Railroad Union Strike Threat Kneecapped by Biden

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,858
9,388
Looks like Amtrak Joe is about to screw over the unions collective bargaining power.


Statement from President Joe Biden on Averting a Rail Shutdown

I am calling on Congress to pass legislation immediately to adopt the Tentative Agreement between railroad workers and operators – without any modifications or delay – to avert a potentially crippling national rail shutdown.

This agreement was approved by labor and management negotiators in September. On the day that it was announced, labor leaders, business leaders, and elected officials all hailed it as a fair resolution of the dispute between the hard-working men and women of the rail freight unions and the companies in that industry.

The deal provides a historic 24% pay raise for rail workers. It provides improved health care benefits. And it provides the ability of operating craft workers to take unscheduled leave for medical needs.

Since that time, the majority of the unions in the industry have voted to approve the deal.

During the ratification votes, the Secretaries of Labor, Agriculture, and Transportation have been in regular touch with labor leaders and management. They believe that there is no path to resolve the dispute at the bargaining table and have recommended that we seek Congressional action.

Let me be clear: a rail shutdown would devastate our economy. Without freight rail, many U.S. industries would shut down. My economic advisors report that as many as 765,000 Americans – many union workers themselves – could be put out of work in the first two weeks alone. Communities could lose access to chemicals necessary to ensure clean drinking water. Farms and ranches across the country could be unable to feed their livestock.

As a proud pro-labor President, I am reluctant to override the ratification procedures and the views of those who voted against the agreement. But in this case – where 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.

Some in Congress want to modify the deal to either improve it for labor or for management. However well-intentioned, any changes would risk delay and a debilitating shutdown. The agreement was reached in good faith by both sides.

I share workers’ concern about the inability to take leave to recover from illness or care for a sick family member. No one should have to choose between their job and their health – or the health of their children. I have pressed legislation and proposals to advance the cause of paid leave in my two years in office, and will continue to do so. Every other developed country in the world has such protections for its workers.

But at this critical moment for our economy, in the holiday season, we cannot let our strongly held conviction for better outcomes for workers deny workers the benefits of the bargain they reached, and hurl this nation into a devastating rail freight shutdown.

Congress has the power to adopt the agreement and prevent a shutdown. It should set aside politics and partisan division and deliver for the American people. Congress should get this bill to my desk well in advance of December 9th so we can avoid disruption.
 

KCFlyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
10,967
1,390
www.usaviation.com
Looks like Amtrak Joe is about to screw over the unions collective bargaining power.


Statement from President Joe Biden on Averting a Rail Shutdown
I didn't realize that you were such a strong union supporter. Did Reagan screw over air traffic controllers in the 80's?
 

CorvetteMan

Advanced
Jul 7, 2022
140
12
Looks like Amtrak Joe is about to screw over the unions collective bargaining power.


Statement from President Joe Biden on Averting a Rail Shutdown
Do some research. Many many times railroad contracts have been imposed by Congressional action. Hasn’t just been Biden

18 times congress has intervened in the past.

 
Last edited:
OP
eolesen

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,858
9,388
Vette, the difference here is that Biden ran as a 'Friend of Labor' which we all know hasn't actually been the case for the Democrats in a long time.

Yes, other Administrations have followed out the rla to the end including an imposed agreement. But those other Administrations didn't grandstand about their actions.

He and Buttigeig made the mistake of taking a Victory lap before the votes actually came in. They wasted no time taking credit for the tentative agreement.

Turns out that the tentative agreement didn't address what mattered most to the membership.

If you're going to give Biden credit for the tentative agreement, then he also has to take the blame for its failure and the outcome of an imposed contract.

I didn't realize that you were such a strong union supporter. Did Reagan screw over air traffic controllers in the 80's?

You really are a troll sometimes.

I have no problem with unions representing workers interests or collective bargaining. Go back through 20 years of my posts and find otherwise.

What I've questioned is Federal enforcement of the closed shop and compulsory dues under the RLA, the use of union dues to pursue social justice and political activism (eg the NEA and SEIU lobbying for abortion rights and against guns) that don't directly represent ALL members wishes, and individual unions who are more interested in dues collection than they are representing their membership.

As for Reagan and PATCO, that's a big fact check Fail for you.

PATCO had a no strike clause and walked off the job. They had 48 hours to return and didn't. So no, Reagan didn't screw over PATCO... They screwed themselves by violating the no-strike clause.

When you go outside the rulebook, don't combine about being ejected from the game....
 
  • Like
Reactions: delldude

KCFlyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
10,967
1,390
www.usaviation.com
How have Republicans been friendly to labor? If Trump or Desantis was president, what friendly steps would they take to settle this issue? The last labor dispute with the government resulted in a little over 11,000 Air Traffic Controllers being fired. I'm sure they would have warmer fuzzies facing that instead of 'forced' agreement. But I'm curious as hell....I'm sure Republican candidates will play up this lie about being labor friendly, but let's say it pisses off the Railroad workers and the Democrats don't get their vote. What could Republicans do for them?
 

CorvetteMan

Advanced
Jul 7, 2022
140
12
Why should a worker be a freeloader?

In an open shop the union has to represent the non-member who doesn’t pay dues and yet enjoys all the benefits of the contract.

if they don’t want to join the union shouldn’t have to represent them unless they pay for it.
 

delldude

Veteran
Oct 29, 2002
28,763
6,012
Downrange
www.youtube.com
Why should a worker be a freeloader?

In an open shop the union has to represent the non-member who doesn’t pay dues and yet enjoys all the benefits of the contract.

if they don’t want to join the union shouldn’t have to represent them unless they pay for it.
IIRC, they have to represent them in certain aspects of the contract.
 
OP
eolesen

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,858
9,388
Why should a worker be a freeloader?

In an open shop the union has to represent the non-member who doesn’t pay dues and yet enjoys all the benefits of the contract.

if they don’t want to join the union shouldn’t have to represent them unless they pay for it.
It doesn't cost the union any more to represent 50% or 100% of the workers in a benefits/wages negotiation.

In a truly fair world, non members should be able to negotiate on their own with the company for wages. Benefits get trickier but I have no problem with non union members being locked out of a union provided plan that's richer than what the company provides access to.

When I worked at Home Depot 25+ years ago, they asked how much I wanted per hour... I gave them a number with the expectation I'd only be scheduled certain days and hours. That's what I got. Both parties were satisfied with the deal. If they coukd do that as a retailer with 100,000+ employees, anyone can. They saw value in paying grownups with home ownership experience more than they paid high school kids.

As far as grievance or other representation matters, I agree. Non paying members shouldn't get those services.

None of this has anything to do with the topic, however.... funny how that deflection kicked in when the Biden voters started responding...
 
OP
eolesen

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,858
9,388
The last labor dispute with the government resulted in a little over 11,000 Air Traffic Controllers being fired. I'm sure they would have warmer fuzzies facing that instead of 'forced' agreement.
Yeah, proves you don't read what others post.

Their strike was illegal. They walked off the job. There was no framework for an imposed settlement.

But I'm curious as hell....I'm sure Republican candidates will play up this lie about being labor friendly, but let's say it pisses off the Railroad workers and the Democrats don't get their vote. What could Republicans do for them?
GOP doesn't need to pander to the 7%... Union members flourished along with everyone else under Trump because the economy was sound, pensions and 401Ks were growing like crazy, energy was affordable and the streets were safer.
 

Kev3188

Veteran
Oct 5, 2003
18,416
9,456
Right in the middle.
I find it interesting that Nancy Pelosi added an up/down vote calling for an additional 7 paid sick days to be added on to the agreement. Face saving measure, or calculated move to show the left is still labor friendly (as compared to he GOP)? Time'll tell.

I also have to wonder if the rank and file will say "F it" and walk anyway.
 

CorvetteMan

Advanced
Jul 7, 2022
140
12
It doesn't cost the union any more to represent 50% or 100% of the workers in a benefits/wages negotiation.

In a truly fair world, non members should be able to negotiate on their own with the company for wages. Benefits get trickier but I have no problem with non union members being locked out of a union provided plan that's richer than what the company provides access to.

When I worked at Home Depot 25+ years ago, they asked how much I wanted per hour... I gave them a number with the expectation I'd only be scheduled certain days and hours. That's what I got. Both parties were satisfied with the deal. If they coukd do that as a retailer with 100,000+ employees, anyone can. They saw value in paying grownups with home ownership experience more than they paid high school kids.

As far as grievance or other representation matters, I agree. Non paying members shouldn't get those services.

None of this has anything to do with the topic, however.... funny how that deflection kicked in when the Biden voters started responding...
It most certainly costs money to represent some Ken who isn’t paying dues, especially in the grievance procedure and negotiations.

if 10 people pay vs 100 people paying, it cost more per member to represent someone if it’s only 10 Vs 100.
 
OP
eolesen

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,858
9,388
It most certainly costs money to represent some Ken who isn’t paying dues, especially in the grievance procedure and negotiations.
Negotiations will cost the same regardless of the members.

I already said grievances shouldn't be covered for non-members, but even there, the union usually has someone available being paid so it is a sunk cost regardless who is doing the work.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill on this. What % are actually not seeing value and resigning from a dues check-off? Where it's legal in the government sector to resign without agency fee, the drop averaged 5%. Some unions saw huge drops because they offer little value. Others saw gains.



if 10 people pay vs 100 people paying, it cost more per member to represent someone if it’s only 10 Vs 100.
If the union can't attract at least 75% they should be decertified or decline representation like the casino workers did with the TWU. It is after all a business..... at 70% and below, you already meet the threshold to request a desertification vote.
 
Last edited:

WeAAsles

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
22,424
5,313
If the union can't attract at least 75% they should be decertified or decline representation like the casino workers did with the TWU. It is after all a business..... at 70% and below, you already meet the threshold to request a desertification vote.

You again seem to have a hard time understanding what I posted to you. The TWU was NOT decertified, they willingly walked away from that group.

Maybe this will help you understand although because you have a deep hatred for the three letters T.W and U, I’m sure you’ll twist this.

If a business opens up a store in a particular location and after some time they aren’t making money in that neighborhood don’t you think after awhile it’s time to close that store? Doesn’t mean the business isn’t sound just that they made a mistake being in a neighborhood where things didn’t work out.
 

WeAAsles

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
22,424
5,313
3414D518-92EC-4430-AA33-1DFD7DF37A77.jpeg