Why the inland boatmen should be excluded is beyond me. The men working in the marine industry contribute their share of taxes toward the upkeep of the Government, and also they pay their share of taxes on products manufactured by other industries, and we have 5,000 men that operate between New York and Buffalo and other ports, and we are excluded by this bill. We tried to get New York State unemployment insurance, and we have been barred from that. We have at the present time a case in court but the insurance department has decided against us, and, of course, we hope that the court will decide in our favor, but that is something that is hard to foretell. So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask that all of the inland boatmen be included in this bill. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? We cannot go on tomorrow. I will not be here, as I made an engagement some time ago. I am trying to finish with those witnesses who are here from out of town. Will the members of the committee be here Thursday? I know that a group of the Congress has been invited to go down to Fort Belvoir, and I hope that many of them will go, but I wondered what the thought of the committee was. Are any of you going? What about Friday? You will be in town on Friday, I presume? Mr. OLIVER. Yes. Mr. WELCH. Why not Thursday? The CHAIRMAN. Thursday will suit me, as I am going to be here. Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, how much longer do you think it will take to conclude the testimony? The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it will take very long. I think it will only take one morning to conclude with the list of witnesses I have. I am going on with the witnesses who are here from out of town. Mr. McCarthy. STATEMENT OF DENNIS MCCARTHY, REPRESENTING THE TIDEWATER BOATMEN'S UNION, BROOKLYN, N. Y. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Dennis McCarthy. I represent the Tidewater Boatmen's Union, 416 Dean Street, Brooklyn, N. Y. I represent some 1,400 men that are employed in New York harbor and the areas adjacent to New York harbor, and throughout the areas of the New York State barge canal up in Buffalo. We have a peculiar situation there. Our men right at the present time are receiving New York State unemployment insurance. Some of the employers in New York City have protested it and the case is now in the appellate division of the New York State courts. We are not seamen. We are marine workers. Our men require no certification as seamen require. We would like to know why we are excluded from this act, and also if this act is enacted into law we would like to be provided for in the event the appellate division of New York State reverses the decision. The CHAIRMAN. Well, in framing the bill there were administrative difficulties and a number of things encountered. Mr. Latimer made an explanation of those things this morning. If you want to be included I do not think it is up to the committee to tell you why you are not included. If you want to tell us why you should be included we will be glad to hear you. Mr. MCCARTHY. We are not seamen, but we are still marine workers. The tugs of New York Harbor that Mr. Ziegler just spoke about are not provided for. We are getting compensation in New York City, but it is up to the decision of the appellate division of the court of the State of New York as to whether we shall continue to receive the benefits. The CHAIRMAN. We are willing to hear anything you have to say, or anything you care to present. An explanation as to the draftsmanship of the bill was made by Mr. Latimer this morning, and there is nothing I have to add to that. Mr. MCCARTHY. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We will hear you now. Mr. Kaster. STATEMENT OF HUGO KASTER, REPRESENTING DECK SCOW CAPTAINS, UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION Mr. KASTER. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Hugo Kaster. I am business agent for United Marine Division, Local 333, of the International Longshoremen's Association, A. F. of L. I am somewhat in the position of Mr. McCarthy, in that a part of our men are receiving benefits from the State of New York, while others do not, and the State is not doing anything to make that up. So, we do not know whether we are covered in New York State or not. Some companies are and all of the other companies are putting on the pay envelopes, "Under protest." In other words, they are depending upon the decision as to this certain company. So, we do not know where we are. At the same time, we have other benefits which the sailors do not receive. We could be classed as seamen insofar as compensation is concerned, but our men are not certificated men, and they do not require that. Nevertheless, these companies which are contending on the application of New York State unemployment insurance are trying to classify these men as sailors. If our men were classified as seamen insofar as coastwise and deep-sea sailors are classified, they would have to have a certificate. In that event there are 1,200 men of our men who would lose their employment. Our industry gives steady year-round employment. Most of the men, the great majority you might say, have had 7 or 8 years experience; that is the average of employment of the men, and some have been in it for 20 years. But, these men would be thrown out of their occupation by being classified as sailors. These men, due to the fact that they could not fill these qualifications would be thrown out of employment. They contend they are affiliated with the maritime industry, but not in the sense of a deep-sea sailor. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? Mr. Nixon. Mr. HADDOCK. Mr. Nixon is on his way up here, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HADDOCK. Yes; he is. The CHAIRMAN. Has Mr. Burns come in? Now, I have on the list in addition to Mr. Nixon, Mr. Burns, Mr. Halling, Mr. Lundeberg, Mr. Scharrenberg, and Captain Petersen. Do you want to go on this afternoon Mr. Scharrenberg? Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Just as you like, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to go on this afternoon, Captain Petersen, or do you prefer to wait until Thursday? Captain PETERSEN. I would just as soon go on Thursday. I want to yield to those who have to get away. So I will be perfectly willing to go on at any time. The CHAIRMAN. We will hear you Thursday, unless we reach you this afternoon. STATEMENT OF PAUL SCHARRENBERG, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, -AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Paul Scharrenberg, legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor. As you know, and as I stated at the hearings held in May of last year, the American Federation of Labor has been keenly interested in promoting this type of legislation. I will not repeat what was said at that time as the details are there in full in the record. The CHAIRMAN. In every case, Mr. Scharrenberg, where it is desired, that testimony has been incorporated in this record, and if you desire, it will be incorporated in this record. Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I particularly refer to that part of the testimony of a year ago where a statistical table appears showing what foreign nations have done in respect to unemployment insurance for seamen, and I would like to stress that point in view of the position of the American shipowners. Surely if foreign nations, our competitors on the deep seas, can furnish unemployment insurance to their seamen, our great, rich Nation can do likewise. Unemployment insurance for seamen in the nations that are competing with us is not a new proposition. The statistical table to which I have referred indicates that unemployment insurance for seamen has been furnished for more than 20 or 25 years. The claim that the shipping industry cannot stand the burden is not a new one. It has been made in Congress, to my knowledge, over and over again. It was made when the La Follette Seamen's Act of 1915 was passed, and it has been used from time to time when something new came along that was in harmony with human progress. So, I merely wish to say that I express officially the views of the American Federation of Labor in supporting this bill with such minor amendments as are offered by our affiliates. We understand that it covers not only salt-water seamen but also maritime workers employed on the Great Lakes and on the rivers. The CHAIRMAN. No; the bill as drafted does not include the Great Lakes or the rivers. That was explained by Mr. Latimer this morning. An amendment has been suggested to cover them. Mr. Curran suggested an amendment and Mr. Beiter also suggested an amendment to cover them, but it does not cover them now. Is that correct, Mr. Latimer? Mr. LATIMER. Mr. Chairman, the bill does deal with the whole industry in that it covers under Federal assistance the deep sea branch of the industry and would put under the States the inland waterways, including the Great Lakes, harbors, and rivers. Therefore, Mr. Scharrenberg's statement that it does cover the whole industry is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. SCHARRENBERG. It is our understanding, after consulting our attorney, that section 13 will cover the Great Lakes and the inland waterways through State laws. So there remain only the commercial fishermen who are probably not covered. There is some uncertainty about that, in our opinion, and we trust that every consideration will be given to the coverage of the fishermen. Aside from this we hope that prompt action will be taken by your committee, so that we may have unemployment insurance for seamen in the very near future. Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Scharrenberg, the bill as presented in May 1940 met with your approval, with the exception that it did not take in the Great Lakes and rivers, is not that true? Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Yes; after various amendments had been accepted and agreed to by Mr. Latimer, who had drafted the bill. Mr. O'BRIEN. But this bill meets with your approval by virtue of the fact that it does cover those employed on the Great Lakes and rivers? Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Well, as stated, there were some other objections to the first bill. Mr. O'BRIEN. But those were the most important objections? Mr. SCHARRENBERG, Well, there were some objections raised by Mr. Lundeberg, and we at that time supported those objections. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Thank you. (The testimony given by Mr. Scharrenberg in the hearings on H. R. 9798, under date of May 24, 1940, is as follows.) STATEMENT OF PAUL SCHARRENBERG, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AND REPRESENTING NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES, AND PILOTS OF AMERICA Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Mr. Chairman, my name is Paul Scharrenberg. I am national legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor. In order that the record may be straight, I would like to say that the American Federation of Labor officially initiated employment compensation for seamen as far back as November 1936. At the Tampa convention of the American Federation of Labor a resolution was unanimously adopted instructing the executive council to take steps to obtain unemployment compensation for seamen. Similar resolutions were adopted at succeeding conventions in October 1938, at Houston, Tex., and in October 1939, at Cincinnati. In the early part of May 1937, I saw the first draft of a bill providing unemployment compensation for seamen, which was prepared by Mr. Donald Hiss, who was assigned to that job by Secretary Perkins, of the Department of Labor, and who consulted freely with the legislative committee of the American Federation of Labor. Subsequent thereto, Mr. Havenner, of San Francisco, introduced a bill in Congress providing unemployment compensation for seamen. That bill was introduced on April 8, 1938, and it is known as H. R. 10205. That bill never had a hearing, and at the succeeding session of Congress, the Seventy-sixth session, Mr. Havenner again introduced a bill, slightly altered, to provide unemployment compensation for seamen. That bill is known as H. R. 2553. Thereafter, on May 25, 1939, the late Congressman Sirovich introduced another bill providing unemployment compensation for seamen. This bill was drafted in cooperation with Mr. Emerson, who was formerly C. I. O. legislative representative here, and who has since been fired. That bill is known as H. R. 5634. Now, we come to the bill now under consideration, known as H. R. $798, introduced by Mr. Bland. This bill, I understand, was drafted by a number of gentlemen under the guidance and leadership of Mr. Latimer, of the Railroad Retirement Board. For some reasons unknown to us, the American Federation of Labor and its representatives were not consulted in drafting the bill, while the C. I. O. was. I asked Mr. Latimer about that, and he said it was a mistake or oversight. So, I am not making any further complaints on that score, except to call attention to the fact. Now, the previous witnesses have endeavored to identify themselves, and there has been some question about who was who, and who represents who. As I said at the outset, I am legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor, and for the purpose of this hearing I am authorized by the following marine unions to present their case: National Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots of America; The Marine Division of the Telegraphers Union of North America (radio telegraphists); The International Longshoremen's Association and quite a number of unions affiliated with the I. L. A., that are classified as marine workers under our law. They are: Licensed Tugmen's Protective Association of the Great Lakes; Tug Firemen, Linemen and Oilers' Association of America; Dredge Engineers, Operators and Cranemen, Local 1240 and Series; International Dredge Workers' Protective Association; International Surface, Rock and Drill Boat Workers' Association; United Marine Division, Local 333, New York; Deck Scow's Captains Union, Local 933-4, New York; Tidewater Boatmen's Union, Local 933-1, New York; Lighter Captains' Union, Local 996, New York; Vegetable Oil Handlers, Local 996-1, New York; Harbor Towboatmen's Union, Local 1488, Portland, Maine; Harbor Workers, Marine Dispatchers, Clerks, Firemen, Deck Hands, Scowmen, Bridge Tenders and Launchmen, Local 1337, Baltimore, Md,; and Licensed Marine Officers, Port of Baltimore, Local 1510, Baltimore, Md. At previous hearings on this bill the question has been asked as to what other countries have unemployment compensation for seamen, and I have obtained some data from the International Labor Office which our country helps to finance, and the following information is available: Voluntary insurance schemes supplemented by government subsidies Belgium, Government subsidies to approved Order of Oct. 25, 1930. unemployment insurance societies. Denmark, Government subsidies to approved Act of Jan. 5, 1920. unemployment insurance societies. Finland, Government subsidies to approved Act of Mar. 23, 1934. unemployment insurance societies. Sweden, Government subsidies to approved Act of June 15, 1934.1 unemployment insurance societies. Yugoslavia, Government subsidies to approved See ILO Yearbook 1932, p. 350. unemployment insurance societies. Japan, scheme organized by Seamen's Union See with Government subsidy. 1 NOTE. See ILO Yearbook 1934-35, p. 305. ILO Yearbook 1934-35, p. 304. |