The Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers union has published a blunt assessment of the Federal Railroad Administration, arguing in a recent article titled "FRA Picked a Side. And It's Not Railroaders or Rail Safety" that the regulator has aligned itself against the workforce it oversees and against the safety mission at the core of its mandate.

The SMART Union piece, which appeared in the organization's news feed, makes its position clear from the headline onward. The claim is not that the FRA has been passive or slow. It is that the agency has actively chosen a side — and that the side chosen is neither the rail labor force nor the cause of rail safety.

The Federal Railroad Administration is the primary safety regulator for the US railroad industry. It sets and enforces rules covering track inspection, signal systems, equipment standards, operating practices, and hours of service for train and engine crews. SMART represents transportation workers across the country, including conductors, brakemen, and other operating personnel who work under those rules every shift.

For a union representing front-line operating employees to state publicly that the FRA has "picked a side" against railroaders marks an escalation in tone from the customary friction between labor organizations and federal regulators. Labor-management relations on US railroads have been strained in recent years, with national contract negotiations, attendance policy disputes, and precision scheduled railroading staffing cuts all generating friction between carriers and their unions. SMART's published commentary now extends that criticism directly to the federal safety agency itself.

The article's framing places the FRA's conduct in opposition to two constituencies the agency is arguably bound to serve: the railroad workforce, whose working conditions and safety protections fall under FRA-regulated territory, and the broader public interest in safe rail operations. By naming neither railroaders nor rail safety as the beneficiary of the agency's alleged alignment, the union's headline implies the beneficiary lies elsewhere — with carriers, or with political considerations the union does not specify in the headline itself.

Readers should treat the union's assertion as a claim by an interested party. SMART is a labor organization speaking for its members, and its characterization of FRA policy reflects that vantage point. The FRA, for its part, routinely describes its mission as safety-focused and points to its rulemaking and enforcement activity as evidence. Trade coverage of regulatory disputes typically weighs union claims against the agency's formal rulemaking record, inspection data, and enforcement statistics before drawing conclusions about whose interests a given policy serves.

What the SMART article signals, regardless of how its specific charges hold up, is that the relationship between the largest US transportation unions and the federal rail regulator has deteriorated to the point where a union publication describes the agency's posture in openly adversarial terms. Where labor once fought carriers over working conditions and pressed the FRA to strengthen rules, the union is now directing its criticism at the regulator itself.

The dispute bears watching as FRA rulemaking and enforcement priorities evolve under current leadership, and as SMART and its fellow unions continue pressing their case in both public commentary and formal proceedings.