Given the below context:  Later that evening, second vice president Keyser, upon the request of the strikers, addressed a workingmen's meeting at Cross Street Market Hall, and presented the company's written response reprinted in the papers for the public. The letter, signed by both King and Keyser, stated the company's position as follows: the company would not negotiate on the matter of the 10 percent wage reduction, but it would "be pleased to address itself to the investigation of any of the minor grievances of which the men complained". The Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser reported a general hope that, owing to the imminent increase in traffic due to the transport of harvested crops, the firemen would be able to make daily round trips, thus avoiding layovers, and that the company could arrange for them to return home on passenger trains when this was not feasible.Keyser's reprinted response advised that the ten percent cut was "forced upon the company", but that he was confident they would be able to provide more full employment, and thus increase wages, due to an abundance of freight to be moved. He said that a system of passes would be arranged to address the issue of idle time caused by delays. He entreated the men that if the situation could not be resolved, it must "bring want and suffering upon all; suffering from which you and your families cannot hope to be exempt." He asserted that, although 90 percent of rail workers had accepted the reduction, the whole business of the railroad and city had been halted due to the 10 percent rejecting them, and resolving to not allow the rest of the men to continue work. He said the rescinding of the wage cuts were "entirely out of the question" and requested the men either return to work, or allow those who would to resume working. As The Sun reported: "A vote was taken, and the proposition of the company was rejected unanimously."  Guess a valid title for it!
The answer to this question is:
Baltimore railroad strike of 1877