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. |