receiving any workmen's compensation benefits. S. 2280, as amended, shortened this period to 3 days. A 3-day waiting period is entirely practical, as we are dealing with a group of workers, few of whom have any reserve to fall back on. When they are injured, they need financial assistance promptly. The State of Oregon has recognized this situation by entirely eliminating its waiting period. Eight other States and Alaska have a waiting period of 3 days, Florida and Puerto Rico have 4 days; 4 States and Hawaii have 5 days; Illinois has 6. Every Province in Canada has a waiting period shorter than that provided in the present law. The waiting periods in Canada range from 1 day to 5 days. One Province has 1 day, 2 has 3, 3 have 4 days, and 2 have 5 days. On the first day of the hearings, the question was asked about what has been the experience, particularly in the State of Oregon, which has no waiting period at all. In the meantime I have checked into this, and I am advised, quoted by the members of the commission, "We found no malingering and the provision is working satisfactorily." I understand that applies in most of the other States that have a waiting period of 3 days or less. In fact, the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions as early as 1919 and since that time, have gone on record for a 3-day waiting period. This organization is composed of administrators of workmen compensation laws in all of the 48 States. There is probably no better authority on workmen's compensation than the members of this organization. It should also be pointed out that Congress has already established a principle in the Federal Employees Compensation Act by providing for a 3-day waiting period. The length of time necessary before compensation is made retroactive to the date of disability is my next point. Section 6 (a) of the act provides that in case an injury results in disability of more than 49 days, the compensation shall be allowed from the date of the disability. S. 2280 reduces the present 49 days to 28 days. We, in AFL-CIO, see no reason why this period cannot be reduced to 14 days. A 14-day period would be ample to test the validity of an injury under the workmen's compensation law. In 14 States this period is 2 weeks or less and we believe that any injury which lasts as long as 2 weeks should entitle the claimant to compensation dating back to the date the disability was sustained. It is a matter of record, that the 15th conference of the committee on workmen's compensation of the national conference on labor legislation sponsored by the Labor Department as far back as 1948 recommended that the waiting period be reduced to 14 days. This national conference on labor legislation is attended by the labor commissioners of practically all of the 48 States. In addition, Mr. Chairman, the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions as early as 1919 and every convention since that time has recommended retroactive payment to the date of injury, if the disability continues for at least 14 days. There is no chance for malingering under the procedures of this law. It has been brought out before this committee that the company doctor is the sole judge in determining when an injured worker should return to work. In Canada, the eight Provinces in Canada, they have the length of time necessary before compensation is paid retroactive to the date of disability, ranging from 1 to 7 days. However, the Federal Employees Compensation Act has 21 days. The next point is maximum weekly benefits for disability. Section 8 of the present law sets forth the principle that compensation for disability shall be based on two-thirds of the employee's average weekly wage. However, this compensation formula is limited by section 6 (b) setting a maximum amount of $35 a week that any worker can draw in compensation benefits. S. 2280 that passed the Senate provides for maximum weekly compensation of $50. This, of course, is a big step forward but in our opinion is still inadequate. The philosophy of this act, as originally passed in 1927, is that individuals are paid in proportion to their previous earnings and standard of living. Traditionally, payments for workmen's compensation have been two-thirds of average wages. Recent Bureau of Labor statistics wage studies show that ship repairmen and longshoremen are now averaging between $90 and $100 a week. See attached appendixes. (The appendixes are as follows:) Wage rates for Pacific longshoremen industry BASIC HOURLY RATES FOR SELECTED LONGSHOREMEN OCCUPATIONS, GENERAL CARGO, EFFECTIVE DATE JUNE 13, 1955 Basic hourly rates paid longshoremen for handling general and penalty cargo, effective date June 13, 1955, west coast Cargo classification General cargo- Rate $2.27 Selected, penalty cargoes: Shoveling jobs-- Bulk sulfur, soda ash, and crude untreated potash_. 2. 47 2.72 Phosphate rock in bulk____. Specified commodities in lots of 25 tons or more Leaking or damaged cargo, because of faulty containers_. Creosoted products out of water: 3. 07 2.57 2.37 2. 37 2.57 2. 47 3. 12 4. 43 2.57 Paper and pulp in packages weighing 300 pounds or more (hold men only) - 2.37 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Basic hourly rates for longshoremen in New York, N. Y., area, effective date October 1, 1955 Wet hides, creosoted poles, ties, shingles, cashew oil, soda ash in bags, Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wage rates for Pacific Coast shipbuilding industry Rate $2.48 3.72 2.53 2.53 4.86 4.86 2.68 2.68 2. 63 BASIC WAGE RATES FOR SELECTED OCCUPATIONS AT WEST COAST NEW CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR YARDS, EFFECTIVE DATE JULY 1, 1955 Riggers, loft; plate hangers; hooktenders and slingers_. Shipwrights, journeymen. Tool and die makers____ Welders, acetylene and electric Helpers, general_. Laborers, production‒‒‒‒‒ Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Rate $2.29 2.62 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.44 2. 29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.66 2.29 1.99 1.99 Wage rate of Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. Atlantic Coast yards (Boston, New York City, and Baltimore) effective date July 23, 1955 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. (The table entitled "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" is not printed, inasmuch as it was included in the testimony of Jeff Kibre.) Mr. MASON. Building trades workers, the second largest industry in the District of Columbia, continues to average $100 a week or more. These are actual average earnings according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and it should be noted that the earnings of casual workers are included which, of course, tends to pull down the average. If Congress is to continue to adhere to the two-thirds principle, the maximum set in the law should be at least $60. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call your attention again to the clear statement in the act which sets forth the principle that compensation for disability shall be based on two-thirds of the employee's average weekly wage. It was two-thirds when the act was enacted back in 1927 and still two-thirds up to 1939 and 1940. As I pointed out before, in 1927 the average wage of longshoremen was $30 a week, and the maximum provided in the law was $25, which was much higher than the 66% percent. The present benefit is only 30 or 40 percent of the average wage received by employees covered under the act. Mr. Chairman, the wage data submitted before your committee by the Department of Labor, other witnesses, and myself, clearly show that the large bulk of the employees covered under the act receive between $90 and $100 a week. To establish a minimum of less than $60 a week in my opinion would be unrealistic and departing from the two-thirds principle which was the understanding when the act was enacted. It should be noted that the maximum provided in the Federal Employees Compensation Act is $121.15 per week. I doubt that any average wage of Government employees is much higher than the employees covered under this act, when you take into account postal clerks, letter carriers, messengers, elevator operators, et cetera. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Mason, could I ask you a question at that point without interrupting your thought? Mr. MASON. Surely. Mr. ROOSEVELT. On page 4 at the bottom, you say that they are actual average earnings according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Are these fairly up to date and accurate? Could they, for instance, be used as an automatic way of setting the two-thirds amount or are they not kept current by the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Mr. MASON. I have in the appendix here a list of the wages being paid in various industries that are covered under the act. I assume it is up to date or within the last 6 or 8 months. It is July 1. Mr. ROOSEVELT. So it is roughly, let us say, 6 months behind, normally; is that correct? Mr. MASON. Yes. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I realize it is not feasible in this act, but would it be feasible at some future revision to make this an automatic adjustment so as to keep this away from logrolling every time to try to get this thing up to the two-thirds? In other words, I do not see why we set a principle of two-thirds and then do not live up to it. Mr. MASON. That is right. It would be appropriate to not impose any maximum at all, so that whatever the average wage level is, that the individual injured on the job woud receive the two-thirds of his average earnings. Mr. ROOSEVELT. It would make less work for this committee, too. Mr. MASON. However, it was pointed out by Under Secretary of Labor Larson, that they did run into a problem in some of the Western States where they were doing some wild west motion-picture operations, and the actresses or actors were receiving as high as $6,000 a week. There may have been a need there for imposing a maximum. However, I do not think, in view of the wages paid employees that are covered under this act, that there is any need for a maximum at all. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, sir. Mr. MASON. I think it should be pointed out, too, that the maximum does not mean that everyone is to receive the maximum. If an employee's average earnings are only $60 per week, all he will receive is two-thirds of the $60, which would be $40. So the maximum, in my opinion, for the industries covered under this act is unnecessary. |