Evening star., 1922-08-02
Rate by Mail-Payable In Advance
MARYLAND and virginia.
All Other States,
The Seniority Rights Issue.

The Seniority Rights Issue.
Refusal of the railroad executives
to accept President Hardings proposal
for a settlement of the strike Of the
shop craftsmen would seem on hasty
consideration Of the matter to put
upon them the burden of RESPONSE
bility for the continuance Of the
trouble, which is daily increasing the
difficulty of moving the trains upon
which the country's welfare depends.
But that rejection is based upon
grounds that cannot be refuted, and
when the question is viewed in its
larger aspect it must seem that the
executives have taken position that
will be sustained by public opinion.
The whole case turns upon the So
called seniority issue. Are the men
who voluntarily quit their jobs, in
refusal to accept the findings of the
legally constituted board of awards,
20 be restored to their former status
without loss Of priority rights? Are
the men who remained at work, In
loyalty to their employers and to the
law, to suffer loss of ratings as men
who were their seniors in service, but
who struck, return to duty? Are men
who were engaged to fill the places
OF strikers, on distinct promises Of
continuous employment, to be dis
missed to make room for returning
strikers? Is the seniority rule, which
las the sanction of the wage boards
decisions. to be scrapped in order to
bring about an agreement by the
striking shop craftsmen to abide by
the rulings of that board now and
hereafter?
This question has vexed employers
In practically every strike. The op-
eratives who quit in a body in pro-
test against wage reductions. or to
enforce demands for wage Increases,
have uniformly held that they thereby
forfeited no rights as employees. In
short, the fundamental principle Of
the strike is that wholesale quitting,
in an effort to cause loss to the en-
ployer, is merely a vacation" in
which the striker loses nothing but
his wages during the time he is out
OF work. The railroad executives now
take the contrary view that when
men strike they abandon their posts
and must come back as vacancies
permit.
This is a vital question. Does the
public welfare at. this time demand
that it be answered in terms to yield
an immediate resumption of full rail-
road service, regardless of the effect
upon the future? 1t cannot be said
that there is anything novel about it.
Before the shop craftsmen quit they
were warned that striking would en-
tail forfeiture Of seniority. Immedi-
ately after the strike occurred the
Railroad Labor Board called public
attention to the fact that the men
had voluntarily relinquished their po-
sitions and that their successors were
entitled to full protection and to def
rite rights as employees.
1t is suggested that the issue raised
by the railroad executives is only aca-
demic; that, in fact, the men who
have been taken on in place of
strikers are not of a type to remain
anyway. and that their deprival of
seniority over the returning strikers
would not actually affect them. That
Is an avoidance of the principle for
which the executives now stand. q
principle which must be maintained
or the stability of all business or.
sanization in this country is threat
ened. Moreover, it ignores the fact
that full restoration of seniority
rights to the strikers involves a pen
atty upon the men who remained on
duty, many Of whom would have to
yield rank.
The strike is in itself defiance of
the law, a flouting Of the legally
established means Of adjusting rail-
road wages and working conditions. It
should be settled on the basis of the
first two Of the Presidents proposals,
the third having been proved impos-
sible. Those conditions are that both
sides agree to recognize the validity
of all decisions of the labor board
and that the carriers will withdraw
all lawsuits growing out of the strike.
the board decisions involved to be
taken back to the board for rehearing.