« PrécédentContinuer »
Mr. Watson. Now on page 2, you say that, “We have had a great deal of experience in the safety field," and I think that is axiomatic.
Inasmuch as your experience has not produced the results that the Department of Transportation desires, can you think of any other agency or any other individual other than the railroads and the brotherhoods that would have more expertise in this particular field?
Mr. GOODFELLOW. You mean any agency that would have more expertise than management and labor?
Mr. Watson. Yes, in the field of safety.
Mr. GOODFELLOW. No, I can't see they would have any more expertise than we have and particularly that we have jointly with labor.
Mr. Watson. Yes, but you failed. So we are going to have to set up a Federal agency now.
Where will they get the expertise to do the job? All your experts and the brotherhoods have failed and you are negligent.
Where is the Federal Government going to get the experts to do the job?
Mr. GOODFELLOW. I don't know. You have said we have failed. We do not believe we have failed. We are having some trouble with derailments.
I think you will remember that several of the witnesses said that derailments would not usually cause casualties, that they are measured only by dollars, $750 per accident.
So, the Department has used this to point the finger at the railroad management and say that they have to have this bill. We think it would be much better for labor and management and the Department of Transportation to sit down and help us find out how we can cut down on derailments.
We have people working on this full time at our research laboratory in Chicago and we know that we have this problem and it is brought about by many things. It is brought about mostly by technology but mostly because we have been designing equipment that we like to think of as customer-oriented.
Therefore, some of these long cars have given us trouble. Some of the cushion under frame couplers have given us trouble and caused derailments.
But we do not think because we have, in one facet of our safety, had some trouble in the last few years, caused by this difference in operation, we don't think this requires a complete all-encompassing safety bill such as this one.
To answer your question, I don't know where they are going to get any people that know any more about this than we do.
Mr. Watson. I agree with you.
When you answered the question saying I had stated that you failed, I was just quoting the Secretary of Transportation who said you had failed. According to him, that is the reason for this legislation.
You say you have a railroad research safety center. I assume that it involves development of new equipment and also involves safety.
Mr. GOODFELLOW. That is right. Mr. Watson. How many people do you have in that center and where is it located ?
Mr. GOODFELLOW. It is located in Chicago on the campus of the Illinois Institute of Technology. We work very closely with the institute in our research and testing and development work.
We have pretty close to a hundred men working in this center on various projects. In some cases they run tests and in other cases they run development studies.
Mr. Watson. So, in addition to your regular operations and your programs of safety, you have this general research center.
I am sure the benefits of its research would be available to all railroads, would they not?
Mr. GOODFELLOW. That is right, they are available.
Earlier I asked the Secretary of Transportation about what he would do in the event of employee negligence. He said they would be subject to a thousand dollar civil penalty.
I call your attention to page 6 of the bill, section 6. Would not the employee also be subject to the criminal provisions there where it says,
Any person who knowingly and wilfully violates any such provision shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Would that penalty not apply to an employee as well as to a railroad officer or official?
Mr. MOLONEY. The way the bill is drawn, Mr. Watson, it will apply. We think if it should apply, it should apply to the offender on your criminal prosecution, the one who willfully violates the law.
Mr. WATSON. Not only willfully, Mr. Moloney, but according to this any person who knowingly.
Mr. MOLONEY. I assume that if he knowingly did it he probably would be doing it willfully.
Mr. Watson. So these criminal penalties would apply to the employee as well as to any officers of the company?
Mr. MOLONEY. It would under the bill. Under the amendments proposed by labor neither the civil penalties nor the criminal penalties would apply to any employee or employee representative.
Mr. WATSON. I raised that question earlier.
Do you think it would be equitable to hold the master if you exonerate the servant? How can you rationally hold the employer if you don't hold the employee?
Mr. MOLONEY. I don't think you can. The justification, if there be any, for the proposed amendment for relieving the employee and his representative from any actions or penalties under the bill was described somewhat as double jeopardy.
Suppose his superior told him to do something that would violate the Secretary's regulations, then he would either have to violate the Secretary's regulations or violate his superior's orders.
In my opinion, I think that is a rather farfetched illustration. I don't think it is a justifiable criticism of railroad supervisory employees. I think if the regulation existed their direction would in every instance be to comply with that regulation.
If he didn't comply with that, then I think he should be subject to the penalty.
Mr. Watson. I want to join with Mr. Keith in commending you and urging you to continue your meetings to try to reduce further the number of injuries and fatalities.
I agree wholeheartedly that the answer to this problem is through a cooperative effort on the part of the brotherhood and management. We have Government involved enough as it is right now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you, Mr. Goodfellow. I will say to Mr. Goodfellow that I think perhaps they are starting a new era in the relationship of having these meetings with labor and I hope that they can be continued and worked at energetically to resolve all these issues.
I want to compliment you on starting this and thank you for coming.
We have one other witness before the committee, Mr. P. H. Croft, president of the American Short Line Railroad Association.
Vir. Croft, will you come forward.
STATEMENT OF P. H. CROFT, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SHORT LINE
Mr. CroFt. Mr. Staggers and members of this committee, I am P. H. Croft, president of the American Short Line Railroad Association which has its general offices here in Washington.
Our association is a voluntary unincorporated nonprofit organization with a membership of 229 class I and class II line-haul and switching railroad common carriers operating in 44 States.
In view of previous testimony offered to you gentlemen, my statement could only border on reiteration. I therefore shall be most brief.
First, I wholeheartedly concur that we must first determine if there is a need existing that is now going unsatisfied, and secondly, if there is a need, can it be met by means other than legislation.
In response to committee questions, Mr. Lang suggested that it is difficult to know what kind of rules the Federal Railroad Administration would create.
The vagueness of requirements and compliance, coupled with the all inclusiveness of authority granted to the Department of Transportation under the provisions of this bill, strikes fear in my heart. Virtually every railroad activity would become subject to control of the Department of Transportation.
I believe we all agree that any new legislation requires participation from at least two quarters. Participation, of course, is effort and work.
Due to the small size of some railroads, new participation into any activity can be most taxing.
Although this bill is presented in the name of safety, I believe the scope reaches far beyond this realm. Chairman O'Connell's statement to Administrator Lang; that is, “We believe railroad safety should rest upon railroad management and labor," exactly reflects my feelings.
Having completed 25 years in railroad operations this week, and only being away from direct operational supervision a few weeks, I know the uppermost thought in the minds of each supervisor and employee is safety.
Having made this statement, the obvious question is, “How can we improve our record ? By constant surveillance, intensified safety programs, safety education, increased use of safety equipment, detecting and eliminating hazards—in brief-just what was recommended in the first annual report of the National Transportation Safety Board, viz.
“We believe the rail industry should immediately consider a review of its rules and voluntarily agree to adhere to specific minimum standards. If such voluntary methods should prove unsuccessful, then the alternative may be increased Federal regulation. However, in the first instance we recommend that the Department examine the feasibility of the industry revising and amending its rules and observing them voluntarily."
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I believe appearances have been made before this committee pertaining to H.R. 16980, without totally exploring the needs or the alternatives, and without sufficient consultation between interested parties.
Thank you for allowing me the privilege of appearance.
We thank Mr. Croft for appearing. I would only ask one thing. Any information relative to safety features or improvements and so forth developed in this railway research center is available to the short line as well as to the long line carriers, is it?
Mr. CROFT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask one question. I meant to ask it of Mr. Moloney when he was there but I did not get to him but he is still in the room. I will ask you.
Do the penalties under the Locomotive Inspection Act, and this is what Mr. Watson brought up a while ago, do the penalties under the Locomotive Inspection Act or the Appliance Acts apply to the employee or to the carriers only?
Mr. Croft. I believe it is carriers only, Mr. Staggers. I have accompanied them on many inspections. I don't remember it applying to anyone other than the carrier.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is true. All these features of the act apply to the carriers only and not to the employees.
Mr. WATSON. Of course, this legislation broadens that. It goes well beyond that; it includes employees and everybody else. I think it covers everything but the kitchen sink and I am not so sure about that.
The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you so much for coming here and giving us the benefit of your views. Mr. CROFT. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. This concludes the appearances on this bill.
The record will remain open for 5 days for any statements that are to be put in.
The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in executive session.
(Correspondence referred to in the chairman's opening remarks, p. 1, follows:)
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS,
Washington, D.O., March 8, 1966. Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CONGRESSMAN: I have your letter of March 7, with respect to the recent annual report of the Interstate Commerce Commission in connection with accident statistics.
While much is available here with respect to questions involving the removal of firemen in yard and freight service, in the interest of insuring that you receive full information I am asking Mr. J. E. Wolfe, Chairman of the National Railway Labor Conference, to reply directly to you since he has been deeply involved in this matter and quite likely can give you a more accurate reply. With all best wishes, Sincerely,
DANIEL P. LOOMIS, President.
NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE,
Chicago, Ill., March 18, 1966. Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN STAGGERS : Mr. Loomis has asked me to reply to your letter of March 7, 1966 in which reference is made to certain statistics showing an increase in train and train-service accidents in 1964 over 1963, referred to in the recent report of the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Congress covering the fiscal year ended June 30, 1965.
You inquire whether these statistics have been analyzed, and particularly whether available data indicate the extent to which the increase in accidents may be the result of removing firemen. I am delighted to have this opportunity to report to you on that subject because a great deal of misinformation has been circulated by some interests, apparently with the design of creating an entirely erroneous conception of the content and significance of the ICC statistical analyses.
The Interstate Commerce Commission states at page 73 of its annual report to which you refer that the "major portion" of the increases in train and trainservice accidents was due to three causes :
1. "derailments caused primarily by faulty equipment"
3. "highway grade crossings” There is nothing in the Commission's analysis of its own statistics to indicate any relationship between accident trends and the presence or absence of firemen.
Because of your interest, I attach a series of statistical tables, divided into five groups, A-E, which have been compiled from the latest available Interstate Commerce Commission data. Each group of tables is preceded by an explanatory textual analysis.
The ICC statistics confirm the absence of any casual relationship between aceident and casualty trends and the removal of firemen. You will note that the increases in casualties and accidents between 1963 and 1964 were, in general, of lesser magnitude than the increases between 1962 and 1963, despite the fact that approximately 20.1 percent of all freight and yard operations were conducted without firemen in 1964, wehereas firemen were employed on practically all freight and yard locomotives in both 1963 and 1962. Thus, the removal of firemen was accompanied by an improvement in the trend of casualties and accidents.
A comparison of the 1965 results (based on preliminary data just published by the Interstate Commerce Commission) with those for 1964, reflects a substantially lower rate of increase in train accidents than occurred between 1963 and 1964. More important, these preliminary data indicate that there will be a substantial decline in the number of casualties from 1964 to 1965. In 1965 approximately 47.7 percent of railroad operations in freight and yard service were conducted without firemen, an increase of almost two and one-half times the magnitude of the 1964 operations without firemen. Therefore, the increase in the percentage of operations conducted without firemen has coincided with a reduction in casualties.