New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1922-08-02

VI muse TlBnCS. by puDuc utter
ances since the strike began the board
has recognized and emphasized these
rights, and to deny them now would,
the Labor Board, overthrow its rules
and discredit its authority.
The chairman Of the Labor Board
at the time the strike was called
made the following public statement:
"Upon one question the striking
employees should not be deceived.
Their leader has said that the strik-
ers are no longer employees Of the
railways, and they have thus auto
matically abandoned all the rights
they possess under their agreements
and under the decisions of Che board,
including their seniority. This is
not the boards action. 1t Is their
own.
"Many carriers are giving their
former employees the opportunity
to re-enter the service within linn
tied time. 1t must be understood
now that men who remained in the
service and those who are now en-
tering it will have rights Of seniority
that the board could not ignore"
Hooper's Statement on
Seniority Rule Recalled
The chairman of the boards state
ment that "this is an individual
utterance, but it expresses, in SUBJ
stance, the sentiment of large ma
tority Of the members of the Rail-
road Labor Board" was justified by
formal action of the board taken in
Its resolution of July 3, 1922, which
stated among other things as follows:
Be 1T further resolved, That the
employees remaining in the service
and the new ones entering same, be
accorded the application and benefit
of the outstanding wage and rule de-
cisions of the Railroad Labor Board,
until they are amended or modified
by agreements with said employees,
arrived at in conformity with the
transportation act, or by decision of
this board, and
"Be it further resolved, That, if it
be assumed that the employees who
leave the service of the carrier be-
cause of their dissatisfaction with
any decisions of the Labor Board are
within their rights in so doing, it
must likewise be conceded that the
men who remain in the service and
those who enter it anew are within
their rights in accepting such en-
ployment, that they are not strike
breakers seeking to impose the arbi-
trary will of an employer on en-
ployees; that they have the moral as
we'll as the legal right to engage,.in
such service of the American pElhlic
to avoid interruption of Indispensable
railway transportation, and that they
are entitled TO the protection of every
department and branch of the gov
ernment, state and national"
Insist Proposal Works
Injustice to New Men
1t must be understood that any
proposal that employees now on
strike shall be permitted to return to
the service, without impairment of
their seniority, is merely another
way of suggesting that those men
who took employment in this crisis
in good faith, relying on the prem
ises of the railroads to protect them
in their positions, these promises
utterances of the Labor Board, and
thus have made possible the contin-
ued operation of the railroads, shall
now be sacrificed in favor of men
now on strike, who not only brought
about the crisis, but, by their own
action and declaration are no longer
employees of the railways, under the
jurisdiction of the United States
Railroad Labor Board, or subject to
the application of the transportation
act.
In addition to the necessity of up
holding the Labor Board, and main
tanning the pledges made by the
railroads to the men now at work,
there is the practical effect on the
supervisory officers of violation of
the pledges they were authorized to
make. Their encouragement and de-
moralization would be far more
disastrous than this or any other
strike. Much harm has already been
done by repeated publication Of
rumors in recent days that the loyal
men and the new men are to be
sacrificed to the strikers. This has
discouraged new men from accepting
employment in as great numbers as
would come forward if certain that
the pledges given would be fulfilled.
Such published rumors only delay
the complete collapse of the strike.
Refuse Settlement Unless
Loyal Workers Are Shielded
In view of the above, it is sub
mitted that tn striking former en-
ployees cann| be given preference
to employee 4 present in the serv-
ice, withcat doing violence to every
principle of right and justice in
volved in this matter and without the
grossest breach of faith on the part
Of the railroads to the men at pres
ent in their service. Under these
circumstances, it becomes apparent
that the railroads cannot consider
any settlement of the present strike
which does not provide protection in
their present employment, both to
the loyal employees who remained in
the service and to the new employees
entering It.