Mr. BOROW. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless he is a member of the union?

Senator VANDENBERG. No; he has to go through the union. In other words, if there is a vice in the situation, it goes back to the contract itself.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. And if there is a vice in the contract, the union is not living up to the spirit of the contract, if it denies membership in the union after receiving that contract. Don't you see that? Mr. BOROW. I can see that. But when the shipowners and the labor union agree, and sign the contract, then the shipowners must go to the union to get their men. And if there was any contract, there, where the steamship company actually violated the provisions of the contract, by offering a position to a man outside through the union hall, just as the gentleman here stated

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). No. But the company said, "We can give you the job if you can square yourself with the union and be a member of the union." And the man could not get into the union, apparently.

Mr. BOROW. Are you familiar with this case, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not know about this case. But I know a lot of others just like it. I do not mean with reference to your union, but some others.

Senator ELLENDER. Of all the operators employed on American ships, what percentage do not belong to the union? Do you know? Mr. BOROW. Well, I should say I cannot give you an exact figure; but I should say it is around-it is less than 15 percent, probably around 10 percent.

Senator ELLENDER. That do not belong to a union?

Mr. BOROW. That do not belong to the A. R. T. A.
Senator ELLENDER. To your union?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. In the contracts which you make with these various steamship companies, have you ever tried to write into that contract what you are now trying to write into this bill, with reference to your wearing apparel and insignia and the clothes you have to wear and the food you get on the ships?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; we have such provisions in the contracts. Senator ELLENDER. Have you ever succeeded in getting that put through, into your contracts?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; we have it. I can read the contracts to you. Senator ELLENDER. Then, what is the necessity of putting it into this bill?

Mr. BOROW. Well, as I explained, there seemed to be some questions over the interpretation of certain sections of the Maritime Commission Act which define officers and define unlicensed men.

Senator ELLENDER. I understand that. But since you folks control about 85 or 90 percent of the operators who man these ships, insofar as radio is concerned, and you have by contracts done this in the past, now you want to write it into the bill, so as to make the shipowner do it? Is that your view?

Mr. BOROW. Well, there has been a tendency on the part of certain shipowners and certain ship officials to ignore what is actually written into bona fide contracts negotiated between the union and the employer.

Senator ELLENDER. If they do that, do you not have your remedy to strike? You have exercised that remedy in the past, have you not? Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; we have. But we are interested in avoiding these strikes. And we need the cooperation of you gentlemen here to do that.

Senator ELLENDER. That is all.

Senator VANDENBERG. When a dispute of that sort arises, why should it not be arbitrated, without foreclosing your ultimate right to strike?

Mr. BOROW. Well, here is something that is already agreed to, between employer and employee. So why should it be arbitrated? Senator VANDENBERG. Well, it may be a queston of interpretation. And if you are sure of your position, I think you could go into arbitration with complete confidence.

Mr. BOROW. Well, we do not feel we should take such a position as that. It is true it is in the contract, and the union and the employer both agree on its interpretations. But we cannot make a contract that would violate any Federal statute. And that is what some of the shipowners who have violated this particular section claim.

Senator VANDENBERG. Yes. But I understand you are protesting against any statutory provision for arbitration of any nature. Is that correct?

Mr. BOROW. Compulsory arbitration; yes, sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. Of any nature, even for a week? You would be opposed to a statutory requirement for a week's delay while an independent body determines the fact?

Mr. BOROW. At this particular time; yes, sir.

Senator GIBSON. Why do you say "at this particular time"?

Mr. BOROW. Because, as has been stated here many times, the shipping industry is going through a state of transition as far as labor relations are concerned. And we feel that we are getting right to the proper answer now, in these arbitration clauses that are in our current agreements. They have worked out very satisfactorily. And also, there is a better understanding that is taking place between the employer, on one side, and the employee, on the other.

Senator GIBSON. You mean by "transition," a period during which you are testing out these agreements?

Mr. BOROW. Particularly this particular clause in that agreement. And thus far it is working out very well. And we feel that to change that at this particular time would only add to the confusion, and certainly would not help the situation any.

Senator ELLENDER. May I ask a further question?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Suppose that the amendment that you are proposing to the law should be made as you desire it, would not that prevent anybody who does not belong to a union from being employed by a steamship company?

Mr. BoRow. Well, I do not know just what particular section you

refer to.

Senator ELLENDER. You referred, yesterday, to wearing insignia and to certain classifications which should be placed on the operators. Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. And would not that lead us to write into that bill the employment of operators who belong to your union?

Mr. BOROW. I do not see that.

Senator ELLENDER. You would not go that far?

Mr. BOROW. No, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. That is not your purpose and your intention?
Mr. BOROW. That is correct, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. All right.

Mr. BOROW. Further on Mr. Jackson states, commenting upon the recent report of the Maritime Commission:

The third great problem of the industry is that of stabilization or security of maritime labor. No one with a sense of social responsibility today questions the right of labor to bargain collectively and secure for itself its full share of participation in an industry. It is the accomplishment of this purpose to stabilize the advantages to which labor is entitled that has led the Maritime Commission to advocate the creation of a Ship Labor Mediation Board.

The creation of a mediation board will protect labor against the sudden and unwarranted reduction in wages which have sometimes come about in periods of economic depression.

It is impossible for maritime labor to reconcile such pronouncements coming from a company whose past and even present record of unfair labor practices has so vividly impressed itself upon those who fell under the blow of its incessant antiunion onslaughts.

Senator VANDENBERG. Under what registry are these other United Fruit Co. ships, which are not under American registry?

Mr. BOROW. Mostly the Central American countries, sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. Do you not think perhaps they may have to make some concessions, by way of recognizing Central American sovereignties, inasmuch as their operations are conducted there as much as they are up here? In other words, is that a legitimate criticism of them, in view of their operations?

Mr. BOROW. I believe so. Because plenty of the Scandanavian countries run their vessels all over the world, and some never go back to a Scandanavian country; and yet they continue to carry the flag of their own nation.

Senator VANDENBERG. Yes. But they do not have large investments in the land of the particular countries. For instance, the United Fruit Co. has enormous land investments in Guatemala. Suppose Guatemala insists on having a ship or two under its registry. Then do you not think the United Fruit Co. might have to take Guatemalan registry, now and then, under those circumstances?

And you realize, I am sure, that I have no interest in the situation. Mr. BOROW. Well, perhaps they have. But you realize that the authorities in those countries do not tell the United Fruit Co. what to do. Precisely the reverse is true.

Senator VANDENBERG. Well, it just seems to me that that criticism might be unfair. But I do not know anything about the facts.

Mr. BOROW. I have a bit of evidence here, in support of Mr. Curran's testimony, regarding training ships, in his prepared statement. In Mr. Curran's prepared statement, we have the following sentence, under the subject of training ships:

During the maritime strikes of 1936 and 1937, the shipowners themselves, in cooperation with certain discredited officials of the International Seamen's Union, scoured the inland towns and farms for young men and boys with whom to man their ships.

Here I have an affidavit, dated at Philadelphia, December 3, 1936, [reading]:

PHILADELPHIA, PA., December 3, 1936.

I, Fred Himmelein, captain of tug Atlantic City, owned and operated by the Pennsylvania Railroad Co., make the following statement of my own free will and accord:

I declare that I am a legal resident and property owner in the town of Veriga, N. J., which is located between South Westville and National Park, N. J.

That on or about December 1, 1936, approximately 10 boys and men were recruited from the town of Veriga, N. J., to ship out as unlicensed members of the crews of certain tankers, probably the steamship Sylvan Arrow and steamship Paulsboro, from Paulsboro, N. J.

That is the Socony-Vacuum Transportation Co. [continuing to read]:

That I know all of these boys by sight and am personally acquainted with at least five of them; they are Jack Calout, who is under care and custody of the probation officer; William Press; a man by the name of Blair; a boy by the name of Cooper; two brothers by the name of Goredy; and approximately four others. That the majority of the above-named are under 18 years of age and only a few, i. e., Cooper, one of the Goredy brothers, and possibly Blair have had any experi

ence at sea.

That if these inexperienced men presented discharges, certifying discharges from previous ships, they must necessarily have been falsified or altered.

(The above paper is filed with the clerk of the Commerce Committee.)

The CHAIRMAN. It will be received for the record.

Senator VANDENBERG. What does that prove, in connection with this bill?

Mr. BoRow. This was on the question of training ships, sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. You would not have a man like that from a training ship, would you?

Mr. BOROW. Pardon me?

Senator VANDENBERG. Would you have men such as you described in that affidavit from the training ships?

Mr. BOROW. No, sir; but that is not the point at all.

Senator VANDENBERG. It is not? Then, what is the point?

Mr. BOROW. The point is that certain shipowners claim they want trained and experienced men. But when they have the opportunity to get these men, instead of doing that, they scour the inland towns and get these farmers. Many of these men have since become expert and helped in their training by the union men who are now on the vessels. We feel that the position taken by the shipowners in this respect is certainly one that is not justified. They could have had many experienced men in the past, but they preferred to get men like these.

Senator VANDENBERG. How about the position taken by the Maritime Commission: That things of this sort would be minimized if we had training? I should think that would be an argument in favor of adequate training, rather than against it.

Mr. BoRow. Well, under certain condition we are interested and in favor of adequate training. Naturally under certain conditions everybody would have to be.

The CHAIRMAN. We have certain training schools, one in Boston, one in Philadelphia, and in New York, and on the Pacific coast. What is your attitude toward those?

Mr. BOROW. The attitude of the A. R. T. A.? Why, we give preference, as we stated before, to all men having experience or discharges from either Government-supervised places or coming from the Regular Army and Navy and Coast Guard.

Senator VANDENBERG. Can they always get into your union?
Mr. BOROW. If anybody can get in, those men can get in.

Senator VANDENBERG. That is it, if anybody can get in. If you transfer your closed list from the west to the east coast, then there is no chance for anybody to get in, is there? Don't you have a monopoly of the entire situation?

Mr. BOROW. Well, I would not call it a monopoly.

Senator VANDENBERG. Would you like to transfer the western practice to the east coast?

Mr. BOROW. Well, such a practice would only be adopted when it would be absolutely necessary.

Senator VANDENBERG. I was asking how you felt about it.

Mr. BOROW. If it becomes absolute necessary, there is only one thing to do. We are interested in protection and stabilization for American citizens engaged in this industry.

Senator VANDENBERG. I am for American citizens engaged in this industry. Some of your officials are not American citizens, are they? Mr. BOROW. You have to be an American citizen to belong to the A. R. T. A., in the first place,

Senator VANDENBERG. I am glad to know that.

The CHAIRMAN. Are all union officials American citizens?

Mr. BOROW. I do not know, sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. Are all the union officials on the west coast American citizens?

Mr. BOROW. I do not know, sir; I have enough to do to take care of this side.

Senator VANDENBERG. IS Mr. Harry Bridges an American citizen? Mr. BOROW. I do not know, sir. I believe he has taken out his naturalization papers.

The CHAIRMAN. How many times?

Mr. BOROW. I do not know.

Senator VANDENBERG. I like your emphasis on American citizens. I like to agree with you on that.

Mr. BOROW. Well, our constitution specifically states you must be an American citizen before you can become a member of the union. The CHAIRMAN. Are you under any direction from Mr. Harry Bridges?

Mr. BOROW. You mean me, personally?

The CHAIRMAN. No; your union.

Mr. BOROW. No, sir; we are not under direction from anybody.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you associated with any other unions?
Mr. BOROW. We have our own autonomy.

The CHAIRMAN. But are you associated with the other unions? Mr. BOROW. Well, of course, we cooperate, one with the other. The CHAIRMAN. You are representing, in your appearance here, just what group? What did you say, yesterday?

Mr. BOROW. The American Radio Telegraphists' Association.