Evening star., 1938-01-25
WAGE-H0UR BILL
ARGUMENTS CITED
Senator Bailey in Forum Ad.
dress Admonishes Work.
ers to Keep Freedom.

w. Bailey. Democrat, Of North Caro-
Una on the National Radio Forum
arranged by The Star and broadcas
over Station WMAL and a Nation.
wide network Of other Nationa
Broadcasting Co. stations:
The present status Of Federal wage
ana hour legislation is indefinite. Thu
om that passed the Senate was rejected
oy the House committee, and there.
after the House bill was defeated. The
President. in his address to the Con-
eress at the beginning Of the present
session. emphatically recommended
wage and hour legislation, presumably
IN terms OF minimum wages and maxi
mum hours In industries, doing busi-
ness IN commerce across State lines or
| with foreign nations and also in other
industries that compete with industries
doing such business.
Four Principal Arguments.
What are the principal arguments
for this legislation?
They are:
First. that public policy, the sound
interests Of commerce and the general
welfare demand that no person shall
he paid less than reasonable living
wage. or be required to work unrea-
sonable hours. To these considera-
lions may we'll be added the irresistible
force OF moral obligation. 1t is wrong
to pay worker less than a decent
living wage. The oppression Of wages
50 low or hours so long that they are
detrimental to men, women and chill
oren is plainly unrighteous. It vio-
iates not only the law Of society but
the law Of God.
Second, that in the competition OF
free enterprise many workers are help
less vlctims-their wages are pressed
down below the level of decencv. their
hours stretched to the point of injury.
mat, therefore, the subject cannot
wisely be left to the bargaining of en-
ployer and employe. Good employees
must compete with bad ones. EN-
ployers who would not oppress must
compete with employers who would.
Third, that the subject cannot wisely
be left to the States, since North Caro-
lima may establish a lower minimum
wage than Massachusetts, and South
Carolina may establish a lower mini
mum than North Carolina, notwith-
standing the industries of each State
are doing business in the same goods in
commerce among the States.
Let us recognize that each of these
arguments has substantial weight and
IS worthy of unprejudiced considera-
ton. shall bear them in mind in all
shall have to say hereinafter.
Arguments Against Plan.
What are the arguments against
such Federal regulation?
They are:
FIRST, that the regulation of wages
IN industry is unsound Federal policy.
not authorized by the Constitution and
not consistent with the form or char
acter OF our republic; that, assuming
tho obvious truth that every worker
ought to receive a reasonable wage.
that none ought to be the helpless
and hapless victim of uncurbed COM
petition. Federal system of wage
and hour regulation would be un-
desirable. This predicates the oblipa-
ton to prescribe better way.
Second. that a Federal uniform min
mum wage and maximum hour bill
must centralize, first in the Congress
and then in national board, a power
that neither employer nor employe
may prudently trust; that to do so is
to trust where trust is unWise and
also to assume that men in authority
are both better and wiser than men
may reasonably be expected to be.
Third, that the employees have a
safer-and equally efficient remedy for
wages that are too low and hours that
ere too long, in organization and the
new national policy of collective bar
gaining; and that they will be wise to
trust themselves with this new weapon
rather than the Federal Congress or
a national board; wise to bear for a
time with ills they hate, in order to
preserve inestimable rights while they
press on to cherished economic objec-
tives.
Fourth. that the principle of Federal
regulation Of wages and hours, once
established in industry will soon there
after be extended to farming opera
tons, in which the difficulty is mani
fest.
Such are the principal arguments on
either side.
Two Arguments Omitted.
You will observe that have omitted
two arguments frequently heard. One,
that the Federal regulation of wages
and hours would be favorable to one
section and unfavorable to another
It might be. but shall not rely on
this argument. The other, that if we
raise wages and reduce hours, the con-
eequence will be increased costs to the
consumer. and especially the farmer,
Recognizing that there is some sub
stance In these two arguments. I am
prepared to discard them as being of
collateral and Of minor Importance,
am not a political sectionalist, nor
would I array one group or class
against another.
NO section can afford to pitch its
case for place in the sun upon wages
lower or hours longer than the stand
ard OF decent livelihood. I would not
make an argument for any section be-
yond reasonable claim for a differ
ential to account for regional differ
ences IN the cost Of living and adverse
freight rates.
As for discrimination against the
farmers by increasing costs to them.
agreed that abnormal wages might
predicate for them an adverse posi-
taon IN the market, we ought to bear
In mind that we are not discussing ab-
normal wages or normal wages, but
only minimum wages and maximum
hours--the lowest wages and the long
est days work consistent with human
welfare and good morals.
consider the argument against the
measure as demonstrably the stronger.
and shall now proceed to it. grant
Ut once that there is point below
which . workers wage ought not to
fall and beyond which his hours o,,oht