APPENDIX II.-Comparison of carload freight revenue with fully distributed cost by commodity classes-Commodity classes on which revenue exceeded cost by over 150 percent Compiled from: Interstate Commerce Commission, Bureau of Accounts, Cost Finding and Valuation, tribution of the Rail Revenue Contribution by Commodity Groups-1953, Statement No. 4-56, Wash. Ingen, February 1956, pp. 24-27 and 33-66. 78456-56-pt. 3-7 APPENDIX III.-States comprising the respective census regions Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Weiss, we had you yesterday. You, of course, live in Washington, and we are not imposing on you necessarily because of that, but in view of these people who do live out of the city and have to come in long distances, we understand how much more convenient it would be for you, who live here, to come at some other convenient date. In view of that, would it be convenient for you to be back Tuesday afternoon of next week? STATEMENT OF ABRAHAM WEISS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS Mr. WEISS. I regret to state, Mr. Chairman, that I am going to be out of town all of next week. I had managed to pry Mr. Mohn, who is the executive vice president of our organization, loose from his duties for an appearance today on the assumption that it was fairly certain, having been the last people called on Wednesday, that we would be the first ones called today. Mr. Mohn is here now, but Mr. Mohn is also going to be out of town all of next week. You will recall that you called our names toward the end of your session on Wednesday evening and then indicated that we would be called forth to testify before you the first thing Friday morning. Mr. HARRIS. Yes, but I have the list of witnesses presented to me. Mr. WEISS. I appreciate your problem here. Mr. HARRIS. And so many of them have been called in it presents quite a problem because the committee is going to have to recess now, and we have a schedule for next Friday. Mr. WEISS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder, then, in view of the dilemma and in view of your unavailability before next week, whether we might not just submit our statement, Mr. Mohn's and mine, for the record! Mr. HARRIS. Yes. Mr. WEISS. We would have preferred to have highlighted orally the key points of our statement, but the situation being such, we would nonetheless like to submit it for the record. Mr. HARRIS. I am sorry I was not previously advised that you could not be here next week. In fact, I realize full well that you people do have other obligations too. Mr. WEISS, May I, in addition to requesting the recording of our prepared statement, also state for the record, Mr. Chairman, that the Interstate Brotherhood of Teamsters supports H. R. 525. Mr. HARRIS. Yes. We are glad to have that statement. I notice included in your statement is a statement of your president, Mr. Dave Beck. Mr. WEISS. That is right, and in Mr. Beck's absence, Mr. Mohn, who is a vice president and assistant to Mr. Beck, was going to give Mr. Beck's statement in his behalf. Mr. HARRIS. We are glad to have Mr. Beck's statement. We also had a statement from him last September in connection with this hearing too. We will be glad to have your statement included in the record. I have a copy of it here. I notice it is a rather lengthy statement and if, next week, during the hearing, you do find it convenient to be back, we will certainly arrange to give you some time, if you want it for any additional oral statement you would care to make. Mr. WEISS. There is a possibility I may be back in town next Friday. Mr. HARRIS. We will certainly keep that in mind and if you care to make an additional statement or expand on this statement you may have that privilege. Your statement and Mr. Mohn's statement will be included in the record at this point. (The statements referred to follow :) STATEMENT OF POSITION OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD STATEMENT OF DAVE BECK, GENERAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL My name is Einar Mohn. I am a vice president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and an executive assistant to the general president of that union, Dave Beck. It is in his name that I appear before you today. The Teamsters Union is perhaps the largest union affiliated with the AFL-CIO and as such is the largest union in America. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents the largest block of working men and women within the 11 million persons employed by the trucking industry. Incidentally, the trucking industry is second in size in the United States only to agriculture. Anything that affects the working conditions of these men and women is automatically of the greatest possible interest to our union. It is axiomatic that the welfare of the men and women working in an industry depends on the vigor and prosperity of that industry. If the trucking industry's ability to grow and prosper is hindered, the way of life of this 11 million man working force which depends on that industry will be changed for the worse and job opportunities, instead of increasing as they are now in a healthy industry, will be cut. Our union cannot sit idly by while attempts are made to change the rules under which our people live and work. This is our interest and explains our presence here before you today. The Cabinet Commitee Report on Transportation Policy and Organization would rewrite the national transportation policy of the United States. It would strip the Interstate Commerce Commission of virtually all of its ratemaking powers and return these powers substantially to the railroad managers. These actions plus other recommendations in the proposed legislation are offered in the name of "dynamic competition." This is a weasel phrase designed for sloganeering and persuasive oversimplified advertising and publicity purposes. Actually the legislation proposed to implement the Cabinet Report on Transportation is designed in the selfish interest of but one segment of the national transportation industry-the railroads. At this point I must emphasize that we seek no punitive action against the railroad industry or for that matter against any industry. We are convinced that the United States today has the best transportation system in the world. It is an integrated system that functions under healthy competitive conditions which have been fostered by a wise national transportation policy. Under this policy rails, trucks, boats, barges, pipelines and airlines are free to do their best job in the area for which they are best fitted. With this in mind let us examine the record briefly. History records that the railroads were vital to the opening of the West. History also records that the railroads were well paid for their work. They drew land grants larger than the area of the State of Texas-areas rich in oil and minerals from which the railroads still benefit. They also had cash construction subsidies. In connection with the land grants there were land grab scandals and with the cash subsidies scandals which precipitated national depressions. In fact stock manipulations and money grubbing in land grants and subsidies caused many instances of railroad construction for these rewards alone. These things are in the history books too. However, they do not get the benefits of high-priced publicity exploitation by Madison Avenue advertising and publicity firms in railroad pay. Out of the growth period of the railroads came all out competitive practices between the rails generally and the waterways and between railroads directly. This period of "dynamic competition" to which the railroads seek to return through the proposed legislation being considered by this committee of the Congress, lasted from the 1870's until 1920. This "dynamic competition" almost ruined the farmers. It almost ruined small business. There was monopoly-as the railroads now admit-it wasn't monopoly as such that brought corrective action. The boom was lowered on the rails by Congress because of the discriminatory practices which arose out of the railroads competition for the special shipping favors of other great industrial monopolies. Charles Francis Adams, president of the Union Pacific Railroad declared in 1887: "*** under its operation (railroad competition) you will always find certain points when there is a war of rates going on, which have enormous advantages conferred upon them, which advantages are not and cannot be extended to other points. The point therefore which is not affected by the war of rates, suffers terribly. Its business is destroyed. How the business community exists under the full workings of railroad competition (dynamic competition) I cannot understand." Some railroad abuses were ended in 1887 when the Interstate Commerce Act was passed. This law expanded with the times as new and different transportation problems arose. In 1920 teeth were put into the law after the rails had "sunk" the waterways with a startling exhibition of the evils of “dynamic competition." Then the truck came upon the competitive scene. Now the rails seek to turn back the clock to 1920. So obvious is this desire that an unsung clerk in the United States Senate dubbed the proposal which would accomplish this as Senate bill 1920. This is the companion bill to House bill 6141 which is being considered by your committee. In 1940 the National Transportation Act was rewritten. The record shows that the rewriting was done by railroad lawyers who collaborated with the Congress. Thus the rules laid down in 1940 of which the railroads now complain so bitterly actually were written for and by the railroads. The rails bave lost the battle for traffic with the trucking industry. They lost it in the area of "service competition." Because they lost this battle the railroads seek to return to the era before 1920 and restore the dead concept of ratewar competition. They seek, by changing the national transportation policy and by returning to their own hands the right to manipulate rates on a basis which would permit all-out rate wars, to destroy the present independently owned and operated trucking industry. They would make the trucking industry a pickup and delivery service, subservient to the railroads. Under this concept the motor carrier industry would become sort of a scullery mail for the rails. Progress in the independent trucking industry would cease. Great economic damage would be done our members. Therefore we are firmly in opposition to this proposed legislation. Let me sum our reasons: 1. The Teamsters Union is interested in the continued health and prosperity of the trucking industry which provides employment to its members. 2. The union is interested in preserving growing job opportunities for its members. 3. Our union is interested in securing the highest possible benefits for its members. The union cannot hope to achieve its goals unless the trucking industry can operate under a set of rules which are fair and equitable and which are not slanted in favor of the rails. 4. Our union is interested in an independent (i. e. non-railroad controlled) motor carrier industry which will retain sufficient competitive vitality to make continued progress and thereby permit the union to negotiate freely for wage increases and other benefits. In this connection the Interstate Commerce Commission has stated that "truck service would not, in our judgment, have developed, to the extraordinary extent to which it has developed, if it had been under railroad control." This citation is from Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc.-Control-Barker Motor Freight IMCC 101.111. 5. We fear the practical effect of the Cabinet report and the legislation designed to implement it will bring about the demise of a private owned and privately operated transportation system. Only the United States in all of the world has kept all of its forms of transport free of nationalization. The eventual end result of the application of the Cabinet report into law would be nationalization of transport. This would come through the following steps, all of them bad for our country and bad for our union: First, would come the period of rate wars in which the rails would destroy the independent management of the bulk of our truck lines. Then would come a period of transport monopoly under railroad dominance. In this stage the potential and inherent abuses of monopoly in the field of transportation will lead to a revolt by business and farmers generally and finally go to imposition of nationalization as in other countries. In all three phases of this catastrophic progression the union and its membership would suffer. During the rate-war phase, wages would tend to lower as cutthroat competition reduced the motor carrier's ability to pay. As independent management was destroyed, job opportunities would lessen, and unemployment would result. In the second phase, union ability to deal with monopoly is always shrouded in difficulty. Great industrial power very often generates anti-union action. Finally in a nationalized industry labor always loses. In conclusion, the International Brotherhood is not in favor of regulation for regulation's stake. Nor are we interested in a status quo. It is our feeling that regulation as it now exists is necessary and vital to the operation of the trucking industry in the general public interest. We feel that instead of a status quo that there exists a necessity not for a policy of less regulation which would open the door to the return of old abuses, but more regulation to prevent and control new abuses. |