If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Yes, because I think people deserve sick days as a default. Not because of some absurd notion that negotiators get to bind everyone to a deal without following the proper procedures. I wouldn't be claiming they backed down. I would be calling them out on their monstrous demands just like I am now.
You will also find I am not at all moved by Congress stating they are ok with imposing a deal that the unions never agreed to while pushing that deal on the unions. I wouldn't even call it a tentative deal. They had a proposed deal that the unions rejected by their clearly laid out, transparent process.
when the failure state of the negotiations breaking down is uninvolved third parties get hurt to the tune of a million plus people out of work, public health crises, etc, and with knowledge that they had run out the clock, the delegates had no business agreeing to a deal if they weren't sure that membership would ratify it or if there wasn't a mechanism available to compel them to ratify it.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Yes, because I think people deserve sick days as a default. Not because of some absurd notion that negotiators get to bind everyone to a deal without following the proper procedures. I wouldn't be claiming they backed down. I would be calling them out on their monstrous demands just like I am now.
You will also find I am not at all moved by Congress stating they are ok with imposing a deal that the unions never agreed to while pushing that deal on the unions. I wouldn't even call it a tentative deal. They had a proposed deal that the unions rejected by their clearly laid out, transparent process.
when the failure state of the negotiations breaking down is uninvolved third parties get hurt to the tune of a million plus people out of work, public health crises, etc, the delegates had no business agreeing to a deal if they weren't sure that membership would ratify it or if there wasn't a mechanism available to compel them to ratify it.
I agree. The negotiators did not successfully do their job here. That doesn't somehow remove Democrats responsibility for their actions.
+5
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Yes, because I think people deserve sick days as a default. Not because of some absurd notion that negotiators get to bind everyone to a deal without following the proper procedures. I wouldn't be claiming they backed down. I would be calling them out on their monstrous demands just like I am now.
You will also find I am not at all moved by Congress stating they are ok with imposing a deal that the unions never agreed to while pushing that deal on the unions. I wouldn't even call it a tentative deal. They had a proposed deal that the unions rejected by their clearly laid out, transparent process.
when the failure state of the negotiations breaking down is uninvolved third parties get hurt to the tune of a million plus people out of work, public health crises, etc, the delegates had no business agreeing to a deal if they weren't sure that membership would ratify it or if there wasn't a mechanism available to compel them to ratify it.
I agree. The negotiators did not successfully do their job here. That doesn't somehow remove Democrats responsibility for their actions.
Democrats, or any government, are never going to let one group of workers create public health and economic crises as part of their strike when they already reached an agreement in principle during mediation. You don't get to gamble with everyone else's chips.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Yeah because this hypothetical scenario you made doesn't follow the rules of how this works.
In reality, the way it works is that after negotiations, the union membership still votes to accept to reject the tentative agreement. I know you know that "tentative" does not mean finalized.
The strike wasn't going to happen until December 9th. There was still time for negotiation.
And yes, it was "within the rules" what Biden and Congress did - but it was using rules crafted to break strikes and bring labor to heel, rules that Biden and Congress were not obligated to use but freely and willfully chose to use. Our anger is at them choosing to override, undermine, and shackle labor.
I certainly hope no one is going to argue we can't be angry about something the government does because there is a law that says they can do it?
Democrats, or any government, are never going to let one group of workers create public health and economic crises as part of their strike when they already reached an agreement in principle during mediation. You don't get to gamble with everyone else's chips.
"Strikebreaking is okay if a Democrat does it!"
Note: Post got destroyed accidentally during a copy-paste edit error. Hopefully restored to its same essence.
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Yes, because I think people deserve sick days as a default. Not because of some absurd notion that negotiators get to bind everyone to a deal without following the proper procedures. I wouldn't be claiming they backed down. I would be calling them out on their monstrous demands just like I am now.
You will also find I am not at all moved by Congress stating they are ok with imposing a deal that the unions never agreed to while pushing that deal on the unions. I wouldn't even call it a tentative deal. They had a proposed deal that the unions rejected by their clearly laid out, transparent process.
when the failure state of the negotiations breaking down is uninvolved third parties get hurt to the tune of a million plus people out of work, public health crises, etc, the delegates had no business agreeing to a deal if they weren't sure that membership would ratify it or if there wasn't a mechanism available to compel them to ratify it.
I agree. The negotiators did not successfully do their job here. That doesn't somehow remove Democrats responsibility for their actions.
Democrats, or any government, are never going to let one group of workers create public health and economic crises as part of their strike when they already reached an agreement in principle during mediation. You don't get to gamble with everyone else's chips.
Ok? Again not relevant to the point being made by me. I understand you believe this to be a positive move. We can agree to disagree here on that score. Democrats still are responsible for their decisions.
Side note: We are still gambling with someone else's chips. Currently everyone is betting that rail workers won't die in the current working conditions. No one here is risking that personally. I am never going to be for sacrificing others for the "greater good." Historically, it has always ended horrifically.
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Yes, because I think people deserve sick days as a default. Not because of some absurd notion that negotiators get to bind everyone to a deal without following the proper procedures. I wouldn't be claiming they backed down. I would be calling them out on their monstrous demands just like I am now.
You will also find I am not at all moved by Congress stating they are ok with imposing a deal that the unions never agreed to while pushing that deal on the unions. I wouldn't even call it a tentative deal. They had a proposed deal that the unions rejected by their clearly laid out, transparent process.
when the failure state of the negotiations breaking down is uninvolved third parties get hurt to the tune of a million plus people out of work, public health crises, etc, the delegates had no business agreeing to a deal if they weren't sure that membership would ratify it or if there wasn't a mechanism available to compel them to ratify it.
I agree. The negotiators did not successfully do their job here. That doesn't somehow remove Democrats responsibility for their actions.
Democrats, or any government, are never going to let one group of workers create public health and economic crises as part of their strike when they already reached an agreement in principle during mediation. You don't get to gamble with everyone else's chips.
This just sounds like an excuse for Democrats to override the unions. Much like Reagan did
I mean, we know some of them will die, because some of them have died under and due to current conditions.
I mean, I can do the napkin math about mortality expected values for losing clean drinking water and putting millions of people out of work
if we're down to strict utility consequentialism the math is clear
No, from a strict utility consequetialism perspective, having the railroad corporations give them their fucking paid sick leave is better for literally everyone except the railroad shareholders.
Unless you value corporate profits over human life.
(But even then, only the corporate profits of the railroad owners. It's been talked about multiple times already how their poor business practices are costing other businesses and consumers more.)
I really would like to meet the person that set up the railroads(dot)dot(dot)gov website name. Someone just really maliciously interpreted the instruction to register the railroad(dot)gov website as part of their job.
I just realized that the "dot" is meant to be Department of Transportation. Which just makes it even funnier to me.
I really would like to meet the person that set up the railroads(dot)dot(dot)gov website name. Someone just really maliciously interpreted the instruction to register the railroad(dot)gov website as part of their job.
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Yes, because I think people deserve sick days as a default. Not because of some absurd notion that negotiators get to bind everyone to a deal without following the proper procedures. I wouldn't be claiming they backed down. I would be calling them out on their monstrous demands just like I am now.
You will also find I am not at all moved by Congress stating they are ok with imposing a deal that the unions never agreed to while pushing that deal on the unions. I wouldn't even call it a tentative deal. They had a proposed deal that the unions rejected by their clearly laid out, transparent process.
when the failure state of the negotiations breaking down is uninvolved third parties get hurt to the tune of a million plus people out of work, public health crises, etc, the delegates had no business agreeing to a deal if they weren't sure that membership would ratify it or if there wasn't a mechanism available to compel them to ratify it.
I agree. The negotiators did not successfully do their job here. That doesn't somehow remove Democrats responsibility for their actions.
Democrats, or any government, are never going to let one group of workers create public health and economic crises as part of their strike when they already reached an agreement in principle during mediation. You don't get to gamble with everyone else's chips.
The problem with this thought line is that any specific group of laborers will always be a minority. If you just look at that specific group, then they will always be sacrificed for the greater good. It's only when we look at labor as a whole do we realize just how much of a majority we really have.
We're in a second gilded age right now, so it's not really surprising that government from either party is supporting Capital. We need a revival of the Sherman and Clayton Acts (which had a 24 year span between them) to break up modern day monopolies and oligarchies.
+14
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Congress, and then Biden by agreement, enforcing a tentative agreement made by union leadership and the companies and ultimately agreed to by almost half the union membership which gives the union some but not everything they'd like, and guarantees a big chunk of well deserved pay, in order to avoid a potential humanitarian crisis when tens of millions of Americans lose access to electricity and potable water
Is basically the same as Moussolini's Italy.
Sure okay.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Yes, because I think people deserve sick days as a default. Not because of some absurd notion that negotiators get to bind everyone to a deal without following the proper procedures. I wouldn't be claiming they backed down. I would be calling them out on their monstrous demands just like I am now.
You will also find I am not at all moved by Congress stating they are ok with imposing a deal that the unions never agreed to while pushing that deal on the unions. I wouldn't even call it a tentative deal. They had a proposed deal that the unions rejected by their clearly laid out, transparent process.
when the failure state of the negotiations breaking down is uninvolved third parties get hurt to the tune of a million plus people out of work, public health crises, etc, the delegates had no business agreeing to a deal if they weren't sure that membership would ratify it or if there wasn't a mechanism available to compel them to ratify it.
I agree. The negotiators did not successfully do their job here. That doesn't somehow remove Democrats responsibility for their actions.
Democrats, or any government, are never going to let one group of workers create public health and economic crises as part of their strike when they already reached an agreement in principle during mediation. You don't get to gamble with everyone else's chips.
The problem with this thought line is that any specific group of laborers will always be a minority. If you just look at that specific group, then they will always be sacrificed for the greater good. It's only when we look at labor as a whole do we realize just how much of a majority we really have.
We're in a second gilded age right now, so it's not really surprising that government from either party is supporting Capital. We need a revival of the Sherman and Clayton Acts (which had a 24 year span between them) to break up modern day monopolies and oligarchies.
It's the railways so I think in this case this is still technically the first Gilded Age. The issues with them were never really fixed in the first place.
This isn't some instance where the Democrats needed to pass something and anything would be improvement over the status quo.
Actually it is.
Without intervention the status quo becomes a strike or lockout, which is significantly worse than the current status quo.
So they passed a bill with better conditions than the existing contract, an improvement from the status quo.
Unless you believe the unions would be able to vote for an extension of their old worse contract when they already narrowly voted down an improvement. In that case the status quo would remain unchanged.
A government is never going to give it's stamp - and shouldn't - on letting a private fight go on such that the country loses access to clean drinking water, among the rest of the damage to the economy. It's never going to approve gambling with everyone else's chips like that. And especially not against the context of labour's representative to the NMB mediation agreeing to the contract that congress ultimately mandated.
Like, what's even the point of sending a delegation to the NMB if they weren't empowered to actually negotiate.
The 49% of workers who wanted to avoid a strike can continue working and aren't forced into a strike they didn't want due to the solidarity clause, and with PRS meaning headcount is so tight, the 51% can take their lump sum two years of 24% back pay raises (thanks, Biden and NMB mediators!) , resign, and the union can negotiate from there for the workers who remain + return-to-industry negotiations for the workers who quit since the RR's can't handle the resignations / quiet quitting.
The back pay coming to the workers from the NMB mediation contract (an average of $16k a worker and due within 60 days, per NPR reporting a statement from RR owners) that was approved means they'll have a war chest for wildcatting or resignations.
I agree with the bolded. Thus the railroads need to be nationalized and the unscrupulous railroad owners told to pound sand.
Personally I would love it if the Dems would go through all of these sweetheart special provisions in laws that let certain industries skirt labor laws and eliminate them, and advertise it as them clearing away unnecessary red tape.
Mandate that everyone can see a doctor and must have an uninterrupted rest periods totaling some amount of hours a week and additional hours each day. Exhausted people cause dangerous accidents for themselves, their employers, and the public at large.
Same with minimum wage means minimum, no more gratuity counts for wages. Roll gratuity into revenue/profits and pay people their wages, then companies can pay out bonuses with the gratuity to retain exceptional staff.
This isn't some instance where the Democrats needed to pass something and anything would be improvement over the status quo.
Actually it is.
Without intervention the status quo becomes a strike or lockout, which is significantly worse than the current status quo.
So they passed a bill with better conditions than the existing contract, an improvement from the status quo.
Unless you believe the unions would be able to vote for an extension of their old worse contract when they already narrowly voted down an improvement. In that case the status quo would remain unchanged.
A strike is not worse than the status quo if a strike succeeds. You advocate peace without justice.
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Yes, because I think people deserve sick days as a default. Not because of some absurd notion that negotiators get to bind everyone to a deal without following the proper procedures. I wouldn't be claiming they backed down. I would be calling them out on their monstrous demands just like I am now.
You will also find I am not at all moved by Congress stating they are ok with imposing a deal that the unions never agreed to while pushing that deal on the unions. I wouldn't even call it a tentative deal. They had a proposed deal that the unions rejected by their clearly laid out, transparent process.
when the failure state of the negotiations breaking down is uninvolved third parties get hurt to the tune of a million plus people out of work, public health crises, etc, the delegates had no business agreeing to a deal if they weren't sure that membership would ratify it or if there wasn't a mechanism available to compel them to ratify it.
I agree. The negotiators did not successfully do their job here. That doesn't somehow remove Democrats responsibility for their actions.
Democrats, or any government, are never going to let one group of workers create public health and economic crises as part of their strike when they already reached an agreement in principle during mediation. You don't get to gamble with everyone else's chips.
The problem with this thought line is that any specific group of laborers will always be a minority. If you just look at that specific group, then they will always be sacrificed for the greater good. It's only when we look at labor as a whole do we realize just how much of a majority we really have.
We're in a second gilded age right now, so it's not really surprising that government from either party is supporting Capital. We need a revival of the Sherman and Clayton Acts (which had a 24 year span between them) to break up modern day monopolies and oligarchies.
I agree. SummaryJudgments logic seems to imply that workers in economically crucial sectors generally should not be allowed to strike. This is actually a very bad approach for the health of an economy and a democracy, so even if you want to be crudely utilitarian about it, the math is not so clear in the long term.
This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what would a movement to nationalize railroads look like? I stand by my assertion that’s the best option, because the workers and the broader public both get what they need, but it’s real easy to say that in a video game forum.
This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what would a movement to nationalize railroads look like? I stand by my assertion that’s the best option, because the workers and the broader public both get what they need, but it’s real easy to say that in a video game forum.
It would look like a socialist party based on and oriented toward the working class, organized with a strong, militant labor movement capable of solidarity actions.
Or, possibly, economic necessity forcing the bourgeois to accept nationalization without any social movement (i.e. if the railways could not sustain themselves on a private basis the state might be compelled to take them over).
edit - also, there were major movements toward nationalization in the early 1900s, some hoped the Wilson administration would do so, but the administration instead forced the companies to make concessions to unions (like the 8 hour work day) and kept railroads private
Kaputa on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what would a movement to nationalize railroads look like? I stand by my assertion that’s the best option, because the workers and the broader public both get what they need, but it’s real easy to say that in a video game forum.
You'd need to at least break filibuster (and then have 50 votes +VP for nationalization), so start there
Fencingsax on
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Just as an aside, if the government nationalized the railroad industry they’d have to pay for it. Roughly 250-300 billion dollars. I’m not saying they can’t or shouldn’t, just that it would have a cost.
So it's a "potential humanitarian crisis" if workers strike, because of the disruption it could cause to the economic supply chain?
But the conditions that railroad workers have been working under for years, conditions will persist under the contract forced upon them by Congress, that's not a humanitarian crisis?
This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what would a movement to nationalize railroads look like? I stand by my assertion that’s the best option, because the workers and the broader public both get what they need, but it’s real easy to say that in a video game forum.
Keep in mind that Nationalization isnt a sure fire way to improve worker conditions if the government apparatus isn’t already inclined to do so. Especially when there will be parts of the government trying to frame any worker benefits as socialism and any revenue as hidden taxes or governmental subsidies.
You only need to look as far as the post office for what dedicated rat fucking can do to an organization.
So it's a "potential humanitarian crisis" if workers strike, because of the disruption it could cause to the economic supply chain?
But the conditions that railroad workers have been working under for years, conditions will persist under the contract forced upon them by Congress, that's not a humanitarian crisis?
It's a smaller crisis so it's okay, gotta sacrifice for the good of the nation.
This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what would a movement to nationalize railroads look like? I stand by my assertion that’s the best option, because the workers and the broader public both get what they need, but it’s real easy to say that in a video game forum.
Keep in mind that Nationalization isnt a sure fire way to improve worker conditions if the government apparatus isn’t already inclined to do so. Especially when there will be parts of the government trying to frame any worker benefits as socialism and any revenue as hidden taxes or governmental subsidies.
You only need to look as far as the post office for what dedicated rat fucking can do to an organization.
The post office is still running better than it would if it was privatized, despite deliberate efforts to slow service.
And to that point, postal workers have paid sick leave, because all federal employees have paid sick leave. Nationalizing the railroads would require the government to give the railroad workers paid sick leave! It is in fact a surefire way to improve worker conditions!
This isn't some instance where the Democrats needed to pass something and anything would be improvement over the status quo.
Actually it is.
Without intervention the status quo becomes a strike or lockout, which is significantly worse than the current status quo.
So they passed a bill with better conditions than the existing contract, an improvement from the status quo.
Unless you believe the unions would be able to vote for an extension of their old worse contract when they already narrowly voted down an improvement. In that case the status quo would remain unchanged.
A strike is not worse than the status quo if a strike succeeds. You advocate peace without justice.
I think you used the wrong generic platitude, feel free to try again.
Just as an aside, if the government nationalized the railroad industry they’d have to pay for it. Roughly 250-300 billion dollars. I’m not saying they can’t or shouldn’t, just that it would have a cost.
Funny think about that, moving freight brings in income to pay for it, and since the government isn't profit motivated they'd perform track upkeep to stop many train derailments.
You'd need something better than the forces that caused an overhaul in healthcare, because we failed to nationalize that. We failed to nationalize banks after 2008. Did we even nationalize our covid response?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what would a movement to nationalize railroads look like? I stand by my assertion that’s the best option, because the workers and the broader public both get what they need, but it’s real easy to say that in a video game forum.
You'd need to at least break filibuster (and then have 50 votes +VP for nationalization), so start there
"Start there"? How would one start with winning a vote in the Senate? What you describe is the end, not the start. The start is building a movement and party that wants to do things like nationalize railways. We're not even close to that yet, never mind a socialist majority in the Senate.
The Democrats accept millions in railway company lobbying money, just like the Republicans. Neither party wants to nationalize the railways. Nothing like that will come out of the capitalist parties, unless possibly motivated by absolute necessity in the event of a total failure of the industry.
This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what would a movement to nationalize railroads look like? I stand by my assertion that’s the best option, because the workers and the broader public both get what they need, but it’s real easy to say that in a video game forum.
It would look like a socialist party based on and oriented toward the working class, organized with a strong, militant labor movement capable of solidarity actions.
Or, possibly, economic necessity forcing the bourgeois to accept nationalization without any social movement (i.e. if the railways could not sustain themselves on a private basis the state might be compelled to take them over).
edit - also, there were major movements toward nationalization in the early 1900s, some hoped the Wilson administration would do so, but the administration instead forced the companies to make concessions to unions (like the 8 hour work day) and kept railroads private
In a case of railway collapse I’m worried the outcome would not be nationalization, but a massive bailout with government resources. I don’t mean money specifically, but the army or something filling in the logistical gaps. The effect would still be like the bank bailouts of 2008, with the owners profiting of the taxpayer, no strings attached.
Congress, and then Biden by agreement, enforcing a tentative agreement made by union leadership and the companies and ultimately agreed to by almost half the union membership which gives the union some but not everything they'd like, and guarantees a big chunk of well deserved pay, in order to avoid a potential humanitarian crisis when tens of millions of Americans lose access to electricity and potable water
Is basically the same as Moussolini's Italy.
Sure okay.
Facts not in evidence. We dont actually have meaningful vote breakdowns at all, beyond which unions rejected or approved it.
This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what would a movement to nationalize railroads look like? I stand by my assertion that’s the best option, because the workers and the broader public both get what they need, but it’s real easy to say that in a video game forum.
It would look like a socialist party based on and oriented toward the working class, organized with a strong, militant labor movement capable of solidarity actions.
Or, possibly, economic necessity forcing the bourgeois to accept nationalization without any social movement (i.e. if the railways could not sustain themselves on a private basis the state might be compelled to take them over).
edit - also, there were major movements toward nationalization in the early 1900s, some hoped the Wilson administration would do so, but the administration instead forced the companies to make concessions to unions (like the 8 hour work day) and kept railroads private
In a case of railway collapse I’m worried the outcome would not be nationalization, but a massive bailout with government resources. I don’t mean money specifically, but the army or something filling in the logistical gaps. The effect would still be like the bank bailouts of 2008, with the owners profiting of the taxpayer, no strings attached.
A valid concern, intervention on an economic basis could take the form you describe, or a neoliberal public-private partnership with subsidies to save the industry, like the ACA.
This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what would a movement to nationalize railroads look like? I stand by my assertion that’s the best option, because the workers and the broader public both get what they need, but it’s real easy to say that in a video game forum.
It would look like a socialist party based on and oriented toward the working class, organized with a strong, militant labor movement capable of solidarity actions.
Or, possibly, economic necessity forcing the bourgeois to accept nationalization without any social movement (i.e. if the railways could not sustain themselves on a private basis the state might be compelled to take them over).
edit - also, there were major movements toward nationalization in the early 1900s, some hoped the Wilson administration would do so, but the administration instead forced the companies to make concessions to unions (like the 8 hour work day) and kept railroads private
In a case of railway collapse I’m worried the outcome would not be nationalization, but a massive bailout with government resources. I don’t mean money specifically, but the army or something filling in the logistical gaps. The effect would still be like the bank bailouts of 2008, with the owners profiting of the taxpayer, no strings attached.
A valid concern, intervention on an economic basis could take the form you describe, or a neoliberal public-private partnership with subsidies to save the industry, like the ACA.
Or like agribusiness. Huge subsidies to ensure the functioning of a necessary pillar of civilization, with allowing a worthless owner class to profit of the whole thing. Not even capitalism, with a market and invisible hand, just wealth transfer going straight up.
This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what would a movement to nationalize railroads look like? I stand by my assertion that’s the best option, because the workers and the broader public both get what they need, but it’s real easy to say that in a video game forum.
Keep in mind that Nationalization isnt a sure fire way to improve worker conditions if the government apparatus isn’t already inclined to do so. Especially when there will be parts of the government trying to frame any worker benefits as socialism and any revenue as hidden taxes or governmental subsidies.
You only need to look as far as the post office for what dedicated rat fucking can do to an organization.
I agree with you here, this is why public sector unions are crucial and why unjust laws prohibiting them from striking in most states should be a primary target of abolition for socialists and unions.
Congress, and then Biden by agreement, enforcing a tentative agreement made by union leadership and the companies and ultimately agreed to by almost half the union membership which gives the union some but not everything they'd like, and guarantees a big chunk of well deserved pay, in order to avoid a potential humanitarian crisis when tens of millions of Americans lose access to electricity and potable water
Is basically the same as Moussolini's Italy.
Sure okay.
Facts not in evidence. We dont actually have meaningful vote breakdowns at all, beyond which unions rejected or approved it.
Do we not have those numbers? Or was this an entirely different vote or something?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
when the failure state of the negotiations breaking down is uninvolved third parties get hurt to the tune of a million plus people out of work, public health crises, etc, and with knowledge that they had run out the clock, the delegates had no business agreeing to a deal if they weren't sure that membership would ratify it or if there wasn't a mechanism available to compel them to ratify it.
I agree. The negotiators did not successfully do their job here. That doesn't somehow remove Democrats responsibility for their actions.
Democrats, or any government, are never going to let one group of workers create public health and economic crises as part of their strike when they already reached an agreement in principle during mediation. You don't get to gamble with everyone else's chips.
Yeah because this hypothetical scenario you made doesn't follow the rules of how this works.
In reality, the way it works is that after negotiations, the union membership still votes to accept to reject the tentative agreement. I know you know that "tentative" does not mean finalized.
The strike wasn't going to happen until December 9th. There was still time for negotiation.
And yes, it was "within the rules" what Biden and Congress did - but it was using rules crafted to break strikes and bring labor to heel, rules that Biden and Congress were not obligated to use but freely and willfully chose to use. Our anger is at them choosing to override, undermine, and shackle labor.
I certainly hope no one is going to argue we can't be angry about something the government does because there is a law that says they can do it?
"Strikebreaking is okay if a Democrat does it!"
Note: Post got destroyed accidentally during a copy-paste edit error. Hopefully restored to its same essence.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Ok? Again not relevant to the point being made by me. I understand you believe this to be a positive move. We can agree to disagree here on that score. Democrats still are responsible for their decisions.
Side note: We are still gambling with someone else's chips. Currently everyone is betting that rail workers won't die in the current working conditions. No one here is risking that personally. I am never going to be for sacrificing others for the "greater good." Historically, it has always ended horrifically.
This just sounds like an excuse for Democrats to override the unions. Much like Reagan did
But sacrificing for the "common good" (or "the Democratic Party's image) is always easy when you're sacrificing someone else.
I mean, I can do the napkin math about mortality expected values for losing clean drinking water and putting millions of people out of work
if we're down to strict utility consequentialism the math is clear
if I'm remembering right you've been comfortable with that as your rubric, previously
No, from a strict utility consequetialism perspective, having the railroad corporations give them their fucking paid sick leave is better for literally everyone except the railroad shareholders.
Unless you value corporate profits over human life.
(But even then, only the corporate profits of the railroad owners. It's been talked about multiple times already how their poor business practices are costing other businesses and consumers more.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I just realized that the "dot" is meant to be Department of Transportation. Which just makes it even funnier to me.
this is joke?
This game of responsibility hot potato when it comes to actions taken by Congress and the president is amazing to watch.
The problem with this thought line is that any specific group of laborers will always be a minority. If you just look at that specific group, then they will always be sacrificed for the greater good. It's only when we look at labor as a whole do we realize just how much of a majority we really have.
We're in a second gilded age right now, so it's not really surprising that government from either party is supporting Capital. We need a revival of the Sherman and Clayton Acts (which had a 24 year span between them) to break up modern day monopolies and oligarchies.
Congress, and then Biden by agreement, enforcing a tentative agreement made by union leadership and the companies and ultimately agreed to by almost half the union membership which gives the union some but not everything they'd like, and guarantees a big chunk of well deserved pay, in order to avoid a potential humanitarian crisis when tens of millions of Americans lose access to electricity and potable water
Is basically the same as Moussolini's Italy.
Sure okay.
It's the railways so I think in this case this is still technically the first Gilded Age. The issues with them were never really fixed in the first place.
Actually it is.
Without intervention the status quo becomes a strike or lockout, which is significantly worse than the current status quo.
So they passed a bill with better conditions than the existing contract, an improvement from the status quo.
Unless you believe the unions would be able to vote for an extension of their old worse contract when they already narrowly voted down an improvement. In that case the status quo would remain unchanged.
MWO: Adamski
I agree with the bolded. Thus the railroads need to be nationalized and the unscrupulous railroad owners told to pound sand.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Mandate that everyone can see a doctor and must have an uninterrupted rest periods totaling some amount of hours a week and additional hours each day. Exhausted people cause dangerous accidents for themselves, their employers, and the public at large.
Same with minimum wage means minimum, no more gratuity counts for wages. Roll gratuity into revenue/profits and pay people their wages, then companies can pay out bonuses with the gratuity to retain exceptional staff.
MWO: Adamski
I agree. SummaryJudgments logic seems to imply that workers in economically crucial sectors generally should not be allowed to strike. This is actually a very bad approach for the health of an economy and a democracy, so even if you want to be crudely utilitarian about it, the math is not so clear in the long term.
Or, possibly, economic necessity forcing the bourgeois to accept nationalization without any social movement (i.e. if the railways could not sustain themselves on a private basis the state might be compelled to take them over).
edit - also, there were major movements toward nationalization in the early 1900s, some hoped the Wilson administration would do so, but the administration instead forced the companies to make concessions to unions (like the 8 hour work day) and kept railroads private
You'd need to at least break filibuster (and then have 50 votes +VP for nationalization), so start there
But the conditions that railroad workers have been working under for years, conditions will persist under the contract forced upon them by Congress, that's not a humanitarian crisis?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Keep in mind that Nationalization isnt a sure fire way to improve worker conditions if the government apparatus isn’t already inclined to do so. Especially when there will be parts of the government trying to frame any worker benefits as socialism and any revenue as hidden taxes or governmental subsidies.
You only need to look as far as the post office for what dedicated rat fucking can do to an organization.
MWO: Adamski
It's a smaller crisis so it's okay, gotta sacrifice for the good of the nation.
The post office is still running better than it would if it was privatized, despite deliberate efforts to slow service.
And to that point, postal workers have paid sick leave, because all federal employees have paid sick leave. Nationalizing the railroads would require the government to give the railroad workers paid sick leave! It is in fact a surefire way to improve worker conditions!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think you used the wrong generic platitude, feel free to try again.
MWO: Adamski
Funny think about that, moving freight brings in income to pay for it, and since the government isn't profit motivated they'd perform track upkeep to stop many train derailments.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The Democrats accept millions in railway company lobbying money, just like the Republicans. Neither party wants to nationalize the railways. Nothing like that will come out of the capitalist parties, unless possibly motivated by absolute necessity in the event of a total failure of the industry.
In a case of railway collapse I’m worried the outcome would not be nationalization, but a massive bailout with government resources. I don’t mean money specifically, but the army or something filling in the logistical gaps. The effect would still be like the bank bailouts of 2008, with the owners profiting of the taxpayer, no strings attached.
Facts not in evidence. We dont actually have meaningful vote breakdowns at all, beyond which unions rejected or approved it.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Or like agribusiness. Huge subsidies to ensure the functioning of a necessary pillar of civilization, with allowing a worthless owner class to profit of the whole thing. Not even capitalism, with a market and invisible hand, just wealth transfer going straight up.
Do we not have those numbers? Or was this an entirely different vote or something?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.