"Go to Father"

Railroads trying to eliminate featherbedding ran into a red light from the U.S. Supreme Court last week. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that roads must bargain with unions on the elimination of jobs.

The decision was made on a case that began in 1956 when rambunctious Ben Heineman, lawyer turned railroader (TIME, Dec. 15, 1958), stepped into command of the money-losing Chicago & North Western. Heineman found that some telegraph operators at one-man stations scattered along North Western's 9,288-mile route worked as little as 15 minutes a day, yet drew a full day's wage. Heineman decided to eliminate almost 200 of the stations, got an O.K. from regulatory commissions in four states.

The telegraphers union fought back, and in doing so lifted the issue from one involving only one-man stations to one that posed the central question of the right to end featherbedding. The union warned that it would go out on strike unless the railroad promised not to eliminate any job established before Dec. 3, 1957 without union consent. North Western refused to bargain, headed off the strike by getting a court injunction, which the union appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that elimination of jobs is a lawful bargaining point, and hence federal courts are barred under the Norris--La Guardia Act from enjoining railroad unions from striking on this issue.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Tom Clark said the court was in effect telling the railroads they must first go to the unions before abolishing surplus jobs. "Everyone knows what the answer will be," complained Clark, and quoted some homey doggerel to make his point. "It is like the suitor who, when proposing to a young lady, was told by her to go to father:

But she knew that he knew That her father was dead; And she knew that he knew What a life he had led; And she knew that he knew What she meant when she said, Go to father."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.