T Judah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 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!


A .pdf copy of the 1948 California ballot that includes Prop 3 can be found here: [traynor.uchastings.edu]

And here's the 1964 ballot that has Prop 17: [traynor.uchastings.edu]

It should be clear when one reads them that the carriers' goal with both propositions was to achieve through legislation what they could not through collective bargaining. The railroads likewise made a concerted effort to either gut or completely eliminate the so-called "Full Crew" laws in the other states that had them. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing probably depends upon which side of the labor/management fence one is on.

I'm somewhat stumped by your reference to national railroad strikes. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I don't know when the last one was, but there hasn't been a national railroad strike in the 40 years that I've been in the industry. Rather, the unions strike usually one and sometimes two railroads at a time. Typically, they're ordered back to work in a couple of days, so the effectiveness of such strikes is questionable. Maybe if they'd go back to true national strikes, they'd be more effective.

Likewise, I'm stumped by your statement that "diesels had not a damn thing that actually needed doing by a fireman," since I know that's simply untrue. I can't begin to count all the times during my admittedly short career as a fireman that I had to go back and tend to failed steam generators on passenger trains. It wasn't so bad when it involved carbody-type units, but it's one of the reasons I learned to hate SDP45's - working outside on the running board of a fast-moving train wasn't an experience I relish. On the SP (and I suppose other railroads as well), the fireman on a freight train would make multiple trips through the locomotive consist, particularly in mountainous territory, to check on the loading status of the trailing units in Power and Dynamic Braking, plus attempt to restart any units that failed.