Why I opposed the FAA reauthorization

While I would have voted "Yes" on a clean FAA reauthorization, I was one of 157 Democrats and 12 Republicans who voted "No" on H.R. 658, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act.  Why?
 
First, language in the bill dates back to the Railway Labor Act (RLA) which was originally passed in 1926.  It was amended during FDR's New Deal in 1934 and 1936 and has governed the railroad and airline industries since - for the past 75 years. Not just the transportation unions, but a total of 19 unions opposed H.R. 658 because it set about to rather dramatically rewrite a labor law that has served the transportation companies, the unions and the country well. Why the sudden need to radically change the law without prior notice, without any apparent need to change it and without congressional hearings? If changes were needed, what was wrong with a more deliberative process that involved the affected parties?

Second, from my perspective, conservatives - mainly Republicans - were transporting the spirit of the anti-union legislation (that has caused so much turmoil and resistance in Wisconsin, Ohio, Arizona, Indiana and elsewhere) to Congress in an attack on and in an attempt to further weaken unions. This legislation embodied that same anti-union spirit. After-all, unions are the largest institutionalized power standing between the dominance today of corporate economic power and ideology, and people power - i.e., the democracy of voters. If conservatives can further weaken unions, corporate economic power and ideology would have virtually carte blanche to operate politically and ideologically with little institutionalized opposition.
 
As the 19 unions said collectively, "An aviation safety and security bill is no place to impose unrelated and controversial labor provisions that will ultimately serve to harm both airline and railroad workers. The proposed Railway Labor Act changes would drastically rewrite a statue that was crafted by labor-management cooperation and has not been changed for over 75 years without the agreement of both employer and employee representatives. Airline and rail workers would suffer significant losses as contracts are jettisoned, collective bargaining rights are cut and legal hurdles will be placed in the way of gaining a voice at work."
 

Third, I didn't see any need for Congress to rush such radical labor changes into a law unilaterally without the regular deliberative processes, especially because this law has been uniquely created through negotiations between management and labor.
 
The original RLA passed through many stages of struggle by workers, federal court involvement and actions by the federal executive branch (e.g., the introduction of federal troops to violently put down strikes) that began with the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, involved the Chicago Pullman Strike of 1894 - which occurred in my current congressional district and where I am trying to get legislation to create a second National Park in Illinois - and the nationalization of the railroads in 1913.  Also before arriving at the RLA, the law passed through ineffective arbitration panels, voluntary arbitration, a Board of Mediation, the Railroad Labor Board and finally the Railway Labor Act which was the result of negotiations between the major railroad companies and unions representing their employees.
 
Again, I would have gladly voted "For" a clean FAA Reauthorization bill - without the anti-labor provisions - that would continue to allow workers to join a union, seek better pay and benefits and, above all, provide safety for themselves and airline passengers, but that wasn't the option I was given.

---