Montana labor news., 1933-11-30

WASHINGTON. - The American
Federation of Labor won a decided
victory in its determined fight against
the reactionary labor section of the
construction industry code, sponsored
by the Construction League of the
United States, when General Hugh s.,
Johnson, Recovery Administrator, at
the conclusion of the new hearing re-
ferred the controversy to a committee
of IL, with William Green, president
of the American Federation Of Labor,
and M. J. McDonough, president of the
Building Trades Department of that
organization, representing organized
labor. The NRA is represented by
General Counsel Donald L. Richberg
and Deputy Administrator Malcolm
Muir. The other eight members Of
the committee represent the various
branches of the construction industry.
Allied Anti-LabOr Forces Lose.
The hearings which ended in the APP
pointment Of the committee were de-
manded by the American Federation
Of Labor and granted over the COM
bined opposition of the Construction
League, the Associated General Con-
tractors, the Chamber of Commerce
of the United States, and the Ameri-
can Institute of Architects.
Organized labor's opposition to the
code was led by President Green and
President McDonough, both of whom
claimed that the maximum 40-hour
week proposed in the code, with a
possible extension to AZ hours, was
too long, the minimum wage rates too
low, the merging of the building in
dustry code with the general con-
struction code essentially unjust to
the building industry workers, and
that nothing less than a wholesale re-
vision of the code would be acceptable
to labor.
Green Attacks Wages and Hours.
In his general criticism of the code,
lMr. Green said:
"Its provisions are less construc-
tive, more open to abuse, and less ia
vorable to labor than are the great
majority of codes which have already
been adopted in other industries.
"Where hours of labor in other in
dustries have been very materially
reduced, the code under consideration
here today envisages no reduction of
hours.
Exemptions granted in the pro-
posed code are so numerous and so
open to abuse as to mean practical de-
struction of any benefits the code
might otherwise institute.
"The wage provisions are charac-
terized especially by vagueness and
uncertainty. This we have repeated
ly pointed out.
"The proposed code entirely lacks
those regulations of the conditions OF
labor which have helped very mater
tally to improve conditions of employ
ment in many other industries. Only
complete redrafting of the code, in our
opinion, can bring it in line with the
principles and purposes of the admin
istration."
Separate Building Industry Code
Asked.
Pointing out that there are two
clearly defined divisions in the CON
struction industry, general or open
construction and building construction,
Mr.. Green insisted that the labor prob
lens in each division are so decidedly
different as to make one code for the
entire construction industry not only
unjust but absolutely impracticable.
He said:
"There are profound differences in
the type of labor employed; there is
marked contrast in the regularity of
employment; the methods of opera
ton are entirely different; the types
Of consumer, of contractor and Of en-
ployer are wholly different; the diff