A Clash of Courts Over the Right to Strike
Federal judges in the Pacific Northwest and Midwest issue conflicting rulings on whether railroad workers can organize and strike against receivership.
When the Union Pacific railroad system went into the hands of a receiver last year, the receivers immediately applied to Judge Dundy of the United States district court at Omaha to fix their own compensation at $18,000 each and to reduce the wages of employees. Judge Dundy issued orders for both, while enjoining the men from interfering with the operation of the road. Employees appealed to Judge Caldwell, who declared it was proper that employees should be heard. He maintained the right of workmen to quit, either singly or in a body, provided they did not interfere with the property or operation of the road. Conversely, Judge Jenkins of Milwaukee was asked to strike out his anti-strike orders in the Northern Pacific case, which forbade employees from combining or conspiring to quit. This pits two United States courts against one another in their interpretation of labor rights during railroad bankruptcies.
“A United States court can very readily find the means to effectually protect the property in its possession and the persons in its employ.”
This 1894 debate over the rights of rail workers during corporate insolvency mirrors modern battles over the power of bankruptcy courts to override labor contracts. It highlights the long-standing tension between 'public service' infrastructure and the constitutional rights of the people who actually run it.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.