1Y4

L ri12-

1-8q2/AMENDMENTS TO THE, 961

HARBOR WORKERS'

LONGSHOREMEN'S AND

COMPENSATION ACT

GOVERNMENT

Storage

A11600 686720 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

411000mmiwilir

E uivik

<>,

REFERENCE i;'1)

LIBRNM 

---A

-<

DEPARTMENT c,)

-ripz, -

,I,.- --

'74 TTA% , rs

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

JR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

JNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 733 and H.R. 1258

TO AMEND THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR

WORKERS' ACT

JUNE 20, 1961

Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

71418 WASHINGTON : 1961
•

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

LISTER HILL, Alabama, Chairman

PAT McNAMARA, Michigan

WAYNE MORSE, Oregon

RALPH YARBOROUGH, Texas

JOSEPH S. CLARK, Pennsylvania

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia

HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota

BENJAMIN A. SMITH II, Massachusetts

CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island

STEWART E. MCCLURE, Chief Clerk

JOHN S. FORSYTHE, General Counsel of Committee

BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona

EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois

CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey

JACOB K. JAVITS, New York

WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

PAT McNAMARA, Michigan, Chairman

WAYNE MORSE, Oregon

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia

BENJAMIN A. SMITH II, Massachusetts

CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota*

JOHN L. SWEENEY, Professional Staff Member of Subcommittee

EDWARD D. FammAN, Counsel to Subcommittee

MICHAEL J. BERNSTEIN, Minority Counsel

*Senator Burdick was appointed a member of the Subcommittee on Labor March 8, 1961.

BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona

EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN,!Illinois

WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont

4
c;\P1E UN/k

e,p

R 

PENCE (p

CONTENTS 

OBRNR\I -‹

V

ARWENI

r4qTTPAIA

Text of— Page

S.733 1

Report from the Bureau of the Budget 2

Report from the Department of Labor 2

H.R. 1258 1

Report from the Department of Labor. 3

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

JUNE 20, 1961

Press, William, executive vice president, Washington Board of Trade; accompanied by Edward Duplinsky, personnel director, Evening Star

Newspaper Co., and Victor 0. Schinnerer, president, Victor 0. Schinnerer & Co 4

Mason, Walter, legislative representative, AFL—CIO; accompanied by Clinton Fair, assistant social security director, and Jay Turner, presi- dent, District of Columbia Central Labor Union 13 Rhodes, Cecil, business manager, Plumbers Local No. 5 21

STATEMENTS

Connolly, Patrick J., executive vice president, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL—CIO, prepared statement 14 Kibre, Jeff, Washington representative, International Longshoremen's &

Warehousemen's Union, prepared statement 26 Mason, Walter, legislative representative, AFL—CIO; accompanied by Clinton Fair, assistant social security director, and Jay Turner, presi- dent, District of Columbia Central Labor Union 13 Press, William, executive vice president, Washington Board of Trade; accompanied by Edward Duplinsky, personnel director, Evening Star

Newspaper Co., and Victor 0. Schinnerer, president, Victor 0. Schinnerer & Co 4

Rhodes, Cecil, business manager, Plumbers Local No. 5 21

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Letters from—

Chopin, Alexander P., chairman, New York Shipping Association Inc.,

New York, N.Y., to Senator Hill, dated May 22, 1961 25 Clark, Hon. Joseph S., a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania,

containing a letter from L. R. Sanford, president, Shipbuilders

Council of America 23 Magnuson, Hon. Warren G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, to Senator McNamara, dated May 19, 1961, containing a

prepared statement 22 Sanford, L. R., president, Shipbuilders Council of America, New

York, N.Y., to Senator McNamara, dated May 19, 1961 29 Shapiro, Alvin, American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., Washington, D.C., to Senator McNamara, dated May 22, 1961 24 Nonagricultural employment minus Government, 1959 7

Tables and charts:

Chart I.—Comparison of workmen's compensation benefits, District

of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia 10 Chart II.—Comparative insurance rates paid by employers per $100

of payroll in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia for

a varied number of classifications 11

Table 1.—Basic hourly rates for longshoremen in the east and gulf

coast areas 17

Table 2.—Wage rates, Washington and vicinity—Washington Building Trades Council 18

Table 3.—State workmen's compensation laws—Maximum weekly

benefit for single employee for temporary total disability, by States_ 30

11 I
I
AMENDMENTS TO THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND

HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1961

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 4202,

New Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat McNamara (chairman of the

subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators McNamara (presiding) and Burdick.

Committee staff members present: Edward Friedman, counsel to the

subcommittee; John L. Sweeney, professional staff member of the

subcommittee; Raymond D. Hurley and John D. Stringer, minority

associate counsels.

(S. 733 and H.R. 1258 and departmental reports follow:)

[S. 733, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend section 6 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended

(33 U.S.C. 906)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That subsection (b) of section 6 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 906), is

amended to read as follows:

"(b) Compensation for disability shall not exceed $70 per week and compensation for total disability shall not be less than $18 per week: Provided, however,

That if the employee's average weekly wages, as computed under section 10, are

less than $18 per week, he shall receive as compensation for total disability his

average weekly wages."

SEC. 2. Section 9(e) of the said Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(e) In computing death benefits the average weekly wages of the deceased

shall be considered to have been not more than $105 nor less than $27 but the

total weekly compensation shall not exceed the weekly wages of the deceased."

SEC. 3. Section 14(m) of the said Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(m) The total money allowance payable to an employee as compensation for

an injury under this Act shall in no event exceed in the aggregate the sum of

$24,000: Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to cases of permanent

total disability or death: And provided further, That in applying this limitation

there shall not be taken into account any amount payable under section 8(g) of

this title for maintenance during rehabilitation of any amount of additional compensation required to be paid under this section for delay or default in the payment of compensation or any amount accruing as interest upon defaulted compensation- collectible under section 18."

SEC. 4. The amendments made by the foregoing provisions of this Act shall

become effective as to injuries or disability sustained on or after the date of

enactment.

[H.R. 1258, 87th Cong., 1st seas.]

AN ACT To amend the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, to provide

increased benefits in case of disabling injuries, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That subsection (b) of section 6 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 906), is

amended to read as follows:
2 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

"(b) Compensation for disability shall not exceed $70 per week and compensation for total disability shall not be less than $18 per week: Provided, however,

That, if the employee's average weekly wages, as computed under section 10, are

less than $18 per week, he shall receive as compensation for total disability his

average weekly wages."

SEC. 2. Section 9(e) of the said Act is hereby amended to read as follpws:

"(e) In computing death benefits the average weekly wages of the deceased

shall be considered to have been not more than $105 nor less than $27 but the

total weekly compensation shall not exceed the weekly wages of the deceased."

SEC. 3. Section 14(m) of the said Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(m) The total money allowance payable to an employee as compensation for

an injury under this Act shall in no event exceed in the aggregate the sum of

$24,000: Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to cases of permanent total

disability or death: And provided further, That in applying this limitation there

shall not be taken into account any amount payable under section 8(g) of this

title for maintenance during rehabilitation or any amount of additional compensation required to be paid under this section for delay or default in the payment

of compensation or any amount accruing as interest upon defaulted compensation

collectible under section 18."

SEC. 4. The amendments made by the foregoing provisions of this Act shall

become effective as to injuries or death sustained on or after the date of enactment.

Passed the House of Representatives March 21, 1961.

Attest:

RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., May 17, 1961.

Hon. LISTER HILL,

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare

U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. '

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1961,

requesting the views of this office with respect to S. 733, "To amend section 6

of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended

(33 U.S.C. 906)," and your letter of March 23, 1961, with respect to H.R. 1258

"To amend the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as

amended, to provide increased benefits in case of disabling injuries, and for other

purposes."

In his reports to your committee on these bills, the Secretary of Labor urged

enactment and called attention to technical amendments which he believed

should be made.

This office concurs with the views of the Secretary of Labor and enactment

of this legislation would be consistent with the administration's objectives.

Sincerely yours,

PHILLIP S. HUGHES,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

Hon. LISTER HILL,

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HILL: This is in response to your recent request for the comments of this Department concerning S. 733, a bill to amend the Longshoremen's

and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act to provide increased benefits in case of

disabling injuries, and for other purposes.

The overwhelming majority of the 500,000 or more maritime and other workers

covered by the Longshoremen's Act now are receiving nowhere near an appropriate benefit amount. The present ceiling of $54 on weekly disability benefits

for total disability is far out of line with current wage levels and living costs.

The act contains no self-adjustment feature of benefit levels and the last adjustment by Congress was made in 1956. Subsequently, changes in wage levels and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, March 7, 1961.
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 3

living costs have been so substantial as to make benefit levels in this act inadequate. The wage data on the employment covered under the Longshoremen's

Act available to this Department indicates that the proposed increase is fully

justified. The Department of Labor, therefore, strongly urges enactment of S. 733.

We call the committee's attention to two technical amendments which should

be made in the language of the bill. The words "of this title" on page 2, lines 16

and 17, should be omitted. In addition, section 4 should be amended to make it

clear that the increase is applicable to any death occurring after the date of enactment, regardless of the date of injury causing the death. The section should then

read as follows:

"SEC. 4. The amendments made by the foregoing provisions of this Act shall

apply only to injuries or deaths occurring on or after the enactment of this Act."

The Bureau of the Budget advises that the enactment of this legislation would

be consistent with the administration's objectives.

Yours sincerely,

ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG,

Secretary of Labor.

Hon. LISTER HILL,

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HILL: This is in further response to your request for a report

on H.R. 1258, a bill "To amend the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act, as amended, to provide increased benefits in case of disabling injuries, and for other purposes."

The overwhelming majority of the 500,000 or more maritime and other workers

covered by the Longshoremen's Act now are receiving nowhere near an appropriate benefit amount. The present ceiling of $54 on weekly disability benefits

for total disability is far out of line with current wage levels and living costs.

The act contains no self-adjustment feature of benefit levels and the last adjustment by Congress was made in 1956. Subsequently, changes in wage levels

and living costs have been so substantial as to make benefit levels in this act

inadequate. The wage data on the employment covered under the Longshoremen's Act available to this Department indicates that the proposed increase is

fully justified. The Department of Labor, therefore, strongly urges favorable

consideration by the Senate of H.R. 1258, which was passed by the House of

Representatives on March 21, 1961.

We call the committee's attention to a technical amendment which should

be made in the language of the bill. The words "of this title" on page 2, lines

18 and 19, should be omitted.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation

of this report and that enactment of this legislation would be consistent with

the administration's objectives.

Yours sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, May 10, 1961.

ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG,

Secretary of Labor.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, January 14, 1961.

Mr. R. C. DERRICKSON,

Staff Director, Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. DERRICKSON: This is in response to your recent request for a report

on H.R. 1258 which was introduced on January 3, 1961.

Although we have not received copies of H.R. 1258, we understand that it is

identical to H. R. 12777, 86th Congress, 2d session. As you know, H.R. 12777

would have amended the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation

Act by increasing the maximum weekly rate for disability from $54 to $70, the

wage basis for computing death benefits from $81 to $105, and the monetary

limitation on aggregate compensation benefits payable for disability from $17,280

to $24,000.
4 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

The Department of Labor favors enactment of H.R. 1258. The Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act contains no self-adjustment

feature of benefit levels, and the last adjustment by Congress occurred in 1956.

Subsequently, the changes in wage levels and living costs have been so substantial

as to make the benefit levels in this act inadequate. Although this Department

does not have complete wage data on the diversified and in some instances irregular employments covered under the Longshoremen's Act, available information indicates that the proposed increase is justified.

We would suggest, however, that the accompanying provision on the effective

date of the increase be amended to make clear that the increase is applicable to

any death occurring after the date of enactment, regardless of the date upon which

the injury which caused the death occurred.

We also recommend an amendment to the act to charge to employers the costs

of the Bureau of Employees' Compensation in administering the insurance

provisions of the act. This amendment was embodied in H.R. 7496, a bill

introduced in the 86th Congress to carry out a recommendation of the President.

It would bring the program, presently financed out of general taxation, in line

with the accepted system of financing for similar programs.

In addition, we recommend that the act be amended to extend the notice and

claim period in cases of latent disability so that an employee's right to compensation may not expire before he has a compensable disability and is aware of the

relationship of the disability to his employment, and to provide an increase in the

maximum burial allowance, reflecting current costs. Similar amendments to the

Federal Employees' Compensation Act were enacted in 1960.

The Bureau of the Budget advises, on January 18, 1961, that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES T. O'CONNELL,

Under Secretary of Labor.

Senator MCNAMARA. The hearing will be in order.

The purpose of these hearings is to obtain the views of parties

interested in proposed amendments to the Longshoremen's and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

Of primary concern to us is H.R. 1258, which passed the House of

Representatives without a dissenting vote.

That bill would increase both temporary and permanent disability

benefits, along with death benefits.

Before hearing the first witness, I want to express, on behalf of

the subcommittee, our appreciation of the cooperation we have been

given by all parties interested in this measure.

I also want to assure all of those who will present views on this

measure that their observations will be given the full attention of the

subcommittee.

Our first witness is Col. William Press, executive vice president,

Washington Board of Trade.

Mr. Press.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PRESS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,

WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD

DUPLINSKY, PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO. AND VICTOR 0. SCHINNERER, PRESIDENT, VICTOR

0. SCHINNERER & CO.

Senator MCNAMARA. We shall be glad to have you proceed in your

own manner.

Mr. PRESS. Mr. Chairman, I am William H. Press, executive vice

president of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade.
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 5

We are, and have been since 1889, the largest and most representative organization of employers in this community.

Currently, the Board of Trade's membership is composed of approximately 7,000 business, professional, and civic leaders, representing

almost 4,000 business and professional entities, most of which are

doing business in the District of Columbia.

Even though our employment and security committee includes

members representing most major local business categories, we have

reviewed the substance of this statement with a number of local trade

associations and consequently, are able to say that these comments

are supported by virtually all employers of the District of Columbia.

We know of none who have contrary views.

The record should also show that we appear here today with the

approval of our board of directors, which has also carefully considered

and approved the conclusions and recommendations which will be

presented.

We wish to express our appreciation to the committee for scheduling

this hearing and giving us an opportunity to express our views concerning workmen's compensation insurance in this jurisdiction.

The chairman has been very considerate of our problems in taking

the time from his very busy schedule to give us an opportunity to

place our views on the record and, for that, we are indebted to him and

the members of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we do not propose

to discuss today the technicalities of the Longshoremen's and Harbor

Workers' Compensation Act, or the bill H.R. 1258, which passed the

House and is now before the committee.

This statement will be devoted to a recitation of the reasons why

we believe the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation

Act should not apply to private employment in the District of Columbia and how workmen's compensation insurance should be administered in this city.

Nevertheless, with me here today are several gentlemen competent

to answer technical questions, if any are asked by the committee. I

would like to identify them at this time.

Senator MCNAMARA. May I interrupt you at this point?

Did you appear before the subcommittee in the House?

Mr. PRESS. No, sir.

Senator MCNAMARA. You did not?

Mr. PRESS. No, sir.

Senator MCNAMARA. Did some of your people appear before them

and discuss what you referred to as the technicalities of the act?

Mr. PRESS. No, sir; we did not.

Senator MCNAMARA. All right.

Mr. PRESS. I have at my side Mr. Edward Duplinsky, who is with

the Evening Star and who is familiar with the problems of self-insurers

and Mr. Schinnerer, who has not appeared yet, who is familiar:with

the insurance problems, who will be here.

Senator MCNAMARA. Very well.

Mr. PRESS. The Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act was enacted in 1927 to provide compensation for work-connected injuries for those working on navigable waters, many of whom

were not covered by State compensation laws.

71418-61----2
6 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

Subsequently, coverage of the act was extended. Currently the

act covers any maritime employment upon navigable waters except

as to a master or member of a crew of a vessel or any person engaged

by the master to load or unload or repair any vessel under 18 tons net.

With certain exceptions and modifications, the act applies to

citizens of the United States employed at Government military, air

or naval bases acquired from foreign countries after January 11, 1940,

or employed on any Government lands to be used for military or

naval purposes, in any territory or possession outside the continental

United States, or to employees under public works contracts of any

or subcontractor with the United States outside the contenental United States, or to employees engaged in exploring for,

developing, removing, or transporting by pipeline, the natural resources of subsoil and seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf.

The act does not apply to employees subject to the Federal Employees Compensation Act.

In 1928, Congress enacted legislation making the Longshoremen's

and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act applicable to the District

of Columbia. This came about because it was impossible to get

agreement in Congress respecting the terms of a workmen's compensation law for the District.

The legislation making the act applicable to the District reads as

follows:

The provisions of title 33, chapter 18, of the Code of Laws of the United States,

including all amendments that may be made thereto, after May 17, 1928, shall

apply in respect to the injury or death of an employee of an employer carrying

on any employment in the District of Columbia, irrespective of the place where

the injury or death occurs; except that in applying such provision the term

"employer" shall be held to mean every person carrying on any employment in the,

District of Columbia, and the term "employee" shall be held to mean every employee of any such person.

Since the act was made applicable to the District in 1928, various

employers and employer organizations have on a number of occasions,

sought to be excluded and covered instead by a law applicable only

to the District.

Since the end of World War II, these attempts have become more

frequent and more vigorous.

Several years ago the Board of Trade retained counsel to draft a

D.C. workmen's compensation law which I will describe later.

On May 7, 1956, during the second session of the 84th Congress,

our proposed law was favorably repqrted by the House District of

Columbia Committee, but for reasons which we will not review here,

it did not reach the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.

Bills have again been introduced in this session of Congress by request of the Board of Trade and currently are before the District of

Columbia Committees.

The bill in the House by Mr. McMillan is H.R. 6844, and the bill

in tile Senate by Senator Bible, is S. 1919.

There are a number of reasons why we believe a separate workmen's

compensation law for the District should be enacted.

First, it is a sound element in the development for the District

of a body of organic law governing the personal and private business

relations of its citizens.

The proposal is consistent with laws passed by Congress and now

constituting a portion of the independent District of Columbia Code
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 7

which relates to unemployment compensation, minimum wages, industrial safety, employment of women, regulation of child labor and

similar measures.

A District workmen's compensation law will form a proper and

needed part of this pattern of D.C. laws providing appropriate benefits and regulations with respect to nongovernment employees within

the District. The few District workers in maritime employment

would, of course, continue to be covered by the Longshoremen's and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act just as they are in the States.

The enactment of a separate District law will permit the consideration of proposed changes and benefits and other provisions for the

District of Columbia in relation to our local and regional pattern and

not as at present, primarily because of many conditions perhaps

wholly related to maritime employment largely in the major seaports

in the United States.

The Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act may

be expected to continue to reflect principally the interest of employees

and employers in maritime activities throughout the United States.

It is always subject to proposed amendments designed to further

the purposes of those groups.

The interests of employees and employers of the District of Columbia of necessity are a minor and corollary consideration in connection

with changes in the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

Thus, not only must District employees and their employers observe

carefully and attempt, where advisable, to exert their small influence

concerning proposed amendments of that act that may originate in

any and many parts of the country other than the District, but in.

addition, changes desired and desirable for District of Columbia employees and employers may not receive consideration because they

are opposed by, or at least cannot be correlated with the maritime

employers, employees and their unions, countrywide. That is the

practical situation in which we have found ourselves, and in which

we find ourselves today.

Comment has been made in the past that since the District of

Columbia's area of 69 plus square miles is so small, it may perhaps be

inadvisable to enact for it a separate workmen's compensation law.

We do not believe this observation is valid in view of laws referred to

already in the District of Columbia Code, and because the number of

covered employees here exceeds the number in 14 States having their

own laws according to Bureau of Labor Statistics compilations.

For the year 1959, nonagricultural, nongovernment employment in

the District was 256,000, which exceeded, as shown, the comparable

employment of the States listed.

NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT MINUS GOVERNMENT, 1959

District of Columbia, 256,000

Rhode Island, 242,000

Arizona, 240,000

Maine, 226,000

Utah, 193,000

New Mexico, 170,000

New Hampshire, 168,000

Delaware, 131,000

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Montana, 123,000

Idaho, 122,000

South Dakota, 96,000

North Dakota, 94,000

Vermont, 90,000

Nevada, 76,000

Wyoming, 68,000

A
8 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

There is probably no area more highly competitive with adjacent

jurisdictions than is the District today. There are now approximately 1,250,000 residents in nearby Maryland and Virginia, and

765,000 in the District of Columbia.

Generally accepted population forecasts made by our office, the

Planning Commission, the District government, and others anticipate

almost a doubling of the population by 1980 when Metropolitan

Washington is expected to reach approximately 3% million.

Virtually all this growth is expected to be in nearby suburban areas.

Much business expansion and increased employment will no doubt

follow the same pattern.

Actually, the population of the District of Columbia shrank during

the last 10 years, and there are many who believe it will continue to

get smaller.

It is inevitable that the District of Columbia will, as the years pass,

rely more and more on business and commerce for its revenue. Careful attention must therefore be devoted to the maintenance of a tax

and cost structure which will encourage or at least not discourage

increased business activities within the District's borders.

The great expansion of business volumes in Metropolitan Washington in recent years has taken place outside the District of

Columbia.

Additionally, many enterprises formerly located in the District

have, for a variety of reasons, removed themselves from this jurisdiction into contiguous areas.

Among the most important factors supporting decisions to move

out of the District of Columbia are relative tax burdens and costs of

doing business.

The Board of Trade, the District government, and the District of

Columbia Committees of the Congress generally encourage legislation,

particularly tax laws, which will preserve, as nearly as possible,

comparable, competitive cost relationships between the three metropolitan area jurisdictions so that, to the maximum extent possible,

the incentive for business and residents to shift from one jurisdiction

to another will be minimized.

This committee is quite conversant with the wide range of efforts

to develop homogeneous conditions in this and other metropolitan

areas.

This we submit is very important to the stability of the area and to

the District of Columbia.

It is also of considerable importance to the Congress inasmuch as

most Members wish the District to be as self-sufficient as possible.

This is evidenced annually in discussions and actions respecting the

size of the Federal payment now increasing mainly because changing

population characteristics are increasing municipal service costs while

the percentage of residents of the District with above average incomes

and taxpaying abilities is decreasing.

I have noted that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act reflects the interests of employees and employers

in maritime activities.

Let me illustrate and support that conclusion:

The Congress and the Department of Labor in recent years have 

generallyaccepted the principle that the maximum weekly benefit

amount should approximate 66% percent of average weekly wages in

covered maritime employment.
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 9

We believe, and the record indicates, acceptance also of the principle

that a fixed maximum at about this level is an essential characteristic

of the individualized systems employed in this country.

In June of last year, the Director of the Bureau of Employee's

Compensation, U.S. Department of Labor, appearing before the

House Education and Labor Committee, cited the average weekly

earnings of longshoremen at approximately $96.50, and of workmen

in shipbuilding and repairing at $102.97 according to Bureau of Labor

Statistics compilations.

These average wage levels supported the projected $70, or two-thirds

of average, maximum weekly benefit amount.

In February, the Director advised the House committee that for

the 9-month period, January to September 1960, the average weekly

wages of these categories was about $104.61.

According to the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, the average weekly earnings of all nongovernment workers covered by the unemployment compensation law in the District,

for the year ending June 30, 1960, was $89.23.

If we apply the accepted principles respecting the Longshoremen's

and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act to employment in the District of Columbia, the appropriate maximum weekly benefit amount

would only slightly exceed the presently specified $54 figure.

We believe that the principle of paying a somewhat higher percentage of wages as benefits for work-connected injuries than under

the unemployment compensation law is reasonable and sound.

We also believe that if it is a sound principle to set the maximum

weekly benefit amount at two-thirds of average earnings of covered

workers in maritime employment under the Longshoremen's and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the same principle should apply

respecting workers in covered private employment in the District of

Columbia.

This belief is strengthened by the generally accepted premise that

relatively liberal benefits should be provided for maritime employment because it is an unusually hazardous occupation.

The great majority of employment in the District can hardly be

classified as unusually hazardous in view of the following breakdown

of job classifications in this city.

Average covered employment, second quarter, 1960, Washington

metropolitan area, industry group, and percentage:

Agricultural and quarrying, less than 1 percent.

Contract construction, 9.1 percent.

Manufacturing, 8.9 percent.

Local transit, motor freight, and warehousing, airlines, freight

services, telephone and telegraph, gas and electric utilities, 9.5 percent.

Wholesale 8.3 percent.

Retail, 27:5 percent.

Finance, insurance and real estate, 11 percent.

Services: Hotel, personal business (includes many R. & D.), auto

repair, amusements, medical, legal, educational, some nonprofit,

25.7 percent.

Source, District of . Columbia Unemployment Compensation

Board.

In summary, only 27 percent of District of Columbia private

employment is in construction, manufacturing, transportation, and
10 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

utilities which might be classified as hazardous though a large percentage of such employees are in clerical or nonhazardous white

collar jobs.

Some 72 percent of District of Columbia employment is predominantly nonhazardous in wholesale, retail, financial, and service

classifications.

It may be reasonably concluded that earnings in hazardous maritime

employment will always run at a higher average than in private employment in the District.

Moreover, employment projections in the District forecast a significantly increased number and percentage of such nonhazardous jobs.

These facts and projections in our opinion support our effort to

exclude District of Columbia employment from the Longshoremen's

and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which will undoubtedly

always be geared to the special conditions associated with maritime

employment.

We simply request application to the District of the standard

voiced by Senator Morse on January 31, 1961, when he introduced

S. 733.

According to the Congressional Record, the Senator said:

Under the circumstances, the proposed amendment is a matter of simple equity.

It merely increases the maximum allowable weekly benefit to a level approximating a two-thirds ratio of average prevailing wages. It restores to longshoremen, ship repair workers, and others engaged in the hazardous occupations

covered by the act, the opportunity to qualify for a disability benefit that has a

reasonable relationship to lost wages.

Still another reason, as I mentioned earlier, for separating District

of Columbia employment from the Longshoremen's Act is that

District benefits are already out of line with the pattern of adjacent,

competitive States as is shown in the following comparison of benefits

in Maryland, Virginia, and the District.

Also, the relative liberality of the Longshoremen's and Harbor

Workers' Compensation Act is, of course, reflected in higher costs to

District employers.

It seems appropriate, therefore, to review relative costs in Maryland,

Virginia, and in the District in a number of classifications so that the

committees may have information respecting the cost variation of

such insurance for employers in the District, as compared with the

surrounding area.

(The charts referred to follow:)

CHART I.—Comparison of workmen's compensation benefits, District of Columbia,

Maryland, and Virginia

State

Fatal injuries Permanent and total disability

Maximum

period

(weeks)

MaxiMUM

per

week

MaxiMUM

amounts

Maximum

percent

of wages

MaxiMUM

percent

of wages

Maximum

weekly

payment

Time

limit

(weeks)

Amount

limit

District of Columbia $54 (2) 66% 66% $54 (3) (4)

H.R. 1258 70 (2) 66% 66% 70 (4)

Maryland 

Virginia 

500

300

40

35

$15,000

10,500

66%

60

66%

so

40

35 500

$30, 000

14. 000

I Not specified.

2 No limit.

Life.

4 Limit on one injury $17,280; raised to $24,000 in proposed legislation.

'Period of disability.

Source: State laws.
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 11

CHART II.-Comparative insurance rates paid by employers per $100 of payroll

in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia for a varied number of

classifications

[Rates per $100 of payroll]

Classification District of

Columbia

Maryland Virginia

Clerical, office employees not otherwise classified $0.14 $0.10 $0.06

Department stores, retail .48 . 56 .32

Clothing, wearing apparel, dry goods, wholesale .51 . 50 .33

Clothing, wearing apparel, dry goods, retail .57 .48 .20

Laundries, not otherwise classified . 74 .67 .27

Truckmen, not otherwise classified 3.83 2.91 1.59

Carpentry, private residences 3.66 2.64 1. 70

Iron and steel:

Erection frame structures 29.52 13.92 6.32

Buildings not over 2 stories 9.79 7.24 3.46

Not otherwise classified 18.93 11.68 4.01

Concrete construction:

Bridges and culverts 10.94 6.94 2.18

Not otherwise classified 5.67 4.12 2.65

Source: Compensation and Employers Liability Manual, National Council on Compensation Insurance,

May 1961.

These are manual costs and will vary and can be much higher for

employers in any of the jurisdictions depending on their individual

experience.

It will be noted that virtually all the District manual rates are

higher than in adjacent jurisdictions. The differential is not so great

or too meaningful in many of the less hazardous occupations.

However, it will be seen that in a number of classifications listed,

such as truckmen and construction, the cost differential in the District

is very significant.

Compensation insurance costs of truckmen for example, are more

than double in the District compared to Virginia and also significantly

higher than in Maryland.

A 3.83-percent payroll cost for compensation insurance in the District compared with 1.59 percent in Virginia, represents a considerable

excess cost for anyone in the trucking business in the District of

Columbia.

It is clear that in combination with other higher costs in the District,

there are ample and perhaps even irresistible reasons why a trucking

firm might not be able to compete with firms outside the jurisdiction.

In some of the more hazardous occupations, the cost differential is

even more significant.

For example, under iron and steel erection frames and structures,

it will be seen that workmen's compensation costs in the District are

29.52 percent of payroll; whereas, in Maryland they are but 13.92

percent, and in Virginia 6.32 percent.

We submit that such cost differentials are injurious to the maintenance of a sound tax base in the District of Columbia.

Workmen's compensation costs in the District of Columbia reach

a sizable figure. Our best information puts current total costs of all

employees at about $7% million.

It is estimated that raising the maximum weekly benefit to $70 will

increase costs about 25 percent, raising employees' costs to a figure

between $9 and $10 million.

We have attempted without going into too much detail to relate

the principal reasons why we feel the Longshoremen's and Harbor

S.
12 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

Workers' Compensation Act should not apply to employment within

the District of Columbia.

It should be stated here that we have no quarrel with the provisions

of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act in

the main nor with the administration of the act by the Employees

Compensation Commission.

The bills we have drafted, H.R. 6844 in the House, and S. 1919 in

the Senate; for a separate D.C. workmen's compensation law, embody

in the main all the provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor

Workers Compensation Act.

They provide exactly the same benefits currently provided in the

Federal Act, $54 a week maximum, $18 minimum, specified amounts

for specified injuries, and the same limitations or lack of limitations

as to totals.

The bill also provides for continued administration by the Employees Compensation Commission.

There are a number of detailed changes respecting administration,

appeals, and other technicalities, most of which we believe are improvements over those contained in the Longshoremen's and Harbor

Workers' Compensation Act.

We will not burden the committee with a recitation of these changes

since these are matters for consideration by the District of Columbia

Committees.

We assume that this committee's interest is limited to our general

statement that no benefit changes or major alterations are included in

our proposed District of Columbia law.

The present new Board of Commissionrs has not adopted a policy

respecting the proposal for a separate District of Columbia workmen's

compensation law.

The Board of Commissioners in 1956, at the time a similar bill was

reported by the House District Committee, interposed no objection

and did, in fact, support the legislation provided there was no change in

the benefits from those then paid under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we hope to get reasonably prompt

action from the District of Columbia Committees on the bills which

have been introduced. We earnestly hope there will be no objection

on the part of this committee to removing employment in the District

of Columbia from the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

We recognize that the status of the legislation to liberalize the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act indicates final action on it by

the Congress before our bill can be acted on by the District of Columbia Committees, the Senate and House of Representatives.

Under the circumstances, we request that an amendment be made to

the bill now before the committee making benefits changes inapplicable

in the District of Columbia, so that we may have an opportunity to

seek favorable action by the Congress on our bills before a 79 percent

of average weekly earnings benefits maximum is imposed on private

employment in the District.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you very much, sir. The tables, of

course, will be made a part of the record.

Did you identify the gentleman who is with you, for the record?
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 13

Mr. PRESS. Yes, sir; Mr. Edward Duplinsky, of the Evening Star

Newspaper Co.

Senator MCNAMARA. Would you agree that the basic purpose of

these acts is to provide covered workers with two-thirds of his weekly

wages when totally incapacitated by industrial accident?

Mr. PRESS. Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that with respect to the

original passage. I am not sure about the history. I know for the

last 15 years, since World War II, that Congress attempted to write

this law so that it covered 66% percent of the average Wages.

Senator MCNAMARA. From the information we have it does appear

that that was the intent of Congress at the time.

Mr. PRESS. Yes.

Senator MCNAMARA. Assuming it is proper to have a compensation

law which provides a man with two-thirds of his average wage, disregarding for the moment the competitive factors, is not the act

before us a fair one, in your judgment?

Mr. PRESS. We have no quarrel with it insofar as maritime employment is concerned. Our only problem is that it amounts to a 79

percent of average private employment wage in the District of

Columbia.

We have no quarrel with the 66% percent of average wages as the

maximum benefit in the District of Columbia. We just think it gets

too high a maximum.

Senator MCNAMARA. You recognize that the only persons affected

by the bill in the District of Columbia are those whose average wages

are above $80 a week.

Mr. PRESS. The only persons affected?

Senator MCNAMARA. By the pending legislation. Those whose

average wage is above $80 a week are the only ones affected.

Mr. PRESS. Yes; I guess that is correct.

Senator MCNAMARA. I think you ought to check into it. I believe

you will find that to be the case.

Mr. PRESS. I think that is right, sir.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you very much for your testimony.

It will be very helpful to the committee.

Mr. PRESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCNAMARA. Now, we have another witness, Mr. Walter

Mason, legislative representative of the AFL—CIO. He will be accompanied by Mr. Jay Turner, president of the District of Columbia

Central Labor Union.

I see he has another gentleman whom he will introduce.

Mr. Mason, will you proceed, please.

Mr. MASON. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF WALTER MASON, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,

AFL—CIO, ACCOMPANIED BY CLINTON FAIR, ASSISTANT SOCIAL

SECURITY DIRECTOR AND JAY TURNER, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA CENTRAL LABOR UNION

Mr. MASON. My name is Walter J. Mason, legislative representative of the AFL—CIO.

I have accompanying me Clinton Fair, assistant social security

director of the AFL—CIO, and Jay Turner, president of the Washington

Central Labor Council.

71418-61-3
14 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

We appear here today, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the AFL—CIO,

as well as the metal trades department of the AFL—CIO and the

Washington Central Labor Council.

All these organizations are directly concerned with the pending

legislation, and have asked the AFL—CIO to represent them at this

hearing.

I also have a statement of Patrick J. Connolly, executive vice president of the ILA and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to file that statement with the subcommittee for inclusion in the

record, and to be made a part of this hearing.

Senator MCNAMARA. Without objection, it certainly may be made

a part of the record.

Mr. MASON. Thank you, sir.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Connolly follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. CONNOLLY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL—CIO

Mr. Chairman, my name is Patrick J. Connolly. I am executive vice president

of the International Longshoremen's Association affiliated with the AFL—CIO.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee on S. 733

and companion bill H.R. 1258 to amend the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act.

This law is far more important than its name would imply. It covers approximately 600,000 workers. Principally, these consist of longshoremen, clerks,

checkers, ship servicemen, ship repairmen, and harbor workers, excluding seamen.

The act also covers private employment in the District of Columbia and employees

of -U.S. contractors outside continental United States.

The workers covered by this act are engaged in extremely hazardous occupations. Injuries are frequent and severe. Along with logging and mining, the

injury frequency rate of longshoring ranks among the highest. According to the

Bureau of Employment Compensation, 29,663 longshoremen were injured in 1959

and 31,359 were injured in 1960 in the course of their employment. This large

number of injuries is appalling and just cause for alarm.

The ILA represents close to 75,000 workers employed in all ports from Portland,

Maine, on the Atlantic coast to Brownsville, Tex. on the Gulf of Mexico including

the Great Lakes. We have continuously sought to keep this act in line with

changing conditions.

The basic premise of Congress when this act was originally enacted in 1927

providing an injured longshoreman with 66% percent of his earnings when injured

is no longer realistic. Because the act fixes limitations upon compensation payable to workers for injuries and death, its provisions must be constantly reviewed

by Congress in order to keep them in line with current wages and the cost of living.

Since 1955 wages in general have increased substantially for longshoremen

covered under the act. For example, in 1955 the basic rate was $2.48 per hour

compared to $2.97 per hour today for day rate. The basic night rate during the

same period has increased from $3.72 to $4.45% per hour.

The average weekly wage today for regular longshoremen according to the

New York Shipping Association is $115 compared to approximately $85 in 1955

when the act was last amended.

The Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act lags far behind

other comparable legislation such as Federal employees' compensation and many

State workmen's compensation laws. The maximum allowable in the State of

Alaska is $100 a week; the State of Arizona, $150 a week; the Province of Ontario,

$72.11 a week. For Federal employees, the U.S. Congress has provided a maximum benefit of $525 per month or $121 per week.

The ILA supports the Morse bill, S. 733, and companion bill, H.R. 1258. The

companion bill, H.R. 1258, passed the House unanimously on March 21, 1961.

It should be further noted that an identical bill passed the House unanimously

last year in the closing days of the session but failed to reach the Senate floor

for final action.

The purpose of S. 733 and companion bill H.R. 1258 passed by the House is to

provide increased benefits for employees covered under the Longshoremen's and

Harbor Workers' Act who have suffered disabling injuries. The increases in the

0
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 15

benefits are designed to conform to present day wages and living costs and thereby bring the benefit structure into line with the original intent of the act. The bill raises the $54 maximum in the present law to $70. Under the present law, death benefits are computed by considering the average weekly wages of the deceased to

have been not less than $27 or more than $81. This bill provides for increasing

the ceiling from $81 to $105. The present law restricts the amount paid in case of

an injury to any employee to a total of $17,280. This bill would increase that total amount payable from $17,280 to $24,000.

We believe that this proposal is a solid step in the right direction. Such a rate is more than justified if we consider the original intent of the act in relation to

current wage levels and benefit standards embodied in the Federal Employees

Compensation Act. As a matter of fact, we find a weekly benefit of more than

$70 is warranted.

As stated before, S. 733 and companion bill H.R. 1258 increased the maximum

benefit amount of $70. This means that all persons receiving more than $105 a

week will be provided wage loss benefits less than the two-third principle intended

in the law. If we are to provide the majority of workers injured on the job benefits

in accordance with the principle enunciated in the law today, it will be necessary to

increase the maximum benefit amount from $54 to at least $70 per week.

This does not mean that every person injured on the job will receive $70 a week.

In fact, only those who receive over $81 a week shall receive any benefit increase.

Those receiving more than $105 a week will still draw benefits of less than twothirds of their average weekly earnings. It should be noted that thousands of

longshoremen do earn an average of much more than $105 a week.

Therefore, the enactment of this legislation by Congress is long overdue.

This concludes the statement of the International Longshoremen's Association.

We urge prompt and favorable action on the Morse bill, S. 733, or companion

bill, H.R. 1258, passed by the House which increases the ceiling on benefits so as

to permit workers under the act to obtain more equitable benefits in relation to

their earnings.

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman we are gratified that your subcommittee has decided to hold public hearings on this important issue.

It has been 5 years since Congress last reviewed the benefit provisions

of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

Congressional action to bring the terms of this statute more in line

with present-day conditions is long overdue.

Approximately 600,000 workers are covered by the Longshoremen's

Act. Not only is the statute a workmen's compensation law for

longshoremen, ship repairmen, ship servicemen, harbor workers, and

other offshore workers, but, in addition, it is the basic Workmen's

Compensation Act for the District of Columbia.

It also applies to employees of Government contractors at defense

bases outside the United States.

For this reason, Congress has particular responsibility toward this

legislation. It should seek to develop a compensation law toward

which State legislative efforts could be directed.

However, in many ways the basic provisions in this law have fallen

behind the standards established by the Federal Employees Compensation Act and many State compensation laws.

For example, 10 Provinces of Canada have fixed benefits at 75 percent of the average weekly amount. The average weekly benefit

amounts for British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan,

are fixed at 75 percent of $5,000 or $72.11.

The Longshoremen's Act provides a weekly benefit of 66% of the

injured workers average wage.

In order that benefits may not be abused all jurisdictions have

fixed a maximum weekly benefit amount. The maximum weekly

benefit amount which the Congress has fixed for the Federal employees is $121.15 per week.
16 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

The maximum amount in Arizona is $150 per week.

In Hawaii, it is $75 a week.

In Alaska, $100 a week. The 66% percent of the average weekly

wage becomes meaningless if the maximum benefit amount is fixed too

low.

With a $54 a week maximum benefit amount, covered employecs in

the District of Columbia who earn more than $81 a week receive less

than the intended 66%-percent benefit amount of average weekly

wage.

Workers covered by this act are engaged in extremely hazardous

occupations. Injuries are frequent and severe.

The frequency rate amono•

''

longshoremen ranks with mining and

logging as the highest in the Nation.

According to the Bureau of Employment Compensation, 31,359

longshoremen, 20,143 harbor workers, 8,354 defense base workers, and

25,546 private employees in the District of Columbia were injured in

1960 in the course of their employment.

This is a combined total of 87,302. Of these injuries, 112 were

fatal. Such severe losses should be adequately compensated.

The importance of adequate compensation has been recognized by

the American College of Surgeons, and the American Medical Association.

The American College of Surgeons has called for: "adequate compensation to secure family security during the entire period of disability and rehabilitation.'

The position of the American Medical Association is as follows:

Workmen's compensation is not a re'ief program. It is the proper intent of the

program that a disabled employee and his family should not suffer a serious reduction in normal living standards during the rehabilitation period. This

requires that the benefit level be maintained at an adequate percentage of usual

wage and include reasonable personal expenses incurred by the employee in the

course of the rehabilitation process.

Underlying almost all workmen's compensation laws is the principle

that the great majority shall receive indemnity benefits equal to

two-thirds of their actual wage loss during the period of total disability.

We think a one-third cut in actual earnings entails a serious reduction in normal living standards during the rehabilitation period, and,

therefore, by the American Medical Association's standards, as well

as ours, is too severe.

On the other hand, there are clearly justifiable reasons why Congress

fixes a maximum benefit amount, a ceiling on compensation to injured

persons regardless of earnings.

But, unfortunately, this maximum has not been raised since 1956,

and still stands at $54 a week for those earning $81 a week, or more.

That is no longer a realistic standard.

Since 1955, wages in general have increased substantially for employees covered under the act. I have the figures in table form, as

follows:

Senator MCNAMARA. That table may be made a part of the record

at this point.

Mr. MASON. Yes, sir.
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 17

(The table referred to follows:)

TABLE 1.—Basic hourly rates for longshoremen in the east and gulf coast areas

Rate

1955 1961

General cargo:

Basic rate $2.48 $2. 97

Overtime rate 3.72 4.453/2

Penalty cargoes:

Bulk cargo, ballast, and coal cargoes 2.53 3.02

Cement and lime in bags 2.53 3.12

Damaged cargo 4.86 5.90

Explosives 4.86 5.90

Kerosene, gasoline, and naphtha 2.68 2.97

Refrigerator space cargo 2.68 3.22

Wet hides, creosoted poles, ties, shingles, cashew oil, soda ash in bags,

and naphthalene in bags 2.63 3.12

Mr. MASON. You can see that there have been substantial wage

increases since 1956, when the act was last amended.

According to the New York Shipping Association, the average

weekly wage today for regular longshoremen is $115, compared to

approximately $80 to $85 in 1956.

Recent studies show that ship repairmen are now averaging over

$105 a week. The average weekly wage of manufacturing workers

in the District of Columbia in 1960 was $98.55.

If wage rates for the construction industry were included, it would

bring the average to well over $105.

A tabulation of building and construction rates is attached to this

testimony, and I ask that it be included in the record.

(The tabulation referred to follows:)

1E Ii

REF ERENCE cp

i\KT NI EN T

17'4TTAN,*‘

4.")
TABLE 2.—Wage rates, Washington and vicinity—Washington Building Trades Council

Trades

Ho ilth and

welfare

Preseat

waLe Agreed upon increases

Effective

dd I e of

agreed.e at

Termination

date of

agreed,edt

Pension

Cents Cents

Asbestos workers 10 $4. 35 J-ly 1, 1958 June 39, 1961 

Boilermakers 10 4. 10 4.25 Nov. 1, 1961 Nov. 1, 196i Oct. 31, 1962 

Boilermakers' helpers 10 3. 85 4.00 do do do 

Bricklayers 9 4. 15 4.30 May 1, 1961 May 1, 1950 Apr. 3), 1962 10

Carpenters 9 3.85 do Apr. 33, 1961 

Millwrights and piledr i vers 

Cen ent n. asons 

9

10 

3. 97

/12 do 

May 20, 1953 

do 

do 

0 to 20 n iles 3.771⁄2

20 to 35n iles 4021⁄2

Over 35 Tr iles 4. 27

/12

Electrical workers 10 July 1, 1959 June 39, 1961 

0 to 20 n iles 4.40

20 to 40 n iles 4. 65

Beyond 40 n iles 4.90

Elevator constructors 8/12 4.31 Nov. 1,1957 Dec. 31, 1961 

Foren an 4.85

Helper 3.02

Engineers 12

/12 May 12, 1959 Apr. 30, 1961 E

Shovels, cranes, cableways, derricks, hoists, draglines, and mixers 3.97 Trenching machines 3.71

Graders, scoops, scrapers 3. 52

Air compressor operators, rt ixer operators, pumprnen 3.54

B-11do zer operators 3. 52

Glaziers 10

/12 3. 78

/12 3. 95

/12 Oct. 1, 1961 Oct. 1, 1969 Sept. 30, 1963 

4. 10 Oct. 1, 1962

Ironworkers 10 July 1, 1961 July 1, 1963 July 1, 1962 it

0 to 20 miles 4.25 4.45

20 to 40 rr iles 4.50 4.70

Beyond 40 miles 4. 75 4.95

Laborers 71⁄2 2.60 May 1, 1959 Apr. 30, 1961 1

Lathers 15 4.00 Apr. 1, 1959 Mar. 31, 1961

Marble masons 15 4. 07 4. 17/12 Jan. 21, 1961 June 21, 1959 June 21, 1962 1(

4. 324 June 21, 1961

4421⁄2 Jan. 21,1962

Marble polishers' helpers..... 3.

Painters, brush and spray 10 May 16. 1961 May 16, 1962 May 16, 1960 May 15, 1963 

0 to 15 miles 3.69 3811⁄2 3.94

15 to 40 miles 3.94 4.061⁄2 4.19

Beyond 40 miles 4. 19 4. 314 4.44

Painters, structural and hazardous May 16, 1961 May 16, 1962 

0 to 15 miles 4.02 4. 14

/12 4.27

15 to 40 miles 4.27 4391⁄2 4.52

nevond 4t1 mitaq _ 4.52 4. 64

/12 4.77
Plasterers 15 Apr. 1.1961 Oct. 1, 1961 Apr. 1, 1960 Mar. 31, 1962 15

0 to 17 miles 4.00 4.0734 4.15

17 to 35 miles 

Beyond 35 miles 

Plumbers 17 

4.25

4.50

4. 3234

4.57344.65

Sept. 1, 1961

4.40

Sept. 1, 1962 Sept. 1, 1960 Aug. 31, 1963 

t4

C)

0 to 20 miles 

20 to 40 miles 

Beyond 40 miles 

Reinforce rod men 10 

4.35

4.60

4.85

4.50

4.75

5.00

4.65

4.90

5.15

July 1,1959 June 30, 1961

1

0

GO

5 1:1

0 to 20 miles 4.00

20 to 35 miles 4.25 LTJ

Beyond 35 miles 4.50

Roofers I 

Mopmen, etc 

10 

3.52

Mar. 1, 1958 Feb. 28,1961 

t4

Compositions, etc 3.02

Helpers 2.47 66

Sheet metal workers 12 Sept. 1,1961 Sept. 1, 1962 Sept. 1, 1960 Aug. 31, 1963 

Sign painters 10 

4.36 4.51

Apr. 1,1961 

4.68

Apr. 1,1960 Mar. 31, 1962 t;

Design artists 3.30 3. 40

Master journeyman 3.20 3.30

Outdoor and shopmen 2.95 3.05

Junior journeyman 2.60 2.70

Helpers 2.20 2.30

Helpers, utility 

Steamfitters 1234 

1.60 1.70

Sept. 1, 1961 Sept. 1, 1962 Sept. 1, 1960 Aug. 31, 1963 C)

0 to 20 miles 4.40 4.55 4.70

20 to 40 miles 4.65 4.80 4.95

Beyond 40 miles 

Stone carvers 

Stonecutters 

Stone masons 

Tile and terrazzo workers 

Tile and terrazzo helpers 

Truck drivers 

1734

1734

15

5 

4.90 44O1/

4. 17M4. 1734

4.0734

3.073/i 

5.05

4.6034

4. 42124. 4234

4.22

5.20

Aug. 1,1961

do 

June 21, 1961

Jan. 1, 1962

Aug. 1,1959

do 

June 21, 1959

Jan. 1, 1961

do 

May 25, 1959

Aug. 1,1962 

do 

June 21, 1962

Dec. 31, 1962 

Dec. 31, 1961 

Apr. 30, 1961 

0

10 til

a?.

Dump trucks, sprinklers, grease and oil 2.30 Dump over 8 wheels, flat trucks, trailers, tractor pulls and pickups 2.40 

0

Carryalls, euclids, dumpsters, tunnel work 2.70 

Helpers 2.15 

Concrete drivers 2.52; t4

Boom trucks 2.55 

ci)

1 For county differentials consult business agent.

Also 75 cents per day running time to all men working for excavating contractors. 4

0

t.3

CC)
20 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

Mr. MASON. To go back further into history, in 1940 the average

weekly wage in the District was $26.69; at the same time the maximum disability amount was fixed by law at $25 a week, or 93.7 percent of the average weekly wage.

To restore the ratio of 1940, the maximum benefit amount in 1961

would be approximately $100 a week.

Therefore, we feel our proposals are extremely modest. The

AFL-CIO and its affiliates support the Morse-Zelenko bill, S. 733-,

and H.R. 1258.

The Zelenko bill, H.R. 1258, passed the House unanimously on

March 21 of this year. You will note the rates of the building and

construction industry in the District here for a 40-hour week would

range in most cases, the large majority of cases, from $150 a week to,

$200 a week.

With the $54 maximum benefit set in the Longshoremen's Act,

instead of receiving 66% of their average earnings, they are only

receiving say from 25 to 30 percent of average earnings.

I might add here, Mr. Chairman, that an identical bill passed the

House unanimously last year. It was reported out of the committee

unanimously and passed the House unanimously. The bill increases

the maximimum benefit amount from $54 to $70.

We do not look upon this as a generous move. For one thing, it

means that all persons receiving more than $105 a week will not be

protected to the extent of two-thirds of their earnings as intended in

the law.

A maximum benefit of more than $70 is warranted, but $70 would

at least assure a two-thirds return to the majority, and, therefore, we

urge you to approve it.

We feel we should also call your attention to the dramatic contrast

in scheduled losses between the Federal Employees Compensation

Act and the District of Columbia or the Longshoremen's and Harbor

Workers' Compensation Act.

An arm at the shoulder is worth $37,799 under FECA, but for a

worker in private employment, covered by the District of Columbia

Workmen's Compensation Act, the maximum is $16,848.

A hand, under FECA, is worth $29,560; under the Longshoremen's

and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, it is worth only $13,176.

Similarly, other figures for scheduled losses are twice as high under

FECA as in private employment.

It is difficult to see, as a matter of simple equity, why an employee

of the Federal Government should receive more than twice the amount

for the loss of an arm than a person in private employment in the

District of Columbia.

Medical and indemnity benefits as a percent of payroll in the

United States vary from a high in Oregon of 1.3 percent, to a low in

Delaware of 0.3 percent.

Medical and indemnity benefits in the District of Columbia are

0.4 percent of payroll. In only four States: namely, Indiana, Alabama,

Pennsylvania, and Delaware, are they lower.

Although the District of Columbia provides an annuity in death

benefit cases, the percentage of wages replaced by the average death

benefit was only 45.2 percent of the potential loss, a figure substantially below the intended two-thirds.

When Congress decided—and we think correctly—to substitute a

compensation system for adversary proceedings of employee suits
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 21

against employers in negligence, Congress also assumed the responsibility for establishing adequate standards so that an injured worker

would not lose out for lack of a jury trial of his claim.

We do not think the present District law fulfills that responsibility.

The very purposes of workmen's compensation offer the Congress

certain guidelines. Workmen's compensation was not intended as,

nor is it, a relief program. By providing rehabilitation benefits,

Congress has clearly indicated its belief that whenever possible an

injured worker should be restored to his greatest productive capacity.

Again I wish to stress that Congress, in the case of injured Government employees and to beneficiaries in case of death, has set a maximum benefit of two-thirds to three-fourths of average weekly earnings,

not to exceed $121 per week.

This law covers approximately 258,000 Government employees in

the District of Columbia.

In comparison, in the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act, which covers approximately 250,000 District of

Columbia employees in private employment, Congress set a maximum

of $54.

The average wage for Government employees and private employees in the District is practically the same.

For example, a printer at the Government Printing Office receives

$3.52 an hour. A private employee working at the same trade and a,

member of the same union gets $3.77. But the Government employee in the printing trades would receive benefits of $100 a week,

compared to $54 a week for his fellow craftsman in private employment. This discrepancy is inconceivable.

By raising this $54 maximum to $70, S. 733 or H.R. 1258, takes a

long overdue step in the right direction.

We urge the subcommittee to recommend its enactment at the

earliest opportunity in order to provide a greater measure of protection to workers and their families against the crippling effects of on the

job injuries.

Senator MCNAMARA. I take it you want to include these tables

with your testimony and that will be so ordered at this point in the

record.

Mr. MASON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCNAMARA. I see you have a difference in the health and

welfare payments by the Plumbers and the Steamfitters in the

District. Are they not covered by the same contract?

Mr. MASON. Yes.

Senator MCNAMARA. One is 17% cents an hour, and the other is

12 cents an hour.

It is not the same contract?

Mr. MASON. We have a representative of the Plumbers here.

Senator MCNAMARA. Will he tell us?

STATEMENT OF CECIL RHODES, BUSINESS MANAGER, PLUMBERS

LOCAL NO. 5

Mr. RHODES. Yes. My name is Cecil Rhodes, business manager

of Plumbers Local No. 5.

In our last raise, Senator, the Steamfitters took it all in the pocket

and Plumbers put 5 more cents in health and welfare fund. That is

the difference.
22 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

Senator MCNAMARA. But it is all under the same contract? It is

just a different application?

Mr. RHODES. We make two separate contracts with the same people.

However, we both have the same association.

Mr. MASON. I would like to add one more thing, Mr. Chairman,

both the Eisenhower administration and the present administration

have supported this proposal. I believe letters are on file with your

committee from the Secretary of Labor of both administrations.

Senator MCNAMARA. These letters will be made part of the record.

(See pp. 2 and 3.)

Mr. MASON. I also point out that the Board of Trade in the District

of Columbia has continually tried to separate the District from this

law for a number of years and it has been opposed by all of the administrations in office at the time.

Senator MCNAMARA. I asked the previous witness if he had appeared before the committee in the House when they held these

hearings. He indicated he had not.

Did you appear before them?

Mr. MASON. I did. We had extensive hearings on this, along with

a number of other witnesses in 1960.

Senator MCNAMARA. Senator Burdick, do you have any questions?

Senator BURDICK. No, except I understand the essence of your

statement is that there should be no distinction between the employees

in the District and the longshoremen.

Mr. MASON. We think it is very unfair. There are only two Federal

workmen's compensation laws that the Congress enacted. One is

the Government Employees Workmen's Compensation Act, and the

other is the Longshoremen's Act.

Here we have in the District of Columbia 250,000 Federal employees

on which Congress sets a maximum of $121 and at the same time

another law sets a maximum of $54 for private employment in the

District of Columbia.

In numerous cases they are working side by side, together, one gets

injured and gets more than twice as much as the other.

We think it should be corrected.

I think this bill will help to bring it more in line, Mr. Chairman,

with the Federal law.

Senator MCNAMARA. At this point we will insert in the record

various letters and statements.

(The material referred to above follows:)

-U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

May 19, 1961.

Hon. PAT MCNAMARA,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCNAMARA: It was good to learn that hearings have been

scheduled by your subcommittee for May 23 on S. 733.

If you would have the enclosed statement inserted in the hearing record in

support of this measure, I would be most appreciative.

My kindest regards.

Sincerely,

WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senator.
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 23

STATEMENT BY SENATOR WARREN G. MAGNUSON, OF WASHINGTON

Mr. Chairman again this session, I have cosponsored with my colleague from

Oregon, Senator Wayne Morse, S. 733, which increases the maximum permissible

weekly disability benefit under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers Act.

Need for this legislation was termed by both Senator Morse and myself as

imperative in the 86th Congress. Tilt was imperative that action be taken then,

imagine how much more important it is for those attempting to make ends meet

now on these present benefits, last adjusted in 1956.

I would make it clear that even with the new benefit ceiling, a maximum of

only $70 weekly would be available for those employees earning $105 weekly or

more. For those earning less than $105 weekly, the benefit payment would be

two-thirds of actual earnings.

It is good to note that identical legislation already has been passed by the

House. It is my hope that the Senate takes this vitally needed step soon.

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

April 24, 1961.

SENATE LABOR SUBCOMMITTEE,

New Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: At the request of the writer of the attached letter, I would

appreciate it if you would make it part of the record of proceedings on the Morse

bill, S. 733, if and when hearings are scheduled on the measure.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR CLARK: The member companies of the Shipbuilders Council of

America, the national trade association in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, are much concerned with pending bills S. 733 and H.R. 1258 before the

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, which bills would raise maximum compensation rates under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation

Act by about 30 percent to $70 per week from the present $54 per week rate.

The increase would push statutory benefits under the Federal statute to a level

far out of line with average benefits provided in State workmen's compensation

laws.

The workmen's compensation law of the State of Pennsylvania provides for a

maximum weekly temporary disability benefit of $42.50 for a single worker.

Thus the Federal act is already $11.50 higher than Pennsylvania State law. Ti

the Federal maximum is raised to $70 as is proposed, the Federal rate will be

$27.50 higher than the Pennsylvania State provision.

Such a differential seems to be entirely unwarranted and unjustifiable.

When a ship repairman is aboard a vessel or is on a drydock he is under the

Federal act. At all other times he is covered by his State's compensation law.

In other words, the controlling factor is his physical location at a specific moment

rather than the type work he is doing. During the course of a day's work, therefore, a ship repairman may alternate many times from Federal to State law jurisdiction and vice versa.

It is self-evident there must be dollar uniformity between Federal and State

statutory benefits to the greatest possible degree. S. 733 and H.R. 1258 entirely

disregard this obvious need for maximum consistency.

The combined judgments of the legislatures of the States have arrived at limits

to compensation benefits which average far below that in the pending bills. These

judgments by the State legislatures, in a field historically a sphere of State responsibility, should not be ignored. There are many compelling reasons, social and

economic, why the States have decided on more moderate levels than those proposed by the pending bills.

JOSEPH S. CLARK.

SHIPBUILDERS COUNCIL OF AMERICA,

New York, N.Y., April 7, 1961.
24 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

The Shipbuilders Council agrees with the recommendation by the Department

of Labor in its Bulletin No. 212, December 1959, that the objective is:

"To provide a maximum weekly benefit rate which will be sufficient to allow

an injured worker and his dependents to maintain a standard of living above the

subsistence level.

"To achieve this objective, the maximum weekly benefit should be equal to at

east 66% percent of the State's average weekly wage. [Italic supplied.]

Note the recommendation is not that the level of benefits be set on the basis

of wages in a particular industry or on the degree of hazard in industry but rather

on the average wages in all employments in the State. This basic principle is

not followed in the pending bills. Instead, proponents of the bills place stress on

the high wages in stevedoring and the hazardous nature of that type of work.

The approach is improper both economically and socially and contrary to the

-stated objective quoted above.

The Shipbuilders Council on behalf of its members strongly urges that S. 733

and H.R. 1258 be carefully considered in the light of the large differential it would

create between the maximum compensation rates set by the several States and

-that in the Federal act. The council is confident if this factor is given proper

,consideration, the bills will not be enacted.

Respectfully yours,

L. R. SANFORD, President.

AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC.,

Washington, D.C., May 22, 1961.

HOD. PAT MCNAMARA,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, 

on Labor and Public Welfare,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MCNAMARA: I wish to present the views of the American

Merchant Marine Institute, the largest national association representing Ameri-

.can shipowners and operators with respect to proposed legislation to amend the

Longshoremen's and Harbor "W"orkers' Compensation Act to increase the benefits

• thereunder.

We recognize the established principle that an injured employee's disability

benefits under the act should be equal to a maximum of two-thirds of his average

weekly earnings. The record shows that this was the overriding consideration

when Congress enacted legislation in 1956 increasing the scale of compensation

for disability. On this basis there may be a logical basis for adjusting rates.

However, it is our contention that the two-thirds concept should be evaluated

,on the take-home pay and not computed on the basis of gross wages since only

the former basis in fact gives the worker usable income.

Proposed legislation now before you provides maximum benefits of $70, which

is exceedingly excessive within the two-thirds concept. According to figures

available to us, all longshoremen in the New York port area are earning an average of almost $95 per week under their current agreement. Allowing four exemptions (based on the "Current Population Report/No. 96" of the U.S. Department

of Commerce which shows that the average family is now established at 3.66

persons), the take-home pay would be about $85 after proper deductions. Twothirds of such take-home pay would be somewhat over $55, which is considerably

lower than the $70 figure.

However, in view of the fact that wages in this industry appear to be moving

upward, at least on the basis of recent history, the Congress will doubtlessly not

-choose to amend the law annually in order to keep up with changing wage levels.

In view of this fact and without doing any violence at all to the basic two-thirds

concept, may we respectfully suggest that a $60 level would be both adequate

and fair to the parties involved.

We urge that this matter be given careful consideration, keeping in mind that

-compensation is not subject to Federal withholding, State withholding, or social

security. Our concern is that no legislation increasing compensation far beyond

the basic framework intended should be approved.

With respect to section 4 of S. 733, we suggest that the word "disability"

should be changed to "death" in order to make the act effective as to injuries or

death on or after the date of enactment. This change has been made in the

Mouse-passed H.R. 1258 which has been referred to your subcommittee.

We ask that this letter be made a part of the record of this bill.

Yours very truly,

ALVIN SHAPIRO.
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 25-

Subject: S. 733.

Hon. LISTER HILL,

Chairman Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HILL: On behalf of New York Shipping Association, Inc., I

write to express our concern regarding the above bill which seeks to increase to

$70 the maximum weekly benefits for workmen's compensation for longshoremen—a rate completely unrealistic when measured by the actual levels of wages

now being received or that may be received in the next year or two.

The New York Shipping Association, Inc., is a membership corporation of

more than 150 American- and foreign-flag steamship companies, contract stevedores, terminal operators, and other employers of waterfront labor in the port of

Greater New York and vicinity. The members of this association employ over

29,000 longshoremen who, during the course of their employment, come within

the provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensatibn Act„

Over the past 5 years, these employees have earned an average of more than

$144 million of gross annual payroll. Thus, our membership, and the industry

generally, are vitally concerned with any legislation which would affect thewelfare of our employees.

We believe that there is no basis or need for an increase to $70 as is proposed

by the Morse bill.

Traditionally, the benefits provided by the Longshoremen's and Harbor

Workers' Compensation Act have reflected a substantial percentage of lost wages,

i.e., an employee's take-home pay. Thus the maximum benefit should be based

upon a fair and realistic relationship between the amount of that benefit and theactual net income enjoyed by longshoremen not only in this port, but in the ports.

throughout the several States. Even at the rate of two-thirds of net income,

the proposed increase of compensation rates to $70 per week implies average.

weekly net earnings of $105 per week or gross earnings of $122 per week. Our

records and the records of the overwhelming number of ports in the United

States show that such estimates of earnings are much too high.

Here, in the port of Greater New York, the largest in the United States, earnings.

of our longshoremen must necessarily be guided by our current labor contract

which covers the 3-year period October 1, 1959, to September 30, 1962. It

provides for annual increases in the hourly wage rate. The last increase due5 cents more per hour—will be giYen effective October 1, 1961.

Based upon the pertinent provisions of that contract, we are convinced that

the increase proposed in S. 733 does not fairly and realistically evaluate the.

longshoremen's actual lost wages.

Figures for the latest full year available, the contract year ending September 30,,

1960, show that our employees worked 43,270,227.5 hours, with earnings of

$144,855,000 or average gross weekly earnings of $93.58. This, in turn, would

yield the following results:

Average gross weekly earnings $93. 58

Federal income and social security taxes withheld 10. 31

Actual take home or lost wages 83. 27"

Lost wages at 66% percent of take home 55. 46

The number of exemptions used is based on the "Current Population Report No. 96" of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which shows that the average family is now estimated at 3.66 persons.

NEW YORK Si-IIPPING ASSOCIATION, INC.,

New York, N.Y., May 22, 1961.

The above statistics establish actual earnings in the port of Greater New York,

the largest U.S. port with the greatest number of employees enjoying the highest

average weekly longshore earnings in the country. It does not follow, nor is it

the fact, that in other ports earnings are as high.

Moreover, it appears that average weekly earnings for year ending September.

30, 1961, will probably fall below the 1959-60 level. Reports for the first 6.

months of the present contract year show that longshore man-hours have dropped

more than 300,000 hours under this same period in 1959-60.

Thus actual earnings fall below the estimates which this association submitted

in May 1960 in written comments to the House of Representatives upon similar

bills proposing to increase the maximum weekly benefits (H.R. 9552, 9748, 11714,

86th Cong.). At that time we did not yet have yearend figures on hours and

payroll for the first year of the current collective bargaining agreement. There--
26 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

fore we presented estimates 1 indicating that average weekly take-home pay would

be $83.35 for the year ending September 30, 1960, and of $86.14 for the year

ending September 30, 1961. Two-thirds of those higher estimates would be

$55.51 and $57.37 weekly, respectively.

Our predictions were too liberal, however, because in 1959-60 we suffered an

unexpected drop of more than 1 million man-hours under the prior year. As

shown heretofore, this downward trend has continued in 1960-61.

Last year, as we do now, we urged that an increase of benefits to $70 was unjustified and recommended a close examination of our data to determine whether

any real need existed for revision of the $54 maximum now provided in the act.

Compensation benefits should bear a realistic relationship to our present

economic situation. However, the proposals contained in S. 733 go far beyond

this objective. In view of the above figures our association must oppose an

increase to $70.

The position of our association would be different if the benefits were to reflect

present wage levels and those of the foreseeable future. Accordingly if Congress

were to consider an increase not to exceed $60 per week, that increase would

provide more than ample protection to our longshoremen through the term of our

present collective bargaining agreement as well as for future years.

We are confident that the factual material presented will receive the careful

attention of your committee so that consideration of any increase will be based

on the actual levels of wages being received rather than upon hypothetical and

unrealistic estimates thereof.

Respectfully yours,

ALEXANDER P. CHopiN, Chairman.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFF KIBRE, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, WASHINGTON,

D . C.

My name is Jeff Fibre. I am the Washin-ton representative of the International Lonoshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. The ILWU represents approximately 20,000 members employed in the longshore industry on the west

coast and in the States of Alaska and Hawaii.

The ILWU welcomes this onportunity to testify in support of legislation to

increase the maximum wee'-ly disability benefit and certain related benefits under

the Lon- shoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The bills under

consideration are H.R. 1258, which has already passed the House unanimously,

and an identical Senate measure, S. 733, introduced by Senators Morse and

Ma,nuson.

These bills would accomplish, as their principal objective, an adjustment in

the dollar ceiliwr on weekly benefits from $54 to $70. They would also adjust,

in conformity with the new dollar ceilin,, the basis for computing death benefits

and the total amount of benefits allowable for lon --term partial disabilities.

In considering the proposed adjustment in the dollar ceiling, it is important to

understand that the new $70 maximum would be payable only to employees

earning $105 a week or more. Those making less than $105 weekly would receive

two-thirds of their actual earnins. Thus, no employee would enjoy any windfall

as a result of the upward adjustment in the ceiling.

The ILWU supports this le ,islation as an urgently needed step in the right

direction. Con,:ress last adjusted the amount of the weekly benefit in 1956.

Since that time, wao e rates for workers under the jurisdiction of the act have

increased substantially. As a consequence, the dollar ceiling must be moved

upward.

Adequate compensation benefits have a special meaning in the long,shore

industry. Cargo handling is still one of the most hazardous occupations in

which to make a livin r,. Its accident frequency rate, during recent years, has

substantially exceeded the figure for coal mining and has generally stood at from

five to seven times the rate for manufacturing activities.

The least that can be done to offset the hazardous nature of stevedoring is to

maintain an up-to-date compensation system. This obligation must be met

periodically by management and by the Congress, particularly in regard to the

ceiling on the amount of benefits payable to disabled workers.

1 These estimates were based on the average hours worked from Oct. 1, 1955, to Sept. 30, 1959, a period of

consistently high earnings. They also included an average overtime factor of 23 percent and reflected the

yearly wage increase provided by contract for the years in question.
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 27

While the ILWU endorses the bills before this subcommittee and urges their

prompt enactment, we must point out that a $70 ceiling is not the full answer.

It falls short of bringing the benefit structure back into line with the original

intent of the Longshore Compensation Act. It will mean that a substantial portion

of longshore workers will continue to be shortchanged on their disability benefits.

What should the maximum benefit properly be? Consideration of this question

is certainly in order; it will provide perspective on the bills presently under consideration and indicate the remaining job that must be tackled by Congress in the

future.

In determining what the justifiable disability benefit should be under the Longshore Act, two main questions are at stake: first, what percentage of lost wages

should be returned to injured workers; and secondly, if there is to be a ceiling on

the amount of the weekly benefit, what should it be in order that the agreed upon

percentage shall be paid to claimants?

With respect to the first question, we submit that the historical record of compensation insurance clearly establishes that workers are entitled by right to recover two-thirds of their lost wages. This principle was incorporated in the

benefit structure of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act. Thus, section

8 provides that the rate of disability benefits shall be 66% percent of average weekly

wages. It is true, of course, that the dollar ceiling provided under section 6

limits the operation of this formula and at the present time largely renders it

meaningless. But it should be understood that when the act was originally

approved in 1927, wage levels were such that the ceiling of $25 guaranteed a full

two-thirds benefit for the overwhelming majority of affected workers.

To stress this point, namely, that the 66%-percent ratio was the actual determinant of benefits, it is useful to examine the hearing records dealing with enactment of the Longshore Act. These definitely show that earnings in the industry

were well below $37.50 a week, the figure used to establish the $25 ceiling. In

fact, a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4 years after passage of the act,

stated that longshore earnings average little more than $30 weekly, and went on

to explain that employers and the union in New York had agreed on a figure of

average weekly earnings of $30 as a basis for computing accident compensation under

the law.

Over the years, particularly in the postwar era, the original intent of the act

has been watered down as a result of the great upward surge of wage rates and

living costs. The two adjustments in the ceiling, one in 1948, and the other in

1956, failed to restore fully the right of the workers to a two-thirds benefit. At the

present time, the benefit ratio is far out of balance with the act's stated object.

For a thoughtful discussion of the benefit issue, it is worthwhile to review some

remarks made by the former Under Secretary of Labor, Arthur Larsen, at hearings

before a House Labor Subcommittee in 1956. Mr. Larsen, as is well known,

stands out as an acknowledged authority in the field of compensation insurance.

In discussing the question of an unrealistic ceiling on weekly benefits, Mr. Larsen

went on to say the following:

"* * * One of the implications of this * * * low ceiling is that a large proportion of the beneficiaries are drawing benefits at the ceiling, and when that happens,

I think that many people fail to realize that we are steadily and imperceptibly

transforming the basic nature of our workmen's compensation system in this country from a system which was supposed to be tailored to the individual, and it is now

becoming transformed into an almost flat-rate system, such as they have in

England and many of the continental countries.

"The theory of our social insurance in this country, including workmen's compensation, has always been it is individualistic in character. * * *

"When you get the maximum so low that most of the people, or a great many of

these people, under the system are crowded against the ceiling, the net result is

that the individualized American type of ceiling has suddenly and imperceptibly

been transformed into the foreign flat-rate kind of system. The only way to

correct this system is to raise the maximum sufficiently to permit the free relationship between benefits and previous earnings, under the two-thirds ratio, to work

itself out in the great majority of cases.

"Another thing I think we ought to remind ourselves of in this connection,

which is frequently forgotten when workmen's compensation is under discussion,

is that we are dealing, not with a Government grant or benefit, but with a private

right, arranged between private individuals and backed by private insurance.

The right of these workmen to be paid workmen's compensation benefits is not

something which has been granted to them out of the goodness of the heart of

some beneficent Government as a matter of grace. It is a right which they
2g LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HAREOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

obtained in exchange for giving up their centuries-old, common-law right to sue for

personal injury and recover the full measure of loss suffered whenever industrial

accidents were attributable to the fault of the employer,"

To sum up what Mr. Larsen points out so clearly, the benefit structure of the

Longshore Act should make available to "the great majority" of disabled workers,

on an individual basis a benefit equal to two-thirds of their lost wages. Anything

short of this represents a denial of established rights.

This brings us, then, to the question of a ceiling. Theoretically, a compensation law should not impose any ceiling, but simply provide a mechanism whereby

a full two-thirds benefit is paid to an injured worker. If we are to concede the

need of a ceiling to hold benefits within some practical limit, let us consider what

it should be only on the basis of preserving for the great majority of affected

workers their proper benefit.

Unfortunately, because of incomplete earning data, no precise dollar ceiling

can be computed. However, sufficient figures on west coast longshore wage

levels are available to indicate an answer to the problem.

The following table is a compilation of average weekly earnings for basic categories of longshore workers on the Pacific coast for the year 1959. The figures

were compiled by the Pacific Maritime Association, an agency representing shipowners and stevedore companies, and applies to the regular or "registered' work

force. In examining the table, it is to be noted that the first column of figures

shows average weekly earnings for all men in each category; the next column shows

the same averages for the top 25 percent; and the next two columns show average.

weekly earnings for the middle 50 percent and the bottom 25 percent.

Average weekly earnings of registered "A" men, Pacific coast, 1959

All Top 25 Middle 50 Bottom 25

percent percent percent

Longshoremen $115 $153 $126 $56

Clerks 144 199 149 78

Walking bosses 197 248 205 130

From the above date, it is immediately apparent that a $70 ceiling is far too low

with respect to 1959 west coast wage levels. The presumed average weekly wage

of $105, on which the $70 ceiling is based, is $10 below the weekly average for all

longshoremen and considerably below the averages for clerks and walking bosses.

An even greater gap would show if current wage levels, reflecting an increase in

1960 and one presently under negotiation, were cited.

The plain facts are that the $70 ceiling continues, at least for west coast longshore workers, the very system against which Mr. Larsen warns. The overwhelming majority of beneficiaries would be "crowded against the ceiling," thus

compelling them to live under a "foreign flat-rate kind of system."

, An adequate ceiling, as Mr. Larsen points out, would have to be high enough to

permit the "great majority" of west coast registered workers to qualify on an

individual basis for a two-thirds benefit. At the least, such a ceiling should take

into accotint the average earnings of the workers in the middle 50 percent bracket.

That would bring us to a ceiling well above $100.

As a matter of fact, Congress already has moved along this line in the Federal

Employees Compensation Act. Its ceiling on disability benefits was increased,

back in 1949, to $525 monthly or $121 weekly. The stated objective was to

provide the overwhelming majority of Government employees with a two-thirds

benefit. Thus, the Federal Employees Act already embodies in practice thetraditional compensation formula sought by the ILWU for the Longshore Act.

The issue of a proper ceiling could, of course, be discussed in far greater detail.

For one thing, it would be useful to examine the hardships arising out of inadequate

disability benefits. But for the purposes of this hearing, the facts brought out

certainly establish that sooner or later—and the sooner the better—Congress

must go beyond piecemeal adjustments that perpetuate a flat-rate benefit system

rather than the two-thirds benefit formula originally prescribed by the act.

In the meantme, it is certainly clear that an upward adjustment in the ceiling

is urgently demanded. An increase to $70, while falling short of the proper objective, certainly represents a step in the right direction and will bring a muchneeded improvement in the benefit structure.

The ILWU therefore urges the subcommittee promptly approve the Housepassed bill, H.R. 1258, and speed it on its way to final enactment.
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 29

SHIPBUILDERS COUNCIL OF AMERICA,

New York, N.Y., May 19, 1961.

Subject: Statement by Shipbuilders Council of America opposing S. 733 and

H.R. 1258 to increase benefits rates provided in the Longshoremen's and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act

Hon. PAT MCNAMARA,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate.

DEAR SENATOR MCNAmARA: The Shipbuilders Council of America appreciates

your wired invitation to submit information for the record of the May 23 hearing

on pending bills S. 733 and H.R. 1258 which would increase benefits payable

under the Federal Workmen's Compensation Act covering ship repairmen and

other harbor workers.

The Shipbuilders Council of America is and has been the national trade association representing the private shipbuilding and ship repair industry of the United

States during the entire span of over 30 years since the first enactment of the

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. In the light of its

years of experience with the act and its application to ship repairmen, the council

most strongly urges that the present bills not be enacted. An increase in the

benefit rates by 30 percent at this time is unwarranted, unjustifiable, and economically objectionable: .

Ship repairing in the United States is in a very distressing low-employment

stage. The additional burden of increasing benefit rates—which already are too

high by comparison with the various State law rates applicable to almost all

other industries in the United States—cannot but further depress this industry.

Federal compensation legislation, which applies only to certain groups in a

limited number of States; that is, the maritime States, should be reasonably

consistent with the well-considered State laws of much broader application.

• Attached for the information of the committee is a list of the 50 States with the

latest information available to the council as to the maximum temporary total

disability rate for a single workman. States in which the Longshoremen's and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act has some appreciable coverage are indicated

in the table.

It is obvious that the proposed 30-percent increase under the Federal act to

$70 per week would put the ship repairmen's rates far out of line with the average

benefits provided by the State laws.

The council contends it is vital that there be dollar uniformity between the

Federal and State statutory benefits to the greatest possible degree. The pending bills disregard this obvious need.

Workmen's compensation is a statutory departure from the traditional rules of

law regarding the liability of one person for personal injury or death sustained by

another. At common law, a person is normally answerable for the injury or

death of others only when guilty of some fault or negligence causing such injury or

death, and subject to the qualification that the person seeking recovery is not

himself chargeable with contributory fault or negligence. Workmen's compensation statutes depart from this traditional principle of tort liability. Fault or

guilt is no longer pertinent where workmen's compensation statutes are in force.

The employer's liability for injuries and deaths arising out of and in the course

of employment is made absolute. So, also, he is made liable for diseases and

infections such as arise naturally or unavoidably from such employment.

-- Even where the harm results from the_negligence of a third party or from the

negligence of the employee himself, the employer is made liable under the compensation statutes. Overall estimates indicate that at least 85 percent, if not

more, of the statutory compensation awards are made to employees in cases where

the employer is wholly without fault.4nd where, except for. the statutes, there

would have been no liability. Revovery by the employee becomes almost automatic. Employees and their beneficiaries are relieved of the necessity and

*exPense of Suing their employers for injuries or loss of life arising out of the employment. Of course, where the employer has failed to procure compensation,

the employee may sue. In such case, however, the employer is deprived of his

common-law defenses.

Workmen's compensation statutes make the employer's liability certain. The

risk of industrial accidents becomes a known and definite cost of doing business.

The limitation provisions of the compensation statutes make the employer's

liability a certain determinable operating cost, to the same extent that taxes,

rent, wages and other expenses are a part of his operating costs.
30 LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

It seems to be the trend in some quarters today to regard workmen's compen--

sation laws as social laws. This view has been emphasized time and time again.

The compensation laws are referred to as a supplement to social security. The

council contends that it is erroneous to regard workmen's compensation as a social

insurance or a supplement to social security. It must be remembered that workmen's compensation does not deal with Government funds but with the strictly

private rights of employers and employees and private funds.

Workmen's compensation is not intended as a substitute for private insurance

against disability, any more than social security is intended to supplant private

savings and life insurance. Workmen's compensation, like social security, is

intended only to provide a modest supplementary benefit in the event of industrial

injury or death. It is a levy against industry, which is payable without regard to

fault or negligence. These considerations have undoubtedly been given local

evaluation by the legislatures of the several States when enacting their individual

statutes.

The Shipbuilders Council on behalf of its members strongly urges that S. 733

and H.R. 1258 be carefully considered in the light of the large differential it would

create between the maximum compensation rates set by the several States and

that in the Federal act. The council, is confident, if this factor is given proper

consideration, the proposed amendments will not be enacted.

Respectfully yours,

L. R. SANFORD, President.

TABLE 3.-State workmen's compensation laws-Maximum weekly benefit for single

employee for temporary total disability, by States

State Rate

Date of

available

information

State Rate

Date of

available

information

Alabama 1 $31.00 1957 Nevada (2)

Alaska 1 100. 00 1959 New Hampshire 1 $40.00 1959

Arizona (2) New Jersey 1 40.00 1960

Arkansas 1 35.00 1959 New Mexico 1 38. 00 1959

California 1 65.00 1959 New York 1 50.00 1960

Colorado 40.25 1959 North Carolina 1 35.00 1959

Connecticut 1 (2) North Dakota 38.00 1960

Delaware 1 50.00 1959 Ohio 1 49.00 1961

Florida 1 42.00 1959 Oklahoma 35.00 1959

Georgia 1 30.00 1959 Oregon 1 (2)

Hawaii 1 75.00 1959 Pennsylvania 42.50 1960

Idaho 28. 00 1959 Rhode Island 1 36.00 1960

Illinois 1 45.00 1959 South Carolina 1 35.00 1956

Indiana 1 65.00 1959 South Dakota 30.00 1957

Iowa 32.00 1959 Tennessee 1 34.00 1959

Kansas 1 38.00 1959 Texas 1 35.00 1959

Kentucky 1 36.00 1960 Utah 37.00 1959

Louisiana 1 35.00 1958 Vermont 36.00 1959

Maine 1 39.00 1961 Virginia 1 35.00 1960

Maryland 1 40.00 1959 Washington 1 (2) 1957

Massachusetts 1 50.00 1961 West Virginia 35.00 1960

Michigan 1 33.00 1960 Wisconsin (2)

Minnesota 1 45.00 1959 Wyoming (2)

Mississippi. 1 35.00 1960 Longshoremen's and Harbor

Missouri 1 45.00 1959 Workers' Compensation

Montana 28.00 1959 Act 54.00 1981

Nebraska 37.00 1959

1 Maritime.

2 Not applicable.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you very much, gentlemen. The

subcommittee will now stand adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,

subject to call of the Chair.)

0
,AMY ,umineememmilli
cp-\NIE

- REFERENCE

'2t= LIBRARY --<"

DEPARTMENT ,c?

c3-c

4/TAN,