rail strike averted

[kaysixteen]

Anyone else mad that Biden and Congress forced the rail unions to accept management contract offer, without giving them some sick leave and a relaxation of the onerous scheduling rules, just as Big Rail posted a $1b profit in the 3d quarter alone?

[dismalist]

Anyone else mad that Biden and Congress forced the rail unions to accept management contract offer, without giving them some sick leave and a relaxation of the onerous scheduling rules, just as Big Rail posted a $1b profit in the 3d quarter alone?

Not at all! I'm glad somebody brought this up.

The difficulty is that American labor law allows more than a single union per company. Because railroads [and airlines] are so significant for everybody, there's a special 1923 law governing them, giving Congress dictatorship rights. Nevertheless, we have had a jousting among unions of who can demand most. It's important to remember that most railroad unions agreed to a specific contract, so it's efficient for somebody to dictate terms to everybody, for that prevents harm to many, many others.

The profits of railroads don't belong to the workers, they belong to somebody else, like the guys who paid for the tracks. Private property rights matter!

I don't think Congress would have acted in the way it did had there not already been agreement by most unions.

I do think we have to recognize that many union members would rather have the extra cash [24%?] than more pleasant working conditions, whatever we might wish for ourselves in that situation.

All this from a bloody big railfan who can look beyond the railroad! :-)

[Anon1787]

Anyone else mad that Biden and Congress forced the rail unions to accept management contract offer, without giving them some sick leave and a relaxation of the onerous scheduling rules, just as Big Rail posted a $1b profit in the 3d quarter alone?

No. The law should have included a repeal of the Jones Act to encourage more competition.

[apl68]

From what I understand, most of the unions involved were already prepared to accept the offers that had been made.  But some unions were trying to hold the nation's economy hostage to exact further concessions.  This made congressional action a regrettable necessity.  I'd rather not have seen Congress do something like this--and it must have killed the souls of the President and all the other Democratic leaders involved to have to do it--but it was hardly a case of union busting.

[fleabite]

Kay, I too am concerned about the decision. The only way that unions can do their duty for their members is to negotiate favorable contracts at times when they have strong bargaining power. This was one of those times. If unions are not allowed to use their power, they will never be able to win important benefits such as sick leave (the issue in contention in this case).

[marshwiggle]

From what I understand, most of the unions involved were already prepared to accept the offers that had been made.  But some unions were trying to hold the nation's economy hostage to exact further concessions.  This made congressional action a regrettable necessity.  I'd rather not have seen Congress do something like this--and it must have killed the souls of the President and all the other Democratic leaders involved to have to do it--but it was hardly a case of union busting.

This is the problem with unions in the public sector, or any other situation where they provide some sort of essential service; i.e. they have a monopoly on something people cannot do without.

In a competitive labour market, a union and management both have a vested interest in coming to an agreement. If CorpA makes widgets, and so do CorpB and CorpC, then if workers go on strike at CorpA, consumers will buy from CorpB or CorpC. Since the company will make no sales, it's in their interest to settle. If the widgets from CorpA become more expensive than from the others, they won't sell and the company will go out of business, so it's in the union's best interest to not be too greedy.

However, when the workers are essentially providing a service that people can't get elsewhere, the union can potentially hold out for the moon. The natural impetus for the sides to agree provided by a competitive market are gone.

[mamselle]

One should note that the rider for the paid leave was immediately voted on, and so had a chance to be passed; the roll-call vote that followed essentially marked those who did not vote for it by name--so everyone "knows who they were."

I agree it is necessary, but Biden's compromise was also necessary in the larger scheme of things...geting things done in a tight session like this on may see more such trade-offs.

M.

[jimbogumbo]

Anyone else mad that Biden and Congress forced the rail unions to accept management contract offer, without giving them some sick leave and a relaxation of the onerous scheduling rules, just as Big Rail posted a $1b profit in the 3d quarter alone?

No. The law should have included a repeal of the Jones Act to encourage more competition.

What on earth does the Jones Act have to do with rail?

[Anon1787]

No. The law should have included a repeal of the Jones Act to encourage more competition.

What on earth does the Jones Act have to do with rail?

It's about creating more alternative methods of transporting goods to reduce our reliance on Big Rail (without costing the government a lot of money).

[jimbogumbo]

I just don't see how competition on the waterways  would really accomplish that. I always thought of Jones as pertaining more to transoceanic traffic. Am I wrong that water transport capacity is really small compared with trucking, rail  and and air freight?

[kaysixteen]

Random responses:

1) The Jones Act is bad and should be repealed, but it has nothing to do with railroads or their union contracts.  Really, it doesn't.

2) Biden not doing what he did would have had no impact on the railroads' 'property rights', as they have no such right to force employee unions to accept any contract offers.   Whose rights were, on the other hand, infringed upon?-- Answer, the right of free American citizens, assembled in a union, to negotiate with their *private sector* corporate employers, a contract to their liking.  I get the potentially disastrous effects to the national economy that a rail strike, but if it really had to be the case that the contract needed to be forced upon the union, the union needs to have been given at least some of what it wanted in return for their having these rights stripped away, similar to the way 'natural monopolies', such as utilities and cable tv companies, are made to accept limitations on their businesses, in exchange for being given access to such monopolies.   Otherwise, well, management need only offer whatever it wants, in full knowledge of the fact that the government will force the union to accept it.  Heck, even Rand Paul bucked his own party to vote 'present' on this bill last week, since he couldn't well have voted for it, and maintain his 'libertarian' cred.  Interestingly, the last time a US president asked congress to force an end to a potential rail strike, in 1992, an enthusiastic 'no' vote was made by none other than US Sen. Jos. R. Biden, Jr.,  D-Del.

[Anon1787]

I just don't see how competition on the waterways  would really accomplish that. I always thought of Jones as pertaining more to transoceanic traffic. Am I wrong that water transport capacity is really small compared with trucking, rail  and and air freight?

It is small now, but could be significantly larger:

"According to numerous reports, the United States stands on the precipice of a railroad strike that could throw the country's transportation system into disarray. With rail accounting for 27 percent of domestic freight transport, Biden Administration officials are assessing the potential for other modes to fill the gap if the country's rail network goes offline. Among the alternatives being examined is ocean shipping.

Good luck with that.

Given the country's maritime disposition—nearly 40 percent of Americans live in coastal counties (including the Great Lakes), and the United States is home to more than 350 commercial ports—ocean shipping certainly should be a logical alternative to freight rail, but today the Jones Act has helped to ensure that just aren't many ships to be had..." https://www.cato.org/blog/jones-act-leaves-us-short-shipping-rail-strike-looms

[Mobius]

Bolded part isn't quite, true, though, with rail, right? Complicated mess of government subsidies, easements, and bailouts since rail came to America.

Anyone else mad that Biden and Congress forced the rail unions to accept management contract offer, without giving them some sick leave and a relaxation of the onerous scheduling rules, just as Big Rail posted a $1b profit in the 3d quarter alone?

Not at all! I'm glad somebody brought this up.

The difficulty is that American labor law allows more than a single union per company. Because railroads [and airlines] are so significant for everybody, there's a special 1923 law governing them, giving Congress dictatorship rights. Nevertheless, we have had a jousting among unions of who can demand most. It's important to remember that most railroad unions agreed to a specific contract, so it's efficient for somebody to dictate terms to everybody, for that prevents harm to many, many others.

The profits of railroads don't belong to the workers, they belong to somebody else, like the guys who paid for the tracks. Private property rights matter!

I don't think Congress would have acted in the way it did had there not already been agreement by most unions.

I do think we have to recognize that many union members would rather have the extra cash [24%?] than more pleasant working conditions, whatever we might wish for ourselves in that situation.

All this from a bloody big railfan who can look beyond the railroad! :-)

[dismalist]

Bolded part isn't quite, true, though, with rail, right? Complicated mess of government subsidies, easements, and bailouts since rail came to America.

Anyone else mad that Biden and Congress forced the rail unions to accept management contract offer, without giving them some sick leave and a relaxation of the onerous scheduling rules, just as Big Rail posted a $1b profit in the 3d quarter alone?

Not at all! I'm glad somebody brought this up.

The difficulty is that American labor law allows more than a single union per company. Because railroads [and airlines] are so significant for everybody, there's a special 1923 law governing them, giving Congress dictatorship rights. Nevertheless, we have had a jousting among unions of who can demand most. It's important to remember that most railroad unions agreed to a specific contract, so it's efficient for somebody to dictate terms to everybody, for that prevents harm to many, many others.

The profits of railroads don't belong to the workers, they belong to somebody else, like the guys who paid for the tracks. Private property rights matter!

I don't think Congress would have acted in the way it did had there not already been agreement by most unions.

I do think we have to recognize that many union members would rather have the extra cash [24%?] than more pleasant working conditions, whatever we might wish for ourselves in that situation.

All this from a bloody big railfan who can look beyond the railroad! :-)

Actually, no. Between the 1920's and 1980 railroads were regulated to death. The 1980 Staggers Act freed railroads in large measure. That's when the six or so big freight railroads emerged. They are not subsidized. They're not allowed to get in each other's way. :-)  They own the track. The current wage negotiations are about those railroads.

What is subsidized is passenger traffic through AMTRAK and commuter rail. These pay the freight railroads for the use of track.

[kaysixteen]

Another key point to recall is that the railroads initially built their enormous wealth throughout much of the country, by literally being given land on which to build their tracks.