Economy U.S Rail Labor Kneecapped: Biden and Congress Illegalize Rail Union's Strike Against Unsafe Work Conditions

Sept 7, 2020:

Dec 1, 2022:


Rail Workers Say Biden Betrayed Them
By Noam Scheiber | Nov. 30, 2022

30rail-alt-1-6903-articleLarge.jpg


As the legislative representative for his local union, Gabe Christenson, a longtime freight railroad conductor, worked hard to help elect Joe Biden president in 2020. “I have shirts from me campaigning — blue-collar Biden shirts,” he said. “I knocked on doors for him for weeks and weeks.”

But since Monday, when President Biden urged Congress to impose a labor agreement that his union had voted down, Mr. Christenson has been besieged by texts from furious co-workers whom he had encouraged to support the president. “I’m trying to calm them down,” he said.

Mr. Biden said he was urging action to avoid a nationwide strike that would threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and that the industry estimates would cost the economy more than $2 billion per day. The House of Representatives took the first step on Wednesday toward carrying out his request, approving the plan on a vote of 290 to 137.

A White House statement earlier this week said that the president was “reluctant to override the ratification procedures and the views of those who voted against the agreement” but that he felt congressional action was urgent.

For many of the more than 100,000 freight rail workers whose unions have been negotiating a new labor contract since 2020, however, Mr. Biden’s intervention amounted to putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the industry.

They say the rail carriers have enormous market power to set wages and working conditions, power that is enhanced by a federal law that greatly restricts the workers’ right to strike compared with most private-sector employees. They complain that after waiting patiently through multiple procedural steps, including a presidential emergency board, they had a narrow window to improve their contract through a labor stoppage and that Mr. Biden has effectively closed that window.

“They should let the guys work it out for themselves,” said Rhonda Ewing, a signal maintainer in Chicago. “We know it’s holiday time, which is why it’s the perfect time to raise our voices. If Biden gets involved, he takes away our leverage.”

A narrower House vote on Wednesday, 221 to 207, authorized seven paid sick days for the workers, addressing a key demand. But it is unclear whether that provision can win Senate approval.

The agreement that Mr. Biden asked Congress to impose was brokered between union leaders and industry negotiators with help from his administration and announced in September, averting a potential strike before the midterm elections. The accord would raise pay nearly 25 percent between 2020, when the last contract expired, and 2024, and allow employees to miss work for routine medical appointments three times per year without risking disciplinary action. It would also grant them one additional day of paid personal leave.

It would not provide paid sick leave, however, which many workers argue is the bare minimum they can accept given their grueling work schedules, which often leave them on the road or on call for long stretches of time. Rail carriers say workers can attend to illnesses or medical appointments using paid vacation.

Four of the 12 unions that would be covered by the agreement voted it down, and several others approved it only narrowly.

Tony Cardwell, the president of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division — International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which voted down the agreement Mr. Biden has asked Congress to impose, said that simply asking Congress to include paid sick days in the agreement would have gone a long way toward satisfying his members. The proposal to do so in the House was initiated by progressive lawmakers.

“If he would have said, ‘I want this one thing,’ it would have changed the whole narrative,” Mr. Cardwell, whose union represents more than 20,000 workers affected by the contract, said in an interview on Wednesday.

The sense of betrayal is especially acute because Mr. Biden has long portrayed himself as friendly to organized labor, and many union leaders regard him as the most labor-friendly president of their lifetimes thanks to his appointments and his support for regulations and legislation that they favor.

Daniel Kindlon, an electrician who works at a rail yard near Albany, N.Y., and is the head of his local union, said that while he is not a huge supporter of the president, he was impressed when Mr. Biden spoke at the electrician union’s convention in Chicago this spring.

“It was the best 45 minutes I’ve heard him talk,” Mr. Kindlon said. Yet he said he struggled to understand why Mr. Biden couldn’t have pushed Congress to go further.

“You would think he would just try to get them to throw in a couple days of sick time; that’s really all the guys were asking for,” he said.

Several union members and local officials said they had urged co-workers who had previously supported Donald Trump to back Mr. Biden, arguing that he would be friendlier to labor. They said that these co-workers had reached out to complain about what they saw as Mr. Biden’s about-face since Monday, though it was unclear how many of these union members had voted for the current president.

“Many Trump voters calling me out for endorsing Biden,” Matthew A. Weaver, a carpenter with rail maintenance employees union, said by text Tuesday night. Mr. Weaver previously worked as an official for his union in Ohio.

Many union members have long suspected that Congress would intervene to prevent them from striking. Mr. Kindlon said several members of his local union abstained from voting on the tentative contract this fall because they didn’t believe their vote mattered. Many took the view that “this is going to get jammed down our throat anyways; why do I care?” he said.

Many who placed their hopes in Mr. Biden assumed that they would not be allowed to strike for very long, but reasoned that even a brief strike lasting several hours, or the mere threat of one, would have been sufficient to extract more concessions from the rail carriers.

“I mean, that would have looked way better,” said Mr. Christenson, the longtime conductor. “Even if he had ulterior motives, let us have our day. He could show he was with us.”

Mr. Cardwell, of the maintenance workers union, said that “the fact that he did it so early” was surprising, given that there was still roughly a week or more to potentially extract concessions before a strike would have occurred.

Across the labor movement, prominent leaders have so far been silent or restrained in their response to Mr. Biden’s call for congressional action.

But at least one — Sean O’Brien, the president of the Teamsters, which represents more than one million members — has hinted at criticism.

“Members of Congress have an opportunity to fight for their constituents by making sure rail workers get paid sick days,” Mr. O’Brien wrote Tuesday on Twitter. “Any politicians who don’t side with workers need to go on the record that they voted against workers.”

The same day, a group over 100 labor scholars circulated an open letter to Mr. Biden expressing alarm at his call for Congress to impose the agreement that some unions have voted down, and suggesting that the intervention could affect the labor movement for decades.

“History shows us that the special legal treatment of rail and other transportation strikes offers the federal government — and the executive branch in particular — a rare opportunity to directly shape the outcome of collective bargaining, for good or for ill,” the letter said. It added: “These dramatic interventions can set the tone for entire eras of subsequent history.”

While some rail workers have weighed in on social media with calls for illegal wildcat strikes should Congress impose the agreement, local union officials said that such strikes are unlikely, and they were not aware of any meaningful effort to organize them.

Much more likely, they said, is an accelerated flow of workers out of an industry that, according to federal regulators, has lost nearly 30 percent of its employees over the past six years.

They said that with the freight rail work force already lean, additional losses could compound the supply chain problems that Mr. Biden has sought to defuse.

Mr. Kindlon, the electrician in New York, said he had already accepted a job in another industry after more than 17 years of railroad work.

“I’m telling you now, as soon as Congress decides to jam this contract down the BMWED and BLET and SMART guys’ throats, you will see a mass exodus like no mass exodus from any industry ever,” he said, alluding to some of the unions involved.

“It’s going to be like having a strike without having a strike.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/30/business/freight-rail-labor-union.html
 
Last edited:
The difference is that under a LEGAL strike by unionized workers (it's considered to be legal after all avenues of negotiation has been exhausted), the employers CANNOT discipline or retaliate against the strikers or risk extremely heavy penalty by the state's labor board. They may hire scabs to cross the picket line to keep the crippled business limping for a while, but that replacement can only be temporary by law, and those jobs must be returned to the strikers once the disputed has ended.

Striking is an enormously powerful tool, since there is no way any employers today can find over 115,000 highly-skilled scabs to fill in these highly-specialized jobs (the other 8 smaller unions also pledged to go on strike as well in solidarity). This is why the rail barons pushed the politicians so hard to intervene on their behalf before the Dec 9th deadline, while the rail workers desperately wants the politicians to stay the hell out of their collective bargaining process.

Once Congress passed a case-specific legislation to prohibits the unions involved from striking and force them to accept the contract their employer is offering (which both the House and the Senate just did overwhelmingly, and will most certainly be signed into law ASAP by the President who asked Congress to hold that vote), any subsequent strike over that contract would be deemed ILLEGAL, and any employees walking off the job now would have none of that labor protection under the law.

That means the rail barons can do whatever the fuck they want to discipline (or simply firing) the rail workers who still wanna go on an illegal "wildcat" strike after that legislation is signed, because by law you're no longer a legitimate striker, just a lazy employee not showing up to work, and there's nothing your union can do to help you.

Long story short: there will be no striking now. The exhausted rail workers will just have to endure the bloody knife stabbed in their already-broken backs by their supposed political allies, all the way until this force-fed contract expires years from now. Or they'll just quit en masse as soon as they find a similar job in other industries.

PS: Since this labor dispute is about the railroad, you can read up more about it on the Railroad Labor Act pertaining to the subject matter.


Still sounds like to me they threaten to all walk out together, whether deemed legal or not. If anyone is disciplined or let go than nobody returns. They can't replace 100k workers like you said. They will get many of their demands met in my opinion.
 
So I read somewhere that 8 of the 12 railroad unions has already accepted the deal - if it was so shitty (which from my trivial understanding seems to be), why did the majority of the unions accept it?
 
Here's an in-depth article on why the railroad companies who made $27 billion in profit slashed their workforce by 30% and don't want the remaining workers to have any "irregular time off", even though they work irregular schedules every day to accomodate this chronic understaffing by design.
[snip]
This whole thing makes me worder this:
If the employees are more concerned with work schedules and sick days than rate of pay, why not try something like a 14% raise and use the difference to hire 10,000 employees to take some of the workload or whatnot?

I mean, yeah, if the rail industry knows it has the government by the PR balls should a strike cause massive disruption with an already destabilized economy (in broad terms, I mean--nothing apocalyptic), why should they give an inch if the Benjamins are going to keep flowing regardless?

If it were up to me they'd be forced into independent third-party binding arbitration rather than this wholly awful measure to force the workers to accept a terrible contract, but I gather from the forgoing that the rail industry has enough clout with the federal government to ensure that's never permitted to happen.
 
So I read somewhere that 8 of the 12 railroad unions has already accepted the deal - if it was so shitty (which from my trivial understanding seems to be), why did the majority of the unions accept it?
People gotta eat but some people can hold out longer than others. Info provided earlier ITT (so info I just read, not that I'm learned on the topic) mentions the ones that accepted are smaller unions but the four hold outs are basically the 800lb gorillas while the other 8 are chimps, that sort of thing as I understand it.
 
Ultimately its a good example of why credibility matters in politics more than promises.
 
Well looks like it’s a 3rd party for me this presidential election, I can excuse a lot from this administration because of how shitty the GOP has been for the last 40 years or so. Bidens support of unions was his saving grace. Truly is disheartening that even united the working man still has an extremely uphill battle.
 
Anyone else find it rich how much emphasis is on paid family leave from a political standpoint(which benefits mostly women) but a overwhelmingly male employee population can’t even get a few sick days off.
Equality
 
So I read somewhere that 8 of the 12 railroad unions has already accepted the deal - if it was so shitty (which from my trivial understanding seems to be), why did the majority of the unions accept it?

This misleading "4 vs 8" statistic has been addressed multiple times in this discussion. It's not the number of unions, but rather how many workers each union represents.

Please read all the important resources provided right here in this very thread - and conveniently indexed in the OP - to catch up to speed with everyone else at the table.
 
Last edited:
This misleading "4 vs 8" statistic has been addressed miltiple times in this discussion. It's not the number of unions, but rather how many workers each union represents.

Please read all the important resources provided right here in this very thread - and conveniently indexed in the OP - to catch up to speed with everyone else at the table.

My majority comment was incorrect, but that post doesn't really address the core of my question, nor do any of the other indexed posts from a cursory glance - even if they represent a small percentage of railroad workers, why did those unions accept the deal? Do they represent a different type of worker or something?


In either case, government stepping in and siding with the railroads is insane.
 
Anyone else concerned with a 24% pay increase for rail workers when we use railroads as much as we do in this country. By me its all Amazon smiles, Chinese shipping containers, and coal cars. This is gonna cost.
 
It's a shame Republicans aren't actually pro middle class and could stand up for workers.
 
Biden signs bill into law making a rail strike illegal
By Emma Kinery | FRI, DEC 2 2022



President Joe Biden signed a bill into law making a rail strike illegal, preventing workers from walking off the job weeks before the holiday season.

“The bill I’m about to sign ends a difficult rail dispute and helps our nation avoid what, without a doubt, would have been an economic catastrophe at a very bad time in the calendar,” Biden said Friday morning before signing the bill.

After his administration aided in negotiations for months, and the sides reached a tentative agreement in September, talks ultimately stalled and rail workers threatened a strike. Biden then asked Congress to intervene, and the Senate passed a bill Thursday making a strike illegal.

The initial agreement brokered by the Biden administration was accepted by all but four rail unions, who were holding out for guaranteed paid sick leave days. The opposing unions, though, represent the majority of rail workers. The workers and companies had until Dec. 9 to reach an agreement before they vowed to strike, which the industry estimated would cost the U.S. economy $2 billion per day.

“Our nation’s rail system is literally the backbone of our supply chain,” Biden said Friday. “So much of what we rely on is delivered on rail, from clean water to food and gas and every other good. A rail shutdown would have devastated our economy. Without freight rail, many of our industries would have literally shut down.”

A strike by rail workers so close to the holiday season — and in a period of high inflation — could potentially raze the economy. Biden was adamant that Congress send the legislation to his desk by Saturday. Without an agreement, rail movement of certain goods was set to be curtailed as soon as this weekend in preparation for the strike.

Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled it can use that authority to intervene in disputes by rail labor that have the potential to affect trade across state lines. A nearly century-old law, the Railway Labor Act of 1926, gives the president the authority to intervene as well in situations where a rail strike could significantly affect essential transportation. The act has been invoked 18 times since it was signed into law.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/02/bid...er-strike-despite-lack-of-paid-sick-days.html
 
Rail workers say Biden "turned his back on us" in deal to avert rail strike
By Andrea Hsu | December 2, 2022

gettyimages-1443734048-b023994f6fcee9f141301bb50b3ab5f4e44af964-s900-c85.webp


Workers who voted no say they are frustrated and disappointed — especially with President Biden, who on Monday called on Congress to pass legislation to adopt the tentative agreement with no modifications in order to avoid a crippling rail strike.

"It feels like President Biden ushered this in a little too early," says Weaver. "He kind of cut us off at the knees on our ability to have some real negotiations or real change after voting no."

In Richmond, Virginia, roadway mechanic Reece Murtagh says it sets a bad precedent when even the most pro-labor of presidents will force an agreement rather than allow workers to strike.

"In future negotiations, the carriers are going to remember that and use it against us," says Murtagh. "It's going to be even harder for us to negotiate a fair contract because they realize when it comes down to it, there's not going to be a strike."

Murtagh says guys in his shop felt especially disillusioned thinking back on Biden's decades in the Senate, when he'd take Amtrak home to Delaware every night.

"Joe relied on us to get him home to his family," Murtagh says. "But when it was his turn to help us out... to better our life, he turned his back on us."

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/02/1140265413/rail-workers-biden-unions-freight-railroads-averted-strike
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,981
Messages
55,459,163
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556
Back
Top