Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. FLETCHER. No. I might state that that case is not pending before the Supreme Court. It is pending before the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, and that appeal is on the docket of the court, and there has not been any activity connected with that, it having been by consent postponed awaiting the action of Congress on this measure.

Mr. KENNEY. There has been no stipulation to discontinue or dismiss it?

Mr. FLETCHER. Not yet; but there will be no difficulty in having that done.

Mr. KENNEY. I want to refer you to page 28 of the bill, containing the amendments suggested by Mr. Harrison. Section 19, short title. Section 19 reads: "This act may be cited as the 'Railroad Retirement Act of 1935.'

That was referred to yesterday.

It strikes me that if we are going to use "1935", we ought to add the words "as amended" somehow to distinguish that act clearly and not confuse it.

Mr. FLETCHER. Of course, this is an amendment to the other law and we had supposed that the accurate designation of it would be the act of 1935, since this is an amendment to the 1935 act. I do not think that the matter is one of major importance from our point of view, I mean. I can see the point there. There possibly would be confusion in citations, and so on. We will be glad to consider that suggestion. If there is nothing else, Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that that is all.

Mr. BULWINKLE. I will look at this amendment.

Mr. FLETCHER. Yes; Major Bulwinkle.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. HAY, COUNSEL FOR COMMITTEE OF RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hay, we will hear you.

Mr. HAY. My name is Charles M. Hay, St. Louis, Mo. I am counsel for the committee which Mr. Harrison is chairman of.

I have but just a word, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to the request. of Mr. Boren the other day, who asked some questions about the status of men working for American railroads in Canada, I have prepared a statement which I submitted to Mr. Boren, who said it answered the question he had in mind, and with the permission of the committee, I should like to read this into the record at Mr. Boren's request.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. HAY. The power to include persons, citizens of Canada, in the employ of an American road seems clear enough when the underlying powers upon which this legislation rests are considered, namely, the power to appropriate and spend money.

By this act. Congress does not seek to regulate the conduct of an alien in a foreign country, but to grant him something based on and, in a sense, in consideration of the service he shall render to an

American carrier engaged in commerce among the several States and foreign countries. As he renders service to such carrier, he so far contributes to the general welfare as to afford a sound basis for the appropriation of money for his benefit.

Furthermore, grants of annuities based on such service may fairly be supported as an aid to interstate commerce through the aid which thus comes to the carrier. Throughout our history the Congress in one form or another has been making grants in aid of interstate. commerce. They have been based upon the power to spend money for the common defense and the general welfare.

We do not limit soldiers' pensions to citizens or for service rendered within our own country. The only condition to the right of enjoyment is service, as in this case.

That is the statement to which I referred.

I think I need to take no further time, unless there are some questions by the members of the committee.

I happen to be in the fortunate situation of a counsel who has a client who has so admirably and effectively testified as to need no argument of counsel.

STATEMENT OF W. W. ROYSTER, PRESIDENT OF THE RAILROAD EMPLOYEES' NATIONAL PENSION ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Royster.

Mr. ROYSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement to make, which I would like to deliver without interruption if I may; but at its conclusion, I would be glad to yield to any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; without objection, you may proceed. Mr. BULWINKLE. Have you copies of your statement there? Mr. ROYSTER. Not complete copies; I am sorry.

Mr. BULWINKLE. I thought if you had it, I might want to ask something afterward, and for that reason I can keep up with it.

Mr. ROYSTER. I am W. W. Royster, president of the Railroad Employees' National Pension Association, Chicago, Ill. I was chairman of the Minnesota State legislative board of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for 20 years, 1913-32; and chairman of the Four Brotherhoods State legislative board of Minnesota, comprising the Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, for 16 years, 1915-31. I am a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and have been for more than 30 years and previously was a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen. I do not appear here as a representative of any of the four brotherhoods.

During the first months of 1929, when I was an employee representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, I devised a plan of retirement pensions for railroad, express, and sleeping-car employees and submitted it to the four brotherhoods' State legislative board of Minnesota, which was approved by this board. This board in turn submitted it to the Railway Labor Executives' Association in March 1929 with the request that they seek a congressional enactment of same. We received a formal acknowledgment of our request, but no statement of what they would do about it. That was

147969-37-7

the only communication I ever directly received from that body since 1929 to the present time. In the summer of 1929 I endeavored to get publicity in the four brotherhoods' journals for the pension plan. The editors of the Order of Railway Conductors, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers journals were much interested and said it would be published in the next issue of their journals. Later, two of the editors wrote me that they would be unable to publish the plan for the reason that the Railway Labor Executives' Association was considering a plan, and if they should publish our plan it would give it undue publicity over and above the plan under consideration. Mind you, this was the summer of 1929. În October 1929 the Order of Railway Conductors' Journal published the plan in full. During the summer of 1931 the Railway Labor Executives' Association went on record in favor of State old-age pensions for citizens, which, of course, was intended to cover railroad employees, and which plan at that time would require a pauper's oath in order to become a beneficiary.

In December 1930, upon my call, a convention of railroad employees met at the Great Northern Hotel in Chicago and organized the Railroad Employees' National Pension Association and honored me with its headship. I was instructed to seek the cooperation of the Railway Labor Executives' Association or to turn the matter over to them if they would pursue the objective. I addressed a communication to them but received no reply. In October 1931, I again addressed a letter to D. B. Robinson, who was at this time chairman of the Railway Labor Executives' Association, copies going to each of the other 20 executives, inviting him to address our November convention on retirement pension and in the event of his inability to attend, requested him to name a substitute to speak for him on that occasion. I am sorry indeed to mention that I received no response from any one of them.

From that time on, gentlemen of the committee, we have carried on the work of building sentiment for retirement pensions among railway employees, Members of Congress, and public-spirited men. Our legislation was introduced in the Senate and House in February and March 1932 by Senator Brookhart and Congressman Keller, respectively. Our labor executives prevailed upon Senator Brookhart to withdraw the bill, much to our embarrassment. Later we succeeded in securing the sponsorship of Senator Hatfield in the Senate. the meantime our labor executives secured the services of an actuary who devised a plan which was introduced in both House and Senate. This plan became known as the insurance plan, because it would require a working fund of more than 4 billions of dollars.

In

Its tax on the employees, according to age, and on the carriers, ranged from 32 to 62 percent. If an employee was not in service and wished to continue the running of his service period, his tax would range from 7 to 13 percent. It was an awkward and impracticable plan and was abandoned in the Senate committee in 1934, when the plan now in the present law was adopted. I wish to say here and now that the present plan of the Railroad Retirement Act is an embodiment of the features of the plan that we submitted to the labor executives in 1929.

The Railroad Employees' National Pension Association has been earnestly and closely identified with all legislative work in connection with retirement pensions. We are ever so grateful for the splendid and able cooperation of the Members of Congress, all of whom have made it possible to secure its enactment. We are glad, indeed, that our labor executives have becomes interested in the act. Since the passage of the Railroad Retirement Act, August 29, 1935, more than 20 months ago, our association has been without a live issue to maintain the interest of the employees. They have been waiting in fear and anxiety for a Supreme Court action on the constitutionality of the law; consequently, only a few thousand faithful employees are now maintaining their membership, whereas previously we had many thousands of members. It is my best judgment, however, that the Railroad Employees' National Pension Association is representative of the pension sentiment of 90 percent of the employees.

In my appearance before you today I am genuinely sorry that we cannot give our endorsement to the amending bill now before you, which I presume, embodies the agreement lately negotiated by our Railway Labor Executives' Association and the representatives of the Association of American Railroads. Consistent with the past attitude of our labor chiefs toward this association, we were not provided with a copy of the agreement which is said to be embraced within this amending bill. Neither were we, as members of our respective craft organizations, furnished with copies of the agreement. I have never seen such a copy. Our only understanding of its details was gleaned from an article published in our national weekly, Labor, which was an account of a glamorous and glorious victory won by our labor chiefs in conference with representatives of the Association of American Railroads on the subject of the Railroad Retirement Act. The recited purported details is the extent of our information.

Taking into consideration the amending bill, H. R. 6956, the great victory claimed by our labor chiefs, for securing the cooperation of our employers, is not apparent. At the expense of the employees1. They have given away the right to receive the annuity on the first day of the month, for that month, during the lifetime (sec. 3 (c) present law).

2. They have given away the right of retirement to employees under 60 years of age and with 30 years of service (sec. 2 (a) 2).

3. They have given away the term "mental or physical disability" with which an employee with 30 years of service is eligible for a retirement annuity without a cut-back of one-fifteenth, and have imposed in its stead the term "totally and permanently disabled for regular employment for hire" (sec. 2 (a) 2).

4. They have given away the right to a full annuity for an employee who might retire at age 65, and if he had previously received an annuity for "total and permanent disability", by requiring of him to accept a reduced annuity sufficient to compensate for the annuities already paid him during his disability, thereby making him pay for bis own disability (sec. 2 (a) 3).

5. They have given away the right for an annuity to an employee who may lose his job and who may be under 65 years of age and have

less than 30 years of service, and who may be otherwise employed by an employer not defined in this act, by requiring such person to retire from his employment, notwithstanding his annuity may be greatly inadequate to afford him a decent standard of living.

6. They have given away the right for an annuity to an employee who may lose his job and who may be less than 60 years of age, and who has 30 years of service, and who may be otherwise employed by an employer not defined in this act by requiring such person to retire from his then employment notwithstanding his annuity at age 60, subject to the one-fifteenth cut-back for each year under 65 would be greatly reduced and inadequate to afford him a decent standard of living.

The amendment suggested by Mr. Harrison to section 2 (a) is putting into the bill the nefarious and much protested provision in the original agreement between Railway Labor Executives' Association and the Association of American Railroads which reads as follows:

An annuity shall not be paid in respect of any calendar month during which an annuitant engaged in regular gainful employment.

Points 5 and 6 which I have just read are predicated on Mr. Harrison's amendment.

7. They have given away the compulsory feature of the present law (sec. 2) which penalizes an employee after age 65, by imposing a one-fifteenth cut-back on his annuity for each year he remains in the service.

8. They have given away the right for an annuity for the month during which an annuitant may die (sec. 3 (g)).

9. They have given away the right of an employee, when attaining 65 years of age, or another employee who has 30 years of service and who may be broken in mind or body, to provide to his wife a joint survivor annuity unless he will have so elected, irrevocably, before January 1, 1938, or at least 5 years before his annuity shall have begun to accrue (sec. 4).

10. They have given away, by omitting in the amending bill, section 5 of the present law, which provides that in the event of the death of a person who was receiving an annuity, or was entitled to receive an annuity, the surviving spouse or next of kin shall receive one-half of the annuity for 1 year.

11. They have imposed an unfair, unjust, and inequitable discrimination against all retired employees of such carriers as have no gratuity pension association or board, by not including such retired employees with the retired employees of carriers which have gratuity pension associations (sec. 6).

That was their trading stock.

We did not need the help and cooperation of our employers to do these hurtful, damaging, and injurious things to our fellow workers. I shall now enumerate things in the bill that will be helpful and curative of defects of the law as has probably been noted in its administration:

1. They have broadened the coverage of the act to include the brotherhoods as employers (sec. 1 (a)).

2. They have broadened the term "employee" to cover "employee representative" and their employees (sec. 1 (b)).

« PreviousContinue »