University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana
Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School
1965
Demise of the featherbedding epoch in the railroad industry
Jerome Paul Anderson The University of Montana
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y
Recommended Citation Anderson, Jerome Paul, "Demise of the featherbedding epoch in the railroad industry" (1965). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4853. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4853
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ' f f t i I$S5XSK OF fHH SiPOOI
* m” - * 988 :T^TIPI ^.! ™ •S*-1 -r * mmstm'WJ^rOf *&‘wT.
m
m m m m . m m m
M * Jfettfctttft S ta te tf^ ve ys£ % * 1963 f^senfeeiS In. ;pavt£el & 3f& 3tott$ of the- r«qai#^se3rit0 ffev tha degro© of
m&%®r of $ii« . SMftARA $9A9$ 8819M t t m tsjr* /, APR 2 7 1965 UMI Number: EP40317 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI EP40317 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 tf-7 - 6^" @f omsm fag© list of tmmmnms »*#«»*««*****»»••**** tu C h a p te r I t THE fBQMM M 3 MfWI'SWMS O f $ S B £ V8BD * I The Problem Statement o f the JTobleia la ^lta iie e of the Study DefStiltlone o f Terms Sfsed featherbedding l&rfe ffcCtes Ife d ia tio n A rbitration ix. faotoes otc e ® t© m mmmm m t m&m* BSDBTBO EKISTEO X8 THE SAIIIiOAD XSSfOSTlif * * •%. • . * 7 XXX* WSEBOTXJil FEOM A tW W I X M B .****, I h it* w osscns* vxhh m mw wmmmmmm zmw . ♦ . . . 0 v * factors which mmm m mmm m m mmm* mmm m a s * ****** * * * •. *...... 25 Is o la tio n Attempts Canada**? Beolsion on the fete o f tie . loeoaotive fire m e n The f s t e n t ia l Damage o f a R a ilro a d S h rilce r f I* cmmmxmm a m of t m fEATH^BMJDXSO OISftUB *#.♦■**.**«•#**** 33 July 195? to loveraber i960 rCfta*.£D0 ^T68ICt^m&l *®yi^wl % a jt. ^ .A Ito jh 1962 to A pril % % 3 Saergetiegr .Board SO* 15** Kay 1963 to May I96& State fbXX Crew Xa»r» VII* COHCIf SXOBB **••*♦** • * * ♦ * • » «* * * * « » 67 sxBuommx* ♦ 76 Mmm .tog© ■t* tolf$ to sigstef#' * * * « « ♦ * ♦ #- *« .*•%:« «. « B 2« totg* ©t to iCta» * * * * * # *» * o 3,0 '% ^ ®to&to i» flig h t ym l&$#a « 4* 4 * * «,*■ -* 31 *« wmp tot 3&b& - ■ • *- * #, « «■ *.* .* $ -» ®. * * * 4 % » t o to to#- MtoMMl toMfe? %y •ft Oqfli®$mm&Jlffi ■^.-.yj.-—-,.. ■ t rt A Chmgm ■^.-.■^■.^ <>• l^-g/i-itBi MI ft: wJfOttJJ * * * « * ♦. * *c 4 4 # « &* * * « ^ n .$nm & «£\ total e^itai? ton- a#toto«*i. toe®is§| f*$* fiWtoiMto * * -*■ * ** * * . # * 2& .r* fisiitoto itoto #i?sw tows c& & Kfttitft* * * « « ♦* * * * * 00 \ CHAPT© I the m m m abb rn m x x tx m of terhs 0 0 ® Cn Bovefflfcew 2, 1959 railroad ®3nagG!amt throughout the nation announced proposed changes In the industry’s work rules* She rules changes ware to supersede time honored work rules* many of which have eo&sted since the 1800* e» BaHrood management considered the near work rules a means of moderlelng employment and pay practices* eo as to make them cosEmersurate to present working conditions and tOThnological Innovations.^ The unions resented managements* implications that many of their Jobs were no longer necessary* They stated many times that they did not tdsh to Impede technological progress in their industry and that this Is Illustrated by the Increased output per ran hour* However, the unions objected to the proposed roles changes on the grounds that the not? rules would undermine the safe 2 and efficient operation of railroad equipment* this difference of opinion laid the groundwork for study commissions* boards of Inquiry* and litigation which continued - ^Railroads Ask 6 Basic Buies Changes** RatlwavAge (Bfovea&er 2* 1959)* p. 9* 2 George B* Laighty, “Railroad Propaganda Ignores the Facts,” (December# 1959)# P. 2 Into 196%. Ihs Problaai ft i« tho purpose of this study (I) to eowpars the eoat«fttleae •f both parties t w m the riewpeiat of a m m traf ebaerrer iataawsted prlnrtly It tbo public's welfare, (2} to separate the exaggerations sad propaganda fro* tho actual tltMtlw^ (>) to trace the oeaploac legal procedures of tbo Bailway tabor tot which ceased n U m d aaftafansat and ItVtr inMueereble delays la their attowpts at reserving their work rules dIspeW, «ad (b) to draw esnclwslene baaai « p M tba investlgatie*. I i w r t t u t *f ttn Itaftr Xa all aaje? industries tsdpgr increasing saphasl* ia being ylacad upon teeknelegieal bhraMii, Manual cad ssedUakllled 5*ba for workers are botching atareo wltb the adrcat of catenated equlpaent* Iftt Borg and Janes Kahn in a related stady poiatod oat tbat «...!» tbo first half of 1959. tba stsel indastvy predated b,000,000 tons acre steel than ia six Months of 1955* with 3 1 , 0 0 0 foiasr workers.^ Bailroad ia of tho eplnten that booaaao of its techaclsgieal adraaooa sash aa dioaal engines, central traffic 5 f w Barg aad Janes Mat. •Iho Trouble with labor ia 9MrtdM0bcddiat»* ^ T I M r U l T ***** (Spring* 19*0), p. 22. 3 •— iral, — taaafcU awltahat, It akaald 4 1 *p— wit* tka aarvlaaa mi * 0 ta 1 0 ttoaa— d — play##*. tkajr stata* tkat tkaaa a— layaaa and evt— dad m * k m 3m m m tasting tka n U s « i 4 « — sxt*a 1 0 0 iKLiUni tellin an— ally, iltii it* laaa— tiv# fir— a— a— ting ik# atari? half af tkat flgara. IndaatriaL M M t i s n t ami anlana tkrcngkant tka aatt— — intarnatad 1* hav tha rallrsaia aalrad O t i y gar— t, aaaial* and i— — 9 — kl— m — alking tvmm — &•— tti— , Maqr mpasta * 1 til* railraad aanfllet *tgkt bats— praaad— I ssttiag ** tka fitld •f U W m m l a g — — ■t rslatlsna. It — a1 0 ba 4 1 2 2 1 — It ta — Act* aatiaatt tka iapartanmm mi tkia ctvttfgU kgr tka rmHrmmA spa— -ting — yla/ssa ta ratal* tkair aalf-*a*paat, II— 3 1 k— 4 * — A a— Ur l t j right* — mi hy yasra mi lahar — tka rail— . Iftiittf:*! Jter IftgM EttlAinigr a**i*s* «**m & > m m m § *•» "fk* paa*tiea mi llMitiJig nark — — tpit in ardar ta praitd* — 3*ba m i y— at — a— Isjn— t.*^ tka Satis-l M » m aiatlan mi If— ifaatnr— « daflaaa fasIk— »■ baidlng aa *• » • tka praetiaa of raqolrlag tka iiflspatl mt pmrmmnm *fca*4 a A* Sa— iiti* "tka Oiaaal H r— laaaa — tka kail* raada," »"0 » f *"4 *** ***** ff*fttdana kart— (Anljr, iOdO), p. 5 3 0 . 4 whoso labor is not needed • » * from the feeling that a worker has a vested Interest in his* Job#** Konnan SlmLer* an econondet* defines featherbedding as “* * * a work role which requires employer units to. employ a larger quantity of labor of a specified typo than would otherwise be employed at a given wage rate* ftilton Eddffian and Irving Kovareky divide featherbedding into nine different subdivisions! 1, limiting the amount produced 2* controlling speed 3* controlling quality 4. requiring time consuming work methods 5« requiring unnecessary work or the redoing of work 6 „ requiring a particular number of employees to do a given Job* 7* requiring the assignment of certain tasks to a particular union (jurisdiction) 8. forbidding ctqdjoyers or supervisors to perform work assigned to the union 0 9* retarding the introduction of machinery ^Ivar Berg and dames Kuhn* °7he Assumptions of Feathorboddlng*tt Th& Labor,law Journal* (April* 1962)* p. 278. ^Borman Slmier* °lhe Economies of Feathervedding*n Indus*, trial end. labor Relations JRoview (October* 1962)* p. 112. 0 Iftlton Sdlelman and Irving Kovarskys °Featherbedding: law end Arbitration*0 Labor lA w Joumal (April* 1959)# p. 239* 5 Railroad managements* references to featherbedding in this paper apply to the operating employees of the railroads* represented by (i) The Brotherhood of locomotive Engineers* (2 ) The Brotherhood of locomotive Firemen end Engineers* (3) The Stdtch2sen*o Union of Korth America* (4) the Brotherhood of Railroad trainmen* and (5) The Order of Railway Conductors and Brakanm. v M k M - M This is a comprehensive term «hleh refers to the rales leaned by management covering e^Xoyment* wages* and working conditions* XVork rules changes are usually negotiated through the prooese of collective bargaining between management and the unions involved. M & y & a This is the process by which two disputants meet with a third party called a mediator* The function of a mediator is to achieve a rcconellation between the two disputants. The mediator hopes to accomplish this by building on points of agreement and minimizing differences. The mediator can only suggest and point out areas of concessions for possible agreements; nothing the mediator statos ia binding to either parly. This process usually occurs after mediation attempts have failed* The two disputants summon a third party whoso function it $ i# i» taftgb both of the 'mi i$ttofe a whleli &»'m pHtiAta©' to ham fMrtM*'' 1&s d^Moto/isr • ■ iMIng t© botfe fa^laa* &m either ho wlaofcss!# ©*■ tfh' iri'l M rO^¥ ^niifcM' Cnffffslf garirypg’w |j '.w*. CHAPTER I I FACTORS WHICH LED TO THE ALLEGATION THAT FEATHSfc BEDDING EXISTED IK THE RAILROAD HJDUSTHT Id th© early 1930*s when the diosel locomotive was first introduced in th® OWL ted States it trns operated xdthout the use of a fireman. It m e n o t until 1935 that the Chicago, Burlington, and Qaincy Railroad agreed to employ firemen on their passenger diesels* This decision eventually led to the adoption of firemen on the other railroads, and on February 28, 193? the National Diesel Electric Agreement teas negotiated requiring firemen on diesel locomotives** Figure 1 illustrate© the shift from steam power to diosel power* The railroads have made prodigious technological strides in an effort to improve railroad service and better their financial position. Radio, teletype, centralised traffic control, end other advanced forms of communication are being used on today* s railroads* Other innovations ere la rg e r freight cars, automatic weighing device©, consolidation of accounting functions, production lino methods in equipment repair, consolidation of repair facilities, and a reduction in structure maintenance because of th© present ^Bernard Xabroff and t&lltam Kelly, “Employment Changes in Railroad Occupations,*1 Monthly labor Review (October, 1962), p. 1129* 8 Total: 10,838 9H0 S te a m *40.0*41 Dieses 197 To + Sf: 31,681 1950 S te a m 2. 5, 6 HO ,M,C T otal: 28,155 1962 Steam 5' l F i.gute I- <: S H I FT. TO- D I E S E L E N G I N ES (From New York Times, July 7, 1963) 9 need for fewer buildings* Clerical x«ork is now dono to a groat extent by modern office machines and electronic data processing i ■> i methods* From 19*k> to 19*50 capital expenditures by the railroads 2 averaged more than a billion dollars a year. Despite these technological advances the railroads losing a larger share of the transportation market every year* Other modes of transportation* often government subsidised* are \ '■ pressuring the railroads into reducing costs, so that their margin of profit may be improved* Figures 2 and 3 Illustrate j the declining shore of the market procured by the railroads* \ \ Over the last sixteen years th© number of railroad workers has decreased by fifty percent and is not? down to approximately 700,000 workers.** Figures 4 and 5 exhibit this in detail. These facts point out bsm railroad labor and management relations wore being strained from managements efforts to eliminate still further lobs and the unions* determination to protect the remaining jobs. %bid. •^Inmps in the Featherbed,” ftsHgaeek (Eareh 18, 19&3), P* 76. i q 1 9 6 2 . T o ta l: 36,935,000 ,000 To+a 1: 8 I i 500 , 0 00,0 0 0 Ai y Carriers I. 0 bil 2.8 % R a ilr o a d s 2 3 .8 bil. 2 4. Buses _ «J.8 bil. 6 *. S Vo Other bil 3-2 % 2.3 bil. B u ses 6.2% 21.6 toil. The Share oP Trcxf f i C e r M \ I e ^ Figure 2..* (From New York Times. July 7, I963) 00 O 0 00,0 Q O Rai I roads 4G0 .2 19. t % 17.3 Vo ipallines 2 9 'I-% bit. F \ (From Hew York Times. July 7, 1963) *'■' WON-FARM GAlWROAO OPeRAT|M6 12 MANUPACTLiW«& iNOfcx : 1948-100 100 60 i W 1955 1951 1952 1953 R£4 1955 1956 1957 I95S 1959 I960 T h a D i - o p i n F V o u \y ~ & c v oj J <=> l o S ■V F i gure 4 , (From Fortune. January 1962) n Occupational group asployncnt • Percent Chong© (thousands) m? i960 1997-1960 Ifcial Efeployoes 1*352 761 —92 Maintenanc© of equipment and stores 3?0 ieh * **50 IMntenane© of «ay and structure® 265 119 **55 fransportationt Other than train* engine, or yard 1?2 91 -4 7 train, engine, and yard m 212 **31 Clerical m 1 U **32 Agents 36 32 -10 Esecativoo, officials, and staff assistants 15 15 *4 iSLscelianeous services 29 17 . -2? Figure 5 mrnmf ob cuss i use em milboacs, 8X OCCOPATIOBAi GROUP, a ^ ? -t9 6 0 CHAPTER UX FMTHBSBEDiaJIO FI©H A J5MJA0H4MT nBiPO W T M bo st Industries* proper management and technological advances result in Increased profits j however, tb&a does not hold tree for th© railroad industry, Figures released on ©agdoyment and eoKpensaifoa reveal that extra profit ia siphoned off by excess ■sagos and inflation, Wages and th© cost of mterials represent the t m largest drains on the railroad dollar* In t% % slxty*cn& cents out of every dollar was expends in the form of wages and fringe benefits* . Another t*«saty*slx cents was spent for fuel, material, and supplies* Baployee compQneation has increased i36 poreant since I9h0 in spite of the fact that th© number of employees has decreased to a- i?63 employment level of 480,000, &a?bh©*s»r©, this pay increase does not reflect the costs of additional fringe benefits each as paid vacations and health and welfare programs. In 1943 alone the railroads paid 3?h million dollars ia payroll taxes to support retirement, uneaplojmimt, and sickness benefits, and an additional 135 million dollars for health and welfare programs, * The ratio of total wages and eupptemsnts to the value of , V i8aniel J?» Loomis, **A Realistic Appraisal of the Railroad 3hdaetry*s Shtare** and.Jiiiancial.ghronlcle (February, 1959), p. 6 7V ta #•>A * 4 I I*4 . * § € § M 4* 3 M 4»•rt « 49 M * 1 $ B 1 <3 I *§ © JS I 1 I ! I p* 129 16 No other major industry Is as trapped in Its own work rules as are the railroads; m m tho United M n e Workers are not resisting automatic devices and requiring excess crews* The demand for coal nay not bo increasing, but still tho workers have jobs that they would not have now if they had hindered their industry’s eompotitiVGnoso* ta the automobile industry employers reported that make-work practices have been non-existent. Th© stool industry reports that there has been no disposition on the part of its principal union to enforce featherbedding practices. Likewise, the successful; barge linos that have been operating on our inland water ways reported that there havo been practically no instances of featherbedding* ^ Many of tho work rules in use today da to, back to tho ora of steam powered locomotives* One such early rule still in existence states that two brakemen are necessary on each train. In those earlier days the train was stopped by these crew members racing along tho tops of the cars setting hand brakes. This was well before tho universal adoption of the air brake which the engineor controls 6 with a minimum of effort* Another such rule still in effect is called tho hundred- x d f v milo-day. In 1918 the average speed of freight train© m s eleven ' miles per hour depending largely upon how well tho hourly paid 5«Th© Trap,” HailmvJtso (March 24, 1958), p* 20* 6Ibld. 1? Licot f'ollcs? storsaflo T t rs c c Vit I po fc*‘Ao iV'2 v ^j.vfc . n i l " j r-, ;c ';.2e"d c? todorVV' 'Bo::?! r*V?*: At • -i/t-V'to dtr? o VJrrra;ra train erar? to or vArt": ito Li.;raoV'Vic.: ;1*a n fc -> c j tlran Irar :•:: *V*1, 1: radSrer-! orararaTra P'cra 2 2 ;) raV-oood to 0 r a '--'rad •** - inrc'V "nd 2 7 ; 2 cr.. Ara.lir ; ' '■>rotora/go.; Vra'ono {'< V r1/; ." '! rW '2 ‘V* 0 /W A d -**« •.—■•>«£•* *. 0 0 o r-1ra ‘Six:::z, e 0 < rra ravArad to c.raoto n Vd.. ;jilo rao dfcco Jew Vbrss to GV&eon^ c £s$;> tVot ora Vo tjodo 5vi r.s VAtt-Ao r /j J6 ’ -m ra *' 0 7 7 ::'W rv :■:::* '" y thro© dsam* pay £oj? g±j tad a hzM Vram o£ cctaak '.rav: *1^0 5 :v * ^j7w" /■-!■»•' * vr^ # *• '''Vw.^ * **-> < ■*‘^1f11r'r7 Ol&cojo rad ctVes? sru^tom yoiofov-' V. t • K.Uklai \'l Vj» ‘ >*W *•*\*\ W *4fr»VvJ * ... in 'j W V-«-» / fc*V J J-* * * * Z *) \.PiL*-*/» O ^ <‘;f^4->?» <’ ;s, ><>«•. V>»y V.—f %«t. / Vn-iiwW^V i,S.nv*s.,J /->*/'> f*Ts',v*vrfw. i U\yilV\^i Vrf. *x./ V. J!s» W-Ji. /l .-. £ N-y W(./vf ~t *_-**.>•!» ^ /v'i i t Vn’O'v'^ . t S.- f( (..-■*■-Tf* < *’ ** ?' • 'Ir* 'S f •. ^’;*■-'•• 1- •-'* » ! «v».^-^'x- -4-*■ .v^:-'-*^« >- r-.-' j;• ..^ifc .tiii-jr jr-t-r-biE jLie,st /. i'.’V V ;--J Ai ,A>; i<:'. - ■, 1- - . S.. , V-^v- *4.i . ,n O ->»_^— «—v> ( . t-» .-* -.-»v# «t«-*)•-»«» t < ". . -V>'■'<-■■,■••»«. « ’ A^S ,.v . 4 Jf . j' 1 .-^ ' ‘_t- .. ■ . r | :. t f\ *•.- * - * ' ^ ^‘ ,4"* ^*» '£■ «f) . >-'>■«' 3 * • ^ra-* * « y - ^ '. \. -r^rr** wWJyC m .’ » !w ,>•••■ *• 'nT-w. ^urr/ ;n-i, ■• •*'. o*»-'^1 ^v/s-4(?,-.-v VL - -:.f/ ? 9„ ^ Q y 2 »x J/0 _ > < » ^ *#v^»T V J V*' ,** V "*'r*k'* d ' < *’•'> ‘ ■ 2ri I9&3 a refers© m m dad tw> ttolnMfc an extra day* c pay ' each for th© few n&mtos of t«o*Sc thoy spent on a oonpBng JOfe* fh© referee hold that the x x ritd tm n ehoti&l tevo executed tfeejob. Oddly enough!, th© earns m n 9 perforalijg th© sasse p t i m x y 1 taetfton* io o^tm designated swdtoten m e day and brakeman th© &&$»-" depmding opon whether h© works Sn th© yard <*ewit©Mngw or m th© road braking* Ifeeso ©»o only a feu of jaggr ©as©© on rooord which railroad xoanog^ent believes typifies th© ©asUtmm of antiquated work rules* !■»>» wwwwiH w ww w iirrri. ,»uinj*ij | i.irja>©»i»w trn*!© w» THE UKIOHS* V I ® OF THE FEOTEKBEDDMS ISSUE The unions deny management accusations that foothorbodding exists in the railroad industry* Union official o maintain that the term ”f eathorb edding*1 taas part of a propaganda attack by management to discredit their own employees in the eyes of the public* Railroad managements often describe some of their employees as* ‘’firemen tho tend no fires and brakemen tho sot no brakes.0 Although tho fireman no longer tends fires, there are certain functions which he is designated to perform* Tho fireman relays tho switchman* s signals to the engineer when the switchman is forced to signal on tho left side of the cab, which is the blind side for Hie engineer* The fireman is a safety lookout who watches for trespassers who may cause themselves injury; he also Judges clearances on Hie loft sido of tho engine in order to avoid possible collisions or sido-swiping of other vehicles by the engine* On the road he is vigilant for any car defects, for instance possible fire from sparks or burning brakes* Furthermore, he repeats block signals from the Central Traffic Control to double check the engineer* Xh addition the fireman is capable of conducting safety checks on the diesels and making minor repairs while the train Is traveling* Both in the yard 20 and on tho road the fireman and engineer change Jobs periodically* relieving the engineer of the onerous tank Involving the safety of the crew and Billions of dollars worth of equipment'* Besides these funotlons the fireman Is receiving valuable training from the engineer so that one day he may qualify as an engineer.* Concerning brakemen who purportedly handle no brake s— union spokesmen point out that In 19J& throe men were killed and 688 Injured In the handling of hand brakes. 3h 1955 six men were killed and 793 were injured* in 1956 five men were killed and 863 injured*2 If a fireman or brakeaan prevents a serious accident Just once during his service with the railroad perhaps he le worth retaining, there are many oases on record where these employees have done Just this. One such incident took place on a passenger train which operates between Salt Lake and Los Angeles, the fireman on one of his safety checks of the diesels discovered a fire in one of the diesels* and even though he was seriously burned in extinguish* lng the fire* he prevented a possible explosion which might have killed many people end caused millions Of dollars worth of damage.^ Railroad management has grossly exaggerated the benefits *George E* Ledghty, “Railroad Propaganda Ignores the Facts," American JOderationist (December* 1 9 5 9 )* P* 2 9. %.B* Gilbert, “She Locomotive Fireman, w American JMora* &S3&& («tenna*y9 1959)* P* 8 . a accruing to employees from tho himcb?ed»all©-day rule. Management often cites caaMiples in which a full day’s pay is earned in a fear hours on "red apple rune.® Actually only one percent of railroad employees operate these runs and then only after being with the railroad for tmaty*fiv© to thirty years# Union figures point out that If the railroads paid their employees on a straight time basis similar to other industries* it would cost them $647 million extra per year on the basis of 1957 employment. She overage bricklayer earns thirty-four dollars per day while the average engineer and fireman earn tnsaty-two and eighteen dollars respectively# Therefore the hundrcd-ndl<>«day in the railroad industry is not supposed to represent a day’s work in the usual sense* hut is a means of measuring units of work.** Tho unions foal numerous carriers have failed to realise the improved productivity of today’s railroad worker* Steam engines each required a crew of men* and often sections of the read demand three or four engines to pull the load. Today on diesals one oreti can handle any also train. Purthornfflro, twenty years ago a seventy car train m s considered large* today tv© hundred car trains are commonplace* and the oars are even greater c in eiseo The unions advertised in to disclose ^Ledghty, SfisJBil** P* 5* ^"Firemen Survive Cutbacks,0 EtaejnogaJfeelc (Kay 16* 1964}* P* 105. 22 t h e ir vorsion of tho railroad situation. In on© advertisement they mad© tho following comparison of tho manpower requirements for moving 100,000 tone of freight between Hew York end San Francisco: Method of Transportation lisn Days Required Highway 43*416 Air (propeller) 36,708 Air (jet) 13,008 tfater 11*158 Railroad 3*220^ Docpito the railroad worker5a increased productivity wage inoroasosj, worMng conditions* and fringe benefits have lagged behind other Industries. Many railroad employees still do not receive overtime benefits os? extra pay for night* Sunday and holiday shifts*^ The unions also dispute managements* contention that the railroads are in financial distress* I3r* Loighty states that • « « in 1958b which m s the year in which the railroads* payment hod such a dark picture, the ratio of the railroads* net to gross m s 6*3 percent. In other words, $602 million* For tho domestic airlines the ratio of not to gross m s 3 percent for a net income of $45 million. Fbr the truckllnes the ratio of net to gross mo 1.4 percent or $55 adlllon.® 6m U 2 m ^ Z a rk m io s (August 12, 1962), p. B*12. 7A.E. Iyon0 «Hokum Ccn»t Hid© Facts,« (February, I960), p. 14, ®G*E. Loighty, ‘'Do tho Railroads Bead Roliof from Biscriia- inatory Federal Regulations,15 Congressional Digest (May, 1961), p* 143. 4 ftU netfttteft the mmsm® capital by t M &8* G ilbert^ t&e p rm M m t o f tb© tto tto ttfe tfi o f XSbamtiro - $sy »!n^i>^ifi!teif f H w ip ju »w i<\!.i»Tii »ic>. talks Stay off tfeo ©»ck*» (Kay 1% t9$2$* P* 446* (2961 Axemxep uioj£) * 9 &A n 6 j -j sptJOAj.ii^j -S'n ' 09bl ~ 0fi bl atMoouj p9Ui^9^ pu« snjd^rtg |X>^dvQ ^'o^.oj_ v^ m «c m q 0951 SSbl s m Oh b I of»bi. Hqitij^ S'Z 09bi'^i M Q m i a *ru z\ savnoa cjo SNomte tfZ CHAPTER V FACTORS WHICH FOLDED THE OUTCOME OF THE FEA3HERBEDDIEG ISSUE There have been various attempts to control featherbedding by mesne of legislation* However, these enactments have been virtually ineffective* Paul A* Weinstein states that legislation in this area is based upon tec common 1m principles. 1* "The eag&oyer has the right to run his business as he sees fit without outside interference* * 2* “Ho has the right to an unobstructed labor market, “ These employer rights have been upheld in most court cases.* In 19^6 the lea Act or "anti Potrtllo lam* was passed to prevent the mandatory employment of unneeded musicians. The Act described the following as featherbedding practices? 1* Requiring a radio station to employ more workers than actually needed to perform its function. 2* Having to pay, «3n lieu of giving deployment# w 3* “Paying more than once for services performed.rt Paul A. Weinstein, “Rear Guard Action Against Technology," ghalle^Ro (Hay, 1963), p. 13* i $ * I a s 3 3 3 I I I 1 1 lis II <3 i i 3 1 I 1 2? ever, tho Railway labor Act mis instrumental in determining the outcome of the railroad featherbedding issue. Bio Railway Labor Act tins passed in 1926 in en endeavor to prevent nationwide roil strikes by charting guidelines for labor* management negotiations* But, like similar pieces of legislation, the procedures of tho act wore cumbersome, lengthy, and far from effective in their application; nevertheless, this mis the structure which laid the groundwork for the featherbedding disputes. Ibis legislation trao conceived through negotiation botueen railroad management and labor. These men formed tho basis of the Act by discarding and selecting with discernment certain sections of labor acts they liked and disliked. The result mas a combination of Title 111 of the Transportation Act of 1920 (whioh was later repealed), the Eowoll-Barklcy Bill, end the Howlands Act,** Bio Railway Labor Act provides for a mediation board which consists of five mesh ore who are appointed by the President of tho Uni tod States. On the board's a m notion or at tho request of either party, tho board is authorised to mediate any dispute. If after mediation the parties still have failed to roach an amicable settlement, the mediation .board is required to use its influence to persuade the parties to submit .the dispute to arbitration. If the parties agree to arbitration a board of three members is to be established, with each side selecting. a member, and a third member *W ry Jones, Railroad Wages and'InborJteaationfl (Hew Tbrk* Bureau o f Inform ation o f the Eastern Railways, 1953)* P* ®7* 28 to b© selected by th© first two raoKfeors. If the two members cannot agree on a neutral party# he Is to be selected by the mediation board. Ifce arbitration board is empowered to make decisions only on the Issues submitted to it. If the disputants will not arbitrate th© issues after th© mediation board has failed 4a its conciliation attempt# and the mediation board senses that a strike is imminent which would paralyao the nation economically# the board Is instructed to notify th© President. the President is then empowered to create a presidential emergency board# which has thirty days from its creation date to ponder the issues and submit its report to the President. After the President receives tho report there is another thirty days of status quo# thus further delaying a threatened strike or lockout. Basically the Railway labor Act resulted in the elimination of th© Railroad Labor Board and a return to mediation and arbitration,'* Both management and union officials are in agreement that the Railway Labor Act is no longer accomplishing th© purpose for which it was originated. Mediation attempts have become a m m formality and seldom produce settlcmmts. Arbitration is rarely used because both parties must ogre© to it# so emergency boards have become eonmonplaca and management feds that they accomplish very little. By 1938# 12? emergency boards had been authorized under the Railway Labor Act. Prom 1928 to 193^ there were eleven ‘’ibid. 29 emergency boards created, but most people considered the Aet successful et that time* From 1934 to 1940 thore were only five emergency boards created cad the Railroad Labor dot 1aas considered oxtreznoly successful* After 1940 tho Act suddenly seemed outmoded for our changing times} between 1940 ami 1956 About 110 emergency boards were created* the average being about seven a year* Tho following are some of the reasons why so many boards were created* 1* Tho foot that disputants know an emergency board will be created before a national crisis Is reached tends to Impair collective bargaining at tho lower levels* 2* Etasrgeney boards are not tho last stop In settling a railroad dispute* the unions can still strike after the board issues Its recoiummdations • 3* Onions* strike treats have usually resulted in gaining further concessions beyond the recommendations of emergency boards* often because of I'M to House intervention* 4. Tbs parties failed to arbitrate the issues*^ Tho most outspoken assailant of tho Sailway Labor Act has been John H* Budd, president of Great Sorthom Railroad who said* Legislative procedures for labor relatione in tho rail*, no ad industry have been Mfirtoric failures and have brought unrest and chaos « » • J p ^ £ f the same procedures neverthe less can be effective if their underlying purposes are recognised and asserted*" It is important that tho adminis tration support its fact finding boards and make the present ^ Jacob J* H&iftaan, *@&ergenoy Boards Under the Railway Labor Act** (December, 1958), p* 911. Hallway labor Aat work th# wagr IV * avppaaa j-jatftT t#* 9 If M i la mat dan* th# law ahauld ba ehanfad c# ragaetad.7 K*S* D*fldaan, flawed Q*±af #f th# Baotharhaad af laea* nattra Bnfinaara, rafarrad ta govmaant intarrantian raaalting fra * th# Act aa a •two ad§# award." *Iaboir,* ba oantanda, »###*# a to ba fatting cut a»r# and a m aftanu" fha faarta dlaotfaaad in thlc ahaptar imdlaat* that aara aadant laglalatlan ia aaaaasacy, Bmwer* th# #f lafialatlan raqpdrad la # w ab rm riU I *ab>et and nHX ba diaawaaad In th# aanelmalan ##•Um #f this iM f. Canada*a daaiaian ta aliadnata ha# fir m a n had * pralbcnd affaat upon n r daalala* arar th# Usanam iaaaa* Hailroad labor and «anat#nar\t na§atiatia*» ###amylldtad wary littla and avantaaHjr tha tana# want ta # rajral n M o t i d a i aaaailaalan d d d i rulad that, •* • . fir anan ara nat raqairad am dlaaal laaanotl'fwa," A H firanan jaraaantljr w#rkln« an than# Canadian railwaya war* gaarantaad thalr >b a antil yddtanant* than a m a anay o«cura baaawa# #f tranafar, daath, or rattrw a nt th# > b 1# aradiaatad* ffcd# m » # # M 1# tarn •• attrition.* m (DvMriw ?"Caaada*a Jlra—nO ff Ctary,* JW uteLiBi (da#»#t 1}, 19d2), p. 22, In negotiation proceedings between the unions and the carriers* the anions* foremost weapon has bean its treat to strike. Xt is dubious whether the railroads could survive a strike throughout the nation* E r a the possibility of a strike is detrimental to the railroad industry* During the soe-saw battlo over feather bedding * tho railroads frequently were menaced with the pfobabllity of a strike. liany shippers* becoming tired of gambling xdtli their distribution astern* began diverting business to the truck lines* •» * t trying to gain a foothold before the onslaught of a railroad crisis* One major dipper alone* switching from railroads to trucks* caused the railroads to lose tho equivalent of sin hundred 10 carloads of business per week. franklin D* Eoosevelt jr.* tfodor secretary of tho U.S. Oossaerc® Department* presented to Congress conservative estimates of that a strike would moan to the nation* a economy* So stated that a strike would pat 700*000 railroad employees out of work and after thirty days 6*5 million people would bo mtsaployed* “At the same time*” ho continued* “tho annual rate of Gross National Product mould b© down thirteen percent. Xt is estimated that tho G.H.P#*s act unrecoverable lose would be ttranty^fivo billion dollars or more.” Our nation*s defense system would be seriously imperiled. Bulkydofens© raaterlals and weapons physioally carmot be dipped by track} neither troops nor thalr supplies could easily i0tt Shippers Starting to Bodge*1* JSajlwav Ac® (july 22* 1963)»p»9* 32 bo transported in balk. It is estimated that thirty percent of the Defense toparteent’s rail-routed traffic coaid hot bo diverted to other modes of transportation. Only ten to fifteen percent of > the nation* s present railroad shipments coaid be diverted to other transportation facilities because the other forms of transportation would then have on ovarsdie&ning amount of business with an In suf ficient number of vehicles. Same commodities such as certain minerals can only be shipped by rail if there Is no Mgbeay to the sdne. Tho coal industry and its markets would feel th© strike blow instantly since steel plants and electric utilities require c o d for their operations, float packing plants would be forced to close in a few days. Farmers would lose many crops for lock of transportation to' markets, especially crops requiring refrigeration for shipment. Rayon Emufaoturing would cease because its raa^or chemical component, carbon bisulfide, can be transported only by rail because of its hasards, Fifteen to thirty percent of all construction work would cease for lack of materials, Hail delivery would be delayed. The medical inventories in the 11 hospitals could become dangerously under stocked after a few weeks. Pressure brought to bear upon th© government might never allow a strike to transpire, yet it is possible that such conditions could occur. Strike the Railroads, Paralyse the Ration,” SatiiaByJte© (August 19, 19^3), p« 9» c u m * vi <9U£90$$t3&IL AG@8Blf $RB NtiKlldMKNUkiBl SWBHWM865W w »w?i tiuif f t m t M&teit ftffi _ _ t* Aftar if# at jyf M d AiM&Miiit #£ MarlMtt StHmM** Sm v D Db4*k d m g^# JP4,'Mttt|, a 4 44ata MmnNI ***** ttowi 4m ippftiNMft ^Upd ft* ftft ftft!ld^*ftftldftiftlMMSdflhftp| ftdd*ftdjpft ^dldfePifc ftftft :ftftftdt£ftftft dft *lftMftftldfti!SL&ftft l*i**ft ftft ftftft ft* ftft£t*ftftftl* d&ftftftftlf ttftft. • C A M t i t i i liD M • M tM % » g * * 5^fc AkjjD^ftAj^A, g M j^iL k g l DfcdP’ 4 m M^^Wk||^te llftft dft ftSyjdftdftftfcft *dftdllfttffeftdtfdlK^$' lld3U*ft ftftft ftftftftd ftidldftWftft ft* ft ftftftftdftftftft ft* ftfcjlt ftftftftftftift dft ftfti*ftftftftft dftift ftftdPlftftftftft ft^Sftftdftjd* dft ftftftkhftftfcftd ftftftft ftftftft" t * M & A most significant aspect of strategy was the ©xponding of large sums of money by the railroads on public relations in on effort to gain public support for their cause. She unions accused tho railroads of conducting tho campaign not only to malign their employees, but to gain public sympathy for both federal and state aid, tax concessions, and permission to curtail certain unprofitable 2 runs* Other railroad strategy was comprised of negotiations between tho railroads and tho live operating employee unions* Previously each union acted as a separate entity in negotiating with tho carriers. However, since the featherbedding issue was common to all operating unions, the railroads insisted that all five unions participate in tho proceedings. Bio Brotherhood of IocoKotlVG Firemen at first objected to the arrangement because the firemen on diesel engines tine the major issue involved, end ■User© has been a record of traditional rivalry between th© firemens* and engineers* unions* Evmtually all the operating unions agreed to a united effort.^ Bxe railroads had to decide whether or not to eliminate the 3,900 firemen on the passenger trains* Bio safety issue was a major problem; if the carriers moved to eliminate these firemen, the unions would surely state that the lives of the public were being ^Railroad Propaganda Ignores Factor" Economlc irends and Outlook (September-October, 1959), p. 1* 3&>rris A* Horwlts, **Bi© Diesel Firemen Issue on the Rail* roads," Industrial end labor Relations Review (July, i960), p* 550. 35 jeopardized through the railroads* greed. If however, the railroads did not move to eliminate all firemen, the public might believe that the railroads were admitting the necessity for firemen. The Wolfe committee decided to leave firemen on the passenger trains.** In February of 1959 Daniel P. Loomis, President of the American Association of Railroads, delivered a speech condemning featherbed practices in the railroad industry end requested a presidential study commission. I am not attacking railroad labor. There is no more able and conscientious work force in any industry in the nation, I am, however, attacking and condemning the deadly rules our workers must work by . . , rules which are thoroughly un-American, in concept and economically destructive in practice. • • • A half a million railroad jobs have been lost in the last dosen years, Unless we solve our internal and external problems, more thousands of jobs will go down the drain. Ko labor leader wants that. And neither does any railroad official. So 1 urge our brotherhoods to act with us to help reverse this dlastrous trend. Let* a wipe out featherbedding. Let’s stop paying man for work they don’t do. Let’s stop dissipating our lifeblood in frustrating clashes over rules everyone recognises as unsound and unfair. • . • Featherbedding by any definition is a net loss to all America, It puts pressures on our rote structure and bids up prices to all consumers, Xt is a handmaiden of the ruinous inflationary spiral, Xt helps impoverish and weaken the railroads, means fewer returns to Investors and virtual freese-out of the now equity capital needed to expand and improve, . . • It gnaws insidiously at our competitive position and ultimately destroys tho very jobs it socks to protect— both for railroaders and all those who depend on railroad purchases.5 The railroads wanted tho unions to join them in requesting **2im» S & u S & * > P* i65* 1959 Tar got* * Featherbedding, *” Railway Age (February 16, 1959)* P« 9. 36 President Elsenhotier to authorise a study commission, In June of 1959 “toe unions criticised management for requesting a presi dential commission, saying that it would be a waste of the public* s money* The unions denlod that featherbedding existed end stated that management now wanted to further suppress tho earnings of Its mockers and be allowed to cause widespread unemployment in an 6 industry which already has a record number of unemployed workers* The Railway labor Executive Association charged that if any featherbedding exists in the railroad industry, it is at the management level, not among the rank and file employes©0. There were 1,800,000 railroad employees in 1923, 16,000 of whom were at the management level* In 1958 railroad employment was half the 1923 level, yet management* e total of 16,000 executives has 7 remained almost constant* Guy 1. Brown, Grand Chief of Locomotive Engineers, repudi ated featherbedding accusations saying in parts It ie not strange that it is mud-slinging when employees point out a few of managements* shortcomings, but it is supposed to be a statement of fact when management charges employees with featherbedding because the employees insist that, agreement made in good faith be complied with until changed in accordance with procedures sot up In tho Railway Labor Act? The current campaign to pin tho featherbedding label on railroad employees is as vicious as it Is deceitful. VJhen the railroads of this country employ a public relations firm to do a special 6b m - ^Warren C* Waterhouse, "Featherbedding,tt WGatem Buslness Review.(February, i960), p, 23. 37 smear job on local ea^loyeos* instead of bargaining, in good faith* tie have reached an all tine low in labor*«*aanagea In September of 1959 President Eisenhower turned dtran tho railroads request for a presidential study eoramiesions he believed that collective bargaining would lead to a solution# Because of tho Presidents decision* the carriers on Itovomber 2 , 1959s 9 presented the anions with a set of proposed m r k rules changes* In synopsis5 managements* eorit rules provided fors 1# the unrestricted right to determine then and if a fireman should be used in freight and yard service* 2* a revision of the pay structure* which included pay cuts as high as twenty to thirty percent for road employees# 3# the right to ^establish* trove* consolidate* and abolish crow terminals*** 4# the right to eliminate the arbitrary barriers between road and yard work* Freight train crows are to do some yard switching with no m ro extra pay for doing a few minutes yard work* 5* tho right to determine the combination of employee positions that will bo utilised for tho different trains* Manage ment reserves tho right to add or eliminate any train crew position* bo it conductorsD assistant conductors* ticket collectors* baggageman* e*Bad Faith in Kales fight* « Railway M lq (July 6* 1959)* p* 9* g "Deadline Wear in Hall Bales Dispute*” Business.Meek (Juno 2 $ , 1963) 9 p* 65* 38 brokemen* firemen* engineers® or switchmen. 6, no more paying crews to man self-propelled machines. Management has the unrestricted right to determine when, and which employees will be used on motor ears and solf-propelled equipment. H*E* Gilbert* President of the B.L.F.& E.* had this to say regarding managements* new work rules* nIh© proposals*0 he charged* are proof that the railroad industry intends to main* tain its record profit levels by shoving thousands of employees into unemployment lines* • * * The pro* posals rank as an inhuman affront to rail workers and their families and are totally unrealistic in the practical aspects of railroading* If the railroads won all they*re seeking* entire rail communities mould cease to eadst. Bail eeploymenWnow at its lowest levsl*-would sink even lower. Railroad workers would have to submit to corporate slavery and oaf© operation would be virtually non-existent.11 In duly of 19^0 the unions changed their minds about a study commission* Th© unions now believed that they could correct what they considered management injustices. Specifically the unions wanted a shorter day* extra pay for holiday* Sunday* and night shifts. They also wanted a change in overtime rates* The unions wanted any changes in work rules to apply only to new employees and the findings of the commission not to be binding on either party* Because the unions* demands differed from managements** (November 2* 1959)* pp. 1-6. ***»Rules Proposals Arouse Unions*0 RallsmvAge (HovsGfcer 9* 1959)* P. 17. 39 Secretary of Labor James ffiLteheU m e summoned in order to bring about a conciliation* Eventually the unions relinquished their demand restricting certain recommendations of the commission and the railroads conceded their demand that the commissions report bo bindlng.*2 Both parties were now in agreement that a presidential study eommissiott was necessary and everyone hoped that the commission would make a significant contribution towards resolving the railroad situation* On Hoveaher 1* I960 President Eisenhower created the Presidential Railroad Commission* fhe Commission was composed of five management representatives, five union representatives, and 13 five members representing tho general public* PublleMecfcers , Simon H. Rifkind, (Chairman) John tm Dunlop Charles A* flyers Francis J* Robertson Bussell A* £bdth feme&Mapjga B.B* Bryant James W. Fallon T.A. Jernotr S.W. Holliday Guy W. Knight S*C* Phillips Denial P. Loomis H.F* Sites J.E. Wolfe A*F« Zimmerman op ^ c i t . * p* 166. 1%eport of thoJ&estdcntlal RaHroad Corod.sslon^ February* 1962 (Washington, D.C»s U.S. Government Printing Office)* 40 Chairman Simon H. Rlft&nd*o illustrious background as a former U,S* District Judge, one of the authors of the Wagner Act, a former law partner of Adlai Stevenson, and bis present position as Sew York lawyer furnish him with the prerequisites necessary for heading this distinguished ConralsGicn. Bio functions of tho ComniEsdUm were to investigate and study areas of dispute between railroad labor and management, in an effort to establish a basts for collective bargaining procedures, The Commission commenced work in January of 1961 and did not complete its study until February of 1962, la tho course of this period tho Commission held public hearings for ninety^six days* Curing tho hearings seventy-nine witnesses appeared before the Cofisdssion and 155 additional statements were received from other witnesses* lb© Commission recorded 15*306 pages of transcript throughout the hearings? in addition there were 519 exhibits totaling 10,319 pages* A tripartite technical subcommittee also conducted twenty-two additional monographs to assist the Com- 15 mission in Its deliberations. *•' In order to acquaint themselves with railroad operations, the public members of the Commission made railroad observation trips* Shcso trips covered thousands of miles on passenger and freight ^Kicking Some of the Stuffing Out of the Railroad Featherbed,*5 Bmroweek (March 12, 1962), p* ?8. LofL^JEa^dgntialjRatlroa^fo^ 1962* op* d t « , p* 16. 41 trains, encompassing both main and branch linos, traveling ovor mountain, desert, plain, and valley terrain* Countless private meetings were conducted by the Cossaissloh with both labor and management representatives* The following represent the work rales changes that th© unions and management desired to secure f w a the Commission's study, Onions demanded* 1* a decrease in working hours 2* a guaranteed annual wage % overtime changes 4, extra pay for night duty 5* extra pay for working Sundays and holidays 6* away fromhome expenses paid ?• no changes in the number of men necessary for safo and efficient train operations ffenagemesnt demanded* 1* that employee* s pay b© revised making it cowman- surate to the speed of today*© trains 2* fewer orm changes on the road 3. elimination of artificial barriers separating yard work from road work 4* that em*-consl0t rules b© eliminated, in other words, that management have the right to decide the number of men in a crew 5 * on end to rules requiring employees to man self- propelled equipment 6* that the fireman be eliminated on yard and freight diesel engines1? 3h February 1962 tho Gonn&osion completed its comprehensive study of the railroads* management-labor featherbedding disputes and reached tho following conclusions* i6Ibid* ^ “Boord Asks Bid to Featherbedding, a Railway Age (Eanch 5* 1962), p. 9. kZ AftJfoftJiflflLflL Comaiesion stated that, lb the light of tho preceding analysis, h o conclude that flrenen-helpors aro pot so essential fop tho safe and efficient operation of road freight and yard dioisols that there should continue to be either a national rule or local rules requiring their assignment on all such diesels* However, tho Comission did fool that tho railroads h a w an obligation to c m who have spent a significant portion o.f their ' working life as railroad employees and that those firemen who h a w over ten years seniority should bo retained with full seniority rights by tho railroads* Tho Octtaaieolon was of tho opinion that the ? 9Q50 engineers over sirty-fivo should rotiro* to make room for more. firemen promotions to engineers. Tho 18*000 firemen with under ten years railroad service should receive severance pay based upon years of service, with the process of attrition eliminating the other firemen. It has boon estimated that a ton year period will be required for the 2?,000 ten year seniority firemen to be reduced by attrition to the number required for passenger service. The Commission furthermore believes a joint committee between labor and management should be formed at some future porlod, to organise a training program for engineer trainees. Consist of crews other than f i r e m a n Commission believed that each railroad should solve this problem on an individual bads. If a railroad desires a change in tho number of men currently comprising a crow it should negotiate the change with the unions; if after sixty days no agreement is consummated tho change Should be arbitrated* Moreover, the Commission was of h3 the opinion that full operating m s on self-propelled ©quijraant are unnecessary. Technological ehanee>^»»Manage!aQnt should have the right to introduce technological changes whenever It eo desires, according to the Commission* However, If the technological advance alters rules now in effect, negotiations must be conducted i ’ with the unions for sixty days, and If an accord is not achieved the issue should be axfetrated* Mage structura.--Tho Ooamtssian recomended that the present limitation of sixteen continuous hours of duty be gradually reduced* Other pay reeomendatlons were 8 pay guarantees for full time employees, a shorter work week for the yard engineers who are now working seven days a week, elimination of duplicate payments In road and yard work, and other technical changes In the pay structure. Prlnge benefits.— Regularly assigned esgOoyees should receive seven paid holidays, and employees who work these holidays Should roc©iv© triple pay* Tho Commission also recommended that a night differential not be adopted* It did recommend that employees on the road should receive lodging, and expense rcdra- btursements# InterdivAsiona! runs.— Iho CnmaX&sXm said th© length of runs should be adjusted to make them comensurato to modern operating capabilities, and alternating of crows should be at managements* discretion* Tfaneedod crew terminal facilities should ** m MCMRtaMI AMI AiiiM. * t i M i ¥#!»>■ flix^ r f O M A & fll M M * Jfe iftm T iia a m H if lflH e a B g#MWA t t f t * | « 4 Jfe^#* W^vMHRf MS jjaOKm « IH m4^ ^ kwVK * J f a » HU 4MMflMNft£Snto n jL tti tikflft.n HHI £&M#2M* ItoNfc iM M A itilA lM AlifltfjUi'iH# 4A##k HM^WttMM# ^kJf MMkvHl ^ HikJMft^# ^uMMa|v4tofl^H||^^Mk'fc i^fc# 8P4M|AAAHi4iA^iijyAHfc(^ :#i^ iJfc# ^##4?# <# Jlffc mm-mmm m#1 HA mm^mHAmm A^HMB J^uatt mH HAfcfll l&HfcfcASi mmimMyftBfemMHLfim' t iv M , « m ft# # # m t n BMMte##* A .F . ZiMMMHBiaik M id ha man Id V 9pkr% Mmtfftp * # ffc * i*#«iim **** BPKhnMBi. PAfkta# *rt* th in ##mmfc UK tip i €iBiBi.##i#Bk$# works V*m t m * » l v in ak a iMurir « # atiti * *fm1 k *«i*ik . T iff iBtnyprpii i$M4& #44 M # %# 4#|1(# H HlAANPto^MsA -^ISi^NNffeliy HtHfrifiHH $H Hpj^HliH lit iflttHIFfcttMlP* ta ltliH i> i ist iUMMH&taFA -UNAAiiyi HHPbb. H^u^lliAefc^fc.nHiMMiP #41attm ■***■*W4 PSpMSpiir #Pa # iae8iuk#fc. JMRPtPp 4 * * A.«h^-mmt ,jyfm mmmmWmggAMuAttd^MMP/ « ii« lkm m mhNm, «hi«]i m m.Bmi tin * Up #M f«llttM «tth #illMHP' iH^MNI 4^f %#HKk4^H^4^lN^fe^PK'# CP# flilw k li *fr*w t vlth MPart af tk#QmAwbmk** mp*xl PIWIPwaag' i(^^HBBHMB^B|I^PBB fcgm«f #1—A A «9lA«»kAvt k tp jiliP iii kaOk* itP i Hi# «#i««*. ft» tmiMMa ktfwiw### #H4fc#&i^(hK^4p(ii iiw^ ^ii4W4li^4Ri##3k3i|J^* #^pjp# ## i t # ! • # • » * • i n t « y # « t * jawJ rt» am ! #ltjkk "tiui AMHMBLA#layikla jMauaai# leePS.-eeBeB , , . H a o w f c l M t i * * # f M # # | ifaatanaai m i lxa ^•tttidiif m m tf Hi# fluiilai Out %t th« a*iI»Mi 9##Hi«iM»” i M Hitaii (lfcy*k | % 101)* #» •*. h5 ^benlighting, globetrotting, imttention to duty, failure to conpechond, lack of interest inlcaming mere characteristic of this flag m v in g group.20 The ComntLssion’s report played m Important role in future railroad raonageamt-labor negotiations* but itls questionable whether or not the (Emission* a findings did anything to bring the parties closer to an agreement, m & M U s a S & m Labor and management representatives met on April 1# 1962 in order to discuss tho Conmiesion’a report, the carriers were pored, st m t in thoir position that tho Commission's report be tho basis for negotiations and the unions insisted that the report be set aside, fhis first meeting ended after ninety rtdhutes of 21 discussions with no apparent Indications of progress. On April 17, 1962 talks m m a g a in under tray? this time there wore twenty meetings over a seventeen day period, Thon th© carriers in a news statement criticised the unions for ’ their defiance of the Presidantlal Cosmdsslon and lack of public responsibility* Talking m e o v e r as for as tho carriers wore concerned, J«E. Ifolfo referred to the negotiations as* na travesty on tho collective bargaining process.ft H© said any ^ U n i o n s Reject Early Barley on Work Rules*11 Railwav Age (Karch 12, 1962)* p. 9. 21 "Wbris Rules Parley Recessed," R a l l m v Age (April 9* 1962), P* ^2, 46 farther meetings would only delude the publio, Iho unions, however, ezprossed {*8hocktt at tho carriers refusal to continue tho discussions. According to tho unions, tho first fourteen days out of seventeen wore occupied discussing carrier proposals and only the last throe days bargaining union proposals. Tho unions stated that they tier© still uilling to negotiate a settlement.22 On i-Jey 22, 1962 tho unions requested the assistance of the Rational ISadlation Board, and meetings vqvo once again resumed. But, as of June 2 2 , 1962 no conciliation had been reached, and tho carriers one© sore t&thdmr fTea further negotiations, the carriers ware of tho opinion that in spite of th© "sincere and untiring efforts of the Mediation Board” no progress was in sight, and prolonging the present endeavors would be fruitless. J.B. Wolfe, chief railroad negotiator, accused the unions of utilising stalling tactics end said that the unions have no intention of ever using the Presidential Om&Qa&on* & study to reach an understanding. Charles Buna, president of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, denied the chargo and said that the unions* only dodro was to seditiously bring the dispute to an "equitable settlement.*^ On June 27, 1962 the Rational Mediation Board offered to « arbitrate the dispute. If either tho carriers or the unions ^Carriers Break Off Work Buies talk,” fodawcvJtea (May 21, 1962), p. 9* 2* W . lorlc fltaea. Juno 23, 1962, p. i, col. 4, repeated the offer, the carriers would then have been free to effect their rale changes5 the unions could then have started a national railroad strike. If both parties had accepted ■ • ...... voluntary arbitrations the matter would havo been resolved. i t On duly 7$ 1962 J.E. Sfolfe, leader of the carriers negotiating team, announcod that the carriers would accept arbi tration, However, th© unions rejected the Mediation Board's offer. Htus the carriers issued a pronmlgatlon that on August 16, 1962 25 the railroads would pat the Comniiesion’D report into effect. On duly 27, 1962 the unions went to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in an attempt to have the carriers* promulgation notice declared invalid and in violation of the Railway Labor Act. Ihe unions were granted a temporary injunction to restrain the carriers, pending a later court hearing on a permanent injunction. She railroad operating unions were expected to strike if they were unsuccessful in court. On August 7t 1962 the carriers, in en effort to force the creation of a presidential emergency board and avoid further d r a m out court action, withdrew their duly proposals basod on the Commission's report and revived their more stringent 1959 work June 28, 1962, p. 19, col. S. July ?* 1962, p. i, coi. 3 . jw; 41 Court Battle Looms la Woxk Sales Case, 11 Railway. Age (July 30, 1962), p. 9* 4 8 raids proposals.2? The unions treat back to court and on August 6# 1962, U.S. District Judge Joseph Sarnal Perry ruled against the brother* hood*s case attempting to curtail managements* implementation of the work roles* This JjaaediatQly resulted in the unions beginning the strike preparations for a concerted walkout if the carrier < J Q proposals were instigated on August 16, 1962. During the second week in August the unions carried their caso to the Court of Appeals, t M c h granted them another temporary injunction against the carriers'. It was to be valid until the Court of Appeals had time to rule on the case* The unions had thirty days to present their case after which the carriers had thirty days to present their case* This was to be followed by twenty days for another reply by the unions. At this point the unions* strategy seamed to be one of delaying tactics, while railroad management was izzplorlng the President of the U.S. to 29 authorise an emergency board to help end the dispute. On November 29# 1962 the Court of Appeals ruled against the unions and upheld the lower court’s decision that the carriers were within their legal rights in changing the rules. The unions August 7, 1962, p* 1, col. 1, ^ntQp* Unions Wage Last Ditch Eight* h ikdlyasLMe (August 13, 1962), p* 9* 2 9 ^ How York Urnae. August 11, 1962, p* 1, col* 5* remained cpHt as to whether or not they should contirwo farther litigation. One official of the Salmon* $ Union stated that the unions would cany the dilate to the &ipraa® Court if necessary? other officials of the anions were ready to resume discussions at the bargaining table. They reasoned that every court defeat crippled the unions* cause end that the delay nos not worth the rlsk.^5 Tho brotherhoods decided to take the fight to the Sujsrme Court, bat in preparing their case for presentation they discovered what they considered to be discrepancies and errors in the Appellate Court hearing. Generally, their belief teas that the decision vent beyond the evidence presented; these discoveries resulted in tho unions changing their Kinds about the Supreme Court and in their deciding to petition for a Court of Appeals rehearing. A rehearing, however, was denied by the Appellate Court, and the unions decided to petition the Suprese Court once again. Tho unions felt that all they needed was a favorable Supreme Court decision to alleviate their problems. Several weeks would pass before the unions would know whothor or not the Supremo Court would accept the case. She brotherhoods based their appeal on four points: 1. Tho appellate court denied £tho union&T. procedural due process of lav in violation of tho Fifth Amendment to tho Constitution • • . by odrnittedly considering disputed evidence to determine facts which were never put in issue or tried. 3°Bew Yoik Haos. Eovenher fflp 1962, p. i, col. i. 50 2* The ease presents what is probably ths moat important issue that has y#t arisen as to tho interpretation and application of tho Railway labor Act* 3* Since tho Appellate Court based i&» decision on the riow that subjects dealt within the farriers rulej/ promulgation are not covered by the Railway Labor Act, it presents an Important question of federal law* 4* The yard and read portion of the carriers* proposals allowing road personnel to do switching would result in the eventual obliteration by the carriers of the entire basis for the existence of tho Swltehsian’s union* • • • The question of whether under the Railway Labor Act sueh distruct!on of established crafts . • • nay legally be accomplished by unilateral carrier decree is an important question requiring decision* 3* On March 4, 1963 the Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the lower court and refused to aeoept the ease* The Court's decision was very disconcerting to the unions* Many of the leaders in the unions now favored a resumption of talks in an attempt to wake the beat of a worsening situation*^ A March 13, 1963 meeting between labor and management was held in Chicago, Illinois. It was at this meeting that the unions offered to make their first major concession. H.E. Gilbert, president of the B.L.F. A £*, proposed a plan for reduoing twenty percent of the 45,000 firemen through the process of attrition* However, J.B. Wolfe denounced the plan, saying it was so fraught with exceptions that it would be useless especially since the 3*"0ps file Rales flea With Supreme Court,* Railway Age (January 7/14, 1 9 6 3 ), p. 10. ^ e w lark times. March 5, 1963. p. 1, col* 8* 33 union had to approvo each Job blenkod. On April 2, 1963 the Court injunction barring the railroads from putting therules changes into effect, officially expired, fcfolfo said the work rulos would be enacted at 12s01 a*m. April 8, 1963* This latest action by the railroads forced President Kennedy to authorise an emergency board, thus barring rules changes or strikes. On April % I963 President Kennedy, under the provisions of the Hallway labor Act, created & thro© sari emergency board to study the railroad controversy. S 10 Etaergency Board was scheduled to begin its arduous task in Washington on April 11, 19&3* Bxe trio was composed oft Samuel Roscnman - Formerly a justice In the Hew Tfork Stpresae Court and special advisor to Roosevelt and Freeman, he is presently a Hew fork lawyer who has been a member of numerous boards and committees. Clark.Kerr - He has been president of the University of California at Berkeley since 1958 and is a highly respected west coast aibitrator. Hathan B. FjeinMng^ - Ho was past chairman of the Wage Stabilisation Board, has twenty years experience in the lobor-management field, and for the past few years has been a law professor at the University of Wisconsin.^ 3% S E U M L t e S S » *6, 1963, p. col. 8, April 3, 1963, p. 27, col. 1. 3-Kj.F.K. Acts in Rules Case,** RallwavLAga (April 8, 1963), p* 9* m » I f * & ■s s o $ i » <*>S. 1 c © I © 1 a s I tr I % £ § 53 tkase aksal* ks anft flaqdkOitgr la tka «se af yes* a»* zsa* •Mil» M ka s U SlctiAftUCM lfe«ftl* ks presCTT**, j|MMMMSyk*«^tks Beta* flats* tkat Mi* w ftM la fi M m * a > * MLffsPcaea i» n m n h h 4 « U « i » k s t a a s i » t t « m k t v s r * a esHMtasftafts t a i KM th a t SL#«hk*v»r*cmmUmim m w am*#* aliataatim a ll fir**** wltfc 1m s Mms* ta» ysara m h 4s i*S7# akila Xaaiisdjr's calls* its dsdaacl af caly saasKtly H i* ftrw m .^ l itlis a * labar an* aaaagaaimt act I k MHOdagtaft D.C. ca St, l|l| ta *» « « -Mu •sa*#s I m s c Sap»til4a, Assistant Secretary * f laker, kks aaaipia* ts assist Ik Mm *U» euaeiene. Ska priM fy tafia af aewsssaetle* «*• the fimuu* issue, as tka aniens was* keiag praams** fM a a kaiUi»g *? of aewjpw laail SMppast fas a eeayuleery a*kitratle« k ill ta tea* off a atyike threat. *a #nks li« 19>i5 the SMVfKur Baas**s prerislea fas aefotlattens elaps•*, «M tka aasties* cod* base keen fsaa ta pat that* skaacaa late effect, axccft tkat Wtrla yagaaate* a Ilf * *ay aatSKSlan aktak naa granted. SreaU eat KsanaSy la te r ragaaeta*m ertensiea ikteagk July it# if t l afc&th aaa reluctantly granted. fhresidaat Kennedy, aa ra il as *a»*g en«nt an* lakes, nas tiva*fmm tka andlees recede af ^^gnmKW lni if Itm *>«* utAiiiM i # * » 1 1 It >a ftMp&asyy AAitratien Mi tka NaUmdaf* (duly 1* 1*3), f. 7«. 5 * deadlines and postponements* She President declared,**. • * only the critical, crucial nature of the baste issues involved^espeelaUy the replacement of men by i On July 5# 1963 Secretary of Leibor t&lland Wlrt2 in a statement to the parties suggested a proposal to the effect that Assistant Secretary of labor, James J* Soynolds, arbitrate the dispute, with his decision to be binding for a two year period* Hr* Wiriz said he wanted his answer no later than July 7, 196% On July 7 the carriers accepted and the unions rejected the proposal* On Jhly 9, 1963, President Kennedy requested that the parties submit their dispute to Arthur J* Goldberg, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, for arbitration* ©10 President requested tho parties to advise him of their response by lOtOO a*©*, July 10, 1963* Us© rules changes end corresponding strike were scheduled for 12*01 a.©. July 11* Once again the carriers acquiesced and the unions refused the proposal* B.£* Gilbert said *>th© brotherhoods objected not to Goldberg, but to any form of arbitration.^0 On July 10, 2963 President Kennedy asked the parties to ^ R R ’s lb Effect Buies Changes,** JSallwav Age (July 8, 1963)# P» 18* 39 gretherhood of Xncowtive^remen^ ^^omon* Office of the President, Monthly Bulletin (July, 1963), p. 189* ho Ibid. 55 iwithhold eao& roles changes or etfike notice until July 2$, 1963* Be informed th© parties that he was appointing a special six nan committee, composed of Willard Wirtz, lather Bodges, George Harrison, Stuart Saundcr, George Meany* and Joseph Block to study the dispute hi and suggest a solution. S m s analysts at that time predicted that the President could pursue any one of four alternative courses of action? *» flaaamMMnkJwftgra^^ - This «euld not have solved the labor dispute, only shifted the burden to the government. Jhi© prospect m e favored by the unions, but caused much fear among railroad managcaient. d.B. Wolfe, in a public statement said that it would bo unfair for tho railroads to lose control of their organization after they had acquiesced with the recommendations of every commission end government proposal, 2, Compulsory arbitration * President Kennedy could have asked Congress for a #one shot1* compulsory arbitration bill, thus forcing a railroad settlement. Railroad management favored this approach thilo tho unions wore of tho opinion that such a bill would sot a precedent which would affect tho futuro of tho collective bargaining process, 3* lot tho strike occur - the Incipience of a strike would have resulted in a public furor which would have forced a compromise in a few days. 56 - a © President could have asked Congress to make drastic changes in the Act curbing strikes on a^Jiational basis or changing the collective bargaining process* On July 22, 1963 President Kennedy* based on tho findings of the six man study board, asked Congress to compel the parties to settle their disputation under the auspices of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Tho plan called for railroad labor and management to submit to the I.C.C. their proposals and counter proposals regarding the 'work rules* Tho I.C.C. then had 120 days to accept tny rules or to volte substitutes* Tho unions could not strike, nor could the railroads put their c m version of the rules into effect for a two year period* During the truce, negotiations were to continue* If any rules agreed upon differed from the I.C.C. rules, the negotiated rules would pretrail* The carriers said that they would be tilling to follow the provisions of President Kennedy’s plan* Tho unions presented to Congress a formal denunciation of the plan* The unions pointed out that in Kay of 1959 the I.C.C. conducted a railroad investigation because of declining passenger traffic. In their report they stated that railroad labor was responsible for many of the railroads* financial difficulties* Commenting on this report to ^ “Deadline Hear In Bail Buies depute,n Bpslnesa Week (June 29, 1963), p. 65* % j ^ ^ o o d _ Q O f l g p ^ i ^ ^ £ i E ^ m ^ n d . ..flMtofflSfflif Office of the President, Monthly Bulletin (July, 19&3), P* 1&9* m toagftftftft rn* M t e i , to a to CfcUf a * %to # *td , m » t Qm m I m I#* . . ♦ fttto ato d M&rftad la t o * •• atortftiifctod, attotowi and if attw iig to nntotortwl fito& aiM i if me# agftftanantft* • . . 2» dw ri to# I.C.C* toft >\rtftdy datidftd toft aandta ftf toft vw f to ito toft pftftftlfttlftft, if an**tod, wmld ftfttoftvi to toftto m m * td «*» «tifti»**** ihft dftSjr 9 i i9<3 loilto h i Mtolii to « f t i i t o f N m 1! dftfttatoa «n feftftttoat Xtoftftdg^ft ylM tolto ft*# ito W U jp kUJUd* dailiftftd aftiiftftotot «*t anfttotr toadl***, to i* tiaw to fftit 29, lto3* Fft* pa#pi* tod my top* ftf in ftftftftid bftimg rfttatod toftoft to* dftftdLliift. ftofftftftlft vftr* ffttoditoi to to p m Ito im v 2s iiftd —Ami and stodr tourdft, to t toqr did *»t a*l#riftLi*a. fto tost toting togr Ctoftoitowi wtoad toft to ftftto tor ft iwya liity *i*lto«toa» to ll ftnd ftitond toft lato* tolftto toatogtoftftt to* Bfttton, to t «• ftf to««fti *?» *9*3 iifttoiag tod tow toftfttotd) * r*ln*t«rt fdiidad toacftftift to* torftftd to ni« Itogr tototod dftto ft Mftftftlftftry fttoitotoU* V illto r*#irl«ti»§ it to to * f i Twun and m m ftftftatat iti» M . 0—fraat fa it ttot ttoftft ■*£•» Btotollftf tltftkft wwa r a—r >d, toft aft^allad ftaaaftdaay ifttoftft ftfald to ftftttlftd tjr ftftllftfttira to n d fln . M blia lav 2$»102, toft #ffi«ial tttto far tto crftttr*U#« fttU , Jaaffid (Jiafftftt5 * *9*3). >» to. 2 Mfiftft af toft 9ft 50 reamed through tho Senate fey a margin of 90 to 2 on August 2?, 1963 •net expeditiously cleared tho House by a vote of 286 to 6 6 tho afternoon of August 28, 1963, The President signed tho bill into law that evening, just six hours boforo tho roil strike was to eon&enoe, Tho carrlors hailed tho motion of Congross ms "timely mnd constructive handling ©f this crucial legislation." The unions referred to tho legislation ms "regrettable and a backward step in the pro serration of the rights of workers." The arbitration was to bo conducted by a sorsn man board* Two Mntoers ware to bo chosen by wanagonsnt and two by labor. Thoso four aon woro then to ehooso throo ‘‘public’* numbers* Tho arbitrators worot For tho ttaions - W*E* Gilbert, President B.L.F. & K. H*H* rSoDonald, Vice Proaidant, B.R.T. For tho Carriers - J.E. Wolfe, Chairman of tho National Rail and labor Conference Cosrdite*. Guy V i* Snlght, Ghsiraan of tho Eastern Carrlors Conference COmdttoo Public Maatosrs - Ralph T. Seward, veteran arbitrator Jsaos Hoaly, Harvard professor Benjaadn Aaron, director of tho Institute of Industrial Halations at U.C.L.A. • The Panel had sixty days to roach a solution, and it would bo another sixty days before tho solution would bo effected. Tho findings of this board woro to bo binding upon the parties for a “Rules Dispute Goes to Arbitration,M Hallway Asa (Septsober 2 , 1963), p. 9. h? (September 2, 1 9 6 3 ), p. 9. 59 ^ 48 too year period. On Kovenfoer 26* 1963 the mbltration board announced its decision that eventually ninety percent of the firemen x«jre to be eliminatedo The first phase of the Board* a decision tmo to begin on January 25e 1964 when oil firemen hired within the last too years were to be released from their jobs. H.E. Gilbert that seme day announced that the unions wore going to court in order 4 9 to challenge the constitutionality and the validity of the award. The January 25* 1964 cut-off dato for firemen was delayed because of the unions® court appeal. A decision on the case in the Washington B.C. Court of Appeals was expected sometime in February.-^0 On February 28p 1964 the Court upheld toe arbitration award. Tho unions announced that they would contest the decision in the ' Supreme Court. The railroads agreed not to commence laying off workers until the Supreme Court decided whether or not to accept the case.51 The Supremo Court was expected to announce its decision sometime in April 1964$ meanwhile the unions changed their work ^ B e d d i n g On The Featherbed** Business Week (Septenfcer 28* 1963)* p. 6?. ^Fireman* Dawn But Hot Out** Bai3mv_Me (December 2* 1963)* P. 10. ^ W o r k Buies Dear Daisy** Ralls-Tay Ago (January 27* 1964)* p. 9* ^ “Unions Switch Tactics Again*** Balluag A m (March 16* 1964)* p. 40. 6o rules strategy* Being unsuccessful on the national level, tho unions decided to negotiate the so-called secondary issues on a local level with individual carriers* The Southern Pacific and the Louisville & Nashville railroads were selected for test oases* The unions spent over $20,000 in newspaper ads placed in eleven metropolitan papers along the routes of the two carriers* Tho ads read in parti If you were a railroad operating employee, haw long would you put up with work rules like thoeot Ho paid holi days, long hours1# inadequate overtime pay, inadequate lodging and no meal allowances for required away from home stays, no extra pay for added night hasarde.52 Meny people were of the opinion that the unions* strategy was to negotiate favorable work rules with those properous railroads and then extract sirdlar agreements from other railroads* However, the Southern Pacific and tho Louisville & Nashville refused 53 to negotiate directly with the unions* The unions threatened to strike at 12t01 a.m, April 10, 1964* Presidmt Johnson summoned railroad unions and management leaders to Washington for a conference* He told the railroads that since they gave President Kennedy an opportunity to resolve the disputes tho least they could do was to give him a change also* President Johnson requested a twenty day postponement, but the 52o0niona &,£toh footlca Again#0 Railway Age (March 16, 1964), p* 40# ^%&rvin Hugo 2im, BKastor Strategist of tho Railroad Settlement,** fortune (July, 1964), p* 24?.. 61 unions granted him fifteen days* Th© theoretical deadline was now April 25 # 196h,*^ President Johnson selected a five can team to mediate the bargaining sessions between management and labor. The team was composed of: George Taylor » of the University of Pennsylvania Theodore Kheel » a Sera Xork mediator Willard KErtz » Secretary of Labor James Reynolds - Assistant Secretary of Labor Francis O ’Hoil - Rational Mediation Board Chairman-’-’ At this point* the following courses of action might have been pursued: 1. Tho President’s mediators could have convinced the disputants to reach an agreement. 2* If the talks failed* the President could have threatened th© parties with an expressed or implied »©r else** which would have resulted in more talks. 5, If th e talks failed he might have requested Congress to bar a railroad walkout. Haay observers felt that th© unions* and managements’ MAnother Strike* Another True©*# P.S.ftewa and World ffem rt (April 20* 196h>* p . 77* 55 ^Johnson Swings a Red Latem*** Business Woek (April 18* 19&0, p. 2 5 . ^Ibld. 62 representatives did not want to, settle the dispute for fear that concessions granted would cause then loss of votes or similar reprisals from their respective conetitumoios. President Johnson realised this when he made a public statement just before commencement of negotiations* saying* "The principal question is whether these bargainers can* In fifteen days* get over four years of the idea of somebody else settling their disagreements for them*** President Johnson was a frequent visitor during negotiations* often giving patriotic talks to th© disputants on their responsibility to their nation* His talks also carried undertones of seizure* arbitration* end retaliation, still the talks seemed to drag on* As M s next move tho President conducted a few private talks with the management representatives* He was reported to have told the management representatives that It was up to them to secure a settlement and « if J can help yea make up the coat someplace else* X will do what 1 can.** Ibis was not meant aa a 58 firm coaadtment but th© i^lication was dear* th e re are many areas in which the railroads desire government concurrence* 3he railroads have four billion dollars invested in recent tunnel and grading improvements which tho Internal Revenue Service w i n not allow them to depreciate* Ihe railroads are ^Bavld Lawrence* "Peradssivo Anarchy*" g.8*,. nmrn^aM^mxM Report (April 2?* 19&0* P* 12ft. 58 ^"What Railroads Want FTom UB*J* How*" P*Sf Hetm and Vforld Report (May 11* 196*0* p* 95. 63 protesting this, stating that they could save twenty to thirty million dollars a year in taxes* Other areas of government con* currence might be in allowing the railroads to reduce their rates on certain freight, end sanctioning proposed rail mergers.^ On April 22, 1964 a conciliation was finally reached by the disputants, Just three days before the April 25, 1964 deadline* Tho settlement provisions were? 1* The hundrod*raile»day is to remain the basis for computing wages* 2* Seven paid holidays for employees woro authorised* 3* Railroad yard employees are to receive pay increases* 4* Employees are to receive suitable lodging end meal allowances when on the road* 5* There is to be son© combining of road end yard work as authorised by the previous Presidential commissions. 6* There would be gradual elimination of 45,000 rail Jobs if the Supremo Court denies a hearing. 7. Thoy agreed that there should bo no night differential* 0* Thoy ruled against the existence of excess crows on 60 Gelf-ppopelled equipment. On April 27, 1964 the Supreme Court refused to review the constitutionality of the arbitration award* The railroads as of ffitbld. 60 ftTh© Bail Settlement? A Coup for L.B.J.,0 Newsweek (Kay 4, 1964), p* 67* Kay 7, 1964 laid off approximately 5*500 firemen, including tho writer of this thesis* Theso woro ism hired within tbs last two years* The remaining firman with over ten years seniority will retain their fall rights as firemen with ninety percent of their 61 jobs eventually blanked by attrition* The question perplexing railroad officials is* what will happen in 1966 when tho arbitration award effective period expires f B«L*F. & E« President Gilbert indicated that the union will m a t every job blanked by the carriers restored. Be estimated there would be approximately 8000 jobs blanked over the two year period; Another imposing railroad industry problem is that of state full-orew laws* nationally an agreement between the carriers and unions eliminating firemen is suitable for states not possessing full-crcv lavs* but son© of our states have laws determining the number of mm in train crews* A Great Eorthern Bailway freight train operating between St* Paul and the west . coast has a normal crew of a conductor and two bro&easn* However, both Kortb Dakota and Washington require a third brakesman* Thus trains mist stop on the borders of these states* pick up a brabeaaa and then continue on to tho border whore tho third brahman is 61»Higb Court Shuts The Last Door*” Railway..Am (May 4* 1964), p* 12. ^ F i r e m e n Survive Cutbacks,» Easiness Week (Kay 16* 1964), P* 105. . 6$ deposited because he la not required in the nest state* There is a run between J&lliatonp Eorth Dakota and BainvUlep M&ntana covering thirty* eight ndies, for tM c h an extra brakeaan m a t be added* Xt usually takes an hour and a half to complete this nm, but the extra brakomsn receives a full day’s pay*^ In California ls200 extra railroad mm are working because of these laws* Tho president of one major eastern railroad noted that crow laws in three states deny the railroad about eighty percent of the relief th© arbitration award would othomlso provide, figure ? illustrates the states which have full crew lass. The railroads now hove litigation pending in some of these states to have tho Aft laws repealed. 63Julec Bactoanp “The Siee of Cmjo,® IhborJ^LBesAM? (September* i96l)0 p. 805* ^ b h a t Kailraads bent fTon I.B.J. KoWpw m'UX-£m&j£ (Kay lip i 96h)0 p . 12* excess-crew laws I 1 States having 'no excess -crew la-1 ' I 1.1,.) Sto4e cavTriVmxs’ions a^+Koy jaed to yegufcyfe crg w cows ie»r«, The Na+iohs TramTVew Laws at a Glance Figure 7# (From Railway Aee. January 6, 1964) CHAPTER VXX 1 e U a 0 O $ k 4* & £ § a % ^11 $ a*! 6 8 with manogemant. The union con (la) demand a given wago rate and allow th© employer th© choice of the quantity of labor it desires to esgploy at the fixed rate, (lb) The union could demand © fixed quantity of oesployaent awl allow the employer to set the wage at which this given quantity of m m would be employed. (2) the union could decide to fix both the wage and (a) either the quantity of labor employed or (b) the proportion of labor to other factors of employment, Staler states that featherbedding occurs only if nusher two is adopt©! because the ©Employer is faced with an "all or nothing deal."2 In the railroad bargaining sessions* the unions originally desired to maintain their set wage and all fireman* However* eventually* H.E. Gilbert proposed a plan eliminating twenty percent of the firemen. 5fee axbitration award calls for the elimination of ninety percent of the firemen. Perhaps the unions would have been wiser at the beginning of the bargaining sessions to have admitted that seme firemen were unnecessary and to have accepted a decrease in pay in order to keep more firemen employed. However, in retrospect everything always seems more clear. The featherbedding issue had been studied by commissions, boards and courts. Three Presidents and their labor departments struggled with this problem before today* s tenuous solution was effected. In order to assess the probably effectiveness of the % o m m Staler* "The Economics of Featherbedding*** Industrial (October# 1962), p. 114, 69 arbitration award and tho labor-raanagonsnt compromises It Is necessary to view these ©vents and the&r ramifications from three different perspectives, these of* Malmanagement end the general public. Railroad labor, in exchange for a few fringe benefits lost thousands of railroad Jobs, Many businessmen and economists believe that these are only short-run effects and that in tho long-run tho increased technology will result in lower unit costs, lower prices and a corresponding increase in demand (assuming the product or cervices have an elastic demand schedule}* B i s increase in demand should create more Jobs In the marketing and serviceing aspects of business* However, the long-run view is little solace to the worker Who has Just lost his job because of the organisation's technological advances* Xh the railroad Industry, most operating employees wore in a state of apprehension, afraid to incur long term debt, because they did not know whether they had enough seniority to continue at work, or if they would b© required to uproot their families in search of new work. Many workers who lose their jobs because of technological advances will bo forty years old or older* At this age a man is often too set in his ways to be retrained; even if he can be retrained many corporations will not hire a man in that age bracket* B e unskilled young people alee pose a serious problem, Many of theso people are only capable of manual labor because of their intellectual level or lack of ambition to become skilled at a trade. 71 t£ the railroad management for some reason denied railroad service to the public* the government would waste little time in seising the railroads in order to protect the public’s interest* let whan tho railroad unions threaten a strike, which could stop rail service* it is still considered labors’ protected right to strike* However* the recent railroad developments demonstrated to tho disputants that the government td.ll not tolerate a railroad strike. This does not moan that management is now in a position to fore© their demands upon labor* If this ever threatened to occur tho government would probably sdzo tho railroads to protoot tho rights of labor*. Thus th© government4 s authorisation of compulsory arbitration os a means of last resort in resolving a dispute is much less dramatic than a paralysing strike or government seisur© of the railroads* Curing th© disputes* management often stated that it was the public who m s being forced to pay for feathoibedding practices by such things as higher rates* Bbwsver, tho amount of money saved by the public through tho elimination of featherbedding is questionable. Th© Interstate Coaaerco Commission determines tho rates and they will not allow th© railroads to lower th© rates to the point of causing excessive loos of traffic to other modes of transportation* However, tho public could ultimately benefit if tho railroads would devote some of their savings to researching more effective moans of transportation. In order to compote in th© 72 future the railroads moat devise faster and more efficient moans of transporting passengers and freight. During the five years of resolving the railroad crisis* the public m s kept in a state of suspense as to the possibility of a strike. The prolonged bargaining sessions kept workers employed who® the railroads considered unnecessary, The railroad employees wore uncertain for five years as to the permanency of their dobs, None of the parties gained by the long period of time involved* and in the final analysis the matter was still settled by compulsory arbitration, Both-railroad management and labor agree that it is time that the Railway labor Act m s changed, Today the collective bargaining process in the railroad industry is nothing but a formality which precedes a long drasan*out chain of mediation* boards* and commissions. However, if the disputants knew that after the bargaining sessions ended a neutral party would decide their fate* collective bargaining would be treated as a serious matter. There are cases on record in the railroad industry where awards were made because one of the disputants did not make a sincere bargaining effort. One such case took place in I960 between the Chicago* B«X, and Pac. R.R, and the Switchmen Union Railroad management was granted an injunction to stop a strike threat because the Court ruled that the union bargained in bad faith, by turning down management proposals 3 and offered no proposals or countor-propo sals of their own. In the 3paul D, Borman* ttUhion Roforendom Provisions as an Indication of Failure to Bargain in Good Paith,M MchiganJtnvrRevlew (March, i96l>* p. 798* 73 featherbedding dispute there wore tines that railroad management handed out mimeographed atateaonts to the newspaper reporters after collective bargaining sessions with labor representatives. To make the Railway labor Act more effective each step in tho proceedings could be governed by flexible tine Units. The first step could be bargaining between management and labor with no out side interference. If at the end of this phase an agreement had not been reached; the National Mediation Board could mediate tho sessions. At the end of this phase most disputes would probably bo settled because the parties mould iknow for a foot that the next step mould bo coaspulsoiy arbitration by a neutral party whose decision mould be binding. At first there tiould be legal questions, but after those were resolved there would be no roason why tho aggregated process should exceed a year in length. The railroad industry may bo in the unique position of sotting a precedent for labor and management negotiations in other industries. As other Industries become faced with similar problems connected with technological advances the railroad later dispute could become a guideline for other industries to follow. Other industries should remember, however, that it is oho thing to use compulsory arbitration to settle a labor-manageimmt dispute in on Industry which Is government regulated and quite another thing to interfere with the collective bargaining process in industries Which could bo classified as non-essential* *f ° strike occurred in the 74 coal industry it would be harmful to the ©conemsr end many people would be unemployed, but at least there would be come sort of stockpile from uhioh to draw before the situation became critical, 2h the railroad industry there is nothing to stockpile; the nation would feel the effects of a strike almost immediately, the public will once again be reminded of feathezbedding in 1936 when the railroad arbitration award elapses and the unions attempt to restore all the firemen who «©r© laid off. However® a coB^>rehenslvo study will most likely be undertaken before tho arbitration award expires* It would probably compare the safety and efficiency of operations with and without firemen* I M s report would be the basis for bargaining or for another arbitration sward if necessary. Bat oven when this issuo Is permanently rosolvod m m feathezbedding will still exist on tho railroads* there are still approximately 3,900 firemen working on passenger trains and tho railroads estimate that the humdrod-saile-day role is costing the® an extra 107 million dollars a year. In order to compete successfully in world trade this nation must eliminate all traces of feathezbedding* The productivity of the nation must bo commensurate with the high wages workers receive* Ibis productivity results from technological advances and not from protecting jobs which hinder technological advances* Earvin Hugo 2tm, "lister Strategist of tho Hallroad Settlement." Ibrfcsne (July, 1964), p, 353* n f t n t o p * it # t h e * in&idtariUw assi. th $ e m l « # %osmn f f o m t h e p m lm m d . 5 ? a t o > 3 d Msp&%m$ ■ tfes B a t t o a « & & -feu- tsars j^j^gaeoits |>acaas^ ©£ t!i© fGil^ad #a^rae&$sii* ■ 4*ep th© 'w & tfm m «f \> BIBaOSRAPHI Public Jfccumenta Association of Railroads. j^k,BoO^. November 2, 1959# 88th Congress. .&Q2» August 28, 1963# Presidential Railroad Commission, WasMngtan, D.C. Government mating Office, February 1962. Presldcmti&l Railroad Emergency Board Ho. IjSh. Raeonaaerytetions Estab lished April 3, 19,63. "" ™ United States Congress, Bouse of Representatives, Committee on Education and labor. Hearings before Suhoom&ttee, 87th Congress, 1st Session, Karch 8-Aprll 25, 1961* Washington* Government Printing Office, 1961# United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Coamerce. miroMJbferk.Rul^ r&Goute. 88th Congress, 1st Session on Res. 565, July 2&* August 2, 1963* Washington t Government Printing Office, 1963# United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Commerce, liai^rpadi Hearinge before tho 88th Congress, 1st Session on S.J. Res. 102, July 2>August 1* 1963. Washingtons Government m u t i n g Office, 1963. United States Congress, Senate, Committee on labor and Public Welfare. RmlorinfLtho i^en^Qns^ofjthAlianiaoHe^ Revolution. Compiled for tho Subcommittee, 88th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington* Governracajt Printing Office, 196h. 77 United States® Senate® Conirfttte© on Labor and Public Welfare* Hearings before the Sub committee® 88th.Congress® 1st Session® Kay 20~23» 19®3* Washingtons Government Printing Office® 19&3* WlrtB® Willard. atiSlBS* August 2, 1%3* Union Correspondence and literature Blrdslll® C.L. Correspondence to local Chapters of the B*1*F* & B* No Hate* Birdeill® C.l* Correspondence to local Chapters of the B.t*P. & E. July 23® 1963* Blrdslll* C*L* Correspondence to local Chapters of the B*L*F* & E* September 4, 1963* Birdsill* C.X- Correspondcsieo to local Chapters of B*L*F* & B* March 25* 1963* Birdsill® G*L* Correspondence to local Chapters of B*L.F. & B, May 17® 1963* Gilbert® H*B* Monthly Bulletin. 8.1*F* & E, July 1963* Gilbert® B.B* Monthly Bulletin* B.L.P. & E* August 19&3* Gilbert® H*E* Corrosrpondcneo to Local B.L.P* &> E. August 1® 1963* Gilbert® H*E* Correspondence to local B.L.P* &* E. September 6® 1963* Shatluck, J.L. B.L.F* & E« Publication, July 1963® pp. 129-131* Boohs Jones® Barry* Railroad pastes and,labour jtelationG. New York 11 Bureau of Infonaation of the Eastern Railways® 1953* 8? PP* Johnson® Julia B» to v m iX m m Federal^ Arb i t r a U p n , o X . M w j i J ^ s p u ^ . New lor&t H*W* Wilson Coapsny® 19w * 7* AvisilsaX# •AU.K. l»Pi»—t A * AAitM Uni Aw** A tiM L iB t UpNU. 15» 9*39* “iiw tliir Sts&ks* insAss ( * 9 * 1 * ♦ M » H N 77* Htfgitlr Oft A»ti WHUm§9 Bisks—, JSlst. »As SU* sitarn**,* (SepM»«9»t t m k IP* *> «if* •Ask A AsAuwiswr* A tlA ll A ll A M r 7* *9*3>t 9* W* • m a i a a a u » ftffe*,* M tr r >•» M *» 19J9)* n * Aio, Barg. Tm ** n | fitkfe* Jan—* «As i —M—iisB# * f FiaMigfSaiil hit ** i (^ rll lfH )i p» f(P9# ^ Tha TraaMa mth Labsr is filth iitiiitrilni ‘ swi-au* AftMAteJbB* {ateim* *9&>* vp» ***** " A f*« l A s last MUsk* Jim . CAlp 16* 1963)* ip » IJM6* "Bsavd S it A BssUs Csss I m »Wi * ttUJMLiti CimeNF lit M i H i B»x«mu&& ftw l Bb sn——> SafttMinSMi PsS’Via&aKs is ill, A iis s tls a s f VSUn^s A A 11I 1 A AnhI A lik ." MshiJGaifc-IsiLJkfKistf (Marsh* 1961)* m 79A A X, *€wM4a*i Ryw«»ftfcf ftsfjrf» JWUXUUJlXi (2*NA*t l>« M ) | » . 22*3k. ■turlwi Aesk Off Auk R1U 1 tsiks** M r xi9 1962), 9* 9. •A s A ss H As lUsrly llfw m ,* fiti lift Mi W tli Tttlttj (lt*a *** i«* 1A3)# F* itj* •Osllssti-vs Ba mi n i m s la issvlssa* Iibfff1 Sissm^** »*«■*^ (imatmrj9 I960), HP* 1-12. •Cs—issls* Oats f ir —aw !*—•,• a»n»—^ i*« (PAimarr *7» 196l)« 9* 99. 79 "Congress and The Railroad Situation," Congressional Digest (May, 1961), pp* 131-160. Cottoll, W.F. "Death By DlesoHeatiom A Case Study in the Reaction to Technological Change," (June, 1951)# PP. 358-365. "Court Battle looms In Work Rules Case," Railway Age (July 30# 1962), p. 9* Cripe, Bruce J. "Featherbedding? A ©pnflict Jh Property Rights,” Personnel. Administration (January-February, 1963)# pp. 56*62. "Deadline Near In Rail Rules depute," Business Week (June 29, 1963)# pp. 65-66. "Deciding On Tho Featherbed,” Business Week (September 28, 1963)» pp. 67*68. Edolman, Hilton, and Kovareky# Irving. "Featherbedding: Lav and Arbitration," Xabor-Xav,Journal (April, 1959), PP* 233*246. "Fh^olning Strikes and Maintaining Tho Status Quo in Railway Labor Disputes," (Mhreh, i960), pp. 381*397. "Factors In Tho Railroads Dispute Over Work Rules," Hew. York. Times (July 7# 1963). "Featherbed v* Roadbed," Rational Review (August 28, 1962), p. 129. "Featherbedding Loses, But**," P . S . H e m and WorLd Report (December 10, 1962), p. 92. "Featherbeds On Rails," The Economist (November 14, 1959), pp. 6 3 3 . "Firemen* Down Bat Hot Out," Railway Age (December 2, 1 963), pp. 9-1C. "Firemen Survive Cutbacks," Business Week (May 16, 1964), pp. 105-106. Gilbert, B.B. "The Locomotive Fireman," American .Federationist (January, 1959), pp. 8^9. Harwood, Herbert. "Railroading Reeds A Hew Price Tag," Trains (April 18, 1963). 60 «Io«lo4 Book f* C*mrt,» lit lw i« (Mtsth 30, f * 9, Bwijr. *H*t«ry Of a I**,* looieook (Soot—b*r 16, 1903), f * 75. *H«h Court Unit* Hi* I**t Door,* «ffP*py Ifn (Itejr 4 , 1964), il* iX * .* •lA tM * Xolo In tho &o«liiii»f XoUrood Jhioiffery," (**f. 1930), pp. 493-497, *7h* A ^lniA i1 Sfttl %s%«oi of h y o>l> 4 lfe]M»H»k *»iot« inAtatriii tad Ufrsr ItUttsm Hfrlfir 1955)# w>. 177*1 9 4 * Xorton, Ooojrfo IU « mI SUolo, lU —orth X, *fk* Chit/ l**io iw»ng Jt«llroa4 lo fliio o r* oaftIS j o m a , * J h OU ' jilitatni Itfrtair 1 956)# » . •l.l.I. hot* in X*3.oi Caoo,* iHQaMLiflft 6# 1965)#pp* 9*10* "Johnoon 9olii<* 4 M U to ro ,* f h t r il t f Wtlfr ( 4 p il 10, 1964)# »• looob *T« *aoorf«nejr ioord* XaAor tho Sollwogr Labor 4«t,*> ialtar iu f .lt iH u I < » to **o r, 195#)# no*910 * 900. " Ilo k iA f Oh m Of Tho Sfcofflo* ®*4 Of Tho Jtoilrood Foolhoikod,* Momwook (Koroh IX , 1962), PP* 7 0 -0 2 . "labor UiMUITooy labor Aot~*JM.*|mto XolO Minor Whoro Cootroet Mftjr Sob*toiittoto € u H « « Asaorto4 MLgfct 9o Ntko Shilotorol Cpoootioool 0hon«oo,* BlHTlTii y-ffT jT ftflT (Beoeebor, 1962), pp* 4X3*427. lawr—leo, DorUU •Powatoal'r* jtoorohy," 27» 1964), 124. l*l Wants Bar3y Decision,** Railway Age (April 20, 1964), . pp* 11-12* ■...... . , Loomis, David P. HA Realistic Appraisal of tho Railroad Industry* e Future,** TfaaJktgaerai^ p, 6?. iyon, A.E. "Hokum Can’t Hide Facts,** American Federationlst (February, I960), p. 14* Mangun, Garth X* "Grievance Procedures t o r Railroad Operating Employees,** (J k I y , 1962), pp, 474-499* Keany, Georg©. **Ifa© Railroads Unfair Attack on Their Employee,0 (Kove&or, 1959), p. 10. Ntediator Optimistic In Work Rules Case,** BailwsgJtgg (Juno 4, 1962), pp. 9-10* Negotiating New \fo rk Rules,** Business- Week (Kay 27, 1961), pp* 52-57* Next For Workers 2h U#S#t lifetime Jobs?** B^3^Jtem_and_lferld Reports,((Boveaber 13, 1961), p. 117* e*0ps* File Rules Plea V&th Supreme Court," Railtmv Acte (January 7/14, 1963), pp. 9-10. "Tho Presidential Railroad Commission Could Be A fuming Point In labor Relatione,0 Fortune (January, 1962), pp. 145-150. "Public Opinions Strong For The Railroads,** Ratlmy_Ag© (August 5, 1963), pp. 26-27* "The Rail Bill* Does It Solve Anything?*' JSmmeok (September 9, 1963), p. 67. r f f "Rail Feathexfeeddlngs Beginning Of the Sad?** U.S. Nears andWorld Report (October 22, 1962), pp. 96-97* Nail Mediator© Throw A Switch,” Businessweek (October 31, 1964), j3* 92. **fbe Rail Settlement** A Coup For t.B.J.,*» Nswgkeek, (Kay 4, 1964), pp, 6?-68» “Rail Talks Stay Off The Track,** Business Week (May 19, 1962), p. 16, 82 "Railroad Propaganda Ignores Pacts," (Sopt«mbecM)ctobor, 1959)# PP* 1-4* "Railroaded To Congress." lhe_BconoMtgt (July 13, 1983), p. 122. "R&ilroado Press Showdown On Feathorbadding lesuo," Railway M b ( J u l y 16/23, 1962), p p . 46-49* "Railway Bargaining." Ihe K^ R e p w b l i c (Apri.123. 1964), p. 5* "Railways In line," fho.,i^nomist (Becoaber 8, 1962), p. 1021. *Itoilwsys--A Special Case?* The Economist (September 4, 1963), pp. 968-909. Randolph, Philip A. “Don’t Hie Railroads Want Do Stay in Business," 1958), pp. 18-20. "Reprieve For Rails.“Hie Bconoiaist (January ?, 1961), pp. 35*37* “Return Do Bargaining?* IMIiMEJtee (Pebruary 18, 1 963), pp. 9-10, “Red light Ahead,* ftm m m sk (July 19, 1963), p. 36. “HRs* Ask Featherbedding Study,1* Railway M e (August 24, 1959), p. 30, "HRs* Do Effect Rules Changes,* Railway Age (July 8, 1 9 6 3 ), p. 9*10. “Rules Dispute Goes Do Arbitration,* RailaayAge (Septesfcer 2, 1963), pp. 9-12. "Shackles Of She Past,« j ^ ^ a l S L ^ R S a S (April, 1962), p. 112, "Showdown In The Rail Dispute," g_.S*.BMts^d..M>Eid^B9rt (July 29, 1963), P. 84. “Shipper Starting To Hedge," lailwag-Aga (July 22, 1963), pp. 9-10. Simler, Borman. "The Economics of Featherbedding," Ihdustrjal-and (October, 1962), pp. 111-121. "Strike The Railroads Paralyse Hie Hation," Railway. Age (August 19, 1963), pp* 9-10. "1959 Target* *Featherbodding|rt Railway Age (February 16, 1959), pp. 9-10. 83 “Toward & e Bad Of a © Ida©," ^ <*W*7 19, 1963), PP* 15-16. “Train Crows* Firings Belayed,** (March 16, 1964), p. 95* *Th© trap,** BellasE-Aaa (March 24, 1958)»PP* 18-30. "Onions Reject Early Parley On Isbrb Rales,** Railway Ago (Hard) 12, 1962), pp. 9-10. "Onions Switch tactics Again,** Railway Age (March 16, 1964) pp. 40-42, Watorhouso, Warren C. "Featherbedding, ° Western Euslnesa Review (February, 1969), pp. 2>30. . Wain stein, Raul A. hA Rear Guard Action Against Technology,** Challenge (May, 1963), pp. 12-15* "What Board 282* o Award would Mean To The Firecian, ** Railway As© (March 2, 1964), pp. 9-10. “What Railroads Want From L.B.J. low,** (Hagr H » 1964), pp. 95-96. **EU It Be Compulsory Arbitration On The Railroads?* Q.$..BejWs a?4JPJ!aiJSQRagfe U 1963), pp. 78-79. ™ tMonc Ins© Rail Dispute?0 P.3^ Rgws. fanA.WorMJ^part (August 5, 1963), PP. 89-91. "Work Rules Commission Coming,** M-i^FIY (September 12, I960), “Work Rules Crisis,*' Commonweal (August 24, 1962), p. 462. “ffcrk cRules Sew Delay,** R a i l m y Ag© (January 27, 1964), pp. 9-10, "Work Bales Barley Recessed, ** Railway Age (April 9, 1962), p* 42. Xebneff, Bernard and William Kelly* "Baployaant Changes In Railroad Occupations," Monthly Xabor Reyle?? (October, 1962), pp. 1129-1135. Zim, Hugo Marvin. “Master Strategist Of The Railroad Settlement," Fortune (July, 1964), pp. 164-166 and 246-253* as as as as as as £3 & » » si »■ S3- 5S 63 * * l ^ s 1? S ' 8* 3 s i 0:0 » IO JO f® !0'K> o. o a o o a o ar a a b e» o o b|o b ta la o » o b o bo WB » B a 3£ ST *35 o w g; g g g t 9 0 **** *0 *■* N N ® • *£Vft _ _ #**<»•«»% © O* -5?’'* « **• » *» ■<» -VS* ^ fr* ■ ** Htf* Ovw » * * m > » *» * H B * r * •- - &} v |l ^ w r & r »**+**- tM tvPP* S9^* *