their union, and you are soon confronted with a grievance committee.
These gentlemen inform you that the bonus system is all wrong, from
beginning to end. From the union standpoint they will explain to you
that the idea is, not to offer a reward for quickest and best work,
nor to encourage the best men to get rich quick, or to vaunt their
superiority over their duller and less fortunate comrades, but to
make the job, whatever it may be, last as long as possible, and thus
to afford employment to the greatest number of workers, at a fair and
fixed rate of wages to every individual, regardless of ability or
ambition, or of the profits and interests of the establishment. You are
further informed that the grievance committee cannot enter into the
discussion of ethical and sociological questions. The race is doing
pretty well as a whole, and posterity will accord to labor its due
share of credit. Meanwhile the men will be called out of your shop, and
the issue between the bonus system of reward for individual effort and
the leveling process in shop-work will be fought to a finish.
Take another illustration: You make a great many “studies” in relation
to the use of oil and other supplies on a locomotive on your railroad.
You arrive at a fair standard of expense. You conclude there must
be considerable waste going on somewhere, so you say to the engine
crews, “So much per month is a fair average of expense for such and
such tools and supplies on your engine. If you can lower this average,
we will share the amount saved in this way.” So you put the system
in force on one thousand locomotives and save thereby four thousand
dollars per month, which you divide with the men. But in doing this you
have increased the pay of the careful men, and done nothing for those
who are not interested in the general welfare of your railroad. The
grievance committee takes the matter up with you; it protests against
the whole business, and puts forth the argument that it is a dangerous
proceeding, for you are guilty of encouraging a certain class of men
to let engines “run hot” in order that they may secure your bonus for
economy. In a word, you are requested to put a stop to this phase of
your bonus system on the railroad.
Regardless of my somewhat crude and incomplete method of explaining the
working of a bonus system on a railroad, my illustrations afford a
very good idea of the Santa Fé system, which is in successful operation
at the present day, as well as the proposed plans of the New York, New
Haven & Hartford management, which quite recently the labor unions
compelled the railroad to abandon.
But apart from successful operation in one quarter and defeat in
another, the principles at stake in this bonus system are of world-wide
interest and importance. Bearing this in mind, a few direct and
pertinent questions have occurred to me, which I submit for the
thoughtful consideration of my fellow workers on the railroads, as well
as of liberty-loving people everywhere.
In the interest of human progress, and in particular with a view to
efficiency of railroad service, do you think a railroad man should be
permitted and encouraged to do his level best under all circumstances?
Would you recognize and promote individual effort and good work in your
sawmill, if you owned one, for the good of the business and in the
interest of your pocketbook? Would you recognize and promote individual
effort, attention to duty, and efficiency of service on a railroad,
understanding, as you do, that upon these personal characteristics the
welfare of the railroad and the safety of the traveling public are
almost wholly dependent? Again, would you hesitate to encourage and
reward the economical administration of the affairs of your own town
or your sawmill, for fear lest the departments or the machinery might
be deliberately ruined by employees, or by your fellow townsmen, in
their efforts to secure said reward and encouragement?
If, after painstaking experiment, you become convinced that the plan
would result in benefit to the interests of both management and
men, would you hesitate to offer a bonus, or reward on coöperative
principles, as an incentive to the economical use of supplies on a
locomotive, for fear lest unprincipled engine crews should play tricks
with the engine in order to secure the bonus?
Furthermore, if the encouragement of the best men and the best service
can be shown to work against the interests of second-class men and
poorer service, would you be willing, on a railroad, to sacrifice these
second-class men and their interests, in so far as this action should
become necessary, to secure the greatest possible efficiency for the
safeguarding of the traveling public?
Finally, in the history of the development and civilization of the
human race, is it possible to point to a single item of real progress,
efficiency, or achievement, that has not been the direct result of
the sacrifice of something below to the more important interests of
something above?
Does it not therefore follow that any legislation or labor movement
that has the effect of checking individual effort, or of interfering
in any way with the free play of the best that is in any man, must
necessarily reduce the standard and ideals of labor? for such movements
are an inversion of the laws of progress, and at the same time a
reflection on the best thought and tradition of the American people.
VII
DISCIPLINE
At the present day, public attention is being constantly aroused
and focused upon all questions that immediately concern the general
welfare of the people. In this way the efficiency of the service on
American railroads has, of late, been freely discussed, not only by
railroad men, but by thoughtful people in all the walks of life. The
reason for this universal interest is to be found in the fact that an
inquiry into an ordinary preventable railroad accident entails, at
the same time, a study of the actual working conditions that exist in
America between the rights and interests of the workingman, and the
more important rights and interests of the general public. Of course,
figures and tables in regard to efficiency of service cannot always
be taken at their face value, and yet the conclusions that one is
sometimes compelled to draw from them are altogether too significant to
be lightly dismissed from the public mind.
For example, in the year 1906, a total of 1,200,000,000 passengers
was carried on British railroads on 27,000 miles of track, against
800,000,000 passengers carried on American railroads on a mileage of
200,000. Generally speaking, collisions and derailments form quite
a reliable standard from which to make comparisons in regard to
efficiency of service. It must also be remembered that the chances
for accidents are naturally increased with increase of traffic and
consequent multiplication of train movements. One might reasonably
expect, therefore, to find the density of conditions in Great Britain
reflected in a startling list of fatalities, as compared with the
United States. Yet if we take the year 1906 to illustrate our theories
and anticipated conclusions, we find that there were 13,455 collisions
and derailments in this country, and only 239 in Great Britain. In the
same year 146 passengers were killed and 6000 injured in the United
States, against 58 passengers killed and 631 injured in Great Britain.
The number of employees killed and injured in train accidents was
respectively 13 and 140 in Great Britain, against 879 and 7483 in this
country.
[Illustration: DOWN AN EMBANKMENT IN WINTER]
It is not surprising, therefore, that figures and returns like the
above, repeated from year to year with the same marked and, indeed,
ever-increasing disparity, should give rise to widespread discussion
and criticism, consequently leading up to a better understanding of the
nature of the problem that is now submitted, with all necessary facts
and illustrations, practically for the first time, to the American
people. For it must be understood, to begin with, that, from its very
nature and from the circumstances connected with the safety problem,
the intervention of public opinion and of some kind of public action
is imperatively called for. Numerous difficulties, mistakes, and
inconsistencies relating to the handling of trains, to the conduct of
employees, and to the present status of the railroad manager, have been
exposed and explained during the course of these confessions. But,
after all, these are merely side issues and details of the service;
the real heart of the situation, as insisted upon from first to last
in these pages, is significantly outlined in a recent issue of the
“Engineering Magazine,” as follows:
“Even more serious, as a predisposing cause of railroad accidents,
is the lamentable lack of discipline, which is becoming increasingly
manifest in these days of labor-union interference. This has been
carried to such a point that the officials of our railroads have
no longer that direct control of the employees which is absolutely
essential to the maintenance of discipline. Until this condition has
been changed it is hopeless to look for any material reduction in the
number of killed and injured on our railroads.”
Such, then, being the truthful and logical diagnosis of the situation,
the final and most important question of all remains to be considered.
From individuals in no way connected with railroad life, as well as
from employees and managers in different sections of the country, the
general interest in the matter has been expressed in the following
inquiries: “What are you now going to do about it? Granting this and
granting that, what is your plan of construction or reconstruction?
What can you propose as a practical method of reform?”
After a careful review and consideration of the conditions that obtain
on American railroads at the present day, these significant and final
questions, in the opinion of the writer, must all be answered in terms
of _external authority_. It is really too bad to have to come to the
conclusion that no reform can be expected, or indeed is possible,
from within. The men, the organizations, and the managements must
now be called upon to submit to publicity and to correction, to be
administered by the stern arm of the law. A proper adjustment of the
interests of the men and the management, with a view to the safety of
travel, is, under present conditions, absolutely impossible.
Ample opportunity and time have been afforded these parties to solve
the safety problem between themselves, without outside interference.
The Canadian government has already come to the conclusion that it is
useless to wait any longer, and accordingly it has taken measures to
safeguard the rights of the traveling public. In like manner, just
as soon as the government of the United States arrives at the same
conclusion and sees fit to designate carelessness on a railroad as a
crime, punishable in the same way as carelessness in driving horses or
automobiles on a crowded thoroughfare, a revolution will take place in
the service on American railroads. When the management and the men are
called upon to face public examination and public criticism, there will
be no more hair-splitting in the interpretation and administration of
discipline. The men and the management will then very quickly recognize
the necessity of adjusting their differences and combining their forces
in the interests of the public. In a word, _authority_ will become
supreme, and it will not take long for it to assert itself in terms of
effectual discipline. Such, according to my view of it, is the only
possible solution of the safety problem on American railroads.
All other topics and questions, although closely related to the
problem, are in reality merely matters of detail. For example, the lack
of adequate supervision means, of course, unchecked negligence, and
points the way to no end of trouble; and yet the most comprehensive
system of supervision imaginable would be of little use, unsupported
by a reasonable and effective system of discipline. While, therefore,
my opinion as to the immediate necessity for the intervention of the
national government holds good, a general description of the American
method of discipline, upon which the efficiency of the service is,
in the mean time, absolutely dependent, should nevertheless prove
interesting to all classes of readers.
To a great extent, a system of discipline represents a state of mind,
the ideals of an individual or of a community, and sometimes, under
certain special conditions, an economical habit or business necessity.
In the old countries of Europe, where the public interests smother
individual rights as well as the schedules of labor organizations, the
railroads have taken for their motto, “He that sinneth shall die.”
Cassio, faithful and true, with an honorable and spotless record in
the public service, falls from grace in an unguarded moment, and is
sorrowfully yet absolutely doomed to dismissal by the high-minded
Othello. “Nevermore be officer of mine.” Such in spirit, and, to a
great extent, in actual railroad life, is the European interpretation
of discipline. The European officials work upon the plan, and with
the unswerving determination to protect the traveling public at all
costs. The record of accidents on their railroads leaves little doubt
as to the correctness of their methods of railroading. On the other
hand, in the United States, the railroad manager, backed to a certain
extent by public opinion, says to an offending employee, “Your sin has
enlightened and purified you, go back to your job.” This is the mental
method of discipline. A man is called upon to think, without at the
same time being called upon to feel.
On a railroad nowadays, when a “green” man makes a mistake, he is
quietly informed by his superintendent that five or ten demerit marks
have been placed against his name on the record book. The shock he
receives on the commission of his first mistake is not very striking.
He has perhaps been called upon to think, but in order to give his
thoughts pungency and direction, he should also have been called
upon to feel. Good habits are induced by feeling plus thought much
more surely and expeditiously than by thought alone. Feeling plus
thought is the scientific route. Some day, perhaps, thought alone
will prove sufficient, but a railroad is no place to experiment with
Utopian possibilities. What is necessary is the best and quickest way
to originate good habits. The whole nervous system in man is first
organized by habit. The feeling plus thought method of discipline is
humane as well as scientific, and is the most potent instigator and
prompter of habit.
According to Webster, discipline is “subjection to severe and
systematic training.” In the American method of discipline on
railroads, there is no systematic training of any kind; sensation or
feeling plays no part in it, and thought is left to take care of itself.
Theoretically, the mental process has a good deal to be said in its
favor; but in actual operation the system has proved to be disastrous,
and the records on American railroads illustrate only too eloquently
the fallacy of the principle, under any conditions, where human lives
are at stake. It is simply a question between the ethics and philosophy
of Portia, and the blind impartiality of Othello as applied to the
railroad business. In social affairs and in relation to conduct between
individuals, the standards of Portia are gracious and commendable;
but on a battleship, in the army, and just as surely on a railroad,
the services of the rugged Othello will be found at all times to be
the most effectual. In the United States, however, there is a certain
altruistic sentiment that would fain submerge the ethics and principles
of the old-time disciplinarian. Not only does this criticism apply
to affairs on a railroad, but our educational methods, in every
direction, seem to be threatened with the same peril. On all sides
there now appears to be a disinclination to use authority. There seems
to be something in the nature of a national kick against constraint
or discipline of any kind. The ideals and rugged characteristics of
American manhood, both on railroads and in our schools, are threatened
with the coddling process.
Within the last ten or fifteen years, many railroads have changed or
modified their system of discipline, as a tribute, in part, to this
popular sentiment. Perhaps in making these changes the managers did the
best they could under the circumstances. They found themselves fast
losing the backing and authority necessary to enforce the old system,
and the new method was at least a working arrangement with harmony for
its basis.
A great majority of the railroads of the United States are now using
some sort of a merit system in the administration of discipline.
Most of these methods are adaptations of the Brown system, which
was invented by Mr. G. R. Brown, at one time vice-president of the
Pennsylvania. Brown figured it out for himself, while he was taking all
the steps from trainman up, on the Fall Brook Railroad; and when he got
to be general manager he put it in on his road. The system, as modified
by most of the roads, is a sort of bookkeeping, with debits and credits
in the shape of marks, to the account of each man. Generally speaking,
a perfect record for any term of years may not be entered as a credit
item in the book, although conspicuous instances of heroism or devotion
to duty are sometimes noted. But a perfect record for a certain period
will wipe out previous debits. An employee has access to his record
book at any time, otherwise the record is kept in absolute secrecy.
On some roads “rolls of honor” are kept and published, usually in the
railroad magazines. The names of the men, together with an account of
the meritorious action, receive special mention. But, on the other
hand, there is no mention, either of names or particulars, in regard to
the debits when employees make mistakes.
Railroad managers appear to be satisfied with this Brown system of
discipline, and the statement has repeatedly appeared in the public
prints that the adoption of these rules has resulted in better service
to the companies. So far as the safety of travel and the general
efficiency of the service are concerned, the figures and reports issued
periodically by the Interstate Commerce Commission are calculated to
convey a very different impression. Railroad officials inform us that
the Brown system is an attempt to promote good feeling between the men
and the management. This is doubtless true, but the statement lets
the cat out of the bag. The employee appreciates the fact that the
sting is extracted from a reprimand when it is administered in secret.
Doubtless, if the sole aim has been to secure harmonious relations
between men and management, little fault can be found with the Brown
system; but it appears in a somewhat different light when we study it
in relation to the safety problem.
For example, a man makes a serious mistake, without actual injury to
persons or damage to property. He is punished to the extent of ten
demerit marks. In the course of a few months five or six other men
commit the same mistake. In every instance a secret record of the
mistake has been kept. When a mistake remains unchecked, sooner or
later it arrives at the epidemic stage and reaches its climax in a
wreck, and then finally a man is discharged for it. The demerit marks
have had no corrective or preventive effect whatever. Under this system
the trouble is allowed to evolve in a natural way, from a simple case
of unchecked negligence into a disaster in which, perhaps, a community
is called upon to suffer.
On the other hand, a system that takes publicity and the pocketbook for
its principal factors enlists every corrective element in its favor.
You cannot separate suspension and loss of pay from publicity, to a
certain degree. In all systems of punishment or correction, in a police
court or elsewhere, there are usually two or three elements that are
depended upon to bring about beneficial results. These factors are
the shame that is attached to the publication of names, the pecuniary
loss in the shape of a fine, and the danger of imprisonment. The Brown
system has abolished publicity and done away with pecuniary loss. The
employee is now aware that no one can touch his pocketbook, no one can
wound his pride, or hold him up as an example to his fellows. Of course
it is too bad that a railroad man should be called upon to take his
discipline home with him, that his wife and children should have to
share the shame and the penalty; and yet the decisions of courts and of
human tribunals everywhere are all subject to the same criticism.
The Brown system, in a modified form, is to-day the American method;
and while its supposed primary object may be to increase efficiency,
its actual working is all in the interests of harmony between the men
and management. The proof of the efficiency of any system of discipline
is to be found in the freedom from accidents of all sorts. Within the
last few months, I have heard railroad managers who heartily approve
of the Brown system, deplore in the same breath the alarming increase
of accidents. One of these gentlemen went so far as to inform me that
it is the only possible system, so long as the men and the political
influence of the organizations are allowed to control the situation.
The men very much prefer to take punishment on the installment plan,
in the dark, to any settlement on a cash basis in open and above-board
fashion. Discipline in the dark, on the installment plan, has all
the facts, experience, and records of the past and present, and the
probabilities of the future, arrayed against it. When you ask the
manager how it happens that the United States does not recognize the
efficacy of the mental method on the installment plan, and treat
_him_ as the Brown system treats the employees, he merely shrugs
his shoulders. When an infraction of the “safety-appliance law” or
the “nine-hour law” is brought home to a manager, the action of the
government or the law recognizing the superior efficacy of the mental
treatment might reasonably be expected to say to him, “I give you
ten demerit marks. Your mistake has enlightened and purified you;
go back to your desk.” A manager is surely as susceptible to mental
influence and suggestion as an engineman or a conductor. Yet there is
not a suspicion of the Brown system of discipline in the actual fines
and imprisonment which the government has agreed upon as the best
and quickest way to enforce obedience in the interests of the public
welfare.
The general introduction of the Brown system on American railroads has
been brought about by the “irritation” of the men when their pay or
their time has been interfered with. This was, in general, the power
that gave the impetus and encouragement to the movement.
The exact amount of “irritation” in loss of money to employees for one
month has been figured out by one railroad, as follows:--
_Engineers_
Discharged 4 Merits 0
Demerits 455 Amount saved to the men $1706
_Firemen_
Discharged 2 Merits 10
Demerits 1265 Amount saved to the men $263
_Conductors_
Discharged 4 Merits 10
Demerits 485 Amount saved to the men $1523
_Operators_
Discharged 10 Merits 0
Demerits 310 Amount saved to the men $514
_Trainmen_
Discharged 21 Merits 0
Demerits 696 Amount saved to the men $1553
That is to say, a certain number of men had been awarded “demerits” for
offenses instead of suspension with loss of pay, which in one month
would have amounted to $5559. Of course, most of this amount would have
been earned by spare men, but this consideration by no means allays the
“irritation” of the regular men.