Mr. GATHINGS. All four of them?

Mr. CORBETT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I am checking on that. Go ahead, Mr. Corbett. Mr. CORBETT. As a group the locomotive engineers of the Nation are generally considered as a conservative group of workers. Their training demands years of apprenticeship because of the demands for every possible effort to protect the lives, property, and machinery of the traveling public and their employers. Their unusual record of accomplishments should entitle them to a part in the general consideration of proposals such as are now before the Congress.

During every moment of their service they recognize the continued necessity of observing their first rule: "Safety is of first consideration."

The locomotive engineers and their associate workers in the train. service of the Nation were pioneers in making efforts to secure the assistance of the Congress for passage of the different acts to provide for safer working conditions and for greater safety devices for the protection of the lives and property of the traveling public.

In bill H. R. 2239, section 3, paragraph (4), page 3, there appear some apparent restrictions that we believe should not be supported by those subscribing to safety. The following especially appear to merit consideration:

There appears the demand that there shall be no demand that a certain number of men shall be employed in any employment; and the locomotive engineer would be restricted in any effort he might desire to make to retain or have a man on the locomotive as his assistant. Safety to the traveling public should warrant opposition to any such a proposal.

There appears the restriction in connection with what may be considered as the necessary training of the locomotive engineer, and, again, we believe it proper to expect that those engaged in train service should be privileged to protect themselves and their lifelong investments in the service by demanding that only those with proper training and experience should be permitted to become responsible for the operation of locomotives.

Again, for many long, hard years the train service employees, including the locomotive engineers, have had a dual basis of wage payments. There may be instances in which they work 8 hours or more, and up to the full 16-hour period allowed under the Federal Hours of Service Act without any overtime; and there may be other occasions in which they might make their run in but a portion of the previous day's time; but if both assignments are over the same route there would be the same pay, as the second day's wages would be paid for under a mileage-worked basis.

There next arises the provisions of paragraph (4), page 3. in which we note the references to the tools which are to be provided or required. We believe that the present safety conditions on the railroads are the results of the continued demands of the employees for proper equipment, whether such may be referred to as "tools" or "equipment"; and we must protest any and all proposals that may be interpreted as proposals to lower safety standards.

From our experiences, we are not demanding or endeavoring to secure conditions as outlined in paragraph (3), page 3; but it may be a proper time and place to raise the question as to why attorneys

supporting legislation of this kind may consider it as either advisable or necessary to restrict the citizens, referred to as "workers," from privileges enjoyed and demanded by the legal fraternity in certain States.

A member of the present Congress recently informed me that in the handling of certain legal matters in two or more States away from his regular place of business he was obliged to have an attorney from the neighboring State present, but not handling the cases, while he presented his cases before the neighboring State's courts. We find it difficult to understand these differences.

Paragraph (6), page 4, appears as exceptionally broad and, because of its present wording, open to as many interpretations as there may be attorneys unfriendly to workers.

Section 4 appears as something to merit attention of more learned citizens than I. What is meant by "connected with the prosecution of the war"? Does it refer to the distant connection such a contractor may have with a contract to supply certain materials for war purposes, for the construction of some project that may be used remotely in the prosecution of the war, or could it be stretched to mean that if such contractor was not in a business in any way connected with the war, but had one of his family in the armed forces, such a contractor would be "connected with the war"?

Apparently it is assumed that all may understand the terms "prime contractor," "executive," "administrative," "professional," or "supervisory" employees. These terms as presented merit attention.

Each and all of the railroads of the Nation place a dual responsibility on the locomotive engineer who is assigned to handle the locomotive on each train and on the conductor of the train, and there follows the requirement that the locomotive engineer shall supervise the work of the fireman assigned to work on the locomotive with him, and the conductor has the responsibility of directing the operation of the train and is entirely responsible for the directing of the work required of the brakemen and/or those assigned to assist in the operation of the train. From the wording of this bill there appears some question as to whether the positions filled by the locomotive engineers and the conductors will bar them from continuing membership in their labor organizations or not. Regardless of what may be the answer, we must protest any such efforts to restrict the rights of American workers to join any union or other organization of their choice.

Among railroad workers it has long been customary to promote their employees into the higher and more responsible positions. Brakemen are promoted to positions as conductors and often are advanced to official positions. Firemen are promoted to locomotive engineers and from such positions to traveling foremen of engines, master mechanics, and other administrative positions. Telegraphers are promoted to train dispatchers and advance from such positions to trainmaster, assistant superintendent, superintendent, and higher official positions.

In their service as firemen, trainmen, engineers, conductors, and such positions, these employees become members of the craft union which handles their individual service; and as the different brotherhoods have found it necessary to provide insurance for their members, it must be interesting to learn whether such men whose services show that they are eligible for promotion must refuse such promotion in order to retain their insurance in their union or brotherhood because

of the necessity of not retaining membership if the provisions of this legislation are passed.

We submit the belief that such proposals are unfair, unkind to the better classes of workers, and provide a start toward despotism of the worst and most undesirable type.

It appears proper to direct attention to the antilabor and antistrike provisions of bill H. R. 992.

There is the first proposal that, regardless of the kind of employer the citizen may be employed by, if there arises the necessity of a concerted move by all of the employees to "exert their economic strength" in efforts to correct some abuse being prosecuted by the employer, those younger employees, who may have been required because of special abilities in industrial work to remain in industry in order to best prosecute the war efforts but who are a part of the concerted movement to protest their unfavorable working conditions, are to be immediately classified for training under the Selective Training Act.

As there are quite often two sides to such controversies, it must be of interest to learn the penalty that shall be provided for the contractor whose money-grabbing activities created the controversy and what penalties are proposed for those strikers who were not subject to the Selective Service Act. Is it the idea to permit the older employee to strike and to demand that the younger employees shall either go through life with the title of "scab" or be made immediately subject to military training? Such legislation is unworthy of

statesmen.

It appears proper to protest aganst the proposed nullification of the protective features of the so-called Federal Hours of Service Acts and certain of the other proposals presented in section 3 of bill H. R. 992.

For many years those engaged in train service upon the railroads of the United States have been protected by the provisions of the Hours of Service Act, which provides that not more than 16 hours in the aggregate shall be worked in a 24-hour period; and, after working 16 hours, a 10-hour rest period shall be provided, and with but an 8-hour rest period if the full 16 hours were not worked.

Those who were in train service previous to the passage of this act know of its protective value to the worker, to his associate workers, and to the traveling public. We shall hope that it may never be changed, except to provide for a shorter work day than the 16-hour period provides.

Railroad workers receive the same rates of pay for day and/or night service; but, as the Government provides a slightly higher rate of pay for many engaged in switching service at night than is paid during day work, we shall protest all proposals to change such wage agreements. We consider it unfair to lower wage rates at a time when working conditions and living conditions are being made more expensive.

Attention is called to the fact that the Congress has established a maximum monthly number of hours for aviators. We favor the present arrangement from a safety standpoint.

I will conclude by stating that the organization is opposed to the provisions of both of the other two bills.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Are there any questions?

Mr. ARENDS. I would like to ask one question. I was interested a month or two ago in reading in the Reader's Digest the article dealing with "feather-bedding," which you probably read, as it relates to railroad trainmen.

Mr. CORBETT. I regret that I have not read that particular article, but there has been so much said about it that I think I know what it means, and I know quite a bit about the so-called feather-bed conditions.

Mr. ARENDS. I raise the thought only because it dealt with manpower. That was the motive back of the article.

Mr. CORBETT. For the record, it seems proper to state that every agreement that is in effect between the employees and the managements of each and all of the railroads in the United States was arrived at through collective-bargaining agreements, and for an employer to sign his name to an agreement and then go out before the public and criticize the agreement that he has made himself a party to does not appear proper.

Mr. COSTELLO. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. COSTELLO. Do you not think at the present time, when there is such a terrific shortage of manpower, even though those agreements may be in existence, that they should be reviewed, and where feather-bedding does exist it should be eliminated?

Mr. CORBETT. Speaking from a position of a locomotive engineerand I am sure that the representatives of all other labor organizations can do it equally well-there is no propriety in using the term "feather-bed." For that to be any part of any reference to any train service organization-and most of the remarks that I have heard refer to or are in connection with train service is wrong.

Mr. COSTELLO. Of course, the term is simply used to explain a type of activity. As I understand it, as a specific illustration, where the railroads have put on Diesel engines it requires only an engineer; you do not need a fireman. But where the Diesel engine has a second power plant added to it, under the provisions of the railroad. labor agreements you have to have a second engineer and a second fireman added on. If there is a third unit, you have to have another. In other words, one man drives the train, but five others might be going along with him for the ride and actually do nothing on the entire trip. I think that was the item that was specifically mentioned in the article that Mr. Arends referred to.

Mr. ARENDS. Plus the fact that on account of the increased speed they complete their day's work in less than 3 hours. I am not arguing for or against it. I brought the matter up to see if you had read it.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a very proper discussion of the manpower situation.

Mr. ARENDS. Because it dealt directly with manpower. It said that many of these men completed their work within 3 hours.

Mr. CORBETT. I am quite pleased to have you men bring that before the committee.

I wonder if either one of you have worked on any of these Diesel engines?

Mr. COSTELLO. I do not know the first thing about it. I am taking it from the article. That was the criticism set forth in the article. That is why I was raising the question. In other words, if there is any practice in industry, whether it is railroading or anything else, whereby three or four men are being paid to do a job and actually are performing no work, that is what is bad. If it is not a true statement of facts, I think the article should be answered and should be criticized.

Mr. CORBETT. That is absolutely and positively not a statement of fact.

Mr. ARENDS. That is why I asked you the question.

Mr. CORBETT. Off the record, I am not a platinum blonde. My hair turned from coal black to the color it is now from the railroad service. I have been in different kinds of railroad service for 50 years. Thirty-three years ago I was qualified to run a gas-electric engine and Diesel-electric motors, so I am quite familiar with what I am talking about.

Now, then, in regard to these units, so-called, or motors-whatever you wish to term them-you will understand that they are in different cars. They are not a steam locomotive, where all of the machinery is immediately connected with one boiler. We have a car, and back of that is another car, and back of that is another car, and possibly one or two more similar cars back of that, in which there are possibly four large motors all connected, so that the man in the front unit has control of all of them.

Now, all of you men probably are familiar with an automobile motor; and there is not any intention on my part to make this thing appear terribly complicated. A Diesel motor does not differ a great deal from the ordinary automobile motor. In fact, it is more simple. because in a Diesel motor your explosion is caused through compression-there is no ignition-while in an automobile you have a four-cycle motor, and on every fourth movement there is an explosion.

The CHAIRMAN. The question here, Mr. Corbett, is this: Does that engineer in the front car have power to control all of the powers behind him in the other cars containing the motors, without the necessity of additional men?

Mr. CORBETT. Insofar as the control of the power is concerned, yes, but if something goes bad in the second car the man over in the front car cannot do anything with it. Somebody back there must cut out that motor and must make some arrangements to keep that train going.

It is safety to the traveling public, and it is safety to the property of the railroad itself, that is being referred to as a feather bed, shall we say; and a large number of the remarks that I have heard are being made by the attorneys, the counsel of the railroad, who feel that it is a terrible thing that possibly a locomotive engineer, who takes the responsibility of taking a thousand or fifteen hundred lives across the country through a storm, gets a quarter as much for a day's work doing that as the attorney may get for presenting an application for a divorce before the court.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Mr. COSTELLO. That article indicated that it required both an engineer and a fireman on each of those units.