Trucking industry—selected labor-agreement provisions—mechanics 1—wages and overtime as of Dec. 31, 1947 (Developed by ATA's industrial relations department) ! Includes only journeyman mechanics (does not include working foremen). For 6-day week, 94 hours if 5-day week. 11⁄2 the regular rate. IAM=International Association of Machinists, IBT-International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf feurs, Warehousemen, etc. All of the 42 contracts studied provided for overtime payments at time and one-half as follows: A. Daily requirements: (1) No daily requirements (weekly only, see c (8)). (2) After 8 hours per day---. (3) After 9 hours per day- Percent 7 or 17 30 or 71 3 or 7 2 or 5 42 or 100 (4) After 10 hours per day Total... B. Weekly requirements: (1) After 40 hours per week.. Total____ C. Daily and weekly combined: (1) After 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week- (a) After 45 hours_ Senator BALL. Mr. Jack G. Scott. 18 or 43 2 or 5 1 or 2 18 or 43 1 or 2 2 or 5 42 or 100 16 or 38 2 or 5 12 or 29 2 or 5 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 7 or 17 42 or 100 5 STATEMENT OF JACK GARRETT SCOTT, GENERAL COUNSEL, Mr. SCOTT. My name is Jack Garrett Scott. I have prepared a written statement, which has been filed with the committee, Mr. Chairman, which I trust will be made part of the record. But in view of your suggestion, I will attempt to summarize it, and save the time of the committee as much as I can. Senator BALL. The statement will go into the record. You might point out to us any specific amendments you propose. Mr. SCOTT. I propose only one specific amendment. Mr. SCOTT. It is on page 10, and has to do with the motor carrier exemptions provision, and is, in substance, at least, the same as that suggested by Mr. Beardsley. The National Association of Motor Bus Operators is the national rade association of the intercity motorbus industry. By intercity I mean to distinguish it from those carriers of passengers by motor who operate primarily in mass transportation in local or suburban areas. Our association has about 1,000 members, or something over 1000, out of about 1,500 motor carriers of passengers who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. First, a word about the industry itself. The Interstate Commerce Commission classifies motor carriers into class 1, 2, and 3, based upon the amount of their annual revenue. Class 1 carriers are those who receive annual gross revenue of more than $100,000. The others are below that figure. Out of the 1,500 carriers subject to Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction, there are a little over 200 who are class 1, so that leaves about 1,300 who do not have revenue of $100,000 a year. The point I want to make is that our industry is predominantly one of small enterprises. We are small-business men. Before saying anything about the specific provisions of these bills, I should like to all to the attention of the committee two facts concerning our industry, which I think are not generally true of all industry. The first is, unlike most industries in these days of high production and inflation, we are receiving no benefits from those conditions. On The contrary, ever since VJ-day, our revenues have been consistently declining, our costs have been consistently increasing, and we are caught in a squeeze between those two forces, which really jeopardizes ar future. I have for the record some figures which we have recently gotten together in connection with the fare case which is pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission, as a comparison between revenue in December 1946 and 1947, and costs for those months, which were taken from the records of 91 class 1 carriers. As between the 2 months, the number out of those 91 who were operating at a loss. jumped from 29 to 41, and in December 1948, out of 105, those who were operating at a loss jumped to 57. Those figures, of course, are confined to class 1 carriers, but if we had figures, which we unfortunately do not have, for the class 2 and 3 carriers, I am sure the ituation would be much worse, because of the well-known economic fact that the more narrow the spread of your fixed costs, such as terminal costs, overhead and what not, the greater the financial difficulties of the carrier in a squeeze situation like this. Secondly, I would like to state to the committee that this industry of ours, although it is not too well known, and is small, constitutes in our opinion a very important and essential part of the transportation system of the country. I think that has been demonstrated, both in war and in time of peace-the functions that we perform. 75017-48-pt. 1—19 Let me go to our financial situation. We have no relief coming t us in fare increases. We cannot pass on the increased operating cost to our customers, because of the nature of our competition, the eco nomic area in which we operate. We have a ceiling above which we cannot raise fares without detriment, without decreasing our revenue Our primary competition is the private automobile. We are the poor man's type of transportation. We cannot raise fares and continue to increase our revenue. There is a point beyond which that will not work. The industry covers practically every community in the United States. In a very large number of these communities, that is the only type of commercial transportation there is. Those communities which rely entirely on bus transportation has been placed as high as 50,000, and that sounds reasonable. But, at any rate, the Congress has recognized the fact that the industry is an important part of the national transportation system by regulating it, by bringing it into the Interstate Commerce Act, as it did in 1935. From the background of those two facts, I should like to make four points. The first, and the most important of all, is as to the motor-carrier exemption, and the method of treatment which has been afforded in the two bills with which I am familiar here. Generally speaking, we favor the purposes and principles of the Fair Labor Standards Act. We hope, however, in accomplishing those purposes, that our industry will not be further subjected to discriminations, and that it will not be burdened with obligations which it finds itself unable to fulfill. As to the motor-carrier exemptions, Mr. Beardsley has traced the history of that, and has shown the travail our motor-carrier industry has had from 1938 on down, growing out of the various interpretations and applications of those exemptions, and the difficulties we have had in trying to get some authoritative determination of what is actually meant, and what the correct application actually is. I have traced in my statement the more important cases in which these issues have been determined, so I shall not repeat that. Mr. Beardsley has covered that adequately. However, with your permission, I should like to read a page or two, beginning on page 7 of my prepared statement, because I think I can say what I want to say about it, and more precisely, than if I were to try to extemporize. The vice in the entire situation lies in the phraseology of the motorcarrier exemption provision, as interpreted and applied. We strongly urge that it be so amended as to clear up, once and for all, the many conflicts which have arisen, and at the same time do a measure of justice to motor carriers. It is probably needless to say that we oppose the provisions in both bills which would so amend the present provision as to make them even more restrictive than they now are. In S. 2386 the exemption would apply only to those motor-carrier employees who ride on a motor vehicle, and as to whom hours of service have been established by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and who are so engaged during 20 percent of the workweek. The last phrase, I should like to add, would impose upon our carriers a further burden of record keeping which would be either impossible, or so expensive as to make it prohibitive. S. 2062 would restrict the exemption to those who during |