The Craft Union Tradition

In the three key industries under study in this overview series, the most significant reason for strikes, tie-ups, walkouts and other labor interruptions is the large number of specialized unions in each major activity. These craft unions often are unfriendly and in many cases competitive. Uniformly, their attitude is to hold to present work rules and resist the requirements of technological change. In the maritime industry, particularly, groups of unions form coalitions against other groups of unions and it is virtually impossible to maintain stability of service and operations.

The America, Maximus and Savannah cases indicate the nation's seeming impotence to solve the problem of these warring maritime craft unions. At this writing, the Machinists would have closed down 25 per cent to 50 per cent of the nation's air traffic before Christmas 1963 if President Johnson had not intervened and appointed a Presidential Board to delay a walkout for at least 60 days. Another complication is that the Teamsters are challenging the Machinists for the right to represent mechanics and ground personnel at United and other airlines. The railroad industry faces possible strike consideration on February 28, 1964 with respect to many unsolved issues affecting craft unions. Pullman porters on 50 railroads were considering a walkout before the end

of 1963 or early in 1964. Mediators appear to have successfully settled this dispute which involves a substantial reduction of hours each month

without a cut in take-home pay.

A further complication is the present concern of management in all three industries with mergers and acquisitions and in many cases the ability to successfully effectuate them. These mergers stem from constantly increasing labor costs and competitive inability both on a national and international basis. At the present time, half of the nation's rail trackage is involved with actual or proposed mergers. These discussions create union hostility and worker anxiety.

Oddly enough, while it appears largely possible to trace the labor ills of the rail, air and maritime industries to the craft union tradition, the trucking industry, while not subject to craft union unrest, is confronted by a powerful industrial union under Teamster chief, James Riddle Hoffa, and is now facing what appears to be an equally undesirable alternative-a nationwide contract with a single expiration date.

Mr. Hoffa appears to possess the power to close down most of the nation's transportation network with a single stroke. This awesome power, however, is possessed and has been used by craft unions in the other transportation fields on a national basis. Often small craft unions, such

as porters or telegraphers in rail, marine engineers in maritime, and flight engineers in the airlines, have the ability to close down an entire national industry at one stroke.

Many labor experts believe that if the federal government were somehow to constrain the possible misuse of power by union leaders such as Hoffa, that a national contract with one industrial union could conceiva

bly provide the stability now lacking in rail, air and shipping. Are industrial unions, therefore, the solution to

labor-management problems in rails, air and shipping?

Workers in the railroad and maritime industries were among the earliest organizers of transportation labor unions (1870-1880) and as might have been expected, these first steps in organization followed the lines of strict craft organization. Labor organization of the airlines came later in the 1930's, and the application of the Railway Labor Act of 1926 to airline labor influenced airline labor leaders to follow the railroad type of craft organization. In fact, many of the same nonoperating unions are found today bargaining with both the rail and airline carriers.

Generally, unions in transportation, with the exception of the Teamsters, cling jealously to their traditional jurisdictional claims. These claims to jobs (property rights) continue on a craft basis, despite the fact that swiftly moving technological changes have wiped out much of the original craft distinctions.

Jets have replaced the piston airplanes, the diesel has outmoded the steam locomotive. Automated tankers are no longer unusual sights and West Coast longshoremen under Harry Bridges are now surprising us by accepting automated loading procedures. Despite the example in many industries of accepting the "new tech

nology," such as in the Kaiser Steel plan where employees share cost savings from automation, transportation unions generally continue to resist work-rule changes.

Rails Face Competition from
Other Transport Industries

Railroading offers many examples of costly and restrictive work practices primarily because of a "property rights" attitude by craft unions. In fact, the term "featherbedding" is said to have originated here. The rail industry is characteristically subject to a great deal of government regulations in its employment practices as well as in other aspects of its operations. It is also an industry facing intense competition from other forms of transportation. In 1962, railroads carried 43 per cent of all intercity freight while motor trucks accounted for 24 per cent and oil pipelines 17 per cent. While airlines are only a negligible factor in freight traffic (1 per cent), the railroads must also compete with shipping companies engaged in intercoastal traffic.

Report of the 1960

Rail Commission (February 1962)

As a result of intense competition for both freight and passengers, the nation's railroads have pushed the development of the diesel engine which made possible longer and faster trains. Outstanding among the work rules stubbornly fought for by the unions

has been the union demand that firemen be retained on diesels as well as labor's resistance to changing the basis for pay (involving time and distance standards) to conform to the realities of present train schedules and speeds. These and other related issues were referred to a Presidential Railroad Commission (composed of five public, five management and five union members) in November, 1960.

The Commission, headed by former federal judge, Simon H. Rifkind, made its report in February 1962. The unions, both operating and nonoperating, rejected the Commission's recommendations and fought the right of management to initiate work-rule changes in the federal courts. Overruled by the courts, unions threatened to strike in July 1963, and Congress finally enacted a law requiring compulsory arbitration on the two most inflammatory questions, the "fireman" issue and the "crew consist" question. Labor as a whole is supporting the efforts of the railroad brotherhoods to upset the compulsory arbitration award by federal court action. Unions do not want to see further sponsorship of compulsory arbitration by Congress. The possibility is great that any one of the volatile craft unions in rails might strike on February 28, 1964, or soon after, on issues that were not turned over to the compulsory arbitration panel.

Rail Craft Unions Fight
Against Dissolution
and Loss of Membership

On November 26, 1963 the rail arbitration panel ruled that nearly 200 railroads could eliminate 90 per cent the firemen's jobs in freight and yard service. The elimination would come mainly from attrition as the firemen died, retired or were switched to other jobs. The job-cutting procedure was designed to eventually eliminate over 30,000 jobs. An elaborate procedure was designed to accommodate displacement with normal employee turnover. Firemen with ten years of service (about 65 per cent of those affected) would get guaranteed employment so long as they stayed with the railroad. Firemen with two to ten years' service would have the same rights

1Report of the Presidential Railroad Commission, Washington, D. C., February 1962, Superintendent of Documents, 324 par~~

for up to five additional years but would be subject to transfer to comparable jobs at comparable pay. It has been estimated that since the award is an effective strike deterrent for only two years on the firemen issue, that its terms will be subject to renegotiation long before the men who occupy most of the jobs are gone. Perhaps 5 per cent per year of the employees in the firemen classification will be affected in the short run.

Despite the mild impact on present membership of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, it and three other operating brotherhoods filed suit on December 6, 1963

against the arbitration ruling. The other operating brotherhoods filing suit were the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Switchmen's Union of North America.

The reason for the other brotherhoods joining the firemen in the suit in federal court was the fact that they were challenging the ruling of the arbitration panel on the size of the train crews, the other arbitrable issue. The panel had provided in its decision for local negotiations on this subject, with binding decisions to be made by a neutral third party, if agreement was not reached. This would result in opening up for review 19,000 train crew members such as conductors, brakemen, switchmen and others. The crew consist question is being attacked on the basis that the panel "grossly exceeded the authority given it by Congress."

The claim was made that the panel had no legal right to defer the crew consist question.

The rail unions are also attacking the constitutionality of the procedure on the grounds that Congress failed to establish satisfactory criteria for

'New York Times, December 7, 1963, page 1. 'Wall Street Journal, November 27, 1963.