They were obtained through the combined efforts of locals 900, 907, and CLU-MTC, AFL, and CIO, who are in full accord on the application of the Federal minimum-wage law on the Canal Zone. There continues to be a school of thought that any improved standard of compensation for workers on the Canal Zone would have an adverse effect on the economy of the Republic of Panama. We cannot but insist that this is a most fallacious viewpoint, that is counteracted by the expressed opinion of the Panamanian Government, its presidents, former presidents, chamber of commerce, His Excellency Ricardo M. Arias, E., President of the Republic of Panama, and leading citizens. A potentially future president of Panama, Ernesto de la Guardia, Jr., has this to say: that The minimum wage is a part of the Panama Constitution; and while its application has certain delicate economic problems, plans have already been made to establish a minimum wage in the Republic. As far as the Panamanian workers in the zone are concerned, I consider it as a consequence of the new treaty between Panama and the United States that these workers should be compensated equally with United States citizens employed in that part of our territory. In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we submit that the Federal Government as an employer should not put economy before proper personnel practices; that where there is no diminution in work, its working force should not be reduced; and it is not a sound practice to effect economies at the expense of workers. On behalf of all the workers on the Canal Zone, I most sincerely commend these matters to your careful consideration and hope that you will find them helpful and useful in the course of your investigations. Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Rerrie. I notice in the second paragraph on page 2, that you say: In additional support of our contention, there is prepared for your consideration the statements of former and current employees of contracting firms who have set forth the conditions of their employment. They were obtained through the combined efforts of locals 900, 907, and CLU-MTC, AFL, and CIOand so on. Now, do you have those statements? Do you desire to offer them in support of your testimony? Mr. RERRIE. They will be submitted to you by the spokesman of the Canal Zone Central Labor Union and Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO. Mr. ELLIOTT. And who is the spokesman of Mr. RERRIE. Mr. Blaney, R. L. Blaney. Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr Blaney, you will submit- (The statements referred to have been made a part of the printed record and will be found on pp. 399, 400.) Mr. ELLIOTT. I just wanted to properly identify them here. Now, I believe you state, Mr. Rerrie, that you represent non-United States citizens employed by the Government agencies in the Canal Zone. And does your representation include non-United States citizens who work for contractors who do work for the Panama Canal Company? Mr. RERRIE. I do not represent the workers of the contractorsfor contractors. Mr. ELLIOTT. You only represent the non-United States citizens who Mr. RERRIE. Who work direct for the Mr. ELLIOTT. For the Panama Canal Company or for the Government of the Panama Canal Zone-is that correct? Mr. RERRIE. Yes, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. Are the Panamanians who work for the contractors organized? Mr. RERRIE. No, they're not. Mr. ELLIOTT. They're not organized. Mr. RERRIE. But we're planning to investigate the possibility of organizing those workers also, within AFL and CIO. Mr. ELLIOTT. Well, give us a little information here now about what the people that you represent make by way of return for their labor for the United States Government. What are the wages or salaries of the people you represent? Mr. RERRIE. Well, we have a minimum in the Canal Zone of 41 cents an hour, and I think that goes up to $1.59, but-in the higher brackets-there are very, very few that would get anything above $1. Mr. ELLIOTT. How many people do you represent who work for the Panama Canal Government or Panama Canal Company? Mr. RERRIE. You mean as a union? Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes. Mr. RERRIE. At present I'd say about a thousand. Mr. ELLIOTT. About a thousand people. And their wages range from 41 cents to $1.59? Mr. RERRIE. Yes, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. What proportion, in your best judgment, of the 1,000 people whom you represent-or whom your union represents-locals 900 and 907, I believe-what percentage of those people make 41 cents an hour? Mr. RERRIE. Well, they're in the minority. I think you'll only find 41 cents an hour paid to messengers. But on the average-I'd say the average rate of pay would be around 60 cents an hour. Mr. ELLIOTT. The average of the thousand people whom you represent their average pay ranges around 60 cents an hour? Mr. RERRIE. Yes, sir-in my opinion. Mr. ELLIOTT. And has that been true over the period of the past 2 years? Would that be a reasonable average for the period of the past 2 years? Mr. RERRIE. I'm trying to think—just a moment, please. Yes. Mr. Sinclair just brought something to my attention: that whilst at present we only represent approximately a thousand employees, the great majority were members of our organization, say, at one time or the other. But somehow or other, the membership fell off; and we're just in a position of reorganizing, and in the near future we expect, from all indications, that we will represent the majority of the workers in the Canal Zone. There's always a fluctuation in employment on the Canal Zone, and we can't always boast of a potential Mr. ELLIOTT. What's the maximum number of members that your union has had among these employees? Mr. RERRIE. 10,000-between 8,000 and 10,000. Mr. ELLIOTT. You have had membership between 8,000 and 10,000. And now, then, you have membership of 1,000? Mr. RERRIE. Yes. Mr. ELLIOTT. Now, in the third paragraph of your statement, you say: There are numerous agencies on the Canal Zone other than the United States Government who, by nature of their business interests, find it necessary to employ people from the local area. Now, when you say they "find it necessary to employ people from the local area," do you mean people of the Republic of Panama? Mr. RERRIE. That's right. Mr. ELLIOTT. Then you say that these "firms" or "agencies," as you call them, "include contracting firms, shipping companies, banking, and numerous other private interests." Do you have very much banking carried on in the Panama Canal Zone area? Mr. RERRIE. Yes; we have several banks operating on the Canal Zone. Mr. ELLIOTT. What do you estimate their employment to amount to? Mr. RERRIE. Well, I haven't got any idea of the number of employees they have, but it would come to a couple hundred employees, I would imagine. Mr. ELLIOTT. To a couple hundred employees? Mr. RERRIE. I don't know; I haven't got any idea. Mr. ELLIOTT. Well, do you have any idea about the number of peple employed in the shipping industry that you mentioned? Mr. RERRIE. That's over 300. Mr. ELLIOTT. And how many Panamanians are employed by the contracting firms that you mentioned in the third paragraph of your statement? Could you give us some idea about that? Mr. RERRIE. The vast majority are Panamanians-around 1,500. Mr. ELLIOTT. Around 1,500 Panamanians by the contracting firms? Mr. RERRIE, Yes. Mr. ELLIOTT. Then you say there are "numerous other private interests" on the Canal Zone that employ people that are not connected with the United States Government. Can you give us examples of some of those? Mr. RERRIE. Well, you have the oil companies. Mr. ELLIOTT. Can you give us some idea of how many people they might employ? Mr. RERRIE. No, sir; I have no idea. Mr. ELLIOTT. How many employees? Mr. RERRIE. No, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. Can you think of any other besides the oil companies? Mr. RERRIE. Would you include religious organizations and civic organizations and so on? Mr. ELLIOTT. Well, I doubt if they'd be Mr. RERRIE. You have concessionaires on the Armed Forces reservation-you have officers' clubs run by concessionaires, and other clubs; you have Mr. COON. They wouldn't be covered. Mr. ELLIOTT. That's retail. Mr. RERRIE. Well, we had these, though, in mind when getting this up. Mr. ELLIOTT. Of course, it's true that usually when those industries that are connected with interstate commerce have a minimum, that the minimum tends to become the minimum in other industries; and that may be what you were thinking of. But so far as being specifically covered by the act, they would not be. Mr. Coon, do you have some questions? Mr. COON. You say here: While some of the business interests operating on the Canal Zone do observe acceptable standards of compensation, it is not so in many cases. What are some of these cases? Mr. RERRIE. We thought of the banks and the steamship companies Mr. Coon. Well, the banks wouldn't be included on the minimum wage anyway, would they? Mr. RERRIE. I should say they would be. Mr. COON. Well, if they are local banks, they wouldn't Mr. RERRIE. These are Chase Manhattan Bank or National City Bank. Mr. CooN. Are you accusing them of not having acceptable standards of compensation? Mr. RERRIE. We said: While some of the business interests operating on the Canal Zone do observe— and we had those people in mind specifically. Mr. Coon. What I tried to ask you, in the question and statement— you say: "not so in many cases.' Name some of those cases where there are not acceptable standards of compensation. Mr. RERRIE. Well, we had in mind, specifically, contractors. Mr. RERRIE. Various contractors who are doing maintenance and construction work for the Panama Canal. Mr. COON. Would you just name us one or two, or name as many as you want to accuse? Mr. RERRIE. Framorco (?) is one; and Pan Pacific (?); Isthmian Constractors (?). Mr. COON. Are you accusing them right now of not having acceptable standards of compensation? Mr. RERRIE. Yes, sir. Mr. Coon. That is, you named three contractors there. Mr. RERRIE. There might be more. We have in mind all of them. But those are just three that came to my memory. Mr. ELLIOTT. Let me for the purpose of the record, Mr. Coon, let me interrupt right there. [To Mr. Derrie:] Who is the gentleman on the front row who continues to give you information? We don't have his name in this record. Mr. RERRIE. Mr. Sinclair-William H. Sinclair who is the representative of the CIO on the isthmus-the Government and Civic Employees Organizing Committee. Mr. ELLIOTT. That's the group that you are speaking for? Mr. RERRIE. Yes, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. And you and he work for the same group of people. Mr. FJARE. You mentioned, Mr. Rerrie, that at one time your organization represented-did you say-how many thousands? Mr. RERRIE. Between 8 and 10 thousand. Mr. FJARE. And now only 1,000. Would you explain to me and the committee the reason for the tremendous loss of membership? Mr. RERRIE. Well, our people seem to have lost interest in their former leadership, and it dwindled down to practically-to what I say it is-around a thousand-insomuch that the treasurer and the chairman of the CIO recently had to come down here and appoint a committee to take over and rebuild the organization. That committee consists now of Mr. Sinclair, as administrator, Mr. Reginald Callender, as secretary, Mr. Ernest Hay (?), as treasurer, and myself, as chairman. And we have stopped that downward trend and started an upward trend. Mr. FJARE. Is it possible that a lack of discontent among the workers may be responsible for a loss of membership? Mr. RERRIE. Insecurity, I'd say. Mr. FJARE. What do you mean? Mr. CooN. (interupting). As the chairman has just said, we have a gentleman here before us as a witness, and I think he should answer the questions. If the other gentleman wants a place at the witness table, let's let him come up. Mr. RERRIE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Sinclair to answer to some of these questions-because I have just taken on my office and have not the facts and he has been with them and represented them all the time? He might be more helpful. Mr. Coon. I just think it would be more Mr. ELLIOTT. Will he-if you want to or let him associate with you-be all right. But it's a little irregular to have somebody in the audience answer Mr. RERRIE. Well, this is my first appearance in a congressional Mr. Coon. We want you to feel at ease, but if you want to have a helper up here with you-Mr. Chairman, why don't we ask him to come up and have a chair; and then I would suggest to Mr. Rerrie here when he doesn't know the answer, that he pass the question over to Mr. Sinclair and let him answer. (Mr. Sinclair came to the witness table.) Mr. FJARE. Now, to pick up my train of questioning, you explained to me and the committee that the tremendous loss in membership is a feeling of insecurity amongst your members is that correct? Mr. SINCLAIR. Well, here's the point, sir: Mr. Rerrie pointed out we had some, let's say, internal difficulties, plus the fact that the insecurity angle came about, let's say, through the the employees felt that "No use-my division, my work, probably will go on contract," so they feel insecure. In other words, they don't know how long they will be on the job. I can cite you, for instance, one case of insecurity over in-it may have been Rodman (U. S. Naval Station, Canal Zone), for instance where we have a good membership. We found out some time ago there was going to be a cut of 50 percent in personnel, and our members decided, "Well, 50 percent-I may be one of those guys"-so that he stopped paying dues to the union. So in cases like those, I mean, a man is not secure, doesn't know how long he will be on the payroll. So there are fluctuations-a man pays his union dues if he wants to, and if he doesn't want to he doesn't pay them. He accepts the easiest way out--by just being on the outside. |