Arizona republican., 1921-01-11
Rail Operators Want Agreement
 With Employes
 To Be Abolished
Continued from Page one)

 qualified to consider such regulations are the individual homogeneous and their employees" L. T. Winter, chair man of the managers committee, which is presenting tho carriers side of the controversy testified.
 The reasons for the carriers oppo- sition to national agreements was out lined by Mir. Winter as follows.
 l.. They are ultra restrictive and therefore prevent the honest, efficient and econominal management demand ed by the transportation act.
 2. The variable conditions in diff ferent section of the country make the universal application of their provi sions inmpracticable.
 3. The existing rules, the continu- ation of which is proposed by the men, are capable of various constructions.
 4. The existing agreements provide that the rules contained therein apply to all employees of any particular craft regardless of the department of the railroad in which the man is employed, thus leading to a division of juris- diction and a conflict in the working rules applicable to employees engaged in the same work
 5. The existing agreements have de- stroyed acknowledged efficient and economical practices such as the piece work system for regulating rates of pay.
 6. The railroads must have relief from the rules controlling the em- ployment of men, which are so re- strfctive as to prevent them from ob- taining sufficient number of em- ployes fin certain departments. thus interfering with output and causing delay to the movement of traffic.
 z. The agreements contain many rules which provide for payment for work not performed, and thereby cause many millions of dollars of unneces- sary expense annually.
 "The railroads do not object to schedules (the technical term for rail- way agreements) properly negotiated and entered into with their own employees" MT. Winter said, ''as is evil denced by the fact that nearly all, if not all, of the roads represented by this committee have had schedules with the various train service organ izations for many years.
 Those roads which have been work ing on the eight-hour day basis will continue to do so unless changed by mutual agreement with their employees. but they must have the right to re- establish more sufficient and econom- ical practices. We refer, among other things, to piece-work methods which were abolished. This action has cost many millions of dollars to the roads which had for years successfully pro- duced much of their output by piece work methods.
 The excess cost, which is really a loss to railroads, is piling up day after day and will continue to do so as long as the railroads are prevented from establishing the piece-work basis and until the railroads are free 10 re-establish such former practices thev VIII not be able to comply wholly with the requirements of the transportation act By this method the output of the shop Is increased, and the worlSmen on account of their ability and skill. are arrorded opportunity and receiving increased compensation over ard aooVe what they would receive work Ing on the day basis"
 In conclusion he said:
 We believe that the board should not approach this subject from the angle of schedule with any organ izauon; or that the board can properly say what organizations shall or shall not represent the employees. The sub )ect should be dealt with from the standpoint of what are the proper reg ulations for the character of service under consideration, and that the ques- ton of whether they shall he a.nnlied on the individual properties. In the form or schedule with certain or ganizations, depends upon the policy of me individual property and the desire or the majority of the respective classeS or employees on that nronArt,, ,,