American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Welcome to the point of a labour disruption. Should they only do it when they have the least amount of leverage and just hope that corporations will give them a fair deal out of the goodness of their hearts?

I mean, no, they can use the leverage they have, but nobody should be happy about it or love them for it. While they get a little bit better benefit and leave time, the rest of the country could plummet into recession, putting thousands or hundreds of thousands of other workers out of a job. It's short-sighted, and if they truly cared about "the worker" they would see that.

This is one of the reasons why unions are in decline and are seen as a net negative in the economy. They aren't really helping by doing this right now.

However, if they were smart, they would allow for a temporary delay in negotiations until the new year provided they would get assurances of real reform to their leave. But they're not smart, and they'll push it too far, and then the knives will come out, and then they'll play the victim.

It may seem cunning, but it's a poor negotiation strategy overall.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by photon

House committee finally gets Trump's tax returns today after 3 years of legal battles. I wonder if Dems can still review them after the House and committee leadership changes over to Republicans.

My guess is regardless what the Dems decide to do, it'll get leaked and the public will see the full returns soon!

[opendoor]

Yes, genius move by the unions to start negotiations in 2019 and hold out for the hope that there would be a pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and high inflation so they could use the Christmas 2022 season for leverage.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yes, genius move by the unions to start negotiations in 2019 and hold out for the hope that there would be a pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and high inflation so they could use the Christmas 2022 season for leverage.

LOL, yeah, because that's what I said and that was my overall point. Cool. Have fun arguing with the wall.

[photon]

Originally Posted by activeStick

My guess is regardless what the Dems decide to do, it'll get leaked and the public will see the full returns soon!

I kinda hope not but I kinda hope so too. They should go high...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

However, if they were smart, they would allow for a temporary delay in negotiations until the new year provided they would get assurances of real reform to their leave. But they're not smart, and they'll push it too far, and then the knives will come out, and then they'll play the victim.

It may seem cunning, but it's a poor negotiation strategy overall.

Oh verbal assurances? Yeah, those always hold up well. If people are mad at the unions instead of the industry making $2B/day for the hold up, then they're failing to see the forest for the trees.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This from the guy who said he’d vote in a murderer if he had (D) beside his name LOL

You should try having actual values that you vote based on instead of being a puppet. It’s a pretty cool way to live.

I stand by that point and don't see how this argument is inconsistent with my thinking that we should prioritize the bigger picture and greater good. In my hypothetical, I was preferring a democrat senator who was heading to prison (with a likely party line replacement) ahead of giving a pivotal senate seat to a republican.

I'm a tepid supporter of unions, but I'm pretty ok with forcing a mediated compromise to workers making 110k plus a posh pension when a strike will impact a whole lot of people rich and poor in the country.

My values align with supporting the overall greater good of the country that my kids and I live in, ahead of winning cheap political battles that cause the rest of us more harm than good.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Oh verbal assurances? Yeah, those always hold up well. If people are mad at the unions instead of the industry making $2B/day for the hold up, then they're failing to see the forest for the trees.

No, get it in writing. Who said verbal? Jesus, it is really hard to have a meaningful conversation around here these days.

One other thing I forgot to add is the worker shortage across all industries. Perhaps there is a simple logistical issue in that they can't manage to run the railroad if they give them all this time off. I don't know for sure if that's the issue, but I know in my job we are struggling to find enough qualified people to simply fill a lot of vacant positions we have. It's really nuts right now trying to find workers in any field.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I stand by that point and don't see how this argument is inconsistent with my thinking that we should prioritize the bigger picture and greater good. In my hypothetical, I was preferring a democrat senator who was heading to prison (with a likely party line replacement) ahead of giving a pivotal senate seat to a republican.

I'm a tepid supporter of unions, but I'm pretty ok with forcing a mediated compromise to workers making 110k plus a posh pension when a strike will impact a whole lot of people rich and poor in the country.

My values align with supporting the overall greater good of the country that my kids and I live in, ahead of winning cheap political battles that cause the rest of us more harm than good.

Wait, you think setting a standard of government forcing contracts and effectively undermining unions is for the greater good? There's a reason quality of life measurements are generally highest in countries with strong unions and union protections.

Hell, you can pretty much track the decline of the working class in the U.S., rise in income inequality, etc., with the decline of strong unions.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by IGGYRULES

I know 2 people that work for Canadian railroads. Not sure if it's a similar pay/work structure as in the US but they're fully on the gravy train up here and wouldn't give their jobs up for pretty much anything.

Sent from my SM-S908W using Tapatalk

That’s because Canadian rail companies have an enshrined oligopoly that will literally never be broken up. The economics to build new rail lines and service will never make sense without Chinese people as slaves in the 1800’s and rights to railroads will never be sold. This is why the pensions are all over them and we all may as well join the gravy train as well. CP and CN are probably outside of banks the two most important companies in the nation.

You bet your ass they are obliged to pay their employees very well. I for one literally expect it as a minimum as an indirect investor.

ESG initiatives in western society needs to sorta get with the easy tap in program and create comprehensive evaluations or reward stocks on employee compensation. There should be some kind of certification or broad based transparency on how companies compensate their employees relative to sectors and such data should be very transparent, very user friendly, very easy to understand and required by law or highly motivated via public market regulations or coercion of some sort.

I’m not interested in extremely low G&A I’m interested in preserving society and avoiding revolution so pay your ####ing employees fairly and maybe toss them some of the share you would otherwise hoard for highly overrated executive teams and dingy wink wink boardroom deal hand greasing. The theory that shareholders elect a board that elect a CEO doesn’t really work very well and all that’s happened in NA is that executive classes hoard the money and employee brackets aren’t keeping pace. This is where union lovers like iggy oi actually have a point. At some point you gotta get your folks raises.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wait, you think setting a standard of government forcing contracts and effectively undermining unions is for the greater good? There's a reason quality of life measurements are generally highest in countries with strong unions and union protections.

Hell, you can pretty much track the decline of the working class in the U.S., rise in income inequality, etc., with the decline of strong unions.

*cough* globalization *cough* emerging 3rd world economies *cough*

There's a lot of other factors at play. Unions are just one tiny slice of the pie, and they've mostly done it to themselves by forcing the hand of companies who have a lot of other options to outsource work. It's overly simplistic to blame it all on the lack of union strength.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

*cough* globalization *cough* emerging 3rd world economies *cough*

There's a lot of other factors at play. Unions are just one tiny slice of the pie, and they've mostly done it to themselves by forcing the hand of companies who have a lot of other options to outsource work. It's overly simplistic to blame it all on the lack of union strength.

You think globalization and emerging third-world economies exclusively impact the U.S.? Why have other countries been able to maintain strong, unionized workforces when the U.S. hasn't been able to, despite facing the exact same issues?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You think globalization and emerging third-world economies exclusively impact the U.S.? Why have other countries been able to maintain strong, unionized workforces when the U.S. hasn't been able to, despite facing the exact same issues?

Much smaller workforces, and smaller global corporate influence.

And they have been facing the same issues, it's just a slower decline than in the U.S. It's a matter of time for much of Europe to follow suit to stay competitive.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wait, you think setting a standard of government forcing contracts and effectively undermining unions is for the greater good? There's a reason quality of life measurements are generally highest in countries with strong unions and union protections.

Hell, you can pretty much track the decline of the working class in the U.S., rise in income inequality, etc., with the decline of strong unions.

Railroads are pretty much essential infrastructure and government involvement in keeping trains running is not government over step in my book. This was enforcement of a mediated agreement after giving a lot of months to work it out. It wasn't forcing them to take what the companies were offering.

Where is your line? Do you let utility workers strike and turn off all the electricity or gas until they get what they want? Doctors, police, ambulance workers?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Much smaller workforces, and smaller global corporate influence.

What do you mean by "smaller global corporate influence?" I want to make sure what you're referring to so I'm not putting words in your mouth.

And they have been facing the same issues, it's just a slower decline than in the U.S. It's a matter of time for much of Europe to follow suit to stay competitive.

Are you talking in terms of growth/GDP? In terms of quality of life indexes, these countries are consistently at the top of the list.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Railroads are pretty much essential infrastructure and government involvement in keeping trains running is not government over step in my book. This was enforcement of a mediated agreement after giving a lot of months to work it out. It wasn't forcing them to take what the companies were offering.

Where is your line? Do you let utility workers strike and turn off all the electricity or gas until they get what they want? Doctors, police, ambulance workers?

Maybe leaving essential infrastructure in the hands of 3 major corporations is a bad idea then?

And no, I obviously don't think essential services should be able to completely suspend operations if it poses a public safety issue. We have laws in Canada against that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

One other thing I forgot to add is the worker shortage across all industries. Perhaps there is a simple logistical issue in that they can't manage to run the railroad if they give them all this time off. I don't know for sure if that's the issue, but I know in my job we are struggling to find enough qualified people to simply fill a lot of vacant positions we have. It's really nuts right now trying to find workers in any field.

The railroad companies had plenty of employees until they cut their workforce down to the bare bones to turn even larger profits. Why is there no accountability for companies that are considered essential not maintaining a workforce with some level of redundancy?

[PeteMoss]

If they are going to give them the sick days - why don't just send that back to have them vote on it.

The original deal was basically 50/50 at all the unions with some passing it and some declining but all by razor thin margins. If you add in the sick days - it probably passes.


That said - I worry a lot more for the people stuck working working at low wages and living at or near poverty than some of these powerful union workers who make six figures. Essentially every year there is some aspect of the supply chain transportation union threatening to go on strike because they have a boatload of leverage that the person who is cleaning the Walmart where you are buying this product doesn't have.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

One other thing I forgot to add is the worker shortage across all industries. Perhaps there is a simple logistical issue in that they can't manage to run the railroad if they give them all this time off. I don't know for sure if that's the issue, but I know in my job we are struggling to find enough qualified people to simply fill a lot of vacant positions we have. It's really nuts right now trying to find workers in any field.

Would you be OK if your employer's solution to the shortage was to make it so you could essentially never take a day off in the event of a medical appointment or a family emergency without repercussions (while simultaneously raking in record profits)?

Companies have increasingly gone leaner and leaner, having fewer people around to do the same amount of work in order to boost earnings. And as long as they can continue exploit their existing employees to do that, they'll keep doing it.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What do you mean by "smaller global corporate influence?" I want to make sure what you're referring to so I'm not putting words in your mouth.



Are you talking in terms of growth/GDP? In terms of quality of life indexes, these countries are consistently at the top of the list.

Apologies. I mean to say the corporations in the U.S. have larger global reach and therefore accessibility to different worker populations. There are more American companies that have international offices (meaning more than 1 continent) than most companies, and that means the basic infrastructure to outsource and avoid union issues in the U.S. is easier...or so I'm told by my economics colleagues. I'm hearing this 2nd hand, so it's possible I'm wrong about that.

As for quality of life index, no question it's better, but I don't see that being sustainable without having moderate GDP growth. At some point that quality of life cannot be paid for and you have another Greece situation coming at some point. There's too much global competition for work to insulate all the workers in developed nations from regression of their benefits or even pay. It can be staved off for some time, but it's just a matter of time.

The only way it doesn't end up that way is if the workers in these emerging economies unionize and demand rights and benefits for themselves, but it's hard to imagine because most of the countries have such large populations with a lot of competition for work.

I dunno...I'm just sharing thoughts at this point.