Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) has a piece up today at the American Conservative explaining his position on the freight–rail labor dispute that was finally wrapped up yesterday when President Biden signed the labor agreement the House and Senate had overwhelmingly approved. I wrote an article two days ago explaining why Rubio’s position comes up short.
One of the reasons was Rubio’s misleading claim that the deal Congress ended up approving “does not have the support of the rail workers.” He continues to make that claim in his piece today. “The hardworking rail worker was left out in the cold,” he wrote. The deal was a “decision to side with rail companies over rail workers” and “Democrats voted overwhelmingly to ram the September agreement — an agreement in name only, as it was rejected by four unions, including the largest — down the throats of the workers.”
Rubio does not mention that eight unions voted to ratify the deal. If you add up the votes across all twelve unions, most were in the affirmative. (Additionally, though the ratification elections saw high turnout relative to past contracts, thousands of rail workers did not vote at all, so we don’t know their opinions of the deal one way or the other.) Adopting a deal that two-thirds of the unions ratified and most voting union members approved is hardly ramming it down workers’ throats.
The deal included the largest pay increase in the history of national bargaining, at 24 percent over five years with $1,000 annual bonuses. Since the contract is for 2020 through the end of 2024, workers haven’t gotten a raise in nearly three years and would get previous years’ raises immediately upon ratification (roughly $16,000 on average). The deal preserved the status quo on health benefits, which are classified as Platinum under the Affordable Care Act and are some of the most generous for any workers in the country. Railroads wanted to overhaul the health plan, but the PEB rejected their proposal, and they conceded the issue. The deal would raise freight-rail workers’ average annual total compensation, including benefits, from $126,000 in 2020 to $159,000 in 2024. That’s hardly underwhelming.
Rubio has been harsh on union leadership while claiming to fight for workers. He continued that theme in his essay today, wondering “what in the world the labor union bosses were thinking” and writing, “I am going to do what is right for our country and its workers, even if it means shaving off a fraction of Wall Street’s annual returns.”
But in the end, it was Rubio who voted the way that union leadership wanted. The Senate considered two resolutions from the House. It voted first on a resolution that would add seven paid sick days to the national contract (an issue that is currently negotiated at the local level and varies by employer and position). The leadership of each of the three largest unions — SMART-TD, the BLET, and the BMWED — all urged Congress to pass that resolution, and Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) led the charge for it among senators. It failed, earning only 52 votes where 60 were needed, but Rubio was one of the 52 (and one of only six Republicans) who voted for it.
After that, Rubio voted against the resolution to pass the labor contract without modification to prevent a strike, despite an overwhelming 80 votes in favor of it. He explained in the American Conservative that he would have preferred to “give the unions and the companies more time to negotiate a deal that would be acceptable to everyone, but Democrats rejected that idea as well.”
Not only Democrats. The amendment introduced by Dan Sullivan (R., Alaska) to give parties two more months to negotiate failed 25–70. Plus, neither the railroads nor the unions wanted to return to negotiations, which had already been ongoing for three years. Neither did the Biden administration, which had been acting as a broker between them. Neither did the House, which had already voted to adopt the labor agreement immediately. Aside from Rubio and 24 other senators, no one involved in the negotiation process wanted the negotiations to continue, and the parties had not even spoken to each other since November 22. Adopting Sullivan’s amendment probably would have resulted in Congress finding itself in exactly the same situation two months from now, and rail workers would have had to go another two months without a raise.
Rubio’s claim to fight for workers rings hollow when one considers that far more American workers are dependent on the freight-rail industry for their jobs than work in the freight-rail industry. Had a strike or lockout occurred and lasted more than a few days, hundreds of thousands of American jobs in manufacturing, oil and gas, fuel and petroleum products, chemicals, retail, agriculture, mining, fertilizer, clothing and shoes, trucking, passenger rail, and other smaller freight railroads not covered by this labor contract could have been affected. Those industries, and more, rely on rail service for their business, and without it, workers could be told not to come to work. Not to mention the American workers in all sectors who are already facing higher prices because of inflation and don’t need a rail shutdown to make things even more expensive.
Rubio’s idea of a pro-worker position was to vote with Bernie Sanders against a labor contract that prevented an economy-crippling strike, included the largest wage increase in history and the first raise in three years, preserved extraordinary health benefits, and that was supported by most union members who cast ballots in ratification elections. It’s a good thing most Republicans did the sensible thing and approved the deal instead.