Congress has no right to block a strike if the company is not bargaining in good faith. There needs to be a clear understanding that the impasse is due to unreasonable negotiation tactics.
So, what is the problem?
There is a lot of newsprint about President Biden asking Congress to intervene in a potential rail strike, but, the politics isn't the problem. What is the problem with the negotiations that Congress has to wade into a legitimate union negotiation.
What is the union saying besides the fact they oppose Congress interfering?
November 29, 2022By Adriana Belmonte
...“Congress (click here) has to act to prevent [a rail strike],” Biden told reporters on Tuesday. “It’s not an easy call, but I think we have to do it. The economy’s at risk.”
According to the Association of American Railroads, roughly one-third of U.S. exports move by rail.
“Let me be clear: A rail shutdown would devastate our economy,” ...
Sick time? The company doesn't want their workers to have sick time? That seems unreasonable.
...The move (click here) was a serious setback for the unions, who say they needed the right to strike in order to get railroad management to negotiate over their major demand to give workers sick days that are not in the current contracts. They say the railroads, many of which reported record profits last year, are enjoying even stronger profits this year and can afford to meet the union’s demands....
What Congress can do besides banning a strike is to allow incremental strikes to emphasize the problem with the negotiations. Incremental strikes would respect both sides without shutting down the country's economy.
Incremental strikes can occur in whatever is workable to maintain function of the rail services, but, letting management know their negotiations are not agreed upon. The issue involves sick time which includes children's needs. There is Family and Medical Leave, but, it isn't really structured for a day or so.
If the rail workers walked off the job for an hour and returned, it would cause delays and inconvenience, but, would not be catastrophic. The public safety has to come first, but, the economy is important to unions, too. If after a brief walk off there were still stalemates over the contract another incremental strike could be carried out and this time perhaps for four hours. The idea is to let the management know the rail services run with good and competent workers.
The only people not really allowed to walk off during incremental strikes are the maintenance crews so the lines are intact to restart. These interruptions are major events so I am sure management would be better listeners if such job actions were to take place.
There are reasons the rail workers are upset about this issue.
...He said this is an issue that the rail unions have been seeking to address for decades, but it has received more attention from membership recently.
“This became a glaring issue during the pandemic when we had members who were forced by their employers, the railroads, to stay home and quarantine without pay,” he said. “But really it comes down to simple things like the flu for a day or two, or a sick child, and the ability to take a day or two paid.”...
That is not an unreasonable request. Paid sick days aren't helpful if they can't be taken when needed. The pandemic was a different issue and the states carried out the Congressional laws that provided unemployment with higher limits. The pandemic put people in touch with these issues and being able to stay home with an ill child or relative that needs the care should not be based in the choice of being home vs. a day without pay.
Management needs to ask themselves why their employees work in the first place. It is usually because they have to support a family.
