[News] Post a Political News Story

Ongoing discussion of the political news of the day. This thread is for 'smaller' stories that don't call for their own thread. If a story blows up, please start a new thread for it.

strangederby wrote:

Why not use government power to force the employers to allow sick leave?

Or is it only ok to force employees not to strike?

The answer to this is almost certainly campaign contributions from rail companies.

Yeah, just think of all the economic anxiety we can avoid by forcing essential rail workers to work rather giving up 2% of railway company profits to keep them happy.

Can’t force the companies by law to accept the employee demands, nope the party of… checks notes… “labor rights” has to force to the employees to give in. Poor Biden really had no other choice!

If only the rail workers had chosen a different time of year to be stonewalled by exploitative management denying them little luxuries like sick time while posting record profits, they could have scheduled their strike when it's more politically convenient.

Y'all realize that being disruptive is the point of a strike, right?

Edit: 'hausered multiple times. Teach me to get distracted by work-- at my JOB, no less-- before hitting "submit." (:

hbi2k wrote:

Y'all realize that being disruptive is the point of a strike, right?

Exactly

NSMike wrote:

I don't know why that matters, literally at all. The laborers are not responsible for the Democrat's or Republican's political campaigns. The laborers are seeking fair treatment.

If it matters to the political leadership, who can interfere with the process, then it should be part of their decision-making environment. And of course the effect on the public would be non-negligible.

Robear wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I don't know why that matters, literally at all. The laborers are not responsible for the Democrat's or Republican's political campaigns. The laborers are seeking fair treatment.

If it matters to the political leadership, who can interfere with the process, then it should be part of their decision-making environment. And of course the effect on the public would be non-negligible.

strangederby wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

Y'all realize that being disruptive is the point of a strike, right?

Exactly

What really frustrates me is that I already know the people in my social circles who support the republicans would not have their minds changed by a railstrike, and the people who oppose the republicans (whether democrat/progressive voters or moderates who have dropped the R's over the past 5 years) also would not have their minds changed by a railstrike.

So anecdotally at least, a strike by railworkers would have a roughly net zero impact on voting in my low-to-middle-class social circles. So the more we've learned about the nature of the deals being forced on them, I've shifted back towards supporting a strike.

As far as the legality of a strike... unless we're going to institute actual stringent labor rights and protections with real teeth, and universal healthcare so that your health prospects aren't dependent upon your employer, and proper welfare and social security to protect the unemployed (since capitalism necessitates a certain level of unemployment for a "healthy labor supply")... there should be no such thing as an "illegal strike". That just further entrenches the power disparity between wealthy capitalists and everyone else and breeds ever-worsening income inequality.

Disruptive, sure, that's the point. But you still have to read the room. If you want public support, maybe don't interfere with their Xmas shopping. Wait until January when all you have to worry about is being blamed for sudden price rises and scarcity of white goods, cars and anything else that moves by rail.

The unions do have to consider public opinion, as they did in the past, and they have to consider political support as well. Never go into a strike where you don't have a plan to win. That was the mistake the ATC union made back in the '80's, they bet that they were irreplaceable and so Reagan could not touch them.

That did not turn out well for them.

Robear wrote:

Disruptive, sure, that's the point. But you still have to ask nicely and not inconvenience anyone, and then maybe they'll realize how polite you're being and give you what you want.

The word "but" renders anything that precedes it disingenuous.

Here's how the conversation goes among rational people:

"Why is my Xmas shopping all f*cked up?"

Because there's a railway strike.

"Why is there a strike?"

Because large evil corporations wouldn't sacrifice 2% of their profits to grant very reasonable demands.

"f*ck the railway companies for ruining my Christmas!"

And non-rational people aren't going to support you no matter what you do, so there's no sense planning around their bullsh*t.

Trump Org guilty of tax fraud yay

Thanks for making me into a puppet, hbi2k, I always enjoy it when people entirely miss what I said and show it so, so clearly.

I'd be more worried about how many railroad workers and their families live in swing states that Biden just royally pissed off. Clearly Trump will not be any better for labor rights, but people only remember badly the last guy screwed them.

Then again, how are they going to vote with no paid time off?

CNN projects Warnock wins GA senate runoff.

NBC as well.

A shame it took the runoff but I guess that gave us vampires vs werewolves so that's something.

Robear wrote:

Disruptive, sure, that's the point. But you still have to read the room. If you want public support, maybe don't interfere with their Xmas shopping. Wait until January when all you have to worry about is being blamed for sudden price rises and scarcity of white goods, cars and anything else that moves by rail.

The unions do have to consider public opinion, as they did in the past, and they have to consider political support as well. Never go into a strike where you don't have a plan to win. That was the mistake the ATC union made back in the '80's, they bet that they were irreplaceable and so Reagan could not touch them.

That did not turn out well for them.

I get that this situation naturally calls up that comparison, but it's not exactly comparable. For one, the striking ATC union didn't realize that the US had basically an entire backup force of air traffic controllers that it could command to take their place - US military ATCs. Considering how reliant the US military is on air power in general, there were enough controllers to get the US's commercial air traffic up to about 75% capacity in spite of the strike. Replacement scabs were trained and installed, and that was it.

There is no such parallel force in the US for rail workers. Military use of the rail lines is comparatively tiny to general US freight rail. Scabs would have to be hired, trained, and installed, and that would take time - not to mention the potential for spoilers wasting the rail carriers' time by applying, getting trained, and then not showing up for work. It's not a union action to no-show quit, so the law wouldn't apply to them.

The other factor was that there was a lack of solidarity with the ATC union. Striking controllers went it alone, and perhaps that was expected to be enough. But no other unions went on strike with them. Unless I'm misinformed, port workers unions are prepared to strike in solidarity with rail unions. After all, why unload ships when there are no trains to load up?

Under these circumstances, the chances of the US pulling off what they did with the ATC union is non-existent.

A truly sad day for Georgia’s underrepresented werewolf and vampire minorities.

The progressive in me knows it is best that Warnock won, but the chaos love in me would have enjoyed 6 years of Senator CTE.

Spoiler:

Sadly, the leftist in me knows it doesn't really matter.

Mixolyde wrote:

Then again, how are they going to vote with no paid time off?

Railroad worker's contracts vary a bit, but 3 weeks vacation and up to 14 days personal leave are usual. I get your passion but please don't misrepresent the situation. And anyway, voting does not have be done in person.

NSMike, I agree with you. Now address the other half of what I noted. The economic pain will affect Democrats - and thus Progressives - in a very real way. This could re-energize the anti-Union movement if done in the most painful way possible.

Hbi2K misrepresented my position in large part because he missed that I'm not opposed to a strike. I'm saying that if you want to cause pain and apply pressure, you have to choose between breaking a limb, or breaking a neck. That is, relatively short-term pain, or damage that is long term and more likely to cause serious repercussions.

Unions *need* public sympathy in strikes. And they need political air cover. Likewise, political leaders associated with unions will be blamed, and those opposed will hammer them. If you want to see Progressives blamed for the pain, and Democrats hounded for the next year or more on the economic damage, then take away people's Christmases with goods shortages and price increases. If not, maybe wait until January.

Also, this is presented as if all railroad workers unions are united. They are not. 8 of 12 accepted the deal on the table; they know that they are establishing major change, and that more can come in the future. 4 of them did not. So this is in no way black and white.

We'll see how it plays out.

Mixolyde wrote:

I'd be more worried about how many railroad workers and their families live in swing states that Biden just royally pissed off.

Nationally, there are under 60,000 members in the various railroad workers unions, combined. If they can energize other unions, which have around 14M members total, that could be a big deal. But again, you're acknowledging here that political context *does* matter, and I'm pointing out that there is a downside for the unions, Democrats and Progressives as well as for Biden.

Sometimes you take what you can get and leave the rest for later. That's not shameful. That's progress.

NSMike wrote:
Robear wrote:

...
The unions do have to consider public opinion, as they did in the past, and they have to consider political support as well. Never go into a strike where you don't have a plan to win. That was the mistake the ATC union made back in the '80's, they bet that they were irreplaceable and so Reagan could not touch them.

That did not turn out well for them.

I get that this situation naturally calls up that comparison, but it's not exactly comparable. For one, the striking ATC union didn't realize that the US had basically an entire backup force of air traffic controllers that it could command to take their place - US military ATCs. Considering how reliant the US military is on air power in general, there were enough controllers to get the US's commercial air traffic up to about 75% capacity in spite of the strike. Replacement scabs were trained and installed, and that was it.
...

This is the first I'm learning of this air traffic controller strike. I must say, it strikes me that using the military, a force you can order around under threat of court-martial, as scab workers is disgusting. So I go and look up more information and find that it is illegal for any federal employee to go on strike in the US. I'm sure you all know this, but that sucks and should be changed.

Robear wrote:

Hbi2K misrepresented my position in large part because he missed that I'm not opposed to a strike.

No, you've been quite clear that you support some hypothetical other strike that happens when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars and overwhelming public support is guaranteed. Keep holding your breath for that.

Robear wrote:

Sometimes you take what you can get and leave the rest for later. That's not shameful. That's progress.

I agree with a great deal of what you're saying, Robear, and while I even technically agree with this statement, the problem is that this sentiment is not accounting for the moving goalposts. My immediate reaction was recoiling a bit.

Imagine Mr. Ebenezer Scrooge counting out revenue and disbursing a share to himself and a share to his employee Bob Cratchit. Scrooge counts out money. "5 for me, and 1 for you... 5 for me, and 1 for you..."

Next year, pay time comes around again. "20 for me, and 2 for you... 20 for me, and 2 for you..."
"But Mr. Scrooge, last year I got a 1:5 ratio for pay, this year I'm getting a 1:10 ratio for pay; why is my share decreasing since I'm working just as hard and we're making more money?"
Scrooge sneers back "Why are you complaining?! You're getting twice as much as last year, now get back to work!"

Another year, pay time comes around again. "100 for me, and 4 for you... 100 for me, and 4 for you..."
"Mr. Scrooge, I appreciate that you did increase my pay, but... my ratio of earnings has dropped again, now I'm earning at a 1:25 ratio."
"Shut up you ingrate! I doubled your pay again, you greedy little sh*t!"
"Yes, but Tiny Tim needs inhalers because his Black Lung disease is getting worse, and London Pharmaceuticals multiplied the price of medicine by 10 since last year, and it was already almost more than we could afford then. And with inflation, our food costs have gone up more than my pay too."
"That sounds like a 'you' problem to me! If I pay you even more, then that will just add to inflation! Shut your piehole and get back to work!"

This time, Cratchit decides the government should intervene. He goes to the mayor, Mr. Boe Jiden, and pleads his case for how badly his increasingly meager share of pay is eroding his purchasing power -- and that this is by far not an isolated case. Mayor Jiden convinces the city council (despite the best efforts of Scrooge's crony Midge McTurtle to undermine these efforts) of the need for change, so they institute an agreement forcing Scrooge to pay Cratchit at a 1:24 ratio for four years, and then they can renegotiate after that.

Cratchit takes what he can get, but it's a really tough sell to call that "progress" when it's still far worse than in the past, even if it's a smidge better than his most recent bad deal.

Trump team finds two documents with classified markings in a Florida storage unit

But remind me again about how private citizen Hunter Biden's laptop is critically important

IMAGE(https://y.yarn.co/1fcc47a9-8003-42fc-a437-8c0aeaaaa3dd_text.gif)

Farscry wrote:

Cratchit takes what he can get, but it's a really tough sell to call that "progress" when it's still far worse than in the past, even if it's a smidge better than his most recent bad deal.

My understanding is that this is literally the most the railroads have given up in decades, which means that it's not the case that they are doing better out of it than the workers. The sticking point is one aspect of what was otherwise quite a significant victory for the unions. Representing it otherwise is disingenous. It also raises the question, why would 8 unions accept a terrible deal? They negotiated the original deal, with the White House as mediators and negotiators.

My point in all this is that the deal that passed was a good one. Not perfect, but that's what negotiations are about, and the unions definitely negotiated well and got a good agreement. 24% raise over five years, an extra personal day, no more being penalized for sick time off, scheduling that respects employees scheduled time off (rather than making them liable to be called in at any moment from planned time off), up to $16K lump sum payments that cover the higher pay rates back to 2020, along with bonuses (again, as I understand it), and caps on health care costs. All of these were things the unions could not get for *decades*. Legitimate grievances solved. This is a big victory for the unions, not a tiny one with the railroads gaining some 25x better outcome. The railroads *lost big*, this time around. And there will be more in the future.

None of this agreement is "far worse than what was in the past", in other words. You're welcome to show that that's true but I have not seen it.

I am just saying, I work for a Class 1 railroad(management, not union). They are among the most profitable industries out there, with an insane operating ration. They have the money to share - but they share it with shareholders rather than the employees. They are insanely profitable. Even if this is the most they have given up in decades doesn't mean it is a fair or even good deal.

Railroads work field employees like modern day slaves. The union workers didn't want more money - they wanted better quality of life. I talk to these guys every day - even the ones in unions that voted in the affirmative don't feel like this is a big win.

Unions are organizations themselves - not just beneficial groups of negotiators that work for the workers, and these huge RR unions have internal metrics and goals. It's not like the negotiators are leaving the boardroom to go work a welding unit. Haven't you ever worked for a company that you didn't trust had your best interest at heart and maybe just wanted a bandaid for an open wound to placate employees?

Let's be clear - all of these wins being celebrated are wins for politicians and people who will ultimately benefit from the labor of the field workers(ourselves included) - not for the guys out there freezing on the tracks or the conductors who spend 6 days in a row in a sh*tty hotel room away from their family that can't call in sick without burning PTO.

Last note - I will just say that in my experience at my company the management employees(all of whom have unlimited sick time) were nothing but respectful and supportive of the union's plight. It's the f*cking shareholders and the board rooms that are the evil ones.

Robear wrote:

None of this agreement is "far worse than what was in the past", in other words. You're welcome to show that that's true but I have not seen it.

To clarify, I'm not claiming that railroads are making out 25x better with this current deal. Re-reading my post, I can see how it could give that impression. It was more in terms of how upper leadership pay/compensation compared to general workers has multiplied to absurd ratios over the past seveal decades. So that 24% raise for railroad workers? Sure, that's a great win. But when CEO compensation versus workers is running 350:1 now, a number roughly 5 times the ratio it was ~30 years ago, increasing worker pay by 24% is a meager improvement (and far from bringing them back to where they once were comparatively).

Farscry wrote:

But when CEO compensation versus workers is running 350:1 now, a number roughly 5 times the ratio it was ~30 years ago, increasing worker pay by 24% is a meager improvement (and far from bringing them back to where they once were comparatively).

Yes it is but I got less than inflation for an increase last year. We are all getting screwed by the 1% but at least folks with a union can get a bit more.

farley3k wrote:
Farscry wrote:

But when CEO compensation versus workers is running 350:1 now, a number roughly 5 times the ratio it was ~30 years ago, increasing worker pay by 24% is a meager improvement (and far from bringing them back to where they once were comparatively).

Yes it is but I got less than inflation for an increase last year. We are all getting screwed by the 1% but at least folks with a union can get a bit more.

24% over 5 years barely puts them ahead of inflation.

Also, regardless of how good the current offer compares to the past, the fact that it doesn't include paid sick leave is pretty amazing.