to change the compensation rates, so it brings up a rather peripheral issue not in the law, not involved in the bill introduced, and we will study that as requested by Senator Javits.

We will assemble our information here, perhaps take it up with the State bar associations if the solicitation practice exists as testified by one witness. I am a lawyer myself, a member of the bar associations; the bar associations across the country have rigid rules against that. If there are no further questions, thank you very much, Mr. Talbot. Thank you, gentlemen.

The next witness, Mr. Fred Field, on behalf of the International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, and the AFL-CIO Maritime Committee. Come around, Mr. Field. If you have other persons with you, bring them up with you.

STATEMENT OF FRED R. FIELD, JR., GENERAL ORGANIZER, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO; ACCOMPANIED BY ABRAHAM FREEDMAN, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. FIELD. I must say, Senator, that I promised your man that I would be here sharp at 9:15, but a little light didn't light on the plane and I was in the airport from 5 o'clock this morning, and because of safety reasons they wouldn't use that plane. That's more than we can

say about our industry.

My name is Fred R. Field, Jr., and I am general organizer of the International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, better known internationally as ILA. I appear here for my own union and as representative of the AFL-CIO Maritime Committee, which consists of the major maritime unions in the United States, including the ILA, the National Maritime Union, the National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, the Masters, Mates & Pilots, the American Radio Association, the Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, and the United Steelworkers of America, Local 5000.

The ILA is an international labor union, consisting of longshoremen and harbor workers throughout the Atlantic and gulf coasts, from Maine to Texas, and the ports of the Great Lakes. The members of the ILA and their families, hundreds of thousands of human beings, are the ones primarily dependent on the act for protection against the hardships of industrial injury. The ILA and the other maritime unions associated with us in the AFL-CIO Maritime Committee have a deep interest in the proposed legislation.

We are confronted with a situation wherein the decision will affect the lives of thousands of Americans and therefore it goes without saying that it is necessary to remove the fog consisting of an atmosphere deliberately laden with well-sounding but false arguments by paid forensic experts, so that justice might be done away with.

Certain truths are self-evident, which the special interests have endeavored to conceal by the legerdemain of juggling words and misusing statistics so as to confuse the fact that injury and death creates a financial burden which somebody must pay.

When a longshoreman is killed, the fact remains that his wife and children constitute an economic liability which must be met either by an insurance company and, if not so met, then a public charity or friends and relatives are burdened with the responsibility.

Incidentally, I might say that this is very relative to that increase in cost that my fellows on the other side of the fence mentioned this morning-how do you weigh costs against death?

The need of a source of payment cannot be ignored. When a longshoreman is crippled, such fact constitutes economic bankruptcy to him and his family. Under such circumstances, his needs, food, and the necessities of life for himself and family continue on and the medical expenses and care and treatment create additional burdens. This economic loss must likewise be met, either by the insurance company or public or private charity.

Our Nation is founded on the proposition that all men are entitled to enjoy life in a manner with dignity and self-respect equal to the standard of independent American citizens.

Longshoremen are not seeking any economic advantage over any other class of employees. By the same token, the American standard of equality entitles him to equal consideration under the law and full benefits of remedial rights granted by Congress to other workers rendering comparable services and assuming similar risks.

In the light of the well-known fact that seamen have been granted the right to sue their employers for negligently caused damages by way of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. 688, in addition to getting hospitalization, doctors, and nursing care, there is no reason why longshoremen should be treated as second-class citizens and not have the same protection as seamen.

Now let us look at the question of the right to maintain a cause of action against a shipowner for injuries or death suffered in the furtherance of the shipowner's business.

The empty words and misleading arguments used in an effort to eliminate a cause of action against a shipowner for its breach of warranty of seaworthiness is an attempt at prostituting justice. Only a perjuring mind would entertain the thought that the elimination of a cause of action for breach of warranty of seaworthiness would be in the interest of the industry or even remotely resemble a true and impartial administration of justice.

False prophets predict benefits which cannot possibly result from curtailing the rights of longshoremen to which the lie is given by history.

All that is required to determine what changes in the law are justified and would tend to be beneficial to labor and industry is to look at history.

Since the enactment of the various maritime laws some 40-odd years ago, and the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Seas Shipping Co., Inc. v. Sieracki, 66 S. Ct. 872, 328 U.S. 85, and the comparable decisions that followed, the number of accidents have been reduced tremendously and the reason is self-evident.

Before the turn of the century, when shipowners had to pay very little, if anything, to an injured longshoreman or seaman, no consideration was given toward the elimination of foreseeable accidents and absolutely nothing was done to provide safe conditions aboard ship.

It wasn't this nonsense-denying adequate compensation-that is being proposed now by selfish interests that cut down the number of accidents which saved the lives of thousands of maritime employees

and fortunes of money to the shipping industry. It was the fact that these protective measures created an inducement to take precautionary measures against the happening of accidents and to eliminate avoidable hazards, not by a sudden love and consideration for the employees, but solely and exclusively by reason of the fact that as long as accidents created an expense, it became an economic necessity to eliminate such accidents.

As I stated before, only a person blinded to the truth would entertain the thought of eliminating the incentive for shipowners to take appropriate action to reduce or eliminate foreseeable accidents.

It would be cruel and inhuman treatment to take from and deprive longshoremen and other maritime workers of the reasonable assurance of a safe place to work, which obligation exists only and will continue to live so long as the existing legal protection continues.

Without the responsibility of providing a safe place to work, stevedores and shipowners will have a Roman holiday in competing for speed, in total disregard of human life and safety.

Finally, reverting back to the real question at issue, when personal injury and death creates an obligation, we would be well to take to heart the words of the greatest maritime authority, the late Judge Learned Hand, who said:

That as long as people suffered death and injury in the maritime services, the loss should be borne by the insurable industry and not by the victims.

The constructive need to improve benefits commensurate with current living standards and employment requirements must be met as proposed.

The more than 300,000 union members for whom I speak strongly urge and support a prompt increase of the benefits, safeguards, and protection now existing under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, by the adoption of vitally important amendments that are urgently necessary and which have been long overdue. The existing compensation schedules are certainly painfully, and cruelly inadequate. They were drastically insufficient when first established many years ago and the subsequent inordinately high increases in wage levels and living costs from that time on have widened the gap of disparity still further between the economic needs and the benefits provided therefore.

The proposed bill, although an improvement over the present perilously low levels, does not realistically constitute an upgrading or a progression in the longshoremen's benefits commensurate with the vital needs outstanding today. More accurately, it simply brings a lagging and constantly diminishing remedy just a bit more within the focus of understanding as required by proper legislation to establish an up-to-date status for the act as a whole.

Longshoremen are engaged in one of the Nation's most perilous and hazardous occupations and the rate of injuries and deaths resulting therefrom is enormously high. Prior to the Longshoremen's Compensation Act, the maritime law provided a very liberal remedy to the longshoremen and their surviving next of kin in the event of death. This maritime law was supplemented by the Jones Act in 1920 in further liberalizing the remedies against the employers. In 1928 the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act was passed, which took away these damage remedies against them. This compensation remedy

at best falls far short of protecting or reimbursing the injured longshoremen or their surviving next of kin adequately for the losses and total damage suffered. Actually it represents only a small fraction of what the longshoremen would have been entitled to receive under the general maritime law.

This great loss to the longshoremen is said to be justified on the ground that the Compensation Act provides a more certain and immediate remedy as against an allegedly uncertain remedy under the maritime law for suits based on unseaworthiness and negligence.

Statistics and experience prove, however, that this assumption and major premise was and has been both fallacious and untenable. Nevertheless it was upon this basic reasoning and on this ground that the Compensation Acts from their inception have been justified and generally held to be constitutional. In any event, in order to adequately comply with the constitutional edict, the compensation payable must be both realistic and therefore closely geared to the longshoremen's earning capacity as well as his present economic necessities.

Gentlemen, the benefits provided for under the present compensation act have distinctly failed to keep pace as is required under our constitution-either with the increased standard of living or the advance in earnings of the longshoreman over the years. The present shameful maximum of $70 per week is woefully inadequate and not at all in keeping with the longshoremen's current earning capacity, which ranges between $150 and $200 per week.

At this point I might comment that much was made of the earnings of our friends and coworkers on the west coast by the gentleman who spoke before me. At present the majority of his work force, and for some 7 or 8 months now, have been making in the neighborhood of $250 a week and up to $350 a week on some of his own operations in the New Jersey area. He commented about a low earnings in the Port of New York. Jersey is part of the Port of New York.

The proposed increase to $105 per week, while some improvement, is still very far short indeed of the mark or level of safety. A more realistic figure in this regard must be not less than $150 per week. It has to be here stated with candor that the real beneficiaries of any present or future inadequacies in benefit schedules under the Compensation Act are and will be the employers and the insurance companies at the frightful expense and unconscionable deprivation of the longshoremen and their helpless families.

For this reason we cannot subscribe to any delay in this regard— and strongly urge that the Congress consider an increase in benefits of $150 per week and not the proposed $105 amount. The other features of the administration bill, except as hereinafter pointed out, are most appropriate, sound, and desirable under the circumstances existing today, and should be adopted without change.

The provision for counsel fees is an excellent one. While the Compensation Act is intended to provide compensation immediately after an injury, our experience has shown that the employers and their insurance carriers still resort to countless devices to resist, delay, and/ or defeat the legitimate claims of longshoremen

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, if the witness will desist for a moment, I must apologize to the witness and his colleague but I must

go to another hearing. I assure them I will study their testimony and will give it the most careful consideration.

Mr. FIELD. Thank you, Mr. Javits. We have the utmost confidence

in you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I want to say to the witnesses that the small attendance is not due to a lack of importance of this legislation or lack of importance of the hearing, but we have to go from committee to committee or commitment to commitment.

Mr. FIELD. Senator, I want you to know that everybody I represent has just as much faith in both sides of this committee as we just said we had for Senator Javits, we certainly have for you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. We are not like longshoremen who are called out when the ship's in; we are like galley slaves who just work all the time up here.

Mr. FIELD. To continue with the statement-despite the fact the Compensation Act has already reduced and eliminated large portions of their original liability. This has made it necessary for the longshoremen to retain counsel who at present must be paid out of an already low level or inadequate award or benefit payment—thus leaving the injured man and his family without proper and/or sufficient maintenance. Accordingly, we find and recommend that the provision for counsel fees is a most urgent and necessary one.

The administration bill would eliminate the artificial limit on disability awards, increase the benefit level for disabled employees with dependents, and eliminate the ceiling on death or permanent total disability benefits to the survivors of workers killed or grievously injured on the job. These reforms are long overdue. No just or sound reason can be advanced for arbitrary limits on benefits.

Under the bill the present scheduled sum can be exceeded only if a Deputy Commissioner finds that the employee's injury and medical condition warrant a continuation of benefit payments. If this is the administrative determination, then the arbitrary limitation by definition, represents only a partial compensation for the injury incurred and the loss of earnings suffered therefore. Elementary justice calls for the adoption of the Administration proposal to end this inequity.

The added benefits to employees with dependents by an increase to 75 percent and the increase in the ceiling on death benefits to survivors also brings the benefit structure of the act more closely in line with the basic principle of fair compensation based on a recognition of the economic facts of family life. Education benefits, herein provided for, are also in this category. These amendments would increase the percentage of an employee's average wages payable either to the disabled employee or his survivors.

However, the increase in these benefit levels would still leave compensation well below the actual average earnings of the injured worker. Therefore, to the extent that full compensation is surely not provided, the compensation act still does not afford true and/or fair recompense for the loss of earnings; and thus remains an inadequate substitute for the rights of the longshoremen under the General Maritime Law and/or the damage suit which protects and safeguards their brethren who are seamen. At any rate the Administration proposal is, nevertheless, a sure step in the right direction and we are in favor of its adoption with our suggestions drawn from our intimate identity with the problem.