Proposed by Senator Javits

Question 1: What are the commodities transported primarily by rail that are essential to (a) the national defense; (b) the public health?

Answer: The Department of Defense moves a wide variety of commodities by rail. Some of DOD shipments move on Government bills of lading, much of it moves on commercial bills of lading. The Department of Defense considers that all of its shipments are essential to national defense.

The principal commodities which move by rail are coal, petroleum products, ammunition and explosives; in addition substantial quantities of provisions, iron and steel articles and ordnance material also move by rail.

Also essential to national defense are those commodities such as raw materials, other bulk commodities and semi-finished products which go into production processes that result in products used for national defense. This would include such things as ores, chemicals and fuels.

Products essential to the public health include at least some of almost all manufactured products. Important commodities range from medicines, drugs, surgical and other hospital supplies to such items as chemicals for water purification and foodstuffs. Detailed information on the percentage of individual commodities considered essential to the public health which move by rail are not available at this time.

The following breakdown of rail movement may be useful, however.

1. Manufactured and miscellaneous commodities account for approximately 28.6 percent of tonnage originated on rail carriers. In this group are certain essential commodities to the national defense and public health. These include foods, agricultural chemicals, water treating compounds, and certain types of containers, among many others.

2. Products of agriculture and forests account for approximately 18.6 percentage of tonnage originated by rail. Essential products include some foods, feeds for livestock, grains, and cotton.

3. Products of mines, which account for 51.6 percent of total rail tons originated, include such essential products as coal, iron ore, bauxite, and manganese.

Question 2: What percentage of the total tonnage moved by rail do these commodities represent?

Answer: Defense supplies moving by rail on Government bills of lading represent 1⁄2 of 1 percent of total rail movements. When defense-related supplies that move on commercial bills of lading are added to this, the total is increased. DOD estimates are that the sum is less than 15 percent of total rail movements. The Department of Commerce has estimated that possibly as much as 20 percent of the total tons of manufactured products moving by rail are in the category of commodities essential to the public health. Estimates are not available at this time for the amount of raw materials of unfinished products moving by rail which would be considered essential to the public health.

Question 3: To what extent can any or all of these commodities be transported through non-railroad facilities?

Answer: The possible diversion of essential commodities from rail to other modes is dependent on several factors. Most important are the size and weight of individual commodities to be transported, handling requirements and the availability of capacity in other modes. Within these constraints, the substitutability of transportation services is, for all practical purposes, limited only by cost factors. A relatively few products have unique characteristics which tend to limit their transportability to individual modes of transportation.

The best estimates available at this time indicate that available capacity, realistically assessed, could transport approximately 10 percent of the total rail tonnage. It is reasonable to assume that more than 10 percent of the commodities essential to national defense and the public health which move by rail could be diverted to other modes.

Question 4: Is it feasible to operate the railroads to the limited extent necessary to transport the remaining items?

Answer: It would be physically possible to maintain partial operations of the railroads to carry the commodities essential to the national defense and the public health which were not divertible to other modes of transport. It would not, however, be practical, feasible or economical. It appears likely that such partial operation would require legislation by the Congress for implernentation.

What this bill proposes is a long step toward a police state-with the Government using the threat of prison to make the railroad shopmen labor for less pay than they themselves could win by the exercise of their economic strength.

And the effect of this is to increase the profits of the private railroad corporations. Is that the American way? It sounds to us more like a slave enterprise system than a free enterprise system.

Let me say that I asked our attorney, if enacted, how this bill would be enforced. He told me it would undoubtedly be enforced by some Federal judge issuing an injunction. And that injunction would be enforced by contempt of court orders, with the judge empowered to throw any strikers into prison or to fine them heavily or both.

Of course we have had more than a taste already of government by injunction, in the railway labor movement. In fact, it was an infamous Federal injunction which broke the great railroad shopmen's strike of 1922. That was the last time the shopcrafts struck the Nation's railroads 45 years ago.

Gentlemen, I could expand at some length on our views about this bill, Senate Joint Resolution 81; but I do not want you to have to hear the same story twice. Mr. G. E. Leighty, speaking on behalf of substantially all of the railway labor unions, will give you railway labor's detailed views about this legislation and about the general background from which you may wish to judge it.

I believe I can help you most today by telling you about recent developments in the dispute which gave rise to the President's message of May 4 and to the present bill.

I do not want to repeat the testimony I gave at the April 24 hearing, and so shall sketch in very briefly the background of the dispute. The more recent events, including the propaganda claims by the railroad, deserve more thorough treatment.

Also, you may recall that at your last hearing Senator Robert Kennedy of New York asked me if we would accept the settlement proposal by the President's three mediators, assuming the carriers accepted.

I said I would consult my colleagues and convey to you an answer. Our answer was given you, I believe, by the Under Secretary of Labor, Mr. Reynolds. I particularly want to explain this morning why we felt obliged to make a negative reply to Senator Kennedy's question.

This dispute began on May 17, 1966, when the shopcraft organizations served notices on the railroads asking for a 20-percent general pay increase effective January 1, 1967; a cost of living escalator clause; increased overtime rates; differentials of 18 cents an hour for the swing shift and 25 cents an hour for the night shift; substantial improvements in the vacation and holiday rules; paid 30 minute lunch periods and pay for jury duty service.

The railroads in June 1966 served drastic counterproposals. These called for abolishing all craft lines in our work; gutting our national job security agreement of September 25, 1964; slashing by 20 percent the hourly pay of all new employees except journeymen mechanics; and weakening other established rules.

As I mentioned on April 24, the railroad negotiators found time to hol! lays of very limited (an average of about 1 hour a day)

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.

What this bill proposes is a long step toward a police state-with the Government using the threat of prison to make the railroad shopmen labor for less pay than they themselves could win by the exercise of their economic strength.

And the effect of this is to increase the profits of the private railroad corporations. Is that the American way? It sounds to us more like a slave enterprise system than a free enterprise system.

Let me say that I asked our attorney, if enacted, how this bill would be enforced. He told me it would undoubtedly be enforced by some Federal judge issuing an injunction. And that injunction would be enforced by contempt of court orders, with the judge empowered to throw any strikers into prison or to fine them heavily or both.

Of course we have had more than a taste already of government by injunction, in the railway labor movement. In fact, it was an infamous Federal injunction which broke the great railroad shopmen's strike of 1922. That was the last time the shopcrafts struck the Nation's railroads-45 years ago.

Gentlemen, I could expand at some length on our views about this bill, Senate Joint Resolution 81; but I do not want you to have to hear the same story twice. Mr. G. E. Leighty, speaking on behalf of substantially all of the railway labor unions, will give you railway labor's detailed views about this legislation and about the general background from which you may wish to judge it.

I believe I can help you most today by telling you about recent developments in the dispute which gave rise to the President's message of May 4 and to the present bill.

I do not want to repeat the testimony I gave at the April 24 hearing, and so shall sketch in very briefly the background of the dispute. The more recent events, including the propaganda claims by the railroad, deserve more thorough treatment.

Also, you may recall that at your last hearing Senator Robert Kennedy of New York asked me if we would accept the settlement proposal by the President's three mediators, assuming the carriers accepted.

I said I would consult my colleagues and convey to you an answer. Our answer was given you, I believe, by the Under Secretary of Labor, Mr. Reynolds. I particularly want to explain this morning why we felt obliged to make a negative reply to Senator Kennedy's question.

This dispute began on May 17, 1966, when the shopcraft organizations served notices on the railroads asking for a 20-percent general pay increase effective January 1, 1967; a cost of living escalator clause; increased overtime rates; differentials of 18 cents an hour for the swing shift and 25 cents an hour for the night shift; substantial improvements in the vacation and holiday rules; paid 30 minute lunch periods and pay for jury duty service.

The railroads in June 1966 served drastic counterproposals. These called for abolishing all craft lines in our work; gutting our national job security agreement of September 25, 1964; slashing by 20 percent the hourly pay of all new employees except journeymen mechanics; and weakening other established rules.

As I mentioned on April 24, the railroad negotiators found time to hold only 4 days of very limited (an average of about 1 hour a day)

direct national negotiations with us last year, at which they made no real effort to engage in meaningful collective bargaining.

Regular Federal mediation ended after only seven very brief sessions, during which the railroads again made no real effort to settle. Meanwhile in late October of 1966, our members in every union and every craft had voted overwhelmingly to strike if necessary to achieve a satisfactory agreement.

The reason for this overwhelming strike vote lies in our member's lagging pay. The skilled shopmen, who include about three-quarters of our total group, earn less than $3.05 an hour.

After deductions many of them take home less than $100 a week. Yet they see men with comparable skills in other industries earning far, far more, in some cases as much as $1.50 an hour more.

Judge Charles Fahy, Chairman of the President's Special Mediation Panel, publicly confirmed this drastic pay lag of the skilled shopmen. He told your committee on April 24 that these men "are at a lower rate than comparable skills in other industries*** the figures we have on the differential range from 40 cents an hour to 60 cents."

The skilled railroad shopmen have been and are being drastically squeezed by lagging pay and rising costs of living; that is why they marked "yes" so overwhelmingly on their strike ballots. As for the laborers we represent, their pay is even less. Moreover, the railroad shopmen received a wage increase last year of only about 3 percent; as you know, consumer prices rose last year by 3.3 percent.

Gentlemen, the railroads would like you to think that we who represent the railroad shopcrafts are a handful of stubborn men, bent on making trouble. This is simply not true. There is a wide unrest in this country today.

I know you are conscious of it. And this unrest is not limited to college students, or Negro slum dwellers, or peace marchers. It is very, very widespread among the railroad shopmen who see frustration at every turn in their effort to gain the pay they deserve and need to support their families.

We, their leaders, sincerely want to negotiate a fair settlement of this dispute. We have tried to negotiate one. We are still trying. But the railroads refuse. They seem to think they hold the whip hand—as indeed they will, if you deprive us of our only economic weapon.

The President on January 28, 1967, appointed an Emergency Board in this dispute, which issued its report and recommendations on March 10. The members of that Board were no doubt well intentioned gentlemen, but their recommendations were inadequate and in important respects impractical.

Probably the worst aspect of those recommendations was the Board's proposal for a job evaluation study, of a kind which could be long and costly, which would probably take no account of the "custom" nature of much of our work, and which, we were told, might well result in cutting some of the pay rates. How could we possibly, after setting out to get a very badly needed pay increase, come back to our people with an agreement cutting some of the rates? We could not go along with that.