additional monies is for services rendered that were not included in the original bid. Please find enclosed a Government Contract Operations manual defining work to be done by the 'high crew', a department of TWA but now, under Boeing's contract, is not included as a department as it was not included in their bid. This department services all contractors at the Space Center. Boeing is hiring this classification as painters and they have promised that they would try to secure more monies for them soon. With the roll-out coming within the next few days, NASA has notified that this group will give the other support contractors involved with the missile 24 hour coverage as has been the practice in the past. We cannot get this in writing as Boeing is being very cautious. Also enclosed is a copy of a statement made by one of our employees stating he was refused employment by Boeing after the employment manager had okayed him. He was turned down by an ex-TWA supervisor who had assumed management position with Boeing. Thanking you for your time and interest, I remain M. DEAN MCCROSKEY, President, Local Lodge 773. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, DEAR FRANK: With reference to hearings recently completed by the Special Subcommittee on Labor, I am forwarding the enclosed for consideration during the Committee's review of testimony. Mr. Claxton's letter offers a good example of the hardship which may result from the Labor Department's ruling that a new contractor need not meet the incur ent contractor's wage levels. I would very much like to have a copy of the Committee's Report on this matter and would be most interested in knowing of any further developments. Thank you. Warm regards, CLARENCE D. LONG. AMALGAMATED MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION 1231, Hon. CLARENCE D. LONG, Washington, D.C. DEAR HONORABLE LONG: I, and members of Local Union 1231 would like to impose upon your good office to assist your people and ours in maintaining their living standards and purchasing power in our good State of Maryland in the counties of Aberdeen and Belair in this Second District. Our members work for a private contractor that do the cleaning and janitorial duties at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. In the past years we have been able to survive and increase our standards of living, our purchasing power and dignity of being a registered voter of this community and this good nation. Most of our employees live in the Aberdeen area. We formally worked for the Kahoe Janitorial Cleaning Company of Belair, who held the contract earlier this year, but he was unable to match the low-bid for the work beginning May 1, 1971 of Royal Services Inc. Firm, headquartering in Jacksonville, Florida. These employees had won their right to bring their living conditions and their wages up to a high $2.58 per hour for waxers and $2.48 per hour for cleaners. This new contractor (Royal Services) hired the same workers and refused to match the same salary that was formerly being paid. Many of the employees that worked at this good, well kept army installation are soldiers of our Armed Forces who work night shift. Also, there are many Armed Force retirees that are also depending on this type of work for their livelihood, this unilaterally change of wages is actually making these employees take a severe wage cut back of as much as 44¢ per hour. This also means a cutback of $70.00 per month in regular -time and $840.00 cut-back on a yearly salary. Our Union met with this employer (Royal Services) in good faith and bargained on all items and wages. This employer refused to recognize the wages being paid in the last 4 or 5 months by prior contract. We are imposing upon your good office to consult with the Aberdeen Proving Ground Contracting Personnel to have this contractor either perform the work and pay the wages that was known to every prospective bidder or discontinue his contract and award it to the next successful bidders. The cost of living, as you and we know is on the increase. We are only asking for fair treatment. We are asking your good office to assist us in the meaningful effort of keeping our living conditions and purchasing power along the same level that our community has been living with-in. We are sorry to say that outsiders do not seem to understand our economical living conditions that has been built up in this area. To adhere to his wants would only take away our economical purchasing power and deliver it elsewhere. Respond requested as soon as possible for the citizens of the Aberdeen & Belair community and Citizens of the Second District of this sovereign State of Maryland. With most Kindness regards, JAMES D. CLAXTON, STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. WINPISINGER, GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is William W. Winpisinger and I am a General Vice President of the approximately one million member International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO (IAM). One of my foremost responsibilities as an IAM officer is to supervise our affairs within the railroad, airline, trucking, motor coach and automobile repair industries, where approximately 225,000 of our members are employed. I want to express my sincere appreciation to the Subcommittee for the opportunity afforded us to submit the views of the IAM with respect to the efficacy of the Service Contract Act of 1965. In light of recent developments, an inquiry of this sort seems especially timely and appropriate. While we have now become aware that the kind of problems to which I will address attention has become relatively commonplace, it is the plight of some 1100 of our members formerly employed by Trans-World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) which inspired our interest in this proceeding. It is on their behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly situated regardless of union membership or the identity of their employer, that this statement is submitted. A few months ago I became aware of-and later a participant in-a series of events which culminated in personal tragedy for the affected members of our union as well as countless hundreds of other workers for whom no accurate data is available to me because they are unrepresented by any organization. The key role in bringing about such a circumstance was played by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and, in our view, the activities of NASA in the situation which I will attempt to describe were as calloused and capricious a demonstration of Federal executive power as we have ever confronted. It all began back on March 9, 1964 when TWA assumed the responsibility to furnish all housekeeping functions for NASA at the then-burgeoning Kennedy Space Center (KSC) under Base Support Service Contract No. NAS10-1242. This was a usual cost-plus-award-fee arrangement pursuant to which TWA had consistently maintained a rating of "Excellent" under the scoring and evaluation system used by NASA. Notwithstanding such an achievement, and for reasons which are still the source of considerable speculation to us, this contract was recompeted during the latter half of 1970 and ultimately awarded effective March 1, 1971 to The Boeing Company. This award has aroused speculation, dis enchantment and antagonism with respect to NASA's application of existing procurement regulations and its compliance with current labor statutes including the Service Contract Act. It is my hope that these same emotions will be aroused among the Subcommittee and a terrible injustice rectified. Because the events leading up to and surrounding the cancellation of TWA's contract are both complex and involved, a familiarity with them is absolutely essential to a full understanding of the remainder of my statement. For the sake of convenience I have therefore attached to this presentation a complete text of an Unfair Labor Charge which the IAM has filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against The Boeing Company, and I urge its study at this point with particular reference to that portion entitled "Statement of Facts". Having done so, I am certain the Subcommittee will agree that these documents provide a penetrating insight into the substance of NASA's requirements. the types and kinds of work and skills involved, the approximate numbers of workers employed and the fate which befell the overwhelming preponderance of them. They also focus attention on what we believe were irregularities in the procurement process as well as provide copies of all pertinent correspondence and documentation which we believe buttresses our contentions and should have forestalled the precipitous award of this contract to The Boeing Co. It must be noted here that the entire TWA workforce was originally recruited in strict conformity with the very high skill requirements contractually prescribed by NASA, and each individual hiree was subject to acceptance by an employee of that Agency. Obviously such a group of employees achieved constantly expanding and more competent levels of skill throughout their tenure at KSC, and their union bargained accordingly with TWA within the restraints of the Railway Labor Act. Equally obvious, the fallout from their modestly successful efforts were manifested in improved wages, hours and working conditions for the nonrepresented employees along with the union members. Now, with a stroke of NASA's pen, this highly skilled and accomplished force is either decimated and scattered to the four winds or reduced to the wage levels of learners at their trade or specialty because of the wage structure imposed by Boeing with NASA's blessing, and which the IAM contends is illegal. NASA's attitude regarding such indiscretions-and the record shows that they were called to their attention quite vocally, incidentally-was best demonstrated by one of its high officials, Assistant Administrator Daniel Harnett, during a public meeting which was conducted at KSC on February 27, 1971 under the chairmanship of Senator Lawton B. Chiles of the State of Florida. When queried as to whether or not employees who are modestly successful in lawful collective bargaining activities in effect bargain themselves out of a job if NASA is paying the bill, Mr. Harnett responded that wage rates are not and cannot be set by NASA but must be set by the market place and, therefore, such could be the case! He seemed inordinately comfortable in the refuge that when unemployment in any area-and it was at that time in excess of 6% in the KSC area— becomes such that workers can be encouraged to compete with each other for jobs by working for less money, that NASA should at that point recompete contracts to take advantage of that situation in behalf of the taxpayers. He seemed singularly unimpressed with our expressions that such maneuvers left in their wake substantial human hardships which had the likelihood of burdening the taxpayers also, albeit on a far more restricted basis since the unemployed must be cared for locally. Perhaps the many employees of NASA who live and work in the KSC community were not unduly dismayed by this potential burden since they were at the very time TWA employees were being laid off receiving a 10% increase in their own wages. In the most charitable terms, the attitudes of NASA as expressed by Mr. Harnett can only be described as a throwback to the outmoded and archaic psychology of the great depression days of yesteryear which Congress has done so much to rectify during the intervening period. It seems not at all improper under the circumstances to observe that NASA seems to have developed its own techniques to not only turn back the pages of time but to completely negate the rights bestowed upon workers by such landmark and humanitarian legislation as the Railway Labor Act and the National Labor Relations Act. One further aspect of NASA's posture in this regard should not go unnoticed either. It is startling, to say the least, to now see a Federal Agency taking the position that human labor is, after all, an article of commerce to be purchased and disposed of in the marketplace-thus thwarting the repeated Congressional abhorence of that concept which is typified by the mandate expressed in the preamble of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act asserting that exactly the opposite is the case. Perhaps no such contention would or could have surfaced had a survey or study of the wage marketplace been made by the U.S. Department of Labor as is contemplated by the Service Contract Act. It would appear that the errors of omission in this case are as grievous as those of commission. On additional rejoinder of substantial interest which came from Mr. Harnett in the public forum which I earlier described was to the effect that it was no fault of NASA's if KSC employees had become over-qualified for the jobs that the Agency now requires. Should we now conclude that workers who respond to the call of their country and serve with considerable distinction in a high priority program demanding the highest quality skills and job performance, and who achieve a relatively flawless record of accomplishment in that endeavor, are properly relegated to second class wage citizenship or the human scrap heap when that same country de-emphasizes the program only with respect to its budget? I would hope not! The fact is that the very same jobs must still be performed in exactly the same manner as before if KSC is to continue to function. The contract awarded to The Boeing Co. includes no changes in the basic job functions and makes no provision for increased efficiency or management ingenuity. By the wholesale replacement of the experience employees, there can be no other result than decreased efficiency which puts our space program as well as the country's image in potential danger, not to mention the long range cost to the taxpayers. The only change affected by this contract award was to extract immediate economies from the hides of the workers-to have the same jobs performed by the same or other workers for substantially less wages. Perhaps the Subcommittee will ponder-as we do-whether or not this is an appropriate reward for those who render outstanding service to their government over a long period of time and whether or not their equity in such a situation shouldn't be strengthened through appropriate legislation. The one story that the documents which accompany this statement cannot tell of course, is the very intimate one of how NASA's machinations touch the lives and fortunes of the victims, and there are a great many more of them than had at first been envisioned because of Boeing's refusal to accept into its employ the incumbent workforce. In a very real way the impact upon each one affected is both dramatic and individual, thus exceedingly difficult if not impossible to fully chronicle here. For the approximately 385-two hundred odd union members and the balance professional, technical and management employees-who were fortunate enough to be accepted for employment by Boeing, there will be the certain reduction in wages, the corollary reduction in the family standard of living with the potential loss of personal belongings because financing commitments cannot be met. Anyone who has ever experienced it will testify that it is a truly traumatic experience from which it takes literally years to recover, if you ever do. Approximately 160 others-120 union members and 40 managerial personnelpossessed sufficient seniority to go elsewhere on TWA's domestic air route system and assume jobs. At first blush these would seem to be the most fortunate of all, but as with most things, it's not as rosy as it appears. The case of two members with which I am familiar typifies the problems that can and do appear. Upon receipt of their layoff notices from TWA, our two subjects learned that their seniority and qualifications would enable them to remain with the company only if they reported to Newark, New Jersey for work. Contrary to advice from union representatives, they elected to take their families and personal belongings with them. Unable to sell or rent their homes in the depressed real estate market-the TWA layoff having catipulted the unemployment figure for Brevard County, Florida to well over 7%-they had no choice but to simply pack up and leave, thereby forfeiting any equity which they had in their property. In two rented U-Drive-It trucks packed with their families and worldly possessions, they drove to Newark. With no place to stay on arrival there, they checked the families into a convenient motel, parked the trucks on the parking lot, and reported for work. Two weeks later, their meager savings exhausted by high motel rents and eating in restaurants, and a search for a decent place to live within their means having failed, they were forced to walk away from their jobs and set out on a return trip to KSC. It was their feeling that if poverty was to be their lot they could far better endure it in more familiar surroundings and have perhaps a fighting chance to "live off the land" as they expressed it. Thus these beneficiaries of NASA's largesse returned to the community from which they were originally driven with their savings exhausted, their home lost and forced onto the welfare rolls as the price of survival. In the bargain, because in desperation they quit their jobs, these members are disqualified from severance benefits provided for in the union contract-benefits that all others who were forced into or accepted layoff status were paid. It is ironic indeed that these members wind up broke, homeless and on the welfare rolls simply because they possessed the desire to pursue productive citizenship. For the balance of those affected the future is equally bleak and uncertain. About 200 have accepted their severance allowances and departed the KSC area to look for work elsewhere, having also sacrificed whatever equity they may have had in homes. Their prospects cannot be considered bright at this point in time. The remainder struggle to make their severance pay stretch out so that homes I will not be lost and other commitments satisfied. When the end of that road is reached they will also have no choice but to take their place on the welfare rolls and pray that a job will turn up, devoid in the meantime of the simple human dignity which distinguished them from the chronic recipient of welfare in the first instance. It is my understanding that the Brevard County Commissioners are compiling a computerized study on the total community impact of these layoffs and expect to publish it very shortly. It would be my hope that the Subcommittee will secure a copy of that report for inclusion in the record of this proceeding. Its contents should be most revealing indeed, and would go far beyond my poor power to present the entire case here. And so it is, Mr. Chairman, that misery and despair abound today at KSC. It is accompanied by a legitimate sense of outrage also, because of an inability to understand how or why wage increases of 10% are being granted to NASA's own workforce while employees of a private contractor with an unblemished record are being laid off. It is a situation from which no American taxpayer can derive any comfort or solace. We trust that the work of this Subcommittee will result in a needed strengthening of the Service Contract Act, and perhaps other related legislation, in order that those who Congress intended to protect can be better assured of a full measure of its benefits. Moreover, we would hope that some solution may be found to right the terrible wrong which I have described and thus restore the dignity and self-respect of those who have been deprived of their jobs. We believe it to be vitally important that tragedies of this sort be pre-empted from the future in order that confidence can be restored in our government's sense of justice. Absent such confidence, it is entirely conceivable that the morale of workers will irretrievably deteriorate and the price of essential programs in the national interest would become substantially increased to the taxpayers and go far beyond the meager savings extracted from the dedicated workers by NASA in the instant case. The kind of "Russian Roulette" being played by NASA with the lives and fortunes of workers and their families who have contributed so much to the image of technological supremacy which our country now enjoys simply has no place in the kind of a democracy which has made that image possible. EXHIBIT 1 WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30, 1971. Re Boeing and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Kennedy Space Center). HAROLD A. BOIRE, Esq., Director, Region 12, National Labor Relations Board, Federal Office Building, Tampa, Fla. DEAR MR. BOIRE: I enclose (1) an original and four copies of an unfair labor practice charge filed by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, against The Boeing Company, (2) a memorandum in |