Use of Federal Power in Settlement of Railway Labor Disputes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ETHELBERT STEWART, Commissioner BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES ) BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS f .................. No. 303 CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SERIES USE OF FEDERAL POWER IN SETTLEMENT OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES CLYDE OLIN FISHER, A. M., Ph. D. Associate Professor of Economics, Wesleyan University MARCH, 1922 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1922 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CONTENTS. Page. Introduction________________________________________________________ 5; 6 Chapter I.—Early period: Law of 1888_______________________________ 7-14 Attitude of labor and railway interests----------------------------------------- 7,8 Preliminary congressional consideration and views on proposals----- 8-12 The law of 1888________________________________________________ 13,14 Provisions-----------------.--------------------------------------------------------- 13 Significance________________________________________________ 13,14 Chapter II.—The Pullman strike of 1894---------------------- 15-19 The strike, and action by Federal oflicials-----------------------------------------15-17 Attitude of the people---------------------------------------------------------- 76 Views of Members of Congress______________________ ________ 16,17 Decision of Federal Supreme Court---------------------------------------------17,18 In re Debs__________________________________________________17,18 Labor’s views of decision____________________________________ 18 President Cleveland’s statement on the decision----------------------- 18 The Strike Commission--------_----------------------- ----------------------------18,19 Personnel__________________________________________________ 18,19 Findings and recommendations_____________________________ 19 Chapter III.—Second stage of Federal intervention: The Erdman Act-----20-37 Early consideration and attitude of the people------------------------------ 20-22 Congressional preliminaries to Erdman Act----------- 22-24 Passage of the Erdman Act-----------------------------------------------------------24-30 Opinions concerning the law_________________________________ 24,25 Provisions of the law________________________________________ 25-27 The law in the courts_________________________________________ 27-30 Cases decided____________________________________________ 27-29 Labor’s views on decisions_______________________________ 29,30 Application of the Erdman Act-----------------------------------------------------30-35 Railway labor organizations_________________________________ 30 Settlements under the law___________________________________ 31,32 Procedure under the law___________________________ 32-35 Defects of the law_____________________________________ 35 Concerted movements____________________________________________ 35-37 Chapter IV.—Third stage: The Newlands Act--------------------------------- 38-56 Development of legislative consideration and views held after pas-# sage of law___________________________________________________ * 38-47 Passage of Newlands Act_________________________________________ 47-49 In Congress_________________________________________________ 47,48 Provisions of the law-------------------------- --------------------------------48,49 Expressions of opinion evoked by passage------------------------------ 49 Personnel of the board of mediation and conciliation__________ 49 Operation of Newlands Act_______________________________________ 49-56 Chapter V.—Fourth stage: The Adamson law------------------------------------57-68 Preliminaries to new legislation_____________________________ ____57, 58 New situation to be met_______ 59-66 Issues between the parties___________________________________59, 60 Message of President Wilson_________________________________ 60 Passage of the law___________________________________________ 60-62 Public opinion on the law__________________________ _________62,63 Responsibility for passage of the law_________________________ 63 Why the brotherhoods refused arbitration--------------------------------64,65 Views of unorganized railway employees______________________ 65 Brotherhoods and the rights of the public___________ ________ 65,66 Settlement through the Council of National Defense_______________ 66 Adamson law in the courts_______________________________________ 66-68 Wilson v. New______________________________________________ 67 Attitude of interests affected___________ 68 3 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 CONTENTS. P age. Chapter VI.—Period of war administration of railroads__________________69-75 Wage determination_________________________________________________69-72 Relations with organized labor_______________________________________ 72-74 Railway adjustment boards_____________________________________ 73, 74 The division of labor________________________________________________74, 75 Chapter VII.—Transportation act of 1920: Esch-Cummins law__________76-97 Congressional consideration from passage of Adamson law to enact ment of law of 1920________________________________________________76-78 Passage of Esch-Cummins law_______________________________________ 78-86 The House bill__________________________________________ 78-80 The Senate bill__________________________________________________80-82 United States Commissioner of Mediation and Conciliation on compulsory arbitration__________ ________________________ !___ 82, 83 The conference bill:___________________ 83-85 Act of 1920 and the Newlands law_____________________________ 85, 86 Operation of Esch-Cummins law__________ 1________________________ 86-96 Esch-Cummins law versus earlier laws for adjustment of railway labor disputes_____________________________________ 96,97 Appendix A.—Constitutional issues involved in legislation to settle rail way labor troubles___________________________________________________98-102 Appendix B.—Text of acts regulating railway labor disputes_________ 103-117 Act of October 1, 1888______________________________________________103-105 Act of June 1, 1898 (Erdman Act)--------------------------------------------------105,106 Act of July 15, 1913 (Newlands Act)-----------------------------------------------108-112 Act of September 3, 5, 1916 (Adamson law)______________________112,113 Transportation act, 1920 (Esch-Cummins law)____________________113-117 Bibliography----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 118-121 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis BULLETIN OF THE U. S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. n o . 303 WASHINGTON m a r c h , 1922 USE OF FEDERAL POWER IN SETTLEMENT OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES. INTRODUCTION. The transportation act of 1920 has directed attention again to a serious problem in connection with the railroads of the country, the problem of the settlement of railway labor disputes. The observer of contemporary events during the last three decades has seen a de cided change in the attitude of the public toward the organization and the operation of what are called “ public utilities.” In no field has this development been more significant than in that of the rail roads, and especially in the settlement of labor disputes thereon. A condition of affairs that was largely academic BO years ago has now become one of the most momentous of questions. The general public perhaps realized this difficulty more keenly than ever before in the summer of 1916, when the railroad brotherhoods and the railroads reached such a point in their controversy as to cause grave concern on the part of the public at large—the controversy culminating in the passage of the so-called Adamson law. Instead of a typically laissez faire point of view with reference to this matter, a decided change of opinion has developed. An interest ing illustration of the present opinion is to be found in the award of the arbitration board that settled the controversy between the en gineers and the railroads in the eastern section of the United States in 1912. The report contained this, then radical, statement: A strike in the Army or Navy is mutiny and universally punished as such. The same principle is applied to seamen because of the public necessity involved. A strike among postal clerks, as among the teachers of our public schools, would be unthinkable. In all these cases the employment, to borrow a legal phrase, is affected with a public use, and thus of necessity qualifies the right of free con certed action which exists in private employment.1 This study will consist of an examination of the general methods, so far as the Federal Government is concerned, that have been adopted for the settlement of railway labor disputes. The experience of the past will be examined in some detail. Briefly stated, that experience has found legislative expression in five statutes. The first of these 1 Report of the Board of Arbitration in the Matter of Controversy Between the Eastern Railroads and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, p. 108. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 USE QF FEDERAL POWER IN RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES. was enacted October 1,1888.2 A more important law, from the point of view of its actual operation, was the so-called Erdman Act, passed June 1, 1898.3 Then, in 1913,