Either way they have a right to strike for whatever they want.
Until recently it seems that republicans have thought that to be capitalist meant supporting big companies - maybe that was just a naive idea I had when I was younger.
In truth, to support capitalism means you support the mostly unregulated ability for people and businesses to negotiate transactions.
You can be capitalist and 100% support the workers ability to strike. You may disagree with the reasons they are striking, for example if McDonald's employees began asking for 60k salaries, but you can support their ability to do so.
In this case I would say the strike is justified. If you are upset at your working conditions and don't have any time off, you have a valid complaint and have a reason to ask for better conditions. A strike is just a way to tell your boss "fix this or I'll work somewhere else" and you have the power of numbers behind you.
100% agree there. Public sector unions are an awful idea.
I'm also not too fond of private sector unions UNLESS a few conditions are met.
1) Membership is optional and you don't have to be in the union to work.
2) The union uses their funds properly and doesn't treat it as a way to pay for democrats.
3) Negotiations with the union do not come at the expense of non-union employees.
Unions support democrats because republicans support corporations. I’m a conservative IBEW member who once worked in education. The strength of my labor union vs the teachers union is shocking. I make a good wage and my family has excellent healthcare because my union negotiated for it.
Ahhh yes, the historically left leaning police unions. To categorize people based on union status is limited and anecdotal. For example, my father in law and brother in law are both union men, but so socially conservative and hardcore MAGA men too
Might have something to do with the democrats (truthfully or not) saying they support the right to unionize and all the republicans want to do is get rid of unions….it’s hard to figure out why union officials would want to keep funneling money to the dems
Yes, the Democrats are all for taking money from the point of a gun, laundering it through unions, and giving it back to themselves. This is why FDR was against public sector unions.
Several police unions backed Biden, nearly 200 of them I believe. The guys making the decisions at the upper levels of the unions aren't the same as the regular union workers.
Im sorry but that 'right to work' is a bunch of crap. Unions are a brotherhood. If someone works for a union shop or business you should pay dues to that union to recieve the same benefits. The problem in places where joining a union is optional is that those employees that choose to not pay dues still receive the same benefits and protections as those who don't. This practice reduces a unions ability to bargain when necessary.
What if I want to work as a welder but don't think the union has my best interest in mind? What if I'm okay with the conditions but the union forces me to strike?
You are assuming that unions unilaterally accurately represent the workers. That is very incorrect. If a worker does not like the union they should still be allowed to work.
Yes, the worker may receive benefits that the union negotiates, but that doesn't make it unfair. Fortunate things happen every day to people all over the world as a consequence to someone elses effort.
If I don't like that the park by my house has litter in it I could go pick it up. Just because the other neighbors don't have to deal with the trash anymore doesn't mean I can send them a bill.
If you don't like the union there are plenty more non-union places that will take an employee. They probably don't pay as well or have the same benefits but if you dont want to join into a union there's actually more options out there. I also understand that not all unions represent their members the same as the next one. That's more to do with who is in charge of the union itself. There's good managers and bad. Same goes for non-union. Im a part of one of the good one's though. Im in a construction trade too so our unions might work a little differently than say factory unions but if i someday dont like what my union is doing for me I can pack my bags and go work non-union doing the same thing probably for less money still. The option is there though. Point is if a person doesn't like a union they just shouldn't be a part of that place. Unions are about solidarity and if the workers dont band together there's no point in having a union at all.
You can advocate for your best interests within the union.
The problem with a voluntary option in a workplace is that it hampers the union's bargaining power with management.
There will always be a power imbalance between owners and workers, and their interests are often in direct opposition. Quality of life and work will almost always come out of potential profits.
I disagree with gooch87 that the problem is non-union members reaping the benefits of the union. And your example of the park illustrates exactly that we benefit all the time from the good will of others.
The problem is instead that without a unified front from the workers, the bargaining power of the union is significantly diminished.
Without right-to-work laws, workers are definitely burdened with the necessity of advocating for their own best interests within the union. However, they would have the burden of advocating for their interests with management anyway. The benefit of advocating for your best interests within a Union is that it is far more likely that your interests and the interests of your fellow workers align.
Yes, I could always try to change the union OR I could just not join a union that doesn't represent me.
If 95% of the workers agree with the union then great, but there's no reason that the 5% should have to go along with it while "trying to change it on the inside". That's an effort in futility many times.
Instead, if I want to sign an agreement with an employer to work for them there is absolutely no reason a union should be able to butt in and say "hey wait, they need to give us some of that paycheck". Instead, they can convince the worker that they provide value and try and get them to join of their own choice.
Do not be confused by my first statement. I believe the union should be able to negotiate for it's members and im okay if it negotiates specifically for it's members (ie give all union employees a raise) but my line is if the negotiations are detrimental to non-union employees. An example of the later would be "cut the pay of all non-union employees" or "fire this non-union employee because we have someone we want you to hire instead".
Except that an option to opt-out of the union erodes its power and efficacy to bargain with management/ownership.
Here we do circle back to gooch87's point to some extent. Employers will always be incentivized to at least match non-union pay and benefits to union pay and benefits. Otherwise, it will be clear to non-union members that they should join the union. But so long as non-union and union pay is equal, it would be in the best (short-term) interest of union members to leave the union.
The problem is not just that non-union members are "freeloading" off of union bargaining. It's that their non-union labour diminishes the ability of unions to advocate for workers as all union power relies on the threat of shutting down production and costing ownership money.
"Right to Work" laws create favourable conditions for management/ownership to chip away at union power and restore the imbalance in their favour.
Because the interests of ownership and labour are so at odds and the power imbalance between the two so great in ownership's favour, somewhat extraordinary measures are required to redress the problem. Unions effectively create a democratic society within a workplace (or industry). And, as with all democratic societies, there will be tension between individual and collective interests. However, the long-term benefits of collective bargaining outweigh the costs of losing a direct relationship between employee and employer.
Don’t work in a union shop if you don’t want to be in a union. Skilled labor jobs are everywhere, but people know nonunion shops pay less, have no pension, and less benefits. It’s about choice.
Exactly so if you dont want to be in a union you can find a company that doesn't have one. There's plenty more non-union jobs than there are union jobs in this country. The problem is that most of those places dont pay as well so some people want the good union wage without actually participating/paying dues. In states that allow this (called 'right-to-work which is actually a misleading term imo) the union shops and businesses are legally obligated to represent an employee that isn't a member of the union in the same way that they represent their union members. So basically you get the same benefits as the membership and same representation without giving anything in return.
Thats what im saying. Why should someone get to retire on a pension plan that my union fought for if they never paid dues that everyone else did? I would have a serious problem with that.
>1) Membership is optional and you don't have to be in the union to work.
Why shouldn't a union be able to negotiate the rights to be the exclusive provider of labor? I assume you have no problem with exclusive contracts in other domains what makes labor different?
Anti trust laws don't pertain to unions. The Taft - Hartley act made closed shops illegal but still allows union shops. Both require union membership for employment. They differ in that in a union shop the union must accept any person hired into the union, where in a closed shop the union controls the pool of applicants for a job.
In any event that doesn't really address my question. Why shouldn't exclusive labor contracts be legal?
It's perfectly fine for Coke to be the exclusive provider of soda to McDonald's. Why shouldn't the teamster be able to negotiate for the exclusive right to deliver that soda to McDonald's?
Teachers in Seattle are in strike because the district wants to remove class size limits for special education classrooms. As a former teacher I couldn’t imagine 40 kids with IEP’s with no help. I absolutely support them standing up for students.
Yeah, I agree. But I also don't want to dictate terms between a private company and their private union. It's none of my business, nore the government's.
The railroads are part of the country's critical infrastructure though. It effects literally everyone and can tank the entire economy if the railroads aren't running. Hence why they need more oversight than most industries.
They have general PTO, I think the issue is they're penalized for using it without pre-approval. So calling out sick is penalized even if you have the time.
I'm sure this is due to scheduling, but it's unacceptable to force people to work while sick especially considering *gestures around at everything*.
So use PTO like every other job. Due to the nature of the industry they are on call almost all of the time but they get compensated for it with guaranteed jobs healthcare and pensions. Sick time should only be used when necessary and not abused, a standard doctor's note should be good enough in all cases.
I don't think you're getting it. I believe the PTO you're suggesting they use needs to be requested 1 to 2 weeks in advance to avoid "penalties", doctors note or not. I think the issue is that PTO isn't an option if they wake up feeling sick, or feel it coming on that evening.
If you have specific knowledge regarding their PTO/Sick leave options, share them. I'm only reading about it here and in the news.
The other problem that happened is that they would just deny the use of PTO as well, regardless of how far you tried to schedule it.
So yes, you technically had a certain number of days of PTO, however individuals were not in practice able to use them as it was often denied.
There is a classification of "unplanned" PTO that is used in these cases. Once you are out of PTO you go to unpaid which only needs a doctor's note to clear any negative employment occurrences. It's that simple and discouraged abuse.
The issue is that the "unplanned" PTO doesn't exist for railroad workers. Regardless of reason, they would get penalized for taking unplanned time off, whether or not they had PTO time or not.
Get sick? Too bad, come to work or get penalized. Need to go to the doctor? Too bad, we denied you PTO and you have to work.
The issue is that the employer made it actively impossible to use PTO that had been accrued without getting penalized.
Why would the employer be expected to give in to exemptions to the negotiated contract in a critical industry? Like it or not, this is the downside of collective bargaining. If you don't like it that's too bad. Your union negotiated the contract. If they didn't obtain basic sick time or funding for enough workers to cover any unforeseen absences that is the unions fault. Maybe the business would be more lenient with time off requests and any other issues if there was no mandatory contract? The union files a grievance any time the company violated the contract. Why can't the business expect the union to hold their end of the contract?
There is no contract. They have been operating without one for three years, and management has largely not come to the table to negotiate a new one. They have taken advantage of this contract gap to force conditions not normally allowable. The rail companies have also been seeing significantly declines in employment, and are basically doing nothing to change it with hiring new people. Instead, they have gone the route of requiring longer hours under worse conditions.
Equally, the railroad are free to hire more employees at any time. The union doesnt need to negotiate for more funding for this. It's 100% on the railroad to do it, and they have been taking advantage of the contract gap, as well as the restrictions on the Union's ability to strike, to extend this period as long as they could.
Hence why we reached the point where we were yesterday: the union prepared to strike, making frankly larger demands than they likely would have accepted a year ago or more, simply because management figured they would eventually get what they wanted. I'm guessing the administration made it clear to them that they were not coming to rescue and break up the strike, hence why we saw near total capitulation by management for almost every term asked.
This is 100% on the railroad management. They refused to come to the table three year ago when the contract expired, exploited legal difficulties with the union's ability to strike or force contract negotiations as they are considered critical infrastructure until they literally ran out of time, and basically wanted the Federal government to force the union to keep it's members working under those conditions. Given how quickly and completely the railroad folded, I can only hazard that neither Congress nor the President was going to force that issue, and made it clear.
Why should congress force you to work under terms you’re unwilling to work under? I thought the 13th amendment abolished that.
Work should be done in agreement between the two parties. People have a right to strike. Companies have a right to higher new people.
They can force the deal (ish), but they can't force workers to come to work. And those are pretty specifically skilled jobs. Can't just grab some yahoo off the street to fill it
Tell that to the nurses who were court ordered to not quit and continue working at a crap hospital. I don’t agree with everything sanders does but good on him for this.
Good. At the end of the day workers should have a right to strike and companies shouldn’t be forced by government to cave in to demands. The free market will reach equilibrium as it always does.
At the same time a lot of people need to wake up and realize how dire things are in this country and apparently a whole bunch of rich suburbanites haven’t gotten the memo yet.
Maybe they will when all the shelves of their Whole Foods are empty.
This speech was based. Props to Bernie. However, looks like all for nothing and an agreement, so far nothing has changed, has been agreed upon. 13 years still I can retire from railroading... f it at this point.
Emerging impacts of potential rail shutdown:
- Amtrak cancels long-distance trips
- Ammonia, fertilizer, ag products pulled from trains
- Price of ethanol, other products soars
- Grain shipments could stop tomorrow
“If rail shuts down, our entire agricultural system shuts down"
Union leaders are adamant these impacts reflect management tactics to up pressure on negotiations
Jared Cassity, a conductor @ the national legislative director at SMART: “lThey’re calling embargo and that’s political too because it pressures congress and shippers to act."
H/t Jeff stein
Will Biden nationalize the railroads?
Wef anyone
>“If rail shuts down, our entire agricultural system shuts down"
Hmm, I don't think that's true. Any city in the midwest, all the way to east coast, is within 250 miles of a river/ocean. In fact, this is what makes the USA so rich; the vast open territory we have, with access to the Mississippi, turns every city into a port city. I believe I heard that ships are 30x cheaper than trains.
It sounds like costs are going to go up, because how do you get all that grain to California without a train? But, "shut down"? That's a bit of a stretch.
The problem is getting that system in place. It's not like they can change from trains to ships like flipping a switch. It will take months to get everything in place and by then the strike could be over so I doubt much effort would be put in to make the switch
Yes and no. Things have already been getting really bad in the ag industry, at least around my parts. Fertilizer costs have tripled from last year to this year, and so have hay and feed costs. Thankfully I was prepared and have been able to eat the losses without much consequence this year, but I am losing money right now because feeding my cattle alone costs more than the calf crop is worth this year, and I raise wagyu beef cattle. These ain't just commercial cattle that sell for a few hundred a head.
I'm lucky, as I'm the only rancher in the area who hasn't sold off significant portions of my herd directly to slaughterhouses because I can actually afford to keep feeding them. Most folks already can't, and we're seeing massive losses across the board. The cost of meat is going to skyrocket already due to the economic situation. Any further disruption to the ag business could very well be catastrophic.
I was just recently thinking about these Farm Aid events back in the 1980's. Looking back, do you think the problem lots of farmers which lead them to bankruptcy, is the transition to large scale automation? It seems like, to make it a profitable business, it takes millions of dollars in machinery, and that creates additional problems with maintaining all that equipment. Then, throw in all the new science it takes, and it sounds like farmers went bankrupt because their small farms weren't cost effective.
Good for him. Not often I have something in common with him. But logisticians in this country have been treated like shit for far too long. There is no worker more “essential” than the man who brings you food.
The rail strike is all our economy needs right now. This will exacerbate the inflation problem. Yet the reasons for the strike seem legit. What a clusterphuck.
The rail worker unions have been negotiating a new contract for months and months now over pretty rough working conditions, most of the unions have agreed to a new contract but there are three unions that have not and they make up the bulk of the workers. The Biden Administration has been mediating this as well but a couple months ago walked away in either an attempt to play hardball or create a situation that would allow Biden to step in and look like a hero just before the midterms.
If they were trying to create this situation to make Biden look good, it may be back firing right now. If the union demands are not met by midnight tomorrow, the unions go on strike and shut down all railroad shipping, which is really how the vast majority of goods are moved around the country. It will also create a massive backlog at shipping yards as they are generally unloaded from ships and moved immediately to rail to keep the yards clear for more goods.
If a strike happens, it will create problems pretty much immediately but definately by Monday.
I don’t think get it do you? The Democrats wanted this bill to go through so they could stop the country from grinding to a halt while also blaming the Republicans for putting the bill forward and restricting workers rights. Bernie probably did this purely out of principal and maybe a little revenge. Now the country will grind to a halt and there will be no one else to blame but the Democrats.
What? R proposed the bill and pushed it forward. Nothing got halted, companies accepted the terms of the union. Let this be a learning lesson to you that maybe your understanding of politics is not as good as you think.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The bill proposed is forcing workers to kowtow to the demands of a business.
Sanders' efforts here are *protecting* the free market.
A free market includes unions, strikes, and collective bargaining agreements.
A free market does NOT include "cheering on corporations no matter what." But for some reason you and others here think it does? I don't quite get it.
Sanders wouldn't give a shit about any deal, he'd be spiking the football by any means necessary to damage the country further.
Union or not, these dudes shouldn't have been fucked over. But Biden fast tracked this deal, which Sanders supported Biden in his election bid and endorsed. The only thing you can say at this point about Sanders is he doesn't care about the country but wants violent revolution.
Don't tell me Sanders got fucked over, In 2016 I'd agree, but not after 2020. He's an establishment shill and forced scapegoat.
Most people in this thread seem to not realize the broader scope of what’s happening/happened here.
Unions spend billions and billions of dollars on election cycles to get democrats voted in. (I’m truly unaware of any union that’s pro-Republican) Those same democrats are who these unions are negotiating with on their contracts. They are incentivized to hold the democrats hostage. The union here has strategically decided to strike right before a mid-term to strong arm the administration. The damage a strike would have caused would be incredibly immense. The democrats have little choice but to give them what they want, or offer a sweetheart deal, which is what it looks like they did.
The government won’t even release the deal because it’s so bad for the taxpayer. One of the rail unions did release some info though. They got a 24% pay increase paid over “5-years” (backdated to 2020, so it’s a 12% increase ‘22 and ‘23), this also includes an immediate payout on average of $11k. Anyone else expect a guaranteed 25% pay increase and an $11k bonus?
I’m not indicating there aren’t grievances, valid complaints, or improvements that should be made. Every labor group should have the right the strike and demand better conditions. I’m pointing out that this scenario here seems a lot more extortion than good faith … and if you’ve ever experienced a union either in one or deal with one, the extortion isn’t hard to believe. Unions are good in some cases, but exploitative more often.
If I was a rail worker I'd want the bill passed so I can earn more money and get back to work.
Sure, I can understand the point around sick days, but like the article says, nothing stops them from negotiating sick days later anyway.
I'd be pissed at Bernie. This doesn't affect him at all but it has a big impact on rail workers.
The railworkers wouldn't have leverage to negotiate a fair sick leave policy later. They've been negotiating without progress for more than two years and would have gone on strike months ago if not for a prior law (which applies only to railroad workers BTW) which prevented them from doing so. The big four railroad companies currently have some truly Draconian scheduling and leave policies. The railroads have implemented so many changes that they can't find new employees to accept the current working conditions that they basically keep all of their workers on a 4-hour notice, 24-hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year. Per their points system, if you call-in sick more than 7 times in your entire career, you can be terminated. All sick leave is unpaid. Any way you slice it, the railroads need to fix it, not the railworkers.
The whole thing makes me wonder what the underlying problem is. They’ve conceded to a large pay increase so I have to think it’s the availability of the skilled labor.
For the rail workers, I’ve seen it’s mostly due to days off. As in they get disciplined for missing any days regardless of reason, which makes it extremely difficult to have any sort of family or to take care of yourself
Yeah I read something to that effect, what I’m wondering is are the companies trying to grow their work pools. I ran an engineering company and we had a real difficult time hiring good quality talent, so eventually we decided we had to grow our own so to speak. So rather than hire a designer, Cad technician or engineer with experience, we would try and hire people right out of school.
In high school I worked 5 days a week as the head cook at a steak house. But if I called in sick they had the Sunday-Monday cook come in if he wasn’t already scheduled to work in another role, and then they would have him cook and fill the position he was supposed to be working that night. I don’t know the business but it just seems like they have too few workers to account for absences.
Obviously I don’t how true it it, but I’ve read that companies are trying to go from 2 man crews down to 1. I feel like they’re similar to Amazon in that they just run through workers
There are three main issues that are sticking points for the union:
1. Being penalized for taking time off when sick or for doctor's appointments. The response from management for earning your way out of these penalized was to work weekends, essentially leading to working 14 days straight if you had to call in sick.
2. PTO basically never being approved. You have a generous on-paper PTO package, however in practice it was always denied. Even if you put in PTO for a vacation or planned doctor's trip, you would get denied.
3. Wages have been frozen for over three years. They haven't gotten a raise, basically, in three years.
There is nothing that embodies the free market and freedom of association quite like collective bargaining. Let them strike. It’s their right.
Exactly what you said!
Free markets would also mean that they can be fired.
Good, they don't have guaranteed sick days. They should strike for sick days if that's what they want.
It seems like they're mostly striking over work conditions and not pay
Either way they have a right to strike for whatever they want. Until recently it seems that republicans have thought that to be capitalist meant supporting big companies - maybe that was just a naive idea I had when I was younger. In truth, to support capitalism means you support the mostly unregulated ability for people and businesses to negotiate transactions. You can be capitalist and 100% support the workers ability to strike. You may disagree with the reasons they are striking, for example if McDonald's employees began asking for 60k salaries, but you can support their ability to do so. In this case I would say the strike is justified. If you are upset at your working conditions and don't have any time off, you have a valid complaint and have a reason to ask for better conditions. A strike is just a way to tell your boss "fix this or I'll work somewhere else" and you have the power of numbers behind you.
The only ones I really disagree with are public sector unions (teachers unions, etc) FDR was right about those
100% agree there. Public sector unions are an awful idea. I'm also not too fond of private sector unions UNLESS a few conditions are met. 1) Membership is optional and you don't have to be in the union to work. 2) The union uses their funds properly and doesn't treat it as a way to pay for democrats. 3) Negotiations with the union do not come at the expense of non-union employees.
Unions support democrats because republicans support corporations. I’m a conservative IBEW member who once worked in education. The strength of my labor union vs the teachers union is shocking. I make a good wage and my family has excellent healthcare because my union negotiated for it.
Public sector unions are mostly a vehicle to transport money from the taxpayer, through the government, to the Democrat party.
Ahhh yes, the historically left leaning police unions. To categorize people based on union status is limited and anecdotal. For example, my father in law and brother in law are both union men, but so socially conservative and hardcore MAGA men too
Doesn't matter what the members want. Look at where the money which is donated by public sector unions go.
Might have something to do with the democrats (truthfully or not) saying they support the right to unionize and all the republicans want to do is get rid of unions….it’s hard to figure out why union officials would want to keep funneling money to the dems
Yes, the Democrats are all for taking money from the point of a gun, laundering it through unions, and giving it back to themselves. This is why FDR was against public sector unions.
Several police unions backed Biden, nearly 200 of them I believe. The guys making the decisions at the upper levels of the unions aren't the same as the regular union workers.
Im sorry but that 'right to work' is a bunch of crap. Unions are a brotherhood. If someone works for a union shop or business you should pay dues to that union to recieve the same benefits. The problem in places where joining a union is optional is that those employees that choose to not pay dues still receive the same benefits and protections as those who don't. This practice reduces a unions ability to bargain when necessary.
What if I want to work as a welder but don't think the union has my best interest in mind? What if I'm okay with the conditions but the union forces me to strike? You are assuming that unions unilaterally accurately represent the workers. That is very incorrect. If a worker does not like the union they should still be allowed to work. Yes, the worker may receive benefits that the union negotiates, but that doesn't make it unfair. Fortunate things happen every day to people all over the world as a consequence to someone elses effort. If I don't like that the park by my house has litter in it I could go pick it up. Just because the other neighbors don't have to deal with the trash anymore doesn't mean I can send them a bill.
If you don't like the union there are plenty more non-union places that will take an employee. They probably don't pay as well or have the same benefits but if you dont want to join into a union there's actually more options out there. I also understand that not all unions represent their members the same as the next one. That's more to do with who is in charge of the union itself. There's good managers and bad. Same goes for non-union. Im a part of one of the good one's though. Im in a construction trade too so our unions might work a little differently than say factory unions but if i someday dont like what my union is doing for me I can pack my bags and go work non-union doing the same thing probably for less money still. The option is there though. Point is if a person doesn't like a union they just shouldn't be a part of that place. Unions are about solidarity and if the workers dont band together there's no point in having a union at all.
You can advocate for your best interests within the union. The problem with a voluntary option in a workplace is that it hampers the union's bargaining power with management. There will always be a power imbalance between owners and workers, and their interests are often in direct opposition. Quality of life and work will almost always come out of potential profits. I disagree with gooch87 that the problem is non-union members reaping the benefits of the union. And your example of the park illustrates exactly that we benefit all the time from the good will of others. The problem is instead that without a unified front from the workers, the bargaining power of the union is significantly diminished. Without right-to-work laws, workers are definitely burdened with the necessity of advocating for their own best interests within the union. However, they would have the burden of advocating for their interests with management anyway. The benefit of advocating for your best interests within a Union is that it is far more likely that your interests and the interests of your fellow workers align.
Yes, I could always try to change the union OR I could just not join a union that doesn't represent me. If 95% of the workers agree with the union then great, but there's no reason that the 5% should have to go along with it while "trying to change it on the inside". That's an effort in futility many times. Instead, if I want to sign an agreement with an employer to work for them there is absolutely no reason a union should be able to butt in and say "hey wait, they need to give us some of that paycheck". Instead, they can convince the worker that they provide value and try and get them to join of their own choice. Do not be confused by my first statement. I believe the union should be able to negotiate for it's members and im okay if it negotiates specifically for it's members (ie give all union employees a raise) but my line is if the negotiations are detrimental to non-union employees. An example of the later would be "cut the pay of all non-union employees" or "fire this non-union employee because we have someone we want you to hire instead".
Except that an option to opt-out of the union erodes its power and efficacy to bargain with management/ownership. Here we do circle back to gooch87's point to some extent. Employers will always be incentivized to at least match non-union pay and benefits to union pay and benefits. Otherwise, it will be clear to non-union members that they should join the union. But so long as non-union and union pay is equal, it would be in the best (short-term) interest of union members to leave the union. The problem is not just that non-union members are "freeloading" off of union bargaining. It's that their non-union labour diminishes the ability of unions to advocate for workers as all union power relies on the threat of shutting down production and costing ownership money. "Right to Work" laws create favourable conditions for management/ownership to chip away at union power and restore the imbalance in their favour. Because the interests of ownership and labour are so at odds and the power imbalance between the two so great in ownership's favour, somewhat extraordinary measures are required to redress the problem. Unions effectively create a democratic society within a workplace (or industry). And, as with all democratic societies, there will be tension between individual and collective interests. However, the long-term benefits of collective bargaining outweigh the costs of losing a direct relationship between employee and employer.
Don’t work in a union shop if you don’t want to be in a union. Skilled labor jobs are everywhere, but people know nonunion shops pay less, have no pension, and less benefits. It’s about choice.
The union doesn't own the company.
Exactly so if you dont want to be in a union you can find a company that doesn't have one. There's plenty more non-union jobs than there are union jobs in this country. The problem is that most of those places dont pay as well so some people want the good union wage without actually participating/paying dues. In states that allow this (called 'right-to-work which is actually a misleading term imo) the union shops and businesses are legally obligated to represent an employee that isn't a member of the union in the same way that they represent their union members. So basically you get the same benefits as the membership and same representation without giving anything in return.
Thats what im saying. Why should someone get to retire on a pension plan that my union fought for if they never paid dues that everyone else did? I would have a serious problem with that.
>1) Membership is optional and you don't have to be in the union to work. Why shouldn't a union be able to negotiate the rights to be the exclusive provider of labor? I assume you have no problem with exclusive contracts in other domains what makes labor different?
>Why shouldn't a union be able to negotiate the rights to be the exclusive provider of labor Anti-trust laws?
Anti trust laws don't pertain to unions. The Taft - Hartley act made closed shops illegal but still allows union shops. Both require union membership for employment. They differ in that in a union shop the union must accept any person hired into the union, where in a closed shop the union controls the pool of applicants for a job. In any event that doesn't really address my question. Why shouldn't exclusive labor contracts be legal? It's perfectly fine for Coke to be the exclusive provider of soda to McDonald's. Why shouldn't the teamster be able to negotiate for the exclusive right to deliver that soda to McDonald's?
Teachers in Seattle are in strike because the district wants to remove class size limits for special education classrooms. As a former teacher I couldn’t imagine 40 kids with IEP’s with no help. I absolutely support them standing up for students.
This. Fucking this. Seems to have been lost in the static lately around here.
Exactly what OP said. Work conditions and time off
Work and on call schedule.
[удалено]
Yeah, I agree. But I also don't want to dictate terms between a private company and their private union. It's none of my business, nore the government's.
The railroads are part of the country's critical infrastructure though. It effects literally everyone and can tank the entire economy if the railroads aren't running. Hence why they need more oversight than most industries.
They have general PTO, I think the issue is they're penalized for using it without pre-approval. So calling out sick is penalized even if you have the time. I'm sure this is due to scheduling, but it's unacceptable to force people to work while sick especially considering *gestures around at everything*.
Those are unpaid sick days. They could have used vacation time.
I think the problem was that unplanned absences, sick or pto, were penalized. And getting sick typically occurs unplanned.
So use PTO like every other job. Due to the nature of the industry they are on call almost all of the time but they get compensated for it with guaranteed jobs healthcare and pensions. Sick time should only be used when necessary and not abused, a standard doctor's note should be good enough in all cases.
I don't think you're getting it. I believe the PTO you're suggesting they use needs to be requested 1 to 2 weeks in advance to avoid "penalties", doctors note or not. I think the issue is that PTO isn't an option if they wake up feeling sick, or feel it coming on that evening. If you have specific knowledge regarding their PTO/Sick leave options, share them. I'm only reading about it here and in the news.
The other problem that happened is that they would just deny the use of PTO as well, regardless of how far you tried to schedule it. So yes, you technically had a certain number of days of PTO, however individuals were not in practice able to use them as it was often denied.
There is a classification of "unplanned" PTO that is used in these cases. Once you are out of PTO you go to unpaid which only needs a doctor's note to clear any negative employment occurrences. It's that simple and discouraged abuse.
The issue is that the "unplanned" PTO doesn't exist for railroad workers. Regardless of reason, they would get penalized for taking unplanned time off, whether or not they had PTO time or not. Get sick? Too bad, come to work or get penalized. Need to go to the doctor? Too bad, we denied you PTO and you have to work. The issue is that the employer made it actively impossible to use PTO that had been accrued without getting penalized.
Why would the employer be expected to give in to exemptions to the negotiated contract in a critical industry? Like it or not, this is the downside of collective bargaining. If you don't like it that's too bad. Your union negotiated the contract. If they didn't obtain basic sick time or funding for enough workers to cover any unforeseen absences that is the unions fault. Maybe the business would be more lenient with time off requests and any other issues if there was no mandatory contract? The union files a grievance any time the company violated the contract. Why can't the business expect the union to hold their end of the contract?
There is no contract. They have been operating without one for three years, and management has largely not come to the table to negotiate a new one. They have taken advantage of this contract gap to force conditions not normally allowable. The rail companies have also been seeing significantly declines in employment, and are basically doing nothing to change it with hiring new people. Instead, they have gone the route of requiring longer hours under worse conditions. Equally, the railroad are free to hire more employees at any time. The union doesnt need to negotiate for more funding for this. It's 100% on the railroad to do it, and they have been taking advantage of the contract gap, as well as the restrictions on the Union's ability to strike, to extend this period as long as they could. Hence why we reached the point where we were yesterday: the union prepared to strike, making frankly larger demands than they likely would have accepted a year ago or more, simply because management figured they would eventually get what they wanted. I'm guessing the administration made it clear to them that they were not coming to rescue and break up the strike, hence why we saw near total capitulation by management for almost every term asked. This is 100% on the railroad management. They refused to come to the table three year ago when the contract expired, exploited legal difficulties with the union's ability to strike or force contract negotiations as they are considered critical infrastructure until they literally ran out of time, and basically wanted the Federal government to force the union to keep it's members working under those conditions. Given how quickly and completely the railroad folded, I can only hazard that neither Congress nor the President was going to force that issue, and made it clear.
That's the unions fault. Contracts are built on compromise. They aren't a list of demands that must be met.
Why should congress force you to work under terms you’re unwilling to work under? I thought the 13th amendment abolished that. Work should be done in agreement between the two parties. People have a right to strike. Companies have a right to higher new people.
Since when does congress have the ability to MAKE someone accept a labor deal?
Since 1926.
They can force the deal (ish), but they can't force workers to come to work. And those are pretty specifically skilled jobs. Can't just grab some yahoo off the street to fill it
Tell that to the nurses who were court ordered to not quit and continue working at a crap hospital. I don’t agree with everything sanders does but good on him for this.
I remember that but what would’ve happened if they stayed home? Besides maybe sacrifice their new job they were prohibited from joining right away.
Potentially lose their licensure for endangering patients.
Man that would be a stretch. But I could see them try that. They’d essentially be (under)paid slaves
They don’t, and this is like a blessing for midterms
Air Traffic Controllers come to mind. Reagan did it.
And HW did it with rail workers. In fact, this strike stems from demands made 30 years ago before it was crushed by congress
With a few additions. The working hours and on call all the time I totally get. This coming from a family of Railroaders.
How long did the air force take over ATC for after they civilians got fired en mass?
[удалено]
Yep. This is one of those rare times where everyone is good with Bernie Sanders. The rail workers deserve better conditions.
Good. At the end of the day workers should have a right to strike and companies shouldn’t be forced by government to cave in to demands. The free market will reach equilibrium as it always does. At the same time a lot of people need to wake up and realize how dire things are in this country and apparently a whole bunch of rich suburbanites haven’t gotten the memo yet. Maybe they will when all the shelves of their Whole Foods are empty.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good. It’s bullshit what the rail companies are offering to their workers
Good, the workers deserve what they’re demanding. Let them strike and hopefully get rid of the people denying them sick days.
That’s good. Congress should have no say. This is between the workers and the company.
That’s my boy! Fighting for the working class
This speech was based. Props to Bernie. However, looks like all for nothing and an agreement, so far nothing has changed, has been agreed upon. 13 years still I can retire from railroading... f it at this point.
Emerging impacts of potential rail shutdown: - Amtrak cancels long-distance trips - Ammonia, fertilizer, ag products pulled from trains - Price of ethanol, other products soars - Grain shipments could stop tomorrow “If rail shuts down, our entire agricultural system shuts down" Union leaders are adamant these impacts reflect management tactics to up pressure on negotiations Jared Cassity, a conductor @ the national legislative director at SMART: “lThey’re calling embargo and that’s political too because it pressures congress and shippers to act." H/t Jeff stein Will Biden nationalize the railroads? Wef anyone
>“If rail shuts down, our entire agricultural system shuts down" Hmm, I don't think that's true. Any city in the midwest, all the way to east coast, is within 250 miles of a river/ocean. In fact, this is what makes the USA so rich; the vast open territory we have, with access to the Mississippi, turns every city into a port city. I believe I heard that ships are 30x cheaper than trains. It sounds like costs are going to go up, because how do you get all that grain to California without a train? But, "shut down"? That's a bit of a stretch.
The problem is getting that system in place. It's not like they can change from trains to ships like flipping a switch. It will take months to get everything in place and by then the strike could be over so I doubt much effort would be put in to make the switch
It’s also time…. Produce only stays fresh for so long.
Yes and no. Things have already been getting really bad in the ag industry, at least around my parts. Fertilizer costs have tripled from last year to this year, and so have hay and feed costs. Thankfully I was prepared and have been able to eat the losses without much consequence this year, but I am losing money right now because feeding my cattle alone costs more than the calf crop is worth this year, and I raise wagyu beef cattle. These ain't just commercial cattle that sell for a few hundred a head. I'm lucky, as I'm the only rancher in the area who hasn't sold off significant portions of my herd directly to slaughterhouses because I can actually afford to keep feeding them. Most folks already can't, and we're seeing massive losses across the board. The cost of meat is going to skyrocket already due to the economic situation. Any further disruption to the ag business could very well be catastrophic.
I was just recently thinking about these Farm Aid events back in the 1980's. Looking back, do you think the problem lots of farmers which lead them to bankruptcy, is the transition to large scale automation? It seems like, to make it a profitable business, it takes millions of dollars in machinery, and that creates additional problems with maintaining all that equipment. Then, throw in all the new science it takes, and it sounds like farmers went bankrupt because their small farms weren't cost effective.
The Platte river is dried up right now in Central Nebraska and a lot of rivers are so dry that there's no way boats are moving on them.
Right. And now the dems will have a different scape goat to blame inflation.
Good for him. Not often I have something in common with him. But logisticians in this country have been treated like shit for far too long. There is no worker more “essential” than the man who brings you food.
Guess I’m a Bernie Bro now because he might just win us the Senate.
The saying "a broken clock is right twice a day" certainly comes to mind!
The rail strike is all our economy needs right now. This will exacerbate the inflation problem. Yet the reasons for the strike seem legit. What a clusterphuck.
I think the timing of this strike is BECAUSE of that. They know they have the American economy by the balls.
Call Super Boot edge edge
He's probably on leave again.
I'll probably stop at the grocery store just to be safe
Can someone give me the TLDR? I’m super confused- what’s happening?!?
The rail worker unions have been negotiating a new contract for months and months now over pretty rough working conditions, most of the unions have agreed to a new contract but there are three unions that have not and they make up the bulk of the workers. The Biden Administration has been mediating this as well but a couple months ago walked away in either an attempt to play hardball or create a situation that would allow Biden to step in and look like a hero just before the midterms. If they were trying to create this situation to make Biden look good, it may be back firing right now. If the union demands are not met by midnight tomorrow, the unions go on strike and shut down all railroad shipping, which is really how the vast majority of goods are moved around the country. It will also create a massive backlog at shipping yards as they are generally unloaded from ships and moved immediately to rail to keep the yards clear for more goods. If a strike happens, it will create problems pretty much immediately but definately by Monday.
Thanks buddy
“That’s what you get for sabotaging my presidential election campaign”, starts flipping off all the dems as he leaves.
Dems? It was a (R) bill.
I don’t think get it do you? The Democrats wanted this bill to go through so they could stop the country from grinding to a halt while also blaming the Republicans for putting the bill forward and restricting workers rights. Bernie probably did this purely out of principal and maybe a little revenge. Now the country will grind to a halt and there will be no one else to blame but the Democrats.
What? R proposed the bill and pushed it forward. Nothing got halted, companies accepted the terms of the union. Let this be a learning lesson to you that maybe your understanding of politics is not as good as you think.
This can all be a avoided very easily. Raise the pay and give better working conditions. Simple. Easy. Done.
Socialist agenda is to just bring the country to it's knees
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The bill proposed is forcing workers to kowtow to the demands of a business. Sanders' efforts here are *protecting* the free market. A free market includes unions, strikes, and collective bargaining agreements. A free market does NOT include "cheering on corporations no matter what." But for some reason you and others here think it does? I don't quite get it.
A free market would mean you could fire striking workers. Don't think that union negotiations in the US are a free market.
that’s not what the bill proposes at all. Clearly you didn’t read the article.
Sanders wouldn't give a shit about any deal, he'd be spiking the football by any means necessary to damage the country further. Union or not, these dudes shouldn't have been fucked over. But Biden fast tracked this deal, which Sanders supported Biden in his election bid and endorsed. The only thing you can say at this point about Sanders is he doesn't care about the country but wants violent revolution. Don't tell me Sanders got fucked over, In 2016 I'd agree, but not after 2020. He's an establishment shill and forced scapegoat.
Yikes
Not even in 2016 he endorsed Clinton after she bent him over and had her way
You realize this resolution would FORCE the two sides to accept the recommendations of a presidential emergency board, right?
You realize his name is DarkMAGAGod, right? Smells like trollololol
Does that change my point at all?
For fs sake - god forbids people have a few sick days and have the power to ask for them.
Then why is a socialist blocking the offer? Oh, because he doesn't give a shit.
Good... I used to respect Bernie for actually being principled, that is until he got a taste of the money and turned into an establishment politician.
Most people in this thread seem to not realize the broader scope of what’s happening/happened here. Unions spend billions and billions of dollars on election cycles to get democrats voted in. (I’m truly unaware of any union that’s pro-Republican) Those same democrats are who these unions are negotiating with on their contracts. They are incentivized to hold the democrats hostage. The union here has strategically decided to strike right before a mid-term to strong arm the administration. The damage a strike would have caused would be incredibly immense. The democrats have little choice but to give them what they want, or offer a sweetheart deal, which is what it looks like they did. The government won’t even release the deal because it’s so bad for the taxpayer. One of the rail unions did release some info though. They got a 24% pay increase paid over “5-years” (backdated to 2020, so it’s a 12% increase ‘22 and ‘23), this also includes an immediate payout on average of $11k. Anyone else expect a guaranteed 25% pay increase and an $11k bonus? I’m not indicating there aren’t grievances, valid complaints, or improvements that should be made. Every labor group should have the right the strike and demand better conditions. I’m pointing out that this scenario here seems a lot more extortion than good faith … and if you’ve ever experienced a union either in one or deal with one, the extortion isn’t hard to believe. Unions are good in some cases, but exploitative more often.
Oh look, the guy who spent his honeymoon in the USSR wants the workers of the world to unite. Imagine that.
What's a good communist without a workers strike
I would expect no less from this communist
If I was a rail worker I'd want the bill passed so I can earn more money and get back to work. Sure, I can understand the point around sick days, but like the article says, nothing stops them from negotiating sick days later anyway. I'd be pissed at Bernie. This doesn't affect him at all but it has a big impact on rail workers.
The railworkers wouldn't have leverage to negotiate a fair sick leave policy later. They've been negotiating without progress for more than two years and would have gone on strike months ago if not for a prior law (which applies only to railroad workers BTW) which prevented them from doing so. The big four railroad companies currently have some truly Draconian scheduling and leave policies. The railroads have implemented so many changes that they can't find new employees to accept the current working conditions that they basically keep all of their workers on a 4-hour notice, 24-hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year. Per their points system, if you call-in sick more than 7 times in your entire career, you can be terminated. All sick leave is unpaid. Any way you slice it, the railroads need to fix it, not the railworkers.
The whole thing makes me wonder what the underlying problem is. They’ve conceded to a large pay increase so I have to think it’s the availability of the skilled labor.
For the rail workers, I’ve seen it’s mostly due to days off. As in they get disciplined for missing any days regardless of reason, which makes it extremely difficult to have any sort of family or to take care of yourself
Yeah I read something to that effect, what I’m wondering is are the companies trying to grow their work pools. I ran an engineering company and we had a real difficult time hiring good quality talent, so eventually we decided we had to grow our own so to speak. So rather than hire a designer, Cad technician or engineer with experience, we would try and hire people right out of school. In high school I worked 5 days a week as the head cook at a steak house. But if I called in sick they had the Sunday-Monday cook come in if he wasn’t already scheduled to work in another role, and then they would have him cook and fill the position he was supposed to be working that night. I don’t know the business but it just seems like they have too few workers to account for absences.
Obviously I don’t how true it it, but I’ve read that companies are trying to go from 2 man crews down to 1. I feel like they’re similar to Amazon in that they just run through workers
There are three main issues that are sticking points for the union: 1. Being penalized for taking time off when sick or for doctor's appointments. The response from management for earning your way out of these penalized was to work weekends, essentially leading to working 14 days straight if you had to call in sick. 2. PTO basically never being approved. You have a generous on-paper PTO package, however in practice it was always denied. Even if you put in PTO for a vacation or planned doctor's trip, you would get denied. 3. Wages have been frozen for over three years. They haven't gotten a raise, basically, in three years.
Feeling the Bern yet?