signed that he had a contract. Bear in mind: This came up after the agreement was signed. Mr. MURDOCK. Yes. Mr. LOOMIS. I have testified that I don't know what may have been said in Dr. Steelman's presence. Mr. O'Neil testified that he wasn't sure whether Dr. Steelman was in the room before signing, when he said he heard Mr. Shields make a statement that he was going to take it back for ratification. I can't answer you with respect to Dr. Steelman. But I think you are talking about things that took place after the signing. Mr. MURDOCK. Yes; I think that is quite clear. It was after the signing. Now, Mr. Loomis, going back to volume 7, you testified on page 654 with respect to a report, and for the record I wish you would just identify the source of that quotation. You say: In a report submitted to the President on March 2, 1937, the history of the National Industrial Recovery Act and so forth. and then vou quote from it. I just wonder as to the source of that. Mr. LOOMIS. That is entitled "History of the National Industrial Recovery Act" and is a report submitted to the President on March 2, 1937, by the President's Committee on Industrial Analysis. Mr. MURDOCK. Thank you. I assume it would be a correct assumption, Mr. Loomis, that when you have referred to the cost-of-living index in your testimony, you have always been testifying with respect to the Consumers' Price Index? Mr. LOOMIS. That is correct. It used to be called the Cost of Living Index, and then they changed the title. Mr. MURDOCK. With respect to this Consumers' Price Index, Mr. Loomis, which I think at the time of the December 21 meeting stood at 176; did it not? Mr. LOOMIS. No; it did not. The most recent one to come out was the October 15 index, which I believe stood at 174.8. Mr. MURDOCK. What is the base year for that index? Do you know? Mr. LOOMIS. Yes. That is the Bureau of Labor Statistics base. The last index available was the October 15 index, which stood at 174.6 or 174.8. The November 15 index, which would come out during December, had not yet come out, and in fact didn't come out until around the 28th of December, I believe. It was late in December, anyway. We anticipated that the index would probably be 176. When it came out, it did not quite reach 176. It was around 175.8 or 175.9, but didn't actually reach 176. Mr. MURDOCK. Now, that figure, whatever it may be, 174 or 176, indicates, does it not, that between the average for 1935 to 1939 and the date on which the index is released, there had been an increase in consumers' prices approximating 74 or 76 percent? Mr. LOOMIS. That is what it would indicate. Mr. MURDOCK. In your testimony, Mr. Loomis, you used the figure of $530,000,000 as the cost of the settlements which you had reached. Mr. LOOMIS. That is prior, of course, to, and does not include what the cost-of-living escalator clause would require on April 1. Mr. MURDOCK. Yes; I understand. On page 830 of the transcript, you gave the figure $530,000,000 as the annual cost of the settlements for the switchmen's union, the Railroad Yard Masters, the United Transport Service employees, 15 nonoperating groups, and the memorandum of December 21. I wonder if it would be too much trouble for you to indicate how much of that $530,000,000 should be attributed to each of those settlements? Mr. LOOMIS. That did include an estimate for April 1, which, however, turned out to be too low. The figures are these. I do not have a separate breakdown in the case of the switchmen's union. Yes, I can give you that. Employees represented by the Switchmen's Union of North America, the Railroad Yardmasters of America, and the Railroad Yardmasters of North America, which is another yardmasters' organization with which individual railroads had made settlements, the 23 cents per hour effective October 1, 1950, totaled $4,736,000. They received 1 cent January 1. Their agreements were made earlier and provided for an adjustment January 1, which amounted to $204,000. We estimated 6 cents from April 1, which would amount to $1,235,000. Actually that comes out to 9 cents in the case of those groups. So that estimate was low. Now, as to the yard-operating employees and all other groups, the 23 cents would amount to $70,040,000. The 2 cents effective January 1 would amount to $6,090,000. We estimated 5 cents for April 1, which, on the basis of the actual index, should be 8 cents. But the 5-cent estimate amounted to $15,225,000. For road-operating employees, the 5 cents effective October 1 ran $24,604,000. The 5 cents effective January 1 ran $24,604,000. The 5 cents we estimated for April 1 ran $24,604,000. That, too, would go up to 8 cents on the basis of the actual index. As to the dining-car stewards, the reduction in the basic hours from October 1, 1950, would amount to $643,000. The increase in the monthly rates effective January 1, 1951-that was $4.10-would be $102,000. The increased overtime from February 1, 1951, would be $122,000. The estimated cost of rules changes would be $2,171,000. Now, for the nonoperating employees, the 122 cents would amount to $258,539,000. In that case we estimated 3 cents for April 1, which, on the basis of the actual index, turned out to be 6 cents. But the 3cent estimate amounted to $62,050,000. Then there are a number of other employees not covered by labor agreements, which follow the nonoperating pattern and have universally. The cost of 122 cents to those employees would amount to $19,299,000. The 3 cents that we estimated for April 1 would amount to $4,632,000. Then there are other yardmasters and assistant yardmasters, which are represented neither by the Railroad Yardmasters of America nor the Railroad Yardmasters of North America. Some of those would be by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; a few by the Order of Railway Conductors, and probably some either by small organizations or not represented at all, but who would follow the pattern. The 23 cents amounted to $1,091,000. The 2 cents January 1 amounted to $93,000. The estimate of 5 cents for April 1, which later turned out to be 9, amounted to $235,000. So the total of the increases is $520,319,000, with an estimated increase in pay roll taxes, under the Railroad Retirement Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, of $12,094,000, or a total of $532,413,000. Mr. MURDOCK. Thank you very much. On page 870, Mr. Loomis, volume 10, you stated in response to a question from Senator Morse that since 1930 the adjustments for nonoperating employees and yard-service employees have always been the same, with the exception that in 1937 nonoperating employees got 5 cents, and the operating employees got 52 cents. I believe the balance of your statement there corrects what I believe is an inadvertent error in the first sentence, since according to committee exhibit 11, table 1-A, the increases have not been the same since 1939. Mr. LOOMIS. I don't quite follow your question, Mr. Murdock. Mr. MURDOCK. The first sentence of your reply would indicate that the only difference in the increases was in 1937. Mr. LOOMIS. And 1941. The two balanced off. Mr. MURDOCK. Yes. You, as I say, sort of clear it up later in the sentence. But I did want to call your attention to what there appears to be a flat statement. Mr. LOOMIS. Oh, yes; in 1939 they were different, and in 1941 they balanced off again. That was one of the big points in the 1941 settlement. It was for the nonoperating employees to get that half cent back. Mr. MURDOCK. If I may just state for the record: According to committee exhibit 11, table 1-A, there were no increases for either group in 1939, no increases in 1940, and in 1941 the nonoperating employees appear to have gotten a half cent more. In 1942 to 1945, the operating employees got an increase of 9 cents, while the nonoperating group got an increase of 9 to 11 cents. September 1945 to 1946, they were the same. In 1947 they were the same. In 1948, the operating employees got 3 cents more than the nonops. In 1949, the operating employees got no increase, and the nonoperating employees got an average of 232 cents increase. My purpose is not to question the accuracy of your statement, but to clear up what appears in the transcript as a flat statement. Mr. LOOMIS. And may I just add there the full explanation? As to the 9 to 11 shown in January 1942 to August 1945, the nonoperating employees receiving less than 57 cents an hour were the ones involved in the 10- and 11-cent adjustments. There were no operating employees that low. There is one thing that is not shown there, and that is that the daily earnings, minimum, as applied to yard conductors and brakemen, and the conversion of engineers and firemen to through freight rates in 1948, resulted in an average increase to yard service employees of 32 cents. Mr. MURDOCK. The transcript shows, Mr. Loomis, on page 878, that you stated that: The evidence before the Emergency Board did not show a great increase in the productivity with respect to yard service employees. It appears that Mr. Oliver's testimony is in flat contradiction to that statement, since on page 1244 he testified that between 1922 and 1949 there was a 442 percent increase in productivity of yard employees. Mr. LOOMIS. What was the page of that? Mr. MURDOCK. Page 1244 is his statement. It is in the volume 14. Mr. LOOMIS. I have not analyzed Mr. Oliver's figures. It didn't seem to serve any useful purpose to continually argue the merits. I just want to say this, that all of the evidence that Mr. Oliver presented, so far as I can recall, perhaps in a different form, was presented to the Emergency Board. I think what I probably should have said was that the productivity did not show as great an increase in yard service as in other departments of the railroad. I think I also said later on that there was evidence before the Board with respect to cars handled per switch-engine-hour, and various other statistics on productivity, but that I did not recall or have at hand that exact showing, and it would take a long time to present it. Mr. MURDOCK. I wondered if you quarreled with his figures. Mr. LOOMIS. I would quarrel with them to this extent: That the number of traffic units handled may not necessarily be a measure of the productivity of one certain branch of the railroad. It is an index of the productivity of the railroad plant as a whole, but to try to break it down into departments and use the over-all measure of traffic units handled by the industry I don't think does measure correctly a situation as to productivity. The traffic units per man-hour will show the productivity of the industry as a whole, the railroad plant as a whole. But I don't think you can break it down into little groups and say on the basis of traffic units handled this little group has increased so much, this group has increased, and this group. The figures of cars per switch-engine-hour, and figures of that sort, would be a better measure of the productivity of the yards themselves alone than would be the over-all productivity of the railroad plant in its entirety. I don't quarrel with his figures, as far as that goes, but I do think there is a question as to whether that is an accurate measure. Certainly it is an accurate measure of the productivity of the plant as a whole. And I am sure you would find increased productivity in vard service. Senator LEHMAN. I am sure it is already in the record, but just to refresh my mind, have you any figures immediately available to show the increase in productivity between the two dates given, 1922, I think, and 1949, of the plant as a whole? Mr. LOOMIS. No; I haven't, Senator Lehman. Senator LEHMAN. It probably is in the record, and I can get it. Thank you. Mr. LOOMIS. In connection with some of the figures used I wonder if the committee would like to be furnished with copies of a statement entitled "Railroad Transportation, a Statistical Record, 191149," put out by the Bureau of Railway Economics of the Association of American Railroads? Mr. MURDOCK. Would you offer that? Mr. LOOMIS. It contains a complete set of statistics. Mr. MURDOCK. Would you offer that in evidence? Mr. LOOMIS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. It will be received then and marked as "Carrier Exhibit 13." (The document referred to was marked "Carriers' Exhibit No. 13" and filed with the committee.) Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, there has been a good deal of testimony about the wage issue, and at my request Mr. Russel E. Stone of the staff of the Subcommitte on Labor and Labor-Management Relations has prepared a table based upon the statistics furnished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics which shows the ranking of the 23 industries which are shown in committee exhibit 11, including the class I railroads, and I should like to have that received in evidence as committee exhibit 28 and printed in the record. The CHAIRMAN. That will be received in evidence as committee. exhibit 28. (The document referred to was marked "Committee Exhibit No. 28" and is as follows:) COMMITTEE EXHIBIT No. 28 Class I railroads and 32 selected manufacturing industries ranked according to average earnings January 1939, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 Source U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Manpower and Employ. ment Statistics. Mr. LOOMIS. In order that the record may be perfectly clear, may I just make this statement that all of those statistics of course include some 80 percent of the railroad employees which are not involved in these procedings. In other words, it's the industry as a whole rather than the employees here involved. |