The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-08-23
TOPEKA STATE JOURNAL
Information Bureau
FREDERIC }. HAsKIN. Director.
Washington, d. @.
FUTURE OF THE RAILROAD
LABOR BOARD.

fate of the railroad labor board hangs
in the balance as one of the results
of the strike that has upset the trans
portation business of the country. A
proposal to abolish the board is under
consideration and may develop into
one of the big fights in congress this
winter II is also suggested that the
| headquarters of the board be moved
from Chicago to Washington. Many
4 labor leaders make no secret or their
desire that the railway labor tribunal
! be eliminated as factor in industrial
relations. Samuel Gompers, president
/ of the Federation of Labor, is con-
spicuous among them They are Of the
school which believes that there should
/ be no governmental interference in
the controversies between employers
and employees, which combatss the idea
/ that there should be any Limitation OF
the right of workers TO strike, and
which resists all propositions looking
TO compulsory arbitration.
Some of the more powerful of the
railway executives are wholly in SYM
pathy with these views of labor chier-
tains. They are the bitter enders"
who have been fighting organized Ia
Dor for many years and who beueVe
that all conflicts between capital and
labor should be fought out to a finish.
The only kind of industrial peace that
they regard as desirable is that which
comes when one side or the other has
These opponents of the railroad Ia
Dor board predicted its failure when
the Transportation Act OF 1920 was
passed. Needless to say, they have
not done their utmost to make the
operation of the board a success. ON
the contrary they have played much
the same game that the critics of the
government administration of the rail-
roads played-p.aced every possible
obstacle in the way of its functioning
SariSfaPfnrilx-
Friends of the board in congress and
out, therefore, will not adopt a. policy
on non-resistence in the face of the
promised assault upon it, but will
counter with a movement to give the
board increased powerg-to put teeth
into the law, as they express it. They
contend that if the board has mot
been wholly effective it is because il
it has not had sufficient authority.
History of the Board.
The board was organized in April,
1920. and it's first task was a wage
case in which 1t granted increases all
along the line. This decision was ac-
cepted by the arrangements of the
various railroads. However, it was
while this case was pending that the
controversy was started that was the
first menace to the efficiency of the
new law and the new tribunal. Dur
ing federal operation of the roads a
working conditions had been nego-
tiated between the unions and the
railroad administration and national
boards of adjustment, bipartisan in
tie differences which might arise I'M
der the agreement. AS soon as the
railroads were returned to private
control it was made clear that the
railway executives would fight the ma,
tional agreement. It was also ape
parent that whereas the new law pro-
vided for the creation of national adj
justment boards similar to those that
had functioned under government OPP
Grafton the executives were deter
mined that none should be estab
lished.
Officials of the railway labor or
CARNATIONS asked the executives to
meet with them and arrange for the
replied that the new law did not make |
the esta blishment of these boards !
and that they would not |
agree to any such agencies on a ma |
tional basis. They indicated willing |
ness to establish regional boards or |
individual railroads or systems.
These adjustment boards were IN |
tended to handle the almost innumer-
able cases of minor importance which |
would swamp the railroad labor board |
If the subordinate agencies were not |
created. The railway workers there
fore charged that the executives were |
deliberately trying to break down the |
law and make it impossible for the |
railroad labor board to function eff
riciently.
Whatever Justification there was
For this charge it Is a fact that the |
board was deluged with cases which
t should never have had to consider
and that this was the beginning of |
bad feeling between the executives
Ind the leaders of the workers which
lid not promise we'll for harmonious
relations in the future. The railroads
asked that the national agreement he
lbrogated- Tho officials OF the Unions
offered to meet the executives in ma
ional conference and negotiate a new
agreement based on the old one. The
Executives declined.
This controversy then went to the
abroad labor board and while it was
bending many of the railroads an
bounced that they intended to reduce
wages The board ruled that no wage
eductions should be put into effect
Until it had heard the case and
endered decision In spite of this,
few roads ignored the boards rul-
ng and undertook to make wage re-
uctions Immediately effective. The
'oard has no authority under the law
o enforce its decisions, but its mem
ers did their utmost to persuade the
ailway executives to abide by them.
Other Rulings by the Board.
Later the board decided that GER
ain wage reductions should be made.
t set aside the national agreement, I
nut laid down certain fundamental
rinciples that should govern the j
egotiation of new agreements on the 1
Individual roads or systems. 1t also {
lodified the overtime rule in such a {
hammer that the workers contended s
hat the feight-hour law was being 1
vaded If not violated. ,
An election of employees represent /
atives on the Pennsylvania system /
ras protested by the unions and the
GARD held that the election did not
Onform to its rulings. Pennsylvania
fficials announced their intention of
landing by what they had done and
ne board decided to publish the fact
nat the railroad had violated one of