ONLINE VERSION	VOLUME 106 - NUMBER 9 - OCTOBER 1997

President's Perspective

One hundred and twenty years ago this year, striking railroad workers--protesting wage cuts--were fired upon by federal troops after a nationwide strike brought rail traffic--the dominant means of commerce--to a halt. Some 30 workers were killed and more than 100 were wounded. This unfortunate and shocking incident was, obviously, a long time ago. It was before workers had won the right to unions and collective bargaining that they have today. But once again rail workers face another intervention by the federal government--a lot more peaceful, but still an unnecessary intrusion. Our brothers and sisters on Amtrak are struggling to win wage increases that simply allow them to keep up with the cost of living--pay the bills and buy food--not take expensive vacations or buy luxuries. This is an argument that resonates with working people, workers who are fighting to stay in the middle class and not slip down a rung or two merely because their employers want to squirrel away more profits in the bank. But it is not an argument that is accepted by big business and their congressional allies. These are the same people who steadfastly opposed an increase in the minimum wage--an increase forced upon them by astute political maneuvering. They complained that the boost--the second half of which, coincidently, went into effect on Labor Day, September 1--would raise prices for consumers, force layoffs and bring the U.S. economy down. The horrible wage that would bring wreak such havoc? $5.15 an hour. No wonder the idea of keeping pace with inflation sends management running to the hills in contract talks. Needless to say, none of these dire predictions came to pass after the first increase in the minimum wage went into effect a year ago this month. Nor would anyone realistically expect an economic plague from the latest 40-cent increase. Instead, the American economy is booming and worker productivity continues to grow. The only thing not improving is workers' paychecks and their strength at the bargaining table. There is absolutely no reason why Amtrak--which enjoys highly productive work rules and a highly productive work force--shouldn't properly and adequately recognize the contributions its workers make. Nor is there any reason why those workers shouldn't be allowed to express their displeasure by taking--lawful--work action. A strike against Amtrak would be an inconvenience--but probably less of a detriment than the Teamsters strike against United Parcel Service was. Yet, there, President Clinton only worked to facilitate a resolution, not to obstruct workers' right to strike. The BMWE, the American public and the Clinton administration allowed UPS workers to have their say then. Why does the administration now, suddenly, see such a threat to allowing maintenance of way workers to have their say now? The old arguments on economics and threat to commerce simply don't wash anymore--not with the variety of transportation alternatives available and the recent example of the UPS strike. We are cooperating, as we must, with the Presidential Emergency Board. But we don't hold out much hope that maintenance of way workers will get what they deserve without taking it. This delay neither dampens our spirit nor weakens our resolve. It is wrong, but it will not stop our determination to win what our members have earned and deserve--and we will do whatever we have to to accomplish that goal.