The threat of a disastrous rail strike is far from over

The Biden administration breathed a very public sigh of relief last month when the dozen unions representing freight rail workers reached a tentative agreement with the nation’s major railroads, averting a strike that would have not only cost the U.S. economy dearly but potentially cost President Biden hard-won polling gains and the Democrats devastating losses in the midterm elections. 

But their relief was short-lived as the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division and its members voted to reject the proposed deal last week. 

“This agreement is a big win for America,” President Biden said on Sept. 15, when the agreement was reached at the 11th hour. “And this is a great deal for both sides.” 

Now, this win could turn into a big defeat. If this deal falls apart, it would be just such a loss for the country, the administration, Biden, the Democrats and 115,000 rail workers. And that’s a loss that none of these parties can afford to have. 

Right now, in the wake of the tentative settlement and overshadowed by too much other news, very few people, media, or political leaders are paying attention to the potential for a strike.  

They should. 

A rail strike could be devastating, costing an estimated $2 billion per day, disrupting shipments to consumers, industry and agriculture, canceling many Amtrak trains, and tipping an already fragile economy into recession. Trains carry one-third of U.S. exports and 40 percent of America’s long-distance freight tonnage, including 3.2 million carloads of food, grain, fertilizer, and other farm products, 75 percent of new cars and trucks, and millions of UPS packages. 

The tentative agreement was reached after the three-person Presidential Emergency Board (PEB), appointed by President Biden, presented recommendations in August for a new contract to the unions and big rail companies like BNSF, Union Pacific and CSX. And so far, four unions have ratified the deal, with only one rejecting it. The terms seem generous. Under the agreement, wages would increase by 24 percent between 2020 and 2024, bringing average pay to about $110,000 per year, with total compensation — including health care, retirement and other benefits — coming to about $160,000. So-called service recognition bonuses of $1,000 each year and an additional day of personal leave are also part of the package.  

Rail workers who do not support the negotiated deal cite long shifts, on-call scheduling, few paid days off and crew reductions — all understandable complaints. However, rail workers risk losing hard-fought concessions from the railroads if they reject this deal and trust Congress to make the final call.  

If any of the unions reject the deal by mid-November, the unions have agreed to delay any walkout until Dec. 9. But if negotiations between the rail companies and workers break down, Congress could intervene, ordering workers to go back on the job, and leaving these rail workers without key benefits they have gained since the PEB recommendations were released.  

If it all comes to a strike, beyond the economic impact, it could be a political disaster for President Biden, the self-described “most pro-union president” in American history, not to mention an embarrassment for a man who made it a badge of honor to ride the train almost every day he was in the Senate from his home state of Delaware to Washington. If Republicans win control of Congress next month, it would likely mean an imposed settlement in the 118th Congress that would not be as friendly to rail workers.  

Rail workers have legitimate grievances, but the risk of rejecting this deal outweighs the highly uncertain rewards that might result from a strike. The Biden administration already spent precious political capital leaning on freight railroads to make concessions on quality-of-life issues, resulting in industry committing to further address workers’ concerns. Both industry and rail workers need to be willing to compromise. The alternative isn’t pretty.

Andrew L. Yarrow, a former New York Times reporter who teaches at George Mason University, has written extensively on labor and economic issues.