In the contract it will stipulate that the employees under the agreement shall be hired through the union hall.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Senator VANDENBERG. How far have you gone with voluntary contracts providing for mediation?

Mr. CURRAN. We have six to eight under negotiation. You realize, of course, that we cannot move any more rapidly because of the National Labor Relations Board conducting or holding elections. They have to hold elections in each steamship company before any negotiations can be carried on. They have to designate, through the balloting, the collective bargaining agency.

Senator VANDENBERG. How would that compare with the total maritime situation?

Mr. CURRAN. It would be 18 out of approximately 75 that have been finished so far.

Senator THOMAS. In the main, you said, you are in agreement with the testimony given by Chairman Madden, but in the course of your statement you mentioned the fact that anything in the direction of mediation would be looked upon as a coercive measure. Mr. CURRAN. That is correct.

Senator THOMAS. Has the history of railway mediation proved itself to be coercive?

Mr. CURRAN. We do not want to imply by any word or any statement that the Railway Labor Act is not a good act insofar as it covers railroads; but we wish to point out to you very clearly that the maritime industry today is not in the same position as the railroads. In fact, we are now conducting elections. We are attempting to negotiate agreements. The fact that this mediation clause in the bill is even pending is because many of the shipowners are saying, "Well, we will wait in these negotiations until we see what comes from Congress."

They know that this completely takes our weapon away from us— any weapon we may have to defend the union. They know that we would be powerless to bring any pressure on them, and they could deny any change in conditions. They would just tell us we could not get them and that we know we cannot strike. They would get it up to the Mediation Board and would be able to hold it there indefinitely, and we just would not get anything.

Senator THOMAS. Has your organization proceeded as far as railroad organization had when the mediation went into effect?

Mr. CURRAN. The railroad industry at that time was on an entirely different plan. Today we have a different way of going about organizing. We have to wait now until the National Labor Relations Board certifies us before we can even negotiate. On the basis of that, you can't even make a comparison. They did not have the National Labor Relations Board in those days, and they were pretty well organized at that.

Senator THOMAS. You are not against the principle of mediation entirely; you are against the probable use to which this particular act might be put at this time?

Mr. CURRAN. I am opposed to mediation being written into law at this time. Our organizations are also opposed to it. We asked for the opportunity to organzie our industry before we discussed mediation. We have not proved conclusively to anybody, in spite of

what the press and other agencies might contend, that we cannot settle this industry and keep it peaceful and bring about harmonious relations with the shipowners. We have not been given a chance to prove that. If we are proved wrong, then it would be time to discuss it. Senator THOMAS. Then we should underscore your words "at this particular time"?

Mr. CURRAN. Well, I want it made very definitely clear that insofar as mediation of any description is concerned, written into law, we are opposed to it. The organizations I represent are opposed to it. Senator VANDENBERG. Even if it were to follow the general theory of your voluntary contracts?

Mr. CURRAN. At this time. We believe that the clause written into the contracts at this time, unless we are proved wrong, will take care of this. Then, if we are proved wrong, we can discuss mediation. Our organization is in its infancy. If it is going to be given a chance to prove whether it can do something or not, it may be able to do it; but if it is going to be strangled before it has grown up, then we do not know-none of us know what it could have done if it had been allowed to go on.

Senator VANDENBERG. One of our troubles is while your organization is in its infancy the industry with which you deal is on its death bed.

Mr. CURRAN. I do not think, by any stretch of the imagination, that you can place the blame for that on labor.

Senator VANDENBERG. I am not assessing blames; I am saying that we are confronted with a crisis, apparently, according to the testimony of Mr. Kennedy, and that something has to be done about it.

Mr. CURRAN. I want to say conclusively that we are wholeheartedly in support of the program to build the merchant marine. Naturally, we would be, as our livelihood depends on it. Also, although people would differ with us in this opinion, we are patriotic, and we would like to see a strong merchant marine in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you disagree with the statement of the United States Maritime Commission to this effect?

Labor conditions in the American Merchant Marine are deplorable. Unless something is done to reduce interunion friction, to increase the efficiency of our crews, and to restore order and discipline upon our ships, all Government efforts to develop a strong American fleet will be futile. A merchant marine built upon inadequate and unsatisfactory personnel is little better than no merchant marine at all.

Mr. CURRAN. I disagree with it in many respects. I believe that the time that is referred to in this report is not the present. I believe it refers to the time when we did have interunion friction, which we have not got at the present time. This union, I will say, without any fear of contradiction, is the only union in the field, with the possible exception of a remannt here and there.

As I said before, we have come through a transition period. You will find conditions more stable today than they ever before were on the ships. There is no doubt in my mind that they are going to become very much more stable as we go along.

The report, I think, should have dealt a little more closely with the reasons why this deplorable condition existed. The report would give you as the reason why conditions were deplorable the fact that there was undisciplined personnel on the ships. We differ on that completely. We believe that the unlicensed personnel on the ships were

driven to extreme measures in many cases because of a complete lack of cooperation-a refusal to cooperate on the part of ship owners and others who knew the conditions the men lived under and worked under were deplorable; but those owners operated on a dollars-andcents basis. We believe the report is not clear. We believe that it should have reported on every one of those particular points and not try to place the blame completely upon the seamen.

I will go further and say that you are not going to get a better or finer type of seaman today, no matter how much you train him. You cannot get a better type than you have today. You may have a few here and there, the same as you have in every industry, who are not of the best, but on the whole, being a seaman myself, I will argue with anybody that our seamen are the best type of Americans we have in this country, and they are the most able seamen.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you not at all disturbed that conditions as they are will prevent the building of new ships?

Mr. CURRAN. No, I am not; except so far as the ship owner is concerned in not having the money with which to build them; but so far as the seamen are concerned, I am satisfied that they have a union of their own choosing, that they have their representatives, and that they are ready to go along and to cooperate 100 percent to build a merchant marine.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not important that that should be made so definite and so well understood that that element can not enter into the decision of whether we are to build any ships or not?

Mr. CURRAN. Frankly, I think it should be made definite, yes; and I think it is made definite in our contracts. I think this legislation will do more to disorganize the industry and antagonize the seamen, because we must agree that you are not going to do away with all the seamen and place new seamen in their field. That is impossible. Legislation of this type would just antagonize the seamen who have come through this period, and you would have more difficulties than you have had before. I do not believe that the seamen can be subjugated into a position where they have no right to collective bargaining and no right to apply to the National Labor Relations Board, as such, and no right to exercise their constitutional rights. That is what this legislation would, in fact, be doing.

Senator THOMAS. If mediation would be made effective only after organization had been completed, then your statement would not hold.

Mr. CURRAN. I said before, and I say again, that after the industry is completely organized, it would then be time to discuss mediation, if it were necessary. If we had proved by that time that we could not mediate our disputes through our machinery, created in the contracts, but not before we have had the opportunity to try that machinery out.

Senator THOMAS. In the light of that answer, we should use what you have today, and your answer to the question of Senator Copeland, I take it, is that Chairman Kennedy's criticism refers to a given time rather than to a probable later condition?

Mr. CURRAN. I would say, and I believe I am safe in saying, that the report made by the Maritime Commission gives a complete survey of the maritime industry, with respect to no particular time but is over a period of years, let us say.

At this time I do not think there is any point in the report covering this particular time at all. I think it goes back a year or six months. I just want to point out that of these eleven contracts that we have signed with the steamship operators, nine of them were signed quite a time back, and we have not had any dispute of any nature whatsoever to even adjudicate on those lines, and there are 56 ships covered on those lines. We have not had any trouble of any description whatsoever on those lines.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Senator SHEPPARD. What do you consider to be a living wage? Mr. CURRAN. I do not think I am prepared to say. It depends on what you refer to. Is it for seamen?"

Senator SHEPPARD. It is evidently above $70 a month?

Mr. CURRAN. You are referring to seamen?

Senator SHEPPARD. Yes.

Mr. CURRAN. I think that a seaman should be entitled to the same minimum wage that may apply to work ashore, with the exception of that taken out for his board and room. I think he should be paid a hundred dollars a month at least, because I believe he is a skilled worker. All seamen are.

Senator GIBSON. What is he now paid?

Mr. CURRAN. I think it is $70 a month.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other questions, we shall adjourn until 10:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(At 11:15 a. m. an adjournment was taken until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 14, 1937, at 10:30 a. m.)