Page images
PDF
EPUB

H. R. 476 does not grant veterans' status to war service seamen. H. R. 476 does not grant to war service seamen benefits comparable to those received by veterans of the armed forces.

We wish to emphasize these two facts, since the opposition of the armed forces and of certain veterans' groups to this bill is based on the fictitious belief that war-service seamen are seeking veterans' rights. Congressman Bland stressed these facts in his August 2, 1946, speech, saying:

It is a bill tailored to meet the problems raised by wartime service in the merchant marine. The benefits it would confer are essentially civilian in nature and limited in extent.

Before analyzing what H. R. 476 does do, let us review what H. R. 476 does not do.

H. R. 476 does not:

1. Establish for war-service seamen a pension system predicated on the conception of physical impairment such as is in existence for disabled veterans of the armed forces and for dependents of deceased

veterans.

2. Grant war-service seamen preference in Government employment such as is granted to veterans of the armed forces.

3. Grant war-service seamen 52 weeks of uniform readjustment allowances, such as is allowed veterans of the armed forces. 4. Make low-cost loans available to war-service seamen. 5. Provide mustering-out pay for the war-service seamen. 6. Provide terminal leave pay for war-service seamen. 7. Provide low-cost life insurance for war-service seamen. 8. Provide hospital care for non-service-connected disabilities of war-service seamen, such as is provided for veterans of the armed forces who are unable to defray the expenses.

H. R. 476 does provide certain readjustment aids for war-service seamen. They include:

1. Extension of the benefits of the United States Employees Compensation Act to protect disabled war-service seamen and the dependents of the war dead.

2. Extension of existing United States marine hospital medical care for active merchant seamen to cover for life war-disabled seamen in regard to their war-incurred disabilities.

3. Extension of educational benefits to war-service seamen. The first two benefits enumerated above are merely extensions of existing rights of merchant seamen, and are civilian forms of welfare measures administered by civilian agencies. The third benefit admittedly is similar to educational rights available to veterans of the armed forces. We think there is good logic for this exception to the practice of not extending benefits available to veterans of the armed forces to other groups. We will elaborate on this point later in our

statement.

An honest appraisal of H. R. 476 demonstrates that it is not a bill of rights for seamen, that it is not a veterans status bill.

We make no case that war service seamen were in a comparable position with members of the armed forces. The merchant marine was a civilian, volunteer service. There can be no doubt that service in the armed forces involved a greater degree of sacrifice. However, we do object strenously to comparisons of service in the wartime mer

chant marine with shoreside employment in war industries. Our objection is no reflection on the great contribution made by 58,000,000 shoreside war workers. It stems from the conviction that an added measure of sacrifice, of deprivation, of danger and of responsibility was involved in wartime merchant sea service. This the House Merchant Marine Committee recognized in its report last year when it labeled the service "quasimilitary."

We do not believe it is necessary to inform this committee of the dangers of wartime sea service and the heroism of merchant seamen in war zones throughout the world. The statements of the top military leaders reprinted on page 7 of last year's hearings, and the other evidence reprinted on pages 4 through 20 will bear us out.

We do think, however, that the new members of this committee should know that sea service is inevitably confining, that merchant seamen are normally subject to discipline not prevalent in shoreside employment. We do think the committee should know that probably in excess of 50,000 men over draft age were recruited to wartime sea service. The War Shipping Administration has pointed out that many of these came at financial sacrifice to make a more direct contribution to the war effort. We do think that the committee should know that merchant seamen as replacement and auxiliaries manned guns alongside of Navy gun crews. And incidently they were pretty good shots being officially credited with 55 Japanese planes in the Philippines invasion alone.

We do not believe a comparison of the earnings of war service seamen with those of members of the armed forces is germane to the ssue now before the committee. We repeat that H. R. 476 is not a veterans' bill. Unfortunately the comparison has been injected into consideration of H. R. 476 and all too frequently the comparison has Deen incorrect and unfair.

We should like to preface our analysis of the wage picture with everal general remarks.

First, we believe that the committee received adequate information n regard to earnings during the course of last year's hearings. You vill find the most useful data on pages 101 to 103 and 258 to 262 in the hearings. Second, the only meaningful and fair comparison is an nalysis which takes into account all factors and surveys the usual or ypical situation. We feel it is manifestly unfair to compare monthly asic wages of a boot seaman in the Navy with wages and bonuses of a merchant seaman at sea. If the comparison is to be properly made it aust be made between the annual earnings of, for instance, the naval un crews on merchant ships with their higher ratings, their sea pay, heir allotments, their regular earnings, their higher income tax reeductions and other emoluments against the annual earnings of herchant seamen aboard the same ship.

In the last Congress there were requests that payrolls be brought up rom the ships. This was not done for the simple reason that the ay rolls are scattered throughout the country and that they are exeedingly voluminous. Pay rolls for the different voyages are in he hands of the general agents who operated the vessels for the Jnited States. The seamen moved from ship to ship when, where nd how they were needed in the war effort. Their annual earnings re scattered on pay rolls in different cities and in different ports.

It would be a costly, time-consuming, and difficult job to bring together and tabulate a representative number of pay rolls.

Responsible Government agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the United States Maritime Commission have done this job. Those who object to the validity of these studies want to pick out the case of a merchant seaman making a goodly sum of money in a particular month and to compare it with the member of the armed forces who got $50 a month.

We can save the expense of going after the pay rolls. We can agree that there are cases of men in the entry ratings in the merchant marine earning $300 to $350 in 1 month. The entry ratings got $82.50 a month in base pay. In addition they received bonuses, bonuses at first negotiated between the operators and the unions, and later bonuses standardized at various levels depending on the waters in which the ship moved. These bonuses reached a high point in particular waters at certain periods during the war of 100 percent of base pay plus $5 a day. The 100-percent bonus was payable in a fairly wide danger belt around Europe and Asia. The $5 a day in addition was paid in extremely hazardous waters such as the English Channel. Thus certain entry ratings in the merchant marine at times earned as much as $82.50 in base pay, $82.50 in voyage bonus, $150 in area bonus, and probably $20 to $30 in overtime or a total of $330 to 340 in 1 month.

this

But the story doesn't end there. First it is unfair to compare case with the $50-a-month boot sailor. The lowest paid rating in the Navy gun crews on these vessels received $66 in base pay and $13 in overseas pay. In addition there were many other forms of pay and emoluments which must be taken into account and which I will review later in my statement.

Second the seaman who made $300 to $350 in a month did not make it every month nor even most months except in rare cases.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Excuse me, Mr. Haddock. While you are on that subject, you stated that the seamen made probably $20 to $30 a month overtime. An inspection of the rolls in New York recently indicated that the overtime was usually as large as the base pay for practically all grades. What would your comment on that be! Mr. HADDOCH. These figures are taken from wartime earnings. Present overtime earnings are admittedly much higher because of the reduction in hours which has taken place aboard ship since the war. The hours were reduced from 56 to 48 at sea, and from 56 to 40 in port.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. These were current earnings I was speaking of, I agree.

Mr. HADDOCK. That is right. That is the reason for the much higher overtime rate today compared with the wartime overtime earnings. Mr. ALLEN. May I ask a question?

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Certainly.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Haddock, wasn't there another bonus that was given for actual combat, something like $125 for an engagement?

Mr. HADDOCK. $125 for actual attack; if your ship was hit during the attack.

Mr. ALLEN. Was that for a day or for each attack?
Mr. HADDOCK. For each attack; that is right.

His next voyage may have been to the Caribbean or to South America where no area bonus was payable and where the voyage bonus was 333 percent of base wages. On this voyage he would make approximately $82.50 in base pay, around $27.50 in bonuses and possibly $20 o $30 in overtime, or a total of $130 to $140 a month.

The complete history of wartime bonuses can be found on pages 131 hrough 141 in the hearings on H. R. 2346.

The only fair way to make a comparison is based on averages or on ypical situations.

Data compiled by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and he United States Maritime Commission and inserted into the record of hearings on H. R. 2346 (p. 258 of part 1) show the wartime earnings of an able seaman in the period of highest war bonuses as follows: verage annual earnings from wages, bonuses, and all other sources. linus income taxes_

et income__

$2,596 411

2, 185

It has been said that a comparable rating in the Navy is a coxswain, who had the following earnings:

[onthly base pay.

[onthly sea pay-

lonthly average allotment, besides pay, from official Navy figures_

otal monthly earnings.

nnual earnings-

$78

15

51

144

1,728

Because the monthly allotment is tax free and the serviceman has a 1,500 tax exemption no income taxes are payable from the above xample.

Even if one compares an able seaman in the merchant marine with he lowest rating in the gun crews aboard merchant vessels, the differnce in annual earnings is far less than commonly believed.

The earnings of the lowest paid man in the Navy gun crew are: lonthly base pay.

lonthly sea pay--

Ionthly average allotment, besides pay, from Navy releases_

otal monthly earnings.

'otal annual earnings.

$66

13

51

130

1, 560

The difference in annual net earnings is approximately $600. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Right at that point, Mr. Haddock, ou are speaking of monthly allotments, that is, family allotments; ou mean in case the man is married?

Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct. This is not a comparison of the nmarried merchant seaman or the unmarried service connected ndividual.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. As far as the merchant seaman is conerned there was no difference whether he was married or unmarried, sn't that right?

Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. But as far as the seaman in the Navy concerned there is a very decided difference?

Mr. HADDOCK. That is right.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The record should show that, because he greatest number of the young men, so far as I know, that served board merchant ships were not married, they were quite young men. That would be my conclusion just from knowing the naval service fairly well.

Mr. HADDOCK. Seth, do you have the average figures for married merchant seamen ? Do you know what that percentage is?

Mr. LEVINE. I don't have the exact figures of merchant seamen who were married, but I think it was 30 to 40 percent during the war. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I appreciate that but I was not trying to bring that out, I was simply saying that the same pay is applicable to a merchant seaman whether he is married or not married.

Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. But the same full pay would not be applicable to a naval seaman in those two cases; he would not get that allotment unless he were married.

Mr. HADDOCK. We reach that same conclusion later on in our statement, Mr. Chairman.

The real difference is much less than the monetary difference in view of the fact that merchant seamen do not get mustering out pay, terminal leave pay, and so forth, and have additional expenses in awaiting ship in port, and pay full fares in traveling between ship and home.

Of course, members of the armed forces without dependents did not receive additional compensation in the form of allotments. To that extent the comparison between merchant seamen and members of the armed forces is weighted more heavily in favor of the merchant

seaman.

Any fair comparison of earnings of war-service seamen and men bers of the armed forces must take into account the fact that the servicemen, in addition to base pay, received:

1. Allotments for dependents (averaged $51 per month exclusive of the serviceman's contribution according to the navy).

2. Overseas or sea-duty pay (20 percent of base pay).

3. Special income-tax exemptions.

4. Terminal-leave pay.

5. Mustering-out pay.

6. Longevity pay and increases for certain medals.

7. Maternity care for their wives at Government expense.

8. Free postage, furlough train fares, low-cost amusement, and s forth.

Such comparison must also include the fact that the merchant seaman was not and is not paid while ill from causes unrelated to service, while on furlough, and while in port awaiting ship.

We call the attention of the committee to pages 101, 102, 103, 258. 259, 260, and 261 of last year's hearings for additional information on comparative earnings.

Before leaving the subject of comparable status something must be said about war-risk insurance in view of the fact that many people believe that the free war-risk insurance given to merchants seamen was something more than the members of the armed forces received.

Merchant seamen received $5,000 of war-risk insurance free. This insurance applied only to death or disability from actual war risks. It was not ordinary life insurance and did not cover deaths or dis abilities from natural or nonwar causes.

Mr. Odom of the Veterans' Administration clearly brought out in his testimony last year that the members of the armed forces received free war-risk insurance, too. Mr. Odom said:

A great deal has been said here about insurance benefits. I do not need to tell you what the merchant seamen have by way of free coverage, and some

« PreviousContinue »