The commonwealth. (Greenwood, Miss.) 1896-1923, 1916-02-18

InlcagO, FED. 6.-Ine Executive
Committee Of the Association of
Western Railways today issued the
following statement:
The wage demands now being voted
on by the railroad engineermen and
trainmen do not mean a real eight
hour working day. They provide
solely for an increase in wages that
would amount to 500, 100000 q
year.
The public should not be misled
by statements of the brotherhood
leaders that r asking for an eight
hour day. Their proposals do not
provide either that. all shall work
even as much as eight hours a day
or that those who are now working
more than eight hours shall work any
less. Thousands Of train service m
ployees now work less than eight
hours for a days pay and those who
work more receive pay not only for
all of the time they work but for
every mile they run
The proposed rules would simply
change from a ten-hour to an eight
hour basis of computing wages, so
that one hours work shall be paid
for as one-eighth rather than as one
tenth of a days pay, or as 1914 miles
instead of 10 miles.
While the officers of the brother
| hnnIc lora ot+oro~+1I ~ ~o1,o kl>
public believe they are seeking q
real eight-hour day, they have taken
some pains to reassure the employ
ees that no reduction in working
hours is contemplated. Nothing
could be more convincing on this
point than the following statement
by Val Fitzpatrick, Vice-President
Of the Brotherhood of Railroad Train
men, published in the January issue
of the Railroad Trainman: =
There is quite a difference" he
says, between an eight-hour work
day and an eight-hour basic work
day. The eight-hour basic work day
(which is the system proposed by
the train service brotherhoods) con-
templates that eight hours shall be
the basis for a days work, and any
time in excess shall be paid for as
overtime. Under such a system there
is no limit to the hours that may be
worked"
Ia railroad train service a DAVIS
work cannot be arbitrarily fixed. The
employees know this and they have nc
intention of changing their working
day. They are asking only the
enormous increase in wages which
would result from changing the basis
of payment SO that they could. carr
money faster.
There is not a word in the pro-
posals now being voted on by the
employees that would require a man
to work as much as eight hours for a
days pay. It is specifically provided
that 100 miles or less. eight hours or
less,' shall constitute a day. Nor is
there any provision for a reduction in
the hours of work for any one who
now works more than eight hours.
What the men are asking for is a
reduction of 25 per cent in the num-
Der of hours they must work before
they will begin to draw pay for over
time, this overtime to be at a>rate
SO per cent higher than the proposed
regular hourly rate and 87k per cent
higher than the present overtime
rate.
This is made plain by article 1 (c)
OF the demands, which reads "on
runs of owe 100 miles overtime will
begin when the time on duty exceeds
the miles run divided by 12h miles
an hour" Under this rule so long
as a train uns at a speed of 12k
miles Or more per hour, so that the
crew is earning pay at the rate of
one-eighth of the date ate per hour
or more, they do not eve ask over
time, but If it runs at a slower rate
OF speed they ask overtime. Such a
rule clearly is not intended to penal
ize overtime but to accelerate the
earning capacity of the crews.
The controversy is not over a
question of hours; it involves solely
a 500, O00, 900 increase in wages.
which the public would have to pay.