The ^Tomework Commission will suioervise the 
regial^tion of home'"ork "oroduction and re-oort its findings to tne Administration. 

The various Advisory Boards have a-ouroved the legX'lat ions for 'Tomework 
Production in the ?:nitted Ou.ter"'ear Industry and the nr<jLer aworoving same. 



Tiie following docnments a-ttached hereto; 

Order granting St-'y 

Regulations for Home'-or'c 'C'rodiictinn in the Knitted Outerwear Industry 
EeiDort of the Industrial Advisory Boprd 
ReTOort of the Labor Advisory Board 
ReTDort of the Consumers' Advisory Board 
Report of the Legal division 
Report of the .^■•- cprch -^nd plnnnin^:?; Division 
Assent of Industry 
TranscriTDt of '-^earin? held on Octoher 6, 1934 

I analyze said Stsy ^nd ReJ^lations for Hone^ork Production in the 
Knitted Outerwear Industry and find said analysis and findinj-^s to "be in- 
ccr-oorated herein by reference. Said Stay and Relations are accordingly 
recommended for your ao"oroval. 

M. D. Vincent 
Det)uty Administrptor 

Approval Recommended: 

Prentiss L. Coanlpy 
Division Administrator 

SCUHCE: Volume I, Administrative Order no. 164-36 

E"hihit "C" 

AdministrB.tivu Order St-^yin-^ A^jolication 

of Article VI '^ith Respect to 

Hsnd Homework 

ORDER ^10. 164-36 

Code of Eair CoraiDetition for the 

knitted Outer-fear Industry 

Granting Ap-'olicatio^-; for a Stay of the Provisions of Section ''a) of 
Article VI, insofar as &sy. Appl'y to Hand Fnitting as Described in Said 
Section; and Section (b) and '( c) of Article 'Tl, and Aio^oroving Regulations 
for Homework Production. 

WHEREAS, the Code of Eair Co^i-oetition for the Knitted Outer'-'ear In- 
dustry "orovided for a -and Knittec^ Division Committee, which Committee 
was to iBve studied and re-ocrted to t -'le Administrption its r e commend-'' t ion 
for raininun iDiece ^^rork rates aio^licable to home-'ork Toroduction in tne Industry, 
and further to h3,ve rermrted unon the ■ornctic-'^ibility of discontinuing home- 
I'ffork in the Industry or setting utj a system of control for homeworkers; and 



I'-iU'-ilA'S, the Hand Knitted Division Gomnittee has rendered a re-onrt to 
t:\e administration, and 

T-'EHSAS, hearings havi^i^ "been d-aly held thereon, and t'le Demity Adiiaii- 
istr-^tor :iaving reported, and it axipears to the satisfaction of the "'fatioial 
Industrial Recovery Board that the st-^y hereinafter granted is necessary and 
'^ill tend to effrctuate the policies of Title I of the fictional Industrial 
Recovery 'ct; and 

T'EHSA-S, Regulations for ^-Tonie^'ork Production have heen submitted hy 
the Code \uthority to the National Industrial Recovery Board for its revision, 
modification, and an-^roval; 

NOVJ, THSPJiFORE, -oursuant to authority vested in the National Industrial 
Recovery Board, the attached Regulations are hereoy a,n-Droved; ^nd it is here- 
by ordered that the nrovisions of Section ''a) of Article VI of the Code of 
Fair Comt)etition for the Knitted Outer'-'ear Tnd^irrtry, insofar .^s they iDrohibit 
the -nanufacture in homes, for sale or other co'nviercial --Tar-ooses, of the -oro- 
ducts of hand laiitting (^''hich include- h-^nd crochetiu;.;, ha.nd embroidery, and 
hand se'^'ing together of machine made oarts of ti:ar-aents) on and after January 1, 
1P35, and Sections (b) and ( c) of Article VI, be and they are hereby stoyed 
for trie period from the date of this Order to Voril 1, l'~35; 

PROVIDEH, HOWEVER, that tne m'Tno-rs of tne Incca-^trv eng^ - d in home^-ork 
production in the Knitted Outer^-'ear Indaotry comTjly --ath the o.:-ovlsions of 
the said Code and the ie';ul^tions attaciied i.ereto; and 

PROVIDED, FURT"-ER, tn'^t a Horae^'ork e'amission of three (3) members shall 
be apoointed by the National Industrial Recovery Board, which shall consist 
of one (l) representative from the Division of Rase- rcn and Pl-'innins of the 
'iational Recovery A.dministr tion, '--ho shrll be Chairman, one (l) reoresent- 
ative from tne labor A.dvisory Board of the National Recovery Administration; 
and one (l) representative to be selected by the Code A^thority by the 
Knitted Outers-fear Industry. The dv.ties and ■oo'^ers of .the Nome-'ork Commission 
shr>ll include the collection, assembling, and analyzing of all information, 
data snd f-^cts relative to and concerning Nome-'ork Production in the Knitted 
OutBr-vear Industry, and to make renorts and recommendations to the "Tationa.l 
Indxistrial Recovery Board on or before (Vnril 1, 1935, relative to the most 
practical method of enforcing the nrovisions of Article VI of this Code, or 
as required by the 'Tational Inchistrial Recovery Board; ond 

PROVIDE), FURTHER, that the Code Authority of t le Knitted Outer^^ear 
Ind-istry snail administer and enforce tne le.giilat ions attached hereto for 
Hone'^ork Production, and snail render to the Home^^ork Commission siich inform- 
ation, data, and reports as the Home-ork Comm.ission may require from time to 
tivie, and assist the "omc^ork Commission generally. The actions and func- 
tions of the Code Authority and/or its agencie'=' -vith regard to the enforce- 
ment of the Regulations for Horae-'ork Prod' tct ion shall at all times be sub- 
ject to tne ap-oroval, sar)ervision, anc direction of t:.-:e 'Tome^-'ork Commission. 
The Home'^ork Commission s :all also nave tiie right to oartici-ioate in any of 
tnese actions of the Code \uthority '-md/or its agencies with respect to 
Homei-rork Production. 



This Order is siobject to revocation vcoon -oroTDer sho^^ing of caiis e or 
subseciuent order. 

"Tational Indi:-strial Recnvery B^nrd 

B y 17. A. Harriman /s/ 

YJ. \. Harriman 
Administrative Officer 

Ao-oroval Recommended: 


Prentiss L. Coonley 
Division administrator 

Februa,ry 4, 1935. 

Exhibit "D" 

Regulations for Homevrork Production in 

the Knitted Outeme^r Industry 

(Approved in Administrative Order i^o. 164-36 D?ted February 4, 1''35) 

For the Purpose of regulatin,- home-'ork during tne -oeriod of the Stay of 
the provisions of Article VI of the Code of fair Gomtsetition for the Knitted 
Outerwear Industry, the follov/ing regulations axe hereby adopted: 

Regal at ionll. 

(a) Code Definitions: The definitions, contained in Article II of the 
Code of Pair Competition for the lOiitted Outer\Year Industry, are incorpora.ted 

(b)"! Homeworker: The term "Home worker" as used herein, includes every 
person ?;ho does, in his or her hone, hand '7ork for pas'", in the production, in 
vrhole or in part, of dxij of the products of the Industry. 

(c) Homework Production: The term "Homework Production" as used here- 
in, meens the iianufacture of products in whole or in part, by homeworkers. 

(d) i-iaXLufacturer: The term "iieuiuf acturer" as used herein, includes 
every person, firm or corporation who or which uses or employes homework con- 
tr ctors and/ or homeworkers as herein defined. 

(e) Homework Contr.-^.ctor: The term "Home'-'orh Contr-ctor" as used herein 
shall include every person, firm or corporation who or which employs Horae- 
workars to make any of the products of the Industry as defined in the Code, 

in whole or in part, for manufacturers '^'ho provide the necessary raw material. 

(f) Homework Commission: The term "Home'ork Commission" as used herein 
shall mean the Homework Commission created a:?.a established bjr the national 
Indus trial Recovery Boajrd. 



(g) Bureau: The terci "Bureau" as usee, herein rhall mean the Eome-'oi'k 
Bureau created and eBta"bli3hed u^ider Ref^ul tion 2 hereof. 

Regulation 2. 

The Code Authority -ihall e?.t;dolish at its office in He'/ York Cit;-, 
H. Y., as its 'gene;'-, a Sureaxi for the purposes of crxrying into er:fect 
these P.egul tions , securing coi^iplirjice thereto ajid to the Code "by the raem- 
hers of the Industry suoject ot these Regulations, ajid to obtain inform- 
ation, statistics, and data relative to home'Tork production in the Indtistry, 
to report thereon to the Hone'vork Co: jiission. The Code Authority shall re- 
port to the Eorne'-'ork Comnis ion on the personnel of the Home-'ork Bureau ±0- 
assure a thoroughly impartial and competent presentation o:^ all data. Any 
of the acts of the Bureau ?jid/or the Coce Authority under or pursuant to 
these regulations, sha.ll he subject to revie'r and aiTiroVcl by the Homervork 
CoLir.ission. The recordf:. of the Home^'ork Bureau shall be completely a.vail- , 
Eble to the Hone--ork Co^-uiis^ion but rhall not be t ■ individual V 
nenbers of the Code Authority or to individual menbers of the Industrjr, and 
shall in all respects be kept confidential. 

Regulation 3. 

In order to provide for the administration of the-^e Regulations .and 
for the conduct of the i/or": of the Home^-or': Bureau the Code Aut ority shall 
prepare a budget to cover the costs of said administration and work, and a 
basis of contribution by horae-'ork e iployers for aporovcd by the Fational 
Industrial Recovery Board. 

Regxxlf'tion 4. 

On or before T'eoruary 25th, 1935, manufacturers a:ad/or Home'-'ork contractors 
shallfile i7ith the Bureau, a consent, in v/riting, in such forii as may be approv- 
ed by the Buireru, that he acce-ots the condition under ■"diich the stay of the/ 
provisions of Article VI of the Knitted Outer'/eax Code \7as granted, and thaV- 
he "ill comioly '-fith the Code riid all re:^lations adopted -pursuant thereto. 
At the s^jne time, he shall file a list of tho names raid acdresses of all 
home'Torkdrs and home-vorl': contractors he ernoloys, and, in addition, the najnes 
and addresses of those he intends to eniploj/. HomcTork Contractors shall file 
a list of the names and acdresses of all raaxLu"acturers l^y vrhom thej- maj'' be 
employed. Any change or addition to such lists after filing of original 
lists shall be ii.icdiately reported to the Biireau, and any manufacturers 
and contractors beginniig prodiiction subsequent to "'ebma-ry 25, 1C35, shall 
file the consent and lists designated herein before undertaking production. 
Failure to report as herein provided sha.ll be deemed a violation of the con- 
ditions under uhich said stay '''-is graiited. 

The assessment for the first month of these Regul tions shall be paid 
at the time of filing the consent ajid lists required above. _>.ilure to paj"- 
the assesi-ients for the ac'ministration of those Regu.1 ,t:.ons is a failure to 
comply '-'ith the conditio]is of the Stay o:" xi.rticle VI. 



Regalation 5. 

(a) The Hoine'-'orl- Commission 'Tith the r-,ic of the Bi-ire-u ihall ascertain 
cuio establish cIp.-, -if ic- c:. nr- o~ t -oe;.. imd of ^;arraentG pud products 
of horae^-'or^- i^roduction in the r.ivif.ioii of the Indur^try covered "by those Ee- 
gulations, and recoLi;nenc the stjuidards for iainicm:; nece '-.'orh rates for the 
saxie . 

Regulation 6. 

(a) flanufacturers rjad/or hone-'or): contractors shall conply -rrith all 
.Federal, St.-^te, sjid ..unicipal lav;s; the Code; reflations of the national 
In:ustri.,.l '::ecovery 3oard, rnd the Code iiiithority, -affecting the prodtiction 
of knitted outerrrear. 

(h) L.ianuff cturers and/or hohie-rorlc contractors shpJl not laiowingly use 
or employ child lahor or enploy ;;jiy hone 'ork-contractor or hone-'orker who 
uses or employs child labor in the ueJuing of any products of the Industry. 

(c) Kanufacturers snd/or homevork contr.actors shall not employ nor 
permit any home\7orker to use an'/ machine in tne production of laiitted outer- 
neax products other than hojid knitting or crocheting needles. 

(d) toanufacturers a :d/or home'-orl: contractors shall pa;,- horae'-'ork con- 
tractors and/or homeiJorksEs as the case may he, for work performed, either 
hy check or by cash, obtaining a si-raed receiiit, and shsll keep the check 
vouchers ajid/or recei-ots for a period of six (6) months after issuance, avail- 
able for the inspection of the 3iire.FU. Suxh checks and/or receipts shall 

be in form aiTOroved by the Bureau . 

(e) Manufacturers and/or contractors sh^ll not employ eny 
horaeTTork contractor or home'-orker to do any home-'ork unlcs the order for 
such work is given on the uniform order blcuik published rnd approved ''oy the 
Bureau, and unles such manufacturer and/ or home'-or^-: contractor certifies 
thereon that such order form contains a true and c Tnplete statement of all 
the prices, piece 'ork rates, terras rnd conditions o-f such rder. 

(f) Kanufacturers, shall -^ithin ten (lO) days after purchase, report 
to the Bureau all purchases, -'ith full details pertaining to the sajne, of 
Trholly or -oartially h-nd made products. 

(g) .-.ll transportation charges on home'7ork shall be borne oy the maiu- 
facturer or home'^'or'- contractor. 

Re gal cat ion 7. 

(a) Manufacturers ;5nd home\--or': contractors shall keep accurate and 
complete records of all their transactions of home--ork production, and 
pai^ticularly records of payrolls, labor co^ts, and other costs of homevfork 
production as shall be recuired by the B-areru. 

(b) Kanufacturers and/or home-^or!: contr ctors shall uiDon request 
of the bureau furnish such rccurate reports based upon such records and 
furnish such data rnd saj.iples or photogra;phs of the products of honei,7ork 
production made by them, as ma:' oe reouired for the purposes of observing 



the extent of corapliajice -'ith tiie "orovisions of the Code -^nd thete Regu- 
lations and the operation ov horae-'orh production in the division of the 
Knitted Outerwear Industrj^ covered "33- these . The "oureau or 
its agencio; n.-y ex-jnine all pertinent books, records .'Jid p.a;.)er3 of r^'Xiy 
.irjiufacturer or horae--ork contrx.ctor as may "be necessarj," to ve" ify such 
J"ePort3 or to as ure conplimce "ith the Code and -d th these Regulations. 
In no case sh.dl the facts disclosed by such e-cjnination be made avail.-.blfe 
in identifiable form to any competitor, -'hether on the Code Authority or 
other-7iSii, or bu given eaiy other publiCi:,tion except such as ma;/ be recuired 
for the proper administration or enforcement of the provisions of the Go'.-.o 
and/or regul.ations adopted pursuaait thereto. 

Regulation 8. 

(a) i;anufacturers shall keep on file, available for the stud;r cijid 
inspection hy the Bure-nu, or its gencie , a siuviple (or, if permitted by 
the ^tureau, a ph-jtograph. thereof) of each style and/or product manufactured, 
with complete specifications and detailed cp.lculation of the piece rates. 

(b) Kanufacturerr shall file ',ath the jureru such coirol^te specifi- 
cations and detailed calculations i\ar piece rate'^. ^^aid, \7ith stvle num- 
ber identifying the sai.iples on ^ile in tlieir respective places of business. 

Regulation 9. 

(a) 'lienever the Bureau or Coce Authority shall have cau..e to be- 
lieve that pjiy iienufacturer or hone" -ork contractor has fa.iled to comply 
with any provision of the Code or regulation ado-oted -nursuant thereto, it 
shall give due notice of the chpj-ge aoainst him and shall cfford adequate 
OT)portimiti'- to be heard pnd such hearing shall ^ce held according to the 
a,uthorized procedure for hs^.dlin.^: trade practice complaint:?. All the 
remedies and penaltiet- of the .^ct and regul,' tions promulgated pursuciit 
thereto shrll be applicable in ca,se r^f such violo.tions^ 

(b) lienever it shall be established by the ^ikireau. or the Code Auth- 
ority, after full op-jortunity to be heard sh.all hav; been given to the man- 
ufacturer or to the home orl: contr;ictor involved (hereinafter referred to 
as the resoondent), that the respondo.;t shall have violi'ted any of the pro- 
visions of the Code or of regulations ado-oted pursu.ant thereto; the Bureau 
ma^' recommend to the Home-,;ork Ccimis-^i on, '7hen the intarssts of the Inudstry 
may so require, that the stay be vacated ''ith reopect to sixch resiDOndent, 
and the Home\7ork Commission- may' recommend ;"ction to the .'ational Indust- 
rial Recovery Boax'd. 

Regulr.tion 10. 

Copies of these Regulations, and the said Order granting the sts.y, 
shall be conspicuously posted in the pl,.ce of business of all monufacturers 
and homework contractors. The Bure.u may from tine to publish to home- 
wor]cers, information which in its opinion :iny be necess ry or de^jirable to 
assure the purposes of these Regulations. 



Regulation 11. 

Eo member of the Incuntr/ Ph;:dl have the right to modify or waive the 
performance of any of tlit; .e "tei-ul-'tionr. . 

Sef:alation 12. 

Any party .-g^^^rievec oy any act or decision of the Bureau or the Code 
Authority mry appeal to the KatJontI Industrial Icecovery Board. 

Regulation 1?» 

These Rej^ulat ons , 'Then a.ix.iroved o /• the I'aticnal Industrial Recovery 
Board, shall have the name force and effect as sny provision of the Code. 

Regulation 14. 

These Regiil^ tions raay he iiodified, sxiended, and/or appealed, in v;hole 
or in part, in accordance with the- orovisiona of the Code hy the National 
Industrial Recovery Board, and shall he binding upon all members of the 
Knitted Ou.terr7ear Industr-' affected by these Regulations, 


-21 G- 




The tot-^.l namljpr of firms reoorteci from -tII sources to be interest- 
ed in horaeFork Droo.uction in tne Knitted Outerv/ear Industry, ■■"ss ?l'i. 
Of tnese, 17o registered, 41 iiad not registered -md i^ere Deinf^ inves- 
tigated to determine whether they were employing nome'-orkers or were 
members of the Industry at tne time of the discontinuance of the Bureau, 

The schedules are based upon the information from the r^.^istered 
manufacturers and their registered contr-ctors. The registered manu- 
facturers and contractors filed lists of homeworkers aggregating 
16,312. Subsequently, from payroll reports the Bureau obtained the 
names of 4,792 additional homeworkers, T7hich, eliminating -^ll duplicat- 
ions, brought the total number on file to 20,300. (**) 

It would appear, therefore, that in registering their homeworkers 
originally, thp registrants coo-oera,tec to tue f-xtend of 7'j.4t. 

This circum.stance m-"y be due to tne f^ct that in order to df^fray 
the expenses of the Bureau, a charge of 15(^^ ■oer registered homeworker 
per raonth ivas made to the manixf actarers and contractors. Fa.nv manu- 
fact^irers and contractors registered only Dart of their home'^orkers, 
wnicn accounts for the difference between mirabers o-f homeworkers shown 
on Schedule I, based on registration, and figures shown on Schedule III, 
obtained directly from paid homeworkers' cards. 

It may be due also to the fact that some homework erar>loyers reg- 
istered onlj'- the number of homeworkers a,ctually engaged at the time of 
registration, '.''hich may have been only a part of the list of available 
homeworkers used by the employer. 

Of the weekly payroll reoorts that •'-eie required of manufacturers, 
during the eight week period from April 1st, 1935, to May 25th, 1935, 
78^0 were received. 

Classification of Homeworkers 

G-JiiGCTHAPHICAL : Homeworkers registered with the Bureau were segre- 
gated first according to the state of residence. 

TYPES LF GEOG"PAP"-IICAL APEAS : Homeworkers -'ere S'=CTPs-«ted into 4 
geographical area classifications according to the character of 
the locality: ' Area 1 - those that lived in large industrial cities, 
rated 'as Metropolitan Districts in the census of 1930; Area 2 - 
'those that lived in cities of 50,00n population and over, which are 
not included in Metropolitan Districts; Area 3 - those living in 
towns of from 5,000 to 50,000 pooulation, and Area 4 - those living 
in geographical localities not included in the other area classifi- 

(*) This analysis was contained in tue report submitted te tne Division 
of Review, MA, by Mrs. R. L. Landow, 

(**) See Schedule I-C 

PRODVCTS CLASSIFICATIGK : The homeworkers registered vrith the Bare*^ 
were ^ilso classified according to the chara,cter of the lahcp oper-*- 
tions oerforraed by them as follows: 

(1) V/holly hand knitted or hand crocheted Inf ants^'ear, 
(including hand wear) to age o 

(2) Wholly hand knitted or hand crocheted Ladies Soortsweax 
(J5) Wholly hand knitted or hand crocheted heidweqr 

(4) Hand joining of machine m-ide parts of Infants' and 
Children's wear, to age 12 

(5) Hand joining of machine made parts of L=)dies S"Dort swear 
or Adult swear 

(6 ) Hand finishing of knitted outenrear orodacts by knitting 
or crocheting 

(7) Hand embroidery on knitted oaterTi^ear products (*) 

(8.) Hand sewing of buttons and buttonholes 

( 9.) Hand Trimmings 

FURTHE" CLASSiyiCATIO-.MS : It' w-^s contemplated tnat the Bureau, as 
its activity developed, would farther classify and study the home- 
workers so as to develop factual information pertaining to hours 
of labor, rates of pay, value of production, selline- prices, (**) 
extent of child labor, sanitary conditions affecting home'iorkers, 
age of homeworkers and other vocat-ions. The discontinuance of the 
activity of the Bureau with the termimtion of tne MA, nut a oeriod 
to this expectation. 

CLASSII'ICATIQ]} OF HGlJ.EffOM £ I.PLOYE"-S : Homework emoloyers were also 
classified geographically and according to the divisions of the 
Industry in which they operated, the prevalence of contract employ- 
ment in the industry, and the proximity of the horaeworker to the 
place of business of the employer. 

HOMji'.LRKJIRS IK THE KNITT^J Q^Tgr.JliA'R Il 'gJSTRY; The problem of home- 
work in the Knitted Outerwear Industry does not seem to be auite 
as extensive as estimated in the testimony given at the public hear- 
ing on Homework in this Industry on October 8th, 1S34. During the 
eight weeks from April 1st, 1955, to Mayc5th, 1935, only 13,266 
workers of the tqt-^1 of 20,300 listed with the Bureau, r'^'ceived Day- 

ments (Schedule II) and their e-irnings amounted to '*^127 , o22. 2 3« 

(*) Hand embroidery is not properly an operation in the Knit'ed Outer- 
wear Industry, being done only incidentally on inf g,ntswe-:r, and 
should be considered in conjunction with that group,. 

(**) The procedure and forms for these additional studies were ac'tually 
prepared and the education of the employers begun in connection 




This me?ns thnt' these workers averaged ffel.cO i week. In -fact, 60^ 
of them earned less than VSj;? a week, 16^ ep.rned from 75j# a week, 
to $1.25, and only 23t- earned amounts tliat ranisred upwards of Si, 25 
a week, ( Schedule III) 

The number of homeworkers 'mo' received payments during the period 
of the study, vas Gd"^:! of the total numlier on file at the Bureau, 
This does not mean that the 7034 -"'orkers' who received no payments 
during that time were not "'orking, merely that corn-Dieted, work had 
not heen returned to the manufacturer or payments made.' Therefore, 
figures given in Schedules III to XIII, which deal only with the 
13,266 who received payments, should b'= c'onsidered as 65^ of the 
total, if an estimate is desired of the entire situation as applied 
to the 20,30n workers. This would place the estiraa,ted amount that 
homeworkers prohahly earned during h year, at $1,106,833,50. 

PRODUCTS CLASSIFICATION : Dividing the homeworkers paid in this 
period 'into their lahor classifications, we find three which in- 
clude most of the, homeworkers, and most of the earnings, to wit: 

Tne h3iid knitted or crocheted infant swear group takes 68,3^ 
of the workers, and received 4:0,2fo of the earnings; 

The headwear group t,akes in IS.lvb of the homeworkers, and re- 
ceived 16, 5'b of the earnings; 

The ladies sportswear 'gvoa-o siTdlarly takes in 7,3^ of the 
homeworkers a,nd 12, Zfo of the total ea,rnings of all groups. 
Together these three hr-mches of the Industry take in 87, 7|) 
of the workers and 69% of the fotal earnings. 

The remaining 12.5vo of the workers, earning Zlfc of the wages 
p'aid, are em.ployed in all the other divisions of the Industry, 
(Schedule XIII ) 

LOCATION : Homeworkers in the Knitted Outerwear Industry ar" located 
'in 51 states, with the greatest n-omber's in the States 'of New York, 
(33,2^) Maine (29.3^) Pennsylv-'inia (14,2f.) and New Jersey (13.9^), 

The paid homeworkers were found mainly in either Metropolitan are^^s 
or in strictly rural sections, with a negligible n-umber located in 
the smaller towns or cities, (Schedule III A to D) 

The rural workers, who represent 54.7^5 of the total number of loaid 
homeworkers, averaged $4, 9o for the entire 8 week period, or 62(i a 
week. Only 7, 9'b of them earned araodnts upwards of .^10 for the en- 
tire period. 

The Metropolitan workers, who rerires'^nt 38,97b of the total number 
of homeworkers paid, averaged o1d.42 for the period, or $2.05 per 
week, and 45. 7;;o of them earned amounts above ;^10, 

Since the Vork of the Bureau was interrupted before standard rates 
could be established which would reflect t^ie hours of labor, it is 
impossible to determine exactly whether the work in the rural sec- 



tions is truly of a ui-ck-up leisurp time riptarp, i»nd he .. .., 
•hours the earnings of d2(^ represent,) or -hether in the Ketropolitan 
•?re-3S long hours a day were necessary to earn this qverage of ^-2,05 

a ^eek, or how many members in a family assisted. 

FHGIJilC^'JCiN G^QTJPS IF T'-IE I'^tP'TSTRY ; 98,65b of the homewor-^^rs and 
■P?,2^ of the total earnings ^Tere segregated into the 9 .-oduction 
groups of the Industry. There wr^s hut a small nuraher, 132 workers, 
whose earnings amoanted to $3,'448.71, not included in Schedules I'"' 
to XIII, as their work included operations in several -oroduction 
groups, and it cannot he '<=xactlv determined how much thev' received 
for each tyoe of v^ork. 

Group (1) Wholly Hand Znitted or H'^nd Crocheted Inf qntswp^r , 
(including Headwear) to age 12: (Schedule IV) This is the largest 
production group in the Knitted Outerwear Industry that em-olovs 
homeworkers. It eraoloyed 68,5% of the' workers paid during the 
survey, and their earnings amounted to 40-70 of the total. In New 
York State, '.''here the majority of these manufacturers are located, 
the prohibition of homework on any kind of infant swear in tene- 
ments, has forced hand knitted infantswear firms to send work out 
broadcast over 30 states, the only group with such a wide spread 

In 16 of these states nothing but infantswear is loroduced, 
and they therefore ap-oear only on Schedule IV. Mississippi has 
one worker. registered in this group, but it is not shown in this 
Schedule as that worker received no payment during the survey. 
Wisconsin is tne only state included in the study which has no 
homeworkers on. inf ants^-ear. 

Over three quarters, of all the "'orkers eraoloyed in this tyoe 
. of production, live in rural areas, principally in Maine, Ney York 
and New Jersey. The average of earnings was the lowest of any pro- 
duction group in the Industry, $5.67; and 73,1;;^ of all the home- 
workers employed .he re in fell into the category of those 'earning 
, under $6. for the period. This average of $5. 67- dropped to .$4,78 ' 
.for the workers in rural districts only, and rose to $10,77 in Met- 
ropolit,an areas. 

Group (2) Wholly Hand Knitted or Crocheted Ladies Socrtswear 
(Schedule V) This grouo has the third largest ^roua of homeworkers 
in the Industry, .and its general a.verage of earnings is the third 
from the lowest. It employed 7% of the total na-]ber of workers, 
mainly in the I,.etropolitan areas of PhiladelDhla and -Ne'-' York City, 
Their earnings totalled 12.3^ of the entire amount -oaid out.- 

The general average was $16,24 for the eight •-'eeks, which in- 
creased to $18.83 for -the Metropolitan area of Philadelphia, '-'hich 
is the. center, of oroduction for highly styled hand knitted ladies 

sports'^ear. (*)■ ■j_] ; 

(*) The group of enoloyers in this division lagged behind in their 

cooperation. Their percentage of cooperation was 71.5,^ as aeainst 
79.2^ for reoorts; and the percentage of homeworkers paid in Penn- 
sylvania was 47^ of those registered, compared with 67, 9i in New 



40,!: of %he workers in this group earned undpr $6 for th^ eight 
weeks, and 41^ earned upwards of $10 for the -oeriod. 

Group (3) '"/Tholly Hand Knitted cr Crocheted Head'vear (Schedule Vl) 
This group emoloys the second largest n^umber of horaeworkers in the 
Industry, and has the second lowest average earning. It emoloys 
12^$ of the total number of homeworkers, and those ririnciDally in 
the MetrODolitan area of New York City, The amounts earned re- 
present lo,5^ of the total expended. The group's average earning 
of $15.11 drops to $12.31 for the Metropolitan area of New York, 
where most of the workers live. Most of the employers in this 
group are centered in New York City, but in Pennsylvania and 
Michigan, where the workers are erooloyed by firms in their o-^n 
states, the average rises to : 33.15 for Michigan and $22.42 for 
Pennsylvania. The highest amount earned 'bj any one worker during 
the survey was $244.77, paid to a worker in this group in New 
Jf-rsey, Whether this vTorker earned this average of $r!0.60 per week 
by her own efforts. is errtremely doabtful, but we have no wq,y of 
establishing definitely ho-' many assisted with the ifork, (*) 

Group (4) Hand Joinea (m?chine made parts) Infantswear and Child- 
ren's wear up to 12 years (Schedule VII ) Horaeworkers in this group 
are but Z.9fa of the total number employed by the Industry, and their 
earnings are 10.1*. Ne'" York City is the center of this production 
group, and the greatest number -of workers are also located there. 
The general average for workers in iMew York is 525.34, doubtless 
due to their ability to obtain a large volume of '"ork, as the aver- 
age for workers in California dropped to ?16 for the period, and in 
Michigan to $10.86. 

Group (5) Hand Joined (macnine made parts) .Ladies Sportswear and 
Adult swear (Schedule VIII) 

This group employs the smallest number of homeworkers of any 
in the nine, but shows the highest general average of earnings, 
$32,77. The majority of workers engaged therein earned over $10 
for the period. It is only in the state of Maine that most of the 
workers failed to earn even $6 a week. Although 10 states are 
included in this Schedule, most of the workers lived in the Metro- 
politan area of New York City, where the general average was $26,22, 
This work seems to be done in the immediate vicinity of the manu- 

Group (6) Hand Finishing of Knitted Outerwear Products (Schedule 

This type of work was done in ten of the stqtes where manu- 
facturers registered, and apparently is done quite close to the 
factory. It engaged 2% of all the homeworkers, who earned D.4y5 
of the total earnings, mainly in the metropolitan area of New York 
City, The average earning was $50,60, and 73,1% of the workers 
earned over $10 for the t)eriod. 

(*) It must be kept in mind that' this group was reluctant to disclose 
information, and the disclosures were not as complete as that of 
other groups. 

Gtouv (7) Hand embroidery on Knitted GuterTTe^r Products (Schedule X) 

3'j of the total homewcrkers on file are engaged only in this 
work, and their earnings are 5. 9^5 of the total. They are located 
mainly in the MetroTjolitan area of New York City. It has the 
fourth lo'.7est general average of earnings, $17.84 for the 8 weeks, 
and the lowest single payment recorded, 15^^ was in this grouT). 

Group (8) E?nd Sewing of Buttons and Buttonholes (Schedule Xl) 

C-rcuTj (9) Hand Trimmings (Schedule XIl) 

Both these groups are extremely small, and the workers are 
engaged almost entirely in the metropolitan area of Hew York City. 
The work is dene close to the factories. 


It was impossible to determine exactly fron the registry records 
the relation of the T)ayrrlls and 'Jiomei-orkers reoi~rted by coi. tractors 
to the total- eigDenditures by raanuf acturers in the various states, as 
contractors were era-nloyed sometimes by manuf -cturers in their own 
states and sometimes by monufactui'ers in other states, or by both. 
(Schedule I-G-) 

For instance, in the followin-;' four states manufacturers report 
emi:loying contractors as follows; 

Firms in New York em^^loyed contr-ctors in Tennesfce, Connecticut, 
Maryland, Maine, Pennsylvania, Nev; Jersey and Few York, Pennsylvania 
firms em-oloyed only Pennsylvania and New Jersey contractors. New 
Jersey manufacturers employed contr-ctors only in Nev; Jersey, One 
manufacturer in Maryland em;ployed contr-^ctcrs in Virginia, Ohio, Penn- 
sylvania and New York. 

Firms registered in the other ten states did not erai'lo;',' contract- 
ors at. gll. 

It was, therefore, decided to segregate in Schedule XIV only those 
payments made directly to homeworkers by manufacturers or contractors 
definitely located across state borders, and the totals shown there- 
01} are the extreme minima. 

A comparison of the iDsyrol] s re^Dorted by manufacturers in the 13 
states shown on Schedule I-a, and the amounts paid homeworkers by 
firms within their o\"m states, indicates that in the nine states of 
California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Maryland, Ver- 
mont, Maine and Washington, the entire amount reported by manufactu- 
rers was spent within the state limits. 

It is- also interesting to note that out of the total amo-onts paid 
by manufacturers, $28,161.81, to homeworkers outside of their states, 
$25,732.09 was paid for hand made infantswear. This is due to the 
prohibition in New York State of homework on infantswear in tenements. 
It is likely that further regulation in New York which would affect 
homework on h^adwear, or in Pennsylvania affecting ladies . sportswear, 
wooald force those types of work also into states where there is no 
restriction on homework. 


The st-^te where manufacturers made the greatest number of out 
of state payments was New York, where .'^26,108.27 was oaid to 5365 
workers in_26 other states (91.5^& of which was for wholly hand made 
infantswear as above noted.) These payments for infantswear were 
the only ones recorded for 13 of the states, (Schedule XIV) 

Next comes Pennsylvania^ with $1,286.11 paid to 174 workers 
outside state limits, and . New Jersey with tAC)l,C)2 to 60 workers, 
and lastly Tisconsin wit'h a small amount to workers in an adjacent 
state for the hand finishing of knitted outerwear. 

Payments by contractors made across- state boundaries were 
small, totalling in all $241.65 to 41 homeworkers for wholly hand 
made infant swear, by contractors located in New York, New Jersej'', 
Maine and Connecticut. 

The total of payments received by homeworkers across state 
borders, was ■$28,478,62, .and 'the only divisions of the Industry that 
were concerned in' this'' direct flow of money inter state were: hand 
made infant swear, headwe'ar, ladies soortswear, hand joining of lad- 
ies sportswear, hand finishing .■^.nd embroidery. Of the 5649 home- 
workers involved, 5141 lived in rural districts, 187 in Metropolitan 
areas, and the ba,lanee in the sraailer to^i^ns and cities. 

Homework Employer s in th'e K nitted O u ter-^^ear Indastry 

LOCATION ; Manof actarers registered from 13 states of the Union, 
but 64^^ of the to-tal ntim'^er were located in Np'^'" Yoirk, lOfo in Penn- 
sylvania and 9% in New Jersey. The remaining 17^^ were distributed 
in small proportions over the other 10 states. Obviously then, 
the manijfacturers in NewYork, New' Jersey and Pennsylvania are those 
primarily interested in this method of 'production. These firms are 
centei«©d chiefly in the Metropolitan a reas of New York City and Ph- 
iladelphia, (938) Firms' in New York City employed 91l5 of the total 
of contractors reported, and registered 68,7^ of the homeworkers. 

USE- OF ■CONTE ACTORS ; The most prevalent method of opera+ion was to 
employ ho;neworkers directly,'-, but a small group of 29 raanof acturers 
T"ho .emplr-yed both cp<ntractors and homeworkers, did a larger volume 
of business than either of the other t'TO groups of firms using 
homeworkers only, or contractors only. The only production groups 
that used no contractors were hand joining of infantswear, hand 
trimmings, and the sewing of buttons and buttonholes. 

PRODUCTS CLASSIFICATION : An attempt was made to ascertain how much 
was paid by manufacturer's to homeworkers and contractors in each 
of the 9 production groups set up for study, but it was found that 
only 62,15^ of the firms could be so classified. The other 35,8^ 
werp engaged- i'li' every variety of production, though wholly hand 
knitted or cro'eihfeted infantswear predominated in such combinations. 
No very conclusive facts were obtained in Schedules I-E and I-£(a) 
on thi& point, but tliey are included for general information, 

-CONTRACTORS : On March 1st, 1935, a letter containing registry cards, 
forms for reporting lists of homeworkers and manufacturers, were 



serit to all n^meGof contractors 6n filf. These ™ere followed up 
with letters and visits from inspectors, until registration ^'as 

Of the 3'S4 contractors reported by the manufacturers, 303 
registerrd with the Bureau, Tae contr 'ctors "^ere qn illiterate 
group, nnd it was with great difficulty that they mere made to 
understand what ^r.s required. Personal explanations had to be 
made. Reports '•'ere not correctly made out, and were difficult 
to decipher. In fact, only 1430 out of the required 2424 weekly 
reports for the 8 week period, were sent in by contractors, ^Jid 
.it is obvious that if results are. to be obtained by any system 
of regulation, full responsibility should be placed uDon the 
shoulders of the raanirfac ture r s , (Schedule I-B) 

Contractors paid out 37^ of the total amo.unt earned by 
homeworkcrs, and their oi^n commissions were 19,5^ of the total 
payrolls of msJiuf acturers. (Schedule I-C) 

Contractors- in 10 States r(=gistered with the Bureau. Those 
in Tennessee, 'Connecticut, Ne'v York, Maine and 'Maryland, worked 
only f o'r New York firms. In Pennsylvania, contractors worked for 
New York and Pennsylvania firms; in NewJersev contr-Tctors were 
agents for Mew York, Pennsylvania as ™ell as Nevr Jersey firms. 
California contractors worked only for firms in their O'-rn st^te. 
The one exceotion was one Maryl-^nd concern that employed contract- 
ors in New York, Pennsylvania, Maine., Ohio and Virginia. 

The great majority of contractors. were. located in New York 
and New Jersey, (Schedule I-P) . - 

Only 76,6^ of the contractors- could be classified into the 
various oroductibn groups,- the largest numoer being included in 
Group (l)' wholly hajid made infant swear,, , Of .the 23,4^ who were 
engaged in more than one type of prodaction, most of theni regis- 
tered in either wholly hand made inf ant swear , hand finishing of 
knitted outerwear, or hand embroidery, in addition to other act- 
ivities, (Schedule I-F (a)) . ., 

To dilate upon the schedules at. gj-eater length woald be un- 
necessarily rPTDetitious. To the limited extend disclosed by the 
operation of the Bureau during this short period cf time, the 
facts given in these schedules m,ay well be t.aken as an indication 
of the conditions that exist in homework production in the Knitted 
Outerwear Industry. 

' It also furnishes a basis upon which further study m-.y' be to determine the economic: and spclal implications of continu- 
ing or iri-ohibitinG form of labor. 

Part IV. Statistical Schedules 




The following schedules from 1 through 14 represent the material 
collected by the Homework Bureau of the Knitted Outerwear Industry for 
an eight weeks' period from April 1st, 1935 to May 25th, 1935. These 
schedules ai'e reproduced exactly as sutimitted by the Homework Bureau. 
They include the statistical materials summarized in Pajrt III. 


1 H 




lO CD CO «0 <;fi 

S ^ J5 S ? ?5 ?S ^ S «"° «» " 

CO 1-4 I-) 




pS'-JII j|.|N 

lO « qj « !>. CT) a> in t. i^. o^ o < 
^ a> in F-t f-i e^ n io -.» ^.4 


N <o ,# (O rt rt n 


a><ooEi5no>«o<n«» ^ ^ 


(^ ^ cvj o» n i> t- ,H --o o -a <s 



Bh 63 O a '^ O Ec IB a !^-' 2! BB 


O O 9 tg O 
RO ti_gJU_ 


O r-i <0 M ei> 









«3 <0 


«5 tf) 



~ - 










4^ ti 

>-i CB B 


o to cfl 




CO (U 

»^ C 




caw W 

« p 

t, - " 



V CO ca 

>V( o 


^ ti !^i 
3 Q) O 


o U o 

o ^ 


(0 P 

tH |E IL. 

-^ oJ 

3 O +3 



§ o o 




o c 



OS 0] m 


o o o 

















O O 01 •<J' U3 Kn IN 


X &!.-< H Ih 

H I 

p -p 
o o 

«c o 

«0 O !*s 

S<^ !^ 
O S += 

ii to 

& CS 9) 
1.) {\^ 

o-C c 

^ » o 


u o a> 

a © a 

3 t^ o 

H O 0) 

fn P 

<& U 
S O 

9 e 


ca f« 

f^ © 
o c: 

£ ■H 
(D 0] 
K O 


to D- 


in ■<<< 





W rjf 


w to 





P O 

J 51 

r-l 0) 

H o 

I 1 

I I 

^ ^ 


M n (p 

2 5? 

S S 

5? ~ 


s a a 

10 w « 10 « 





l-i lO « 


a-4 r- 0« 

3 ^ 1-4 Si ^ 

r-l o N in N 

« W iM CM N 

vo e- eg to o 

w <o of oT 

o CM n 

Tj" IJ> ^ 

SCO ' 




in I I 



w cs ♦» 

5 I 


N i 








o d 


CO B) •!-> n 

ffl tj « I. 

^ o o o 

"3 ^ " « 

o »< o 

e o <j tf 

o — I tn o — 

■S S ° 

— I^ 





3 ? 

K '4 9 t rt -- 





S § 

^ 8 

a.aSSS SS5 5S3 385 ssgis§e S3 s: 

Sl-i- §§S lis S«*s gs^iil s§ «' 





^s?, g^s s'^'^ss*^ 5i 


is 6 



llllf lis |ti «li 


»0i a 

w a a 




^•8 5 

rJ » « 

^§1 i' 

e- fi* a C 03 





5 § O rT 

■a I- 








«S IS «Ji f-J 








^ B _ ^ o o Bj 

n Ph n o oa: » 














































8 "• 





























CO ^ rC 










s |« 





i M 



3 -:S 

E* "? « 


























-# ?< eS 

^ CMf^ 






















?1 ? 

r-l ti A 



=1 y 


3 6f 












1 rS 















• s 







a s 








g s 






51 -^ 






















s^L § 














C B 


rH ^ 


r^ N 












= s 











l-« ft 



rH N 



M (oea r4 

?5 .A 









•? ^ 




1 S 
















.| .sii 

It m 





n »> n 

CM C4 

S S S ta 

C] Ot O CM 

8 S 

d ^ 

n in H 


p ^ M m n 

' i a "' ~ 

n n n n n 

S 5 «■ 1 



I g H I I ! I 8 

.« I II i 1 1 1 n 






r — "' ^ 


















CO 05 

CM in o 
^ a» r-l 




o n 






















K M r-I 



03 n 

•• f-i 























C> N .« 

1 .. 


W r^ rt 




iH H 

* « 3 

3i - p -M > p /4 o 

O cl 1. •!-» r-« r. ii I •; 

tsl V w t) o a ►^ >-' 

riM ^: '' I ,5 fc 

w: o o :3 &1 V; Ps 


t-i r-: t< 

S b o 

c8 ~- hi 
> 2 (J 

§8 o f4| S S J £ 5 ® ns 

35 c» S 









r-4 O U 

«3 £ a s 


t> a o 3 &, B sa 





Mf rs . 

Numter Location 


). Location 

of Lifrs: 

Kew York 

Pennsylvania , , 

1 Tennessee 
1 Connecticut 

1 Maryland 

New York 
Hew York 

Hew York 


New Jersey 



New York 


New York '\ 1 


New York & 


i "^ 


Kew Jersey 


New Jersey 

1 2 


New York 

J 9 










New Jersey 



i 54 

New Jersey 

New York 




1 5 


New Jersey 




! 1 

11 11 




i ^ 

11 II 

Pennsylvania & 


New York 

New York 




Pennsylvania & 
New York & 




New Jersey 

Both Pennsylvania 

i ^ 

& New York 


New Jersey 


New York 

New York 


1 2 

j 2ir 



New York & 

Kew Jersey 


New Jersey 

1 1 



New York 




& Maryland 







Note: Only ijan\if acturers in Pennsylvania., M: ryland and New York employed 
contractors in other states. 






April 1st, - Ma7 25th, 19G5 

States Homei; 


.■a of 


,0 of 

;S Paid 








New York 



























Hew Jersey 

































New Hampshire 































North Caroling 



Washing- ton 




- 4 





Eliode Island 









West Virginia 



Dist. of Col. 







































( .ontinued on next page) 


SCHEDUIE - II (Cont'd) 

^^ ^ Homeworkers 

r^ of 


1, of 

yo Paid 

2^^*"" Reported 







New Ivie-vico 


North Dakota 




So-' Carolina 




South Dakota 



. - 





NOTE: - In all tables no > shown for States v>ath less than 50 Horaeworkers 




Distribution of Homeworkers 
4 G-cographical Areas 
Set lip for tnis study 






or more 



5,000 to 








(1) Tiholly H.K. or 
H.C. Inf. Wr. 
(Inc. Headwr.) 
To Age 6 






(2) Wholly H.K. or 
H.C. Ladies 





(3) Wholly H.K. or 
H.C. Headwear 





(4) H.J. (Mach. I,:d. 
Parts) Inf. & 
Ch. Wr. to Age 




(5) H.J. (Mach. Md. 
Parts.) Ladies 
Sportswear or 
Adult Wear. 






(6) H.F. of K.O. 

Products by Ktg. 
or Cr. 





(7) H. Emb. on K.O. 





(8) H. Sew of 

Buttons & 




(9) Hand Trimmings 









Engaged in more thcOi 
one group. 











—342— ■ 
Homeworkers by Crafts 



Percent of 













Hand Knitting & Crocheting Solely 
Hand Joining " 

Hand finishing " 

Hand Embroidery " 

More than one Craft 

TOTAL 13,266 100-00 /o 











CM r-t « r> oj) O Al 

^ e« lo n JSi 



N r-IMS?r-tCM(-lWWr^rHr<N'i'N^(M 



S i a S S S S S g S 5 S 55 2 S ^ "^ ''^ " ^ '^ 

^ N -sf CM kO 

•5: rt P- O rH r^ , 


>-4 %t! I*^ ' 

at S '* SJ'S"" ot-«o»<HO>oioeMCMeM«i 

C O 
« TS.O 

p d o »4 v« 

w*,^ *M^ O-H OrHW(a4.ix W-" 

o « * 






tf I to '4< ( I 

IS o c^ o 

eo to i fH » 

in r-l N I I 

0< fHOtO oc>- oo>^o 

^g|« ^S^ '^'^S^ 


a? o 

c>n^•<OlOMO^ en 
e\jp^«MOoiQ(s<o ^ 

cMO^■H^-l2)^to o 

s e: 


CD n 
e» CD 
• • • 

N CO iH 

o e^ «o 
m o o> 

CM (vi A CM CO ^- ^- 

CM f-l o« 

>< s 

• I • t) 

B 8 o ft, 

n n 9 


01 o t^ n 

to 1-4 H ^ r4 U) to 


SI 3 


w n K ft, t< t* o 


o SI p: >-i> pttn ^ ^ ti) ft t< <f30vG» e> 



A « 

1 " 




no o 





> -« O r< n UJ 



rl •* t>* W O 

Range Indivi- 
dual aamin^B 
8 Weeks 

1 ^g « §2 5; 


S »5 18 8 g S 

a iHuJ of <o e\J ^ 




j Sg .3 8 2 S 

f, '^i i • "■' § 


3 ; s " s 

i -s '■ - »> • 













^;25- - "--^ « 





S8S3'"'^ M«««^ ^M M 



^looton noiooooo 






$ 5.07 


















$ 54.32 






















$ 933.90 
















2 90 




*-".-.':-. -.->.-.«.«".«.^. " 


S^g5'«" '**^5|5SSS'^- ^ ^^ ^ 




Bew Tork 


Haw Jeraey 







Bew Hanpshlra 









North uarolina 








Rbods Island 
West Virginia 
Dist. of Col. 


■i "■ 

(o a> <a >a *o B~ 



N N ^ ,-) (0 CM rl 


J 5 — 

a o «o 

3 9 


■9 i» (>■ _. 01 O J-! ^ O Ui ij 

•* ■* 'O 

O rs 00 CO 
rt <* O B^ 

W fH <J» CM 
B^ W ^ CM 

o r-i n a> 

cr (O CM <o 
00 C' CO n N CM 


S>* CO ox O r-l Cy> CM 

cH evi ^ in n <A CM 

f-|.-i31<Oin^C^ O* » "$ CO r-liH«<>9> 

' CM r-l rl 



o> ff. B- m in o 

N !Si O CM «C Pi 

_! .; Ji „r ,«• ^* 

-? -,• ^ ^* -; • -: 


O rH <0 CM C 
lb « «CM <• 

i I 


o • 


3] 'J 

3 c 

e- 10 • r-« IT, r-l CO Ift O C» lO 




^- c>- t~ e- <o 

N M i-l M r-l I 

d!) 3 lA o M 'ii c- tn ^ .^ <o M « o "o w (« « tw «^. i--" ..jt cj « o M ' 



rM W-« r-( W . 


cr> c o lO to m to 

1-1 N rS 


lO O tC to 0» CD "ii I 
»<l r-4 r-l W W W O ' 

to a» o <o «i^ « <H 




O X! 
m 09 O 



(9 •> |4 

■J I 

S o o « 

f <0 4J v< 

eHnoct Mon 


O r- ' 

OS tJ 






in w r- i7« r< n 




CO CO W « 


CM f-l 





M « W W «0 

o> cvT «o c^ rt o 







(7« C~ C^ r-l 



n *r-t 




^ C- eo « IT" 

:i5? Hi 





CVl rt r^ "^ 



i JO M rH n lO 


0» 'f OS rt t- O CJ rS S ■* S5 (T> C- ?5 CM ta 



(J» in <o O »• r< 

j 'i; <^ CM oo w t- 

j ^ r4e^oo CM <o 






* * ' ri l-I ' * Cvl CvT 6«' rt 


8 «. ^H^. 

* •# CM * 







« 13 CO 






•O 0» CM ^ 



S* S i "'' i i S' '^* °' ^* ** ^* '^ ""* '^' "" 



o in 1-4 o « lo 

00 C4 n CO rH C\ 




S S f: " S 5 2 -^ ■" -^ " " -"^ -^ -^ 

* n CM S 






5 2«> it 





to CM lO 
I) N M CM Q 

O <0 to ^ >0 10 ^ 

c- ^ n (0 in iH 


I-I3J a 

lOntr1f*r*Vi>f> =A 




r-( vo r-4 n <o in 
^ c>- Q> a> o a> 

^ o*<o^«fHc4iHnNio^«i-io»no 

8 t4 a 

oo n n 10 oi Tf I 


Sic 6) 



« 3 E 

• d • ^ - - 

S II £ II 1 1£ I S 1 5: S ^ S ^ <S ^ 

r- n 






•^ 9 n n f^ <o to N n •-• m 

H iH r4 N i-l •>••-• r4 iH 

jSSgSS'""'-"" l" l"" i I 


|s§2§s**'''°"*"°"'"' i"" ! 



5s 5 








CM <0 M 
550,8 , 






00 10 n I 
00 «D o> 



9 « 8 &S 

<0 r^ f-4 






ress 1 




01 in < 

9840 I 

* ^■* '^ bL 

V> «0 ^ 

I ' 

.1 I 


I " I 

S <8 (o cC: 

S CM i 


8 ^ S 

ill «? 

p< S E4 > 


'J^ H^»^ 

« i 

ift N CO 

CO ,4 o u> 






It) to CM 

S30S it > r""f' ii . c i fnr'^ 

in fr- 


cj C^ N 






■a -3 


to w o> 

N »• to 
■^ rt w 

00 1-? 


in o k 

n » d. 


( w ♦» p 

NO & 



PS e »i a 

O 41 O E p-l 



T c> m S »- 


^• CO o ►■ 

w« I tft in ^ a> o 


X — 

N in <o a> 
o CO iOa> 

W <0 ri 0» 

i <0 <0 CD 

%<i <0 CD N U) 
T i-l Cj .-« i-l 

I o S A 

I B 

s s 


8io in « 
03 O to I 

ot w i-i i-t ra oj iS 

IS, f <• 
la":- ■■ 

^ e > -o o» ^ P 

1^ S i"'^ ' 


<o n N CO 

ji ^• oo 
CM n «|i 

PI a • • • • • 

cdl tdd coe-<Sa>5 
! '*' 5 (^ 2> m <H 

to o »• c>- 

i-l O iH (Q 

«* 00 c3 

5 o oi 




U} CM O) I 




;; 7 a i 
^2 St I 


O O Ct o 

n; w 0, o 



§ ^ 



? ^ 



S ^ 

::! t!; 


lO S 



t. 5q B 0, a 



M ta > a 

U U rA U A 31 

o 4) t>t, o q C 

•-1 o o o 

§ I S -5 3 5 S 

- - p. o 




















o >> g 


r-l e<J. 


:g g 

in t«- 




^ n .-4 MM 

N « V) CM 


N a» S * S 


Mm n e>- w t» 

5* S 3" o o» 
n in to iH 

$ g^SS 


n n <o «o t^ 


o> ♦» <n n 

in §*•» oo N n 
n En "^ "^ 



• o 

,ii o 

5 -d 




&g5 s 

o « >» o 


6 S (D "3 S S 

B B CM o a o 

M n t> O 13 

O & 0) (5 9 X! I 
K « (1. O 3 O I 

^•"3 8)3 goeq 


W i> o ai E5 Q M'*' ^ ° 


• 1 

J a-, t- 1 tJ 

T. <i< '..-: 






in lO 








o» to 


ij» o> n 






c ^ 

,-H r-1 rt « 






4 lU 

C~ 'di n IH rH 


L<- ^ n 


» rH 







CM N C^ 


CM P- C- 






cn oo 00 <o 

CM CM t^ o 









•^ (O as rt CM CM r^ 


iH to CM M 



<0 « ct fH r-t 


U (V 




~" " ■ ■■ — 


^ !^ 


?M $ 5 ;^^ g s t 






-; s 








5 t! 

-"■ o 











' § 



* CM r-l CM » iH r^ 





M CM (M cH r-* 



•^ s 



^ § f.^ § s s s 










<0 rj to O C^ to r-l 


IS Pi- 



(0 ^ «0 r-« •-« 



9 S 










-^ J J 







Q CO CM CD <* lO r-J 


^ od"3 















•* rl to CM m CJ rH 


CJ» -( to rH 




« <a 


- !' 

a til^3 3 

9 S 




5«-s<D2<Ut«S 9 

iii^iii ill 

K a o a *^ 






' ^ 










9 ^ 

I 8 

Ico M 


w w 


^(m • » 







H Ok 


09 C*> 







^ ;« 

•d p 





10 n 




•^ i 




^ <o 


" s 

• o 


u » 




>H r-l 


r-t rl 








^ « 


• * 






° e 


■« o 


^ <o 


a i 


























•H « 





-•*. , ,, 

i-i *> 



flC f-< 






C tfl 




lO CI 
00 <0 


















41 ^ 




o w 


o o 





• h 





» 2 



N i-l 




o o 


a » », 





, .o 



& ^ 







-. u 

1 ^ 






•4| (D 

%t I 






A B 

tnK >4 










•s . • 






8 t-i o 






«■. r- 


<■ (3 



m <* 

I ^ 








« . H 






O 11 


« .' 





3 ^« 










» I 

























r-« 0» 












^ •< s 

I i 

S 8 


t g 

s s 

;s cj s 

§ 8 s -^ 

S S S S: 
8 5 8^* 

8^ fi 


%i S 


S ^ 



iH to 


I II n ^:*.. If 

i^ Ih ia 'is *-ll II 

: ^-^ s= ce K P, es p. W o< o :■; o, 









S "^{S *^ "> 




5 g «• «• «• 




^ gj •» « « 





s • 

















3 S 




i s 

S ^ 





5 i 






il "^ 













s sass 



1 ^ ^ 

$ '^sg-^ 





















i3 3 

J 5 


t- i-IM Mrt CDH 

s 1 







if ^i 
ll li 


i 1 


1 1 





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 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, 
but 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 be completed. This 
number includes all of the approved codes and some of the unapproved codes. (In Work Mate- 
rials No^ 18, Contents of Code Histo ries , 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 codes, 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. ) 


In the work of the Division of Review a considerable number of studies and compilations 
of ...dta (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 . Tentativ e Ou tlines and Sum m aries of 
Studies in Process, the materials are fully described), 

In iustry Studies 

Automobile Industry, An Economic Survey of 

Bituminous Coal Industry under Free Competition and Code Regulation, Ecnomic 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 

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 Scarf Industry, Financial and Labor Data on 


Women's Apparel Industry, Some Aspects of the 

Trade P ractic e Studies 

Coinmodities, 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 

comparision with Trade Practice Provisions of NRA Codes. 

Labo r Studies 

Cap and Cloth Hat 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, Homeworl.ers Survey 

Ad ministrati ve Studie s 

Administrative and Legal Aspects of Stays, Exemptions and Exceptions, Code Amendments, Con- 
ditional Orders of Approval 

Administrative Interpretations of NRA Codes 

Administrative La'« and Procedure under the NIRA 

Agreements Under Sections 4(a) and 7(b) of the NIRA 

Approved 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 


- Iv - 

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 Roemployment 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 

Relationship of NRA with States and Municipalities 
Sheltered Workshops Under NRA 
Uncodified Industries: A Study of Factors Limiting the Code Making Program 

Legal Studies 

Anti-Trust Laws and Unfair Competition 

Collective Bargaining Agreements, the Right of Individual Employees to 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 

Government Contract Provisions as a Means of 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 Under the Com- 
merce Clause, Cases on 

Legislative Possibilities of the State Constitutions 

Post Office and Post Road Power — Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Industrial Regula- 

State Recovery Legislation in Aid of Federal Recovery Legislation History 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 were originally undertaken to gather material for pending court 
oases. After the Scheohter 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 

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 and 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 Retailing Trade 
Needlework Industry of Puerto Rico 
Painting and Paperhanging Industry 
Photo Engraving Industry 
Plumbing Contracting Industry 
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- 
Wool Textile Industry 


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: 

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, ana 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 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 carec for under other 

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.