House Votes to Stop Rail Strike; Timing of Senate Vote Uncertain

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would impose the contract that eight rail unions approved but four rejected, a contract that protects health insurance benefits and increases pay 24% across four years, with more than half of those pay increases applied retroactively, since the last contract expired in mid-2020.

Although a majority of the unions approved the contract, the largest union did not, and House Transportation Rail Subcommittee Chairman Donald Payne, D-N.J., said the four unions that rejected the deal represent the majority of rail workers.

Cabinet officials helped negotiate the contract earlier in the fall, and Republicans criticized the White House for not being able to close the deal.

Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., ranking member of the railroad subcommittee, said on the floor of the House Nov. 30, "Joe 'lunchbox' [President Joe Biden], he has punted this to us to fix his mistake. The president waded into something he wasn’t able to finish." Biden styles himself as an advocate of the working and middle classes, and so the nickname reflects that.

The House voted 290-137 to avert the strike by making the rail workers accept the contract, with all but eight Democrats voting in favor, and 79 Republicans on board. Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., the top Republican on the Transportation Committee, voted for the resolution.

The House also passed, 221-207, a resolution that would require the freight railroads to offer seven paid sick days. The contract that the two sides agreed to offers three days off for medical appointments, but according to Freight Waves, employees must give 30 days' notice before the appointment, and schedule those appointments Tuesday-Thursday. The inability to take time off for emergencies or illness because of on-call requirements was a top issue for the unions.

The railroad workers are set to go on strike Dec. 9 if Congress doesn't step in; the resolution needs 60 votes in the Senate to pass.

Senators interviewed at the Capitol as the House was voting didn't break down along predictable party lines on how they said they'd vote.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who is one of the most left-leaning senators, said he is cautiously optimistic the Senate will pass legislation that will avert a strike; he also said he would insist the version that adds sick leave days gets a vote.

Most Republicans are not expected to support imposing a contract that adds more sick leave than the companies agreed to.

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said, "I doubt very much it makes sense for us to be trying to rewrite the agreement."

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he's inclined to vote no on imposing any contract, because he doesn't think Congress should get involved.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he would vote no to forcing the unions to accept the negotiated contract, but might vote for a version with more sick leave if union members in his state say they support that approach.

"I don't know why the federal government would come ram this down the throat [of unions that voted no] without them having any further say in it," he said.

Democrats in the House said they hated to override union votes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a "dear colleague" letter that they were doing so with great reluctance. During a floor speech before the vote, she said railroad companies made "obscene profits" for far too long on the backs of workers, slashing jobs and cutting corners. "It's just not right," she said.

But she said without a functioning freight system, water treatment plants wouldn't be able to get the chlorine they need to provide safe drinking water. "We are here to safeguard the financial security of America's families, to protect the American economy as it continues to recover and to avert a devastating nationwide rail shutdown," she said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said he expects 60 votes can be found for imposing the contract that some unions rejected and others accepted. "The question is on the paid family leave," he said, but said it is possible even that could pass the Senate.

He said he thinks there could be a vote Tuesday. "We have to do it soon," and he said the economic damage a strike would cause would convince senators not to delay.

Any one senator can delay votes by not agreeing to expedite time for debate.

The National Retail Federation hailed the House vote, saying: "America’s railroads serve nearly every sector of our economy and provide access to global markets. The freight rail system is a lifeline for many industries, ensuring the transport of not only retail goods, but also essential food and energy supplies.

“... It is imperative that the Senate now acts immediately to approve the measure and send it to President Biden’s desk. Until the Tentative Agreement is in place, U.S. economic security remains in jeopardy.”

Biden also urged the Senate to move this week, not next. "This overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives makes clear that Democrats and Republicans agree that a rail shutdown would be devastating to our economy and families across the country. The Senate must now act urgently. Without the certainty of a final vote to avoid a shutdown this week, railroads will begin to halt the movement of critical materials like chemicals to clean our drinking water as soon as this weekend," the White House said in a statement.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which had noted that Congress has intervened repeatedly in the past to prevent railroad strikes, told senators that it supports a vote to impose the agreed-to contract, and strongly opposes adding seven days of sick leave to the terms.

"A rail strike would cost the American economy $2 billion per day. It would exacerbate rising prices and inflation, prevent the delivery of chemicals necessary for clean water, energy products for heating and manufacturing, and lead to the spoilage of fruits, vegetables, dairy and other agricultural products," the Chamber wrote. "Congresses’ imposition of an additional one-sided benefit would not only raise costs for those who use the rail system and thus American consumers, but it would also increase the risk of future strikes by rewarding the tactics of a minority of hold-out unions."