No One Cares Because Nothing Matters Anymore

[ousdahl]

bear in mind, the railroad workers are just striking for things like, more than 0 sick days a year.

But the "socialist" lawmakers are instead siding with capital, saying workers should have to work sick cuz it's more important for ownership to keep enjoying record profits.

the federal gummint, and dems specifically, imposing a deal workers already democratically rejected...isn't this the same shit Reagan did to the air traffic controllers?

[KUTradition]

there’s part of me that thinks: if you don’t like the working conditions, then go work elsewhere

(but i know it’s never as simple as that)

[ousdahl]

there’s part of me that thinks: if you don’t like the working conditions, then go seize the means of production.

(but i know it’s never as simple as that)

FYP…sorry, Qusdahl couldn’t help himself.

But yea, in some sorta vacuum, I suppose rail ownership’s hand could also be forced by all the workers just quitting, too.

[Deleted User 863]

But the "socialist" lawmakers are instead siding with capital, saying workers should have to work sick cuz it's more important for ownership to keep enjoying record profits.

You intentionally misrepresent things at a high rate. It makes it impossible to take you seriously at times.

[ousdahl]

The funny thing is, if workers just quit, that puts ownership in an even tougher spot than if they just strike. But yea, never simple as that.

And generally, while I promise I’m skeptical of everything - even SoCiALiSm!!!!! - I also can’t help but think these sorts of things could be avoided by rethinking systems so that workers have more say on economic matters in the first place.

But instead, we get workers having to strike just to get fuckin sick days, while the ownership gets no less than the federal gummint to leverage them otherwise.

And the narratives tend to skew toward vilifying the workers, as if they’re the greedy ones for threatening to strike, and the more important thing is the economy at large.

[ousdahl]

But the "socialist" lawmakers are instead siding with capital, saying workers should have to work sick cuz it's more important for ownership to keep enjoying record profits.

You intentionally misrepresent things at a high rate. It makes it impossible to take you seriously at times.

What do you think I’m intentionally misrepresenting, scrappy doo?

[Deleted User 863]

But the "socialist" lawmakers are instead siding with capital, saying workers should have to work sick cuz it's more important for ownership to keep enjoying record profits.

You intentionally misrepresent things at a high rate. It makes it impossible to take you seriously at times.

What do you think I’m intentionally misrepresenting, scrappy doo?

"saying workers should have to work sick"

Paid sick time off is what they are wanting. They can currently take sick days, they aren't forced to work sick, they just aren't paid for those days (unless they take personal time off, which I believe is paid).

[ousdahl]

oh, forgive me. Perhaps I neglected to clarify they're trying for paid sick leave. A whopping 4-7 days or something. I don't think that's necessarily a misrepresentation, nor do I think you've demonstrated that such a misrepresentation is intentional.

So, rather than me risk intentionally misrepresenting anything further, could you please take the lead here in helping us better understand the issue at hand?

where's it say they CAN currently take sick days? Did you double check whether they CAN just call in to take an unpaid sick day without consequence? Or have there been any examples otherwise?

And, if a worker is living paycheck to paycheck with no paid sick leave available, do you think there's any possibility of workers effectively having to choose to work while sick so their paycheck doesn't shrink?

and is paid sick leave the only thing they're trying to negotiate here? Are you familiar with the whole scheduling thing too - where workers claim they have to be on call 24/7 for 2 weeks straight, and if they aren't able to get to work within 90 minutes, day or night, or if they take an unpaid sick day, they're penalized as part of some "points" system of attendance? How's that work?

I'd try to offer what insight and evidence that I can, but again, I certainly don't want to intentionally misrepresent anything, so perhaps it's better to allow you to explain all this for us instead.

what's your opinion, anyway, illy? Do you think paid sick leave is reasonable or unreasonable?

How much of a dent would paid sick days really put in the railroad brass's profits, anyway?

What about the whole on-call 24-7 for 2 weeks straight thing?


oh, and thanks for the link. I know I just offered lots of questions, but your link does too. If you choose not to respond to my questions, please at least consider responding to these questions from your link:

why is the pressure not on the railroads to come to the table and negotiate four measly sick days, paid sick days for its workers?

why can't the legislation include the sick leave?

[jhawks99]

I think there is some legislation to include the sick days.


My dad worked for the railroad for about 40 years. Benefits were always pretty good. I can't believe they don't already have sick days.

[KUTradition]

FIL works for BNSF…long hours and lots travel away from home, and dealing with entitled union laziness (his impression, not mine), but his pay and benefits are great for not having more than a HS education

[ousdahl]

yea, there's def some trade-off between unions often being the ones trying to improve labor conditions, and "entitled union laziness."

but speaking of entitled:



and speaking of laziness, what exactly are these railroad stockholders doing to avoid a railroad shutdown that could cripple the economy?

[ousdahl]

also, I'm asking here, cuz I don't fully understand:

haven't the railroads been nationalized before?

including, even in Merica?

[MICHHAWK]

i am at the hockey rink at least 3 times per week. there are 3 very busy train tracks between home and the rink. i get stuck a couple times a month. you won't hear me complain if they strike.

[ousdahl]

it's Mich's world, we're just living in it.

[Deleted User 863]

oh, forgive me. Perhaps I neglected to clarify they're trying for paid sick leave. A whopping 4-7 days or something. I don't think that's necessarily a misrepresentation, nor do I think you've demonstrated that such a misrepresentation is intentional.

So, rather than me risk intentionally misrepresenting anything further, could you please take the lead here in helping us better understand the issue at hand?

where's it say they CAN currently take sick days? Did you double check whether they CAN just call in to take an unpaid sick day without consequence? Or have there been any examples otherwise?

And, if a worker is living paycheck to paycheck with no paid sick leave available, do you think there's any possibility of workers effectively having to choose to work while sick so their paycheck doesn't shrink?

and is paid sick leave the only thing they're trying to negotiate here? Are you familiar with the whole scheduling thing too - where workers claim they have to be on call 24/7 for 2 weeks straight, and if they aren't able to get to work within 90 minutes, day or night, or if they take an unpaid sick day, they're penalized as part of some "points" system of attendance? How's that work?

I'd try to offer what insight and evidence that I can, but again, I certainly don't want to intentionally misrepresent anything, so perhaps it's better to allow you to explain all this for us instead.

what's your opinion, anyway, illy? Do you think paid sick leave is reasonable or unreasonable?

How much of a dent would paid sick days really put in the railroad brass's profits, anyway?

What about the whole on-call 24-7 for 2 weeks straight thing?


oh, and thanks for the link. I know I just offered lots of questions, but your link does too. If you choose not to respond to my questions, please at least consider responding to these questions from your link:

why is the pressure not on the railroads to come to the table and negotiate four measly sick days, paid sick days for its workers?

why can't the legislation include the sick leave?

Here's what I think:

They should be allowed to strike.

[ousdahl]

even if it's an "illegal" strike?

The Senate has approved a measure meant to avert a railroad strike in eight days — without the paid sick days rail workers have been asking for.

Senators passed the bill to force unions to accept a tentative agreement reached earlier this year between railroad managers and their workers and make an imminent strike illegal — without making any changes — by an 80-15 vote. They rejected a measure to offer paid sick leave, 52-43. Both measures required 60 votes to clear the Senate.

Both bills cleared the House on Wednesday.

Biden applauded the move and vowed to sign it as soon as Congress sends it to his desk — which could happen as soon as Friday.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/01/11401236 ... ill-senate

[Deleted User 863]

The government shouldn't be involved in this, imo.

[TDub]

correct.

[Mjl]

Yep

[ousdahl]

I think I see it that way too.

Either that, or if the gummint SHOULD be involved, they be involved on the side of the labor, rather than the capital. I dunno. That kinda feels funny to say, too.

I guess the gummint voting to make the imminent strike illegal means, if the workers DO strike, then the capitalists get gummint force on their side, too.

Historically, strikes can get violent. But I wish it didn't have to be that way, and hope it isn't that way in this case either. Hopefully workers can just get some fucking sick days without any violence.