Members of a union representing mainly freight transporters narrowly voted down a provisional contract of employment, their union said on Monday.
If the two sides cannot reach a new tentative agreement by early December, railroad workers could go on strike — an outcome that industry estimates could cost the economy more than $2 billion a day.
About 51 percent of voting members of the union’s SMART Transportation Division rejected the agreement. Members of a second major union, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, which primarily represents engineers, voted to approve the agreement, with 53.5 percent in favour.
“SMART-TD members have spoken with their voices, it’s now back to the negotiating table for our operational vessel members,” SMART-TD president Jeremy Ferguson said in a statement. “This can all be resolved through negotiations and without a strike. A settlement would be in the best interests of workers, railroads, shippers and the American people.”
Ian Jefferies, chief executive of the Association of American Railroads, which represents major carriers, said in a statement that “the railroads are poised to make new deals” but that “the time frame is shrinking as deadlines rapidly approach” .
The proposal, which was brokered in September with help from the Biden administration, involved more than 100,000 members of a dozen rail industry unions and would have raised wages by nearly 25 percent in the five years beginning in 2020. when the last contract expired.
But railroad workers have said their biggest concerns are the grueling, unpredictable schedules that take a toll on their personal lives and their health. Many have complained that long hours on the road and long periods of on-call duty make it difficult to see a doctor for an illness or injury, or to attend family milestones such as a child’s birthday.
Rail carriers say workers can generally meet these needs by taking paid holidays. The employees say that in practice their employers limit their possibilities to take paid leave, for example by reducing the windows in which they can take vacation or rejecting a requested personal day.
The preliminary agreement would have allowed workers to take off for routine medical appointments up to three times a year without risking disciplinary action, but many workers said the concession was insufficient and it failed to address the deeper issue at stake. their concerns lay: a business model that strives to minimize labor costs and that results in chronic underemployment.
The Surface Transportation Board, a federal agency that regulates rail freight, has estimated that major freight carriers employed about 30 percent fewer workers this year than they did six years ago.
Before the conductor’s union voted against the agreement, three smaller unions that would be covered by the agreement voted against it. That in itself could have led to an industry-wide strike, as rail workers are unlikely to cross other unions’ picket lines.
Skeptical conductors and engineers have pointed out that the preliminary agreement could have exacerbated staffing problems and made their schedules even less predictable by allowing the airlines to make a staffing change they’ve long sought.
Under the current system, conductors and engineers fall to the bottom of a list of available crews when they complete a journey, then gradually work their way to the top, before being dispatched again.
If a co-worker calls in sick, an employee from a group known as an extra board can be replaced, keeping the other conductors and engineers from moving up the list faster and maintaining some predictability in their schedule.
Workers say cuts to the extra board in recent years have eroded this predictability. The preliminary agreement allowed the carriers to create so-called self-sustaining pools that eliminate the use of replacement workers, although it appeared to give unions a formal say on whether to do so.
“The self-protection pools are really, really big,” said Michael Paul Lindsey, an Idaho-based engineer union member, citing the reasons many workers opposed the deal.
Labor Secretary Martin J. Walsh, who helped broker the deal that unions voted down in September, said in an interview with CNN this month that Congress would have to step in to prevent a strike if the two sides couldn’t work out their differences. to resolve. It was not clear from the interview whether he was pushing for intervention or simply intending to outline possible legal options.
Congressional involvement can take several forms. Congress could extend the so-called cooling-off period during which the two sides negotiate without strike or require the two sides to enter into arbitration.
It could also pass legislation enacting a proposal released over the summer by a presidential emergency council whose furlough arrangements were less generous than the one just voted down, or make the more recent agreement itself mandatory.
Mr Lindsey said Mr Walsh’s statement angered his colleagues, who said they should be allowed to strike if the industry did not make enough concessions. He said many workers suspected the government was more concerned with preventing the labor dispute from boiling over before this month’s midterm elections, rather than assuaging their concerns.
“People feel completely sold out,” Mr Lindsey said, adding: “Now that it’s post-election, there won’t be any accountability.”
