Images de page

Mr. SKUBITZ. Let's go to the year 1950.
Mr. MENK. 1950 ?

Mr. MENK. I don't know whether I have that. I don't have that for 1950. Mr. SKUBITZ. It seemed to me that it was around 260,000 or 270,000.

Mr. MENK. By the use of technology we have mechanized our maintenance practices but we are still spending more money on the maintenance of the roadbed than we did and I have the figures 1960 to 1967.

In 1960 we spent $2,751 per mile of road for maintenance of track and in 1967, $3,113 per mile of road by which I think we are maintaining our properties better and more efficiently than we did back in the days when we didn't use power stabbers and ballast regulators and so forth.

Mr. SKUBITZ. We have established one point.

From the standpoint of safety, if the Department of Transportation determined that more men on the line would be necessary you feel they could order the railroads to hire more men, is this correct? Mr. MENK. Yes.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Let me ask this question. We talk about the substantial increase in the number of casualties at grade crossings. I raised this question. If the Department of Transportation determined that the way to cut down these casualties was by building an overpass or underpass, do you think it could order the railroads under this act to do this?

Mr. MENK. I don't know, sir.
Mr. SKUBITZ. What do you think, Mr. Moloney.
Mr. MOLONEY. I would say it is not clear from the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Your time has expired.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keith.
Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Pursuing the line of questioning that was started by Mr. Skubitz, if they are able to increase the number of employees could they similarly decrease them?

Mr. MENK. I don't envision this happening but I don't know. Mr. Keith. Well, I am interested. I understand that there isn't quite the amount of esteem in back of the bill that we felt that there was going to be by labor and management. It would seem to me that the point that you make is in fact the case, that labor would be similarly concerned that they could decrease them as well as increase them.

The bill, as I read it, gives a tremendous amount of authority to the Secretary

Section 10(d) which reads, “the Secretary is empowered to perform such acts, to conduct such investigations" and so forth is sort of an open license to do almost anything.

I wonder, as I asked the other day, to what extent this legislation in its formative stages was discussed with representatives of the railroad industry, both management and labor.

Could you speak to that, Mr. Moloney?
Mr. MOLONEY. Yes, sir. I would be glad to.

During their testimony Mr. Lang and Secretary Boyd were asked I think whether they consulted and discussed with the railroad management and with railroad labor the bill that you have before you. Mr. KEITH, Was it adequately answered in that respect?

Mr. MOLONEY. No, sir. I do not think it was and I know nothing about the DOT's consultations with railroad labor except what I heard the Secretary and his spokesman say; namely, that railroad labor was consulted and did make some suggestions with respect to the bill, some of which had been adopted and some of which had been rejected.

However, I am familiar with and I personally participated in most if not all of the discussions that the Department had with management, and when they first approached us I might describe it this way.

The first approach was on an informal basis pointing to the pendency of another broad safety bill, to wit: the administration's industrial safety bill, I think the health and occupational safety bill, and in substance the suggestion was made by them that the Secretary of Transportation should be given broad and unlimited safety jurisdiction in the railroad area.

We told them then, and told them promptly, that in our opinion no case had been made or presented to us by them that would establish either a need or the desirability for placing such broad authority in the hands of the Secretary, and that in the absence of such a case that we could neither support nor accept such legislation.

We subsequently received from them a memorandum in narrative form outlining in substance what they had in mind in the way of legislation.

We met with them. We discussed that memorandum. We reaffirmed our position of opposition to any such proposal on the basis that no case had been made for its need and we told them that we could not support the legislation.

Now, we don't think anything has been offered here that would change that but I might also add this: That even though we requested the opportunity to review the draft of this legislation such opportunity was denied us and we saw this bill only when it was transmitted to the Congress by the letter of the Secretary of Transportation.

Mr. KEITH. In effect you only had a memorandum for a working paper and the memorandum was not in any sense of the word legislative in form?

Mr. MOLONEY. No, sir. It was not. We saw the bill at that time it was sent to you, to the Congress.

Mr. KEITH. This committee, as most of those present today know, is constantly dealing with industry and executive agencies and it has been our custom to stress to both parties, and when I say the industry I mean management and labor collectively, that industry and the Government agency involved should come to us with legislation that has been developed with a mutual sharing of concern for the public interest and a vertical development, one that starts with a memorandum and then works to a proposed piece of legislation, and then one which is brought with certain areas of agreement and certain areas of disagreement; but I think it is an unhealthy sign that they tend to work in isolation, more or less.

Just by way of background for me, are you familiar with the Jones Act philosophy as it pertains to the merchant marine !

Mr. MOLONEY. No, sir.

Mr. KEITH. There they spell out in the law certain benefits that must be afforded to those who are injured in line of duty in the merchant marine field and it too has its weaknesses.

Mr. MOLONEY. I understand it is a form of workmen's compensation in one sense of the word.

Mr. KEITH. Yes, in one sense of the word.
Mr. MOLONEY. A rather loose sense.
Mr. KEITH. It goes far beyond it in other respects.
Mr. MOLONEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Menk, diversification is the trend today.

What responsibilities do you have besides running the railroad? Does the railroad have a vast empire of other corporate activities that it pursues and over which you have executive responsibility?

Mr. MENK. Well, of course; no, we don't have a vast empire of corporate activities. We own a truck line for which I have final responsibility.

Nr. SKUBITZ. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. KEITH. Yes.

Mr. SKUBITZ, You don't own a chain of television stations or mutual funds?

Mr. MENK. Not yet, sir.
Mr. SKUBITZ. I know of one railroad that does.

Mr. MENK. Because we do have some timber activities we have a lumber company. I am not an officer of this company but I would have some responsibility there. I am on the board of directors of several of our subsidiary company railroads, Burlington,

Mr. KEITII. What about your interest in oil? You don't have any, I would assume, from your answer.

Mr. MENK. Do I have an interest in oil?

Mr. KEITH. No; I asked what portion of your time was devoted to running the railroad as contrasted to other activities.

Mr. MENK. Oh, 90 percent, 95 percent. I don't run the railroad though. Of course, we have an operating vice president who has the prime responsibility for operation.

Mr. Kertu. But 95 percent of your executive effort is spent with reference to the railroad activities?

Mr. MENK. Directly for the railroad activities; yes.
Mr. KEITH. Does the railroad own any oil interests of any extent!

Mr. MENK. Yes, sir. We have some Standard Oil in the Williston Basin.

Mr. KEITH. That is a subsidiary corporation?

Mr. MENK. No, it is not a subsidiary. We consolidate the earnings. It is a separate department operated by an operating vice president.

Mr. Kerth. It is an operating vice president and really takes that load from your shoulders?

Mr. MENK. Yes, sir.

Mr. Keith. What percentage of the income of the corporate entity comes from oil versus rail?

Mr. MENK. Of our net, about 25 percent.
Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nelsen.
Mr. NELSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand that there are 11 amendments proposed by labor to this bill; it that right?

Mr. VOLOXEY. I think there were Hamendments.

Nr. NELSEX. Do I understand that unless those amendments are adopted that labor would be lukewarm in its support of this bill in its present form?

Mr. MOLONEY. I would not say that that statement applied to all of the 44 amendments but I did, in my testimony, quote from testimony of Mr. Chesser and the testimony of Mr. (rotty, in which they said, before this bill would be acceptable to them certain of those amendments would have to be made and they are very important amendments.

Vir. NELSEX. Has management suggested amendments and commented?

Mr. MOLONEY. No, sir. Management has not suggested amendments and we are opposed to the bill, in fact to the entire concept of this broad unlimited authority on the basis that there has been no showing of need for it. May I call your attention to this, when the Serretary was on the stand, I believe, yesterday, in defense of the Highway Safety Transportation Act and its great achievements, he said that there had been 53,000 people killed in highway accidents and that even though the exposure had increased, they had managed to hold that level and attributed a large part of that to the Highway Safety Act.

We would be willing to be measured by the same standards but, if you notice, the Secretary did not refer to accidents. He referred to fatalities. He did not measure highway safety by the number of accidents that occurred on the highway but the number of people that were killed.

Now, if you measure railroad safety the same way, not by accidents but by fatalities, you will find that our record has improved.

Mr. NELSEN. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman, except to say to Mr. Menk that I am sorry that he had to come back so many times. We welcome him to our committee. It gets a little tiresome even for members up here sometimes to sit through long hearings.

Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kyros. Mr. Kyros. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions but, if I have the time, I would like to yield to my good friend, Mr. Skubitz.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I have a couple of questions.

There has been a lot of stress placed on the number of accidents that have occurred on the railroad where someone mentioned the figure 7,000 accidents.

Actually these accidents are not related to personal injury cases but are related to a monetary factor, are they not? With $750 worth of damage this is an accident.

Mr. MENK. That is correct.

Mr. Skubitz. I think Mr. Daulton testifying before the committee pointed out that of all the accidents only 6 percent resulted in casualties. This leaves the impression that a lot of the accidents are not serious accidents.

Am I correct that under the aviation laws, if the hostess tells the passengers to fasten their seat belts and stay in their seats until the plane comes to a full stop and if a person is injured walking down the aisle this is not a reportable accident?


Mr. MENK. As soon as the plane stops.
Mr. SKUBITZ. Is this true of the railroads?
Mr. MENK. No, sir.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Isn't there a time element involved in the reporting of accidents? If an employee strains his back, how long must he be off duty before it becomes a reportable accident!

Mr. MENK. If he is off 24 hours.

Mr. SKUBITZ. If they come back on the job and can't do the same job but can do something else is it still a reportable accident?

Mr. MENK. They can't do anything else. They have to come back to the same job that they were on.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Is this true in the aviation industry?

Mr. MENK. It is not true in the aviation industry. I understand they go to any job.

May I say respecting our own experience that out of 371 train accidents last year there were 25 casualties, no deaths.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I am glad you brought that up because I read with interest the AAR issue of May 8 in which it boasted of the safety record in 1967 and points out that with respect to passengers there was a 50 percent reduction in 1967.

Mr. Menk, do you think that the Kansas City Southern, Frisco, or any other railroad has encouraged passengers to ride their trains or improve their service in the last few years? I can't think of a single thing the railroads have done.

Mr. MENK. I can't speak for the Kansas Southern. I can speak for the Northern Pacific and tell you what we are doing.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Would you submit it for the record please?

My time is running out. I thought perhaps the reduction was due to the number of trains discontinued and on that basis perhaps in a few more years the AAR can boast of the fact that there are no casualties on the passenger trains because there won't be any more passenger trains.

Mr. MENK. That might well be so.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I don't think so. I notice that the ICC issued a release the other day. It has asked Congress to review the passenger train problem.

Mr. MENK. I noticed that.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Crotty in testifying before the committee objected to the transportation of men and equipment and combustible material on buses to and from work.

Is this a general practice of the railroads—to haul men and combustible materials on the same bus or truck?

Mr. MENK. No, it is specifically against our rules. I think I covered that in my opening statement.

Not only are we getting to the point where we are changing our equipment but we don't even haul the men in the same section that the tools are hauled albeit I don't say that our former practice wasn't safe. But to even get into a safer area we are separating the men from their tools. I gave some pictures of that.

Mr. SKUBITZ. This is your railroad?
Mr. MENK. I think it's general.
Mr. SKUBITZ. This is the general practice of all railroads.

« PrécédentContinuer »