of merchant vessels. So we feel that the Maritime Commission as an employer should not have a bureau subordinate to it, to adjudicate troubles between that same employer and the seamen.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand that these proposed amendments to the Wagner Act do not in any sense disturb as I have followed you-the general application of that act?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. All your amendments are intended to go within the National Labor Relations Board, and set up within it another board?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Not within; it will be entirely separate. The present law providing for the National Labor Relations Board is to be used by this new Maritime Labor Board.

The CHAIRMAN. Then what would be the objection to setting up an entirely new board, outside of the National Labor Relations Board, with all the powers of the National Labor Relations Board as they apply to maritime conditions?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. That is just exactly what we are doing, or asking to have done.

The CHAIRMAN. But you are setting it up within this structure? Mr. SCHARRENBERG. We are using this structure. They have been at it, now, for 2 years; and in due time the American Federation of Labor will submit amendments to make the law more satisfactory, and those amendments will apply to both boards-assuming that you are going to create a maritime board.

The CHAIRMAN. The only thing I have in my mind. Mr. Scharrenberg, in connection with that, is that this Wagner Act is a sacred act and is beyond all amendment and change.

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. No; it is not.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. No.

The CHAIRMAN. I somehow got that impression.

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Well, there are some people who think so, of

course.

The CHAIRMAN. I ventured to suggest, a few weeks ago, that there were one or two amendments that ought to be added; and I soon found I was violating the laws of the Medes and Persians.

Mr. SCHABBENBERG. The same American Federation of Labor convention that gave you such a high compliment for services rendered here, unanimously adopted an outline submitted by the executive council, containing amendments to the act; and we will come along in due time with amendments to the existing Labor Relations Board and to the new board, if in your wisdom you should create one.

The CHAIRMAN. If these amendments were adopted, would any of the existing machinery or set-up of the National Labor Relations Board be used in carrying on the functions of this new board? Mr. SCHARRENBERG. No.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be entirely separate?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Entirely separate. The President will appoint three new men, and they will have their own organization and their own employees. One of the main reasons which we submit to you for an entirely new board is our hope that when and if such a board is appointed, it will be composed of persons who have some knowledge of maritime affairs and maritime labor troubles, and that they will

.

build up a staff, through the civil service or any other means, of men and women who have a background of experience in the merchant marine of the United States.

Now you have such a set-up in the Railway Labor Board; those three men who are serving on that board are especially selected because they know something about railroads, and they have had some experience. And the men who go in the field I am told are selected through the civil service process; they have to demonstrate that they have specialized in the railroad industry. Nearly all of them are former employees of the railroads, and know the game from A to Z.

Whereas under the present set-up in the National Labor Relations Board, we have three members virtually without any knowledge or background pertaining to merchant-marine affairs. They, in turn, have a staff of employees none of whom know anything at all about the merchant marine or its complicated problems and troubles.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Scharrenberg, I am in full sympathy with the result you seek to accomplish. But I wonder whether that result should be accomplished in the manner you suggest or whether there should be an independent set-up.

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. This is an independent set-up, Senator. We are only using the structure that we already have.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry I cannot understand just what you mean; just what is the use of using that structure? You have found it rather frail, have you not?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Suppose we submitted an entirely new set-up here: Then we would have the present National Labor Relations Board and the Railway Labor Board, and then still a third one. We feel it would be much better if we had a new board that would work along the lines designated and provided for in the existing law. Then in due time, when we come along with our amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, those amendments, if approved, will apply to the Maritime industry as well as to the other varied industries still under control of the National Labor Relations Board.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, it would ultimately fit into a general plan which would apply to all labor?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. That is the idea; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is very interesting, indeed. As you visualize the thing, what would those changes in the law accomplish, as regards peace on the sea?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Well, we have hopes, Senator, that the three men selected by the President of the United States for the purpose of carrying on the work that has been carried on by Mr. Madden and his two associates, will be so much more satisfactory and sensible that it will be well worth every cent expended for it. We hope that there will be developed, ultimately, a set-up that will be as satisfactory to the workers and the employers on the ships as has been the arrangement with respect to the railroad industry.

You do not have any railroad men coming here and asking for amendments; they seem to be satisfied. The railroads are not complaining. But I fear-and in fact we are convinced-that we shall never reach that beautiful goal by going along in the present rut with Mr. Madden at the wheel.

I want to be very frank: We have discussed our numerous grievances against the National Labor Relations Board; and it was suggested that we might induce the President to fire the members-all three of the members; and it was said, "What good would that do? They have a staff there, anti-A. F. of L. and pro-C. I. O., almost 90 perment. So that would not do much good; we would have to go through a staff-cleaning process?"

The CHAIRMAN. Would this plan you present take care of the immediate and acute disturbances that we have upon the ships, as well as the long-range program?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. I do not know that it would have any effect on the present situation, Senator. As I have already stated, the fight on the Atlantic coast is a long-drawn-out affair. But time is fighting on the side of the American Federation of Labor; because the American Federation of Labor is for the maintenance of contractual_relations and agains sit-down strikes and outlaw strikes. The C. I. O. seamen's unions are leading an opposite course.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any suggestion as to how we could stop the monkey business on the ships-these sit-down strikes and disturbances of the functions of shipping, and these quittings; and can you suggest anything to us that would lead, in the immediate future, to having the movement of ships, even though the great problems of labor control have not been settled?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Well, that is a very long story. I should like to tell it to you, Senator.

The seamen of America have been organized since 1885, and they have had a national union since 1892. I have been a member of the Seamen's Union since 1899, when I was on the Pacific coast.

We signed our first union agreement on the Pacific coast in 1901, at the end of a strike. And we had contractual relations of a very satisfactory nature with coastwise companies and offshore companies, on the Pacific coast, for 20 years. I was there myself; I took part in the negotiating of those contracts, and I know all about that-not from hearsay or book reading, but from personal observation and application.

Along came 1921; and at that time I think the major part of the tonnage under the United States flag was controlled by the Shipping Board. And the Shipping Board decided that wages would have to be lowered. You recall the depression of 1921, when nearly all workers in basic industries were forced to take a cut. And those who did not take a cut, all got a good licking, one after the other.

So, the Shipping Board was leading this proposal to cut seamen's wages which were then at the highest they had ever been. Of course, the private shipowners very joyfully followed in that campaign to reduce the wages.

The old-line union officials knew quite well that a strike against the Government would end disastrous. But it was quite impossible to convince our rank and file that we should take a voluntary cut. We had been going along for years, then, and had always been on an upgrade; wages went from $40 a month to $90. And to convince the men that we had to go down, the other way, seemed impossible. At any rate, the order was issued by the Government that on and after a certain date, wages would be so and so, and that union preference would be abolished, and that the issuing of passes to the ships

would be abolished, and a few other things. And so the strike

was on.

As we foresaw-at least, some of us did-the poor old International Seamen's Union, which was strong and powerful and with more than a hundred thousand members and plenty of money in its treasury, got a first-class licking. When it was all over, there was no money left in the treasury, the men were downhearted and returned to work. But since the majority of those men had only been in the union a comparatively short period-a majority come in during the war years-why, they just quit paying dues.

So, from 1921 to 1934, the shipowners of the United States, both east and west and on the Great Lakes, practically had things their own way. They did as they pleased. It was quite a nice change for them, because they felt the unions had been riding them. The shipowners then concluded that the tide had turned, and that they would ride the unions to a fare-you-well. Wages went down and down, until they hired men in certain trades for $25 a month, and carried as many workaways as they could pick up. The work-away is a man who receives absolutely nothing, and works anyhow.

The International Seamen's Union struggled along and did the best it knew how. We had always had opposition from our “red” friends. They had always attempted to carry on a dual organization; and when they could not do anything else, they would try to discredit our union. They masqueraded under half a dozen different names in their efforts to disrupt and destroy the old International Seamen's Union.

So, we got to 1934, and the longshoremen in San Francisco went on strike. And the seamen in the port of San Francisco, and up and down the Pacific coast-contrary to expectations of most people— wholeheartedly joined this strike. They just walked ashore and "tied her up." The dissatisfaction and the bitterness and the stored-up resentment on the part of the men aboard ship were so great that when the walk-out began, it just became a stampede. And so in 1934 we had that big maritime strike on the Pacific coast. That strike was fairly successful, because the shipowners out there, or at least the coastwise shipowners, again recognized the union for the purpose of collective bargaining. And the off-shore shipowners said, "Yes; we will recognize you, all right; but first of all we want to be satisfied that the majority of the men aboard the ships actually want to be represented by the International Seamen's Union." So, under Government auspices, an election was held. That took a long time because some of those ships were on 4-month trips, around the world. But at last they decided to count the ballots, and they selected the tanker group for the first count-all the oil tankers sailing out of Pacific ports. When those ballots were counted, it was shown that the International Seamen's Union had won a victory in all the tanker companies, except the Standard Oil. And in the Standard Oil the balance of power was held by a numericaly small "red." dual union. The Standard Oil Co. of California had a company union which got about 46 percent of the votes, and the International Seamen's Union got about 47 percent, and the balance was held by the "red" union.

However, the other shipping companies then said, "Never mind opening the rest of the ballot books; we will recognize the International Seamen's Union for the purpose of negotiating."

Then we began two separate negotiations-for the offshore and the coast wise groups. We soon discovered that we could not get anywhere. The shipowners' ideas of what ought to be paid and done were so different from the ideas of the men aboard the ships, that you could not get to first base. So it was agreed to arbitrate. Two separate boards of arbitration were set up, one for the coastwise trade and one for the offshore trade. In the meantime the men had gone back to work at the old wages which prevailed before the strike; and there was a great deal of dissatisfaction because they did not get any increase in pay and did not get any reduction in hours, and so forth, while we were going through this slow process of setting up arbitration boards.

After a very long delay, the arbitration awards were rendered. Then came a number of tie-ups and various kinds of strikes, in fact some of these tie-ups and strikes had occurred before the arbitration awards were rendered. The first thing the ship operator would do when his ship was tied up was to call up the union office and say, "The arbitration award provides so and so, and they will not live up to it." The union would dispatch a man to the ship to try to persuade the men to live up to the union contract. In the meantime, the shipowner would get out his pencil and figure how much it would cost him to pay the demands made by the men, contrary to the award, and how much it would cost him to keep the ship tied to the dock. Of course he would usually discover it was more expensive for him to have the ship tied up at the dock; and frequently, while the union delegate was arguing with the crew, word would come down from the head office, "Give the boys what they want."

That had two tragic results: First, the new men in the union75 percent, at least-arrived at the conclusion that they could get anything they wanted, by just "tying her up." They learned by experience that if they just "tied her up to the dock," Mr. Shipowner would give in. So, the tie-up process continued quite a long time. The records are all available, and have been furnished to the Maritime Commission and to other authorities.

The other result-perhaps not tragic, at all-was that practically all the old-line union officials, who had gone through the lean years, were eliminated from the picture, because they were urging the men to live up to the agreements. Any union officer who at that time urged members to respect the agreements was necessarily a shipowners' "stooge"; and those who said, "To hell with the contracts and the agreements; let's get more," they became the popular heroes.

So the union officials on the Pacific coast, with one or two exceptions, are men who came into the labor movement since the strike of 1934.

These statements I have just made are not guesses, for I lived through these strenuous times and have been familiar with the general situation for a great many years.

Now, let me consider for a moment, if I may, the Atlantic coast situation. After the successful strike on the Pacific coast, we knew that the spirit of organization was rife and rampant. So we transferred our activities and whatever money we could scrape together, to the Atlantic coast. We were successful in inducing the shipowners on the Atlantic coast to sign a union contract providing a raise of wages over and above what we then had-a raise that was not satisfactory