road men, as you will recall; the Federal managers were all former presidents of railroads, seven in number-we appealed to them and we got certain regulations. But the application of them down the line was disregarded. For instance, we got, under one regulation, 2 days off a month. We formerly worked 365 days a year, 8 hours a day, and frequently 12 and 14. The chief dispatcher-that is the man one step above the trick dispatcher-would work 14, 16, and 18 hours a day; no extra compensation. And the differential between his job and theirs was at that time $10 a month. In other words, the chief was supposed to work regularly 12 hours a day, let us say, at $130 a month, whereas the trick train dispatcher on some of the larger roads was getting $120 a month working 8 hours. Now, anyone can imagine such a glaring discrepancy as not being best for efficiency and economy. In other words, a very exceptional train dispatcher who ordinarily should be promoted to chief dispatcher and moved on up, declined promotion because he was just going into another job that was much worse than the one he had, and at less compensation per hour. Now, on that 2 days a month, when it was applied, they immediately took this position: "In order to give you these 2 days, Mr. Dispatcher"-I am working 240 miles over here on the train sheet, and anonther man is working over here 296 miles, on a connecting division [indicating]-"When John Jones is off, Julius, you work both tricks combined," or 536 miles, which meant piling up on your desk train sheets that high [illustrating]. I am going to show you one of them, for example. I am carrying part of our shop right here with us [exhibiting]. It meant we had five or six train sheets piled one on top of the other. When the man over here would report the train arriving on time, or when it carried an order that showed when it should pass, we would have to pull out one sheet from the bottom, juggle it around, which always created a hazard. But that was just one of the conditions of how they absorbed the benefit of the regulation. For example, in 1920, following the last war, we had 5,800 train dispatchers in the United States. Until just 3 months ago, we only had 3,600, and we have 4,200 working now under a much greater strain, more business, more ton-miles, more train-miles-any figure you wish to take. We had 3,600 men handling it until October. Since then, we have had an increase up to 4,200; but there are still 1,600 less men handling this huge volume of business than there were in 1920. Now, to illustrate, if I may. This [exhibiting] is part of the shop of the train dispatcher. That represents 1 train sheet, 3 train dispatchers working on it 8 hours each. On it are 218 trains, both eastward and west-bound, in opposite directions. It is part double track, part branch. This is the central branch with all of the railroads running around Chicago, running from Gibson, Ind., down to Manheim station, on Milwaukee Railroad. Our job is to keep track of the train and engine crews; we must observe when they register, what time they are called, when they go on duty. That must all go on the train sheet. If there was a possi bility of violating the 16-hour law, we must arrange for releasing them before the 16 hours was up. This [indicating] does not represent anything except a record of what was accomplished in the way of train movement on that particular day; it does not include train orders, messages that were given to make these various moves, and the passing points. The CHAIRMAN. What are you demonstrating here is the difficulties of the operation of the trick train dispatchers, to emphasize the necessity of organization and union operation, so that you can keep control of the affairs? Mr. LUHRSEN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Now, cannot you shorten that a little bit and then get to the point where you want to show us why this legislation should not be enacted? Mr. LUHRSEN. I merely showed you this as one example. We have trainsheets much larger and longer than even this one. I mean to say, this is part of the job with reference to what occurs in a day. But what I want to get to is this: In the operation of this train sheet, I personally visited this office when we tried to get an increase in the force, because we did not have enough men to handle the job-the chief dispatcher was working 16 and 18 hours a day-I went to the superintendent and explained the situation to him and sat in his office until about 11 o'clock at night, and the chief dispatcher was still there, and finally I went into the office and said, "Chief, you won't be working here longer than 3 months at that rate; you will be in the hospital." I missed it by 60 days, because he was there in 30 days. He quit the chief's job and now he is yardmaster. There are hundreds of those cases. The CHAIRMAN. The committee sort of understands that railroad employees of the country at large, particularly the trainmen and dispatchers and all of the working forces of the system, are governed by the Railway Labor Act and that you deal with your employers, or with the railway companies, through what you call a system of mediation and arbitration of your differences? Mr. LUHRSON. That is right, finally under section 10. The CHAIRMAN. Now, your organization is just one of the organizations of the entire system? Mr. LUHRSEN. That is right. Ours is the only one that is completely supervisory officials. That is the reason I wanted to explain that point first; then I will come in with the other 20 later. As I say, we had conditions that were just unbearable, which necessitated our doing something whereby we would be declared something other than officers. Management would invariably say, "You are officers of the railroad, therefore, you cannot do this, you cannot do that." In 1918 I was here, had an office in the Mills Building, and we conceived the idea of drawing some line of distinction, some line of demarcation, as between an officer and a bona fide railroad employee. In other words, if we could give him some other name there might be some method whereby we could get representation for these supervisory forces. Senator Spencer, of Missouri, introduced an amendment in the Transportation Act in 1920, and Senator Cummins at that time was chairman, and in the Transportation Act this amendment was put in. It is section 300, paragraph 5: The term "subordinate official" includes officials It does not say employees, but "officials"— * of carriers of such class or rank as the Commission shall designate by regulation formulated and issued, after such notice and hearing as the Commission may prescribe, to carriers and employees, and subordinate officials of carriers, and organizations thereof, directly to be affected by such regulation. That was the amendment. That required hearings before the Interstate Commerce Commission. At that time there were seven such subordinate official organizations-yardmasters, foremen, and others; there were seven of them. Today I think, outside of the yardmasters' organization, there is only the train dispatchers left as a wholly subordinate officials' organization, but others are all being represented by the larger organizations who represent the subordinates, these foremen, and so on. Now, all the way down the line, management had no respect for seniority, nepotism, or whatever relationship there might be entered into it. Frequently the parexcellence of the man below would keep the one above in his position, where he was not able to hold it if he did not have such help. So we had no recourse. That is the reason for this subordinate officials' amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you: Are your train dispatchers, as such, supervisory personnel? You regard them as that, do you? Mr. LUHRSEN. Yes, they would be, because we issue train orders to all train crews, where they shall meet, where they shall pass, whether they shall pick up tonnage on the line, whether they shall reduce—— The CHAIRMAN. Where is the line of demarcation that comes in between your group and the actual management? Mr. LUHRSEN. I would say the division superintendent. And from there on down, I say that anyone should have a right to belong to an organization, if he so choose. I would start with the superintendent as the dividing line. Mr. DURHAM. Under this amendment there, it was adopted, I believe you say, in 1920? Mr. LUHRSEN. That is right. It is in the Transportation Act of 1920. Mr. DURHAM. Has that worked satisfactorily, as far as the railroad employees are concerned? Mr. LUHRSEN. It has. Mr. DURHAM. And since? Mr. LUHRSEN. Yes. Mr. DURHAM. I mean you have always been able to sit down and arrive at a conclusion between management and this supervisory personnel? Mr. LUHRSEN. Yes. There has been argument about it in many instances. And practically all of the train dispatcher class is now represented by our association. Mr. DURHAM. Who makes that decision; what board? The CHAIRMAN. The Railway Labor Board. Mr. LUHRSEN. It is a case that goes to the Railroad Mediation Board, because it involves a ruling; it is not a grievance. Mr. DURHAM. Who comprises that Board at the present time? Mr. LUHRSEN. Dr. Leiserson is chairman now, and Mr. Cook and former Senator Schwartz constitute that Mediation Board now. Dr. Leiserson was on there for several years, but the President saw fit to put him on the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. DURHAM. Now he has gone back? Mr. LUHRSEN. Now he has gone back and Senator Schwartz was just recently appointed, I guess about 2 months ago, to fill the vacancy of former Congressman Lewis, who was on that commission. The CHAIRMAN. David J. Lewis? Mr. LUHRSEN. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. What difference do you attach to the fact that the railway labor organizations, all of them, are under a separate statute and the operation of the roads is under the Interstate Commerce Commission for regulation, while, as the situation presents itself, other industry of the country is controlled by what is known as the Wagner Act or the National Labor Relations Act? As I get it, there are two pictures here; one is the railroad group that are not affected by the National Labor Relations Board at all. Mr. LUHRSEN. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And have no connection with it. Mr. LUHRSEN. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Now, suppose this committee, in its final determination on this matter, decided that they would or would not amend the Wagner Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and in no sense deal with the Railroad Labor Board question? Mr. LUHRSEN. The National Labor Relations Act? The CHAIRMAN. You would not be concerned as an organization then, would you? Mr. LUHRSEN. I think we would. The CHAIRMAN. How? Mr. LUHRSEN. For this reason: If you permit the managements in other industries to run rampant, as I would call it, in dealing with foremen or supervisory men, the management of railroads are not asleep at the switch, and they immediately know that, and they try the same thing on us. Even though we have the present condition, they resort to every opportunity. That is natural. Perhaps if I were the managing authority, I would do the same, but I would not do it quite so badly as they sometimes do it. But, you know, they are looking after their side by taking advantage, and we are looking after our side. The CHAIRMAN. The only way in which it could affect your group, or any railway group, would be as a precedent, as you say, that might encourage the management of railroads to undertake to secure amendments to the National Railway Labor Act? Mr. LUHRSEN. Yes. Answering you more specifically, let us put it this way: I started to talk merely about one class of 20 organizations, and that is the train dispatchers; but when we apply it to the 20 organizations, there is no more difference between the Altoona shop, for instance, of the Pennsylvania Railroad, or other big shops of railroads that themselves really build their own cars and build their own locomotives, than there would be in the Baldwin Locomotive Works. In those industries, these shop men belong to our association-machinists, sheet-metal workers, boilermakers, blacksmiths, and so forth they all have foremen, and they are all represented through those organizations in those industries. So your bill would nevertheless still strike at them if you include the ones I am speaking about as being strictly subordinate officials, or under the Railway Labor Act, because it would touch them; you could not help it. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose the committee said, in its effort to amend the National Labor Relations Act, if it decides to do that, that the amendment should in nowise affect the existing status of the railroads with relation to their employees; that would cover all of them and would that cure your objection? Mr. LUHRSEN. No; it would not. And I am not trying to be obstreperous here now, or argumentative at all; I am trying to give you both sides. The CHAIRMAN. I understand. Mr. LUHRSEN. Let us take the machinists, for instance. There was a law just passed in Colorado which provides that every organization must incorporate, but they excluded those subjects to the railway labor act. And take the machinists; Mr. H. W. Brown is a member of our association. He represents not only the machinists working in the railroad industry, but he represents the machinists working in all of the other industries. He has about 500,000 membership, and I do not think there are over 45,000, or perhaps 50,000, in the railroad industry. So the law of Colorado automatically applies to his organization in the biggest amount, even though they have excluded him so far as the Railway Labor Act is concerned. Now, you have everyone in the shop crafts-boilermakers, car men, and so forth, they have men in all of these war plants and other industries, so that the biggest percentage of their membership is affected. The CHAIRMAN. That prompts me to ask you another question. The CHAIRMAN. Because of the fact that the State of Colorado has passed a State act on the subject of requiring incorporation of labor unions, is it possible that this movement by the larger labor organizations throughout the country--I refer to the A. F. of L., the C. I. O., and the U. M. W. A.-might provoke the enactment of State statutes throughout the country at large, or a good many of them, and, in that way lead to confusion, and there ought to be a clarification or something by a Federal statute? Mr. LUHRSEN. I do not think you are going to be successful in every one of the 48 States like happened in Colorado, because we are on the battlefront in opposition-just like I am appearing here-through legislative representatives. We think we know what is good or bad for our organization. The CHAIRMAN. I do not doubt it. Mr. LUHRSEN. And we have had several laws passed in the past few months that we do not like. But there is always a chance to come in with another bill if it does not work satisfactorily-which I do not think many of them will. But after all, there is no use in my coming here to argue against this bill, if I was not conscientiously and truthfully representing the views, as we hold them, that it is damaging to the war effort, and will not do any good to the war effort. We see more evil in it than of good, because of the way we have been func |