BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 06317 379 1
OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF REVIEW
>I
NRA AND INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK
By
0. W. Rosenzweig
(A Section of Part D: Control of Other Conditions of Employment)
WORK MATERIALS NO. 45
THE LABOR PROGRAM UNDER THE NIRA
Work Materials No. 45 falls into the following parts:
PART A
PART B
PART C
PART D
PART E:
Introduction
Control of Hours and Reemployment
Control of Wages
Control of Other Conditions of Employment
Section 7(a) of the Recovery Act
LABOR STUDIES SECTION
MARCH, 1936
a^i^r'io
-1-
OFFICE OF ITATIOlT/i ?J]]C0VE.1Y iDilllHSTIUTIOl'
DIVISION OP REVIEU
llA. Aim IlJDUSTPJAL HOIIinTOSIC
By
0.T7. Rosenzv;ei('-
LABOR SQTJDIES SECTIOil
iviimcii, 1933
9840
'UCJL
?ORETTOHD
Tills study of "VRk And Indiistrial Homework" vjas pre-pp.red
■fay 0. Tf. Rosenzvjeig of the Labor Studies Section, I.ir.
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
9840
-3A-
iTiiA AlO I.IDUSTRIAL ho::ev;ore
Pa,:e
ChaiDter I. i;.^0DIJCTI.011
A. The prolDlem of ladustrinl IiOhiework 5
Extent of _ 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^ J.is^^liM.s.'BQ^'^,^. -'-■'•
Hours _of _Hojnewq_rke_rs 12
Clliid.jLaJqor. .'...."..." 13
Sanitation _aiid 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
Position 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£Yiii9.tl§. '^'^
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
9840
-SB-
Page
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 Advisory Stagje. ^3
Formulation of Standards "^"^
57
60
60
Origin of the Order ^^
The Order and Its deception ^3
Effect of Order on Codes.- ^^
HeK-,u.lation of Exceptional Cases ^"
Conclvi-sio:
The Executive Order on Homework.
G-eneral Baclcground,
C. Administration of the Executive Order.
D. Conclusioi
Persistent Administrative Problems.
73
Introduction ^'^
The Homework Protective League. "^^
The 3udd Case • "^^
The hew Jprk Hojaework Law "^"^
Executive Order or State Law '°
Attacks Upon Executive Order ^•'■
The Boston Conference of Certificating Officers. 90
The Lauer Decision '^^
Ax)peal and Reversal
Homevjork in Rochester and Troy, '^evi York 105
Exce-ptions Under the Executive Order 121
123
123
Is Regulation of Homework possible? 126
9840
-P.C-
Chapter IV. COlICLUSIOas AivH) HECOiiASl.'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
APFEin)! CES
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
9840
-2D-
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
FART IV. STATISTICAL SCHEDULES (*)
Ilumher
Registration
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.
9340
-2E-
IJ-uralDer
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
9840
AUTHOP.'S FitJiij'ACE
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 6.id not meet '^ith unitor.al''' 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.
9640
-5-
WA Ai'j riDus TRIAL "r:c::r-'Oiiic (*)
C'ilKr"23R I- Irii'EODuCTIOlT
A. TI-~: FROBHSI'I Or IlIDUST-nAL 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>-i.ve -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
found.
Extent of Industrial 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 eiida.it' 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.
Definitions
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,
9840
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 Ord.er on homework.
Earnin:-^s of riomev/orkers
ThoiTsli the industrial hor^eworkcr is as mu.ch 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 spera.tc 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.
9840
-8-
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.)
9840
Relief
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,
9840
-10- ■
?Iorae^7orl:ers and Jactory 'Vorhers
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 a.re . . . 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 cla.ss 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,
9840
Hoineworl: Labor Sigp_lj
■Tlie ^-ujT'^ly of lalDor for honcviorl: cnplo;.Taent is .ractice.lly im-
limited. In oi-'.ler to coinplote a ro.sh 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 sa.me family.
Koneijorl: Viewed from Standpoint of r[ana;9:ement
Viewed from the st.ndpoint of manaA-ement , the homeworl: system
offers a s-u:o-:.ly 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.
9340
more than pjiythin;; else that led manj^ namif actui-ers to a<';r(=e upon the
orohiliition oi" honewcr:: in taeir coo.es vnen the I'llA. offered t'tevi t is
opportonitjr.
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'- hr.ve 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 th.at 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- voi.lc, 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 I.it'.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, ^
9840
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 labo.rs 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 her.lt"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 $ th.is' 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 sta.ge 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,
9840
-14-
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-
hou.se work on all clothing manufactu.red 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.
9840
-15-
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, "Pf.ge 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,
9840
-16-
and hones iniestrd r/itli ccnt-gious diKepces pj-n alvr^^s fouiid ;'.nd fe^
faniliRS, if an;;-, doiii^; homev/or!: ha.ve 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
follows:
"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,
9840
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
regulation.
(*) 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,)
9840
-18-
p . hoi;e:.'o?.:: AlID t"~ i'atiq7-L i:tdt:st::ial isco^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.
9B40
-19-
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^,is.ls 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.
9840
-20-
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.
9840
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 t.ie ;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 lip.ve 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.
9840
-22-
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
Board.
^-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,
9840
"Tr-ii;?JZA3, years of effort to re<^i.late and
control t^t; tr.-sten in tae /.eo.di-io; r.iclustrial
states ]ia.ve denonstrcited trie ir.nossi'bilits'- of
preventin;-"; t"ie evils of t?ie system 1)?/ regulation;
and
"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 tV-.at a nuhber of indirstries quickly took a stand against.
(*) Conies '-rere circulated within the ITRA and a draft vras sent to the Ad-
ministrator.
(**) 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, Augu.st 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 ridig.ly 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.
9840
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 t.int industi^" ■■■aG -lartiCT.larlj'' si£,nifi-
cant.
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 hom:.work 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),
9840
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
9840
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-
work.
H?A Homework Gomraittee
In a memorandura to the Acijuinistrator dated liarch 3, 1934, the
Secretary of Labor (apoarently uiiavra.re 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.
9840
ji-olii'bitcd iioadwork, 11 p.imed -?t its r-od/action jy various devices(*),
t'To ras.de 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 ti.is 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
later.
') Office Order llo. 7^, :.arch 17, 19:34.
540
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 cot.es 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.. . . ( *)
3xeciitive Order on rIoiTi.ev'Qrl'
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 la.st 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.
9840
-30-
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
standing".
9840
-Sl-
Clarif icption of t olicv bv "")e.i' ir.it 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,
9640
-32--
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."
snould...be 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.
9&40
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-
policy.
(*) Advisory Co-o.ncil i^ecision, see aoove.
(**)■ See the first parr.graph of the discussion of the Executive
Order in Chapter III.
-34-
CHiPTE?. II - CODE L::p- IRKIICE
A. SUrnjfflY AlH) xuijlLYSIS 01' CODIZ HOIS^TCRK F?.OVISIO"S
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 cod.es.
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."
93dO
-35-
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 indi-.c.tr;; 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.
(*)
(**)
(***)
{****)
(*****)
(******)
/***>K**!|t
9840
-36-
Assenbled ITatch ^
Blackboard and 'Slackboard Eraser
Cigar Container
Clock
Cloth Reel
Cocoa and Chocolate
Corrugated and Solid P'iher Shipjin ; ContainGr
Cylindrical Liquid Tight Pa:oor Container
Dental Goods and Equipment
Enveloije
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
Gumming
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
Silver'jare
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 Kardrra.re
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
Lace
Pecan Shelling
Punch Borrrd
(*) Ibid, p. 47.
9840
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-
hlin£
G-old Leaf Kalcin: rnd Bookin.^
Greetiii^; Card Coloring, Ribhonin£;', Inserting,
etc.
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' oao.er hearing hidden numbers
on card
Industry
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
ITeedle
Pin
Ocean Pearl Button
Hag Serdng
P.osebud
Safety Pin
Snap
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.
48.
(**) 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 hoi.ie-^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.
9840
-38-
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.)
1940
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,
9840
"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
Septeinber,1934.
(*****) For the ditnils, see the actual code -orovisions in Ap-':>endi7: B.
9840
41
P£ohro_ite,d
SloTj^e_a,nd _S-vi.r t
Dress (Women's)
Pleatin-:; (': Stitcliin,,:, etc.
Under)2:arment ii._'-it-v;.l i£ee_
Underwear & Allied Products
Permitted
.<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)
Infants & Childre_n,s_ ..Wear
Knitted Out_e^rwe_pr_
I^dae_s__Hand'bn,i
Id rjit _Se'.vi n.:^ (On candlewick Bed-
snreads)
ha:d chochetiho
Prohihited
Blouse and SMrt
Cotton Jjarment
Dress
Pleat in.^ & Sti.tcliij.ij<
Un de r A'ar me nt_ _& ^-TOj-^ l_i t^e e
Underwear c- Allied Product?
Permitted
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 th.an $3.50 a dozen.)
Ladies haiidoa.::;
Li;-:ht Sev.'in^' (if used can be on
Candlewick Bedspreads)
HA:3 LSADim
Prohibited
E 1 0 us e aud_Ski rt_
Cotton ^&ar me_n t
Dress (Women's)
Pleating: £; Stitching
Underficarment cc :"e^;ligee
Under',7ear & Allied Products
Permijtted
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 en '_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.)
9840
-42-
HAI'TD BEADIiC-
Ladies Handbag
Li<:,lit Sevang-, (if used could be
done on Candlewick Bedspreads.)
9840
-Up-
'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 ha.ve '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 i-i.nc".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 coc.es -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
92Uo
"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 Djpartmentsc.do 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.-
9840
Conclusi_2n:
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.
9840
-46-
imA MD limUSTRLUL HOIvlEITOP.K
CHiPTZR III - imA SHi^OHTS TO ST ALIDiSX' I ZB TILG CONTROL OF HOi.IEWORIC
A. TILE MA HOLISUOEi; 001.1 ITTEE
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.
9840
.47-
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
deserved.
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
accomplished.
The need for ba.sic homework information, coupled v/ith the fact
that the lack of uniformity ap.ong 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.
3840
-48-
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 t.id eliraina-tion of hoaewor'': under c-des of fair ccapetition. "
Tr.et'.ier -cl.is 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 Information
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 t.ie 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.
984-0
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 eit-.er 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.
9840
-50-
■. In s"j;itc of tl.is 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 jat..er 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.
934-0
-51.
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.
9840
-52-
■• 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 t.ie inf : rnr tion
t:.ie Cor:i:iittee :ie.^ rerri::s'.tc;d. :'CiVGv:r, t: e rwe.ice -:;. \\- .'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. 0 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 ■ . ■ 0 .. 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 dispf.tc.efL :. 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.
93<
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 fc:.at 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
C'-de.
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 0 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
Industry,
(*) Office Order ho. 98, July 7, 1934.
9 840
54-
I]:-:t-3nsi.:ri of exeiirjtJ.cn 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.
0840
-55-
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 ca.se,
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 earnin.gs '"■f tiie hone'Torker of
• avera.ge 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,
0840
-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,
19S4.
(***) 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 .
2040
-57-
I?or 50--0 ti-ie vytev the ir,T.i.r-"GG of Office Orr'i.er 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 r.ad. 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.
Conclusions
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 v.se 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 ..se ''..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 increa.ses.
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.
9840
B. THE EXEGUTIVL OKDL- OP HO-:^..OiaC . ,,
G-eneral B'- ckj^round
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 no.ne 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.
9L40
states (*), '-hose chie; pur-oose ^•'pb the re-estPDliE-hiaent of home'"ork
(presumaoly urder so:.ie 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: ici.al 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 na.ae 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 ho.ie"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,
9c40
•62"
"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 Ho.ae^'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-
^-nerrl
(*) This uipv i^irly be construed as r r.int 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)
9640
-63-
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 hOi.ie
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 cr.re 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 .-eci-pticn
On ,lr'Y 15 the -resident signed the order and it vas issued as
lolloi'-s:
(*) 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 .
9840
64 . ..
EXECUTIVE 0 ;: D :: R
PRESCRIBING RULES AID REC-UL.-lTIOi;s FOR T^j] IlITiiffRETATIOH
A!"D APPLICATION OF CERTAIK LABOR PROVISIONS OF CODES OF
FAIR COLPETITIOi; A3 TIIEY I.lAY AFFECT CERTAIil HOMEWOP^GRS ,
In Cof.es of Fr.ir 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-
ease.
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
9840
-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 ha.ve 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.
9840
-66-
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±_. ~ ■
9840
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
possible?"
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 0 f certa.in 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,
9840
-68-
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 tii.ie 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.
9840
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.
9840
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 'increa.se 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.
9840
-71-
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 ca.re 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
9840
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."
9840
C. ADIvilNISTlUTICIT GF THE SXZCUTtVE CIDES
Introduction
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-
tion.
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.)
9840
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 ho.ie I coi.ilc. '-'orh
even tho\v:h tliep ^'■ere sic^':.
It allo-.re 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,
Street
r-reon Island, p.'::. ,
The I-Ion.e'Torl,: Protective Lea-'-i.ie''^-' * )
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 "T.ie hrzec^tivc Order, etc'
S'dK)
-75-
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.
9840
-76-
■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
that:
"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.
9840
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 a~e-.io. 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
plphnti'fs.
(*-) 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
home-'orh,
(****) 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--,
9840
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 ig.at 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.
Executive 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:
9840
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 \-ui-.er 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 defe-.se "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-.
3340
"The -^roolen rrinies out of du.-.l res'nonsi Jilities laid vnop. this
Iie-D-v.-t:.-.eat 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 sy.id:
"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
to
deal
nith th.'
01
it
I't ■ "
:ia : ov
n.l3
or
this iniouitous s-:'-st
sn,-
■The
■•^ir
-\i "■
;c.
. ,' c<
r^--.
I.?.'- -.r-s -massed in 1?'
Zb,
I';. ■■
-,s
- . '- 1
the r.-
'e^t
saon
of it,o d;7. ■ It sou'::
Jt t
0 -rrr-
'■:■ : :•
-o"ded
. tene-
••:eht huil'5ih7s to tn:
rn Q
r\t r'-:
lar':
a_;ds
th' t
pould oojToete O'l r.ii^
icn'^
ith t
' 'lon
hcin.;* "oroduced. T^ib
'ae ::
asJ
-S
for the earl;/- neasiir'
•L.a d
e-]
s'^re prohleyas and cv
il;-;
t - t
zr-r
a)l'.:
us
t
oday
; the
'./or.
of
"orn-, "children on i'r
'rv-'-
\i "1
-r:0'
"net?
in
their hone:'
; at
tia3s
T.'hen they should h- -
ai\-u :■■
■ t ■■ ^
- -or'-.
of ronen; the shoe' i
"
-\l\
.11-
cated in the TO^e'd
■. 0 . ■
'. 0-:' 1-
:.y t ■
iater':
Dill PS intro:u:.ced.
Tui
:C.:t
ra 'o
rt
lOV'S
thrt f
iite
Y'l cen-
an- hour is rn rrlnost
St '
rt^.in
^^Xy
hijh
3 rate for
a ho
ne-
v:orh.er, that five ce"
•ts
-•■■5r 1:
LOur
is r
v^:
a"'
y co:
irion on
.e, t
h - 1
evea t'-'O and three cent
r~tes
; have oe
3.1
'.3'
aid,
as a±.:
litte
d 0:^
the nrnufactnrers.
"Por nearly fift- y
e-^rs
its
preo.
ecs
iS
?ors
-s '-ell -s
the
;oresent Lrbor Deo rt.
:e-it
a ve
: OCf
2a ac
ti^
"C'
1 - 0
. -o?-o •
to -
0 'S-
ten that pernits of s i-a:
■aa-^l
Git,
:^tioa
>
•G.
\;on:
iz.-^ ; !-.
.1 '-,
a-e,
rs in the relation to jt
hjr -■
■era
cond
iti
0:
''l '0 ,
lie
iu3r-
est of the State -.-e-n
.lire
s thn
t t;
.le he
alt
■ h
.-nd
safety
■ of
its
citizens he nrotecter
I ?o
r its
oa-^
1 '7ell-l
)e
ii- '
:.::-i]ist
sit-
nation!
"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 — 0 :.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 tr:.de or industry or suh-division tnereof
in the State as to tra;isactio-i.s intra-st.-te i.i character...."
3340
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':h.ist-ial 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 t.ie 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 Executive 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 'oecai-.se 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:.
9340
-82-
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 Hou.se --.nd x^rora there ref en ed to
the 'YJl :'7or re"oly. The f ollo'ving letter rr.as 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
hone-.-'orh.
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-
feated.
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. •
9840
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 co.se 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 becr-u.se '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
9840
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/ii.ht, 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;-.ht tin cans that fruit -^nd
ve^^etahles conie in. 3y the use of a 'or.ir 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
brother.
"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.
9340
"TThen the initi^.tivs of the little ;;urrr--ville :Z^vl has
■been called to the attention o'" f.ie 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-
tion,
(*) 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)
9840
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 ti:.ie '.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
err^loitation,
"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;-nit.ar .- 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.
9840
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,
1934.
(**) 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. •
9840
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.)
9340
-89-
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. . ' ■
9840
-90-
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 rerru.lt 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 Certificating Officers
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.
-91-
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'l.is 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 -/or.an -.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 procedu.re 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
'iy
p. 2, ibid.
p. 2, Sum -ar"- o'f
hcCoiinell, Pen-
spesking on the ;
TTom.en \Tith depc
y.r.
the 7omen' s anc"
'. (
L.abor, srid, ""_
'o-
do that, becriisc
ilies, there a-^
■e
kno'v) that the
vc
vania. ..in 132-
:-,
ren' s ■i,7ear) , t-
lai
ing those chil-'
"-:.■(
Transcript of .
:e'
Stitching, hon:-
la;
Seesion, .7irst
P;
9gU0
-92-
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'..es, and earnings.
'jor'
';?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.
:.io:"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 tV.in
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
0 issue I'lOre tli.'An a L;ert
t the :'Uestion vvs
01-: violicy ::'o" .11
tuc:
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 ra.-.de 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*
9?Uo
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
served.
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. ■
9840
-94-
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."
9340
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..)
9840
-95-
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 perm.it 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. ..is 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. ■
9840
-97--
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
absurdun 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.
9840
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 products 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 thing in this
Act, and no regulation thereunder, shall ■'^yeyent__an
individual from -pursuing th_e vocation af__LianiiaI
l^oj", and sellin,-^ or__tr_a,din£ the_ products 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 •.
9340
-99-
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
Order.
9840
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 Indu3tri.al 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
public.
"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."
9840-
- 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
York.
(*) 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.
9840
-102-
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.
9840
-lOo-
"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, " sr.id 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 Slr.ie 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.
Ibid.
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.
(*)
(**)
(***)
(****)
9340
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,
etc.
(****) 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.
9940
Homeworlc in Rochester and Troy,. 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.)
9840
-106-
ilone special permit m^y be granted." (*)
In a lectcr addressed, to the President, the Legal Aid
Society wroi;e:
"^..ie 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).
9840
-],07-
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).
^103-
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."
9840
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 socj.ally
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,
etc."(***)
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.
9840
-110^
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-
tinued:
"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-
plained.
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.
9840
-111-
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
head."(*)
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.)
9840
-113-
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 hor.ie."
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.
9840
-Ho-
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 tne.re 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.
-114-
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."
9840
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)
9840
^116-
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
9840
-118-
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
Avenue
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)
9840
-119>-
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
unnoticed.
(***) 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.
9840
-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.
(***)
Ibid.
(****)
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.
9840
-ISi-
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:
follows:
"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 Order
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.
9840
•122-
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:
mjI'aZP- OF CERTIFICATSS ISoTJZD AIZ) 2JIFUSED (****)
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
Tag
Cotton Garment
807
■52:'.
220
73
192
131
160
151
153
219
141
141
126
447
121
■ 150
113
43
116
rjo
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.
9840
-123"
D. COITCLUSIOHS
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 prohle.ir,
T^ith vrhich ""1.A hp.d to deal. Itr co.roarative ■■•i.^ elicit"- made it ea.sier
to define i-riiforn r.tj.nd;-.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
ch.ar.-'-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.
-124-
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;; ;oreviour.ly done at
ho.ne 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-
fr.ir 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^;:' ho.ie 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.
9840
-126-
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 ^c.id 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 hoj.ie
with the rates for each process. '..Tr.ether this could ha.vc heen done in
so:.ie 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 Fa.ir 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.
9840
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.
9840
-12B-
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.
9840
-129-
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 a.re .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.
.130-
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.
9840
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."
9840
i\PP5;NDIGES
9840
CLASSIFICATION OF NRA CODE HOMEWORK PROVISIONS
-134-
iu - E^DIX B
LIST 0? CODE riOkEWOEK FRGVISIONS(*)
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
health.
(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-
hibited,
(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.
9840
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).
Amendment 1.
Aug. 27, 1954,
9840
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)
-136-
Assemblec 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.
:.ifgr.
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
9840
■137-
its findinr-s to the Administrator, (Art.
IV, Sec, 6)
Adm. Order 19
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,
1935.
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,
lovs:
S'3C. i to reac!
lOl-
(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
certificated.
(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
138>
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. :;.)
9840
•139-
Crndlewick Bedsr
June 11, 1954
'ead
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'
9840
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.
Administrative 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.
Administrative 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.
-141-
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. )
9840
- 142
Candy liaiiufacturinig:
June 25. 1934
No memlier of the industry shall -oermit
riomework.
(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)
Cap L Cloth Hat
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-
dustry
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 Manufacturing
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.
9840
-143-
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
home-work.
(Art. V, Sec. 14).
Corrugated and Solid Fibre
Shipping Container Industry
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
allowed.
(Sec. 5 (b).
9840
}]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) .
Cotton 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.
VIII)
Cylindrical Liquid Ti,':;ht The manufacture or partial manufacture of
Paper Container • • any' product of the Industr?,^ in nome shall
February 12, 193^* be pronibited.
(Art. V, (9) ;■
Dental Goods <^ Equipment /No homework sxiall be allowed and' no work
Industry & 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)
9840
<14&-
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
prohibited.
(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
health.
(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
Products
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,
9840
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 r.hr 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
employed,
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 -
In:
February 26, 1934
The manufacture or oartial manufacture of a,w
product of 'he Industry in homes shall be jto-
hibited.
(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
Industry
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
Furniture
Dec, 18, 193;:
No manufacturing or production '-'ork shall be
contracted for performance' m the home of an
employee,
(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)
-147-
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.)
Handkerchief
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
9840
-1-18-
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 .
home.,
(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
9840
(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-
ference.
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
9843
-150-
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
Vr
Hosier^^
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.
Section 9. Tlie Code Authorit''- shall,
witain (6) months of the effective date
of this Code recomraend to thu Acininistrator
9840
-151-
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)
9840
-152-
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
Recovery
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
Horr.er'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 Conr.it-
tee has rendered a report to the Administration,
and
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 su.ch 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
-154-
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 Hoi.ie-
vrory. Production.
This Order is suhject to revocation
upon proper shcvini'-i of cause or sub-
sequent order.
Natio:ial Industrial Hecovery Board
By T;. A. Harri:nan /s/
W. A. :--arrinan
Administra.tive Officer
Ap-iroval Hecoi-iinended:
PRBIITISS L. COC'.ILEY /s/
prentis- L. CoDuley
Divisi X": A-'-irhnistrator
Fehr-jary 4, 1935
Administrative Order 38 0 R D E H
COD^. OF ?Ai:i COl-'iPZTITIOlT
?0H ?:-!',
KFITTED OUTERITSAH I:TDUSTRY
Appointm.ent of Members :f the Honie-
wor]c Coranission for the Ha.nd Knitted
Division of the Enitced Outerv.-ear In-
dustry.
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
9B40
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 .
ITATIOHAL IiraUSTHIAL Jr.CCVE?.Y BOARD
By W. A. rlarriman /s/
17. A. Harriran
Adrtiinistrative Officer
A-n-T o intnent E'eccT lended :
Plffll'i^'ISS L. COO:'
is/
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"bag 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
9840
-156-
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-
of.
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)
9840
.157-
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-
tor.
(Art. V, (9).
9840
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-
hibited.
.(Art.. VI, Sec. 8.^
Luggage and Fancy 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)
9840
-159-
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 Tailorinig:
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
9840
-160-
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
homeworkers.
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
homeworkers.
Administrative Order 15
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).
9840
•161-
Onea Paper Drinking; Cup and
Round I'Testin^: pgper Food
Container
April 9, 1934
The manufacture or partial manufacture of any
product of the Industry in hoaes shall be pro-
hibited.
(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
prohibited.
(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 Other 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
prohibited.
(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
9840
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.,
Amendment 1. Aoproved Feb. 12,
1935. (HoraeTTork cl"-use not to
become effective for 90 days\ ■
Homework. 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
Industry
■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
Authority.
(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.)
9840
-163-
:::ietail Custom iiillinery Trade
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-
hibited.
(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-
hibited.
(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
Industry
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.)
9840
-164-
Shoe Pattern /'anufacturing
Industry
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 Manufacturer
February 15, 1934.
No home work shall be permitted by members of
the industry.
(Art. Ill, (7).
Silverv7?-re Manufactiiring
Industry
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
9840
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 Industry
April 9, 1954.
The manufacture or partial manufacture of any
product .of the Industry in homes shall be pro-
hibited.
(Art. V, Sec. .7.)
Amendment 1
October 9, 1934.
Delete Section 7 of Article V and substitute
thorefore:
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^
1934,
Toy and Playthings Industry
Nov. 13, 1933
Homework is hereby prohibited after January 1,
1934. (Art. Ill, Sec. 7)
Transparent Materials
Converter 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.)
9840
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
Manufacturing 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
Watchcase
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 Manufacturing 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
prohibited..
(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
9840
3l67-
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
-158-
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,
provided
(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.)^
9840
-169-
APP3HDIX C
THE ROSEiEZHC- xHPORT
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
9840
-170-
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-
nancing Mr. Hochfelder 's proceedings. 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.
3840
-171-
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
office.
9840
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.
-173-
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,
(Signed) AKKA M. HOSENBERG-
Anna M. Rosenberg
August 8, 1934 Executive Assistant
9840
. -174-
" 'apfeiidix d
(THE) V/OlvAil'S OH WOIOJ'S MTIOiIAl DaiOCEATIC CLIB
WOlv'iAN'3 IIATIOIIAL DSMOCEA.TIC CLUB
1526 Hew Haraj-jshire Avenue
'."/ashington, D. C.
Officers
President
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
Cluh.
Treasurer
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
9840
-175-
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.
H'espectfLilly
(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)
9840
-176- ■■
TIE VJOivEM'S li'ATIOiIAL D3M0CMTIC CLUB, IlIC.
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
najnes)
Hsadq^uarters:
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,
Historian
Mrs. J. Kornfoldt,
Auditor
-0060
I,^y
Fifth
1934
c
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
President
LRS:SH
(*) Listed on the Horaey;ork Protective League •;■; stationery as "Honorary
President".
(**) Listed on the Leag-ue ' s letterhead as "Pi-csiden-tfl
9840
-177-
APPEroiX _S
NEW YOHX TllffiS KClffiWORK l-IEWS
This story ap-^eared in the New TorlcTime:; --n IJovcmbcr 14, 1934:
"HOtIS WOPJC PLEA TAILS"
"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
9840
-178-
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 a.re 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."
SLSIS GLUCK,
9840
"180-
AFPLriDIX ?
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.
9340
■181-
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
9340
-182- .
BiroBS or THE i:ti;3Tig.-.tio"/ or iinDUsiHiiL hciitivoh!: i:
THE IIEH'S 1ECI[V;e^ lilDUSTBY, TEOY, 1317 YOHIC
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 :-.la:it 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 sor.ie 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:.
Process
The slip stitcher takes a tie which has been cut, joined and
her.med, 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
9840
-183-
the cr.re she needed rr.d. tcelie ties c ■: the sc.me 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 i.re ±a- lenians rho are slcill-
ful needle '. orher:.. Americans rnd Italians art else enrloyed in
this c^- V city.
Transf 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^v.st 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
-184-
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 unjn.st 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
follows:
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;:.ch 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
98<:0
-185-
.' 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:iin. ;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 nc.id 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 r.re 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
9C40
mrnuf j.cir.rers on order, the homei.-orl:ers .".re required to retirn their
com-)leted '.orl; within tr/o or, r.'c ler.st, 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.'itl.in 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"'
•Totrl
:'-er
s Gh.an.
h.U.
: 7>
ca-'^s
: 4 Cc
TS
. ■ ^,; -c
: - d r
•s
-- -1
•Totf.l
t
■^S"'"
20
hours
45
13
: 10
: 15
5
Less
• 16
1.?
'■ 2
-,
30 hours "
25
• 4
._
■
: -;
:
-15 " II
ZD
• ■ /.
_
: 1
■'
:■■ 1
_
GO " "
Z5
5
_
.
: 5
_
40 1' "
45
_
.
.
0
1
45 " "
50
3
_
.
. _
: 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. 0 .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 •
Com.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-
tc.nce.
One homo accc;->ts children of riX" a e u~ to 1,'-; -^ef.rs (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
9340
-187-
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 thr.vi ';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.
r^elief
0-.:iy 6 of "the 33 families visited hr d received relief rithin
the la-it t^. 0 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.
)S40
-188-
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 ..one ip.to 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 cr.re
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.
rs.
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 ^..et 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 c.:.re 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
9C.40
-189-
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. i.ir. 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
9840
-190-
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 e.jo. 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 se.id the.t in esti-
rocting his .earnings for the yecr ending ,Se:ot. 1934 he found he
hx.d ma.de 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 lir.ve 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-
9S<:0
.191-
continucd
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 cr.re lor the cn:Md.ren, 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 -.in,;, 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 r.ao, 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 sr.id 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.
9840
-192-
1 1 • Adjustments na.de hy Home V"or];ers ^;ho hr.ve ■:ar.e into the 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 cf.re 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
school.
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
3ho-).
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
home.
9C40
-193-
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.
9840
-194-
APPaiDIX H
:aBLES on number of special certificates GRAl-ITED IBIDER EXEa^TIVE ORDER
TABia I.
NUlviBER OF HOMEWORK CERTIFICATES
ISSUED, REFUSED, REVOKED, and CAIJCELLED TO and IHCLUDINCt MAY 27, 1935
ACCORDII-IG TO STATES rSPORTIlIG (*)
State
Total.
California
Co lo rado
Connecticut
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucl^
Maryland
MassacluLsetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New York ,
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee ,
Vermont ,
Virr:inia ,
Washington
West Virginia. . . . ,
Wisconsin
NIBCBER OF CERTIFICATES
Issued
2,603
220
2
55
2
83
10
4
67
70
1
21
27
3C4
1,428
10
247
26
2
Refused
2,457
50
192
1
25
1
45
4
1
25
940
23
144
6
Revoked
12
18
C.-an celled
81
5
1
(*)
SOURCE: p. 13, MimeOi<:;raphed Report, Division of Labor Standards, U.
Department of Labor, Washington, D. C, December 9, 1935.
■195-
TABLE II.
NUIVSER OF SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL HOMEWOEK CERTIFICATES
ISSUED MB REFUSED TO AND INCLUDING MAY 27, 1935
ACCORDING TO NRA CODE AI^ID STATE REPORTING (*)
* ttn rl ft afi ri Stfrltp ' *
Nmib er o
e Certificates
: . Isstxed
Refused
2,608
160
■ ' 5'
2,457
151
1
: • : , 1 .
: ■ Illinois :
: • Y\ew Jersey :
" ■ 14
4
! •' New York :
• ■ 135
143
: - Pennsylvania ^ :
■■__■_■■■
1 :
: Rhode Island ;
■ ■ 6
2
:BloUse and Skirt :
• 26
18
1
: California ..'.'. :
3
1
: New York :
■ 14
16
: Pennsylvania...... ;
9
: Corset and Brassiere :
■ 44
2
; California., :
■?
1
: ■ New -Jersey :
36
1
: Pennsylvania. ... 1 , , :
1
:
: Cotton Garment. ■• •
116
100
: California .,,.....:
1
1
3
i
13
: Kentuclij'- >.,,...,.;
! Maryland >.,,,,..:
29
31
: " Mas sachus ett s. . .:....., :
7
• ' ■ •
: ' Michigpji -,... ,. :
1
—
: • Missouri ■...,........:
10
—
: ■ New Jersey .:...,.........:
5
—
: ■ New York :.......,,......:
25
36
: Pennsylvania. ..»•.....,.. .. .. . :
27
: 19
: Vermont ,■„...........:
5
—
: Washington < , ;
2
—
: Drapery and Upho istery Triramiijg. , :
40
72
: ■ Illinois >,, :
2
1
: ■ New Jersey. ... . * , , :
4
—
: New York ,,,, :
26
: 70
: Penns^.'lvania. ..» ,, :
8
: 1
• Dress. s
11
1
9
9
t N ew Yo rk. ....... ........*
1
: 9
—
: Vermont :
(*•)
SOURCE: p. 9; Ibid.
9840
II-urn"ber of Certificates
Code aand State
Issued
nan]-:derchief
Hew Jersey. . .
Infants' & Cnildren's 7ear.
California. . .
Cormecticut. .
Maryland
ilew Jersey. . .
Kevv York
Pennsylvrnia.
, Virginia
Ladi es ' Handbag.
Connecticut..
¥.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
Maryland.
I'ew Jersey
Hew York _. .
Pennsylvania. . . . .
Men's Garters, Suspenders, etc.
California .
Coimecticut
Illinois
Massacliasetts. . . .
Mew York
Ohio
len ' s i'leckwear.
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Illinoiss
MaJ'ii'land
Massachusetts
Missouri
ilew Jersey
Mew York
Ohio
Penns./'lvanin.
22
22
192
33
5
15
16
76
39
8
42
. . 2
.2
38
3
3.
18
8
2
6
2
.51
■ ' 1
5
.39
5
16
2
5
4
5
141
i
8
25
2
104
1
807
.44
2
11
33
14'
31
9
111
474
3
72
Refused
1
1
131
19
7
89
16
79
5
74
21
21
27
19
1
1
6
G5
64
2
27
6
19
2
141
100
523
24
10
5
3
3
418
12
48
9340
■197-
; 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 0 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
9840
-198--
^■umlDer of Certificates
Code and State
i a»M<s
Illinois. ..
Indiana. . . .
Massachusetts
Minnesota,. ,
Hew York;. .
Ohio. ...;.,
Rhode Island.
To.y and Playthings...
Connecticut.
G-eorgia. .■• . .
Missouri.". . .
New Jersey.
New York.;.
Pennsylvania.
West "Virginia.
Under^ai'i-'ioiit and NeglJ
California..
Connecticut.
Minnesota;. .
New Jersey. .
New York..:. .
Pennsylvania.
Underwear
Connecticut.
Minnesota.:. •
. New Jersey. .
Pennsylvania.
Other Codp.s ,
Issued
' • • 113
'37'
■■ 6'
■ 14
32
13
121
1
2
■ ■ 4
■ 21
81
'ii;
155'
■62
'1'
3
13
71
■ ■3
10
1
■s'
■ 4'
EefuE
48
43
32
6
1
150
6
142
219
47
1
147
14
Codes not Reported..
9840
9840
-199-
HRA MB IIITUSTEIAL HOMEWORK
Supplement on Homework
in the
Knitted Outerwear Industry
-200 _
Part I
IkTEOFJCTIOI'T
-201-
PART I '
IMTHODTJCTIOAI (*)
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.
9840
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'
Industry.
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 Hoi.ie'-ork Bureau to gather the facts sjid secure
compliance with the regulations was esta'blished. To provide the
necessary operatin.": expenses a "bud-':et for the 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.
9P.40
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
acne,
(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
regulationo
(?) 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", '
9840
-204"
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", P.eg-olation 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 lip.ve 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.
9840
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
ca.se 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.
9840
-206-
PA3T II
DOaiMENTS ON HOMEWORK
U KNITTED 01ITEHWE.,\H riDTTSTHY
40
-207---
PART II. DOCimENTS
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-
ina.de ^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"
MBMOPJMDUM
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.
9840
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.
3840
-309-
Tiie following docnments r.re 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
9S40
-210-
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.
9840
-211-
This Order is siobject to revocation vcoon -oroTDer sho^^ing of caiis e or
subseciuent order.
"Tational Indi:-strial Recnvery B^nrd
By 17. A. Harriman /s/
YJ. \. Harriman
Administrative Officer
Ao-oroval Recommended:
FREMITI SS L. COO^TLEY /s/_
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
herein.
(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.
9840
-212-
(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 avia.lc.ule 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.
9840
-213-
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 grjvo.es 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 h.me-ork 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
9840
-214-
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 RePU.la.tion . 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 ti.ie publish to home-
wor]cers, information which in its opinion :iny be necess ry or de^jirable to
assure the purposes of these Regulations.
9840
-215-
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,
3840
-21 G-
PAET III
f^U!-5M.APy MALYSIS OF STATISTICAL SCHEDULES
-217-
PAHT III.
SUM,i;iPY M^YSIS L? STATISTICAI SC^ED^TLP.S (*)
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-
cations.
(*) This analysis was contained in tue report submitted te tne Division
of Review, MA, by Mrs. R. L. Landow,
(**) See Schedule I-C
9840
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. 23«
(*) 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
there'5'ith.
9840
-219-
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-
"tnv
-220-
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
field.
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
York.
9840
!21-
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-
facturer.
Group (6) Hand Finishing of Knitted Outerwear Products (Schedule
IX)
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.
PAYMENTS TO HGIvIEWGRKEES ACROSS STaTE BCHD52S
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.
-233-
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 Knitted Outer-^^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
9840
-224-
serit to all n^meGof contractors 6n filf. These ™ere followed up
with letters and visits from inspectors, until registration ^'as
obtained.
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
ma.de to determine the economic: and spclal implications of continu-
ing or iri-ohibitinG th.ls form of labor.
Part IV. Statistical Schedules
9840
•226-
PABT IV
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.
A«
1 H
pi
-f
I
lO CD CO «0 <;fi
S ^ J5 S ? ?5 ?S ^ S «"° «» "
CO 1-4 I-)
1
h
S
pS'-JII j|.|N
lO « qj « !>. CT) a> in t. i^. o^ o <
^ a> in F-t f-i e^ n io -.» ^.4
§^■3
N <o ,# (O rt rt n
it
a><ooEi5no>«o<n«» ^ ^
•3
(^ ^ cvj o» n i> t- ,H --o o -a <s
r4a>u}ISin^(OtOi
^
Bh 63 O a '^ O Ec IB a !^-' 2! BB
mil
O O 9 tg O
RO ti_gJU_
tO(2iOi^C3i5^000
O r-i <0 M ei>
ssg
^.^
t
p
1
O OJ
03
»(!«
«3 <0
o>
«5 tf)
o
-:5
~ -
S?;;
O
to
d$
HH
«»
6>
B:
H
4^ ti
>-i CB B
«d««H
o to cfl
U
^^ii
■P-d
CO (U
»^ C
o
^V,
B
caw W
« p
t, - "
XI
M
V CO ca
>V( o
1
^ ti !^i
3 Q) O
U
o U o
o ^
CO O CJ
(0 P
tH |E IL.
-^ oJ
3 O +3
^g
O
§ o o
CQ
H
sa:o
o c
HHH
OM
OS 0] m
■p-p-p
o o o
c
tHEHH
5
p
a
§
(B
1;
«
as'
S
H
gdl
!,fe|oo|Sj||
■*
?;
O O 01 •<J' U3 Kn IN
(I)
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
p
u o a>
a © a
3 t^ o
H O 0)
fn P
<& U
S O
9 e
o
ca f«
Wd
f^ ©
o c:
£ ■H
(D 0]
0P
OXJ
K O
^^
to D-
%^
in ■<<<
§
Sw
H
^-^
W rjf
8
w to
05O
to
gV
i
t
P O
J 51
r-l 0)
H o
I 1
I I
^ ^
00*0
M n (p
2 5?
S S
5? ~
2^^
s a a
10 w « 10 «
^
n
!l
°4s
l-i lO «
15
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 '
SS5
s
1
in I I
1S5
»
w cs ♦»
5 I
5:^
N i
v9
I
11
!r
eg
If
es
o d
II
CO B) •!-> n
ffl tj « I.
^ o o o
"3 ^ " «
o »< o
e o <j tf
o — I tn o —
■S S °
— I^
■a
0 O
11"
ja\o
3 ?
K '4 9 t rt --
^§
I
II
i
S §
^ 8
a.aSSS SS5 5S3 385 ssgis§e S3 s:
Sl-i- §§S lis S«*s gs^iil s§ «'
k
II
^fel
Igas
^s?, g^s s'^'^ss*^ 5i
^8g
is 6
l!l
si
llllf lis |ti «li
111
»0i a
w a a
11
«li
s%
^•8 5
rJ » «
^§1 i'
e- fi* a C 03
ail
-233-
H
^11
5 § O rT
■a I-
idifl
I
a!
^1
I-
kii
giS^SKK'
«S IS «Ji f-J
^
I
g
13
•I
wn<0N»»*O'-«'^M
S3
^ B _ ^ o o Bj
n Ph n o oa: »
S^^
el
!§':
^•as'
|i
•#
-
233-
w
.
^
8
#
^
a|
Ll
3
S
a
3
8
to
««
Si
It
i
W-
•
5
8
s
i
8S«
j5
S
8
S38
3S2S8
a
sis
i
g
s
i^'
iiS^°
8 "•
CM
CM
R-
1^--
^•^
<••
h
•.
^
0»
lO
^
^
5
t
Hi
1
:§
S
a
5
n
CM
1
8
h
|.S
^
%
CO ^ rC
P
01
i
■4
to
CM°
n
n
w
!
s |«
s
u>
f-
j
i M
CM
3
3 -:S
E* "? «
««,«
'f.
"
<«
^-
OOtCMOO
y
1
8
n
i
fr.
n
i
t
{
iM
«
IQ
M
r-t
5
a
^
1
-# ?< eS
^ CMf^
liL
s
*«'-'-
"-^
'
•H
s
s
sir
S
s»
sS
'1
55
t
I III
SIJ1
III
1
llil
i
?1 ?
r-l ti A
1
ni
=1 y
?l
3 6f
(?-
-234-
p-a
1
"*
«0
r4
CM
to
<o
4
1 rS
b
p-4
i
^.
3
1
CVJ
i
<
^
-
35
p>»
(m
• s
g
5
?
t
S55
a
a s
J>;^:JS5B
l«
§
s
9
S§
n
g s
H'SS
.^
Ji
gj
n
51 -^
S&f
1
5?V!
»•
".
t
«.
n
L
'^^
0&-
uJ
V)
a
iH
N
w*
di
s
f
^
s^L §
2
in
^
N
n
n
^§
s
n'ii^
•^
o
fH+*
■M
C B
S|
rH ^
<M
r^ N
n
5-"
r"*
-s
—
n
(Vi
4
*
1
^
= s
»
w
0»
N
n
n
i
3
s2
«o
l-« ft
i!i
N
rH N
n
2--^
M (oea r4
?5 .A
.M
!t
t!
M
sr
J
«l
kII?
•? ^
1
Is
PC
1 S
IS
1
1
J
ill
£111
1
„
^l!
i
s
l§
si
"8
is
.| .sii
It m
III,
lit
1»
'^A
n »> n
CM C4
S S S ta
C] Ot O CM
8 S
d ^
n in H
won
p ^ M m n
' i a "' ~
n n n n n
S 5 «■ 1
I
9840
I g H I I ! I 8
.« I II i 1 1 1 n
3
o
S
t
^
r — "' ^
OD
cv"
P5
CD
«#
1
o»
3
i
«4>
i
CM
i
i
3
•
SS
CO 05
4
CM in o
^ a» r-l
Si
-
4»
o n
•1
C9.
r.O
CO
sn
-.
CJ>
cvj
n
rt
in
s
i
3
g
d
CM
8^g«E'i
ai^sJ
SS
g5
K M r-I
gg
SS.
03 n
•• f-i
1
1
?i
lO
^°
m
■O
<4
«
«
to
<o
s
in
in
lO
«
H
CM
to
w
1
"^^"S:J
C> N .«
1 ..
1
W r^ rt
S^
s--^
■*<-t
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
£?§S'
t-i r-: t<
S b o
c8 ~- hi
> 2 (J
§8 o f4| S S J £ 5 ® ns
35 c» S
^^
SS]i
lis
g
i
11
15°
■■ii
I-
II
r-4 O U
«3 £ a s
5E«
t> a o 3 &, B sa
-238-
SCHEDULE I - G
aEOGEilPHIGAL LOGATIOS OF ivLalWEACTUHERS
CONTaACTORS
i^IAlTUFACTUHERS Ei,jPLOiED
GONTHAGTOxiS AS FOLLOWS:
Mf rs .
Location
Gontractors
Numter Location
GOUTR.\CTOfiS TOEKED EOH
wIANUjFAGTUHEkS as FOLLOWS;
Gontractors
). Location
Location
of Lifrs:
Kew York
Tennessee
Connecticut
Llaryland
iviaine
Pennsylvania , ,
1 Tennessee
1 Connecticut
1 Maryland
New York
Hew York
Hew York
54
New Jersey
6
Maine
New York
209
New York '\ 1
11
New York &
274
i "^
Maryland
Kew Jersey
5
New Jersey
1 2
Pennsylvania
New York
J 9
II
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
9
Pennsylvania
2
II
Maryland
1
New Jersey
13
10
i 54
New Jersey
New York
Maryland
1
Virginia
1 5
II M
New Jersey
)
1
Ohio
! 1
11 11
Pennsylvania
2
Pennsylvania
i ^
11 II
Pennsylvania &
2
New York
New York
6
2
II II
Pennsylvania &
New York &
California
3
California
New Jersey
Both Pennsylvania
i ^
& New York
2
New Jersey
209
New York
New York
Pennsylvania,
1 2
j 2ir
II II
Maryland
New York &
Kew Jersey
2
New Jersey
1 1
Virginia
Maryland
New York
1
Ohio
Maryland
& Maryland
1
Maine
3
California
California
303
Note: Only ijan\if acturers in Pennsylvania., M: ryland and New York employed
contractors in other states.
9840
-239-
SCHFDULE - II
EOMEWOIiKS?.S HEG I STEiffiD
WITH TIE
JSl^REAU
PEHCEivlAC-E PAID DURIKG- 6 iTLEK PK'-.IOD
April 1st, - Ma7 25th, 19G5
States Homei;
Yorkers
.■a of
Homev/orkers
,0 of
;S Paid
aep(
Drted
Total
Paid
total
in
State
New York
6
,748
35.
,2
4,584
34,
.6
67.9fi
fciaine
5,
,937
29,
,3
4,441
S3,
.4
74
Pennsylvania
2,
,890
14.
.2
1,375
10
.4
47
Hew Jersey
2,
,616
13,
,S
1,504
11
.3
53'
Tennessee
561
429
76.
Kentucky
453
339
73.2
California
152
134
88.9
Massachusetts
116
80
63.9
Maryland
101
27
26.7
Vermont
97
74
76
New Hampshire
75
53
70.5
Michigan
66
50
73.5
Con.necticut
61
40
65.5
Ohio
54
45
83
Dela\vare
38
10
Wisconsin
34
25
Illinois
28
19
Virginia
19
11
Florida
6
2
North Caroling
6
6
Washing- ton
5
5
Texas
- 4
2
Alabama
4
1
Eliode Island
4
1
Georgia
3
2
Minnesota
3
2
West Virginia
2
1
Dist. of Col.
2
2
Colorado
1
1
Mississippi
1
_
Oklahoma
1
1
Arizona
-
-
Arkanscs
-
-
Idaho
_
_
Indiana
-
-
lov^a
_
-
Kansas
_
_
Louisiana
_
-
Missouri
-
-
Montana
-
-
( .ontinued on next page)
9840
-240-
SCHEDUIE - II (Cont'd)
^^ ^ Homeworkers
r^ of
Horaeworkers
1, of
yo Paid
2^^*"" Reported
total
Paid
total
in
State
!!levada
-
New Ivie-vico
-
North Dakota
-
Ore£:on
-
So-'j.th Carolina
-
Netraska
-
South Dakota
-
Utah
. -
Wyoming
£0,300
13,266
6D.3i
NOTE: - In all tables no > shown for States v>ath less than 50 Horaeworkers
Reported.
9840
-241-
SCHEDULE II - 1
Distribution of Homeworkers
in
4 G-cographical Areas
Set lip for tnis study
Divisions
i.Ietro-
DOlitan
Districts
Cities
of
50,000
or more
Cities
from
5,000 to
50,0;)0
HTxral
Dis-
tricts
Number
Solely
in
This
Group
(1) Tiholly H.K. or
H.C. Inf. Wr.
(Inc. Headwr.)
To Age 6
1,263
36
691
7,078
9,068
(2) Wholly H.K. or
H.C. Ladies
Sportswear
956
1
12
969
(3) Wholly H.K. or
H.C. Headwear
1,566
Z8
7
1,611
(4) H.J. (Mach. I,:d.
Parts) Inf. &
Ch. Wr. to Age
12
501
18
519
(5) H.J. (Mach. Md.
Parts.) Ladies
Sportswear or
Adult Wear.
141
1
10
16
168
(6) H.F. of K.O.
Products by Ktg.
or Cr.
194
57
20
271
(7) H. Emb. on K.O.
Products
394
2
30
426
(8) H. Sew of
Buttons &
Buttonholes
39
3
42
(9) Hand Trimmings
10
10
TOTAL
5,064
37
799
7,184
13,084
Engaged in more thcOi
one group.
93
19
70
182
5,157
37
818
7,254
13,266
9840
—342— ■
SCHEDULE II - B
Homeworkers by Crafts
Crafts
Num'ber
Percent of
HomeTOrkers
Total
11,655
87.86
693
5.22
339
2.56
426
3.21
153
1.15
Hand Knitting & Crocheting Solely
Hand Joining "
Hand finishing "
Hand Embroidery "
More than one Craft
TOTAL 13,266 100-00 /o
^
■||gSg§"^'^'^^
it
3l
^*<"«
9840
-348-
lO<-lNu>l-«^-Qmc^l
S}S~
S'
CM r-t « r> oj) O Al
^ e« lo n JSi
•Or4^M<o(vn4»^laak|-lnnn<0«og(&a9ln^a)^-c^]NeQN
«\iotoaB<foiaof-««0(»tnovncvio>n<0(nOr4tonNcMcoojo>n
«anto9t>c\)ia»>N<noi>oio»otnnaooon<Ac>or-)2<sat«o
N r-IMS?r-tCM(-lWWr^rHr<N'i'N^(M
Smfr.QU}<Oi-<i-ICVlon<4iNi-(Oom<aO^QOO«OMCMNcQCM
iD^•n<otr:[>r-(^-coo>o«>-lto^-oolHotOlonnc^]o>-t«3<D
iH«oo»r-ie-n'<)ia35j'<7»e-
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^ ,
io<*rtncMioo<oift^wtowcM
>-4 %t! I*^ '
at S '* SJ'S"" ot-«o»<HO>oioeMCMeM«i
C 0 O
« TS.O
p d o »4 v«
w*,^ *M^ O-H OrHW(a4.ix W-"
o « *
:l
ft"
tl-kl
-344-
52
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^
8tS
a? o
c>n^•<OlOMO^ en
e\jp^«MOoiQ(s<o ^
cMO^■H^-l2)^to o
s e:
^•ncM«oir)oo«o
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
SI
01 o t^ n
to 1-4 H ^ r4 U) to
68
SI 3
?J'
w n K ft, t< t* o
lllsl
o SI p: >-i> pttn ^ ^ ti) ft t< <f30vG» e>
9840
-346-
A «
1 "
n
c
i'
no o
J3
4
o
g
> -« O r< n UJ
S
If
rl •* t>* W O
Range Indivi-
dual aamin^B
8 Weeks
1 ^g « §2 5;
H
<*
S »5 18 8 g S
a iHuJ of <o e\J ^
8
i
•a.
j Sg .3 8 2 S
f, '^i i • "■' §
i
3 ; s " s
i -s '■ - »> •
S5
-
eo
ililli3lliill«llllllll?lsir»i
m
H
«
u
o
-246-
8
a
^;25- - "--^ «
2
f
o
c
S8S3'"'^ M«««^ ^M M
S
0^
^looton noiooooo
00
CO
1
§
t-
$ 5.07
4.81
7.79
6.52
3.03
10.12
4.19
5.72
7.03
33.61
19.31
3.15
6.60
30.50
3.97
6.14
3.38
2.02
4.12
2.90
to
In
3
lO
$ 54.32
77.44
109.40
18.10
8.88
14.15
7.65
8.10
9.33
82,93
46.94
10.65
9.51
77.70
3.97
8.67
3.38
2.02
4.12
2.90
i
^
3J
$ 933.90
1078.08
1456.51
403.01
18.19
20.24
25.18
34.35
49.21
1411.42
482.80
31.51
83.94
732.14
3.97
12.27
3.38
2.02
'4.12
2 90
2
i
n
*-".-.':-. -.->.-.«.«".«.^. "
CM
S^g5'«" '**^5|5SSS'^- ^ ^^ ^
§
r-t
s
s
Bew Tork
Uaine
Haw Jeraey
Pennaylvania
Tennessee
Kentucky
California
Uasaaohnsettti
Vermont
Bew Hanpshlra
Uiehlsan
Ohio
Conueoticat
Maryland
:7i8conein
Illinois
Virginia
Delaware
North uarolina
rrashington
Florida
Soergia
'Jinnosota
Texas
Alabama
Colorado
Rbods Island
West Virginia
Dist. of Col.
3
■i "■
(o a> <a >a *o B~
-247-
^ggg}^-"
N N ^ ,-) (0 CM rl
-
J 5 —
a o «o
3 9
ii
■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
'9s:
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
4.02
1.59
2.52
1-86
6.00
1.31
1.63
9.22
o> ff. B- m in o
N !Si O CM «C Pi
_! .; Ji „r ,«• ^*
-? -,• ^ ^* -; • -:
S§?i§
O rH <0 CM C
lb « «CM <•
i I
.1
o •
-S48.
3] 'J
3 c
e- 10 • r-« IT, r-l CO Ift O C» lO
o>*o<n^in«o<y>>oa»
MIOCrirH'OOVCOOea
t-usJ5ifia>aoinr
^- 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 '
i»
IS
rM W-« r-( W .
r-li-tWN«*N-*CM
cr> c o lO to m to
Cr>tOO»W<Ot-e~«>rH<T>
1-1 N rS
<OOn>H<StF9CMCMn>H
lO O tC to 0» CD "ii I
»<l r-4 r-l W W W O '
to a» o <o «i^ « <H
WOlOOW'O'O'OnNNev.WN
s?
S3£
O X! 0
m 09 O
3§
C)
(9 •> |4
■J I
S o o «
f <0 4J v<
eHnoct Mon
«or»>'a5on«i
O r- '
OS tJ
N
1
£
1
c
-249-
in w r- i7« r< n
s
n
CO
-
CO CO W «
S
CM f-l
w
O
\
I:
M « W W «0
o> cvT «o c^ rt o
CO
N
CM
CM
CM
.1
s
(7« C~ C^ r-l
CM
■aI
n *r-t
OD
^^.
o
^ C- eo « IT"
:i5? Hi
n
•*
J
ilR.
1
CVl rt r^ "^
I
448—
i JO M rH n lO
in
0» 'f OS rt t- O CJ rS S ■* S5 (T> C- ?5 CM ta
cvja»ow^»nr:c>j^c>-in^iHC^Pi'*
o
(J» in <o O »• r<
j 'i; <^ CM oo w t-
j ^ r4e^oo CM <o
1
s
.n*
Pi
?
* * ' ri l-I ' * Cvl CvT 6«' rt
8
8 «. ^H^.
* •# CM *
g
a
r
X
1
2
« 13 CO
3
3
2
i
te5
•O 0» CM ^
8
3j
S* S i "'' i i S' '^* °' ^* ** ^* '^ ""* '^' ""
3
8
o in 1-4 o « lo
00 C4 n CO rH C\
•3-
w
|IP
S S f: " S 5 2 -^ ■" -^ " " -"^ -^ -^
* n CM S
§s
g^«M««
^^3
"§5
5
5 2«> it
3
Sillll
3
2
to CM lO
I) N M CM Q
O <0 to ^ >0 10 ^
0 c- ^ n (0 in iH
l4C
I-I3J a
lOntr1f*r*Vi>f> =A
oioonintoo^int>.»iooowwwN«fi
•ss
?:«s;
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
2-
Sic 6)
ss
C<J<OCV]«OtOOO«'Hi-tr-lrHfHf-«H
« 3 E
• d • ^ - -
S II £ II 1 1£ I S 1 5: S ^ S ^ <S ^
r- n
i
If
ah
Si
-351-
•^ 9 n n f^ <o to N n •-• m
H iH r4 N i-l •>••-• r4 iH
jSSgSS'""'-"" l" l"" i I
essasssesss
|s§2§s**'''°"*"°"'"' i"" !
^3
li
5s 5
lU
lleSfSSs
no»^in<0«0'-IC<IMrHNr4i
»5
9840
u
SS I
CM <0 M
550,8 ,
c
■d
S8'
Si
S^'
00 10 n I
00 «D o>
«>
11
9 « 8 &S
S S CVI O
<0 r^ f-4
a
§t!2
se2
^
st-
ress 1
slsi
F
sg
01 in <
9840 I
* ^■* '^ bL
V> «0 ^
I '
.1 I
t
I " I
S <8 (o cC:
S CM i
SS
8 ^ S
ill «?
p< S E4 >
SJ5
'J^ H^»^
i
« i
ift N CO
CO ,4 o u>
J28
^
n
SS8
%^
It) to CM
S30S it>r""f' ii.cifnr'^
in fr-
8{~
cj C^ N
If
25
9&
SF
f
■a -3
a
to w o>
N »• to
■^ rt w
00 1-?
l^-l
in o k
n » d.
ss
( w ♦» p
NO &
I
Sill
PS e »i a
O 41 O E p-l
I
II
T c> m S »-
-254-
^• CO o ►■
w« I tft in ^ a> o
2^
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
I
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"'^ '
SSI^^SS
<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
§^3'
s^"-^
S O CQ I
OO S CM I
U} CM O) I
s^s;;
31
.3fe
;; 7 a i
^2 St I
^^1
O O Ct o
n; w 0, o
Ss
1
§ ^
^^
z
? ^
?►,
f
S ^
::! t!;
h:
lO S
II
61
t. 5q B 0, a
II
9840
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
s
O
^
g
n
wH
CI
o
c
«
„
M
1
s
:5
t>
in
:!
s
o >> g
Hi
r-l e<J.
I
:g g
in t«-
SK
-256-
CS5^'
^ n .-4 MM
N « V) CM
S5
N a» S * S
II
Mm n e>- w t»
5* S 3" o o»
n in to iH
$ g^SS
gssgg
n n <o «o t^
•a
o> ♦» <n n
in §*•» oo N n
n En "^ "^
§1
IT
• o
,ii o
5 -d
""3
K}5
n
S^JS
&g5 s
o « >» o
«lo3
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
p-1
W i> o ai E5 Q M'*' ^ °
-257-
• 1
J a-, t- 1 tJ
T. <i< '..-:
1
t-
s
1
o
in lO
^-
S
■M
(M
C
w
"^-r-
o» to
tn
ij» o> n
r-
■0
to
I2J3S
at
c ^
,-H r-1 rt «
.-4
•-•
a<
s
CO
4 lU
C~ 'di n IH rH
<o
L<- ^ n
CM
» rH
«*
o>
e
•1
t<
o
CM N C^
CM
CM P- C-
CM
-^
CO
(D
•fe^
cn oo 00 <o
CM CM t^ o
S
s-;g
CM
r-
g
!^
5
5s
•^ (O as rt CM CM r^
R
iH to CM M
C~
CM
<0 « ct fH r-t
^
U (V
-<
f
iJ
~" " ■ ■■ —
..!..
^ !^
N
?M $ 5 ;^^ g s t
^.
<o
s
qs^s^s
«
-; s
es
s
^'^
S
s
«*
W-V3.-
5 t!
-"■ o
^.n
«l
R
2SS5S5§S^
lO
sss
in
^
sssssss:
s
' §
§•
w^
* CM r-l CM » iH r^
«*.
'^-"
^
a
M CM (M cH r-*
Si
1?
•^ s
^
ss
^ § f.^ § s s s
$
sss
t
8
ESSgISS
S5
2^
ftS
«.
<0 rj to O C^ to r-l
<o'
IS Pi-
^
01
(0 ^ «0 r-« •-«
to-
S
9 S
B
4
ta-
«»
♦
1
£^
«►
«»
-^ J J
,1
22S5:538^
j;?
S23S
s?i55ss:
il
Q CO CM CD <* lO r-J
3
^ od"3
«««,.^
lU
<»
<*
<»
•.ST.*-
«»
•;
1
is*
H^
^
p
lis
•* rl to CM m CJ rH
•J?
CJ» -( to rH
^.5
M«CM^^
-2
« <a
s
- !'
a til^3 3
9 S
lllll
r-
i
5«-s<D2<Ut«S 9
iii^iii ill
K a o a *^
8
o
8
4»
s
' ^
sl^
"
9840
s!3
I
1
s
uf
a
9 ^
I 8
Ico M
<•
w w
M
^(m • »
• 0
ss
E?'
?«
s
i
H Ok
o
09 C*>
^-
to
s
s
N
n
^ ;«
•d p
Jl
tf
b
a>
10 n
w
3
*
•^ i
VI
too
^
^ <o
to
" s
• o
t4
u »
s
«
§
>H r-l
N
r-t rl
N
M
s
""
o
^•O
00
^ «
<o
• *
V
2?5
d
dfe*
s
° e
1
■« o
o
^ <o
o
a i
e
1
l-t
■H
^^5
Bonaapnai
¥"
1
8
?s
J
«»■
«•
<•■
«»
<»
ii
8g
S
S8
g
3
1
■-•
iH
s
•H «
m-
«»
•o
«»
-•*. , ,,
i-i *>
^A
CD
flC f-<
CO
l>-
1
^
0^
C tfl
o»
«
5
lO CI
00 <0
0)
gs
s
N
**
^
«>
■»
4»
•3
s
4*
'31
s§
00
!4
5?3-
41 ^
S?3
s
cvj
o w
^S3
o o
«S|
s
<*
^ii
• h
4ft'
<»
«-ss
<»^
» 2
"^■5
^5
N i-l
51
as
"^Sl
o o
"^3|
a » »,
-
gs^
£S5,
1
, .o
i
.•3
& ^
o
§
8
8
.^
1
-. u
1 ^
s
1
^
en
16
•4| (D
%t I
^
«
•?
C
e
A B
tnK >4
o
y:
irj
ki
1*?
Sls^
-259-
CD
w
•s . •
IX
(3
&
s
«-
8 t-i o
o
""
c
•H
IH-
«■. r-
o
<■ (3
l-l
0
.
m <*
I ^
l-l
9
:a
]
|4
a
o
« . H
o
•^
■-(
E
J
O 11
N
« .'
•^
•H
i
,
3 ^«
|2"
5|
i
s;
^
1
%n
«•
u?
» I
?!
«>
&
3»
a
s
3".
§1
CM
0)
^
Ir
i
g
28
s
n
3t
4»
•
?
s
N
Hi
r-« 0»
s
«
1
ll'
p.
5
^►»
CO
II
9640
1
^ •< s
I i
S 8
3
t g
s s
;s cj s
§ 8 s -^
S S S S:
8 5 8^*
8^ fi
S
%i S
5
S ^
si
3
iH to
-1
I II n ^:*.. If
i^ Ih ia 'is *-ll II
: ^-^ s= ce K P, es p. W o< o :■; o,
s
w'S
y
-261-
!3
i
s
§
N
S "^{S *^ ">
S
s
:
5 g «• «• «•
i
N
?
^ gj •» « «
9
g
i
X
s •
5.
2
i
-#
*
1
1^
1
s
1
£i
g
M
N
«
■^
3 S
i
S
5i
i s
S ^
M
n
1
r
5 i
S
8
i
"^
2.
il "^
lO
<o
S
3
2
w
n
n
n
!
«•
3
s sass
9840
r
1 ^ ^
$ '^sg-^
£
ii
1
IiIIiihIIiiIIiIiiIiiIIIIii
nil
liii
1
4
1
i
1
1
If
1
r
C9
"I
I
fill
u
ll
i3 3
J 5
K
t- i-IM Mrt CDH
s 1
lO
i
1
3
1
i
li
,1!
Ill
if ^i
ll li
4*
8
i 1
1.
1 1
9840
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
THE DIVISION OF REVIEW
THE WORK OF THE DIVISION OF REVIEW
Executive Order No. 7075, dated June 15, 1935, established the Division of Review of the
National Recovery Administration. The pertinent part of the Executive Order reads thus:
The Division of Review shall assemble, analyze, and report upon the statistical
information and records of experience of the operations of the various trades and
industries heretofore subject to codes of fair competition, shall study the ef-
fects of such codes upon trade, industrial and labor conditions in general, and
other related matters, shall make available for the protection and promotion of
the public interest an adequate review of the effects of the Administration of
Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the principles and policies
put into effect thereunder, and shall otherwise aid the President in carrying out
his functions under the said Title. I hereby appoint Leon C. Marshall, Director of
the Division of Review.
The study sections set up in the Division of Review covered these areas: industry
studies, foreign trade studies, labor studies, trade practice studies, statistical studies,
legal studies, administration studies, miscellaneous studies, and the writing of code his-
tories. The materials which were produced by these sections are indicated below.
Except for the Code Histories, all items mentioned below are scheduled to be in mimeo-
graphed form by April 1, 1936.
THE CODE HISTORIES
The Code Histories are documented accounts of the formation and administration of the
codes. They contain the definition of the industry and the principal products thereof; the
classes of members in the industry; the history of code formation including an account of the
sponsoring organizations, the conferences, negotiations and hearings which were held, and
the activities in connection with obtaining approval of the code; the history of the ad-
ministration of the code, covering the organization and operation of the code authority,
the difficulties encountered in administration, the extent of compliance or non-compliance,
and the general success or lack of success of the code; and an analysis of the operation of
code provisions dealing with wages, hours, trade practices, and other provisions. These
and other matters are canvassed not only in terms of the materials to be found in the files,
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 Histories, 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. )
THE WORK MATERIALS SERIES
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. Tentative Outlines and Summaries of
Studies in Process, the materials are fully described),
Iniustry 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
1934.
Part B - Section 3 (e) of NIRA and its administration.
Part C - Imports and Importing under NRA Codes.
Part D - Exports and Exporting under NRA Codes.
Forest Products Industries, Foreign Trade Study of the
Iron and Steel Industry, The
Knitting Industries, The
Leather and Shoe Industries, The
Lumber and Timber Products Industry, Economic Problems of the
Men's Clothing Industry, The
Millinery Industry, The
Motion Picture Industry, The
Migration of Industry, The: The Shift of Twenty-Five Needle Trades From New York State,
1926 to 1934
National Labor Income by Months, 1929-35
Paper Industry, The
Production, Prices, Employment and Payrolls in Industry, Agriculture and Railway Trans-
portation, January 1923, to date
Retail Trades Study, The
Rubber Industry Study, The
Textile Industry in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan
Textile Yarns and Fabrics
Tobacco Industry, The
Wholesale Trades Study, The
Women's Neckwear and Scarf Industry, Financial and Labor Data on
9768—2
Women's Apparel Industry, Some Aspects of the
Trade Practice 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.
Labor 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
Administrative Studies
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
9768—3.
- 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
Funds
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
Power
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-
tion?
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 SERIES
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
follows:
Automobile Manufacturing Industry
Automotive Parts and Equipment Industry
Baking Industry
Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Industry
Bottled Soft Drink Industry
Builders' Supplies Industry
Canning Industry
Chemical Manufacturing Industry
Cigar Manufacturing Industry
Coat 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-
try
Wool Textile Industry
THE STATISTICAL MATERIALS SERIES
This series is supplementary to the Evidence Studies Series. The reports include data
on establishments, firms, employment, payrolls, wages, hours, production capacities, ship-
ments, sales, consumption, stocks, prices, material costs, failures, exports and imports.
They also include notes on the principal qualifications that should be observed in using the
data, the technical methods employed, and the applicability of the material to the study of
the industries concerned. The following numbers appear in the series:
9768—5.
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 COVERAGE
The original, and approved, plan of the Division of Review contemplated resources suf-
ficient (a) to prepare some 1200 histories of codes and NRA units or agencies, (b) to con-
solidate and index the NRA files containing some 40,000,000 pieces, (c) to engage in ex-
tensive field work, (d) to secure much aid from established statistical agencies of govern-
ment, (e) to assemble a considerable number of experts in various fields, (f) to conduct
approximately 25% more studies than are listed above, and (g) to prepare a comprehensive
summary report.
Because of reductions made in personnel and in use of outside experts, limitation of
access to field work and research agencies, and lack of jurisdiction over files, the pro-
jected plan was necessarily curtailed. The most serious curtailments were the omission of
the comprehensive summary report; the dropping of certain studies and the reduction in the
coverage of other studies; and the abandonment of the consolidation and indexing of the
files. Fortunately, there is reason to hope that the files may yet be carec for under other
auspices.
Notwithstanding these limitations, if the files are ultimately consolidated and in-
dexed the exploration of the NRA materials will have been sufficient to make them accessible
and highly useful. They constitute the largest and richest single body of information
concerning the problems and operations of industry ever assembled in any nation.
L. C. Marshall,
Director, Division of Review.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11