The CHAIRMAN. Is it not possible that the way is opened for lower prices in American yards, which of course would be of no particular interest to labor as long as the ships are really built there? But would it not be helpful to the Maritime Commission and to the American people to have reliable testimony as to the actual difference in cost?

Now I want to say, for myself, very frankly, that I do not belive any ships are going to be built abroad. But when we start in to subsidize ships and to spend the people's money, we ought to have definite knowledge, if possible, as to what the difference is, in order to give parity to the American ship operator and the shipbuilder.

Senator WHITE. Do you not think that the differential is substantial? The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; there is no question about that. But the question arises all the time, How much are we going to subsidize? And the question constantly arises, How much of our money are we going to use, if we are going to build our merchant marine?

If we are going to build our merchant marine in the American yards, we shall have to spend a lot of money. But we would not be justified in going to the American taxpayers and the American people, unless we can show what the amount of subsidy should be.

Now, I look upon this as a means really of facilitating the building of ships, and facilitating the building of ships in American yards.

Mr. VAN GELDER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with you. I see a possibility, under this amendment, as I understand it, that a substantial part of the shipbuilding will go abroad.

Senator WHITE. If there is economic reason for the building of any ship abroad, why would not the same reason dictate that they should all be built abroad?

Mr. VAN GELDER. They should. I do not know whether the committee has considered this possibility: That there is nothing to prevent a foreign government from granting a comparatively small subsidy to its yard and taking the work away from American yards. If we had a ship to build that would cost 12 million dollars for an American yard to build, and even if a foreign yard could only underbid 2 million, still, if the foreign government would give them one of these concealed subsidies, they could put in a 9-million-dollar bid, and take the work.

Now, we have right here in the Monthly Labor Review, a brief statement of the wages paid in the shipbuilding trades in the Netherlands, 1930 to 1936. This is the current issue of the Monthly Labor Review, and this statement shows that the average wage of the shipyard worker in Holland in 1936 was 40.6 cents per hour. In the same bulletin we can find the average wage in the American shipyard to be 81.7 cents per hour, or exactly double. Now, that indicates something of the competition that American shipyard workers would be put up against. And we may assume that Holland is not the lowest-paid country in the world, as far as labor is concerned, and that if 40 cents is the rate in Holland, the Lord only knows what it might be in Japan or Italy or Russia, or some other European country.

Now, this also is important: The rate of 81.7 cents per hour in the American shipyard is not a high rate; it is considerably below the building construction average, which is 93 cents per hour-a very similar industry. Because over two-thirds of the employees are skilled men in the shipyards.

Now, we can see that if these amendments were adopted, then every time we went out to try to improve our conditions or our wages, the shipyard corporations would set up a howl that "you are trying to drive the work into foreign countries." And I think that that is perfectly obvious.

Mr. Kennedy says that this competition would stimulate a higher standard of efficiency. But we believe that no additional motive is needed for putting efficiency into operation in modern American business. They try to be efficient. But we do believe that, as the easiest variable factor, labor could be cut and would be cut if this. additional weapon were put into the hands of the shipyard corporations. And instead of stimulating higher efficiency, we believe it would stimulate lower labor standards.

If the Maritime Commission feels that any bid is extortionate or collusive or unreasonable, it has the same power as the Navy Department to examine that bid and to throw it out altogether and to use its authority and its power to force the shipbuilding corporations to submit reasonable estimates. After all, there is a certain amount of competition, at least theoretically, amongst the American shipyards themselves. The Government has built its ships here, and I do not see any reason why the Maritime Commission could not be just as effective.

I think also we should consider the possibilities. I am no expert on the matter; but if this amendment is adopted and the doors are left open for foreign construction, I think there will be a great deal of controversy and a great deal of international intrigue between certain shipbuilding lines and certain foreign countries whereby the work might be sent abroad under one arrangement or another. It is open to all kinds of abuses, it seems to me.

Now the shipyard workers are being laid off in large numbers, today in Quincy, Mass., in New York, in Kearny, N. J., and Camden, N. J., and in Newport News-the major shipyards of this country. And they are being laid off in the navy yards. And what is needed is construction, and in a hurry. The Navy program has passed its peak of employment, and their new program, whatever it may be, will take considerable time to get under way. And meanwhile we have thousands of shipyard workers wandering up and down the seaboard looking for work. And we feel that this is no time to open the door to foreign shipbuilding, or to send this work abroad.

We also should like to submit an amendment to require shipbuilding corporations that do construction for the Government, directly or indirectly, to comply with the National Labor Relations Act. We have had a very bitter experience with big corporations who hold millions and millions of dollars' worth of Government contracts and yet flout and defy the National Labor Relations Board and the act, refuse to let the Board hold elections, refuse to let them mediate, use every possible legal loophole to obstruct the Board and to evade the act, and are doing it right up until the present moment. And we believe that when the Government puts its money into an industry, then the least that can be expected is that that industry will comply with the Labor Act, in the letter and spirit of the act. So I should ask, Mr. Chairman, that you allow us to have placed in the record this amendment requiring compliance with the National Labor Relations Act.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be received for the record, and inserted at this point.

(The amendment referred to is as follows:)

AMENDMENT TO THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936, PROPOSED BY INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA

No contract for the construction or repair of any vessel paid for in part or whole directly or indirectly by the United States Government or any of its agencies shall be let to any contractor if it shall be made to appear that said contractor is guilty of any breach of the National Labor Relations Act, or, having been found guilty of such breach by the National Labor Relations Board, has not complied with the terms of any order or decision of the said Board; and immediately upon a finding by the National Labor Relations Board that such contractor is guilty of an unfair labor practice as defined in said Act, the said contract shall be canceled or performance thereof by the contractor suspended until compliance by the said contractor with any order or decision of the said Board. In every such case any damage suffered as a result of delay in construction or otherwise because of any strike or suspension or cancelation of the contract shall be imposed and collected from the said contractor.

Mr. VAN GELDER. That is all I have to offer, unless there are any. questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions by members of the committee?

Senator GIBSON. You made reference to Japan. Are you familiar with the progress made by that nation in building its merchant marine in the last number of years?

Mr. VAN GELDER. În a general way; I know that they have built up a very modern merchant marine-at least, compared to ours. Senator GIBSON. A superior merchant marine?

Mr. VAN GELDER. I should say so, so far as speed and efficiency, certainly.

Senator GIBSON. Is it not a fact that the wages in Japan are considerably lower than they are in this country or in European countries? Mr. VAN GELDER. Undoubtedly.

Senator GIBSON. You said that men were being laid off. Is that due at all to the incipient depression through which we are passing? Mr. VAN GELDER. I believe it is partly due tɔ that.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Van Gelder.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eli Oliver.

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. John Green.

Mr. VAN GELDER. I was representing Mr. Green.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ralph Emerson.

Mr. VAN GELDER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Emerson will not be here until a little later. He is over at the House committee, testifying there, right now.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Is there anyone else from the C. I. O. union?

Mr. MORT. BOROW. Myself, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Please take the witness stand.

STATEMENT OF MORT. BOROW, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN RADIO TELEGRAPHISTS' ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Mr. Borow. Please give your name to the reporter.

Mr. BOROW. My name is Mort. Borow.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, sir. You represent the American Radio Telegraphists' Union, do you?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; please proceed.

Mr. BOROW. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear on behalf of the American Radio Telegraphists' Association, an organization composed of citizens employed in every branch of the communications industry, with offices and representatives in every major city and seaport of the United States, and many towns as well. The A. R. T. A., as the association is generally known, is affiliated with the C. I. O. and its subordinate units representing the various crafts engaged in the maritime transportation industry of this country. This association is interested in the legislation now being considered by the Congress to amend Public Law 835, Seventy-fourth Congress, commonly known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, because it directly affects the membership of its marine division, the vital interests of all the workers in the industry, and certain basic rights of the American citizenry as a whole. The A. R. T. A. is particularly concerned with this legislation because it is the bona fide union representative of the men who man the communications facilities of the vessels of the American merchant marine-the radio officers.

The A. R. T. A. appears here in opposition to the proposed amendments to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as contained in Senate bill 3078..

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by "the amendments"?

Mr. BOROW. I shall elaborate and explain just our full position on this, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean certain amendments? You are here to oppose certain amendments? What I want to know is whether you are opposing the bill in its entirety.

Mr. BOROW. We are opposing the bill in its present form, as it is printed in this committee print of S. 3078. With certain amendments that we should like to offer, naturally that would change our position with respect to this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; proceed.

Senator GIBSON. Amendments to the amendment?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

This association supports in full the official statement of the New York Maritime Council as presented by Mr. Joseph Curran, president of the National Maritime Union. Similarly, the association bases its general objections on the grounds indicated: First, that the labor sections are coercive in nature and were inspired by shipowners who desire to avoid dealing with legitimate unions; second, that the amendments would institute a system of virtual compulsory arbitration of labor disputes and would destroy present satisfactory mediation machinery; third, that the training-ship proposals disregard the

offers of cooperation by maritime unions and would instead substitute military supervision by men unversed in the merchant marine; fourth, that the amendments run counter to American tradition and would impose a severe hardship on both labor and capital by authorizing substantial building in foreign shipyards; and fifth, that it is inexcusable to lift the $25,000 a year limitation on shipping officials' salaries in this "sick industry" supported by Government subsidies. Inasmuch as the radio officers have a somewhat confused status and really an indiscriminate status under the law as it is not written and under the proposed amendments, the A. R. T. A. earnestly believes that the consideration of any amendments to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 should include, as in S. 3078, the following:

That on page 5, line 12, there be added, after the semicolon, the following words:

or the Federal Communications Commission.

As the radio operators on ships come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission and also are licensed by that Commission, we feel that it is vitally necessary to add this wording to this section of the bill.

Senator ELLENDER. To what section were you referring?
Mr. BOROW. On page 5.

Senator ELLENDER. Is that the committee print?

Mr. BOROW. No, sir; it is the regular bill. It is page 5.
The CHAIRMAN. Under subsection 6? Is that right?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

which you have suggested? Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

And you have the language, there,

Senator WHITE. Will you please state your proposal again? I did not have the text before me, before, and could not follow you. Are you proposing a new subsection?

Mr. BOROW. No, sir; I am proposing an addition.

The CHAIRMAN. He wants a new subsection 6.

Senator WHITE. That is what I asked. Are you proposing a new subsection? Will you state that again?

Mr. BOROW. The proposal is, sir, that these words be added: or the Federal Communications Commission.

Senator GIBSON. In what line?

Mr. BOROW. That is line 12. In other words, as amended this part under "3" will read as follows:

(3) Licensed officers who are members of the United States Naval Reserve shall wear on their uniforms such special distinguishing insignias as may be approved by the Secretary of the Navy; officers being those men serving under licenses issued by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation;— and as amended:

or the Federal Communications Commission.

Senator THOMAS. In other words, your amendment would simply be consistent with the present law and would make the law consistent with the present regulations? It would not change a single thing, would it?

Mr. BOROW. Oh, yes, sir.