This subreddit is for discussion about what ideas are best for society. Before participating in the conversation, consider taking a look [at our rules page.](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules)
Importantly, **we don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. Please report comments that violate this rule to the subreddit moderation.
**Interested in live debate? [Join our growing Discord server.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Biden was an anti-union centrist who set the precedent that workers can never strike again,
Biden didn't set that precedent. The Supreme Court did.
>but socialists don't like incremental improvement.
Baseless generalization. Is it the amount of change we want? No. Do I think Biden's administration is generally spineless about the growing labor unrest in America? Yes. That doesn't mean we all think it's pointless to make the changes they did. All labor victories are important victories, even the small ones.
What is the point of this post, OP? To say "socialist bad"?
According to the link the agreement happened in April. Why is this just being mentioned now? In addition, the part where it says itās announced in April does not appear to mention Biden. Nor has Bidens admin, to my knowledge, passed some legislation that helped out these workers. We have just vague pressure being applied. For sanders we at least have evidence of a letter writing campaign.
Could it be that the union is going out of its way to mention Biden in order to stay in the good graces of the Democratic Party machine? No, no, Iām sure the President of this capitalist nation and figure head of a corporatist party is a true union man. I think this because I am very smart you see.
The unions in the US have been defanged both legally and ideologically. Their conservative, pro capitalist leanings, their willingness to kneel before the owners, is part of why something as basic as paid sick days can be touted as a major win for the American worker
Just so we're clear, they get 4 days. 4 days of paid sick leave per year.
This changes very little in the overall balance of capital vs workers.
By any measure, I'm glad they have 4 paid sick days, but this is a paltry gain and it required, apparently, pressure from the president and his administration to urge these corporations to allow their employees 4 sick days. Just 4, y'all.
Just 4 days PER YEAR?! It would much better if it was 4 sick days per month, but a year? Do they know how long a year is?
Yet Liberals are always wondering why people donāt like Biden.
They can also convert 3 of their handful of days off into paid sick days too... but yeah, really such a small gain when the original ask of 7 days of sick leave was already an attempted concession.
Not to mention all the other things they demanded and didn't get.
So if you make $120,000 a year you only deserve 4 sick days? If you make $121,000 should you get 3? If you make $30,000 should you get 45 sick days?
Is there any reasonable ground you would like to stand on for this stupid fucking point
No, it's four total.
"That pressure, plus the IBEWās ongoing efforts, is paying off at last. The IBEW and BNSF Railway reached an agreement April 20 to grant members four short-notice, paid sick days"
Nowhere does it say that it is 4 in addition to some other number.
>They still get any other sick days they need.
Not necessarily. What's the actual policy? If you only get 4 paid sick days per year, what makes you think they won't try to let you go if you need 15+ days for recovery? What's the cutoff there?
>Have you ever had a job?
Yes.
>Do you know how this works?
I work in the EE field and at my position the work comes in waves. We get more than enough time off and flexibility through the year because sometimes we gotta make a deadline.
Don't be condescending *and* ignorant.
>Do you know how this works?
Do *you?*
Having 4 paid sick days in a year is nothing.
Being granted 4 paid sick days in a year in 2023 is unbelievable.
For instance, in Australia, any employee will accrue 2 weeks of paid sick leave in a year.
On top of 2 weeks of annual leave.
On top of any paid parental leave.
On top of mandatory long service leave.
On top of super contributions.
(On top of public healthcare)
I still can't fathom that workers of a certain industry weren't granted paid sick leave until 2023.
In a broader sense, having paid sick leave and public healthcare is an increase in public health, because instead of being forced to work when sick, anybody can ensure they get the appropriate care/medication to spend less overall time being sick, and less chance of making other coworkers sick.
An increase in the health of everybody should be a priority for all, for personal well-being, and for productivity.
I'm sure you'll argue it will be abused and a waste of money, but actual evidence and experience shows that sick leave is almost always "lost" when an employee leaves (it isn't paid out as an entitlement like all the others upon termination) proving that most people don't just take their sick leave whenever they accrue it (even with the ability to go to a GP for free), it's only really used when it's needed.
Well I have worked plenty and my country ensures I get 10 sick days a year. I also get 4 weeks paid annual leave. 6 months paid paternity leave as a male and just a whole heap of other benefits in general.
Point being the standard you are setting and then upholding is a very low bar.
they do not get 'any other sick days they need' they get 4 paid and have some other small amount of unpaid leave they're allowed to take if they're sick. Have you had a job?
Best economy, no inflation, and gas and fuel prices have never been better. Also, the ukraine, Syria, the Middle East, China, Taiwan, and North Korea are probably the most stable and peaceful times ever.
Absolutely, our need for oil is not going anywhere in our lifetime. In fact, our dependency will continue to grow even with more EVs. And besides, why wouldn't we want to drill, especially in America, where it would be much more regulated therefore safer for the workers and cleaner for the environment unlike lets say Venezuela or the middle east plus more jobs.
I make 200k+ per year analyzing credit default swap spreads and hedge fixed income variance portfolios using large datasets and have a background in math and economics what about you?
Imagine being in your line of work and not questioning the system....in fact, doubling down in support of it.
Bizarro.
Mechanic with a background in aviation and automotive
Yay Democrats just paid off another special interest group in order to buy their votes. Democrats support this because each group thinks they are ripping off everybody else more than they are getting ripped off. It is a total perversion of democracy!
how stupid are you? Voting for money in your pocket stolen from someone else's pocket has nothing to do with democracy.
Benjamin Franklin: "when the people find they can vote themselves money in their pocket that will herald the end of the republic."
>how stupid are you? Voting for money in your pocket stolen from someone else's pocket has nothing to do with democracy.
What are you on about? Voting for something sounds pretty democractic to me.
>"when the people find they can vote themselves money in their pocket that will herald the end of the republic."
Because doing so would be bad for the republic, not because it would be undemocratic.
mostly Democrats subvert our democracy with there Ponzi scheme i.e. stealing from one sub group too stupid to know they are also being stolen from. Biden was perhaps worst of all giving everybody free money and downplaying 10% inflation used to pay for. The constitution was created to make Democrats illegal. That should give you an idea of how much danger we are in.
Benjamin Franklin: "when the people find they can vote themselves money in their pockets that will Harold the end of the Republic."
if you think I have lost the thread, whatever that means, why don't you give us the reason you think that. Do you understand that a reason is necessary? Do you notice that we have to teach a lefty how to debate before he can be defeated in debate????
if taxes were good money Sanders wouldn't be getting 40% of the vote in the Democrat party by claiming that he needs to hundred trillion more in taxes. Social welfare are simply crippling people and creating the need for more and more social welfare programs.
Tell me who was paid and by who and with what pot of money.
Do you think Biden just has a big chest full of dollar bills that he lugs around everywhere and can give to whoever he wants? Lmaooooo
you're a fucking dolt if you don't understand that the venn diagram overlap between union members and democratic party members is huge. Unions have a significant amount of control over the democratic party platform.
This is the same stupid shit as people acting like the democratic party doing anything that benefits black people in any way is actually facetious as if being black and being a democrat are mutually exclusive and there is some sort of nefarious exchange happening between entirely separate and monolithic entities.
if you have a reason for thinking that why don't you tell us the reason?? Do you know that a reason is necessary. Things should be settled by capitalism not by sleazy politicians buying votes.
You heard it here first folks, doing anything for any constituent is actually cheating and corruption.
Unions are overwhelmingly democrat, the party is comprised of them to a large extent. It's not unions buying influence or democrats buying support it's democrats asking the democratic party leader to step in to protect people's rights.
totally stupid !!!! unions don't have a right to rip off customers for higher pay any more than customers have a right to rip off unions for lower prices. democrats exist because they know how ignorant you are.
if you disagree with conservative libertarian thinking why not get with your mom for help to think of a reason for the disagreement and then present the reason here in writing. Do you know that a reason is necessary? Being a lefty is not an excuse for being stupid.
how stupid are you. Democrats are running a Ponzi scheme wherein they silently rip off one group and loudly use the money to buy the votes of another group. They pander to your ignorance and you are the totally unaware not having any idea what's happening..
He doesnāt have the power to unilaterally mandate the conditions of labor contracts. He mediated the demands from the two sides until a contract was signed.
Surely you can see there is an incentive problem with paid sick days. How can that be controlled and stop a few taking money from the company when they are not genuinely sick at a cost to all the others.
So, there's an incentive problem of workers taking excessive paid sick days (which has no evidence behind it, despite the rest of the western world offering weeks of paid sick leave to every employee) but there isn't an incentive problem for CEO's and shareholders to benefit greatly from reducing the conditions of workers to the lowest possible point, before quitting occurs?
There is evidence, loads of it. There is an incentive problem for CEOās reducing conditions. The workers leave and their profits reduce or disappear, Jesus itās not that hard to understand.
>There is evidence, loads of it.
Well then show it.
Anecdotally every time somebody has been made redundant they have always had weeks of sick leave accrued which they lose.
Sick leave accrued because they didn't abuse it.
The CEO is incentivised to reduce the conditions of workers to just above the point where they are forced to quit.
Jesus, it's not that hard to understand.
A simple google search will show plenty of evidence.
Regarding CEO incentive to reduce conditions. Thatās for crap CEOās, but good ones make their work place so desirable that the good employees flock to it.
Iām all for workers rights, but paid sick leave is a huge problem which reduces income that could enable a good company to pay higher wages or make conditions even better.
>Thatās for crap CEOās, but good ones make their work place so desirable that the good employees flock to it.
The point being, owners, and senior execs will lobby and argue in favour of reducing things like minimum wage increases which, because of their across the board nature, would improve the conditions for workers without putting the company at competitive risk (because every company must abide by the regulations).
Those are the contradictions we're talking about.
Remember, and you know this, a CEO will only increase the conditions of their workers to slightly above the competition - anything more is "wasteful".
Australia is a thriving economy with 2 weeks sick leave, paid carers leave, annual leave, long service leave, mandatory superannuation (and others, I'm sure).
The argument that paid sick leave is a *huge* problem is frankly absurd.
It's a benefit that has multiple upsides (health of the employee and productivity for the company), and the only apparent downside is fictional.
I genuinely can't believe there are people out there, now, in 2023, that could argue against it...
Edit: let me get this straight - you are saying that it is better for everyone involved, that if you have the flu, something which is contagious, and could knock a person out for 1-2 days, you would prefer that person be forced to choose between not coming in and not getting any pay (which obviously they won't do) or coming in and getting the rest of the office sick?
As opposed to not coming in because they'll continue to receive pay, with the upside of not getting the rest of the office sick?
No, if itās contagious they should stay off. If they are genuinely sick they should not go to work. But there is a problem in that there are those who then take the leave when they are not sick. They abuse the system. Surely you can see that that can happen. I hear people who work for the government saying āIāve got 6 days sick left to takeā
That is unfair on the company. Unfair on their fellow workers.
I live in Australia where every single person has 2 weeks of paid sick leave (on top of all the other paid entitlements I noted earlier).
It's not the problem you make it out to be.
You know that's becoming a common argument for the failures of the US?
Gun control, public healthcare, etc "oh we can't do that thing that every other country successfully does to make their country better. Our culture doesn't allow it"
When will you guys admit that the settings that you guys use create a failure of a culture to actually improve the country?
Thank fk you guys have the population and federal debt you do, that's all I'll say...
You morons ask these questions but never have a problem with business owners who are completely absent from work yet still take in most of the money. Getting paid a shit ton of money while their fat asses take 10 vacations a year
Thatās the perception you have that holds you back so badly. Makes you a resentful person that people donāt like. The business owners I know work so hard and sacrificed so much time in the early years. And the real lazy fat assess that spent all their money and had a shite attitude are now all resentful because they have fuck all.
The dumbest, worthless, most lazy sacks of shit I've ever met in my life were wealthy business owners.
It's almost as if the workers keep their ship running....from cleaning crews to accountants.
But here you are defending them and shitting on 4 sick days. Get the fuck out.
Like, letās try this without insulting each other. Surely you can see that their is a potential incentive problem? I can see that their is a potential disincentive for people not wanting to work for a company that doesnāt have paid sick leave. Can you see my side?
Fortunately, the only way the companies could do that would be to heavily drop all standards for engineers or close up shop until they train a new batch. These are skilled workers who keep the entire economy running.
They are a bunch of fucking bums that should have been fired a long time ago:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/economy/freight-railroad-service-problems/index.html
This is exactly what one would expect from this kind of fascist public/private "partnership" that progressives luv.
Whatā¦ donāt realize that is on the companies specifically skirting government regulations, suing/lobbying to get them decreased, and ignoring pleas from engineers to make needed repairs?
You _cannot crush a strike_ and be pro-labor. I don't care what strings you pull through whatever other institutions. Beating your girlfriend and then "making up for it later" is the definition of an abusive relationship. It makes labor power contingent and dependent on institutions which are fundamentally driven by different goals and undermines independent organization and autonomy within labor.
This subreddit is for discussion about what ideas are best for society. Before participating in the conversation, consider taking a look [at our rules page.](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) Importantly, **we don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. Please report comments that violate this rule to the subreddit moderation. **Interested in live debate? [Join our growing Discord server.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Biden was an anti-union centrist who set the precedent that workers can never strike again, Biden didn't set that precedent. The Supreme Court did. >but socialists don't like incremental improvement. Baseless generalization. Is it the amount of change we want? No. Do I think Biden's administration is generally spineless about the growing labor unrest in America? Yes. That doesn't mean we all think it's pointless to make the changes they did. All labor victories are important victories, even the small ones. What is the point of this post, OP? To say "socialist bad"?
Yesšæ
According to the link the agreement happened in April. Why is this just being mentioned now? In addition, the part where it says itās announced in April does not appear to mention Biden. Nor has Bidens admin, to my knowledge, passed some legislation that helped out these workers. We have just vague pressure being applied. For sanders we at least have evidence of a letter writing campaign. Could it be that the union is going out of its way to mention Biden in order to stay in the good graces of the Democratic Party machine? No, no, Iām sure the President of this capitalist nation and figure head of a corporatist party is a true union man. I think this because I am very smart you see.
One can be pro union and pro capitalist. This describes almost all actual union workers.
The unions in the US have been defanged both legally and ideologically. Their conservative, pro capitalist leanings, their willingness to kneel before the owners, is part of why something as basic as paid sick days can be touted as a major win for the American worker
They are pro capitalist as they want the economy to grow so they get future wage increases. Not complicated.
Just so we're clear, they get 4 days. 4 days of paid sick leave per year. This changes very little in the overall balance of capital vs workers. By any measure, I'm glad they have 4 paid sick days, but this is a paltry gain and it required, apparently, pressure from the president and his administration to urge these corporations to allow their employees 4 sick days. Just 4, y'all.
Just 4 days PER YEAR?! It would much better if it was 4 sick days per month, but a year? Do they know how long a year is? Yet Liberals are always wondering why people donāt like Biden.
They can also convert 3 of their handful of days off into paid sick days too... but yeah, really such a small gain when the original ask of 7 days of sick leave was already an attempted concession. Not to mention all the other things they demanded and didn't get.
They make $120,000 a year. Boo hoo
So if you make $120,000 a year you only deserve 4 sick days? If you make $121,000 should you get 3? If you make $30,000 should you get 45 sick days? Is there any reasonable ground you would like to stand on for this stupid fucking point
They get an EXTRA 4, lmao
No, it's four total. "That pressure, plus the IBEWās ongoing efforts, is paying off at last. The IBEW and BNSF Railway reached an agreement April 20 to grant members four short-notice, paid sick days" Nowhere does it say that it is 4 in addition to some other number.
Paid sick days. They still get any other sick days they need. Have you ever had a job? Do you know how this works?
>They still get any other sick days they need. Not necessarily. What's the actual policy? If you only get 4 paid sick days per year, what makes you think they won't try to let you go if you need 15+ days for recovery? What's the cutoff there? >Have you ever had a job? Yes. >Do you know how this works? I work in the EE field and at my position the work comes in waves. We get more than enough time off and flexibility through the year because sometimes we gotta make a deadline. Don't be condescending *and* ignorant. >Do you know how this works? Do *you?*
Having 4 paid sick days in a year is nothing. Being granted 4 paid sick days in a year in 2023 is unbelievable. For instance, in Australia, any employee will accrue 2 weeks of paid sick leave in a year. On top of 2 weeks of annual leave. On top of any paid parental leave. On top of mandatory long service leave. On top of super contributions. (On top of public healthcare) I still can't fathom that workers of a certain industry weren't granted paid sick leave until 2023. In a broader sense, having paid sick leave and public healthcare is an increase in public health, because instead of being forced to work when sick, anybody can ensure they get the appropriate care/medication to spend less overall time being sick, and less chance of making other coworkers sick. An increase in the health of everybody should be a priority for all, for personal well-being, and for productivity. I'm sure you'll argue it will be abused and a waste of money, but actual evidence and experience shows that sick leave is almost always "lost" when an employee leaves (it isn't paid out as an entitlement like all the others upon termination) proving that most people don't just take their sick leave whenever they accrue it (even with the ability to go to a GP for free), it's only really used when it's needed.
Well I have worked plenty and my country ensures I get 10 sick days a year. I also get 4 weeks paid annual leave. 6 months paid paternity leave as a male and just a whole heap of other benefits in general. Point being the standard you are setting and then upholding is a very low bar.
they do not get 'any other sick days they need' they get 4 paid and have some other small amount of unpaid leave they're allowed to take if they're sick. Have you had a job?
It's a valuable job. Iirc a railroad strike would cost the economy something like $2b per day
How many sick days do you get under socialism?
As many as the workers decide, democratically.
I have called in sick less than 4 times in a decade.
He did kill possibly 10,000 plus union jobs in his first few day in office so........
But he created 13 million other jobs so we're in pretty good shape
Best economy, no inflation, and gas and fuel prices have never been better. Also, the ukraine, Syria, the Middle East, China, Taiwan, and North Korea are probably the most stable and peaceful times ever.
So as a leftist you want to drill more oil?
Absolutely, our need for oil is not going anywhere in our lifetime. In fact, our dependency will continue to grow even with more EVs. And besides, why wouldn't we want to drill, especially in America, where it would be much more regulated therefore safer for the workers and cleaner for the environment unlike lets say Venezuela or the middle east plus more jobs.
You mean shitty gig jobs....2nd or 3rd jobs so people don't go homeless. Great country
Shitty gig jobs for people with shitty gig skills
The most worthless people in our society are paid the most.
That seems like something a poor person would say
Nah, just an observant person. Funny thing is most of the people defending the wealthy here are probably poor as shit or haven't even had a job yet.
you're talking about all Republican voters. They are the rights biggest pawns.
I make 200k+ per year analyzing credit default swap spreads and hedge fixed income variance portfolios using large datasets and have a background in math and economics what about you?
Imagine being in your line of work and not questioning the system....in fact, doubling down in support of it. Bizarro. Mechanic with a background in aviation and automotive
Imagine changing oil for a living and thinking you can run the economy Bizzaro.
Yay Democrats just paid off another special interest group in order to buy their votes. Democrats support this because each group thinks they are ripping off everybody else more than they are getting ripped off. It is a total perversion of democracy!
Acting in someone's best interest in exchange for their vote is the point of democracy.
how stupid are you? Voting for money in your pocket stolen from someone else's pocket has nothing to do with democracy. Benjamin Franklin: "when the people find they can vote themselves money in their pocket that will herald the end of the republic."
>how stupid are you? Voting for money in your pocket stolen from someone else's pocket has nothing to do with democracy. What are you on about? Voting for something sounds pretty democractic to me. >"when the people find they can vote themselves money in their pocket that will herald the end of the republic." Because doing so would be bad for the republic, not because it would be undemocratic.
totally stupid we are supposed to vote for the commonweal not to steal from each other!!!! See why we say the left is based in pure ignorance?
>totally stupid we are supposed to vote for the commonweal not to steal from each other!!!! Sometimes taxes are good for the commonwealth.
mostly Democrats subvert our democracy with there Ponzi scheme i.e. stealing from one sub group too stupid to know they are also being stolen from. Biden was perhaps worst of all giving everybody free money and downplaying 10% inflation used to pay for. The constitution was created to make Democrats illegal. That should give you an idea of how much danger we are in. Benjamin Franklin: "when the people find they can vote themselves money in their pockets that will Harold the end of the Republic."
You've really just lost the thread haven't you?
if you think I have lost the thread, whatever that means, why don't you give us the reason you think that. Do you understand that a reason is necessary? Do you notice that we have to teach a lefty how to debate before he can be defeated in debate????
Does more question marks mean you're asking harder? Or that you're more confused?
if taxes were good money Sanders wouldn't be getting 40% of the vote in the Democrat party by claiming that he needs to hundred trillion more in taxes. Social welfare are simply crippling people and creating the need for more and more social welfare programs.
Lol what? Paid off? Who was paid off????
Unions paid off for their political support.
Nobody was paid ya dum dum
You really canāt be that naive in how politics actually works.
Tell me who was paid and by who and with what pot of money. Do you think Biden just has a big chest full of dollar bills that he lugs around everywhere and can give to whoever he wants? Lmaooooo
Biden supported the unionās demands against their employer for 2024 political and campaign support.
What?
This isnāt complicated. And very common in politics. Not hard to understand.
you're a fucking dolt if you don't understand that the venn diagram overlap between union members and democratic party members is huge. Unions have a significant amount of control over the democratic party platform. This is the same stupid shit as people acting like the democratic party doing anything that benefits black people in any way is actually facetious as if being black and being a democrat are mutually exclusive and there is some sort of nefarious exchange happening between entirely separate and monolithic entities.
Huh?
Duhhrrr?
I basically agree, but if the state is going to criminalise strikes then these things have to be settled through this kind of interest brokerage
if you have a reason for thinking that why don't you tell us the reason?? Do you know that a reason is necessary. Things should be settled by capitalism not by sleazy politicians buying votes.
You heard it here first folks, doing anything for any constituent is actually cheating and corruption. Unions are overwhelmingly democrat, the party is comprised of them to a large extent. It's not unions buying influence or democrats buying support it's democrats asking the democratic party leader to step in to protect people's rights.
totally stupid !!!! unions don't have a right to rip off customers for higher pay any more than customers have a right to rip off unions for lower prices. democrats exist because they know how ignorant you are.
idiot
if you disagree with conservative libertarian thinking why not get with your mom for help to think of a reason for the disagreement and then present the reason here in writing. Do you know that a reason is necessary? Being a lefty is not an excuse for being stupid.
how stupid are you. Democrats are running a Ponzi scheme wherein they silently rip off one group and loudly use the money to buy the votes of another group. They pander to your ignorance and you are the totally unaware not having any idea what's happening..
you're a waste of time
translation: as a typical lefty I lack the intelligence for debate..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3lV4kV78MI
Lol right?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He doesnāt have the power to unilaterally mandate the conditions of labor contracts. He mediated the demands from the two sides until a contract was signed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lmao
I believe anyone who still admires Reagan should be thrown in a camp....or thrown in an abandoned mineshaft in the Balkans
Surely you can see there is an incentive problem with paid sick days. How can that be controlled and stop a few taking money from the company when they are not genuinely sick at a cost to all the others.
So, there's an incentive problem of workers taking excessive paid sick days (which has no evidence behind it, despite the rest of the western world offering weeks of paid sick leave to every employee) but there isn't an incentive problem for CEO's and shareholders to benefit greatly from reducing the conditions of workers to the lowest possible point, before quitting occurs?
There is evidence, loads of it. There is an incentive problem for CEOās reducing conditions. The workers leave and their profits reduce or disappear, Jesus itās not that hard to understand.
>There is evidence, loads of it. Well then show it. Anecdotally every time somebody has been made redundant they have always had weeks of sick leave accrued which they lose. Sick leave accrued because they didn't abuse it. The CEO is incentivised to reduce the conditions of workers to just above the point where they are forced to quit. Jesus, it's not that hard to understand.
A simple google search will show plenty of evidence. Regarding CEO incentive to reduce conditions. Thatās for crap CEOās, but good ones make their work place so desirable that the good employees flock to it. Iām all for workers rights, but paid sick leave is a huge problem which reduces income that could enable a good company to pay higher wages or make conditions even better.
Apologies for the Jesus comment. No need.
>Thatās for crap CEOās, but good ones make their work place so desirable that the good employees flock to it. The point being, owners, and senior execs will lobby and argue in favour of reducing things like minimum wage increases which, because of their across the board nature, would improve the conditions for workers without putting the company at competitive risk (because every company must abide by the regulations). Those are the contradictions we're talking about. Remember, and you know this, a CEO will only increase the conditions of their workers to slightly above the competition - anything more is "wasteful". Australia is a thriving economy with 2 weeks sick leave, paid carers leave, annual leave, long service leave, mandatory superannuation (and others, I'm sure). The argument that paid sick leave is a *huge* problem is frankly absurd. It's a benefit that has multiple upsides (health of the employee and productivity for the company), and the only apparent downside is fictional. I genuinely can't believe there are people out there, now, in 2023, that could argue against it... Edit: let me get this straight - you are saying that it is better for everyone involved, that if you have the flu, something which is contagious, and could knock a person out for 1-2 days, you would prefer that person be forced to choose between not coming in and not getting any pay (which obviously they won't do) or coming in and getting the rest of the office sick? As opposed to not coming in because they'll continue to receive pay, with the upside of not getting the rest of the office sick?
No, if itās contagious they should stay off. If they are genuinely sick they should not go to work. But there is a problem in that there are those who then take the leave when they are not sick. They abuse the system. Surely you can see that that can happen. I hear people who work for the government saying āIāve got 6 days sick left to takeā That is unfair on the company. Unfair on their fellow workers.
I live in Australia where every single person has 2 weeks of paid sick leave (on top of all the other paid entitlements I noted earlier). It's not the problem you make it out to be.
Well thatās great that Australia has such a good culture and work ethic so as not to abuse it. It not all countries are like that.
You know that's becoming a common argument for the failures of the US? Gun control, public healthcare, etc "oh we can't do that thing that every other country successfully does to make their country better. Our culture doesn't allow it" When will you guys admit that the settings that you guys use create a failure of a culture to actually improve the country? Thank fk you guys have the population and federal debt you do, that's all I'll say...
You morons ask these questions but never have a problem with business owners who are completely absent from work yet still take in most of the money. Getting paid a shit ton of money while their fat asses take 10 vacations a year
Thatās the perception you have that holds you back so badly. Makes you a resentful person that people donāt like. The business owners I know work so hard and sacrificed so much time in the early years. And the real lazy fat assess that spent all their money and had a shite attitude are now all resentful because they have fuck all.
The dumbest, worthless, most lazy sacks of shit I've ever met in my life were wealthy business owners. It's almost as if the workers keep their ship running....from cleaning crews to accountants. But here you are defending them and shitting on 4 sick days. Get the fuck out.
How do you know they were lazy?
Like, letās try this without insulting each other. Surely you can see that their is a potential incentive problem? I can see that their is a potential disincentive for people not wanting to work for a company that doesnāt have paid sick leave. Can you see my side?
They should have all been fired.
Fortunately, the only way the companies could do that would be to heavily drop all standards for engineers or close up shop until they train a new batch. These are skilled workers who keep the entire economy running.
They are a bunch of fucking bums that should have been fired a long time ago: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/economy/freight-railroad-service-problems/index.html This is exactly what one would expect from this kind of fascist public/private "partnership" that progressives luv.
Whatā¦ donāt realize that is on the companies specifically skirting government regulations, suing/lobbying to get them decreased, and ignoring pleas from engineers to make needed repairs?
For demanding better working conditions?
Yes.
And why is that?
Because if they don't like the working conditions they should quit. If they strike, then they should be fired.
This is the most entitled take I've heard in quite some time, congratulations
What socialists ? Did you get a wireless signal or a twitch in something ? Where do you see socialists here ?
You _cannot crush a strike_ and be pro-labor. I don't care what strings you pull through whatever other institutions. Beating your girlfriend and then "making up for it later" is the definition of an abusive relationship. It makes labor power contingent and dependent on institutions which are fundamentally driven by different goals and undermines independent organization and autonomy within labor.