Mr. DINGELL. I do not think I would have any objection to allowing negotiation on a health and welfare plan, but when you get to the fixing the price of fish, the cost of ice is Mr. VANCE. It is not of sufficient importance to us. If you are genuinely concerned about ice, I can assure you on behalf of the Seafarers' International Union we would be perfectly willing to limit this to the actual price of the fish plus a health and welfare plan. If you are bothered about the words "terms and conditions," we could take care of these problems. Mr. DINGELL. My concern is more broad. I have always felt that the antitrust laws have been one of the bulwarks of our society. Time after time I have seen different groups come in and say we have to have a little loophole here. We had to go through it with the druggists with fair trade. Anytime anyone comes forward to me with a piece of legislation to carve a hole, big or small, in the antitrust laws, I find great hazard because I think this is an important protection to the people of the country. I have not been able to analyze this bill. I have gone through it many times. I have not been able to find out just how broad this exemption is. You mentioned ice. I am sure dockage terms would be included under the exemption. I am sure we could talk about agency commissions as being included in the exemption. I am sure we could talk about food costs and cable and rope and fuel costs. I am sure we could discuss many factors like upkeep and repair of vessels being involved in this exemption you have here. I am well satisfied this would sanction agreements between cannery owners which I could not justfy to my constituents. I recognize the problem we are getting into. Mr. VANCE. Do you think it justifies an agreement between cannery owners as to what prices? Mr. DINGELL. Their prices? Mr. VANCE. That they will charge. Mr. VANCE. Well, as I said before, this whole bill refers back to the exparte sale of the fish. Mr. DINGELL. My difficulty is with the bill. What I am discussing now is the possibility through agreements negotiated on ex-vessel sales, the fishhouse owners, canners and packers could fix prices between themselves. Mr. VANCE. There is nothing in this act that would authorize it. It would certainly be a violation of the antitrust laws. Mr. DINGELL. It would be. The point I am coking to here is this: 20 canners who by the simple negotiations of prices with fishermen at dockside are able to insert into the contracts they share what would constitute an agreement between themselves as to their price to the wholesalers. As I read this exemption, that is allowed in this legislation. Mr. VANCE. It is certainly not intended to be allowed. I would not read it that way. We would be willing to put in any language to clarify that. That is certainly not the intention of this legislation, nor when I discussed it with Mr. Morrison, counsel for the packers. We went over this draft together and I can assure you they had no such intention in their mind and I am sure they are agreeable to any language which would spell out this is to not go any further than the transaction between the boat and the packer and it would not authorize any further agreement. Mr. DINGELL. If it goes to ice it can go to fuel and it can go to maintenance on the vessel and to the drydock fees. If it goes to ship insurance, it can go to a whole broad spectrum of things which is vastly more wide than the subject of ex-vessel price of fish. Mr. VANCE. You raise a lot of strawmen. Mr. DINGELL. I do not raise strawmen. Mr. VANCE. You raise one that is near and dear to my heart. I had a man come in to my office with a contract, one of the few written contracts I have ever seen, an individual written contract, one little page drawn by Whitney & Co., and in order to go out on this vessel which was leaving the next morning for Alaska, the crew had to agree to take out of their share all the ship's insurance. I would think this is the very crux of negotiating the terms of employment on that vessel. I do not see why any crew should be prohibited from being organized and saying to this shipowner, you are unreasonable when you demand we insure your vessel for you. Mr. DINGELL. You are capable of setting up your own strawmen. The crew are competent to negotiate their terms of employment with the vessel owner. With regard to this, I am sure you agree the canner, or packer, or fish house owner, are not concerned with that item at all. So with regard to what you are raising, you will have to concede it does not have anything to do with the matter we are discussing this morning. The crew is competent to protect itself against that. Mr. VANCE. AS I understand the labor policy of the United States, and I can quote it to you verbatim, it says the single individual worker is helpless to protect himself under these circumstances. He can either work or not work. I thought that was what the labor policy of the United States is against. Mr. DINGELL. I am sure you are well aware of my philosophy on the subject of labor. I am sure you are well aware of the fact I have always supported just causes of labor against what I would regard to be encroachments by law or employers or any other person or agency. But I have never gone so far as to extend to the rights of labor the making of secondary boycotts. Mr. PELLY. As I listen here, I think the problem you raise with regard to supplies, or conditions, or other things, was settled by the witness when he indicated they they were perfectly willing to put in language to eliminate that point. With regard to the packers fixing prices I would like to go back to my own original testimony, which was written by me after I talked to the representatives of the industry and the union. In the next to last paragraph I say: Product competition would continue and the price of processed fish and fish products to the wholesaler, retailer or public in the market place would continue as in the past to be competitive and governed by supply and demand. That is certainly my thought and my intention and I am sure I would go to any effort to clarify that either in the report or elsewhere. Mr. DINGELL. You have done a fine job this morning in behalf of your clients. I want to commend you for excellent testimony. Mr. VANCE. It has been a helpful exchange. Unfortunately, in the past we have not sufficiently explored all the avenues. I am fully aware of the Congressman's reputation as not being antilabor. I did not mean to say you were. It does seem to me sometimes in the philosophy we approach some of the ancillary problems we do lose sight sometimes of the policy declarations of the labor laws. I accuse the Labor Board sometimes of ignoring it. Mr. DINGELL. The next witness is James Ackert. STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. MEYER, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO Mr. MEYER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Thomas L. Meyer. I am the Washington representative of the Seafarers International Union of North America. I appear today in behalf of the following organizations who are affiliates of the Seafarers International Union of North America. 1. Alaska Fishermen's Union 2. Atlantic Fishermen's Union 3. Bering Sea Fishermen's Union 4. Cannery Workers and Fishermen's Union of San Diego 5. New Bedford Fishermen's Union 6. Seine and Line Fishermen's Union of Monterey County 7. Seine and Line Fishermen's Union of San Pedro 8. United Industrial Workers of North America The Alaska Fishermen's Union have their own spokesmen present today and we fully support their position. The SIU urges your support of H.R. 3955, a bill which would enable American fishermen to earn a just return for their labors by permitting them to negotiate a fair price for their catch. As matters now stand, fishermen have no right to determine what is fair compensation for their efforts as they are prohibited by law from bargaining collectively with fish wholesalers at the dock. This is not the American way. We can all agree that the life of a fisherman is arduous, difficult, dangerous, and confining at best. There is no good reason, in our opinion, for them being deprived of the right to bargain for a fair price for their catch upon their return to port. In effect, under present conditions they sell their labor at auction, which at best is unsatisfactory. They are not attempting to establish prices at the marketplace because they request that they have a voice in negotiating a realistic price for their labors. Indeed they have no control on prices once the fish are sold to the wholesaler and landed. All other sectors of the fishing industry ashore have a right to bargain for their wages, but not the men who go to sea. We consider this manifestly unfair to the fishermen upon whose productivity and efforts the entire industry is dependent. Approximately 100,000 fishermen are affected by this legislation and we would hope that this committee will recognize the inherent right of these men to be permitted to determine a proper and adequate return for their labors by amendments to existing laws. I will be happy to submit Mr. Ackert's statement. Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, Mr. Ackert's statement will be inserted in the record at this point. (Statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES ACKERT, PRESIDENT OF THE ATLANTIC FISHERMEN'S UNION OF NEW YORK, BOSTON, AND GLOUCESTER In speaking for support of House Bill 3955, I will confine myself to the New England area. The other affiliates of our International will testify for their own areas although we all realize that this is a national problem for all fisheries. A brief will be submitted by Attorney Vance on the legal and historical rights of our fishermen which will be helpful in finding a solution to our problem. Although fish cutters, dockmen and the other workers who are involved in the processing of fish are allowed to bargain for their wages, our fishermen are not allowed this privilege because of antitrust laws. When a Master of a vessel hires his crew he cannot guarantee them a fair return for their labor. Because of this it is necessary for fishermen's organizations to have a voice in ex-vessel sale of their members fish. The Master has one port of discharge and his cargo is perishable so he must sell his fish on arrival. This sale is by means of an auction bid over which he has no control. The price each day for each specie of fish landed is set and controlled by the processor. Under House Bill 3955, the three parties concerned (fishermen, boat owner and processor) could work together to stabilize our industry. In the Port of Gloucester the whiting fleet and the redfish fleet have an exvessel price set for them by the producers. The fishermen and the boat owners do not have any voice in the price set for their fish. The results of this practice is a fleet reducing in numbers every year. The U.S. Tariff Commission has recommended assistance to the New England Groundfish Industry because of the harm of foreign imports in the years 1952 and 1956. Since that time imports have increased and no help has been forthcoming. The original value of the fish to the commercial fishermen in 1964 was in the neighborhood of 390 million dollars, the first processed value was 663 million dollars, the wholesale value was 936 million dollars and the retail value was well over 1 billion dollars. With these figures in mind it appears that the other parties employed in the processing of marketing fish have a greater effect on the price of fish ready for the consumer than the ex-vessel price. Although the price of the commodities used by our men have risen, the exvessel price of fish at Boston has not gone up. The below listed figures are production and ex-vessel prices averages from 1958-1962. The Law of supply and demand for our domestic fish does not run true according to the above figures. These figures are taken from Fish and Wildlife statistics, "Massachusett Landings, 1961" and "New England Fisheries Annual summaries, 1962." The price averages and landings are for the Boston Fish Pier. By allowing the fishermen to have a voice in the sale of their product will increase their income and therefore bring more men into industry. Where our men work 84 hours a week when engaged in their labors, they should be allowed the right to bargain for a just return for their labors. We strongly recommend to this subcommittee a favorable report on H.R. 3955 and final passage by the United States Senate. This bill we sincerely believe will result in the needed protection for the fishermen engaged in the New England Fishing Industry. Mr. DINGELL. Is there anyone else who desires to be heard? Mr. MEYER. I would like to submit a statement by Patrick Harrington. Also a statement of Rose, Klein & Marias, Law Attorneys. Mr. DINGELL. Without objection. We might also insert at this point, any material pertinent to the hearing received by the commit tee. (The material referred to follows:) Re H.R. 3955, fishermen's bargaining bill. FALL RIVER, MASS., June 10, 1965. DEAR MR. THOMPSON: The undersigned is counsel for the Atlantic Fishermen's Union of Boston, and the New Bedford Fishermen's Union of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Both these Unions are vitally interested in the above-captioned bill. I am well aware that this matter has been before you and your Committee for some time and therefore I will not take your time with an extended discussion. Suffice to say that both of the organizations that I represent believe very strongly that fish price bargaining should not be subject to the anti-trust laws. As an attorney who for some years now has been associated with the fish industry, and has been dealing with their problems on a day-to-day basis, I can certainly add my own personal statement that the application of the anti-trust laws in this area, whatever may be their validity in other areas, works an inequity and an injustice on fishermen who earn their living on the lay or share system. Very truly yours, Hon. T. A. THOMPSON, PATRICK H. HARRINGTON, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., June 14, 1965. Congress of the United States, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As chairman of the Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee your overwhelming support and high priority approval of HR 3955-Fishermens Bargaining Bill are earnestly urged. As a law firm experienced in the fisheries field in representing tuna fishermen who ply the Pacific Ocean in search of their catch and as an attorney who has actually participated in pertinent discussions of this subject in the Inter-American Bar Association since 1956, it is our considered judgment that this large segment of our food producing industry should have the unqualified right to participate in negotiations for the sale of their catch of fish, whether with their employer boat owners or with cannery and processing interests to whom their loads of fish are sold and delivered. This is particularly evident when, by fishing on a share or percentage basis, the income and wages of these diligent workingmen bear a direct relationship with the sales price of their catch. We know of no harmful effect when, before the opposition of the Federal Trade Commission to this practice, the fishermen were permitted to sit at the bargaining table while the sales price of the product of their fishing services, and in which they had a proportionate interest, were neogtiated. Their income was as directly related, and still is, to the price paid by the cannery for their loads of fish, as the income of the boat owner. With that community of interest, fair play indicates that the same should be adequately protected. This |