Arizona republican., 1904-05-01
The Strike on the Santa Fe.

Fe system have gone on strike. How
 extensive the strike will become
 whether it will include all the members
 of the International Association of Ma
 chinists-remains for the immediate
 future to determine. The slowness with
 which the movement has been gaining headway indicates that the men have
 been reluctant to leave their jobs and | follow their leaders. It is also uncer- | tain as yet whether a general strike of the machinists would embarrass the | system to any great extent. It Is re- ported that large numbers of men who do not belong to the organization are
 ready to take the places of the strik. CTS.
 ! The points at issue between the as- ! sociation and the railroad are fully set | forth in q statement issued by MT. J. w. Kendrick, third vice president of the Santa Fe system. During the month of March several conferences were held | between representatives of the ma
 chinists' association and MT Kendricl
 and his staff, and full discussions were had. It developed that the demands of the men were covered in some twen- | ty rules and regulations which they
 submitted, these rules and regulations being proposed for the government Of the machinists and machinist appren- tices on the system. The question of wages was not directly involved. and | the representatives of the association
 claimed it was not involved at all, but MT. Kendrick points out that if the re. quests submitted had been granted the effect would have been to increase wages in several particulars. The state ment to which we have referred quotes in full the rules submitted by the men, and after each rule is printed Mir Ken | drick's explanation of the reasons why ! the company could not accept it. Although it is desirable that the pub | lie should have an accurate knowledge of the causes of difference between the company and it's men. and the subject
 may become quite interesting here in Arizona as well as elsewhere, We shall 1 have to defer until another time fuller discussion of the points at issue A fairly comprehensive idea of the merits of the controversy can be gathered, however. from the following synopsis. of the rules formulated by the machin-
 ists and MT. Hendricks comments
 thereon.
 The first rule offered called for ten hours pay for nine hours work, on Saturdays. MT. Kendrick explained
 that this would mean a substantial in | crease in wages.
 Rule Two provided that the con- pany, when reduction of expenses be-
 came necessary, should reduce the hours and not the force. MT. Kendriok replied that while the company's aim was to consider the greatest good to the greatest number it must reserve the liberty to decide what course was best in each instance.
 Rule Three related to overtime. Va rious stipulations were submitted, and
 Mir. Hendricks reply in substance was that the company's rules in regard 70 overtime were fair and just
 Rule Four undertook to make clas- sification of machinists It was pro- vided. in effect. that any specialist competent to perform any single branch of machinists' work should be classi- fled as a machinist. and MT. Kendrick pointed out that such specialists might
 be wholly incompetent to perform all
 the duties of a machinist in all other | branches of work; in other words it would result in the classification of all handy men as competent machinists
 The rule further provided that a great deal of rough work, not calling for machinsts' tools and machines. should nevertheless be performed by machin- | ists. MT. Kendrick replied that this work could be performed as well or
 better by handy men and helpers He urged that machinists always ,consid- cred work of this character irksome and objected to undertaking it except at certain times, when other work was scarce.
 Rule Six provided that but one ap- prentice should be employed in each shop, for every five machinists. Mir Hendricks reply was that the company would never be a party to a general | arrangement for the curtailment of the education of the sons of it's machinists or other employees, or the people in the various communities traversed by its lines.' He explained that the ratio of apprentices to machinists should vary according to the character of the rule was to limit the number of men that could come into the trade from ap- premiership, and he denied the right