being habitually ignored by a certain class of employees, the writer
called the attention of the management to the matter. In this way, from
time to time, many cases of simple negligence, which had no serious
consequences, were reported to superintendents. Thinking it all over,
the writer finally became anxious to find out just what disposition was
made of these reports. For it must be apparent to any thinking person
that the practical value of any system of discipline must always depend
upon the efforts that are put forth and the success that is achieved
in checking and in preventing the repetition of these instances of
what may be called trouble in the bud. The reports to which I refer
were acknowledged by the management, and there the matter ended. But
as I happened to be studying the subject at the time in a systematic
manner, I was by no means satisfied with this abrupt conclusion. So I
made an investigation on my own account, and easily discovered that
practically all other interested employees were unaware of and had not
been notified in regard to the violation of these rules because, as the
men explained, nothing had happened. That is to say, it was necessary
to hurt somebody or smash up a few carloads of freight before any
efforts could be exerted according to the rules to put a stop to the
negligence. This became very clear to me, when, upon making further
inquiries, I was informed that the men had been disciplined to the full
extent of the rules. Now my object in the investigation was not to get
at the nature or the amount of the discipline, but simply to be able to
arrive at an estimate of its value in checking and restraining others
from committing similar mistakes. In this way I soon arrived at the
conclusion that a system of discipline that works in the dark in this
way is of no practical value whatever. It is a weakness of management,
which positively undermines the operating department and leads the way
to all sorts of disaster and loss of life. Its continued existence in
practical railroad management is a standing menace to the safety of the
traveling public. As a matter of fact, lives are still being frequently
sacrificed and much property is almost daily being destroyed as direct
tribute to this incomprehensible system of discipline.
The exact method by which this system is put into operation, and the
regulations which govern employees in regard to it, will be understood
from the following extracts from general orders on the subject, issued
by what is sometimes considered one of the best-managed railroads in
the country:--
“The System of Discipline by Record having proved beneficial both to
the road and to employees, it has been decided to extend the same by
the addition of merit marks....
“Each employee will be promptly notified of unfavorable entries made
in the record book opposite his name. He will upon request be shown
his record at any time, but will not be permitted to see the record of
another person.
“_Bulletins, omitting name, date, train, and location_, but containing
facts and conclusions and such comment as is applicable, will be issued
from time to time if considered necessary.”
The significance of this general order to employees should be
thoroughly understood. Practically interpreted, it means that when an
employee commits a mistake or is guilty of negligence that endangers
life and property, the affair is to be looked upon as a secret. This
interpretation is correct according to the actual operation of the
system on the railroads. Neither in the interests of the public safety
nor for any other reason can the facts in the case, as regards date,
name, location, and train, be utilized or published for the prevention
of future accidents of a similar nature. This is the law of the road,
and while it remains in force any employee can claim the full benefit
of its provisions. The practical illustration in my own experience
given above is fully explained and accounted for by this general order.
But the most astonishing feature in relation to it is that with the
records before us it should continue to be considered and heralded as
“beneficial” either to the railroads or the employees, not to mention
the public. For a full explanation of this peculiar state of affairs we
must turn to another quarter.
It is a well-known fact that the American railroad man, the trainman
and engineman in particular, has deep-rooted objections to being
“posted” in any way. We have consistently emphasized our objections
from the time, years ago, when our likes and dislikes first began to
cut a figure in the plans of the management. So to-day we are prepared
to go to almost any extreme rather than submit to any system of
discipline that will publish our mistakes and advertise us personally
by name as examples, even although such action can be shown to be
absolutely indispensable for the proper safeguarding of life and
property. With all the facts against us, we think we can be trusted
to render the best service and to live up to the rules without the
assistance of publicity in any form. We consider discipline to be a
private matter, to be settled between ourselves and the management;
and thus the workings of the system have been arranged without any
reference whatever to its effect on the interests of the millions of
people whose lives are placed in jeopardy by its arrangements. As a
matter of fact, then, the system of discipline which I have described
is the result of long-continued pressure and consequent concessions
by the management to the demands of employees. These concessions have
been granted for the most part in the interests of harmony. What the
exact nature of this force or pressure is, which, acting on behalf of
railroad employees, has been able to influence railroad legislation and
management to the total exclusion of the public interests, calls for
the closest investigation.
A short time ago, in a report issued by the New York, New Haven and
Hartford Railroad, President Mellen stated that so far as his system
of roads was concerned, increase of pay had invariably been followed
by decreased efficiency. Mr. Mellen, of course, has the reports and the
figures to substantiate his opinion. The statement is plain enough,
although its meaning is somewhat obscure. That decrease in efficiency
has been the natural sequence and effect of higher wages, or that men
lose interest in their callings or grow more careless in their habits
with every addition to their material prosperity, is manifestly absurd.
Mr. Mellen has not informed us that he looks upon the matter in this
light, although his words may reasonably be considered to bear some
such interpretation. Be this as it may, he certainly calls attention
to a very uncomfortable coincidence. In effect Mr. Mellen’s words
may be taken as a direct challenge to railroad men to come forward
and explain a state of affairs that has the appearance of being very
much to their discredit. The implied challenge can be immediately
and concisely replied to in this way. The efficiency of the service
rendered by employees to the New Haven road has by no means been
impaired or decreased by any consideration of wages whatsoever.
Nevertheless, the power or pressure that induced Mr. Mellen and
other railroad managers to add large sums to their pay-rolls is also
responsible, by the exercise of its influence in other directions, for
the decreased efficiency. _Increase of pay and decrease of efficiency
are both indications of loss of grip by the management._ Hidden away
in this simple statement there is a whole world of significance. Here
are fundamental facts, from a fearless consideration of which we shall
be able to derive a logical and clean-cut explanation of the present
situation on American railroads.
The force or influence to which I call attention is of course the
Railroad Labor Organization. But it should be clearly understood
that my conclusions in regard to these unions are not to be taken as
a reflection on their character and work while acting in legitimate
channels. The debt we railroad men owe to our organizations admits
no question. The beneficial results are before us in almost every
department of the railroad business. They have established a fraternal
feeling among us. On all sides they have aroused a spirit of mutual
helpfulness. They have also succeeded in advancing wages, and in this
way contributed to the comfort and prosperity of almost every man
in the service. Furthermore, they have been particularly active in
inciting legislation for the protection of life and limb among workers.
These facts must not be forgotten or minimized, for they are worthy
of all commendation. But in this matter of the personal conduct and
efficiency of railroad men in relation to these terrible railroad
accidents, we have first of all to consider the paramount interests of
society; and while humanity has no quarrel with the unions while they
attend to their legitimate business, it certainly can be said to have
a grievance against them that calls for prompt attention and remedy.
This grievance consists in the fact that, for a great many years, the
influence of the railroad labor organizations has been consistently
exerted, not only to raise wages and to improve conditions, which
of course is perfectly proper and justifiable, but also to nullify
discipline, to destroy personal management and authority, and to
obliterate from all schedules and working agreements any reference to
or consideration for the paramount interests of the traveling public.
It is not necessary to quote paragraphs from these agreements, which
for the most part are secret documents. Given two angles of a triangle,
it is an easy matter to calculate the dimensions of the third.
Similarly, given the actual conduct of the men and the behavior of the
management in relation to it, we can derive very accurate conclusions
in regard to the work and power of the organizations.
Yet let no one imagine that this interference with the management in
the matter of discipline is brought about by design or is directly
intentional. On the contrary, in a very natural way, it has grown out
of a system whose main object has been to secure justice and equal
rights for every individual employee. But unfortunately, in pursuing
these personal ends and objects, the rights of the community have been
forgotten. It is easy to demonstrate that in the railroad business this
fair play to the individual frequently means a sacrifice of the public
interests. In the operating department of a railroad, illustrations of
this point meet us at every turn.
In any ordinary business establishment there is at all times a certain
amount of weeding going on for the good of the business. This is done
on the personal judgment and initiative of the manager. In this way
a high average of efficiency is attainable in all departments. But
in the railroad business no such personal action on the part of a
superintendent would be tolerated for a minute. It is surely reasonable
that among the thousands of men who enlist in the railroad ranks there
will be many who after a while will give evidence of unfitness for the
service. Regardless of the power of the superintendent in theory, these
men, if they are members of an Order or Brotherhood, _must actually
hurt somebody or do considerable damage to property, before they can
be removed_. That is to say, there is no elimination of weak spots
until something happens. But this is not all. When a vacancy occurs in
the service, it is immediately advertised, and the oldest bidder in
point of service takes the position. In some of the agreements with
the management the seniority rule is said to be absolute, in others it
is modified by the clause, “with the approval of the superintendent.”
But in a business of the nature of a railroad the public interests
demand that at all points the best available man should be in charge,
regardless of his length of service or his rights as an individual. But
the labor organizations do not permit the public interests or those of
the corporation to interfere with what they consider to be the just and
inalienable rights of each and every employee. Applied to the railroad
business, the fixed principle that every man shall take his turn is
fundamentally wrong and demoralizing. It is one of the wedges that
are being used to destroy personal supervision and management and to
substitute management by machine methods. In my opinion its tendency is
in the interests of poor service. Healthy competition in good behavior
is almost obliterated, while honest ambition and _esprit de corps_
get very little encouragement. It has the general effect of removing
the attention of employees from the management and concentrating it
steadfastly upon the organization, that is to say, upon the source from
which increase of pay and all other blessings are expected to flow.
Of course, I cannot expect railroad managers to agree at all points
with my estimate of their powers and functions, or of the helpless
situation in which they now find themselves. Just at present, however,
I am not interested in opinions from any quarter. The facts that
interest me, and I think the public as well, relate to what these
railroad managers have done in the past and are actually doing at the
present day, with such powers as they possess, in the interest of
safe and efficient railroad service. It may be very interesting to be
informed that a superintendent has the power promptly to discharge an
engineman for running a danger signal and placing the lives of five
hundred passengers in utmost peril, but it is much more to the point to
impress upon the public mind that the action of the official will not
amount to a snap of his finger if an organization puts down its foot
and signifies its opinion to the contrary. Illustrations of these facts
are not far to seek. Only a short time ago an engineman was promptly
discharged for disregarding a signal in a most inexcusable manner. The
case was passed up higher for the approval of the general manager.
Meanwhile the man had discovered some kind of an excuse for his action,
and a committee was appointed to look into the matter. There being a
total difference of opinion between the management and the grievance
committee, the heads of different organizations were summoned from
some western city to help straighten out the deadlock. After a while
the man was put back on his engine, and the report passed round that
the case had been settled in this way in the interests of harmony. No
wonder the superintendent who was concerned in the matter threw up his
hands in disgust and exclaimed, “What’s the use?”
This method of interfering with the regular course of discipline may
perhaps be proper and commendable in a cigar factory or a cotton
mill, but on a railroad, where the lives of countless people are
dependent upon obedience to the rules, its effect upon the service
is absolutely fatal. But unhappily this is not the whole story, for
it must be confessed that the public frequently joins hands with the
organizations in defeating the ends and aims of discipline. After some
of the worst and most inexcusable accidents that have ever occurred on
New England railroads, petition has followed petition into the railroad
offices with the expressed object of influencing the management to
reinstate men in the service who have been convicted of inefficiency or
unpardonable carelessness. Of course a superintendent should thoroughly
investigate every case on its merits, but the verdict of the management
should be final. The wisdom of this policy might be questioned if
superintendents were political appointees or owed their positions
to “graft” or “pull.” As a matter of fact these men are among the
hardest worked, most thoroughly capable and conscientious men in the
United States. No combination of opinion from the public, the railroad
commissioners, and the labor organizations is half as likely to be just
and impartial as the individual judgment of the superintendent on the
spot. The following significant remark by one of those gentlemen may
well be taken to heart by the public as well as by employees: “With a
free hand, we could put a stop to this killing in a week.”
The story of railroad management is now before us, and the record of
accidents all over the United States is the price that is being paid
for it. As I have described the situation, the circle of cause and
effect is now complete. Beginning with the negligence of employees,
which must be considered as the primary cause of these accidents,
I next took up the matter of discipline, whose function it is to
control and put a stop to this negligence. The system was found to be
altogether inadequate and useless. Finally, I attempted to demonstrate
that the labor organizations are responsible for the nature of this
discipline, and thus indirectly for the accidents that have resulted
from its inefficiency. Systems of discipline vary on different roads;
nevertheless these contentions are sound and universally applicable,
for the blight of interference with the management has in greater or
less degree withered every system of railroad discipline in the United
States, and exposed the traveling public to the mercy of service that
is inefficient and demoralized.
For the rest, it will be evident that the foregoing diagnosis of the
situation bears on its face unmistakable indications of the nature of
the cure. At all cost, interference with discipline must cease. This
conclusion admits no compromise. At the present day every decision
made by a superintendent is practically subject to the approval of
the Grievance Committee. But this is not all: the railroad manager is
handicapped and held up at every turn. In his dealings with the labor
problem, if by any possibility he manages to escape the fire, it can
only be by taking refuge in the frying-pan. An illustration in point
is the problem of keeping expenses within reasonable limits and at
the same time administering discipline to the very men who, backed by
powerful organizations, are continually insisting upon additions to the
pay-rolls.
But now, granting the situation and the difficulties as I have
described them, in what direction are we to look for relief? As it
seems to me, an unmistakable expression of public opinion would, in
the first place, go far in starting us all thinking and working in the
right direction. But even this will have little effect until railroad
men wake up out of the self-satisfied trance in which at present they
seem to be comfortably slumbering. Time was when our forgetfulness of
the public interests could be accounted for by our own poverty and
sufferings. But these unhappy conditions no longer exist, for to-day
we are probably as well paid and otherwise as well provided for and
equipped as any class of workers in the United States. Nevertheless,
when we are informed that in the year 1906 ten thousand people were
killed and one hundred thousand injured on American railroads, the
knowledge does not seem to “give us pause” in any way, or to ruffle our
individual self-satisfaction; while our organizations look at their
surroundings silently and impassively as the pyramids and obelisks look
upon the Egyptian deserts.
But affairs have now come to such a pass on the roads that at last
we are imperatively called upon to answer questions and explain our
position. Our best friends are beginning to criticise us. They remind
us that interference with discipline is in reality an attempt to take
part in its administration, and that our unions were never intended
or organized for that purpose. For a great many years an educational
campaign has been in progress all over the country for the purpose
of reminding us of our duties and obligations to our unions. This
educational method has been extremely successful, and has brought into
being armies of laboring men thoroughly loyal and self-centred. But the
result of this system on the railroads has been so disastrous to human
life that at last we are beginning to realize that there is a limit
even to the pursuit of our individual well-being.
In paying attention, even at this late date, to the higher call
of the social conscience, we railroad men shall enter a new world
with brighter prospects and a wider horizon. The nobility of labor
has always been the proud watchword of American civilization. Let
us be watchful lest we forfeit our claim to share in this national
distinction. By recognizing our duties and responsibilities to society
in our treatment of these railroad problems, we shall finally take our
place in line with those who through sacrifice and high endeavor are
destined, in good time, to cut out their way to industrial freedom.
IV
LOYALTY
The relations, coöperative and otherwise, that exist between the men
and the management of a railroad are intimately connected with the
safety and efficiency of the service. Generally speaking, the public
is quite ignorant of the nature of these relations. The men and the
management may be working harmoniously with a constant solicitude for
the safety and well-being of the patrons of the road; or, on the other
hand, they may be intrenched in opposing camps, mutually watchful
and suspicious of each other, and more or less forgetful of the
wider and vastly more important interests of the community at large.
One way or the other, the public knows little or nothing about the
actual situation. The managers of railroads are not in the habit of
discussing such matters or of taking the public into their confidence;
our organizations of railroad men likewise pursue the even tenor of
their way. It seems to the writer that the time is opportune for a
candid discussion of this topic, with a view to the education of public
opinion, and in the general interest of travelers by rail. A very brief
preliminary survey of the situation will not be out of place.
It is, of course, unnecessary to dwell upon the tremendous importance
of the railroads as a factor in our national life. Their ramifications
are like countless veins or arteries penetrating every nook and corner
of the continent. Backward and forward through these arteries there
passes and repasses an endless procession of commerce and travel.
In times gone by these huge systems of national and international
intercourse have, for the most part, been directed and kept in working
order by boards of management more or less personal and irresponsible
in their methods of administration. But within a few years a great
change has taken place. A new partner, in the person of the railroad
employee, has literally pushed his way into the manager’s office. So
important a factor has he now become in the councils of a railroad
corporation that hardly a move can be made in the operating department
without first consulting his rights and wishes. Not only is the power
and influence of the railroad employee at the present day an important
factor in railroad management, but, in the opinion of competent judges,
the time is not far distant when manager and employee will meet on
equal terms and together legislate for the interests of all concerned.
Now, granting the ever-increasing power of the employee in framing
the rules and influencing the management, what is there to be said
about the division of responsibility? The question calls for the most
serious consideration of railroad men. Manifestly, it also concerns
the public interest; for, in criticising conditions on our railroads,
public opinion should be thoroughly informed concerning the situation,
so that in all fairness it may call for remedies and reform from the
right quarter.
At the present day, when an accident happens on a railroad and lives
of passengers are sacrificed by reason of the carelessness or neglect
of employees, practically the whole moral and financial responsibility
is immediately assumed by the management Heartfelt regret is at once
expressed by the highest authorities, the injured are visited by
sympathetic officials, and every conceivable kind of bill or expense
is at once acknowledged and paid. On the other hand we, the employees,
singly and collectively, ignore the whole business. We simply stand
back and let the press and the authorities figure out reasons and
remedies for themselves. We neither adopt resolutions of sympathy nor
pay out a single dollar to benefit the families of the dead, or to
alleviate the sufferings of the injured.