Another Debacle for Self-Proclaimed "Pro-Union" President
President Biden, the self-proclaimed "pro-union" president, directly intervened to attack railway workers, acting to try and divide their ranks, block their potential strike action, and impose a contract voted down by the majority of workers. He did so by imposing a tentative agreement back in September, after workers voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action over the summer. The tentative agreement dismissed the main demands for safe working conditions, including humane scheduling, time off, increased staffing and sick days. The agreement, at Biden's urging, was "recommended" by the Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) he had established by executive order in July. He then intervened to ensure it was imposed in September.
Then, as three of the largest of twelve unions voted the tentative agreement down and a majority of all railway workers did so, Biden intervened again as a strike deadline of December 9 drew near. He also did so after a coalition of more than 400 groups representing private interests -- including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and associations of the railroad and agricultural oligopolies -- sent a letter to Congress on November 28 calling for immediate action to prevent a railroad strike. Biden and the monopoly media also engaged in widespread fearmongering, proclaiming that a strike would be a "catastrophe."
The Association of American Railroads (AAR), representing the freight rail carriers, attempted to terrorize the public, claiming a strike could lead to $2 billion a day in lost economic output, poisoned water, food shortages and lost jobs. This then was widely repeated by government and the media. For its part, the Anderson Economic Group estimated a freight rail strike could impact the U.S. economy by about $1 billion in its first week. In this way, the substantive issues of the need to uphold the rights of railway workers was eclipsed with talk about the amount of money the economy would lose in a day or per week.
The essential role railway workers play in the economy is given no importance. On the contrary, their efforts to defend their rights and the public interest are blamed for economic damage, while the refusal of the railway oligopolies to meet the workers' demands is applauded and imposed.
The freight rail industry is structured as a non-competitive oligopoly dominated by seven rail carriers serving their private interests and those of the narrow private interests which own and control the energy, chemical and agricultural sectors whose freight is hauled. They are the ones responsible for endangering the supply chain as the railroads use what is called Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) and their clients operate using "just in time" inventory. In the past few decades, the rail industry has adopted the model at great harm to railway workers and the public at large. It has meant major cuts to jobs and the inhuman scheduling and attendance now being opposed by the workers.
Biden's claim that his actions defend the public across the U.S. ring hollow. "The economic impact of a shutdown would hurt millions of other working people and families -- I believe Congress must use its powers to adopt this deal," he said. He demanded that Congress impose the rejected contract and block any strike action even before it occurred. By November 30, the House passed a joint resolution that imposed the contract despite the broad opposition by railway workers. The vote was 290-137. In a separate bill it called for seven paid sick days. This was done to give an appearance of concern for the workers, while knowing it would not pass in the Senate. A serious effort would have included the sick days in the joint resolution.
On December 1, the Senate passed the same joint resolution as the House, 80-15, meaning it could go directly to Biden to sign. The amendment for the sick days was not brought to the floor for a vote as the 60 votes needed for that in Senate rules was blocked, 52-43. On December 2, President Biden signed the bill imposing a collective agreement rejected by most of the 115,000 freight railway workers and blocking strike action.
Servicing Private Interests
Without Limitations
That Biden was openly serving private interests, not the "millions of other working people and families," is evident in the response of the AAR and the other groups signing the letter praising the law. In an incoherent statement, given that Biden and Congress were intervening on the side of the railroad oligopolies and imposing the contract they demanded, the AAR representative also praised not adding sick days to the agreement.
"Unless Congress wants to become the de facto endgame for future negotiations, any effort to put its thumb on the bargaining scale to artificially advantage either party, or otherwise obstruct a swift resolution, would be wholly irresponsible," Ian Jefferies, head of the AAR, said.
It is well known that the U.S. state has long organized to "put its thumb" on the bargaining scale and to especially block strike action for railway workers and others. The 1926 Railway Labor Act imposes one obstacle after the other to prevent strikes, including delaying action with "cooling off" periods, a Mediation Board, allowing the president to establish a PEB to "recommend" an agreement, and for Congress to legislate workers back to work. As the AAR's Jefferies put it, "The goal of the Railway Labor Act was to reduce the likelihood of a work stoppage." "And it's been remarkably effective in doing that," he added.
The Railway Labor Act was passed following the 1920 nationwide wildcat strike of U.S. rail workers and the 1922 nationwide strike involving 400,000 railway workers. It also now applies to airline workers. It was used by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 to fire more than 11,000 striking air traffic controllers, an indication then of the development of governments of police powers now being consolidated.
It is not uncommon for Congress to legislate workers back to work, especially after they have already gone on strike. In the last two railroad strikes, in 1991 and 1992, then President Bush and Congress forced workers back to work, in 1991 less than 24 hours after the strike began and in 1992 after two days. Biden's actions are significant however because they are crass attempts to make the imposition of contracts a new normal which is an egregious violation of the Constitution's recognition of the right to association, which includes collective bargaining.
In this case, at Biden's insistence, the contract was included right in the legislation, in the name of protecting "the national interest," including "national health and defense." The law states that "the most recent tentative agreements, side letters, and local carrier agreements entered into by the covered parties that have not been ratified" -- thus targeting the resistance -- "shall be binding."
Biden and Congress do not act with such speed and such majority votes when it comes to passing the federal budget, which impacts many millions of working and retired people, their health, housing, education, benefits and more. Society as a whole is impacted as a result, with another government shutdown looming on December 16.
The claim that a railway strike would prevent treatment plants from providing clean water is perceived as hollow indeed when nothing is done to intervene to resolve the actual problems of unsafe drinking water on the ground now, in Jackson, Mississippi, Flint, Michigan and in many other cities. Presumably doing so is not in the "national health interest," not an emergency for the president and Congress to take immediate action. The same can be said for stopping the privatization of water, where people have their water cut off when they cannot pay, such as in Detroit.
The problems of unsafe working conditions, insufficient staffing, brutal and unsustainable schedules, lack of sick days and free health care, plague workers right across the board. The people are of the opinion that a president and federal government have a responsibility to protect rights and provide safe working conditions and condemn them for not doing so. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration supposedly exists for this purpose, but Biden does not require its use, whether for health care matters or workplace safety. This continues to be made clear from government failures concerning COVID.
This article was published in
Volume 52 Number 59 - December
15, 2022
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/Tmld2022/Articles/D520593.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca