The news articles about the rail workers complaining it was unsafe seems to show they are complicit as they continued operating in unsafe conditions anyway.
Say the worker refuses that order and their boss says "okay, you're fired". Would we also give that worker legal protection? Would we also hold accountable the higher ups who gave that order and set the policies for how trains are to be run? If not, then you now understand why the accident happened.
Yes I believe that's exactly what is to happen. See this explicitly spelled out https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/2012-07-16 .
I've worked in goods transport in interstate navigable waterways and we had the same thing, literally anyone can "stop work" for unaddressed imminent dangerous conditions and are protected against retaliation. Even if the protection fails it is better my own family starve to death than to poison an entire city; just following orders isn't an excuse (and in any case, such a company of such character company would fire you after the wreck).
note: not legal advice
Note: this is not individualized advice and I am not a lawyer.
So a strike then? You’re literally describing what they tried to do.
- Where possible, you have asked the employer to eliminate the danger, and the employer failed to do so; and
- You refused to work in "good faith." This means that you must genuinely believe that an imminent danger exists; and
- A reasonable person would agree that there is a real danger of death or serious injury; and
- There isn't enough time, due to the urgency of the hazard, to get it corrected through regular enforcement channels, such as requesting an OSHA inspection.
Note the MOA I cited above shows the railroad enforcement has an interlocking agreement with OSHA to this effect that explains this. [0]
You're also instructed to remain on the work site which is a key difference from a "strike." You may not be protected if you say ask for more pay or sick days, so if they weren't showing up to work or asked for that it would really muddy the waters. It's my understanding the "strike" was planned days in advance so it wasn't an immediate response to imminent danger (if it was, should have just been done immediately instead it looks premeditated) and the "strike" asked for stuff like better pay or days off which then made it non-protected.
If you truly follow all of the bullets above then it's protected and the anti-strike order isn't really valid as it's considered protected stop-work activity rather than a strike.
Note: not legal advice