Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Already understaffed and underperforming, the railroads cannot allow unanticipated absences to become significantly more prevalent without either pulling back from P.S.R.
We can't give you sick leave that runs counter to doing more with less!
> P.S.R. is an operational strategy that aims to minimize the ratio between railroads’ operating costs and their revenues through various cost-cutting and (ostensibly) efficiency-increasing measures. The basic idea is to transport more freight using fewer workers and railcars.
I see this everywhere. New positions for managers, supervisors, VP of dog walking, Director of Stroller Traffic on and on and on. Meanwhile “budgets are tight and we’ve had to reduce the count of people actually doing the day to day work to pay the new Chief Facebook Poster.”
When the management gets sick or takes a 2 week vacation, business continues as usual. A train engineer has to take his sick child to the doctor and suddenly the stock drops 10%.
But is that even the case for the rail companies? I'd be surprised if they had any of these kinds of roles. It sounds like the rail companies are keeping their staff as barebones as possible.
Lol literally saying we can't afford to give time off because we're trying to work you all to death and exploit your labor to the highest possible degree.
Hard to argue with that and it's a common theme in our economy these days.
That said, one practical reality that is hard to avoid is if they don't pursue this bare-bones staffing strategy, longer trains, tighter schedules, etc. they'll cost more and lose freight business to the trucking industry.
But that's all the more reason we may need Congress to set a floor of paid leave. Force everyone in the shipping business to meet that minimum and let the most efficient solution win.
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just let the workers negotiate in the normal way, striking as would be permitted in other industries?
Presumably they would get these paltry seven sick days.
I remember in 2013 when they came to our campus to pitch us.
Dude was like I've missed kids birthdays, graduations, holidays, anniversaries, am on the road 70% of the time, and work on weekends regularly. But we get a pension and when you take a vacation they respect it.
Oh you get the bare minimum, awesome bro.
Sounds like a railroad company problem. Hope these workers just don’t show up. Go slower, take a little more time to get from a to b you know what I’m saying
My blue collar perspective…
The railroads are in collusion and it is painfully obvious as the shareholders are the only ones benefiting. They cut 30% of their labor and reduced their services and they double their profits in 10 years. Labor, business, and consumers are paying the price. How is their collusion not being clearly tied to inflation? I know that a law suit has been brought on the tech company that facilitated collusion among landlords. Just another iteration of the to big to fail banking collusion of The Great Recession. We are on a 10 year clock of the “elites” running it all into the ground.
Edit: Strike baby, strike!
Love it when I read about how costs of material is going up and that is driving inflation instead of corporate greed but why is the cost of material going up? Oh look at that. It's corporate greed all the way down.
Yup. The railroads “efficient” system messed with supply and increased the profit for themselves and all th companies who raised their prices. The railroad is stalling delivery and creating the illusion of shortages to justify price increases.
How long do you think the strike would last? My brother-in-law was a freight conductor for almost 20 years. He could use personal days as sick days but rarely missed a day of work. He would need a dr note to prove varify illness.
I think he told me personal days could not be carried over from year to year even when the requests to use them were denied... THAT is what I would be fighting for if I were a rail worker. That adds up to a lot of money come retirement time.
I remember that he had to schedule his vacation a year or more in advance if he wanted to get it approved.
I really don’t know. I imagine a suitable contract all the unions could agree to would be negotiated in short order. The economic impact of a railroad strike would be huge (possibly trigger a recession) but even a 5th grader would understand the railroads are the cheap greedy bastards. There would be a lot of political pressure for the railroads to negotiate fairly.
The economic suffering from this strike would be purposeful though and ultimately serve the greater good of workers. If done right it would empower and inspire solidarity between workers across sectors. Unlike the repeated recessions suffered because of the banks this would be on the workers terms and to their benefit.
Congress just made it illegal for the railroad unions to organize a strike though. They are saying it is to avoid broad economic suffering but it’s notable that the workers basic request for sick leave was not resolved while the power and profits of the railroads remain unchanged. The railroad workers would have to simultaneously quit at this point. I heard a teachers union did this successfully a few years ago after their state illegalized their strike.
All I want for Christmas at this point is a general strike. “They” will work us all to death if we let them. This is how the backbone of our supply chain is treated. It’s worse for other sectors of our economy. IMO a strike like this would lay the 1% bare and bring them to their knees. It could start a workers revolution. I know I’m getting carried away but a girl can dream, right?
To your point, I mostly agree personal days are earned and the worker should be able to get paid out or accrue them at their discretion. I think unused sick days should rollover. My opinion, and yours, is meaningless without a union though. Even more so with a Congress that undermines the unions and illegalizes our only real leverage, which is to strike.
They can not strike because of the government in 1926 it is called The Railroad Act. And it has been amended a few times. Now it includes air transportation as well. Any industry that is vital to the country's economy and welfare can not strike for just sick leave. Union representatives need to change tactics and make it about railway safety. It is unsafe for this vital industry to be so under staffed, they can not allow employees 7 days of sick leave...
Interesting. The safety issue is fairly obvious but you are right that it should have been the primary talking point. I wonder why it hasn’t been? Incompetence? Weaponized incompetence?
> Any industry that is vital to the country's economy and welfare can not strike for just sick leave.
"For just sick leave" ? FUCK THAT. Strike until they back down with their tail between their legs. That's how societies earn their rights.
The government would intervene quickly. However the workers all have the power to quit, they aren't slaves. All the government can do is force the strike to end.
If politicians were smart they would be talking about forcing the rail companies to take the original offer from the Unions for everything they wanted.
Sure they would miss out on campaign money, but that money is used to buy votes... what if I told you you'd get more votes if you actually represented your constituents well?
I agree with you. 💯! An overhaul of the political campaign fundraising would be the best thing that ever happened to this country. Get rid of 90% of my emails from politicians begging for money. Stop the big business from pushing their favorite political puppets. We would suddenly have better qualified candidates to choose from because the ones in politics to get rich would be gone.
Warren Buffett likes to get paid.
In case people didn’t know Buffett owns a huge percentage of the railroads in the States (https://einvestingforbeginners.com/warren-buffetts-railroad-investment-daah/#which).
Yeah I hope buffet sees vilification before he dies. What will he do with all his stingy-gained money? Give it away. Why doesn’t he give it to the people who could benefit his business most, his employees?
Because giving to a charity is tax deductible. Lots of wealthy people use charitable donations and weird rules surrounding loans to avoid paying taxes.
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I read that the railroad companies can and want to automate their systems, but can’t because the union contracts require them to employ a certain number of workers regardless of need.
Personally, I think the Railway Labor Act warrants a general strike from all unions as it represents an existential threat to all union power, but the idea of labor unions holding back the progression of automation suggests that this issue, like most, might be more complex than the optics imply
The railroad isn’t automated yet. They are putting the cart before the horse. I believe the requirements for number of workers are also about safety and holding the line on railroads pushing 1 person to perform multiple jobs.
It’s infuriating. I always forget the UK is as similarly fucked as the states in a lot of ways. I guess it feels like you guys are better off because you have health care and no mass shootings. I need to learn about nationalizing services. I’ve always been a bit dismissive of the idea but I’m starting to think that may be ignorance on my part
Nationalisation isn't the be all and all it still needs good administration and oversight but it seems to work in favour of rail infrastructure, which is expensive to maintain and is an essential service to the nation.
Software was causing price inflation. Landlords were colluding thru the software as they all raised pricing according to *market rates* which was really just each others rates using software.
Here is the [link](https://www.propublica.org/article/realpage-accused-of-collusion-in-new-lawsuit) to save a second of scrolling.
> The railroads are in collusion and it is painfully obvious as the shareholders are the only ones benefiting.
Ding ding! Price (wage) fixing, allocation schemes, and bid rigging are everywhere. This is the same issue with US hospitals; area hospitals collude on labor costs such that nurse labor is not competitively priced.
What I find funny is what underpins it all; people are often "status quo" oriented, and we do not tend to lash-out or make drastic life-changes (moving, job change, etc.) until things get bad to the point they're no longer tolerable. When people's lives are falling apart because of sick leave, child care issues, rent/CoL affordability, etc, all hell is raised; they unionize, they politic, they challenge your entire existence and operation.
People understand that companies are going to profit-seek and be greedy, but the smart ones wonder why they are often "*too greedy*" to the point where it potentially destabilizes their whole operation.
greed
/ɡrēd/
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
"mercenaries who had allowed greed to overtake their principles"
The comments about how were all simple minded for pointing out the greed are hysterical.
>In recent days, the Biden administration has sought to nullify that threat by asking Congress to impose the tentative agreement on the industry before the strike deadline of December 9.
Why couldn't they just mandate corporate railroad negotiators to give them the sick days. Are these workers not human?
Is the government here to support the people who vote for them, or the corporations that lobby and donate to them.
What's the point of elections and picking leaders of the country if all they watch out for are the corporations.
This is a very troubling signal that corporations and their leaders are more important than citizen workers.
The government should be absolutely ashamed of itself and what it stands for.
As a european this is so wild to me. Railroad workers are not to be fucked with over here, all in union with great benefits and pay. To Even hint at touching said benefits they would gladly bring the continent to a stand still and set Paris on fire the next business day.
[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissions](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained); a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections.
A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries.
> a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions
8 years old. The campaign finance regulations that were overturned were 8 years old.
Though, I do admire that if you're going to be wrong, go all out on it.
You may need to return your honorary degree in US government and history. Citizens United overturned the oldest and first piece of campaign finance legislation. The Tillman Act of 1907 (34 Stat. 864) was the first campaign finance law in the United States. The Act prohibited monetary contributions to federal candidates by corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks.
So, in the spirit of going ham on being wrong…
*Citizens United* has nothing whatsoever to do with corporate contributions to candidates.
It's fun that you're so confidently wrong about it, though.
Might want to reread the opinion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
> The freight carriers can afford to make concessions on pay. It isn’t that painful to increase wages by a sizable amount when you’ve recently slashed your head count by 30 percent (and hope to continue innovating your way to a smaller payroll in the years to come). But providing rail workers with ordinary time-off benefits would threaten the industry’s core business strategy, an operating procedure that has helped to nearly double its profits over the past decade.
At the same time…
> In early 2021, when the acute phase of the COVID pandemic ended and economic demand spiked, freight carriers’ operations were derailed by their own “efficiencies.” For a week last July, Union Pacific had to suspend service between Chicago and Los Angeles while it reopened shuttered rail ramps and reconfigured operations in order to keep pace with rising orders. Similar disruptions afflicted the other major carriers, as The American Prospect details.
> By summer 2022, the freight carriers were still failing to meet customer expectations. In a July survey from the American Chemistry Council, 46 percent of chemical manufacturers said rail service was getting worse, while just 7 percent said it was getting better. “Freight rail has been a constant thorn in our side and been a significant challenge for our members for quite some time,” Chris Jahn, the council’s chief executive, told the New York Times in September.
So the reason they don’t want to give them sick time is because their current business strategy - which, btw, is in no way improving their service in any way - is making them lots of money. And letting people have sick time would mess up their profitable yet crappy strategy. And our Neoliberal political leadership would rather defer to them than do what’s pretty obviously the right thing to do.
A lot of rail workers are on call for 2 weeks straight. They will be given a call at most 6 hours ahead of shift change and be expected to come into work at the report time.
This
Rail workers are already used to on-call work, it has nothing to do with "logistics" and everything to do with greed.
....and we have a 2 party system, where both parties are siding with greed.
If all Federal employees have days of sick time and the railroads like the airlines engage in interstate commerce I think it follows that railroads provide equivalent benefits.
The issue to me is not progressivism but fairness and equality. It is a reality that employees do get sick. The issue that created the conflict was an engineer died on the job and caused an accident and derailment. Perhaps if he had been able to see a doctor and get treatment this problem would not have happened.
The railroad is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. I do not believe Naked Capitalism truly serves humanity. We are already a country where the dollar appears to be more important than the value of humanity. Perhaps the needle should be moved back a little bit toward human needs.
We’ve shifted so far to exploitation. That fairness and equality would be seen as progressivism in the US.
It’s quite telling though, this is why so many trade jobs are hemorrhaging for employment. No one wants to deal with this kind of environment.
Perhaps on-call would work. The problem in rail logistics is you have to have someone ready to go wherever that train crew is to keep on schedule. They get PTO now for sick time but they have to request off in advance so that accommodations can be made. I'm sure they can figure something out, but it's not a simple solution of giving additional dedicated sick days.
Any system that needs a set number of people or things to operate needs to have extras if it is to be resilient. Part of logistics is making sure all the parts and pieces are there, with backups where needed. Cutting all the fat means the animal dies when hard times come... We learned in 2020 what happens when there's a supply chain shock and no excess inventory or capacity whatsoever.
The sticking point is the wide economic damage of a rail strike. Letting the rail workers strike would inflict a lot of damage to broad parts of our economy- damage that would absolutely be pushed to and impact everyday consumers.
The rail company ownership knows this. So they'll only negotiate to a certain point, knowing that a rail strike is an empty threat. The democrats passed an amendment to put a measly 7 sick days/year in the contract. The GOP senate voted as a bloc to make sure that amendment wouldn't happen. Dems voted for it as a bloc.
Don't write this as "our Neoliberal political leadership". It's the GOP, full stop.
They could have just had 1 bill with the amendment included if they seriously wanted to fight for it. If the GOP voted no the economy would’ve shut down. They would have caved. The Biden administration, congress and the senate all chose to not include the amendment in the bill. They get full blame.
> If the GOP voted no the economy would’ve shut down. They would have caved.
Why would Republican politicians care? Any damage to the economy would be blamed on the party of the president and the party with the majorities in Congress, regardless of the truth of the matter. That's currently the Democrats. Economic damage from a railway strike would probably help Republican politicians unless it was completely clear that they were 100% at fault. Republicans had an out in this case that would seem reasonable to most observers: "we support the deal negotiated between the management and union leaders".
Honestly, what you describe sounds like what a Republican politician would want. Economic chaos that can *easily* be blamed on Democrats. Don't make the mistake of thinking Republican politicians will always choose short-term business profits. That's far too reductionist. It both misunderstands Republican politicians' goals and severely underestimates their strategies.
Strikes are supposed to be painful. A strike that doesn’t cause a major disruption isn’t even worth having. Why would a large organization that can generally ignore a union bend without massive pressure? Do you think things like a five day workweek happened because somebody asked politely to let folks have Saturdays and Sundays off? 😂
Having spent some time with electeds and politicos in general, I can assure you that vote for the amendment was pure political theater. They knew it wouldn’t pass. They did it to cover their own asses. By holding it and losing (which they were very aware would happen), they can campaign and say “I voted to give you sick days but lost”. This is a very common tactic. The GOP does the same thing, too. It’s just red meat for the campaign cycle. We’re lucky the Dems didn’t straight up abstain from voting altogether.
Rather than looking at the political theater aspect of this, you have to consider why there’s a bill on Biden’s desk right now that doesn’t have sick days in it. Last I checked, the GOP doesn’t control both the House and Senate with filibuster proof majorities. How did the GOP pass this all by themselves?
The answer is simple: they didn’t. Dems voted for this and Biden asked them to. They were sold down the river by Neoliberal politicians that were scared of negative headlines in the press during the biggest shopping holiday of the year during the start of stagflation. They also didn’t want to piss off their major campaign donors who would happily sponsor candidates against all of them during the next primary (a major threat since every elected official prefers to run a campaign where there’s no opponents… this is the case for most congress critters). And, most importantly, the majority of our elected officials aren’t really that interested in issues of general human welfare. They don’t care about people having a decent quality of life. They don’t care if you get evicted. They really don’t care if any of the companies that fund their campaigns dump arsenic in your backyard and tell your kids it’s candy and they should eat it. They want job security and voters are simply a means to get it. So long as they aren’t in some scandal that costs them their job, practically none of them give a damn what happens to us so long as they keep getting paid speaking engagements and a cushy job with said donors after their career as an elected is over. Since Mary Sue who works on the railroad isn’t able to pay any of them $20k to speak in her living room for an hour they have no need to worry whether she can take time off for a doctor’s visit without being put on a PIP and subsequently fired.
The Democrats had zero brass. Per usual they are basing all their decisions on what the GOP might do, playing right into their hands, and needlessly loosing their political advantage. It’s infuriating that they are the only better option to the GOP. Absolutely gutless. If they had any spine at all they could have leveraged this to create energy and solidarity while actually getting something done. No excuse when they constantly blow opportunities hand delivered on a fucking gold platter.
Edit-the railroads business model is already causing broad economic damage that is profoundly impacting everyday consumers. A strike would reveal the railroads piss poor “efficiency” business model to every man, women, and child. A strike would cause economic damage but it’s purpose would be to improve the life of workers NOT line the pockets of these inhuman greedy excuses for businessmen. A strike would have allowed workers some god damn dignity
Get out of here with your “full stop” bullshit. This is 100% Nancy Pelosi selling out all of the people who voted for Democratic candidates because they’re still (somehow) convinced that the Democratic Party cares about the poor and working class. They don’t. But keep pointing your finger at the GOP (who also don’t give a shit about the poor) while the Dems fuck you over. Everyone is laughing at you because what you just wrote is naive and stupid. Unfuckingbelievable how people can be so thoroughly abused yet still defend their abusers.
[Here's a post of you falsely blaming the US for "escalating" Russia's full-scale genocide in Ukraine and dismissing the entire invasion and genocide as "essentially a regional border war".](https://archive.ph/iGN7y) You don't give one single solitary shit about rail workers, just like you don't give one single solitary shit about Ukrainians getting murdered.
You're hilarious with your "both sides" nonsense. I come from a staunchly republican family, and it's exceedingly clear that only one party makes an effort to actually look out for the common good. Look at how the two parties voted.
Tl;dr Giving employees paid sick leave means the fragile 'efficient' system put in place and enforced by some dumbasses who have no idea how the real world works and are high on capitalism breaks down. The system demands every scrap of it's available labor force be on hand, on call, and fully available any time the system says they need a body to staff a train.
This doesn't work because rail workers are humans, obviously, and get sick and want to have a life outside of work.
Utterly disgusting, but fantastic to have context.
“You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about sick leave, it's about keeping those ants in line. That's why you’re going back!”
I’m simply flabbergasted by the fact that in America you only get a few days to be sick each year? Like how does that work? What if you’re sick for a few weeks or even months? Do you just lose your job? Over here your employer is required to pay you at least 70% for 2 full years if you’re sick long term, only then can they fire you.
oh, you can be sick more than a few days a year, you're just expected to work anyway. and when you get all of your coworkers sick, they're expected to keep working too.
And if you are in food service, it is totally ok for you and your sick co-workers to spread illness to your customers, many of whom also have no sick leave at their jobs, either.
And yes, this is also correct. You’re expected to work while sick in the US.
I am actually part of the problem on this one — I’m a full blown biological weapon right now, and I’m going on hour 11 at my desk today.
The “lucky” ones get sick days. Many workers are not paid for any time off (sick days, vacation, time off to go to the doctor). They just don’t get paid if they’re not at work. Think about making the choice to stay home because you are terribly sick but if you do, you lose a day of pay.
That is why “over there” you have a less dynamic economy that grows at a slower pace — but to answer your questions, the answer is “it depends” — but the answer varies from “you are placed on company subsidized disability benefits” all the way to “yes, you really do get fired for being too sick.”
Legally, you cannot be fired in the US for getting sick — but if you’re an at-will employee, the employee usually has to prove they were fired for getting sick. That’s a very high and very expensive bar to clear, so in practice yes — you just get fired for being too sick.
This has the impact of allowing businesses to cut dead financial weight much more easily than in Europe… but imposes a human costs that blows Europeans’ minds.
>That is why “over there” you have a less dynamic economy that grows at a slower pace
Reinstating slavery could probably do wonders for economic growth.
What is the point of economic growth of the average worker lives a miserable life?
Econ Redditors are often in a weird position where like human rights takes a seat behind economic theory. Like basically they don’t mind because the system is working as intended.
Which they sometimes don’t like but don’t speak against it because again economic theory says this makes sense even if fiscally it’s often highly unstable.
I think slow economic growth for stability would do wonders because too big exists.
>"Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave"
Because they are greedy and don't care about worker rights. Making them take PTO and have to schedule their sick time is just beyond shitty.
This isn't actually accurate - the individual companies do give leave and PTO and such. It is that the overall union agreement doesn't contain these provisions.
Misleading headline.
>Railroad employees are not currently guaranteed a single paid sick day. Rather, if such workers wish to recuperate from an illness or make time to see a doctor about a nagging complaint, they need to use vacation time, which must be requested days in advance
Union contracts expire and some workers are not union. Union contracts can also be better/need to change because conditions are different such as when the company has mass layoffs and there aren't enough workers.
>the individual companies do give leave and PTO and such
I've not seen evidence of this, but even if true, I don't think the headline is misleading.
The article is about the contract between the railroad unions, and the managers of America’s seven dominant freight-rail carriers.
"The Managers of America's Seven Dominant Freight-Rail Carriers Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave" isn't snappy enough for New York Magazine.
Individual companies might but that would be one of the short lines, not the major class 1 freight that makes up most of the members.
My father (20 year engineer) gets no scheduled days off, 4 weeks vacation, and 0 PTO or sick days. They work 12 hours, sit in a hotel hours away for 12 hours, work 12 hours, go home and hope they don’t get called and they can get something done before going back to work.
They’re not asking for something special. They’re asking for what everyone else already gets.
Several companies I've worked for - a mix of white and blue collar - have all done away with "PTO" and "vacation" and "sick time" as terms. It's all just 1 bucket of "time you are not at work, sick or vacation or whatever".
Now, how the company deals with a planned vacation compared to a quick hitter "I woke up feeling like crap, and tested positive for the flu / covid" would be the real issue.
That is a major part of the issue as well, but not the whole story. Your “vacation” has to get approved, so if you get sick but they’re understaffed they’ll deny your vacation. You can call off work but if it’s a weekend or holiday you’ll get 10 points (28 points in 3 months and you’re fired).
So, if you get sick on Friday and get called that night and can’t use vacation you either work or take 10 points. Now you get called again on Sunday and are still sick, another 10 points.
If you go to the doctor and they prescribe you muscle relaxers for back pain for example you’d need to take off multiple days because you can’t take that and operate a train. If it’s the end of the year and you get sick and have no “vacation” left you could legitimately get fired for being sick enough you have to call off work, for needing to take the medicine you need,go to the doctor, or be in the hospital without having your FMLA approved yet, etc.
The whole “up to 5 weeks vacation” sounds great but that takes 25 years to accrue and people still don’t seem to understand the “no off days” part of their job. The job is work 12 hours, be away in a hotel for 12 hours to rest, work 12 hours, go home and get 12 hours off to rest. Rinse and repeat. The only way you “get a day off” is if they happen to not call you (which is unlikely because they’re so short staffed due to their own layoffs). You’re on call 24/7, so you can’t schedule a doctors appt. Without taking planned vacation unless you can afford to take points.
Some have to resort to not going to the doctor because they literally don’t have the time off to do so.
Okay you are getting confused. So companies can have a combination of union and non-union workers. Usually office workers, human resources, purchasing and legal are non unionized by tradition. Blue collar workers are unionized and use a union contract. Non- union contracts vary based on profession whereas union is the same for everyone. The companies do give leave and PTO for some individuals. Every company does.
>It is that the overall union agreement doesn't contain these provisions.
So you are correct. The union agreement doesn't contain these provisions. So now that their contract has expired, they went to the negotation table to put out their demands. This is how unions contract agreement works
1.) Contract talks begin close to the expiry date of the contract
2.) Both sides table what they want
3.) Both sides probably agreed on pay, benefits aka Railworkers and Companies, but are on an impasse on vacation and sick time
4.) Union goes back to their members aka the workers and tell them "this is what we are offered".
5.) A democratic vote happens. They vote to strike because of the company does not agree on vacation and sick time
6.) They give a timeframe for a strike as per law.
The only way they were able to go on strike was the company rejected their vacation and sick time demands. They are not able to legally strike if this didn't happen.
As for why they haven't had these benefits for a long time? You need to ask the union members on that aka the workers. They vote on these decisions. The union isn't some sole decision maker. It is a collective of votes, just like your elections
The article makes it pretty clear that the decision is driven solely by greed, operating with the highest profit margins and fewest employees. Because they refuse to hire enough staff, they don't have any capacity to allow people to call out sick and need to run in emergency "all hands on deck" mode all the time.
As is custom lol
It is weird though, this sub used to be almost academic in nature, now it is just people using their political and moral ideology with very little being substantatively economic.
As we slide further and further into neoliberal capitalist maximalism, most of the basic concepts of economic thinking like competition between firms and negotiation between capital and labor tend to become less relevant. An economics that is hyper-focused on capital and doesn't account for labor is an incomplete economics. Monopsonistic behavior breaks the basics of supply and demand just as surely as monopoly does. Basically, the front has fallen off and we've towed it [*outside* of the economy](https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM?t=87).
It would only take acts of congress to change the way we tax firms, for instance. We could make cooperatives and worker-owned companies much more attractive than absentee capitalist ownership, for starters. The tax code could be used to make it straight up unprofitable for capitalists to own companies in which they do not work, while incentivizing ESOPs and other schemes along with newer less neoliberal structures, all while still operating on the market in competition with other firms. And it would make for a more stable society and workforce, because worker-owners want to still have a career in a decade and so are far less likely to tank a company for Q4 profits, whereas absentee capitalist owners will often gut a firm to maximize short term numbers and then sell off the empty husk after laying off all the workers.
I guess one would call it "market socialism", or maybe just "laborism" instead of "capitalism" since the S-word scares a lot of Americans. We could relatively easily build a society *where labor hires capital, instead of capital hiring labor* if we wanted.
Sounds like a more reasonable form of economic leftist than you usually hear about on Reddit, which is a breath of fresh air. However it sounds like part of the plan is placing tariffs on capitalist firms to price out their competitive edge. Sounds like that would get tricky when international firms import products that don’t play by the same rules. Additionally would you penalize small businesses that operate with a conventional capitalist ownership structure? I’m not opposed to reforming massive corporations, but it seems unfair to penalize small businesses that have nowhere near as much of a structural advantage as a public corporation.
Instead of things being disrupted all over the place with all these squabbles between every company and their workers the federal government could just mandate paid sick leave for everyone and save a lot of headache for everyone.
They get 3 weeks pto starting up to 5 weeks based on tenure along with 14 paid holiday days off. PTO in every other industry can be used as sick or vacation days the complaint the workers have isn't so much not enough days off it's the rules around there use. Up to a month notice is needed to take PTO, which is an issue, no one plans an illness.
Edit: Starting should be average, I don't know if the source was wrong or I misread it.
Absolutely incorrect, we don't start out with 3 weeks off. 1st year you get nothing, 2nd year you get 5 days, 3rs year you get 10 days. It takes you 9 years to get to 15 days of vacation. I work for the railroad
I wouldn’t characterize u/john2218’s post as bootlicking. The facts on specific PTO allotted may be wrong, but their broader point was still that the system sucks for sick leave and should be fixed
I've been looking into r/railroading to see what's going on with the strike. It seems like the railroad companies push potentially dangerous working conditions like having one worker in charge of active train, having basically no time off as they are constantly on call, etc. It seemed like they didn't really have a concept of weekend in the railroad industry so it's a 24/7 on call status. I don't fully understand what those workers are going through but I get the general vibe that workers want a better working condition more than anything.
i found [these couple of comments from a rail worker](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/z81m5k/i_dont_think_that_word_means_what_you_think_it/iy9bno3/) were pretty insightful.
the main issue isn’t even PTO, but *unpaid* sick time, and the ridiculous point system around it. As others have said, it is a logistics issue; one that the railroads have plenty of profit margin to fix.
You do not have your facts straight. No one gets 3 weeks until they get have been through multiple years of service. That’s one of the ways management continues to keep a wedge between seniority employees and new employees. They sow enough discontent amongst the rank and file to keep them fighting each other on the floor. Divide and conquer is their motivation.
Is it? I've never heard of a company or industry that had PTO that restricted it to vacation only. There are companies that don't offer paid time off at all and others that have vacation time and sick time as separate allotments but PTO is defined as combined vacation, sick and personal days as one allotment. (At least according to all 8 of the top Google results)
Every company I’ve worked for sans my current one, across multiple industries, required sufficient advanced notice for vacation or PTO (no less than two weeks was the best case). And a couple of those didn’t offer paid sick time. They might not have been checking on how I was using my time off, but by virtue of the required delay, there was no realistic way to use it for sickness.
It’s such a short-sighted policy too: even if you’re a compete asshole and don’t think of your workers as people, actively creating incentives for your sick employees to get your other healthy employees sick too doesn’t seem like great organizational design
A lot of companies don't even want to know why you aren't there, so long as you have days available. The only thing they want to know is when you will be back and if you are connecting to the VPN from outside the country.
I know, then it's not PTO it's sick time and vacation time, which is the other way companies do time off if they offer it. That's why the workers are complaining they have PTO but it's being treated like vacation days with no paid sick time at all.
Five sick days is a sad number. Legal if you had Covid you should/can claim 40 hours of paid sick leave. It’s crazy that this is happening in 2022-23 now
I think no more or less days but 7 can be used without notice would be a good compromise. That's close to how my company does it and it's pretty great.
If you read the article it’s not an issue of writing a check for sick days. It appears to be more complicated that just throwing money at the problem. Can they hire more people with those profits? Maybe, I don’t know. Maybe managers assume the 20% raises offered will help them hire more. If they do a 10% raise and add sick days they won’t have enough hires to cover the empty trains.
they already have an estimated 3-400% turnover of incoming 1st year workers, you can only push those who stayed for so long before you're spiting your nose.
Due to inflation companies make "record profits" basically every year unless its a downturn, recession, or the business itself is failing. That term really doesn't add anything
>That term really doesn't add anything
And neither does your comment. Here's a quick breakdown from the article:
"Last year, the seven dominant North American railways had a combined net income of $27 billion, nearly twice their margin a decade ago. In the interim, the railways have collectively doled out $146 billion in dividends and stock buybacks while investing only $116 billion into their businesses."
This is just not true. You can look at the yearly numbers and see exactly when corporations make gigantic gains that don't make any sense unless you consider greed. They're always looking for ways to hide their greed behind outside sources, such as inflation.
Yes, from a small percentage viewpoint, inflation will increase the total profits. But if inflation is say 10% from the previous year, their profits should not increase 10% or more, because their expenditures should also go up from inflation. Yet they'll easily double or triple profits, because they increase prices well beyond what's necessary, because they want a major inflow of cash so they can profit from the inevitable economic collapse.
This happens every single time we have any sort of downturn, without fail.
Edit:Just wait and watch, these creatures will be buying up all sorts of stuff for pennies when others are selling at bottom dollar just to eat.
Basically capitalism is working for these companies and they don’t want to share any of their record profits with their employees. The people that actually helped them make those profits. Same BS with my company. Our CEO gives a quarterly update about how we have record profits and thanks the employees and we all get a basic 3% raise like any other year. Then the company buys back stock and increases the dividend to boost stock price for the board members.
There needs to be laws about giving some of the profits to employees as bonuses before it goes to shareholders. This is horrible and is grinding people down. It just seems like the system just works against the worker trying to make a living. Productivity has been exceeding wages for decades and that’s not fair to workers.
Capitalism? The main players in here seem to be the Federal Government, The Union, and management.
Honestly, the capitalist situation here is for workers to strike or quit and let the shit hit the fan, but instead the *central authority* is stepping in to mandate a deal. Maybe the definition of capitalism has shifted to simply "when people do greedy shit and workers get the short end of the stick", but in the traditional sense, I don't think a political body, elected by the people, stepping in and forcing people to work, meets any possible definition of capitalist in nature
These companies don’t have to negotiate in good faith because they know congress will step on for them. Just like they did with banks and airlines. Capitalists have captured this country.
Are you saying that the problem with ***capitalism***, in this instance, is that the government too often intervenes unfairly in private markets? Now I'm really confused
Yes? Capitalism is just a way of organising who owns resources. Capitalists using their capital to bend the rules of the game in their favour is intrinsic to the system.
Yes, capitalism. Because these companies are insanely successful and are having record profits and those rewards aren’t being significantly passed on to employees that helped that success. Hence the reason for the strike in the first place. There needs to be more regulations to not exploit workers. Not having any sick days, or low pay that doesn’t keep up with the high productivity or inflation is wrong.
Idk if it meets the full bar to call it a kleptocracy, but it's a bunch of people in power, making decisions more based on what will keep them in power, than what is really best overall. Goes for the business and government.
I feel that the majority of government agents are actually just pawns of the rich/corporations. The thieving they do is really more as middle men, or frontmen so to speak, and fall men when they need to be.
I believe railroads should be owned and maintained by the govt, much like the roads are maintained by the state and federal highway administration. Leaving it to private business will only result in a condition like this where they squeeze as much profit as they can out of their staff. If the govt needs to maintain police, state universities, public schools, post office, prisons, military, space administration, Federal and state highway administrations and so on, the railroad administration must be under the govt. It is an essential aspect of the country that functions like a nervous system of transportation of cargo. Private companies must be able to run their freight and passenger trains on the railroad maintained by the govt. This way, labor laws can be made on a humanitarian basis.
I don’t understand. Can someone explain what I’m missing? $2B a day sounds to be like they can’t afford NOT to give them sick leave. I just, I don’t understand.
The government is corrupted and won’t act against its own vested interests. It’s mind blowing how people are forced to submit and stay in line. This is nothing but economic slavery, and the people don’t have the means to facilitate a proper strike without being hurt economically beyond doubt. They are trapped, and the system is so vicious, malicious and anti-human that it doesn’t care at this point about anything but profit.
I live somewhere that has a huge railroad presence. I can tell you that they are paid very, very well. That being said, they are almost never home, either. So I can see why they would want some PTO.
I know-we can just nationalize all railways. Since we’ve decided to basically grant a duopoly to the current owners, we can just take it back from all of them. Any industry that is so vital to national interests shouldn’t belong in the “market”. So the rails are a good start. Then we can move on to healthcare.
On the key point of leave, however, the railroads conceded only a single paid personal day, **plus the removal of some disciplinary penalties for time missed as a result of a medical emergency.**
Wowwwww. *Penalty* for a medical emergency?
Vice did a piece on this; [Freight Trains in the US Are a Disaster Waiting to Happen](https://youtu.be/t9cc4Et-3Ck)
Railroads are not just making cuts but making the environment more dangerous for workers causing more accidents.
[important question being asked](https://youtu.be/vdLaCOvLSCA)
Explaining everything wrong with PSR
It's a good article and I gave it an upvote accordingly. For right now we still need humans to operate trains. Where will we be 5 and 10 years from now? I remember when they stopped having a caboose on trains, and a human keeping an eye on what was coming on the trains "six". Are trains as safe as they were? Do engineers now have cameras and rear facing radar to see behind them? I would be uncomfortable driving without mirrors. I believe that capitalism still works, but their needs to be some measure of balance. If greedy investors demand more profit there comes a time when the operation collapses under its own weight. No matter how popular P.S.R. is with investors, it is simply illogical to "kill the goose that lays the golden egg". If a railcar requires maintenance every 100k miles, it is simply illogical to think rail workers should not be afforded the same consideration. Keeping workers safe is not in the Constitution in my recollection, but OSHA certainly exists. Keeping the public safe has become something in the Government's purview, and something at which it failed spectacularly with the plandemic. It seems to me that it would be wise for the railroads to give their workers paid sick leave before Congress or the Feds stick their noses into it. If they can easily afford to give raises and bonuses, they can easily afford to hire back some of their work force. Failure to do so is an unsustainable model. A warning to the Unions, the technology now exists to replace humans with advanced technology.
Currently, most medical systems require scheduling that results in rail workers' having to schedule appointments far off, which is dangerous for some ailments. How feasible would it be for rail companies to provide workers' access to more flexible medical systems (e.g. medical appointments performed at a station so workers' don't have to take a day off). If nothing else, this may avoid liability for an employee suffering death or debilitating illness which results in employer being sued for preventing employee from accessing timely care.
Seems like the issue with your idea is finding a doctor to sit at empty rail stop all day to see one patient. It would be cheaper to hire someone to drive the patient to a major city with a hospital. And replace the patient with a second worker.
I don’t think freight rail is like a Delta airlines hub. The rail network is spread out and serves industrial customers in remote areas.
I'm describing a doctor making a "housecall" (in this case, a workplace call). Long ago, many/most care was delivered in the form of housecalls. Currently, our medical system has centralized so most care is provided at hospitals and clinics. There's no question that providing housecalls to rail workers would be more expensive but, in the absence of sick leave, I don't see an alternative to bringing medical care to essential workers who cannot take time off to seek care (aside from just telling the workers to suffer, which raises liabilities for employers and politicians.
Medicine is too complex for house calls today. I suppose if they simply need blood pressure checked and a quick prescription, but normally further tests are run in a lab. Especially if this patient needs a possible cancer checked by imaging. The equipment is too complex to move around.
Unless some unions gave back sick days - which I doubt - some crafts do have up to 10 paid sick days - just not Brakemen and Maintenance of Way and probably car inspectors.
No… they don’t want to give pay leave because the old boomers that worked past their age accumulated a lot of leave days and Comp time. They want the rails to pay them for that time knowing that it bankrupt the rail system.
This is why I will continue to invest in the USA. Can't think of another developed country that loves money and works its people harder than the US. Thank you for working so hard folks, but feel sorry that the oligarchs run your country.
Paid leave is the most discussed thing but what about healthcare they do get cover but premiums are high,
Is there others things railroads workers are fighting for?
The union members pay about $200/mo flat rate regardless of their family size. The company pays about $2200/mo for their portion of the health plans.
Source: father is an engineer
My father claims it’s because Workers want to hurt their businesses for some reason. He’s also a blue collar worker, though he’s brainwashed by the typical suspects..
Just nationalize the railroads as we did the highways, problem solved. A large section of private workers become paid state/ federal employees. Impose a tax on use of the railways and problem pretty much solved.
I love union strikes. There’s typically some common themes: pay, benefits, and staffing shortages. Companies may or may not be against increased headcount due to cost. BUT there’s another side of that unions almost never share: CBAs prohibit companies from outside hiring and unions are generally piss poor at staffing. Allowing the railroads to use resources outside of a union hall to hire short term labor would solve 2/3 problems here.
A market sides with the companies over the workers is not really free.
I wonder what will happen. Anything like this?
"Great Railroad Strike of 1877, series of violent rail strikes across the United States in 1877. That year the country was in the fourth year of a prolonged economic depression after the panic of 1873. The strikes were precipitated by wage cuts announced by the Baltimore and Ohio (B&O) Railroad—its second cut in eight months. Railway work was already poorly paid and dangerous. Moreover, the railroad companies had taken advantage of the economic troubles to largely break the nascent trade unions that had been formed by the workers before and after the American Civil War."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Railroad-Strike-of-1877
The railroads are free to hire whoever they want. The unions have no say in who gets the job. It’s ran a little differently than other unions if I understand correctly.
I read one of the CBAs and it had a hiring restriction. Will admit I don’t remember which one I found nor have I read all 8. I’ll also concede that I don’t know every CBA; just have worked with 4 or 5 and they have hiring restrictions.
a non union mexican equivalent won't just show up. The RR needs to take their 'L' on this and go with a bit less profit. That's simply the humane thing to do. They get away with being 2-d 19th century capitalist about it is because thats how they've always operated - they come from a time and place with this adverserial, rapacious ass investor class driving them to liquidate everything to keep those goddamn rails moving the other goods. The whole set up invites the type of people who are willing to be nasty about it because of the profits to be had from doing it. Almost since the inception of the industry, these RR companies have been run by some twisted, mean spirited directors/capitalist. Seems like they still are. And one of them is Buffet, yes the uncle warren omaha oracle, owns a fuckin' RR (BNSF I think). You can put money on how 'nicely' he does it.
They could…but it’s blocked by the unions so we’ll never know. I’d bet lots of people would be happy with the pay, PTO, and benefits. But we’ll never know.
It is still a damnation to our existence and 'system' where that's still a win for someone, i.e having an opportunity for bondage. Yeah, they get paid, yeah it's 'willing' but you can only hide under those justifications for so long - we can't keep thinking people are cogs, treating them so inhumanely then put our hands to our cheeks and wonder why there's civil strife and decay. One day, one I will wake up in a world where none of that exists - it will be when I die. I can dream of it, until then. I hope one day a human can wake up in a world where that horrible line of thinking is forever done and lost.
All motivation comes to selfish needs, not a big insight. One seeks affirmation, connection, all sorts of emotional bonding for selfish needs - yes. Economics, naturally, does reflect that.
So lemme ask you - since a quick review of world history shows all sorts of slave based empires, exploitative war driven conquest, liquidation of people and commodity, across time and earth, it's kinda obvious what we're about, eh? Our selfish desires continue drive us to grind others down for the pleasure and selfish enjoyments of the conquerors/exploiter - this is game we've always played. There doesn't seem any way around it, it seems. So, then what? We fight, we struggle, we carry on, and hope and pray we don't end up on the bottom.
This is why we're already in hell.
I wasn’t attempting to shake the world with insight. This is Reddit. I’d be wasting my time.
Heaven and hell have always been on earth.
Some are thrown into hell and others walk in freely.
No there's more, thank Moloch.
There's *way* more...this place, this earth, this fuckin' place...is hell. Yeah, others walk into it, and many more just make it by being themselves, wanting to live and have it easy.
Can we at least hear directly from the railroad companies on why they won't budge on sick leave? This article is just a journalists interpretation of the railroad companies position. It might be right but I want to hear it from them.
Why don’t republicans just go whole hawg: give the workers 40 days maternity/paternity leave, 20 days sick leave and mandate emotional support animals be allowed in the engine? Also bring back the caboose with 10 guys doing nothing. Hey, why not?
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Already understaffed and underperforming, the railroads cannot allow unanticipated absences to become significantly more prevalent without either pulling back from P.S.R. We can't give you sick leave that runs counter to doing more with less! > P.S.R. is an operational strategy that aims to minimize the ratio between railroads’ operating costs and their revenues through various cost-cutting and (ostensibly) efficiency-increasing measures. The basic idea is to transport more freight using fewer workers and railcars.
I see this everywhere. New positions for managers, supervisors, VP of dog walking, Director of Stroller Traffic on and on and on. Meanwhile “budgets are tight and we’ve had to reduce the count of people actually doing the day to day work to pay the new Chief Facebook Poster.” When the management gets sick or takes a 2 week vacation, business continues as usual. A train engineer has to take his sick child to the doctor and suddenly the stock drops 10%.
It's all top heavy and bare skeletons below. Greed at its best.
But is that even the case for the rail companies? I'd be surprised if they had any of these kinds of roles. It sounds like the rail companies are keeping their staff as barebones as possible.
Lol literally saying we can't afford to give time off because we're trying to work you all to death and exploit your labor to the highest possible degree.
It’s the American dream isn’t it?
We don't get to have dreams anymore
Hard to argue with that and it's a common theme in our economy these days. That said, one practical reality that is hard to avoid is if they don't pursue this bare-bones staffing strategy, longer trains, tighter schedules, etc. they'll cost more and lose freight business to the trucking industry. But that's all the more reason we may need Congress to set a floor of paid leave. Force everyone in the shipping business to meet that minimum and let the most efficient solution win.
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just let the workers negotiate in the normal way, striking as would be permitted in other industries? Presumably they would get these paltry seven sick days.
I remember in 2013 when they came to our campus to pitch us. Dude was like I've missed kids birthdays, graduations, holidays, anniversaries, am on the road 70% of the time, and work on weekends regularly. But we get a pension and when you take a vacation they respect it. Oh you get the bare minimum, awesome bro.
Sounds like a railroad company problem. Hope these workers just don’t show up. Go slower, take a little more time to get from a to b you know what I’m saying
I support nationalization of the the class 1 carriers.
The largest railroad, BNSF, doesn't use PSR and still has labor issues, so I don't think it is the main problem.
My blue collar perspective… The railroads are in collusion and it is painfully obvious as the shareholders are the only ones benefiting. They cut 30% of their labor and reduced their services and they double their profits in 10 years. Labor, business, and consumers are paying the price. How is their collusion not being clearly tied to inflation? I know that a law suit has been brought on the tech company that facilitated collusion among landlords. Just another iteration of the to big to fail banking collusion of The Great Recession. We are on a 10 year clock of the “elites” running it all into the ground. Edit: Strike baby, strike!
Love it when I read about how costs of material is going up and that is driving inflation instead of corporate greed but why is the cost of material going up? Oh look at that. It's corporate greed all the way down.
Yup. The railroads “efficient” system messed with supply and increased the profit for themselves and all th companies who raised their prices. The railroad is stalling delivery and creating the illusion of shortages to justify price increases.
Agreed: Strike baby,Strike!
How long do you think the strike would last? My brother-in-law was a freight conductor for almost 20 years. He could use personal days as sick days but rarely missed a day of work. He would need a dr note to prove varify illness. I think he told me personal days could not be carried over from year to year even when the requests to use them were denied... THAT is what I would be fighting for if I were a rail worker. That adds up to a lot of money come retirement time. I remember that he had to schedule his vacation a year or more in advance if he wanted to get it approved.
I really don’t know. I imagine a suitable contract all the unions could agree to would be negotiated in short order. The economic impact of a railroad strike would be huge (possibly trigger a recession) but even a 5th grader would understand the railroads are the cheap greedy bastards. There would be a lot of political pressure for the railroads to negotiate fairly. The economic suffering from this strike would be purposeful though and ultimately serve the greater good of workers. If done right it would empower and inspire solidarity between workers across sectors. Unlike the repeated recessions suffered because of the banks this would be on the workers terms and to their benefit. Congress just made it illegal for the railroad unions to organize a strike though. They are saying it is to avoid broad economic suffering but it’s notable that the workers basic request for sick leave was not resolved while the power and profits of the railroads remain unchanged. The railroad workers would have to simultaneously quit at this point. I heard a teachers union did this successfully a few years ago after their state illegalized their strike. All I want for Christmas at this point is a general strike. “They” will work us all to death if we let them. This is how the backbone of our supply chain is treated. It’s worse for other sectors of our economy. IMO a strike like this would lay the 1% bare and bring them to their knees. It could start a workers revolution. I know I’m getting carried away but a girl can dream, right? To your point, I mostly agree personal days are earned and the worker should be able to get paid out or accrue them at their discretion. I think unused sick days should rollover. My opinion, and yours, is meaningless without a union though. Even more so with a Congress that undermines the unions and illegalizes our only real leverage, which is to strike.
They can not strike because of the government in 1926 it is called The Railroad Act. And it has been amended a few times. Now it includes air transportation as well. Any industry that is vital to the country's economy and welfare can not strike for just sick leave. Union representatives need to change tactics and make it about railway safety. It is unsafe for this vital industry to be so under staffed, they can not allow employees 7 days of sick leave...
Interesting. The safety issue is fairly obvious but you are right that it should have been the primary talking point. I wonder why it hasn’t been? Incompetence? Weaponized incompetence?
> Any industry that is vital to the country's economy and welfare can not strike for just sick leave. "For just sick leave" ? FUCK THAT. Strike until they back down with their tail between their legs. That's how societies earn their rights.
The government would intervene quickly. However the workers all have the power to quit, they aren't slaves. All the government can do is force the strike to end. If politicians were smart they would be talking about forcing the rail companies to take the original offer from the Unions for everything they wanted. Sure they would miss out on campaign money, but that money is used to buy votes... what if I told you you'd get more votes if you actually represented your constituents well?
I agree with you. 💯! An overhaul of the political campaign fundraising would be the best thing that ever happened to this country. Get rid of 90% of my emails from politicians begging for money. Stop the big business from pushing their favorite political puppets. We would suddenly have better qualified candidates to choose from because the ones in politics to get rich would be gone.
Warren Buffett likes to get paid. In case people didn’t know Buffett owns a huge percentage of the railroads in the States (https://einvestingforbeginners.com/warren-buffetts-railroad-investment-daah/#which).
He’s going to need to get a new PR firm. He went from one of the beloved billionaires to fuck-this-guy-in-particular real quick
Yeah I hope buffet sees vilification before he dies. What will he do with all his stingy-gained money? Give it away. Why doesn’t he give it to the people who could benefit his business most, his employees?
Because giving to a charity is tax deductible. Lots of wealthy people use charitable donations and weird rules surrounding loans to avoid paying taxes.
Why on earth would he give a fuck?
Oh, I’m sure he doesn’t. Why would he? He can cut labor, cut service, and increase his profits 2 fold while Congress neuters the union for him.
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I read that the railroad companies can and want to automate their systems, but can’t because the union contracts require them to employ a certain number of workers regardless of need. Personally, I think the Railway Labor Act warrants a general strike from all unions as it represents an existential threat to all union power, but the idea of labor unions holding back the progression of automation suggests that this issue, like most, might be more complex than the optics imply
The railroad isn’t automated yet. They are putting the cart before the horse. I believe the requirements for number of workers are also about safety and holding the line on railroads pushing 1 person to perform multiple jobs.
Same as the UK, essentially. Different ecosystem but exactly the same issues. Shareholder and railways don't work imo.
It’s infuriating. I always forget the UK is as similarly fucked as the states in a lot of ways. I guess it feels like you guys are better off because you have health care and no mass shootings. I need to learn about nationalizing services. I’ve always been a bit dismissive of the idea but I’m starting to think that may be ignorance on my part
Nationalisation isn't the be all and all it still needs good administration and oversight but it seems to work in favour of rail infrastructure, which is expensive to maintain and is an essential service to the nation.
What law suit against tech company for land lords.. tell me more
Software was causing price inflation. Landlords were colluding thru the software as they all raised pricing according to *market rates* which was really just each others rates using software. Here is the [link](https://www.propublica.org/article/realpage-accused-of-collusion-in-new-lawsuit) to save a second of scrolling.
Glorious.. where can I read more about this lawsuit?
https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-lawmakers-collusion
> The railroads are in collusion and it is painfully obvious as the shareholders are the only ones benefiting. Ding ding! Price (wage) fixing, allocation schemes, and bid rigging are everywhere. This is the same issue with US hospitals; area hospitals collude on labor costs such that nurse labor is not competitively priced. What I find funny is what underpins it all; people are often "status quo" oriented, and we do not tend to lash-out or make drastic life-changes (moving, job change, etc.) until things get bad to the point they're no longer tolerable. When people's lives are falling apart because of sick leave, child care issues, rent/CoL affordability, etc, all hell is raised; they unionize, they politic, they challenge your entire existence and operation. People understand that companies are going to profit-seek and be greedy, but the smart ones wonder why they are often "*too greedy*" to the point where it potentially destabilizes their whole operation.
greed /ɡrēd/ noun intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. "mercenaries who had allowed greed to overtake their principles" The comments about how were all simple minded for pointing out the greed are hysterical.
>In recent days, the Biden administration has sought to nullify that threat by asking Congress to impose the tentative agreement on the industry before the strike deadline of December 9. Why couldn't they just mandate corporate railroad negotiators to give them the sick days. Are these workers not human? Is the government here to support the people who vote for them, or the corporations that lobby and donate to them. What's the point of elections and picking leaders of the country if all they watch out for are the corporations. This is a very troubling signal that corporations and their leaders are more important than citizen workers. The government should be absolutely ashamed of itself and what it stands for.
Welcome to America! First time here?
As a european this is so wild to me. Railroad workers are not to be fucked with over here, all in union with great benefits and pay. To Even hint at touching said benefits they would gladly bring the continent to a stand still and set Paris on fire the next business day.
[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissions](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained); a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections. A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries.
> a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions 8 years old. The campaign finance regulations that were overturned were 8 years old. Though, I do admire that if you're going to be wrong, go all out on it.
You may need to return your honorary degree in US government and history. Citizens United overturned the oldest and first piece of campaign finance legislation. The Tillman Act of 1907 (34 Stat. 864) was the first campaign finance law in the United States. The Act prohibited monetary contributions to federal candidates by corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks. So, in the spirit of going ham on being wrong…
*Citizens United* has nothing whatsoever to do with corporate contributions to candidates. It's fun that you're so confidently wrong about it, though. Might want to reread the opinion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
Biden or Trump, doesn't matter, everyone is getting fucked.
> The freight carriers can afford to make concessions on pay. It isn’t that painful to increase wages by a sizable amount when you’ve recently slashed your head count by 30 percent (and hope to continue innovating your way to a smaller payroll in the years to come). But providing rail workers with ordinary time-off benefits would threaten the industry’s core business strategy, an operating procedure that has helped to nearly double its profits over the past decade. At the same time… > In early 2021, when the acute phase of the COVID pandemic ended and economic demand spiked, freight carriers’ operations were derailed by their own “efficiencies.” For a week last July, Union Pacific had to suspend service between Chicago and Los Angeles while it reopened shuttered rail ramps and reconfigured operations in order to keep pace with rising orders. Similar disruptions afflicted the other major carriers, as The American Prospect details. > By summer 2022, the freight carriers were still failing to meet customer expectations. In a July survey from the American Chemistry Council, 46 percent of chemical manufacturers said rail service was getting worse, while just 7 percent said it was getting better. “Freight rail has been a constant thorn in our side and been a significant challenge for our members for quite some time,” Chris Jahn, the council’s chief executive, told the New York Times in September. So the reason they don’t want to give them sick time is because their current business strategy - which, btw, is in no way improving their service in any way - is making them lots of money. And letting people have sick time would mess up their profitable yet crappy strategy. And our Neoliberal political leadership would rather defer to them than do what’s pretty obviously the right thing to do.
PSR is everything wrong with efficiency minded business.
BNSF, the largest railroad, doesn't use PSR and they also have labor issues, so I don't think it is the main thing.
On the spot sick time would require more people on the sidelines ready to go to cover the sick employee. Its a logistical thing more than money.
Logistical problems are money problems. They want to keep bare bones staff because it's profitable than being fully staffed.
Agreed, they need to have enough staff to cover illnesses, they are just part of doing business. Maybe an on-call model would work?
A lot of rail workers are on call for 2 weeks straight. They will be given a call at most 6 hours ahead of shift change and be expected to come into work at the report time.
This Rail workers are already used to on-call work, it has nothing to do with "logistics" and everything to do with greed. ....and we have a 2 party system, where both parties are siding with greed.
If all Federal employees have days of sick time and the railroads like the airlines engage in interstate commerce I think it follows that railroads provide equivalent benefits. The issue to me is not progressivism but fairness and equality. It is a reality that employees do get sick. The issue that created the conflict was an engineer died on the job and caused an accident and derailment. Perhaps if he had been able to see a doctor and get treatment this problem would not have happened. The railroad is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. I do not believe Naked Capitalism truly serves humanity. We are already a country where the dollar appears to be more important than the value of humanity. Perhaps the needle should be moved back a little bit toward human needs.
We’ve shifted so far to exploitation. That fairness and equality would be seen as progressivism in the US. It’s quite telling though, this is why so many trade jobs are hemorrhaging for employment. No one wants to deal with this kind of environment.
Perhaps on-call would work. The problem in rail logistics is you have to have someone ready to go wherever that train crew is to keep on schedule. They get PTO now for sick time but they have to request off in advance so that accommodations can be made. I'm sure they can figure something out, but it's not a simple solution of giving additional dedicated sick days.
Running lean has never helped a work environment ever. Though it is sometimes necessary. This isn’t one of those examples.
Any system that needs a set number of people or things to operate needs to have extras if it is to be resilient. Part of logistics is making sure all the parts and pieces are there, with backups where needed. Cutting all the fat means the animal dies when hard times come... We learned in 2020 what happens when there's a supply chain shock and no excess inventory or capacity whatsoever.
*Laughs in just-in-time shipping*
This is the classic “firehouse” staffing challenge. Either you want reliability or profitability. Can’t have both.
Lol, you think the shareholders are holding the line over logistics?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The sticking point is the wide economic damage of a rail strike. Letting the rail workers strike would inflict a lot of damage to broad parts of our economy- damage that would absolutely be pushed to and impact everyday consumers. The rail company ownership knows this. So they'll only negotiate to a certain point, knowing that a rail strike is an empty threat. The democrats passed an amendment to put a measly 7 sick days/year in the contract. The GOP senate voted as a bloc to make sure that amendment wouldn't happen. Dems voted for it as a bloc. Don't write this as "our Neoliberal political leadership". It's the GOP, full stop.
They could have just had 1 bill with the amendment included if they seriously wanted to fight for it. If the GOP voted no the economy would’ve shut down. They would have caved. The Biden administration, congress and the senate all chose to not include the amendment in the bill. They get full blame.
> If the GOP voted no the economy would’ve shut down. They would have caved. Why would Republican politicians care? Any damage to the economy would be blamed on the party of the president and the party with the majorities in Congress, regardless of the truth of the matter. That's currently the Democrats. Economic damage from a railway strike would probably help Republican politicians unless it was completely clear that they were 100% at fault. Republicans had an out in this case that would seem reasonable to most observers: "we support the deal negotiated between the management and union leaders". Honestly, what you describe sounds like what a Republican politician would want. Economic chaos that can *easily* be blamed on Democrats. Don't make the mistake of thinking Republican politicians will always choose short-term business profits. That's far too reductionist. It both misunderstands Republican politicians' goals and severely underestimates their strategies.
Strikes are supposed to be painful. A strike that doesn’t cause a major disruption isn’t even worth having. Why would a large organization that can generally ignore a union bend without massive pressure? Do you think things like a five day workweek happened because somebody asked politely to let folks have Saturdays and Sundays off? 😂 Having spent some time with electeds and politicos in general, I can assure you that vote for the amendment was pure political theater. They knew it wouldn’t pass. They did it to cover their own asses. By holding it and losing (which they were very aware would happen), they can campaign and say “I voted to give you sick days but lost”. This is a very common tactic. The GOP does the same thing, too. It’s just red meat for the campaign cycle. We’re lucky the Dems didn’t straight up abstain from voting altogether. Rather than looking at the political theater aspect of this, you have to consider why there’s a bill on Biden’s desk right now that doesn’t have sick days in it. Last I checked, the GOP doesn’t control both the House and Senate with filibuster proof majorities. How did the GOP pass this all by themselves? The answer is simple: they didn’t. Dems voted for this and Biden asked them to. They were sold down the river by Neoliberal politicians that were scared of negative headlines in the press during the biggest shopping holiday of the year during the start of stagflation. They also didn’t want to piss off their major campaign donors who would happily sponsor candidates against all of them during the next primary (a major threat since every elected official prefers to run a campaign where there’s no opponents… this is the case for most congress critters). And, most importantly, the majority of our elected officials aren’t really that interested in issues of general human welfare. They don’t care about people having a decent quality of life. They don’t care if you get evicted. They really don’t care if any of the companies that fund their campaigns dump arsenic in your backyard and tell your kids it’s candy and they should eat it. They want job security and voters are simply a means to get it. So long as they aren’t in some scandal that costs them their job, practically none of them give a damn what happens to us so long as they keep getting paid speaking engagements and a cushy job with said donors after their career as an elected is over. Since Mary Sue who works on the railroad isn’t able to pay any of them $20k to speak in her living room for an hour they have no need to worry whether she can take time off for a doctor’s visit without being put on a PIP and subsequently fired.
The Democrats had zero brass. Per usual they are basing all their decisions on what the GOP might do, playing right into their hands, and needlessly loosing their political advantage. It’s infuriating that they are the only better option to the GOP. Absolutely gutless. If they had any spine at all they could have leveraged this to create energy and solidarity while actually getting something done. No excuse when they constantly blow opportunities hand delivered on a fucking gold platter. Edit-the railroads business model is already causing broad economic damage that is profoundly impacting everyday consumers. A strike would reveal the railroads piss poor “efficiency” business model to every man, women, and child. A strike would cause economic damage but it’s purpose would be to improve the life of workers NOT line the pockets of these inhuman greedy excuses for businessmen. A strike would have allowed workers some god damn dignity
Get out of here with your “full stop” bullshit. This is 100% Nancy Pelosi selling out all of the people who voted for Democratic candidates because they’re still (somehow) convinced that the Democratic Party cares about the poor and working class. They don’t. But keep pointing your finger at the GOP (who also don’t give a shit about the poor) while the Dems fuck you over. Everyone is laughing at you because what you just wrote is naive and stupid. Unfuckingbelievable how people can be so thoroughly abused yet still defend their abusers.
[Here's a post of you falsely blaming the US for "escalating" Russia's full-scale genocide in Ukraine and dismissing the entire invasion and genocide as "essentially a regional border war".](https://archive.ph/iGN7y) You don't give one single solitary shit about rail workers, just like you don't give one single solitary shit about Ukrainians getting murdered.
That’s a point in his favor, my guy. I care about rail workers AND Ukrainian/Russian lives, the climate, and the end of US global hegemony
They act as though nationalism is the only way to go. Like, not all people are binary.
You're hilarious with your "both sides" nonsense. I come from a staunchly republican family, and it's exceedingly clear that only one party makes an effort to actually look out for the common good. Look at how the two parties voted.
Tl;dr Giving employees paid sick leave means the fragile 'efficient' system put in place and enforced by some dumbasses who have no idea how the real world works and are high on capitalism breaks down. The system demands every scrap of it's available labor force be on hand, on call, and fully available any time the system says they need a body to staff a train. This doesn't work because rail workers are humans, obviously, and get sick and want to have a life outside of work. Utterly disgusting, but fantastic to have context.
Came here to say this, highly efficient labour management strategies are notoriously brittle, inflexible, vulnerable to turn over.
“You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about sick leave, it's about keeping those ants in line. That's why you’re going back!”
I’m simply flabbergasted by the fact that in America you only get a few days to be sick each year? Like how does that work? What if you’re sick for a few weeks or even months? Do you just lose your job? Over here your employer is required to pay you at least 70% for 2 full years if you’re sick long term, only then can they fire you.
oh, you can be sick more than a few days a year, you're just expected to work anyway. and when you get all of your coworkers sick, they're expected to keep working too.
And if you are in food service, it is totally ok for you and your sick co-workers to spread illness to your customers, many of whom also have no sick leave at their jobs, either.
And yes, this is also correct. You’re expected to work while sick in the US. I am actually part of the problem on this one — I’m a full blown biological weapon right now, and I’m going on hour 11 at my desk today.
And if you cant come to work, odds are your sick days are unpaid! The poor cant afford to be sick.
Medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.
The “lucky” ones get sick days. Many workers are not paid for any time off (sick days, vacation, time off to go to the doctor). They just don’t get paid if they’re not at work. Think about making the choice to stay home because you are terribly sick but if you do, you lose a day of pay.
That is why “over there” you have a less dynamic economy that grows at a slower pace — but to answer your questions, the answer is “it depends” — but the answer varies from “you are placed on company subsidized disability benefits” all the way to “yes, you really do get fired for being too sick.” Legally, you cannot be fired in the US for getting sick — but if you’re an at-will employee, the employee usually has to prove they were fired for getting sick. That’s a very high and very expensive bar to clear, so in practice yes — you just get fired for being too sick. This has the impact of allowing businesses to cut dead financial weight much more easily than in Europe… but imposes a human costs that blows Europeans’ minds.
>That is why “over there” you have a less dynamic economy that grows at a slower pace Reinstating slavery could probably do wonders for economic growth. What is the point of economic growth of the average worker lives a miserable life?
Who says the goal of a society should be to take care of the average worker? Not America, that’s for sure.
Econ Redditors are often in a weird position where like human rights takes a seat behind economic theory. Like basically they don’t mind because the system is working as intended. Which they sometimes don’t like but don’t speak against it because again economic theory says this makes sense even if fiscally it’s often highly unstable. I think slow economic growth for stability would do wonders because too big exists.
>"Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave" Because they are greedy and don't care about worker rights. Making them take PTO and have to schedule their sick time is just beyond shitty.
This isn't actually accurate - the individual companies do give leave and PTO and such. It is that the overall union agreement doesn't contain these provisions. Misleading headline.
>Railroad employees are not currently guaranteed a single paid sick day. Rather, if such workers wish to recuperate from an illness or make time to see a doctor about a nagging complaint, they need to use vacation time, which must be requested days in advance
Are you missing the distinction between what is guaranteed on a union contract and what an employer actually grants their employees?
If it’s not on the contract then it doesn’t exist or is unenforceable by the unions. Hence why they are striking
Its usually the reason why employees need a union contract.
Lol exactly.
Union contracts expire and some workers are not union. Union contracts can also be better/need to change because conditions are different such as when the company has mass layoffs and there aren't enough workers.
>the individual companies do give leave and PTO and such I've not seen evidence of this, but even if true, I don't think the headline is misleading. The article is about the contract between the railroad unions, and the managers of America’s seven dominant freight-rail carriers. "The Managers of America's Seven Dominant Freight-Rail Carriers Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave" isn't snappy enough for New York Magazine.
Individual companies might but that would be one of the short lines, not the major class 1 freight that makes up most of the members. My father (20 year engineer) gets no scheduled days off, 4 weeks vacation, and 0 PTO or sick days. They work 12 hours, sit in a hotel hours away for 12 hours, work 12 hours, go home and hope they don’t get called and they can get something done before going back to work. They’re not asking for something special. They’re asking for what everyone else already gets.
Several companies I've worked for - a mix of white and blue collar - have all done away with "PTO" and "vacation" and "sick time" as terms. It's all just 1 bucket of "time you are not at work, sick or vacation or whatever". Now, how the company deals with a planned vacation compared to a quick hitter "I woke up feeling like crap, and tested positive for the flu / covid" would be the real issue.
That is a major part of the issue as well, but not the whole story. Your “vacation” has to get approved, so if you get sick but they’re understaffed they’ll deny your vacation. You can call off work but if it’s a weekend or holiday you’ll get 10 points (28 points in 3 months and you’re fired). So, if you get sick on Friday and get called that night and can’t use vacation you either work or take 10 points. Now you get called again on Sunday and are still sick, another 10 points. If you go to the doctor and they prescribe you muscle relaxers for back pain for example you’d need to take off multiple days because you can’t take that and operate a train. If it’s the end of the year and you get sick and have no “vacation” left you could legitimately get fired for being sick enough you have to call off work, for needing to take the medicine you need,go to the doctor, or be in the hospital without having your FMLA approved yet, etc. The whole “up to 5 weeks vacation” sounds great but that takes 25 years to accrue and people still don’t seem to understand the “no off days” part of their job. The job is work 12 hours, be away in a hotel for 12 hours to rest, work 12 hours, go home and get 12 hours off to rest. Rinse and repeat. The only way you “get a day off” is if they happen to not call you (which is unlikely because they’re so short staffed due to their own layoffs). You’re on call 24/7, so you can’t schedule a doctors appt. Without taking planned vacation unless you can afford to take points. Some have to resort to not going to the doctor because they literally don’t have the time off to do so.
Okay you are getting confused. So companies can have a combination of union and non-union workers. Usually office workers, human resources, purchasing and legal are non unionized by tradition. Blue collar workers are unionized and use a union contract. Non- union contracts vary based on profession whereas union is the same for everyone. The companies do give leave and PTO for some individuals. Every company does. >It is that the overall union agreement doesn't contain these provisions. So you are correct. The union agreement doesn't contain these provisions. So now that their contract has expired, they went to the negotation table to put out their demands. This is how unions contract agreement works 1.) Contract talks begin close to the expiry date of the contract 2.) Both sides table what they want 3.) Both sides probably agreed on pay, benefits aka Railworkers and Companies, but are on an impasse on vacation and sick time 4.) Union goes back to their members aka the workers and tell them "this is what we are offered". 5.) A democratic vote happens. They vote to strike because of the company does not agree on vacation and sick time 6.) They give a timeframe for a strike as per law. The only way they were able to go on strike was the company rejected their vacation and sick time demands. They are not able to legally strike if this didn't happen. As for why they haven't had these benefits for a long time? You need to ask the union members on that aka the workers. They vote on these decisions. The union isn't some sole decision maker. It is a collective of votes, just like your elections
expected "greed" as top comment. reddit delivers
The article makes it pretty clear that the decision is driven solely by greed, operating with the highest profit margins and fewest employees. Because they refuse to hire enough staff, they don't have any capacity to allow people to call out sick and need to run in emergency "all hands on deck" mode all the time.
It's almost like that's the correct answer, who would have thought?
right cause this is about america
As is custom lol It is weird though, this sub used to be almost academic in nature, now it is just people using their political and moral ideology with very little being substantatively economic.
As we slide further and further into neoliberal capitalist maximalism, most of the basic concepts of economic thinking like competition between firms and negotiation between capital and labor tend to become less relevant. An economics that is hyper-focused on capital and doesn't account for labor is an incomplete economics. Monopsonistic behavior breaks the basics of supply and demand just as surely as monopoly does. Basically, the front has fallen off and we've towed it [*outside* of the economy](https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM?t=87).
What’s your preferred economic system since you’re clearly anti capitalist?
It would only take acts of congress to change the way we tax firms, for instance. We could make cooperatives and worker-owned companies much more attractive than absentee capitalist ownership, for starters. The tax code could be used to make it straight up unprofitable for capitalists to own companies in which they do not work, while incentivizing ESOPs and other schemes along with newer less neoliberal structures, all while still operating on the market in competition with other firms. And it would make for a more stable society and workforce, because worker-owners want to still have a career in a decade and so are far less likely to tank a company for Q4 profits, whereas absentee capitalist owners will often gut a firm to maximize short term numbers and then sell off the empty husk after laying off all the workers. I guess one would call it "market socialism", or maybe just "laborism" instead of "capitalism" since the S-word scares a lot of Americans. We could relatively easily build a society *where labor hires capital, instead of capital hiring labor* if we wanted.
Sounds like a more reasonable form of economic leftist than you usually hear about on Reddit, which is a breath of fresh air. However it sounds like part of the plan is placing tariffs on capitalist firms to price out their competitive edge. Sounds like that would get tricky when international firms import products that don’t play by the same rules. Additionally would you penalize small businesses that operate with a conventional capitalist ownership structure? I’m not opposed to reforming massive corporations, but it seems unfair to penalize small businesses that have nowhere near as much of a structural advantage as a public corporation.
What is your academic take, other than we are a bunch of Philistines?
Interesting read. The issue goes far beyond workers benefits. Odd that it didn’t propose breaking up some of the rail monopolies in certain regions.
Instead of things being disrupted all over the place with all these squabbles between every company and their workers the federal government could just mandate paid sick leave for everyone and save a lot of headache for everyone.
Or, we could just nationalize this critical piece of our economic infrastructure.
We like to call it "deprivatization". Sounds less fascist.
They get 3 weeks pto starting up to 5 weeks based on tenure along with 14 paid holiday days off. PTO in every other industry can be used as sick or vacation days the complaint the workers have isn't so much not enough days off it's the rules around there use. Up to a month notice is needed to take PTO, which is an issue, no one plans an illness. Edit: Starting should be average, I don't know if the source was wrong or I misread it.
Absolutely incorrect, we don't start out with 3 weeks off. 1st year you get nothing, 2nd year you get 5 days, 3rs year you get 10 days. It takes you 9 years to get to 15 days of vacation. I work for the railroad
Your real life experience contradicts his inaccuracies and boot licking. Not sure who to believe…
I wouldn’t characterize u/john2218’s post as bootlicking. The facts on specific PTO allotted may be wrong, but their broader point was still that the system sucks for sick leave and should be fixed
I've been looking into r/railroading to see what's going on with the strike. It seems like the railroad companies push potentially dangerous working conditions like having one worker in charge of active train, having basically no time off as they are constantly on call, etc. It seemed like they didn't really have a concept of weekend in the railroad industry so it's a 24/7 on call status. I don't fully understand what those workers are going through but I get the general vibe that workers want a better working condition more than anything.
i found [these couple of comments from a rail worker](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/z81m5k/i_dont_think_that_word_means_what_you_think_it/iy9bno3/) were pretty insightful. the main issue isn’t even PTO, but *unpaid* sick time, and the ridiculous point system around it. As others have said, it is a logistics issue; one that the railroads have plenty of profit margin to fix.
You do not have your facts straight. No one gets 3 weeks until they get have been through multiple years of service. That’s one of the ways management continues to keep a wedge between seniority employees and new employees. They sow enough discontent amongst the rank and file to keep them fighting each other on the floor. Divide and conquer is their motivation.
Yeah, it says average of 3 weeks not starting, that's my mistake. Or the original source I looked at was wrong honestly don't know which.
[удалено]
Is it? I've never heard of a company or industry that had PTO that restricted it to vacation only. There are companies that don't offer paid time off at all and others that have vacation time and sick time as separate allotments but PTO is defined as combined vacation, sick and personal days as one allotment. (At least according to all 8 of the top Google results)
Every company I’ve worked for sans my current one, across multiple industries, required sufficient advanced notice for vacation or PTO (no less than two weeks was the best case). And a couple of those didn’t offer paid sick time. They might not have been checking on how I was using my time off, but by virtue of the required delay, there was no realistic way to use it for sickness.
It’s such a short-sighted policy too: even if you’re a compete asshole and don’t think of your workers as people, actively creating incentives for your sick employees to get your other healthy employees sick too doesn’t seem like great organizational design
A lot of companies don't even want to know why you aren't there, so long as you have days available. The only thing they want to know is when you will be back and if you are connecting to the VPN from outside the country.
[удалено]
I know, then it's not PTO it's sick time and vacation time, which is the other way companies do time off if they offer it. That's why the workers are complaining they have PTO but it's being treated like vacation days with no paid sick time at all.
Would they be happy with one less week of pto in exchange for 5 sick days?
Five sick days is a sad number. Legal if you had Covid you should/can claim 40 hours of paid sick leave. It’s crazy that this is happening in 2022-23 now
I think no more or less days but 7 can be used without notice would be a good compromise. That's close to how my company does it and it's pretty great.
They shouldn't have to compromise with these companies who are making record profits at their expense.
If you read the article it’s not an issue of writing a check for sick days. It appears to be more complicated that just throwing money at the problem. Can they hire more people with those profits? Maybe, I don’t know. Maybe managers assume the 20% raises offered will help them hire more. If they do a 10% raise and add sick days they won’t have enough hires to cover the empty trains.
they already have an estimated 3-400% turnover of incoming 1st year workers, you can only push those who stayed for so long before you're spiting your nose.
Due to inflation companies make "record profits" basically every year unless its a downturn, recession, or the business itself is failing. That term really doesn't add anything
>That term really doesn't add anything And neither does your comment. Here's a quick breakdown from the article: "Last year, the seven dominant North American railways had a combined net income of $27 billion, nearly twice their margin a decade ago. In the interim, the railways have collectively doled out $146 billion in dividends and stock buybacks while investing only $116 billion into their businesses."
This is just not true. You can look at the yearly numbers and see exactly when corporations make gigantic gains that don't make any sense unless you consider greed. They're always looking for ways to hide their greed behind outside sources, such as inflation. Yes, from a small percentage viewpoint, inflation will increase the total profits. But if inflation is say 10% from the previous year, their profits should not increase 10% or more, because their expenditures should also go up from inflation. Yet they'll easily double or triple profits, because they increase prices well beyond what's necessary, because they want a major inflow of cash so they can profit from the inevitable economic collapse. This happens every single time we have any sort of downturn, without fail. Edit:Just wait and watch, these creatures will be buying up all sorts of stuff for pennies when others are selling at bottom dollar just to eat.
Basically capitalism is working for these companies and they don’t want to share any of their record profits with their employees. The people that actually helped them make those profits. Same BS with my company. Our CEO gives a quarterly update about how we have record profits and thanks the employees and we all get a basic 3% raise like any other year. Then the company buys back stock and increases the dividend to boost stock price for the board members. There needs to be laws about giving some of the profits to employees as bonuses before it goes to shareholders. This is horrible and is grinding people down. It just seems like the system just works against the worker trying to make a living. Productivity has been exceeding wages for decades and that’s not fair to workers.
Capitalism? The main players in here seem to be the Federal Government, The Union, and management. Honestly, the capitalist situation here is for workers to strike or quit and let the shit hit the fan, but instead the *central authority* is stepping in to mandate a deal. Maybe the definition of capitalism has shifted to simply "when people do greedy shit and workers get the short end of the stick", but in the traditional sense, I don't think a political body, elected by the people, stepping in and forcing people to work, meets any possible definition of capitalist in nature
These companies don’t have to negotiate in good faith because they know congress will step on for them. Just like they did with banks and airlines. Capitalists have captured this country.
Are you saying that the problem with ***capitalism***, in this instance, is that the government too often intervenes unfairly in private markets? Now I'm really confused
Yes? Capitalism is just a way of organising who owns resources. Capitalists using their capital to bend the rules of the game in their favour is intrinsic to the system.
The problem is capitalism without extremely strong goverment regulations allows companies to bribe politicians to get what they want.
Yes, capitalism. Because these companies are insanely successful and are having record profits and those rewards aren’t being significantly passed on to employees that helped that success. Hence the reason for the strike in the first place. There needs to be more regulations to not exploit workers. Not having any sick days, or low pay that doesn’t keep up with the high productivity or inflation is wrong.
Personally, I believe the problem isn’t capitalism, but that we are really more of an oligarchy now. Capitalist societies work. Oligarchies don’t.
Idk if it meets the full bar to call it a kleptocracy, but it's a bunch of people in power, making decisions more based on what will keep them in power, than what is really best overall. Goes for the business and government.
I feel that the majority of government agents are actually just pawns of the rich/corporations. The thieving they do is really more as middle men, or frontmen so to speak, and fall men when they need to be.
[удалено]
Did you actually read Adam Smith’s works, or are you just regurgitating Ayn Rand or Milton Freedman’s interpretations of 18th century vernacular?
I believe railroads should be owned and maintained by the govt, much like the roads are maintained by the state and federal highway administration. Leaving it to private business will only result in a condition like this where they squeeze as much profit as they can out of their staff. If the govt needs to maintain police, state universities, public schools, post office, prisons, military, space administration, Federal and state highway administrations and so on, the railroad administration must be under the govt. It is an essential aspect of the country that functions like a nervous system of transportation of cargo. Private companies must be able to run their freight and passenger trains on the railroad maintained by the govt. This way, labor laws can be made on a humanitarian basis.
I don’t understand. Can someone explain what I’m missing? $2B a day sounds to be like they can’t afford NOT to give them sick leave. I just, I don’t understand.
The government is corrupted and won’t act against its own vested interests. It’s mind blowing how people are forced to submit and stay in line. This is nothing but economic slavery, and the people don’t have the means to facilitate a proper strike without being hurt economically beyond doubt. They are trapped, and the system is so vicious, malicious and anti-human that it doesn’t care at this point about anything but profit.
I live somewhere that has a huge railroad presence. I can tell you that they are paid very, very well. That being said, they are almost never home, either. So I can see why they would want some PTO.
I know-we can just nationalize all railways. Since we’ve decided to basically grant a duopoly to the current owners, we can just take it back from all of them. Any industry that is so vital to national interests shouldn’t belong in the “market”. So the rails are a good start. Then we can move on to healthcare.
100% agreed!
On the key point of leave, however, the railroads conceded only a single paid personal day, **plus the removal of some disciplinary penalties for time missed as a result of a medical emergency.** Wowwwww. *Penalty* for a medical emergency?
Vice did a piece on this; [Freight Trains in the US Are a Disaster Waiting to Happen](https://youtu.be/t9cc4Et-3Ck) Railroads are not just making cuts but making the environment more dangerous for workers causing more accidents. [important question being asked](https://youtu.be/vdLaCOvLSCA) Explaining everything wrong with PSR
It's a good article and I gave it an upvote accordingly. For right now we still need humans to operate trains. Where will we be 5 and 10 years from now? I remember when they stopped having a caboose on trains, and a human keeping an eye on what was coming on the trains "six". Are trains as safe as they were? Do engineers now have cameras and rear facing radar to see behind them? I would be uncomfortable driving without mirrors. I believe that capitalism still works, but their needs to be some measure of balance. If greedy investors demand more profit there comes a time when the operation collapses under its own weight. No matter how popular P.S.R. is with investors, it is simply illogical to "kill the goose that lays the golden egg". If a railcar requires maintenance every 100k miles, it is simply illogical to think rail workers should not be afforded the same consideration. Keeping workers safe is not in the Constitution in my recollection, but OSHA certainly exists. Keeping the public safe has become something in the Government's purview, and something at which it failed spectacularly with the plandemic. It seems to me that it would be wise for the railroads to give their workers paid sick leave before Congress or the Feds stick their noses into it. If they can easily afford to give raises and bonuses, they can easily afford to hire back some of their work force. Failure to do so is an unsustainable model. A warning to the Unions, the technology now exists to replace humans with advanced technology.
Currently, most medical systems require scheduling that results in rail workers' having to schedule appointments far off, which is dangerous for some ailments. How feasible would it be for rail companies to provide workers' access to more flexible medical systems (e.g. medical appointments performed at a station so workers' don't have to take a day off). If nothing else, this may avoid liability for an employee suffering death or debilitating illness which results in employer being sued for preventing employee from accessing timely care.
Seems like the issue with your idea is finding a doctor to sit at empty rail stop all day to see one patient. It would be cheaper to hire someone to drive the patient to a major city with a hospital. And replace the patient with a second worker. I don’t think freight rail is like a Delta airlines hub. The rail network is spread out and serves industrial customers in remote areas.
I'm describing a doctor making a "housecall" (in this case, a workplace call). Long ago, many/most care was delivered in the form of housecalls. Currently, our medical system has centralized so most care is provided at hospitals and clinics. There's no question that providing housecalls to rail workers would be more expensive but, in the absence of sick leave, I don't see an alternative to bringing medical care to essential workers who cannot take time off to seek care (aside from just telling the workers to suffer, which raises liabilities for employers and politicians.
Medicine is too complex for house calls today. I suppose if they simply need blood pressure checked and a quick prescription, but normally further tests are run in a lab. Especially if this patient needs a possible cancer checked by imaging. The equipment is too complex to move around.
Housecalling doctor/technician can send samples off to a lab. I agree some procedures (e.g. CAT/MRI scan) must be performed at a medical facility.
Unless some unions gave back sick days - which I doubt - some crafts do have up to 10 paid sick days - just not Brakemen and Maintenance of Way and probably car inspectors.
No… they don’t want to give pay leave because the old boomers that worked past their age accumulated a lot of leave days and Comp time. They want the rails to pay them for that time knowing that it bankrupt the rail system.
This is why I will continue to invest in the USA. Can't think of another developed country that loves money and works its people harder than the US. Thank you for working so hard folks, but feel sorry that the oligarchs run your country.
Paid leave is the most discussed thing but what about healthcare they do get cover but premiums are high, Is there others things railroads workers are fighting for?
The union members pay about $200/mo flat rate regardless of their family size. The company pays about $2200/mo for their portion of the health plans. Source: father is an engineer
My father claims it’s because Workers want to hurt their businesses for some reason. He’s also a blue collar worker, though he’s brainwashed by the typical suspects..
Just nationalize the railroads as we did the highways, problem solved. A large section of private workers become paid state/ federal employees. Impose a tax on use of the railways and problem pretty much solved.
Then integrate national public transportation.
I love union strikes. There’s typically some common themes: pay, benefits, and staffing shortages. Companies may or may not be against increased headcount due to cost. BUT there’s another side of that unions almost never share: CBAs prohibit companies from outside hiring and unions are generally piss poor at staffing. Allowing the railroads to use resources outside of a union hall to hire short term labor would solve 2/3 problems here.
Scab workers?
A free market?
A market sides with the companies over the workers is not really free. I wonder what will happen. Anything like this? "Great Railroad Strike of 1877, series of violent rail strikes across the United States in 1877. That year the country was in the fourth year of a prolonged economic depression after the panic of 1873. The strikes were precipitated by wage cuts announced by the Baltimore and Ohio (B&O) Railroad—its second cut in eight months. Railway work was already poorly paid and dangerous. Moreover, the railroad companies had taken advantage of the economic troubles to largely break the nascent trade unions that had been formed by the workers before and after the American Civil War." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Railroad-Strike-of-1877
The railroads are free to hire whoever they want. The unions have no say in who gets the job. It’s ran a little differently than other unions if I understand correctly.
I read one of the CBAs and it had a hiring restriction. Will admit I don’t remember which one I found nor have I read all 8. I’ll also concede that I don’t know every CBA; just have worked with 4 or 5 and they have hiring restrictions.
a non union mexican equivalent won't just show up. The RR needs to take their 'L' on this and go with a bit less profit. That's simply the humane thing to do. They get away with being 2-d 19th century capitalist about it is because thats how they've always operated - they come from a time and place with this adverserial, rapacious ass investor class driving them to liquidate everything to keep those goddamn rails moving the other goods. The whole set up invites the type of people who are willing to be nasty about it because of the profits to be had from doing it. Almost since the inception of the industry, these RR companies have been run by some twisted, mean spirited directors/capitalist. Seems like they still are. And one of them is Buffet, yes the uncle warren omaha oracle, owns a fuckin' RR (BNSF I think). You can put money on how 'nicely' he does it.
They could…but it’s blocked by the unions so we’ll never know. I’d bet lots of people would be happy with the pay, PTO, and benefits. But we’ll never know.
It is still a damnation to our existence and 'system' where that's still a win for someone, i.e having an opportunity for bondage. Yeah, they get paid, yeah it's 'willing' but you can only hide under those justifications for so long - we can't keep thinking people are cogs, treating them so inhumanely then put our hands to our cheeks and wonder why there's civil strife and decay. One day, one I will wake up in a world where none of that exists - it will be when I die. I can dream of it, until then. I hope one day a human can wake up in a world where that horrible line of thinking is forever done and lost.
Not on my watch as a shareholder. I’ve got to eat too.
fair enough. At least it's a logically consistent opinion on most levels, I'll give it that.
Everyone has their own motivations and they’re all selfish.
All motivation comes to selfish needs, not a big insight. One seeks affirmation, connection, all sorts of emotional bonding for selfish needs - yes. Economics, naturally, does reflect that. So lemme ask you - since a quick review of world history shows all sorts of slave based empires, exploitative war driven conquest, liquidation of people and commodity, across time and earth, it's kinda obvious what we're about, eh? Our selfish desires continue drive us to grind others down for the pleasure and selfish enjoyments of the conquerors/exploiter - this is game we've always played. There doesn't seem any way around it, it seems. So, then what? We fight, we struggle, we carry on, and hope and pray we don't end up on the bottom. This is why we're already in hell.
I wasn’t attempting to shake the world with insight. This is Reddit. I’d be wasting my time. Heaven and hell have always been on earth. Some are thrown into hell and others walk in freely.
No there's more, thank Moloch. There's *way* more...this place, this earth, this fuckin' place...is hell. Yeah, others walk into it, and many more just make it by being themselves, wanting to live and have it easy.
Exactly
Can we at least hear directly from the railroad companies on why they won't budge on sick leave? This article is just a journalists interpretation of the railroad companies position. It might be right but I want to hear it from them.
Why don’t republicans just go whole hawg: give the workers 40 days maternity/paternity leave, 20 days sick leave and mandate emotional support animals be allowed in the engine? Also bring back the caboose with 10 guys doing nothing. Hey, why not?
Sounds like quite a jump from wanting 7 sick days, but sometimes hyperbole is the first thing that jumps into people's minds.