ReportWire

Tag: Public Unions

  • Why can’t New York get rid of 2-person subway crews?

    [ad_1]

    Late last year, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill that would have required two-person operating crews on New York City subways, despite heavy pressure from transit unions. While the veto looked like a win for fiscal sanity, two-person train crews—and needlessly expensive transit systems—are likely here for the foreseeable future.

    The bill, which would have mandated both a driver and a conductor on each train, cleared the state Legislature somewhat unexpectedly last year. It was pushed by the Transport Workers Union (TWU) to permanently codify more union jobs into state law.

    Most NYC subway lines already operate with two-person crews under the current labor contract between the TWU and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Hochul’s veto stopped two-person crews from spreading systemwide, and it theoretically left the door open for the topic to be renegotiated in future labor talks, rather than being cemented into state law.

    NYC’s two-person system is a global outlier. An analysis from New York University’s Marron Institute of Urban Management found that just 6 percent of the world’s commuter rail lines use two-person crews, with most operating safely with a single driver for decades.

    Although unions insist two-person crews are essential for safety, evidence suggests otherwise. The Manhattan Institute’s Adam Lehodey has documented that London, which uses one-person crews, operates one of the safest rail networks in the world. Research from the Association of American Railroads, which compared one-person trains in Europe to America’s multiperson freight train system, similarly found no evidence of a safety impact.

    But, as TWU President John Samuelsen told The New York Times, “It doesn’t really matter to us what the data shows,” adding that a driver and a conductor make trips “visibly safer.”

    The fight over crew size extends beyond New York. Under President Joe Biden, the Federal Railroad Administration enacted a rule mandating two-person crews for freight trains nationwide. While one might expect this rule to be repealed in a Republican administration, the GOP’s continued bear hug with organized labor has muddied the waters.

    President Donald Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FRA Administrator David Fink both voiced support for the Biden-era two-person crew rule during their confirmation hearings. During his time in the Senate, Vice President J.D. Vance co-sponsored—along with numerous other Republicans, including Sen. John Hawley (R–Mo.) and then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.)—the Railway Safety Act, which would have legislatively mandated two-person freight crews.

    The contradiction is especially stark in rail policy, as Trump recently fired numerous Surface Transportation Board members, presumably in an effort to greenlight railroad mergers—the type of pro-railroad stance that collides with the administration’s pro-union crew-size priors.

    Beyond failing to improve safety, two-person crews are substantially more expensive. Switching to one-person crews would save the MTA $442 million a year. That money could fund real safety improvements, such as the installation of platform doors, which provide a physical barrier between passengers and the train until the train has come to a complete stop. After platform doors were installed in Seoul, South Korea, annual subway deaths dropped from 70 to two.

    If anything, Hochul’s veto merely gives new NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani more flexibility in future labor negotiations between the TWU and the MTA. Based on the mayor’s track record, it’s unlikely he’ll be a voice for one-person crews.

    Given likely political support from both City Hall and the White House, two-person crews appear entrenched—and riders will keep paying for them.

    [ad_2]

    C. Jarrett Dieterle

    Source link

  • Utah’s new union law faces a ballot box battle

    [ad_1]

    In 2011, then–Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker made national headlines by signing Act 10 into law, dramatically curbing public sector unions collective bargaining power. Seven years later, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME cemented right-to-work protections for public sector employees nationwide. Now, another seven years on, Utah has joined the fight with a sweeping new reform.

    Earlier this year, the Utah legislature passed House Bill 267, which bans public sector collective bargaining—the process that allows unions to negotiate on behalf of all workers in a unit, including nonmembers. The law also ended the practice of “release time” (where public employees could do union business on the taxpayer’s dime), tightened reporting requirements to give workers more transparency on union spending, and offered a nonunion option for professional liability insurance.

    The legislation didn’t appear overnight. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jordan Teuscher (R–South Jordan), spent years pushing smaller union reforms before concluding there was room for a broader deal that both union and non-union interests could support.

    But after unions, in Teuscher’s telling, continually reneged on agreements, lawmakers advanced a comprehensive package without their support. (Union leaders deny they broke any promises.)

    The unions may have lost in the legislature, but they’re taking the fight to the ballot box. The Utah Education Association’s “Protect Utah Workers” campaign collected more than 320,000 signatures—the most signatures of any ballot petition in state history—to place a repeal measure on the November 2026 ballot. 

    Adding to the confusion, Republican Gov. Spencer Cox, who signed the bill into law, has since distanced himself from it, saying, “I sign lots of bills I don’t like for lots of different reasons.” Now, defenders of the bill are scrambling to defend the reform without the governor’s help.

    Much of the fight may hinge on clarifying what the law actually does: It doesn’t ban unions, it just strips them of collective bargaining power.

    Utah’s reforms are a step in the right direction, and Cox’s timidity in defending the law, which gives workers more choice by ending union monopolies over representation is misguided. As the Mackinac Center for Public Policy put it: “The difference now is that public sector unions will no longer have a monopoly in representing government employees, including those who might not want the representation in the first place.”

    Utah’s approach stands out at a moment when some populist conservatives are cozying up to organized labor—seen most prominently in Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) coming out against right-to-work, and Teamsters Union President Sean O’Brien speaking at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

    For those on the policy right, the task isn’t just defending H.B. 267; it’s making a clear case for being pro-worker without being pro-union. There are numerous worker-friendly policies that market-oriented supporters can get behind, such as protecting independent contracting in the gig economy, defending tipped wage occupations from progressive attacks, and supporting portable benefits that allow workers to move more freely from job to job. All these policies prioritize worker flexibility and autonomy and are exactly the sort of labor policies that free marketers should be championing.

    H.B. 267 is an important piece of that agenda. But it shouldn’t be the last.

    [ad_2]

    C. Jarrett Dieterle

    Source link