Report of the Commission for the Coat and Suit Industry

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Report of the Commission for the Coat and Suit Industry
Series Title:
Work materials ;
Physical Description:
vii, 142 p., 6 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- National Recovery Administration
Battle, George Gordon, b. 1868
Stone, Nahum Isaac, 1873-
Brissenden, Paul F ( Paul Frederick ), 1885-1974
Publisher:
National Recovery Administration, Division of Review
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C.?
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Clothing trade -- United States   ( lcsh )
Coats -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
by George Gordon Battle, N.I. Stone, Paul F. Brissenden.
General Note:
"March, 1936."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 020510410
oclc - 31025940
System ID:
AA00018852:00001

Full Text



REOR OFgLCM ISO












MIKI



























mm .Ill ....
















. ,, "" .. ".': . " .; .. .. .. .' ., M.W 0 3







....... .. ... i ;.... ; : '", . .
rl : ;' ... I F. !: .'...01 :! n, ,
Al "i vyI
A ll."l' : .
.:" i. "::F .!. ::'. ..E. "" .
,.... .... "; :. I .; r : ,

.. .. :. :,:, ..... : : ;::.,P. .:::. :: .. . 1 : .:..!. :
:. "i::i. ,.... .". .j~i! i~i ?, K. .,, "
".I i ". '" ". .. ', .'.[ ,.' ... ..": " i .,
:i, :..." i#;.: i: F!":'. .. .. : 1 :4:.
':i'' *" "., : :: :: ;: i ":!"![ i:.: ". j .
::,:::. .. .. '.::::i~iii": : ] '.:' .. .: i,

i ".Kiii ., ."m ".i"', i : ". ''
Hi: ,.."' t K!:.: : Ki :i: . i. ... :.
.i .,iL ~ K,. "K''i'' i E':t !: ~ '
i:.::: ... ' "...! :?..:id:! iii: ': pi : i
!:::::::: ,.'ii : .. .. .. :: :
.... ,:,.,e "" w tc ai. :i '........'..
: ,,, ..,,.,....: 1 ", .... ,,V: =," : _, ..
:'?,' ,~ ~~ ~~~.i.,"niwi !:,...,Li
Ei ." :: "m :"E " .. .: "'
'"* t**i, ..






4.,",..' :,,, ":i, 'A .. Ki,. I :




H Hi 'E' .
.. .! .H.... .. ., .....j

9" K. ::E:
... : E- .:, ... :: .... :::: ; % .. : :I
: i :: ....... : H:#:: ::! i m ': ,;: I H .,;

'r
| ,.: .d :., K'H. ::. :.: .,. ::,:,, .: :"i
i,'. ..:i:.,,..., ", : "i ' '.i:;,,!......J-


Business Library


BOOK-


IO. m m





























































tv









1i
E1














in
in4




'04
mL !-IAl





i. A. RECO RDS S E 1 I

D E P A RTME T OF OOE 0 a C



OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION

DIVISION OF REVIEW











REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
FOR THE
COAT AND SUIT INDUSTRY

By

George Ggrdon Battle
Chairman
N.I. Stqone
Paul F. Brissenden


WORK MATERIALS NO. TEN


D P ART A
j.


A C. , ]- r-, cr .I 0
; --- L | . .
-7


MARCH, 1936




I..
























































~i.






OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY AD;IITI STATION


DIVISION OF PWVI2JW





















REPORT OF TKE COiIISSIOIT
FOR THE
COAT AlTD SUIT INDUSTRY

By
Goorgo Gbrdon Battle
Chai man
1I. I. Stone
Paul F. Brissenden






















iLARCH, 1936


9821




IAGAZINES BOUND
By W. P. A.






FOI =TOdD


The National Recovery Administration Com-
mission for the coat and suit industry was ap-
pointed. by the Administrator on May 17, 1934,
pursuant to a resolution adopted on May 4, 1934,
at a hearing before Do-oeuty Administrators Earl
D. Howard and iorris Greenberg, in Washington,
in which representatives of the several coat and
suit markets of the country, together with repre-
sentatives of the International Ladies Garment
WTorkers Union, participated.

The following persons were members of the
Commission:

Mr. George Gordon Battle, Chair-man
Mr. II. I. Stone, Acting Chairman
Dr. Paul F. Brissenden

The mandate to the Commission was to make a
study of the competitive market conditions in the
industry and to present its findings to the Ad-
ministrator, in order to enable the Administrator
to determine what changes, if any, sho-uld be made
in the code for the coat and suit industry.

The Commission made an exhaustive study of
direct and indirect labor costs and other compet-
itive factors in the various coat and suit market
areas. The report of the Commission was printed
as a supplement of the Women's Wear Daily, Volume
49, No. 19, Section 3, on Friday, July 27, 1934.
It is here reproduced in order to increase its
availability to students.

The report was discussed at a hearing held on
August 3, 1934 on several proposed amendments to
the code for the coat and suit industry. The
transcript of this hearing is located in the NMBA
Central Records Section.

At the back of the report will be found a
brief statement of the studies undertaken by the
Division of Review.


L. C. Marshall
Director, Division of Review.

I L. I


9821


-i1-,

















Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013











http://archive.org/details/reportcomm36unit







TAB L E OF C 0I T TJ'T T S


Pages

List of Charts ................................................ iii- iv

List of Tables in the Text...................................... v

List of Appendix Tables...................................... vi- vii

REPORT OF THE COM iISSI OT .................... .................. 1

SECTIOI I. Introduction ............................ 1

SECTION II. Comparison of Costs in Different Markets 4

A. Analysis of Run-of-Shop
Co st s .............................. 5

B. Cost of i.ianufacture of a
Specific Garment.................... 20

SECTIOT III. The Sru-oly of Labor in the Markets ...... 34

SECTION IV. U7age Statistics ......................... 40

A. Earnings of Employees.............. 40

B. Earnings in Relation to
Code Standards ...................... 54

SECTION' V. Union Organizvtion rind Labor Agree-
ment s .............................. 65

SECTIQIT VI. Volume of Sales Before and Since
Adoption of Code .................. 69

SECTI023 VII. Summary of Complaints and Demands,
with the Comnission's Findings...... 73


Ap-oendix Tables.............................................. 91


9821


-ii-






LIST OF CHARTS

Page

Fig. --la Run-of-snoo costs and avera*;e hourlyy earnings in
marl:ets outside of re'7 York: $6.75 and $6.75 houses... 7

Fig. R-lAa Ran-of-shor costs and average hrurly earnings in hTew
York: $6.75 house n .................................... 8

Fig. 2-ld R.un-of-snop costs and average hourly earnings in
markets outside of Nlew York: $10.75 houses............. 10

Fig. R-lAb Run-of-sholi- costs and average hourly earnings in
New York: $10.75 houses ...................... ........... 11

Fig. R-lc Run-of-shoo costs and average hourly earnings in mar-
kets outside of New York: $13.75 and $16.75 houses.... 13

Fig. R-lAc Run-of-shop costs and average hourly earnings in
Flew York narl:et: $16.75 houses....................... 14

Fig. 2-lb Run-of-shon costs and average hourly earnings in
markets outside of lNen York: $12.75 houses............ 16

Fig. R-le Run-of-sho-' costs and average hourly earnings in
riarl-ets outside of ITe-'7 York: $18.75 and $20.75 houses. 19

Fig. C-la Cost of production of a specific garment in different
markets in COL)Borison fwith shoo run costs and average
hourly earnings: rade '1l-Llinuz" and Grade "11l coats.. 25

Fig. G-lb Cost of production of a specific garment in different
uarkets in cornarison with shop run costs and average
hourly earniiigs: Grade "2" coats............... ....... 29

Fig. G-lc Cost of production of a specific garment in different
mark':ets in comioarison with shop run costs and average
hourly earnings: Grade 1131" coats...................... 30

Fig. G-ld Cost of production of a specific garment in different
markets in comparison vith shown run costs and average
hourly earnings: Grade 113"-4, "4" and 174-511 coats..... 31

Fig. A Avera.-e number of workers and their earnings by
market end by craft .. ..................................... .... 39

Fig. E-7 Average hourly earnings of cutters ii tailor and
section shops, by market ......................... .... 44

Fig. E-8 Average hourly earnings of mtl o-)er,.tors in tailor
and section shoos, by mar:-et. . ................. 45


-iii-


9821









Fig. E-9


Fig. E-10


Fig. E-lI


Fig. E-12


Fig. E-S


Fig. E-4


Fig. H-13a


Fig. H-13b


Fig. H-12-1


Fig. H-12--2



Fig. H-12-3


Fig. H-12-4


Average hourly earnings of female operators in
tailor and section shops, by market.,.....,.......

Average hourly earnings of male finishers
in tailor and section shons, by marlet............

Average hourly earnings of female finishers
in tailor and section shores, by market.............

Average hourly earnings of presscrs, in
tailor and section sho-ns, by market................

Average hnurl" earnings of male operators
in "inside" and outsidel" shops, by market ........

Average hourly earnings of female operators
in "inside" and "outside" shops, byr market.........

Average hourly earnings of finishers, by
sex and market . ............ ....................... . ...

Average hourly earninr3s of oocrators, by
sex and market.. . . .. . . . . . .

Average hourly earnIngs of cutters in relation
to code standards, by market......................

Average hourly earnings of operators in
relation to weighted code standards, by
market.......... .. .... ...... ..............

Average hourly earnings of finishers in relation
to weighted code standards, by market.............

Average hourly earnings of pressers in relation
to code standards, bymarket........................


9821


Page


-iv-




LIST OF TABLES DT TEXT


Page


Table G-2


Table H-14a


Table

Table


H-14b

B-1


Table H-lOa





Table B-X




Table B-S



Table B-2





Table K-1


Table K-2


Table C-1


Condensed summary of cost of production of
a specific garment and of run-of-shop costs, ......

Number of needle workers in various markets
compared with numbers of workers in the coat
and suit industry ............ . .. ........... ... .

Number of needle workers in various market areas..

Summary of average hourly earnings by market and
major craft........... .. .......... .

Percentages of manufacturing employees
whose earnings, for week ended March 9, 1934, were
(1) below the code minimum, (2) between the mini-
mum and the code "average" and (3) above the code
"average," by craft and market area...............

Percentage of manufa ctnring erpoloyecs -,hose
earnings for 7eek ended M1arch 9th, 1934, equalled
or exceeded the p-rescribed code standards, by
selected craft and market area ................

Comparison of code minimum and "average" hourly
rates, by craft and market area, with eastern
and western differentials .......... ... ........

Estimated proportions of coat and suit workers
in tailor and section shops, in week-work and
piece-work sho:os, in "inside" and "outside"
shops, in union and non-union shops and of each
sex, by market ..... ............... ..............

Dollar sales volume of coats and suits, spring
season, 1933 and 1934.............................

Schedule showing number of sales inquiries and
replies received .................................

Number of employees and their earnings in each
major craft in Baltimore tailor and section
shops ........ .................. .......... ...... ...


9821





LIST OF APPILDIX TABLES


Pagr,"e


Table R-1


Table R-1A


Table G-1



Table H-14c


Table H-12a



Table H-12



Table E-7



Table E-8



Table E-9



Table E-10



Table E-11



Table E-12


Table E-3


Run-of-sho- cost and average hourly earnings
in the various mrkrlets ........................... 92

Run-of-shop costs and average hourly earnings
in the YTe% York mark-et.......................... 93-97

Summary of cost of productionn of a specific
garment in different markets in coir)arison
with run-of-sho--) costs........................... . 98

'Tumbers of needle workers in various markets,
by age groups ....... ............................ 99-101

Sumnar'r comparison of number of emIloyees,
neighted code standards and acturl average
hourly earnings, by major craft and market....... 102

Comnarative table shor7ins ',ei, ghted cocLe
minimums aid averages and actual average
hourly earnings by nejor craft and nar!-et........ 103

NITumber and average hourly earnii.-s of cut-
ters in tailor and section shoos, by
market ......... ................................... 104

ITumber and average hourly earnings of male
operators in tailor and section shoi>s, by
market ............ ................. .. ..... .. 105

Number and average hourly earnings of female
operators, in tailor and section shops, by
market ............ ... .......... .. ............ 106

Number and average hourly earnings of miale
finishers in tailor and- section shmls, bt;
market......... ........ eg........... ....... .. .... 107

Number and average hourly earnings of female
finishers in tailor and section sho, s, by
market................................ .... ... 108

lumber and average hourly erriin,-s of -ressers
(male) in tailor and. section sho-os, b: market ...... 109

Number and average hourly earnings of male
operators, in "inside" and "outside" shops,
b:- market... .... ... ............ .6.0.9....... ......... 110


9821


-vi-








Table E-4



Table H-13


Table H-TC


lumber and average hourly earnings of female
operators, ii "inside" and "outside" shops,
by mv.rket .......................................

PTumber and average hourly earnings of cutters,
iale end female operators, male nd. female
finishers, and nrcssers, o, m.arket...............


ITumbers and percentages of manufacturing
employees in the several craft clessifica.tions,
'hose earnings for vreek' ended l'.nrch th,
1934, 7ere (1) below tihe code mininmir,
(2) bet'-een code minimum and code "average",
and (3) above the code "Iaverage", by market....


-vii-


Page


ll



112


..113-142


9821









SECTION I.

INTRODUCTION

The NRA Commission for the Coat.and Suit Industry was appointed pur-
suant to a resolution adopted on Ivlay 4, 1934, rt a hearing before Deputy
Administrators Earl D. .Howard and Morris Greenberg, in Zashington, D, C.,
in which representatives of the several coat and suit markets of the
country, together with representatives of the International Ladies' Garment
Workers Union, participated.

The resolution setting forth the scope of the Commission's investi-
gationks follows:

"The Administrator shall forthwith appoint a commission of three
persons, one of whom shall represent labor, to investigate all mar-
kets engaged in the manufacture and wholesale distribution of
wearing app..rel included in the Coat and Suit Code.

The commission shall studr the following situations and conditions
in the various localities and all markets:

I.. Labor conditions: Available labor supply, male and female;
relative skill of labor in the market; method of operation; exist-
ing labor agreements; cost of production.

II. Availability of markets; rrwv materials, finished product.

III. Competitive irregularities.

The Commission shall study all petitions and demands filed since
the adoption of the Coat and Suit Code by particular localities and.
markets relative to rages and labor classifications.

The Commission shall report its findings to the Administrator by not
later than July 1, 1934.

Upon receipt of the report, the Administrator shall hold hearings of
the interested parties to consider and determine on such changes in
rates and differentials between, markets as may be indicated by the
report of the commission and the hearings.

The decision reached by the Administrator as a result of said hear-
ings shall be effective as of the date aorov.ed by the Administrator."

The Commission was appointed May 17, 1934. After some preliminary
discussions with the Deputy Administrator and wi-th several of the leading
members of the industry, of the -roblems committed to it in the terms of
reference quoted above, and after making an examination of the available
payroll data on filQ at the offices of the Coat and Suit Code Authority,
the Commission mapped out three separate lines of investigation to be car-
ried on simultaneously with the hearings in the several markets. These
were:-

(1) A statistical analysis of earnings and costs based upon payroll




-2-
data regularly submitted to the Code Authority on uniform
payroll rnheets by manufacturers throughout the country.

(2) A study of the "run-of-shop costs" of competitive firms in
the several markets.

(3) A study of the cost of production of a specific comparable
garment in the several coat and suit markets.

In addition to there three lines of inquiry the Commission, in accord-
ance with its instructions, visited and held hearings in all of the impor-
tant coat and suit markets in the country. While these investigations were
being conducted the Commission had the opportunity to acquaint itself at
first hrond with the problems of the industry and to give full opportunity
to all members of the industry, employer and labor alike -- directly
or through their representrtivec, to present their claims, grievances and
recommendations. The Commission also has examined the numerous letters,
petitions and briefs submitted to the Administrator or to the Code Authority
by members of the industry rr their associations in various parts of the
country since the adoption of the Coat and Suit Code.

The Commission left U'ew York on I;ay 3M, 1934 and held its first hearing
in Cleveland, Ohio, on .1ay 31, 1934. Thereafter it visited the other markets
in the following order: Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Baltimore, Philadelpaia, Boston, Newark and
New York.

The Cleveland hearings covered all of the Ohio markets; those in Chicago
took in L.inneapolis and St. Paul, M!inn., Batavia, Illinois, and Crawrfords-
ville and LaPorte, Indiana; those in Philadelphia included Scranton; in
Boston, the Commission also heard representatives from other towns in Massa-
chusetts, while the hearings held in New York included testimony from Connec-
ticut.

In each of these markets, loading representatives of the manufacturers
and the workers presented their claims and made their suggestions for re-
vision of the Code and submitted statistical and other documentary material
in support thereof.

The Commission vas accompanied by Mr. Leo Rosenblum, C.P.A., who was
in charge of the "run-of-shop cost" study, and Mr. Frank A. Garvey, Indus-
trial Engineer, of Cleveland, Ohio, who carried on the cost study of the
specific comparable garments. The Commission also retained Mr. Vincent J.
Cohenour, statistician, who was responsible for an important part of the
analysis of payroll reports.

In some of the markets visited, the Commission was accompanied by
Mr. Alexander Printz, of Cleveland, Ohio, Chairman of the Western Council
and Mr. Milton Rosenfeld of St. Louis, Missouri, Member of the Western
Council and both members of the Coat and Suit Code Authority. The labor
member of the Comrisbion was accompanied by Mr. Charles H. Green Director
of the Codes Observance Bureau of the International Ladies' Garment
Workers Union.

Because it vw.s highly desirable that the Administrator should be in
a position to make his decision on disputed points before the fall season


9821




"3-


reached itr. height, the Commission wes obliged to carry on its uork at top
speed. The Commizsion reg;rete ti'ot it --, unable to spend more time in most
of the centers w;iich it vir.ited hu, iL i-. satisfied that the presentation
of the claims and suC.;esticns of each of 'he markets nas comprehensive.

The Coa.,iss cn tal'-es pletu-e in ex'-cssing itr liv?.ey appreciation
of the hosiritl- c:xt:ndjd to it Thrnuric ti.e :io .e course of its hear-
ings. It is _ndcbtod. in this way to so .nnr, i.-LiivLc iris thab it is impossi-
ble to mention t.aiem all by name. The 'imior:.uyi cot'r cous conop'etion ex-
tended to it and to its staff at every st:.s-e of it. -,.r.vetiations has immea-
surably facilitated its .7ork. The Comrission feel? ;hpt it is under an
especially hervy deet of obligation to Mr. Samuel Kl :in. Executive Director
of the Indcrsrial Council of Coat, Suit and Skirt Lir nLJh!cturors of New
York; Mr. Karry Uviller, Ex:ecutlve Director of ti.e A.nc-_rLcan Cloak and Suit
Manufacturers Asuoclation of Ve,. York, Mr. Mrx.xwoll (cp,.lo', outgoing, and
Mr. Joseph L, Dfl,"--, incoming, &:ecv.tive rirocror of L!e merchants' Ladiesl
Garment ManuCrct-.i.rurs1 Associaticn; Dr. Arthir L, 'i. Ri bin, of the University
of Chicago, l'-,-pat'- Director of the Co,'e uthiorit'- for the Cnicago market;
Mr. Alexander Pr'nts, of t'-he Printz-.Ei:dernan Colnn:any of Cleveland and Mr.
Milton Rosenfeld o-F the Ct.rdau s Ianufactarin? Comp.ary of St. Louis for the
long hours w'.ich th-ey generously devoted io .,'ssist-rg the Commission in
the formulation of its plans cu-:d the oros: cu-ion of its inquiries. Finally,
the Commission must exnrers its ense. of hot.vy obligation for their invalu-
able assistance to Jr'. F'. Na'.ha; i7olf. S:crsTrry of tue Coat .and Suit Code
Authority, "Tr. Rc--.i'n ':olmin&. of tie .Labor 3ireau of the Coat and Suit In-
dustry, NerT York, to other mcpb',_rs of the st?.ff of tnj J1sthority and to the
code enforcement officers and tne Cede Aathorit.-Is deputy director ifn
the out-of-tovwn ma.kets.



The Commission is keenly corscioas of the ,'0.ort-comings of the report,
made inevitable by the e'-:tr3mc oreswu-e. ur:7er '.v.Iich th\e ':ork has been done,
due to the limitation of time set for the completion of its vork. It has
undertaken, in a vr',ry fe. ve-lhs. to cover a ,ret deal of ground, both
geographicelly arl. ntati -ic-ll--.. T'ni rer.ul.ti.rng figures are therefore both
leger comprehensive Lfnd more fraj-mentar-ry ti&A it could v-ish. It has been
at great na.ins, ho-',cve-: to- verify, so far as it AIs been possible to do so,
all of the figure.? c.ubr.ittorl in thisF preliI. nar- report. The Comnission
does not flatter ttse!f t;ja.t the report ic free from errors of calculation
and estimation. it dares to Lope that h.cy are not numerous. In any event
it does not belive tha.L !uch error- is -L be found xill prive to be of such
magnitude r.s to invalidate t'ie finr.ir.s of fact .hnrein made.

ITOrE

A large part of the statistical matter cembod-rin,- th.a results of the
Commission's investigations ispresonted. in chart form in the text of this
report. For this reason, on'xr those -tatistical tables whose significant
figures have not bcn ga-uheJ au-pe.r ir th'e text, the others being presented
in the Apeniix. The cli'cts are n-u.)vrod and crptioncd to correspond with
the nu-mbers and captions of the tables from 'Thoce figures they were dravn.




,$


SECTI01: II.

COMPARISON OF COSTS IN DIFFERNT M1ARKETS

Basis of Cost Studies

Two independent examinations of the cost of production of coats and
suits in different markets, were conducted simultaneously by different
experts, under the direction of the Commission. One, covering "run-of-
shop"' costs, ras in charge of Mr. Leo Rosenblum, C. P. A., who travelled
with the Connission, attended its hearings, noted the special local
conditions governing the manufacture of garments in various districts as
brought out at the hearings by: local representatives of the industry and
then inaugurated the study from the books of the concerns, leaving a
local 0. P. A., who was in several instances the local Code Enforcement
officer, to complete the studies for that locality. These studies were
based on the Soring 1934 production.

The average direct labor cost uer garment was obtained by dividing
the total direct labor payroll for the manufacturing season by the total
garments produced. The manufacturing nart of the season commenced with
the first week of production after the completion of the samples and
continued until Easter week or until the completion of production of
s-oring garments. The indirect labor and shop overhead were obtained in a
similar manner.

A comparison of these "run-of-shop" costs by different shops in
different cities is based on a common range of selling prices of those
shops. It is based on the theory that from a market noint of view these
concerns are in direct competition with one another on a similar price
basis and disregards differences in construction of the garment on the
theory that oi the average or by and large they are competing with one
another and, in the eyes of the buyer, the garments they produce though
differing in detail of construction, are essentially similar. It is
fully realized by the Commission that the differences in cost may be due
to variations in construction; +he garments, nevertheless, are regarded
by the trade as comparable because they compete rith one another in onrice,

In the selection of comnoarable competing firms in different cities,
the Commission had the benefit of the advice of Mr. Samuel 'lein, Execu-
tive Director of the Industrial Council of the Coat, Suit & Skirt Mfrs.
Ass'n. (manufacturers); Mr. Harry TUviller, Executive Director of the
Anerican Cloak and Suit 'frs. Ass'n. (contractors); Mr. M'axwell Copelof,
before he relinquished his post of Executive Director cf the Merchants'
Ladies Garment Ass'n. (jobbers); Mr. Alexander Printz, of Cleveland,
Chairman of the Testern Council and Member of the Coat & Suit Code Author-
ity; Mr. Hilton Rosenfeld, President of the Cardais Cloak Company of
St. Louis, representing the Western Council on the Coat & Suit Code Author-
ity; Mr. i5ax Weinstock, of Shenker, Michell & Veinstock, President of the
Chicago Association of Coat and Suit manufacturerss and Chicago Deputy of
the western Council.

With the aid and advice of these gentlemen, a master list was made
up of comparable firms in the coat and suit manufacturing centers in the
United States. This list was modified wherever found necessary by


9821




-5-


additions and subtractions of InocP" fVrm u)un the advice of leading
members of the iid.istr-- ia epch ci- -r i*.I-h the Com1isJ) fn visited.

The other co'r.t b inve't-- "i wr' c i b an'- A. Garvey,
an Industrbal "j 4".Lec,- 0 .: ; --.3O. t.c" *.. : n':e:.j-rate settlements
in the City uf C"L ... ', .- C., T rn, '- '. S a r. v,1 i. thoroughly
familiar mij '! tne r 2 c- ..t: ;'i ,.'1 .' iL. (." ,.." : -'. J t fll'L.Li. V:tire, espe-
cially as it Leas cn the- labor co.zt ;.nd ',,ui od,. o i;s j ent.

As a bcis foi his srulics, there war s-;.ecte 'tr. Lie advice of
leading manuirncturers ir a nmii.,ber of cities az.n", t c rn The tv-,o members
reDr'e'-mntig the '?atern Co. oIil on the Cd. P^.j.t- i"t'-,,, q spring sport trpoe of
double-breEsted m:,nnish oclo cor.t nada in -Lie S.r'ii.g i:" slrsun.

Mr. Garey: too, acc-ncanied the Co:.iris-ion in ils trav-rels and
attended the hearings &r.i njted the refercn,:cs of oc'-'.l manufacturers to
their competitive disacOvantat:es as ag.-t..nsG othel mart,-ts.

At the close of thle hearing in each Miry, Mr. Carve.v visited the
representative sl.ons in that ci-.y or distrLct which 7ere choi.2n through
consultation with the re-rn .tives of tlie -naruiirctrviers rJ .tha Union
in ea-h mark:rt, with the ail of the .,.Eter i.jt cf co-'t.-ailDe fir-.is
mentioned above. The rhor so E-lclbo, it ian CC.ee, oresen'ed a fair
cross-secti-n i eRch irarl:et. `'.comua'iin :v one reprePerntative epch of
the manufacturers cnd -)f ttnc U:-io. c.-. t'.e icca.' -:ii.-i ,, .]J t tee, 11r.
Garvey virit--d t.I.e sho's se1tcJ. &-nd riclol f.om st.-.k ?. gnim'rnt identi-
cal or coTprrc-ble i.n st/le mJL'hi l-i :'le ccat. :n rL-'v 'Yo-k City,
Mr. Garvey was ac,.mDa,,.zca by a re3rr;EnLative fror, tl-e Labor Dureau which
is maintained join."y by the enaiG'err and the Union.

After the Comrittee a"cc.T-anvin- yr. Garvey had agreed that the
garment selected -ras iLiuitical or corm.rLTu l in stL:-le ;- e:am'ned it and
ascertained the actuo1. n..ct_ rrics -'fd fsr ourr'. ins, fin-sh~ng and
pressing by the ma.n-,.factri-r o" c.onto;;' -,r-.sited. This being completed,
a Physical e;:aminaLJon n' Ln o ra' .11 !i.cl e n thie mbtV..f1 of' manufacturing
and the pro-ed.ure t-. d t aria. at ,. -,e wL:'e r,.at 2s e-i ? nootel. The
figures for jndiie'ct '-:r of cc.--tir 'o&i t'.lo,'i .and .for shop overhead
were taken f--om tI.? ac,.'-ta.nLI's rar-of-sho-o cost studies.

SA. AkAJISIS S _S RTbI-F-SEP {3PCO'S

Table R.-l is a st.A-yV of 'r.'-n-rf-shop" costs in the v.rnous markets
outsidrle of"[ N:[ York for ti-he Srr', s.-?o." 1934 ani of a.mrape hourly earn-
ings for the oight,'-vweel- ericd endodc I.eprch L: 1954, b-y individual firms.
The "run-of-zhopl', cost study was made cLy loc&l rc-%=untailtS in all centers
other than in 1. L York, T[able R-IA is a st'icy of ,irect tailoring labor
costs and of svcr-: liou'-ly earri.ars for s e'.'-ctcd firnis in the New York
market for the ein-it-weeK perio'-. enaed March 31, 1934.

The labor cost figures for Ne7 York were tebulated by the Labor
aureaa from royrol'. she,'.- sub-utte .by the New York shores. The latter
incluitod two contrr.ct sh,ris in New Jersey and one in Connecticut and one
inside shop in Connecticut.




-6-


A: .-..rt 5f the Ccmrnission's inquiries, in centers outside Now
Yorlk, t'.e avera, o e alos ricee r'f ..r ,.6nts sold b/ the firms studied
was a1c2rtaire., 1-y reason of the inz.bility or unwillingness of a
number Cc the ley' Yor]: firm:. to imakec their records available at the
tine '.. t... vizit b1 the Comission's .accountants, the New York firms'
co.ts are -r -ied -ccordin{. to the :-,red-d-.inant price of the garments
cold b t,.:b firms. This o.rice wvas fir.-nished to the onunission by the
executives of the associations cf fewv York contractors., jobbers and
mc.miuuf-c t-.-crs -ind the officers of the Code Authorit,y. A check of shops
for whichc h "t'th sets Af figures are available shows that in most instances
the 1 rc'. : mi..ant sales -.rice by which each house is hovwn is fairly close
to the avcra, e zalczs price, althouf'h in a few cases a wide divergence
i: noted. It is possible t-'at trincre r.ay be some mis-classification in
Tnible R-1A I: rcaso. of the fact thn} t'he average sales price was not
ascertainnable 'T.\cre this inflation was obtained, however, it is.
indicated alongside the coded name of the jobber in Table R-1A.

,The labor co-sts, tabulated in tihe manner outlined ab:ve, show the
following:

S6.75 Houses

Payroll.figures for thiirty shops in lcrw York and the Hew York
district ":ere studied. Tour sho-c outside tne -eew Y_.r: market were
studied. The direct labor cocts ragcd from under $1.00 to as high
as $2.C, the distribution being as follows:

:'ev Yorl: Other Markets

U- cr $l.r,9 1 2
$1.01 to $1.25 6 1
1.26 to 1.50 .'7 1
1.51 to 1,75 6
1.76 to 2.00 7
2.01 to 2.25 1
3'L 4

With respect to the direct laonr costs in shops outside the New
York market, it will be observed that a section shop in Camden and a
section.i sh)p in Baltimore each show direct labor costs under $1.00CO; a
section chop in Kansas Coty shows a direct labor cost of $1.07; a
tailoring shop in Kansas shows a direct labor cost of S1.50.

In the iewv Yorc group, the lowest cost was found in a section shop
in Connecticut. One section sh2p was included among the six shops whose
direct liczor cost was between $1.CC and 31.25; one section shop was
included amoni the nine shops w.iosoc c.irect labor cost was between $1.26
and 41.50, It is to be ex-"ected that in a section shop, the ratio of
indirect labor to direct labor is greater than in a tailoring shop, since
some of the functions.included in direct labor are transferred to in-
direct labor in the process of cub-dividing the tailoring functions.
When the threc section shops outside "Jew York in the $6.75 group are
considered from the point of view of the total lab-r cost, i.e., both
direct and indirect, it is f,.und that tihe co-t in th&. Baltimore section


9821















6C





,II

o .-D d h----- I


91 -l lx-I .. .
'bo thr>o5 oSo>
13 __________!"_______> _____ ~ ~ _______
I+ :P '-- + + +





B.- X.
I.. . + +
i_ _II_ _ _ ,_ _+,.+..,, _ ,, ,0




&-, .... .....
T'w 1 --- --:::
1-4 ________________ *__ __
I ^i m? i I:' I I' IeIs||




112l . . .
|,ai,





0
1. -|... ..... ....




co S . ..... .....
m -
,i2 ---I*------------+- ___+ u ..


0I



0
I-. 1!

1i2 I


! s 3 1 |i | m
C..
C, t U Sc -
" ~~I W I

SI- u- S I-. .s








COSTS ANDim AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS IN TEE rETo YORK MARKET BASED UPON PAYROLLS FOR THE EIGHT WEEK PERIOD EIDED MARCH 1


U--r


nio R2A


TotalI Direct Labor-.> 2
^^1,82

Pressing 39



Finishing 42



Operating


AVENGE HOURLY EARNINGS


TAILORII


I I


--2.00


141 .39

26

8,28
85


- 1.50


161

35



95


Frm Code i Jobberl 4190 I 620 1940 6930 760 T M 201 5350 I
HouS. CIa.if,...o 66 75 HOUSES r. .s ... c .


NO




.Q0_


shop ic 86 ilus a o:.eficie-n, of 10,' of the direct 1Ibor char-e; the
total l...bor cost i thc Crrvi..cl rcctio"' sn.-o. is $1.11 and the cost in
the Kan-sas City s-ction ?llos is $1.'.',. Of the roup of thirty iecw
York shops, fifteen are founc. to have -liK.ier direct labor costs than
the conitbincd direct :ii.. in'.tirect lut r cost of the three section .chops
outside Tew YJrk.

From this cumniara-tive stud:, of thie -ew York figures and of a-
limited number of $6.75 firms in other mnar':ets, it appears that in
this price class the ITew Yorl:k labor costs are greater tnxn those out-
side Iew Yor,-i:.

$1C,?5 .{"iuses

Payroll fi,-Ln.'es for cix".-'_ix -'u"hp i:i the 21ev; York district were
studied. Thirtee', sho';, were .tuid,'.' in lir'-etzs outside of I1ev; York.
The distributicr. .-if dirc t l.-bor c-.ctc .'-..s z follows:

Ie1 Yorlc Other Marlcots

Under 11.0' 1
$1.01 t' $1.25 1
1.26 to 1.50 1 1
1.51 to 1.75 G
1.76 to r,.J 10 1
;.01 to ,. 16 6
2.26 to 2.50 9 3
'.51 to ...75 1, I
C.76 to S.Q'J 8
2.01 to 5.25 4
Over 5.,5 1.
Coy '13

A 11 of the $10.75 firi.c st' ia, o-th in e.n'DL outside ilew York,
were tailoring ch-)ps. re 1o'. .'cvt direct labor cost xas found in the
liev Ysrk nmarl:et. Outside -e.v. o.rk, the l-".: ct c-)st was found in o
Kansas City short, the cost bcinc 51.38; a San 'Fr-acisco shop was next
with a cost of $1.c5. Included i.L the -rcun vwho.s direct labor cost
was from $2.C1 to $.2.5 "'"as one firm in St. Louis, tv.,wo in Los An,-eles,
one in San Francisco, one in PortianJ. ancd one in Baltimore. Therc is
a deficiency asce-sis,ent vrich r..ountc to a.-, r;.-:imately thirty-five
cents per garment 1:,enc. in:- a,- inst tihe St. Louis firm; the addition of
this azssessmient vould ring t.i-. firm.i to th:- next higher cost group.

In the croup ".vin:, di't -'or c_-t f $2.2. t-o -2.30, there
were two fir-.ms in lirt.lard a..v ;.a in .--.ltitmr'.rc; -ner Portland firm -Lhad
a cost of 2.68. I-..c hi .nest c;sc '.'2t t.;.. :f st Fhi del-l' ia firm at
$3.26. Thus, for t-h- ,roup of Iiri,s oort :idr, .Je' Yor]-, the ranLCe of
direct labor cost-s vac ir,,m `1._.,3 t- .Z.L. It is D1 initcrest to note
th-.t the Kansas City fiir vrit.I. t 'ircct ..or c.-,ct of '71.38 sold its
merchandise a-,.t an -vcr{:.'e sc:,iec :.ricc of -Il*.CC,, rhile the Philadel"-hia
firm, wvhosze direct labor cost vies 3S.26, received an avcrac;- sales price
of $10.40.

In brief, of thie total of sixty-si: shop)s in the ITew York district,


9821







RUN-OF-SHOP COSTS IN VARIOUS MARKWTS FOR THE SPRING SEASON, 1934, AND AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS FOR THE EIGHT WHE PIUOD ZDE
MARCH 31, 1954, BY INDIVIDUAL FIRMS


S-lestion hop T-Tallor Shop iwk Workt P-Ple Work C.Prroemi a frs oaate r amsr loee a A tatra a
a Inlis Lodreot labor *sts am wl ae 1 drlie labor oolt.
1. This tiore a=st be *.uplcmBII by Wae deftelmIem pai td Cot 0 Anathorltpprodiaotely 10$ ot direst labor 0erk.
S. 4$ pa $rvubt.
5I 5 5 S S 5 6 S 3%
4 S 5 % 5
I. S S o o S S -
, WA massuement pendin( 6g
m ust a S 5 d to Cots Authority- l1y
i!i : I
12. 5 S S 12%g t
Ta 0 1 wg~lm 40 w 6
I3A
,t ,, :w

































TAILORING COSTS AND AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS IN THE NEW YORK MAARKET BASED UPON PAYROLLS FOR THE EIGHT WEEK PERIOD ENDED MARCH 51


.............. ....................... ................... .. . ........... . ..... .
.. ... ............ .. .... .......... . ....... ... :N 0 .. . : ...... ... ......
...... ....... ..... ... .. .. ..... ... .... ... .. ... ......... .?"m .
..... .... ..... . .. .......... ... .............. ................... ....... ........ ............................... ............. k .... : .
........... ....... ... .. .... ............ .... ............... .. .. .. .. .
.. ........ ... ... . .. . ........... .... .. .. ... ... .
..... .. .... .. .. .. .......




- IP


thirty-five or 53, Lcac' t..irect tsilorin; labor costs of S2.25 or less,
while cf the thirteen sh'..s in t ,c other rT,.rr1:ots, oit 't or C2" fell in
that cat>,eory.

It will uc n,.'ted ii, the c.iscussio., under tao different t --rice
crouns in., t.-.i: reo-.:,rt, t.. t in .ractic, ily every *,Arket there are
variaLtions in the cost of direct labor .er armient within the various
price ,roiup. T'ese variations rP.,y .e ,.ccoumncd for by ineoualitics
in shop efficieicL;- an,' -uoervisory teclniqae, variatio;,s in the size
of tac c-:o::', v.liu'e oi "-rdcrz received ani-. similar factor, as well as
the o)r^rinii -ilicy of the ovrmers of th.'e 'Lifferent shops and their
Sempl1oyees. T.ius, for c.:a.rj:le, i. the ,10.75 group, San 7r.anc isco
tr.ilorin:. i', sh.."' c'ircct t:'ilorii 1i: '-ur costs r-.nr,:ing from S1.85
to $2.19, ':.ich ic a vari-ition o i. r-".,- i' atel 0.; P-i-tla-c'. tailoring
shons show v rnn,. e front $.?..3 t.o 2.68, the difference Letwon Lhec two
bein.'; ),o-rxja.ri.telv ;C. 'C -- Itiniore tailoring shop3 shoew a rang;o from
$d.l';. tc 2.33S, th-. va.riati ..i oein:/ over 10%.

$1-3.75 '-Youes

Forty-fou-r .'ev, Yo,' h- o. .:, thirteen .s:11xo-, in :L3ufacturing
Scenters outCicvor: ',.rc stt.ie&. Th'e- -.f the latter were section
* shops. In Seattle, the nccou.tant ho rande thii examination for the
Comrnirsin c.idi -nt L.tecr.,-.t (e::cc-',t in tne cac-:e) to ce -. r.ite direct tailor-
ing labor cost from in.'-.irect t-.ilorin,_. lb-.b.-r cost in:asr..ucn as the pro-
prietors or executives of nujrnbcr -i The fir,"s c.xam.ined Cevcted a part
of their time to cech of h cc f ,c i-.i.s. Tche istributio-n of direct
Stailorin Ir cot (ecet So ttl, o:' '.ich i f)ur cases direct
ta l r n6 ul-.j.r r os7t (e .-c e t r-, 5,.: tIe, fo, --w..ic`
"and indirect lab:,r -rrc c. :mbi.:cd) is. ,2 f ,ll.j.ws:

ITw -I r_": Othe"er :.r'ets t :icr 'arl ets
Direct La or 0nlr Direct Labor
Ind In'.irect Labor

$1.51 to :1.75 1
l.%6 to 2.00 2
2.01 to 2. 5 7
2.26 to 2.50 9
2.51 to 2.75 4
2.76 to 3.r,0 9 3
3.01 to 5.25 6 1 1
3.26 to 3.50 2
Over 3.50 3 5
A rr
1-e t E7-. ,, nU oluiII

Referri-,.- to the ...rr"c ts vtside i-e' Y rl', in t.ie C.,tup in-lu i7in
direct tailorin l.).bo.r c)sts fr:.in- ?C.7 to 3.0 ,rc to j ound one
Kansas Ci: section sn a '."',rcestcr ( C:.. t t.-,il ori: v-.. .:,-n an,::,. o-ne
Seattle tailorin, shop. D ae cost fr,'iii .C.l to $.'.25 included tvo
shops; one, a Clevelanc. zetisiti --. L,,, tz e 'othc:r, a Seattle tailoring
shop which niad a c: r;nbiyicd direct an: ii..".ircct tx-il:..riin" cost of $L.c6.
The firms lxavinC direct tailori..T 1l.bo.r cost exceeding ; '3.50 verc as
follows: one firm in Cleveland, .:. in St. Louis, one in San Francisco,
ons in Phil-adelhia ,-a onc in 2,.cton (,ll ,ailor ring c-h.,rsc). In each
of two Seattle tailor szhorps cnd in .ne Seattle -ction shop, e







RUN-OF-SHOP COSTS IN VARIOUS MARKETS FOR TH SPRIN SEASON, 134. AND AVERAGE HOURLY iRI 3 THE EIGH UEEK PERIOD nED
MARCH 51, 1954, BY ZIDIVIDUAL FIl


46 1 :44


Cuting- ---

Taioring --- ---IL


445

m
56
I'll
i4i

343 tr


FIGURE Rio


-11.00


6.24

I


po
4.l'<



I I I 13

.I I T"
INS
v2


F a u u" C0d1 1M mIM I n l m I I I aS 1 4 2. IM I N 1 1I J I M m u i 0 1 IMN 1 0 1mM m1 M0 1I
cay um = us mI R"n m OWNmm mT m H mml am Um In L WT.ill =1111 1URACR IuIaIi i I.Ewmmmu MIA Mr11111Wl Mf
TnxrHoa TP TW T T TW TW TW P TW SP TW SP TWI TP TW TWI TP ISP TV IT WI TW
3376 ?O *lHOij$ 5 MHO UE ,..a. . v..j.
M- d l 0 m bu Cmp 4IW M, a enre .v i a* t. 4" u
m Imasludi buset a aMta U -s le4f. labor Seeti A I of t bf t k.. ---,.
1. ibs ilgur. artet ewl.-*.ei r- 4.t.1r.Iae eiA 40 CO .**-r*rW -*-W- '- 1 1'*
iaa
a6 mo a a a a a a a a a v a aW
to a a v
* a a a I 1 U 0
a. g a a5 *
** u a a a a a m q* [uai a
ga 04 a a a a 1l Ou a4 a W* *
id. 5
0` a V a S 6 a a a U
I a I a a a a a a a a W a
a a a a a aI
al at aaaa a


4
71


42


gal
W









TAILORING COSTS AND AVERAGE IIOURLY EARNINGS IN THE NE,7 YORK MARKET BASED UPON PAYROLLS FOR TIlE EIGHT WEEK PERIOD ENDED IMRCH

FIGURE Rl $


4.00




3.50


Totud Direct Labor
2.50


Pressing .60






Finishing 7 2

'1'1
II
LIB

Operating -,----P 1



AVERAGE HOURLY EARNIGS -,- "


ILU


140 1


--3.00


Fm Code iJobber | 1240 4480 3510 4010 30 9070 050 339-34w 2470
House Cms,fiw,Son $16.75 HOUSES r i. WI. c. ,. vl4_




-15-


combined direct a.;d i..direct labnr costs exceeded $33.50.

A-ain oearin. in mind that in a section shop it is to be expected
that the indirect lauor cost will be ,'reator tha:n in a tailoring shop
manufacturing a coi.roarable garment, it is found that when the direct
and indirect labor cost of the Cleveland section shop are combined,
an. waen t,.e same thinc, is rcone with the Kansas Coty section shop, the
resulting total labor cost of each of these shops reaches a sum in
excess of $3.50.

Summing p., it may be said of the $16.75 price group that the
direct labor cost of the firms outside jf the :Tew York district bear
a higher ratio to [Mow York labor costs ti'.i., in tae lower -'rice groups.
In none )f the firms studied outside Iew York, vere the direct labor
costs under iS6;.75. In the -Tew York district, ever half of t.-ie shops
studied showed dCirect labor costs under $2.75.

Within this "roup, it is observed. that the direct tailoring labor
cost in the Boston tailoring shops ranges from S2.83 to S3.65, the
variation being 30 ,; in the Seattle tailoring shops, the total of
direct and indirect labor costs ranges from 33.06 to $3.89, the differ-
ence between these figures beina over 25-.

In thie above discussion, comparison have been made between blew
York firms and those in other cities. .- reason oi the narrower
classifications of non-dew York firms made :.ssible Jy ,.scertaining
their average sales 'rices, the aoove cumnents can, be sup-.lemnented
with the following coinarison irnonfJ the ni:n-lMew York marl:ets only, of
firms selling -rments in the $8.75, t12.75, 313.75 and $20.75 classes.

$8.75 :Houses

Sixteen firms in this class, located in markets other than New
York-, were studied. The distribution o:f direct tailoring labor cost
was as follows:

$1.00 to $1.25 4
1.26 to 1.50 3
1.51 to 1.75 3
1.76 to 2.00 2
2.01 to 2.25 2
2.26 to 2.50 1
2.51 to 2.75 1
16

Five of the firm'.s operated section shncrs. The ."irect labor cost
in these section shops was lo:we' in Boltimore than in Kansas City.
The addition of indirect labor to the direct labor for the five sec-
tion shops showed the same relative mooition.

Eleven tailoring shops in this price group were studied. The
direct labor cost ranged from $1.36 to 5.2.48 (the latter figure being
exclusive of a wage deficiency if ap-:roximately 3" per garmsnt paid
to the Code Authority), B-,ltimore and Los Angeles showing th" lowest
cost and Boston the highest. The Vestcrn markets of Portland and San









RUN-OF-SHOP COSTS TH VARTUUS MARKETS FOR TEE SPRING SEASO11, 1934, AmD AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS FOR THE EIGHT WEEK PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 1954, BY INDIVIDUAL FIRIK


8.-etlaon Shop T-Tallor Shop W-Tf.k Work P?-Floes Work C-Pr@Odlog a rira oode numberT indleaesf a .oatmter
* I olud*. L direet lobar oai @I Wll IL diresot labor oOte.
1. Thl. rige ast b esupplemnted by wage dflaleoioo plead to Code Ato2ort"1 -pproxlmItely lo of dir tl labor eoit.
2. 4W 0 R C d per garot.
3. 2 0, 4 # f
4. 4 ft ft 4. Sift
S. .Z o
8, *i ... + p^ ft
7. low aietebment readLng be
8. WASt p id to <;dsod Authority- 1( t
S. *' 5 ft .g
10. ** "(
11, r .
11. 5
is. t 5f 2




lIP-17-
SFrancisco occupied a middle position. Briefly, tne Eastern markets
shined tho higher tailoring costs.

In addition t.. tlese variations in laeoor costs between mark-ets,
there was a further variation in each -iarket between shop and shop.
SThus, the Kansas Cit/ section s h',s showed a range of direct labor
Cost from $1.13 t- $1.33, or a variation of over 15%,; -the San Fran-
cisco tailorinE, shops showed a range from $1.51 to `2.01, or a variation
of 33-1/3%; the Baltimore tailoring shops from $1.46 to $2.21, or a
difference 'f over 50;; the Philad.elrhia. tailoring shops from $1.82
Sto $2.26 or a variation of approximately 25t.

$12.75 usess

S Fifteen firms in this class were studied. _The distribution of
direct tailoring labor cost was as follows:

$1,75 to' $2.00 2
2.01 to 2.25 1
2.26 to 2.50 2
2.,51 to 2.75 2
2.76 to 3.10 1
3.l-'tn 3.25 6
o.2fr ti 3.50 1
15

I Two of the a-cyve firnm- v:o.err section shops, one in Crawfoids3ille -
a contract shoen, in & Chic. -., suburb and one in 'Lavenna, a shop oper-
.ated bD- a Cloveland. manufacturer. The Cleveland dir-ct labor cost was
Over one and onc--half tiics t.ic Chiica.o cost.

Thirteen tailorin, firms werr studiedC. Th'n direct labor cost
Ranged from $1.77 in an I.-,i'iana contract shop of a Chicago jobber to
Sapr roximately twicr th.t sui-i in 13-Bston, Chicago and St. Louis had the
Slowest direct labor- costs c:ton a.-d Cleveland the highest. One
Chicago tailoring shop occupied an intcr-o-Mdiate position in the range
Sof direct labor cost its cost being $2.56 exclusive of an estimated
S50 per armcnt wage d,'ficicncy.

withinin this price ground, tihe ranCe of direct labor cost in the
,Chicao tailoring shops was from $1.77 to $2.84 (included in th2
Latter figunrc is the via;c d. ficicncy paid to the Cod, Authority) or a
Variation of b l';,. the, raazr ii the Los Angeles tailoring, shops was
from $2.31 to $3.09, or a ranjc of 3&-l//; in tnm Boston tailoring
shops, t.he range -'as from $2.-.15 to $t.45 Dr a range of ap-oroximately
10' .

It ay',-cars from tniLi study tha-t thi, middle west :acs both the locwcst
Sand the intermediate direct l'ib-r cnot. TiL Wret. Coast hia s an inter-
mediate and higher cos)t. In both t.,c. s.ccti.,n nL the tailoring shops,
tic Cleveland finns have high costs.

I4 $li.75 D'Uu2l-oT

Seven .ta-.l',,rine chupt located in thrrc citio- wer- 'jtutdicd. The




-18-


lowest dir-ct labor costs v-r.- fovi& in LoP Anri--lrs the highest in
Phil-i.-lphia. P zctjn Dccu-ir. -' ,n i.it,-r c-diat --stion.

In thi: Ls An-;. I-s tailorin-: ships, tn-- Qir.ect tailoring labor
cort rangcd ir2:m $2.87 to $8.23, or a variati-jn l over 105; in the
B32to:1 tailoring si'oips, th. rango7 was from $5,.26 to $Z.55 or a variation
of a r .xiriat .- ly 10%.

$18.75 Houses

S-ix tailoring s'oh-,a icat.:d in thr-rc cities vr- studied. The
fi ur, s in tii ,,;rou.i do n)t indicate a csrr-lation b:twvccn cost and
o,:r,,.p'ic Icatir.n. St. Louis is hig rst as viell .s in a low position.
B.-ost-Oni i- in tnc 1:-wcst, minicdl.: ai:dc 1"i,;h -s.sitions.

I.-i th. St. Louis t;'ilorin& -ihops, th- ranL- 'tis from $3.97 to
$3.C3, Dr a v-riati-:*n, )f Dv r 2513; in tlhe Boston tailoring shop, the
rang wavas from $3.41 tD $4.71, or a variation cf ap- 'oxinmatoly 40%?

$20.75 Houses

Ten tailoring: firo.i 1-;catd in five citice vwcrc studied. Los
An-lcc c-hv.id till lowest direct labor cost -.t $3.89. Excluding thc
high--.:rxccd C'iicco fiousc, St. Louis silo. d thr highest direct labor,
th. figure b:ing $5.73. T Chica,-. costs show ax wi-de r.ngc its
direct labor costs bcing in -n shop $4.30, in another $5.10 and in a
third $5.41.

Within tius *'ricc., group th, t'o Cleveland tailoring shops, having
substantially tiw. s3ir.1 "'ic lin.:, showed direct labor cost ranging from
,$4.14 to 34.63, 'r a va.ri.tion of 12a; th. Chicaco t-ilorinr: shops
h':w-d dir-ct labor cost ranging from $4.30 to $5.41, or --. difference
of a2-r1xi3ia.t;ly ?5 ; Phila,-" 'onia tailoring- shops showed a range from
$4.70 to %5.38, or -t variation of a. r-ximat ly 153.


9821




II... .. .


RUN-OF-SHOP COSTS IN VARIOUS MARKETS FOR THE SPRING SEASON, 1934, AND AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS FOR THE EIGHT WEEK PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 51, 1934, BY INDIVIDUAL FIRME


| FlIGURI RID


Total Cost.. ;

Factory Overhead 1

Indirect Labor

Cutting ,


Tailoring -0











AvoM WAY.1 WEANiBOS


580

9 27

,16 I
4'6


4 w
k .2


681
*6L

94 59



:,2 d
5 4 3
17 711F

Tr- 1a 10


'34


.57

'92.


699



SI

5.23
5,0
I


..6 I...A I...& 16 4 6 I.. ~... ..Q1 ~
Firm Code 7 0100 M1000 190160 400 C3170 I 21 4 206 0 0 30 430 7020010710 7 ON 5m
City ST.mLOIS ST. LOIS FUSCO BOSTON TN BOSTON WE1 WV. 030110 IMM= 0 CCABO ST. UXM US. MU lo F"L PNMU B
Tpe of Ho w TP TP T,'A T' A TU1 TA T P TP TP T I P TI TP TP TP TP
Ho.we CLt.f.7.o.5 $18 "T HOUSE 1 $20 715 HOUSE n. .-ac n _

8-Sotlon Shop T1Talw Shop -W.ooek Work P-plooo Work C-Preood1i a firm ood4 number Indlateet satr oot tor
Inoeluos Indireot labor costs as Well as direct labor .o e.
1. This fWo ab .isppl-ted by W*6* d.tiole.. pid to CCoU Auteaorlty-pproaiembte 10% of dir labor cot.
a. 4%e : V per gea.rrnt
3. 2 1,
0.." U y"a n t p n 5 w
." n -.(
S ft t 1paid to Cod luRhority- 10%
0. 3
I Z. f






Accountant's Explanatory Note

In studying "rLm-of-shop" costs in the markets visited. by the
Coxm'iission, particular attention was naid to direct and indire-ct
tailoring and cutting costs and to sho-o overhead. Direct tailoring
labor cost was defined as including operating or machine '-ork, finishing,
or ha-i-d work and Dressin-g. Direct cutting labor cost was defined as
including actual -age cost of cutting as 7,ell as "a :es for gradinU fo
patterns. Indirect labor, .which was classified as between tailorin,-
and cutting, included the following items: Foreman and/or instructors
and- assistants (including salary of person who gives out -ork);
c::aniners or insp-oectors and/or assistants; factory clerical pertaining2
to factory operation) if any; and any other employee who worked in the
tailoring de-oartments but wrho did not actually produce the garment.

Sup-olementing the classification -*ias the instruction that indirect
labor was not to include any cost of designing, selling, general ad-
ministrative, stock" or shipping.

Shop overhead -as to include (a) rent or where the bui*'-ding ,as
owned by the operator of the factory, a oorti n of the building o-)ersti-n
charges, (b) heat, light and oo-ier, (c) maintenance, repairs, machinist
sup-oplies, sweepers, etc. (d) any other ecoense -oroperly classified as
shop overhead by the manufacturer. Deoreciati-n wTas not to be included.

Shop overhead was allocated to tailoring- and cutting rooms on the
basis of the area occupied c'- each of them. Shop overhead cid not
include any part of the rent, heat light,and. power, etc. consumed by
selling and shipping departments. here executives', officers',
owners or -oartners' salaries were included in the cost figures in the
questionnaire, the accountants were to indicate the caution under ""ich
they -ere; included so that the reasonableness of such allocation might
be verified.

Finally, the accountants were instructed that the Commission us
interested in season fisures only'-and that if the season tapered off
or ended prior to April 30, 1934, direct and indirect labor and cutting
costs were to be obtained u- to the date ,vhen production was comoloted
but overhead costs were to be obtained until April 30, 1.934.
B. COS OF - - -- -


B. COST OF LANTUFACTTJUr OF A SPECIFIC GAPNdJT

,hie in the accountant's run ,of shop cost study, firms '-ere
cormpoared according to their price rar-es, the technical study of the
cost of the identical garment ,ias based. on rorkmanshio rather than mn
selling p-orice. The same s-oort olo coat so far as style is concerned,
was made in different -olants in different cities in -orice ra:i-es runLin"
all thle -s" from $4.75 to $16.75 and even hi~iher prices. The cost
comparison of the specific garment 'was,therefore, made bet-een sh.ops
putting substantially the same -work .-iship into this coat.

This workmanshi- was graded as to quality according to the
established New York grades set forth in the grade book issued by the
9821




-21-


Ne'-7 Yorkc Coat and Suit Labor Bureau, it being found uoon very close
exami-t it-on of the qucplity soecificntions and the tyne of garments -ro-
duced tLl-,t the garments studied naturr.lly fell into one of the NTer, York:
grades with the follo-,ing exceptions:

1. Four garments t"',o Te'" York, owe lew, Jersey and one Baltiiore -
are classified as Grade 1 Minus because of the exceotionall"
lo-, quality in these garments, such lom quality, however, being
similar amon.: these four.

2. Tv'o garments one PTe- York qnd one Chicago are classified is
bet-reen Grades 2 and 6 (Grade 2-3) because of additional hand
-'or'" in finishing, making itu finishing "ork according to Grade
3, thile the operatin- and pressing are according to specifica-
tions of Grade 2.

3. Nine .'arments four C) eveland, t"To St. Louis, one Chicago, one
Seattle and one Scranton are classifie$. bet-,een Grades 3 and
4 (Gride 3-4) because the" have the finishing specifications
of Grare 4 -,ith the e::-cention of -iachine-felled open bottoms -
cloth and linin.;. These nine ,-Priients have percaline founda-
tions in the fronts, sleeves, collar and panels, thereby re-
quiring additional operating. The Dressing is substantially
the same as Grade 3.

4I. Tro vprments, botn from PhiladeloLhis, are classified between
Gr-ces 4 and 5 (Gr-cCe 4-5) because they have all the finishing
specifications of Grn:e 4 -ith the addition of hand-felled fronts,
hit not sufficient other requirements for Grade 5.

To obtain t.ie 51 shio E used by Lr. Garveyr in his comparison of
cost of manufacture of the s-oecific garment, it -as necessary to visit
104 shoos, to obtain the !-: sho-s submitted for Ne"' York City, it "as
necessary to visit 3? shoos. The shops rejected either did not manu-
facture a com-arable gar:nient or "-'or1:ed on a -eek--'ork basis. Only t"ro
shons '7ere fovand in 'fe'7 Jersev 'hich nnufactured the specific gar',ent
and hose cost coul.d be accurately ascertained. T'7o m.arl-ets are not
represented, namely, San Francisco and Boston. These markets ,orlc on
a veel:--7or'- basis.

No studies of identical gartients -ere :made by the Commission above
the orice range of $16.75.















S9821




-22-


AIALYSIS OF PRODUCTION COSTS O? A SPeCIFiC GA.-iiU';T
__I_____ IIl VARIOUS 1.IAKCETS

Table G-1 presents a sunnary of tlke cost of production of a compar-
able garment in different markets together with the run of shop costs and
earnings of workers in those shops._/

Colu;.mn 1 entitled "Grade Classifications" gives the classification
of the C-ar:nient according to the l1ew York Grade Book:.

Column 2 designates the firm according to a code number and the city-
in which the firm is located.

Column 3 entitled "Trpe of Shop" shows whether the shop is .a section
shop (S) or a so-called tailoring shop (T), a week-work shop (W) or a
oiece-wor: shop (P). By a tailoring shop is meant a shop system under
which the garment, after living been cut into several parts, is assembled
in the cutting room into one bundle. It is then taken to the tailoring
department in which an individual worker is responsible for the completion
of the entire operation in his craft; that is to say, a machine operator
is res-oonsible for all the machine sewing whether he does it all by him-
self or with the assistance of one or more helpers. The finisher is re-
sponsible for all the finishing, whether it is all done by himself or
herself or with the aid of a helper.

Jy a section shop is meant a shop system under which, after a garment
has been cut into -several parts in the cutting room, the parts are assort-
ed into several bundles which are distributed araong, several workers. In-
stead of0 having one operator do Vll the machine operating, each part is
sermwn by an individual machine operator who is skilled in this operation
and is responsible solely for the operation he or she performs. The
finishing is likewise divided emong several hend sewers, each responsible
solely for the operation he or she performs, such as felling edges, tack-
ing linings, setting lining to coat, felling bottoms, sewing on buttons,
etc.

The meaning of Columns 4 to 12 will appear from their respective
headings.

Column 13 selling -orice gives the selling price of the comparable
garment of each firm. As will be seen, the grade classification and the
selling price do not always coincide; thus, the garments marked as Grade
1 are sold at $6.75 by the first five firms, $8.75 by the three following
firms and $10.75 by the three remaining firms. They are all, however,
comparable as to workmanship and therefore as to their labor cost and
total shop cost.

Column 14 gives the "run-of-shop" cost; that is, the average shop
cost for all the garments made in that shop during the Spring 1934 season.
This cost is divided into two parts: (a) Direct Labor, corresponding to
Column 8 for the individual garment, and (b) Total Shop Cost, correspond-
ing to Column 11 for the individual garment.

I/ See Table G-1 in appendix. For convenience of the reader, a condensed
table appears on p. 23-
9621





-23.


TABLE G-2
CONDENSED SUMMARY OF COST OF PRODUCTION OF A SPECIFIC
GARMENT AND OF RUN OF SHOP COSTS
(The complete table appears at the end of this section. The table. below
with the column numbers the same as In the complete table Is printed
here for convenience in following the text.)
P-Piece Work; W-Week-.Work; S-Section Shop; T-Tailoring Shop.
1 2 3 8 11 1i 14
Total
Grade Firm Type Total Total Run of
Clasi- and of Direct Shop Selling Shop
flcatlon Location Shop Labor Cost Price Cost
1 Minus 30 New York ..... T-W .81 1.06e 5.50 107
1 Minus 15066 New York ..... T-W .92 1.20* 6.75 2.8
1 Minus 38280 Camden ....... S-P .90 1.35 4.75 1.34
1 Minus 40011 Baltimore ...... S-P 1.09 1.23 5.50 1.00
1 8090 New York ..... T-P 1.84 .... 6.75 ....
1 Hammondton, N.J. S-P 1.28(4) .... 6.75 ..
1 38092 Philadelphia ... T-P 1.80 2.26 6.75 2.53
1 40131 Baltimore ...... T-P 1.54 1.76 6.75 1.81
1 40133 York, Pa. ....... S-P 1.20 1.46 6.75 1.48
1 40020 Baltimore ...... S-P 1.21(5) 1.44 8.75 1.34
1 40170 Baltimore ...... S-P 1.23 .... 8.75
1 70170 Kansas City ... S-P 1.43(6) 2.39 10.75 2.47
1 70110 Kansas City ... S-P 1.49(7) 2.31 8.75 2.09
1 70010 Kansas City ... S-P 1.54(8) 2.18 10.75 1.95
1 90040 Portland ....... S-P 1.91 2.45 10.75 2.34
2 2470 New York ..... T-P 2.25 .... 10.75 ....
2 8126 New York ..... T-P 2.43 .... 8.75
2 3381 New York ..... T-P 2.96 .... 8.75 4.28
2 2563 New York ..... T-P 2.85 .... 10.75 ....
2 3252 New. York ..... T-P 2.70 .... 10.75 ....
2 303 New York ..... T-P 2.60 .. 12.75
2 38261 Philadelphia ... T-P 2.59 2.90 6.75 3.01
2 40160 Baltimore ...... T-P 2 18 2.39 10.75 2.57
2 90220 Portland ....... T-P 243 2.94 10.75 3.55
2 90340 Portland ...... S-P 2.36 3.09 10.75 3.34
2-3 3580 New York ..... T-P 2.29 .... 10.75 ....
2-3 50031 Chicago ........ T-P 2.42 2.77 10.75 3.41
3 8200 New York ..... T-P 4.05 .... 10.75
3 3395 New York ..... T-P 3.44 .... 12.75 3.69
3 7430 New York ..... T-P 4.20 ... 16.75 ....
3 52010 Chicago ........ T-P 2.70 .... 10.75
3 50351 Chicago .. ..... T-P 2.60 2.99 13.75 3.15
3 42240 Cleveland ...... T-P 3.60 3.83 13.75 3.80
3 80410 Los Angeles ... T-P 2 82 3.01 10.75 2.66
3 80040 Los Angeles ... T-P 3.33 4.49 12.75 4.54
3 80170 Los Angeles T-P 3.15 ... 12.75
3 80770 Los Angeles T-P 2.81 3.05 12.75 2.97
3 38160 Philadelphia T-P 3.95 4.29 10.75 4.48
3 90470 Seattle ......... T-P 3.55 3.87 12.75 4.96
3-4 42080 Cleveland ...... T-P 4.68 5.13 16.75 5.24
3-4 42120 Cleveland ...... T-P 4 4Q 5.95 16.75 6.81
3-4 42210 Cleveland ...... S-P 3.81 4.42 16.75 4.21
3-4 42190 Cleveland ...... T-P 4.70 6.30 16.75 6.24
3-4 38180 Scranton, Pa.... S-P 3.85 .... 16.75
3-4 90100 Seattle ......... S-P 3.40 4.11 16.75 5.60
3-4 70060 St. Louis ...... T-P 4.14 5.13 16.75 5.35
3-4 70200 St. Louis ...... T-P 4.07 4.74 16.75 7.34
3-4 5850 Chicago ........ T-P 4.15 .... 14.75 ....
4 3380 New York ..... T-P 4.40 .... 16.75 ....
4-5 38050 Philadelphia ... T-P 5.44 6.21 16.75 6.99
4-5 38250 Philadelphia ... T-P 4.96 5.13 16.75 5.23


(*)-Price paid t'o contractor.
(4)-Estimated additional cost per garment to bring workers
code wage rates-23 cents.
(5)-Estimated additional cost per garment to bring workers
code wage rates-30 cents.
(6)-Estimated additional cost per garment to bring workers
code wage rates-4 cents.
(7)-Estimated additional cost per garment to bring workers
code wage rates-15 cents.
(8)-Estimated additional cost per garment to bring workers
code wage rates-25 cents.


up to rninimim
up to minimum
up to minimum
up to minimum
up to minimum


9821




-24-


Grade "1 Minus" Coats

This coat was sold by the four firms ap-nearing in the table at -mrices
ranging from $4.75 to $6.75 but all reporting the same grade of wor.m an-
ship. This group contains the only two shops working on a w7eek-work basis
that aopear in this table since they are the only shops visited in ITew
York Cit:' turning out a comparable garment in this grade. They were
selected because of complaints of unfair competition made against these
firms to the Commission on its visits to various centers.

Since these two New York sho-os are o-erated on a week-:7ork basis
their labor cost had to be estimated. It was possible to estimate the
total direct labor cost accurately by deducting from the price paid to
the contractor as shown on the book of the jobber (Column 12), 300 of
the total direct labor cost allowed in the lIew York: market for the con-
tractors overhead. This left 81 cents for direct labor to the first con-
tractor and 92 cents to the second contractor. The allocation of the
direct labor cost to operating, finishing, pressing and cutting was made
by allowing the same percentages of direct labor for each crr.ft as were
found to exist in the tro piece-wor' shops in the same grade.

As will be seen from Column 12, the twro Pew York shops show labor
costs lower than the two piece-work shops in Camden and Baltimore. In
one of the shops, the sum received from the jobber for labor and overhead
is considerably lower than that naid to other contractors by the same
jobber for the same garment, and is apparently barely adequate to pernlit
the payment of the Code minima. Another explanation for the low cost in
the two liew York contract shops is that both contract shops have s-oecializ-
ed for years in children' coats which are turned out at great speed and
low cost with apparently little regard for quality.

Owing to the time limit under which the Commission has been laboring,
there was no opportunity to find other shops in New York in the same grade
for study, of comparative costs.

As will be seen from Column 11, the total shop cost of the Baltimore
shop is about 10% lower than in the Camden shop. As both are section
shops operated on a piece-work basis, and no other reasons which would
account for the variation are in evidence, the difference is apparently
due to the fact that Baltimore is operating under the Western scale while
Camden is paying the Eastern rates.

It is interesting to compare the labor cost for the individual garment
with the run of shop cost (Column 14) in the same shops as obtained by the
accountant of the Commission from the books of these concerns for the
Spring 1934 season.

In the case of the first shop the $1.05 price oaid to the contractor
compares with the $1.07 run of shop cost. The total shop cost of $1.35
in the Camden shop compares with the $1.34 run of shop cost. The $1.?3
Baltimore shop cost compares with $1.00 run of shop cost. The difference
in this case is due to the fact that this concern was found violating the
Code by paying less than the minimum rates, for which restitution has
been made. This underpayment is reflected in the average run of shop cost
for the season, whereas the $1.23 is the present price paid on the Jndividual
garment after the firm had increased in the month of Hlay the wages paid to
its employees.
98P1






COST OF Po i"cm ON OF A SPzCIFIC aiRmmO IN DimEiT MARKETS IN COOARISON WITH RUNO OF SOP COnt8

SJOTSE TYPE POLO COAT-RLIAN SLI'VEI-rAm1'ISll BOTCHI ULSTE TYPE COLLAR PLAIN SIDE IPEAS-RAISED TOP
BLEIE SLAtJI-S.PA5RATE ALL AROUND CUF-HEGULJiJ .'TLT Pf M"8-TTIhE HAND LVAE BUTTUP P'OLES.ALL AIOUFD
BILT-COLAR PACIZOS-A HOLES-.TOP SLIVE iEA -0CM-POCIr.-AIM BELT EDOE STItCIED


A-EMME WRY rUMS


Run of Shop Cos
lToal Shop
ILToml Indrmci Labor \
IT Shop Orh-d \
Ieinc Lbor \


Total Cost

Shop O..rrhd
Total Direct Labor--,..
Cuting 0 i
Pressing 1
Finishing I
Operating


2

125


ii


FIGURE 01a





7;1


AVERAGE HOURLY EARNIMS

SPECIFIC GARMENT COST


RUN OF SHOP C05T


Fm Cod, 30 15ON 31210 40011 lBO 38012 401311 4013 402 400 171 ini Wi l 1111M
C,. NEW MK NEt YOU CAMDEN I UALIMOM NEW vOM NAlIu.i U. UL O1 K.PA Ion I NvLTI I. iLM g UIUI. 1 MIL EAtC. I AM
TGpe f Houim. TH' TW SP I SP rP 5P TI' TP SP SP SP P SP SP
Grde Ck.,,m GRADE I MINUS GRADE 1. c.

5-Suetlia Shop T-Tallor Shop P-Pile ark WI-.tk Work
1. ll haud pressig.
2. iluldsmadd itional hian wmrk worth *about 2W.
5. E&& *or On to us of tklttud fabric uS Laterllal to prwnot lmtlted fabrto ututehubl.
S4. Istai addUional eon* per gaunt to bring works op to Gts code vw ra!to- 23%.
a so. S b -O.
S I.
Ta '1I I S U It 11 aI Vt 11 11 ft -1
U U U .* U U U U U S U S -15%..




-26-


In the case of the second Hew York shop, the relation between the
individual cost and the run of shop cost is reversed, being $1.21 in
the former case and $2.89 in the latter. This was found upon investi-
gation to be due to the fact that the individual garment was sold by
the firm at a loss in small quantities as a leader, while most of the
other garments which wore made in the shop were made at much higher
cost, showing a total run of shop cost of $2.89 as actually ascertained
from the books of the company.

Grade 1 Coats

Eleven shoos in seven cities are covered in this class eight of
them working on the section system and three on the tailoring. The
direct labor cost varies from $1.20') in the York Contract shop, working
under the Western code scale for Baltimore, to $1.84 in the New York
tailoring shop and $1.91 in a Portland tailoring shou. The York sec-
tion shop shows a 14.8 lower unit cost than it had for a substantially
similar garment at the time of the Baltimore investigation in January,
1934. It has been found in violation of the code because of the earnings
of some of its workers being below the minimum. To what extent this
has been adjusted, the investigators of the Commission have been un-
able to ascertain. Its lower cost may in part be due to the increase
in efficiency of the workers since the shoo had been in operation ap-
proximately eight months at the time of the January investigation and
the additional five months which have elapsed since then may account
for the added efficiency of the workers as well as of the management.

The first Baltimore sho-o (#401020) is estimated to have an addition-
al cost of 30$ per garment to make up for deficiencies in earnings of
some of its workers which were found to fall below the minimum. This
would bring the cost up to a total of $1.51. The second Baltimore shop
(#40170) which shows a cost of $1.23 per garment is a highly sectiona-
lized and efficient shop. Its workers have developed a degree of speed
and skill which is unsurpassed in this type of work. The management is
very alert to take advantage of any manufacturing economies offered by
special machines and equipment. The third Baltimore shop, (#40131) a
contract shop, operating on the tailoring system, shows the highest cost
in that city, viz. $1.54.

The section shop at Hammondton, New Jersey, shows a direct labor
cdst of $1.28 to which should be added an estimated additional cost
of 230 per garment to cover deficiencies* in wages of workers earning
less than the minimum. It is interesting to note that while the firm
complained of its difficulties in securing competent labor for its
shop which had been set up less than six months before it was investi-
gated, and the necessity of training the help and difficulties in de-
veloping its shoo organization, it has been able to produce its first
garments at the comparatively low cost of $1.51 (including the estima-
ted additional cost to cover the deficiencles in earnings of inoxope-
rienced help.)

Turning to Kansas City, the-lower difect labor cost shown $1.43
- should be augmented by an estimated additional cost of 4$ to allow for
the deficiencies in earnings below the code minimum, (voluntarily added
(*) These deficiencies have since been paid to the workers.




-27-


to the workers' payrolls by the manufacturer) making a total cost of
$1.47. The $1.49 cost should be augmented for the same reasons by
15t*, making a totsl cost of $1.64 and the 1,54 should be augmented by
25t*, making a total cost of $1.79. The first mentioned shop is the
most efficiently managed shop in Kansas City. The costs in the other
two shops reflect their relative efficiency.

The next higher cost is that of a Philadelohia contract shop which
is operating on the tailoring system and shows a cost of $1.80. The
New York inside shop, operating on the tailoring system, shows the
higher cost of $1C4, while the highest cost of $1.91 is indicated for
the Portland shop, although operating on the section system. The latter
has the highest cost of any of the shops visited, apparently as a result
of problems peculiar to this shop and not due to general market condi-
tions.

By comparing columns 8 and 14, it -ill be seen that the run of shop
direct labor costs for the different sho-os in the Grade 1 class coincide
very closely with the direct labor cost for the individual garment. For
shop #40131 in Baltimore, the direct labor cost of the individual gar-
ment was $1.54 as compared with thn run-of-shop direct labor cost of
$1.59; for shop #40133 in York $1.20 as compared with the run-of-shop
cost of $1.22; for shop #70170 in Kansas City $1.47 as compared with
run-of-shop cost of $1.51; for shop #90,040 in Portland $1.91 as com-
pared with the run-of-shop cost of $!.0O.
As the two costs one for an individual garment and the other an
average cost of a group of similar garments were arrived at by differ-
ent persons working independently and by different methods, this close
agreement on costs is a strong indication of the accuracy of both sets
of cost figures.

Grade 2 Coats

Ten shops are assembled in this grade, of which nine are tailoring
shops and one, in Portland, a section shop. The lowest cost is again
found in a Baltimore shop which, although operating on the tailoring
system, has the advantage of the lower Vestern wage scale as against New
York and Philadelphia. The lowest cost New York shop is a close second
to Baltimore, although it, too, is operated on the tailoring system and
on the higher New York wage scale.

The six New York shops in this grade show a range in direct labor
cost from $2.25 to $2.96 per garment, (i.e. a variation of apnroximately
33-1/3%) which may be largely due to differences in efficiency and in
bargaining power as between workers and employers under the piece-work
system. The Philadelphia shop shows a cost of $2.59 which is in close
agreement with and within the range of the New York costs. The two shops
in Portland, one a section shop and the other a tailoring shop, show a
close agreement in cost, which is $2.36 for the section shop and $2.45
for the tailoring shop.

Again the run-of-shop direct labor cost given in Column 14 is in
close agreement with the direct labor cost for the individual garment.
For the three New York shops whose run-of-shop costs are presontpd, it
will be observed that each of the latter is within 10% of the direct

(*) These deficiencies have since been -paid to the workers.
9821
'S._ ________- - ------------






labor cost of tho individual garment. The same is true of the Baltimore
shop. For shop #38261 in Philadelphia, the two figures are within 5o
of each other.

Grade 2-3 Coats

Grade 2-3 is represented by one New YorIc shop and one Chicago shop,
showing costs in close agreement with the Grade 2 costs analyzed above.

Grade 3 Coats

Twelve shops are assembled in this grade, all of them tailoring
shops. Of these, three are located in New York City, two in Chicago,
one in Cleveland, four in Los Angeles, one in Philadelphia and one in
Seattle. The selling price of most of these garments ranges from $10.75
to $12.75 with the exception of one Chicago and one Cleveland shop
selling at $13.75 and one New York shop selling at the price of $16.75.

The lowest costs in this grade are found in Chicago, being $2.60
for one shop and $2.70 for the other. The next higher level of costs
is that for two shops in Los Angeles with costs of $2.81 and $2.82
respectively. The other two Los Angeles shois show costs of $3.15 and
$3.33 respectively. This range of $.52 between the lowest and highest
direct labor costs in the four Los Angeles shops represents a natural
variation which can be accounted for by differences in piece rates, for
the different operations, attributable to the relative bargaining po-
wer of the respective parties, as well as to the different conditions
prevailing in the foir sho-os. The variation between the Los Angeles
shown having the lowest direct labor cost and the one having the highest,
is thus seen to be 18+.

The ne-t higher cost is .:3.55 in a Seattle shop, which is natural
because of the smaller quantities which are cut in Seattle, resulting
in higher cutting costs. The cost in Cleveland is only $.05 higher,
being $3.60, while the three lew York shops show costs varying from
$3.44 to $4.20 which are the highest costs in this grade of garment.
The range within the New York market is 22".

The run-of-shop direct labor costs shown in Column 14 again indi-
cate close agreement with the individual garment direct labor costs
given in Column 8. For shop #42240 in Cleveland, there is a variation
of only 3t between the two; for shop #80770 in Los Angeles, the varia-
tion is only 80. There is a variation of 5' between theso figures for
shop #38160 in Philadelphia and of approximately 6% for shop #50351 in
Chicago.

Grade 3-4 Coats

This grade is represented by nine shops, six operating on the tai-
loring system and three on the sectional system. Of these, four are
in Cleveland, two in St. Louis and one each in Scranton, Seattle and
Chicago. The lowest cost for this grade happens to be in a Seattle
shop which was especially insistent on lower wage arrangements. It
must be added, however, that this firm has been charged with code vio-
lations and it is difficult to determine what its cost would be if it


9821


-23-







COST OF PRODUCTION OF A 8PM IIC GAlMENT IN DIFUE Vr MLARUES IN COMPARISON lITH RUN OF HOp COSTS

SIlOkTS TYPE POLO COAT-RAGCLN BLXEIIS-UAiJMIBU NOTCH UT., TMPE COLLAR PLAIN IZE SItUA-tRAIJ TOP
SLEM1 SAn-IEPAIuTI ALL 3ROUIND CIIFF-RMGULAR F Pi-K'ETS-Tf AM LADE BUMraI FOLES-ALL AROUND
BNT.COLLR FACIIIGS-AURN HOLM-TOP IY sAIIM.UPFIF-POCIETI-AZD I.nT EIE SIT7TC7 D


FIGURi Olb


AVERAGE HOURLY EARNIiMS

SPECIFIC ARMENT COST :


RUN OF SHOP COST 1


U I-


Run of Shop Cost .
r[TTl'Sh, p
Tomi =sa Labor
bShop Overhead
Dinra Libor



Totl Direct LAbor\. 25 2 4

Curing ---^ /" A'
4 L
2.

Pressing I- ,. I
.145
Finishing ----- 10


Operating.

6* NOUIB UM .....
..NI i. :m
Al~gIIIE


*0
-Ii

.4


65




II


Tond Cost

Toal Indirc Labor
11 Shop Orhd 10
9M 2 f~
I/ 1 ^^^ I 1


*01



'DI


*<


I:


211
.5 I
'5
''5

11
Is



'ml'
S.
a"'-


1211
12361


D
21






0.,
55

Ial


LT 177


- 250


- 200


- 150


100


.50


-k., i i-i *-* *


F Cod 24,J 1n2 311 2513 32I2 3102 31211 4011D 22 0 0 1 OU -M3
C.Iry NEW YOK NEW Y E NEW YiK NEW YORK NEW O- M-E- I RUL ILM1 PORTUAN PMTUT -EW YIN -
TypedHousfe I TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP SP TP TP
Crude CihIJcaoon GRADE 2 GRADE 2-3
I-Section Shop T-Tallor Shop P-Plase aork -Wooek I-ork
1. All hand preaslng.
lo2. lude atditlsonl hand work worth s bou". :'.
*o eot ft to uas of ksitted rfabrl land intrllning to pre-at knitted fbric stretching.
4.Eaiaed madtil *ot per garnet to bring workTin up to ululome code W g rates- 23/.
7 ,, = Lggf^
*5 . .... .. . .. .-,
8. a...........*.. .. .. V.
7 a . 15
a a.. .... ..... .... -ell


2





COST OF PRODUCTION OF A BpZCIFZc GAINT IN DIFTElET MUR 8ET N COIPARTISO WMTH RUN 0o SHOP COSTS

[IORTS TYPE POW COATlI-A-MM NOTCH SS7M ITEM 77B COLL0AW BLDS1 SZB IAU-WA= TOP
SEEVE BAW-EPARAE ALL MM CUPP-MiA WELT POM.8.TM HAND MA UM BICN 1I0fLS-=L AKEM
mELT-COLLAR FACIHIB-.AJU MOLOO.lOP IJZUT =t1SB-MCeareMTSl1 BuLT =rDE BTIfCM


FIGURE Glo


AVERAGE HOURLY EARNING


SPECIFIC MRMAEMT COST


Run of Shop Cos i
qTol Shop
STol Indirmc Labor
I1 Shop Oorhead
Direm Labo.r

Toial Direci Labor-.. 05

Cuning 4
3 69
144



Pressing 60


Finishing




Operating


MAVIK HOUMY OMMUS -


RUN OF WOP COST


Toial Costi
Toal Indrec, Labor Q
r SI)oo O..nhltd ---e


I II


I.I
4


i'iF










..


.7,
.-'


F- Cod" 1.0 l 3l 5 7430 I01B 1M 1 4..240 m. I I --T
C.Ry KW M MEW yO NEW YM MAaO CHICAMO LVBU S UML LOS MNL L OSML LI iAN i E mi
Tydpe H ou -P T P TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP
Grde Ckus,.canon GRADE 3 a-C 14-L 1

$-htl ShoBap T-Tallrt Shop P-Piem Work W-Week Work
1. All hbud preessi.
2. liuotelude addtoal bshd work worth about 2,61.
A. 1Mh oat @ m 1 of knitteod feta.i aMd Loaemlamn to preet p itteld Mfabrie btntom.
46 l1t1ee4od &M4Um-1 st pt On ramet to bring gmwrk e p to nlal code Wq. rotao- Sq.
S. .. .. .. .... .-w.
S. 0 C ^
T. L o . ...
a. ". v.


0o0





008o OF PRODUCTION OF A pilramo OUAM Ii DIMR T MARKETS IN COIPARIBOW WIM tIm or HP consf


Run of Shop Cost
H-Tob Shop
Teid bIdve Labor
Ir Shop Omhood
Dirmc Labor

Total CoB -t \
Tomtl Ind recm Lab:.
T Shop 0, orue d a
Total Direct Labor.,J 4.,


42030
CLEVELAND
TP


arTII TYPI POLO COAU7P11 I ILUTMrN-XMIU l NCa IIUTE TMT P COLLJA PLCO U 31 8D 3 1Nm aAWID TOP
8LEV 8IA-3EPARATI ALL AROUND CIJ0.017UILA WE POCMKETE-Tm HD I ADI lUTOII FT0 3 .dL MOMD
ElY-COLLAN FACIrI0S-ALMl HOLM-TOP LEM DIJI-UFr=-POCI13.ID L1 E TITCM


FIGURE old $

900
AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINMLS

SPECIFIC GARMENT COS7 I::^f;30

RUN OF SHOP C05T I

681l qt 1 700
Lie7
5.95 155
,,', -6.00
$60
15i 71 si 51
500
.^ a ^ a ^ 5 "
":~TT 101 414 r i i I
OI i' 60, :' i o, :'* |
Tc TT ;' "" w :"o *'! r 1" n
440 61 4 17 d 0 .:



- ]1 !1 j ^ ^
i,* 400

-46 ; 7

IH 300
.. . : : 2
86 15 I h, S

60 8S
'. '1 '.' :t ''' &1 ', '* II1, S O
it .r
IM
2% I 2; i ::, m oo00
i i "" ",, -' : 'S

'e 100



-l ,, .... -. _.""-- .L"
4210 42210 421M 3110 70100 20 m 2 "P I
CLIVELAIN) CLEVELAD CLVELAND SCRANTON P AT1U 111 LoM 11 LOUS C1UM NEUI n PA MPE
TS IP TP SP SP TP rp TI rP TP TP


S-S.otto Shop T-Tailor Shop P-P1.oo Work Wo-wk Work
1. All head .r.selag.
J. lnoludeo mddittonal ht nd aorlc -erth or ;'V.
I. z4h Ost due to uIO. of kni.t. fabrim aod IntTrlnisag to pro..nt k.nltoed rfbrio str totah .
I. BItli.tm d oddltloal 1 coit por grmoat to brtin workerss up to minjim aod. aw ratls- :30.
S*. .. .. ....... SO6.
8. . .. ... ....- 4%. .
7....................* -. ........................... .- .




-32-


paid the full rates called for in the minimum scale of the code. The
next higher cost $3.81 is shown by a Cleveland shop, operating on
the sectional system and probably one of the most efficient in the
country. This shop shows the lowest cost in the United States for this
grade of product, outside of Seattle, in spite of the fact that its
finishing cost of $1.05 is the highest 6f all the hops in that grade
because of additional hand work which is worth about $.25. The other
Cleveland shoos, operating on the tailoring system and under union con-
trol, show costs varying from $4.40 to $4.70. The non-union sectional
shop in Scranton, Pa., shows a cost of $3.85 which is very close to the
lowest sectional non-union shop in Cleveland. This shop would show
a considerably lower cost if its cutting cost of $1.13, which is the
highest of any of the shops in this group, did not provide for a knit-
ted fabric, (which is more difficult to handle on a cutting table,
and for an interlining (used to keep the knitted fabric from stretching,)
which is cut separately. The two shops in St. Louis, both operating
on the tailoring system, show a higher cost of $4.07 and $4.14 which
compares well with the tailoring shop in Chicago, showing a cost of
$4.15.

The individual direct labor costs in this grade check closely with
the run of shop direct labor costs in Column 14. In shops #42080,
42210 and 42190 in Cleveland, the variations are only llt, 21 and 6#
respectively. In Cleveland shop #42120 the difference between the
run-of-shop direct labor cost of $5.26 and the individual garment di-
rect labor cost of $4.40 is accounted for by the fact that the average
selling price of the garments made in that shop is $19.70 as against
$16.75 for the individual garment. The wide divergence between the
run-of-shop cost of $6.43 and the individual garment cost of $4.07 for
the second St. Louis shop is in part explained by the higher average
selling price of the garments manufactured in that shop, viz., $21.91
as against the $16.75 price of the individual garment.

Grade 4 Coats

Only one shoo located in New York City appears under that grade
and its total direct labor cost of $4.40 falls within the range of
costs of the shops in the 3-4 grade.

Grade 4-5 Coats

This grade is represented by two Philadelphia shops whose total
direct labor cost for the individual garment is $4.96 and $5.44 res-
pectively, The $4.96 cost compares very closely with the $5.06 run-
of-shop cost, while there is a greater divergence between the $5.44
individual cost and the $6.22 run of shoo costs, although this diver-
gence is not very great when the average selling price of $23.30 for
the garments made in that shop is compared with the selling price of
$16.75 for the individual garment.

CONCLUSION

Summing up the cost study of the individual garment, it may be
said that Baltimore leads in low cost for garments of the first and
second grade represented by the price ranges of $6.75 to $10.75; that




-32"-.


Kansas City is a close second in 4'le -,ano price range;that in Grade 3,
represented chiefly 'iy the oi'ce fi :',- f $1'.75 to $12.75, all the
shops being operated on ttic i-... :g s.3ten, Chicago is in the lead,
followed closely '; Lo- P&n'.c n-;'i LhE.t r?a..rdless of price range, the
section shops %hich l-.g-e goi. ".-.ia ;cmein t t-cI Zo siov, lower costs than
tailoring sho's irrosooctive of tho city hni 4 nzar in which they are lo-
cated.

The Commission is not unnindfu"' of the fact th?.t a comparatively
limited number of sho.s, -Darticalarl.y for the m'n crcpolitan district of
New York, has been pr-sented in this cost study. This is due to the
time limitations imposed upon the Commission.

However, in view of the close agreement of thd results of the two
independent cost studies conducted by the Conmission, it believes that
:.:amplification of the field of study would only have added to the volume
of the data without affecting the net results.




NOTE ON I.J J'Ic'EY COSTS

A study of New York's production costs is incom-olote without in-
.eluding costs for New Jersey contract shops working for New York job-
bers. An effort was made to ascertain these costs but it proved impos-
sible chiefly because at the time of the investiFation most of the shops
-were closed because of la-ck of work, while the sncps visited had not
-worked on the coat rerresenred by the specific sample, or worked by the
week.

A statement with regard to lack of enforcement of the wage provi-
sions of the code in the State of New Jersey and its effect on costs
will be found on Page SD of Section 7.























i
I- 9B21





-.4-


SECTIr- III.

rT3 SUPPLY'. OF L'300 T. T77 1P.-r'.TS

It -",s reonrer!-Rntpe; to the Commiission by the manufacturers from
nratcticallv all of the -"Tetrrn markets, rn3 from the satellite towns
in the Eastern nrer:, thot the su-nnly of labor, especially of skilled
labor, was inadeourte. It tas reDentedly assertedd by employers that they
were un ble, -carticul. r1.-, .nt tie nelak of tae season, to secure an POe-
our te sunnl:- of exnerience'1 lcoor.. In rcnly to this contention it "as
urged by relrerentativer of the Union that insofar as shons so located
were sectionplize;i, labor possessed of the kind of skill involved in the
ability to nmke a complete garment, no longer vms requisite, and that
what was renuirel was a tyne of labor more or les skilled in the sense
that it is Pble to work- with seed unon relatively simnlie end soecirlized
operations in the mnkin- of a garment. The sunnoly of such lqbor, the
Union men contender1, vin everywhere 'bundant -- even suver-abundant.
The representatives of the Union contended, furthermore, that there were
at hand for the staffing! of tailoring shons adeouate sunnlies of labor
skilled in the making of complete garments. This, they insisted, wps
n-orticularly true of the old, long-established coat and suit centers in
New York, Boston, Philaielnhin, Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland and St.
Louis, and even in the transplanted tailoring market in Los Angeles.
Any shortages of craft-skilled l.,bor that employers may have found in
the newer markets in Kansas City, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle,
were due, the Union men contended, to the fact thzt the skilled crafts-
men hpd gone into other industries because the employers in the coat
and suit industry in these centers "rould not npy them the wages of full-
fledged craftsmen.
'I"-
It is important to note that the Kind of labor required in the coat
and suit industry turns very largely unon the system of production followed
in the work-shon. The development of the sectionalized shown, largely
irrespective of its loct tion, results in making available to the emoloy-
er a tyne of l;,-bor h'ich would be auite inrdenuate for an establishment
which oner-tes on the tailoring basis. The lpttr-r tyDe of shown requires
lPbor eaui-nnoed with the ability to make a complete garment. It requires,
in other words, craft skill of the traditional sort. To the extent,
therefore, that the firms in any market are sectionalized, with the re-
sult that et-ch worker mrkes only a very s.npll vtrt of the garment, it
becomes much less im-oerative, if not entirely unnecessary, to secure
highly skilled craftsmen for the work. Whnt is needed, is a tyoe of labor,
whether it be called skilled or semi-skilled, which has the ability to
nerfcorm P -opnrticular operation according to instruction, hnd with the re-
ouisite need.

In the light of these considerations, it would seem not unfair to
consider that the -oresence in any market of considerable numbers of
workers in other needle trades would provide rn Pnoronoriate sun-oly of
lnbor, at least for the sectionalized sho-. In Table T{ 14a, we -oresent
statistics which should facilitate the for;.nula.tion of conclusions on this
subject. The figures indicate, for each market are,, the total number of
needle workers reported by the Federal Ponul-tion Census, together with
the number of workers in the Coat nnd Suit Inr'ustry, as reported for March,
1934, in the enforcement officers' reports to the Cost and Suit Code


9821




-U5-

Authority. The fiunr,. in t1'e fir"t col'-min, r nreseniting the number
of needle worklers in th-e '-everal] areass include workerss in the follow-
ing industries:
Cc''.z. **'n pui4's
CC-t '. nn3
0iv .' c. "- :s

Shirt.. cnll"rs n'-r cu'fs
I Ccrc-e w^
:Ce I :' t S
.2 oN es
aicrilors
Dr>.-.'- ers tnJ
It.ier clothinR..

In the third colui.:n, a-e 'I.ven the ratios of needle workers to coat
and suit worker,. Thn.:.e ratio.3, inoicr.tin the nanber of needle workers
in the different localities to one worker in the Coat anO Suit industry,

TALE H lVa

Numbers of ITeedle Workp.s in Vr-ious '14: rket Area4s Comnpred with
Numbers of Workers in the Co"t -nd Suit Industry.


To. of N".eedle
"ori-kerls to
Tot"l Torkers One Worker in
"'ee-' -e Coat (z Suit Co:. t & Suit
'"or]rr.(*) ITuustr,(***) Industry


New York City 194,969 42,604(**) .5
N. Y. State (Excl.
N. Y. C'ty) 53,35, ) .
IConnecticut 1. 162L) 9 4p 54.-
n - = ,
N. J. (Excl. Camden) 4_,159)
B3oston 11, 02 550 20.4
..Philadelnhin & Cr.mden. 1,254(**) 29.8
Baltimore 19,672 1, 0'-4 19.2
Cleveland 11,618 2,141i 5.4
Chicago 40,446 1,186 34.1
Kansas City 4,294 505 2.5
St. Louis 11,181 -74 23.6
.Los Angeles 14,945 1,272 11.
SSan Francisco 6,976 580 l?.0
.Portland 2,462 411 6.0
SSeattle 2,937 175 16.8
3 53,420

S(*) From Table -'14b Keedle workers include the following industries:
Coat and Suit, Shirts, Collars & Cuffs, Overall, Corsets,
Fetit -ats, Gloves, Other Clothing, Tailors, Dressmakers.
((**) Partly Estimated.
S(***)Workers in March 1974.




-36-


3 s-rvp a rni;' 'e -s.re o t:ie -v-iil-jl 1-0or Lunli s :n thp dif-
ferent 'i-n':fzts. It 'ill bn obperv=d th-t the r-tios r-inge from ,abo.t
54 needle workers to one coat and suit w-orker in uu-State W'e" York,
Cinnecticut and Ne," Jersey, dorn to a minimum ratio of about 5 to 1 in
Ne, York City and in Cleveland, Ohio. It will be seen, therefore, that
in all of the market" except Cleveland, the ratios of workers in other
needle industries to workers in the Cort and Suit industry, are higher
than in Nerr York. In evry market except Cleveland, Portland and Kansas
City, they are very mucn higher. It should be noted, however, that the
highest ratio of all is that for the territory surrounding New York City.

The market totals of Table H-14a are broken down some-what in Table
H-14b, the whole of which has been assembled from the Federal Census of
Population for 1930, references to which are attached to the table.

The figures reporting the number and percent of the needle workers
in the several markets who were unemployed on Anril 1st, 1930, are sug-
gestive. Aoril 1st is in the busy season of the Coat and Suit industry.
The number of unemployed needle workers on Anril 1, 1934, probably was
not less than it was in 193D. At any rate, it seems highly probably
th't in April last there we:e in many of the coat and suit markets large
numbers of persons, with experience in the needle trade, among then.
presumably many male tailors, female dressmakers and male ana female
clothing operatives.

It is significant, in -view of the tyoe of labor em-loyed in section-!
work shoos, that more than half of the clothing operatives are women.
The figures for "Tailors", of course, orobpbl-r represent np.le workers
al'Dst entirely. Some idea of the available sunylies of labor in class-
ified age groups is given for each market area in Table 7-14c (*), the
second part of which shows the ver cent distribution of eqch market sun-
noy.

A word may be said of the relation-of labor SUnnly to sectionaI i7a-
tion of the market. It has been sup.gested that to the extent that any
market is considerably sectionalized, it hps the less ground for com-
plaint of inadequate labor sunoly, so long as there are resident in that
market consider-ble numbers of men, and esneciallv, -.omen workers attached
to other needle trades, P.eference to Table H-14a shows that Kpnsas
Cit-", sectionalized 931, has at hand eight needle workers to ev-nry coat
and suit worker in the market, a ratio slightly in excess of that for
New York City, which is only 7' sectionaliped; that St. Louis, 644 sec-
tionalized, has at hand twenty-four needle workers to each coat and' suit
worker; thot.Cleveland, 48 sectionalized, has at hand five needle trade
'"orkrs to each coat and suit worker, and that Baltimore, 7591 sectional-
ized, has at hand nineteen needle workers to each coat and suit worker.
In the markets which are primarily on the tailoring basis, the ratios
of needle workers to coat and suit workers are as follows: Bost 20 to 1,
Philadeluhia 30 to 1, Chicago, 34 to 1, San Francisco and Los Angeles,
12 to 1 and Seattle, 17 to 1.


(*) See apnendix.


9821







-37-


N amber of

City or State
1
New York City...................
New York (exc. N. Y. C ......
Connecticut ........................
New Jersey (exc. Camden) ......
Boston .............................
Springfield ..... ..................
W orcester ........................
Philadelphia and Camden .........
Scranton .........................
Baltknimore ........................
Cleveland .........................
Cincinnati ........................
Toledo ........... ... ...............
Chicago ..........................
Minneapolis and St. Paul.........
Kansas City. Mo ...................
St. Louis ..........................
Los Angeles ......................
San Francisco ....................
Portland ..........................
Seattle ............................


Table H 14b
Needle Workers In Various Market Areas, April 1. 19WUO.
Dressmakers Total
Clothing Operatives tNot in Needle
Male Female Total Tailors Factory) Workers


2
64.
9.82
65,893
7, 272
1,526
.ii'
8.821
3,059
1.467
.988
163
6,721
585
265
1.645
1.269
582
132
156


Total above cities ............
*Based an U. S. Census of Population,


3 4 5
76.W3 141.202 41,824
28,275 38.067 11.460
9.320 15,221 2,377
23.723 30,995 8,188
4.295 5,731 3.944
750t 250t
1.6i 1.237 350t
13.596 22.417 11.402
700oot 20St
9.033 12,092 5.651
5,730 7,197 3,205
2,388 3.376 2,579
850 1.013 600t
14,128 20,849 14,739
3,215 3.800 1,437
2,468 2.733 705t
6,241 7,886 1.718
6.598 7,867 3.311
2,211 2,793 2,375
873 1.005 6591t
1,327 1,483 715
328.854 117,689
1930, Vol. II Unemployment Table


6 7
11.843 194.869
8,380 58.356
1.564t 19,162
4.969 44.152
1,527 11,202
160t 1.160t
240t 1,827
3.546 37,365
130t 1,090t
1.929t 19,672
1.216 11,618
700te ,655
320t 1.933
4,868 4,446
1.722 6,91
856 4,294
1.577 11,181
3.767 14,945
1,806 1,976
798t 2,462
739t 2,937
52,658 499,201
5. IEstmknated.


Unemployed
Operatives
Number %
8 9
18.642 13
3.963 10
1,774 12
3,424 11
653 11
75t
167 18
2.941 13
Tot
546 5
820 11
261 8
91 9
2.00 10
283 7
153 6
802 11
560 7
155 5
130 13
00 4
37.709 11




-38-


It may very -'ell b-, true that the manufacturers, especially those
running section work-shops, tend to overstree the necessity for craft
skill in- the local 1-bor suuol;J on -hich they defend. For the 17ection
shop certainly it is not vital to staff the shop with tailors.-1 It
would seem that the most that the proprietor of suci a shoT) could, in
reason, ask is for an adequate surnly of competent workers with ex-
perience in one of the related needle trades. Indeed, I'r, 7tlis, of
Sthe Independent Cloak Comnany, Inc. of New Britain, Conn., sneaking
at the Nei- York hearings before this Commission, stated that his com-
Spanv was prepared to take "female held rith no ex-oerience, usually fro-
the metal industries, the hrrdrare industries . and "through con-
stant teaching pnd effort" to teach these workers one single onerption
and develop adequate productivity in a few months. /









_/ Even the predominantlv tailoring marl'ets, Troston, Philadelnhin,
Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland and Senttle, cnnont fairl'r be said
to be wholly de-Dendent union unskilled or srmickillerl lnbor. In -d-
'dition to large numbers of dressmakers rnd clothing workers sho-rn by
the Census statistics to be resident in thore cities, there are, or
at any rate, -ere in 1930, thousands of tailors resident in them.

,2/ Trvnscript of hearings in lie'- York, June 27, 1934 at -o. 9,


9821





f Fl OURE A


...... .;. ,% 1B.K .F URk.IRS A.U TI.L.R : ..i.IMIU.
FOR TIll PrIOD .0OMMENCIC FEEIIII Ant 1. lull %U rL EU MARCH II. 11&
Bi 3IARKET %.%D 1' LR.AFT


NIJB&E OF WVMEPR


BY CRAFT


Propred frem yrolll tl.ed with the COAT AND SUTT COD AUTPMORIT


mY MARKET OR AREA


BY MARKET OR ARE.A


tWAl > l *fft tM uW fI Tm IUM. lI"ZSSl^iS'Sp^1i^1

so ..t o 10.9,0 .... tk m studw %Oo -w. '64-44 1 .,* s* .ftl bh. rf V0. a-. '-k m~t


TOTAL EARNN55


1V CRAFTT




-40-


;SECTION IV.

WAGESTATISTICS

A. EARNINGS OF EMPLOYEES



The wide margins of difference between the levels of earnings of
the workers in the coat and suit industry in the various market areas,
Sas well as between major crafts are revealed in the figures of Table B-l,
d; which shows the average hourly earnings in each market of cutters,
operators, finishers, and pressers, of the four crafts combined and for
all employees on payrolls (i.e., including floor nelp and other non-
manufacturing workers.) All of the figures which are broken down by
craft are based upon payroll returns covering all market areas, for the
week ended March 9, 1934. (*) The figures in the last three columns are
Based upon a payroll analysis of the out-of-town markets for the same
week. Examination of the totals shows that the hourly earnings of
workers in the Western area are considerably lower than the earnings of
those either in the Eastern area or New York City. Except for Chicago
and Los Angeles, the earnings of workers in the Western area appear to
Sbe on a level, roughly 25% lower than the earnings of their fellow-
workers in the Eastern area, and some 40C lower than the earnings of
SNew York City workers. Earnings in Boston and Philadelphia which,
apart from the New York market area (@*) make up the Eastern area, are
Son a level intermediate between Western area earnings and those of New
SYork City.

As noted, among the cities in the Western area, Chicago and Los
Angeles appear to provide their workers with earnings more nearly
approaching those received in Boston and Philadelphia. No data are at
hand to show the earnings of the several crafts in the suburban areas
adjacent to Boston and Chicago. However, general averages are given for
these areas for all classes of employees combined, and sub-divided only
as to sex. They indicate in striking fashion the enormous differences
in earnings that exist between metropolitan centers and the outlying
districts surrounding them. Thus the average hourly earnings of coat
and suit employees in the Chicago suburbs were 730 an hour, while in
Chicago proper they were $1.05 an hour. The corresponding figures for
Boston are: Boston suburbs 84t an hour; Boston proper 31.03 per hour.
Further illustration of the relatively low earnings in suburban as com-
pared with urban areas is found in the earnings figures derived from a


(*) Except that the figures for the New York market area in the second
and third lines are for the eight-week period from Feb. 5 to
March 31, 1934.

(**) New York City, up-State New York, New Jersey and Connecticut,
except that the few shops in southern New Jersey, including one
i large shop in Camden, are not included.


9821







_41-
TABLE B- e,

COMPARATIVE TABLE SHOWING AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS

by MARKETS and MAJOR CRAFTS I/

(Except where otherwise noted, figures are based on payroll week ended Mar. 9, 1934)

Total of
Cut- Opera- Finish- Pres- Total!/ All workers on ayroll
Market terms tors ers sers (4_craft ) M & M & F M F

.- . --- ---- --- -- - . ---0_ 1.---*--- -.L.Cy -y -


New Zork City I/

45ew York City
state N.Y., N.J.
Sand Conn.

Boa ton

Boston Suburbs

Philadelphia

Baltimore

Cleveland

Chio ago

Chicago Suburbs

St. Louis

Kansas City

Los Angeles

San Francisco


Portland

Seattle


10.OU

1.48

1.38

1.27


1.50

1.14

1.21

1.27



1.00

1.00

1.20

1.16


1.16

1.16


1 0 07

1.01

.90

1.25



1.18

.91

1.01

1.03



.80

.80

1.09

.85


aeUo

.79

.64

.81


I a 0-

1630

1.04

1.31


1 .O10

1.10


I .- I i -i
1.34 1.11

1.13 .90

1.13 .92


1.


,28
-


1.01


1.01

1.01

1.10

1.03


.60 1.03

.60 1.03


1.03 1.03

.84

1.05 1.06

.85 .85

.75 .86

.98 1.05

.73

.74 .84

.74 .66

.94 .94

.83 .89


1.14

1.06

1.23

1.07

1.11

1.18

.97

1.13

.86

1.13

1.11


.83 .79 1.07

.83 .75 1.37


I/ From Table i.-12a, except where noted.

/ From payroll analysis of all market areas ei,;ht weeks 2/5 3/31/34.

3/ From payroll analysis of out-of-town markets wee. enred 3/9/34

4/ Data basel on 70 section-work shops of which 36 are in New York Cityfor
period 2/5 3/31/34.

SBased upon analysis of .mmFle of 598 shops.


9821


I .J 2




-42-


special examination of 78 section-work shops in New York City and its
outlying area. The dnta orrpenr in the second and third lines of the
table. Here the earnings in thie suburban areas run from 10 to 25` lower
than in the central urban area.

In the last two columns there is a break-down by sex of the earn-
ings figures for all of the markets except New York. There appears here,
for each of the markets shown, a wide difference between the earnings
of male and female employees. The margin of difference seems to be
wider in the Western markets and reaches a maximum in t:e Seattle market,
where the earnings of women employees are less thnn one-third of those
received by male workers.

As is to be expected as a result of the regional differentials set
up by the Code, it appears that, for each of the four major crafts, earn-
ings are highest of all in liew York City, those in the Eastern area some-
what lower, while earnings in the West, with an occasional exception, are
markedly lower even than those in the Eastern area outside of New York.

These inter-relations among the -arkets are brought out grarhically.
and on a somewhat different basis in Figure A vhieh shows, by market or
area, the absolute and relative distribution of tne number of workers and
their aggregate earnings among the several market areas, and, within
each area, by major craft. It shows, apart from the very obvious general
Predominance of the New York market, that 14evw York's wage bill in the
A industry is not distributed in close proportion to the distribution of
workers, but that Hew York workers get proportionately more, and workers
ii in the Western, and other parts of the Eastern, markets get proportion-
i ately less of the total wage payments made by the industry. Thus, New
SYork workers, constituting 8216 of the work-force of the industry, get
S87% of the wpges, while Western area workers, (a) making up 135 of the
,industry, get 9 of the earnings; Baltimore workers constituting 2% of
! the personnel of the industry get only 1.3-3 of tne industry;,'s wage bill
Sand Eastern area workers, (**) making up 30 of the industry's personnel,
get only 2.3Z of the industry's wnge bill.

The reasons for the wide regional differences which have been dis-
cussed are traceable to a number of causes, the more important of which
are: (1) the unorganized character of the labor supply in outlying areas;
(2) the relatively lower skill (in the sense of craft skill in making a
whole garment but not necessarily in terms of productive ability) of the
available workers in those areas; (3) the more general tendency in such
areas to resort to the sectionalized method of operation, between two and
three times as large a proportion of the Western as of the Eastern shops
being sectionalized; (4) the much higher proportions of female employees
in the suburban and Western areas; and finally, (5) the existence of
: Code differentials.


(*) Excluding workers in tne Baltimore market.
(**) Excluding workers in the New York market.


9821




-*!5-


"OTE ONT SUIFLL; 7-TA3Y Ii'TER- Z AI.ET STATISTICS OF EARII:'GS.


There is set out in Figures E?-7 to E-12, inclusive, a series if
graphic comparisons of the average hourly earnings of cutters, -ale
operators, female operators, male finishers, female finishers :rnd
pressers, in tailor and section shops, respectively. They are brsed
upon the data of appendix tables E-7 to E-12, inclusive. A simrrilar
comparison of the earnings of male operators '-ind female operators in
"inside" and "outside" shops, resriectively, is snown in Fig.Ures E-3 .,nd
E-4, drawn from the figures of arni.,encdix tables E-3 and E-4. Finally,
an inter-market comparison of tL.e earnings of ;perPtors andi finishers,
by sex, is given in Figures H-13a and H-13b v'hich are drawn from the
data of appendix table H-13. It should be noted that, as explained in
the footnotes to the tables, the. craft classifications here are in-
clusive and embrace the auxiliary cutting, finishing, operating and
pressing groups as well as the full-fledged craftsmen.





FIGURE E-7

COMPARIS01O OF AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF IVALE CUTTERS IN TAILOR AND SECTION SHOPS BY MARKETS


SNumber of workers estimated on the basis of 38 actually studied.





Fig=E 1-8
CwPhANOM OF AVERAGE FOORLT EARNIMS OF MALE OPERATORS IN TAILOR AND SECTION SHOPS BY UABRKETS

(Fm -Bzx BI.rmim UB 5* A m d IE u. 1U")


A-


.40


LEGEND
S I SECOND
I///j.l SECTOH


'S


Q


I-s


0* 4W- %w tlr U-d e s s a *0- sfsCfll tW .


SL,
mmemu r or




FIGURE E-9

CCMPARISON OF AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF FEMALE OPERATORS IN TAILOR AND SECTION SHOPS BY MARKETS


(colt -" nrririjcTCme s, AJim !n7UG .:MARCii 9, 1934)


LEGEND
1 I TAILOR
r" SEC TION


1.00
.90
.80
.70
.60


.40

.30
.20
.10

NUMBER OF
M4PLOYLIS


S*~

.' z/ U) y' -
00 ZV' t S l
00!: ^
mgil00


.84


K
~


ft4~~
~ ~%fr)


C % -, ak
04 -s


9.-

41


'. ",-
Q~I ~ -


* Number of workers *eotinatned on the baoxa of 31, actually studied.


..... . .......
.. ............




FIGS W10

COITARISON OF AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF MALE FI3ISERS IN TAILOR AND SECTION SHOPS BY MARKETS


(FOR .EEn B ,NIZIHNG UtAClI 5, 5M UIMIG ABCB 9, 19S4)


LEGEND
J TAILOR
SSECTION


.t4


* umber of worker eatlimted on the auls. t of 3. otually tudled.






FIGURE 3-11

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE BOURLY EARNINGS OF FEMALE FIIMSERS IN TZILOR AND SECTION SHOPS BY. MARKETS


S(r(FOR IEEK BEniMnUlING MARCH B. AND ENDING UARCH 9, 1934)






LEGEND
I I TAILOR
5 SECTION
4V r


1440


tM- Js ,
9A



.4D5.9 V











IPLOEES k- "

number of worker estimated on the ballet of 38e actually stiudled.






FIGURE E-12

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE HOURLY IEARNIIGS OF PRESSERS (IA1.E) TV TAILOR AND SECTICI SHOPS BY ;.ARKIETS


(FOR .'EKEX BErCiplIG )AHCH 5. A11D ENDING ARCH 9, 1934)


LEGENP
E ...I TAILOR
/ SECTION


Lw

1W


/.


'N

















AI.,,qaaa w
(,qa.w~,z


:: 3 It.


* Number of worker eatlmated on the batls of 38.; actually atudied.


= .~. *-
- I" ~ ~ -~





FIGURE E-8
AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF MALE OPERATORS IN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SHOPS BY MARKETS

(FOR WEEK BEGININGO MARCH 5. AND ENDIo MARCH 3, 1954)




LEGEND






'JoW
.11l
I J InIIt








^ ^,
r yZ -0 44 -:W za -
"t I f nn




40'r

AP oP Ob 00, 0

l os i 1 1


', ,,Lo,'eES ^ _________
HNuber of woritr f eettnked on the basl of 38^ ao ,ully studied.




..............:..... ..........


FIGURE B-4

AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF FEMALE OPERATORS IN INSIDE AID OUTSIDE SHOPS BY MARKETS


* Number of workers etlimated on the basis of 38% actually studied.





FIG0 313&Sa


AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF FINISHERS BY SEX AND MARKETS


(FOR "'EEK Drrri3uIG MARCH 5. AND EDI1NGC MARC 9, 1934)


LEGEND
MALE
SfEMALE


7-




"4
1%.
5~
U.


'I

I-
b

zi


It.


10
Sl
t
z


I'
'S
I'


0)
%J
u,/


* Number ofr worker eoatirated on the hasie of 380, mutually studied.









bE
t
t

Ij


, or
I)


5 m
, a!
I'

, l
I 1 '
Z
U' *m
6m ai


YA 5 I s %p &I


m


dLdLAL.


/AO a

100.*






FIGURE H-l1b


AVEFRGN HOURLY EARNINGS OF OPERATORS BY SEX AND MARKETS



(FfO 'IEEK BEr,.INliG MARCH 5, AID ENDIHIG MARCi 9, 193i)






LEGEND
L-I MALE
FE rcMAL.




160-
/,/so

13/ a


124


/00-

al
J0- B /5

70
.60-
II I

it
S 0 14 3 t

Ifo- 1 ( L ,





AIM ; elgl^ US -a$$ MSs S


NMuber or worker estimated on the basis of 38/ actually studied.


........ ........................................... ::::. ::::::: : :: ::..' : :
... .. .... ............... ........ ...
... .. ... .... .
......... ...
.................... ................... .. .... .. ... ...




-54-


WAGE STATISTICS (Continued)

B. EAR'II'GS L. R2LATICN TO CODE STAI.DARDS

S The relation between the average hourly earnings actunlv received
*by workers in the various markets and the Code minima and averages is
shown in the accompanying gramrhs. (*) The earnings data set out in
them are derived from an analysis of payroll reports for all of the mar-
ket areas for tne eight-weeks' period from February 5 to 'arch 31, 1934.

In order to work out a tolerably simple and understandable tabular
statement of the relations subsistij.g between the code minima and aver-
ages in the several markets on the one hand Pnd earnings actually re-
ceived on the other, it hns been necessary not only to report earnings
in the summary form of single market averages for each major craft; it
has also been necessary to construct for each craft a single market
series of code minima and a similar series of code averages. Each such
code minimum (or code average) is a weighted average of the minima for
male and female workers, respectively, prescribed by the code for the
particular market and the particular craft, the weights used being the
number of male and female workers, respectively, of that cr:ft in that
market. The figures include only the skilled craftsmen in each of the
four categories, the occupations included and the approximate number of
workers covered in each being as follows:

Cutters male 2,983
Operators 18,643
Operators female 4,704
Finishers male 4,827
Finishers female 8,489
Pressers under male 1,986
Pressers upper 1,729
Pressers machine 1,105
Pressers non-classifiable 2,592
Total 47,058

It is obvious that tnese figures comprehend the great bulk of the
S54,000 workers who make up the direct labor personnel of the coat and
suit industry. The steps in the derivation of the weighted minima and
Averages, including the weights used for each craft are indicated in
Table H1-12 which sets out in more elaborate form the data of Table H-12a.
SExamination of the latter table and of the carts bnsed thereon, reveals
Sthe fact that average hourly earnings in practically every cpse exceed
Sthe prescribed code minima, and in many instances they approach the
code averages; in no case do they drop appreciably below the minima.
Average hourly earnings of cutters are in excess of the code minima ex-
Scept for several Western markets were they show small deficiencies.
1 However, a check of the payrolls indicates that these deficiencies are
more nominal than real, being largely attributable to failure to distin-
guish on the payroll reports between full-fledged cutters and those less

S(*) Based upon the data of qp.fendix Tables H-12a and H-12.


9821







FIGURE H-12-1

AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF CUTTERS (MALE) IN RELATION TO CODE STANDARDS BT MARKETS



, (FOR THE FTGHT WEEK PERIOD EIDIHMNG l'WMC 31,1934)












160 /60
,51 LEGEND

1.40 .. CODE M/VIMUMA
/2/ 7 0

120 120... I_/.6 - //6 //6--


.00 /00 /00




.60 -"

.LX 4I I I


.40
.20 r s i
y ^ LaJ Q ^


.20 -.. c ^ ^ ^ I


N
Nv


-


N ~
1W.


N 0- 0Z


* Number or workers estimated on the basis of 381. actually studied.


Num8Er2 oF
fPio 0 Y VE a


.....................
Wimai- ....... ... .......
...... .. .. .... ....... .... .. .... ... .. ...... . ... ... ........... ...............
... ... .. .... ....... ....... ....







AVERAGEE HOURLY E/J!IGS OF OPERATORS IN RELATIONS TO "7EIGHTFD CODE STANDARDS BY lA&RKETS





(FOR THE EIGHT WEEK PERIOD EIDI'; I' ARCH 31.1934)


160 -


1.40


120


1/00


.80


.60


.40


.20


Empl
NUMfaE OF
&PL OYEE.J


,37


K
'.3









U
N
0~
"'4


/Zs


ue


%n % so


* Nuber of workers eatimated on the basis of 38UK qitually studied.


LEGEND
-- WEIGHTED COM AVERA4f
., MNIMMUM


I


........ .... .....
............... .. ...
.... ..... .
FIGURE B-12-2


O %n




.i... ... .. ...........

FIGURE H-12-S

AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF FI1:ISHERS IN RELATION TO W.EIGHTED CODE STANDARDS BY MARKETS


|(FOR TIH EIGHT WEEK PERIOD ENDING MARC 31.19M34) |


LEGEND
--- WEHTED CO"l AV&.
a MIWM


1.25


/.00


.75


.50


.25


NunaER or
EMPL VIeS


t'






'e
cU


.6/







I-


-AL-


4'

-.4

-.4


A~ ~~F~Ll *4 -


'I


* Number of workers estimated orn the baEsia of 3W. actually studied.





FIGURE H-12-4


AVE'UGE hUURI.Y EARNINGS OF PRESSERS (KALE) IN R-LATION TO CODE STANDARDS BY 1KARhETS


(FOR TRi EIGHT WEEK PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31.1934)


1.75r


E-

21 -



NUMBI, OF
ftMPLO VEES


/62


040






-C -o


--- -I
i' i .

N rv q. ? %2 f


* Number of workers etiv-tnd on the basis of 38. actually studled.


LEGEND
--.. CODE AVERAGE
---CODE MINIMUM


Id




-59-


skilled. Average hourly, earnings of operators failed to exceed the minima
in only one market (St. Louis) and there they dropped below by only IS.
Average hourly earnings of operators equaled the code average in Cleve-
land; in six markets they closely approached the code "averages", and
in only five of the twelve markets, viz., Kansas City, St. Louis, San
Francisco, Portland and Seattle, was the difference between the earnings
for "workers of average skill" as set forth in the code and the actual
average hourly earnings more than 15%.

Actual average hourly earnings of finishers were at or above the
Code minima in all but three cities; San Francisco, lortland nd Seattle,
where they fell below by slight margins. The;' fell below averages in
every one of the markets, the amount of tne difference with one exception,
being appreciably greater in the Eastern and Western area markets than in
' New York.

Hourly earnings of pressers ranged above the minima in every market,
! and in New York City and Chicago they even exceeded the prescribed aver-
ages; in Chicago by about 24 and in New York City by about 81. In all of
the other markets, the average earnings of pressers were below the code
Averages; in the Erstern area by small margins, and in the West by margins
of from 13A to 20.

The proportions of workers whose earninLgs (i) reached or exceeded
the average, (2) were between the average and the rrinimum and (3) dropped
below the minimum are shown in Table H lOa which sets out this information
for eath craft, by market area.(*) Thus, in the case of cutters (**)
4 951 of those in New York City, 83'3 of those in the Epstern area outside
of New York City, 609 of those in Baltimore and 861 of those in the
Western area exclusive of Baltimore received earnii.gs above the code
minima for the week ended Warch 9, 1934. (*4*)

Of the male operators in New York City, 52.86 received earnings at
or above the average, 42.81 between the minimum and the average, and only
4.46 below the minimum. In the Eastern area 36.3' of tnese male operators
received earnings at or above the average, 57.65 earnings between the
minimum and the average, and only 6% made less than the minimum; in Balti-
more, 58.816 were at or above the average, 40.80 between the minimum and
the average, and 5.4o below the minimum; in the Western area, 41.1% were

(*) The figures are drawn from the much more detailed portrayal in Table
H 10 which shows the individual markets and shows the absolute numbers from
which the percentages are derived. The percentages in Table H 10a which
are marked by. asterisks are those based upon groups of workers numbering
less than 50.

(**) Cutters are week-workers and no "averages" are set for them in the
Code.

(***) As a matter of fact the actual situation is probably even better.
Cf. discussion of cutters' earnings on page o4 above, and note 1 to
Table H-10 in the appendix.


9821








TABLE N-10


IHO'NN PfRONETAOGES OF MANUFACTUMXG EMPLOYEES WHOSE BUANUI, FOR
ME WEEK ENDED MARCH 9. 1914. WER (l) BELO4 THE CODE mlMIMI
$2) AT OR ABOVE THE MIJIUM., BUT BELOW THE CODE "AVURAOE AID
3AT OR ABOVE THE CODE "AVERACE".

(Based on Payroll Analysis of all Market Areas.)


New York City Eastern Area Baltimore Western Area
Below Code Code Below Code Code Below Code Code Below Code Code
Code Miniamu Average Code minimum Average Code Minlmum Average Code Minimum Average
TRADnE SEX Mintimum and above and above Minimum and above and above Minimum and above andM above Minimum and above and above

CUTTERS Male 5.1x 94.9 17.6x 82.5 40.Ox 60.0 14.0 86.0 -
Semi-skilled 100.Ox 34.Zx 65.5x -
Canvas 23.1 76.9x -
Apprentloes lOO.Ox -
Cloth & Lining Filiers 30.8 69.2x -
FPilers -100. -

OPERATORS Male 4.4 42.8 62.8 6.1 57.6 36.3 5.4x 40.8 53.8 6.6 52.3 41.1
Female 22.6 71.3 6.1 13.5 85.7 .8x *69.8 29.5 10.7 31.3 53.6 15.2
Semi-skilled "- ll5x 34.7x 53.8x 5.7 80.6 13.7
Apprentice Male 100.Ox 100.Ox -
" Female 100.Ox 0.8x 99.2
Skirt Male 8.0x 68.0x 24.Ox 44.4x 44.4x 11.Zx 20.Ox 80.Ox 6.9x 65.5: 27.6z
Female 32.Ox 68.0x 0 38.5x 61.5x 71.4x 26.Ox 3.6z I9.lx 66.6x 14.3z

FIr4SHERS Male 9.0 53.5 37.5 26.7x 56.0 17.3x 50.Ox 50.Ox 0 9.5x 75.3y 15.2x
Female 7.5 70.0 22.5 26.6 62.8 10.6x 24.4x 51.2x 24.4x 12.3 63.7 24.0
Helpers Male 4.1x 56.5 39.4x 11.6x 74.4x 14.0x 50.Ox 36.7x 14.3x 44. x 66. x
Female 9.4 62.8 27.8 9.6x 84.5 5.9x 11.lx 76.5 12.4x 6.6 87.1 6.3z
Button Sewers 53x 94.7x 0 7.4: 84.6 8.0x
Apprentice Male 62.5x 37.5x lO0.Ox
" Female 10O.Ox 7.6x 92.4
Skirt Basters Male 66.7x 33.3x 20.Ox 20.Ox 60.0x -
Female 100.0x 23.Ox 38.5x 38.5x -

PRESSERS
Under Male 8.3x 2e.0 63.7 5.0x 78.4 16.6x 26.7x 33.3z 40.Ox 11.2x 58.4 30.4x
part 7.7x 76.9x 15.4x 8.9x 71.1 20.Ox
S Upper 2.9x 23.0 74.1 3.8x 46.2x 50.0: 53.8x 46.2x 6.Zx 44.3 49.5
Apprentice 33.3x 66.7x 1OO.Ox -
S Machine 16.3 23.0 60.7 39.4x 38.Ox 22.6x 37.6x 25.Ox 37.5x 3.1x 56.3x 40.6x
on-olaasiflable 2.7x 24.7 72.6 13.3x 25.Ox 61.7 23.1x 30.7x 46.2x 5.0x 56. 39.
Lining Ironers Female 50.0x 0.0x 54.Ox 13. x 33. z
S Skirt Under Male 88.9x 1l.lx 0 100.Ox 0 -


x Indicates that fewer that fifty workers are involved.

This figure probably should be somewhat lower because
of the tendency of employers to classify incorrectly
many of their semi-skilled female operators as full-
fledged operators.


. .. .... ...





in -61-
Lt or above the average, 52.3o bet"eer tne minimum and the average, and
cnly 6.643 below the minimum.

; The foregoing discussion of the relntion of average earnings to
'icode standards, as well .is the tables on ',iuch it is based, should be
:read in connection with the c.:, ,, i .,ction 7 of the differences
in the hourly earnings of oper-. t.)" .j- t-_n t-,i'orinr.- and section shops.
Et is there pointed out that en"-:i.-; in tu1-i>.ain shops closely approxi-
ate code "averages" while in s,'.ctn shops they e-nerally do not much
exceed minima. (')

S In order to simplify the 1,rta, a surmary of the material presented
n Table H-10a is given in Titltl 3-X for tne crafts represented by the
largest number or workers. Tn ele-,-'en crafts here shown account for the
eat bulk of the workers in the industry.

In general, it appears that bu: f-, tne hi-:hest percentages of workers
having earnings above the mirirn are those in "ew York, although the pro-
ortions of the Western area workers outside of Bnltimore exceeding the
inima range so high as to make that region a close second. In the
astern area, outside of lewvi York City, the percentages of the workers
warning above the min-ma are somewhat iowcr, altnrugh even here the per-
entages were above 80(1 for eignt of the eleven crafts. Earnings in the
Bltimore market are low by comparison not onl;o with the New York market,
ut also alongside the Eastern and Western area groups of markets. It
shows appreciably lower proportions of its workers repcning or exceeding
ode standards than do most if not all, of the other markets. Even in
altimore, however, it apre.,.--s from the figures of TnLle X3. that six of
"he crafts had from 70 to j."', of their vrorkers earning above their minima.
rhe figures in the lower va.' of the t able showing percentages of the
workers whose earnings wet'e tit or above the "average" reveal less clearly
marked alignments betv'een r.-,Iket areas, ex-ept that in general, larger
Proportions of NIew York ;rcr':ers have pii,'ed their earnings up to or
eyond the code "averages" uhan have the workers in the other areas.(**)

Although these figu-r-as convey highly significant facts about code
enforcement, the Commission is not concerned with that problem except
insofar as it impinges upon the other i.';ortant problems of regional
,differentials and of the competitive ir.r:gularities precipitated by the
system of differentials. The question uf code enforcement, as such is
outside of the scope of the Com-issiorns instructions. But the three
,problems of (i) the relation of actual ec.rnines to code standards, (2)
the system of differentials and (3) the resultant competitive irregulari-
ties are so intimately i..terrelated that the first cannot escape consider-


(*) A tabular comparison 3f code minimum and "average" hourly rates,
by craft and market area, with the Eastern and Western differentials,
is presented on page &4.

,(**) The figures give, in apyeniix Table H-12a convey some idea of the
S magnitude of -.he -argins o,-u which average earnings in the several
regional and c;-,ft classifications fell below the minima or ran
* above the "averages".








9821


Estimated


Eastern Area


I j rfer in Ne'" Yor: (r .c'uzin
u. ,S ._C cit_. -_-^.2c t


I tif mre


'Jestern Area
(Ecluc&ring
kslti torc)


(Pcrcentacje


of oloyces


at or Above Code Hinii)


Cutters
Operators, ir.le
Oer, to2,, P.idle



Zinji Le r H--'*..o';rs," 3e-ale
Procaer-,, -on'crle
,rsser-s, v:v'>per

Pressers, .on-C!assifipb~e


2.983


4, C27
*8,.~4L9
3'3
1,9b6
1,729
1 ~Lo)
2,592


(Fercentace Sinployeez at or Above Code "Averse")


.36


TAMLE B X

FERCENITAGE OF .AIOUFACTUTRI'G EI.ILOYS .'JHiOSE FAR-ITGS FOR JE
E-IDE iiBCii 7, 19354, QUJLIED O EXCEEDED TI PRESCRIBED CODE
STA1DADS, BY SELCTD CC T A ,kTS A_ 32AS.


6o

5
50 *
50
go
S9
73
100
352
77


g6
93
S69
90

100
93


97
95


I.. .. .. lore-






ation here if the other two are to have realistic consideration.

How this inter-relationship between the competitive cost situation
among individual fitms in different markets and the system of differentials
affects the issues with which this Commission is concerned is well exem-
plified by figures in Table H-lOa. They show that 232 of the female
operators in New York City received in the peak week if the last season
earnings in amounts lower than their code minimum, while only an in-
appreciable number of workers in other crafts dropr.ed below their re-
spective minima. At the New York hearings before the Commission it was
Strongly contended -- and the Commission believes the contention to be
fully justified-- that this situation was largely, if not wholly, the
result of the competition of sectionalized Western-area plants (including
Baltimore) employing mostly semi-skilled female operators at a much lower
rate than the Eastern area rate for female operators. Since this situa-
tion is largely the result of a system of differentials which is buscept-
ible of improvement, it may be expected that, once the differentials are
rectified, the industry will be able still further to improve its already
enviable record of code enforcement.

The wage statistics summarized in this discussion are the best
indication that the various interested parties will wish to iron out
the inequalities that produce such conditions. In this sensitive
industry, so complex, so beset with vexing problems, so dependent on
the vagaries of trade and on the shifting whims of the consumer, a Code
of Fair Competition has been so well enforced that only a negligible
percentage of its workers have failed to earn the code minima, and a
,very high percentage have earned above the code "average".

Openings for competitive inequalities in the code may in a large
measure be accounted for by the haste with which it was drawn up. But,
with such a proud achievement in industrial self-government already to
its credit, the Commission is confident that all elements in the coat
and suit industry will cooperate to make the code an even more effective
instrument for fair competition by closing up these openings, and for
industrial recovery by maintaining the code wage levels.


9821


-63-





-64-


TABLE BS

(COMPARISON OF CODE MI NIMUM AND AVERAGE HOURLY RATES BY MARKET AREAS"

(J-Jacket; ('-Coat; R-Reefer; D-Dress; M-Male; F-Female)
Eastern Western
110%o Percent
Differential Differential
over over
No. New York New York) Western New York
of M F M F M F M F


Craft


Employes


M 14 Apprentice Cutters
6 Mos. Min.
M 2983 Coat and Suit Cutters* Mm.
M 40 Semi-sialled Cutters Mim.
M 13 Cloth iad Lining
Pliers Mm
M 13 Pliers Min
M 13 Canmas Cutters Mmi
Samplemakerst M im.
Examinerst Mim.
Drapers? Mim.
Begraders on skirtsat Mir
Bushelment Mi.
M 18643 Oprs. (JCRD) Mn.
F 4704 Av.
F 629 Oprs.. semi-skilled (1) Min.
(JCR&D) Av
M 136 Oprs. (Skirt) Mmn
F 179 Av.
Piece Tailors (2) Mm
tAv.
M 4827 Finishers (RJ&C) Mm
F 8489 Av.
M 363 Finishers Hips. (3) Min.
F. 4141 Ac.
F 181 Button Sewers (4) Mmin.
Av.
M 1729 Upper Pr. (JCR&D) Mmn
A v.
M 1986 Under Pr. (JCR&D) Mim.
Av.
M 36 Upper Pr. (Skirt) (5) Mim.
Av.
F 17 Lining Ironers (6) Mm.
Av
Under Pr. (Skirt)t Min.
Av.
(Basters (Skirt) (7) Min.
M 57 ( Av.
(Finishers (Skirt) (8) Min.
( Av.
M 1105 Machine Pr. (9) Min.
Av.
M 116 Part Pressers
(JCR&D) (10) Min.
Av.
M 44f Apprentices (11)


1 14
103
.83
.91
1.03
1.00
150


90
] 40
90
130
.85
125
.63
1.00
(.63)
(0.0C1
1.00
1.35
.90
1.25
90
1 25
1 90)
(1 2b)
85
1 25
60
.80
.60
70
1.30
1.80

(.90)
(1.25)


.90
1.50
(.90)
0.50)
.80
1.40


.85
125
.63
1.00
(.63)
(1.00)


1 03
.93
.75
.82
93
.90
135

.81
126
.81
1 17
77
1.13
.57
90
( 57)
( 90)
90
1.22
.81
1.13
81
1 13
(.81t
(1 131
.77
1.13
.54
.72
.54
63
1 17
1.62

S811
f' III


.81
1.35
.81
135
.72
1 26

.77
1.13
.57
.90
(57)
(.90)


.94
.80
.74
1.14
.93


.86
1.26

.75
1.15

.75
1.10



.5
1.26
.77
1.15
(.77)
(1 15)


.77
1 15



5
.-g
a
51


17
37
31
41
17
36

26
33
16
30
15
M0


.63 12
.84 19
.53 16
.70 30
.53 15
.70 30
15
7
14
S
5

.60 33
.82 34
8
8
( 53) 10
f 701 12
t 5"n1 !o"
. l1 J,


F 240
53.290

t No special study was made of this rralt classification because f the small number of worl,t-rs in 'i
Such classifications as cutters, semm-skiled, canvas utterr. etc are rnot provided for the Et, -ein PFrCa Their
work Is generally done by full fledged cutters.
*w Some craft classifications are provided for the Eastern area or:ly. Others a:e piomided for the Westeirn arca
only. The Commission has made inquiry to ascertain the cra'it whi'iIi perform the w urk of the nnn...:-.,,sified
crafts in the Eastern and Western areas, and the wage rates of the classified crafts appeal in tlls ta',ie 1II pad-
entheses.
(I) Operators, Semi-Skilled, Female. are not classified for the Eastrrnr area. Their woik is pei'o:ned L., Oper-
ators, Female, in the'East.
(2) Piece Tailors are not classified for the Western area.
(3) Finishers, Helpers. Male, are not 0 classified for the Westerr. area.
* (4) Button Sewers are not classified for the Eastern area. Their work is performed by Finishers Ht'lpei s in the
East
* (5) Upper Pressers (Skirt) are not classified for the Western area. Their work is performed by Under Pre-a-
ers in the West.
(6) Lining I:oners are not classified for the Eastern area. Their work is a performed by Under Pressers In tdie
East.
* (7) Basters (Skirt) are not classified for the Western area Their work is performed by Finishers He'Trs in tihe
West.
(8) Finishers (Skirt) are not classic fied for the Western area. Their work is performed by Finishers Hrlpers
(9) Machine Pressers are not classified for the Western area. Their work is performed by Upper Piesseis In
the West.
(10) Part Press--:A are not classified for the Eastern area. Their work is performed by Under Presserq in the
East.
(11) Apprentices are not classihed for the Eastern area. Because of the variation in the rats f(,r the so-% eral
crafts into which an apprentice may graduate at the erd of the apprenticeship period, no attempt is here made
to estimate the differential.


9821




P
SLC%.'pT. 0",,!

UITIOU '?CAVt72 nU tI:w I ..o-i J"S..ELTTS

It is ell ]:rno"-n 4:.t sin-:o. thi: -:.'e.t f 'a'ionl Inlus-
ial Recorer. A th .:, -.r... :-i S'taS.s, a trenen-
s gro'-th in traC ui.o-i or *7 .1-z.m-'.'.i, he C ,. crr,'l 3Uit C."..lstry
W 7.hared in this incrrtrse. F-'..ctjcj,11" 1all ." o ir:,nrt.nrt La -ri:ets
ve z.ire ini t-1.S Inc: i-a e ci cr6.-r.' .'. '0L'1- stf ".ii .; a.1..Uiow'L i the
Ins have r.natura.ly va.'iec. scnev hat 'e-omn market tj .!-;li-'.o. The InteIr-
tional Ladies' C-e-i.ent 'or!:ur-: I-.inn is the -.o.nir'u.t or-!)niztt!nn
ing jur'.sdicti.on over the 'ro-.e-s in the iniur'.-, In Ile'" York City,
cichi is b- all otds, the nno-t inporta'It r.rkict, '-is2 U:'Lcn.,r hps no'. or-
iei 89; cf the iianrfacturinj units, Ih ,-t-'-e"& "'.7. To-tLId in
SStates cf Connecti ;x.t unC. 1'e- Jerscy, all there; of -.-hich are tribu-
y to the metro-,olitan lieC'.7 7o.-1 -cr-:ct, ,8, of r.ie sho-is a.re union.
ile e::act -.,:arcs ind.icrting the .*-rQro1ms of t]e .o'..'-erv in the
dustr-y in these t'70o jur:.sdci(.tions r'0o a.'e orgra-izcd rre nAt available
the Comis3ics., there is I:.t'-.Ic .rabt tiw..t the .ncrccntr. ne s rL-in come-
at higher then the pe rclnt..-e' a'ea.y *:,'mn folr i.arufnocturing units.
Ti.ble 3 2 percente,. are S. -'eite", s'_v7'.ng the e-:t :it to -niich the
veratl markets are or r.nizecL, ?or all ol the ..ph:et. exc-)t .Ie-7 York
Id en York subi .'brs th]e -nerccntages li~or 6istribn.tion u2 c.L-ssifiable
icyees (incllu-ding -niidrect- l-.bor) accor l-ing as they- are cmn-oloyed in
ion or ncrin-union shoys, ren-ectively.

In ceueral, it rin! be note,: that the out-of-tonn- markets are not
well orFcaized as the iTor Y"or-. City c rea, although nraf of them are
well ane. some of thoe-1 evv"i '.'rc co i-,let.ely orgaMj zee'. than are the
6. Tori: suburban ar-easc Thc most co:l .tcly or':'i- :d n.rkocts among
hose out of tovn- appear to bE the three Tr'st irv,:rta." Pacific Coast
b-r:ets in l)s Angeles, -n AF12cisc) au2 ?ortle:.., -here the rercent-
&es o1 -7orlkers oignra'-.: .re 8.5, 96 n.L 57 respectively, and the Chicago
a.r-et, ,hr-re the Endou.r-r is 8;, orrr7izec, Tie Chicrpo suburbs, like
hose adjacent to ITcTn '.'or:. '.,.':c ve'.', .'.nch esr. con.,letely unionized than
s the cen'ra.l city arce. the ):oxr -icn of the in.istr' organtzed. there
seing !oaOu 1',b T.n 3xltijiore, LInra:3 Ci-y r-.nd Cleve"'.an:'., tlhe orderss
pi the industr- nr-- re3n:ec.ivcly 35, 4C a-,.& C9%. union, in Boston 72$
f the norl-ere s.:- orgv.i] !ed in the 7oston s.u-burbs 21-' of their running
rue to the s.bur. -a i i' j._--vnion tendency; anL in Philadelohia 69,. of
he -or!:ers are org'nii

In most of the ma-'!kets, the .Lite.---'ra-ional Ladies' G..-r'n--t Torkerst
Miion appa,-reutly faces no cor-'etition -Zro-i rival labor organizations.
.Imost the only exception is the KIansas City ,ma"-et, four of hose shops
-re organized in the International saiC. t.e re'.aininrg three in a Iccal
organization, a coJnan,- uiion, k.no-n .s tnh Lc.dics' G.-r-nent Crafts As-
tociation. T'-e nrli other marl:jt. here an- labor organization other
ihan the Tnte Un'i.olial as ra-reee-e1e;'d b- a npc':esnan at the hearings
ras Zoston i-here f. reurcsentativc of the :eecle Trade "iorl:erst Inlus-
irial Union (Cmoni,.iinst) Dnr)ea:.e'anc. a .d..e a statenent to the Conmission.

In ter.is of sho-.s organizeLd, t:ie percentagess of organization
naturally aru somewhat different.




-bb-


Market Area


United States

FTen York

New York suburb

Boston

Boston suburbs

Philadelphia

Eastern Area
Excl. N.Y.City

Baltimore

Cleveland

Chicago

Chicago suburbs

St. Louis

Kansas City

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Portland


L-RT2 3 2

:SI;AT":F PE1C'.L'L 2?, '7 ..L'NFTA-.3LE E PLOYEES

J,. TD'-."or 11. ::1 (i, :.'. 'Le In Union
)._ 3 .1 S-o -)S
51
44

93 21 42 89

bs 1C 40 15 78

100 82 57 72

100 80 91 21

100 21 82 69


r


65

52

84

30

36

7

100

1CO(0

1C0


51

54

69

56

1)0

100

99.6

100

100


Seattle 79 86 27

Western Area 46


]/ Percentage of shops based on a.n analysis of 1987 sho-os, i.e. practically
all of the shops in the New York market area,
2/ Calculated from Table H 16. (Percentage of shops).
3/ Percentage of shops (Table H 20).
4/ Estimated frox Table H 1.
5/ Percentage of shops. Based on distribution of tailor shops only; section
shops not classified as to method of '7age payment (Table H 20).


9821


Vho are
men

65
4_/
70

34

69

48

62


45

38

43

71

35

46

19

57

46

37




P- -6?7-

The terms nf reference imposed u--on the Commission have specifici-
lly laid upon it the dity of inquinirg into the facts with regard to
labor agreements .n th3 differ-'nt na.A1.ets. In conformity with this
.ase of its instrjction-, tl.:e Conmuiision hr.s secure. from one or anoth?
sr of the p.rtios copies of a!'l of thie n:roeuients now in force in the
several markets.

WTritten collective aCreemnts are inr effect .n the majority of
he markets. In four of the ma;-':ets Lch ar.Jc-', are not now in
orce. 17o agreement azpears nov: to be in force ii- ,',i_.,lrjre although
n the pact, collective agreements have been in ':.r> there from time
o time. Another imOcrtoant exceDtion is t':e Chicc, p markett, whcre
collectivee bargaining lTis bulked large in tP.e lajfr history y of the mar-
et, but where at pres.ent. no written e gree eonts 5C.. n).w to be in
force. It r.ppea1's. nevertheless, thit collective bat-iaining is not
sent from the Ghical.o market. ;-,he locil union office ials explaining
hat the agreements are merely verbal. It is also reported that the
ast written a,-r- 'rent, dA.ted D]ecc ber 30, 1930, vhich nrns between
|e local union and ind- dual firms instc.e-. of with employers' asso-
lations, is typical, anC- accr'd:.rE to loc10l uni",n officials, contin-
|es even now to have general application in the market.

S Somewhat the same situation prevails in 'Cleveland, Ohio. In that
market it appears, according to testimony offered at the hearings, that
,he inprossion prevails in some circles in the Cleveland market that
'he market is to some extent at least ztill governed by the terms of
khe continuing a:eement set u- in 4Dccenber, l12, under a Board of
Referees, and revised in l2921 and 1q25, At any rate, oral collective
bargaining prevails in tho C]eveland market, vith the 'I3_)ntinuing agree-.
Pent" as the only written instrument.

The fourth market of the twelve in which the Commission held hear-
Lngs, where no written agreemernts are in effect, is thlt of St. Louis,
Iiere the local union mificials reoorteC& til-.t all agrecTents were oral.
tnasL uch as the figures already given reg .irding the proportions of the
biops organized in the various mn.rkuts in.1Jc.'.te that Baltimorc is 35%
organized, Cleveland 69W, Chicago 84-, anid St Louis 6LS, there seems
good reason to believe that the absence of written agreements does not
necessarily indicate the absence of collective bargaining with indivi-
hial firms5 without formulation of the terns thereof in formal written
contracts.

Aniong the eight markets in which there a.re either individual firm
sr market agreements with the Union, Now York. naturally occupies first
place and boasts the most elaborate pattern of contractual agreements.
ew York agreements are collective bargains in t.h complete sense nf the
7ord, that is to say, they are agreements bet-Teen associations nn both
Sides and nnt typically contracts to whichli the employers arc parties as
individual firms, The Now York agreenenrits nay be divided into two groups:
Pirst, the agreements to which the Union is a direct party. They are the
Wreement between the Merchants' Ladies! Ga. nent Association and the Union;
ietreen the Industrial Cuncil of the Coat, Suit and Skirt IManufacturers
Association and the Union, and between the Akerican Association of Cloak
, Suit Manufacturers and the Union, The second group of collective agreed,
tents between the Merchants' Ladies' Garnient Association and the Anerican







A-:r.ccirtion of Cloak 8. Suit ?hanufocturers -.v'iC. between the Industial
Council of the Coat, Suit and Skirt ;.an'nv. 'r.cturors Association and the
A.:ericr-i Association.

In Los An.eles, a market agreement is in force between the union
anc' the Los Angeles Association of Coa.t v..- Suit I:anufacturers. In San
Francisco, a similar market agreement ic in force. In Portland, there is
not only r. Tmerket agreement bet'ieen the ution and the Association of
Cloe&: :.C." Suit Manufacturers but also so;io r-reements between the union
and individual firms. In Boston, there is a -zarket agreement between the
Union =C. tihe Boston Cloak manufacturer'ss A-sociation.

2or the Philadelphia market, the Co::-.-:ission was supplied with t'.o
rrinte. bl]nnk forms of agreement, one for contracts with the Manufacturers
A association and the other for agreements vith the jobbers. The local
union officials represented to the Comriission that these agreements, app.-
arentl-- signed with individual firms, are still in effect. In addition,
there a:pears to be a special agreement in force in Philadelphia, between
the Union and Adelman and Sons. In Seattle, there is a market agreement
bet-'een the Union and the Association of Co-.t and Suit manufacturers.

Finally, in Kansas City, there is first series of four individual
fir.i agreenients between the International and .s many individual erploy- |
ers, anc' second, a series of three market cwreeuents between the Ladies!
Ga.r :ent Crafts Association and each of three firms which have recognized
it.

The trade union agreements no7 in force in the industry are of four
general t.-,es: (1) oral agreements, chliefly a.s to wage scales, (BaJltiniore,
Clevela:c', Chicago and St. Louis); (2) written agreements of the conventiG
al sort oet':een the Union and individual fir:is or between the Union and the
employers association, containing provisions covering union recognition
ove:ti :e, wa.;es and hours, etc, (Boston, Ian':.s City and Philadelphia) I;
(7) written n agreements of the conventiona! sort, but which, additionally,:
incorporate; either explicitly or by reference, the minimum and "average"
scales of the Codej (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle); .
and (!) writtenn agreements of the traditional sort which incorporate the
scales of r:inima and "averages" of the CoC'.e -:ith the addition of a proviso
permitting; any employer party to the contract, "with the consent of the
workers .nd. of the Union" to substitute for the Code "averages" a scale
of w.ee:l-r :dinimnum rates running about $2.00 below the Code averagess" :
(1e -7 Yor'.:) '


1. The Boston agreement carries a scale of w:eek--work minima for presses,
operators, finishers, etc. which is higher for all of the crafts than
the Code "averages" for the Eastern -rea.
2. This arrangement appears in the sane for:: in each of the Union*s eree".J
ments rith the three employerst associations in New York (see P.9 of th,
printed agreement between the Union atnd the merchants s Association).
At the Commission's hearings in eNe Y'ork:, the representatives both of
the Union and the manufacturers statecO th;'.t practically all of the
workers in New York week--'7ork shops actually earned considerably more
than thq agreement minima and therefore appreciably more than the Code
"averages".-
9321






-69-


SECTION VI.

VOLUME OF SALES BEFORE AND SINCE ADOPTION OF CODE

The data presented in this report not only indicate the relative
advantages in respect of labor and overhead costs in different markets,
but also will disclose the fact that there is a great deal of variation
between firms located in the sanae market. It is next to impossible to
reduce to a simple formula or positive statement the net result of the
relative advantages and disadvantages of differences in labor costs,
shop overhead, selling costs, labor efficiency, efficiency of manage-
ment, etc. There is one figure, however, in which all of these factors
find their ultimate reflection and which in the long run, gives a con-
clusive answer to the question of the relative competitive advantages
of the different markets. The figure is the volume of sales, for what-
ever advantage or disadvantage a market has, will find its expression
in the competitive price and resulting volume of sales in that market.
Insofar as the Code affects the markets unevenly through wage differen-
tials, its influence upon the markets should be reflected in the statis-
tics of sales.

Owing to limitation of time, it has not been feasible to utilize
the Commission's accountants to assemble the fiu-res for the number of
garments sold in each market.

The Commission was, therefore, obliged to resort to a short-cut by
sending out a questionnaire to all the manufacturers and jobbers in the
coat and suit industry in the United States asking for the dollar vol-
ume of sales in the first 6 months of 1933 and for corresponding months
in 1934. It has not been possible to check these figures on the books
of the concerns, but there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the
figures reported.

The representative character of the returns on sales volume is in-
dicated by the figures of Table K-2.

A Out of a total of 1328 firms in the United States to which the
questionnaire was sent, 908 or 685 replied. In )resenting this report
of increases and decreases of sales in the several markets, only com-
parable figures for the two periods have been used. This means that
only firms which were in business both in the Soring of 1933 and 1934
have been included in the tabulation of sales given in the first two
columns of Table K-l. If a firm was in business only during a part of
the Spring season of 1933, its total spring 1934 figures were not used,
and only the figures for the months of 1934 corresponding to those
which it reported for 1933 were taken. The figures net included in the
two year comparison are given in the last two columns of the table un-
der the heading "non-comparable figures."

While the data presented in Table K-1 are incomplete, the compa-
Srable figures for the United States as a whole are based on more than
49' or almost one-half of all the concerns in the industry. This is a
reliable sample of the country's business, since it includes large,
medium and small concerns and represents a large section of each market.
j Thus, the percentage of firms furnishing comparable figures is 100% in


i 9821









TauB K-l

54LZ OP OMTS AND SUITS

SPRING SEASOS 103S mad 1954
(January 1 to Nua 30)


DISTRICT

eow York City and New York 8tate

New Jersey

Connectiout

TOTAL MbTROPOLITAB ABE&


Boston
(indol. Mausaoahuasett)

*Philadelphia
(Inol. Soranton)

Baltimore

Cleveluid
(Inol. Ohio)

St. Louis

[mKansas city

**Chicago

Los Angelesl

San Franaolcsoo

Portland

Seattle

TOTAL


SALES
1934~hl lerss____________________


1934
Dollars

61,570,370

375,762

719,195

62,665,317


1933
Dollars

51.545,518

429,855

5146,508

52,489,881


%fTotal Sales
_S 3 -i3t


79.80

.48

.93,

81.21


1,241,793 1,081,846 1.61


1,180,215

1,228,822


2,418,113

624,108

882,679

5,591,014

1,612,983

946,146

664,666

204,161

77.159.911


.t -


-(n=) Indicatse 4eoreaae
*Philadelphia City
Sormuton
**Chicago Distriot includes Illinoie, Indiana,
Michigan, Viaooni'n and Minnesota
Chioago City 3,
Distrlot Outside of Chicago


985,303
194,912


1,181,626

694,337


1,951,786

677,719

661,770

2,686,605

1,616,483

859,600

457,158



64r416 982


1.65

1.69


3.14

.80

1.16

4.86

2.09

1.23

*75

.26

100.00


80.02

.67

.79

81.48



1.68


1.84

1.07


Inareue or Decrease
Amount Per Cent


10,024,862

-( 54,103)

204,687

10,175,436


19.45

-(12.58)

39.78

19.58


169,948 14.75


-( 1.411)

654,486


2.99 486,.27

.9.0 46,384

S1.02 250,809

4.18 904,411

;651 -( 3,460)

1.34 86,546

.70 107,482

*29 15,962

100.00 12.742.929
mm**~m~m ... ,,


954,606
227,020


-( .11)

76.97


25.17

8.02

56.41

35.66

-( .1)

10.08
2B.50

8.48

19.78


50,697 5.21
-( 32,108) -(14.14)


820,918 82.56
83,495 568.01


368,49 8 2,537,840
232.556 149,065


a*TB,Bi

1i934 Its
Dollars Dollar'

7,287.417 49,126

64,446

3,815 2.116

7,346,678 51,242


213,722


140,297

159,323


669,244





669,051

186,680

111,770

120,069


100




522





1,798



2,085


0.496.054


..... ..........
t
. .......... 00%w iA* 'M'* Z ,-
........... .... jW - -




-71-


TALLER K-2

SCHEDULE SHOWTNG N'i.UB.R OF S-JLES IIQUtRIVS AMD REPLIES RECEIVED
FOR TIE -PRII7 .S71: 02 1dD3 end 1934.

_________ Ntiuer cf 13, '.r -s Rec livedd
Total Co.. ',ra.L-j. Nour-Con-oarable No Figures
No1 Uf Total Peo:,'-,)a- Feric.T Submitted
Inqr".ries 'Rerel -es 9 1933

N.Y.C. 915 610 444 49 122 2 42

N.Y. State 7 -4 1 14 2 1

New Jersey 8 4 2 25 2

Connecticut 4 4 4 100

Total Metronolitan
Area 934 622 451 48 126 3 42

Boston 68 55 33 55 14 8

Philadelphia -36 25 20 56 4 1

Baltimore 21 17 12 57 2 3

Cleveland 25 20 13 52 4 3

St. Louis 12 9 9 75

Kansas City 7 7 7 100

Chicago 91 59 36 40 17 6

Los Angeles .79. 51 39 49 7 5

San Francisco 39 29 21 54 7 1

Portland 10 8 6 60 2

Seattle 6 6 5 83 1

TOTAL 1328 902 652 49 183 3 70


I












I.
1'
I
Hr
LI


% of Replies

1'Chicago City
I District Outside
STOTAL of Chicago



.9821




-72-


Connecticut and Kansas City; 82'4 in Seattle; 75% in St. Louis; 6C%
in Portland; 570 in Baltimore; 56o in Philadelohia; 55% in Boston;
54% in San Francisco; 52S in Cleveland; 494 in Los Angeles; 49% in
Ne'" York; and 4(5 in Chicr.go.

As will be seen from the figures in Table K-1 the country as
a whole shows an increase in sales volume nearly 20M, viz 19.78t.

New York City sho's a somewhat smaller increase in dollar
volume, namely, 19.45';, and has almost though not quite, held its
relative position in the country, its nronortion of the total having
droroed a mere fr-ction of one percent i.e., from 80.02 ; in 1933 to
79.8e in 1954.

The least favorable showing is made by the State of New Jersey
7hich suffered a loss in dollar volume of a12-o. However, this loss
involves chiefly one concern. Next to New Jersey, the least favorable
showing is made by Los Angeles which shows a falling off in dollar
volume of business of one-fifth of one percent.

The most successful showing by any single market was made by
Baltimore which enjoyed an increase in dollar sales volume of al-
most 77%. Sales increased in that market from $694.337 in Spring
1933 to $1,228,822 in Snring 1934. In this connection it should be
stated that four among its largest firms failed to furnish their
sales figures.

The next most favorable showing is made by Connecticut with
an increase in sales of 39.78" and Kansas City with an increase of
35%. The increase in Kansas City was less than one-half of that in
Baltimore.

The following markets, in addition to those just mentioned,
show a percentage increase in excess of the country as a whole:
Chicago, 33.6t6; Cleveland, 25.17%; Portland, 23.5-. It is inter-
esting to note that the cities which were mroost insistent on in-
creased differentials in their favor, both at the hearings prior to
the apDointment of this Commission as well as at the Commission's
hearings, show larger increases in sales than the country as a
whole. Among these are : the outlying district of Chicago, includ-
ing St. Paul and MIinneapolis, Iinn., Aurora and Batavia, Illinois,
with an increase of 564; Connecticut, nearly 401; Kansas City, 35%;
Portland, 23.5%. Among the other outstanding complainants, Seattle
shows an increase of only 8.484, while Scranton suffered a loss of
over 14,.


9821




-73-


I SECTIC.I VIT.

SU.LC'AMY 0o CO1,P:AI::TS AID DEIA,:_S,

WITH THE r.OiC:Ios. C-ij'S FThI TS


The resolution creating +he Facb-TiNrnng Ciimission provided
among other matters that "t'.% "o:j,,1i-sion -hall :*ulyi ail petitions
and demands filed since the adcoion of thie Coac and Suit Code by
particular localities and. markets relative to wages and labor class-
ifications't.

In pursuance of this mandate, the Commission held hearings in
thirteen of the largest centers of the Con.t ind Suit Industry and
studied the complaints cnd demands of the -various factors in the
industry throughout the country.

These complaints and dempids are summarized herewith tohetner
with the Commission's findings and conclusions with reference to them.

1. Competition of Section Sho-os Against Tailoring Shops

The tailoring shoos cool]p.in that they suffer front the com-
petition of section shone. The complaints against the section '
shop are based not on the form of its sho-o organization but on the
fact that it employs largely deM.-Lle labor at considerably lower
wages than the workers in the tailoring shops. The-noint was made
th-t while it isitrue that these lower-naid workers are less skilled in
terms of their ability to nake a complete grrnent, they are, never-
theless, more skilled in terms of their ability to produce with great-
er speed than the higher oaid skilled rrorkers who make the entire
garment in the tailoring sho-o. Therefore, it was maintained that the
section shop has; a cost differential in its favor,- of a purely
economic nature and not arising from any provision in the Code.

2. Competition of Western Section Shops Against Eastern:

The Eastern section sho-os, such as Ellis of Ne- Britain, Conn.,
Seitchick of Camden, N.J., a.nd Linder Bros., of Scranton, Pa., con-
tend that the.-lestern section shops offer them unfair competition
because the Western section shoos enjoy the benefit of the "semi-
skilled"' and "ap-oreptices" classifications in the Code. These -class-
ifications do not amoly to the Eastern area. The contention of the
Easternwshops, broadly speaking, is that a section shop can be run
with about the same degree of efficiency in one market as in another,
They contend that the length of time required to turn an inexperienced
worker into a fast worker on simple operations is the same, regard-
less of the territory in which thle shown is located.

Ellis, for example, stp.ted thit in his Iew Britain shop by far
the overwhelming majority of the em-oloyees ave had no previous ex-
perience in any of the needle trades but had been drawn from the
hardware and metal factories in that to'7n and that, nevertheless,


9821




-74-


within a few months he was able to turn out five thousand to six thous-
and garments a week at the peak of the season.

Some of the Eastern section shoo manufacturers stated that they
were perfectly willing to continue to nay the present Code wage rates
for skilled operators to their section workers provided that the
Western section shoos were rcouired to nay similar wages. What they
want is enuality brou,;ht about through the extension of the Western
"semi-skilled"1 classifications to the East or through their abolition
in the West.

F I "II.TG

The questions dealt 'ith under Comp-lpints 1 and 2 can be best
discussed by grouping them together. The Commission finds, as a re-
suit of its studies, that the section shone enjoys a favorable dif-
ferential es against the tPiloring sho-, due largely to two important
factors; (1) the natural technological advantage '7hich the section shop
has through its greeter sub-division of labor, which enables a girl
of little skill and experience in tailoring to acquire the skill of
doing a sim-ole operation, after a orief period of training and to
perform it with equal or even greater speed than the old time all-
around operator is capable of; (2) that these section oDerators, most
of them women, are em-oloyed at loner wages with the result that the
prevailing earnings in section shons are close to minimum code rates,
while the tailoring shops employ chiefly male operators who are paid
close to the Code averages.

The Commission finds thnt in addition to the formal differen-
tial provided for in the Code, the Western section shops enjoy lower
costs than Eastern section sho-os because of the special classification
of "semi-skilled" workerss provided for in the Code for the Western area
but not for the Eastern area. The minimum rate for a "semi-skilled"
operator in the Western area is 62,f ner hour. A female operator of
similar skill receives a minimum of 90t per hour in New York and 81B
in the remaining E-stern area, making a differential of 23 30%.
The Code thus gives the Western section shops manufacturing the lower
grades of merchandise a comDetitive advantage over similar shops in
the Eastern area.. In the case of dressers, the differential due to
differences in classification rises to 43J.

In addition, the Western area is allowed the classification of
apprentices who can be hired at 47e an hour and kept at that rate for
a Period of six months, while the Eastern shops must pay at least min-
imum rates of 900 in Uer York and 81 in the remaining Eastern area to
female operators even if they are only beginners. This is equivalent
to a differential of 425 to 48` in favor of the West.

It is true, however, that this anolies only to not more than 5%
of the workers, and then only toward the latter part of he period
of their aonrenticeship after they have reached comDarable speed or
skill.

When we comnoare the Western section shop with the Eastern tailor-


9821




-75-


ing shop, which is the predominant typ-3 in the East, the difference
becomes even greater.


The Relative S:'rerjtl of thu Section Shop
______ali Tailr, .._:,o'- __,__

The Commission fin.K. th-.t tle section 'vst ,I "d the tailoring
system in the Ccat and .-.ait irnu 1:3:; 2f_'.- so 1r.hnl'-. th.t each
Presents a disti-ict robiemo fr-om a technclo.cgical .id1 a'-jninistrative
point of vien.

In the vast, full-fledged tailors, both in the men's and women's
garment industries, came'here from DErore-.ean countries. The virtual
cessation of immigration has ert off this suonl'y of skilled tailors.
In Europe the training of a trLo. begins in his boyhood vihen he is
apprenticed to a master tailor for a period of from five to seven
years. In this country, industrial ?nl psychological factors do not
favor the training of full- fid.ed trilors, as ecoerience in the
training of such persons has de-ionst-ated, The Feniiius of American
industry, the impatience of the 'vounf Ar:erican- worker to make rapid
progress has forced the breaking up of the tailor's craft into sev-
eral special crafts such: as cutters3 Tres-.ors, h.-n.i-sewers, machine
operators, etc. Such is the divicin of labor aTnrong different crafts
in the tailoring 5hop. Tne se"rtinn sh3Tr has c.arriecd,. the specializa-
tion process still further an-j hi., s':o-divided epcn of these crafts
into several sub--divisin.rs or o-,ar'acions, each orer.tion being simple
enough to enable F youn.x ,vorl.-r to loarn it raoidlv" in a few days or
weeks and to attain in a fe, -ion.tns th3 necessary speed to enable
him or her to earn an aLeauato wr'ge according to Drevailing standards.

It should be added, h,-'ever, thrt the section system can be
operated most economically rhe;i a -ize, si,-.e is produced in fairly
large volume. Other-ise, it is erntremeiJ.y d'f.ffictt to nri.ntain a
IDrooer balance of orodu'tion uet-ee:; taie 3cverrl sections in the shown,
which results in frecuex.t inter-arations cf -ork, causing in turn an
increase in shop overheard oer uiit of out;.ut, anj' thereby, tending
to offset the econoniies effected in direct labor cost. For these
reasons, the gro-th of section shoos is necessarily confined to Dop-
ular priced mercn.ndise in .hich tne Jest 1i0o largely specializes.

These natural economic iLredielients in the "a' of the growth of
section shopJs may serve to ex'c.l-in ':L-' the section shown in the coat
and suit industry his not 'rr.ow to the extent it has in the men's
clothing industry Out of a total of 9,20C workccrs e,-aoloyed in the
industry outsiA.e of the netro-_ioiitn area of lie'-' York. only 2,3&7
workers, or 25'Y of the tot.l "-or'-:ed in sec;.ion sho-Ds, while the re-
maining three-fourths of the -ort:ers are erJolo;reJ. in tailoring shons.
In the metropolitan ar7,-. of fie," York (incliiing Te'- Jersey and Conn-
ecticut) of an approximate total of nearly' 44,000 'vorlc.rs, 3,800 or
less than 95 are workin- in section EhoTrs. the rr..naining more than
nine-tenths being emnoloyed in tailoring shops. The workers employed
in all the section shops of the entire country thus constitute but
iI?-% of the total.


9821




-Yb--

It is necessary to bear this fundamental fact in mind in weighing
the ;iroblens of the industry created by the section shop and in con-
sidering the remedies for pny of' the existing evils.

3. Code \inge Rates for "Workers of Average Skill":

That clause in Article Fifth of the Code which provides that "in
fixing piece-work rates on garments, the same shall be computed on
a basis to yield to the worker of average skill of various crafts for
each hour of continuous work" certain specified earnings, has been the
source of much complaint.

Con-plaints of non-enforce'ent of the clause came from the East
against the West and from the West a.-;inst the East. Chicago and
some of the Western markets complain that they are no longer able to
produce $6.75 and similar merchandise on account of competition from
ITe" York because of the ability of Nei, York jobbers to avail themselves
of the services of contract shoos in ITe-, Jersey, where it is claimed
the code rates are not enforced. Some of these Western jobbers in-
formed the Commission that they were able to nrocure their merchan-
dise direct from New Jersey contractors, or from Ne'- York jobbers who
employed Ne'v Jersey contractors, for less money than they could get
it manufactured at home.

Cleveland had no complaint to offer against the clause other than
the fact that other markets were not enforcing it with the same strict-
ness as was done in Cleveland and thereby Cleveland manufacturers were
placed at a great disadvantage.

Those operating tailoring shops complained that the Code "aver-
ages" are not being enforced in section shops.

Other markets asked thrt the above quoted provision for workers
of average skill be eliminated from the Code altogether, leaving min-
imum rates only.


FIND NG

The Commission finds that the Code "averages" are being unevenly
enforced in the various markets and that they tend to be enforced chief-
ly in tailoring shons and especially in tailoring shops located in
communities where the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union is
a strong factor.

The Commission finds thrt one of the reasons for the difficulty
in enforcing the Code "averages" in many section of the country is
that the term "worker of average skill", as used in the Code, although
sound in principle and in theory, is too vague and elastic to permit
of exact and uniform application. The measure of output of a "worker
of average skill" will vary not only from city to city, but from shop
to shop in the same city, depending uoon the skill and speed of the
workers, the efficiency of the shop management and lastlbut not least,
upon the respective bargaining po'-ers of the workers and employers.


9821




-77-


The last mentioned factor -orobably largely accounts for the fact
that the average earnings of o-cer.ttors in tailoring shots tend to be
close to the Code average while in tao section shops they tend to be
close to the Code rnini-um. Tile proportion of workers earning Code
averages in section s'-;T s is -u.ry irrec-lar from city to city and even
from shop to shop in the sa,,,U c;,O

Due to the vagueness of tie tec,. '.,orfror of av rage skill", the
enforcement officers ij' the sejrrap. diTt- >:s h1: ,. e,'-. used -their own
judgment in into'-pretiz.: the ciruse. T1r re h r Len n:o nIttcmnt so
far by the Cude Aubhorit:r to lay down a uniform interpretation for the
guidance of enforcement officers.

This has resulted in unfair competition not only, between market
and market but betvyeen concerns in thie srme market. The conscien-
tious manufacturer who tries t.-; .iie uop Lo the Code is out at a dis-
advantage by his less conscientLous com etitor. A uremnium is thus
set on code violations- and th.Y:e ".io observe it are py-ing a penalty
in the form of hiLher agess tn,-n those .ho disregard it.

The situation is tou unsound to continue, and should be remedied
in such a manner as to create clarity and enable the Code Authority
to formulate a uniform -orccedure for all the markets.

4. Differentials:

(a) Shop Oerltead

Some o-" 'the We3tern markets asked for greater differen-
tials than those now orevailiie in their favor on the ground
that their labor is ir-ich loss skilled than the lpbor avail-
able in New York ar.i that they are out to an additional ex-
pense in training aoorientices a,.ad suue'vising the work of
their semi-skilled ordersers.



With the excer.tion of Keisas City, no proof based on the books of
the concerns wps -ubmitted to the Commission. Nor does it aopear from
the Commission's urn investigation that inAirect labor costs in the Jest
are higher than in the Ea-st when com.raring shops manufacturing similar
garments. As a rule, section sho-os have nfigher Indirect labor costs
than tailoring shops in the same -ornce rpnge although exceptions occur.
Kansas City shons the highest indirect labor cost., mostly in its sec-
Stion shops; St. Louis is another high indirect labor cost city al-
though oDerating on the tailoring sy.tmrn, thus confirming the conten-
tion of its representatives that it l.as high curervisory costs due
to the necessity of training and ern:lo:.rin inexperienced helo. Balti-
more shows the lowest indirect labor cost fcr section shops and is in
the low cost group for its tailoring shops.

Owing to the limitations of time, it ras iiurossible for the Com-
mission to obtain compareble detailed indirect labor costs for New York
Inside shops. Its contract shoos have a uniform allowance of 30 to 33%
here
S9821







of the direct labor cost.


(b) Selling Costs

In Practically all of the Western centers at which the
Commission held he;irings, it was maintained by the manufac-
turers that they here at a decided disadvantage as against
ITNe York with respect to selling ex-enses. It was repeated
in center after center that the local manufacturers were
compelled to send salesmen on the road to obtain business
whereas the TUe.7 York manufacturers were in the enviable
rostion of having the customers come to them. It was claim-
ed Hev; York attracted buyers from all over the country and
therefore did not have to employ salesmen.

It Was maintained in Kansas City and Baltimore that
the selling expenses locally 74re 6.09o and 6.07; of sales,
respectively. They believed that New York's cost was only
a third of that.

The Commission undertook a study of selling expense
in each of the markets visited. Through its accountants
in the various markets, detailed analyses of selling ex-
penses were requested and rere obtained by the accountants
directly. Inasmuch as the accounting records and systems
varied considerably from manufacturer to manufacturer, in
the reports rendered selling expenses have not been item-
ized under uniform classifications; nor have all the man-
ufacturers included the same specific items in their figures.
Some of the analyses presented are obviously incomplete. In
many cases, officers' and executives' salaries were included
as selling expenses although it is to be observed that these
items frequently are more nearly in the nature of fixed over-
head charges rather than items which vary with the volume of
sales.

FINDI HG

Bearing in mind the above qualifications, the data presented to
the Commission do not bear out the claim that Iew York selling costs
are exceptionally low. It annears from the following sunmaries of
the highest and lowest selling costs derived from the statistics ob-
tained in each market that the variation of selling costs in each mar-
ket is as great, and often greater, than the difference between market
an"' market and between :Ie" York and Western markets:


9821




-7 2-


SELLII rr: "TS"
(Perceat of C"'.L.,. n Price)


Cleveland


Chicrgo


St. Louis
(For the firm having
14. 4% anDoro:"4nately
5"1 was for traveling
an 1. enter taini.',.
Total .,-mng volume
for tji-s firm was
$47,0o,-.)

Knnsns City

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Portland

Seattle

Boston

Philn.delDhia


Baltimote


Lo"e st

7.8* to


(*) 2.3:-o. n.rind


4. 2,'ao to









3.3% to

2.2% to

3.6_ to

5.6%, to

6.1% to

4.6' to

4.6-b to

4.4% to


SNew York -


A cost study was undertrken of apuroxiinately 25 Newv York
firms. Selling exoeise fiiures in detail were obtained for
thirteen of these, In the $6.75 wholesale Drice class, the
selling 'e.wense rpnged -trjn 3S to 5.75a with four of the five
firms cited L:etven 5.5C7 rr.d 5 75%. In the $10-.75 price
class, the selling e:rperse ra-fed from 3.47% to 8.69%.


In the $16n75 wholesale price class, the selling expenses
(three fir-s whose fi&u're-; rere available) were t-;",l0, and
lo-%, It is interesting i-n observe that the selling expense
percentage -as hichzst for the firm v1 th the smallest volume
and lowest for tne firm rith the largest volumne.

Another group of selling expenses was submitted by one of the
Ner York mianufact iring associations. It included, tern firms
and showed selliag enLereases ranging from 5-% to Il' of the
sales voluipe.

(C) Exclusive of cost of selling done by executives amount not
available.


9821


Highest

15 '

9.7%

14.4%









8.5%

6.2%

9.3-;

6.3%


7.5%

10.3%





-6C-


From the small sampling obtained by the Commission, covering
23 houses in Ne- York City, it was found that all the houses employed
salesmen. Their salaries and selling commissions ranged from less
than i% of sales to 7~-. While relatively few of the out-of-town firms
reported show-room rentals as an expense, this was a substantial item
with the Ne7 York firms.

The Commission is not able to state what percentage of New York
houses employ or do not employ traveling salesmen. However, where no
salesmen are employed, the firm members or executives who take care
of the sales draw a fixed salary whichh constitutes an overhead sell-
ing expense, which expense in percentages will vary inversely to the
volume of business done and, as a rule, does not mean a saving in sell-
ing expense.

It is anparent from the figures gathered by the Commission's ac-
countants that the method of sr;les promotion varies from firm to firm
within a market, which stiuation obviously makes it impractical to
compare selling expenses of one market as a whole with those of another.

So much for the Commission's own study. As regards the claims
that selling expenses are lo/er in Niev York than in other markets,
those making the claims have failed to produce figures from the books
of their firms to Drove their case.

5. Overtime:

Many of the markets of the country, particularly the smaller
markets, asked for a limited period of overtime of four to eight
weeks at the peak of the season on the ground that they have a small
supply of skilled labor and limited plant space, and are, therefore,
unable to exp-and their forces at the -peak of the season. They are thus
compelled to lose a certain amount of business which would otherwise be
theirs.

Those onnosed to overtime pointed out that overtime should not
be allowed to one market when other markets were not working at capac-
ity. They also were confident that the maintenance of the present
policy against overtime would mean a flattening out of peak produc-
tion. They claimed that there has already been an appreciable change
in the retailer's method of placing orders, and that, warned by the
experience of the Fall season, when the retailer found himself unable
to get immediate delivery at the height of the season, he anticipated
his requirements when placing his orders for Spring 1934 to a much
greater degree than in former years.

The opponents of overtime believe that this trend will continue
as the retailer learns from experience that he must distribute his
orders over a more extended Deriod of tine if he is to get deliveries
under a 35-hour week.




-81-


The Commission finds th.-t the present policy of refusing permiss-
ion for overtime to irvl.vidurl concerns or u ar-rlcts, results in great
gains to the industr; asp a %whole. It beLii.ve.- ihat these gains
out-weigh any disadvantages tnrt naiy be suffe-"ed by individual firms
or markets.

6. Apprentices

Host of the Wlestern markets want an increase in their present
apprentice allowance of 53 of the total number of employees provided
by the regulations of tac Cr.t nnd. S'iit Code Authority, They claim
that because of the lack of zk'.-ied labor in the markets outside of
New York, it is neces--ary to trein continually large numbers of
workers
Union representatives in these markets insisted, however, that
employers desired more apprentices, not because of a shortage of skill-
ed labor but beceus.e thW,; wished to reduce costs by employing apprentic-
es who very quickly .xu7nrAd to perform the simpler operations in their
craft as speedily. as a full-fledged worker, yet are allowed lower '7age
rates under the Code.

FIITDIIHG

The Commission finds that some of the mark].ets in the West in which
the development c-^ the Coat .nd Suit Industry is of comparatively re-
cent origin and wh:ch lack a large supply of workers in other needle
industries, are ob'igod to resort to continuous training of new help
in order to maintain an adequate force of skilled workers to take the
place of those vwho leave the industry. This circumstance is further
aggravated by the fact that the majority of the employees in this in-
dustry in such centers consists of 7omen rho lea-ie the industry in
larger numbers than men bec-.use of marriage and other family reasons.

For details as to availability cf needle workers in the several
coat and suit markets, reference is made here to Section 3 of this
report.





-82-


On the other h.nd, the Commission believes that serious consider-
ation should be cEive to the w-'vrrehension of the Union that a provision
for a larger number if ap-.vrentices may lend itself to abuses in efforts
to lower the wage level of the ''oroers.

The Coiu.!issio.. believes th-.t it is fe.,-cible to .';ive due weight to
both considerations in modifying the present Code provisions with refer-
ence to a. rentices.

7. Contractors

Article inithi of the Code, referring: to the contract system of
manuf?.ctui'in.g, states:

"It in, reco'r.ized thA.t in the Eastern and 'Jestern Areas
the v.ethods ,.w..iloyred to a. very large e':tent in the pro-
ductio,. of parents in. the coat and'. suit industry neces-
sitate the croloyTrent of contractors a..'. sub-manufacturers&
Accordi.ily, all fins enga-ed in tio- coat.anC. suit indus-
try 'ho cause their :'.r .ents thus to be ma e by contractors
and sub-manuf.cturers as aforesaid, sh-ill .esignate the
contractors actually required, shall confine and distribute
their work equitably to and' among them, and shall adhere
tr, the W.ayment of rates fcr such production in an amount
sufficient to enable the contractor or sub-manufacturer to
pay the employees the wa,.es and earnings provided for in
this Code, together with an allowance for the contractors
overhead.

In pursuance of this pr-ovision, the associations of the nanufactur-
er., the jobbers -\nd the contractors of metropolitann :e; York have
c-eter::iined by ixitual agreement that the allowance for the contractor's
overhead shall be 30', of the labor cost on all garments the labor cost
of rich does not exceed S.50 ,-inc'. 33-1/3S on all other garments.

This arrangement is in force in the area under the jurisdiction of
tnose three associations. It has not been officially recognized by the
Code Authority.

At the hearing held by the Commission in B<imoro as well as in
Philadelrihia and some of the other centers, the representatives of the
local contractors' associations complained of the lack of an arrange-
ment in their cities similar to that prevailing in New York and re-
qaeictedC. that the Commission recommend to the Code Authority tlat it
tt:e steps for effectuating the provision of Article rinth of the Code
cc th_.-.t all the other cities may have the benefit of an arrangement
similar to the one in force in Te'w. York where about 854 of the contract-
ing business of the country is said to be o'ne.

The last paragraph of Article :7inth if the Code provides that:

"To insure the observance of this -'rovision, the
Cor.ittec named in tais Code, tether with the Ad-
ministrator, shall formulate provisions to carry into
effect the purpose and intent hereof."


9821







Representatives ol' the ".evi .o..' Contractors have asked for the
strengthening of the nrovisioir io r 1.i table distribution of work amorg
a jobber's registered CU..tr',torc, [> rovidin.." t}ot in the event of
failure to obreive t.ir" :iv' _vLi. .1 ;A t.-e r rt of' the jobber or manu-
factt'rer, the Coi .a.u; ..ri ty .: i. osi crtied ,-r:re -ertative shall be
vested with the o'-cr o urdr ',,.y..enb,, ;3 :'e'''tuti.n to tihe contractor,
of an amount equal to the overhead liorv.nrce set forth above on the number
of Larmrients '-rhich he failed to receive as his eouitaole share.

FI.TLIITG

The Commission fi.ds- tait the con.tra,,ctor is frequently caught be-
tween two fires: on tic one isnd, .idc uius :,ayl the Cole v'1ge zates,
rhile on the otLher, i.:- the a-co.ire of cnforcement machinery un'.er the
Code, keen compCtitio.' fr-om h'.s fellow com.trc.ctors freoucntly leaves
him at the mercy of tLin j-bbor ,it i the '-ilterniative o' violating the
wage provisions of the Code or ol f!.ilirn to earn his caTn living, let
alone his overhead, Tie iior..al b'isinc.ns moctali ty ai.ion- contractors,
which is notorious, is iicr-d b tnis laci- of protectionn promised to
him under the Code but not effectuated so far.

8. Unfair Com)petition from Other industries:

The Commission heard comjlai-ntc in eve,'y market of unfair com-
petition suffered by the Coat anc S...it Industry from the raincoat,
cotton garment anc dress iur.. triesrie, It was stated that firms in these
industries v-jere ranufarcturin;- cm.-i., !its that in the p'ist iere manu-
factured amoct exclusively b.y ,the Co-it fC Suit I" ustry. The com-
peting industries' code iage st ..rd.rds are lower t.i:n thoce for the
Coat and Suit Industry a.nu as a reZ,.iL t'ipir e.itry into te field as
connetitors has ecen disastrous, it via. a'leed.e

The complainants .- Is: i>-f7t fi.'iTir- '-inj t,.r" entc which are
normally marde in toe C'-,.t an.' S.:i t I '.uctry bc required to cpy Coat
and Suit code waces. _h: a':-ed the.t the fields of the competing
industries be clearly u.efine., sr. iz Lo .'--,event taose industries from
taking unfair cor:--etitive cdvrnta..e of t.ie Coat an'f. S'.-it Industry.



The Commission finds that there is ierit in these contentions.
It is aware, however, that great progress along these lines has already
been made by the Administration, and calls the situation to the atten-
tion of the Ac-ministrator for such further action as he may deem necessary.

9. Baltimore

No issue in comn.ection with the Code has aroused such bitter con-!.
troversy in the Industry as the question of the allocation of Zaltimore
to the Eastern or Western area. In spite of Baltimore's geographical
position on the Atlantic seaboard, Baltimore manufacturers took the
position at the time of the adoption of the Code that in respect to
labor conditions it was in tie same 1n);.ition as cities in the Western
area. Baltimore manufacturers, especially those operating section shops,
claimed that they had the same problem in training help as the West and


9821