responsibility appeal to any fair-minded person? It has occurred to
some of us that if we or our organizations were assessed in hard cash
in proportion to our responsibility for some of these preventable
accidents, the casualty lists on our railroads would very quickly
assume microscopic proportions. An “Employees’ Liability Act” would, of
course, be looked upon as an absurdity; yet if unprejudiced judges were
to analyze a few of our accidents, they would quickly conclude that
the idea is sanely and soberly logical. They would simply consider the
matter in the light of fair and square taxation with unmistakable and
ample representation. It must not be forgotten that the manifestation
of power by railroad labor is to be looked for not so much in the
wording of schedules and agreements as in what the managements of
railroads under pressure _feel constrained to refrain from doing_. The
fairness and cogency of this argument may not “be as deep as a well”
nor “as wide as a church door,” but I think, in the words of Mercutio,
“’tis enough.” The questions and considerations that arise in this way
in regard to the interests of the public, the management, and the men,
are all comprehensively included and can be profitably discussed under
the simple caption of loyalty,--on the one hand, loyalty of the men to
their employers, and, on the other, loyalty of the employers to the men.
No sincere well-wisher of the railroad employee will question the
importance of the relation that exists, or that is supposed to exist,
on American railroads, between labor and loyalty. Volumes have been
written about loyalty in the abstract. For the most part politicians
and teachers of national morality and patriotism have monopolized
these arguments. The former would sink individualism in the interest
of the machine, the latter for the good of their country. Granted the
purity of their motives, the efforts of these people are entirely
praiseworthy; and yet the significance and importance of loyalty
in the industrial life of the nation can by no means be said to be
included in the teachings of either politician or patriot. On American
railroads, in particular, the question of the loyalty of employees to
the corporations and to the interests of the public is vastly more
important than a superficial glance at the subject would lead one to
suppose. Understanding as we do the ever-increasing influence of the
employee, the problem which we have now to consider relates to what
at the present day he is doing with his power, and to what, with his
ever-increasing importance, he intends to do with it in the time to
come. The future holds in it the answer to these questions in terms of
selfishness and abuse of power, or in terms of loyalty to himself, the
corporations, and the public.
To attempt to give a definition of loyalty to apply to and to cover
this railroad business would simply be time and effort thrown away.
It is one thing to impress upon learned and critical readers that
individualism is in error and that loyalty is “willing and practical
devotion to a cause that is outside of the individual and larger than
he is.” It is quite another affair, and altogether more important,
to reproduce our philosophy in terms of actual conduct and behavior.
Not one railroad man in a thousand has either the time or the mental
training to study theories, and from the teachings of professors to
work out rules for his daily guidance; yet it is manifest that the
most useful and wholesome ideas can be put to little practical utility
in this railroad business until the employee is aroused, and some
practical interpretation of them brought home to him with unmistakable
sincerity and emphasis. While, therefore, it is unnecessary to supply
railroad men with a definition of loyalty, it will be just as well to
call attention to some of its most important features.
Loyalty then, as applied to the railroad service, means the safety of
the traveling public so far as human safeguards can be depended upon.
Again, comparing the service as it actually is with what it might be,
loyalty means the elimination of numerous petty delays, and at times
serious blockades, which, at the present day, on many railroads, are so
annoying to the traveling public. This matter of delays to passenger
trains is quite an important feature, and it is surprising how much
the personality of the men and their interpretation of loyalty to
the public interest figure in the problem. Furthermore, a stricter
interpretation of loyalty by employees on any given railroad can easily
be shown to mean a positive reduction in operating expenses to the tune
of thousands upon thousands of dollars. These additional resources
placed at the disposal of the management would mean, of course, funds
wherewith to satisfy the never-ceasing demands of employees for better
conditions and increase of pay. Finally, loyalty means fidelity; and
with fidelity comes sympathy; and with sympathy comes practical and
earnest coöperation between management and men, without which safe and
efficient service is liable to be a mere delusion and will-o’-the-wisp.
Now, while it is a pleasure to bear witness to the steadfast loyalty,
frequently under trying conditions, of numerous individual employees,
it is nevertheless the duty of the unprejudiced investigator to call
attention to the fact that the tendency of the forces that are at work
in this railroad business at the present day, on the part both of
the men and of the management, is simply and positively to eliminate
loyalty as a useful and essential factor in the administration of
affairs. While the public, the management, and the men are mixed up
in the responsibility for this unsatisfactory condition, the blame
for the lack of sympathetic coöperation, which is only another term
for loyalty, that exists among us, must, to begin with, be laid at the
door of the employee himself. This is by no means the hasty opinion of
an individual thinker. Professor Royce, an eminent authority on the
subject, in a lecture delivered at the Lowell Institute in Boston,
describes the situation very emphatically in the following language:--
“The trades-unions demand and cultivate the loyalty of their members;
but they emphasize the thesis that to be loyal to his union the laborer
must disregard certain duties to the community at large and to the
nation, duties which loyalty to loyalty seems obviously to require.”
By loyalty to loyalty, Professor Royce means “the maximum of loyalty
to the world.” But professors and students of industrial conditions
are by no means unsupported in their conclusions. That labor leaders
themselves are aware of the inherent weakness of our position may
be inferred from the following extract from an editorial in “The
International Railroad Employee” for November, 1907.
“I may not lay claim to either the age or wisdom to advise my brother
workers what to do, but if you will consider some of my suggestions
relative to your actions and surroundings, and talk them over among
yourselves, I am sure you will be able to find the world brighter for
you. You seldom, if ever, give any serious thought to bettering your
condition except by hoping for better wages. _Your ideals begin and end
with wages_, and so long as that be true there is no possibility of
your condition being bettered.”
Surely this is a most uncomfortable and damaging confession.
Interpreted in terms of railroad service, it should have the effect
of causing the public to sit up and think it all over. With all our
education and enlightenment, is it really a fact that the ideals and
humanity of the American railroad man can be crammed into a nutshell in
this way by honest and practical investigators, and labeled “wages”?
At the present day the assertion that corporations are soulless has
almost the nature and force of an axiom. It would now appear, according
to the authorities just quoted, that the policy and ideals of labor,
as represented by the American railroad man, are not only soulless but
brainless as well.
So far in this discussion we have been dealing with theories
and opinions. It now remains to be seen, by actual example and
illustration, upon what ground or basis these theories have been
advanced. In plain English, what is the actual and manifest cost, in
character and dollars, of this lack of loyalty to the world at large
which is a distinguishing feature of railroad life at the present day?
It is hardly fair to call it a lack of individual loyalty, for at heart
the American railroad man is thoroughly loyal; but, unfortunately, the
systems of labor organization and management under whose direction he
works, practically call upon him to renounce his personal principles in
the interest of schedules and agreements which constitute the machinery
of the operating department.
It may, of course, be taken for granted that managers of railroads are
well aware of the importance and value of practical loyalty in all
branches of the service; and yet when one examines the evidence with
a view to ascertaining what they actually do for its encouragement,
one is driven to conclude that there must be some kind of a hitch
somewhere. As an illustration let us take the following incident, which
is almost an everyday occurrence:--
Freight train No. 1 pulls into a yard a few miles outside the terminal.
The train and engine crew are on overtime; that is to say, every hour
they remain out on the road means a great many dollars in wages over
and above their regular pay. Before long, another freight train, No.
2, overtakes train No. 1. Instead of pulling into the yard and doing
its work in turn, this second train runs up the main line and backs in
ahead of train No. 1, thus putting it in a pocket. In this way train
No. 1 is delayed three or four hours, thus causing the engine to be
late for the return service; and altogether an extra and entirely
unnecessary expense of perhaps fifty dollars is entailed upon the
railroad.
A few days later, the writer, happening to meet the engineman of train
No. 2, spoke to him in regard to the affair. He appeared to be very
much surprised that his conduct should be questioned or criticised in
any way. He had supposed it was every man’s duty to shift for himself;
to _jump_ another train whenever an opportunity presented itself, and
to get to his destination as quickly as possible. The question of the
interest of the company was a side issue, to which he paid little
attention. If loyalty of this kind was a matter of importance to the
company, why, he contended, was the attention of the men not called
to such matters in some emphatic way? So far as he was aware, the
management had little to say on any subject except as its views were
set forth in the rules and regulations. In his opinion it was every
man for himself on the one hand, and every official for himself on the
other; and whenever their interests or opinions clashed, it became
the duty of the management and the grievance committee to settle the
differences. This engineman was not far wrong so far as concerned
the actual conditions of his daily work; and yet the management of a
railroad takes a good deal more interest in such matters than this man
had any idea of.
Some time ago a vice-president of one of our railroad systems addressed
a gathering of some five hundred railroad station-agents and clerks. He
had a good deal to say to the men about loyalty. He tried to impress
upon his hearers that railroad men should think less about their wages
and their material prosperity and more about character and the duties
they owed to their employers and to the public. The prosperity of
the men was in every way dependent upon the prosperity of the road;
consequently, every act of loyalty, every little economy, was a genuine
factor in obtaining satisfactory results and returns for the road.
In the matter of supplies, for example, employees could do splendid
work for the road if they would only put their minds to it. But it
was not such an easy matter nowadays to put a stop to waste in some
departments, even when its practice was shameful and persistent. Of
course, it was an easy matter to find fault with a station-agent if he
used a pint of ink over and above his allowance; but when the operating
department consumed thousands of gallons of oil per year more than
was absolutely necessary, the problem became much more complicated.
However, seeing that reporters were excluded from the hall, he would
venture to say that in the single case of oil it was possible for
engine crews, by the exercise of the simplest loyalty and regard for
the prosperity of the road, to reduce the expenditure in that one item
to the extent of many thousands of dollars per year. But, of course, in
the interest of harmony it would never do to tell enginemen and firemen
that they are deliberately wasteful or lacking in loyalty to their
employers.
To say the least, one gets the impression from these remarks that
railroad officials are called upon to pursue their labors with
something in the nature of a “sword of Damocles” suspended over their
heads. However, it must not be supposed that instances of loyalty on a
railroad are few and far between. On the contrary, from time to time
the attention of the management is directed to instances of conspicuous
and profitable loyalty.
Some time ago one of the largest freight yards in the western part
of the state enjoyed a very unenviable reputation for breakages of
draw-bars, derailments of cars, and all sorts of unnecessary delays to
passenger trains. Finally a change was made in the yard-master. The
new man began operations with heart-to-heart conversations with the
yardmen. If they had grievances he was ready to straighten them out.
The men had his sympathy and backing, and in return he requested their
coöperation in order to convert the record of the yard from the worst
to the best on the system.
Working in this sympathetic yet practical way, in a year’s time he had
succeeded even beyond his expectation. While handling a much larger
volume of business, the operating expenses and the bills for breakages
were reduced many thousands of dollars.
Illustrations of a similar nature can be multiplied indefinitely,
but one will serve as well as a hundred to demonstrate the fact that
railroad men as a rule give little thought to the matter, and that
railroad managers, while quite aware of its significance and value,
seldom go out of the beaten routine of their regular duties to impress
upon their employees the importance of the issues at stake. The
following somewhat remarkable illustration will throw additional light
on the subject:--
On one of the busiest sections of a New England railroad a certain
foreman has charge of a gang of men. This foreman is a good average
man, something of a “hustler,” and thoroughly capable and experienced.
When carefully examined, however, his record revealed the fact that he
had been unable to keep a man on his gang more than a month or two at a
time. During ten or twelve years’ service he had to break in and teach
the business, practically in vain, to upwards of two hundred green men.
Now there is a right and a wrong way of driving spikes and tamping
ties, and poor and inexperienced work means broken rails, jumping of
track by cars, and a variety of accidents. The foreman in question
is a thoroughly conscientious man. In driving his men in unreasonable
fashion he fancies he is working in the interests of the railroad
company. He considers himself loyal to the backbone, and yet he is
probably the most expensive section foreman on the division.
[Illustration: A TYPICAL DERAILMENT]
At another point on the same railroad a different kind of a section
foreman is stationed. This man has been on one and the same section for
fifteen years, and of his original gang of seven men he still retains
five. Of the two who are missing, one is dead, the other accumulated
a little competency and retired from the service. This foreman is,
comparatively speaking, a very quiet man. He is methodical and exact
in everything he does. He always addresses his men in a low tone, but
with considerable emphasis. His men like him, and they work behind
his back in exactly the same manner as when he is standing over them.
His conduct is not so much a matter of temperament as of downright
calculation and of thought upon the real value and meaning of loyalty
to the interests of his employers.
Drawing up the facts in the cases of these two foremen, the writer
sent them to an experienced road-master, with the request that he
would kindly give him an idea as to what, in his opinion, would be
the difference in actual cash value of the services to the railroad
of these two foremen. He replied that he was much interested in
the question, and had looked up the records of the sections with
considerable minuteness, and was of the opinion that the conduct and
loyalty of the foreman in the second illustration represented a saving
to the company of at least a thousand dollars a year. But in answer to
a further inquiry as to what notice or encouragement the loyalty of the
men received in his department, he replied that no particular attention
was paid to it by the management, that such matters were allowed to
drift, for the simple reason that the men were organized and that
the agreements between the company and the unions call for promotion
in turn, or what practically amounts to the same thing, and that,
in short, there was certainly no organized method or means by which
loyalty could be recognized or rewarded.
For the purpose of demonstrating the value of a thoughtful
consideration of the interests of a railroad corporation, no
illustration can be considered too insignificant. At a certain junction
point a man has charge of fifty lamps. At another station another
man secures equally good results from the same number of lamps while
burning a fraction of a cent’s worth less oil per lamp per night. By
actual investigation and test, it was discovered that the second man
handled the business with a saving to the company of practically one
dollar per year per lamp. This was very interesting when one considers
the thousands of switch and other lamps that burn nightly all the year
round on a railroad system. Carrying the inquiry a little farther, the
writer was able to ascertain that, so far as known, only two or three
railroads in the United States take any notice of such information
when they happen to possess it; they do not commend the employees for
faithful service, and thus stimulate others to like meritorious efforts.
The Santa Fé Railroad is a notable exception to the general rule. In
December, 1907, this road published a list of employees who had been
heartily thanked by the management and given merit marks for loyalty
to the road and the public, not only in cases of emergency, but in
the simplest cases of thoughtfulness and economical workmanship. The
following is taken from a list of forty:--
“E. H. Vaden, Engineer, and W. L. Sims, Fireman, ten merit marks each
for discovering switch in bad condition and without a light, making it
safe and afterwards providing a light.”
At the risk of making a slight digression from the main line of
my argument, I am tempted to add a few lines regarding methods of
management on the Santa Fé. They are taken from a report of one of
the officials, and probably represent the most up-to-date and sanest
railroad management in the country to-day:--
“To make an effort to reduce injuries and accidents to the lowest
possible minimum, the company has felt justified in creating an office
to handle in a systematic manner the question of preventing accidents
and injuries. Great and astonishing results can be obtained along
these lines by constant attention and earnest work on the part of the
person in charge of this office, and by securing the coöperation of all
employees and the assistance of the heads of the different departments.
It is, therefore, very necessary that the ‘_safety officer_’ be as
thoroughly acquainted as possible with all the men over the entire
system, and personally call their attention to the importance of
lending their assistance to this cause.”
In contrast to the personal attention that is paid to the human element
on the Santa Fé, let us glance at the methods pursued on railroads
in the East. You will find in our railroad offices an exact record
and working history of every piece of equipment, from a spike to a
locomotive. Every draw-bar, every coupler, every passenger coach, and
practically every engine-tire has to give an account of itself. The
performances of these “parts” are carefully scrutinized and watched.
You will be shown all sorts of diagrams, charts, and volumes of
statistics going to show the care and expense devoted to equipment and
machinery. But if you happen to ask for a few human statistics you are
likely to be disappointed. For instance, if a certain train crew runs a
freight train two hundred times in a year, breaking seventy draw-bars
and upon different occasions delaying thirty-seven passenger trains,
and another crew under very similar conditions pulls out only thirteen
draw-bars and delays only nine passenger trains, you may consider the
records quite important; but in the railroad offices you will find
no statistics of this nature, no comparative statements and diagrams
illustrative of the workmanship and character of different men and of
the value and significance of the human element in the running of a
railroad. In a word, you will infer from your investigation that if it
isn’t a machine or a piece of machinery it isn’t worth bothering about.
Finally, let us take a very significant illustration, in which the
traveling public should be somewhat interested. The other day a
through passenger train arrived at a junction in the western part
of Massachusetts. It was on its way east, and was practically on
time. But at this point it became necessary for the engineman to
renew the water-supply. Consequently he cut off his engine and ran
down some little distance to the water-stand. After an interval of
twenty minutes, as the engine had not returned to the train, the
station-master went down to investigate the delay. He found the
engineman and fireman sitting quietly in the cab waiting for a brakeman
to come and turn on the water. It was some brakeman’s duty to do this
work at this point, and as he failed to appear, business came to a
standstill. The engineman knew his rights and stuck to them. The idea
of loyalty to the interests of the corporation and the public could
not be permitted to enter into the question, for the reason that to do
another man’s work, even in a case of emergency, would be to surrender
rights and privileges which had been fought for and secured after
months of agitation and diplomacy. The train was thirty minutes late at
its destination. In such cases the management is helpless.
It matters little that my illustrations may be criticised as uncommon
occurrences. The principle that tolerates the situation is surely out
of place on a railroad. By way of contrast, the following item taken
from the merit list on the Santa Fé Railroad is both interesting and
significant:--
“J. E. Helms, Engineer, and M. C. Collins, Fireman, ten merit marks for
coaling up engine 1029 when the coal chute was out of service.”
Strange as the statement may seem at first sight, we railroad people
at the present day are suffering from a very peculiar form of mental
blindness. Perhaps the point will be more comprehensible if we call it
“department paralysis.” Our vision seems to be strictly limited to our
own departments or spheres of action. In this way every department on
a railroad is loyal to itself and more or less forgetful of the other
departments. For example, the operating department is responsible for
the care and prompt movement of trains. In a general way it is taken
for granted that these movements must be made with safety as well as
dispatch. And yet, looking into the matter closely, we are able to
discover that dispatch and not safety is the main feature and business.
Unfortunately there is no safety department on a railroad, or rather
safety takes pot-luck in all the departments. Altogether, safety
finds it no easy matter to secure recognition, and city governments,
railroad commissioners, and railroad officials all seem to suffer from
department paralysis upon occasions when loyalty to the interests of
the traveling public would seem to demand a much clearer and wider
vision. To all appearances it is impossible for these departments to
see beyond the precincts of their own particular hobby or vocation. Let
us take a very pertinent illustration:--