Hon. FRANCIS T. MALONEY, THE ANDREW RADEL OYSTER CO., SOUTH NORWALK, CONN., October 22, 1941. United States Senator, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: We are writing to ask you to assist us by working for the exemption of the fishing industry from the provisions of bill H. R. 5446. We are enclosing herein a brief outline os to our reasons for this request. Our industry is so hard pressed in these times with a multitude of natural and man-made problems that we feel no further burdens should be placed upon us, as they would inflict a much greater hardship on us than would appear on the surface. Will you kindly give this matter your consideration? We trust that we can count on you to come to our assistance and support our position in regard to H. R. 5446. With many thanks for any aid you may be able to give us, we are, THE ANDREW RADEL OYSTER CO., WHY THE FISHING INDUSTRY SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS H. R. 5446 TO ESTABLISH A SYSTEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FOR THE MARITIME INDUSTRY In recent years the Federal Government has showered agriculture with benefits mounting to billions of dollars as well as other aids. Agricultural labor is not covered by unemployment insurance. The fishing industry which is also a foodproducing industry and therefore competitive with agriculture, has not had the benefits of the largesse so lavishly given the farmers of the Nation and therefore suffers from a competitive disadvantage in the marketing of its products. Incidentally, an appreciable percentage of the fishermen of the Nation are primarily farmers supplementing their farm earnings with the pursuit of fishing operations. The intent of the bill is to benefit labor in the maritime industry. In a study of "Earnings of the fisherman and the fishing craft" (N. R. A. work materials No. 32), John R. Arnold showed definitely the preponderance of men (72 percent) of all vessel fishermen were operating on the share or "lay" basis, taking 74 percent of the value of the catch. As taxes are a part of the cost of operations, this 3-percent tax on pay rolls on fishing vessels will be reflected in the price of fish and in the earnings of the fisherman. As the unions could create unemployment by taking on new men, they could put as many men on relief as they wished. Thus the full-time fisherman would suffer from a lower return for his labors and less certainty as to continuous employment. And, with the added cost of operations, the price at which fish would have to sell could well be so high as to greatly curtail consumption, the combination of factors proving disastrous to the fishing industry. * * The need for exempting the fishing industry from the provisions of the act is evident by the language of section 1 (b) defining the term "vessel" to include "every description of watercraft or other contrivance used as a means of transportation on water" "exclusive of vessels engaged in the catching, taking, harvesting, cultivating, or farming of any kind of fish, shell fish, crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, or other aquatic forms of animal or vegetable life." This action is in line with the exemption given by the Congress to the fishing industry from the provisions of the wage-hour law. In attempting to amend section 1607 (c) (4) of subchapter C of chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code to include the maritime industry within the provisions of the code, it is patent that those who drafted the bill (H. R. 5446) overlooked the exclusion of fishing vessels already covered in section 1 (b) (p. 4, lines 10-13) of the bill, if they were sincere in their efforts to exclude the fishing industry. We assume this to be the case. Therefore to insure the carrying out of this exemption, following the definition of "Employment" (lines 19-25, p. 57 and lines 1 to 5, p. 58) immediately following the word "except" line 5, the following language be inserted: "Service performed as an officer or member of the crew of a fishing vessel as defined on page 4, lines 10 to 13 of this bill." The language contained in the bill beginning with line 20, page 58 and ending with line 7 on page 59 be stricken therefrom. Hon. S. O. BLAND, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, Washington, D. C., October 9, 1941. Chairman, Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. DEAR JUDGE BLAND: I am enclosing letter from Mr. J. R. Guyton, secretarytreasurer and general manager of the Bay Towing Co., of Galveston, which will be found self-explanatory. The Bay Towing Co. is perhaps one of the largest towboat operators on the Gulf coast, and you will note that Mr. Guyton expresses keen opposition to H. R. 5446, proposing unemployment insurance for marine workers. I am sorry I was unable to attend the hearing you held on the bill a few days ago. My committee, as you may know, has been holding hearings almost daily the past few weeks. With kind regards, I am, J. J. MANSFIELD. BAY TOWING CO., Hon. JOSEPH J. MANSFIELD, Galveston, Tex., October 4, 1941. Member, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: I want to call your attention to H. R. 5446, introduced by Mr. Bland, to establish a system of unemployment insurance for the marine industry. Under the provisions of this bill the employers are to contribute 6 percent for the first 6 months of 1941 and 3 percent thereafter. Since the first of the year the marine employee's wages have been increased 20 percent. We are expected to increase wages to unheard-of rates of pay and at the same time are asked to add additional 6 percent for unemployment insurance. These men are paid well, considering the nature of their work on harbor tugs, and in addition to their wages they receive subsistence, so their wages are net to them. On account of the nature of our business, we cannot continue to pass these abnormal increases on to our customers, for the simple reason that tugboats are not always essential in the docking and off-docking of steamers. And when the rate gets so high they will discontinue the use of tugboats, except in cases where it is absolutely necessary, and there is not enough such business to operate at a profit. The same reasoning applies to any business or manufacturer-you cannot go on raising the price of your service or product. I notice that this bill proposes a minimum benefit rate of $1.25 per day for those earning a monthly compensation of $60 or less, rising to a maximum of $3 per day for monthly compensation of $120 per month. Our employees make from $105 to $265 per month, plus subsistence, and each one would come under the $3-per-day unemployment plan, or about $90 per month, and those making $105 per month, who represent 75 percent of our employees, would certainly be foolish to work when they can draw $90 to $93 per month without working. Our pay roll runs about $25,000 per month, and with the additional 6 percent, it would mean an addition of $1,500 per month for the 6 months of $9,000 and $4,500 for the remaining 6 months. What I would like to know is, where does Congress think we can get this money?-we certainly cannot start a mint and issue our own money. We are asked to buy bonds, and we have. I say, without fear of contradiction, that not 1 percent of the men receiving these high wages have spent a dime for bonds. You know, and I know, that a man who can get from the Government as much as $1.25 to $3 per day is not going to work. How long the sore back of the taxpayer can stand up under the present load is more than I can say, but, apparently, Congress does not give any consideration whatever to the men who make this employment possible. Frankly, I will say to you, that if the money we have invested in our companies was turned into cash and placed into Government bonds with their low rate of interest, our net income would be greater than we earn at present. No consideration whatever seems to be given to the men who make the employment possible, who have their money invested, and who have, in years gone by, enjoyed a fair return for their investment and management, and made it possible for them to give employment to others. But, eventually, this will all cease through inability to make enough money to pay the taxes and the abnormal rates of wages that we are forced to pay at this time. I hope you will have some consideration for the taxpayer. These men are paid a much higher rate of wages than the farm laborers or some other vocation of labor, and if they choose to spend their money for liquor, women, and automobile riding, and save not one frazzeling cent, I cannot see why their employers, after paying them a good wage, should be asked to maintain them at a wage of up to $3 per day. Do not misunderstand me, I like to see these men get a good wage. I have worked for wages myself, but I have observed in the last few months, that high wages benefit but a minority. In most cases it means more liquor, more automobile accidents, and more women. Yours very truly, BAY TOWING CO., COMMUNICATIONS TAKEN FROM COMMITTEE'S FILES Hon. S. O. BLAND, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Although we were unable to attend the public hearing on this measure, we desire to record our opposition to this bill which we feel goes far beyond any existing unemployment-insurance legislation. Inasmuch as unemployment insurance is rather generally established in industry ashore we are not opposed to the principle but believe any unemployment insurance for the maritime industry should be patterned along more fair and equitable lines than the captioned bill proposes. We respectfully ask your earnest consideration as it is our feeling that the bill, as drawn, if passed, would impose an unwarranted burden upon the American merchant marine. Very truly yours, HARBOR CARRIERS OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK, ASSOCIATION OF WATER LINE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS, Hon. SCHUYLER O. BLAND, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: This is to advise you that the committee on social security of the Association of Water Line Accounting Officers, representing 81 steamship operators throughout the United States, a majority of whom are not members of the American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., has today met in conference for the purpose of discussing H. R. 5446 now pending before your committee, and desires to go on record as endorsing the recommendations made by the American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., with reference to this bill. We understand that these recommendations will be placed before your committee on the last day for the filing of briefs, November 25, 1941. Appended hereto is a list of the companies comprising the membership of the association. Respectfully yours, R. W. MICHENER, Chairman, Social Security Committee. MEMBERSHIP OF THE ASSOCIATION OF WATER LINE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS Agwilines, Inc., New York City. Alaska Steamship Co., Seattle, Wash. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., New York City. American Barge Line Co., Louisville, Ky. American Hawaiian Steamship Co., New York City. American Mail Line, Seattle, Wash. American President Lines, Ltd., New York City. American South African Line, New York City. Ashley & Dustin Steamer Line, Detroit, Mich. Atlantic, Gulf & West Indies Steamship Lines, New York City. A. H. Bull Steamship Co., New York City. Canada Atlantic Transit Co., Montreal, Canada. Canadian Australasien Line, Ltd., Montreal, Canada. Canadian National Steamships, Montreal, Canada. Canadian Pacific Steamships, Ltd., Montreal, Canada. Central Barge Co., Chicago, Ill. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co., Detroit, Mich. Coastwise Line, San Francisco, Calif. Coast Transportation Co., Inc., New Orleans, La. Colonial Navigation Co., New York City. Columbia River Tariff Bureau, Portland, Oreg. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., New York City. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Co., Detroit, Mich. Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc., Boston, Mass. Export Steamship Co., New York City. General Steamship Corporation, Ltd., San Francisco, Calif. Great Lakes Transit Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y. Inland Waterways Corporation, St. Louis, Mo. Isthmian Steamship Co., New York City. Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc., New York City. New England Steamship Co., New Haven, Conn. Newtex Steamship Corporation, New York City. New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., New York City. Nicholson Universal Steamship Co., Detroit, Mich. Norfolk, Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc., Norfolk, Va. Norfolk & Washington (D. C.) Shipbuilding Co., Washington, D. C. Ocean Steamship Co. of Savannah, Savannah, Ga. Ohio River Co., The, Cincinnati, Ohio. Pacific Coast Direct Line, New York City. Panama Line, New York City. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation, Mobile, Ala. Peninsular & Occidental Steamship Co., Jacksonville, Fla. Pontin Light & Transportation Corporation, New York City. St. Johns River Line, Jacksonville, Fla. San Antonio Co., New York City. Seas Shipping Co., New York City. Seatrain Lines, Inc., New Orleans, La. Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Line, Inc., Sioux City, Iowa. Southern Steamship Co., Philadelphia, Pa. United States Lines, New York City. Union Barge Line Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa. Wilmington Transportation Co., Wilmington, Calif. |