NAB reports (Mar-Dec 1933)

House hereafter will accept, in addition to scripts and program ideas, a record of any transcriptions which member stations are willing to offer for sale or exchange. This service will operate under the same general conditions which apply to the script and program service. OPPOSES MORE POWER FOR WILL Station WILL, Urbana, Ill., asked that its daytime power be increased from 500 to 1,000 watts. The station operates on a frequency of 890 kilocycles. Report No. 496 (Walker, e.). Recom¬ mends that application be denied. The Examiner states in his report that “serious and objectionable interference now exists between Station WILL and WENR, due to insufficient mileage separation. The granting of the present appli¬ cation would increase this interference and further restrict the good service area of Station WENR. It does not appear that the public interest, convenience or necessity, would be served by granting the application.” RCA CASE IS DISMISSED Justice Luhring, of the Supreme Court of the District of Colum¬ bia this week dismissed the petition of C. Wood Arthur, resident of this city asking for a mandamus directing the Radio Commission to cancel the licenses of the Radio Corporation of America and its subsidiaries because of the decision of the Federal Court of Delaware in which RCA was found guilty of a practice that tended to a monopoly. WKAV COURT APPEAL DISMISSED The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia this week dismissed the appeal of Station WKAV, Laconia, N. H., at the request of the station. The Radio Commission denied a license renewal to the station and it appealed to the Court. The appeal has now been dismissed. WLOE TO ASK SUPREME COURT REVIEW Station WLOE, Boston, and William S. Pote, owner of the station, requested a transcript of record, preliminary to filing a petition in the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. This station asked for a license renewal and William S. Pote, who purchased the station from the receiver when it was in bankruptcy asked the Radio Commission for an involuntary assign¬ ment of license. In both cases the Commission refused the ap¬ plications. Both the station and the owner appealed to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The Court upheld the ruling of the Commission and now it is proposed to take the case into the Supreme Court of the United States. SECURITIES ACT REGISTRATIONS The following companies have filed registration statements with the Federal Trade Commission under the Securities Act during the week: American Gyro Company, Denver, Colo. (2-102-1). Colonial Bond & Share Corporation, Baltimore, Md. (2-101-1). John E. Edgerton, Inc., Lebanon, Tenn. (2-109-1). First Investment Counsel Corporation, Boston, Mass. (2-105-1). Mutual Management Company, Jersey City, N. J. (2-103-1). National Bond Depositor Corporation, Indianapolis, Ind. (2 110-1). National Boston Montana Mines Corporation, Helena, Mont. (2-108-1). Paradise Gold Mines Company, Denver, Colo. (2-107-1). Speculative Investment Trust, Fort Worth, Texas (2-111-1). Third Investment Counsel Corporation, Boston, Mass. (2-106-1). F. G. Vogt & Sons, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. (2-104-1). REAL ESTATE NOTES AND BONDS EXEMPT The Federal Trade Commission on July 27 adopted a rule ex¬ empting from the requirements of registration under the Securities Act of 1933 certain securities regarding which enforcement of the registration provisions does not appear to be necessary in the public interest nor for the protection of investors, because of the small amounts involved and the limited character of the public offering. These exemptions are made under authority of Section 3(b) of the Securities Act providing that the Commission may add any class of securities to those exempted by the act if it finds that enforcement of the act with respect to such securities is not neces¬ sary in the public interest and for protection of investors. The exempted securities are notes or bonds directly secured by first mortgage or deed of trust on a contiguous plot of real estate or on a leasehold which is other than for oil, gas or mining. Two classes of such securities are designated as follows: First, there is the transaction where the entire mortgage or deed of trust is transferred with the entire amount of notes or bonds o a single purchaser at a single sale. Second, there is the transaction where the notes or bonds secured by the mortgage or deed of trust are transferred to more than one of trust is transferred with the entire amount of notes or bonds to secured not to exceed 25. INTERPRETATIONS OF PRA Members of the NAB were sent a special Bulletin this week containing official interpretations of the President’s Reemployment Agreement. They are reproduced here, along with a supplement to Interpretation No. 1, in order that they may become a part of NAB REPORTS. Future Interpretations likewise will be published for the benefit of members. Interpretation No. 1 (concerning paragraph 7) Paragraph 7 means, first, that compensation of employees above the minimum wage group (whether now fixed by the hour, day, week, or otherwise) shall not be reduced, either to compensate the employer for increase that he may be required to make in the minimum wage group in order to comply with the Agreement, or to turn this Reemployment Agreement into a mere share-the-work movement without a resulting increase of total purchasing power. This first provision of paragraph 7 is a general statement of what shall not be done. The rest of paragraph 7 is a particular statement of what shall be done, which is that rates of pay for employees above the minimum wage group shall be increased by “equitable readjust¬ ments.” No hard and fast rule can be laid down for such read¬ justments, because the variations in rates of pay and hours of work would make the application of any formula unjust in thousands of cases. We present, however, the following examples of the need for and methods of such readjustments: Example 1. Employees now working forty hours per week in factories. When hours are reduced to thirty-five, the present rate per hour if increased one-seventh would provide the same com¬ pensation for a normal week’s work as before. Example 2. Employees now working sixty hours per week in factories. When hours are reduced to thirty-five, a rate per hour if increased one-seventh might be insufficient to provide proper compensation. But, to increase the rate by five-sevenths, in order to provide the same compensation for thirty-five hours as previ¬ ously earned in sixty, might impose an inequitable burden on the employer. The sixty-hour week might have been in effect because of a rush of business, although a forty-hour week might have been normal practice at the same hourly wage. Seasonal or temporary increases in hours now in effect, or recent increases in wages, are proper factors to be taken into consideration in making equitable readjustments. The policy governing the readjustment of wages of all employees in what may be termed the higher wage groups requires, not a fixed rule, but “equitable readjustment” in view of long standing differentials in pay schedules; with due regard for the fact that payrolls are being heavily increased, and that employees will receive benefits from shorter hours, from the reemployment of other work¬ ers, and from stabilized employment which may increase their yearly earnings. The foregoing examples indicate the necessity of dealing with this problem of “equitable readjustment” of the higher rates of pay, on the basis of consideration of the varying circumstances and conditions of the thousands of enterprises and employments in¬ volved. Any attempt to define a national standard would be productive of widespread injustice. The National Recovery Ad¬ ministration will, through local agencies, observe carefully the manner in which employers comply with their Agreement to make “equitable readjustments,” and will take from time to time and announce from Washington such action as may be necessary to correct clear cases of unfairness and to aid conscientious employers in carrying out in good faith the terms of the Agreement. When an employer signs an agreement and certifies his com¬ pliance and also joins in the submission of a Code of Fair Competi¬ tion before September 1. 1933, his determination of what are “equitable readjustments” should be accepted, at least prior to September 1, as a prima facie compliance with his agreement, ■ Page 109 ■