In a “Review & Outlook” editorial published April 26, 2010, the Wall Street Journal characterized an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill which would place FedEx Express drivers under the same set of labor laws as every other package delivery driver in the nation as a “union bailout.” We respectfully disagree.
As a limited-government, free-market grassroots advocacy organization, we take a back seat to no one when it comes to opposition to organized labor’s political agenda, especially the obscenely misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act” (a.k.a., card check). And if this issue was truly just about organized labor trying to unionize FedEx Express, we’d be in opposition to it, too.
But it’s not. FedEx Express is very cleverly using a disingenuous PR and lobbying campaign to persuade the public and Congress that this issue is about unions and bailouts when in reality it’s an issue of equal protection under the law.
FedEx Express drivers are covered under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) while every other driver in the nation is covered under the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA). The amendment to the bill would close this loophole and treat FedEx Express drivers the same as every other driver in the eyes of the law. Again, this is an equality under the law issue, not a union issue.
While it’s true that FedEx “has been regulated under the Railway Labor Act” since its founding in 1971, it is also true that the nature and scope of the express letter and package delivery industry has changed dramatically since that time. To suggest the law shouldn’t change along with significant changes in the company’s operations is to argue that Wells Fargo should still be governed under the stagecoach laws it was originally founded under rather than banking laws.
As the Journal notes, Congress created the RLA to discourage labor strikes and “avoid any interruption to commerce.” However, while it’s true that a strike by FedEx airline pilots could adversely affect national commerce, it cannot be argued that a strike by local FedEx truck drivers would have anywhere near such an impact. Although customers cannot fly their packages from one city to another, they most certainly can drive emergency and high-priority packages to and from the airport themselves if need be.
The Journal further argues that since “FedEx delivers 85% of its parcels by air….it rightly belongs under the railway act.” And that’s fine….for the company’s actual air operations. However, 100% of FedEx Express’s package pickups and deliveries to and from homes and businesses are made by drivers on the ground, not pilots. FedEx Express delivery drivers should no more be considered a part of FedEx’s air transportation system than cab drivers if passenger airlines owned and operated taxi or limousine services.
The Journal rightly notes that the NRLA has allowed the Teamsters to organize UPS’s workforce and “play havoc with its business model” by staging walkouts and strikes. And that’s exactly the problem. By using the power of the law to shield FedEx Express from the same labor realities UPS operates under, the government is providing one company with an unfair advantage over another. It is that inequality which needs to be remedied.
The editorial further points out that “UPS has long tried to reclassify under the railway act” which, of course, would be one way to level the playing field. “Yet,” the Journal continues, “every time Congress or the National Labor Relations board take up the issue, the Teamsters convince their Washington patrons to tank it.”
First, we’d argue that right is right and wrong is wrong; therefore, ground transportation drivers should not be treated like airline employees by either company. Secondly, the Teamsters having an undue influence over Congress doesn’t excuse hobbling UPS to the detriment of UPS employees, managers, officers, stockholders and customers with an inequity in federal law.
The Journal further argues that moving FedEx Express drivers under the same law as UPS drivers would be “political favoritism at its worst.” Actually, we’d argue the worst political favoritism is the current situation in which FedEx Express, thanks to a loophole in federal labor law, is essentially allowed to hit from the ladies tees.
In conclusion, let us agree with the Journal that “competition is healthy for everyone.” However, that competition should be conducted on a level playing field, at least as far as U.S. law is concerned. At present, it is not. And that’s why, in the interest of fairness, we believe the FedEx Loophole needs to be closed and urge the Senate to adopt the amendment that would do so.