Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

badly demoralized and a number of producers in those States, in their effort to continue solvent, reduced wages below what was considered the standard prevailing wage of $3.75 per 8-hour day. This created discontent on the part of both those employers who were attempting to standardize wages at that minimum and on the part of the miners who were receiving the standard wage and whose wages were menaced by the acceptance of reduced wages in neighboring and competitive mines.

The officials of the United Mine Workers, taking advantage of this situation, prevailed upon a majority of our miners to renew membership in their organization, and with comparatively little difficulty prevailed upon the producers of those States to renew contractual relations with them on a basic day wage of $3.75 per day; and such oper

$ ators as did not rerecognize the union and sign contracts with it in the latter half of 1932, did sign up upon the organization of the N. R. A. in the summer of 1933, upon the assurance from the miners that the contracts entered into and which established the $3.75 day wage until March 31, 1935, would continue in effect until the date of the expiration specified therein.

Notwithstanding these agreements, by and with the authority of the Recovery Administration, the wages specified in these contracts were arbitrarily set aside on March 31, 1934, and the basic day wage was advanced from $3.75 per 8-hour day to $4.60 per 7-hour day. After protests and investigations extending over a period of several months, in June 1934, the Recovery. Administration, over the strong protest of the mine workers' organization, ordered a reduction in the basic wage for Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas from $4.60 to $4 for a 7-hour day, in recognition of the fact that a mistake had been made and that the advance previously ordered would be harmful alike to the miners and the producers of those States.

I have made this recital, gentlemen, in order to bring to you a realization of the fact that this is a wide country. The procedure which is obviously logical and proper in one part of the country at a given time will be entirely illogical and disastrous to another part of the country. There is no strait-jacket nor no one wage schedule that will fit all parts of the country at one time, and there is no labor organization, however intelligently it may be managed, but that will in time become too powerful and too unwieldy and to enmeshed in internal and external politics to be safely trusted with a mandate to control American industry.

We accepted the Recovery Act and the proposal of N. R. A. with respect to codes with many fears and misgivings and largely because the country was in the midst of a depression that had brought tremendous dislocations and much unemployment and distress. The country was looking to the President for leadership. It was the President's plan and wish and this industry laid aside its traditions and allowed itself to be regimented. After days, weeks, and months of confusion and conferences, in which the best operating and legal brains of the industry participated, a fairly workable code was evolved and accepted.

Labor was placated by the wide-spread recognition of the union and of the principle of collective bargaining, and by the granting of very large increases in wages. National and district code authorities were set up and labor relations boards appointed throughout the

a

country. After a year of struggle and hard work in perfecting this organization some progress began to be noted. Many evils of long standing began to be eliminated. There has been some disappointment on the part of those who did not realize the magnitude of the undertaking, but those in the industry who have been more thoughtful feel that real progress has been made, and that the most helpful thing the Congress can do for

the coal-mining industry at this time will be to extend the Recovery Act for an additional 2-year period. N. R. A. is organized and has been put under way at a tremendous cost of effort and money. It will, if extended, demonstrate as well as the plan set out in the Guffey bill, whether this industry can be stabilized by law. While its results have not been entirely satisfactory, encouraging progress has been made and a measure of hope and confidence in the plan has been established. It would, in our judgment, be unwise to sacrifice this gain.

The N. R. A. has been to the coal industry a major operation. Let us not subject it to a second major operation until it has recovered from the first and until we can determine the results of the first operation are encouraging.

N. R. A. in 2 years has advanced the objectives of organized labor more than they have ever before been advanced in a decade. With a national and world-wide depression still on and thousands struggling to make ends meet, the miners should not demand further shortening of hours or further increases in wages, the effect of which would be to increase the cost of coal to the public, decrease consumption, increase unemployment and retard recovery.

As well evidenced by the presentations at this hearing, the mine owners in whose interest this bill is ostensibly advanced do not favor its passage. The railroads, who are the largest users and transporters of coal, do not want it, and since it would unquestionably add at least 50 cents a ton to the cost of coal, certainly the large consuming public, which will be called upon to pay the total bill, does not want it.

Why, then, should the Congress be encouraged or urged at this time to adopt a measure the effects of which no one can foresee and which, at best, will destroy all that has been gained during the past, 2 years? All of the benefits that can possibly result from the passage of this bill will be retained and come from an extension and continuance of the N. R. A. codes, without a repetition of the year's disorganization and chaos that prevailed while existing codes were being worked out and agreed upon.

Apparently the country has started on the road to recovery: We have stopped going backward. We are beginning to gain a little momentum. In our opinion, it would be the height of folly to stop and abandon a plan that is working, to experiment with a new and radical plan that contains greater defects and offers no greater advantage. We who have spent our lives in this difficult industry and who have our all invested in it certainly, and more earnestly than any others could, desire to see the standards of this important and difficult industry permanently improved. We more than any others desire to have permanently eliminated the possibility of misunderstanding and strife and disagreement with our employees with whom we labor. We have just entered upon, under the codes of fair competition authorized by the Recovery Act, an epochal experiment. Progress has been made, but sufficient time has not elapsed to appraise the results. In these circumstances we strongly urge that this bill do not pass and that the Congress extend the operations of the Recovery Act for an additional 2-year period that the possible benefits of such legislation may be definitely determined.

Mr. Chairman, I have here two telegrams, one from the chairman and secretary of the Arkansas Smokeless Coal Bureau, and one from the secretary of the Arkansas-Oklahoma Coal Operators' Association, appointing me as their spokesman.

Senator NEELY. There is no question about your authority, so far as the committee is concerned.

STATEMENT OF C. SELDEN, JR., WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRE

SENTING THE BLUE LICK MINES, SOMERSET, PA. Senator NEELY. Mr. Selden is the next witness.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Chairman, my name is C. Selden, Jr., attorney and receiver of the Blue Lick Mines, Somerset, Pa.

I take it from your original statement and in listening to these proceedings that it might be appreciated if anything constructive might be added to the general discussion. The representative of the Coppage Co. seemed to think that the bill would add to the complexity of compliance. While I have heard a good deal about compliance and noncompliance, I am wondering if the following suggestion, due to the fact that this bill creates a Commission which sets prices and regulates compliance, not by a code authority, but by this Commission, might not be helpful.

This question of compliance could be handled, if this bill becomes a law, by placing in the hands of this Commission the right to suspend car supply for operators that did not comply. That could not be done, in my estimation, by a simple regulation of that Commission, because it might be trespassing upon the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission, such as were discussed before the committee in the hearings on the Communications Act.

Senator NEELY. How would such regulation be enforced; through the railroads?

Mr. SELDEN. Through this Commission denying to these operators or producers the car supply through the railroad companies. I presume that would be the natural agency, as it is now with the Interstate Commerce Commission. If my recollection serves me correctly, in 1921, the regulation having been made against me and others, we were refused-I will not say “refused”, but it was intimated that unless certain tonnage was shipped west in proportion to cars that we received we probably would not get them. That is a drastic right. It could not rest with any code authority under the present set-up, but no producer with contracts outstanding or labor contracts would fail to be careful to comply with the rules and regulations of this bill.

I merely make that as a suggestion. I think that would enforce compliance, as far as the producers are concerned, and those who are operating under this statute, if it becomes a law, want it complied with, and there would be no interference with those who actually comply with those regulations.

Senator NEELY. Have you anything further you wish to offer?
Mr. SELDEN. That is ai.
Senator NEELY. Thank you very much.

119739—35—30

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. HICKEY, WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRE

SENTING THE MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT Senator NEELY. You may proceed. Mr. HICKEY. My name is John J. Hickey, Southern Building, Washington, D. C. I am attorney for the Manufacturer's Association of Connecticut, general office at Hartford, Conn.

The association opposes the enactment of $. 1417, although it appreciates the unfortunate plight of both the anthracite and the bituminous coal industries at the present time.

The purpose of this bill is the subjection of the bituminous-coal industry to regulation by the Federal Government in which the authority to regulate will include the power to fix minimum and maximum selling prices of bituminous coal; prescription of the quantities that may be produced and sold in each district, and, allotment of the quantity or tonnage of coal which may be mined at and shipped from single mines. This will be very extensive regulation and control of private business, the production, selling, and buying of a commodity which is used by a majority of the companies engaged in manufacturing activities.

When the National Bituminous Coal Commission fixes the wholesale selling price of bituminous coal, as is proposed in section 4, part II, of title I of this bill, it will thereby fix the buying power which must be paid by the manufacturers who buy the coal. Some of the manufacturers in Connecticut sell their products in Canada, Europe, and in many foreign countries in competition with manufacturers in these foreign countries who will buy coal at prices beyond the reach of the proposed National Bituminous Commission. In the light of this competition we do not welcome the fixation of minimum selling prices for bituminous coal produced in this country.

The Manufacturers Association of Connecticut approves reasonable regulation of those who are engaged in performing public services, such as railroads, electric light and power companies and the corporations that are given authority by the States to condemn and take over private property. But it objects to the extension of regulation to private business activities such as the ordinary buying and selling of commodities in common use like coal. If the Federal Government may properly assume regulation of the mining, selling, and buying of coal, it may with equal propriety assume regulation of the production, selling, and buying of oil, coke, ore, limestone, and pig iron and the regulation may be extended without limitation into the manufacturing and other private business activities. The proposal in S. 1417 is a departure from our plan of regulation which in the past has been confined largely to corporations performing public services and functioning under the exclusive franchises which would enable them to exact extortionate charges for their service if they were not regulated by the Federal Government or the States.

We doubt that bituminous coal can bear the tax proposed in the bill and retain its fair share of the markets in competition with oil. The State of Pennsylvania, for several years, imposed a tax on anthracite but was compelled to discontinue the tax because anthracite could not bear such taxation under the competitive market conditions. In the end, as we see it, the whole cost of this proposed regulation will

become an additional burden on the taxpayers generally. Instead of increasing the duties of the Federal Government, we believe that the effort now should be in the opposite direction. There should be a reduction of the costs of the Federal departments, commissions, and bureaus with purpose to reduce taxation and balance the Budget.

The Code of Fair Competition of the Bituminous Coal Industry is a temporary measure which should be fully tested during the present business emergency and no permanent measure of the character of S. 1417 should be enacted at least until it has been demonstrated that the code has failed in very important respects and then the action taken, if any, should be based on the experience gained in administering that code.

Senator NEELY. From what field do those plants obtain their coal supply?

Mr. HICKEY. About 60 percent of the supply comes from what we call the Northern Field in Pennsylvania, and about 40 percent comes from the field in West Virginia.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Senator NEELY. It is very short and very much appreciated. Is that all you wish to say, sir?

Mr. HICKEY. That is all.
Senator NEELY. Do you wish to file an exhibit or brief?
Mr. HICKEY. No.
Senator NEELY. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. DOWELL, DU QUOIN, ILL., REPRE

SENTING THE PROGRESSIVE MINERS OF AMERICA

Mr. DoWELL. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of the Progressive Miners of America, a voluntary labor organization in the bituminouscoal industry, with approximately 40,000 members in the State of Illinois, as well as members in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky, I have been authorized to write your committee protesting the recommendation or passage of what is known as "Senate bill No.1417," or the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935.

For your information, the Progressive Miners organization in membership far exceeds any other labor organization in the coal industry in Illinois; and, if the miners of Illinois had been or should now be given a preference as to the choice of their organization, without coercion, intimidation or other unlawful methods, the Progressive Miners of America would have been and would still be the only organization in the bituminous coal mining industry in Illinois. An honest investigation will substantiate this statement.

The Progressive Miners of America, in Illinois, have a contract with the Coal Producers' Association of Illinois, which was entered into in 1933, to expire March 31, 1935. The Coal Productrs' Association of Illinois is a voluntary coal operators association, composed of practically all of the coal operators of Illinois, except utility-owned companies.

The passage of the bill mentioned herein would, in our opinion, be the means of eliminating all of the independent operators in the coal industry, not only in Îllinois, but the entire country, and would

« AnteriorContinuar »