For the last several cycles of surface transportation legislation, the focus of attention has been on jobs. For the most part, the jobs to which people have been referring have been the direct construction jobs, and the secondary and tertiary employment, stimulated by transportation investment. These are, to be sure, important considerations, but, as Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Martin Wachs noted in their January 2011 report for the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP), "Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic Growth," estimating the multiplier effects of these investments ". . . carry substantial uncertainty."

These uncertain effects come up again in the criticisms of House T & I Chairman Mica's recent surface transportation proposal, such as the one noted in this question, that his proposal would "kill 630,000 jobs." In fact, no one can be certain of exactly how many potential construction and construction-related jobs would be lost, by reducing federal surface transportation funding below SAFETEA's authorized levels. Moreover, as NTPP noted in its June 2011 report, in the current federal fiscal environment it may not be possible or politicaly feasible to expand, or even to maintain, current levels of federal surface transportation funding.

Obviously, the construction trades and other stakeholder groups have important contributions to make to the debate on transportation legislation and have a tremendous interest in the outcome. But the jobs benefits and labor issues should go well beyond the immediate construction jobs stimulated by this funding. As NTPP has emphasized over the last two years, federal investment resources for transportation are scarce, and in that context it is ". . . more important than ever to ensure that all federal resources directed to transportation . . . are invested wisely." This means investing in programs and projects that not only will ease immediate construction unemployment, but also will build our economic future, provide long-term economic benefits, and contribute to a broad range of jobs in all sectors of the economy through enhanced job access and greater labor mobility.

There is another labor issue that permeates the transportation sector, although one that is not likely to be directly addressed by the new legislation. That issue is the scope of health and pension benefits for the employees of many state and local transportation agencies. The weight of these benefits is no less for these agencies than it is for many state and local governments, and many transportation agencies have entered into commitments to their current and retired employees (both union and non-union) that they may not be able to meet in future years. This critical labor issue is directly related to the reach and quality of the services that these agencies will be able to provide to their customers in future years and may be the most important operating issue, facing the transportation sector at all levels of government.

Our nation’s construction workers are on the forefront of building the infrastructure necessary to grow our economy and create healthy, sustainable communities.

We are moving, albeit slowly, to bring our 20th century transportation system into the 21st, by repairing and upgrading our highways, expanding transit access, modernizing our aviation system, and making the vehicles across these modes more efficient and produced domestically. These investments are necessary to ensure the America competes effectively in the global economy. They are also vital to ensuring the U.S. moves to a clean energy economy, by making the ways we move goods and people more efficient and less polluting.

In addition to promoting efficiency and reducing environmental impact, fair labor practices help satisfy considerations of economic sustainability. In employment terms, this means a job pays a living wage, features benefits, provides avenues for advancement, and is conducted in an environment where the health and safety of workers is paramount.

When workers are able to freely choose a union, the economy benefits. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that if 5 million service workers were to join unions, approximately $34 billion in new wages would flow into the U.S. economy.

The uproar over the recent FAA debate is politically motivated — it’s about politics and ideology, not the economy. Many of the forces attacking this rule are the same crowd who want to defund government services entirely and dismantle protections for workers.

We’ve seen that fair labor practices and transportation investment can align effectively. For example, projects driven by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — with prevailing wage and domestic sourcing requirements —created and supported quality U.S. jobs. We cannot outsource transportation services, and they are too critical to the economy to be done cut-rate. Fair labor practices built much of the great transportation infrastructure we have in place today. Sacrificing that does not bring us to a better future.

There’s a good reason TEN launched a partnership this year with the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU). TEN is a grassroots network of more than 350 community organizations in 41 states. ATU is North America's largest transit workers union, representing over 190,000 members in 270 localities. No one knows better than daily transit riders—which many TEN members are—how important public transportation is to accessing jobs, schools, and health care. No one knows better than transit workers—which all ATU members are—how valuable public transportation is as a source of quality jobs and economic growth.

When transit funding is under threat, as it is now, our common interests are even clearer. Even before the madness of the debt ceiling debate took its toll, our transit systems were under siege nationwide: 84% of transit systems were forced to raise fares, cut service, or both in 2010.

But the stakes go far beyond the interest of commuters in keeping their bus lines and transit operators in keeping their jobs. All of America needs public transportation—especially in a time of economic crisis.

Our transit systems are economic engines that drive whole metropolitan areas. They get workers to work and shoppers to stores. They get caretakers to nursing homes and students to degree programs. Transit cuts weaken local economies at a time when they’re already struggling. Transit investments, on the contrary, have been shown time and time again to be a powerful job creator, including in the TEN report More Transit = More Jobs. Transit jobs are green jobs, and especially when they’re union jobs, they allow hard-working people to lead stable, dignified lives.

All these reasons help explain why 82% of Americans say they want more transportation options, including 79% of rural voters. There are few things so many Americans agree on these days.

TEN knows this. ATU knows this. That’s why we’re working side-by-side in our fight for a more just, prosperous, and connected America.

Labor unions can influence transport policies profoundly. Were not the dockers’ unions a major factor in the rise of container ships, that caused so many of their members to lose their lucrative jobs?

Labor unions have succeeded in all but eliminating public transport services provided by shared taxis and by associations of independent minibus owners. These provide unsubsidized, high-frequency, seated, service all over the world, e.g. the “Sherut” shared taxis in Israel and the “Service “ services in other Middle East countries.

In the US such services seem to be provided only in Atlantic City (legally) and in New York City (illegally). Their re-introduction in other US areas could improve employment significantly — not only to those directly employed, but also to those offered improved access to jobs and other destinations.

In highway construction, Davis-Bacon regulations and Project Labor Agreements substantially raise costs and inhibit employment.

Labor unions can be praised for improving the conditions of their members, but not for suppressing competition from non-unionized providers. Does this not put them on a par with price-fixing cartels, which are prohibited in the US and in many other countries?