There is another union, under the American Federation of Labor, which had its inception at the close of the last maritime labor dispute which took place on the Atlantic coast. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Is this union affiliated with the radio workers who operate on land? Mr. BOROW. You mean this American Federation of Labor Union? Senator THOMAS of Utah. No; either of them. Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; they both are. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Then, a man can take his union card and get a job in a radio station on land or can get a job on the sea? Mr. BOROW. No; not necessarily, sir. You see, there are two classes of licenses generally issued by the Federal Communications Commission. Senator THOMAS of Utah. I am talking about the membership in the unions, not the licenses. Mr. BOROW. But this has a bearing. The Federal Communications. Commission divides radio operating into two classes-radio telephone and radio telegraph. You must have a radio telegraph license in order to work on a ship at sea, whereas to work in a radio broadcasting station you must have a radio telephone license. Senator THOMAS of UTAH. Then you have your unions organized in accordance with the Federal regulations, do you? Mr. BOROW. That is correct. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Can a man transfer from one to another? Mr. BOROW. You mean from the American Federation of Labor to the C. I. O. Union? Senator THOMAS of Utah. Yes. Mr. BOROW. Yes; that is what they are going every day. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Are there any radio unions that are closed, now, so that no one can join them? Mr. BOROW. On the west coast, where there has been a program of stabilizaton in the industry up there, the A. R. T. A. on the west coast is closed. Senator THOMAS of Utah. What do you mean by "stabilizaton in industry?" Mr. BOROW. Well, you understand that when a union succeeds. in building up the conditions and raising the wages in a particular line of endeavor, there is an automatic influx of a great number of men who otherwise would not work in such an industry. In order to stabilize employment and protect the men who have been in that particular industry and built it up, they have closed the books. That does not mean that they are not taking in anybody, under any circumstances, terms, and conditions; but it is more restrictive than it has been in the past. Preference is given at all times, even on the west coast where we have our union books closed, to men who have had service in the United States Navy, United States Army, and United States Coast Guard. . Senator THOMAS of Utah. What if this happened: A young man. graduates from college and becomes a radio engineer and an expert. He goes, let us say, to Los Angeles; and he is offered a job by a radio concern, but is told that he must show union membership, because it is a closed shop. And he goes to the union and asks for membership, and they deny him membership. What becomes of that fellow? 32437-37-pt. 4 Mr. BOROW. Well, it is very seldom that an outright denial is made. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Has it ever happened? Mr. BOROW. It may have happened. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Is that common practice? Mr. BOROW. Not outright denials; no, sir. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Well, is it good practice, from the ethics of your organization? Mr. BOROW. You must realize, Senator, that a certain amount of protection must be accorded the men who are employed in the industry. Senator THOMAS of Utah. But here is a man, offered a job, which shows that they need a man; but he is told that he must go and get a union membership. And that is denied him. Mr. BOROW. All right, sir. On this particular point, you say this is with respect to the area of Los Angeles. Now, the A. R. T. A. has under contract all the steamship companies on the west coast. and these contracts call for hiring through the A. R. T. A. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Now, I want you to answer my question. Mr. BOROW. But this is Senator THOMAS of Utah (interposing). No; I do not want history; I want the facts in this case. If it is true that your union is barring a man from membership, when he has a job offered him, just what kind of ethics are you operating under? Mr. BOROW. But there is one point I wanted to make clear: That inasmuch as the shipowners on the west coast and the A. R. T. A. are under contract, those contracts call for the steamship companies to get their men through the A. R. T. A. offices. Therefore it would be a violation of those contracts, in that case in Los Angeles. On the east coast it is entirely a different situation. We have many cases that are just as you stated, there, in the Los Angeles example. Senator THOMAS of Utah. How long do you think you can keep a union working under those methods? Mr. BOROW. Under what methods? Senator THOMAS of Utah. Just like I have stated. Here is an employer offering a man a job, a man who is competent for the job, and the fact that the employer offers him a job proves there is a vacancy. And that man goes to get the job and is told that he must get membership in the union. He applies for membership in the union, and he is entirely qualified but is told the union books are closed. Mr. BOROW. But as I have already explained, Senator, that would be a violation of a contract now in existence. You would not advocate the violation of that contract, would you? Senator THOMAS of Utah. How could it be a violation of the contract? Mr. BOROW. Because the contract specifically states that the steamship company, when it has a vacancy, is to call up the A. R. T. A.; and the A. R. T. A. furnishes the men. Senator THOMAS of Utah. That is already done. And the A. R. T. A. states the union books are closed. Mr. BOROW. Oh, no; I have never heard of a refusal to furnish a man, except when a labor dispute occurs. Senator THOMAS of Utah. I am giving an actual instance which has occurred. Because I have written a statement about it. Is that in conformity with your idea of unionization? Mr. BOROW. Well, it is very difficult to give a blanket answer to a general situation. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Now, I want you to be specific. Just listen to this, please; and I want an answer, because I should like to know about the ethics of this particular union; there is a vacancy in a radio station. A young man, who is competent in every way, is offered a job. But he is told he must become a member of the union because they have these contracts which you mention. There is a vacancy. He goes to the union and applies for membership; and the union tells him there are no vacancies in the union. Now, what becomes of the union under those circumstances? Mr. BoRow. Sir, if there is no contract or understanding or labor dispute in that particular situation, why, I do not see any reason why and I do not believe the A. R. T. A. would deny such a man. membership or clearance. Senator THOMAS of Utah. You cannot defend that practice? Senator THOMAS of Utah. You condemn it, then, do you not? Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; I would, generally speaking. But we must always take into consideration the particular circumstances surrounding the particular case. Senator THOMAS of Utah. That is what I want. This is the time. when we have an actual case, and I want a condemnation of that, for the sake of the unions. I cannot defend labor organizations under practices of that kind. Mr. BOROW. Senator, you are speaking of a case which you have definite knowledge of? Senator THOMAS of Utah. Yes. Mr. BOROW. Now, I do not have definite knowledge of that particular case. Senator THOMAS of Utah. But you would condemn a case like that, would you not? Mr. BOROW. If it is precisely as stated to me. The CHAIRMAN. You must assume that it is. The Senator is telling you that he knows of his own knowledge. So he is entitled to a straight answer. Mr. BOROW. Yes; that is correct, Mr. Chairman. But the thing is, have those supplying the information to the Senator given the Senator the complete picture and the entire story? That is another question. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Well, turning it into a hypothetical case, then: Here is a man who has a job offered him. And he is told to get a membership in the union. He goes to the union and asks for membership. And the union denies him membership, which means. keeping him out of a job. Mr. BOROW. I can say that we have many such cases, to my own personal knowledge, right here on the east coast; and the men are given membership into the association, and they take the job. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Then, this case that I am calling to your attention is a case which is out of the ordinary, and very much out of the ordinary, is it? Mr. BOROW. Under the conditions which you describe it, I would say yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. As I understand you, the contract which the employer himself has made out, there, denies him the right to offer the job to this man? Mr. BOROW. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Unless he is a member of the union? Senator VANDENBERG. No; he has to go through the union. In other words, if there is a vice in the situation, it goes back to the contract itself. Senator THOMAS of Utah. And if there is a vice in the contract, the union is not living up to the spirit of the contract, if it denies membership in the union after receiving that contract. Don't you see that? Mr. BOROW. I can see that. But when the shipowners and the labor union agree, and sign the contract, then the shipowners must go to the union to get their men. And if there was any contract, there, where the steamship company actually violated the provisions of the contract, by offering a position to a man outside through the union hall, just as the gentleman here stated- The CHAIRMAN (interposing). No. But the company said, "We can give you the job if you can square yourself with the union and be a member of the union." And the man could not get into the union, apparently. Mr. BOROW. Are you familiar with this case, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not know about this case. But I know a lot of others just like it. I do not mean with reference to your union, but some others. Senator ELLENDER. Of all the operators employed on American ships, what percentage do not belong to the union? Do you know? Mr. BOROW. Well, I should say I cannot give you an exact figure; but I should say it is around-it is less than 15 percent, probably around 10 percent. Senator ELLENDER. That do not belong to a union? Mr. BOROW. That do not belong to the A. R. T. A. Senator ELLENDER. To your union? Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. In the contracts which you make with these various steamship companies, have you ever tried to write into that contract what you are now trying to write into this bill, with reference to your wearing apparel and insignia and the clothes you have to wear and the food you get on the ships? Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; we have such provisions in the contracts. Senator ELLENDER. Have you ever succeeded in getting that put through, into your contracts? Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; we have it. I can read the contracts to you. Senator ELLENDER. Then, what is the necessity of putting it into this bill? Mr. BOROW. Well, as I explained, there seemed to be some questions over the interpretation of certain sections of the Maritime Commission Act which define officers and define unlicensed men. Senator ELLENDER. I understand that. But since you folks control about 85 or 90 percent of the operators who man these ships, insofar as radio is concerned, and you have by contracts done this in the past, now you want to write it into the bill, so as to make the shipowner do it? Is that your view? Mr. BOROW. Well, there has been a tendency on the part of certain shipowners and certain ship officials to ignore what is actually written into bona fide contracts negotiated between the union and the employer. Senator ELLENDER. If they do that, do you not have your remedy to strike? You have exercised that remedy in the past, have you not? Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; we have. But we are interested in avoiding these strikes. And we need the cooperation of you gentlemen here to do that. Senator ELLENDER. That is all. Senator VANDENBERG. When a dispute of that sort arises, why should it not be arbitrated, without foreclosing your ultimate right to strike? Mr. BOROW. Well, here is something that is already agreed to, between employer and employee. So why should it be arbitrated? Senator VANDENBERG. Well, it may be a queston of interpretation. And if you are sure of your position, I think you could go into arbitration with complete confidence. Mr. BOROW. Well, we do not feel we should take such a position as that. It is true it is in the contract, and the union and the employer both agree on its interpretations. But we cannot make a contract that would violate any Federal statute. And that is what some of the shipowners who have violated this particular section claim. Senator VANDENBERG. Yes. But I understand you are protesting against any statutory provision for arbitration of any nature. that correct? Mr. BOROW. Compulsory arbitration; yes, sir. Is Senator VANDENBERG. Of any nature, even for a week? You would be opposed to a statutory requirement for a week's delay while an independent body determines the fact? Mr. BOROW. At this particular time; yes, sir. Senator GIBSON. Why do you say "at this particular time"? Mr. BOROW. Because, as has been stated here many times, the shipping industry is going through a state of transition as far as labor relations are concerned. And we feel that we are getting right to the proper answer now, in these arbitration clauses that are in our current agreements. They have worked out very satisfactorily. And also, there is a better understanding that is taking place between the employer, on one side, and the employee, on the other. Senator GIBSON. You mean by "transition," a period during which you are testing out these agreements? Mr. BOROW. Particularly this particular clause in that agreement. And thus far it is working out very well. And we feel that to change that at this particular time would only add to the confusion, and certainly would not help the situation any. Senator ELLENDER. May I ask a further question? Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. Suppose that the amendment that you are proposing to the law should be made as you desire it, would not that prevent anybody who does not belong to a union from being employed by a steamship company? Mr. BOROW. Well, I do not know just what particular section you refer to. Senator ELLENDER. You referred, yesterday, to wearing insignia and to certain classifications which should be placed on the operators. Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. And would not that lead us to write into that bill the employment of operators who belong to your union? |