The longshore union (ILWU) not only cooperates but is a coventurer in this program. (See attached summary of Accident Prevention Department of Pacific Maritime Association which shows a full-time staff of 22 people and a safety record of a 58-percent drop in reported accidents since 1927 and a 25-percent drop since 1960.) We object, therefore, to shouldering the additional Federal burden through extra charges on insurance premiums. The Bureau of Labor Standards safety program is a great credit to the men who run it. The costs of running it properly belong in the public domain and should not come from private sources. We find it difficult to believe that this program is so costly as to no longer be deemed to be worth the price to the Department of Labor and the public at large. If these costs are going to be passed on to management, then management must, and we would so urge that it be given a realistic and meaningful role in the overall management of the program, including appointment of the BLS safety supervisors who visit our premises and issue warnings and citations and take other disciplinary measures. It is unprecedented for the administrative costs of Federal, social, and labor legislation to be paid for by the people it affects. If programs were funded from private sources, it could hold back new projects which might be progressive. There is no more rationale for management paying the costs of safety administration than it is for the labor force which also "uses" the law. The administrative "user charge" required in section 15 is equally fraught with inequities. Here again, if management is forced to pay for salaries of deputy commissioners (who are judge and jury in longshoremen compensation awards under the act), then management should at least have an advisory role in their administration and performance. We note that this proposal has been before the Congress since 1953 and has never gotten out of committee. We trust this committee will again remove this unwarranted cost from the bill S. 2485. While our organizations have studied other sections of the act, we will defer to the experts within our ranks, who will follow me in this hearing, to develop the details and the economic impact. We also defer to them, and in doing so concur in their views on certain other amendments which are constructively put forth to restore the equities between the employer and the claimant.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we wish to correct some of the impressions which other witnesses may have left with this committee that the longshore contractors and their clients, the shipowners, are indifferent to safety on the waterfront. Apart from our unassailable social obligation to avoid accidents and provide safe premises for work, we as an association, and the individual companies even more so, have the highest degree of compulsion to cut down on accidents since each employer is under a separate premium rate with his underwriters. On our coast, unlike other parts of the country, many of our major employers are in large part self-insurers and thus have built an in-house safety and training capability. Training, or lack of it, I might add, is often at the root of chronically unsafe industries. In Pacific Maritime Association something is being done about it. We have long had a safety education and safety surveillance program referred to earlier and which is part and parcel of our labor agreements. Last year we inaugurated a new training program with an annual budget now in excess of $900,000 per year, to train winch

drivers and other skills such as crane operators, forklift operators, et cetera. We hope to some day only permit certified men to handle the complex gear.

Additionally, we have for a long time required a physical examination for incoming longshoremen. This entire program is a joint unionmanagement venture, and is already bearing fruit. This training and safety program, coupled with the mechanization agreement which has paved the way for rapidly expanding labor-saving equipment and hence less chance for accidents, is woven into the fabric of our collective bargaining agreements. We could dwell at length on other related efforts in seafaring pursuits. But for this hearing, suffice it to say, we are not a backward industry by any means and whatever motivations for this legislation may have been focused on punishing an indifferent and callous industry are in our view unjustified and are not based upon facts.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes our prepared testimony.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Dewey, did you want to place in the record or attach to the record this appendix to your statement? Mr. DEWEY. Yes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The Pacific Maritime Association Accident Prevention?

Mr. DEWEY. Yes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. This attachment to the testimony of Mr. Dewey under title of "Pacific Maritime Association Accident Prevention," I direct that be printed as an appendix to the statement with the proper identification. That is part of Mr. Dewey's testimony. (The material referred to above follows:)

SUMMARY OF PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION'S ACCIDENT PREVENTION

DEPARTMENT

HISTORY

Pacific Coast steamship and stevedoring companies' interest in accident prevention for the maritime industry is not a recent development. As early as 1924, the Waterfront Employers' Association of Seattle appointed a safety engineer to assist in their safety program.

Seattle "Maritime Safety Rules" were adopted by the joint safety committee of longshoremen and employers, and published in March, 1928.

In Portland, Oregon, a safety committee was formed in 1924 and worked by itself, with some assistance from the Seattle group, until May 1929 when the Marine Safety Association, including all employers among the Columbia River, appointed a full-time safety engineer.

In San Francisco, the marine associations formed a safety committee in 1926. In the latter half of that year, an exhaustive survey of conditions in that port was made for them by a consulting safety engineer. A definite education program was begun, under the direction of that engineer and in February 1927 the Accident Prevention Department was established.

In Los Angeles, the safety committee of the Marine Service Bureau began to hold meetings in 1926 and in 1929 a district office of the Accident Prevention Department was established in San Pedro and a full-time safety engineer was employed.

Thus since 1929 there has been unified direction of maritime accident prevention activities on the Pacific Coast. Policies and programs have been developed in each of the major ports by management committees, consisting of executives of stevedoring, terminal, and steamship companies. These committees have met monthly and directed, through the Accident Prevention Department the accident prevention activities on the Pacific Coast.

The industry-supported Accident Prevention Department (through Pacific Maritime Association and its predecessor associations) has developed from a one-man organization in 1927 to an organization with a technical staff of thirteen safety engineers, and necessary secretarial and clerical help.

ORGANIZATION

The Department is maintained and supported by PMA in order to administer the association's accident prevention program for its member companies. The Department as such is solely a staff organization and its personnel act as advisors and consultants to the steamship, stevedoring, and terminal companies in accident prevention matters. The Department, contrary to some other organizations, does not have any police power nor can it in any way enforce its recommendations. The reason for this is the belief that accident prevention to be effective must be thoroughly integrated with operations. Therefore, its recommendations go to management so that they may put them in effect through normal command channels.

The Department is organized as follows:

1. Headquarters' Office in San Francisco, with the Coast Director, Assistant Coast Director, and necessary office help;

2. Northern California Area located in San Francisco, with the following personnel: Area Accident Prevention Supervisor, two assistants, and necessary office help;

3. Southern California Area located in Wilmington, California, with the following personnel: Area Accident Prevention Supervisor, two assistants, and necessary office help;

4. Oregon and Columbia River Area, headquartered at Portland, Oregon, with the following personnel: Area Accident Prevention Supervisor, one assistant, and necessary office help;

5. Washington Area, headquartered at Seattle, Washington, with the following personnel: Area Accident Prevention Supervisor, two assistants, and necessary office help.

The area offices concern themselves solely with the longshore program, while the seamen's program is entirely administered by the San Francisco Headquarters' Office.

Functions

(1) Daily surveys of docks and ships for unsafe conditions, unsafe methods of operation and deficiencies of vessels, with accompanying recommendations to on-the-job management and with daily written reports to top management.

(2) The analysis of accident reports as submitted to the APD by every stevedoring company, and by steamship companies on their offshore operations, to determine causes of accidents, types of injuries, and where they occur, for dissemination to the industry. (Accidents, like illness, cannot be prevented unless causes are known. Only when these causes are uncovered by specialized, analytical study and only when that study is followed by the education of both management and workers alike, can accidents be prevevented.)

(3) Preparation of federally-required reports (five times a year) containing information on manhours and injuries to longshoremen, for submission to the U.S. Department of Labor.

(4) Advising steamship and stevedoring companies on their individual safety problems.

(5) Maintaining sound relationships with federal and state officials on accident prevention matters and regulations as they pertain to the industry.

(6) Supplying technical advice and coordination of industry opinion for a single, consolidated report on, for example, proposed amendment to presently existing federal safety and health regulations (U.S. Department of Labor, and U.S. Coast Guard), and state safety codes, or proposed national standards for accident prevention.

(7) Technical advice on hazardous cargo and chemicals.

(8)_Preparation of accident prevention publications distributed coastwide: (a) For steamship companies and/or shipboard personnel; stevedoring and terminal companies and/or supervisors and longshoremen: "The Channel" (b) For steamship companies and/or shipboard personnel: "Marine Safe Practices Pamphlets" Distribution of syndicated and specialized safety posters and other

written material on technical matters pertaining to gear, stevedore and shipboard equipment.

(9) Administration of hard hat and safety shoe sales programs for longshoremen.

(10) Holding of monthly "Job Level Safety Committee" meetings of management and union, as required by contractual obligation.

(11) Planning and programming monthly meetings of management's Area Accident Prevention Committees and Ship Operators' Safety Committee.

(12) Training of management supervision in accident prevention techniques and first aid.

(13) Training and education of "B" men (new longshoremen entering the industry) in a 12-hour safety course.

(14) Participating in PMA's Training Department's skill training courses by delivering a special "accident prevention segment" of training sessions.

(15) On request, specialized service studies, analyses, and recommendations furnished individual companies.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT TO BAR THIRD PARTY ACTIONS AGAINST THE VESSEL BY LONGSHOREMEN BASED ON INJURY OCCURRING ON OR AT VESSEL

§ 902 (4). Amend. Italicized words added:

(4) The term "employer" means an employer any of whose employees are employed in maritime employment, in whole or in part, upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any drydock). and includes any employer who is also an owner, owner pro hac vice, operator, agent, charterer, or bare boat charter, and such employer's vessels.

§ 902 (5). Add new subdivision (5) ; renumber present (5) to (6) et seq: (5) The term “vessel” means a vessel, its owner, owner pro hac vice, operator, agent, charterer, bare boat charter, master, officer or crew member.

§ 904. Add new subsection (b); change present (b) to (c):

(b) Before any employees covered by this Act shall perform any work or services abroad or in connection with a vessel, said vessel shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of such compensation to such employces unless their employer has secured such payment.

§ 905. Amend. Italicized words added:

The liability prescribed in Section 904 of this title of an employer or vessel upon which or in connection with which injury occurs, shall be exclusive and in place of any and all other liability of such employed or vessel to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, children, dependents, nextof-kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from any such employer or vessel at law or in admiralty on account of such injury, death or disability, except that if the employer or vessel fails to secure payment of the compensation as provided by this chapter, etc.

§ 933 (a). Amend. Italicized words added:

(a) If on account of injury, disability, or death for which compensation is payable under this chapter the person entitled to such compensation determines that some person other than the employer or vessel upon which or in connection with which injury occurs, or a person or persons in their employ, is liable in damages, etc.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Dewey, I want to commend you and your association for the reduction of the accident rate on the Pacific coast in the percentages you have set out in your testimony. In 1966, 14,300 men were killed in industrial accidents on the job in America and 2 million more were injured. It was estimated by the Labor Department that the direct cost to those families of those deceased people killed in industrial employment and the loss to the injured ones was about a billion and a half dollars, but that the overall costs to American industry of this high accident rate in American industryI am speaking of many industries, not just yours-the overall cost, was about $5 billion to our economy. So safety programs are important to all segments. That doesn't include 2 million more injured on the

highways or 53 million killed on the highways. Each of these injury rates was equal. The death rate on the highways is far in excess of that in industry. Even the industrial death rate of 14,300 was some double the number of men killed in Vietnam in combat. I want to compliment you on your safety program.

I will not ask further questions in the interest of time. We have many witnesses. But I will call on Senator Morse, the ranking majority member, for questions.

Senator MORSE. I am not going to ask any questions at this time on the third party suit issue that you raised. I think the committee is confronted with the necessity of our doing our homework and study of the problem and analyzing the briefs that I am sure will be submitted by the parties to the hearing, by the Department of Labor, and by the Department of Justice. Our work on that seems to be a matter of study with our counsel, then them coming out with our sound judgment, or suggestions for compromise if we find there is an area of compromise.

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, in Mr. Dewey's prepared testimony he says:

The Bureau of Labor Standards safety program is a great credit to the men who run it. The costs of running it properly belong in the public domain and should not come from private sources. We find it difficult to believe that this program is so costly as to no longer be deemed to be worth the price to the Department of Labor and the public at large. If these costs are going to be passed on to management, then management must, and we would so urge, that it be given a realistic and meaningful role in the over-all management of the program, including appointment of the B.L.S. safety supervisors who visit our premises and issue warnings and citations and take other disciplinary

measures.

At the end of that paragraph the witness says:

There is no more rationale for management paying the costs of safety admin. istration than it is for the labor force which also "uses" the law.

I hope counsel, minority and majority, will take into account Mr. Dewey's observations as they prepare the other memorandum that I have assigned and the chairman has supported. I think we ought to supplement it by some information to the committee on this point and go into an analysis of the payment of costs for other policing programs of the Department of Labor itself and related agencies

Again speaking off the top of my head, which is always risky but necessary in calling attention to the staff of some of your actions that you list in your testimony, I think you ought to take a look into the payment of policing costs by the Government through the administration of the National Labor Relations Board. They do a considerable amount of policing, too, as do some other Federal agencies. I think what we are confronted with here, Mr. Chairman, is the policy proposal on the part of the Bureau of the Budget. Because of the fiscal policy and problems that confront the country at the present time, they propose to pass to others all expenses that they can.

You and I haven't had a chance to analyze the Bureau of the Budget message which reached our desks in Washington last Friday, although I have had some briefing on it, as you have. We are going to see there what might be called, for want of a better description, the old practice of buckpassing, in this case buckpassing of costs. Offhand, I have a lot of reservation on this. I think counsel ought to dig in and get us