It seems to me if rail infrastructure is, as we all acknowledge, so critical to the safe daily operation of our country that perhaps it should be fully nationalized and not left to the capricious nature of the free market and incentivized greed. Rail workers become government employees with full benefits, including sick leave, and large rail lines already receive federal money anyway. Let's make those tax dollars worth something to someone besides the obscenely, pornographically wealthy.
Sadly the support for this does not exist.
Funnily enough, this was basically the exactly same discussion going on 100+ years ago for the exact same reasons. And it's why the Railway Labor Act exists. Railway companies have always been relentless dickbags who refused to give an inch and railway strikes were really bad and so a bunch of people just wanted to nationalize the system and get rid of the whole fucking mess. But even if there was support in Congress, the presidents at the time gave a firm no on the idea so the RLA and it's predecessors were done as an alternative.
+6
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
They could step in on behalf of the public, and still side with the workers, though.
But they’re not.
If they had a supermajority in the Senate they probably could just side with Labor sure
They don't.
My point, as you probably gathered, is “why is supporting the rail companies instead of the workers (ie - the people) the default?”
If they cared about “”the people””, why not come down in favor of the position that actually benefits the people (in this case I mean the workers and the American people who won’t have to deal with the fallout of a mass exodus from these jobs over the next few years)?
Because Republicans exist, and there's this stupid thing called a filibuster which means currently you need 10 Republicans to sign on to anything you want to pass in the Senate, and this was the best deal they could get 10 Republicans to agree to.
Like that's it I don't know how to explain this more simply or clearly. Any chance of a more pro labor action from the legislative was strangled before it was really born because Republicans suck, and the Executive is limited in how much they can actually do in this situation.
People act here like the Democratic party had infinite power to get what they want and they chose to screw labor and that is bluntly demonstrably not how anything works.
I think, for some reason, you believe I’m asking a non-rhetorical question here that I need an explanation for. I’m not. And there’s no answer that you or anyone else here is going to give.
We aren’t going to argue a solution out on the Penny arcade forums. This was me venting and pointing out that yes, the government of the United States which we here right now have very little control over, is actively choosing to fuck over the American people in favor of temporary gains for the rail companies.
I don’t care if the root of the problem is the people with an R or a D next to their names. They’ve all failed us in the long run, in this instance, and I’m disappointed in the entire system.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Just because at this point a strike would be bad for the economy does not mean they shouldn't strike or the government should keep them from striking. If people actually wanted a strike to not be disruptive then this should've been resolved before now, but the can has been kicked down the road.
What will be worse long-term: a strike now to address the issues and help with retention, or the industry flailing to the point that there's no ability to actually bring in new people and so the industry completely falls apart?
+13
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
They could step in on behalf of the public, and still side with the workers, though.
But they’re not.
If they had a supermajority in the Senate they probably could just side with Labor sure
They don't.
My point, as you probably gathered, is “why is supporting the rail companies instead of the workers (ie - the people) the default?”
If they cared about “”the people””, why not come down in favor of the position that actually benefits the people (in this case I mean the workers and the American people who won’t have to deal with the fallout of a mass exodus from these jobs over the next few years)?
The position Congress came down on is the one that gets the unions the most they could while preventing a freight stoppage. What the White House and Congress are more terrified of then anything else right now is more supply chain disruptions. Because that stuff is super unpopular and bad for the economy. Everything going on right now flows from that.
Basically, you have to see the Dems in the White House and Congress's priorities in order:
1) Keep the rail system running
2) Get the best deal they can on the contract
1 always trumps 2 here and since the filibuster still exists there's only so far on 2 they can go.
Yeah, we get that. We don't like their priorities and don't agree with them.
That doesn’t change the reality of the situation. The administration will always do what they feel is best for the nation as a whole, and they should.
What's best for the nation isn't to make workers work without sick days and letting the rail companies make millions in profits so they aren't even doing that.
No, it’s best for the nation overall if people have clean water and to avoid the multitude of downstream effects of a rail strike.
The workers need and deserve the paid leave, but they might need to continue that fight the next time their contract is up.
You keep saying that, but forcing the agreement as is doesn’t accomplish that at all! It almost ensures the opposite! It’s short sighted as hell. Even if there’s no wildcat striking, continuing to allow this industry to not provide even a remotely decent amount of paid sick days is going to eventually mean that people quit (or eventually retire) and there will be fewer and fewer people willing to take their places, crippling the entire industry.
It just kicks the can down the road a few years (or months depending on how bad the mass exodus is). The only way to definitively avert the disaster you seem worried about would have been to side with the workers fully. But asking these cowards to look beyond the immediate optics of a vote is like pulling teeth.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
The multiple defenses of Biden and the Democrats for doing this makes me think the defenders don't want the unions to strike.
I don't want the unions to strike.
I support them if they choose to strike, but I would prefer they do not. The ideal outcome is that the contract negotiated between the unions and companies with is satisfactory to prevent a strike on its own and legislation preventing a strike is unnecessary because the union membership does not feel a strike is necessary.
Strikes in general suck for the workers and are an outcome that ideally would never be necessary. This particular strike also has the potential for significant harm to many people and my opinion - which you may disagree with, but is still my opinion - is that the harm resulting from the strike and actions taken in response will result in more harm to the workers than other non-striking options.
Such paternalistic action needs to be carefully, and slowly decided before taking any action. Forcing someone to do something for their own benefit is not a road to be travelled lightly. This process seems extremely cavalier given the stakes on the line in my estimation. Removing autonomy needs to always be an absolute last resort. There is still more time for the process to play out before we reached this point as there has not even been a vote for whether or not to strike.
I agree that this action needs to be taken carefully and slowly decided. In this case, rail infrastructure and the impact of disruptions to it has 150 years of consideration and decisions around it. Not all good decisions to be sure, but the guidelines and laws around this have significant precedent and history. The Railway Labor Act governing all of this is from 1926.
I feel people in this thread are being very cavalier and have determined what the workers must do (strike) with no real consideration for the impact striking has on actual workers. People are begging and excited for workers to strike and the chaos and disruption that will bring. And honestly, if I believed (which I don't) striking would materially improve the working conditions of these workers I'd be in the same boat with them, damn the downstream effects.
Striking is not something that is or should be taken lightly. I've experienced strikes and they aren't fun - strike pay usually sucks, their is intense stress and insecurity, and as they and as the strikes go on there is a tremendous pressure on workers and their family to end the strike or accept concessions. In this case there are no extra concessions likely to be gained - striking now isn't going to get more of the workers demands. That time has already passed, the ink is drying on the law, and a strike is unlikely to do much more than self-destructively hurt all of these workers (and the public).
It feels like people are just chomping at the bit for these workers to suffer through a strike now for nothing and certainly no achievable gains that seem plausible. We've had a few accelerationists who have articulated they want strike -> chaos and disruption -> ??? -> general strike -> [redacted], but I think that chain of events is undesirable and unlikely to pass the ??? phase if it does happen.
If they're so important and the economy is so fragile that a strike can cripple it, they should probably give out paid sick leave huh. Like what kind of idiots are we taking these workers for? They have leverage. They should strike.
One Day of Warren Buffett Wealth Gains Could Fund 15 Days of Paid Sick Leave for Rail Workers
"Buffett could avert a rail strike today by giving workers what they need: paid sick days," said Sen. Bernie Sanders' staff director. "That's how you give thanks."
This is 100% on Biden and Democratic leadership and attempts to gaslight us into believing otherwise will not succeed
Disagreement with your position isn’t gaslighting and it’s gross that you would conflate being on the other side of an argument with a term applied to abusers
You are deliberately trying to convince us that what happened in reality, in the world, did not happen
I haven’t said shit, argue with the actual posters, not the straw man “You people” you just lumped me in with.
If they're so important and the economy is so fragile that a strike can cripple it, they should probably give out paid sick leave huh. Like what kind of idiots are we taking these workers for? They have leverage. They should strike.
I think all workers should have adequate sick leave regardless of how critical they are to the economy or if a strike would cripple it.
I think striking now would be counterproductive and not get them sick days or sick days for workers as a whole. Disagreeing on this point doesn't mean I think workers are idiots, or that I'm evil or anti-worker.
I simply think that striking will not achieve what you think it will achieve and will cause more harm to the workers than not striking would at this point. In fact, through this whole process I don't think there is any point where actually striking would have resulted in the workers being in a better position than not striking.
+5
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
edited December 2022
NYT reporting that the legislation has been signed by Biden.
Just because at this point a strike would be bad for the economy does not mean they shouldn't strike or the government should keep them from striking. If people actually wanted a strike to not be disruptive then this should've been resolved before now, but the can has been kicked down the road.
What will be worse long-term: a strike now to address the issues and help with retention, or the industry flailing to the point that there's no ability to actually bring in new people and so the industry completely falls apart?
Long-term thinking is not democracies strong suit unfortunately. Nor these business's.
I'm also not sure a better contract negotiated to end a strike would be enough to solve the issues. You might get a better deal out of it but I don't think it would be enough to address the fundamental issues or stop the railways from being the intransigent shitfuckers they've always been. And there's not seemingly much political support for more wide-ranging solutions to this.
The multiple defenses of Biden and the Democrats for doing this makes me think the defenders don't want the unions to strike.
I don't want the unions to strike.
I support them if they choose to strike, but I would prefer they do not. The ideal outcome is that the contract negotiated between the unions and companies with is satisfactory to prevent a strike on its own and legislation preventing a strike is unnecessary because the union membership does not feel a strike is necessary.
Strikes in general suck for the workers and are an outcome that ideally would never be necessary. This particular strike also has the potential for significant harm to many people and my opinion - which you may disagree with, but is still my opinion - is that the harm resulting from the strike and actions taken in response will result in more harm to the workers than other non-striking options.
Such paternalistic action needs to be carefully, and slowly decided before taking any action. Forcing someone to do something for their own benefit is not a road to be travelled lightly. This process seems extremely cavalier given the stakes on the line in my estimation. Removing autonomy needs to always be an absolute last resort. There is still more time for the process to play out before we reached this point as there has not even been a vote for whether or not to strike.
I agree that this action needs to be taken carefully and slowly decided. In this case, rail infrastructure and the impact of disruptions to it has 150 years of consideration and decisions around it. Not all good decisions to be sure, but the guidelines and laws around this have significant precedent and history. The Railway Labor Act governing all of this is from 1926.
I feel people in this thread are being very cavalier and have determined what the workers must do (strike) with no real consideration for the impact striking has on actual workers. People are begging and excited for workers to strike and the chaos and disruption that will bring. And honestly, if I believed (which I don't) striking would materially improve the working conditions of these workers I'd be in the same boat with them, damn the downstream effects.
Striking is not something that is or should be taken lightly. I've experienced strikes and they aren't fun - strike pay usually sucks, their is intense stress and insecurity, and as they and as the strikes go on there is a tremendous pressure on workers and their family to end the strike or accept concessions. In this case there are no extra concessions likely to be gained - striking now isn't going to get more of the workers demands. That time has already passed, the ink is drying on the law, and a strike is unlikely to do much more than self-destructively hurt all of these workers (and the public).
It feels like people are just chomping at the bit for these workers to suffer through a strike now for nothing and certainly no achievable gains that seem plausible. We've had a few accelerationists who have articulated they want strike -> chaos and disruption -> ??? -> general strike -> [redacted], but I think that chain of events is undesirable and unlikely to pass the ??? phase if it does happen.
No one is questioning their ability to do this. Decisions were made long ago. The act, however, does not bind this congress into action. They do not have to exert the power they have to help the rail companies. This is still their choice, and it is choosing to side against labor. This specific moment in time absolutely does not have a century of time to settle. It has had however long it has been clear that labor finds the current contract unacceptable.
I also agree a strike would be bad. It would have a lot of negative effects downstream. Almost nothing good has ever come from sacrificing the rights of a few for the "greater good." This is especially true when the framework involved has been twisted to exclude more positive actions. The RLA does not dictate that the government sides with the rail companies. They could, on paper, very easily impose an even better deal for the workers. This would incentivize the rail companies to play ball quicker in the future as they will fear losing in congress.
All that said, no one is even calling for an immediate strike. Just the ability to have one. If that is suddenly a realistic threat I think we will find it surprising how quickly the companies will be willing to go for a better deal. Removing that negotiating leverage, which is their only leverage, only makes it so this situation has to happen again as labor is clearly already at a breaking point. I am holding the Democrats, and Republicans responsible for the decisions they are making as a result of this.
If they're so important and the economy is so fragile that a strike can cripple it, they should probably give out paid sick leave huh. Like what kind of idiots are we taking these workers for? They have leverage. They should strike.
I think all workers should have adequate sick leave regardless of how critical they are to the economy or if a strike would cripple it.
I think striking now would be counterproductive and not get them sick days or sick days for workers as a whole. Disagreeing on this point doesn't mean I think workers are idiots, or that I'm evil or anti-worker.
I simply think that striking will not achieve what you think it will achieve and will cause more harm to the workers than not striking would at this point. In fact, through this whole process I don't think there is any point where actually striking would have resulted in the workers being in a better position than not striking.
So you think if they don't strike, they'll get sick leave? That seems extremely unlikely. It's only the threat and execution of industry action that will get them what they need and deserve.
You seem very comfortable in asking these workers to accept conditions you yourself would not want to work in. If they didn't look to strike, would you know or care who these people are? Strikes work and can get concessions. They should strike. And governments should not be able to force them to accept contracts.
The multiple defenses of Biden and the Democrats for doing this makes me think the defenders don't want the unions to strike.
I don't want the unions to strike.
I support them if they choose to strike, but I would prefer they do not. The ideal outcome is that the contract negotiated between the unions and companies with is satisfactory to prevent a strike on its own and legislation preventing a strike is unnecessary because the union membership does not feel a strike is necessary.
Strikes in general suck for the workers and are an outcome that ideally would never be necessary. This particular strike also has the potential for significant harm to many people and my opinion - which you may disagree with, but is still my opinion - is that the harm resulting from the strike and actions taken in response will result in more harm to the workers than other non-striking options.
Such paternalistic action needs to be carefully, and slowly decided before taking any action. Forcing someone to do something for their own benefit is not a road to be travelled lightly. This process seems extremely cavalier given the stakes on the line in my estimation. Removing autonomy needs to always be an absolute last resort. There is still more time for the process to play out before we reached this point as there has not even been a vote for whether or not to strike.
I agree that this action needs to be taken carefully and slowly decided. In this case, rail infrastructure and the impact of disruptions to it has 150 years of consideration and decisions around it. Not all good decisions to be sure, but the guidelines and laws around this have significant precedent and history. The Railway Labor Act governing all of this is from 1926.
I feel people in this thread are being very cavalier and have determined what the workers must do (strike) with no real consideration for the impact striking has on actual workers. People are begging and excited for workers to strike and the chaos and disruption that will bring. And honestly, if I believed (which I don't) striking would materially improve the working conditions of these workers I'd be in the same boat with them, damn the downstream effects.
Striking is not something that is or should be taken lightly. I've experienced strikes and they aren't fun - strike pay usually sucks, their is intense stress and insecurity, and as they and as the strikes go on there is a tremendous pressure on workers and their family to end the strike or accept concessions. In this case there are no extra concessions likely to be gained - striking now isn't going to get more of the workers demands. That time has already passed, the ink is drying on the law, and a strike is unlikely to do much more than self-destructively hurt all of these workers (and the public).
It feels like people are just chomping at the bit for these workers to suffer through a strike now for nothing and certainly no achievable gains that seem plausible. We've had a few accelerationists who have articulated they want strike -> chaos and disruption -> ??? -> general strike -> [redacted], but I think that chain of events is undesirable and unlikely to pass the ??? phase if it does happen.
No one is questioning their ability to do this. Decisions were made long ago. The act, however, does not bind this congress into action. They do not have to exert the power they have to help the rail companies. This is still their choice, and it is choosing to side against labor. This specific moment in time absolutely does not have a century of time to settle. It has had however long it has been clear that labor finds the current contract unacceptable.
I also agree a strike would be bad. It would have a lot of negative effects downstream. Almost nothing good has ever come from sacrificing the rights of a few for the "greater good." This is especially true when the framework involved has been twisted to exclude more positive actions. The RLA does not dictate that the government sides with the rail companies. They could, on paper, very easily impose an even better deal for the workers. This would incentivize the rail companies to play ball quicker in the future as they will fear losing in congress.
All that said, no one is even calling for an immediate strike. Just the ability to have one. If that is suddenly a realistic threat I think we will find it surprising how quickly the companies will be willing to go for a better deal. Removing that negotiating leverage, which is their only leverage, only makes it so this situation has to happen again as labor is clearly already at a breaking point. I am holding the Democrats, and Republicans responsible for the decisions they are making as a result of this.
These were just what I grabbed quick off the past few pages.
If there isn't a wildcat strike there is going to be a statistically significant amount of retirements and quitting.
It honestly sounds like a lot of these guys could work pretty much any other shitty logistics job and have a better work life balance.
GM had to pay me a months wage (excplicaty cause they were closing the best car assembly plant thry had over eages..) cause they were closing down and a moderate fab plant strike ground production to a halt
Just because at this point a strike would be bad for the economy does not mean they shouldn't strike or the government should keep them from striking. If people actually wanted a strike to not be disruptive then this should've been resolved before now, but the can has been kicked down the road.
What will be worse long-term: a strike now to address the issues and help with retention, or the industry flailing to the point that there's no ability to actually bring in new people and so the industry completely falls apart?
Long-term thinking is not democracies strong suit unfortunately. Nor these business's.
I'm also not sure a better contract negotiated to end a strike would be enough to solve the issues. You might get a better deal out of it but I don't think it would be enough to address the fundamental issues or stop the railways from being the intransigent shitfuckers they've always been. And there's not seemingly much political support for more wide-ranging solutions to this.
Could you take it easy with the doomposting? Every comment has been "we can't do anything, good stuff is unpopular, democracy is a weak and broken system"
Just imagine a world where instead of forcing through a shitty deal Biden and the Democrats laid out how a strike would effect things for the country, said that without meeting the unions demands they won't force anything through, and then stuck to that. And put it all on the railroad companies if this didn't get done.
What an amazing amount of power that would have lent towards labor. What a friend to labor that president would have been.
No I don't.
+21
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Just because at this point a strike would be bad for the economy does not mean they shouldn't strike or the government should keep them from striking. If people actually wanted a strike to not be disruptive then this should've been resolved before now, but the can has been kicked down the road.
What will be worse long-term: a strike now to address the issues and help with retention, or the industry flailing to the point that there's no ability to actually bring in new people and so the industry completely falls apart?
Long-term thinking is not democracies strong suit unfortunately. Nor these business's.
I'm also not sure a better contract negotiated to end a strike would be enough to solve the issues. You might get a better deal out of it but I don't think it would be enough to address the fundamental issues or stop the railways from being the intransigent shitfuckers they've always been. And there's not seemingly much political support for more wide-ranging solutions to this.
Could you take it easy with the doomposting? Every comment has been "we can't do anything, good stuff is unpopular, democracy is a weak and broken system"
I think it's less doomposting and more an aspect of democracy and human nature on has to deal with. It's hard to make a long term plan, because elections are happening soon. And as for corporate, the next quarter linegoup is more important than any sort of sustainable business plan.
Now, those qualities are somewhat malleable. They can be changed, but at the moment, they are what we have to deal with.
The Biden gov could say hey, we can't pass legislation giving the workers what they want, but we also aren't going to stop them striking and forcing companies to the table to give concessions
If they ruled out return to work legislation then companies would be forced to the table, but that the companies essentially know that they can reject demands and the govs will break the strikes, they're forcing either a wildcat strike or for horrible working conditions.
If they're so important and the economy is so fragile that a strike can cripple it, they should probably give out paid sick leave huh. Like what kind of idiots are we taking these workers for? They have leverage. They should strike.
I think all workers should have adequate sick leave regardless of how critical they are to the economy or if a strike would cripple it.
I think striking now would be counterproductive and not get them sick days or sick days for workers as a whole. Disagreeing on this point doesn't mean I think workers are idiots, or that I'm evil or anti-worker.
I simply think that striking will not achieve what you think it will achieve and will cause more harm to the workers than not striking would at this point. In fact, through this whole process I don't think there is any point where actually striking would have resulted in the workers being in a better position than not striking.
So you think if they don't strike, they'll get sick leave? That seems extremely unlikely. It's only the threat and execution of industry action that will get them what they need and deserve.
You seem very comfortable in asking these workers to accept conditions you yourself would not want to work in. If they didn't look to strike, would you know or care who these people are? Strikes work and can get concessions. They should strike. And governments should not be able to force them to accept contracts.
No, you're putting words in my mouth and arguing against something I never said.
I never said not striking will get them sick leave.
I said I think that striking now will not only NOT get them sick leave, it will cause them more additional harm and hardship.
The working conditions I do, don't, have, haven't, would, or wouldn't accept is a non-sequitur and irrelevant. I don't think they should strike because I think it would be counterproductive and cause them more harm than not striking. I support them if they choose to strike regardless, but that is not what I hope they choose.
Just imagine a world where instead of forcing through a shitty deal Biden and the Democrats laid out how a strike would effect things for the country, said that without meeting the unions demands they won't force anything through, and then stuck to that. And put it all on the railroad companies if this didn't get done.
What an amazing amount of power that would have lent towards labor. What a friend to labor that president would have been.
And then the public would probably blame Democrats and the unions. Like, just look at what's been going on the past year with inflation and such. It's a real roll of the dice here who the public gets mad at and how that shifts over time.
If they're so important and the economy is so fragile that a strike can cripple it, they should probably give out paid sick leave huh. Like what kind of idiots are we taking these workers for? They have leverage. They should strike.
I think all workers should have adequate sick leave regardless of how critical they are to the economy or if a strike would cripple it.
I think striking now would be counterproductive and not get them sick days or sick days for workers as a whole. Disagreeing on this point doesn't mean I think workers are idiots, or that I'm evil or anti-worker.
I simply think that striking will not achieve what you think it will achieve and will cause more harm to the workers than not striking would at this point. In fact, through this whole process I don't think there is any point where actually striking would have resulted in the workers being in a better position than not striking.
So you think if they don't strike, they'll get sick leave? That seems extremely unlikely. It's only the threat and execution of industry action that will get them what they need and deserve.
You seem very comfortable in asking these workers to accept conditions you yourself would not want to work in. If they didn't look to strike, would you know or care who these people are? Strikes work and can get concessions. They should strike. And governments should not be able to force them to accept contracts.
No, you're putting words in my mouth and arguing against something I never said.
I never said not striking will get them sick leave.
I said I think that striking now will not only NOT get them sick leave, it will cause them more additional harm and hardship.
The working conditions I do, don't, have, haven't, would, or wouldn't accept is a non-sequitur and irrelevant. I don't think they should strike because I think it would be counterproductive and cause them more harm than not striking. I support them if they choose to strike regardless, but that is not what I hope they choose.
If they're so important and the economy is so fragile that a strike can cripple it, they should probably give out paid sick leave huh. Like what kind of idiots are we taking these workers for? They have leverage. They should strike.
I think all workers should have adequate sick leave regardless of how critical they are to the economy or if a strike would cripple it.
I think striking now would be counterproductive and not get them sick days or sick days for workers as a whole. Disagreeing on this point doesn't mean I think workers are idiots, or that I'm evil or anti-worker.
I simply think that striking will not achieve what you think it will achieve and will cause more harm to the workers than not striking would at this point. In fact, through this whole process I don't think there is any point where actually striking would have resulted in the workers being in a better position than not striking.
So you think if they don't strike, they'll get sick leave? That seems extremely unlikely. It's only the threat and execution of industry action that will get them what they need and deserve.
You seem very comfortable in asking these workers to accept conditions you yourself would not want to work in. If they didn't look to strike, would you know or care who these people are? Strikes work and can get concessions. They should strike. And governments should not be able to force them to accept contracts.
No, you're putting words in my mouth and arguing against something I never said.
I never said not striking will get them sick leave.
I said I think that striking now will not only NOT get them sick leave, it will cause them more additional harm and hardship.
The working conditions I do, don't, have, haven't, would, or wouldn't accept is a non-sequitur and irrelevant. I don't think they should strike because I think it would be counterproductive and cause them more harm than not striking. I support them if they choose to strike regardless, but that is not what I hope they choose.
But they're already suffering. Why shouldn't they strike? Why would it make them suffer more?
Just imagine a world where instead of forcing through a shitty deal Biden and the Democrats laid out how a strike would effect things for the country, said that without meeting the unions demands they won't force anything through, and then stuck to that. And put it all on the railroad companies if this didn't get done.
What an amazing amount of power that would have lent towards labor. What a friend to labor that president would have been.
And then the public would probably blame Democrats and the unions. Like, just look at what's been going on the past year with inflation and such. It's a real roll of the dice here who the public gets mad at and how that shifts over time.
At some point the Democrats have to actually stand for something.
Just imagine a world where instead of forcing through a shitty deal Biden and the Democrats laid out how a strike would effect things for the country, said that without meeting the unions demands they won't force anything through, and then stuck to that. And put it all on the railroad companies if this didn't get done.
What an amazing amount of power that would have lent towards labor. What a friend to labor that president would have been.
And then the public would probably blame Democrats and the unions. Like, just look at what's been going on the past year with inflation and such. It's a real roll of the dice here who the public gets mad at and how that shifts over time.
But would their base? Would their base blame them?
Would you blame them?
Would I?
I seriously don't think so.
Republicans and the media will blame them for literally anything they can think of it doesn't matter what they think.
Just imagine a world where instead of forcing through a shitty deal Biden and the Democrats laid out how a strike would effect things for the country, said that without meeting the unions demands they won't force anything through, and then stuck to that. And put it all on the railroad companies if this didn't get done.
What an amazing amount of power that would have lent towards labor. What a friend to labor that president would have been.
And then the public would probably blame Democrats and the unions. Like, just look at what's been going on the past year with inflation and such. It's a real roll of the dice here who the public gets mad at and how that shifts over time.
Ah yes, "inflation" that's companies price-gouging in order to sustain their record profits, while the federal government raises interest rates to tightens the screws on workers in order to keep wages down.
So I mean, yeah, it's very alike to this situation.
If they're so important and the economy is so fragile that a strike can cripple it, they should probably give out paid sick leave huh. Like what kind of idiots are we taking these workers for? They have leverage. They should strike.
I think all workers should have adequate sick leave regardless of how critical they are to the economy or if a strike would cripple it.
I think striking now would be counterproductive and not get them sick days or sick days for workers as a whole. Disagreeing on this point doesn't mean I think workers are idiots, or that I'm evil or anti-worker.
I simply think that striking will not achieve what you think it will achieve and will cause more harm to the workers than not striking would at this point. In fact, through this whole process I don't think there is any point where actually striking would have resulted in the workers being in a better position than not striking.
So you think if they don't strike, they'll get sick leave? That seems extremely unlikely. It's only the threat and execution of industry action that will get them what they need and deserve.
You seem very comfortable in asking these workers to accept conditions you yourself would not want to work in. If they didn't look to strike, would you know or care who these people are? Strikes work and can get concessions. They should strike. And governments should not be able to force them to accept contracts.
No, you're putting words in my mouth and arguing against something I never said.
I never said not striking will get them sick leave.
I said I think that striking now will not only NOT get them sick leave, it will cause them more additional harm and hardship.
The working conditions I do, don't, have, haven't, would, or wouldn't accept is a non-sequitur and irrelevant. I don't think they should strike because I think it would be counterproductive and cause them more harm than not striking. I support them if they choose to strike regardless, but that is not what I hope they choose.
But they're already suffering. Why shouldn't they strike? Why would it make them suffer more?
Tell me you've never experienced a strike without telling me you've never experienced a strike.
Even though working conditions may suck, a strike will suck more. Strike pay is shit, it's stressful on workers and their families, and on a general scale the impacts on supply (e.g. clean water, power, food, consumer goods) will also impact the striking workers because they still participate in society.
That's assuming the striking workers aren't just fired and replaced or the workload isn't just shifted onto the non-striking workers, which is likely since a wildcat strike doesn't oblige all the other unions to strike and most of the unions supported this contract already.
Then there are longer term things like harming public perception from the stories we'll inevitably see about the unions ruining Christmas and making your gas and food prices go up because the media and American public as a whole generally suck.
Lol I have been on strike and lived in a striking family, so, wrong answer, please try again
Striking obviously comes with inherent issues but this "harming perceptions" business is just nonsense. You just don't want them to strike and you're not bothered if they have to keep working in shit conditions
Just imagine a world where instead of forcing through a shitty deal Biden and the Democrats laid out how a strike would effect things for the country, said that without meeting the unions demands they won't force anything through, and then stuck to that. And put it all on the railroad companies if this didn't get done.
What an amazing amount of power that would have lent towards labor. What a friend to labor that president would have been.
And then the public would probably blame Democrats and the unions. Like, just look at what's been going on the past year with inflation and such. It's a real roll of the dice here who the public gets mad at and how that shifts over time.
But would their base? Would their base blame them?
Would you blame them?
Would I?
I seriously don't think so.
Republicans and the media will blame them for literally anything they can think of it doesn't matter what they think.
I brought up the public's views on inflation for a reason. I think more people then you are acknowledging here would pin the blame on both the party in the White House and the unions. And more so among less committed partisan voters. And the GOP and the railway companies will be hammering that message hard too.
Honestly I think we should just ignore the "it's not Bidens/Pelosis fault" stuff. No one believes that, no one is going to be convinced of that, we all saw what happened. The Dems see that they have aroused anger and they and their supporters are flailing around in a futile effort to alter the narrative. It's only worth engaging with to the point that there are fence sitters, and after so much discussion here I'd say everyone has chosen a side by now.
"Can't strike guys sorry the GOP might win next time if you do! (And if you dont but hey we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). And if that happened then they'd force you to work without paid sick leave! Alright I mean we just also did that, but we felt bad about it, maybe next time though? Hey can I have a campaign donation? If you don't donate you might lose abortion rights! Which we failed to defend and lost you anyway, but we made some really angry tweets about it!"
-The Dems right now
+12
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
"Can't strike guys sorry the GOP might win next time if you do! (And if you dont but hey we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). And if that happened then they'd force you to work without paid sick leave! Alright I mean we just also did that, but we felt bad about it, maybe next time though? Hey can I have a campaign donation? If you don't donate you might lose abortion rights! Which we failed to defend and lost you anyway, but we made some really angry tweets about it!"
-The Dems right now
I mean, I'm calling for a strike
I'm just kind of ??? that you guys are going to a sporting goods store for groceries
Shit, with the retroactive pay, Biden more or less put them in the best position they can be in for a strike because they'll have a some money in their pockets to better weather the loss of wages.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
The reactions that I'm looking is people shitting on The Squad for caving to Dem leadership, again, and getting jack shit for it, again.
Biden and Pelosi are pro-capital. That won't change. But people expected better from so-called progressive politicians.
Overall, even without a strike, what's going to happen is what's happening on every "essential" job: People leaving the industry in mass since by now is obvious that "essential" means "die for the economy". And that's something that everybody will have to deal with. The lack of workers on hospitals, teachers, customer service, etc. is just going to expand to the railway companies.
Honestly I think we should just ignore the "it's not Bidens/Pelosis fault" stuff. No one believes that, no one is going to be convinced of that, we all saw what happened. The Dems see that they have aroused anger and they and their supporters are flailing around in a futile effort to alter the narrative. It's only worth engaging with to the point that there are fence sitters, and after so much discussion here I'd say everyone has chosen a side by now.
Why even bother posting in a place meant for debating if you’re just going to ignore anyone with a dissenting opinion?
Basically, there are 12 unions involved here. 8 of them ratified this deal, 4 didn't, but they're in a kind of solidarity agreement that if any strike, all have to. The 4 that didn't supposedly represent more people overall (though I and others in this thread didn't seem to have verification of that), but each union also represents different groups (eg Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen ratified, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen did not). So the unions affected here are not all in solidarity about whether or not this deal is insufficient.
There are a shitload of far more complicated questions here that are being drowned out by generic gnashing of teeth. Are the 8 that ratified this supporting the government stepping in? What are the differences between the unions that ratified and those that didn't? Which of these unions actually want to strike?
Honestly I think we should just ignore the "it's not Bidens/Pelosis fault" stuff. No one believes that, no one is going to be convinced of that, we all saw what happened. The Dems see that they have aroused anger and they and their supporters are flailing around in a futile effort to alter the narrative. It's only worth engaging with to the point that there are fence sitters, and after so much discussion here I'd say everyone has chosen a side by now.
Why even bother posting in a place meant for debating if you’re just going to ignore anyone with a dissenting opinion?
The buck stops with the people enforcing the contract that the unions didn't agree to.
Basically, there are 12 unions involved here. 8 of them ratified this deal, 4 didn't, but they're in a kind of solidarity agreement that if any strike, all have to. The 4 that didn't supposedly represent more people overall (though I and others in this thread didn't seem to have verification of that), but each union also represents different groups (eg Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen ratified, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen did not). So the unions affected here are not all in solidarity about whether or not this deal is insufficient.
There are a shitload of far more complicated questions here that are being drowned out by generic gnashing of teeth. Are the 8 that ratified this supporting the government stepping in? What are the differences between the unions that ratified and those that didn't? Which of these unions actually want to strike?
I believe the actual size of the unions has a massive disparity - the top 2 or 3 are like 80% of the workers. Guess which unions rejected the deal?
(There's a lot of holes in the info we have on vote breakdown - I don't think anyone's posted the actual split of the largest union, and the second largest breaks down the vote percent by trade in the union, but doesn't show what percent of the union each trade is, so we just have stuff like 63% of X workers, but don't know how many of the union members those are. I don't know if any breakdowns have been posted of the smaller ones either)
If they're so important and the economy is so fragile that a strike can cripple it, they should probably give out paid sick leave huh. Like what kind of idiots are we taking these workers for? They have leverage. They should strike.
I think all workers should have adequate sick leave regardless of how critical they are to the economy or if a strike would cripple it.
I think striking now would be counterproductive and not get them sick days or sick days for workers as a whole. Disagreeing on this point doesn't mean I think workers are idiots, or that I'm evil or anti-worker.
I simply think that striking will not achieve what you think it will achieve and will cause more harm to the workers than not striking would at this point. In fact, through this whole process I don't think there is any point where actually striking would have resulted in the workers being in a better position than not striking.
So you think if they don't strike, they'll get sick leave? That seems extremely unlikely. It's only the threat and execution of industry action that will get them what they need and deserve.
You seem very comfortable in asking these workers to accept conditions you yourself would not want to work in. If they didn't look to strike, would you know or care who these people are? Strikes work and can get concessions. They should strike. And governments should not be able to force them to accept contracts.
No, you're putting words in my mouth and arguing against something I never said.
I never said not striking will get them sick leave.
I said I think that striking now will not only NOT get them sick leave, it will cause them more additional harm and hardship.
The working conditions I do, don't, have, haven't, would, or wouldn't accept is a non-sequitur and irrelevant. I don't think they should strike because I think it would be counterproductive and cause them more harm than not striking. I support them if they choose to strike regardless, but that is not what I hope they choose.
So when should they strike?
It's seeming more and more like the desired answer is "never" and that's unfortunately not a good answer. I understand why people don't want them to ever strike but if that's the case then you have to take the power away from the railroad companies completely.
And we have already covered that we lack the political power to do that.
So we are back to they kinda have to strike. Maybe now, maybe in a month, maybe in 2 years. Or maybe they'll just take the easy way, as mentioned many times already, take the pay increase and go looking for new jobs while the industry continues to struggle to hire people. At which point the industry collapses and you end up with a situation far worse than a strike.
I've also seen a lot of mention on /r/railroaders and /r/workreform of "Work to the rule" or "Extreme Malicious Compliance," where they stop skirting rules to try and make shit work and run on time, which I find hilarious.
The reactions that I'm looking is people shitting on The Squad for caving to Dem leadership, again, and getting jack shit for it, again.
Biden and Pelosi are pro-capital. That won't change. But people expected better from so-called progressive politicians.
Overall, even without a strike, what's going to happen is what's happening on every "essential" job: People leaving the industry in mass since by now is obvious that "essential" means "die for the economy". And that's something that everybody will have to deal with. The lack of workers on hospitals, teachers, customer service, etc. is just going to expand to the railway companies.
Clearly the squad are pro-capital, anti-labor traitors to the working class who should be primaried at the next possible opportunity.
Posts
Sadly the support for this does not exist.
Funnily enough, this was basically the exactly same discussion going on 100+ years ago for the exact same reasons. And it's why the Railway Labor Act exists. Railway companies have always been relentless dickbags who refused to give an inch and railway strikes were really bad and so a bunch of people just wanted to nationalize the system and get rid of the whole fucking mess. But even if there was support in Congress, the presidents at the time gave a firm no on the idea so the RLA and it's predecessors were done as an alternative.
I think, for some reason, you believe I’m asking a non-rhetorical question here that I need an explanation for. I’m not. And there’s no answer that you or anyone else here is going to give.
We aren’t going to argue a solution out on the Penny arcade forums. This was me venting and pointing out that yes, the government of the United States which we here right now have very little control over, is actively choosing to fuck over the American people in favor of temporary gains for the rail companies.
I don’t care if the root of the problem is the people with an R or a D next to their names. They’ve all failed us in the long run, in this instance, and I’m disappointed in the entire system.
What will be worse long-term: a strike now to address the issues and help with retention, or the industry flailing to the point that there's no ability to actually bring in new people and so the industry completely falls apart?
You keep saying that, but forcing the agreement as is doesn’t accomplish that at all! It almost ensures the opposite! It’s short sighted as hell. Even if there’s no wildcat striking, continuing to allow this industry to not provide even a remotely decent amount of paid sick days is going to eventually mean that people quit (or eventually retire) and there will be fewer and fewer people willing to take their places, crippling the entire industry.
It just kicks the can down the road a few years (or months depending on how bad the mass exodus is). The only way to definitively avert the disaster you seem worried about would have been to side with the workers fully. But asking these cowards to look beyond the immediate optics of a vote is like pulling teeth.
I agree that this action needs to be taken carefully and slowly decided. In this case, rail infrastructure and the impact of disruptions to it has 150 years of consideration and decisions around it. Not all good decisions to be sure, but the guidelines and laws around this have significant precedent and history. The Railway Labor Act governing all of this is from 1926.
I feel people in this thread are being very cavalier and have determined what the workers must do (strike) with no real consideration for the impact striking has on actual workers. People are begging and excited for workers to strike and the chaos and disruption that will bring. And honestly, if I believed (which I don't) striking would materially improve the working conditions of these workers I'd be in the same boat with them, damn the downstream effects.
Striking is not something that is or should be taken lightly. I've experienced strikes and they aren't fun - strike pay usually sucks, their is intense stress and insecurity, and as they and as the strikes go on there is a tremendous pressure on workers and their family to end the strike or accept concessions. In this case there are no extra concessions likely to be gained - striking now isn't going to get more of the workers demands. That time has already passed, the ink is drying on the law, and a strike is unlikely to do much more than self-destructively hurt all of these workers (and the public).
It feels like people are just chomping at the bit for these workers to suffer through a strike now for nothing and certainly no achievable gains that seem plausible. We've had a few accelerationists who have articulated they want strike -> chaos and disruption -> ??? -> general strike -> [redacted], but I think that chain of events is undesirable and unlikely to pass the ??? phase if it does happen.
I haven’t said shit, argue with the actual posters, not the straw man “You people” you just lumped me in with.
I think all workers should have adequate sick leave regardless of how critical they are to the economy or if a strike would cripple it.
I think striking now would be counterproductive and not get them sick days or sick days for workers as a whole. Disagreeing on this point doesn't mean I think workers are idiots, or that I'm evil or anti-worker.
I simply think that striking will not achieve what you think it will achieve and will cause more harm to the workers than not striking would at this point. In fact, through this whole process I don't think there is any point where actually striking would have resulted in the workers being in a better position than not striking.
Long-term thinking is not democracies strong suit unfortunately. Nor these business's.
I'm also not sure a better contract negotiated to end a strike would be enough to solve the issues. You might get a better deal out of it but I don't think it would be enough to address the fundamental issues or stop the railways from being the intransigent shitfuckers they've always been. And there's not seemingly much political support for more wide-ranging solutions to this.
No one is questioning their ability to do this. Decisions were made long ago. The act, however, does not bind this congress into action. They do not have to exert the power they have to help the rail companies. This is still their choice, and it is choosing to side against labor. This specific moment in time absolutely does not have a century of time to settle. It has had however long it has been clear that labor finds the current contract unacceptable.
I also agree a strike would be bad. It would have a lot of negative effects downstream. Almost nothing good has ever come from sacrificing the rights of a few for the "greater good." This is especially true when the framework involved has been twisted to exclude more positive actions. The RLA does not dictate that the government sides with the rail companies. They could, on paper, very easily impose an even better deal for the workers. This would incentivize the rail companies to play ball quicker in the future as they will fear losing in congress.
All that said, no one is even calling for an immediate strike. Just the ability to have one. If that is suddenly a realistic threat I think we will find it surprising how quickly the companies will be willing to go for a better deal. Removing that negotiating leverage, which is their only leverage, only makes it so this situation has to happen again as labor is clearly already at a breaking point. I am holding the Democrats, and Republicans responsible for the decisions they are making as a result of this.
So you think if they don't strike, they'll get sick leave? That seems extremely unlikely. It's only the threat and execution of industry action that will get them what they need and deserve.
You seem very comfortable in asking these workers to accept conditions you yourself would not want to work in. If they didn't look to strike, would you know or care who these people are? Strikes work and can get concessions. They should strike. And governments should not be able to force them to accept contracts.
These were just what I grabbed quick off the past few pages.
Could you take it easy with the doomposting? Every comment has been "we can't do anything, good stuff is unpopular, democracy is a weak and broken system"
What an amazing amount of power that would have lent towards labor. What a friend to labor that president would have been.
I think it's less doomposting and more an aspect of democracy and human nature on has to deal with. It's hard to make a long term plan, because elections are happening soon. And as for corporate, the next quarter linegoup is more important than any sort of sustainable business plan.
Now, those qualities are somewhat malleable. They can be changed, but at the moment, they are what we have to deal with.
If they ruled out return to work legislation then companies would be forced to the table, but that the companies essentially know that they can reject demands and the govs will break the strikes, they're forcing either a wildcat strike or for horrible working conditions.
No, you're putting words in my mouth and arguing against something I never said.
I never said not striking will get them sick leave.
I said I think that striking now will not only NOT get them sick leave, it will cause them more additional harm and hardship.
The working conditions I do, don't, have, haven't, would, or wouldn't accept is a non-sequitur and irrelevant. I don't think they should strike because I think it would be counterproductive and cause them more harm than not striking. I support them if they choose to strike regardless, but that is not what I hope they choose.
And then the public would probably blame Democrats and the unions. Like, just look at what's been going on the past year with inflation and such. It's a real roll of the dice here who the public gets mad at and how that shifts over time.
So when should they strike?
But they're already suffering. Why shouldn't they strike? Why would it make them suffer more?
At some point the Democrats have to actually stand for something.
But would their base? Would their base blame them?
Would you blame them?
Would I?
I seriously don't think so.
Republicans and the media will blame them for literally anything they can think of it doesn't matter what they think.
Ah yes, "inflation" that's companies price-gouging in order to sustain their record profits, while the federal government raises interest rates to tightens the screws on workers in order to keep wages down.
So I mean, yeah, it's very alike to this situation.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Tell me you've never experienced a strike without telling me you've never experienced a strike.
Even though working conditions may suck, a strike will suck more. Strike pay is shit, it's stressful on workers and their families, and on a general scale the impacts on supply (e.g. clean water, power, food, consumer goods) will also impact the striking workers because they still participate in society.
That's assuming the striking workers aren't just fired and replaced or the workload isn't just shifted onto the non-striking workers, which is likely since a wildcat strike doesn't oblige all the other unions to strike and most of the unions supported this contract already.
Then there are longer term things like harming public perception from the stories we'll inevitably see about the unions ruining Christmas and making your gas and food prices go up because the media and American public as a whole generally suck.
There is always 'more' suffering to be had.
Striking obviously comes with inherent issues but this "harming perceptions" business is just nonsense. You just don't want them to strike and you're not bothered if they have to keep working in shit conditions
I brought up the public's views on inflation for a reason. I think more people then you are acknowledging here would pin the blame on both the party in the White House and the unions. And more so among less committed partisan voters. And the GOP and the railway companies will be hammering that message hard too.
-The Dems right now
I mean, I'm calling for a strike
I'm just kind of ??? that you guys are going to a sporting goods store for groceries
Shit, with the retroactive pay, Biden more or less put them in the best position they can be in for a strike because they'll have a some money in their pockets to better weather the loss of wages.
Biden and Pelosi are pro-capital. That won't change. But people expected better from so-called progressive politicians.
Overall, even without a strike, what's going to happen is what's happening on every "essential" job: People leaving the industry in mass since by now is obvious that "essential" means "die for the economy". And that's something that everybody will have to deal with. The lack of workers on hospitals, teachers, customer service, etc. is just going to expand to the railway companies.
Why even bother posting in a place meant for debating if you’re just going to ignore anyone with a dissenting opinion?
Basically, there are 12 unions involved here. 8 of them ratified this deal, 4 didn't, but they're in a kind of solidarity agreement that if any strike, all have to. The 4 that didn't supposedly represent more people overall (though I and others in this thread didn't seem to have verification of that), but each union also represents different groups (eg Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen ratified, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen did not). So the unions affected here are not all in solidarity about whether or not this deal is insufficient.
There are a shitload of far more complicated questions here that are being drowned out by generic gnashing of teeth. Are the 8 that ratified this supporting the government stepping in? What are the differences between the unions that ratified and those that didn't? Which of these unions actually want to strike?
The buck stops with the people enforcing the contract that the unions didn't agree to.
I believe the actual size of the unions has a massive disparity - the top 2 or 3 are like 80% of the workers. Guess which unions rejected the deal?
(There's a lot of holes in the info we have on vote breakdown - I don't think anyone's posted the actual split of the largest union, and the second largest breaks down the vote percent by trade in the union, but doesn't show what percent of the union each trade is, so we just have stuff like 63% of X workers, but don't know how many of the union members those are. I don't know if any breakdowns have been posted of the smaller ones either)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It's seeming more and more like the desired answer is "never" and that's unfortunately not a good answer. I understand why people don't want them to ever strike but if that's the case then you have to take the power away from the railroad companies completely.
And we have already covered that we lack the political power to do that.
So we are back to they kinda have to strike. Maybe now, maybe in a month, maybe in 2 years. Or maybe they'll just take the easy way, as mentioned many times already, take the pay increase and go looking for new jobs while the industry continues to struggle to hire people. At which point the industry collapses and you end up with a situation far worse than a strike.
I've also seen a lot of mention on /r/railroaders and /r/workreform of "Work to the rule" or "Extreme Malicious Compliance," where they stop skirting rules to try and make shit work and run on time, which I find hilarious.
Clearly the squad are pro-capital, anti-labor traitors to the working class who should be primaried at the next possible opportunity.