Mr. EMERSON. I suppose a great many of our merchant seamen are members of the Naval Reserve. We also would like to submit a new clause to be added as a subsection somewhere on page 5, wherever it is found convenient, to read: That nothing in this act shall be construed to restrict the right of any officers or members of the crews of any ship receiving or operating differential subsidies or operated by the Commission from enjoying the rights guaranteed such persons under the National Labor Relations Act. The CHAIRMAN. Just what does that mean? Mr. EMERSON. We feel that this is necessary, as when the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 was enacted into law, although many pages of the bill were given over to the subject of ships and construction, and so forth, very little consideration was given in regard to the men who man those ships and very little detail as to any protection they would receive. Therefore, we feel it absolutely necessary that those rights guaranteed us by law be incorporated and made a part of this bill now before the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Read again the language you propose. Mr. EMERSON (reading): That nothing in this act shall be construed to restrict the right of any officers or members of the crews of any ship receiving or operating differential subsidies or operated by the Commission from enjoying the rights guaranteed such persons under the National Labor Relations Act. The CHAIRMAN. What about that? Mr. EMERSON. That is actually in effect. The Maritime Commission has taken the stand that we are not a proper collective bargaining agency to be certified on ships operated or controlled by the Maritime Commission. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Mr. EMERSON. Our next amendment, as proposed, is that all the language in the bill, starting with line 7, page 6, and ending with line 4, page 7, be amended to exclude any provisions whatsoever for the construction abroad of American merchant ships; and that that section of the bill starting with line 8, page 8, and ending with line 3, page 9, be stricken out. I should like to make a short statement with respect to that. The CHAIRMAN. Just before you start, what does that mean? Mr. EMERSON. It means that we do not want any of our ships built abroad or to go under foreign registry. Senator MALONEY. Ships for which the American taxpayers are going to pay. The CHAIRMAN. All right. I have some sympathy with you on that, strange as it may seem. Mr. EMERSON. Both the Copeland and the Bland bills contain a provision that under certain circumstances when bids for the building of ships are too high these new ships may be constructed in foreign shipyards and operating subsidies be paid by the Maritime Commissions to the shipowners in connection with such new ships if documented under the laws of the United States. Our proposed amendment would eliminate any such provision. It is our thought that under no circumstances should ships be permitted to be built in foreign shipyards and thereafter receive Government subsidies. Instead, where bids are too high or collusive, then they should either be built in navy yards or other Government yards, or the Government should do something to bring the bids down from an unreasonable or collusive basis. The CHAIRMAN. The argument used by the Maritime Commission is that if the Commission were permitted to receive bids from foreign yards, it would serve two purposes. The first purpose would be to put American shipbuilders on notice that they are liable to lose a job. In the second place, it would probably result in lower bids for those ships. Of course, that is the argument they use. I have never had any faith at all in the argument that, under any circumstances, those ships would be built abroad, but that was the argument. Senator VANDENBERG. I have had some experience, I think, with collusive bidding, and there is need for protection against it, but I am inclined to think that the suggestion you make would protect it, and I cannot see any justification for American subsidies on foreignbuilt ships. Mr. EMERSON. I don't think so. Senator MALONEY. I do not think any Member of the Senate feels. that way. Mr. EMERSON. I do not think the Maritime Commission thought for a moment that it had any chance of getting this through. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Mr. EMERSON. We suggest that on page 10, line 19, the comma after the word "years" be stricken out and that there be inserted in lieu thereof a period. We suggest that that part of the bill beginning with the word "or" after the aforementioned period, and ending with the word "period" on line 21 be stricken from the bill. The CHAIRMAN. The point about that is that forever and ever they would be documented under our law? Mr. EMERSON. That is right, sir; it would not allow any ship built through subsidies to become the property of or be used by some foreign merchant marine. The CHAIRMAN. All right. What is your next? Mr. EMERSON. That on page 19, lines 22 and 23, the words "(except as provided in section 502 (b)) or" be stricken from the bill and a comma inserted in lieu thereof. Senator VANDENBERG. What would that do? Mr. EMERSON. That just clears up the point about allowing them. to build them in foreign shipyards. The CHAIRMAN. What is your next one? Mr. EMERSON. That the section of the bill beginning with line 11, page 20, and ending with line 9, page 22, be stricken out. We are opposed to this proposed new section of the act, both from the viewpoint of organized labor and from the viewpoint of the general public, which has to foot the bills for these subsidized ships. Under this new proposed section it would be possible in time of maritime industrial strife for any group of shipping interests, if through not being able to sail their ships on account of such strike situation their subsidies were stopped, to transfer their vessels to foreign registry and to man them with foreign crews. From the viewpoint of the general American public, it can also be readily seen that the reaction. toward letting American ships which have been built with American. taxpayers' money be operated under foreign flags would be highly unfavorable under any circumstances. We are sure that the public would not stand idly by and see the ships they had paid for being operated under foreign flags and with foreign crews. Therefore, we are unqualifiedly opposing this whole new section of the act which has been proposed here in this bill. The CHAIRMAN. What is your next amendment? Mr. EMERSON. That all the language beginning with the word "except" on line 25, page 26, and ending with the word "service" on line 13, page 27, be stricken from the bill. I do not think we have to do much explaining as to our reasons for opposing this part of the bill. From a laborer's viewpoint our picture of any person receiving a salary of $25,000 a year means that that person will be living in luxury and could hardly want for anything in this world, even with the present high standards of living. Any executive in the shipping industry who has risen to such a prominent position and who is capable of earning a salary of $25,000 a year has evidently become pretty well established financially by the time he has reached that status. We further feel that any such individual who has attained that status should be willing to render his country a service by giving of his time and energy to promote the merchant marine without taking into consideration the question of monetary remuneration. Any such executive who has a true interest in our maritime affairs and who has the country's best interest at heart as a whole should certainly put these matters before his own personal welfare and gain. Therefore, we are opposing this section of the bill unqualifiedly. I have one more amendment to the bill proper. We suggest that lines 1 and 2, on page 29, be stricken from the bill. We say that with reservations. Senator MALONEY. Just what is that section? Mr. EMERSON. In opposing this section, we do so with reservations. It will be in order for a full and detailed explanation to be made by the proponents of this bill. They want section 810 of the present act repealed. We will be better able to determine our stand on this subject after such explanation has been given. Senator MALONEY. That is the section we enacted a year ago? The CHAIRMAN. It is about the conferences? Mr. EMERSON. It is about the conferences; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The explanation is that this section does not accomplish the purpose intended; that is, to compel a conference to admit an American carrier for membership. It merely places a severe penalty on an American contractor who happens to be a member of such conference and who, in fact, may have voted to admit the complainant. If a conference is unjustly discriminatory or unfair to an American carrier, the Commission has the power, under the provisions of the Shipping Act, 1916, to disapprove the conference agreement and thus adequately deal with such situations. The penalty provided in the section applies only to American members of the conference and thus places those members in a most disadvantageous position as opposed to the foregin members. It is therefore suggested that the section be repealed. You do not express any positive opinion about it? In regard to the establishment of training schools for seamen, we recommend an amendment. When Mr. Curran was before the committee, he submitted a general idea. We have drafted this in the form of our proposed amendment. We still say, and we are on record as saying, that we would like to have the cooperation of your training schools. Senator VANDENBERG. Is this a substitute for the language on training schools in the bill? Mr. EMERSON. Training schools are taken up on page 31. Mr. EMERSON. Yes. Our proposed amendment is this: (a) The Commission is hereby authorized and directed to appoint a board of 10 members, 5 persons to be representatives of the Commission and 5 persons to be representatives of the labor organizations involved, which board shall establish, under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe, a system for the training of citizens of the United States to serve as licensed and unlicensed personnel on American merchant vessels, and shall employ as instructors such qualified licensed and unlicensed personnel from the merchant marine as the board may deem necessary to effectuate the purposes of this section. (b) The board is authorized and directed to determine the number of persons to be enrolled for such training, to fix the rates of pay of such persons, and to prescribe such courses and periods of training, as in its discretion is necessary to maintain a trained and efficient merchant marine personnel; provided, however: (1) That in the enrollment for such training, preference shall be given to those persons who have been employed in the merchant marine as seamen and who do not meet the standards required by the present laws or who desire further training; (2) The rates of pay for the persons enrolled for training and for the practical instructors shall be at least equal to the prevailing wages for similar class of work in the merchant marine and for theoretical instructors, the rates of pay may be on a contract or fee basis. Before the House Merchant Marine Committee we also said that if a person had not had any previous experience at sea, we would like to have the Commission rate him at cadet's pay, or something to that effect. [Continuing reading:] (c) The board, with the consent of any executive department, independent establishment, or other agency of the Government, including any field service thereof, may avail itself of the use of information, service, facilities, officers, and employees thereof in carrying out the provisions of this section; provided, however, that in connection with the training service the board shall establish training ships on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts, and in the Great Lakes, which training ships shall be provided with all the facilities necessary to effectuate the purposes of this section. (d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for expenditure by the board in carrying out the provisions of this section, including the compensation for the members of the board, which shall be fixed by the Maritime Commission. The CHAIRMAN. You propose five persons to be representatives of the Commission and five persons to be representatives of labor organizations involved? Mr. EMERSON. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I suppose you contemplate that within a reasonable time every sailor aboard ship will be a union man? Mr. EMERSON. They practically are today. The CHAIRMAN. This does not say it will be from one union. Mr. EMERSON. No, sir; we left that open, because whatever union has been certified legally by the National Labor Relations Board will be the union involved. The CHAIRMAN. Why do you object to having the training done under some system of supervision by the Coast Guard? Mr. EMERSON. I do not see why we should drag the Coast Guard into this. They are primarily a life-saving organization and are also to help commerce in disaster. They have a nice little organization working up and down the coasts. I take it that in time this would mean that they would have to enlarge to such an extent that they would be in complete turmoil. Another thing: I would like to see the Coast Guard with its present staff and personnel try to train stewards and cooks for large transAtlantic liners. The Coast Guard does not have the facilities. If we are going to ask the Coast Guard to do this, we might as well set up a separate agency, such as we propose here, where it will not interfere with the Coast Guard or anything else. We have a Maritime Commission the duty of which is to see that ships are manned by efficient and well-trained crews. Therefore, why should not the Maritime Commission have jurisdiction over that? Why bring in a branch of the service which has all it can do and which is not equipped to do this work? The CHAIRMAN. What objection have you to having this done by the Maritime Commission itself? Mr. EMERSON. That is what we say. We ask that the Commission set it up. We are asking the Commission to do this. The CHAIRMAN. Why do you go so far as to ask them to set up a new group outside their power, or do you mean by this that this would really develop within the Commission a bureau for this purpose? Mr. EMERSON. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. A bureau with a personnel such as you have suggested? Mr. EMERSON. Yes, sir; that is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we had such a school or such an establishment. Then what would happen to the graduates of that school when they had finished their course and were ready for service on ships? Would they then be permitted to go abroard without joining unions? Mr. EMERSON. Would they be permitted? No. How would they get aboard ship where the company had an agreement with the union? The CHAIRMAN. That is to say, after a man had taken the training, he would then join a union and go through the hiring hall? Mr. EMERSON. If it was a case where the company had a contract with the union. If the company had no contract with the union and employed scab labor, I do not suppose he would have any trouble getting in at all. The CHAIRMAN. What is your opinion? Be frank about it. Suppose we established a bureau exactly as you have suggested and it has been in operation long enough to have produced student graduates. What will be the effect of that? What is going to happen? Mr. EMERSON. He graduates, and he wants to go to sea. So, if through ignorance of the situation, which the young fellow might not know of, he goes to a steamship company and says he would like to get a position on one of their ships, he having just graduated from a Government school, the official of the steamship company would say, "We have an agreement with such and such a union. You go to the union, become a member, get on the list, and when your turn comes you will be shipped out." |