American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I suppose this is just more "union propaganda."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022...ilroading.html

Meh.

Reads like a fluff piece written by a billion dollar companies PR firm.

I have zero sympathy for rail companies. Anyone that works with them knows they are the worst.

I just can't support the government removing the right to strike.
Surely there is another way.

[PeteMoss]

Just so the facts are out there -
this deal was agreed to by union leaders and the companies.

It then went out to the unions - there are a bunch of different unions involved. 8 of them ratified the deal, 4 rejected it.

The two biggest unions went in different directions (one passed with 53.5%, the one that failed had a 50.87%-49.13% split).

They didn't get the sick days, but they did get a 24% raise over 5 years including back pay.

So I agree - they should go back and negotiate and come up with their own deal because they obviously were close and the government shouldn't impose a deal on them. But its not like they are being completed screwed over here. The union also very likely knew they wouldn't be allowed to strike for very long (if at all) so its not like this result is some giant shock to them.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Despicable stuff from both parties. Props to the 15 senators who voted against the deal.

You wonder why people paint you as some fringe leftist nutbar? Dying on a hill for a couple of sick days? That's insane.

80 senators, 80, voted for this, meaning that it was broadly a bi-partisan vote. In the United States that is big news. That means the political divide disappeared on something. Since this was a very important issue, that is a good thing.

Like it or not, railway services are critical infrastructure in this country. It is identified by the feds as such and has been for a very long time. Taking this interventionist approach in this negotiation is not unheard of and not unexpected. Critical infrastructure cannot be disrupted which is why congress has taken action.

Frankly, the best take on this so far has been nfotiu as he has scratched past the surface to understand the larger issue here. Rail workers are well compensated and have very good benefit packages compared to many industries. That is not to say that they should not continue to negotiate in good faith, but I think that is where the problems lay. Good faith appears to be out the window.

A forced arbitration of sorts seems in the cards here. The solution to me seems to be maintain the current levels but appoint an oversight body, an ombudsman, to oversee the PTO program to determine if abuses are indeed taking place, by either party. If abuses are found, re-open the contract and implement the accommodation proposed by the affected group. Gives neither side what they ultimately want but is a path to long-term resolution.

[PsYcNeT]

"Actually, it's good that Americans have less vacation time, sick days, and compensation than literally every other Western country. In my 4-Part essay I will break down the social and economic components that support my opinion that American workers simply aren't worth granting these basic rights."

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

"Actually, it's good that Americans have less vacation time, sick days, and compensation than literally every other Western country. In my 4-Part essay I will break down the social and economic components that support my opinion that American workers simply aren't worth granting these basic rights."

I look forward to this essay. When can we expect it?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

You wonder why people paint you as some fringe leftist nutbar? Dying on a hill for a couple of sick days? That's insane.

I doubt he wonders. All of the people who do it are right wingers or the type of people who said “everyone needs to fall in line, no criticism of Joe Biden allowed!” during the election and are now not only cheering for the government to step in to a labour dispute, but to step in on the side of corporate interests as opposed to workers rights.

It’s not a type of person who is bringing anything admirable or value-based to the discussion, so why would he care if those type of people think he’s a “nut bar”? I wouldn’t.

[nfotiu]

Jumping into this fray again I guess.

Will the progressive contingent at least admit that a railroad strike would hurt a lot of people rich and poor? If you don't believe that, then I guess I can see why a strike is ok, but I think it is pretty established that it would.

Is your preference to allow a strike that could drag on for a while, or do you have a different solution in mind? I've only seen extend the cooling off period as a possible solution? They've already been through a few deadlines, what would kicking the can down the road do except bring this to a head at a later time?

I've worked at places throughout my life with no sick time, with unlimited sick days, with a defined number of sick days, and where they ditched sick days and added a week to vacation and called it PTO. Personally, I preferred the last option. Everywhere I worked with discrete sick days always had problems with some people abusing them also with managers wrongly assuming or accusing people of abusing them. Where I work now, doesn't sound much different than the railroad workers. I get fairly generous PTO, but know that I have to save some of those in case of sickness or other expected illness. And we have short term disability that kicks in if we're out for more than I think 4 days. It seems disingenuous for the union to accept that vacation and sick days were rolled into PTO, and then claim they have to take vacation days if they're sick.

If it is as the mediation board said, that they should be entitled to use 10 of their pto days as single days off without notice, is that unacceptable? Or is going back to discrete sick days the only acceptable answer? If they take a week back off of PTO to give them sick days is that going to make everyone happy? I'd imagine a lot of workers wouldn't want that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Jumping into this fray again I guess.

Will the progressive contingent at least admit that a railroad strike would hurt a lot of people rich and poor? If you don't believe that, then I guess I can see why a strike is ok, but I think it is pretty established that it would.

Is your preference to allow a strike that could drag on for a while, or do you have a different solution in mind? I've only seen extend the cooling off period as a possible solution? They've already been through a few deadlines, what would kicking the can down the road do except bring this to a head at a later time?

I've worked at places throughout my life with no sick time, with unlimited sick days, with a defined number of sick days, and where they ditched sick days and added a week to vacation and called it PTO. Personally, I preferred the last option. Everywhere I worked with discrete sick days always had problems with some people abusing them also with managers wrongly assuming or accusing people of abusing them. Where I work now, doesn't sound much different than the railroad workers. I get fairly generous PTO, but know that I have to save some of those in case of sickness or other expected illness. And we have short term disability that kicks in if we're out for more than I think 4 days. It seems disingenuous for the union to accept that vacation and sick days were rolled into PTO, and then claim they have to take vacation days if they're sick.

If it is as the mediation board said, that they should be entitled to use 10 of their pto days as single days off without notice, is that unacceptable? Or is going back to discrete sick days the only acceptable answer? If they take a week back off of PTO to give them sick days is that going to make everyone happy? I'd imagine a lot of workers wouldn't want that.

If you think getting people to admit that railroad strikes would make life harder for people is a win, then you’re not even in the same conversation as anyone else. Yes, strikes suck for the employer, the employee, and the people who depend on that business. This is universally understood.

Can you admit that strong workers’ rights disproportionately benefit the poor and middle class and that unions exist to protect these rights?

How, in your mind, do you measure an industry that has massively increased profits over the last two years on the back of worsening working conditions and a 30% staffing reduction (made people unemployed) that is refusing to let workers use a sick day without notice, against workers actually on the ground providing an essential service, and come out with the belief that the workers are the bad guys?

Pretending to care about the unnamed poor people who would be impacted by a rail strike while caring more about giant corporations shelling out billions to their shareholders than tens of thousands of newly unemployed and over 100k workers who can’t even call in sick is interesting, but I disagree with your priorities entirely.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I doubt he wonders. All of the people who do it are right wingers or the type of people who said “everyone needs to fall in line, no criticism of Joe Biden allowed!” during the election and are now not only cheering for the government to step in to a labour dispute, but to step in on the side of corporate interests as opposed to workers rights.

It’s not a type of person who is bringing anything admirable or value-based to the discussion, so why would he care if those type of people think he’s a “nut bar”? I wouldn’t.

Pretty hard to criticize Biden considering the alternative...would you rather eat stale bread or a piece of poo

[PsYcNeT]

It's pretty ####ed up that people arguing that the position and role is so absolutely essential to the economy that tons of people would be turbo####ed by a strike, are also arguing that people working said position don't deserve paid sick time.

Like, do you even listen to yourselves?

"Your role is too important to deserve basic workers rights." is some gigabrain ####

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's pretty ####ed up that people arguing that the position and role is so absolutely essential to the economy that tons of people would be turbo####ed by a strike, are also arguing that people working said position don't deserve paid sick time.

Like, do you even listen to yourselves?

"Your role is too important to deserve basic workers rights." is some gigabrain ####

If their PTO works as it is supposed to in that they should have at least 10 pto days to take without notice and there is a means to enforce it like Lanny suggested, is that satisfactory or is that still gross? Is some amount of discrete sick days the only humane answer?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

If their PTO works as it is supposed to in that they should have at least 10 pto days to take without notice and there is a means to enforce it like Lanny suggested, is that satisfactory or is that still gross? Is some amount of discrete sick days the only humane answer?

Do you get PTO and Sick time separate? I do. I also get way more than 10 PTO days a year. I also get Paternity/Parental leave.

I am not in a union. I do not have a job that can cripple the economy.

Why is it okay to take advantage of these workers? Because their work is labor-based?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Jumping into this fray again I guess.

Will the progressive contingent at least admit that a railroad strike would hurt a lot of people rich and poor? If you don't believe that, then I guess I can see why a strike is ok, but I think it is pretty established that it would.

Is your preference to allow a strike that could drag on for a while, or do you have a different solution in mind? I've only seen extend the cooling off period as a possible solution? They've already been through a few deadlines, what would kicking the can down the road do except bring this to a head at a later time?

I've worked at places throughout my life with no sick time, with unlimited sick days, with a defined number of sick days, and where they ditched sick days and added a week to vacation and called it PTO. Personally, I preferred the last option. Everywhere I worked with discrete sick days always had problems with some people abusing them also with managers wrongly assuming or accusing people of abusing them. Where I work now, doesn't sound much different than the railroad workers. I get fairly generous PTO, but know that I have to save some of those in case of sickness or other expected illness. And we have short term disability that kicks in if we're out for more than I think 4 days. It seems disingenuous for the union to accept that vacation and sick days were rolled into PTO, and then claim they have to take vacation days if they're sick.

If it is as the mediation board said, that they should be entitled to use 10 of their pto days as single days off without notice, is that unacceptable? Or is going back to discrete sick days the only acceptable answer? If they take a week back off of PTO to give them sick days is that going to make everyone happy? I'd imagine a lot of workers wouldn't want that.

Obviously, any strike has negative consequences for the bargaining unit members, the employer, and all sorts of other affected people. In some cases, those negative consequences may be severe.

Is that a good enough reason to both (a) not recognize the right to collective bargaining as part of a constitutionally-protected right to freedom of association? and (b) to permit government infringe on that right without demonstrating a serious and proportionate justification for doing so?

Personally, I don't think so.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

You wonder why people paint you as some fringe leftist nutbar? Dying on a hill for a couple of sick days? That's insane.

80 senators, 80, voted for this, meaning that it was broadly a bi-partisan vote. In the United States that is big news. That means the political divide disappeared on something. Since this was a very important issue, that is a good thing.

Not only is that an ad populum fallacy, how naive can you be? There is almost always bipartisan support on bills that benefit the wealthiest people in the country, defense spending, etc.

Do you legitimately think that zero paid sick days is appropriate for an industry that everyone seems to agree is critical for the country?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you think getting people to admit that railroad strikes would make life harder for people is a win, then you’re not even in the same conversation as anyone else. Yes, strikes suck for the employer, the employee, and the people who depend on that business. This is universally understood.

In this case, it would hurt millions in many ways, and be a huge risk to a fragile economy. I get the impression that some (not all) progressives would prefer that pain vs having the union have to give in.

Can you admit that strong workers’ rights disproportionately benefit the poor and middle class and that unions exist to protect these rights?

Generally speaking, sure. I don't know that a forced mediation on an essential infrastructure union is precedent setting that will hurt workers beyond the workers directly covered by this agreement though. Do railroad worker making $110k a year with strong benefits even count as the working poor?

How, in your mind, do you measure an industry that has massively increased profits over the last two years on the back of worsening working conditions and a 30% staffing reduction (made people unemployed) that is refusing to let workers use a sick day without notice, against workers actually on the ground providing an essential service, and come out with the belief that the workers are the bad guys?

Where did I say the workers are the bad guys. This about accepting a mediated agreement that the majority of the workers across all the unions were in favor of. They've leveraged their position of being an essential service to get better paid than most. I do think there is at least a bit of gamesmanship on the union side to prioritize salary, bonuses, std benefits, PTO ahead of sick days in negotiations, and then to try to drum up public support saying they have zero sick days, when they technically have them included in other benefits. I'm sure the corporations are playing games as well. Both the corporations and unions have power and influence they are trying to leverage and there seems to be a genuine attempt by the Biden administration to mediate a fair common ground.

Pretending to care about the unnamed poor people who would be impacted by a rail strike while caring more about giant corporations shelling out billions to their shareholders than tens of thousands of newly unemployed and over 100k workers who can’t even call in sick is interesting, but I disagree with your priorities entirely.

I care about the unnamed poor people, middle class people, and rich people more than the 100k workers, because there are a few hundred million of them and I don't think it is gross of the Biden government to prioritize them ahead of the 100k workers. Biden didn't force the union to take the corporations' offer, he forced a mediation. Allowing a railroad strike would have been a big political hit to Biden and the Democrats.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

In this case, it would hurt millions in many ways, and be a huge risk to a fragile economy. I get the impression that some (not all) progressives would prefer that pain vs having the union have to give in.

If you think progressives actively want that, then you're not mature enough to be in the conversation.

I was perfectly fine with the 7 paid sick days being added by the government, but they refused to add it to the main bill and clearly only added it in a separate bill so that they could vote it down later. If that second bill passes, I'll happily eat my words but, as it stands, the government just did a massive favour for a $2B/day industry that could easily afford the paid sick days.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Do you get PTO and Sick time separate? I do. I also get way more than 10 PTO days a year. I also get Paternity/Parental leave.

I am not in a union. I do not have a job that can cripple the economy.

Why is it okay to take advantage of these workers? Because their work is labor-based?

I don't get separate sick time. It got rolled into PTO years ago and I was good with that. Most professional type workers in the US have moved to PTO vs discrete sick and vacation days.

The railroad workers get more than 10 pto days too. I think 15-25 was the average I read. 10 is the number of those days they are supposed to be able to use without notice.

With the move to combined PTO, short term disability is usually beefed up, so that anything longer than 4 days is covered so that anyone with a significant illness isn't penalized. That seems common both to the railroad workers and where I work.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't get separate sick time. It got rolled into PTO years ago and I was good with that. Most professional type workers in the US have moved to PTO vs discrete sick and vacation days.

The railroad workers get more than 10 pto days too. I think 15-25 was the average I read. 10 is the number of those days they are supposed to be able to use without notice.

With the move to combined PTO, short term disability is usually beefed up, so that anything longer than 4 days is covered so that anyone with a significant illness isn't penalized. That seems common both to the railroad workers and where I work.

Are you also on-call basically 24/7?

[rubecube]

Also, imagine looking at what someone like Warren Buffet makes on a daily basis from passive income and thinking that the railworkers are asking for too much.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't get separate sick time. It got rolled into PTO years ago and I was good with that. Most professional type workers in the US have moved to PTO vs discrete sick and vacation days.

The railroad workers get more than 10 pto days too. I think 15-25 was the average I read. 10 is the number of those days they are supposed to be able to use without notice.

With the move to combined PTO, short term disability is usually beefed up, so that anything longer than 4 days is covered so that anyone with a significant illness isn't penalized. That seems common both to the railroad workers and where I work.

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.