1 - American Memory

167
go again' attitude and a resultine behavior pattern that can be as
I'ostly and as disruptive as would oe the case if the strike ultimately
occurred."
Tiie third chapter of this booiilet is a rather detailed analysis of
possible solutions to this problem that Hawaii has faced for so long
and after reviewing many alternative solutions, I concluded that the
l)est solution from the viewpoint of all parties concerned is essentially
the proposal that is contained in H.R. 7189.
Now. could I make two points in support of H.R. 7189 ?
The first point is that H.R. 7189 can in no way be considered anti-
strike or antilockout legislation. I think in answer to Mr. Harvey's
question, I don't think it is really labor legislation at all. It is com-
merce legislation. Partial operation of a tiny fraction of a struck or
locked-out industry in order to provide essential ser\-ice does not inter-
fere with the collective bargaining process. In my studies, and these
figures have been quoted already, I have determined that only about
3 percent of the west coast longshore work force is engaged in han-
dling goods outbound to or inbound from Hawaii.
Adding Guam, American Samoa, and Trust Territory of the
Pacific cargoes would increase that percentage fractionally but still
leave it within the range of 3 percent. To have the west coast long-
shore industry continue to work 3 percent of its work force, still leaves
97 percent of the work force untouched. This would then be a 97-per-
cent stoppage instead of 100-pcrcent stoppage. The economic pressures
on both sides to the dispute would to all intents and purposes be un-
diminished. The collective bargaining process would be essentially
untouched. This being the case, this legislation can in no way be con-
sidered antistrike or antilockout.
My second point is that the concept of partial operation in the event
of an industrywide strike is not a new concept nor is it new in practice.
In practice, essential military cargoes have been exempted from long-
shore and maritime stoppages providing partial operations to take
care of essential military needs. The west coast longshore and mari-
time industries have had extensive experience with partial operations
during strike periods.
Further, the concept of partial operations has been supported by
such students of emergency disputes legislation as former Under-
secretary of Labor, Larry Silberman and by David Cullen in his
analysis called National Emergency Strikes published by Cornell
University in 1968. This concept was embodied in the administration
bill S. 560 of the last session and also was embodied in the Staggere-
Williams bill, H.R. 359.") and S. 832. Finally, the Javits bill of the
last session. S. 594. provided that the President could order partial
operations of a struck industry under certain conditions.
My conclusion is that this legislation would do practically nothing
to interfere with the collective bargaining process and therefore can
in no way be considered antistrike legislation and that the basic pro-
posal of this legislation, partial operation of a strike industry, is an
accepted concept and that the west coast maritime and longshore
industries have had extensive experience with it in practice.
Finally, let me express one very sincere hope: namely, that the Con-
gress will act on this legislation at this time. In fact, that it would