Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. PIMPER. No; I do not believe we did.

The CHAIRMAN. During the last war we offered a premium to get them in from the various sections and were practically giving citizenship to a fellow who would come in because they did not have seamen as a rule.

Mr. CANFIELD. May I ask this: Does the witness know whether many are leaving the Federal Government service to go into the merchant marine?

Mr. PIMPER. I think there are quite a few. I do not know the exact number.

Mr. HADDOCK. The indications are there are quite a few.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?
All right, Mr. Haddock.

Mr. HADDOCK. I would like to make just one thing clear, Mr. Chairman, with respect to my remarks about the War Manpower Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HADDOCK. All of the marine unions and the War Shipping Administration have agreed that merchant seamen should be stabilized within the industry if they are employed on ships, if they are on lists seeking employment, or if they are training for employment in the merchant marine.

That is being drafted up and will be submitted to the War Manpower Commission this Friday, where it is expected that it will be adopted and ordered that all seamen are to remain in that industry.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest you let us have the recommendation going to the Board, for incorporation in this record, so we can consider it in this report.

Mr. HADDOCK. I will be very happy to do that.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.

STATEMENT OF HON. LELAND M. FORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Ford. Mr. Chairman, have you the bill under consideration now?

The CHAIRMAN. The bill is under consideration and has been gone into. Personally, there are no objections here, but generally a suggested revision of H. R. 7744, which appears on page 706 of the report of the War Shipping Administration is approved.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, if that is the status of the bill I do not see that there is anything I can add.

It is a very simple bill. I would not attempt to tell the eminent lawyers here the language they should incorporate in it.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have the opportunity of going over this record when it is presented to the clerk and adding any comment you want to make.

Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that must be done within the next 2 or 3 days.

Mr. Forb. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Knight, do you desire to appear here, or do you prefer that these other gentlemen here be heard?

Mr. KNIGHT. I would like that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis, of the War Shipping Administration, Division of Maritime Labor Relations.

Mr. Davis. I have nothing to add to what Mr. Pimper has said.

The CHAIRM. N. Mr. Olson, War Shipping Administration, Division of Recruitment and Manning,

An ALTERNATE. Nothing, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fredison, principal technical assistant, Civil Service Commission.

STATEMENT OF J. FREDISON, PRINCIPAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANT,

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Mr. FREDISON. The Civil Service Commission submitted a report on this bill a few days ago, which I assume will be made a part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FREDISON. The Commission generally favors the provisions of the bill, as it extends the same benefits to Government employees who leave their Government employment to render service in the merchant marine as the Selective Service Act extends to Government employees who enter the military service.

We believe, however, the bill should be broadened to include people who enter various training services conducted under the auspices of the War Shipping Administration.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you submitted a proposed revision by the Maritime Commission?

Mr. FREDISON. Yes; the provision submitted by the War Shipping Administration will meet this objective.

The CHAIRMAN. That meets the objections on all questions raised by the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. FREDISON. By the Civil Service Commission; yes, sir. I might say under existing Executive orders and orders of the Manpower Commission the Civil Service Commission is now authorized to confer reemployment rights upon Government employees who enter the merchant marine or any other private enterprise which directly affects the war-service program. But in order to accomplish this the cases must be cleared through the Civil Service Commission. If this legislation could by statute be made to apply to Government employees who enter the Army Transport Service we believe it would improve the situation materially. So far as the Army Transport Service is concerned there are certain civilian employees on Army transports and the Civil Service Commission at present has no authority to confer reemployment benefits upon an employee who enters the Army Transport Service.

The CHAIRMAN. Without expressing any opinion that the committee may reach with reference to that part, my own reaction on that, as I explained to Captain Delaney, is that I fear it may encroach to a certain extent upon things handled by the Military Affairs Committee. What they consider their prerogatives as to that matter I do not know, and I do not know what they are doing to solve this problem, but we might be seriously jeopardizing the bill if we were to include anything like that, which otherwise would not be subject to objection by any of them.

Mr. FREDISON. I merely mentioned the Army Transport Service to point out that under military recommendations adopted by Executive order substantially the same rights can be conferred upon Government employees who enter the Army Transport Service, and it would not be necessary to incorporate that in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. That can be done by administrative act!
Mr. FREDISON. It is being done.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further testimony?
(No response.)
The CHAIRMAN. Any further testimony, Mr. Knight?
Mr. KNIGHT. None.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask this question, Mr. Hogan and Mr.
Delaney: The draft that has been submitted by the War Shipping
Administration takes care of the criticism that you two made, does it
not?

Mr. HOGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DELANEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. And that widens the scope, so as to take care of that?

Mr. HOGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DELANEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, everybody seems to be in accord on the suggested revision.

Mr. Duff, American Merchant Marine Institute.

[ocr errors]

STATEMENT OF EDWIN H. DUFF, AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE

INSTITUTE

Mr. DUFF. My name is Edwin H. Duff, of the American Merchant Marine Institute.

Mr. Chairman, earlier in the hearings you asked if anybody present had any objections to either the original bill or the proposed draft, and my instructions from the institute were that they had no objection to H. R. 7744, but so as not to prejudice them in any way the substitute bill, of course, is something which they have not seen and have had no opportunity to pass upon in any way, and while I have not the slightest idea that they may have any objections to that, I would like at least a day or two in order to bring it to their attention.

The CHAIRMAN. You can bring it to their attention and advise us as you wish.

Mr. DUFF. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not accorded you as a privilege, because every person appearing on a bill understands amendments will be heard and amendments will be considered.

Mr. DUFF. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. I realize your position, and that will give you the time you wish, and if you have anything to suggest we will be glad to hear it.

Mr. DUFF. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That just leaves us the amendments suggested by Mr. Haddock, and as to one it is perfectly useless to discuss it, because it was based upon a misconception and has been withdrawn. That was in the last line on page 706.

Mr. HADDOCK. I am not sure my objection as to “substantially continuous” would hold very hard, and I would like to give that a little more thought.

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to say that I have got some suspicious feeling that you are probably right about that "satisfactorily.” As to the other it looks different.

Mr. HADDOCK. As to "satisfactorily" I know about it.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be found on page 706. As some of the members have come in I wish to say that there was a change suggested in about line 14, and it begins with, “tion, satisfactorily completes a period of substantially continuous service in the merchant marine," and the only problem involved there was that Mr. Haddock suggested the elimination of "substantially continuous," and also the word "satisfactorily," so that it would read, "completes a period of service in the merchant marine."

There is a question as to the determination of "satisfactorily” and it is suggested that it might reopen some of the old problems, with which the committee is familiar, where a man, good, bad, or indifferent in the performance of his service, determined by the master, did not like the cut of his jaw, the color of his eyes, or color of his hair, and it looked as if it might be after he had completed a period of continuous service he must have been more or less satisfactory if he completed the service.

So that my present reaction to that is to strike out the word "satisfactory," but to leave the words “completes a period of substantially continuous service.”

Mr. HADDOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am going to withdraw any objection I had to “substantiously continuous" at this time, and after I have had an opportunity to read the bill carefully I will write to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me know within the next 2 or 3 days.
Mr. HADDOCK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. As we are going to have a meeting of the committee on reporting the bill.

Mr. HADDOCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. PIMPER. I would like to say that the word "satisfactorily” is taken from the Selective Service Act.

The determination of the word "satisfactory” is up to the Administrator of the War Shipping Administration, and since he is involved in these Manpower Commission rulings it would seem he would in all probability follow those in issuing any rules and regulations as to the satisfactory completion of a period of substantially continuous service.

The CHAIRMAN. If the employee was employed for a year it seems to me that would entitle him to continuous service.

Mr. Harris. Yes. It would seem to me to be true also. What difference would it make whether it was satisfactory or not?

The CHAIRMAN. If he returned for that period of time!

Mr. Harris. That is exactly what it is. There is nothing in here that deprives a man from going back to his other job, is there?

Mr. PIMPER. No, sir. That word is used in the Selective Service Act.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the occasion for the adoption here?

Mr. PIMPER. Yes.

Mr. PETERSON. Did not we add the words “substantially continuous” to that?

Mr. PIMPER. No, sir. Those boys upon induction are in for the period of the duration.

M PETERSON. If you use the words "substantially continuous" and "satisfactorily” you might have a circumstance where a man was eminently satisfactory and then make a slip and it would go on his service record. So I do not think if you are going to use the words “Substantially continuous” that you should use the word “satisfactorily.” I think that ought to come out. I think that was the contemplation of the Selective Service Act. You have a limitation on the amount.

The CHAIRMAN. I think upon reflection that the word "satisfactorily” ought to be taken out. The words "substantially continuous" ought to be in. A man's service may not be continuous, you know.

Mr. PIMPER. I rather think the word “satisfactorily" was used so that a man could not get a dishonorable discharge and then demand his job back. I rather think that is the reason for the use of the word.

The CHAIRMAN. I rather think it would be applicable to the Selective Service Act where it would not be applicable here.

Mr. Ferd. It is assumed that if a man's services are not satisfactory he should not be continued. I think that is the answer.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And if he is not discharged or if his license is not revoked and he is continued in the service he is entitled to the benefit.

Mr. HADDOCK. Let us assume that a man goes on a ship and because of health factors is unable to go on. Now, that would not preclude him from going on with his job. He just gets desperately seasick, as it happens, and just cannot take it at the time.

The CHAIRMAN. That, I think, ought to be covered if it is not covered in here. I do not know whether it is. Suppose you talk that over with these other gentlemen, and I would like to have the views of the group on it soon, because I can readily see that is the case.

Mr. HADDOCK. That happens quite frequently, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I know there are men who get so seasick they just simply cannot perform the service.

Mr. HADDOCK. That is right.
Mr. HARRIS. But it is still in the revised bill.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is fairly covered now.

Mr. HARRIS. Why leave in there the discretion to anybody on a ship to determine, or leave it in the discretion of the War Shipping Administration to determine whether or not a man can go back to work for the District of Columbia ? I do not see that there should be any power about that.

The CHAIRMAN. I get the significance of your remark, but I do not catch the pertinency of it to this bill. This bill takes care of these things.

Mr. HARRIS. A man might not be able to render satisfactory service on a ship, but still can go back and render satisfactory service in his old job.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a thing that I think should be taken care of. If we were considering reporting this bill at this time, I would personally favor striking out "satisfactorily” and reporting the bill.

« PreviousContinue »