More workers have gone on strike in the first nine months of 2023 than in all of 2022. Philadelphia alone saw strikes at Temple University, Rutgers University, and the Liberty Coca-Cola plant.
Union posturing is trending, but it comes at a cost. The United Auto Workers strike began in mid-September and has already hit the economy with over $5.5 billion in losses.
Congress must consider these costs as it reviews the Railway Safety Act of 2023, legislation that further regulates the railroad industry and props up railroad union executives in the process.
The bill, introduced following the devastating train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, earlier this year, ostensibly seeks to prevent similar crashes. But as written, the bill does far more to line railroad union executives’ pockets than it does to avoid another toxic railway crash.
The bill requires railroad-certified mechanics, a predominately unionized group, to inspect every rail car in a train carrying hazardous materials. The bill also instructs the U.S. Department of Transportation to ban time limits on inspections, meaning unlimited hours for union inspectors.
Unlimited hours are a big demand of union lobbyists. Without a ceiling on hours, union workers have free range to take as long as they want to inspect—all in the name of safety. Such disincentives will likely result in backed-up trains waiting for their turn for an inspection.
But what are the economic costs of parked trains waiting for a union inspector? It’s hard to quantify, but at least one estimate suggests that delayed trains could cost upwards of $2,800 an hour. These costs include personnel, equipment, inventory devaluation, and late fees.
As costs rise, consumers will ultimately foot the bill in increased energy prices and more expensive consumer goods. Lest we forget, when the railroad unions threatened to strike last year, estimates suggested that it would cost the country $2 billion a day—right as supply chains were starting to return to normal after the pandemic. Stopping the strike took an act of Congress—a rare occurrence nowadays—to avert such a crisis.
Another of the bill’s signature reforms requires large carriers to employ two-person crews. This regulation is redundant and likely would not have prevented the crash in East Palestine; the Norfolk Southern train that derailed had three workers on board at the time. The bill’s sponsors even admit the regulation is perfunctory—so why is it necessary? Railroad unions have long sought a statutory mandate for more union-dues-paying workers—a request that even the Federal Railroad Administration has, thus far, denied.
Indeed, this mandate would preempt investing in new technology and automation. As experts have pointed out, advancements in safety technologies that mitigate the risk of human error are the future of rail safety. However, increased union costs could force the railroads to redirect funding from safety and infrastructure projects to cover the costs of mandated union jobs.
Claims about the Railway Safety Act’s ability to avert environmental damage, especially caused by outlier events like the East Palestine derailment, are spurious and shortsighted.
Increased railway costs boost incentives to ship freight via cheaper, less safe, dirtier alternatives like trucks. Trucks produce far more emissions than trains, so shifting freight to trucks will likely result in more carbon emissions.
Trucks already carry about twice as much hazardous material as trains. On top of that, truck accidents are far more frequent than trains. Hazardous spills on highways have more than doubled in the past decade. Meanwhile, train derailments, especially those involving hazardous materials, are rare.
Two weeks after the Ohio derailment, a truck carrying nitric acid crashed in Arizona, killing the driver, spilling the toxic contents, shutting down a major highway, and forcing nearby residents to evacuate.
Pushing freight away from trains to trucks will likely result in more dangerous accidents like Arizona, not fewer.
The Railway Safety Act is, at best, reactionary and shortsighted, creating unnecessary and costly regulatory burdens that shift the financial burden of increased costs on already-inflation-beleaguered consumers. At worst, the bill is a handout to unions that ignores advancements in inspection technology, which regularly outperform fallible human inspectors.
Don’t let Congress railroad you with false promises of safety.
Nathan Benefield is the Senior Vice President of the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank.
Read Full Article »