OCR Text |
Show . flo Comment!!! , By James W. Douthert WASHINGTON a major constitutional con-stitutional debate is foreseen in Congress over proposals to expand ex-pand coverage under the wage, hour law. The crux of the fight is the attempt of some Senators sup. ported by unions to extend federal control in this field beyond be-yond anything ever proposed before. be-fore. ' Success in the movement, opponents op-ponents say, would make Congress Con-gress supreme over all business however small and destroy rights of states. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION CONSIDERA-TION UNDER WAY The Issue was first raised this session in a hearing of the Senate Labor Committee. The same controversy also Is pending in the House Labor La-bor Committee. The bill which would give the federal government unprecedented unprecedent-ed power is sponsored by .Senators .Senat-ors Morse of Oregon. Murray of Montana, Neely of West Virgin-la Virgin-la and McNamara of Michigan, all Democrats. The latter was a labor union official before com-ing com-ing to Congress. Under the bill, about 10 mil. lion additional persons would be brought under the law. These have not been covered because they are In what has been considered con-sidered intrastate business and i thus outside federal Jurisdiction or because of specific exemptions. exemp-tions. BROAD TERMS OF THE BILL The proposed legislation is in-tended in-tended to bring virtually every activity in any way affecting commerce under federal control. An employee would be covered by federal law if he is employed employ-ed "In or about or in connection with" any business in which his employer engaged in "any activity ac-tivity affecting commerce." The legislation would define "activity affecting commerce" to Include, among other things, any activity "competing with any activity ac-tivity in commerce." Sen. Allott (R-Colo.) expressed concern over the vagie and broad definitions in the bill extending ex-tending federal power over business. busi-ness. He referred to the provision saying that an employer would be subject to the law if he is "competing with at.y activity in commerce." "Would any area of business not be covered under this?" he asked Secretary of Labor Motch-ell. Motch-ell. "We don't know of any," replied re-plied Mitchell. The Colorado Senator also pointed out that the legislation would apply to an employer where payment of wages below the minimum "tends to burden or obstruct commerce. "Do you knew ,f any criteria under which you could make such a finding?". he asked Secretary Sec-retary Mitchell. "I think it would be difficult, if not Impossible," replied Mitchell. Mitch-ell. The Colorado Senator saw in the legislation the expansion of federal Kclaim of power which minimizes authority of the states. He said that if the trend continues there will be very little lit-tle use for state law and little use for states except for administrative admin-istrative purposes. |