September, 14 2022, 05:49pm EDT
Prepared Remarks: Sanders Objects to Republican Resolution Aimed at Harming Rail Workers' Fight for Sick Days and Better Working Conditions
Sanders: "What we should be doing is telling the CEOs in the rail industry: Treat your workers with dignity and respect, not contempt."
WASHINGTON
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, objected to the motion for unanimous consent on the Republican Burr-Wicker resolution aimed at harming rail workers in their fight for sick days and better working conditions.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be viewed here:
M. President: Reserving the right to object, and I will object. But before I do let me say a few words not only about the negotiations between railroad workers and management but also to briefly put this crisis into the broader context of what's now going on in this country.
Today we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in the history of our country. People on top are doing phenomenally well while working people are struggling to keep their heads above water.
During the pandemic, while essential workers like those employed at the railroads put their lives on the line and sometimes died doing their jobs, the billionaire class saw a $2 trillion increase in their wealth. Workers died by the thousands while the very rich became much richer. Further, as healthcare costs soar, we have over 70 million people who are uninsured or underinsured. In addition, disgracefully, we remain the only major country on earth not to guarantee paid family and medical leave.
Now within that broad context let's take a look at why there is an impasse in the current negotiations.
M. President: As I understand it, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh is currently meeting with the rail unions and management. I wish them well and hope those meetings lead to an agreement that is fair and that is just.
But let's make no mistake about what's happening in the rail industry right now. And that is that the industry has seen huge profits in recent years and last year alone made a record-breaking $20 billion in profit. And let me also mention that the CEOs of many of these railroad companies are enjoying huge compensation packages.
For example, last year, the CEO of CSX made over $20 million in total compensation, while the CEOs of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern made over $14 million each in total compensation. In other words, within the rail industry corporate profits are soaring and the CEOs are making incredibly large compensation packages.
I would also add that the parent company of BNSF, one of the largest freight rail companies in America, is Berkshire Hathaway owned by Warren Buffett.
Mr. Buffett is the fourth wealthiest man in America worth nearly $100 billion. During the pandemic, as rail workers risked their lives to keep the economy going, Mr. Buffett became $33 billion richer.
But M. President: In the midst of all of those profit increases for the industry, huge compensation packages for their CEOs and increased wealth for their very rich owners, what's going on for the workers?
The key issue in the current negotiations are not about salaries. They are about the working conditions in the industry which are absolutely unacceptable and almost beyond belief.
Right now, if you work in the freight rail industry - one of the most grueling and dangerous jobs in America - you are entitled to a grand total of zero sick days. Let me repeat that. You are entitled to a grand total of zero sick days.
What that means is that if you get sick, if your child gets sick, if your spouse gets sick and you need to take time off of work not only will you not get paid, you actually could get fired. And that is precisely what is happening today in the rail industry. How absurd is that?
M. President: Let me remind you that hundreds of Americans are still dying every day from COVID and tens of thousands are being hospitalized as a result of this deadly virus.
What the freight rail industry is saying to its workers is this: It doesn't matter if you have COVID. It doesn't matter if you are lying in a hospital bed because of a medical emergency. It doesn't matter if your wife has just given birth. It just doesn't matter. If you do not come into work, no matter what the reason, we have the right to fire you. Really? Do these conditions really exist in America in the year 2022?
M. President: I wonder if the CEO of the railroad or other top executives at the railroad get fired when they get sick or have a medical emergency in their families? I doubt that very much.
Further, I should add, that quite sensibly the federal government guarantees 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to its workers. So if you are an employee at the Department of Transportation in the United States, sitting behind a desk, you are appropriately guaranteed 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. But if you are engineer running a train with tons of freight behind you, you get zero sick leave. That may make sense to somebody, it doesn't make sense to me.
As a result of this reactionary policy of denying workers sick time, rail conductors, engineers and other rail employees are coming into work sick and exhausted - which is a danger not only to themselves but to their co-workers and everyone else who is around them.
M. President: As part of the contract negotiations, the rail workers are asking for 15 paid sick days. That is not a radical idea. We are the only major country on earth that does not guarantee paid sick days. In Germany, workers are entitled to 84 weeks of paid sick leave at 70 percent of their salary. In Norway, workers are entitled to one year of paid sick leave at 100 percent of their salary. In the UK, workers are entitled to up to 28 weeks of paid sick leave. The rail workers in the United States aren't asking for a year of paid sick leave. They're not asking for six months of paid sick leave. They are asking for 15 days. 15 days.
Now, the rail industry has said that they can't afford to do that. They say it would cost too much money to provide their workers any paid sick days.
Let's see. They made over $20 billion in profits last year. They provide their CEOs with huge compensation packages. And here's something else that everyone should know. Last year, the industry spent over $18 billion not to improve rail safety, not to address the supply chain crisis in America, but to buy back its own stock and hand out huge dividends to its wealthy stockholders. In fact, since 2010, the rail industry has spent over $183 billion on stock buybacks and dividends.
So here's where we are, M. President. It turns out that guaranteeing 15 paid sick days to rail workers would cost the industry a grand total of $688 million a year - less than 3.5 percent of its annual profits.
M. President: If four major rail carriers can afford to spend over $18 billion a year on stock buybacks and dividends, please do not tell me they cannot afford to guarantee 15 paid sick days to its workers and allow them to have a reasonable quality of life.
If the Burr-Wicker resolution passed, rail workers would be entitled to zero paid sick days and zero unpaid sick days. That is clearly unacceptable.
But M. President, the outrage over the lack of paid sick leave is not the only issue being negotiated.
The rail workers of this country are sick and tired of unreliable scheduling which is having an horrendous impact on their personal and family lives.
In America today, rail workers are on call for up to 14 consecutive days, 12 hours a day.
In fact, it is not uncommon for many rail workers to be on-call virtually 24 hours a day with a requirement to report to work within 90 minutes for shifts that can last nearly 80 hours.
My office has heard from rail workers who received calls from management at two in the morning requiring them to show up for work at 4AM. M. President: Again, that is not only unacceptable that is dangerous and it has led to a substantial increase in the rate of injuries in the freight rail industry.
If the Burr-Wicker resolution were to pass, these unfair and unsafe working conditions would be allowed to continue - threatening the safety not only of the workers but of passengers as well.
Finally, M. President, the Burr-Wicker resolution could allow the freight rail industry to substantially increase the cost workers would have to pay for healthcare.
M. President: Let's be clear. We are talking about an industry that not only made $20 billion in profits last year and spent over $18 billion on stock buybacks and dividends.
We are talking about an industry that has slashed its workforce by nearly 30 percent over the last six years - leaving its remaining workforce woefully understaffed and overworked.
We are talking about an industry that has seen its profit margins nearly triple over the past 20 years.
M. President: Today, what Congress should be doing is not passing the Burr-Wicker resolution and forcing railroad workers back to work under horrendous working conditions. What we should be doing is telling the CEOs in the rail industry:
Treat your workers with dignity and respect, not contempt.
Do not fire workers for "the crime" of going to a doctor when they get sick.
Make sure that your workers have 15 paid sick days and adequate time off to rest and spend time with their families.
At a time when you're making record breaking profits do not increase the cost of healthcare for your employees.
The CEOs in the freight rail industry need to understand that they cannot have it all.
The railroad industry must agree to a contract that is fair and that is just.
And if they are not prepared to do that, it is time for Congress to stand on the side of workers for a change.
Rail workers have a right to strike for reliable schedules.
Rail workers have a right to strike for paid sick days.
Rail workers have a right to strike for safe working conditions.
Rail workers have a right to strike for decent benefits.
The Burr-Wicker resolution would take these fundamental rights away from workers. We cannot allow that to happen.
Therefore, M. President, I object.
LATEST NEWS
Fury as South Korea's Conservative Party Thwarts Impeachment Vote
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 07, 2024
A bid to impeach South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived imposition of martial law failed Saturday after lawmakers from his conservative party left the National Assembly chamber and refused to take part in the vote.
Supporters of impeachment needed at least eight members of Yoon's People Power Party (PPP) to support removing the president, who apologized to the nation in a one-minute-long address Saturday morning but refused to step down after he briefly instituted martial law in a stated attempt to "eradicate shameful pro-North Korea" forces, plunging the country into a political crisis.
Yoon's gambit sparked immediate and sustained protests and was widely seen as a coup attempt.
Saturday's impeachment effort drew a massive number of people into the streets outside the National Assembly building despite below-freezing temperatures, and demonstrators voiced outrage when they learned that Yoon's allies thwarted the initial attempt to oust him. Just two PPP members returned to the National Assembly chamber to cast a ballot Saturday.
"I am so angry. I can't find the words to describe my frustration," 23-year-old Kim Hyo-lim toldThe New York Times. "I am devastated, but I feel honored to be a part of this historic moment for my country."
Another demonstrator said they intend to protest "every weekend" until Yoon is removed.
(Photo: Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Organizers said roughly a million people took part in demonstrations Saturday in support of Yoon's impeachment. Many also demanded his arrest.
The Financial Timesreported following the failed impeachment effort that Yoon—whose term expires in 2027—and PPP leaders "appeared to have reached a deal whereby the president would hand over political direction of the country to his party and agree to stand down at a time of the party's choosing, in return for support in the impeachment vote."
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has over 1.1 million members, called PPP lawmakers who boycotted Saturday's vote "accomplices in treason."
"The People Power Party has turned its back on the people's wishes, effectively admitting their complicity," KCTU said in a statement posted to social media. "More than one million citizens gathered in front of the National Assembly. They came together because they cannot forgive a president who declared martial law and aimed weapons at his own people. Despite the cold winter weather, they took to the streets hoping desperately for the impeachment to pass."
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," KCTU added. "They saw clearly who stands with those who would harm our democracy. The People Power Party must be dissolved. Those who protect Yoon must face consequences. It would be a grave mistake to think this can be resolved through compromise or constitutional amendments for an early resignation. Through the people's judgment, Yoon, his associates, and the People Power Party will face severe consequences."
Opposition lawmakers are expected to file a fresh impeachment motion next week as pressure mounts for Yoon to step down.
Additionally, as The Washington Postreported, "the national police have opened an investigation into Yoon on treason accusations by opposition parties and activists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrat Issues Warning Over Trump Plot to 'Steal' From Federal Programs
"The Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Dec 07, 2024
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee warned Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to "steal from the programs and services that affect middle-class, working, and vulnerable families" by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that Trump's strategy, known as "impoundment," is "uninformed and unconstitutional," adding that "the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Government Accountability Office are all in agreement—the Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress."
"It is the sworn duty of the president of the United States to faithfully execute the law," DeLauro added, "and appropriations laws are no exception."
In a new fact sheet, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee note that "the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and nowhere does it give the president any unilateral power to either temporarily or permanently impound—steal, withhold, or prevent from being spent—funds appropriated by Congress."
"The Framers were right to give Congress the power of the purse," the fact sheet states. "If the president had the unilateral power to decline to spend resources as directed by Congress, then those who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Medical Care, and other federal spending programs would be subject to the whims of the executive branch. The American people would be unable to depend on promises made by Congress in appropriations laws."
Trump has explicitly vowed to use impoundment to "squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," a plan endorsed by the billionaire pair tapped by the president-elect to run a new commission tasked with identifying spending and regulations to slash.
"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump declared in a campaign ad.
"They have no authority. Does anybody get that?"
Following Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss their plans for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) with GOP lawmakers, The Washington Postreported that Republicans are "keen on expanding the president's power to impound spending—or refuse to spend money Congress authorizes."
"Musk and Ramaswamy said they were eager to test the constitutional limits of Trump's ability to unilaterally control spending decisions," the Post reported, citing two unnamed lawmakers. "Republicans largely left the more than two-hour meeting giddy."
Analysts argue Trump's plan to withhold federal spending would run afoul of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The law, as Propublica's Molly Redden explained, "forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements."
"A similar power grab led to his first impeachment," Redden wrote. "During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act."
Democrats on the House Budget Committee recently pointed out that "although decided after the ICA passed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that even without the ICA, the president does not have unilateral authority to impound funds."
That hasn't stopped Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy from exploring ways to cut or block spending without congressional approval.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published last month, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that "even without relying on" the view that the ICA is unconstitutional, "DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, and other spending would also be vulnerable under such an approach.
"They want [to cut] $2 trillion," DeLauro told reporters Thursday. "Think about the discretionary budget. It's $1.7 trillion. Where are they going for the money? Where are they going?"
"They have no authority," she added. "Does anybody get that?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dirty and Dumb!' Trump May Cancel Contracts to Electrify USPS Fleet
"It's stuff like this that will cost us manufacturing jobs/opportunities," warned one critic.
Dec 06, 2024
As part of President-elect Donald Trump's mission to roll back the Biden administration's climate policies, the Republican may cancel contracts to electrify the U.S. Postal Service's fleet, Reutersrevealed Friday, citing unnamed sources familiar with transition team discussions.
"The sources told Reuters that Trump's transition team is now reviewing how it can unwind the Postal Service's multibillion-dollar contracts, including with Oshkosh and Ford for tens of thousands of battery-driven delivery trucks and charging stations," according to the news agency.
The USPS in December 2022 announced a five-year $9.6 billion investment that involved electrifying 75% of its next-generation delivery vehicles and installing modern charging infrastructure. That came just months after President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which included $3 billion in funding for the endeavor.
Ford did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment on Friday, while Oshkosh said that it "is fully committed to our strong partnership with the USPS and looks forward to continuing to provide our postal carriers with reliable, safe, and sustainable modern delivery vehicles, even as USPS' needs continue to evolve."
The USPS also did not respond to requests for comment and Trump transition team spokesperson Karoline Leavitt declined to address his Postal Service plans, only saying that "President Trump will protect the freedom of Americans to drive whichever vehicle they choose, enhance his tough tariffs on Chinese-imported cars, and save the U.S. auto industry for generations to come. No policy should be deemed official unless it comes directly from President Trump."
During the campaign, Trump pledged to roll back Biden's climate policies if Big Oil poured $1 billion into getting him elected. He also attacked the Democrat's efforts to promote a shift to electric vehicles (EVs). Transportation accounts for the largest portion of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and the United States is the world's top historic emitter.
Even under Biden, U.S. plans to limit planet-heating pollution did not align with the country's contributions to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency—but climate scientists and advocates widely backed his and later Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign leading up to last month's election, recognizing the threat posed by Trump.
John Hanger, a Democrat who previously held various envirnomental and energy positions in Pennsylvania's government, responded to the Reuters reporting on social media: "Ugh! Canceling contracts to electrify transportation of USPS would be dirty and dumb!"
Meanwhile, Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said that "it's stuff like this that will cost us manufacturing jobs/opportunities."
Some critics also speculated whether such contracts may be redone to benefit Tesla. The company's CEO is Elon Musk, who is the richest man in the world, dumped around $270 million into super political action committees backing Trump's reelection bid, and is set to co-lead his forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.
Last month, Reuters reported on the Trump transition team's plans to kill Biden's fuel efficiency standards and a $7,500 consumer tax credit for EV purchases, which Musk was asked about while he and Ramaswamy were on Capitol Hill Thursday to meet with Republican lawmakers.
"I think we should get rid of all credits," Musk told reporters—despite his own company's reliance on Biden's EV policies.
Responding to Musk's comment in a Friday statement, Will Anderson, EV policy advocate with Public Citizen's Climate Program, said that "as someone who's asking to work for the American people through his so-called DOGE, Musk should not perpetuate crony capitalism that only benefits himself and others with access to Trump."
"If we want the American automobile industry to stay competitive in a global market," he added, "then not only should Musk recognize the benefit of the EV tax credit for American-made vehicles, but he should also recognize the negative impact billions of dollars in continuing oil and gas subsidies will have on a society that needs to transition to a zero-emission and clean-energy future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular