Sue Ogrocki/AP Photo
A BNSF freight locomotive heads south out of Oklahoma City, Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2022.
On Monday, two unions who account for half of the unionized workforce on the U.S.'s freight railroads voted on a tentative agreement, designed with the help of a board chosen by the Biden administration back in September. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen’s membership (BLET) voted in favor of the agreement with 53.5 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, the Transportation Division of the Sheet, Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD), narrowly struck the deal down. Just over 50 percent of train and engine service members represented by SMART-TD voted to reject, while yardmasters represented by SMART-TD voted 62.5 percent in favor(SMART-TD has two separate contracts).
Like most other labor negotiations, this fight is not just over adequate pay, but about the granular details surrounding worker dignity.
The September tentative agreement included a 24 percent pay raise by 2024, annual $1,000 bonuses, and no increases to health care costs. Looked at alone, those specific details are worthwhile. But at the heart of the matter are attendance policies. Previous reporting has detailed how railroad workers have suffered mental and physical health decay due to erratic scheduling, which prevents workers from attending medical appointments. Union leaders originally wanted 15 days of paid sick leave; after negotiations in September, they settled for one sick day, while removing penalties for time missed due to illness or a medical emergency.
Now, SMART-TD is back at the negotiating table with the National Carriers Conference Committee (NCCC), the body representing railroad management, to broker a deal. Workers from the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen also previously rejected the tentative agreement, along with the boilermakers’ union. In a statement released on Monday, BLET president Dennis Pierce said that if SMART-TD or any of the three rail unions that rejected the proposed contract went on strike, BLET and the remaining eight unions who voted to ratify the contract would not cross the picket line.
That’s the choice before the various rail unions. They could strike as early as December 5. Or the company could lock out those workers without a ratified contract.
But there’s a third option. Congress could end talk about strikes and worker lockouts by passing a joint resolution, under the Railway Labor Act of 1926, which is then sent to President Biden’s desk. If he signs, the resolution could force workers to accept the contract approved by the Presidential Emergency Board, the board set up by the president to mediate the dispute.
If that happens, it would run counter to Biden’s repeated commitment to being the “most pro-union administration in American history.” The Washington Post reported a White House official repeating Biden’s statements that a shutdown would be “unacceptable” and that he still believed the best option was for the unions and the carriers to resolve the matter among themselves.
In September, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MA) suggested that Congress should intervene if a deal was not struck. He said: “There is a role for Congress if in fact they fail to reach an agreement.” With the Christmas season around the corner and the stakes higher this time around, the chances have become more likely. Hoyer’s office did not respond to the Prospect's question if Congress should intervene in collective bargaining negotiations between the rail worker unions and rail carriers.
Earlier this month, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said that without an approved contract, he expected Congress to step in. The Prospect also reached out to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Senate Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and the White House for comment on whether or not Congress would intervene between collective bargaining negotiations. Schumer’s office said they did not have a statement ready at the moment. Meanwhile, the others did not respond.
In 1991, with less than 24 hours before a national railroad strike, House members passed a joint resolution 400-5 to put an end to a potential strike.
Sanders’s office did not provide a statement regarding the latest failed negotiations. However, Sanders' staff pointed to his previous statements on the September tentative agreement. “These workers have not had a raise in three years and continue to work incredibly long hours under brutal working conditions. I will respect and support whatever decision they make.”
On Monday, Sanders doubled down his support for rail workers. On Twitter, he said, “It is beyond belief that in the year 2022 rail workers in America have zero guaranteed paid sick days. Zero. The rail industry, which made a record-breaking $20 billion in profits last year, must come to the table and negotiate a contract which treats their workers with respect.”
The irony of this whole fiasco is that the critical nature of railroad workers is exactly why their rights as workers are so neutered, even as the freight rail industry is flushed with cash. The largest railroads and highest revenue producing railroads, Class I, long-haul transport commodities with as few stops in between, have cut their workforce by 29 percent over the last six years.
Approximately 84 percent of Class I railroad workers are unionized. Yet a high rate of unionization has not prevented Wall Street, as the Prospect previously reported, from pushing the industry to strip rail capacity through extreme consolidation and the industry’s version of just-in-time delivery, “precision scheduled railroading.” Wall Street’s titanic financial incentives have been the backdrop as financiers have spent less money on running railroads and improving worker benefits for the sake of stock buybacks and dividends.
As industry officials warn of a potential $2 billion per day cost to the national economy from a looming strike, since 2010, the railroads have paid $196 billion toward stock buybacks and dividends, meanwhile only investing $150 billion on railroad infrastructure.
On Monday, the Association of American Railroads released a statement calling for Congress to intervene: “Congress has historically intervened to prevent rail system disruptions… [and] must be prepared to act and institute the terms supported by the majority of the unions, guaranteeing certainty for rail customers and the broader economy.”
This is true. In 1991, with less than 24 hours before a national railroad strike, House members passed a joint resolution 400-5 to put an end to a potential strike. Shortly after, the Senate passed the resolution. By 2 am, then-President Bush signed the resolution. Almost 30 years later, it seems we’re heading down a very similar scenario, where in the 11th hour Congress passes a resolution forcing workers to accept a deal that does not rectify the very reasons why for the last two years negotiations have stalled.
The only reason this is possible is that the Railway Labor Act governs transportation workers. Under that law, workers cannot freely engage in collective bargaining for their jobs, and often must accept whatever scraps the dominant corporations offer. However, while the law presents the problem, Congress must act to pass the resolution and the president must sign it. So the choice is in the hands of the current Democratic majority.
In response to industry’s request for congressional intervention, SMART-TD president Jeremy Ferguson said: “This can all be settled through negotiations and without a strike. A settlement would be in the best interests of the workers, the railroads, shippers and the American people.” Ferguson’s condemnation against the carriers went further, highlighting how the industry has complained of overregulation, yet when the time is convenient, “railroad executives… now want Congress to do the bargaining for them.”
