House Approves Imposing Railroad Labor Deal, Paid Sick Leave Measure - WSJ
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 28 commentsBy: Katy Stech Ferek and Esther Fung (WSJ)
The House approved a measure Wednesday to end a long-running railroad labor dispute while also backing a proposal to impose seven days of paid sick leave, as President Biden urged lawmakers to work quickly to head off a possible strike.
House lawmakers voted 290 to 137 on legislation that would force the adoption of a tentative labor agreement by rail workers, using the power of a 1926 law that allows Congress to intervene in railroad disputes that threaten to disrupt the U.S. economy. On paid leave, lawmakers voted 221-207 to approve the proposal, with Democrats in favor and almost all Republicans opposed.
Both measures now head to the evenly divided Senate , where 60 votes are required to advance most legislation. The timing of votes hasn’t been set in the Senate, where leaders of both parties have backed the measure aimed at ending the strike.
The imposition of the deal would end a labor dispute between Union Pacific Corp., CSX Corp. and other freight railroads and more than 115,000 workers.
Mr. Biden issued a statement after the House votes pressing the Senate to act quickly on the labor deal, warning that a labor agreement needed to be set well before Dec. 9, when a cooling-off period expires and a strike could begin. He warned railroads could begin halting the movement of critical goods and materials.
“Without action this week, disruptions to our auto supply chains, our ability to move food to tables, and our ability to remove hazardous waste from gasoline refineries will begin,” Mr. Biden said.
The White House said Mr. Biden broadly supports providing more sick leave for rail workers, but he opposes measures that could slow down passage of the legislation and risk a strike.
“He does not support any bill or amendment that will delay getting the bill to his desk by this Saturday,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said she reluctantly supported forcing the labor agreement’s adoption, despite such a move undercutting the ability of unions to press for a better deal.
“A shutdown would grind our economy to a halt, and every family would feel the strain,” she said in a speech on the House floor in which she urged members to back both bills.
Some Republicans backed the bill to end the labor standoff, while also criticizing the White House for failing to negotiate a deal that unions and management could support.
“Why is Congress doing this? The reason is…because the president failed, the administration failed. That’s the reason this was brought to Congress,” said Rep. Sam Graves (R., Mo.), the top Republican on the House’s Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He said he plans to support the measure enforcing the labor deal and urged colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Graves, though, opposed the paid-leave proposal, saying that the tentative agreement’s terms, including its wage increases, “are more than fair for railroad workers.”
Several House and Senate Democrats have signaled that they wanted to expand sick-leave benefits as a condition of backing the labor deal.
“We have to recognize that the tentative agreements fall short—well short—of what is necessary for paid leave for rail workers,” said Rep. Rick Larsen (D., Wash.). “Benefits do not replace paid sick leave. Going to work sick to earn your wage increase—who does that? Who requires that? Only the rail industry.”
Any legislation that passes the House will have to be approved by the Senate as well. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) proposed a similar sick-leave measure. A group of about a dozen senators including Mr. Sanders and other members of the Democratic caucus applauded the House vote on sick leave and said the Senate should also vote on the measure.
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh will speak to the Senate Democratic caucus on Thursday, according to a Senate Democratic aide.
The freight railroads and unions representing engineers, conductors, machinists and other workers have been in labor negotiations for more than two years. The White House appointed a mediation panel over the summer. Eight unions ratified a proposed contract that came out of those talks, while four didn’t. Both sides have agreed to a cooling-off period until Dec. 9.
Lawmakers from both parties said they were unhappy about the benefits offered to railroad workers, particularly related to paid sick leave, and said they were hesitant to force them to accept a deal. The five-year agreement, which replaces a contract that lapsed, offers railroad workers a 24% increase in wages from 2020 through 2024. It allows for one additional paid day off, on top of existing vacation and paid time off.
Under the Railway Labor Act , Congress can make both sides accept an agreement that their members have voted down. Lawmakers also can order negotiations to continue and delay the strike deadline for a certain period, or they can send the dispute to outside arbitrators.
Congress can also impose other conditions, such as paid sick leave, using its authority under the Constitution’s commerce clause to regulate commerce between the states, according to Thomas Kohler, a law professor at Boston College Law School.
Rail workers have access to benefits packages that include some form of paid sick leave, according to the Association of American Railroads, but workers say conditions placed on getting additional paid sick days off are too onerous. While the tentative agreement offers workers one additional paid personal day off that could be used as sick leave, workers who maintain tracks for instance, say they only get one additional hour of paid sick time off after 30 hours of work.
Railroad operators argue that the current benefits packages are the result of years of labor talks, and that unions have prioritized other elements such as salary over more paid sick leave.
While unions worried Congress’s intervention could undercut their bargaining position, some labor groups applauded the planned sick leave vote.
“The additional legislation needs to pass so that railroad workers will have basic protections against illness, and protection from punishment from the railroads when workers are most vulnerable,” said Peter Kennedy, executive assistant to the president at the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division, one of the unions whose members rejected the contract.
The Association of American Railroads said the paid sick-leave proposal undermines longstanding bargaining principles and compromises future negotiations. Freight railroads said this could increase costs for them.
“If it’s passed separately, that could add potential cost,” said Jennifer Hamann, chief financial officer at Union Pacific, at an industrials conference. “We’re hopeful that they stick with what the White House and Speaker Pelosi originally came out with,” referring to the proposed contract and additional agreements.
Congress has intervened in railroad labor disputes at least 18 times since the 1960s, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“Government intervention in the private sector, especially when forcing a contract on parties, should always be a last resort,” said Sean Higgins, a research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank. He said the action could open the door for more interventions.
It was never about giving workers more money. It had everything to do with the 2022 problem of having enough workers on the job.
Our fearless leader dumped it on Congress.
Because only Congress can do something besides blow hot air.
In principle I don't agree with government getting into labor disputes in any fashion. I didn't like it when Reagan did it with the Air Traffic Controllers and I don't like it now. That said halting rail service would cripple the economy just as inflation is starting to slow, but rail workers are getting shit on by the companies.
Let me refresh your memory:
"The 1952 steel strike was a strike by the United Steelworkers of America (USWA) against U.S. Steel (USS) and nine other steelmakers. The strike was scheduled to begin on April 9, 1952, but US President Harry Truman nationalized the American steel industry hours before the workers walked out."
Like him or not, Truman had guts.
In principle I don't agree with government getting into labor disputes in any fashion.
I agree. It's all part of the free enterprise system.
I didn't like it when Reagan did it with the Air Traffic Controllers and I don't like it now.
In both cases a strike would have a major impact on the nation.
That said halting rail service would cripple the economy just as inflation is starting to slow, but rail workers are getting shit on by the companies.
Actually, they are getting good money, but with help being so scarce, time off is a problem.
You actually want a Democratic President to seize control of an entire sector of private business? It can't be done. On June 2, 1952, the SCOUTUS ruled that President Truman lacked the authority to seize the steel mills. We are not a socialist nation where the government controls businesses. This action by Congress bumps right up to the edge.
As well as being oncall 24/7 issues. The railroads are not the only industry to do this. Was talking with my ex-wife last night, she had interviewed with Caterpillar for the position of occupational nurse. She turned down the job when she was informed she would be the only nurse on site, would be oncall 24x7 and if she was sick it would be her responsibility to call her supervisor and get said supervisor onsite to cover the need even if said supervisor was elsewhere in the country. No ability to schedule time away without an unreasonable amount of time to insure someone else could be on site and available and no ability to be sick (or take time off to care for a sick child). Needless to say she turned down the position.
This is one area where I can agree with Bernie Sanders. The railroads took in a lot of Covid money and used it to buy back stock and insure a healthy dividend payment. They need to better pay their people for some of these issues.
I don't think it's necessary. I'm merely wanted to point out the range of options a President has. For Reagan it was easy: they were federal workers.
We had too many people leave the workforce.
That was covid's legacy.
Are you saying that you would support Biden nationalizing the railroads Vic? That sounds like socialism to me.
Ya!
That's what it is.
So you're saying you approve.
Got it
No, you don't get it. Truman couldn't nationalize the Steel industry, but in the meantime HE AVERTED A STRIKE!
He averted a strike by breaking the law!
Biden got a lot of young voters out by "breaking the law!"
He has no legal options. All he can do is mediate. This is what averted a strike earlier in the year until the labor process exhausted itself.
Isn't that what's happening now?
You mean like Biden supposedly did just before the election?
No. The House just appoved paid sick leave for rail workers in addition to what they are already getting from management. Eight of the rail unions were already willing to accept what they had been offered. Now the deal goes to the US Senate.
Hmmm... I'm assuming you're talking about the student loan forgiveness? You've pointed out so many times how you disapprove of this, which is still being litigated by the way, but you would advocate something already known to be blatantly lawless? Interesting....
Yup!
And let's not forget DACA!
DACA has been upheld in the courts.
Yes. It has bi-partisan support in the Senate so it's likely to pass. The strike is averted, the railroads are still privately owned, and socialism is averted in a way that isn't blatantly unconstitutional.
It amazes me that you'd resort to advocating socialism just to try to make Biden look bad.
Has it?
No, it isn't. They had one day from the mediation and the additional seven had to be voted on and it was voted on today and turned down by the Senate. Only six republicans voted for it it passed the house with only three Republican votes.
The answer lies in PSR.
It isn't because, as Pelosi says, the democrats don't cntrol 60 votes in the US Senate.
That's too bad.
The time off issue is the biggest issue for the workers, whereas shifts used to run 8 to 10 hours they are now running up to 19 hours.
The RR have been laying off people for the past six years for a total layoff of 45,000 workers. They are now trying to hire again and are running into the old having workers in the right place. There are places where they simply cannot get the required help.
The RR has been losing market share to trucks mainly due to poor service and the banks and shareholders only look at the short-term profit vs long-term and investing in their own business. Record profits have been the norm.
This is very like the hospitals and the impending MN nursing strike. Their biggest issue has been staffing shortages and shift lengths. They voted last night to strike next week. Our largest hospital in Duluth is trying to create a "medical campus" in the city to billions of dollars, but can't pay the nurses enough OR staff enough nurses. They can pay out the nose for traveling nurses to cross the picket lines though.
That seems to be the MO for many hospitals.