The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Devine. Mr. SIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, you asked for one of the telegrams to be inserted in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. SIEMILLER. We have given it to you. I have an additional telegram that was sent out to all the full-time people that work for the international union, urging them to also see that it was ratified. May I insert this one along with the other one? The CHAIRMAN. You may. (The telegram referred to follows:) (Straight Telegram-Book Message to 30 Addresses Previously Furnished) JULY 30, 1966. The package settlement proposed and accepted by unanimous action of the Negotiating Team including all General Chairmen should be supported by all representatives. It is the best possible that can be obtained under the cir cumstances and rejection will lead to immediate action by the Congress that will doubtless force our membership back to work under old rates and conditions for a period of six months. You are requested to recommend and support the work of your General Chairmen and the Negotiating Team. P. L. SIEMILLER, Mr. SIEMILLER. Collective bargaining is a two-sided deal. It takes two to tango in this as well as in anything else. There are 35,400 people, the majority of which has to be satisfied. It is America, it is democracy at work. I myself would do almost anything to keep this Congress from acting and imposing legislation. I must tell you that these workers, unless they get what they believe they are entitled to and what they consider a fair share of the fabulous profits of these companies, they are prepared to take anything that you give them and carry the fight on every avenue that they can. Ther will continue at work. They will continue politically. They will continue doing everything that they can do to present their side and to see the change come that they think is right, and I think that is OK. I think that is America. Mr. WATSON. I share the feeling of the other Members of Congress. We believe in collective bargaining, but right now I am apprehensive as to whether or not the negotiators believe in it as much as we do. Mr. SIEMILLER. Thank you, Congressman. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to make an announcement. In response to a request by the committee for information on nãoductivity of airline employees. I have a letter from Secretary Wirtz including this information which I would like to put into the record at this point. (The information follows:) Hon. HARLEY STAGGERS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., August 8, 1966. Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Dear Mr. CHAIRMAN: In response to the request of your Committee for information on productivity of airlines employees, I am enclosing a summary of the latest information collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics relating to output per employee in the air transportation industry. You will note that this index covers all employees of the industry. Separate breakdowns for the classifications of employees involved in the current dispute are not available. Sincerely, W. WILLARD WIRTZ, AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY TRENDS IN OUTPUT PER EMPLOYEE, 1947-64 Output per employee in the air transportation industry more than quadrupled from 1947 to 1964. increasing at an average rate of 7.8 percent per year. This dynamic performance in an industry where employment has about doubled since 1947, indicates the great capacity of the industry, generated by vast sums of capital investment and technological developments, and the greater demand for both passenger and cargo services. Demand, in turn, is a reflection of increased public acceptance and the quality of service and equipment provided by the industry, as well as general economic prosperity and such incentives as promotional fares. Year-to-year increases in output per employee ranged from 16.5 percent (1949– 50) to less than 1 percent (1959-60). In general, output per employee increased very rapidly from 1947 to 1955 (more than 11 percent per year), more slowly from 1955 to 1961 (averaging about 4 percent), then accelerated to more than 10 percent per year beginning in 1962. In many industries, annual percent changes in productivity are closely related to percent changes in output, but this relationship has been less pronounced for the air transportation industry. Rather, the rate of increase in output per employee has generally been highest when employment declined or increased moderately. The rate of productivity gain has fallen when employment increases were large, as in 1952, 1956, and 1957 or when output increases were small as in 1958 and 1960. Productivity, output, and employment have all been expanding in the past few years. Output increased more than 700 percent from 1947 to 1964, at an average annual rate of 13.3 percent. Since 1957, output has about doubled, and since 1962 the rate of growth has been accelerated. Increased capacity and greater demand for both passenger and cargo service have resulted in recent growth rates which are similar to those of the 1950's. In domestic operations, cargo ton-miles have been increasing even faster than passenger-miles, and the need for jet cargo aircraft has been recognized. International traffic trends have been even more favorable than domestic; international passenger-miles have shown the largest rate of growth in the last few years. In contrast to the 700-percent increase in output, employment in the air transportation industry has about doubled since 1947, increasing at an average annual rate of 5.2 percent. This reflects the increased capacity and technology of the industry, which has permitted an expansion in output without proportionate increases in employment. As the industry adjusts to the jet age, there are some important occupational shifts. Overall, the increase of flight personnel has been about average for the industry in recent years, but navigators in transoceanic flights and flight engineers on all jets are being eliminated. The number of mechanics has increased at less than the average rate of all employees since 1957, but aircraft and traffic servicing personnel have increased at much more than the average rate, indicative of the increasing quality of air transportation equipment and service. All average annual rates of changes are based on the linear least squares trends of the logarithms of the index numbers. See FAA Statistical Handbook of Aviation, 1965 edition, Federal Aviation Agency, September 1965. DEFINITION OF THE INDUSTRY This report covers Air Transportation, Certificated Carriers, defined in the Supplemental air carriers are not included in this industry. These are a AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY Output per employce, unit labor requirements, output and employment, 1947–64 1 1 Weights are for charter passenger services of the certificated all-cargo carriers. Mr. NELSEN. I would like to raise this point. Do you think that the guidelines of the Presidential Commission is unfair in these negotiations! Mr. SIEMILLER. The so-called guidelines are unfair, period. Mr. NELSEN. All right. Then, are you of the opinion that the airlines are permitted to negotiate without any regard to the guidelines? Do you believe that they could do this? Do you believe that the Presidential Commission would hold still for the airlines going above the guidelines set up? Mr. SIEMILLER. You asked me for my opinion. Of course, I have no knowledge as to this. I do not know what pressures the carriers have been put under to keep within any kind of guidelines. I know that what was agreed to over in the Executive Office Building exceeds 3.2. I am convinced also that the carriers are financially able to meet the whole bill, and I do not know whether it is guidelines or could I say stubbornness to keep them from doing it. Mr. NELSEN. May I just state this? It is not clear to either of us as to whether or not the Presidential Commission would go along with additional concessions on the part of the airlines. Yet, the controversy seems to be continuing between labor and the airlines. Yet, I have the feeling that the intervention of the Presidential Commission has been the one problem that has stood in the way of settlement. I would like to be convinced that there is a way out of this thing, but all of the time, we get the Government involved, and I wonder what the real answer will be. Now, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to take more time, but I do not think we have had a clear-cut answer, and I do not know that Mr. Siemiller can give it to us really. Mr. FRIEDEL. I think the action taken the other day was above 3.2, Mr. NELSEN. It was 4.3. Mr. SIEMILLER. I can't give you an answer that it was above that, as to what the pressures were involved in that that we would have. Mr. NELSEN. I understand. Mr. SIEMILLER. I would note that the administration did not do anything to tell the steel companies they couldn't raise prices, and the new price of steel is pretty solid today. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Keith, for a brief question. Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, I got the impression that Mr. Wirtz had some responsibility insofar as the arrangements for the afternoon session is concerned. I would hope that this should take place with some privacy. Mr. FRIEDEL. I want to note that both management and labor will meet together this afternoon. I just want to make sure that they will meet. I do not want the Secretary of Labor to get involved in the thing, but I want to make sure that they got together and sat down and arranged for coffee or something and stay there, and I would hope that they would bring out a bill themselves in settlement. [Applause.] Mr. KEITH. I know I hope that something doesn't happen to the public. Mr. FRIEDEL. I will tell you right now this committee wants labor and management to get together, so we will not have to act. Mr. SIEMILLER. I understand that. Mr. FRIEDEL. And that is the sentiment, I think, for the majority or the unanimous sentiment of this committee. So we are asking you to please give and take. You can't say "This is it," and management can't say "This is it." You have both got to give and take, and we will be very, very happy. Mr. SIEMILLER. I am sure that is correct. Mr. FRIEDEL. Are there any more questions? Thank you, Mr. Siemiller. You have been very, very good. I think you have answered the questions very fairly. Now, we would like to hear from management. Mr. Curtin. Mr. SIEMILLER. We will be very happy to give them the hot seat here. Mr. Chairman, this is the August 9 agreement that we said we would put in, whoever picks them up for you. (The document referred to follows:) AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this 9th day of August, 1965, by and between the undersigned Air Carriers, hereinafter referred to as the Carriers, and the International Association of Machinists, hereinafter referred to as the Union, representing the employees covered by the agreements listed in the Appendix attached hereto. Whereas, it is the intent and desire of the parties to maintain good faith bargaining and amicable labor-management relations and to arrive at mutually satisfactory collective bargaining agreements in an expeditious manner between the Union and the undersigned Carriers; Whereas, it is understood by the parties that there is no legal compulsion to agree to joint negotiations as herein provided or to any negotiating procedures apart from those provided in the Railway Labor Act, the parties voluntarily agree to the procedures hereinafter set forth with the understanding that this Agreement will not create a precedent, custom or practice; Now, Therefore, the parties to this Agreement mutually agree as follows: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the individual Union-Carrier agreements with respect to the time at which notices of intended change may be served, such service by written mail notice postmarked October 1, 1965, shall be made by the Union and Carriers upon each other of any intended changes in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and no other provisions of such Agreements, including the Duration provisions thereof, shall be affected by service of such notices. |