Law Professor Urges Decision in Rail Fight

The present railroad labor-management dispute is a situation in which all the solutions are equally unpleasant, Phillip E. Areeda, professor of Law, said yesterday.

Areeda explained that the possible solutions of the five year old battle over rail work rules were either a compromise settlement, a surrender of one side or the other, a strike, or a Congressional resolution. The argument over which of these solutions to settle on, said Areeda, was basically a question of whether the country wants the freedom of collective bargaining in so vital an industry or not.

In such a situation, the country must come to an immediate decision, said Areeda. But, he said, in emergency strike situations, this country has historically been unwilling to make the choice necessary to get out of the dilemma.

At odds in the present dispute are the "minor issues." These include the complicated wage structure, road and yard work, overtime pay, and holiday pay, President Johnson will try to bring the labor and management officials into agreement on these issues in the next 15 days.

Areeda traced the rail conflict to technological change in the 30's coupled with shrinkage in the volume of railroad business. If the rail business had expended at the same rate as the economy, he said, the technological changes would not have eliminated the need for labor.

Work Rules Not Issue in 30's

Areeda also said that during these technological changes the unions wanted to preserve jobs while the railroads were prosperous enough so that the management did not make an issue of the work rules.

Paul W. Cherington, professor of Business Administration at the Business School, said that "Johnson took the only course open to him." About 50,000 railroad workers, he said, would inevitably lose their jobs, perhaps in the matter of a few years.

The union's selective strike against the Illinois Central was, Cherington said, a surprise move to force the railroads to back down one by one. However, the railroads saw through the move and enforced their version of the minor issue effective Friday morning, thus causing the strike threat.

Mark DeWolfe Howe, professor of Law, said that Johnson's actions in the dispute were "fine as long as they kept the trains moving." He said that "union featherbedding has reached outrageous proportions at a time when the railroads really cannot afford it.