those big industries where they have a tremendous number of employees they can put the comparatively few seamen there are to work, or perhaps all of them in the industry, but, on the other hand, I cannot see any other logical method of employing these men during the winter lay-up period unless they are used in the maintenance, overhauling, or reconstruction of the equipment on those individual boats. I know, as you say, that that is practiced by some of the companies on the Great Lakes. As a general thing, as you know, of course, most of those boats are laid up in the shipyards, and the work of a special nature that has to be done in the form of remodeling, and so forth, is done by the shipyards, and, of course, it is very difficult to expect an employer to keep paying his men for doing nothing over a period of 3 or 4 months, or to expect the Government to do that. Mr. CURRAN. I do not think they would do that. Mr. BRADLEY. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Great Lakes should be included in any unemployment-insurance program that we work out, but I did want to get your views on the peculiar situation incident to the Great Lakes where we do have that natural seasonal lay-up. Mr. CURRAN. You do have a situation on the Great Lakes that we are primarily interested in, and that is the fact that even during the season, not this year, because everything is moving that has a bottom on it, and some are moving without bottoms in them right now, but even during ordinary times, during the main part of the season, boats are laid up and the crews are laid up. During that period of time it is a serious thing in other years aside from war years, and that is the time we are primarily interested in. No one should be permitted to use the argument that the employment demands are heavy now and they do not need unemployment insurance. We are primarily interested in the fact that this will provide security for the seamen after this boom season is passed, when they will need it. That is primarily what we are interested in. Mr. BRADLEY. I assume, too, Mr. Curran, that you want to include in here deckmen and other associated men on the Great Lakes, as a matter of fact all of them. Mr. CURRAN. All in-land water men. Mr. BRADLEY. As I recall it, the bill a year ago eliminated licensed deckmen and bridgemen, and so forth. Mr. CURRAN. There was a great deal of feeling last year among various people that the bill might be held up indefinitely because of the many complexities existing up there, and we made a survey through every section of the Lakes and the rivers, and the men felt that it was very hard to enact a law to cover unemployment insurance there, and that if it was going to be held up by the rivers and lakes men they wanted to be waived for the present with the hope of being included as they went along, so that we could have some kind of a law on the statute books to start from. That was the feeling then. Mr. BRADLEY. I received numerous letters on that last year, and invariably they specifically asked that the Great Lakes be included in any bill, and also that the deckmen and that the bridge operators and others allied with the maritime industry on the Great Lakes be included. That was practically universal in every communication I got. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Mr. Standard. Mr. STANDARD. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Just before you go on, Mr. Standard, there was one witness who wanted to be heard briefly. Mr. Lowe, did you want to appear? Mr. Lowe. Yes, sir; very briefly. The CHAIRMAN. This gentleman had explained to me about going on this morning, and I understand his statement will be very brief. STATEMENT OF OTTO LOWE, REPRESENTING THE TOWN OF CAPE CHARLES, VA. Mr. Lowe. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we have not had an opportunity, really, to study this bill, and I am appearing here to ask leave to file a brief statement within the time to be allotted by the committee, if you will permit me to do so. The CHAIRMAN. Before you came in the statement was made that all persons appearing, or any person who did not appear, would have until October 25 in which to submit briefs. Mr. Lowe. Thank you, sir. (The following statement was subsequently filed for the record.) Hon. S. OTIS BLAND, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CAPE CHARLES, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BLAND: This will confirm our recent conference and my appearance before your committee, with reference to H. R. 5446 and I take the liberty of urging upon you and the committee the following amendments: On page 4, line 9, after the word "Rivers," insert "Bays and Sounds," and after the word "lakes," strike out the word "and." On page 4, line 10, after the word "Lakes," insert "and Hampton Roads." On page 4, line 13, after the words "vegetable life," strike out the period and insert a comma and the following: "and exclusive of vessels engaged in the seasonal transportation of agricultural and dairy products from farm to market." I think you will find that these amendments are not only desirable but necessary in order to clarify the intent of the bill as apparently set forth in the findings of fact and declaration of policy. I feel certain that the bill did not intend to include bays, sounds and roads as it is obvious that these waterways, along with rivers and lakes, should by all means be exempted from the provisions of the act. As you are aware, the town of Cape Charles is making every effort to develop its port facilities from the standpoint of agriculture, seafood and ordinary transportation of freight and passengers across the Chesapeake Bay. In the case of agriculture and sea food, these beats by the very nature of things cannot operate but a few weeks during the year and any system of unemployment insurance would be an undue burden on these industries because eventually any additional cost of handling and transporting these products would be borne by the shipper, which means the farmer and the catcher of sea food. This is equally true in connection with the transportation of passengers and freight on these inland waters. The only difference would be that they operate 365 days in the year and would have little occasion, if any, for the use of unemployment insurance as no unemployment would ex's. I think you will readily agree with me that this type of legislation should by no means apply to situations of this sort and that, therefore, bays and sounds should be exempted along with other inland waters. I sincerely trust that you, as chairman of the committee, will give careful consideration to our request in this respect and will find it possible to urge these amendments on your committee so that they can be adopted as committee amendments. I should like to hear from you to the effect that you agree with our position in this matter. With all good wishes, believe me Yours cordially, OTTO LOWE, STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. STANDARD, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, NEW YORK CITY Mr. STANDARD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is William L. Standard, general counsel of the National Maritime Union of America, with offices in New York City. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. Mr. STANDARD. The Social Security Act was passed by Congress in August of 1935. Under this act, among other things, it provided for assistance to the aged needy individuals, as well as to the States, in the administration of their unemployment-compensation laws. The act excluded maritime workers from the benefits contemplated by this progressive piece of legislation. However, the Social Security Board, in its report to the President, dated September 30, 1938, a little more than 3 years after the passage of the Social Security Act, recommended an unemployment compensation system for seamen. The Board advised the President that, under the Constitution, it is "impossible to confer upon the States jurisdiction over maritime employment, with the possible exception of that incidental to employment on land." "Therefore," the Board's report added, "in order to afford unemployment compensation protection to seamen it would be necessary to pass a Federal Act. The Board recommends that such an Act Le passed covering all maritime employment which cannot be brought under State laws." The Board's report further states: There is at present an exclusion of "service performed as an officer or member of the crew of a vessel documented under the laws of the United States or of any foreign country." The legislative history indicates that this exclusion was made because of the administrative difficulties of covering foreign crews on American vessels engaged in foreign trade. The fact is at the time the Social Security Act was passed, as Mr. Curran has already indicated, that the matter of the administration was the only reason why seamen were not included. Federal Security Administrator, Paul V. McNutt, announced on November 27, 1939, that he had requested the Social Security Board to complete its studies, then in progress, relating to seamen's unemployment compensation. Federal Security Administrator McNutt stated: The necessity for speedily enacting such a program was emphasized by the recent neutrality legislation. Our seamen were extended the protection of old-age and survivors insurance at the last session of Congress, and the desirability of unemployment compensation protection was recognized. It is quite apparent that the only reason why seamen were excluded from the benefits of social legislation, intended for almost all the workers throughout the land, is the assumption that the administration of such an act would be difficult, and not that maritime workers, as such, are not entitled to the same benefits. It is now more than 6 years since the Social Security Act was passed, and yet seamen are without unemployment-insurance benefits. Mr. Curran has already adverted to the situation that has existed in the industry since the Social Security Act was passed, and I will not advert to it any further. A revief of the testimony before this Honorable Committee, introduced on H. R. 9798 in May of 1940, makes evident the fact that as late as 1940 the shipowner representatives, who opposed the passage of the bill, were still urging that no action be taken because there are unavailable adequate statistical material upon which Congress could rely in establishing a system of unemployment insurance. Each witness appearing in behalf of the shipowners urged this committee to delay the establishment of such a system. Almost all of them stated: We believe that this bill has not been properly worked out and that a great deal more study should be given to it before there is any attempt to pass legislation. During the hearings, the Honorable Chairman of this committee had hoped that full consideration of the question of unemployment insurance would be undertaken. It was also hoped that the Maritime Labor Board would submit a report on this very vital question of unemployment insurance. However, since the life of the Maritime Labor Board has not been extended, it is doubtful whether such a report will be forthcoming from that agency. Let us, however, examine and see whether there is really that dearth of statistical data which might justify opposition to a bill for unemployment insurance for seamen. Mr. Murray W. Latimer, as Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board, studied the problem for about 2 years before he appeared in support of H. R. 9798. He appeared before this committee on May 21, 1940 and again on May 24, 1940. At his second appearance, Mr. Latimer submitted a thoroughly documented statement entitled "Annual Cost of Benefits in Maritime Unemployment Insurance." This report dealt with such vital problems as average employment in the industry, the average annual pay roll, average unemployment, average duration of unemployment per year, average basic monthly wage, as well as the monthly cost of lodgings and food. When the Social Security Act was originally passed, the records will show that there was available much less formidable and much less accurate statistical information than was presented to the committee at the hearings on H. R. 9798. And yet Congress recognized its duty to pass that bill. Let us examine briefly the experience of foreign countries with unemployment insurance. Although the problem of unemployment compensation first received the consideration of Congress in 1934, that question was by no means new or unexplored on the European continent. The International Labor Office Yearbook for 1934-35 and the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, published in 1937, contain very comprehensive and profound studies of the question of unemployment insurance. The tables contained in these publications indicate that systems of compulsory unemployment insurance were adopted in Great Britain as far back as 1911, and that between 1911 and 1927 such countries as Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Australia, Bulgaria, and others had adopted such compulsory systems. But unemployment-insurance schemes, supplemented by Government subsidies, had been adopted in several countries even prior to 1911. France as far back as 1905 was a pioneer in the field of voluntary unemployment insurance. As recently as June 24, 1938, even Norway adopted a compulsory unemployment-insurance law, the enforcement of which has been unfortunately deferred by the occupying Reich forces. And on July 24, 1940, Venezuela adopted a system of compulsory unemployment insurance. With the permission of this committee, I have annexed to this statement a table indicating the countries in which these systems were adopted, as well as the year of adoption, and I hope that it will be incorporated into the committee's record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it may be included in the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:) SCHEDULE.-Coverage of public unemployment insurance in 1931 Almost all of the countries in which compulsory unemploymentinsurance systems are now in effect provide for such insurance for seamen as well as for industrial workers. As a matter of fact, in Great Britain that insurance is even extended to agricultural workers and those engaged in seasonal occupations. During the months of November and December of 1939 the International Labor Office held a conference in Havana, which was attended by all of the American States that are members of the International Labor Office. Among the resolutions adopted at this conference was one embodying an agreement that compulsory unemployment insurance must ultimately replace nongovernmental voluntary systems. In the fall of 1939, when, with the passage of the Neutrality Act, it appeared as though vast numbers of seamen would become unemployed, the President of the United States became impressed with the need of a system of unemployment insurance for maritime workers. Mr. Curran has already commented on that, and I will make no further comment on it. One of the major objections raised by the shipowners to H. R. 9798 was that the industry, economically, could not stand the pay-roll-tax burden. The economic condition of the shipping industry a year ago was undoubtedly already substantially on the road to recovery. That today the shipping industry is enjoying relative prosperity not even the American ship operators will deny. Certainly with every available 66661-42- -5 |