I doubt that it would be easy to separate those contracts. Trains generally run with a number of different contracts mixed up so designating government transport to only certain trains with different rules is going to cause more headaches than just giving the sick leave (or more likely refusing them to begin with). At best you might get an individual carrier or two agree to the sick leave for all their employees in order to gain exclusive access to the government contracts.
If the railway workers strike, and the economy crashes under Biden’s watch, we get Trump in 2024, and he’ll try to win a third term in 2028, and we’ll have fascism. That what you want?
No, so let’s give the railway workers a few paid sick days and they won’t strike.
But I guess that’s WAY too much to ask.
(Regardless of future fucking election outcomes. A few paid sick days for fuck’s sake.)
Again, I had the impression that the “just in time” scheduling of railroad cargo and the leanness of the current workforce meant that adding the PTO would necessitate a massive wave of new hiring to ensure everything would get to its destination at its currently promised time. Is this the case or no?
(Asking strictly on the level of answering the question of, is it really a matter of just adding the PTO, and boom, problem solved? IMO, the railroads should have to hire the new folks if that’s what it takes.)
You got me. That is exactly what I want. I can’t believe you figured my plan out.
Essentially yes, the sick time stuff is a microcosm of the larger issues that are falling on the understaffed and overworked rail workers’ shoulders. The knock-on effects of guaranteeing more time off would be that the rail companies would have to scale back the precision system at least to a significant degree.
That’s why the rail companies were willing to give a fair amount of other concessions to a group that they likely knew would be banned from actually striking. The salary and whatnot are short-term problems for the companies’ profits, but giving employees more flexible work schedules would necessitate that they cut into their profits long-term.
I would not be surprised if this is the case, because (as I think was noted upthread), the railroads have cut their number of employees by 30% in the past six years, due to the use of Precision Scheduled Railroading (a system which essentially assumes employees to be “always available”). As a result, the railroads are currently employing pretty close to the bare minimum number of engineers, conductors, etc., needed to operate their current trains.
Obviously that isn’t what you want. But it is a possibility I think needs to be considered. Would the knock on effects of a strike dwarf any gains? Is the risk worth it, even for the workers, let alone for the rest of us? Has the way things have been handled by Biden and the government already doomed the strike?
I for one am glad I’m not in the position where I have to figure out the answer to that question. Or take responsibility for which one I’d choose.
…or you don’t let the railway workers strike. You take the sides of the railways and let them do what they like. And then the economy doesn’t crash.
But we still get Trump in 2024. And he will try to and win a third term in 2028. Then you will have fascism.
Is that what you want?
The thing is we can’t “game this out” based on a couple of variables. We’ve heard it all before. If you advocate for “defund the police” then people will vote for Trump and you will get fascism. Abortion rights? Do it quietly, because if you do it loud then people will vote for Trump and you will get fascism. Transgender rights? You can’t support them before the election, because if you do then people will vote for Trump and you will get fascism.
At some stage you’ve got to decide, “well bugger it. Let’s just do the right thing.”
Of course, I’m under zero illusion that they would ever do the right thing. Not in the immediate future. This might be the best that you will ever be able to do. But that doesn’t mean that you should stop fighting.
Yeah, but this isn’t about risk.
For the workers it’s about sacrifice.
The level of risk is simply not quantifiable. This will all get forgotten whenever the news cycle moves on. It probably won’t even be in the top 20 things that will come up at the next round of elections, even if the economy did “happen to crash.”
This is all about expecting the workers to make a “sacrifice fo the greater good.” Even though we will never be able to measure whether or not that sacrifice was worth it.
Nobody of any consequence is taking a risk here. Outside the progressives, most centrist Democrats don’t really believe an authoritarian takeover is on the cards. They’ll just keep on keeping on as they always have done.
Seems to directly contradict the OP.
With all of the black and white thinking and picking of sides I think some subtleties of the situation are being lost.
First it is automatically assumed that going on strike is in the best interest of the workers. There is no guarantee that having the workers strike would put them in a better position than they are now. Strikes don’t always succeed and sometimes the power lost in a broken strike results in the company being able to force a worse contract that the workers left on the table before they went on strike. Also even if they do succeed they are hard on the workers, particularly during a time of rising prices and a struggling economy (which would be guaranteed if there was strike).
Second, it is being portrayed as if all the workers are united against this deal and in favor of striking. In fact 8/12 of the rail unions supported the contract, and the opposition among the remaining four was less than overwhelming. The vote that had the largest union rejecting the contract came down to a 49.13% to 50.87% split. Those are not the kind of numbers you want to see in strike whose success depends on solidarity.
…this is just…black-and-white thinking.
The issue here isn’t that the strike may or may not work, or if all of the workers are united or not.
Its about the right to strike.
Whether or not they would have gotten the votes to strike, and whether or not the strike would have been successful or not are largely immaterial. We didn’t get to that point. Because the President and Congress intervened.
The issue is the 300 million people impacted by a strike, who have no ability to affect anything related to the strike. This is why we elect serious, experienced people to run the government. Negotiations are stalled so they broker a deal where the workers get a 24% increase in pay, no increase in health care costs, the biggest increase in pay in 40 years, and say “you’re not holding the country hostage for more.”
It was a deal good enough to get significant support from union members, but not quite enough to prevent a strike on its own. That’s where black and white thinking has to be discarded. It’s a gray deal, nobody gets everything they want.
I can’t vote on the strike, but I can absolutely vote on who gets sent to congress next election cycle, and this is going to play a big part in who I vote for, at least in the primaries.
…ya mean the 300-odd-million people that are practically living in a dystopia where sick pay isn’t mandated, health care is tied to your employment, and the right to strike can be curtailed whenever it is politically inconvenient?
Those “serious, experienced people” have, over the last few centuries, invaded, occupied and killed thousands of people in the name of capitalism, took one look at what is happening with policing today and decided what was needed to be done was to give the cops billions more dollars, those “serious experienced people” have banned abortion in a number of states, have locked more people in prison per capita than anywhere else in the world.
Just being “serious” and “experienced” doesn’t mean they are doing the right thing.
Re contextualising “going on strike” as “holding the country hostage” is precisely the issue at play here. Workers have very little leverage, which is why they are so easily screwed over. For the government to step in and remove pretty much the only leverage they had is unconscionable.
If it wasn’t good enough to prevent a strike, then it simply wasn’t good enough.
“Unions should be allowed to strike” should be a relatively uncontroversial statement, one would think. I don’t see why that needs to be discarded.
Except one party here got exactly what they wanted. They got the full might of the state on their side. They shut down the potential strike action and in turn sent a message to workers up and down the country.
So, the railroads wanted to give their employees the biggest pay increase in decades, and guarantee to absorb increases to health care costs that have been spiraling out of control for years? Those railroad execs are pretty strange fellas if that’s what they wanted.
Is it also fair to point out that a number of RR unions also apparently got exactly what they wanted too, since they approved the deal?
I support unions because I believe that collective bargaining is a good thing for society. It’s not a suicide pact. I don’t have to accept putting people in danger, shutting down schools, or putting the entire economy at risk simply because a deal falls a bit short of approval.
You have to acknowledge that your two points, that a lot of union members did accept the deal and that you don’t want a union to take down the rest of the economy are related though.
The rail unions ultimately know that the government will not allow them to strike and they can’t ask for everything, which is likely a big part of the reason both why a lot of the unions and members accepted this deal and why they worked without a contract, getting no raise in an inflationary economy for years prior to this.
…yes, the things that they negotiated back in September were exactly the things that they wanted. The things that they refused to agree to were the things that they didn’t want.
Either the railroads got “exactly what they wanted” by this metric, or they didn’t. I’ll leave it up to you to decide.
Going on strike isn’t “suicide.”
Just so that we are clear here: this is what was at stake. Sick leave is a basic right that exists almost everywhere else in the world. A little bit of extra money doesn’t compensate for the damage that is done when people are forced to work when they are sick.
You claim you “don’t have to accept putting people in danger” but that is exactly what you have done here. This isn’t a matter of “a deal falling a bit short.” Any system that allows “marks against a worker for any time away”, even if they are sick, is both fundamentally broken, and fundamentally fucked up. Systems don’t change unless people stand up and fight.
They also don’t change by fucking up the supply chain and transportation system for everyone to get 0.03% of the population a better deal.
I agree that the US system is fundamentally broken, and that we would ALL be better served with more unionization, and better employee protections across the board. I don’t agree that a railroad union strike is the way to do it.
When people associate unions with that time the railroad unions screwed us over to squeeze more out of the railroads, they see unionization as a danger, a negative, a thing that hurt them personally, right before Christmas, when everything was finally starting to seem like normal.
It’s not the railroad union’s job to consider these things, but I’d bet that Biden’s team is not interested in unions being seen as the bad guy by millions of voters.
They didn’t. What they got is a deal they’re willing to accept. Same as a majority share of the unions that approved it, and same as a sizeable minority of the unions that ultimately rejected the deal.
…of course they do. It’s the year 2022 and America is one of the few developed industrial nations that still doesn’t allow sick pay. Do you think that is going to change unless people take radical action?
The US system is fundamentally broken because people are willing to throw the 0.03% under the bus the second things might become inconvenient for them.
The only person who is associating unionisation with danger, a negative, a thing that would hurt them personally here in this thread is you.
How you choose to characterize something is important. And in this thread you have characterized the actions of the union as “holding the country hostage”, “suicide” as if they were the only parties to the negotation here. All of this could have been avoided if the railways paid the damn sick pay. They deseve every bit of your scorn yet you reserve that for the union here.
Biden’s job isn’t “union PR.” Unions are being painted as the bad guys right now because Biden has bought into the company line. He literally intervened to stop the “bad unions destroying the economy.”
The unions that rejected the deal had a right to reject that deal. They should also have had the right to withdraw their labour if that was the will of the people. That the government stepped in and shut this down is the reason why workers will continue to get screwed.