Union Joe

Almost two months ago, Joe Biden signed a bill preventing railroad unions from striking and making the unions sign contracts that they, along with the Biden team and the railroads, negotiated. About a third of the union objected, but were still forced to sign the contract, as per the bill. However, this is contradictory to Biden’s self-portrayed image of his friendship with unions. 

A union is a group of workers that operates as one unit, and when they want, say, better pay, they can all stop working at the same time in order to pressure the company into increasing their salaries. Plus, unions are guaranteed certain freedoms by the government.

So why did Biden sign a bill against the unions?

Now, at first glance, this seems flagrantly unfair. After all, unions have rights. They operate as one, and should be able to come to a consensus before suddenly being forced to sign contracts. (The railroad union is split into 12 chapters; a chapter is a set of workers at a certain location.) If a full third of the union objected, why did anyone have to sign anything?

From the union’s perspective, this situation is quite unfair. But, in order to come to a well-informed opinion, we must step back and take scope of the issue from everyone’s perspective.

If the unions had gone on strike, the already precarious economy would not have been able to ship 30% of goods. The fact is accentuated by the timing; the holiday season is arguably one of the most important times for shipping. Because of all this, a strike would have landed a major blow on Biden’s efforts to make the economy stable. Covid and the war in Ukraine have been putting the economy through trying times; gas prices are sky-high and so is inflation. And while some may blame Biden’s missteps as well for these issues, it is hardly disputable that the strike would have greatly impacted an already unpredictable economy, regardless of where the blame lies. 

Next we must consider the content of the bill and contracts themselves. Railroad workers experience harsh conditions and challenges with very few breaks. In fact, they have no paid sick days, and only three paid days for doctor’s appointments. Workers are complaining that even when they are sick, they must still come to work in order to put food on the table and a roof over themselves and their families. If they don’t come to work, they could be fired and replaced.

All of these concerns are extremely valid, and the Biden administration tried to address these issues. Admittedly, their effort only succeeded to modest degrees, but it was a major step forward nevertheless. For instance, consider the problem of paid sick leave. Because the bill to modify the contract (and thus prevent a strike) had to be partially negotiated in Congress, the clause to include more generous sick leave did not pass the Senate. It was just eight votes shy of the sixty votes necessary. The new contract still provided a 24 percent pay increase over five years. Contrary to many people’s beliefs, Biden has not completely jumped ship on the union workers; he has promised to keep pushing for paid sick leave, even if this contract doesn’t include it. 

Now, there is still some outcry about the fact that Biden has painted himself as a friend to unions.  Why on earth is he supporting a bill that prevents them from striking? The answer is actually quite simple: Biden had to take stock of the entire situation from the point of view of all workers. The strike would’ve cost 750,000 jobs and made it harder for the American workforce to pay for all the basic necessities. In other words, Biden’s decision was not against union workers. By taking swift, albeit controversial action, he was keeping the economy stable for all workers, railroad or not.