Proportion of employees getting pay increases and reductions
[Related to average employment, year 1960]

Distribution of employees by annual wage loss or increase under Presidential
Railroad Commission1

Distribution of employees by annual wage loss or increase under Presidential
Railroad Commission 1—Continued

1 Annual wage gains and losses have been determined from the losses and gains per trip multiplied by the
average number of trips for each class of service, which were as follows for 1960:

Distribution of road service trips by number of additional straight-time hours
which could be worked at proposed pay rate without increasing employee
earnings

Mr. HOMER. My name is Winfield M. Homer. I am a labor relations
consultant with offices at 1010 Connecticut Avenue NW., in this city.
During the last year, I have made an extensive study on the effects
of the Presidential Railroad Commission's recommendations on the
earnings, the hours, and the employment of operating employees.

In summary, the adoption of the Presidential Railroad Commission
recommendations would have the following effect: First, it would cut
the earnings of about 70 percent of the road passenger and freight
engineers, conductors, firemen, and brakemen by an average of about
$1,700 per man-year.

Secondly, some yard employees, as distinguished from road em-
ployees, would also be reduced in pay, particularly yard engineers
now working 6 and 7 days a week, who would suffer cuts in pay by

20 percent or more if they go to the 5-day workweek at the rates recommended by the Presidential Railroad Commission.

The wage structure recommendations have a lesser impact on yard employees than on the road employees, but many of them also will be sharply reduced in their earnings.

Overall, for all classes, I estimate that more than 80,000 of these operating workers would suffer cuts in earnings.

Although the average for the road service employees would be about $1,700 per year per individual, there would be many employees in freight and passenger service who would receive cuts of $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, and even more if the Presidential Railroad Commission recommendations were placed into effect.

Now, while their pay was being cut, many of these road employees would also be required to work longer hours. I estimate that the hours of freight service employees, those in through freight service, would increase about 12 to 16 percent and that the hours of through passenger service employees would increase by as much as 20 percent or more, and that with these increases in hours the estimates I have given you on the reduction in their compensation would not be significantly reduced.

The increased hours of individuals working would have also the effect of reducing employment. I have estimated that the 15 to 20 percent increase in hours would result in the loss of 20,000 or more jobs in these classifications. This is a reduction in addition to the reductions which would result from application of the firemen, the crew consist recommendations and the other so-called manning recommendations of the Presidential Railroad Commission.

I will be glad, as Mr. Schoene said, to supplement this brief statement with a detailed, very specific statement by occupation, with supporting memorandums, explaining the sources of my materials and the methods I used in reaching these particular estimates.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Homer, and thank you, Mr. Schoene. You have given a very detailed analysis of this entire picture from your viewpoint, of course indicating your familiarity with the problem and various contentions of the parties, and I am glad to have had the benefit of your presentation here.

I know other members of the committee have, too, because of your association with this problem and your knowledge of the legalistic phase of it as well as the factual situation involved.

Mr. SCHOENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know just how many questions members may have.

As far as I am concerned, you have covered it exceedingly well and there are not too many questions left unless somebody wishes to engage in argument about some of the presentation.

I think perhaps there might be some questions.

Mr. Roberts.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with what the chairman said about the adequacy of Mr. Schoene's statement. He has covered the situation very well.

I would like for him to go into one phase. He detailed several instances of handling, not to his satisfaction, of various situations by

the ICC. One thing in his statement that struck me is that under the administration resolution this business of a star chamber proceeding that you spoke of, I would like for you to cover that just very briefly again, if you would, for my benefit.

Mr. SCHOENE. I had primary reference to section 3 of House Joint Resolution 565 which says that in acting upon an application filed pursuant to section 1, the Commission shall give due consideration to the effect of the proposed rule upon adequate and safe transportation service to the public and upon the interests of the carrier and the employees affected, giving due consideration to the recommendations of the Presidential Railroad Commission and Emergency Board 154 and to the narrowing of the areas of disagreement which has been accomplished in bargaining and mediation following the Emergency Board report. As a condition of its approval of any interim rule involving directly or indirectly the reduction of existing manning requirements or practices, the Commission shall require a fair and equitable arrangement to protect the interests of the railroad employees affected as provided under section 5(2) (F) of the Interstate Commerce Act and with due consideration to the recommendations of the Presidential Railroad Commission and Emergency Board 154 relating to the retention of job rights for senior employees, relocation expenses and earnings protection to less senior employees transferred to other jobs by the employing carrier preferential hiring rights, displacement allowances, supplemental severance allowances and retraining of employees.

There is nowhere any requirement that the parties be heard in this connection. It invites the Commission to consider, ex parte, records before other tribunals and recommendations of other tribunals, with no requirement whatever that there be any hearing at which the parties may be allowed to present evidence or to receive firsthand consideration of evidence by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. ROBERTS. No right of cross-examination?

Mr. SCHOENE. There is no such provision.

Mr. ROBERTS. If I understand you correctly, then, for 2 years after whatever action is taken by the Commission, no right of appeal on the part of the aggrieved party?

Mr. SCHOENE. No right of appeal unless, as in these other cases, we should feel that something less by way of protection had been accorded than was the minimum requirement of the statute. We have had to go to court repeatedly with the Commission under such conditions. Sometimes we have lost; sometimes we have won. More often we have won.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then on appeal the only thing that would be before the court could be an ex parte proceeding?

Mr. SCHOENE. That is my understanding of what can happen under this joint resolution.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then if you were not to succeed on appeal, say that the brotherhoods lost in the Supreme Court, then we are right where we started from in the beginning; is that right?

Mr. SCHOENE. That is right.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Younger.

Mr. YOUNGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.