50 Million People Are Trapped in Modern Slavery Worldwide: Report

Nearly one out of every 150 individuals on Earth was enslaved last year, including roughly 28 million in forced labor and 22 million in forced marriages.


A twelve-year-old works in a silver cooking pot factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh on May 30, 2020. (Photo: Md Manik/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)


KENNY STANCIL

September 12, 2022


Nearly 50 million people were trapped in forced labor or forced marriage on any given day in 2021, according to a new report published Monday, the latest reminder that "the scourge of modern slavery has by no means been relegated to history."

"Nothing can justify the persistence of this fundamental abuse of human rights."

The International Labour Organization (ILO), Walk Free, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) found that the number of people around the globe living in slavery—defined as a situation of "exploitation that a person cannot refuse or cannot leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception, or abuse of power"—increased by 9.3 million from 2016 to 2021.

By the authors' estimate, nearly one out of every 150 individuals on Earth was enslaved last year. That includes 27.6 million in forced labor, up from 24.9 million five years ago, and 22 million in forced marriages, up from 15.4 million a half-decade ago.

"It is shocking that the situation of modern slavery is not improving," ILO Director-General Guy Ryder said in a statement. "Nothing can justify the persistence of this fundamental abuse of human rights."

As the report makes clear, "compounding crises—the Covid-19 pandemic, armed conflicts, and climate change—in recent years have led to unprecedented disruption to employment and education, increases in extreme poverty and forced and unsafe migration, and an upsurge in reports of gender-based violence."

This confluence of factors serves "to heighten the risk of all forms of modern slavery," says the report. "As is usually the case, it is those who are already in situations of greatest vulnerability—including the poor and socially excluded, workers in the informal economy, irregular or otherwise unprotected migrant workers, and people subject to discrimination—who are most affected."

Modern slavery "occurs in almost every country in the world, and cuts across ethnic, cultural, and religious lines," the ILO, Walk Free, and IOM noted. "More than half (52%) of all forced labor and a quarter of all forced marriages can be found in upper-middle-income or high-income countries."

The vast majority (86%) of forced labor happens in the private sector, while the remainder (14%) is imposed by state authorities. Commercial sexual exploitation accounts for 23% of private-sector forced labor, and almost four-fifths of those trafficking victims are women or girls. The remaining 63% of private-sector forced labor occurs in other industries.

Nearly one in eight of the roughly 28 million people subjected to forced labor last year were children (3.3 million). More than half of them were trapped in commercial sexual exploitation.

Although an estimated 22 million people were living in forced marriages in 2021, the "true incidence of forced marriage, particularly involving children aged 16 and younger, is likely far greater," according to the three groups that assembled the report. While every child marriage should be considered forced "because a child cannot legally give consent to marry," current estimates "are based on a narrow definition and do not include all child marriages."

Compared with their non-migrant counterparts, migrant workers are over three times more likely to be pushed into forced labor. This injustice, the trio of organizations said, can be attributed to "irregular or poorly governed migration, or unfair and unethical recruitment practices."

According to António Vitorino, director-general of the IOM, the new report "underscores the urgency of ensuring that all migration is safe, orderly, and regular."

"Reducing the vulnerability of migrants to forced labor and trafficking in persons depends first and foremost on national policy and legal frameworks that respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants—and potential migrants—at all stages of the migration process, regardless of their migration status," said Vitorino. "The whole of society must work together to reverse these shocking trends, including through implementation of the Global Compact on Migration."



Modern slavery, said Walk Free founding director Grace Forrest, "continues to underpin our global economy," but that doesn't have to be the case.

"It is a man-made problem, connected to both historical slavery and persisting structural inequality," said Forrest. "In a time of compounding crises, genuine political will is the key to ending these human rights abuses."

Ryder, for his part, said that "we know what needs to be done, and we know it can be done."

To abolish modern slavery, the ILO, Walk Free, and IOM recommend that the following steps be taken jointly and immediately:Improve and enforce laws and labor inspections;
End state-imposed forced labor;
Implement stronger measures to combat forced labor and trafficking in business and supply chains;
Extend social protection and strengthen legal protections, including by raising the legal age of marriage to 18 without exception;
Address the increased risk of trafficking and forced labor for migrant workers by promoting fair and ethical recruitment; and
Increase support for women, girls, and vulnerable individuals.

"Effective national policies and regulation are fundamental," said Ryder. "But governments cannot do this alone. International standards provide a sound basis, and an all-hands-on-deck approach is needed. Trade unions, employers' organizations, civil society, and ordinary people all have critical roles to play."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

EU aims to ban products, imports made with forced labor - document

WILL THAT INCLUDE U$A PRISON LABOR

Foo Yun Chee
Sep 09, 2022 •

BRUSSELS — Products made with forced labor or those imported into the 27-country European Union will be banned under draft rules, according to an EU document seen by Reuters, a move driven by EU lawmakers concerned about human rights in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.

However, the European Commission’s draft rules are less far-reaching than what EU lawmakers have proposed due in part to legal constraints.

The EU executive, which will announce its proposal on Tuesday, will need to thrash out details with lawmakers and EU countries before the rules can become law.

“Such prohibition should apply to products for which forced labor has been used at any stage of their production, manufacture, harvest and extraction, including working or processing related to the products,” the document said.

“The prohibition should apply to all products, of any type, including their components, and should apply to products regardless of the sector, the origin, whether they are domestic or imported, or placed or made available on the Union market or exported.”

The rules target larger economic operators such as importers, manufacturers, producers and product suppliers because the risks of forced labor are most prevalent and the impact likely to be the largest, the paper said.

The onus however is on national authorities to prove that forced labor was involved in making and processing the products, while preliminary investigations should be wrapped up within 30 working days.

They can then get customs bodies to block the circulation of the products or withdraw them from the market.

A database of forced labor risk in specific geographic areas or specific products made with forced labor imposed by state authorities will be set up and made available to the public.

The United States enacted a law last year, the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act (UFLPA), to safeguard its market from products potentially tainted by human rights abuses in Xinjiang, where the U.S. government says China is committing genocide against Uyghur Muslims.

China denies abuses in Xinjiang, a major cotton producer that also supplies much of the world’s materials for solar panels, and says the law “slanders” the country’s human rights situation. (Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; editing by David Evans and Jonathan Oatis)

Workers Undermined Canada’s Attempt to Crush the Bolshevik Revolution

The Bolsheviks held power in Russia for mere months before 13-Allied states, in unison with White Russian and Czecho-Slovak Legion fighters, launched a four-front war to squash the revolution. Among the more than 2,000,000 troops that would eventually enter combat was just over 4,000 Canadians who made up the Canadian Expeditionary Force (Siberia) (CEFS). This was Canada’s first foray into combat on their own terms, formally acting independently of the British. The government saw it as a chance to prove their newfound independence and share in the spoils of war. Instead, the expedition ended up as an abject failure, due in large part to the growing labour movement in Canada.

Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden had several reasons to move against the Bolshevik government, which he refused to recognize. The Canadian bourgeois class had long eyed Russia’s far-east as a lucrative land due to its vast resources. The Provisional Government had made efforts to assure them that they’d be able to conduct their business, with the land open for investments. Yet the Bolsheviks were not willing to sell out their country, and began nationalizing industries, as well as gold. They also repudiated nearly 13 billion rubles in loans to the Allies.

There were several military related reasons offered as well. Intervening against the Bolsheviks could bring Russia back into the war, therefore forcing Germany to resume a multipronged battle. Benjamin Isitt, the author of the seminal history of the CEFS, From Victoria to Vladivostok, wrote that, “The Canadian bourgeoisie, which became rich during the world war, tried to gain independence, especially in foreign policy. It believed that Canadian participation in the intervention would help to reach this goal.” Finally, the Bolsheviks were perceived as an ideological threat that could cause widespread damage, at home and abroad, if left unchecked.

Canadian prime minister Sir Robert Borden joined by a young Sir Winston Churchill, London, July 1918. It was at meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet in the summer of 1918 where Canadians, British and other imperial leaders decided to send troops to Siberia to intervene in Russia’s civil war. Photo via Department of National Defence, Canadian Military Journal Collection

On July 9, 1918, the British War Office sent a request to Borden asking if he could make troops available to “restore order and a stable government” in Siberia, join forces with the Czecho-Slovak Legion, and restart combat with Germany on the Eastern Front. Borden began discussing the venture with advisors, and on July 28, the Privy Council approved the expedition. By August 13, the details of the CEFS were made public: more than 4,000 troops — including 135 Russian members of the Czar’s former army and a one woman, a nurse — and 3,000,000 rounds of ammunition would be sent from Victoria, B.C. to Vladivostok, a port city in Russia’s far-east that would come to be the launching point for Western intervention. The Canadian army would also operate independently of the British.

As the government was pulling together the CEFS, socialism was exploding in popularity in Canada, with strikes breaking out and new unions emerging. The turmoil, which had spread throughout the country but was most potent in B.C. and other Western provinces, was largely due to conscription, introduced by Borden through the Military Service Act on August 29, 1917.

The government was aware of this unrest, and made moves to combat it, both for the sake of business at home and the ability of the CEFS to be successful abroad. According to Isitt, “The same attitudes that shaped Allied strategy in Russia — the use of force to quash Bolshevism — informed domestic responses to labor unrest.” This included: Privy Council Order 2384, brought into law on September 28, 1918, which made 14 working class and socialist organizations illegal under periods of war; the banning of several socialist publications; the censorship of popular socialist texts (those found to be in possession of Vladimir Lenin’s “Political Parties in Russia” essay could be punished with five-years imprisonment or a $5000 fine); the banishment of labor strikes, with a clause that allowed the government to force strikers into the army. Yet despite this feverish attempt to crack down on burgeoning radicals, they would end up undermining the CEFS.

Of the nearly 5000 troops that ended up in Victoria, 1653 were conscripts, and very few were eager for the journey ahead of them. The condition in the camps they were stationed at was brutal, with the outbreak of the Spanish flu preventing public gatherings, outdoor training made impossible at times due to flooded fields from tremendous amounts of rain, and poor lodgings. Moreover, the Armistice announced on November 11, midway through the troops stay in Victoria, further sapped any morale to continue fighting, especially as half of those assembled had fought in Europe.

B.C. radicals seized upon this disaffection, and inundated the soldiers with propaganda, seeking to portray the expedition into Siberia as a war for the rich, at the expense of the poor. The labor radicals distributed leaflets to soldiers, and held several increasingly popular mass meetings where they called for “Hands off Russia.” On December 8, the Federated Labor Party held its inaugural meeting. Over 700 CEFS members attended, with hundreds more being turned away. On December 13, the Victoria Trades and Labor Council held another protest meeting, which was also well attended by CEFS troops.

259th Battalion conscripts at a “Hands Off Russia” mass meeting on December 13. Photo via Sidney Rodger Collection, Beamsville, Ontario

The reaction from the troops at these meetings made it evident that they had little enthusiasm for the war. An article in the now defunct British Columbia Federationist newspaper said of the first meeting that “the way those boys applauded the Labor speakers showed in no uncertain manner where their sympathies lay.” Of the second meeting, the paper reported “the whole house, composed mostly of the Siberian contingent, were unanimous in expressing their sentiments to the withdrawal of the troops.”

The troops were also disgusted with their officers, who had stormed the stage at the December 13 meeting, singing “God Save the King” in an attempt to drown out the speakers. The budding unity between the soldiers and radicals caused such fear in the ruling class that B.C.’s lieutenant-governor, Frank S. Barnard, sent a letter to Borden asking him to bring battle cruisers on the shores, “if for no other reason, than for that of having a force to quell, if necessary, any rising upon the part of the IWW.”

This uprising didn’t come, but there was a mutiny launched by several troops on December 21, the day the first of the soldiers were to be deployed to Vladivostok. The men set to depart that day, from the 259th Battalion and 20th Machine Gun Company, had been prone to dissent since they were recruited. For a few days, there had been rumblings among them that they’d make a last ditch stand against their deployment.

Soldiers in the 259th Battalion being inspected by their commanding officer. Photo via Library and Archives Canada, Dorothy I. Perrin Collection.

Midway through their 3.5 mile march from the camp to the outer wharves, the troops stopped for a break. Several of them refused to get back in line when the whistle rang out, leading the colonel of the column to fire his gun over their heads, in the middle of the Victoria streets. This caused some of the men to get in line, but many still stood in their place. At this point, according to an account of the events from a lieutenant, published in the BC Federationist, “the other two companies from Ontario were ordered to take off their belts and whip the poor devils into line, and they did it with a will, and we proceeded.” The dissenters were then put under armed guard until they had boarded the boat. The lieutenant went on to write that “this company continued the march virtually at the point of the bayonet, they being far more closely guarded than any group of German prisoners I ever saw, and they were put under armed guard till we actually pulled out to sea, and even now a dozen of the ringleaders are in the cells — the two worst handcuffed together — awaiting trial.”

Canadian command tried their best to prevent news of the uprising from leaking out. Two days after the event, one of the CEFS commanding officers wired Ernest J. Chambers, Canada’s chief press censor, claiming the mutiny simply hadn’t occurred. Chambers then demanded all newspaper editors across the country suppress any news of the mutiny because it would “only cause unrest and bring discredit to our soldiers.” Letters from commanding officers, moreover, attempted to downplay the extent of dissent among the troops, portraying them simply as uneducated French-Canadians who were misled by “socialistic agitation.” Yet according to Isitt “these accounts distort the experience, and deny the agency, of British Columbia’s working class and simplify the motivations of the Quebecois troops themselves.”

Regardless, the mutiny was unsuccessful, as the men were shipped off the next morning, the first of the major deployments to Vladivostok. They arrived on January 12. The rest of the troops, deployed over the next month, arrived on January 15, and February 3, 18, and 27. The troubled CEFS had finally reached the shores of Vladivostok, but things only got worse.

The vast majority of Canadians never left Vladivostok, which one rifleman referred to as a “God forsaken hole,” throughout the entire time there. They saw little bloodshed, besides their ventures into the local red light district. One of the members of the CEFS, Captain Eric Elkington, wrote, “There was an awful place known as the ‘bucket of blood’ … where the troops would go in and there were just these sort of cubicles, and you could see the action which you liked best. Oh, that was the devil, trying to keep these lads away from that place.’” The problem became so severe, according to Isitt, that, “Between one-quarter and one-half of all Canadian hospital beds were occupied by patients with venereal disease, prompting the force command to threaten to ship afflicted troops back to Canada and to inform family members of the cause.” One of the men with the battalion was even shot in the penis by a sex worker.

The Canadian hospital in Vladivostok, which held many of the STI-ridden soldiers. Photo via Eric Elkington Collection, Ladysmith, British Columbia

Other than their sexual romps, Canadian troops played sports, held plays and concerts, and attended lectures. They also tried to help combat the rampant crime in Vladivostok where, according to a member of the CEFS, “It was said that one could have a man’s throat cut for a ruble.”

Just 50 troops got sent upcountry to Omsk, 3500 miles west of Vladivostok. The only action throughout the entire expedition was when a small group of Canadians, as well as Japanese, French, Italian, Czechoslovak, Chinese and White Russian soldiers, took a 14 mile trek to the town of Shkotovo, which had been attacked by partisans trying to free over 700 Bolshevik prisoners. When they arrived, according to Rifleman Harold Steele, there was only “one old man and a couple of women” left, as the Bolsheviks had already evacuated. There were only two injuries in the expedition: a French soldier accidentally shot a Japanese and Canadian soldier as he was testing his weapon.

The CEFS’ inaction was due in part to the mixed Allied strategy for how to combat the Bolsheviks and the dwindling confidence in the White Russian forces, but also the lack of support from even the governing class at home. After the Armistice was announced, acting Canadian Prime Minister Sir Thomas White begged Borden, who was on his way to the peace talks, to call off the CEFS. In the telegram, White wrote, “All our colleagues are of the opinion that public opinion here will not sustain us in continuing to send troops, many of whom are draftees under the Military Service Act and Order in Council, now that the war is ended.” On December 22, 1918, the Privy Council prevented the CEFS from being deployed up country, where the fighting was happening, due in part to public opinion. Then, in early January, a troopship planned to join the fight was cancelled, and the 85th Field Battery demobilized, due to “increasing popular opposition.”

This increase in anti-war sentiment was not a coincidence. Beyond merely radicalizing the soldiers in Victoria, Canada’s labor movement played a serious role in building the opposition to the war throughout the country. Labor councils in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Winnipeg, as well as labor federations of Alberta and B.C., announced their opposition to the CEFS. They were joined by machinist and railway worker AFL-affiliated union locals, who all worked to bring the public to their side.

On February 13, as pressure on the government continued to mount, Borden wrote to British Prime Minister Lloyd George, telling him the CEFS would return in early spring. Finally, on April 21, just four months after the first set of troops were deployed, departures began. Over the next six weeks, all of the troops would be sent home, on four different voyages. Many of the troops had been further radicalized there, including five of the Russian-born Canadian troops who deserted, and some stashed Bolshevik propaganda in their bags to distribute when they got home. In the end, 19 of the more than 4,000 troops who were sent to Vladivostok did not return. Sixteen of them died from disease, two from accidents on the journeys there and back, and one by suicide.

The CEFS was decried by some politicians back in Canada. In March 1919, before the troops had even come home, Dr. Hermas Deslauriers, a Member of Parliament (MP) for a Montreal riding, told a public meeting that the CEFS should “be considered a crime.” Canada’s trade commissioner to Vladivostok and first ambassador to the Soviet Union, Dana Wilgress, stated that the CEFS was “conceived as part of a concerted plan to overthrow the Communist regime that had seized power in Russia,” and as such, that it was a complete failure. On June 10, 1919, MP Henri Sévérin Béland told the House of Commons the CEFS was “a political error, a military mistake, and a wanton extravagance.” The CEFS has also since been harshly criticized by medical researchers who have labeled it as the “greatest single factor in the diffusion of [influenza],” with troops travelling across Canada infecting towns in their path “like an invading army ravaging a foreign country.”

The treatment of the men who launched the December 21 mutiny is another indicator of the admission of error by the ruling class. Forty of these men were initially arrested, and the ring leaders received sentences ranging from 28 days of field punishment to three years of hard labor, partially to deter other troops from expressing their mounting discontent. Yet in April 1919, as it became abundantly clear the CEFS was an error, all of the men who had been convicted were released on suspended sentences.

Yet while the CEFS was widely decried, and many of those who opposed it excused, the Canadian government did not see fighting communism as a mistake. They erred in execution, but believed the intended goal was noble. Their renewed battle began when the CEFS arrived back in Canada, as Isitt writes it “sharpened the divide between workers, employers, and the state, driving a section of workers into open sympathy with the Russian Bolsheviks.” Upon returning to Canadian shores, 150 Royal Northwest Mounted Police (RNWMP) Mounties were hit with a barrage of bricks and stones from longshoremen. Meanwhile, general strikes had broken out around the country.

A May 1919 anti-strike rally in Winnipeg, linking the general strike with Bolshevism and the “enemy alien.” Photo via Canada’s Visual History

Responding to these events, Borden: doubled the size of the militia meant to control these outbreaks to 10,000 troops; broke a general strike in Winnipeg with the army and RNWMP Mounties, leaving two dead and 50 injured; authorized broader RNWMP actions attempting to squash radicals across the country. Police powers were drastically broadened, dissidents were deported without trials, and the newly formed Royal Canadian Mounted Police quickly opened files on over 4,800 Canadians within 10 years.

The state also moved to erase the CEFS from collective Canadian consciousness. On October 17, 1919, a B.C. Federationist article presciently predicted that this history “never will be told if the ruling class of the Allied nations can prevent it.” World War One is commemorated by the Canadian state each year, yet little attention is ever given to the failed Siberian venture, which only makes up six pages of Canada’s official World War One history. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth portion of a cemetery in Vladivostok languished in squalor for decades, until 1996 when restoration efforts began.

The Canadian and British plot at the Marine Cemetery in Vladivostok. Photo via Benjamin Isitt

This is tragic. Canadians deserve to be well acquainted with the CEFS, as its purpose is emblematic of wars in the following decades: motivated directly or indirectly by profit, for the ruling class at the expense of the poor sent to die, and in opposition to liberation movements across the globe. It is also a reminder that these efforts can be defeated.

Written by Davide Mastracci 

SEE 

 https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=1919

 https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=GENERAL+STRIKE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=BOLSHEVIKS

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/08/canadas-first-internment-camps.html

'Workers Are Angry': Looming US Railroad Strike Puts Pressure on Biden

"If this contract is presented to our members in its current form, it will not pass," said one union spokesperson.

Workers want to be able "to take a sick day or vacation day without the fear of termination."


BNSF workers arrive in Golden, Colorado on August 22, 2018. 

(Photo: Joe Amon/The Denver Post via Getty Images)

KENNY STANCIL

September 12, 2022

As negotiations between rail carriers and unions trying to secure sick days and other basic benefits for tens of thousands of workers in the freight industry have stalled, White House officials are engaged in a last-ditch effort to prevent a nationwide railroad strike that could force much of the country's economy to grind to a halt as soon as the end of this week.

Many workers remain unsatisfied with the compromise proposed last month by President Joe Biden's appointed arbitrators, saying that it ignores their demands for more humane workplace policies and isn't enough to keep them from going on strike.

As the Washington Post reported Monday, citing three unnamed sources familiar with the matter:


Biden administration officials have started preparing for a potential shutdown and have warned that a strike could seriously damage the U.S. economy, while also warning it could hurt Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections, two of the people said. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh was part of meetings led by the White House National Economic Council last week, and President Biden is also personally tracking the matter, the two people said. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is also involved in trying to broker the impasse.

Walsh has postponed travel to Ireland to remain in talks.

"Our members are being terminated for getting sick or for attending routine medical visits as we crawl our way out of a worldwide pandemic."

"The parties continue to negotiate, and last night Secretary Walsh again engaged to push the parties to reach a resolution that averts any shutdown of our rail system," a Labor Department spokesperson said Monday. "All parties need to stay at the table, bargain in good faith to resolve outstanding issues, and come to an agreement."

If labor and management are not able to agree on a new contract by midnight on Friday, workers can strike. An unnamed spokesperson from one of the two rail unions still opposed to the White House proposal told CNBC on Monday that "if this contract is presented to our members in its current form, it will not pass."

"The workers are angry," said the spokesperson. "They want movement on attendance policies and [to] not be afraid to take a sick day or vacation day without the fear of termination. There will be no ratification unless this is addressed."

Should it materialize, the first national rail shutdown since the early 1990s would freeze an estimated 30% of the country's freight and most of its passenger and commuter rail services. The Transportation Department has estimated that the U.S. economy could lose up to $2 billion per day as a result.

"The last thing the [White House wants] right now is a major strike in a key sector like this," said Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "I think Biden is going to be pushing really hard to get a deal. He'll presumably push on the employer side but I'm sure he'll push the union side as well... though there's a question of how hard he'll be willing to push the workers."

Railroads are currently enjoying record profits after decades of deregulation, consolidation, and "just-in-time" operations transformed the industry into what Sarah Miller, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, calls "another monopolized cash cow for Wall Street." Rather than improve pay and job conditions, owners have continued to squeeze workers and jeopardize public safety by cutting staff and increasing hours. Meanwhile, investors have been rewarded with stock buybacks and dividend bumps.



"The railroad has brought its labor woes on itself," one unnamed source with knowledge of the negotiations told CNBC. "They have made steep staffing cuts to appease shareholders and improve their bottom line. Workers are burned out. You have heard from the railroads they are hiring but they are not retaining talent because of the point system where you are on call for 12 hours a day and you have to be an hour or less away from your job. They are being held hostage."

The American Prospect's Ryan Cooper opined on social media that a "situation like this really calls for the government to step in and force management to make concessions."

As Labor Notes reported recently, the Presidential Emergency Board (PEB)—a three-person panel established by Biden earlier this summer in a bid to resolve heated negotiations between rail carriers and union officials—has "recommended 22% raises over the course of the five-year contract (dating back to 2020), which would be the highest wage increases rail unions have seen in decades. But they are offset by increases in healthcare costs—and come in the midst of high inflation."

"The PEB also refused to touch almost any of the unions' demands on work rules and conditions, either denying them outright or suggesting that the unions return to the slow negotiation and arbitration process they have already languished in since November 2019," the outlet noted. "Unions have been demanding a sick leave policy—rail workers have no sick days—and the PEB refused them. The PEB also refused to take a position on the strict attendance policies have infuriated many rail workers."

Since they were first issued on August 16, the PEB's non-binding recommendations have caused a previously united bargaining coalition representing 115,000 workers to splinter, with some rail union leaders seeking to turn the White House's proposal into a deal before a 30-day "cooling off" period expires.

As of Monday, 10 out of 12 unions have reached tentative agreements with railroad operators, up from five last week. But the two largest—the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers–Transportation Division (SMART-TD) and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET)—representing some 57,000 engineers and conductors are still not on board with the PEB's recommendations.

"We must make improvements to the working conditions that have been on the bargaining table since negotiations began," SMART-TD president Jeremy Ferguson and BLET president Dennis Pierce said Sunday in a joint statement.

"Penalizing engineers and conductors for getting sick or going to a doctor's visit with termination must be stopped as part of this contract settlement," said Ferguson and Pierce. "Let us repeat that, our members are being terminated for getting sick or for attending routine medical visits as we crawl our way out of [a] worldwide pandemic."

"No working-class American should be treated with this level of harassment in the workplace for simply becoming ill or going to a routine medical visit," they continued. "Sadly, the Presidential Emergency Board recommendation got it wrong on this issue. As we have said from the day that they were implemented, these policies are destroying the lives of our members, who are the backbone of the railroad industry."

"The railroads are using shippers, consumers, and the supply chain of our nation as pawns in an effort to get our unions to cave into their contract demands."

The freight industry has already begun preparing for a strike. As reported by The Associated Press, railroads announced late Friday that they planned to curtail "shipments of hazardous materials and other chemicals on Monday to ensure carloads of those dangerous products won't be stranded along the tracks if the trains stop moving."

According to Ferguson and Pierce, "This completely unnecessary attack on rail shippers by these highly profitable Class I railroads is no more than corporate extortion."

"Our unions remain at the bargaining table and have given the rail carriers a proposal that we would be willing to submit to our members for ratification, but it is the rail carriers that refuse to reach an acceptable agreement," said the pair. "They cannot legally lock out our members until the end of the cooling-off period. Instead, they are locking out their customers beginning on Monday and further harming the supply chain in an effort to provoke congressional action."

"The railroads are using shippers, consumers, and the supply chain of our nation as pawns in an effort to get our unions to cave into their contract demands," the duo added. "Our unions will not cave into these scare tactics, and Congress must not cave into what can only be described as corporate terrorism."

As Bloomberg reported over the weekend: "Pressure is building from industry groups and Republicans alike for Congress to intervene in the dispute... Lawmakers have the authority to extend the deadline beyond 12:01 am ET on September 16 or impose a contract on the two sides, preventing workers from striking for a better deal."

Lawmakers from both major parties, Jacobin noted recently, have invoked the Railway Labor Act several times to undermine the right to strike, "often ramming settlements down the throats of striking workers."

Ferguson and Pierce pointed out that "self-appointed titans of industry complain constantly about government regulation and interference—except now when it comes to breaking the backs of their employees."

"It's time for the federal government to tell the CEOs who are running the nation's railroads into the ground that enough is enough," they added. "Congress should stay out of the rail dispute and tell the railroads to do what other business leaders do—sit down and bargain a contract that your employees will accept."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

A rail strike could result in a 'damaging' economic shock. What will Biden do?

Ben Werschkul
·Washington Correspondent
Mon, September 12, 2022 

There could be a major blow to the U.S. economy coming down the line: Freight railroads are preparing for possible strikes as a years-long labor dispute sits at an impasse ahead of a key Friday night deadline.

A strike would not only add to the nation's supply chain woes, but throw a monkey wrench into President Biden's plan to tout the nation's economic progress as midterm elections approach.

On one side are freight companies like Union Pacific (UNP), CSX (CSX), and BNSF Railway, owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A). On the other side are labor unions representing around 140,000 workers who are pushing for improvements in wages, working conditions, and time off.

And in the middle sits the Biden Administration. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh is rearranging his schedule to tend to the talks—and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is warning that failure would mean a “damaging supply shock to the economy.”

“The White House is closely monitoring the negotiations,” Yellen said Sunday during an interview on CNN while figures across the administration reportedly engage in a series of emergency meetings to head off the confrontation.

President Biden meanwhile is said to be monitoring the situation closely. He has long positioned himself as defender of unions, but is facing strong incentives this week to avoid a strike at all costs. A spokesperson for the Department of Labor told Yahoo Finance that a “shutdown of our freight rail system is an unacceptable outcome for our economy and the American people, and all parties must work to avoid that.”

President Joe Biden speaks to reporters at Joint Base Andrews

 on Monday before a trip to Boston. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

As of Monday two key holdouts - the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and SMART-TD - didn't sound optimistic. In a joint statement, the unions said they are not close to an agreement while accusing the companies of “what can only be described as corporate terrorism.”

A recent report from the Association of American Railroads found that a stoppage could cost the U.S. economy $2 billion per day and result in widespread supply chain snarls potentially, shutting down 30% of the country’s freight capacity and also halt most passenger and commuter rail services.
The White House’s role

Talks have reached the point where some railroads are now securing shipments of hazardous and sensitive materials to make sure that no such cargo is left on an unattended train on Friday night.

At spokesperson for BNSF Railway told Yahoo Finance that securing the material needs to happen now because "while we have made significant progress with several of the unions, we must have every union under an agreement."

Back in July, Biden appointed a Presidential Emergency Board to “make sure America’s freight rail system continues to run without disruption.” Then, in mid-August the Board released their recommendations outlining ideas that included annual lump-sum payments, healthcare adjustments, and changes to work rules.

In a statement at the time, the Association of American Railroads which represents the industry said the recommendations would "provide a useful basis to reach a resolution.”

A Union Pacific rail car is seen parked at a train yard in Seattle in 2017. 

(REUTERS/Chris Helgren)

But progress has been slow. Because of government rules, even after a mandatory 30-day “cooling off period,” strikes or lockouts are possible. That clock runs out at 12:01 am ET on Friday.

A spokesperson for the Department of Labor told Yahoo Finance that Secretary Walsh - who often touts his time as a union official - is “engaged to push the parties to reach a resolution.” The two holdout unions say that the key remaining issue are policies that, they say, penalize engineers and conductors for getting sick. They want stronger protections than what the Biden administration has proposed saying “sadly, the Presidential Emergency Board recommendation got it wrong on this issue.”

Nine other smaller unions have reportedly accepted tentative deals built about the emergency board recommendations. But the two holdout unions represent approximately half of the unionized workers involved in freight rail making their assent crucial.
Possible intervention from Congress

Policymakers do have some options when it comes to further action if the deadline is breached.

A continued impasse could open the door not only to strike, but also to Congressional intervention. The Congressional Research Service notes that there are a range of options for both executive and legislative action.

A key option would be legislation from Capitol Hill that could prohibit a strike or require the two sides to submit to another emergency board, in effect of delaying a strike. Lawmakers could also simply force all parties to accept a board’s recommendations.

Trains are lined up in a residential neighborhoods in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi on May 27, 2022. (Emily Kask for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

These types of disputes are governed by the Railway Labor Act which deems that direct intervention from Washington is warranted when the dispute threatens substantially to interrupt interstate commerce. But report also notes that the law is vague on exactly how such a threat is determined.

Groups representing interests like agriculture and trucking are already urging Congress to intervene with lawmakers - many of whom are just returning to Washington after the summer recess.

Meanwhile, the two remaining holdout unions remain wary. “Congress," they said Sunday, "should stay out of the rail dispute and tell the railroads to do what other business leaders do — sit down and bargain a contract that your employees will accept.”

Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Dani Romero contributed to this report.

Railroad strike wouldn't be an economic black swan, Goldman Sachs chief economist says


Brian Sozzi
·Anchor, Editor-at-Large
Mon, September 12, 2022

A potential railroad strike in the U.S. shouldn't be viewed as a black swan event, according to Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius, but it could still have an impact on the economy.

"I don't think it's a black swan," Hatzius told Yahoo Finance Live at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia + Technology Conference on Monday (video above). "I think it's an indication, along with other indications of more labor strife and maybe more tensions, that labor still has a very significant amount of market power relative to the last several decades. The labor market is extremely tight. Employers have to concede bigger wage increases and better working conditions, and strikes are sometimes the consequence of that."

More than 90,000 workers at the country's freight railroads, including Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX, and Norfolk Southern, could go on strike should the railroads fail to reach an agreement with unions by Friday, Sept. 16. Workers are demanding higher wages and better overall treatment, especially around scheduling and time off.
A BNSF rail terminal worker monitors the departure of a freight train, 

on June 15, 2021, in Galesburg, Ill. (AP Photo/Shafkat Anowar, File)

If a railroad strike occurs, 30% of the country's freight could come to a screeching halt, the Federal Railroad Administration estimated. That could amount to an economic hit to the tune of $2 billion a day.

Supply chain pressures have begun to ease from the worst of the pandemic, though that could change if there is a stoppage. Any strike could cause inflation — particularly in food prices — to push higher again at a time when households are already struggling to make ends meet.

But Goldman's Hatzius played down the impact of a railroad strike on food prices.

"I don't think it's going to have a major impact on food prices, certainly beyond the very near term," Hatzius said.

BofA upgrades three largest railroad

operators ahead of potential work

stoppage

Dani Romero

·Reporter

Mon, September 12, 2022

Analysts at Bank of America upgraded shares of the three largest publicly-traded railroad operators on Monday, despite the threat of a labor strike that could paralyze the industry later this week.

Ken Hoexter and his team at Bank of America Global Research upgraded shares of Canadian National (CNI), Canadian Pacific (CP), and Union Pacific (UNP) to Buy from Neutral in a note to clients on Monday, citing improving volume and labor trends.

"We recognize we are raising ratings days before Friday's deadline for the rails to agree [to new labor deals]," Hoexter wrote. "We would view any stoppage as a buying opportunity, as we would expect Congress to mandate back to work terms."

Shares of all three companies rose on Monday amid a broader rally for the U.S. equity market.

Hoexter notes rail carload volumes have trended higher of late, rising for 10 straight weeks after having declined for 37 of the prior 43 weeks. Carload volumes are still down 1.4% over last year and off 4% when compared to 2019, but so far in Q3 volume is up 1.4% against last year.

Increased hiring at the railroads has, in part, boosted recent performance, with Hoexter writing: "Rail volumes year-to-date have been constrained by a lack of capacity as shortages in Train, Engine, & Yard (TE&Y) staff limited the carriers' service."

A surge in hiring during the last several months has seen headcount at the Class 1 rails — which include the three companies BofA upgraded, as well as BNSF, Amtrak, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Kansas City Southern (which is being acquired by Canadian Pacific) — rise to nearly 81,000 during the quarter, up 2.9% from last year.

Hiring at railroads has accelerated this year as operators look to clear a backlog caused in part by being short-staffed. (Source: Bank of America Global Research)

More than 90,000 rail workers from 13 unions around the country have threatened to strike Friday if the unions that represent them can't reach an agreement with the National Railway Labor Conference, which represents the rail companies. Leaders of 11 of the 13 unions have reached a tentative deal but two of the biggest unions representing rail workers are still holding out.

A strike could impact one-third of cargo in the United States and would cost the American economy $2 billion a day, according to Association of American Railroads.

"Failure to act could idle more than 7,000 trains daily and trigger retail product shortages, widespread manufacturing shutdowns, job losses and disruptions to hundreds of thousands of passenger rail customers," AAR President and CEO Ian Jefferies wrote in a statement.

The White House said over the weekend it is "closely monitoring the negotiations."

Some railroads have made plans to reduce services in preparation for a potential strike.

A Union Pacific freight train passes the railroad crossing in Nipton, California on Aug. 30, 2019. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Union Pacific Railroad announced late last week the company, "will begin to secure hazardous and other security-sensitive materials on our property for the safety of our customers, employees and communities we serve. In addition, we will embargo new shipments of hazardous commodities until those shipments can safely arrive at their destination. This is a proactive measure we are taking ahead of any potential work stoppages due to an impasse in labor negotiations."

If there is no contract this week, Congress could intervene by imposing a settlement on both sides or order a new cooling-off period.

Ultimately, more hiring and the likely resolution of labor disputes will improve service for the railroads, which is the most important factor, long-term, for these companies' stocks.

"Service performance has been a driver of rail stocks, more so than rising rates given the rails ability to sustain price above inflation," Hoexter wrote.

"While the pull back of fuel and higher labor costs will impact near term results, improvement in service should allow rails to continue relative outperformance. Rails outperformed the S&P 500 in 20 of the past 22 years."

Shares of all three railroads have outperformed the S&P 500 so far this year.