Secretary WIRTZ. I don't believe that the right answer here as far as we are concerned comes from the parties' reaction in terms of its being disagreeable one with the other. Second, I would not agree with the assessment of the, with the suggestion of the necessity of adding something like that to bring pressure to bear on both these parties. We feel that it was not necessary and it was not an equity. Both parties have claimed for changes in this particular case. Both filed section 6 notices to begin with. It is true that one party here, apparently, although I am not sure of this, would be more inclined to view this kind of legislation sympathetically than would the other party. I don't believe that that is a fair guide to what we ought to do. A good deal of what has been said here about seizure would be with respect to what Judge Fahy identified as a maze of difficulties that are involved. These are all fairly superficial aspects. I don't believe it would be fair to bring pressure, or necessary to bring pressure, to bear on one party or the other here along the lines which you discussed. I think there are considerations of self-interest which would be involved. If I thought there did need to be pressure, I would think it quite unfair to bring the pressure to bear here just on one side and leaving no pressures so far as I can see on the other. Those would be the considerations that would enter into it. Senator PELL. Thank you. Judge FAHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to supplement my answer to Senator Javits when I said if I had had in my mind his particular kind of seizure I still would oppose it for this case because I don't think the Government should be so deeply involved in the management of the railroads through the courts or otherwise in this controversy. Now I was struck by Senator Morse's differentiation between controversies affecting the right to strike and I think affecting the right to seizure. If it were not of the derogation in general of the right to strike or the absence of the right to strike in bargaining, or the right of men to join the union, if it were to something of that sort, or an impasse were reached, it would be one thing, and one would be more hesitant to suspend in any sense the right to strike. But this is not that kind of controversy. I think the same sort of reasoning goes over to the other side on the question of seizure. It still is not the kind of controversy in the narrow scope in which it finds itself known which justifies such a deep involvement by the United States, the Government itself, when there is the alternative of this sort of final adjustment in place of such a deep involvement. I wanted for the benefit of Senator Javits to give a little more complete answer to his question. Senator YARBOROUGH. Judge, stripped of its legal terminology, isn't the only thing which has brought this measure to the Congress the fact that the unions have voted to strike and said, "We are going out on strike." Isn't the only purpose of this resolution to keep them from going out on strike? Isn't that the real crux of the reasons for the proposed legislation and the objective of the proposed legislation, just taking off the terminology and getting down to the economics of it? Judge FAHY. Would you repeat the question? Senator YARBOROUGH. I say if we strip out all the legal terminology and say what is this about, the only reason that this bill is offered here is that these unions have voted to strike and said on a certain date we will strike? Judge FAHY. Yes. Senator YARBOROUGH. And the only purpose of the resolution is to keep them from striking. That is the only purpose here? Judge FAHY. Something had to be done because there was that impassé and there was a deadline. Now we are in a period now of the suspension of the right to strike. This 47-day resolution is a suspension of the right to strike. The Railway Labor Act itself suspends the right to strike. Senator YARBOROUGH. Are there any further questions? Mr. Secretary, I cannot be quite as pessimistic about this as my good friend here from Oregon. I guess that is because he has had so much more experience in this type of negotiation. We know this matter is controversial and amendments will be offered and some might well be adopted, but I hope that a settlement can be reached. It comes out of my personal experience in life and my affinity to the railroad industry. If you will pardon 2 minutes for a personal experience. I grew up in a rural agricultural town in my home State where the railroad coming through that town offered the only opportunity for employment at higher earnings than agriculture. My father-in-law who was a schoolteacher went into the service of the railroad and went on into management and served out his time and retired from the management end. My first cousin, who lived across the street from us, became a clerk and served out his time in the labor end and retired. He has since passed away. My brother-in-law went into the Railway Express Agency service and was a traveling Railway Express Agent for some 30 years and retired back when they had five or six express cars per passenger train with fresh vegetables. Every time a railroad strike was threatened, I heard debate about this in my own family, some on one side and some on the other. Every time I hear of a train pulled off, I regret to hear it. Every time a railroad is pulled off, I know a number of towns are dying when that railroad is pulled off. I am hopeful that labor and management can get together to settle this before we pass this. This will take time in Congress. The Good Book promises the day when the lion and lamb will lie down together. We don't have to go that far. All we have to have here is just to have the "Wolfe's" and "Fox's" sit down together. If they will just heed the admonition in Abraham Lincoln's inaugural and listen to the better angels of their nature, that they can call on, I think they can sit down together and settle this. Thank you very much. The subcommittee is adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. (The following information was subsequently received for the record.) Hon. RALPH W. YARBOROUGH, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: During my testimony before your Committee, I was asked to provide information on the impact of work stoppages in transportation industries as compared to industry generally. The enclosed table compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the Nation's combined strike and lockout experience in recent years. The information covers the number of stoppages, workers involved, man-days idle, and the percent of total working time lost. The last section of the table provides a basis for comparing the impact of stoppages in the transportation industry with the impact of stoppages in the economy as a whole and in manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries. Normally, in the compilations made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing the percent of working time lost, the data for transportation industries are reported together with certain other industries, including communications, utilities, and longshoring. In view of the purpose of these hearings, however, we have indicated in a separate column the work stoppages in the railroad industry. Sincerely, 1 Stoppages extending into manufacturing and nonmanufacturing have been counted in each group, but they have been included only once in the all industries total; workers involved and man-days idle were allocated to the respective groups. The industry group for which data are shown includes: (a) railroad transportation; (b) local and suburban transit and interurban passenger transportation; (c) motor freight transportation and warehousing; (d) water transportation and longshoring; (e) air transportation; (f) transporation services; (g) communication and (h) electric, gas and sanitary services. (Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 11, 1967.) RAILROAD SHOPCRAFT DISPUTE THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1967 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Ralph Yarborough (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Yarborough (presiding), Morse, Randolph, Pell, Javits, Prouty, and Fannin. Also present: Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Robert O. Harris, counsel to the Labor Subcommittee; Gene Godley, professional staff member; Eugene Mittleman, minority counsel to the committee; and Peter Benedict, minority labor counsel. Senator YARBOROUGH. The Subcommittee on Labor will come to order. We will continue the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 81 to provide for the settlement of the labor dispute between certain carriers by railroad and certain of their employees. The first witness this morning is the Secretary of Transportation, Hon. Alan S. Boyd. Secretary Boyd, do you have witnesses you wish to present to the committee? Îf you do please identify them. STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN S. BOYD, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY SCOTT HARVEY, LABOR ECONOMIST, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Secretary BoYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied by Mr. Scott Harvey, a Labor Economist in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development of the Department of Transportation. Senator YARBOROUGH. You may proced in your own manner. Secretary BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today as a witness for the public interest as expressed in Senate Joint Resolution 81. I am not here to support or condemn either labor or management in the current railroad dispute. I am not here as an experienced expert in the very complex area of labor-management relations. Judgment on such questions I leave to others within the administration. The President has had the benefit of the advice and counsel |