Images de page
PDF
ePub

It may very well be that as we get more deeply into these matters, as I indicated a moment ago, we will find it desirable to write some kind of regulations that would insure that the carriers do follow this qualifying procedure and follow up on it in a regular and systematic

way.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That would be on the unions, too, would it not? Mr. LANG. Well, the men are required now by their companies to be qualified for certain jobs.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. According to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation?

Mr. LANG. Not now;

no, sir.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is the power you want.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harvey.

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lang, I must admit that as I read this bill for the first time this morning the only thing I could think of would be one word to describe my feelings and that is "incredible."

It just seems to me as I read section 3(a) (2) here where you say the Secretary is empowered to prescribe rules, regulations, and minimum standards governing the use and special testing maintenance services, repair and overhaul of rail facilities and equipment, including frequency and manner therof, that you have taken in just about everybody but the kitchen sink.

You may say that you don't have the power to set the pace for the workers or to classify workers, and I cannot see anywhere in here that you do, but certainly you would have the authority to do everything else but that in the rail industry. You could certainly set schedules, could you not?

Mr. LANG. Not as I interpret this; no sir, because anything that was done here as the wording of the legislation itself points out could be done only in the interest of promoting safety.

Mr. HARVEY. Well, I suppose you could say if two trains run too close together you would have the authority to set schedules.

Mr. LANG. We indirectly have that authority already insofar as our ability to prescribe the way the signal systems shall be used on the railroads.

Mr. HARVEY. I could only say to you that it seems to me tremendously broad authority.

When you say in your statement that you want "flexible authority," I would remind you that what is flexible to you is arbitrary to somebody else.

Can you tell me, has the Secretary consulted with the railway management, for example, or with the railway unions with regard to this bill, either one or the other?

Mr. LANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARVEY. Did either one or both of them concur in the bill? Mr. LANG. I think I would prefer to let them speak for themselves, Mr. Harvey.

Mr. HARVEY. I am sure we will find that out; I was just curious. This is our first contact with it at all here this morning.

Mr. LANG. Well, let me point out again that this authority, while admittedly broad, is not one bit broader than the authority which the

Secretary already has in the air safety, motor carrier safety, pipeline safety—that is, oil pipeline safety, as opposed to gas pipeline safety.

Mr. HARVEY. But what it means in effect is that we would transfer all authority to the Secretary as far as the running of the railroads is concerned. That is the way I would interpret it.

You speak of an increase of about 341 to 608 accidents on the first page. What kind of accidents are these? Are they personal injury accidents, property damage accidents? What are we talking about? How many people are involved in them, for example?

Mr. LANG. Well, the majority of these accidents do not involve personal injuries; some of them do.

Mr. HARVEY. What sort of accidents? Two cars bumping each other? Mr. LANG. They are primarily collisions which are composed of cars bumping into each other, but unfortunately trains bumping into each other and derailments where cars or trains are derailed and there are injuries in connection with both of these categories of accidents, and deaths.

Mr. HARVEY. How many injuries in 1961 and how many in 1967? Mr. LANG. If you will bear with me a moment, I can give you those figures.

In 1961, the casualties to employees now, 130 killed and 18,930 injured. Now, some of these were in connection with train accidents; many of them were not associated directly with what we call a train accident.

In 1967, the comparable figures

Mr. HARVEY. I dont want to use more than my time, Mr. Chairman, but I just want a clarification.

You say but not necessarily being involved in a train accident. What do you mean?

Mr. LANG. A train accident is one, as you said, two cars bumping together or cars or trains running off the track, being derailed.

Mr. HARVEY. By all employees on duty, what if an employee strains his back lifting something, is that included in that?

Mr. LANG. That is included in these figures.

Mr. HARVEY. You are talking about the all workmen's compensation accidents.

Mr. LANG. These are lost time injuries; yes,

sir.

Mr. HARVEY. Is that the same thing for those killed?

Mr. LANG. That is correct; yes, sir.

Mr. HARVEY. In other words, these are not directly related to cars bumping or to trains colliding with each other or the derailments?

Mr. LANG. A substantial share of them is related to such accidents but in any case the majority of the injuries to railroad employees each year are incurred by train operating employees engineers, firemen, conductors, and brakemen. They are the category of employee which sustains the majority; that is, more than 50 percent of these total injuries that we list.

Mr. HARVEY. I will ask you just one more question if I may, Mr. Chairman.

You are reading from a chart that was submitted along with your testimony to us this morning?

Mr. LANG. Yes. I am reading now from attachment C-2.

Mr. HARVEY. Is there anywhere in attachment C-2 where this is further broken down to show which of these accidents are accidents due to rail safety, to the bumping of cars and this sort of thing as contrasted with industrial safety which you said in your statment was not included in this particular bill?

My point is, that earlier you excluded the bill before the Education. and Labor Committee and said you were not attempting to reach into that area of legislation but now you are citing us figures based upon industry safety generally to support this bill here.

My question is: Is there anywhere in your figures a further breakdown separating these two?

Mr. LANG. We can further break it down but let me reiterate again a majority of these are incurred by train operating personnel who do not fall into anything that can be called industrial safety. (The information requested follows:)

95-388-68- 4

EMPLOYEE-ON-DUTY CASUALTIES RESULTING FROM TRAIN, TRAIN-SERVICE, AND NONTRAIN ACCIDENTS, 1961-67

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Train service accidents....

62.04

56. 16

55. 13

56.60

66.67

57.19

54.10

57.6

57.6

59.2

59. 1

58.9

64.5

59.0

Nontrain..

25.55

42. 13

25.41

41.38

23.63

40.27

25.68

40.00

23.8

38.2

27.7

38.9

22.3

38.5

1 Nontrain covers accidents and casualties not involving movement of locomotives, cars and trains.
NOTE: This exhibit includes railroads of all classes (accounts for increase in casualties over data submitted

in attachment C-2). Attachment C-2 (class I including switching and terminal railroads
for casualties per million man-hours).

Mr. HARVEY. Are the railroads included in the industrial labor safety bill before the Education and Labor Committee?

Mr. LANG. They will be as that bill is in its present form. As I understand, they will be to the extent that our present authority does not cover them, and our present authority does not cover the field entirely as has been indicated in my testimony.

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stuckey.

Mr. STUCKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lang, I would like to pursue a little further the question that it would make it a lot easier for us to go about marking this up and that is the effort that has been made between management and the unions and the railroad administration of working out as many of the differences as can be done before we do try and come up with some type of bill.

Has an effort been made in this area?

Mr. LANG. Yes, sir. We are making a very determined effort now. We feel that the Interstate Commerce Commission's approach to railroad safety regulation was too much one of mere enforcer and that there was not adequate communication and discussion and interchange between management, labor and the Bureau of Railroad Safety in attempting to eliminate the safety problems rather than merely trying to find railroads in violation of regulations.

So, we have already, I think, been successful in reorienting our thinking to a very considerable extent and we intend to go further in that direction. Our interest is not in finding railroads in violation; it is in preventing accidents.

This is not an adversary sort of situation where we are acting as policemen trying to catch them doing something wrong.

Mr. STUCKEY. So, you think it has made it possible where all concerned will be able to get together where we cannot cover the bill acceptable to all parties?

Mr. LANG. I would hope so.

Mr. STUCKEY. This is continuing to be done?

Mr. LANG. Yes, sir; and will be regardless of the fate of this legislation. We feel very strongly that we can do a much better job than has been done in the past in this regard.

Mr. STUCKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Watson.

Mr. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lang, I can appreciate some of the problems that you had this morning but I also hope that you appreciate the fact that this committee is rather gun shy at this point inasmuch as the Secretary of Transportation made this statement a couple of weeks ago accusing this committee of being worse than an empty gesture, as a dangerous deception.

So, inasmuch as your boss has referred to this committee's action as a deception on the American people, you can appreciate that we are trying to look at this rather closely so that we would not justify such an accusation on the part of the Secretary.

You say primarily you are not going to deal with qualifications of employees other than whether or not they are physically able to perform a job as it relates to safety.

« PrécédentContinuer »