public, and your purchase of advertising, but your difficulty in getting your side stated to the public.

I hold here in my hand the issue of Time, the weekly news magazine, July 26, 1963. It has the title up on it, "The Great Featherbedding Fight." It has a picture that says, "Firemen's-Helper Gilbert." Right in the background, in a red coal car with a bedstead up at the top, you see an employee with a blue shirt on, lying back on a feather bed pillow with a yellow quilt and white sheet over him, rolling down the railroad, asleep, without anything else going on.

Do you think that is a fair and impartial picture?

Mr. WAGNER. I think that is the most disgraceful thing that I have ever seen. I don't believe we deserve treatment of that kind by the press of this country.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I offer this tear sheet in evidence, not as proof of featherbedding but in connection with the witness' testimony that he has been unable to get their side of this controversy before the public.

Senator PASTORE. We don't have pictures in the report of our hearing, but I will include it by reference. Is that satisfactory? There is no way that I can put this in the record.

Are there any further questions?

Senator Morton.

Senator MORTON. I want to thank President Wagner. I think he has been frank and outspoken.

I think it is an interesting sort of commentary on the politics of this country that I seem to be the only person in the room defending the President of the United States.

Senator PASTORE. Oh, now, wait a minute. [Laughter.]

Senator MORTON. He asked for the bill. I didn't.

Mr. WAGNER. I take exception to that, Senator.

Senator MORTON. I gave you your opening, Mr. Chairman. You can take me apart.

Senator PASTORE. We appreciate the gesture. We will drop it there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Wagner.

Mr. WAGNER. Thank you, Senator.

Senator PASTORE. Our next witness is Mr. Luna, president of Railroad Trainmen. Would you please identify the men with you?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES LUNA, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, CLEVELAND, OHIO; ACCOMPANIED BY LESTER P. SCHOENE, ATTORNEY; AND TRUIT MEREDITH. SCHEDULE STATISTICIAN

Mr. LUNA. Mr. Meredith, on my right, is a schedule statistician for the trainmen; and Mr. Schoene, on my left, is our attorney in this

case.

My name is Charles Luna. I am president of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, AFL-CIO.

First, may I express my thanks to the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear in behalf of the employees I represent on the American railroads.

For the ready information of the committee, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is a fraternal organization which had its beginning

at Oneonta, N.Y., September 23, 1883. Since that time, the organization has grown and developed with the growth and development of the rail transportation system of this Nation.

For the almost 80 years of our existence, this organization has devoted its efforts toward the promotion of the general welfare of its members. Its express purpose is to advance their interests, social, moral, political, economic, and intellectual, and to protect their families by the exercise of benevolence.

The need for union to organize our collective strength, in order to deal in some measure of equality with the railroads, has been all too urgent in our history. We have met that need, as the record will show, and have kept faith both with the employees we represented and with the employers we dealth with in their behalf.

The work of this organization in the fields of safety, not only for the benefit of our members but also for the benefit of the traveling public is a matter of record in the archives of this Congress.

I appear today in opposition to Joint Resolution No. 102, which I sincerely believe would act to create the most drastic decline in morale ever experienced by the American railroad workers. I cannot find the words to emphasize to this committee strongly enough the havoc which could result from the action of this Congress if it were to pass this proposed legislation which is, in reality, nothing more or less than compulsory arbitration.

I want to try, to the best of my ability, to make clear to this honorable committee the feelings of these men whom I am privileged to represent, and I first want this committee to know and understand that the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen represents more than 50 percent of the employees involved in the dispute which the proposed legislation would affect.

It is indeed most unfortunate that the vital work of the operating railroad workers has been used in this dispute, not as a factor entitling them to greater consideration, but as a factor to be applied as a lever to pry them loose from the framework of democracy.

It is sad that these workers have been required to stand by, helplessly, while their employer first lambasted them from coast to coast with misleading advertising, purchased by the railroads from a public relations firm, deliberately planned to create a false public image of the railroad worker for the purposes underlying the program to be instituted weeks later under the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, a Federal law, mind you, passed by Congress itself, which was designed and intended not to foster planned strife but to encourage the parties to reach a prompt and orderly disposition of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions through the processes of collective bargaining.

This featherbedding charge so expertly publicized by the public relations experts employed by the Association of American Railroads has so prejudiced the minds of the public and so antagonized the railroad employees that it has been a serious detriment to constructive negotiations.

It has, in my opinion, been a contributing factor to the subsequent failure of the negotiations which were to follow. I think it was a poor way to approach the bargaining table at best; that is, if the moving party, the railroads, really intended to try to bargain.

While this dispute has remained unsettled, it has been impossible for these employees to deal with the railroads on any other subject. Wages have remained stationary-no wage increase has been granted these operating employees since March 1, 1961, while other railroad employees have forged ahead in both wages and fringe benefits.

When the railroads served their requests upon the operating unions on November 2, 1959, the requests were a part of a definite plan to accomplish certain aims of the Association of American Railroads as announced in advance by their spokesman, and as announced to the public through an extensive advertising campaign. It was a program having as its intention the elimination, modification, or amendment of virtually every work rule in the collective bargaining agreements favorable to the employees.

I am speaking of such basic rules as the wage structure rules, including rules which represent the fruits to the employees of nearly 80 years of collective bargaining.

I am not referring to the fireman issue that subject is covered by a witness from the enginemen's organizations. I am speaking about pay rules, assignment rules, seniority rules, crew consist rules, and even rules governing the regulation of minimum and maximum earnings of road and yard employees.

Some of these proposals of the carriers are so old, having been proposed and withdrawn by the railroads so many times in previous negotiations, that they were like an old shoe, always turning up.

To continue, these proposals were drastic in nature, seeking to obtain for the carriers the exclusive right to make changes affecting working conditions by managerial prerogative and without any obligation to negotiate with their employees concerning the working conditions disturbed by such changes as the railroad management might institute in the way of extending the length of runs, relocating terminals running beyond the limits of seniority districts, and a host of other concessions which would leave the employees, if they agreed to such changes, with nothing of their agreements but the covers.

Now at this point, I want to make it clear to all that it is these drastic proposals which the railroads, in their promulgation of rules changes, intended to place into effect-not the rules recommended by the Presidential Railroad Commission or the ones recommended by Emergency Board 154. In this respect, the statement by the President on page 2 thereof, is in error.

I mention this to correct any misunderstanding which might exist as to the rules which the carriers are seeking to place into effect. Perhaps I should quote the President's statement for clarification, which I will do as follows.

The President stated:

We face this prospect: In the absence either of an agreement, postponement, or reversal of position on the part of the parties, or of enactment of some contrary measure on the part of the Congress, July 29 will almost certainly witness the start of a general rail strike. The carriers on that date can be expected to initiate work rules changes along the lines of those approved by the various panels.

Mr. Chairman, those aren't the rules that they promulgated and were going to put into effect. The rules they were going to put into effect was their notices of November 2, 1959.

If it pleases this committee, I would respectfully point out that the carriers' promulgation of rules changes is not those which were approved by the various panels, but those which the carriers proposed in their original requests before modification by the various panels. The report of the Presidential Railroad Commission has those notices included as appendix B. The report of the special subcommittee of the President's Advisory Committee on Labor-Management policy has those same notices included as appendix B-1. Both of those reports are a part of the record before this committee if any member cares to see for himself the rules changes which these railroad workers feel must not be made effective.

On September 7, 1960, almost a year after the railroads had served their requests, the five unions presented certain requests for changes in rules, and those requests are a part of the record before this committee as appendix B of the PRC report and appendix B-2 of the report of the Labor-Management Subcommittee.

The employees understood that the railroads were seeking to modernize the work rules, and we knew that there were a good many modern improvements now enjoyed in the American labor contracts which are sadly lacking in ours.

Therefore, we proposed such rules as—

Shorter workday, workweeks and work month with maintenance of basic take-home pay.

Improved overtime pay to discourage use of employees for excessively long hours.

Guarantees, to stabilize the employment and earnings potential of the employees.

Split trip compensation, to allow reasonable compensation to employees required to separate their workday into more than one part. Differential for night work, to compensate employees at special rates when required to work night shifts.

Adjust arbitraries and special allowances so that their equivalent will be expressed in hours or minutes and thus be adjusted in future changes in basic rates.

Holidays with pay, for nine recognized holidays.

Away-from-home terminal expense reimbursement for those required to lay over at an away-from-home point in the company's business.

Minimum safe crew consist, based upon the minimum standard crew consist regulations in the industry.

Qualification and training for engine service employees, to enable these employees to better serve the company on the job.

Prohibition from further combining of road and yard service, to preserve craft lines and seniority rights.

Financial and other protection against reduction of force resulting from technological improvements.

Stabilization of employment to protect those employees who are given only part-time employment.

The Railway Labor Act, which regulates the labor-management relations of these parties, provides under section 2(1), "General Purposes," as follows:

(1) To avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein; (2) to forbid any limitation upon freedom of association among employees or any denial, as a condition of employment or otherwise, of

the right of employees to join a labor organization; (3) to provide for the complete independence of carriers and of employees in the matter of self-organization; (4) to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions; (5) to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.

The act also places the duty on the parties to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions. The exact language of "General Duties, First and Second," is as follows:

First: It shall be the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof.

Second: All disputes between a carrier or carriers and its or their employees shall be considered, and, if possible, decided, with all expedition, in conference between representatives designated and authorized so to confer, respectively, by the carrier or carriers and by the employees thereof interested in the dispute.

The intent of Congress in passing the Railway Labor Act is clearly stated in these passages from the act. However, there is a further portion of the Railway Labor Act which is important to us as free American citizens, laboring for American industry under the free enterprise system. I refer to section 9, Eighth of the Railway Labor Act, which reads:

Eighth Nothing in this act shall be construed to require an individual employee to render labor or service without his consent, nor shall anything in this act be construed to make the quitting of his labor or service by an individual employee an illegal act; nor shall any court issue any process to compel the performance by an individual employee of such labor or service, without his consent.

The right to strike to enforce demands or to protect the working conditions of the employees is one of our basic rights and freedoms. This right should never be stripped from the workers of American Congress.

Under the above basic provisions of the Railway Labor Act, the parties continued with the handling of the dispute which I have described to you. The railroads had served notice of their demands. The employees had countered with theirs. Always in the past, such disputes had been negotiated eventually to a settlement, and the employees were hopeful that it would be the same in this case.

It is my duty to report the fact that no such desired result was obtained in this dispute. Conferences were held on the individual railroads between the management representatives and the general chairman representing the employees. These meetings were hardly worthy of the name "conference," because it was no such thing.

In reality, the meetings were held by the railroads only to insure compliance with the procedural provisions of section 6 of the amended Railway Labor Act. When the meeting was concluded, some carriers promptly wrote to the chairmen and told them that no useful purpose would be served by further discussion, and the entire subject was being referred immediately to the Carriers' Conference Committee which had been created and was named in the railroads' initial notice to the representatives of the employees.