would be abolished, and a few other things. And so the strike

was on.

As we foresaw-at least, some of us did-the poor old International Seamen's Union, which was strong and powerful and with more than a hundred thousand members and plenty of money in its treasury, got a first-class licking. When it was all over, there was no money left in the treasury, the men were downhearted and returned to work. But since the majority of those men had only been in the union a comparatively short period-a majority come in during the war years-why, they just quit paying dues.

So, from 1921 to 1934, the shipowners of the United States, both east and west and on the Great Lakes, practically had things their own way. They did as they pleased. It was quite a nice change for them, because they felt the unions had been riding them. The shipowners then concluded that the tide had turned, and that they would ride the unions to a fare-you-well. Wages went down and down, until they hired men in certain trades for $25 a month, and carried as many workaways as they could pick up. The work-away is a man who receives absolutely nothing, and works anyhow.

The International Seamen's Union struggled along and did the best it knew how. We had always had opposition from our "red" friends. They had always attempted to carry on a dual organization; and when they could not do anything else, they would try to discredit our union. They masqueraded under half a dozen different names in their efforts to disrupt and destroy the old International Seamen's Union.

So, we got to 1934, and the longshoremen in San Francisco went on strike. And the seamen in the port of San Francisco, and up and down the Pacific coast-contrary to expectations of most peoplewholeheartedly joined this strike. They just walked ashore and "tied her up." The dissatisfaction and the bitterness and the stored-up resentment on the part of the men aboard ship were so great that when the walk-out began, it just became a stampede. And so in 1934 we had that big maritime strike on the Pacific coast. That strike was fairly successful, because the shipowners out there, or at least the coastwise shipowners, again recognized the union for the purpose of collective bargaining. And the off-shore shipowners said, "Yes; we will recognize you, all right; but first of all we want to be satisfied. that the majority of the men aboard the ships actually want to be represented by the International Seamen's Union." So, under Government auspices, an election was held. That took a long time because some of those ships were on 4-month trips, around the world. But at last they decided to count the ballots, and they selected the tanker group for the first count-all the oil tankers sailing out of Pacific ports. When those ballots were counted, it was shown that the International Seamen's Union had won a victory in all the tanker companies, except the Standard Oil. And in the Standard Oil the balance of power was held by a numericaly small "red." dual union. The Standard Oil Co. of California had a company union which got about 46 percent of the votes, and the International Seamen's Union got about 47 percent, and the balance was held by the "red" union.

However, the other shipping companies then said, "Never mind opening the rest of the ballot books; we will recognize the International Seamen's Union for the purpose of negotiating."

Then we began two separate negotiations-for the offshore and the coastwise groups. We soon discovered that we could not get anywhere. The shipowners' ideas of what ought to be paid and done were so different from the ideas of the men aboard the ships, that you could not get to first base. So it was agreed to arbitrate. Two separate boards of arbitration were set up, one for the coastwise trade and one for the offshore trade. In the meantime the men had gone back to work at the old wages which prevailed before the strike; and there was a great deal of dissatisfaction because they did not get any increase in pay and did not get any reduction in hours, and so forth, while we were going through this slow process of setting up arbitration boards.

After a very long delay, the arbitration awards were rendered. Then came a number of tie-ups and various kinds of strikes, in fact some of these tie-ups and strikes had occurred before the arbitration awards were rendered. The first thing the ship operator would do when his ship was tied up was to call up the union office and say, "The arbitration award provides so and so, and they will not live up to it." The union would dispatch a man to the ship to try to persuade the men to live up to the union contract. In the meantime, the shipowner would get out his pencil and figure how much it would cost him to pay the demands made by the men, contrary to the award, and how much it would cost him to keep the ship tied to the dock. Of course he would usually discover it was more expensive for him to have the ship tied up at the dock; and frequently, while the union delegate was arguing with the crew, word would come down from the head office, "Give the boys what they want."

That had two tragic results: First, the new men in the union75 percent, at least-arrived at the conclusion that they could get anything they wanted, by just "tying her up." They learned by experience that if they just "tied her up to the dock," Mr. Shipowner would give in. So, the tie-up process continued quite a long time. The records are all available, and have been furnished to the Maritime Commission and to other authorities.

The other result-perhaps not tragic, at all-was that practically all the old-line union officials, who had gone through the lean years, were eliminated from the picture, because they were urging the men to live up to the agreements. Any union officer who at that time urged members to respect the agreements was necessarily a shipowners' "stooge"; and those who said, "To hell with the contracts and the agreements; let's get more," they became the popular heroes.

So the union officials on the Pacific coast, with one or two exceptions, are men who came into the labor movement since the strike of 1934,

These statements I have just made are not guesses, for I lived through these strenuous times and have been familiar with the general situation for a great many years.

Now, let me consider for a moment, if I may, the Atlantic coast situation. After the successful strike on the Pacific coast, we knew that the spirit of organization was rife and rampant. So we transferred our activities and whatever money we could scrape together, to the Atlantic coast. We were successful in inducing the shipowners on the Atlantic coast to sign a union contract providing a raise of wages over and above what we then had-a raise that was not satisfactory

to me, personally, nor to many others, but it did give the union a new lease on life; it gave the union preference of employment. And of course, as soon as that happened, men began to fall all over themselves in their endeavor to get into our unions on the Atlantic coast. The Atlantic coast unions thus grew "like Topsy," and overnight. became quite large, because some of us old fellows had succeeded in negotiating a union contract with the Atlantic shipowners. There had been no strike, mind you. The Atlantic coast shipowners signed an agreement; and the increase took effect on January 1, 1935. On the other hand, the increase on the Pacific coast, which had been won as a result of the strike, did not take effect until very much later, because of this slow process and the shipowners' dilatory tactics to which I have already referred.

I do not know whether I have answered all your questions, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. That is very interesting.

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. That is all I wanted to submit.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you. You left the material for the amendments, did you?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; thank you, Mr. Scharrenberg.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF JAMES MULLEN, NATIONAL MARITIME UNION, COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION

Mr. MULLEN. May I make a comment regarding Mr. Scharrenberg's statement?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MULLEN. He said that Joseph Curran did not represent the Masters, Mates, and Pilots of the Pacific and the Firemen's Union of San Pedro. The secretary had authorization sent here, authorizing Mr. Curran and myself to represent the marine firemen of the Pacific coast. Mr. Fitzgerald, that secretary, has been out of office, and a man named Malone is now in; and he was the secretary at that time. So I think he was correct in appointing Mr. Emerson and Mr. Curran to represent him.

When Mr. Scharrenberg spoke about the contracts on the Atlantic. coast and the west coast, he did not bring out the very important point, which is this: The membership did not want them. Mr. Scharrenberg failed to state that the union members instructed the union officials time after time to disregard those contracts and to go get better ones. But those leaders told us we would have to take them. And so the seamen themselves formed their own union, which is the National Martime Union. When the National Maritime Union was formed, the seamen came in very rapidly, from the International Seamen's Union,

And if I may say so, if the Senator would look further, he would see that that fight out there was simply between the crooked officials and the men in the union.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

That will be all tonight. We have had a long day, and have been here since 10 o'clock this morning, and it is now after 5 o'clock. Thank you.

(Whereupon at 5: 10 p. m. an adjournment was taken.)