# The Railroaders' Next Step—Amalgamation/Chapter 5

CHAPTER V.
A PLAN OF AMALGAMATION
When American railroad men embark upon the amalgamation of all their trade unions into one industrial union they will not be pioneers blazinga trail through an unknown wilderness. On the contrary, they will be setting forth on a well-travelled road, long since gone over by the railroad workers of France, Italy, England, Russia, Germany, Belgium, etc., on their way to freedom—for in all these countries all classes of railroad workers, save an occasional craft fragment here and there, are to be found in single organizations. In fact, the United States is the only important country in the world where the industrial form of union is not predominant among railroad workers. Here alone, where the need for solidarity is greater than anywhere else, is the antiquated craft type supreme—which does not speak well for our spirit of progress.
In considering measures to be taken by us for amalgamation we will do well to bear in mind the experiences of railroad workers of other countries. Great Britain, for instance, contains a lesson for us. In that country, it is true, the railroad organizations are not so completely industralized as they are in Continental Europe; but the general conditions of unionism are so similar to those here and the British unions have made so much progress towards industrial organization, that their achievements in this direction should prove valuable to us as a criterion.
The National Union of Railwayman
The basic organization on British railroads is the National Union of Railwaymen (N. U. R.), which includes all classes of railroad workers. But it has not yet succeeded in completely industrializing the situation. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, which ​controls a portion of these two crafts, remains separate. Likewise the Railway Clerks' Association; but between this organization and the N. U. R. complete understandingexists. The two would amalgamate, but it is felt that inasmuch as the Clerks still have something of a "white collar psychology," it may be better to let them go alone until they know more about unionism and can stand fusion with the mass of less genteel workers. However, both unions work in closest co-operation. Besides the two separate craft groups there is also a dispute over the shop men, the metal trades unions putting in claims for and organizing numbers of these workers. But this difference bids fair to be settled along industrial lines. Notwithstanding these ragged edges, however, the N. U. R., with its industrial structure, is overwhelmingly the most important union on the railroads. Having over 400,000 members, or about four-fifths of all organized railroad workers, and enjoying great prestige, it dominates the whole situation. It may well serve as a type for us to go by.
The National Union of Railwaymen is the product of an evolution essentially the same as that which American railroad unions are now going through. It experienced the three familiar phases of isolation, federation and amalgamation. At first the various craft unions went it alone, with the usual unsatisfactory results. Then they tried federation; but that developed the same failings as it does here: the organizations wrangled among themselves and lacked the power that comes from real unity. So finally the three most important among them, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, the General Railway Workers' Union, and the United Signalmen and Pointsmen, fused themselves together and formed the National Union of Railwaymen.
This was in 1913. The effect of the amalgamation was electric. Immediately the whole movement leaped to the front. When the amalgamation took place the three combining unions had 156,000 members; eighteen months later ​the new organization had 300,000. A new spirit seized hold of the railroad workers. For the first time they were able to give unified expression to their needs and their power. They marched forward amazingly, and today their union stands in the very forefront of the British labor movement. It is playing a part in the industrial life of Great Britain such as the old railroad craft unions hardly dared dream of. The organization of the N. U. R. marked a new day for British railroaders.
The National Union of Railwaymen is an industrial union in the true sense of the word. For all the classes of workers under its jurisdiction it has one general headquarters, one set of officials, one financial system, and one point of view. Of its organization machinery, which is strictly modern in type, a very important feature is the manner in which it ascertains, harmonizes and defends the interests of its variegated membership. To do this properly is always a big problem for broad-sweeping unions of the industrial type—to at once give expression to the many crafts, and yet to avoid the bitter wranglings that ruin the efficiency of the unions in the two primitive stages of isolation and federation. In fact, it is to solve exactly this problem that industrial unions are called into being, and their value is to be measured by the degree in which they succeeded with its solution.
The National Union of Railwaymen deals with this situation through a departmental form of organization—similar to that of other European industrial unions. Its national executive committee is composed of four sections, conforming to natural divisions of the industry; viz., (1) Locomotive, (2) Traffic, (3) Goods and Cartage, C4) Engineering Shops and Permanent Way. Each section numbers six men, or twenty-four for the whole committee. The effect of this is to give all the trades adequate representation, so that their interests may be intelligently looked after at all times.
In framing wage and other demands each section works ​out its own proposition and then submits it to the whole committee to pass on before it is incorporated in the general demands which in turn have to be ratified by either an annual or a special convention. Experience shows that these trades sections are able to agree upon a common program and to give each other a square deal much more readily than would a group of federated trade unions. Very few disputes occur between the departments. This is because all the workers are members of one organization, which is shot through and through with the conception of the welfare of the general mass of railroad men. Narrow craft selfishness, always fostered, developed and strengthened by separate organizations, is conspicuous by its absence in the industrial union. There is a distinct gettogether tendency, a decided urge for solidarity. The general practicability of the system is shown in the wonderful growth and influence of British railroaders since the organization of the National Union of Railwaymen.
Locking the Unions Together
In joining their forces into one common body, as inevitably they must sooner or later, American railroad unions will do well to adopt a departmental form similar to that of the N. U. R. Such a system would make for order and power throughout the entire union structure. In fact, it is the most practical and efficient method yet evolved to handle so many categories of workers as are to be found in the railroad industry. Conditions here make it advisable, however, that for a time at least there be more departments in the proposed industrial union than there are in the N. U. R. For it is idle to suppose that our highly individualistic craft unions, accustomed as they are to so much autonomy, would rush into an industrial union that would at once wipe out their trade lines. A better plan would be to assimilate them gradually. Therefore, to begin with, it might probably be found expedient to have one department for each of the amalgamated organizations. This would ​be no very serious disadvantage. And then, later on, when the varous trades, through contact with each other, hal lost their narrow craft spirit; when they had become digested by the amalgamation, the number of departments could be decreased to conform more clearly to the natural divisions of the industry. Closely allied groups of trades, such as the Engineers and Firemen, could eventually be placed in one department; the Conductors, Trainmen and Switchmen in another; the metal trades (as fast as their organizations amalgamated nationally) in a third, and so on. Finally, the number of departments could be cut to eight, or if necessary, less.
The first step, and a mighty important one, in bringing about the proposed amalgamation, would be to popularize the plan in all the organizations and to put them on record in favor of it. But let us suppose for a moment that this big job had been accomplished. Then the next step would be, at the amalgamation conference, or convention, to throw out a super-structure in front of the whole sixteen unions, definitely locking them together. This would be done by creating a national executive committee, based upon the departmental system, to handle the affairs of the new industrial union. In a pinch this committee might consist of the united executive boards of the amalgamated organizations; but the part of wisdom would be to construct it of about three delegates from each department; or—but it is not so good a system—of about 50 delegates chosen by the various departments on the basis of their respective voting strengths. Of course, the necessary general officers and subcommittees would also be provided for. This would lay the foundation of the industrial union.
One vital thing, the very essence of the amalgamation, and the measure without which it could have no meaning, is that the individual craft unions would completely surrender their autonomy to the industrial union. Thenceforth the latter would be supreme. It would formulate the demands of all trades, present them together to the ​companies as one proposition, and, if necessary, strike as one man to make them prevail. Craft autonomy would be a thing of the past.
The process of industrialization, begun by linking together the heads of the trade unions, would be extended as fast as possible throughout all their ramifications. The local, system and divisional federations would be extended to conform to the new, closer relationship. Wherever practicable the local unions would be actually amalgamated. The many sets of officials, national, divisional, system and local, would be gradually transformed into one homogenuous force. The many journals would be combined into one powerful publication. Standardization of the dues and benefit systems would be introduced; grading the dues of the various departments to fit the differently paid classes of workers, and preserving, if wanted, the heavy insurance features carried now by the transportation unions. A free transfer would be made to prevail between the different departments, and also a standard, uniform initiation fee, etc., etc.
A revolution in the prevailing convention system would be necessitated. Instead of sixteen craft conventions, as there are today, then there would be but one general gathering of representatives of all classes of railroad workers—the departments would not have either the need or the right to hold separate conventions of their own. The united railroad workers of America, possessed of one organization and one will, would meet in general national convention to work out their common problems. Along with the obsolete craft conventions would go their equally obsolete system of representation. As the industrial union would be a huge organization containing many thousands of local unions, naturally the local union as a basis for convention representation would have to be discontinued. This would be a blessing for it is a primitive, expensive and impractical method. A much more fitting unit of representation is the system federation now used by the ​Railway Employees' Department. This system unit would probably be adopted, and the industrial union convention would be made up of representatives of the system organizations, either upon the basis of one delegate from each department of each system amalgamation; or, what is more likely and practical, three or four delegates from each system amalgamation, selected by general election and without regard to their respective departments. This would at once insure a democratic and representative convention and keep its size within reason. It is instructive to note that the big National Union of Railwaymen of Great Britain limits its annual conventions to eighty delegates, elected at large from the various districts into which the organization is divided. The antiquated system of local union representation is not recognized.
Partial Amalgamation
The foregoing propositions have been written around the thought of the whole sixteen unions making a concerted move for amalgamation—for that is what should happen. The proposed industrial union should contain all the crafts, as the situation demands complete solidarity all along the line. Each of the organizations, no matter what its special conditions, has at once much to contribute to such a combination and much to gain from it. The amalgamation can never be thoroughly effective until all the railroad unions, large and small, strong and weak, become part of it.
But in view of the fact that the unions are afflicted with large reactionary elements, who block every progressive movement, we have to consider the possibility that all of the organizations will not move for amalgamation simultaneously. It is very probable that amalgamation, like federation, will being to show itself first in two or more streams among the closest related trades. In such an event, say, where several unions desired to amalgamate, they could do so exactly along the general principles ​outlined above. Thy could set up their departments, one for each of the amalgamating trades, just as though all the unions were parties to the plan. Later on, as the outstanding organizations woke up and came into the amalgamation, new departments could be provided for them, and representation given them on the national executive committee. The foregoing plan is feasible whether the unions all join hands at once, whether they first form several sets of amalgamations among themselves, and then link these together, or whether the various trades come in in ones and twos.
Should all the unions amalgamate simultaneously one effect would be either the remodelling of the Railway Employes' Department, along the lines suggested above, so that it could serve as the national executive committee of the industrial union (which would be the logical thing to do), or, in failure of such remodelling, its entire elimination as superfluous. But should the unions amalgamate piece-meal, two or more at a time, the Railway Employes' Department might probably continue much as it is, with the same system of representation, the same autonomy between the affiliated organizations, etc.; until finally the amalgamation had been completed, when the department would be faced by the same necessity as though all the organizations had fused together at the same time; namely, remodelling to meet the new condition, or abolition.
Of course, such partial amalgamations of two or more trades would be steps in the right direction. But they would not meet the needs of the situation. The thing that is wanted, and the thing that must be put through is the amalgamation of the whole sixteen railroad unions at the same time.
The Matter of Non-Railroad Affiliations
In working out an amalgamation project for the railroad industry consideration must be given to the very important fact that the unions therein divide into two ​tinct classes: (1) those whose membership is confined entirely, or practically so, to the railroads; (2) those that have large bodies of members in other industries. Of the first class, or purely railroad unions, are the Engineers, Firemen, Conductors, Trainmen, Switchmen, Carmen, Telegraphers, Clerks, Signalmen and Maintenance of Way Workers, ten in all. Of the second class, or semi-railroad unions, are the Machinists, Blacksmiths, Boilermakers, Electrical Workers, Sheet Metal Workers and Stationary Firemen—six in all.
Now a special problem arises from the fact that amalgamation would affect these two classes of unions very differently. In the case of the purely railroad organizations the matter is comparatively simple. Their whole membership would be involved and they would simply merge completely with the industrial union. But with the semi-railroad organizations the matter is much more complex. Only that portion of their membership working upon the railroads would be affected, and an unmodified amalgamation project would oblige them to surrender these large sections of members to the industrial union.
But it might just as well be recognized at the outset that the six semi-railroad unions would never agree to that—at least not within measurable time. In trade union practice all over the world it is found that while it is feasible, although difficult, to get unions to merge together completely, it is next to impossible to induce one organization to surrender any considerable part of its members to another. This would especially be the case with our six semi-railroad unions. Deeply imbued as they are with craft union principles, and accustomed to fight bitterly over the control of a man or two, they could be depended upon to fight to the last ditch against giving up such large portions of their membership to the industrial union. They would wreck any amalgamation proposition based on such a program.
However, there is a way out of the difficulty. It lies in ​a modified amalgamation: As the basis of their refusal to give up their members, the six semi-railroad unions would argue with great weight that the mechanics have not only an industrial interest as railroad workers, but also a craft interest as tradesmen. They would contend that the machinist or boilermaker who is now working on the railroad may be working next week at his trade in some other industry; and that, consequently, he has a direct interest in maintaining good conditions for his craft in all industries, and a moral obligation to belong to the organization that is doing that work. Whether right or wrong, this contention would have to be met, and it could only be met successfully by giving the men involved a double affiliation to correspond to their double interest. That is to say, the shop mechanics would at once be affiliated to the railroad industrial union and also to their respective craft unions. The two unions would divide between them the control over these classes of workers, each organization reserving the functions necessary to its proper working. Likewise, they would apportion the dues and per capita according to the services rendered by each organization.
Already there is a beginning of this system in the Railway Employes' Department. That organization is an embodiment of the recognition of the common industrial interests of the many crafts going to make it up. It is continually encroaching upon the authority of its component trade unions. It has succeeded in securing a large measure of control over the shop mechanics, together with a share (all too small) of per capita to finance this control. But as yet only a start has been made. In an amalgamation along industrial lines the general railroad organization would necessarily exercise a far greater degree of ​control than the Railway Employes' Department now does. It would have to have full sway over the bargaining and striking activities of all the railroad metal trade workers, and be financed with portions of their dues to correspond. Nothing short of this would do, because genuine solidarity and unity of action is out of the question in an industry if one or more outside organizations have to be consulted and harmonized before definite action can be taken.
in other words, the industrial union would handle the immediate interests of the shop mechanics in the railroad industry, and the craft unions would look after their more remote interests in other industries, their fraternal benefits, etc. Such an arrangement would, of course, throw the weight of the affiliation to the industrial union. The railroad metal trades worker would be a railroad man first and a boilermaker or machinist second. But even this double affiliation could hardly be considered final. Sooner or later the movement would reach the stage that it has in Continental Europe, where the shop mechanics usually belong entirely to the railroad industrial unions and have no connections whatever, except a free transfer, with the metal trades unions. But it will take a lot of education before we come to that. The bi-union system of control will probably have to be used for considerable time.