Railroad Strike

    The seven days of sick leave for a railroad employee is a very basic moral question to industry and government.  There is no simple solution, but in this blog, I will pretend there is one.

  Railroads are both a utility and a private industry in America today.  This fact brings up questions in the area of regulation that are seen from both a political point of view and a private industry orientation.  Does the government have any right to intervene in union vs. management negotiations?  Is a railroad a utility or a private industry?  Does a union worker have the right to strike?  Does the ownership of a railroad have the right to determine the terms of employment for its workers?  Your answers to these questions will be right, from your point of view.  My point of view is liberal and independent.

   If a railroad corporation is a member of private industry then the government has little to no excuse for entering into labor vs. management negotiations.  What precedent would be set?  Do you want government to enter into negotiations in the automotive industry or the appliance industry or pharmaceuticals?  Where would this creeping socialism end?  When you authorize a fixed number of days of “sick leave” it becomes a benefit to be used or accumulated by the employee and it moves away from its intended purpose of paying an employee for illness or family emergencies to vacation time or early paid retirement.  That moves it into the area of wage negotiations.  The government has no business in that area.

   The government’s point of view here is that railroads are actually a utility.  A strike not only punishes the railroad corporation, but it punishes the nation.  There is no adequate backup in transportation for the rails.  A rail strike would cripple our economy and our economy controls the quality of life for its people.  The health of the economy is a primary responsibility of our government.  I worked my way through college, in the sixties, for Southern Counties Gas Co., and when I accepted the employment, by a utility, I agreed to give up my right to strike.  The company offered a fair wage and fair benefits for giving up a right to strike.  A utility like gas, electric or water cannot be shut off during labor negotiations.  We had a union, but it was more symbolic than effective.  Any business that supplies a necessity and is a monopoly or near monopoly needs to be considered a utility and governed accordingly.  This means either by utility commission or being nationalized.  Then government has every right to enter into labor negotiations or pricing of the product.  My liberal political point of view leans me in this direction.

   Both of the above arguments are valid.  Which side are you on?

Cheers, Old Buz     12/01/2022

The Solutions:

“There are no perfect solutions to the problems of our imperfect world.”

(But, it is nice to keep searching.) – Old Buz