Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for The Log Cabin Democrat
Domestic News February 12, 1921

The Log Cabin Democrat

Conway, Faulkner County, Arkansas

What is this article about?

In Chicago, railroad union leaders, including B. M. Jewell, state they won't oppose modifications to the national working agreement for wage reductions if fair to employees. Executives deny plans to cut all wages, targeting only unskilled labor.

Clipping

OCR Quality

98% Excellent

Full Text

MEN NOT TO FIGHT JUST REDUCTIONS
(By United Press)
Chicago, Feb. 12.—A modification of the national working agreement in order to bring about a reduction of wages would not be opposed by the railroad unions if the owners of the roads can show that such modifications would not be unjust or unreasonable against the employees, according to statements made by leaders of the railroad unions here today.
B. M. Jewell, representing the unions, was scheduled to appear before the national railroad labor board today and state when the unions will be prepared to present evidence in support of their motion for a continuance of the present national agreement.
Railroad executives here today denied that they plan to lower the wages of all employees. Their present plans refer to unskilled labor only, they stated.

What sub-type of article is it?

Economic

What keywords are associated?

Railroad Unions Wage Reductions National Agreement Labor Board Unskilled Labor

What entities or persons were involved?

B. M. Jewell

Where did it happen?

Chicago

Domestic News Details

Primary Location

Chicago

Event Date

Feb. 12.

Key Persons

B. M. Jewell

Outcome

railroad executives deny plans to lower wages of all employees, stating plans refer to unskilled labor only.

Event Details

Railroad union leaders state they would not oppose modifications to the national working agreement for wage reductions if shown to be just and reasonable for employees. B. M. Jewell is scheduled to appear before the national railroad labor board to discuss presenting evidence for continuing the current agreement.

Are you sure?