Heinl radio business letter (July-Dec 1934)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

7/24/34 Mr. Cowling had read into the record a letter from former Deputy Administrator Allen in which he flatly denied ever having threatened the industry with an 18 or 21 hour week or that he ever used any "undue1' influence to persuade them to place them¬ selves under the Electrical Code, as Captain Sparks charged. "The Radio Manufacturing Industry", said W. J. Donald, Executive Secretary of the Electrical Code, "and the definition proposed by the Association in a code which they propose to sub¬ mit, providing they secure exemption from the Electrical Code, would make their Code a horizontal one, which would cut across the electrical manufacturing industry and also the furniture manufacturing industry in particular and a number of other codes such as metal stamping, screws, molded products, etc." Mr. Donald said a substantial number of radio manu¬ facturers would be adversely affected having to operate under two codes. He said the Radio Manufacturers' Association devoted itself almost entirely to trade shows and manufacturers exhibits. "The RMA is not an industry", Mr. Donald declared, "but an aggregation of employers trying to take jurisdiction over products of the electrical and furniture industries. It takes more than a group of employers to constitute an industry. Without the cooperation of the electrical industry, the so-called radio industry could not exist. " Mr. Donald said the present Electrical Code was less expensive for the radio manufacturers than a separate Code would be. He criticized the "Buy RMA" campaign. Judge Neagle, for NEMA, opened by attacking the annual sales volume of the industry, set at $200,000,000 by the members of the Association. That, he said, was the rets.il volume and computed the sa.les volume of the manufacturers as about $61,000,000. He charged more than once that the statements in the proponent brief were misleading and said once, "RMA should be ashamed of itself for making such statements. 11 Judge Neagle submitted that 60 percent of everything in a radio set is electrical. "All the RMA is, is an assembler of products", Judge Neagle went on. "Of the 30 members of the RMA Board, 23 are small or medium sized manufacturers. The difficulty is not with the Electrical Code but with RMA's desire to get out from under. "RMA is not in any sense representative of the parts going to make up a radio set. NEMA, on the other hand, is representative of the parts which go to make up a set. To the latter Judge Van Allen, for RMA, shot back: 5