THE TRAINMEN'S EIGHT-HOUR DAY

HE American people have recently witnessed what, in some respects, has been the most forceful demonstra

TH

tion of the strength of organized labor in the history of the United States. Four unions, representing approximately 325,000 trainmen,' with power to paralyze the nation's transportation facilities, petitioned their employers for an eight-hour day for part of their number, and when the request was refused, these organizations, by an overwhelming vote, decided to strike rather than relinquish their position. Private agencies, the Federal Board of Mediation and Conciliation, and the President of the United States, all failed to bring about an amicable settlement. Only when Congress in the closing hours of its session hastily passed an act granting the wishes of the men was the impending catastrophe averted-a piece of legislation which has been variously characterized as "turning an emergency to constructive purposes," 3 and as "the most disgraceful scene ever enacted in the history of America." This article and one which is to follow are intended to be accounts of the crisis as it is recorded in the authorized statements and printed matter of the railroads and brotherhoods, as well as in the stenographic reports of conferences held between the railway managers and union leaders. The present paper deals specifically with the following: such information concerning the origin and development of the brotherhoods as seems germane to an understanding of their purposes and methods of procedure; the

1 The total membership of the four organizations in round numbers is: conductors, 50,000; engineers, 75,000; firemen, 80,000; trainmen, 120,000.

'There is a popular notion that the demand of the unions for an eight-hour day embraced all branches of road, yard and hostling service. There was no request on behalf of passenger crews. The fact that the passenger men later voted to strike to enforce the demand in other lines is merely indicative of the remarkable degree of solidarity existing among train-service employees.

4

New Republic, Sept. 2, 1916, p. 100.

Railway Age Gazette, Sept. 8, 1916, p. 393.

progress which they have made in increasing pay, reducing hours, and standardizing conditions of railway work, culminating in the demand for an eight-hour day in freight service; the arguments for and against the measure as set forth by the publicity bureaus of each side; and, finally, an analysis of the stenographic records of the conference held in June between representatives of the railroads and of the men.

At this time

the demand for the eight-hour day was formally read into the records and discussed, and the "contingent proposition" of the railroads set forth, ending with the rejection by the employers of the demands of the union, and the taking of a strike vote by the employees. In a subsequent paper, the movement will be traced from this point until settled, at least temporarily, by congressional action in the passage of the Adamson Bill.

I. The beginning of the struggle

Methods

The first organizations among American trainmen were formed during the Civil War as a result of prevailing conditions of railway labor. Wages were low and unregulated, scarcely any two roads maintaining similar rates for like tasks. of remuneration varied greatly, and promotion and demotion were governed largely by favoritism. A standard work-day was unknown. The men who took a train out were supposed to bring it back whether the trip consumed ten or twenty hours. There was no pay for overtime or for work done in excess of a given amount.

To establish uniformity amid these chaotic conditions, the employees formed their unions.1 At first they attempted to improve the situation by emphasizing merely fraternal, temperance, and insurance features, but as the business of railroading developed, the organizations gradually shifted their ground until today they show typical trade-union characteristics; that

'The engineers were first in the field, creating in 1863 the Brotherhood of the Footboard, changing the name later to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. In 1868 the conductors launched the association now known as the Order of Railway Conductors. The firemen organized five years later; and a decade after that, in 1883, brakemen, flagmen and switchmen united to inaugurate the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. There is also a separate switchmen's union, but it did not take part in the recent movement.

is, in addition to conducting fraternal and insurance activities, they attempt to regulate wages, hours and conditions of employment for all who engage in train service. Each union has succeeded in securing a majority of those employed in its field, the engineers enrolling ninety per cent, the conductors eightyfive per cent, the firemen ninety per cent, and the trainmen sixty-five per cent, of all persons engaged in these respective branches. Each has extended its jurisdiction over both the United States and Canada. All four orders advocate the open shop, i. e., they do not insist upon the employment of union men exclusively. All maintain extensive systems of insurance for the benefit of members. All have enjoyed a peculiar advantage in securing effective organization, in that their work requires mental alertness, physical endurance, a capacity for responsibility, and an apprenticeship ranging from five to eight years, so that in case of strike the railroads have been unable successfully to utilize strike-breakers taken from other pursuits.

In waging their never-ending stuggle for better conditions, the brotherhoods have evolved certain definite modes of approach, namely: negotiation, mediation, arbitration, strikes, legislation, and federation, all of which were utilized in the eight-hour-day controversy.

Negotiation takes place when representatives of the employees confer directly with road officials to adjust differences, and each year the brotherhoods settle thousands of disputes by this means. If negotiation fails, the next step is often mediation, an attempt by a third party to bring the disputants to agree. In case this is unsuccessful, arbitration may be resorted to. It differs from mediation in that the arbitrators have power to draw up an award binding upon both sides.' When all the above means fail, the issue is settled by means of strike or lockout. The union executives cannot order a cessation of work until a two-thirds majority of the men have signed sealed votes declaring for strike.

1 The Erdman Act of 1898 and the Newlands Act of 1913 provided for boards of mediation and arbitration in case of serious trouble between the railroads and their employees, and in the last few years the more important controversies have been settled by this method.

The measure known as legislation is an attempt by the unions to secure the passage of favorable bills in state and federal legislatures, and is not necessarily associated with a specific demand of the men, although in the recent controversy congressional action was a direct result of such a demand.

Federation takes place when two or more of the brotherhoods work in concert. Soon after 1900 the unions provided for federations organized upon a territorial basis, and inside of a few years a western territory (including roughly all roads west of Chicago), an eastern territory (comprising the lines east of Chicago and north of the Ohio River), and a southern territory, (containing the remainder of the country) had been formed. The recent eight-hour-day demand in freight service is the first instance of a mass movement by the four unions in all three territories.

A matter of vital importance in understanding the present situation is the three-fold change in the basis of wage payment which took place in train service from approximately 1890 to 1910. As already suggested, in early days few roads used the same methods of remuneration, some paying by the month, others by the day, still others by the trip, and a few by the mile or distance run. But for some time past the tendency has been toward the mileage plan, whereby the train crew is paid for the actual number of miles traversed, and since 1910 a majority of trade agreements have provided that one hundred miles was the distance which should constitute a day's work in freight service.

When this change was first inaugurated there was no regulation stipulating the length of time which might be consumed in running the one hundred miles, train crews being required to make the standard distance, irrespective of the time element. Gradually, the working agreements began to provide that twelve hours should constitute a day's work, that is, the 100 miles which the crew was expected to run must be accomplished within a twelve-hour period. In case the time extended beyond, the crew received overtime pay pro rata. By 1910, schedules generally stated that the one hundred miles must be completed within ten hours.

These two provisions, however, did not regulate all the tasks

which the men were called upon to perform. Crews were frequently required to do switching, construction work, icing of cars, loading of stock, weighing of cars and handling of freight, either before or during or after the completion of the one hundred miles run or the stipulated hours constituting a standard day. The men objected to performing such duties without extra compensation, and gradually schedules began to provide for paying what is known as "arbitraries"—definite sums for duties performed in addition to the standard day. These payments soon began to form a substantial item in the total monthly wage received by members of the train crew. In other words, by 1910 the workers had succeeded in safeguarding their wage payment from three different angles-the distance run, the number of hours of continuous labor, and work performed in addition to the recognized standard task.

The first request for an eight-hour day with time and one half for overtime in train service was made by the engineers of the western territory in 1907, and it was followed within less than a month by similar petitions on the part of the conductors and trainmen. The engineers, however, upon being offered a flat increase in salary, abandoned their insistence on an eighthour day, and the movement collapsed. But with the increase of wages secured from 1910 to 1914, the feeling rapidly gained headway among the men that in the future the brotherhoods should place emphasis upon reducing hours of service, provided such a change could be accomplished without jeopardizing the wage schedule already in force. It is an open secret that two years ago the conductors and trainmen wished to ask for an eight-hour day and were held in check only by the fact that the engineers and firemen were unable to coöperate because their own energies were fully taxed in bringing wages in the eastern, western and southern territories up to certain standards. As soon as that was accomplished, the field was open for a renewal of the eight-hour movement.

The recent demand was formulated in a meeting of representatives of the conductors and trainmen for the southern territory, who gathered at Washington, D. C. in July, 1915, and adopted a resolution requesting the presidents of their brotherhoods to