It says that the carriers accepted this, but the brotherhoods rejected it because it included a terminal arbitration clause.

So far as is indicated by the report, in substance the parties were agreeable to the recommendations made by the Secretary of Labor, except with respect to the matter of procedure involving terminal arbitration. That may not be a light hurdle to get over.

I am not suggesting that this means that it will solve the problem. But it certainly is indicative of very substantial progress from the position at which the parties started, even 6 months ago.

Similarly, the matter with respect to the crew consist, which has been regarded as perhaps the second most difficult issue in this dispute: The subcommittee reports that on the question of crew consist:

Developments since the report of the Emergency Board have narrowed considerably the area of disagreement. Based upon a proposal made by the Secretary of Labor on July 19, both parties have agreed in principle to a procedure for handling the problem.

That is where this dispute stood on two of the most difficult issues. With respect to the third issue discussed, the manning of motor cars and self-propelled vehicles:

The Committee concluded that indications are that this matter may be settled if other issues are resolved.

With respect to interdivisional runs, the Committee said:

Recent discussions indicate that agreement may be reached once the manning issues, fireman, consist, and compensation issues are resolved.

With respect to combined road and yard work, that may be a more difficult one. The brotherhoods continue to maintain this issue should be handled locally, and the carriers feel minimum criteria should be developed as suggested by the Emergency Board.

With respect to compensation, wage structure, the Committee said:

The

The brotherhoods have indicated a willingness to discuss these issues. carriers have accepted the recommendation and take the view that further discussions on compensation issues cannot be undertaken until the firemen and the other manning questions are resolved.

That issue has been on the shelf awaiting these other dispositions. With respect to employment security, the Committee says:

This Committee has been informed that the employers represented advised the Emergency Board that in the interests of reaching an accord, if satisfactory settlement could be reached on all other matters in dispute this proposal would be withdrawn.

Gentlemen, this is not a hopeless picture. This is not a picture in which action by Congress is called upon to put the dead hand of the Interstate Commerce Commission on collective bargaining. This is a situation in which by all means the solution that must be adopted must give primary consideration to the fullest use of collective bargaining.

We have examined the proposal submitted to this committee and the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce by Mr. Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, and which he discussed at length here this evening. We believe that given the necessity of some congressional action, since the problem is put in your laps, that this would be the wisest course, that pursuant to this joint resolution, as proposed by Mr. Meany, this dispute can be resolved by collective bargaining.

I am not going to go into the details of the resolution. But I want to call attention to two items. First, the last sentence in the first section provides that

any action heretofore taken which will be prohibited by the foregoing sentence shall be forthwith rescinded and the status existing immediately prior to such action restored.

That might appear to be directed to the possibility that if action is not taken before the deadline set by the carriers, this would still put an end to any crisis that might thereby have been precipitated, and perhaps that was what the draftsman had in mind, but I would like to call your attention to the fact that in addition to that possibility, as I read this sentence, it would operate with respect to at least one class I railroad, the Florida East Coast, which Mr. Loomis mentioned in his testimony here the other evening, where the carrier has taken such action and the employees are now on strike, and I would gather that this resolution, if enacted, would require the carrier to rescind its promulgation of changed working rules and would require the operating employees who struck in response to that to call off their

strike.

Of course, that wouldn't settle the other strike, but it might facilitate the way to settle the nonoperating employees strike on that railroad.

The situation we are in now is even if the nonoperating employees strike, we are settling. Until the operating organization strike is settled, nobody would go back to work anyway.

The second item that I would like to comment on relates to language in the same section that I have already referred to, and that is the language that says they shall not make any change except by agreement in rates of pay, rules or working conditions encompassed by any such notices, or engage in any strike or lockout over any dispute arising from any such notices.

I would understand that that limits the restrictions imposed to controversies specifically embraced or growing out of these notices.

That is to say, it would prohibit the carriers from putting into effect, in whole or in part, their proposals or strikes over the proposalsor the employee proposals-that normal collective bargaining would proceed without restriction and in accordance with the Railway Labor Act in all other areas such as, for example, a general wage increase, proposals with respect to vacations or matters of that kind that may not be encompassed in any of these rules.

It is with that understanding that the Railway Labor Executives Association would endorse and recommend Mr. Meany's proposal.

As has been brought out by questions from various members of the committee, there is no solution here that is wholly free from objections, and this is a crisis that nobody can be happy with, and there is no solution that anybody can be happy with.

But there are certain virtues of Mr. Meany's proposal. It does withdraw from both parties, equally, the use of economic sanctions deemed to be incompatible with the public interest.

It doesn't weight the scales in one direction or another as the President's proposed joint resolution would do.

Secondly, it continues to employ the traditional instrumentalities for adjusting labor disputes: namely, conciliation and mediation.

And it substitutes for the economic sanctions that are withdrawn constitutional oversight. Now perhaps that isn't the best possible condition. But no one yet has proposed any better one.

It seems to us that this is a statesmanlike approach. It does not leave the country exposed to crisis or lack of transportation, and it is a workable solution.

The question may arise, Is this fair to the railroads? It has been a subject of repeated statements that the railroads have been trying for nearly 4 years to settle this position, this dispute. They want to cut off jobs. Is it fair to subject them to possible indefinite delay, perhaps a month, 2 months, perhaps more?

Let me call your attention to the fact that that is not a necessary consequence, or a predictable consequence of the resolution that Mr. Meany has proposed. It is conceivable, certainly, when you consider what the special subcommittee reported to the President, that given proper atmosphere for continued collective bargaining, this whole dispute may be settled in less time than the carriers would be able to change a single rule by application of the Interstate Commerce Commission. After all the President's proposal says the Commission shall decide such applications within 120 days or as soon as practicable. That is 4 months.

I certainly don't consider it to be at all incompatible with reality that this whole dispute may be settled by collective bargaining in less time than that. But suppose it isn't? Suppose it isn't and the Congress should be very patient and say let this go on, and suppose more

time elapsed.

Is that a catastrophe? After all, we are dealing here with very fundamental proposals for changes in rules and working conditions. The Presidential Commission, although it recommended immediate adoption of certain changes, did not conceive this as a problem that is to be disposed of overnight. The Commission said, in discussing the basic approach to the problem, at the outset of its report, at page 7 of its report the Commission said and I quote:

It is our view that railroad management and the operating brotherhoods should conscientiously plan the decade of the 1960's as a period of transition and adaptation to the new arrangements herein proposed.

A matter of a few months to preserve collective bargaining in this industry is certainly not too great a period to devote to this transition and adaptation.

Now, the Chairman requested and Congressman Harris requested the postponement for 30 days in putting the carriers' proposed rule changes into effect. Mr. Loomis made a statement calling your attention to what a great imposition this would be on the carriers. He said this would be draining the lifeblood of an anemic industry. That isn't what Presidential Emergency Board No. 154 said. The railroads said they have accepted the recommendations in the report of Emergency Board 154. That board went into the matter of the anemic character of this industry and it found the facts to be quite different from what Mr. Loomis has pictured. They said at page 5 of their report:

We were impressed with the evidence submitted to us that the vitality and earning capacity of the railroads as a whole are improving; that the productivity of its workers is rising at a rapid rate, and that the industry can face the future with confidence and even optimism.

Gentlemen, that isn't an anemic industry that is having its lifeblood drained away while we preserve one of the vital principles of American democracy.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask Mr. Homer just as briefly as he possibly can to address himself to the one item remaining. Senator PASTORE. All right, sir. You may proceed.

Mr. HOMER. My name is Winfield M. Homer. I am associated with the Labor Bureau of the Middle West, with offices here in Washington, at 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW. I have been working for some 25-odd years with all of these railway labor organizations. During the last year I have made an extensive study of the work of the Presidential Railroad Commission with particular reference to the impact of their recommendations on the earnings of the railway employees. Mr. Davidson and Mr. Malin and Mr. Zimmerman all covered that area somewhat briefly. There is one collection of central facts I would like in about 2 minutes to add to what they have said. I could take 2 hours, but not at this time.

Briefly, the recommendations of the Presidential Railroad Commission will cut the pay I estimate of 80,000 to 90,000 employees. The average pay cut will be in the neighborhood of $1,700 per year per employee, with that of many employees as much as $2,000 and $3,000 a year, and even more.

At the same time the hours of the employees can be increased approximately 15 to 20 percent per employee, without significantly reducing the amount of that pay cut.

In other words, they can get that pay cut and still have their hours increased a magnitude of 15 to 20 percent. And with both of these effects, the employment of road operating employees can be expected to decline in the neighborhood of 15 percent, which would add to the displacement of railroad workers some additional 25,000 to 30.000 employees over and above those that may be displaced should the firemen recommendations and the crew consist and other related recommendations ever be put into effect.

Thank you very much.

Senator PASTORE. That is a very important thing.

I was wondering if you could develop those figures, as to whether or not you could furnish them?

Mr. HOMER. I can't quite hear you.

Senator PASTORE. If you can develop those figures, I think it is quite important that we put them in the record. If they can be rebutted, they should be, so that we will have a fair picture.

I think that those figures of yours should be placed in the record. Have you developed them?

Mr. HOMER. I can put them in, in great detail. I would be happy to do so with a memorandum.

Senator PASTORE. Give them to Mr. Levin, so they will be placed in the record.

Mr. HOMER. I will do so.

Senator PASTORE. We would like to have them.

Mr. HOMER. Is it necessary that it be submitted in written form tonight?

Senator PASTORE. Not tonight, no. No.

Mr. HOMER. I can take care of it tomorrow in detail.

Senator PASTORE. Do it any time before next Monday. I would like to have you develop these figures.

Mr. HOMER. Thank you, sir.

Senator PASTORE. Are there any questions?

Thank you very, very much.

Mr. SCHOENE. I want to thank the committee for its patience in listening to this testimony.

Senator PASTORE. This is important.

Mr. SCHOENE. The hour is late.

Senator PASTORE. It is our job to be patient. And I hope we are. Tomorrow night we will meet at 7:30. At that time we will hear from the carriers in rebuttal, and I would welcome their observation on the Meany suggestion.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 p.m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 31, 1963.)