Rail strike would have wide impact on U.S. economy

The last time I checked, Union Pacific and many other logistics providers were raking in big profits. They need to pay and treat their workers better.

Make railway great again!

Pay rail works more!

The UK has so many strikes going on, including the rail network, that it is easier to tell people when something actually functions. Even when the strikes aren't on, the rail network in the UK is running on a much reduced timetable due to a labour shortage.

The US moves more by rail, so there is more impact and they may get higher wages. In the UK the strikes largely affect passengers, so they will just drag on, possibly for years, as the country and economy decays.

Those on low wages deserve increases so they can earn a living wage. In a recession, those on higher wages need to accept reality and understand that we will all have less money. Higher wages feed into price increases, but as other inflationary costs do too, prices will always rise by more than wages in an inflationary spiral.

That's why I used to post on here, saying that Japan should embrace deflation and be grateful for it. The alternative, as people are now discovering, is much worse.

An inflationary spiral may be stopped by a war or a crash. Or both. So, something to look forward to then.

In the UK, both main parties are embracing a higher wage economy as part of a Chinese politics/Soviet economy future. When you get there, there will be a lot missing. Things like coffee shops will no longer be viable, as all the inflationary pressures will feed in and you will have to sell $20 coffees. People won't buy them.

An entire raft of shops, products and other commercial ventures will simply vanish. If they are wise, they will close before the debts start to ramp up. If not, they will go bust. Whatever you enjoy doing, buying or visiting, a fair proportion of it will no longer exist.

The future is going to be wall-to-wall grim, so buckle up.

It amazes me that as large as companies like Union (Useless) Pacific and BNSF are, they don't offer sick leave for their employees. Their engineers and conductors can be worked as many as 30 days consecutively with no days off. You run a train for twelve hours, the maximum allowed by law, and then are taken in a van to a hotel to get your 8 or 10 hours of crew rest. After that you are on a two hour call. Your next train could go anywhere. Rinse, wash, repeat, day after day for weeks on end, and don't you dare get sick! What an awful industry.

The US president consistently presents himself as pro-union, this will give him a chance to demonstrate his commitment. This article reads as, "if you're role is imperative to the economy, you can't strike". Certainly a sympathy administration would not agree.

@OnTheTrail Great comment, but most union bosses today are just a middle man that gets paid good pocket money from these companies to keep the workers in check. Unions are not what they use to be workers pay their union dues only to hear a great speech that was prepared by the company in favor of the company. The union boss will get his money regardless while the workers continue to get blind sided.

The US president consistently presents himself as pro-union, this will give him a chance to demonstrate his commitment. This article reads as, "if you're role is imperative to the economy, you can't strike". Certainly a sympathy administration would not agree.

The US president consistently presents himself as pro-union, this will give him a chance to demonstrate his commitment. This article reads as, "if you're role is imperative to the economy, you can't strike". Certainly a sympathy administration would not agree.

The Transportation Secretary has been leading the negotiations and the US President intervened directly to reach the agreement that most of the unions voted to accept. The President has held the threat of Congress stuffing a contract down their throats if they didn't agree to what the administration negotiated. It appears at least one of the unions involved is going to force Congress' hand. Neither party is going to condone a national railroad strike. Congress could impose the contract negotiated by the the administration or something completely different and possibly less favorable to the railroad workers. If Congress goes that route then the railroads and their unions must legally abide by whatever Congress decides.