Senate moves to avert rail strike amid dire warnings so if a union votes down a settlement congress has the power to force it on them anyway?
so in theory a company can lowball in bargaining and get congress to pass their offers to the unions w/o regard to a vote, sounds like backdoor union busting.
so what are the parameters being used to circumvent the collective bargaining process, the public good? who determines what is and is not in the public good.
Congress Moved to Avert a Rail Strike. Here’s How and Why. Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court has ruled that that includes the authority to intervene in railway labor disputes that threaten trade across state lines. The Railway Labor Act, enacted in 1926, allows the president to intervene in disputes that “threaten substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service,” as Mr. Biden did in September. But since that statute was enacted, Congress has had to step in 18 times to avert a work stoppage. That is what lawmakers did this week.
playing devil's advocate, it may get the railworkers back on the job, but how hard and effective do you think they might work knowing they were forced against their wil?
8 of 12 unions approved the plan. 4 were holdouts. I think they pushed it over the line. Did you know they landed a 24% pay raise?
Call in. There’s a point system. If it’s a random Tuesday it’s 2 points. Super Bowl Sunday it’s 20 points or so. Get to 30 points you are suspended from working 10 days. There is an exception for emergencies. I am not that versed on it just repeating what I read.
Not going to bother reading the applicable statute (the Railway Labor Act) in detail but the answer is yes if a strike could adversely affect national security specifically with respect to transportation. By the way the Act despite its name also applies to airlines.
