LIBERALIZATION OF THE SPECIAL FUND Under section 44 of the Longshoremen's Act, a special fund is established and is made available for certain types of benefits. This fund is derived from compensation payable for death when it is determined that no person is entitled under the act to receive such compensation. The fund also is made the custodian of all amounts collected as fines and penalties under the provisions of the act. This fund is administered by the Secretary of Labor. It is our understanding that the special fund now shows a substantial surplus. Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8, of S. 2280 would liberalize the utilization of the special fund in order to put the surplus to work. These sections would accomplish the following: (1) Raise the expense allowance for employees undergoing rehabilitation from $10 to $25 weekly. (2) Authorize the Secretary of Labor to draw upon the special fund to provide needed rehabilitation services in those few cases where the needs of an individual cannot be met by existing local facilities. (3) Provide compensation benefits for those few employees who are unable to obtain compensation because their employer has become bankrupt or otherwise unable to make required payments. The Secretary would be authorized to take appropriate action to collect any funds so expended from the defaulting employer. These proposals are in line with similar provisions in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Present benefits under the special fund would not be affected since they are given priority over additional benefits provided under S. 2280. CONCLUSION In urging favorable action on the far-reaching 1949 amendments to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, the House Committee on Education and Labor had this to say: "Under prevailing economic conditions the workmen's compensation benefits at present are at such low levels as to cause this necessary act to lose its effectiveness. It is no dispute that great hardships are being imposed upon disabled Federal employees or their dependent families and that many of them are left with the only alternative of relying upon charity or the help of their friends to afford them the barest kind of existence. The Government *** should restore to [its] employees that measure of security which is necessary to maintain them during disablement, and their dependent families after death due to employment injuries." " We say that this statement applies with equal force in 1955 to operation of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. We feel it is the obligation of this committee to approve benefit standards which will restore the effectiveness of the act, and place it, alongside the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, in a position of leadership in the field of compensation legislation. We urge this committee to report promptly and favorably-the Senate approved measure-S. 2280. 7 H. Rept. 729, 81st Cong., 1st sess., p. 3. EXHIBIT I Average weekly hours and earnings, shoreside, all ports of Pacific coast Jurisdictions having waiting periods shorter than the Longshoremen's and Har Source: For United States, BLS State Workmen's Compensation Laws, September 1954; for Canada, Department of Labor of Canada, Workmen's Compensation in Canada; a Comparison of Provincial Laws, December 1954. EXHIBIT III Jurisdictions having provisions superior to Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act relative to duration of compensable injury before compensation is retroactive to date of disability Canada: Alberta and Saskatchewan. Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.. Nova Scotia and Ontario.. British Columbia....... Manitoba.---. 15 weeks, permanent disability only. * No provision because waiting period only 1 day. 5 weeks. (1) 6 weeks. Do. Do. Do. Do. (2) 4 days. 5 days. 6 days. 7 days. Source: For United States, BLS State Workmen's Compensation Laws, September 1954; for Canada, Department of Labour of Canada, Workmen's Compensation in Canada; A Comparison of Provincial Laws, December 1954. Mr. BAILEY. You may proceed, Mr. Kibre. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Could I ask that Mr. Kibre tell us a little about the number of people in the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and its jurisdiction? Mr. BAILEY. Certainly, if he has that information available. Mr. KIBRE. Our union represents approximately 16,000 longshoremen and related workers on the west coast, in Alaska, and in Hawaii, approximately 16,000. Mr. BULCKE. There are 16,000 on the west coast, and including the Territory of Hawaii and the Territory of Alaska there is an additional 4,000 approximately, so that the total comes to 20,000 members. Mr. KIBRE. Yes, there are 16,000 on the west coast and an additional 4,000 in the Territories of Hawaii and Alaska. Mr. SMITH. Does that include all ports on the Pacific coast? Mr. SMITH. What are they? Mr. BULCKE. Tacoma, Wash., Port Angeles, and Anacordes. There are approximately 1,200 longshoremen there. Mr. BAILEY. You may proceed. Mr. KIBRE. Now, as previous testimony has brought out very clearly, improvements in the benefit structure of this act are actually long overdue. I am sure that the facts are so well before the committee that the committee appreciates that the average longshoremen under coverage by this act is presently receiving, not two-thirds of his average weekly compensation as contemplated by the act but actually about one-third of his weekly wage or his actual earnings. That is the present situation percentagewise, and that is the situation which points out the need for urgent action by Congress to bring this statute into line with current wages and conditions in the industry. I would like to briefly review the various bills before the committee and also refer to the Senate-passed bill. I am sure that there are some questions on that score. As you realize, there are approximately 19 bills pending before this committee introduced on the House side, in addition to the Senate-passed bill, S. 2280. It is interesting to note that of these 19 House bills, approximately 14 of them deal with the subject of the benefit rates in the act. In other words, the overwhelmingly proportion of the bills which were introduced on the House side deal with the particular subject of increasing the benefit rates under the act. I think it is also significant that the majority of the bills are in substantial agreement with respect to the amounts that were proposed in the Senate bill, S. 2280. Of the other bills, there is one bill, H. R. 8333, which proposes to amend section 14 of the act for the purposes of strengthening the provisions relating to a national safety program. I am sure that the committee realizes that our union has long and earnestly been in favor of legislation to strengthen the safety provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. This bill would accomplish that. It is a bill, for example, which has been before the committee in previous years and it was also over on the Senate side for a good many years but not at the present time, however. We feel that it would be preferable to take advantage of certain steps which are being undertaken by the Bureau of Labor Standards of the Department of Labor to put into practice a safety program. I might point out to the chairman that the program which the Bureau of Labor Standards is attempting to put into motion at the present time largely agrees with the number of recommendations which came out of the work of the Kennedy subcommittee some years ago, and I would like to point out that the work of that subcommittee is now bearing fruit, and as we understand it, what the Department proposes to do is to bring about the adoption of minimum safety codes in the various sections of the industry. That has been done on the west coast and at the present time a code has been proposed by the Department of Labor and has been agreed to by the unions and the same code has also been agreed to by the Shipowners Association on the west coast. This is the first step toward bringing about or putting into effect a national safety program. Similar programs are contemplated for the east coast and for the gulf coast. Mr. ROOSEVELT. That would be an entirely voluntary program? Mr. KIBRE. Precisely, Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Are there any provisions in it providing for penalties in case of violations? What happens in such cases? Mr. KIBRE. There is no enforcement act in section 4 of that act at the present time. In other words, the Department is only trying to notify services and States to attempt to bring about compliance with safety measures purely on a voluntary basis. That is still all there is to it at the present time. I would like to see this program get the benefit of some test in the field. I think that would give us a background and a backlog of experience which might serve as a basis for making specific proposals at the next Congress to accomplish additional steps or measures for the safety program. I would like to see this present program able to draw a line on that basis for the time being. I might also add that the Department, at our suggestion, does contemplate setting up a national advisory committee at the time of the President's Safety Conference or Convention which will be held here this coming May 14 to 16. At that time, it is contemplated to set up a national advisory committee which will be composed of representatives from the several unions and from the various shipowner organizations, and it would be the function and the purpose of this advisory committee to help bring about a condition of safety and safety measures on a national level and perhaps to consider the need for additional legislation in the future. Therefore, we feel that the problem has now shaped up at long last with respect to the problem of safety in the longshoremen's industry. On the question of the free choice of doctors, there is a bill on that particular subject. We also have been very much concerned with this problem over a period of years. We likewise have proposed legislation on this particular question in recent years. We also appreciate the fact that it is very much of a controversial problem. We also appreciate the fact, for example, that there is considerable opposition or considerable objection even by the Office of the Bureau of Employees' Compensation to the idea of full and free choice of doctors. As a matter of fact, they prefer a system of what is called panels of doctors, in preference to full and free choice of doctors, and they |