I bleed with these people who have been subjected to this kind of practice of not only freezing the wages, but then taking away from them a hard and won game. You know when we strike in this industry, we are at the mercy of the installation. They can bring in their own people and man the jobs that our people are doing. In many cases, some of these service people moonlight in these jobs because they have got the time to do it. And so we are not the ordinary group. You know, we cannot strike with the protection of our economic strength, withholding our labor from a company that would feel the effects of it; we are dealing with the Federal Government which has ways and means of beating us over the head and beating us out of business. This has been cited by the representatives, my colleagues at the table here, and it has been cited by my colleagues over on the House side; and I want to thank the chairman at this time, the members of the committee, for letting us come here this morning to give you our case. The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your forceful statement. You are including statements from other unions not represented here for the record. Is the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades one of the statments that you are including; do you know? Mr. CURRAN. No. I had spoken to Mr. Sweeney of the Teamsters; and I understand he wants to submit a statement. Mr. Simpkins of the National Maritime Union might want to submit a statement, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers might want to submit a statement, and maybe some others. Those are the ones in particular. The CHAIRMAN. Some specifics have reached me of this undercutting and chiseling, contractor chiseling in painting contracts. I was wondering whether they were included. Mr. McGAHEY. I have a couple of things I want to add to this. I think Mr. Curran was very kind when he called some of these people chiselers. I would really call them merchants of misery. We have cases where contractors went out and bid on these jobs, and undercut wage scales in different areas, and some of the contractors are not even in the guard business who are doing this. One individual that I know of is chairman or president of about five companies. They are not considered guards. I do not know what the companies are, and he is probably using this as a tax dodge to have this company, and to take these contracts at low rates. Another individual was running a uniform store, so he went out and bid for Government contracts so he could sell people uniforms. There is every kind of person in this area; and unless we have this help from Congress here, this thing is going to continue and we are going to take a 62-cent-an-hour cut at the Cape here over wage determinations made down there on the rates. It is cutthroat business. We certainly need this help. Senator TAFT. With regard to that uniform contract, is that not. covered by Walsh-Healey? Mr. McGAHEY. The uniform contractor set up his own guard service. Senator TAFT. Guard service? Mr. McGAHEY. On the side. He, of course, sold his uniforms to the guards and was making money both ways. Senator TAFT. Selling to the individuals. Mr. Curran, do you agree that the Government departments have the authority to turn down negotiated wage increases between labor and management, private service contract? Mr. CURRAN. I am not aware that they do. And if they do, I do not think they should. Senator TAFT. You seem to be in disagreement with the other witness in this regard. Mr. CURRAN. That is my feeling. Senator TAFT. I agree with you. I think if a standard is to be set, it ought to be set by some independent body. I am trying to get a suggestion from you gentlemen as to how best-and you would know better than we would-those independent standards can be set. There is a real problem here. I do not think there is any question about it. I do not think that we ought to allow the continuation of the existing conditions that have been described. But how are we going to get and effectively determine and fairly determine minimum standards? Who is the one to do it? Why is the Labor Department not able to do it today, really? Apparently they have not done it. That is what you are telling us. Mr. CURRAN. That is right. I ask the same question: Why are they not doing it today? Why are they not able to predetermine wages that are fair and equitable? Why can they not use the means that we suggest over here? Why can they not take the rates being paid wage board employees, the rates under existing contract, the rates in the area, and come up with a fair rate? When we talk about rates, we talk about the price of fringe benefits, too, and you put them all in one package, and you say we are going to put the money here in fringe benefits; we are going to put the money here in wage increases. That can be done. But, lord, if they can find ways of depressing wages, they can certainly find ways of uplifting wages, and meeting the conditions of the times. I do not think that is insurmountable. Senator TAFT. How many employees have you talked about roughly in the area that you gentlemen are concerned with? Mr. CURRAN. I think there was a figure of a total number of employees in the industry, about 2 million. Now, how many are represented by the labor unions, I cannot give you a total figure; but it seems to me there are 2 million workers in the service contract industry. That figure was mentioned before. Senator TAFT. Does that include State as well as Federal? Senator TAFT. Are you gentlemen concerned about State situations? Are you advocating it be applied to State contracts? Mr. CURRAN. No, sir. Senator TAFT. You are leaving this out of the situation? Mr. CURRAN. We are talking about those service contracts with the Federal Government. Senator TAFT. Thank you very much. Mr. O'CONNELL. I did not agree that contracting agencies should have the authority. I said it does have the authority. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Robert E. Lee, president, National Aerospace Services Association; accompanied by Ramsay Potts, legal counsel; C. R. McGehee, general manager, Field Operations Support Division, Boeing Co.; Dan R. Bannister, vice president of operations, Dynalectron Corp. Mr. Lee. STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. LEE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AEROSPACE SERVICES ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY RAMSAY POTTS, LEGAL COUNSEL; C. R. McGEHEE, GENERAL MANAGER, FIELD OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT DIVISION, BOEING CO.; AND DAN R. BANNISTER, VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS, DYNALECTRON CORP. Mr. LEE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Robert E. Lee, president of the National Aerospace Services Association. I have with me, besides our counsel, Mr. Ramsay Potts, I have Mr. C. R. McGehee, general manager, Field Operations and Support Division, The Boeing Co. I also have with me Mr. Dan R. Bannister, vice president of Operations, Dynalectron Corp. Both of these companies are members of our association. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here to testify on behalf of the member companies of the National Aerospace Services Association. We are a national trade association representing companies engaged in various contract service activities. A list of our member companies is attached as attachment 1. (The information referred to follows:) 魚 NATIONAL AEROSPACE SERVICES ASSOCIATION Washington, D.C. 20036 CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP Lake City, Fla. Long Beach, Calif. Los Angeles, Calif. Lawton, Okla. Fort Worth, Tex. Deer Park, N.Y. Fort Wolters, Tex. Dallas, Tex. Tulsa, Okla. Windsor Locks, Conn. Mr. LEE. I want to make it clear that our industry as a whole does support the basic intent of the Service Contract Act-to provide wage and fringe benefit protection for the so-called blue-collar worker comparable to the prevailing rate for similar work in the same locality. Typical occupations meant to be covered are: guards, watchmen, janitors, laundry workers, food handlers, and skilled and unskilled manual laborers. We acknowledge that the law has not been working as intended; however, we strongly oppose this bill, as presently written, as any cure for the problems that still exist for the service contract "blue collar" worker. Our industry does not support this bill as presently written, and I would like to set the record straight regarding a statement in the Congressional Record on August 7, 1972 by Congressman Thompson that the Boeing Co. and the Northrop Corp. supported the bill. The Congressman is mistaken; Boeing and Northrop oppose the bill. I submit as attachment 2 a letter from Boeing denying this statement and stating that the Boeing Co. opposes the bill. I also submit as attachment 3 a letter from the Dynalectron Corp. expressing its firm opposition to the bill. (The information referred to follows:) |