It’s bad for workers and owners, the newspaper argued in 1919.



The Railroad

The Cummins railroad bill is between two fires. The union labor element has attacked it because of the provision against strikes, the owners of railroad securities because it prohibits earnings over a certain fixed sum.

There can be no question that the public must be protected against general or extensive railroad strikes, but the railroad men have plenty of justification to the bare provisions of the bill as offered. Strikes should be prohibited by whatever railroad bill is passed but at the same time adequate provision should be made for the redress of grievances by other means, so that railroad employes may be assured of the means of obtaining through the courts any justifiable end which they might otherwise obtain by strikes. Of course such provisions may not be entirely satisfactory to the employes for the reason that as often as not strikes are carried on unjustifiable ends. But such strikes are clearly criminal in intent.

The other provision of which complaint is heard is an extremely injudicious one, one that could not be put into effect without detriment to economical and efficient railroad management.

Everybody has read advertisements for barbers which offer so much a week and half over a certain other sum. The Cummins bill idea applied to barbers would make such advertisements read something like this. “Wanted, barber, must furnish own tools and chair, buy own supplies and pay proportionate share of rent of building. You get all you earn up to twenty dollars a week. Anything over that the boss takes.

How many barbers hired on that basis would earn over twenty dollars a week?

What reason would railroad managers have for making their roads pay more than the maximum allowed them? (...)

It would be more sensible and more for the good for the general public to reward the railroads that made more than a specified profit with a little bonus than to mulet them in this fashion.

Read or Share this story: