News & Reviews News Wire Union urges Department of Transportation to bar federal grants to Brightline Florida

Union urges Department of Transportation to bar federal grants to Brightline Florida

By Bill Stephens | September 24, 2024

The Transport Workers Union of America says that the passenger railroad is trying to bar onboard service personnel from joining a union

Email Newsletter

Get the newest photos, videos, stories, and more from Trains.com brands. Sign-up for email today!

people serving food
Meals are delivered from a cart on a Miami-bound Brightline train on Sept. 23, 2023. Bob Johnston

WASHINGTON – The Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, has asked Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to deny Brightline Florida any additional federal funding, arguing that the company has sought to block its employees from joining a union.

The TWU, in a Sept. 19 letter to Buttigieg, noted that nearly 100 Brightline onboard service personnel are seeking union representation. TWU says that it was able to show the National Mediation Board in August that more than half of Brightline Florida’s onboard service workers wanted to unionize.

“Since that time, Brightline Florida has repeatedly and aggressively blocked these workers from exercising their right to freely be represented by the union of their choice,” TWU President John Samuelsen wrote.

The union contends that Brightline Florida has run afoul of an executive order that President Joe Biden signed earlier this month directing the Department of Transportation to prioritize funding projects that promote positive labor-management relationships, including voluntary union recognition and employer neutrality regarding union organizing.

Brightline Florida has received $36 million in Federal Railroad Administration CRISI grants and has requested additional funding through several FRA grant programs. Among them: Programs designed to improve grade crossing safety and eliminate grade crossings.

“Unless and until Brightline Florida ends their anti-union efforts, the TWU strongly opposes all of these applications,” Samuelsen wrote.

The union also asked DOT to investigate whether Brightline should be required to return funding obtained through prior federal grants.

“Faced with workers’ desires to unionize, Brightline and its president, Patrick Goddard, have deliberately chosen the path of confrontation and acrimony,” Samuelsen said in a statement today. “This will not end well for the bosses. Although Brightline bosses are anti-worker, President Joe Biden is not. The U.S. DOT now must give funding priority to companies that don’t interfere with workers seeking to unionize. Brightline absolutely doesn’t fit that description. They should be at the bottom of any list. This forthcoming debacle, created by Goddard, is totally avoidable but only if he stops his anti-worker, anti-union campaign.”

The union also claims that Brightline is arguing, before other federal agencies, that it is not a railroad under the Railway Labor Act.

Rail labor unions have harshly criticized railroads’ safety records in recent years. Why would the TWU oppose federal funding for grade crossing safety projects on Brightline?

“Rather than putting the company’s future and safety projects in jeopardy, we are in fact protecting them and providing job security for our members. By forcing Brightline to admit its true status under law as a rail carrier, we are solidifying its eligibility for federal grants,” a union spokesman says.

Brightline says it aims to provide a good workplace for all of its employees.

“Brightline recently signed a historic agreement with organized labor to build and operate Brightline West (including the TWU) and have always recognized our teammates right to explore representation. That said, there are longstanding jurisdictional channels that regulate and oversee this process and it’s in everyone’s interest – especially our employees – to get those right,” says Ben Porritt, Brightline’s senior vice president of corporate affairs. “While that decision plays out, we’ll continue to focus on our goal to provide the best workplace experience for all teammates, allowing for career and individual growth.”

12 thoughts on “Union urges Department of Transportation to bar federal grants to Brightline Florida

  1. I like the publishing of opposing views. And further, it is my tax money so I should be able to voice my views about my money that is confiscated from me.

  2. So is bright line run privately or is it owned by the government? If they’re private why should the government subsidize a privately owned company? More importantly who’s writing this train and how feasible is it really? If bright line is privately owned there should be no taxpayer money going to them especially if it’s not making money.

    1. If the RR RoW X-ing protection crosses a (state or fed) gov. owned roadway, it seems to me that the (state or fed) gov. should pay “half” the expense.

  3. Brightline doesn’t own the crossings. FECR doesn’t own the crossings. The crossings are owned by the municipalities in which they are situated. Denying the railroad public monies for enhancements means maintaining the status quo. Politically a stub but realistically a nonissue.

  4. Union speaks with forked tongue. They celebrate Goddard and the union deals BW sign in Nevada and California, but rue Goddard in Florida.

    Tell the union head to do some basic research on the history of unionized workers on the Florida East Coast railroad. The FEC successfully fended off, fought and won a court case on it back in the 1960’s (remember Ed Ball?)

    I don’t even think Brightline Florida uses union job terms like engineer, fireman, conductor, etc. All obsolete carry overs from 1890 railroading.

    1. How about the TWU choice of the term “the bosses?” Cf Woody Guthrie “Union Maid,” and Paul Robeson “Joe Hill.”

    2. I might want to add that Brightline Florida in some cases were forced to go get state and federal grants for crossings due to some counties shirking their responsibility to legally maintain them themselves.

      I find it odd that FDOT had to go find funding in their budget from other parts of the state because Martin County refused to pay for the needed safety upgrades. Upgrades they were legally supposed to provide by statute. The FEC could have legally closed the crossing if FDOT had not intervened.

      I don’t think that is what they wanted to do (close the crossing) so they decided to take up the grant requests themselves. There is being stubborn, then there is stupid stubborn. There are some jurisdictions in the Treasure Coast that are in the latter.

    1. Actually I missed a few days, I only posted once while traveling in Massachusetts. But I’m home now. Best, C.L.

    2. Sometimes Charles’s drivel is very insightful, when he starts dribbling into politics then it becomes the daily drivel.

    3. One man’s drivel is another man’s truth. Charles’ proponents and opponents are a microcosm of the entire nation today, probably about 50/50. Nothing wrong with disagreement, until one side runs out of perceived logic and descends into name-calling.

  5. Hopefully the Biden – Harris – Buttigieg dictatorship will stay out of this one —- but don’t bet on it.

You must login to submit a comment