the several divisions of the same railroad. In some instances these differentials were established to meet the requests of the employees themselves, but in such cases a closer study will probably demonstrate that it was the inability of employees to secure a higher standard wage rate on all parts of a system that led them to press the claims of certain portions of the railroad where, because of peculiarly objectionable conditions, they had more convincing arguments to present for increased wages. Thus, by these methods of expediency, there were developed higher wage rates for the same classes of employees on the western divisions of the principal western railway systems. Thus, we find where increased wages could not be secured for an entire railroad, increases beyond a standard were secured where mountainous or desert conditions prevailed.

At one time it could be clearly shown that the cost of living was higher on western railroads than in the eastern region, and that other living conditions were not so desirable. Usually, however, it was the theory of expediency that caused railway employees to advocate these differentials.

This fact was brought out in recent years, where the so-called district wage movements" were instituted by certain classes of employees, and district standards secured. With the unification of the railroads under federal control the argument was immediately advanced by many employees, "now that all railway employees are working for the government, all employees should be paid the same wages for the same work." But there had arisen another condition since the beginning of the great war that led employees to contribute to the defeat of their desire for standardization. Cost of living had advanced with such gigantic strides that many employees subordinated their altruism to their individual interests. Upon each man fell the burden of this depreciation in purchasing power of his individual earnings, and because of this burden he has, for the moment, subordinated his long-expressed desire for standardization of wages for his entire class to his desire to maintain his past individual standard of living. Notwithstanding this individualistic demand, the direct result of the great increased cost of living, certain classes of railway employees have remained true to their desire for standardization.

General Order No. 27, issued on May 25, 1918, was the

result of the recommendations of the first Wage Commission created by the Director General of Railroads early in the present year. Increased cost of living since December 1915 was the basis of computation adopted by that commission. To this was applied the humanitarian theory that the increased cost of living had fallen heaviest on the low-paid employee. But regardless of the amount of increase in wages produced by General Order No. 27, hundreds of thousands of employees earnestly protested against the application of the order, because it "re-established the differentials" in wages prevailing in December 1915, many of which differentials had been eliminated by wage negotiations during the years 1916 and 1917. This protest came largely from the approximately 350,000 employes engaged in the skilled shop trades. In carrying out their fixed purpose of standardizing wages and working conditions, they had during these two years secured such an agreement on the majority of the south-eastern railroads and were aggressively pressing that purpose on other railroads, when the railroads passed under federal control.

Their theory had been that the highest-paid men should be content with but minor benefits, when by so doing the lowerpaid men were privileged to be advanced to a standard with all men in the same class of work.

The underlying theory of the wage advance of the first Wage Commission, while intensely humanitarian, completely undid all that had been done toward standardization by shopmen, clerks, telegraphers and others, during the two years intervening between December 1915 and January 1918. Perhaps it will be of interest to know how General Order No. 27 produced this result. The first Wage Commission having based its recommended increases on the rates existing in December 1915, recommended that any increases placed in effect subsequent to January 1, 1916 should be considered as a part of the wage increase granted through its recommendation. Thus, where in December 1915 two like employees had been paid $3.00 and $3.50 respectively per day, and the lower paid man had secured an increase of 50 cents per day in 1917, thus establishing a standard rate of $3.50 per day, General Order No. 27 increased the wage of the one who had earned $3.50 in December 1915 to $4.77, while the employee who had earned

$3.00 per day in December 1915, got $4.23 per day, and of this increase of $1.23 per day, 50 cents was deducted because of the wage increase of 50 cents per day in 1917. To those who

did not understand what had been done a somewhat humorous situation was produced in which the man who had already received his increase was more dissatisfied than the man who had waited a year for it. Those who did understand the cause of complaint knew that both of the men used in this illustration would have been more pleased had each received the same increase and thereby have preserved the standardization created in 1917.

But a peculiar situation had developed for the employees in train and engine service. Their "district standardizations" had been established to a great extent before the close of 1915, and, therefore, the wage order (No. 27) based on the first commission's report, did not re-establish the former differentials.

The sympathetic attitude of the Director General toward the desire of railroad employees for standardization was amply evinced in that portion of his General Order No. 27, wherein he created a second Wage Commission, which he has designated as the Board of Railroad Wages and Working Conditions, and to which he delegated the following duties:

This Board shall at once establish an office at Washington, D. C., and meet for organization and elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman, one of whom shall preside at meetings of the Board.

It shall be the duty of the Board to hear and investigate matters presented by railroad employees or their representatives affecting

(1) Inequalities as to wages and working conditions whether as to individual employees or classes of employees.

(2) Conditions arising from competition with employees in other industries.

(3) Rules and working conditions for the several classes of employees, either for the country as a whole or for different parts of the country. The Board shall also hear and investigate other matters affecting wages and conditions of employment referred to it by the Director General.

This Board shall be solely an advisory body and shall submit its recommendations to the Director General for his determination.

In his supplements to the original General Order No. 27 this great work of standardization has been rapidly accomplished. Supplement No. 4 (July 25, 1918) established a minimum standardized wage, hours of employment and rates

of overtime for approximately 350,000 employees engaged in the shop trades. Supplement No. 7 (Sept. 1, 1918) and Supplement No. 8 (Sept. 1, 1918) accomplished a like purpose for perhaps a million employees engaged in clerical and other station work, maintenance of way, common labor, etc. Supplement No. 10 (Nov. 16, 1918) standardized minimum wages, hours of employment and rates of overtime for nearly 62,000 telegraphers, telephone operators (except switchboard operators), agent telegraphers, agent telephoners, towermen, levermen, etc., and a few days later Supplement No. II accomplished the same purpose for all station agents not performing telegraphic service. In creating a "minimum standard," rates that were higher are preserved.

Of course in the pioneering work, apparent discriminations, if not injustice to individuals, developed, and to remedy these the Director General has directed the Board of Railroad Wages and Working Conditions to make further investigations in order that all may know that they will have a

66

square deal." The one thing that has, to some extent, defeated the purpose of such an admirable policy has been the abnormal increase in wages of temporary war industries. Just why the railroads, under federal control, should not pay eighty cents per hour when this rate is paid by other governmental agencies is difficult to explain. But when it is realized, as it will be, that the Director General's plan has been to establish wage rates that will be permanent, beyond the war period, and after cost of living has decreased, railway employees will not complain. I am sure that had the Director General remained with us it would have been his purpose to have maintained the rates of wages and working conditions established by him. It has been to accomplish this that he has refused to compete in wage increases with other agencies and industries whose activities will be greatly affected by a return of peace.

And yet, it must be confessed, that many employees are distrustful of the government, as they have been taught to be distrustful of their former employers.

While such a comparison is exaggerated, and all comparisons are said to be odious, a celebrated author points out that even a wild animal, in time, responds to the treatment accorded it. Jack London in his wolf, “White Fang," portrays man—with

all the bad and good that is in him. An animal with but the instincts that nature gave him and his kind, developed into a ferocious beast under ignorant and cruel masters, and being half starved, over-worked and cruelly treated, developed viciousness to an extreme degree. And yet, as if by some magic power, another master made of him a docile, faithful creature. True, White Fang viewed with suspicion wellmeant advances first made by his last master. He had been taught in his past life that all masters were cruel. It required but patience, tact and kindness to regenerate a degenerate. We have but to view a certain European situation to recognize that with man as with London's creature of the wild, like causes produce like effects. Anarchy is the natural child of tyranny, although, it is true, that no tyrant confesses his parentage.

Happily, no railroad employee has yet become a “White Fang or a Bolshevik, but the leaven is there; unwittingly implanted by those whose selfish interests had blinded them to the destructive agency of their own creation.

Another administrative measure, equally as important to railway employees as those mentioned in the foregoing, has been the recognition of the eight-hour day by the Director General. In some instances he has not yet been able to grant higher rates of overtime after the eighth hour of work, but usually in such cases it can be shown that the other benefits of the wage order have been a great advance, and even in these cases the eight-hour day has been established with pro-rata overtime for work performed in the ninth and tenth hour, and time and one-half for any work performed after the tenth hour in any day's work. Where past practices have resulted in an eight-hour day and time and one-half for overtime for large numbers of employees in any class, this practice has been extended to all employees in that class.

As early as February 21, 1918, less than sixty days after the railroads passed under federal control, General Order No. 8 was issued, which contained the following provisions:

No discrimination will be made in the employment, retention, or conditions of employment of employees because of membership or non-membership in labor organizations.

This privilege thus granted, the principal of wage bargain