The story reports the collective cost of a strike, and that Congress and the Administration either intervened or threatened to intervene to prevent a strike, thus sparing us the cost. But, I am curious about some of the underlying details not reported in the story.
What were the bargaining positions of the two sides at the outset, and what was given up by each in order to reach a settlement? What was the specific role of Congress and the Administration in the settlement?
Why does the one article characterize the outcome as the freight railroads having won a new labor agreement? Did one side win and the other side lose?
Newswire:
Deal reached to avert nationwide rail strikePublished: December 2, 2011
| WASHINGTON — Three unions that had been threatening a nationwide rail strike have agreed to a measure that forestalls a nationwide rail strike until at least February, the Chicago Tribune has reported. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and the American Train Dispatchers Association have agreed to a tentative deal, while the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees has agreed to a cooling-off period that will last until Feb. 8. Legislators in both houses of Congress have drawn up bills to block a strike, which they say could damage the economy as pre-holiday consumer spending ramps up. The three brotherhoods are part of a 13-union pact negotiating a national agreement with the National Carriers Conference Committee. All must attain tentative deals, or all 13 unions have the right to strike. |
|---|
So if Congress had passed legislation that would have prevented a strike, the unions had no leverage in the negotiations. Thus, the logical outcome would have been that the railroads won all their positions and the unions lost all of theirs.
So again I ask, what were the bargaining positions of the two sides at the outset, and what was given up by each in order to reach a settlement?
Or am I misunderstanding this whole story in that the only “agreement” reached was to postpone the negotiations until February?
Seems clear enough from the Businessweek article. The Newswire piece is inaccurate.
“Ten unions have tentative deals and two have ratified agreements. The maintenance-employees group said this week it plans to bargain into February. It speaks for 25,100 workers who build and maintain tracks, according to the labor conference.”
So only one union is delaying to February. As far as Congress is concerned, it was Boehner in the House who would have imposed a settlement. The GOP may have had the same bil for the Senate, but the votes would not necessarily be there.
My question was this: “What were the bargaining positions of the two sides at the outset, and what was given up by each in order to reach a settlement?”
The only reference in the Businessweek article relating to my question is this:
“The agreement calls for increases of more than 20 percent over six years.”
What were they asking for, and what were the railroads offering in the beginning of the negotiations?
The articles which I have found don’t relate the history of bargaining.
I was answering your last question: “Or am I misunderstanding this whole story in that the only “agreement” reached was to postpone the negotiations until February?”
I’m a bit surprised a major labor agreement which averted a nationwide strike didn’t get more coverage in the press nor more interest in this rail forum.
Okay, I understand what you were addressing in my prior question. Yes the press coverage seems to be sort like the sound of one hand clapping. There must have been a significant disagreement between what the unions were asking for and what the railroads were offering. Otherwise there would have been no threat of a strike that would have devastating consequences on the country. And if Congress took away the right to strike, that seems like an extreme case of siding with the railroads against the unions.
Shows the Presidential Emergency Board recommendations and submissions from both the carriers and labor.
After the President appoints the board, there is a 60 day cooling off period. During that time the PEB does it’s investigations and issues it’s recommendations. At the end of the 60 day period if an agreement hasn’t been reached, either side may take action. The union(s) may strike or the carriers could lock out labor. Congress can then take action to impose the PEB recommendations. (From some reports I saw, both parties in Congress were ready to take action.) This has happened in the past.
I haven’t heard details of the final contract. According to a story on the main BLET site, the contract is a bit better than what the PEB recommended.
Years ago one old head told me that no matter which party holds the Presidency, the PEBs usually favor the carriers’ positions.
A note about how newsworthy all of this is. The Des Moines paper had the story about a strike being averted on page 9. Very little mention back in October that most of the unions were ready to strike before the PEB was appointed. (The original BLET strike vote passed by 97%.) Maybe it’s because people in general, including reporters, automatically think of Amtrak when they think of railroads. They don’t realize the importance of the freight railroads to the economy. I was really surprised, but I don’t think Trains even mentioned it.
Jeff
It really wasn’t that big a gap at the end. I believe it was only few percentage points on pay, but maybe more significantly, more contribution to health care that was the hang up. I think there were 13 unions involved and four (?) settled before the cooling off period started. The remainder, except BWME, settled after the PEB made it’s recommendation.
It actually went pretty smoothly, compared to the past few go-rounds.
Congress doesn’t have the power to take away the right to strike, they just have the power to legislate an agreement. National rail strikes typically last a couple of days before Congress acts. Strikes on particular railroads can last much longer. FEC in the 1960s and N&W in 1978 come to mind.