(Reuters circulated the following story by John Crawley on May 21.)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Bush administration and Amtrak forged an unusual alliance Friday to oppose a threatened one-day walkout by thousands of union workers at the railroad to draw attention to Amtrak’s funding needs.
Amtrak and Justice Department lawyers told a three-member U.S. appeals court panel that a lower court judge erred in December when he denied Amtrak’s bid to block the walkout by engineers, track workers, mechanics and other employees.
These workers comprise about a third of Amtrak’s unionized work force of 20,000 people.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson said a strike for political reasons would not violate labor law.
Unions threatened to strike last Oct. 3 to protest what they called inadequate congressional funding. Amtrak gets ridership revenue and an annual congressional subsidy.
The unions said a one-day strike would highlight the need for nearly $2 billion in subsidies to avert a possible shutdown if government aid fell far short of what Amtrak requested.
The strike was postponed to let Robertson sort out legal questions, and Congress eventually approved just over $1.2 billion for Amtrak this fiscal year. Amtrak President David Gunn said that was enough to maintain operations.
Unions have not set a new date as Congress again wrestles with subsidies for next year. Amtrak is seeking $1.8 billion while the administration is offering $900 million for fiscal 2005. Gunn says the smaller amount is not sufficient.
The ongoing potential for a strike prompted the appeal.
The Bush administration has clashed with labor, including several airline unions, and is at odds with Amtrak over its future and its funding targets. But the administration and Amtrak are in rare agreement on this point: a strike should not be permitted.
The Railway Labor Act governing contracts for railroad and airline workers is constructed to prevent strikes that would disrupt the flow of commerce.
“They cannot strike to prevent the railroad from shutting down,” said Amtrak lawyer Thomas Reinhert. He suggested the walkout was not a political statement but a maneuver to highlight contract issues on pay, work rules and working conditions and to skirt labor law restrictions.
“The union seems to think it has no recourse other than to strike,” Edward Himmelfarb, a Justice Department attorney, told the appeals court. He said labor can, for instance, press its point directly with Congress or take the case to the media.
But Richard Edelman, representing Amtrak unions, said a strike is an effective way to demonstrate what it would mean to the transportation system if it lost Amtrak for just one day.
“This is not a strike against Amtrak,” Edelman said, stressing that the union’s actions are not related to any complaints over railroad operations or collective bargaining.