covered by the issues, the settlement would not stop you at all during the term of the agreement from exercising the right to strike if the carriers followed that course of action.

Or suppose you and the brotherhoods outside this agreement proceeded to follow a course of behavior on conduct that in the opinion of the carriers would jeopardize their rights of management, they still have reserved to them the right to lock out.

I have no doubt that depending on the facts of those circumstances as they would develop, if you could not reach an agreement among yourselves you might get back into a situation where if the war is going on, a national emergency exists.

I want this record to show as far as the Senator from Oregon is concerned I am not sponsoring a resolution before the Congress that denies you the right to strike in regard to ancillary matters that may arise other than in relationship to the specific issues that would be settled by the final consummation of the procedure set forth in this bill. I think it has to be made crystal clear if it is not clear to you at the present time. The last comment I want to make and you are perfectly free when I get through to say anything you want to say in regard to anything I have said now or heretofore, and I am glad you have given an explanation to the committee of the position you take on the substantive issue themselves, the brotherhoods' position.

It seems to me at this point it is important that that be made a matter of record. So as far as I am concerned I do not intend to discuss your proposals. That should be discussed by the Board that I think will subsequently be appointed.

I think it is so important however for a better understanding on the part of what the differences are and the allegations that are flying back and forth between the negotiators on the two sides that you make this record here today, as I am sure the representative of the carriers will present his opposed point of view.

I think it is a healthy thing to get on this record the present position of the parties in regard to the substantive issues involved. Also may I say in my concluding statement about it, once you get that on the record all will then know where the real problems are for the two sides to reach a compromise on your differences.

That is what mediation, as I said yesterday, is all about. I am so glad you have done it. I have a better understanding of your position than I have ever had before, having listened to you this morning.

I fully understand your position in opposition to finality. I know why labor feels this way. I would be the last to suggest that the right to lock out or to strike be taken away if it were not for the reasons I have already expressed.

I don't expect your agreement in regard to that. You don't happen to have my trust and I don't happen to have your trust.

I don't represent labor at that table. If I were representing labor at that table I would do everything I could to try to get this matter settled on terms that I think would best enable me to settle the use of your economic right.

If I were a carrier I would take their position. We have to balance the tripartite interest involved in this dispute, yours, and the carriers, and the public.

Question 5: Assuming there is a practical method of determining which shipments are essential to the national defense or the public health, what are the particular factors, if any, which would make such operation inefficient or uneconomical?

Answer: It is the conclusion of all the Government Agencies involved, including the Departments of Transportation, Defense, and Health, Education, and Welfare, that there is not a practical method for identifying and segregating those commodities that are essential to the national defense and the public health. Some of the factors which would make any attempt at such partial operation inefficient and uneconomical are

high cost of limited operations;

congestion in yards and terminal areas which would be reflected in higher costs;

equipment delays and the necessity of special moves;

scheduling problems by the carriers;

unproductive train loads resulting from lighter trains; and
identification, assembly and delivery of empty cars.

Identification of end products which might be essential to the national defense or the public health could be accomplished with some degree of success. It would be virtually impossible, however, to distinguish essential from non-essential commodities where raw materials and component parts were involved. This would be especially true, for example, in connection with companies producing defense commodities and civilian commodities for use in the private sector in the same production process.

Question 6: What percentage of the total available equipment and facilities would be necessary for limited operations?

Answer: (a) Approximately 80-90 percent of physical plant; (b) level of business: 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent, 50 percent; locomotive: 20 percent, 30 percent, 45 percent, 70 percent; cars: 30 percent, 40 percent, 55 percent, 75 percent. Question 7: What percent of the total number of employees in each classification would be necessary for such limited operations?

Question 8: What effect is it estimated that such limited operations would have on the profits or losses of the carriers as compared to (a) normal operations; (b) total cessation of operations.

Answer: Virtually any plan of partial operations could be expected to result in substantial losses to the carriers. The table below represents an estimate of the weekly deficit for all carriers operating at various percentages of normal operations, and under a complete shutdown. The estimated weekly deficit ranges from $13 million at 50 percent to $39 million at 10 percent. These figures do not include strike benefit payments.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is Mr. Michael Fox, president of the railway employees department, AFL-CIO. Mr. Fox, you have with you other members representing labor involved in this industrial dispute. Will you introduce them and identify them for the record here?

Mr. Fox. On my right, sir, is Mr. Joseph Ramsey, vice president of the International Association of Machinists. On my left is Mr. Edward Hickey, our general counsel. He is also general counsel for the RLEA.

I do not have all the members of my council here this morning, Mr. Chairman. I do have Mr. Edward Wolfe, the vice president and Mr. Erick Erickson, international representative of the Boilermakers & Blacksmiths.

Mr. J. W. O'Brien is not present. He is over at a hearing in the House. Mr. Thomas Ramsey, international vice president of the IBEW, and Mr. George O'Brien, general president of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen. The two top officers from the Firemen & Oilers unfortunately could not be with us today.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Fox. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FOX, PRESIDENT, RAILWAY EMPLOYEES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO; ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH RAMSEY, VICE PRESIDENT, THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS; EDWARD HICKEY, GENERAL COUNSEL, IAM; EDWARD WOLFE, VICE PRESIDENT, AND ERICK ERICKSON, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOILERMAKERS & BLACKSMITHS; THOMAS RAMSEY, INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT OF THE IBEW; AND GEORGE O'BRIEN, GENERAL PRESIDENT OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CARMEN

Mr. Fox. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the members of all these organizations I wish to express our most vigorous opposition to the administration's bill, Senate Joint Resolution 81. This bill, if enacted, would rob the railroad shopcraft employees of their right to strike for a period running as long as December 31, 1968, and covering the most basic terms of their pay and working conditions.

At the same time it robs our members of their only economic weapons-the right to strike, this bill imposes no comparable penalty of any kind on the railroad corporations which have refused for nearly a year now to settle our 1966 requests for better pay and conditions. That is surely not fair and equitable legislation. Spokesmen for the administration have said this is not a compulsory arbitration bill. As to that assertion I can only repeat what George Meany says, he thinks it is compulsory arbitration, and so do I and so do the employees we represent.

I don't expect agreement. You don't offend me by expressing disagreement. I happen to think that is your obligation as labor leaders. The carriers are not going to offend me by expressing disagreement with me.

That goes with our responsibility. But all I want to say in conclusion is that you have presented a case here that then in my judgment proves my major thesis, this has to be settled by way of bringing a mediation procedure to a successful end without in this time of emergency our resorting to a contest of economic strength.

I don't think this is the appropriate time for it in this particular industry under the facts that prevail. That is all I want to say in regard to the exchange with this witness, Mr. Chairman, except to thank him for making his case so clear to the American people.

Mr. Fox. Thank you, Senator Morse.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The Senator from New York.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Fox, could you tell us how close you are to the findings of the President's Panel dealing, for purposes of argument, because these are the main issues, with the across-the-board percentage wage increase and the adjustment for the special technicians?

Mr. Fox. Dealing with the adjustment first, Senator, they have offered us one thin nickel as against two 121/2cents over a 2-year period. Senator JAVITS. They have offered you three 5-cent increases? Mr. Fox. The Panel; yes.

Senator JAVITS. That is all I am asking. Item 1 is, they have offered you five, five, and five. You have asked for 1212 one year and 121⁄2 the next year; is that correct?

Mr. Fox. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. That is where you still stand?

Mr. Fox. Fundamentally on the basic wage increase. I think on the other matter if we could get somewhere between the three 5 cents and the 25 cents, we could problably be in good shape.

Senator JAVITS. On the basic wage matter they have offered 6 percent for 18 months?

Mr. Fox. That is right.

Senator JAVITS. You have asked for 612 percent for 1 year and 5 percent for the next year; is that correct?

Mr. Fox. Right.

Senator JAVITS. That is 1112 percent?

Mr. Fox. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. Have your deliberations brought you any closer to the 6-percent figure in 18 months?

Mr. Fox. We have not had an opportunity to discuss that with the carriers.

Senator JAVITS. Are you negotiable on that score?

Mr. Fox. If there is a fair proposition put on the table we will give it extreme consideration.

Senator JAVITS. In other words, you are not absolutely dug in on the 61% and 5; is that right?

Mr. Fox. Well, I would not want to commit myself to the 612 and 5. I would not want to commit myself at this public hearing on that. That is a matter of bargaining as you know.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Fox, will you discuss with your associates, because I know you have many people who are tied into this negotiation,

whether or not it would be desirable and advisable for the unions concerned to make a flat declaration to this committee in response to the findings of the President's Panel as to what they will take? Now, I am not pressing you on that. I am only saying that it may be a very fine tactic for you publicly and with the Congress, notwithstanding that it is not classic bargaining. There is no classic bargaining. You have gone home, they have gone home. You are here now.

I would like you to consider whether you would be well advised to declare that the President's Panel has done so and so, we have sharpened our pencils, we have scratched our heads, we don't want this law, we don't want to strike, so we tell the people and the Panel that we are ready to take so-and-so, that is our best counterproposal.

Now, you think it over. Consider as to whether you are well advised to take that position now in the public domain because that is where we are. You are not in negotiation. You won't be unless this law passes. That is what I think is so dreadfully sad about this. And I could not agree more with Senator Morse, the saddest thing is that since April 25 there has been no collective bargaining and there is not going to be any collective bargaining from all we can see until we pass a law.

I think that is deplorable because once we pass the law everybody will be playing with a stopwatch against that law whether it favors you or favors the management. It is not going to be all that, just so that it will favor neither, we can be sure of that.

Mr. Fox. We will take your suggestion under careful consideration. Senator JAVITS. Thank you, sir.

The last thing I would like to ask is this: You say in the very last sentence something which could or could not be very deliberate and very pretentious, "If you disagree with our plea, however, and do insist on curtailing our right to strike, the only fair way to do so is through Federal seizure of the railroads until this dispute is settled." Is that the considered declaration of the union?

Mr. Fox. I would ask our general counsel to respond to that. It is a technical question.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Certainly.

Mr. HICKEY. Senator Javits, the position stated here is if there should come a time when Congress feels that it must legislate in this area as between what, as Mr. Fox has said, we regard as compulsion to settle this matter, it is the considered position of the union's representative of the shopcraft organizations that they would prefer something which equalizes the burdens more on both sides. That is why they are making the statemnt with regard to seizure.

I might say that Mr. Leighty, who is appearing on behalf of all of the railroad labor organizations later before this committee will elaborate and explain that in more detail.

Senator JAVITS. In other words, he will give us the detail of the kind of character and nature of seizure this declares to be the policy of the union?

Mr. HICKEY. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming here, as Senator Morse does.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Senator Randolph ?

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.