Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

The magnitude of the ILO operations is not generally recognized in the United States. It is appreciated by other countries, notably the British. The British accredit competent employer, employee, and government representatives to the ILO with the greatest of regularity. The delegates and their advisers are well informed. As previously indicated, the former British employer delegate, Sir John Forbes-Watson has never missed an ILO conference. There is continuity. The same continuity does not prevail in this country's participation.

I feel that future employer participation by the United States demands more adequate participation and greater continuity in representation. Probably the Government and employee delegates are adequately prepared. I understand that the Government, through the Department of Labor, and probably the State Department does have adequate ILO staffing. I understand this also applies to employee representation to a lesser degree. On the employer side, what representation this country has had, has been outstanding, but it has been limited. The ILO disseminates volumes of material. It is an impossibility for any one man to keep informed as to all of it. The ILO can't be a one-man show.

The generosity of some few employers has made employer participation possible. These men have given a stupendous amount of their time to the United States employer side of the picture. They cannot be expected to continue at such great personal sacrifice. As an unofficial observer, I cannot overemphasize this situation. There should be some permanent staffing in order to follow ILO 12 months out of the year on behalf of employers. This staff should be equipped so as to do on the spot work for the employer delegate and advisers. To be specific, it would seem that the National Association of Manufacturers or the United States Chamber of Commerce, or both jointly, should take over this staffing responsibility.

Briefly, participation by this country's employers should be adequate and effective or none at all. No longer is it fair to expect a few people with an appreciation of what the ILO should and should not do, to be called upon to share all of this responsibility.

(9) It appears the overall social security movement in this country reflects social-security thinking at the international level. An examination of ILO material on minimum standards is almost silent as to the views of our own Government. Many other participating countries, all of the large ones with the exception of the United States, forwarded to the ILO various comments and suggestions. Comments and suggestions from our own Government are almost entirely lacking. We may properly infer that those interested in the promotion of social security in our own Government may be entirely satisfied with this international program as an overall goal for this country. We cannot ignore the fact that if this is the case, then we may anticipate pressure for social-security expansion along the ILO pattern. It is also significant that, whereas social security, at its inception in this country, was directed to the employer-employee relationship, now social security is directed to the entire population of the country.

This is an ILO philosophy on the international level, and it is not contemplated that there shall be any minimum standards for contributions to finance the plan. For example, in Switzerland and probably most other countries, the social-security program is financed by payroll taxes without any ceiling. It is this same philosophy that prompts an increase in the basis of social-security taxes in this country. From $3,000 it has already gone to $3,600. Consistent pressure is for a tax base of $6,000. If this international concept prevails, there will be no limit for the basis of contributions. It would seem that the ILO is to continue, more and more, as the fountainhead for universal social-security planning.

Conceding the importance of the ILO program of social security, just what is to be done about it? It seems obvious that international pressure is for a socialsecurity program which would not be acceptable to most of the people in this country. It is true that the conference itself recognized that all parts of these minimum standards might not be adaptable to the economy of every country. While this concession might appear generous on its face, I still feel that pressure for expansion of social security would, nonetheless, include parts of the international program to which we could not subscribe.

It may be suggested that since a minimum standards convention has already been approved in final form and awaits ratification by the United States Senate, social security, so far as the ILO is concerned, is a closed book, and whatever is to be done must be in the way of opposition to ratification. Our business will seasonably register its opposition to ratification of this proposed convention,

and formal notice probably will be given to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs of our desire to be heard, when the proposed treaty is considered. From a practical standpoint, the ratification of this covenant or treaty is not an immediate threat.

Article 2, part I, requires compliance with part I and "at least three of parts II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X," in addition to certain irrelevant portions of the convention. There is no question of compliance by any nation with part I. Our country presently, however, cannot comply with the necessary three of parts II to X, inclusive. As widespread as our unemployment-compensation program is, we still cannot meet the requirements of the convention because of our Federal-State setup. The Federal Government really has no unemployment-compensation program of the kind contemplated by the convention. In much the same way, our country could not meet the compliance requirements of workmen's compensation and certain other fields. The only thing that counts from a practical standpoint is Federal compulsory action. In view of this situation, this country seems not to be in a position to ratify the convention at this time.'

I don't think that ILO looks upon social security as a field wherein the ultimate has been attained. At the 1951 ILO conference there was a discussion of proposed advance standards for social security to follow, from point of time, the adoption of minimum standards. The 1952 conference, however, deferred consideration of these advance standards.

Social security will always be a major subject for discussion at this annual conference and continuing study by the International Labor Office. Whether or not we can do anything to channel ultimate conclusions in the direction we would like to have them, there is much to be said for following these ILO activities as a matter of extreme interest to the business. Probably we should Dot walk off and leave the international forum, merely because we may not be effective in coping with the ideas which we challenge.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you call the next witness?

Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Charles Rhyne.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES S. RHYNE, LAWYER, WASHINGTON, D. C., APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. RHYNE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Charles S. Rhyne. I am a lawyer practicing here in Washington, D. C., and I have been requested by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States to present to you their official declaration of policy adopted by the chamber, which relates specifically to the subject matter covered by Senate Joint Resolution 1 and Senate Joint Resolution 43.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, are you testifying as a member, or as their attorney?

Mr. RHYNE. As their authorized attorney in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. You get paid by them, of course?

Mr. RHYNE. No; I am appearing here as a public servant, without fee.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I want to know. You are appearing as a patriotic American citizen.

1 After the above report was made, Mr. Robert J. Meyers, Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration and one of the Government advisers at the 1952 International Labor Conference, wrote an article which appeared in the October 1952 issue of the Social Seegrity Bulletin in which he said: "it appears highly probable that part of the Convention or Minimum Standards of Social Security deals with matters appropriate for action by the several States. Furthermore, considering existing programs that are on the Federal level, It would appear that at this time only two branches-old-age and survivor benefits-meet the requirements for ratification, whereas the convention requires three branches. Accordely, ratification would not be appropriate without legislative action by both Houses of Congress on one of the other branches.

30572-53--37

Mr. RHYNE. That is right, Senator. And I am also here to present to you some of the reasons why they adopted this policy.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Take all the time you want to. There is no hurry at all.

Mr. HOLMAN. I might say that Mr. Rhyne very kindly said he would not accept any fee. He has been active in the American bar, interested in this general subject, and when the chairman asked me if I could suggest a lawyer with background, I suggested Mr. Rhyne, but he told them he would not appear for any fee.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Holman.

Proceed, Mr. Rhyne.

Mr. RHYNE. Mr. Chairman, the declaration I referred to is as follows:

TREATIES AND DOMESTIC LAW

No provision of a treaty or of an executive agreement that alters or abridges the Constitution of the United States should become effective unless such alteration or change is embodied in a constitutional amendment adopted and ratified in the manner provided in the Constitution for its amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holman, is this the Watkins substitute?
Mr. HOLMAN. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Your committee is trying to arrive at some compromise?

Mr. HOLMAN. Oh, yes. I think we will arrive at it. We have practically arrived at it already.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder when we could file that?

Mr. HOLMAN. Well, that is up to Senator Bricker. It is his resolution, and he could advise you on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me for interrupting you.

Mr. RHYNE (reading):

No provision of a treaty or of an executive agreement that alters or abridges the rights protected by the laws of the United States or the constitutions or laws of the several States should become effective unless and then only to the extent that Congress shall so provide.

That, of course, is the official authorization under which Mr. Hawes and Mr. McGrath have both appeared before this committee.

This declaration was adopted unanimously by the 40th annual meeting of the United States Chamber of Commerce on April 30, 1952. That annual meeting was attended by representatives of 3,500 chambers of commerce and trade associations with a membership of approximately 1,374,000 businessmen. I am a member of the Board of Trade of the District of Columbia, which is one of the organizations represented in the chamber's membership.

The unanimous action of the chamber's 40th annual meeting in adopting the above-quoted declaration of policy was taken upon the report and recommendation of a special committee which had been appointed by the chamber to study the effects of the treaty process on domestic law. Attached to this statement and marked as exhibit A is a list of the members of that special committee.

I note that it is not attached, but I do submit it for the record, here. It is called Special Committee To Study the Effects of the Treaty Process on Domestic Laws. I wonder if that can be incorporated into the record at this point?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be filed.

(The material referred to follows:)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF THE TREATY PROCESS ON DOMESTIC

LAWS

Cody Fowler, Esq., chairman, Fowler, White, Gillen, Yancey & Humkey, Citizens Building, Tampa 2, Fla.

E. J. Carroll, director, Economic Research, Sharp & Dohme, Inc., 640 North Broad Street, Philadelphia 1, Pa.

Dr. Edward S. Corwin, Princeton University, Old Stone House, Stockton Road, Princeton, N. J.

Col. William S. Culbertson, Culbertson Briggs & Pendleton, Stoneleigh Court, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Washington 6, D. C.

Hugh Dean, vice president, General Motors Corp., General Motors Building, Detroit, Mich.

R. H. Glover, vice president and general counsel, Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 25 Broadway, New York 4, N. Y.

Dr. John N. Hazard, professor of public law, the Russian Institute, Columbia University, 431 West 117th Street, New York 27, N. Y.

William A. Hanley, vice president and director, Eli Lilly & Co., Post Office Box 618. Indianapolis 6, Ind.

Frank E. Holman, Esq., Holman, Mickelwait, Marion, Prince & Black, Hoge Building, Seattle 4, Wash.

A. D. Marshall, assistant secretary, General Electric Co., 1 River Road, Schenectady 5, N. Y.

Arthur Y. Milam, Esq., Milam, McIlvaine, Carroll & Wattles, Post Office Box 58, Jacksonville 1, Fla.

W. C. Mullendore, president, Southern California Edison Co., Edison Building, Los Angeles 53, Calif.

Dr. Leo Pasvolsky, director, International Studies Group, The Brookings Institution, 722 Jackson Place NW., Washington 6, D. C.

Sylvester C. Smith, Jr., general counsel, Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 763 Broad Street, Newark, N. J.

Samuel C. Waugh, president, The First Trust Co. of Lincoln, Nebr., Lincoln, Nebr.

Mr. RHYNE. It will be noted that most of these members are na tionally recognized experts in the field of international law. I think you will find that it is composed of about 4 businessmen, 4 experts in the field of international law, and 4 lawyers.

In reviewing the reasons why the members of the United States Chamber of Commerce adopted the above quoted declaration of policy I report the following:

.

The members of the United States Chamber of Commerce have watched with pride the great scientific achievements of recent yearssuch as the airplane, radio, and television-which have conquered the problems of distance and in a literal sense shrunk nations to neighborhoods. Coupled with their pride in these scientific achievements, howver, these members have experienced a growing alarm over the development, chiefly under the sponsorship of the United Nations and its specialized agencies of the idea that the distinction between domestic and international affairs has been wiped out. This alarm grew tremendously when nationwide attention was called to an official statement by the Department of State in 1950 that "there is no longer any real distinction between domestic and foreign affairs." (State Department Publication 3972, Foreign Affairs Policy Series 26.)

The great effusion of treaties designed to solve many of our unsolved domestic problems-as well as to offer new solutions to those for which solutions have been devised domestically-has gradually brought home to the businessmen of the United States that while they have in the past looked for regulatory law relating to their businesses

in local ordinances, State statutes, and Federal statutes, they now must focus their attention upon a fourth many-chambered legislative body, which is busy grinding out proposed "treaty" law. When our triplelayer governmental system has added to it this fourth branch the results can be startling in impact.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, are you referring there to ILO, or to the United Nations?

Mr. RHYNE. I am referringto the U. N. and its specialized agencies, which would include the ILO, the World Health Organization, and the other organizations which I mentioned a few pages on, Senator. Businessmen who have found difficulty in learning just what Federal regulations affect their business are even more baffled in trying to discover the provisions applicable to their business in the vast and uncharted field of treaty law.

I understand that the approximately 100 conventions of the International Labor Organization will be described in other testimony which is to be presented to this committee. Those treaties or conventions cover a vast multitude of domestic subjects of vital concern to businessmen, such as wages and hours, labor clauses in public contracts, safety provisions in the building industry, social security, compulsory health insurance, and almost every other conceivable interest of business.

Time permitting I could go into many other fields of vital concern to industry to point out things which alarm businessmen, but I will mention only two in the fields of aviation and copyright law. I believe they illustrate the dangers inherent in giving effect to treaties which override domestic law.

The International Civil Aviation Organization which has its headquarters in Montreal is busy developing new conventions and in rewriting certain existing conventions which have domestic as well as international effect in the field of air transportation, and, of course, most of these relate solely to and are essential to foreign air commerce. But some have drastic domestic effects. I cite as examples the Warsaw Convention which limits recovery for death or personal injury caused by an airplane crash. In the case of the Warsaw Convention a person can board an airplane in Los Angeles bound for London along with 50 other persons who are going to New York and if the plane crashes, the 49 domestic passengers may recover an unlimited amount for negligent injury or their survivors an unlimited amount for their death, but the person bound for London-even though the crash occurs through the negligence of the airline as the plane takes off from the Los Angeles Airport-cannot recover more than the $8,291.87 for injury nor may his survivors recover more than that amount for his death. They can recover more by achieving the almost impossible task of proving "willful misconduct."

I may say there, Senator, I have tried some of these Warsaw Convention cases. It is impossible for a jury to understand the instructions of nothing, $8,200 if the airline is negligent, and an unlimited amount if willful misconduct is proved. I tried one of those down here a week or so before the late Justice Goldsborough, and the jury got all fouled up. When they came in with a compromise amount, that was set aside immediately, and they settled it. But the thing about it is that I know of 4,000 claims that have been filed under that

« ÎnapoiContinuă »