American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

This is crabs in a bucket ####.

A better world is possible. It's happening in other countries, you don't need to contest better working conditions for others because you settled for less.

I didn't bring this up as justification. You directly asked me if I had sick time.

Does adding 7 sick days to the forced mediation make it all ok in your's and RubeCube's eyes? That seems rather arbitrary to me. I guess if the government is going to do that in this case, then they should make that a law across the board, instead of only giving it to fairly highly compensated workers with leverage.

Personally, if they did legislate that, and that meant my organization went back to separate sick days and vacation days, then I'm going to be kind of pissed. I'll take days that I can take off for any reason vs sick days in a second.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I didn't bring this up as justification. You directly asked me if I had sick time.

Does adding 7 sick days to the forced mediation make it all ok in your's and RubeCube's eyes? That seems rather arbitrary to me. I guess if the government is going to do that in this case, then they should make that a law across the board, instead of only giving it to fairly highly compensated workers with leverage.

Personally, if they did legislate that, and that meant my organization went back to separate sick days and vacation days, then I'm going to be kind of pissed. I'll take days that I can take off for any reason vs sick days in a second.

Total strawman. I would like to see the government largely stay out of collective bargaining. However, if they are going to get involved, they should aim to impose agreements that are more favourable to workers.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Total strawman. I would like to see the government largely stay out of collective bargaining. However, if they are going to get involved, they should aim to impose agreements that are more favourable to workers.

Just to follow this through - if the rail-workers go on strike - you are ok with them being indefinitely on the strike? Even if that leads to tens of thousands of other people in other lines of work being laid off because their companies can't operate without the rail freight?

Or nurses going on strike so we have to close hospitals?

At what point is it ok for governments to intervene?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Just to follow this through - if the rail-workers go on strike - you are ok with them being indefinitely on the strike? Even if that leads to tens of thousands of other people in other lines of work being laid off because their companies can't operate without the rail freight?

Or nurses going on strike so we have to close hospitals?

At what point is it ok for governments to intervene?

Again, why is it up to the people with the least in their pockets and the most to lose to sacrifice for the greater good and not the people with the most in their pockets and the least to lose?

EDIT: FTR, if there is a public safety issue, I do not support a full-blown strike. However, refusing call-outs and OT should absolutely be on the table. If that causes a safety issue, that's on the employer for not ensuring adequate staffing.

[PeteMoss]

So the government shouldn't intervene if it may cause 50,000 people or whatever to be laid off downstream because they don't have the freight needed for their job?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Again, why is it up to the people with the least in their pockets and the most to lose to sacrifice for the greater good and not the people with the most in their pockets and the least to lose?

EDIT: FTR, if there is a public safety issue, I do not support a full-blown strike. However, refusing call-outs and OT should absolutely be on the table. If that causes a safety issue, that's on the employer for not ensuring adequate staffing.

And these people in this union are well-off. In a battle between who I'd want to win the battle - it would obviously be the union. But its not a bunch of people struggling to pay rent. So painting them that way isn't accurate.


I used to work at an arena that held concerts. At shows/games - we'd have to bring IATSE workers (who are unionized). They'd be making $50-$250/hour while 95% of the people working at the show or cleaning afterward would be making minimum wage. Those 95% of people would be the ones struggling.

The majority of unions left represent workers with a ton of leverage while the real struggling people have no rights beyond what the government mandates.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

So the government shouldn't intervene if it may cause 50,000 people or whatever to be laid off downstream because they don't have the freight needed for their job?

I've already answered this. Why does the government need to intervene in a way that is more favourable to big business? Why not implement a deal that is more favourable to the workers? Do you not see how this sets a precedent for other critical industries to lowball their unions?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The majority of unions left represent workers with a ton of leverage while the real struggling people have no rights beyond what the government mandates.

The workers have leverage because they're unionized. It's not like unions turn down representing those without leverage. It is up to those workers to organize and become unionized, as we're seeing with multiple service industry jobs in the U.S. (e.g. Starbucks).

[PepsiFree]

Everyone should unionize.

[iggy_oi]

Hey everyone, what’s going on in here?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Hey everyone, what’s going on in here?

You joke but this is actually a great topic for you to weigh in on since you have a much deeper, more well reasoned view of unions and union issues than most people on this board.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You joke but this is actually a great topic for you to weigh in on since you have a much deeper, more well reasoned view of unions and union issues than most people on this board.

Railroad employees are some of the most overworked and under appreciated workers out there.

Their compensation is high yes, but that’s because the job is extraordinarily demanding. Making comparisons to their entitlements as it relates to sick or personal days with people who work regular 9-5 jobs is a fools errand. It’s not apples to oranges, it’s apples to coal.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Railroad employees are some of the most overworked and under appreciated workers out there.

Their compensation is high yes, but that’s because the job is extraordinarily demanding. Making comparisons to their entitlements as it relates to sick or personal days with people who work regular 9-5 jobs is a fools errand. It’s not apples to oranges, it’s apples to coal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a good chunk of the pay related to the fact that they're on-call all the time? Or is the pay we're seeing quoted base salary?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The majority of unions left represent workers with a ton of leverage while the real struggling people have no rights beyond what the government mandates.

The problem is that the majority of workers have been convinced that a very simple, tried, tested and proven mechanism for some reason isn’t for them or their industry and it would be a bad decision for them to even try it, despite the fact that in most jurisdictions there’s no financial risk to trying. Brainwashing is a bitch.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a good chunk of the pay related to the fact that they're on-call all the time? Or is the pay we're seeing quoted base salary?

I’m going to give you the answer based on what I know about the industry in Canada and up here the answer would be no, the reason they do well isn’t because of on call pay, it’s because they’re on call and are required to go in and work when called.

Things could run differently in the states, but my understanding is that work life balance is the biggest issue in the current dispute down there. Same as it usually is up here, so I imagine the issues are pretty similar.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m going to give you the answer based on what I know about the industry in Canada and up here the answer would be no, the reason they do well isn’t because of on call pay, it’s because they’re on call and are required to go in and work when called.

Sorry, that's what I meant. I get that on-call pay is different My point was, these guys are making a lot of money because they're essentially forced to go i and work a tonne of hours due to the companies stripping their workforce down to the bare minimum.

Gonna give a kudos to Jake Tapper for actually doing journalism with corporate lackey, Mayor Pete.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1598810856363630600

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I've already answered this. Why does the government need to intervene in a way that is more favourable to big business? Why not implement a deal that is more favourable to the workers? Do you not see how this sets a precedent for other critical industries to lowball their unions?

You kind of started this by saying Biden and the democrats were gross for getting involved at all. If you softened on that, that's cool, but it would have probably been a more civil argument if you started with that. I don't think that this is that precedent setting since they aren't passing a new law or anything but utilizing the tools in the Railroad act that only cover railroads and airlines.

"Favorable to the workers" is obviously going to be subjective. From what I read, it sounded like the unions prioritized raises and bonuses over adding sick days, and part of the reason the financial increase was quite significant was in exchange for that. There probably was some gamesmanship on the union side by taking the money in negotiations, knowing they could get more public empathy by fighting for sick days in public by framing the argument in a way that is somewhat misleading. I imagine they got there because the different unions were prioritizing different things.

It was a mediated agreement, not forcing them to take the companies offers. You see the agreement as favoring the companies and that's fair enough. It looks fairly generous to the workers in my eyes. I am just on the side of "no strike" though, so it would bother me none if the workers got more. I have a hard time seeing this as Biden being a gross, corporate bootlicker or whatever you like to say. It seems he is doing a pretty decent job of brokering a compromise that can pass in both houses.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I've already answered this. Why does the government need to intervene in a way that is more favourable to big business? Why not implement a deal that is more favourable to the workers? Do you not see how this sets a precedent for other critical industries to lowball their unions?

There is a particular law on the books that allows the government to force railway workers back to work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act

There is no precedent being set here


And allowing them to strike impacts thousands of workers. It's not equivalent to a Starbucks going on strike.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The problem is that the majority of workers have been convinced that a very simple, tried, tested and proven mechanism for some reason isn’t for them or their industry and it would be a bad decision for them to even try it, despite the fact that in most jurisdictions there’s no financial risk to trying. Brainwashing is a bitch.

And why do these unions stay in place? I assume it's because you can't just break them by leaving them on a picket line forever but I'd defer to you.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Sorry, that's what I meant. I get that on-call pay is different My point was, these guys are making a lot of money because they're essentially forced to go i and work a tonne of hours due to the companies stripping their workforce down to the bare minimum.

Gonna give a kudos to Jake Tapper for actually doing journalism with corporate lackey, Mayor Pete.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1598810856363630600

Is it possible for you guys to your points without the corporate lackey, bootlicker name calling? It makes it hard to take you seriously.