The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-03-05
AVA EnEineer.s Explanation.


which Won discuss ..the Burlington strike2 you
do. urintentially, believe. the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers serious injustice and,
believing that you are maenanimous enough 10
admit reply to some of your statements, am
prompted to offer this communication for pub
lication.
Having been for number of years Identified
with the two great Brotherhoods of Locomotive
Engineers and Locomotive Firemen. / shall con-
6ne myself TO facts which. believe. can
readily be verified by at least $4,000 engineers
and fremen in the United States and Canada.
1 agree with you that the strike on the O., B.
g. O. systems of railroads is serious affair,
and that there probabilities that unless
speedily ended it will become still more serious
at an early day. BY this however. ] do not
mean that Violence-the destructio n OF life and
proper ty-is ensue. but that the strike viii be
serious because it will involve other roads than
those of the c.. B. & @. system.
1t is not worth while o go over all the ground
covered by your article. You say:
''The controversy grows out OF question OF
policy and one of wages. though each, to some
extent involves the other. The officers of the
railroad claim the right to manage It IN their
way, and to regulate the employment,
ciassincaLioo. ana wages OF tnelr ehg'neets As
they fit, while the latter insist on different
policy and practice The management of the
road has been based q sort of civil-service
idea, involving different grades of engineers at
different rates OF pay. promotions being made
from one class to another according to expert
ence fitness, and length of service. Thus it has
given one class of runs and the lowest rate OF
pay TO engineers just promoted from 6remen,
more important runs and better wages the next
year. and the responsible runs and the
highest rate of pay the third year and after"
In what have quoted, the case Is stated as
the c., B. g. Q. would like TO have 1t appear be-
fore the public, and engineers and fremen
will not object if they are permitted TO be
heard. The 'policy" ia classification" and
wages" are also classified graded to suit the
classification. Locomotive engineers object TO
classification by virtue of which wages re-
ducsd because the term, Classification" is totally
without significance, except as means to
reduce wages The right of railroad officials to
manage their business does not confer
the right to treat unjustly its employees. Neither
engineers nor firemsn object to any presidents
method of determining their fitness 10 take
charge of an engine. But when It has been de-
cided that man is capable to be engineer he
is an engineer in the fullest meaning OF the
term. He cannot be second or third-rats en-
gineer, because there is no such thing as sec
ond and third-rate service, euch thing as
second and third-rate responsibility in running
trains.
will say. assuming only to approximate the
fact, that 80 per cent. of locomotive engineers
are promoted from locomotive firemen. 1t will
be well for the public to know something of the
services of firemen before they promoted to
engineers. They begin as ''round-house sweepers,'
then they are promoted to '4wipersf-that is,
they clean the machinery OF the locomotive De-
low the running board. The next advances is to
fire switch engine The next promotion to
fire freight engine, and then a passenger
gine Following this he is promoted the
throttle of a switch engine. aud then, TX recon-
meDded by his engineer and master mechanic.
he is promoted to the responsible position of
eiueer He has served his time--his apprentice
ship is ended. He is not ,hird-class enginaer.
but an engineer equipped and qualified by servI
ice and experience, of not less than five years. to
run engine, day or night, on any road, to
a a
class, or he is class. He is, he Is not
engineer, and whatever may be said of the c.,
b. & O.. it does not hesitate to place what it
calls second and third-cass engineers In first
class positions, aud demand of them first
class work. 1t imposes upon them frst-ciass re-
sponslblIties, whilo it denies them fret-class
pay. Against this fagrant injustice engineers
aud fremen complain, and, having requested
tho c.. B. 81 O. to remedy the wrong. and hav-
ing been peremptorily refused, strike was or
dsred the last resort. You say. referring to
classification: ''This system seems to be based
on good business principles 1t recognizes merit,
efficiency, experience and training as forming
the basis of continued employment and promo
ton. The officers of the road say 1t has worked
well in furnishing incentive to young engin-
to seek promotion into the higher classes,
and has tended to develop healthy rivalry and
ambition among them" The fact of the strike
is conclusive that neither engineers nor fremen
are satisfied with classification, and. instead of
being ''the basis of continued employment" it is
just the reverse, as | think the editor OF the
Journal will discover. after an examination OF
the working of the policy of classification.
will suppose that the C., b. & @.
system has 900 engineers. equally divided be-
tween the three classes. first. second and third
class of engineers. The agreement is to pro-
mote the second and third class. after year
of service in their subordinate classes--man-
festly the second class takes the place of the
first class engineer; the third class takes the
second class position. and to supply the place of
the third class fireman is promoted. Now, I
ask. in this contingency, what becomes OF the
frst-class engineer2 Unquestionably he goes
out He ceases to be employed engineer on
the c.. B. & @. He has toiled up from
sweeper, wiper fireman, to the coveted posi-
ton of engineer, to be promoted. with all of his
experience, into idleness. submit, Ma Editor.
that this is the legitimate outcome OF classifica-
tion and that it is rank injustice and ought TO
be abandoned
am persuaded, Mr.. Editor that the classii-
cation policy is mercenary on the part Of the
railroads that adopt it, by which engineers ara
defra uded out of fair wages. You quote Chiei
Arthur as saying, 'No man was fit TO a pas
senger engine at all unless he was fit to run ID
over the moat difficult routes" and there is in
this country no higher authority In such matters
than Chief Arthur and it is fact well known
to all that the c., b. & @. requires what it calls
its second and third-class engineers to do first
class engineers work, fact which fully estab-
fishes the correctness of Chief Arthurs decara-
ton But have said the motive of cassi6ca-
tion is purely mercsnary. AS illustration,
will suppose irst-class engineers receive $3.50
day. second-class. So. and third elass, 81 so
saving to ths company OF 80 cents day
for each engineer employed. The e., b:
g. Q. system includes 5000 miles of
road, requiring the employment of about
400 engineers. according TO estimates ia Poors
Railroad Manual, equivalent to a saving of 800
a day, or for year of 800 working days, $780,
600. 10 Is this money honestly earned and un-
justly withheld that has brought about the
strike on the c., B. & @. system
It should be understood tlrat there is no such
thing known as - apprentice engineer-that is
to say, engineer service to become
gineer. have stated the apprenticeship ssrv-
ice and period. The number of cars engine
ha suha fhaPN NTao nr hnn rod has nafh hSan
His engine has certain power, and it does not
matter 10 the engineer whether be is given a
full train half train, the number of cars
neither modiiies nor increases his responsible
ties.
The question is of paramount i'm portanee
to the travelling public. First-class engineers
only should have charge OF locomotives If the
C. b e @ has haan nI1tting second and third