Evening star., 1948-06-02
i..sss..sr 'sSst
asss ~ .s.<sf
.ysr.<
Rail Workers State Case

| After reading your editorial, 'Nationalized
Railroads" published on May ~, We must
| take several exceptions, particularly with re-
| gard to the editorials Interpretation Of the
| intent and purposes Of the Brotherhood Of
Locomotive Engineers, the Brotherhood Of
Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, and the
| Switchmen's Union of North America. While
we do not agree with your conclusion regard
| ing the sincerity Of the Railway Labor Ex-
ecutives' Association in adopting its resolution
| on Government ownership, we grant 1t is q
privileged opinion. Our exceptions are taken
to the editorials departures from the admitted
area of Interpretation and assuming to
present opinion as facts.
But the statement (the RLEA resoluton)
attempts to present the matter to the public
| as being . conflict between the unions and
the operators Of the railroads. This Is very
far from a fact" ends the second paragraph
| Of the editorial.
Paragraph continues: '"T1ae real truth Of
| the matter Is that the strike threat was aimed
at the Railway Labor Act and the Govern
ment, not at the operators. Last September.
q presidential arbitration board, appointed
| under the law, made a wage award which was
accepted by the operators. 1t was also
accepted by 10 Of the railroad unions The
engineers, fremen and switchmen refused to
accept it, however, and threatened to strike.
which brought about Government interven-
| ton. So when the Railway Labor Executives
attempt today to base an appeal for national
ization on an alleged failure Of railroad
management to maintain satisfactory labor
relations, they are trying to pull the wool
| over the eyes OF the public. If they have =
| grievance, and it is hard to see wherein 1t
| lies II Is against the Government"
It becomes necessary to separate the several
editorial assumptions which were presented
with the inference that they are fact.
Management Employe Dispute Claimed.
First as to the claim that it is far from a
fact that the conflict is between the unions
and the operators of the railroads: 1t is
entirely obvious that dispute exists between
employees and management and that abate-
ment of that dispute by an agreed settlement
Of the wage and working conditions issues
would dissolve the entire strike situation. It
is further fact that the Government owner
ship resolution openly extends the dispute to
the Government doing so clearly and in Ian
guage which may not be mistaken and which
makes no pretext of concealment, as the edi-
torial intimates. Because the Government
through seizure, Is now operating the rail-
roads, the issue is carried to the Government
in this language:
"" The Government, first by UNDER
taking purely technical seizure of the rail-
roads; second by obtaining restraining orders
at court, and third, by failure to conduct
appropriate negotiations, has thrown itself on
the side Of the railroads and has assumed the
role of a strikebreaking agency. The
Government, having taken over control OF the
railroads has duty and obligation to these
employees to see that they are treated fairly
and not required to give services for wages
below the bounds of equity and Justice
Government by its action Of seizure and
resort to injunctive processes has interjected
itself in the dispute. However, Government
intervention appears after strike action was
decided upon and only a few brief hours
before strike action would have been taken.
The arrival of Government upon the scene Is
too belated to support the editorials assertion
that "the strike threat was aimed at the
Railway Labor Act and the Government, not
the operators
AS to the declaration that the strike is
aimed at the Railway Labor Act:
The organizations have no dispute with
the Railway Labor Act Their position Is
entirely to the contrary OF that assumption
which the editorial states as fact. The three
rail labor unions followed with utmost care
every step Of that act, even agreeing to
extensions OF the time limitations provided
In the act in order that those who administer
the act could do so without being required to
act in haste It is regrettable that many
people who profess an understanding Of the
Railway Labor Act are not adequately in
formed as to its procedures, purposes and
history.
Arbitration Limited in Effect.
There is nothing within the act which con-
templates that an arbitration voluntarily ac-
cepted by any group of employees shall be
binding upon any other group. Instead, the
act, in its own provisions, appears to antici-
pate just such a contingency by expressly pro-
viding that Emergency Boards shall be created
separately in each instance" Furthermore,
there is a broad difference between the cir
cumstances confronting the presently con-
cerned Emergency Board and the Arbitration
Board in the incorporating groups case which
preceded it. The Arbitration Board, in Sep
tember decided a case which started many
weeks previously 1t decided an issue based
primarily upon facts and contentious which
were not part OF the dispute heard by the
succeeding Emergency Board The Emergency
Board entered the present dispute at different
period in time (six months later and under
a different economic climate and for different
classifcations of employees. When the board
did not recognize the full implications of those
facts, it was the functioning of the board,
not the Railway Labor Act, with which our
organizations differed.
The Railway Labor Act contemplates the
possibility that Board recommendations may
not be acceptable. For that reason, the Act
requires an additional 30-day period Of delay
following the report to the President. During
that final sO-day period, the parties are ex-
pected to undertake adjustment of any remain
ing differences. Such an adjustment was un-
dertaken in this case and failed.
The Railway Labor Act contains neither an
implied nor an expressed prohibition against
strikes in the event of such final failure at the
bargaining table.
Congressman Barkley, who was manager Of