I would like also to point out it again with regard to the precedentmaking features of any proposals or anything we do here what I think the President recognized in his message. He said:

For the pending railroad dispute is likely the first of many. hensive long-range policy will be needed.

And a compre

As I understand your proposal, what you are saying is that the long-range policy that is best for the country is a continuation of collective bargaining, and

Mr. MEANY. I think that the railroads have to change some of their methods of running. I think the rules are archaic in some ways. I think they should be changed. I think they should be changed by a meeting of minds of the interested parties who are the railroad carriers and the workers involved.

Senator HARTKE. Thank you, Mr. Meany.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PASTORE. Mr. Cannon?

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Meany, you have stated that you prefer to see this solved by collective bargaining, as we all would. But the record shows that there has not been a settlement in a period from 1959 to the present.

You say that during much of that time no real effort was made, which raises my inquiry: Is there in this proposal of yours anything that would insure that both of the parties actually do collective barganining?

Mr. MEANY. Well, there isn't anything that guarantees it, but I think there is a sense of urgency being developed on both sides, and I am hopeful that they would.

Of course, it takes two to tango, as they say, and it takes two to bargain. If one side is just adamant and won't bargain, I would like to know that before they act. But I am hopeful that this won't be necessary.

Senator CANNON. We have heard that from a number of sources in the testimony here, that the railroads themselves were just not bargaining with the brotherhoods, that they would terminate it and say "this is our position," and that would end it.

I was curious to know how, if we adopted this theory of yours, how we might actually force both parties to bargain. If we adopt this resolution and they go into a meeting and the railroads say this is our position and this is as far as we are going to go, and the brotherhoods say we are not going to go that far, then we haven't gained anything.

Mr. MEANY. I think it would be well, if that happens, for Congress to know which side has to bear the load for blocking."

Senator CANNON. To take that into consideration?

Mr. MEANY. Certainly, to take that into consideration.

I would expect Congress to take that into consideration in whatever recommendation they might make.

Senator CANNON. And that would be then, to get down to the two alternatives or probably not alternatives, but the two problems that

you suggested, one, then, actually, compulsion on the one hand and public ownership on the other?

Mr. MEANY. And of course there is also a possibility in these things that you can get arbitration. After all, there is a big difference between compulsion and arbitration itself. We advocate arbitration all the time. We have advocated it, many of our unions have advocated it for years and years.

I was a member of the War Labor Board during the war, and we advocated an arbitration clause to be written into contracts; so that there wouldn't be disputes over the terms of a contract, or the meaning of a contract. I certainly would not be opposed to arbitration if both sides agreed to arbitration. That is not compulsion; that is voluntary.

Senator CANNON. In view of the fact that there has not been anything substantial accomplished over a long period of time, and there has been a lot of assistance and a lot of encouragement from many agencies and sources who tried to encourage a settlement; could you— with your broad background in this field-could you propose a time limit that Congress might say, "If it goes beyond period of time, we think that there would be no useful purpose served"?

Mr. MEANY. The reason I didn't put any time limit here, spelled out, I left that up to the so-called special committee of Congress to decide that there is no use going any further-when we can't get anywhere by collective bargaining.

That could be 2 weeks from now, or it could be a month from now, depending on the situation.

Surely, if some progress is made, the committee of Congress would want the bargaining to go on. But when they get to a point where there is absoluetely no hope, I think they would be dutybound to come back to Congress and say that the time limit has been reached.

Senator CANNON. I understand your thinking on that.

I am trying to get an idea in my mind as to how long this might conceivably go on.

Are you talking about a period that might conceivably go 2 months, or a period that might conceivably go a year?

Mr. MEANY. NO. I would think if I were a member of the special committee of the Congress that I would know certainly before 2 months was up. I would certainly have a pretty good idea.

The idea of not having a deadline, if you set a deadline for 2 months, or 60 days or something, then someone who wants to drag can just talk. On the other hand, if there is some progress made on some of the major issues, then it would be perfectly reasonable for the congressional committee to say, "Well, we can well afford to wait another 2 or 3 weeks."

But when it gets to the point where there is no progress, and no hope for further progress, I think the congressional committee would know it and I think they would be dutybound to come back to Congress and say, "Well, we have reached the end of the rope."

Senator CANNON. I agree with you that to fix a time limit in here might be bad, inherently bad, because then neither party could say, "Well, we will wait until that period of time comes up and go through

some motions in between."

I was interested in your thoughts as to what kind of a time frame you were speaking of.

Mr. MEANY. I certainly would feel that you say 2 months? I would think before 2 months, if I were a member of the committee. Unless I saw progress that represented some hope within that period, I wouldn't want to go any further.

Senator CANNON. One other point, Mr. Meany.

At least one of the representatives of the brotherhoods raised the point that there were many issues involved in these work rules that were local issues and not overall national issues.

I am wondering whether you believe actually that all of these problems could be resolved at a national level?

Mr. MEANY. I don't think they would have to be.

Senator CANNON. You don't think they would have to be?

Mr. MEANY. No, I don't think they would have to be. I think when you resolve the major ones-we have cases where some of our large unions had bargained on a nationwide basis, they reach agreement. This happened in steel, this happened in other organizations. They reach agreement on the major items of a contract.

Then that agreement has to go back to the local level, with these major items disposed of, and then the local committee takes up the local items.

But these do not cause nationwide strikes. In fact, they rarely cause strikes at all.

Senator CANNON. They sort of fall into place?

Mr. MEANY. I would say so.

I would not expect Congress to go in-I believe there are eight or nine rules involved. Certainly, some of them should be susceptible to solution by the ordinary commonsense. I don't know.

But the major issues, of course, are the manning and the crew-consist issues.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Meany. I think you have been of great assistance to the Congress here and to the members of this committee in trying to solve this very difficult problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you, Mr. Meany.

(The proposed legislation of Mr. Meany follows:)

SUBSTITUTE LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY MR. MEANY

JOINT RESOLUTION To provide for the settlement of the labor dispute between certain carriers by railroad and certain of their employees

Whereas the labor dispute between the carriers represented by the Eastern, Western, and Southeastern Carriers' Conference Committees and certain of their employees represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and the Switchmen's Union of North America, labor organizations, threatens essential transportation services of the Nation; and

Whereas it is essential to the national interest, including the national health and defense, that essential transportation services be maintained; and

Whereas all the procedures for resolving such dispute provided for in the Railway Labor Act have been exhausted and have not resulted in settlement of the dispute; and

Whereas the Congress finds that emergency measures are essential to security and continuity of transportation services by such carriers; and

Whereas it is desirable to achieve the above objectives in a manner which preserves and prefers solutions reached through collective bargaining; and Whereas the report of July 19, 1963, of the Special Subcommittee of the President's Advisory Committee on Labor-Management Policy shows that al

though agreement has not been reached on the issues in dispute, substantial progress has been made through collective bargaining toward the resolution of such issues: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That until the expiration of this joint resolution or superseding action by Congress on the subject matter thereof no carrier which served the notices of November 2, 1959, and no labor organization which received such notices or served the labor organization notices of September 7, 1960, shall make any change, except by agreement, in rates of pay, rules, or working conditions encompassed by any of such notices, or engage in any strike or lockout over any dispute arising from any of such notices. Any action heretofore taken which would be prohibited by the foregoing sentence shall be forthwith rescinded and the status existing immediately prior to such action restored.

SEC. 2. The parties to the disputes arising from the aforesaid notices shall immediately resume collective bargaining with respect thereto and shall exert every reasonable effort to resolve such disputes by agreement. The Secretary of Labor and the National Mediation Board are hereby directed to give all reasonable assistance to the parties and to engage in mediatory action directed toward promoting such agreement.

SEC. 3. There is hereby established a Special Joint Emergency Railroad Committee of the Congress to consist of five Members of the House of Representatives to be designated by the Speaker of the House and five Members of the Senate to be designated by the President of the Senate. Within ten days from the enactment of this joint resolution, and thereafter at intervals of not more than ten days, the Secretary of Labor and the National Mediation Board shall report to the Special Joint Emergency Railroad Committee the progress of the negotiations directed by section 2 hereof. If at any time the Special Joint Emergency Railroad Committee finds that the procedures herein provided afford no prospect of resolution of the disputes within a reasonable time, it shall so report to the Congress together with recommendations for further action by the Congress.

SEC. 4. The obligations imposed by this joint resolution shall be enforcible through appropriate orders of the United States district courts upon suit by the Attorney General.

SEC. 5. This joint resolution shall expire when all disputes covered thereby are disposed of by agreement of the parties thereto.

Senator PASTORE. Our next witness is Mr. Paul Hall.

STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL HALL, PRESIDENT, SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO

Mr. HALL. This is not a prepared statement. I have several notes for reference.

My name is Paul Hall. I represent the Seafarers International Union of North America, composed of some 75,000 members of seamen and allied craftworkers including approximately 1,000 railroad marine workers, workers who are engaged directly in the railroad industry.

First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to come here. I will make it just as brief as I can. I know the tremendous workload that you have been under.

I come here in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 102, Mr. Chairman, for many of the reasons I heard the previous witness say. First of all, whether you splice it or whether you slice it, it is compulsory arbitration. It seems to me that through this hearing a lot of people have been avoiding or evading the use of the word too much compulsory arbitration. I am no legislator; I am no lawyer. I am no expert in these things, but just a brief reading of these things certainly indicates to me that unless agreement is reached by a certain period of time, that these matters are then referred to the ICC who, in effect,

will come down with a situation which will be effective for a so-called interim period for the balance of the 2 years from the commence- › ment date of this legislation, if it is carried.

This in itself is compulsion, as the previous witness said, and obviously it is compulsory arbitration, because in the first instance, if you compel people to go to this type of arbitration, and say that the decision is effective for only 2 years and from that point on it will be either renewed or renegotiated or the organization will have the right to strike, it is obviously ridiculous on its face because the organizations involved have already been without these benefits, without their jobs, without their employment, for a period of 2 years.

Therefore, to say that it is not compulsory arbitration, because there is nothing permanent about it, is just ridiculous on the very surface. Mr. Chairman, I submit, too, that not only is it compulsory arbitration but it is compulsory arbitration that is heinous at its worst. When you tell people in effect this they are to be tried at the hands of their enemies, turned over to them, literally hand and foot, this is in effect a bad way to do human beings.

Mr. Chairman, the makeup of the ICC has been rather well known over the years. Some of their activities have been well known. I have had the opportunity to appear before this committee on numerous occasions relative to this same agency, the ICC. In the first instance, the ICC is composed in the main of individuals who have either former direct relationships with railroad management itself or relationships with top management from other basic industries such as textiles, such as oil, gas, banks, and a few other things.

This does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that I attack the integrity of these individuals. Of course not. But, these people are managementoriented, they have always been management, they will be management; and it would be just as simple or as fair to submit this matter, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, to a panel, or to an agency, composed of people with union backgrounds, as it would in this case to submit it to a group of people who only have management backgrounds.

Not only that, but it is a semijudicial procedure, it would seem to me, not being an attorney; it would certainly seem that people who have previously had connections with some of the people involved in this case, whether it is some of the Texas railroads or some of the larger railroads through the Nation-and the record is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the ICC were associated with these groups-to, in effect, allow these people, as it were, to sit in judgment on the question of the profits of the railroads or what happens to the worker in the case of the working rules, the manning and so forth, is just not fair on its very surface.

I would suggest that, if this administration is going to come out for compulsory arbitration, they ought to say so. They ought not to try to box the compass, or to evade the issue.

I read, partly, the President's message to the House on this proposal, and he states in there quite clearly that he is opposed to compulsory arbitration.

I also read a recent statement-as a matter of fact, I picked it up awhile ago by Secretary of Commerce Hodges, made today before the Bonner committee, the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries