> It's always been interesting to me that both of these Propositions were really
> Collective Bargaining issues, yet the railroads were able to circumvent that by
> going the legislative route.

How so?

All the 1964 prop did was to remove the legal requirement of the 1948 law, which forced the use firemen in diesels above 45 tons - even though diesels had not a damn thing that actually needed doing by a fireman.

After 1964 in California, collective bargaining was was again the means to either keep, or end the practice of using fireman. The unions tried to keep it, while the railroads tried to end it - both via collective bargaining after 1964.

Indeed it was the union that managed to circumvent the need for collective bargaining by going the "legislative route" in 1948 at the state level. However, at the Federal level, the unions continued to use legislative fiat after 1964. The usual tactic was to strike all railroads at once, an otherwise stupid tactic in any fight, usually doomed to failure.

But this was strategically smart (at the time), as it always provoked Presidential reaction. The President would then order a "cooling off period" and appoint a presidential commission. This commission would issue a "recommended" settlement, which by some strange coincident, was always in favor of the unions on the fireman issue. This was then passed by congress as law.

Thus legislative fiat, rather than collective bargaining, settled almost all railroad labor issue for several decades, almost exclusively in favor of the unions. This strategy only unraveled after the party of unionism lost control of congress in 1994 (a process began in the late 80s)- seemingly permanently; after mostly having almost total control from 1932 on.

The problem (unhappily for unionism) is now, that the public, by vast majorities simply does not seem to support them. In my view this is not so good, as something is needed to counter the often draconian economic power of employers. Sometimes, when a certain skill is in short supply, there is balance in that specialty labor market; but mostly, it is woefully unbalanced, and the law has never been of any real help in balancing it either.

To bad unions are often viewed as having gone way too far - it is generally an incorrect view. But with such glaring examples of unreasonableness before the public's eyes, such as requiring employees where they are clearly not needed; it is no wonder unions lost favor. Unionism in the long run, ultimately shot itself in the foot!

So what do we do now to counter the often draconian economic power of employers - I don't know. Can laws be passed to truly balance the labor market, so that sellers and buyers of labor have equal power. Can unions be re-vitalized. . . . .

Don't hold your breath - on either one!