by Jeremy Lott, Contributor |
October 28, 2022
The midterm election season's waning days brought bad news for the freight railroads and President Joe Biden's administration. A second rail union voted to reject the agreement that had been hammered out between the railroads and the 12 unions representing their workers, making an eventual strike more likely.
This bad news from Oct. 26 was tempered, however, by an agreement between the railroads and the latest union to say no to the deal, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. It stipulated that there would be no work stoppage until December at the earliest. The same is likely true for the other holdout unions as well.
The hope of the railroads had been that the first failed vote was essentially a fluke. The vote by members of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division on Oct. 10 had been followed by two more union memberships voting to accept the deal, bringing six of the 12 railroad unions on board.
But half the unions are not the “all aboard” the railroads were hoping for.
"Railroaders do not feel valued,” Tony Cardwell, BMWED union president, told the trade publication Progressive Railroading at the time of the first “no” vote. “They resent the fact that management holds no regard for their quality of life, illustrated by their stubborn reluctance to provide a higher quantity of paid time off, especially for sickness."
The paid time off demand seemed, to many observers, like moving the goalposts, but the railroads tried to persuade workers that this issue had been addressed in negotiations.
Association of American Railroads spokesman Ted Greener pointed the Washington Examiner to a statement from the industry group touting both more money and time off for railroad workers.
According to the new contract, the AAR explained, railroad workers would see a “24 percent wage increase during the five-year period from 2020 through 2024, including an immediate payout on average of $11,000 upon ratification ... $5,000 in performance bonuses [and] total average annual pay” of $110,000. They would also have good healthcare coverage and “employees would receive an additional paid personal leave day per year.”
The rail lobby emphasized that under the new agreements, “Employees will continue to have multiple options for time off and, for those employees who operate trains, the agreements include enhanced abilities to schedule time off and local agreements to be finalized after ratification of the national agreement will further enhance quality of life and the predictability of schedules.”
What the railroads were not willing to do, however, was reopen negotiations with half of the unions left to ratify the new contracts. A second “no” could change the railroads’ willingness to deal, or it could lead to more threats of strike, and a possible intervention by the lame-duck Congress.
In negotiating the new contracts, the railroads and their unions had followed the recommendation of the Biden-appointed Presidential Emergency Board to increase worker pay substantially. Other things were on the table, but compensation was the biggest issue.
The railroads quickly acceded to that demand. It’s possible either that the rank-and-file workers and union negotiators did not see eye to eye on the time-off issue or that unions are currently using the issue to push for greater concessions from the railroads.
Most political rail watchers agree that the Biden administration has managed to dodge at least one bullet with no rail strike before the midterm elections. If so, the administration is dodging a bullet that it fired in the first place.
It is difficult for rail workers to get into a position in which they can legally strike because of the vital nature of their work to America’s supply chains. It can take six months or more to hammer out a new contract, with unions and railroads working things out in front of the National Mediation Board.
Yet at the behest of Biden NMB appointees Linda Puchala and Deirdre Hamilton, the board released the unions and the railroads from “statutory mediation” in June. At that point, negotiations had been ongoing for only two months, which is about as long as it usually takes the two sides to clear their throats.
OMAHA, Neb.—A coalition of 322 business groups from a variety of industries signed off on a letter to President Joe Biden Thursday urging him to make sure the deals he helped broker last month get approved because a railroad strike would have dire consequences for the economy.
All 12 rail unions must approve their agreements to prevent a strike next month and two unions have rejected their deals.
“It is paramount that these contracts now be ratified, as a rail shutdown would have a significant impact on the U.S. economy and lead to further inflationary pressure,” wrote the group, which includes nearly every major trade group and quite a few state business associations.
Biden has been watching the contract dispute closely and appointed a special board of arbitrators this summer to try to help resolve it, but the White House hasn’t said whether he will get personally involved again.
The railroads have offered 24 percent raises and $5,000 in bonuses in the five-year deal, which would be the biggest increases in more than four decades, but the negotiations hinge on quality-of-life concerns. The unions that represent the conductors and engineers who drive the trains want the railroads to ease the punishing schedules that they say keep them on call 24-7, and the other unions want the railroads to add paid sick time.
A strike isn’t imminent because the two unions that voted down their deals agreed to retry negotiations before considering a walkout, but the railroads face a Nov. 19 deadline with one of those unions. Six smaller unions have approved their deals while four others are set to vote over the next month, including the two biggest ones and the engineers and conductors in those two unions have the most quality-of-life concerns.
The head of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division union that rejected its agreement earlier this month said if the railroads won’t consider adding sick time he has no choice but to prepare for a strike next month. Union President Tony Cardwell said railroad executives continue to “bow to Wall Street’s continued desire for more than its fair share” as they report billions in profitRail Strikes.
Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, Kansas City Southern, CSX, and the other railroads want any deal to closely follow the compromises recommended by arbitrators Biden appointed, so they have rebuffed all pleas for paid sick time. The industry also argues that the unions opted to forego paid sick leave over the years in favor of higher wages and strong short-term disability benefits that kick in as soon as four days into an absence and can continue up to a year.
Ian Jefferies, who leads the Association of American Railroads trade group, said Thursday the “BMWED’s recent proposal was not a realistic offer” because the union “simply demanded more—and they did so with full knowledge that the railroads would not agree.”
If both sides can’t agree on a deal, Congress may step in and block a strike. The American Fuel and Petrochemical Makers, which endorsed Thursday’s letter, is already lobbying lawmakers to make sure they’re ready to act because refineries rely on railroads to deliver more than 300,000 barrels of crude oil and other chemicals every day.
“We’re heavily stressing the need to avoid a strike at all costs—not just for our industry. It’s going to affect every industry” said Rob Benedict, vice president of midstream for the AFPM.
By Josh Funk
A reply to BMWED President Tony Cardwell: Who has the right to “sanction” a strike—the bureaucracy or the workers?
Dear Mr. Cardwell:
We are writing to respond to your open letter of October 26 to the BMWED membership, in which you attacked “anonymous” “fringe groups” with “dangerous ideas of unsanctioned work stoppages.” We feel all the more obliged to respond because your letter sums up the bureaucratic arrogance of the officials at all 12 unions, not just at the BMWED.
You did not mention who you were referring to, but it is obvious that the target of the letter is the Railroad Workers Rank-and-File Committee. We have been organizing and campaigning among our coworkers to build democratic structures to give railroaders the means to countermand your endless bureaucratic delays of our right to strike. This includes your extension of the “status quo” until “five days after Congress reconvenes”—approximately November 19—following members’ rejection of your tentative agreement two weeks ago.
First of all, let us say that even though you refuse to identify us, there is nothing “anonymous” about us. We conduct our work publicly, holding well-attended online public meetings, organizing informational pickets and distributing and discussing our statements with our coworkers. This is in naked contrast to you, Mr. Cardwell, and the officials in all 12 unions, who conduct your business outside of the view or control of the rank and file.
In your letter, you declare: “Not only is an unsanctioned work stoppage illegal, but an uncoordinated strike is short-sighted and will not produce the result that at least one anonymous group is claiming.” You continue: “Unions that have engaged in illegal strikes have been hit with catastrophic financial penalties. … BMWED will not support or condone an illegal work stoppage and our bylaws prohibit strike wages or other benefits for an illegal strike.”
We condemn this statement in the strongest possible terms. This is nothing more than a naked attempt to scare our coworkers back into line, that you felt the need to say it indicates that the sentiment for strike action is overwhelming, and that workers are tired of being told what they can and can’t do by unaccountable officials.
Your statement is an open declaration that you and the BMWED leadership are prepared to act as strikebreakers, siding with the companies and the government against us. You threaten legal and financial penalties and the withholding of strike pay for any “unsanctioned” strike—unsanctioned because you, Mr. Cardwell, will refuse to sanction it. You then try to cover your tracks by claiming the union is prepared to sanction “coordinated self-help”—i.e., not necessarily a strike—at some point in the future, but the rest of your letter makes clear you are determined to make sure that this never occurs.
What gives you the right to claim sole authority to “sanction” a strike? Workers have already “sanctioned” it long ago. BMWED workers voted by 99 percent in favor of a strike; in BLET, 99.5 percent; in the IAM, 80 percent. Workers have spoken again and again with one voice that we are prepared to strike for what we need and deserve. But you and the bureaucracy in the other unions have simply ignored this. In the IBEW, there is even evidence to suggest that the contract was “passed” through fraud. It is not up to you and your fellow bureaucrats to override us and tell us what to do.
What you say about a strike being “illegal” is a flat-out lie. For three years, you have had the anti-strike provisions of the Railway Labor Act as a convenient cover for your inaction. But all of that went away on September 16, with the end of the last “cooling-off” period. There are, at present, no legal limits to striking or any other form of “self-help” which workers are under. We repeat, for the benefit of our coworkers: We can now legally strike at any time.
It is true that Congress would try to intervene with anti-strike legislation. But that has not happened yet, and we should be putting ourselves in the strongest possible position to answer this threat. The ideal period to strike is right now, in the final weeks before the midterm elections, when Congress is in recess and the political cost of congressional intervention would be greatest.
By extending the strike deadline to “five days after Congress reconvenes,” you are doing the exact opposite, putting Congress in the strongest possible position to answer our strike threat. All of the other unions are also delaying until after the midterms. The BLET even invited Nancy Pelosi, who already drew up anti-strike legislation in the House, to its national convention in early October. There is no other explanation for this except that you want the threat of Congressional intervention hanging over our heads, to give yourselves ammunition to ram this deal through and frighten workers with the threat of “illegality.”
You make the significant confession in your letter that the extension of the strike deadline is not due to any legal reason at all, but a secret agreement which you worked out with the carriers. This “stipulation,” you write, was a condition of the carriers’ agreeing to the TA which workers voted down. To our knowledge, this is the first time this has ever been admitted publicly. Your announcement of the extension on October 10 declared only that the rejection “results in a ‘status quo’ period” and that “there could be no ‘self help’ until after the 19th,” without explaining why or on whose authority. You wanted to create the impression among workers that it was due to some obscure legal requirement, perhaps under the terms of the RLA.
Mr. Cardwell, no genuine workers’ representative ever would have agreed to this, much less concealed it from us. Little wonder this has dragged on for three years. Why would the carriers ever budge if the other side of the table was prepared to make such concessions? The NCCC [National Carriers’ Conference Committee] said on October 19 that it refuses to consider any changes to sick leave or anything else that deviates from the framework set by the Presidential Emergency Board. And why would they, if they know you will never “sanction” a strike, and you are allowing them and Congress to dictate what workers can and can’t do?
We have to give up all of our demands, while the carriers give up virtually nothing. What “stipulations” did you require from the carriers? Nothing. If the negotiating process were controlled by rank-and-file workers, it would go something like this: “Give us our sick days, COLA, lower the years of service for vacation, leave our health care alone. ‘Stipulate’ to that, and we won’t walk out.”
If your arguments that it is “illegal” for us to strike were true, then that could only mean that America is a dictatorship where workers have no rights, with yourselves acting as policemen. We cannot deny the fact that the government is controlled by the rich and has always sided with them against workers, but we still have First Amendment rights, whether you recognize it or not.
In conclusion, Mr. Cardwell, we inform you that workers’ patience is at an end. We are tired of being bureaucratically denied the rights entitled to us by the Constitution and that every other American enjoys.
You accuse the RWRFC of being a “fringe” group. You are the fringe, Mr. Cardwell, not us. We have voted to strike and to reject your garbage contracts. We, the workers, outnumber you 1,000 to 1. The RWRFC was formed to give voice and organization to railroad workers against the attempts to bureaucratically silence us.
You say in your letter: “Workers must be wary of a group throwing disruption grenades from behind a wall of secrecy.” We agree wholeheartedly! Only that applies to you, not to us.
Mr. Cardwell, on behalf of our 120,000 coworkers, we give you the following instructions: If you are not willing to abide by the will of the membership, then get out of the way.
But if there is one thing your letter did, it makes the following crystal clear: We, the rank and file, must take control of this situation ourselves. Brothers and sisters everywhere, organize your own networks, get your rail yards on the same page, share this letter and prepare to fight.
Sincerely,
The Railroad Workers Rank-and-File Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment