Railroad Profits vs. Living Wages
While railway magnates plead poverty to block pay increases for switchmen, their own financial reports reveal a surplus that tells a different story.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The railroads claim they cannot afford the six-cent-an-hour increase demanded by switchmen, threatening that they would be forced to raise freight rates if wages were raised. However, figures for the year ending June 30, 1909, show the Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy roads are far from financial ruin. Even during a panic, these companies reported significant net earnings and surpluses. The switchmen, who actually generate these dividends, remain on strike, and strike-breakers are fleeing once they learn the reality of the conditions. The local switchmen remain steadfast, supported by the promise of amble funds.
“Six cents an hour increase to the men who REALLY EARN THESE DIVIDENDS would put the railroads out of business! What a wretched state of affairs!”
The rhetoric used by the railroads in 1909—claiming that paying workers a living wage would destroy the business—is identical to contemporary arguments used by corporate interests against minimum wage increases.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.